thank you so very much for being here with us. good night from nbc headquarters here in new york. how was your weekend? mine was fine. i caught a brown trout which was awesome. then i put it back. i was supposed to get a new washing machine this weekend but i blew it off and didn't do it, so that means the old washing machine has another week to blow up and leak. i did some filing. susan made shepherd's pie. the patriots lost. remember normal weekends? this weekend i actually tried to pretend that things are normal now. clearly they are not. even before we had our national fire drill this morning when it looked like the president was firing the deputy attorney general overseeing the russia investigation, even before that fire drill this morning, it was clear through the end of last

week, all through this weekend and through today that the news is just persistently off its axis right now. and i know that can make it a bit hard to get your balance, i know, i know. we're going to have more on the rod rosenstein fire drill, which did sort of look like an emergency this morning, and then it wasn't. he's still in his job. we're going to have more on that to come, including speaking with a senator who is trying to protect the special counsel's investigation from just that kind of threat that we went through the motions of this morning. so that's ahead tonight this hour. but i got to tell you, for the second time in just a few days, we're actually starting the show tonight without knowing if our first interview is going to happen or not. you might remember this happened at the end of last week as well when we started the show expecting to be joined by one of the lawyers representing christine blasey ford who has accused supreme court nominee brett kavanaugh of sexually assaulting her when she was 17.

that interview with dr. ford's lawyer at the last minute did not happen, because dr. ford's legal team was deep into their negotiations with the senate judiciary committee about whether or not christine blasey ford would appear before that committee to testify about what she says was her experience with brett kavanaugh. those negotiations were ongoing that evening, ended up scuttling that interview for us. those negotiations actually continued through this weekend through the fishing and skipping the washing machine and all the rest of it. it was not until mid-afternoon yesterday, on sunday, that we got word that, in fact, dr. christine blasey ford will testify at the senate on thursday of this week. the white house and the republican-led judiciary committee are still insisting that no other witnesses will be allowed to testify, even witnesses who ford says could corroborate elements of her story. importantly, white house senate and republicans are also

insisting that the fbi must not be allowed to reopen its background investigation into brett kavanaugh to examine this allegation from christine blasey ford. so no external investigation, no witnesses, but ford herself and kavanaugh himself will testify at that hearing on thursday morning. and if you were looking for the universe to give you a patient little explainer about why it might be a good idea to have the fbi do background checks on nominees, why it's a good idea to have the nation's premiere federal law enforcement agency look into allegations against people who are up for high government positions. if you're looking for proof that it is not just an inexplicable plan but a terrible plan to proceed with this nomination without letting the fbi check it

out, those bald-faced details are being finalized for that committee meeting on thursday. just as that hearing was getting all set up, all nice and tidy, no witnesses, just kavanaugh and ford, no outside investigation, that's it, we'll finally be done with this, just as that was all tied up with a bow, the next one broke. see the headline here? senate democrats investigated a new allegation of sexual misconduct from brett kavanaugh's college years. a college classmate of brett kavanaugh named debra ramirez claims that during a party where students were drinking, kavanaugh put his genitals in her face, forcing her to touch them. she tried to push him away. quote, i was embarrassed and ashamed and humiliated. she remembers kavanaugh standing to her right and laughing, pulling up his pants. brett was laughing, she said. i can still see his face and his

hips coming forward like when you pull up your pants. she recalled another male student shouting about the incident. someone yelled down the hall, brett kavanaugh just put his penis in debbie's face. it was his full name, i don't think it was just brett. and i remember hearing that and being mortified this was out there. another classmate of debra ramirez is telling the new yorker that while he, the classmate, was not present for the party, he said, quote, he is 100% sure that he was told at the time that brett kavanaugh was the student who exposed himself to debra ramirez at that party. other classmates evidently told other details including the specific room on the specific floor in the specific building where the party took place. the classmate tells the new yorker, quote, i've known this all along. quote, it's been on my mind all these years when his name came

up. it was a big deal. so this was published by the new yorker. this was published just as the judiciary committee announce the it had reached a deal for testimony by christine blasey ford. the woman who says brett kavanaugh did this to her at this party at yale when they were undergraduates, she apparently did not approach reporters about this matter. rather, it was the new yorker that approached her after they had learned about this alleged incident from others. now that the allegation is public, though, ramirez says she wants the allegation assessed impartially. quote, for ramirez the sudden attention has been unwelcome. she was at first hesitant to speak publicly, but ramirez is now calling for the fbi to investigate kavanaugh's role in the incident. quote, i would think an fbi investigation would be warranted, she said. so once again, we're back in the position of wondering why republicans in the senate and

why the white house are insisting that the fbi must not be allowed to look at this as part of their background investigation into kavanaugh. the fbi looks into allegations of sexual misconduct and all sorts of different kinds of misconduct as a matter of course when they do background investigations. that's what background investigations are for. why the white house insists that brett kavanaugh must be exempt from that process here? that was a hard thing to explain before there were multiple allegations against him. now it seems almost like a short-sighted thing. a short-sighted way for them to have approached this. imagine this having gone a different way, right? first allegation comes up, they reopen the background investigation, have the fbi look into it. the fbi finds what it find. that process is underway. they set a hearing, they're going to hear back from the fbi. now there's another allegation. we will also ask the fbi to look into that. then there is another allegation at some point. we'll ask the fbi to look into

that. it's a way to govern the process. it also shows that you're allowing these allegations to be investigated, that you're not trying to sweep them under the rug. in this case they are left now with now mounting refusals to let the fbi look into this for the first allegation, now for the second allegation as well. why can't the fbi look into this? there are two other things from this new yorker piece that i think are going to end up being important here. the first is about how republican senators handled this second allegation. this is about the timing. again, this is about that yale allegation that i just described. quote, senior republican staffers also learned of this yale allegation last week. and in conversations with the new yorker expressed concern about its potential impact on kavanaugh's nomination. soon after, senate republicans issued renewed calls to

accelerate the timing of a committee vote. hey, there is another allegation coming. hurry, get him through. get the vote done. get the vote done before anything more comes out. get him on the court. it's not a good look. but then there's one other element of the story that becomes important for the interview that i think we are about to have in just a minute tonight. one of the sticking points in the negotiations about this hearing on thursday, and christine blasey ford testifying about what she says was the sexual assault by kavanaugh. one of the sticking points in setting up that hearing has been whether or not anybody other than ford and kavanaugh would testify. in blasey ford's letter notifying senator dianne feinstein about the alleged assault, she names one of kavanaugh's classmates having been in the room when the assault happened. the classmate has denied taking part in the assault or witnessing it. he told an interview from a conservative magazine, quote, i don't remember any of that stuff going on with girls.

but i think -- this is the other thing that's going to end up being important from the new yorker given that dr. ford has named this kavanaugh classmate, mark judge, as essentially being complicit in that alleged assault by brett kavanaugh back when they were 17. republicans thus far are refusing to call him as a witness. but this is reported by ronan farrow and joan this weekend. after seeing judge's denial, elizabeth rasor, who met judge at catholic university and was in a relationship with him for about three years, said that she felt morally obligated to challenge his account that no horseplay took place at georgetown prep with women.

rasor stressed that under normal circumstances i wouldn't reveal information that was told in confidence, but she said, i can't stand by and watch him lie. in an interview with the new yorker, she said mark told me a very different story. rasor recalled that judge had told her ashamedly of an incident that involved him and other boys taking turns having sex with a drunk woman. it was hard to understand why republicans agreed to hear testimony from christine blasey ford and from brett kavanaugh about what she alleges, but they will not allow mark judge, who was reportedly in the room, to be questioned by senators at all. that was the state of things. and then on top of that, we get more. now we have this. quote, i represent a woman with credible information regarding judge kavanaugh and mark judge. we will be demanding the opportunity to present testimony to the committee and will

likewise be demanding that mark judge and others be subpoenaed to testify. this, as you can see here, is from attorney michael avenatti who is best known for representing stormy daniels in her legal dispute with the president, a dispute which has already led the president's long-time personal lawyer to plead guilty to multiple felonies, including two campaign felonies which michael cohen said in court he was delegated to commit by the president himself. shortly after michael avenatti posted that claim on line, that he represents a woman with credible information regarding judge kavanaugh and mark judge, the chief counsel working for senator chuck grassley in the judiciary committee e mailed mr. avenatti saying, quote, you claim to have information you're saying is credible regarding judge kavanaugh and mark judge. please advice of this information immediately so that senate investigators may promptly begin an inquiry.

to that response to the judiciary committee, michael avenatti started to spell it out. if you have not seen this already and you don't know what i'm about to say, i will tell you there is a chance you might not want to hear this, which is me warning you you might want to mute me or distract the kids if they're watching with you if you don't want to hear this or if you don't want your kids to hear this. but i'm going to read it. and actually, before i even read it to you, i will tell you tonight in advance that judge kavanaugh has this evening denied the implication of what mr. avenatti spells out here, but this is what he spells out here. quote -- this is a letter to the senate judiciary committee. quote, we are aware of significant evidence of multiple house parties in the washington, d.c. area during the early 1980s during which brett kavanaugh, mark judge and others would participate in the targeting of women with alcohol/drugs in order to allow a, quote, train of men to subsequently gang-rape them. there are multiple witnesses

that will corroborate these facts and each of them must be called to testify publicly. as a starting point, senate investigators should pose the following questions to judge kavanaugh. number one, did you ever target one or more women for sex or rape at a house party? did you ever assist mark judge or others in doing so? number two, did you ever attend any house party during which a woman was gang-raped or used for sex by multiple men? number three, did you ever witness a line of men outside a bedroom at any house party where you understood a woman was being -- excuse me -- a woman was in the bedroom being raped or taken advantage of? number four, did you ever participate in any sexual conduct with a woman at a house party whom you understood to be intoxicated or under the influence of drugs? number five, did you ever communicate with mark judge or anybody else about your participation in a, quote, train involving an intoxicated woman? and number six, did you ever object or attempt to prevent one or more men from participating

in the rape or taking advantage of a woman at any house party? please note that we will provide additional evidence relating to the above conduct both to the committee and the american public in the coming days. now, that obviously is a list of questions, but within it is a rather staggering set of allegations. nbc news has not confirmed any of the allegations here, either explicit or implied. mr. avenatti has thus far not identified his client. but as you heard there, in the piece of this i just read, he says he has evidence to support these allegations and that that evidence will be forthcoming both to the committee and the public. mr. avenatti said today that he represents multiple clients in this matter, most of whom are witnesses that he says will support these allegations, but one of whom he is describing as a victim. avenatti saying today, quote,

warning: my client re kavanaugh has previously done work within the state department, u.s. mint and doj. she has been granted multiple security clearances in the past including public trust & secret. the gop and others better be very careful in trying to suggest that she is not credible. michael avenatti says he will go public with her claims. he plans to explain exactly what her claims are. that's the interview we're about to have. even in advance of hearing what it is he has to say, though, it is now quite impossible to avoid the fact that the three women who have come forward or are in the process of coming forward with allegations of supreme court nominee brett kavanaugh, all three of them, christine blasey ford, debra ramirez this weekend, and now michael avenatti's client, all of them say they would like their claims to be subjected to scrutiny by the fbi. if the fbi is responsible for

doing background checks on nominees for high office, and they are, all three of these women now say they have information they would like to provide to the fbi for that purpose as it relates to brett kavanaugh so the fbi can assess what these women have to say. and that is something no lawyer would ever advise a client to do if there was any worry at all that the client's story was a lie. we do not know anymore about these new allegations than mr. avenatti has thus far said publicly. but he's now going to detail them to us live here on the air. that's next. that's next. after walking six miles at an amusement park,

bill's back needed a vacation from his vacation. so he stepped on the dr. scholl's kiosk. it recommends our best custom fit orthotic to relieve foot, knee, or lower back pain so you can move more. dr. scholl's. born to move. on your wild west vacation... guarantee you'll find gold but we can guarantee the best price on that thar rental cabin or any hotel, home, boat, yurt, whatever. ♪ just don't get carried away with the wild west thing.

hey guys. get the best price on homes, hotels and so much more. booking.com, booking.yeah 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.

as i mentioned at the top of the show, we started tonight sort of without a net, without knowing whether our first interview would actually happen or not. the first we were hoping to talk to tonight is attorney michael avenatti. you may have met him first with his work representing stormy daniels and her legal challenges to the president. mr. avenatti has exposed the president's personal attorney, michael cohen, and the companies who had to admit to paying him millions of dollars.

mr. avenatti also worked on reuniting families that were displaced at the border under trump policy. mr. avenatti has become part of our national politics now. he's saying he might run for the white house in 2020. he is also saying he now has a new client who might have something to say about brett kavanaugh of the supreme court. he said, quote, i represent a woman with credible information regarding judge kavanaugh and his friend mark judge. he told the senate judiciary committee, quote, my client is prepared to meet with the fbi forthwith to disclose how she was victimized and what she observed. i will tell you tonight brett kavanaugh has categorically denied having any part in what mr. avenatti is describing. he said tonight it was, quote, totally false and outrageous. an attorney of mark judge said mark judge will not talk at all while judge kavanaugh's

nomination is pending. before that he said he did not want to talk to the senate. apparently the senate is fine with that. we have not yet heard back from the senate judiciary committee tonight. nbc news has not independently reported out this story. we do not know any more about these allegations besides what mr. avenatti has said publicly. i think we have him here to talk publicly. joining us now, i think, i hope, yes, mr. michael avenatti. thank you for your time tonight. >> good to see you, rachel. >> you said on line that you were representing a woman with credible information regarding judge kavanaugh and mark judge. what is the nature of the information that she has about judge kavanaugh and his high school classmate? >> well, rachel, i'm representing one client who i can describe as a witness and

victim as well as additional corroborating witnesses to what she is going to allege publicly within the next 48 hours as it relates to her particular allegations. we're not going to provide additional information beyond that which is contained within the e-mails that i exchanged with the senate judiciary committee, but let me say this. this woman, when she does surface, will be found to be 100% credible by the american public. i would not be representing her if i did not believe her. and if anyone has been paying attention over the last six to seven months, they know that i do not traffic in nonsense or rumor. i utilize facts and evidence. and this woman will prove to be credible and she is believable and we are hopeful that the committee will launch an fbi investigation forthwith. we have also asked that she be

permitted to take a polygraph examination, which she has agreed to do, provided that brett kavanaugh does the same. and we have yet to hear back from the committee on a host of issues that i raised over 10 hours ago. >> you described representing her but also other people in the same matter. the other people who you're representing other than your client, who i should mention you're not naming at this point, are they people who are witnesses to the behavior that she is going to describe, or is this all one -- are the people you're representing here, is this all about one specific allegation? >> no, it's not about one specific allegation, it's a series of allegations. this is a pattern of behavior, rachel, that took place across many months and many years, and i will say this. we have demanded that mark judge be subpoenaed to testify before the committee in public so that the american people can hear

mark judge answer questions about his close friend, brett kavanaugh. so far those requests have fallen on deaf ears. for some reason, chairman grassley and others do not want the american people to hear from mark judge. for some reason brett kavanaugh does not want the american people to hear from his close friend, mark judge, and i think that should tell people everything they need to know about mark judge and what he may say. >> you just said a moment ago that you expect your client will go public with these allegations within the next 48 hours. that sounds like you are doing that in advance of the hearing that as of right now is still scheduled for thursday morning. is that deliberate in terms of trying to make sure these allegations are in the public eye before that hearing convenes on thursday morning? >> well, that's one of the factors, absolutely, rachel, and we've asked the committee to

allow her to testify. we've asked the committee to turn this over to the fbi because, to your point earlier in the show, we believe all of these allegations, not just the allegations from my client, not just the allegations from the other clients that i have that are corroborating witnesses but also dr. ford, ms. ramirez and others. all of these allegations should be tested, they should be investigated by the fbi. there should not be a rush to judgment either for or against brett kavanaugh. justice scalia's seat was kept open for over 400 days, rachel. there is no reason why the senate needs to be rushing a vote as it relates to brett kavanaugh. this should be a fair and thorough process. >> in the e-mail you sent to the senate judiciary committee, they wrote to you saying, you have made claims publicly that you represent a client who has credible information about our nominee. we want to know what those claims are. we will investigate. you then wrote back with a

series of questions that you said the committee should pose to brett kavanaugh, and those questions are very provocative, and they imply very serious allegations, not just about sexual misconduct but about what would be serious criminal misconduct. are you, in fact, and is your client, in fact, going to allege serious criminal behavior here? that is what you're implying in your communication here with the committee. >> yes, rachel, i believe that when these allegations are surfaced within the next 48 hours, there will be no question that brett kavanaugh is not fit to sit on the u.s. supreme court, and we will ask for a thorough investigation relating to these allegations as well as allegations of dr. ford and others. we understand the seriousness of this. we do not make these allegations lightly, and ultimately, this will be, as in most cases, a fight for credibility whether people believe brett kavanaugh, whether they believe my client,

as well as corroborating witnesses, and hopefully whether they believe mark judge. we believe it's inexcusable, rachel. it is inexcusable for chairman grassley and others to be covering up the testimony of mark judge. they clearly do not want that individual to testify. >> your focus on mr. judge, is it about mr. judge's own alleged bad behavior, or is there something about mr. judge specifically that you feel like is crucial to shedding light on the allegations against brett kavanaugh? mark judge isn't being nominated for anything. nobody here is on criminal trial. the issue here is whether or not mr. kavanaugh is fit to be on the nation's highest court. what is it about mark judge, who does not want to testify, that's so necessary in terms of getting to the bottom of this, as far as you're concerned? >> because mark judge and brett kavanaugh were effectively, rachel, joined at the hip for an

extended period of time during the years at issue. they participated in various conduct together which we believe is absolutely disqualifying as it relates to brett kavanaugh serving on the u.s. supreme court. we believe mark judge's testimony is critical. we believe my client's testimony is critical. ms. ramirez' testimony is critical as well as dr. ford, as well as additional corroborating witnesses. admittedly, the committee is not designed to hear from all of these witnesses over the lengthy period of time that it will take to get to the bottom of this. that's why they should use the fbi to properly investigate this. earlier tonight brett kavanaugh said that he wants to be heard, that he wants to fair process. well, that's why we have the fbi. he'll have every opportunity to be heard all of these.

all of these accusers, all of these witnesses should be heard, especially mark judge and my client. >> in terms of your client again, you said there would be public airing of what she says happened to her and what she witnessed within the next 48 hours? that would precede the senate hearing. but, mr. avenatti, if what you are describing here is criminal behavior, and if this was something that dates to mr. kavanaugh's time in high school, depending on what exactly your client is going to be alleging here, if this is a criminal matter, the case could be made that this is something that shouldn't necessarily be litigated through the senate, this is something that should be handled as a matter of criminal law. will there be a criminal complaint filed? is that something you've addressed with your client already? will you expect there will be a law enforcement element to this if this alleged behavior is as serious as you're suggesting? >> i think, rachel, there may very well be a criminal complaint made relating to this

conduct. we don't believe a statute of limitations would apply to it, and we may very well pursue criminal charges relating to the perpetrators at issue, relating to what my client alleges. but again, there should not be a rush for this information to be presented to the committee. there should not be a rush for a vote within the committee or the u.s. senate relating to brett kavanaugh. what is the rush? this is a search for the truth and nothing but the truth. and brett kavanaugh should have an opportunity to present his side, my client should have an opportunity to present her side, as well as others. but the bottom line here is, this is a search for the truth, period. >> michael avenatti who is now representing a client who is making allegations against judge brett kavanaugh. mr. avenatti again saying those allegations will be made by his client herself within the next 48 hours. thank you for joining us tonight, sir. it's nice to have you here. >> thank you, rachel.

much more ahead, including a member of the senate judiciary committee joining us live. stay with us. stay with us as their spokesperson because apparently, i'm highly likable. see, they know it's confusing. i literally have no idea what i'm getting, dennis quaid. that's why they're making it simple, man in cafe. and more affordable. thank you, dennis quaid. you're welcome. that's a prop apple. i'd tell you more, but i only have 30 seconds. so here's a dramatic shot of their tagline so you'll remember it. esurance. it's surprisingly painless. ♪ so you'll remember it. 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. ♪ exbut are you gettinglot enough of their nutrients?, new one a day with nature's medley is the only complete multivitamin with antioxidants from one total

serving of fruits and veggies. new from one a day. whoever came up with the term "small business", never owned a business. are your hours small? what about your reputation? is that small? owning your own thing is huge. your partnerships, even bigger. with dell small business technology advisors, you get the one-on-one partnership to grow your business. because the only one who decides how big your business can be, is you. the dell vostro 14 laptop with 8th gen intel core processors. get up to 40% off on select pcs. call 877-buy-dell today. ( ♪ ) minutes can mean the difference between life and death. proposition 11 saves lives by ensuring medical care is not delayed in an emergency. proposition 11 establishes into law the longstanding industry practice of paying emts and paramedics to remain on-call during breaks and requires they receive fema level training in active shooters and natural disasters. vote yes on 11 to ensure 911 emergency care is there

when you or your love one need it. naturally we have a little bit more breaking news right now about this fight over brett kavanaugh's nomination to the supreme court. we've just gotten this in. this is a letter from an attorney for the original person to have accused brett kavanaugh of sexual assault. this attorney has now written a new letter to the senate

judiciary committee chuck grassley. looking at this letter this is from a lawyer of christine blasey ford to chuck grassley. just taking it in, it seems to me like we may be approaching another turn in this story. this makes it seem to me like maybe we're not going to have a hearing on thursday. let me just read you part of this. it's from michael bromwich who has just joined the legal team for christine blasey ford. as dr. blasey ford has been clear since her experience was first made public, she has come guard because she believes it is her civic duty to make public about the sexual assault she experienced. you said you would provide a fair and respectful treatment with regard to blasey ford. however, mitch mcconnell dismissed her claim as a smear campaign, stating that written statements to the committee constitute, quote, a complete

lack of evidence, implying there's been a thorough investigation. this and statements he has made previously are flatly inconsistent with your letter. he's saying you're promising us that you and the judiciary committee are going to be fair, but here's the top republican in the senate already proclaiming this done, proclaiming my client to be a liar, essentially. concerning the request that the fbi reopen a background check, and the hearing plan that your staffer, mark davis, described, meaning in an earlier communication, quote, does not appear designed to provide dr. blasey ford with fair and respectful treatment. so this is bralasey ford's lawy saying the way you're planning that hearing doesn't look to us like she'll be treated properly. quote, the hiring of an unnamed experienced sex claims prosecutor, as described in your

letter, seems to be someone for the senate to fulfill their obligations. this does not seem to be a trial that would be appropriate. neither mark judge nor brett kavanaugh is on trial. quote, there is no precedent for this committee to bring in outside counsel for the sole purpose of shielding members of the committee for shirking their responsibility to question witnesses. mr. davis, the staffer, still has not responded to questions about his role or about the sex crime prosecutor. please identify this person and ask her staff to send her resume immediately. we respectfully request to meet with her tomorrow. this hearing is supposed to happen on thursday, according to michael bromwich, who is a lawyer for christine blasey ford, there is issues that are

serious including an experienced sex crimes prosecutor will be brought in to do the questioning. stay with us. questioning. stay with us - [announcer] the typical vacuum head can struggle with large debris and stuck-on dust, so shark invented duoclean, replacing the front wall with a rotating soft brush. while deep cleaning carpets, two brush rolls pick up large particles with ease, make quick work of stuck-on dust, giving hard floors a polished look, and fearlessly devour piles. shark duoclean technology, designed to do more on carpets and floors, available in corded

and cord-free vacuums, and only available from shark. on carpets and floors, available in corded take your razor, yup. up and down, never side to side, shaquem, you got it? come on stay focused. hard work baby, it gonna pay off. the doctor's office just for a shot. but why go back there... when you can stay home with neulasta onpro? strong chemo can put you at risk of serious infection. in a key study neulasta reduced the risk of infection from 17% to 1%, a 94% decrease. neulasta onpro is designed to deliver neulasta the day after chemo and is used by most patients today. neulasta is for certain cancer patients receiving strong chemotherapy. do not take neulasta if you're allergic to it or neupogen (filgrastim). an incomplete dose could increase infection risk. ruptured spleen, sometimes fatal as well as serious lung problems, allergic reactions, kidney injuries and capillary leak syndrome have occurred.

report abdominal or shoulder tip pain, trouble breathing or allergic reactions to your doctor right away. in patients with sickle cell disorders, serious, sometimes fatal crises can occur. the most common side effect is bone and muscle ache. if you'd rather be home ask your doctor about neulasta onpro. pay no more than $5 per dose with copay card.

joining us now, senator amy klobuchar. thanks for being here tonight. >> thank you, rachel. >> i have a couple things i want to ask you about. i want to talk about the now seemingly founderring, potentially founderring nomination of brett kavanaugh at the supreme court. before i talk to you about that, though, i also want to talk about this sort of national fire drill we had this morning when it appeared for an hour or so that the president was about to fire deputy attorney general rod rosenstein. it was sort of a wild ride in the news this morning, but i wanted to get your impressions about what happened there and your reaction to that. >> this was truly everyone's worst fear. we have this ongoing, important

investigation based on our national security concerns with a man, rod rosenstein, who has been a u.s. attorney under both republican and democratic presidents, number two in the justice department, only recently announced indictments coming out of that investigation of 12 members of the russian intelligence gru involving hacking into state elections, stealing 500,000 names from voter data records. it's unbelievable to me that they would even consider this. and so then we find out, as you know, and described as a fire drill, oh, well, i guess we're going to meet again in two days. so i don't know what to make of it except that we have a job in the senate to protect our constitution and to protect that investigation. rod rosenstein oversees it and it's very important that he stay in his job, and that's where i'd like to pass the bill that we got through the committee on a 14-7 bipartisan vote that protects the special counsel.

>> that bill, as you said, passed a committee. senator mitch mcconnell said publicly it's not going to the floor of the senate, he would not allow it to be voted on. i can't imagine it passing the republican-controlled house -- >> not to mention they're going home. they're not even going to be around. >> they're not even there to vote no on it. >> they're there for like another week or so. it's unbelievable while all of this is going on. so one thing we do have, we have a rule in place that got put in place after this nixon saturday night massacre which says that you cannot fire special counsel unless you have good cause, so obviously that's something. and the other is all of our colleagues on the republican side who have repeatedly said we must protect the mueller investigation. now, if rosenstein was completely unfairly fired, we don't know who he would -- who would take his place, and that person, even if they allowed it

to continue, could reduce staffing, could reduce furnding could actually change the entire investigation or they wouldn't be doing their work. this is such a big deal. >> i'm unscientifically reading your body language and tone of voice on this, and what i'm inferring, which you may not be implying, is that you're expecting rosenstein to get fired. whatever happened this morning, it seems like you are anticipating that the president is going to go there. am i right to infer that? >> i'm not certain of that. you know, the president likes to throw things out there, and obviously there was some other things in the news today which is relaelated to this because h nominated someone who has a very expansive view of executive power that you have talked about several times and that's so concerning in the federal court, but he may have just thrown it into the mix this week. we had the report out of the "new york times" and rosenstein may have in good faith been

talking to him about it, but we first heard from the justice department they thought he was going to be fired, then from the white house he was going to resign. all of it seemed designed to invoke fear and create havoc for the mueller investigation. i think thaelt's the very leastf it. we don't know if that means he's going to fire him. he's going to meet with him again. that's a better sign than not meeting with him, and hopefully rod rosenstein is going to be able to make his case, and he has said this didn't happen quite as described, and so i think that it will be really important for him to be able to do that, and i know there will be support on both sides of the aisle for keeping this investigation going. not from everyone, but from a lot of republican senators. you just can't rip this investigation apart when they have issued so many indictments that affect our nation's national security when a foreign power was trying to cyberattack us. i don't use meddling. that's like when i call my daughter on a saturday night and ask her what she's doing.

that's meddling. this is an actual cyberattack. >> senator klobuchar, if you could hang on for a second, i would love to talk to you about the developing news with the kavanaugh nomination. can you do that? >> i would love to. >> stay with us. stay with us. ♪ he's your home and auto man ♪ big jim, he's got you covered ♪ ♪ great big jim, there ain't no other ♪ -so, this is covered, right? -yes, ma'am. take care of it for you right now. giddyup! hi! this is jamie. we need some help.

they put their shoulders to it. broad backs and hard will. squaring off against whatever comes next. they defied the law of gravity and went faster and farther than any one of them had ever imagined.

they learned what it takes to power a dream. someone before them had discovered america, but they discovered what it means to be an american. and the thing about discovery, it has a beginning but no end. the next era belongs to those who discover again, what it means to be an american. those who have the resourcefulness, the ingenuity and the grit to ensure the next energy to power our dreams will be american energy.

joining us once again is senator amy klobuchar. thank you for sticking with us. >> thank you. >> judge kavanaugh did a

televised interview, sort of making the case for his confirmation. we don't usually see supreme court nominees do that sort of thing in the middle of their confirmation process, but i think that is at least tacit admission that this nomination may be on the rocks. are you in favor of the thursday hearing going ahead in the way it's currently constituted? as far as we know, it will be testimony from judge kavanaugh and also christine blasey ford, but no other witnesses. are you in favor of that committee going ahead? >> i wanted this hearing to be different. i felt very strongly that just as we've done with many nominees, you should, when you have new information, you reopen the fbi investigation. it's not a criminal investigation, it's a background check. so when you have very important information that comes forward, you look at it again. that's happened with ten nominees in just the last few months for other positions in the government. they reopen the investigation. so it should be a hearing where

we can hear from other people that were involved in this incide incident, that she has mentioned other witnesses. even for anita hill they had a number of other witnesses. that being said, i would like to hear from her. i have not met her. i think it's really important we hear from her, and i understand that her lawyer is simply trying to negotiate this. look what these guys are doing. we are more than happy to have this be a hearing where the senators ask questions and they ask her questions and they ask the nominee questions. that's how we have hearings. however, the republicans, there is 11 men, as you know, on their side instead of that old movie "12 angry men," it's 11 don't want to look so angry men, i guess, so they want to have a woman take their place and ask all these questions. of course her lawyer wants to talk to that attorney, wants to figure out what's going on here. it's just not normal what they're proposing, and i think that's what's happening right now. of course, i only heard this tonight.

>> the other thing that has evolved quickly since the terms of a thursday hearing were initially agreed to over the weekend is that a couple more allegations that come forward in the new yorker, a story that dates allegedly to judge kavanaugh's undergrad time at yale was published, and earlier this hour, michael avenatti explained that he has a new client who within 48 hours will make public what he says will be a serious allegation dating to judge kavanaugh's high school days and she'll make that case in the media. with these other accusers coming forward, should those be folded in to thursday's testimony? should there be a second hearing? how should those things be handled? >> again, if this wouldn't have been rammed through in the way it was where we still have three years of staff secretary documents we haven't seen, 100,000 documents over at the white house and this new information. i'm a former prosecutor, i like to look at evidence, and it was interesting to have him on the

show but you want to look at the evidence and see what it is. again, an fbi investigation, a background check investigation that we routinely have for judges, much less, of course, the highest court of the land, would allow people and people on the committee to actually look at the evidence before a decision is made, and that is what is missing in this case. >> senator amy klobuchar of minnesota, member of the senate judiciary committee, thank you for being with us. >> thank you, rachel. it's great to be on. >> we'll be right back. i get it all the time.ght k "have you lost weight?" of course i have- ever since i started renting from national. because national lets me lose the wait at the counter...

...and choose any car in the aisle. and i don't wait when i return, thanks to drop & go. at national, i can lose the wait...and keep it off. looking good, patrick. i know. (vo) go national. go like a pro. ♪ one look at you and i can't disguise ♪ ♪ i've got hungry eyes applebee's new 3-course meal starting at $11.99. now that's eatin' good in the neighborhood.

let you sleep, try new nyquil severe with vicks vapocool. (acapella) whoa! (avo) and vaporize it. (acapella) ahhhh! (acapella) shhhh! (avo) new nyquil severe with vicks vapocool. the vaporizing, nighttime, coughing, aching, stuffy head, best sleep with a cold, medicine. at&t provides edge-to-edge intelligence, covering virtually every part of your healthcare business. so that if she has a heart problem & the staff needs to know, they will & they'll drop everything can you take a look at her vitals? & share the data with other specialists yeah, i'm looking at them now. & they'll drop everything hey. & take care of this baby yeah, that procedure seems right. & that one too. at&t provides edge to edge intelligence. it can do so much for your business, the list goes on and on. that's the power of &. & when your patient's tests come back... it is unprecedented for a supreme court nominee to go on

tv like brett kavanaugh did tonight in the middle of his supreme court confirmation process, but here's the reason why he and his wife might have done that fox interview tonight. fox news has just released a new poll on his nomination. this is the third time they've polled his nomination. the first time in july he got a plus 6, then he had a minus 1, now he's all the way down to minus 10. 38% say confirm him, 32% say don't. with support of all, he's 34%, don't support, 55%. by a 25% margin, people say yes, the senate should at least delay his confirmation and allow

hearings on these allegations. 56% of americans say they should delay his confirmation and allow hearings on these matters. only 31% say no, no, no, the senate should go ahead and confirm him without delay. even though men are more supportive of kavanaugh's confirmation overall compared to women, even men by a 20-point margin believe that the kavanaugh confirmation process should at least be delayed to hold hearings on these allegations. with women, the margin of support to delay the confirmation process is nearly 30 points. with men it's 20 points. very clear show of support for holding hearings on these new allegations and delaying the confirmation proceedings in the meantime. it is hard to imagine that senate republicans will be able to push this confirmation through with that kind of public sentiment right now, and with even more allegations coming out about this supreme court nominee, including, as we speak.

president trump personally is urging senators to hurry up, get the vote done, push this through. the country is absolutely against that. but that seems like their last best chance. watch this space. >> of course i had to watch every minute of our hour tonight beginning with the michael avenatti interview. so i want to get your reaction. what do you make of what michael avenatti has where he promised the kind of full version of the revelation of it within 48 hours, which i guess is the day before the thursday hearing. >> if -- yeah, i mean if that 48-hour window is correct and he and his client or clients are going to stick to that, that would put the public revelation of these allegations, it would put it out ahead of that public hearing on thursday morning. now, we know something about the character of what avenatti is alleging because of the written communication he's had with the