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

in the last several hours, the woman accusing supreme court nominee brett kavanaugh of sexual misconduct announced she conditionally agreed to provide her firsthand account of the allegation next week. christine blasey ford's attorneys released a statement to that effect before the 2:30 deadline that was set by the committee chairman chuck grassley. details remain to be worked out. the white house telling nbc news this seems like another delay tactic. we continue to see more efforts to change or renegotiate fair terms and blowing past deadlines. ford claims kavanaugh assaulted her at a party when they were in high school in the 1980s, a claim the judge categorically denies. for more, let's go to kelly o'donnell near the president's bedminster, new jersey estate. and liza collins, and host of the faqnyc podcast. thank you for being with us this hour. i'm going to start with you on this, kelly.

reading through the statement that came through, help us understand what was said and what wasn't there, kelly. >> good to be with you, richard. this is a letter from the legal team helping christine blasey ford through the process to the senate judiciary committee, so it is in the form of a letter. it raises some interesting questions but doesn't move the ball as far as perhaps we thought it did initially. there's a willingness to testify and that is something that in substance they have said for a period of days now, but it is not telling us when, where, under what conditions. that remains to be negotiated. within the letter from the legal team to the committee they reasserted some concerns about fairness, suggesting there's been bullying, that some of the deadlines set have been arbitrary, and putting a lot of pressure on a woman that says she has a legitimate allegation to bring forward. so they are giving a green light to her willingness to testify

but all of the important questions, when, where, how, under what conditions remain a question mark and that is why we hear from white house officials today that say this appears to be a delay tactic. the reason they say that, they say breatt kavanaugh has been willing to testify for days. sent his response to the senate judiciary committee last week. already sat with their investigators and wants a chance to clear his name. each day that goes by for the people wanting the confirmation to be secured is frustration. and for supporters, allies and people concerned about where christine blasey ford stands in this, there's a question can she come forward in a way that respects her safety, will treat her respectfully, will allow her to tell her story. this goes back to an allegation she makes in the 1980s they were both students at related high schools, each went to a single sex school, at a party there was drinking involved. she makes an allegation that a

17-year-old brett kavanaugh groped her, tried to remove her clothing, put his hand over her mouth. the judge today says that did not happen, says categorically he did not behave in that way toward her or anyone else. it is a real he said, she said with deeply rooted political animation from all sides because of the me too movement and the moment we are in, the politics of the supreme court, always volatile, and those that believe she has done something courageous by coming forward while you also have republicans and conservatives saying the process is going on too long, that there is an urgency from their point of view to see a judge on the court. where does this leave us? the white house still frustrated. we haven't heard from the senate judiciary committee if any of the big questions have been filled in, date, time, place conditions. and we have a willingness by dr. blasey ford to speak about this.

we are waiting for things to be locked in in a way more formal. her response saying she's willing to testify seems like an imprudent move for them to go forward with a vote, that sort of takes that off the table for now. waiting for more details. this is a big development today. >> thanks for that. eliza, i want to bring you in to the conversation. kelly staying with us here. what did you make from what comprises maybe four or five lines here coming from the lawyers of dr. ford, and then there's the last sentence that says can't we set up a time for later this afternoon to continue our negotiations. that would be right about now, eliza. >> right. they probably are talking sometime in the next couple of hours. kelly is right, this did not move the ball very much. remember, dr. blasey ford came out originally and said she would be willing to testify. what happened then is this back

and forth over negotiations timing, the order of does she go first or kavanaugh go first, who is in the room, how many photographers can be in there, what are safety conditions. there are all sorts of things. some things were easy to agree upon, basically keeping her safe, those types of things, she's not at the same table as kavanaugh. she would like the committee to subpoena mark judge who is a kavanaugh high school friend she's alleging was there. they're saying they will not do that. that back and forth is still undecided and we don't know when she will testify at this point. so really not much has moved. >> what we are watching to understand what this might mean might be those that are swing votes potentially, jeff flake tweeting after this came out saying progress on a judiciary committee hearing is being made. this is good. that's what he tweeted earlier. would you agree with what senator flake is saying? >> i thinkesque ve he is being .

nobody wants what happened with the clarence thomas, anita hill hearings. not to be too cynical, but the politics and optics, there was a chance in the near future, shoe is on the other foot, nobody wants to set a precedent on how fast to proceed and things go the other way when another party is in control, another seat comes up on the supreme court, and another allegation comes forward. what people are very much trying to do is move forward and not be the one that's looking at railroading somebody, and also this is starting a conversation about timing. when do women come forward with these allegations, when do you question that. the questions that are raised now get answered many days, months, years down the road. the people that are the most vociferous trying to speed it forward and questioning why somebody waited years to come

forward, when they hear from family and friends today, tomorrow, and perhaps their own children when they go to school might have a different answer when this starts hitting closer to home. >> the clock is not in their favor as this moves on in sort of that resonance. the question to build on what he was saying, as the family team versus the white house team works here with kavanaugh, is there a point where family team says to brett kavanaugh maybe we should think about taking the exit, any discussions that you're aware of to that point? >> we're not aware of any discussions about brett kavanaugh possibly stepping aside or the white house pulling his nomination, but it is natural to think that the white house would be reaching out to folks like amy coney barrett and judge halderman, others on the short list in case this might happen. i think republicans are digging

in their heels. this letter only brings us back to square one because at the end of last week the committee said their final offer was a wednesday testimony and they would vote monday on the nomination if they didn't hear from her by 2:30 p.m. i think lack of specificity in the letter this afternoon is leading a lot of republicans i talked to on the committee so far this afternoon to think it is just a delay tactic on their part. >> kelly as you know so well, senator majority leader mitch mcconnell saying he feels like he has the votes. kelly, what do we know how he might have the votes here? >> well, they believe certainly that republicans would likely vote in support of kavanaugh. one question mark would be probably the most important person to watch, susan collins of maine, and she has always been an important vote when the issue about kavanaugh was really about the fate of roe v wade with the balance shifting.

she would remain one of the most watched senators how she would respond. a number of democrats came out saying they're a no, the majority of them in hot races. what we aren't seeing is perhaps the sort of political pressure that might have existed as it did with neil gorsuch for red state democrats to vote in support of the president's choice. that seems to be a completely different calculation this time. mitch mcconnell has a good sense of his own conference. the margin is narrow. will we ever again see a supreme court nominee of either party where the president is of the party to get 90 plus votes. we seem to have shifted from judicial qualifications were sufficient for a majority of senators to say yes, now so many other factors come in, then this character allegation against kavanaugh and the public trying to weigh how much should this matter, can it be properly understood for what happened if

you have one person saying it absolutely happened and another says it didn't, without a lot of supporting evidence. that's the real challenge here. and of course unlike some other positions, if this were cabinet level, withdrawing might not be so difficult. withdrawing from a lifetime appointment to the highest court would be of a very high magnitude. so that's not something to expect kavanaugh to do lightly or certainly everyone i am talking to says that's not even being discussed at all at this point. the president did say if she came out and was credible, decisions might need to be made, but we don't seem to be at that point yet. >> we have to leave it there. thank you very much. kelly o'donnell had every job in existence on the beltway. thank you. still ahead, what to expect if christine ford faces the senate judiciary committee. we have that next.

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. 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.

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. and it's going to happen. it's going to happen. >> president trump there at a political rally in missouri friday night, expressing confidence in his supreme court nominee. but brett kavanaugh's nomination will likely hinge on what happens in capitol hill in the coming days or not happen. a short time ago, attorneys for

christine blasey ford announced she has agreed to provide her firsthand account of her allegation of sexual misconduct involving kavanaugh in high school, an allegation he categorically denies. details of how or when she will provide that account to the judiciary committee are being worked out. republicans on the senate judiciary committee hope to head off a repeat of what happened in 1991. that's when anita hill sat there, facing rough treatment by the committee after she raised allegation of sexual assault against supreme court nominee clarence thomas. let's bring in former defense attorney karen desoto, kpift vice preside -- and i want to play this first. we showed some video from 1991. want to show what we saw and heard and get your reaction. let's take a listen. >> i've got to determine what your motivation might be. are you a scorned woman?

>> no. i think the one that was the most embarrassing was his discussion of pornography involving these women with large breasts and engaged in variety of sex with different people or animals. >> did you have cocktails? >> i did not have cocktail. >> anything alcoholic? >> i don't recall having anything alcoholic. >> and what was that incident again? >> the incident with regard to the coke can spelled out in the statement. >> describe it once again for me, please. how could you allow this reprehensible conduct to go on in the headquarters without doing something about it? >> what was the content of what he said? >> this was a reference to an individual who had a very large

penis. and he used the name that he had been referred to in the pornographic material. >> do you recall what it was? >> yes, i do. the name that was referred to was long dong silver. >> anita hill, 1991 after she raised allegations of sexual harassment against the supreme court nominee then clarence thomas. >> right. >> when you see this, this is certainly the concern, they do not want this to happen again. >> of course. the disrespect, the unprofessionalism, this is coming from a group of men with legal backgrounds that should know better, even as a criminal defense attorney, even if you think somebody's motivations are due to bad motivations, you're still respectful and professional. to see this on tv during those years, i mean, i would like to say we have come a little further but we have a lot further to go obviously. and of course you don't want a

repeat, you want to be respectful. remember, this isn't a court of law, this is advice and consent. the manner of the questions, they have the ability to investigate, to have information and memos. it is not necessary to ask these type of questions because we're not in a criminal trial where the burden is beyond a reasonable doubt, this is advice and consent. >> senator hatch and grassley sat on the senate judiciary committee in '91, also still sit on the current senate judiciary committee. i'm going to play a little of what they said so far. let's take a look. >> 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 biden and 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. >> that was from 1991 as you could clearly see when both senators were there on the hill during the 1991 hearings. so christine, one of the requests from the senate judiciary committee is that they would bring in a representative, a lawyer potentially, a woman that would then ask questions of dr. ford. would that help to make the situation better? >> no. what would help to make the situation better would be if the senate republicans would treat dr. blasey ford with the respect she deserves. in fact, they're treating her worse than they treated anita hill in 1991. as your clip just showed, what happened in '91 as soon as anita hill's allegations came to

light, they sent out the fbi to investigate. that's precisely what dr. blasey ford is asking the chairman to do and the administration to do and they're refusing. dr. blasey ford wants to come forward and has said she will testify and i don't know how many times she can say yes. the republicans keep saying no. she said she would testify thursday. they said no, wednesday. they're trying to intimidate her because i fear they don't want her to testify and they want to silence her. this idea of an outside counsel is something i have never seen on the senate judiciary committee. there's nothing in the rules that allow for it. to me, that's a much smaller issue than the fact that they don't seem to be pursuing the truth which is what you would learn from an fbi investigation or calling additional outside witnesses which is also something that happened during the thomas, anita hill hearings. they called additional witnesses, not just the two of them. that's also something you're seeing that republicans in the senate are refusing to do which

would actually help get to the truth of the matter. >> getting to the truth of the matter isn't easy. you tried such cases involving sexual assault, and to give a sense of getting to the truth, the justice department with some statistics in the past show that about 7 out of 10 people that experienced sexual assault never report it. >> right. >> so it is tough to get to at least the details behind such situations. >> richard, it is so difficult. so i tried cases that were actually reported in a timely manner and they're tough for defense attorneys and for prosecutors. so having something that is 36 years old, i know that people don't want to make light of that, but as far as getting to the truth, it is very difficult because the witnesses some 36 years later, they died, how do you really investigate that. unlike anita hill, that was an employer, employee relationship, this is before he was employed as juveniles. being able to investigate a case like this, i couldn't imagine in a criminal context, right?

now ball gam now because of weinstein and bill cosby, many juries extend statute of limitations, great in a teaching mechanism, but in reality, difficult for both sides to try this. >> christine, how do you discuss the me too movement, times up and the discussion that's happened the last two years based on modern politics. what's the right way to discuss this in the confirmation hearing environment we're in today. >> first, let's be clear this is not a criminal proceeding, this is a question about his fitness to be on the supreme court of the united states. it does not -- it should not look like a trial. certainly dr. ford is not on trial. so i don't think the same things should apply. instead, the committee should be trying to get to his credibility, his fitness to serve on the high court. i would hope the me too movement

has shown that we need to be more understanding and careful about survivors of sexual assault and believe them when they come forth with credible claims, but i am concerned the republicans on the senate judiciary committee have not gotten the memo. i think what we have seen in the last six days since dr. blasey ford has come forward has been bullying and intimidation tactics, and they're all designed to silence her. that's directly in conflict with what the me too movement is about. so i think you're seeing millions of women watching. >> it is 36 years old, and i understand, i am an advocate for sexual assault, but there is a due process argument for judge kavanaugh, and it would be nice that other procedures, especially when you're a judge are utilized, under 28 usc 351, a judge's conduct by chief circuit judge can be investigated where they can

bring in other witnesses, there are other procedures to get to the truth, other places to go to try to get the information. if it is about fitness, there are other avenues to get the information out there. >> if the committee wants to know what happened, they will subpoena mark judge who was also allegedly in the room when the sexual assault happened. if they don't subpoena him or invite him to testify, that will be very telling that they're not interested in getting to the truth. >> thank you both for all of your perspectives. both perspectives. thank you. president trump wraps up his attacks against the justice department following the stunning report about rod rosenstein in "new york times." what it could mean for the future of rosenstein and his boss, jeff sessions. this is laura. and butch. and tank.

and tiny. and this is laura's mobile dog grooming palace. laura can clean up a retriever that rolled in foxtails, but she's not much on "articles of organization." articles of what? so, she turned to legalzoom. they helped me out. she means we helped with her llc, trademark, and a lot of other legal stuff that's a part of running a business. so laura can get back to the dogs. would you sit still? this is laura's mobile dog grooming palace and this is where life meets legal. copd makes it hard to breathe. so to breathe better, i go with anoro. ♪ go your own way copd tries to say, "go this way." i say, "i'll go my own way, with anoro." ♪ go your own way once-daily anoro contains two medicines called bronchodilators that work together to significantly improve lung function all day and all night. anoro is not for asthma. it contains a type of medicine that increases risk of death in people with asthma. the risk is unknown in copd.

anoro won't replace rescue inhalers for sudden symptoms and should not be used more than once a day. tell your doctor if you have a heart condition, high blood pressure, glaucoma, prostate, bladder, or urinary problems. these may worsen with anoro. call your doctor if you have worsened breathing, chest pain, mouth or tongue swelling, problems urinating, vision changes, or eye pain while taking anoro. ask your doctor about anoro. ♪ go your own way get your first prescription free at anoro.com. 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. -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. -will he? and i am a certified arborist for pg&e.ughes i oversee the patrolling of trees near power lines and roots near pipes and underground infrastructure. at pg&e wherever we work, we work hard to protect the environment. getting the job done safely, so we can keep the lights on for everybody. because i live here i have a deeper connection to the community. and i want to see the community grow and thrive.

every year we work with cities and schools to plant trees in our communities. so the environment is there for my kids and future generations. together, we're building a better california. i think the time is now we need to hold those at doj and fbi accountable. it is past time and it is time 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. >> that was house freedom caucus chairman mark meadows, earlier today demanding answers from deputy attorney general rod rosenstein after friday's bombshell report in "new york

times" that rosenstein discussed invoking the 25th amendment to remove president trump from office last year. rosenstein also reportedly suggested wearing a wire to secretly record conversations with trump. rosenstein responded to the report saying, quote, i never pursued or authorized recordings, the president and any suggestion that i ever advocated for removal of the president is absolutely false. two justice department officials say rosenstein was being sarcastic about being wired up. but a person in the room for one of the meetings tells nbc he was serious. president trump has not responded to the report, but during a campaign stop in missouri friday night he once again took aim at the justice department. >> we have great people in the department of justice, we have great people. these are people i really believe you take a poll, i have to be at 95%. but you have some real bad ones, you're seeing what's 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. >> joining us, nbc news legal analyst and fellow in government studies at brookings institution, jack rice, and criminal defense attorney. ben, is that the proverbial shot off the bow and who is it aimed at, aimed at jeff sessions and rod rosenstein? >> i have long since given up trying to figure out if or when the president is going to get rid of jeff sessions or rod rosenstein. i mean, i would say look, he's clearly wanted to for a long time, and on the other hand they're both useful as punching bags in rallies and tweets of his, so when it is time from his point of view to actually pull the trigger, i don't know.

you know, he certainly could use this as an excuse. on the other hand, both of them serve at the pleasure of the president. as he showed with jim comey, he doesn't actually need an excuse, he can dismiss them for any reason or no reason at all. so i really don't think it is all that helpful to speculate over whether this is or isn't the moment. it will come if and when it comes when it happens. >> is it healthy speculation to ask is the president talking about rosenstein, and if not what is healthy speculation on this day? >> of course it is. if we look at where we are, this is a faint. in the end, what the president is doing, what his supporters are doing is they're going after the credibility of these people. as a former prosecutor, criminal defense attorney, if i can go

after the facts, i do. if i can't go after the facts, i go after the messenger, tear into the messenger. this is what they're doing. the faint i am talking about, in the end it is about the mueller investigation and tearing down anybody and everybody attached to it, so when that comes out, assuming it will come out at some point, you will dismiss whatever is being said. that's what the president is doing. that's why he is doing it. >> he's also potentially or most probably quite upset about whoever leaked out information. we have this article coming out in "new york times," anonymous sourcing. who probably leaked this? >> again, i don't know but i think there are a few things you can say about that. first of all there's a lot of commentary on twitter how this is the white house effort to kind of give the president the excuse to fire rosenstein. and i don't think it is that. the material appears to be based

on andy mccabe's memos which as far as i know at least are not available to the white house. so i do think sources for this have to be either somebody around the justice department or fbi or have to be somebody in the sort of broader circle around andy mccabe. there are a lot of people in the justice department sort of pro-andy mccabe world around the justice department and the fbi who really don't like rod rosenstein, who they understand to be, you know, at least partly responsible for the firing of andy mccabe, and so my assumption is you're talking about a universe of people not in the white house actually but in doj or fbi who are interested in sort of helping andy mccabe

at rod rosenstein's spenexpenset more specifically than that, i can't discern. >> many people can't discern. as we have been watching the developments as of late, there's been multiple sourcing for a lot of the reports that we have been discussing. i wanted to also while we have you here, jack, get your reflection on the reversal on release of certain classified documents. i met with the doj concerning declassification of various unredacted documents, this is what the president said. they agreed to release them, they may have a perceived negative impact on the russia probe. goes on to say more in this reversal explanation. so jack, what do you think happened. who is the fail-safe, what stopped the release of the documents? >> i think in the first place my concern is i'm always concerned about the knee jerk reaction of the president himself. when you talk about releasing

intelligence or classified information, you need to think about the blow back and what it means. i suspect the safety net that came into place was the justice department itself that went to his people or went to the president directly and said this is the classified information we have to protect. these are sources and methods of which it came, we need to protect those as well. if you roll this out, this potentially blows the sources. you need to stop. the fact they had to go to the president after the fact rather than before which he should have gone to them in the first place is something i find particularly troubling. i have seen this happen at the white house a lot, it is one of the things i think needs to be addressed now. >> jack rice, benjamin wittes. thank you. a lone star showdown. senator ted cruz debates beto o'rourke in a race now called a toss up. ♪

a hotel can make or break a trip. and at expedia, we don't think you should be rushed into booking one. that's why we created expedia's add-on advantage. now after booking your flight, you unlock discounts on select hotels right until the day you leave.

♪ add-on advantage. discounted hotel rates when you add on to your trip. only when you book with expedia. than rheumatoid arthritis. before you and your rheumatologist move to another treatment, ask if xeljanz xr is right for you. xeljanz xr is a once-daily pill for adults with moderate to severe ra for whom methotrexate did not work well enough. it 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 your 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. don't let another morning go by without talking to your rheumatologist about xeljanz xr. i'm begging you... take gas-x.ed beneath the duvet don't let another morning go by your tossing and turning isn't restlessness, it's gas! gas-x relieves pressure, bloating and discomfort... fast! so we can all sleep easier tonight.

the texas senate race has become one of the most closely watched elections across the country. once considered a safe republican seat, cook political report now calls it a toss up. incumbent republican ted cruz faced democratic congressman beto o'rourke friday night, sparring over several issues including immigration. >> we need to do everything humanly possible to secure the border. that means building a wall. congressman o'rourke over and

over and over again, his focus seems to be on fighting for illegal immigrants. >> there should be an earned path to citizenship. the alternative as senator cruz proposed is to deport 11 million people from this country. imagine the cost, imagine the stain on our conscience going forward. >> joining me now, political reporter, and rick tyler. let's start with you, patrick, on the ground. first of all, how did it go, how did it resonate. what are some of the anecdotal after effects of how people saw the outcome of that debate. who won? >> you know, it was honestly more intense and spirited than i expected. i think one big opening question going into it was just how confrontational or combative o'rourke would be who up to this point in his campaign has run a largely above the fray positive campaign, largely ignored cruz

and his attacks. what you saw from beto o'rourke was a different candidate, someone not only forcefully pushing back, some of it with being in a debate setting the first time, but also went out of his way to play offense on a few key issues. cruz you saw what you have seen through the campaign so far, saw him double down on what you've seen through the campaign so far, him talking relentlessly, almost exclusively to the republican base or what he believes is the republican base in texas. >> rick, who won. you are watching the polls. reuters poll has o'rourke ahead by two points and the cook political report, saying it is a toss up. what do you think, rick? >> hard to say who's the winner. the expectation is ted cruz was a championship debater in college would do very well, his expectations are high. beto o'rourke did i thought remarkably well. great debate. what i liked about it, it mostly

focused on issues. great punches, counter punches were better. one thing that was refreshing, you didn't leave the debate wondering where the candidates stood on the issues. they were clear about their issues. if you are conservative, you love what ted cruz was saying. if you are progressive, you love was o'rourke was saying. that's part of the re reason o'rourke caught fire. >> and the question is will he win. issues related to that as we at least nationally are looking at texas and georgia as those potential purple states, and we did it in the last cycle, this cycle, and the coming cycle. i am going to play sound related to the issues to the second amendment. let's take a listen. >> thoughts and prayers, senator cruz, are not going to cut it any more. the people of texas, children of

texas deserve action. >> hold on a second. let me be very clear. more armed police officers in our schools is not thoughts and prayers. i'm sorry you don't like thoughts and prayers. i will pray for anyone in harm's way. >> patrick, sounded from the crowd there that was clearly an issue that the watchers were caring about. >> yeah, and obviously gun rights are always a national issue, but this hit close to home in texas with the santa fe high school shooting, and you saw cruz and o'rourke split starkly on what's needed after that school shooting, deadly school shooting that happened in santa fe. cruz talking about the need for more armed police officers in schools which has been the universal proposal from republican leaders in texas, something they've gotten behind. and o'rourke unabashedly embracing gun control, trying to curb accessibility to deadly

weapons. >> add immigration and the economy and issue of kneeling in the nfl as well, rick. what's sort of the headline coming out of texas that we can understand nationally. >> i don't think we're going to know until after november. i think o'rourke is taking a huge risk, people conventionally would think being okay with kneeling for the national anthem wouldn't be a popular issue in texas but it is part of the reason that video that he explained that went viral. on that issue and on the immigration and gun issue, they were die metrically opposed. they have different ideas. that's one thing that was interesting about the debate. cruz's unapologetic conservative, beto unapologetic about his views which some say is progressive. it is fascinating that the race is so close. not only close in polls but also

in money. it is probably going to go to ted cruz, likely, but it would be unexpected -- >> 15 seconds on the money, surprising to see the numbers we have been reporting within the last week? >> ted cruz is the number one fund-raiser, incumbent fund-raiser in the u.s. senate. o'rourke, number one fund-raiser for anyone in the senate. >> big money, and coming from all over the country. >> can i mention, looking forward to being with patrick at the texas tribune festival later next week. >> i'm not invited? what's going on here. >> come on down. >> you got my e-mail. see you both there. looking forward to hanging out with you both. how the kavanaugh confirmation crisis is driving the narrative for both parties leading up to november midterms.

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. oh! oh! ♪ ozempic®! ♪ (vo) people with type 2 diabetes are excited about the potential of once-weekly ozempic®. in a study with ozempic®, a majority of adults lowered their blood sugar and reached an a1c of less than seven and maintained it. oh! under seven? (vo) and you may lose weight. in the same one-year study, adults lost on average up to 12 pounds. oh! up to 12 pounds? (vo) a two-year study showed that ozempic® does not increase

the risk of major cardiovascular events like heart attack, stroke, or death. oh! no increased risk? ♪ ozempic®! ♪ ozempic® should not be the first medicine for treating diabetes, or for people with type 1 diabetes or diabetic ketoacidosis. do not share needles or pens. don't reuse needles. do not take ozempic® if you have a personal or family history of medullary thyroid cancer, multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, or if you are allergic to ozempic®. stop taking ozempic® and get medical help right away if you get a lump or swelling in your neck, severe stomach pain, itching, rash, or trouble breathing. serious side effects may happen, including pancreatitis. tell your doctor if you have diabetic retinopathy or vision changes. taking ozempic® with a sulfonylurea or insulin may increase the risk for low blood sugar. common side effects are nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, stomach pain, and constipation. some side effects can lead to dehydration, which may worsen kidney problems. i discovered the potential with ozempic®. ♪ oh! oh! oh! ozempic®! ♪

(vo) ask your healthcare provider if ozempic® is right for you. there's nothing small about your business. with dell small business technology advisors, you get the one-on-one partnership to grow your business. the dell vostro 14 laptop. get up to 40% off on select pcs. call 877-buy-dell today. ( ♪ ) call 877-buy-dell today. havi is not always easy. plaque psoriasis it's a long-distance journey, and you have the determination to keep going. humira has a proven track record of being prescribed for over 10 years. humira works inside the body to target and help block a specific source of inflammation that contributes to symptoms. most adults taking humira were clear or almost clear and many saw 75% and even 90% clearance in just 4 months. and the kind of clearance that can last. 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. join over 250,000 patients who have chosen humira. ask about the #1 prescribed biologic by dermatologists. humira... and go. of integrity, with impeccable credentials. he wrote more than 300 pins that reflect a strong record of support for limited government,

religious liberty and our second amendment. he's a conservative who will interpret the constitutions in the midterm elections as well. susan del percent i don't. an msnbc political analyst. the question has been out there they would like to see if dr. ford would speak to them. why the rush? illustrates because they need to get this done and put it behind them before the midterm elections. within the republican party, it's not controversial. there's a lot of support, but this is one who will be tilting the balance of the court for

decades to come, and will put the question of women's rights, reproductive rights into question. in an election where they're concerned about swing districts, this is the type of thing that can put the house in jeopardy. and if they get it down quickly, there's enough time to get it out of news cycle. the lopper this goes on, the more stories come out and more ingrained into the voters' mind. >> why the rush? for exactly that reason. think about 1991. after eye nita hill we had the year of the woman. >> dianne feinstein, first woman from california in the senate.

no matter what happens now, tremendous impact on the polls, but can the republicans sort of stem that tide a bit, or at least minimize the damage by making it happen sooner rather than later. >> they are concerned if it goes on much longer, with all the news stories that come out, not even again judge kavanaugh, but in general, it was not a good day for judge kavanaugh, when the president, who we know has a lot of issues with women, and roy moore come out in support. those are the last two people you want coming out to support the at this point in the public's mind. also potentially for the family they don't want to hearty the chants of "kavanaugh" then it becomes political on the campaign trail. >> he's doing the own damaging.

the tweets are horrifying. the fact that he's talking about professor ford, dr. ford, saying she should have come out and gone to the fbi 36 years ago. it's ridiculous. again, he's hurting his own cause here. there's nobody able to raise him in. >> clair mccaskill could be in jeopardy if they didn't vote for kavanaugh, and because of the president, she has covered a com out and said no, i'm not supporting this nomination. >> what about the -- very crucial on the swing votes, i don't like what the president said here. >> that's why mcconnell is constantly counting the votes. the more time goes by, the more this administration is going to have a negative impact. on the flip side, if they don't get it done, even if it looks like it was done quickly and inappropriately, you're going to have a lot of republicans,

especially socially conservative republicans really angry and frustrated with this president. they're going in with obamacare still in place and they would have lost an important judicial nomination. is there a concern of potentially overplaying these various issues that we are discussing here, the #metoo po movement, requests #timesup? >> i don't think so the i think the democrats are handling it appropriately. there's an undercurrent here we're seeing the comments is indicative of a ruling class. when you look at who they believe are the weakest among us, the most vulnerable, in women, in communities of color, we're seeing the sense that there are these individuals, mostly older white males, who are bullying professor ford,

bullying dr. ford. >> it hasn't happened. >> the position that they have taken, the republicans on the hill and the president, is indicative of the sort of hardiness. it's despicable. they're undermining the very working-class people they say they stand up for >> what's also happened is it's become a bigger issue that it's beyond judge kavanaugh in this hearing, and we're not even allowing for the possibility that maybe he didn't do it. i am with dr. ford and coming forward and offering testimony, but we have to allow for the possibility. susan, basel, a spirited conversation. that wraps it up for this hour. thank you.

[ upbeat music ] i'm ready to crush ap english. i'm ready to do what no one on my block has done before. forget that. what no one in the world has done before. all i need access, tools, connections. high-speed connections.

is the world ready for me? through internet essentials, comcast has connected more than six-million low-income people to low-cost, high-speed internet at home. i'm trying to do some homework here. so they're ready for anything. hi, everyone. it's 4:00 in new york. breaking news from "the new york times" this afternoon. a bombshell of a development sure to have repercussions. deputy attorney general rod rosenstein suggested last year that he secretly wear a wire to record donald trump to expose the chaos inside the west wing. rosenstein also suggested recruiting cabinet members to invoke the 25th amendment to remove trump from office for being unfit to serve. today's account in "the new york times" is the fourth example in as many weeks of a resistance working within the highest levels of the executan