eastern. thanks for watching. "deadline white house" with nicolle wallace starts now. hi, everyone, it's 4:00 in new york. we're watching capitol hill and the developments around donald trump's embattled supreme court nominee brett kavanaugh. we begin with breaking news out of norristown, pennsylvania, where a judge just sentenced bill cosby to three to ten years in state prison after being convicted in april of drugging and sexuall sexually assaulting named andrea constand in 2004. the 81-year-old once known as america's dad, the judge today officially deemed cosby a sexually violent predator. nbc's ron allen is at the courthouse in norristown, pennsylvania. ron, bring us up to date on the day's dramatic events. >> reporter: it has been quite a day, nicolle. i think this day is bigger than bill cosby and we've been talking to a number of the women who have been trying to see this day come for so long. their reaction is more important than anything i can tell you.

that's why i want to introduce you to lily bernard. you've been here from almost day one. your history with bill cosby goes back to the '70s, '80s. >> no. >> i'm sorry. >> the 1990s. >> he drugged me, sexually assaulted me, raped me in the 1990s. it's a new day in rape culture, new day in the women's movement, feminism. >> reporter: all that? because he was sent to prison? >> yes. >> reporter: had he not been sent to prison but just been convicted, that was not enough? >> absolutely that was not enough. it's critically important what the judge did here because he really used the law to the maximum of his ability to show that he did care. to show that he does value the life of andrea constand and her family and to show that he cares about the community because his sentence is not only going to make the community of this norristown county a safer place, but it's going to make the nation a safer place. >> hers is the only case that can be prosecuted criminally. >> right. >> reporter: yours can't.

>> it cannot. >> reporter: do you feel -- do you feel closure, do you feel resolution, do you feel regret that you can't have the same kind of justice that andrea constand has? >> it's a mixed bag of emotions, absolutely yes to all those questions. however, i do have gratitude that she did receive justice but her justice was also a healing for all of us, but the only reason that this minimum three, maximum ten-year sentence does not reflect the magnitude of his crim crimes is because of the statute of limitations. arbitrary timeline. i, myself, have a lot of credible witnesses who are willing to testify on my behalf who have given me video testimonies. i have compelling evidence i've saved. yet i couldn't do anything with that because the incident occurred a few months outside the statute of limitations. once the statute of limitations are abolished, there will be sentences that reflect the magnitude of crime. >> reporter: this is the middle of something i've been saying all day, not the end or beginning of something. feels like the middle. a big day. much bigger than bill cosby even

though he's going to jail for three to ten years. a lot was riding on this, again, his case is the only case that could be prosecuted criminally. it there are dozens of women out there who raised allegations against him and this is just yet another day on the road to disgrace to bill cosby. >> thank you for being there for us and bringing that extraordinary interview. joining us, former u.s. attorney joyce vance who's on set with us. i remember when women who were not the accusers were permitted to testify and people like chuck rosenberg and like yourself talked about that as significant. can you talk about the significance in this case and the significance for women like the one we just heard from who was outside of her statute of limitations but feels some sort of shared justice? >> it's not unusual for multiple victims, some who can't have their cases prosecuted, while others can, to come together to these settings. particularly women who are

victims of sexual assault and provides groups of women and sometimes communities to have closure when they can see at least one woman has been taken seriously. prosecutors have moved forward and a jury found those claims sufficient beyond a reasonable doubt to impose guilt. >> none of these crimes are the same. sometimes the public conversation around them is. and i will never forget being on my ill-fated cruise at the "the view" when the cosby accusers were sort of making their voices heard, banning together and fighting for credibility. the me too movement came after that. how do you see them connected. >> i think they really were one of the issues, one of the groups that led to the emergence of me too. coming forward against bill cosby has to a vn incredibly difficult. as a nation, we weren't hard wired to take those sorts of allegations seriously. by forcing americans to pay attention and deal with them credibly, they set the stage for everything that came after them. >> all right. we're going to continue to follow this.

we're glad you're here. for other stories. we're going to turn to them now. we're following bn be inin inin kavanaugh's nomination to the supreme court. it's in danger this hour. also from the women in the senate who will likely determine his facte. alaska senator lisa murkowski out for a blunt message for kavanaugh and defenders, "take kavanaugh accusations seriously" "the new york times" writes, "miss murkowski was always expected to be a critical vote in judge kavanaugh's confirmation process but she's making clear that beyond matters of abortion, she's deeply troubled by christine blasey ford's allegation of sexual assault by judge kavanaugh when she was 15 and he was 17. in an interview murkowski says we're thousanow in a place, it' about whether or not judge kavanaugh is qualified, it's about whether or not a woman who's been a victim at some point in her life is to be believed." murkowski's considered one of about four republican swing votes on kavanaugh alongside senators susan collins, jeff

flake and corker. today senator corker dropped a potential bombshell describing an underground swell of concern within the republican ranks. >> i think most republicans feel really good about his open hearing and feel really good about their private meetings, but i'd say there's actually a large number of republicans that will pay a large number. i know the media keeps characterizing three or four people. i say there's a large number of them that want to see firsthand the accusation and, again, we'll be looking at in a very sober way. i think it's much larger than you think. >> the more vocal republicans have slarnlargely fallen into l behind the president, pushing for a swift end to the process and the political tumult. according to the "washington post," trump has been simmering with frustration over what one

official dubbed the molasses-like pace of the confirmation in the senate and today adopted his most aggressive stance yet. >> charges come up from 36 years ago that are totally unsubstantiated. there were gaps, she said she was totally inebriated and all messed up and she doesn't know it was him but might have been him. oh, gee, let's not make him a supreme court judge because of that. the second accuser has nothing. the second accuser doesn't even know she thinks maybe it could have been him, maybe not. she admits she was drunk. she admits time lapses. there were time lapses. the democrats are playing a con game. c-o-n. a con game. >> is there any -- >> and they know it's a con game. they know he's high quality. and they wink at each other. they're winking. they know it's a con game. >> that was something. the president's comments come on the heels of kavanaugh's first sit-down interview since the allegations surfaced. allegations he vehemently

denies. the source close to kavanaugh assessed last night's performance as a bit robotic but said the judge hit enough of the right notes and messages to be helpful as he heads into thursday's testimony. here to help us sift through where things stand, some of our favorite reporters and friends. joining us from the "washington post" white house reporter ashley parker. and national political reporter robert costa. joining joyce and me on set, sam stein, politics editor for the daily beast. ashley, let me start with you. your excellent reporting about the twin crises. twin calamities facing this white house. what'd you make of the president's really uncorked and unplugged comments this morning about kavanaugh's accuser? >> well, a couple people put it to us, the president is someone who's been accused of sexual assault and misbehavior by more than a dozen woman so his natural reaction, he's not someone who's spoesespecially k for his empathy but have visual empathy for other powerful men

in the sense he believes how horrible could it be to have your reputation ruined by one accusation. it's something he feels like he's been through. and also the president's natural instinct is to fight and is to double down. and so you've seen the president. his aides had really worked to try to keep him out of this kavanaugh debate. they said weighing in and public comments or tweets would not particularly help, but as the process has dragged on, more accusers have come forward, as the president has believed leader mcconnell is slow walking this process, that chairman grassley is getting rolled by democrats, you're seeing him come out and being more vocal. so i think what we saw this morning is not particularly surprising. it's also not necessarily particularly helpful to the republican cause, but i don't think it surprises anyone. >> robert costa, is it helpful to the effort to corral the -- if you believe senator corker, perhaps, more than four, on the fence republican senators that they need to keep on the

kavanaugh side, to have the president out there basically trashing brett kavanaugh's accu accuser? >> it's not helpful based on my conversations with senate republican sources. at the same time, they say that most of these republican senators, whether it's senator corker, senator collins, or senator murkowski, are really at a point where they're making independent decisions. they see the president's voice as almost a distraction. it's a senate process. it's a senate vote. it's a senate decision. and the president in their view is really trying to rally conservatives and republican base voters around this as a cause. just weeks before the midterm elections. and they see privately in their conversations there's a certain purpose to that etch though it's different than their own decision in the senate. >> robert costa, is there any appreciation for, you know, mcconnell isn't a gifted public speaker. he doesn't rally hearts and minds but does know his way around a supreme court fight on both sides either blocking it or getting one through. is there any sense on the white house side that maybe if they put a cork in the president,

send him to some cocktail parties around the unga, that that might be more helpful to mcconnell's effort which is really a dance at this point with those on-the-fence senators? >> there's actually a resignation that the tensions between the white house and the senate gop leaders can't really be solved. they're just trying to move forward together. ashley had some terrific reporting on this about how the president called senate majority leader mcconnell over the weekend and really railed against the process and said it needs to be moving more quickly. he would like to see a more assertive take from mcconnell. mcconnell has been pretty assertive saying he has the votes. he's confident the nomination is going to move forward. but mcconnell also knows, he needs to have this process play out so that senators like murkowski and collins can be comfortable and they feel like they've had this hearing and enough voices have been heard. >> ashley, take us into some of your reporting about the president's mindset. if you have anything on how the president and the people around him felt about last night's fox news interview with judge kavanaugh and his wife, ashley. let us know what you're hearing.

>> sure. so, again, the president's mindset is that he wants this done and he wants it done quickly. and that's what we reported, he conveyed. a pretty frustrated call with leader mcconnell on saturday that he basically said you need to hold this vote and you need to hold it now. and of course, leader mcconnell as bob was saying is in a tough situation of trying to explain to the president that look at my public comments. look at my very vigorous floor speech yesterday. i'm with you. i want judge kavanaugh to be confirmed, too. mcconnell has to deal with senate procedure. and he's had to explain to the president that, you know, i can't hold the vote until i actually have the votes to confirm him. and there are these senators who are on the fence and we have to go through this process. as for that interview, it was my understanding something that was being pushed, at least the setup, by the white house press team, for kavanaugh and his wife. there was a little reluctance and reticence on their part at

first. but the president called judge kavanaugh before the fox interview to tell him, which him good luck and it's something that obviously the president, it's a channel the president watches very closely. and an issue he's been following very closely. >> let's watch a little bit of that. >> i never sexually assaulted anyone, not in high school, not ever. i've never had any sexual or physical activity with dr. ford. i am not questioning and have not questioned that perhaps dr. ford at some point in her life was sexually assaulted by someone in some place. but what i know is i've never sexually assaulted anyone. i mean, i've said all along, and ashley, too, i want to be heard. i want a fair process where i can defend my integrity and clear my name. i just want a fair process where i can be heard. fair process. fair process. fair process.

i'm not going to let false accusations drive us out of this process. i'm not going anywhere. >> is one of the tools that would help judge kavanaugh with his goal, which is obviously for the process to be fair and his stated goal is to clear his name, would be to have sort of a seal of approval from an fbi investigation that is thorough and in-depth and that isn't a hostage to the political whims and calendar. >> it does strike me that in talking to folks on the hill that there are two ways forward for him to get confirmed ultimately. the first is to degrade the accuser. she was confused. she had the wrong guy. maybe she was sexually assaulted but it wasn't me. or to a certain degree, people have gone further, more aggressive than that. the second way to do it would be to be completely and ultimately transparent about what happened. open the books. bring in an independent investigator. call for an independent investigator. could be the fbi, could be someone else. say i will sit down for however many hours you want to question me. bring in your friend, mark judge, bring in everybody who can attest to the fact that you

simply were not there, you didn't do it, and that your character is outstanding. they haven't done that. and they have gone with the first idea. now, he's very much more subtle and soft with the allegations against her saying i'm not saying she is wrong, but it just wasn't me. other people have been very aggressive about their pushback toward her and far more aggressive toward her pushback to debby ramirez. i was struck. we kind of talked over it, but donald trump is the most powerful man on earth. okay? debby ramirez is in an incredibly vulnerable position. you might think she brought her allegation forward in an unfair manner. you might think it's opportunistic. she's in an incredibly vulnerable position right now. for the president to turn his sights on her and say that she was drunk insinuating, therefore, she deserved whatever it is she said happened to her, is fairly go tecrotesqgrotesque >> let's talk about that for a minute. this is a moment that goes beyond the kavanaugh nomination fight, right? >> right. >> there's bad behavior that happens on every college campus

and probably every high school community where there's drinking and bad decisions made. we just heard the leader of the free world basically say that if bad things happen, it's a drunk woman's fault at least in part. >> yeah. and i find that to be a horrible thing to say. like i said, the power dynamics are terrible. i guess for donald trump, maybe the idea is that he, himself, has never been punished for these types of allegations when they've been thrown at him. and they've been thrown at him a lot. and so maybe it is that he cannot fathom or wrap his head around the idea that someone who he has appointed should be punished as well. that's why he feels so inclined to go on the offensive. he's never been shown that there's a punishment for doing so. >> he doesn't have that filter, joyce, that you don't just blame a victim. you don't just blame a woman. i mean k, he defended roy moore without shame or embarrassment, rob porter without shame or embarrassment the or compassion. this case is so interesting to me and the role of the fbi, the fbi seems to be at the middle of every big story right now in

washington. you have an accuser in professor ford who said come on in to the fbi, investigate these claims, i remember what i remember. i have records of my own trauma from my notes from therapy. come in and try to verify my account. judge kavanaugh seems to be saying the same thing. he believes in his own innocence. why not try to bolster judge kavanaugh's innocence if you believe that's. wh what it is with a full non-rushed, deep investigation by the fbi? >> and, you know, even the idea of a non-rushed investigation is not something that would go on for an extended period of time. >> right. >> the fbi does background clearances. they can do them very quickly. in the case of judicial nominations. but kavanaugh's on the horns of a dilemma here because the president who nominated him has spent the better part of the last year slicing and dicing the fbi's credibility. and so, perhaps, it was asking too much for kavanaugh to go on fox news, speaking, perhaps, to an audience of one. and to call the fbi, to

legitimize the fbi and ask them to be the ones who come forward for him. it's difficult to understand how this process moves forward. if it sounds this is just about bashing the credibility of accusers. this has to be for the sake of the integrity of the court about upholding judge kavanaugh's reputation and credibility when he makes decisions that will have bearing on the -- >> i want to jump on that because i don't think people are properly appreciating the damage reputationly to the institution of the court. if they were to rush this nomination through in the next couple days and get it through with a 50-50 vote. >> there's an incredible piece in the "national review" of all cases making the case, conservative media outlets making a case for the fbi investigation for the same reason, if you rush this, if these questions remain out there viewed as unanswered or unanswerable, when that's not the case, i watch a lot of discovery tv. people investigate cold cases all the time. there are multiple series. i mean, why not open this up and investigate? why -- this seems to be, robert

costa, what lisa murkowski is sort of asking for. she had some comments and remarks in a couple stakeouts on capitol hill and equivocated a little bit. it seems like something that would be helpful to her based on her interview in "the new york times" yesterday and comments today up on capitol hill. >> there's a lot of anxiety among my republican sources who say if there's not an fbi investigation, you could have the democrats take over the house majority in many november. and they could even try to move to impeach judge kavanaugh if he's justice kavanaugh at that point from the court. you can have that kind of proceeding happen in the congress and there's also concern about this fox news interview he did by talking about his own sex life and making different statements, he's really opening himself up to almost any sort of question for thursday's hearing. that he can't say, well, i don't want to talk about something on thursday if he's already spoken at length about his personal life on fox news. so they see why the white house wants him to get out there. they also think there's a lot of political risk at play. >> ashley, take us inside the white house view on the political risk, whether or not

they're willing or even privately yet starting to assume any responsibility for any of this. it seems like the white house could have called for that fbi investigation the minute the first allegations were published in the "washington post." >> well, what's interesting here is you've seen the white house stance and, frankly, the stance of kavanaugh allies and conservative groups in general change between the first accusation then sort of the next bucket of accusations. after the first one, they were quite concerned. they still sort of publicly defended him but they really -- it felt potentially true to them. they weren't sure how this would play. they're still worried about public testimony from dr. ford. they were quite nervous and there was even private chatter of, look, if he doesn't make, i, we could push someone else flu who would be equally conservative. after the "new yorker" story came out and michael avenatti who toyed with running as president in 2020 as a democrat said he has a third accuser he's

representing. that sort of fairly or unfairly, they believe that these accusations were more flimsy and that galvanized supporters of kavanaugh who let's keep in mind the president doesn't feel any particular affinity to judge kavanaugh, himself, what he wants is a conservative justice on the court. he wants a win. he wants something he can sell to his base in november. but it made everyone kind of double down on him and sort of say, this is now a political smear and we really have to push him through because there could be consequences for the midterms ifcosta, do you have reporting as of this hour about where the votes stand? i got a note from someone involved on the kavanaugh side who said it's going to go down to the wire with the four senators we named, collins, murkowski, corker and flake. but corker seemed to insinuate it was a much bigger universe of undecided senators. >> corker's right. based on my reporting the senator is really spot-on. while mcconnell told reporters today the majority leader that

he has the votes, he suggested the votes are there, it's going to come down to this hearing and hearing is so much different than an interview on a cable channel. that you're under oath, you're going to get pressed on questions and republicans are going to be judged not only on how kavanaugh handles the scrutiny, but also how do they handle dr. ford should she come forward and take questions and answer questions? this is a republican standoff. a republican crucible that can go any way at this point. and most republicans who count votes in if the senate know that it's very fluid as much as people are expressing confidence. >> robert costa, ashley parker, thank you both so much for getting us started. when we come back, all eyes on rod rosenstein. the deputy attorney general plans to meet with the president on thursday to discuss his future. how that discussion could impact the future of the russia investigation. and as always world's leaders descend on new york city for the annual gathering of the u.n. general assembly, our wake-up in it the middle of the night nightmare comes true. the world is, indeed, laughing at us. thank you, donald. six weeks and counting.

new polling suggests a big blue wave is coming with most polls showing that the house is very much in reach for democrats. the question now is the senate possibly in play, too? all those stories next.

can't be fun to be rod rosenstein, but there are few individuals with more riding on them than the country's deputy attorney general. when we came on the air yesterday, his fate in that post was up in the air. now that some of the smoke has cleared, here's what we know about rosenstein's dramatic day yesterday. "the new york times" reporting when rod rosenstein, the deputy attorney general, headed to the white house on monday morning,

he was ready to resign and convinced, wrongly, it turned out, that president trump was about to fire him. top justice department aides scrambled to draft a statement about who would succeed him. by the afternoon, mr. rosenstein was back at his pennsylvania avenue office seven blocks away, still employed as the second in command at the justice department, and for the time being, at least, still in charge of the russia investigation. if you need a reminder about just how vital rosenstein's role is in the russia investigation, take a look at how trump's lawyer, jay sekulow, planneded to mark rosenstein's departure. >> i think it's really important that there be a step back taken here and a review and i think it's a review that has to be thorough and complete and a review that has to include an investigationtrans py transpired with statements and al ga allegations going back to strzok and page and bruce ohr and time-out on this inquiry. >> our colleague, joe

scarborough, had a few close words for sekulow. >> let me get this straight. if you and the man that you work for breaks constitutional norms, creates a 21st century version of the saturday night massacre. >> right. >> throw, my god, basic issues of law and order. >> uh-huh. >> sky high over washington. >> law and order. yep. >> and if the president commits the single greatest act of obstruction of justice by any chief executive since richard nixon's saturday night massacre, you think that should reward you? and rudy giuliani? and donald trump's lawyers with a, quote, time-out? no. no. >> it doesn't add up. >> you don't understand. >> joining the table now, "new york times" op-ped columnist brett stephens and former democratic congressman steve israel. brett, let me start with you.

this idea that -- i think the problem with analyzing donald trump and his attorneys is that they do all of thaz bad behavei behavior on the airwaves. they wanted to pause the investigation into russian interference in the 2016 election. they wanted to pause that after firing rosenstein? what do you make of how obvious and blatant they are in their efforts to undermine the investigation? >> it's obvious and obvious and blatant because they have persuaded nearly the entire republican base that the investigation is meritless, that bob mueller is a democratic operative, that the investigators and lawyers who have managed to obtain convictions from paul manafort and michael flynn and other senior people are all just political operators. this is their goal. to delegitimize as nakedally as they can an investigation being conducted by a republican and the former head of the fbi. so in a way, i kind of commend them, at least -- >> the audacity.

>> for the audacity, the frankness. the brazenness of the strategy. sometimes that mixes, i think, in an interesting way with what they do with rudy giuliani. he was just kind of thrown out there as, like, a smoke bomb or a clown at a circus to divert you from what may or may not be happening. but i think, you know, you got to give sekulow credit. he laid out the strategy on the table for us to see. and also reminded us of why it's so important that rosenstein stay where he is. >> how important is rod rosenstein at this moment? >> in terms of the midterm elections? in terms of -- >> no, elections aside, in terms of american national security. in terms of robert mueller -- >> vitally important. >> -- being able to complete his investigation. in terms of some semblance of a guardrail remaining on this wild and chaotic white house. >> yeah, look, let's stop back and factor out the politics of this and the optics. this is a fundamental matter of american national security. the american people deserve to know whether there was collusion. whether there were conversations between trump or his surrogates

and the russians. bob mueller is the one person in the united states of america who is investigating this fairly and trying to get us to an answer. rod ro rosenstein's continuatiot the department of justice is imperative in ensuring the continuity and integrity of that. were he to go, i think we're in a completely different ball game. >> joyce, rod rosenstein yesterday, it's been reported by multiple news organizations, h his job was up in the air. he considered resigning. i had heard that he called the white house, senior advisers to the pst over the weekend, and said i think it's time for me to go. a lot would happen. that would be a domino that would put in place a lot of different things not least of which, is it one way or another, rosenstein would probably be called to capitol hill to testify about the claims in the story friday that he offered to wear a wire, that he -- that there were discussions about the 25th amendment. there's also some reporting about -- about the mccabe memos and this is a little in the weeds. our reporters could write their

own books about the russia investigation by the end of it. i want to read a little bit about the mccabe memos. representative goodlatte who is a conservative republican on the house intel committee who's a real agitator against the republican-led justice department said he planned to issue a subpoena for mr. mcca mccabe's memos as soon as this week. house republicans clo se to mr. trump made one attempt to retain copies of them but rebuffed by the culture department. talk about this culture of memo taking. people who don't work in the justice department don't understand this is sort solve sophistica sophisticated, police deparent culture, you get pulled over, the reason you have to sit there, in my case, you want your speeding ticket. they go back to their car and takes them 20 minutes to write a report. this is a culture of really important people dealing with really important national security issues and it takes them -- they document everything. in real time. >> it is. you take notes for one primary purpose and that's so you can ensure that everything that needs to happen at the end of a meeting actually happens. and that down the road, you

recall what people said, what the various positions were that stacked up and that you move forward accurately on that basis. in the fbi, there's an even more hard wired culture of note taking. agents write fbi 302s. they're reports of interview for every meeting with a witness. in the upper echelons on the bureau, they document everything. these notes are remarkably accurate. you know, i can go back years back or could when i was in the department and look at notes and have a very clear picture of what happened in a meeting because sometimes you needed that sort of longevity of recollection to continue the work. so these notes are reliable. they're steadfast. and they can be treated down the road with credibility. as sources of information for mueller or up on the hill during impeachment proceedings. >> so with a better understanding of just how much detail there is around everything that transpired in in the justice department since trump became president, why do you think rosenstein might have at some points yesterday wanted to resign? >> rosenstein who was a u.s.

attorney in both the bush administration and then for the full term of the obama administration is someone who's steeped in the culture of the justice department. he believes in the mission. i have rarely seen him have even a political opinion. this is someone who has a spine, who believes the department should do its work and believes that it should be done in the right way. he may have reached a point of frustration or a point where he believed he could no longer be effective in that role. but, of course, he would have seen what so many of us have voiced is the need for him to remain if place. even if it's an imperfect situation so that the mueller investigation can move on to its logical conclusion unimpeded. >> what do you think happens on thursday? >> good question. i don't think anyone knows what happens on thursday. i mean, for -- >> you think rosenstein knows? >> no. >> i think for three hours yesterday, the world was on fire then it was not. and then if anyone could live through that and determine what's going to happen on thursday, they're a better fortuneteller than i.

i will note one thing that's peculiar to me, i don't know what to make of it, after "the new york times" story broke exposing these comments and subsequent reporting suggested he was maybe -- rosenstein was maybe being sarcastic in talking about the 25th amendment and wiret wiretapping, sean hannity got on air and said -- or on twitter and said, please, do not fire this man, it will be a -- you know, you're being set up. laura ingraham who tweeted he should be fired erased her tweet. so there are forces happening behind the scenes trying to talk trump off the proverbial edge. something happened over the weekend, though, that may have changed that tune and it's, you know, intrepid reporters will figure this out. it's clear to me that not everyone is on board getting rid of this guy. there are certain people on the hill who clearly, clearly want to bring him up there, want to have him testify about what was going on in those days. but the people who trump really listens to, the fox hosts seem not be totally on board. >> i think the stakes are basically this. this is either the beginning of the end of the trump presidency or it's the beginning of the end of the justice department. because i think rosenstein has

represented the integrity of the department against the efforts by the president to undermine that integrity against the fact that he has as an attorney general someone who is either neutered or complicit, depending on the subject, and the day of the week. i think the people who are going to work in that department understand so long as rosenstein is there, he represents a kind of a shield for what it is that they do. for the institutional process. for the integrity of the institutions within -- within the department, itself. if rosenstein goes, and is able to put in someone like sessions as his number two, we're in real trouble as a country. >> i hope the justice department saw that, brett stevens. after the break, another milestone in the trump presidency. the world literally laughing at an american president as he stands on top of, in front of, the world stage. that's next. i'm ken jacobus, i'm the owner of good start packaging. we distribute environmentally-friendly

packaging for restaurants. and we've grown substantially. so i switched to the spark cash card from capital one. i earn unlimited 2% cash back on everything i buy. and last year, i earned $36,000 in cash back. that's right, $36,000. which i used to offer health insurance to my employees. my unlimited 2% cash back is more than just a perk, it's our healthcare. can i say it? what's in your wallet?

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.

my administration has accomplished more than almost any administration in the history of our country. america -- so true. didn't expect that reaction, but that's okay. >> that was the sound of the world literally laughing at trump. his claim in an address to the u.n. general assembly that the administration has accomplished more than any other in history causing a stir among the world leaders and top diplomats in the crowd. but the puffery didn't end there. the president went on to boast about america's strength and power touting his commitment to an america first foreign policy and rebuking globalism. his at times aggressive message drawing head shakes at the u.n. as the "ap" reports.

joining us at the table, nbc news chief foreign affairs correspondent andrea mitchell. i worked for a president who came to the unga when there were disagreements about extraordinary rendition, about the war in iraq, enhanced interrogation. those were policy differences. he was never scoffed. i mean, he took that speech seriously. it was written by serious foreign policy advisers like condoleezza rice, colin powell and others. "the new york times" is reporting stephen miller, his immigration hardliner, wrote this speech today. it doesn't seem like an overstatement to call it a disgrace. >> it was very, very awkwardly written and had the president of the united states coming and saying we're being taken advantage of and from now on, we're going to give foreign aid only to countries that help us. rejecting the whole -- >> what does that mean? >> -- idea that he was speaking to a global assembly of people who were there because they believe in burden sharing. in helping each other. in getting each other out of crises. not cutting the peacekeeping money that the u.s. has cut. not cutting all, all u.n.

palestinian refugee aid. zeroed out. expecting the palestinians to come back to the table. crawl back to the table. after you've pummeled them. even rejecting the appeals of ron lauder, former pentagon official in the reagan. add investigation. he administration. pleading with them not to start taking money from lutheran hospitals in arab east jerusalem which they have done. so they have turned their back on canada, no meeting with justin trudeau. he criticized angela merkel and had no unkind words, no words about vladimir putin. when theresa may was giving a speech today about skripal and the use of chemical weapons and nerve agent. turning his back on europe, certainly no middle east peace plan from the son-in-law. and we've yet to see any progress and this is why because he came to the u.n. and said, we've been taken advantage of.

we don't believe in these global deals. we don't believe in world trade and from now on, every country for itself. but, oh, by the way, we don't like the way you're running your regime in iran with good reason, don't like what's happening in venezuela which is a disgrace and let's get together and do something about those governments. it made absolutely no sense. >> we spend a lot of time here. iing about the obliteration of norms. never do you see on full display what that looks like for al ofs. this country, we talk about him and 35% to 37% hardcore base. on the satage at the u.n., he's for better or worse all of our president and where things fell apart today. you're talking about his i guess ideological underpinning on aiding other countries, what do they do for us? it's not a campaign slogan. a lot of foreign aid is to secure our national security, to help people -- >> exactly. >> -- with less than us. who -- do we talk too much? do we make too much of the

alleged guardrails? doesn't sound like the guardrails got a copy of today's speech. >> it gets lost in the swamp of threats, counterthreats, the threats against iran. now, let's give credit where credit is due. and i'm reluctant to do this because of all the u.s. intelligence which contradicts it, but he's no longer calling kim jong-un rocket man. he's no longer saying we can destroy you if it becomes necessary. he's talking about a second summit. i don't think the first one was warranted, but better that they're talking than hurling missiles at each other. so, perhaps that could lead to something. the intelligence is that kim jong-un has not started either disclosing his weapons inventory, dismantling them, or permitting verification. the three demands that a very smart guy, secretary pompeo, made, when he was put in charge of this very difficult negotiation. so there is that. it's no longer fire and fury against north korea and iran. it's now just iran. >> what do you make of the idea -- this is the first u.n. general assembly since we learned from the anonymous

op-ped in "the new york times," in the woodward book, that a lot of people inside the government describe it as a two-h track presidency. he's allowed to watch tv and tweet but serious questions about american foreign policy, the grown-ups have their hands on the steering wheel. >> i've always thought that theory was dubious. a unitary secretary, at the end of the day we call people secretaries. secretary pompeo, secretary matt mattis, secretaries for a reason. undermines their insignificance. presidents get their way. what the president especially gets to do is set the ideological tone of his administration. look, all of these u.n. speeches are world leaders speaking to their own people. they're not really speaking to the rest of -- >> very good point. >> merkel speaks to the germans. president speaks to americans. when he talks about america first, he is appealing to a very old, dangerous instinct that's always been with the united states which is a kind of idea that we can separate ourselves from the world, go our own way and be safe from the rest of the

world. we should have learned our lesson about where that leads back in 1941 and with pearl harbor. i think what needs to be underscored is america first at the end of the day is america alone. people used to say about obama, oh, he's alienating our friends and he's sucking up to our enemies. if that's the case, this is -- this is that squared and tripled because as andrea so rightly pointed out, where's the criticism of someone like vladimir putin undermining the democracy of the west and the united states? why is it that our friends and traditional allies get the brunt of his criticism whereas our longstanding foes seem to get the benefit of his doubt? that is the issue here. >> i agree with that, but there are clear cases where he says one thing on a foreign policy front and his administration is putting together an entirely diametrically different foreign policy. syria policy, talking about how we defeated isis and going to get out of the country. general mattis is talk bing abo

about long-term troop presence there. with iran, he's floated this idea of having a high-stakes summit with iranian leadership as john bolton is talking about putting the clamps down on the count country. there are cases where we just don't really know what actually the administration policy is and i don't think this speech actually helped -- >> as you know, nicolle, a president's speech at the u.n. general assembly is not written by one speechwriter and revised by the president. it's widely vetted across the administration. >> this one wasn't. >> it's looked at by the national security agency, looked at by the secretary of defense, looked at by the cia direct e the ndi. if this is a speech that really was written by one guy, and read by another who came across like the crazy uncle at the thanksgiving day dinner at the united nations. let me tell you, that is more dangerous than we thought because it reflects an administration that really has no foreign policy. but maybe a bunch of conflicting foreign policies and an administration that is led by an individual who is not feared,

who is not respected, who is a laugh line, our foreign policy has become a laugh line an the united nations. that makes us less safe. >> last word. >> there certainly was no applause. there are two things to what you said, sam. there has been a moment recently, because of the timing on the same day, where the president -- his declassification order under the pleas of the intelligence and foreign policy communities because the foreign agencies didn't want -- >> and allies. >> -- to share with us anymore. at the same time, he's at a refugee camp ignoring this. and pompeo just sort of caved in. >> all right. definitely not boring. unbelievable times. andrea mitchell, thank you for spending time with us. when we come back, democrats hoping for a blue wave in november are feeling better about their chances by the day. thanks to some new polling, but the big question everyone's asking, does that wave reach all the way to texas? this is important for people with asthma.

yes. it's a targeted medicine proven to help prevent severe asthma attacks, and lower oral steroid use. about 50% of people with severe asthma have too many cells called eosinophils in their lungs. fasenra™ is designed to work with the body to target and remove eosinophils. fasenra™ is an add-on injection for people 12 and up with severe eosinophilic asthma. don't use fasenra™ for sudden breathing problems or other problems caused by eosinophils. fasenra™ may cause headache, sore throat,

and allergic reactions. get help right away if you have swelling of your face, mouth, and tongue, or trouble breathing. don't stop your asthma treatments unless your doctor tells you to. tell your doctor if your asthma worsens or if you have a parasitic infection. fasenra™ is a targeted treatment for eosinophilic asthma. that's important. ask an asthma specialist about fasenra™.

m midterm elections are six weeks from day and democrats are now up 12 points in the "wall street journal" ballot. short and sweet, remember the midterms. but trump might have real reason to worry. the same pole shows 59% of registered voters want a significant change in the way that he is leading the country. what do you think? dontsd gi don't give me spin. >> no, democrats will win the house of democrats, but because of restricting, it won't be like the 60 seats that the republicans won in the last wave in 2010. are more like the 33 seats that the democrats won in 2006 if there is a wave, and there will be, the democrats will win the house. the question is whether this generic is strong enough to

propel the democrats to the majority in the senate. i think that is going to be -- i want to think this generic slinslin shrinks towards the end. >> let's talk about whether that wave could reach the texas senate race and i want to read what you wrote about the republican candidate ted cruz because it made me year. this is you you writing in the new york times about ted cruz, he is like a serpent covered in vaseline because he treats the american people like two bit suckers in 10 gallon hats because he sucks up to the guy who insulted his wife. because of his phony piety and phonier principles. because i see him as the spiritual love child of the 1980s jimmy swagert. his ets are situati sethics are. because of new york values. because his fellow politicians detest him. and that is just among republicans. because he never got over among be the smartest kid in 8th

grade. he is not perceptive to know that you see right through him. he would sell his family into slavery if that is what it took to get elected and he would use that slave as a sob story. otherwise i'm his number one fan. >> is is that cathartic? >> and did i miss something? >> but seriously, do you think that makes him vulnerable? this is something that i've known since 2000. now i know that everybody knows thanks in part to your descriptive words. but do you think that makes him more vulnerable that everyone know that is he is despised in the republican party? >> he is not like ordinary -- there is ordinary political slipperiness with some notable honorable exceptions, and then there is the full can of grease that he sort of -- that he

represents. look, i do think that he is vulnerable. the fact that it is so close in texas really does tell you something. it also tells you how much candidate quality matters. you have in gbeto o'rourke who looks like he is human being, he sounds like a normal person and occasion. and not least, cruz did himself no favors in the election by the way in which he was on again/off again with trump. frankly for republicans, you are either all in or you are all out. you're either on the side of flake and mccain or you are a trumpkin. his act is hurting him. >> what is left to say? he was pretty vicious. i think good politicians are able to pretends like they are not pretending. you can act natural even though that is what you are trying to

do is act natural. and ted cruz just doesn't do that. when you look at him, you you realize that his eyes on the next seats that he can take. and i think what was fortunate for him, he came around at a time when people in the republican party were rewarding this type of ambition, the whole knock it all todown on type of approach and i don't think that we are there now. we've turned away from that. republicans now in charge and they want to know what are you actually doing. and he cannot point to much. and i think that is really hampering him. and to your point about betment on, put aside the charisma and the live streaming, if you are look at shear money, the guy brought in $9 million in one month. that is at troh anonymous cis a. so he will have the money to play in that race. >> all right. we have to sneak in our last break. we'll be right back. it is time for "your

business" of the week. this entrepreneur in the hair care industry cannot stop himself from founding companies. he has created five brands, 300 plus products and earned millions for himself. find out what his winning formula is and why he keeps coming back. that is on "your business" sunday morning at 7:30 eastern on msnbc. 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.

today's senior living communities have never been better, with amazing amenities like movie theaters, exercise rooms and swimming pools, public cafes, bars and bistros even pet care services. and there's never been an easier way to get great advice. a place for mom is a free service that pairs you with a local advisor to help you sort through your options and find a perfect place. a place for mom. you know your family we know senior living. together we'll make the right choice. >> tech: so you think this chip is nothing to worry about? well at safelite, we know sooner or later every chip will crack. these friends were on a trip

when their windshield got chipped. so they scheduled at safelite.com. they didn't have to change their plans or worry about a thing. i'll see you all in a little bit. and i fixed it right away with a strong repair they can trust. plus, with most insurance a safelite repair is no cost to you. >> customer: really?! >> tech: being there whenever you need us that's another safelite advantage. >> singers: safelite repair, safelite replace.

question caso where do you e heading in to thursday? >> on thursday we'll see if the rule of law holds in this country. it is bound to be a momentous day. >> for both stories. >> absolutely. >> we'll be roping you into service all day. my thanks to sam, bret, steve, joyce. that does it for our hour. hi, chuck. sorry that i think folks captured weird facial expressions of mine. >> people would pay money to see your tweeweird -- i would. >> well, maybe you would. yellow, yellow, yellow, i'll let this go. >> you said it, not me. >> yes, ma'am. if it is tuesday, judge kavanaugh takes a page from the trump playbook. ♪ good evening. i i'm chuck todd. we begin about a pr blitz,