for his part, o'rourke says it was not right what happened in that restaurant. he says the cruz family deserves to be treated with respect. that's our broadcast tonight, thank you so very much for being here with us, good night from nbc news headquarters here in new york. one of these nights i will be able to open up the show, thanks chris, thanks to you at home joining us at this hour where i have not to say hey, we are in the middle of breaking news or do things in a way that's unusual and i have to throw away half of the show. one of these nights we'll get to the shore of normal news. we are not yet on that blissful shore. tear up the show, let's start with a developing story again this evening. late this evening, senate republicans announced they schedule a potential vote on the nomination of brett kavanaugh to the united states supreme court. that nomination has been in

turmoil since allegations arose in sexual misconduct against kavanaugh including one case of alleged attempted rape. the allegation scentcentered on time in high school and college. brett kavanaugh denied all of it. dr. christine ford says he tried to rape her when he was 17. they should allow the fbi to re-open its background check of brett kavanaugh to look into her allegations about this alleged attempted rape. senate republicans said no to that. dr. ford also asked the committee to take testimonies from witnesses who she says could potentially corroborate elements of her story, senate republicans also said no to that. she further asked senators to at least question her themselves rather than appoint outside lawyers to question her as if

she's being put on trial herself for some kind of wrong doing. republicans not only said no to that, they appointed and experienced former prosecutors to question dr. ford in front of the senate and they won't say who it is. it is a secret. >> dr. christine blasey ford is scheduled to testify on thursday. first thing friday morning, which apparently means they plan to move forward on a vote without ever hearing testimony from the second accuser who came forward after christine blasey ford with a second serious claim of judge kavanaugh. her name is debra ramirez. she personnelspelled out her al that was published this weekend. she said when she was in college

and brett kavanaugh was a classmate of hers, he put his genitals in her face and forcing her to touch them as she tried to put them away. she says she was embarrassed and humiliated. she remembered brett kavanaugh standing to her right and laughing and pulling up his pants. he's laughing and i can still see his face and his hips coming forward. another male student shouting about the incident. "somebody yelled down the hall, brett kavanaugh, just put his penis in deborah's face." he said he was quote 100% sure that hef was told that the the time that brett kavanaugh was the student that is had exposed himself to miss ramirez. >> after that allegation was

published, senator feinstein, asked for a further delay in the proceeding for brett kavanaugh. this allegation can be looked at. tonight the republican committee chairman chuck grassley rejected that request from diane feinstein. s he says there should be no reason for any delay. why would they not want to hear from her? i mean they're holding the hearing already. the attorney for deborah ramirez stands byúher story. miss ramirez's attorney says quote, only came forward after being contacted at the new yorker and carefully worked through her memories and only to ensure her accuracy.

we reached out to the senate committee to discuss a call and discuss how best to bring them of that information. they refused to meet all scheduled appointments. we have officially requested an fbi investigation and our clients remain adamant, ms. ramirez is ready to squawear toe fbi under perjury. her attorney's name is john cloone. you can hear him asking why the nate committee which is hearing the nomination for the supreme court, why they would not want to hear testimony from his client, why they would not want to receive information from his client about that nominee that they are considering. >> it does seem a little mysterious. why senate republicans are not waiting for her allegations to be heard and the white house said today basically, yeah,

maybe she should testify, how about the same day that dr. ford is going to be there on thursday? >> does the president want ms. ramirez to appear in front of the senate committee as well? >> we'll be open to that. that process can take place on thursday. >> certainly, the white house can be opened to that. our nominee can take place on thursday. >> that's apparently not what's foi going to happen. senate republicans are not just saying they don't see the testimony of one woman of another woman. not only are they not waiting to hear from ramirez but they are bull dosing ahead, they decided they won't. why are republicans trying to move this so fast? why didn't they not want this new person's testimony before they vote because she's offering to testify under pain and perjury. and if as mr. cloone says there has been contact, they have made

an effort to contact the judiciary committee and refuse to meet all scheduled appointments to discuss this allegation against kavanaugh. my basic question is is this a live issue? is it possible that she would still testify or that the committee in some other way will hear her allegation? joining us now is the attorney who represents ramirez in this matter. john cloone, thank you for joining us, i appreciate you making time for us. >> thank you, rachel. >> you said you reached out to the senate judicial committee that there was an effort made to discuss how best to bring him of this information that's put forward by your client. can you tell us the status of those discussions or those negotiations. >> sure. so we had a number of e-mail communications back and forth and every time we tried to set up a phone call with them, they end up pushing the phone call back and since i sent out that tweet about two hours ago, we

had a phone call scheduled and we called in for the phone call and only the minority party showed for the phone call. so received communications from the chairman's staff but only dams were on the ca democratic staffs are on the call? >> that's correct. >> what do you miesk thake of t? >> they keep on changing the rules and every time we want to talk about it, they push it back. >> it is hard to see they are interested or getting the information miss ramirez has. >> in terms of ms. ramirez, she did not come forward and offer her story to these reporters but rather these reporters approached her after they had heard about this incident from

other people. they suggested and said in her piece that your client, miss ramirez was rueluctant and unsue whether she wants to make this allegation publicly. can you shed any lights on her thought process and what she's been through over the past few days after this allegation as come to life. >> sure, she receive add phone call from farrow one day when she was at work at the boulder county health and human services, she had not talked about this manner many years prior to this. she had a hard time deciding whether to call mr. farrow and back and she started getting messages from other reporters and it was not going to go away so she made the decision to cooperate with mr. farrow. she was just responding of the call she got and she told us candidly of the recollection that she had of what happened.

>> the fact that other people may have alerted reporters to her story, that it did not come from her, raises the issue obviously that tells us something about the human factor of what heshe's going through he that learning that her name may be coming public and reporters are already discussing her regarding to the allegation and raises questions of witnesses and whether or not people who were aware of this had happened or had reasons to speak to reporters about it. in terms of ms. ramirez and her recollection, can you tell us if there are other corroborating witnesses or close to the time of the incident or who knew about the incident when it happened who would be willing to speak about it now? >> right, there has been. some of those witnesses were identified in the new yorker piece and some of those witnesses did not cooperate but

could be interviewed booy the f. there is not a lot of question that this actually happened. you have a situation where there are a number of people who are interviewed and said yes, they heard about it at night and they heard about it in a couple of days afterwards. some of the people that followed yale students and talk about it openly, i wonder if the story is going to come forward, i don't think there is any questions that the incident actually occurred. judge kavanaugh may suggest a case of mistake and identity. our client disclose her mother and sister of 35 years ago of what happened. there is plenty more people that needed to be contacted that it is going to be a real investigation and find out what happened, that can be. at this point, it does not look like much of a momentum that's taken place. >> in terms of the discussion that you tried to start with the senate committee, have any of those discussions included the possibility of other people also offering testimonies to the

committee or being interviewed by committee investigators. has that either come up or is that part of what you would be willing to talk to the community about? >> here is the problem, rachel, they won't taulk lk to us. the minority party would not speak to us. we don't know what they are willing to do. the demand they keep on making a lot is give us every piece of information that you have now and then we'll talk about scheduling a phone call and that's just not the kind of partisan game playing that you know our client deserves. it is not fair to her. >> why do you say partisan game playing as an attorney advising your client here, why is that something that you don't want to do? >> you know the idea that they won't even talk to her council about what the process may looked like or the options are, that tells me what are they are planning is going to be by ambush or used as a footnote to the confirmation process and this will be dealt with within a

few days. >> we do know some details in terms of how this hearing is going to go on thursday, the thursday's hearing is going to go -- they suggested that the republicans on the senate committee will ask questions of christine blasey ford and have a pinch hitter to come in, an outside counsel who'll ask questions on their behalf. they also said it will be five minutes per senator for questioning and a single route. nobody will be allowed to ask any follow-up questioning. we know basic things of the timing and the committee hearing which will go first, when there will be a break in between witnesses. given what's been spelled out about that hearing on thursday, if the committee changed course and willing to talk to the circumstances and willing to

invite testimony from your client along those same lines a logistical complaints -- >> i would not advise her. a case that's 35 years old, the only way that you will get besides talking to the two people involved is talking the corroborating witnesses for both sides. this is going to a process where brett kavanaugh or dr. ford motor debbie ramirez are taking questions, you are never going to find out what really happened or any corroboration. it makes it a lot easier to ignore these women and question judge brett kavanaugh. >> mthe white house and the republicans in the senate appear

adamantly dug in of that suspect. if they will not budge on that issue specifically, how else would you want to perceive if the fbi investigation is not going to happen, what do you think should happen next here in terms of having your client treated fairly and having this allegation considered fairly. >> well, first of all, i think that would be a real failure on the senate jeb buudiciary commi. the only way that is actually not a partisan process is for the fbi to do the investigation. that would be a failure on the part of the senators if that's the route they decided. if they decided to do something like or not do something like that in just go forward, i would have to talk to the senate judiciary committee of the fact they refused to get on the phone

with me and talk to me about what other options they may have in mind, instead just sitting back and demand that i give them all the information that we have which feels like an effort to just gather the information and sweeping under the rug. it is hard to say that i would suggest that you do anything further. they need to be able to have a meaningful conversations with ms. ramirez's counsel or what they are proposing if it is not the fbi. i don't know that would be but i would love to talk to them about it >> john clune, representing deborah ramirez. thank you for being here on short notice. >> ms. ramirez is a second woman that came forward against brett kavanaugh who's up for supreme court nomination. her attorney is telling us tonight that she wants to talk

to the fbi and she volunteers to talk to the fbi. she should be interviewed by the fbi. separate and apart from that, her council is telling us while there has been a concerted effort by her and through council to reach out the senate judiciary committee to provide this information, the republicans on the committee are literally not showing up on the phone calls that they have set up to discuss how she may get that information, only democrats are joining those calls everyone after republicans chairman and his staffs set those things up. why the republicans would refuse to negotiate over how to obtain this information -- that's unusual. i may suggest to the senate judiciary committee tonight. you can clear up by calling john clune, you ever his number. much more ahead tonight, stay with us.

y hot water heater fail, she was pregnant, in-laws were coming, a little bit of water, it really- it rocked our world. i had no idea the amount of damage that water could do. we called usaa. and they greeted me as they always do. sergeant baker, how are you? they were on it. it was unbelievable. having insurance is something everyone needs, but having usaa- now that's a privilege. we're the baker's and we're usaa members for life. usaa. get your insurance quote today.

. it has been a little bit of a thorn in the side of judiciary chairman chuck grassley that when he brings in kavanaugh's original accuser, dr. christine blasey ford who says the brett kavanaugh sexually assaulted her and tried to rape her when he was 17 years old. it has stuck in the crawl of grassley. the committee will look like this, all dudes. there is no women. now so as to avoid having to question dr. ford themselves, the 11 male republicans on the senate judicial committee have decided to hire a woman lawyer to handle the questioning for them.

that's sort of strange in itself but one of the extra strange things up to this moment who they have picked to do the questioning for them has been a secret. they have not said who that female lawyer is. they would not announce who she was for her safety. well, now -- the washington post reported that an arizona prosecutor has emerged as the senate republicans' top choice for this unusual gig, quoting from the"the washington post," rachel mitchell has emerged to question brett kavanaugh and the woman who has accused the supreme court nominee of sexually assaulting her. rachel mitchell is the sex crime bureau chief of attorney's office in phoenix. she's the leading candidate to question both kavanaugh and ford

at thursday's highly anticipated hear ing in the senate judiciar committee. she's a registered republican and she has worked for the attorney's office of maricopa county for 26 years. rosalind helderman. congratulations on the scoop and thank you for joining us on a short notice. >> thank you for having me. >> so you and your colleagues described her as the leading candidate. has she been chosened and hired to do this job? >> it is auour understanding th she's the choice and the one that they want. there has been negotiations underway with dr. ford's team for days now on this issue of who will do the questioning. our understanding is that she's their choice, she's the

republicans' choice. >> she represents maricopa county, attorney's office and as you report, she's been the sex crime burreau chief there and have been there for 26 years. i have a dim recollection in the back of my mind that part of the local controversy about long time maricopa sheriff joe arpaio was his handling of sex crimes as a sheriff in maricopa county. if rachel mitchell is the sex crime bureau chief, is that a recent promotion for her or she was in that with sheriff arpaio. >> this is new to us as well. we are doing reporting around that issue. we have spoken with another

prosecutor in the area that indicated to us that the issue at the sheriff's office was an internal issue that they were failing to investigate crimes properly to give cases to the prosecu prosecutor's office to take into court and discover of an internal audit and mitchell may have been involved with cleaning up that mess. i say that as our reporting just beginning so there is a lot more to learn about that situation. last question for you on this, rosalind, the choice they'll effectively pick a pinch hitter here and they'll out source questioning that senator themselves do not question either witness or dr. ford instead of bringing in the outside counsel to do it. it is an unusual thing: can you

tell us anything further just from your reporting about how the republicans on the committee might have approached this. what sort of processes they went through in order to arrive at rachel mitchell as their top choice. this is something that really is not done frequently in the senate as far as what we were able to tell today from our own research. it seems like this has not been done in the senate for decades. >> yeah, i think we understand the motivation why they wanted to handle this. how it is and particularly how it is they ran all the way out to arizona to locate this and there are a lot of attorneys right here in washington, d.c. and it is something we have not yet to figure out and there are people in the process or from arizona or jeff flake and john

kyl, we don't know how they found her honestly. >> rosalind helderman have broken the news of who the republicans chosen to do the questioning of judge kavanaugh and dr. christine blasey ford, rosalind, thank you for being with us right after this scoop is posted. really appreciate it. >> thank you. >> more to come, surprise. stay with us. waze integration- seamlessly connecting the world inside with the world outside. making life a little easier. ♪ the new well-connected 2019 lincoln mkc.

in them therr hills on your guarantevacation.find gold but we can guarantee the best price on this rental cabin. or any accomodation from hotels to yurts. booking.com, booking.yeah moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis was intense. my mom's pain from i wondered if she could do the stuff she does for us which is kinda, a lot. and if that pain could mean something worse. joint pain could mean joint damage. enbrel helps relieve joint pain, and helps stop further damage enbrel may lower your ability to fight infections. serious, sometimes fatal events including infections, tuberculosis, lymphoma other cancers, nervous system and blood disorders and allergic reactions have occurred. tell your doctor if you've been someplace where fungal infections are common. or if you're prone to infections, have cuts or sores, have had hepatitis b, have been treated for heart failure or if you have persistent fever, bruising, bleeding or paleness. don't start enbrel if you have an infection like the flu.

since enbrel, my mom's back to being my mom. visit enbrel.com... and use the joint damage simulator to see how joint damage could progress. ask about enbrel. enbrel. fda approved for over 18 years. ♪ 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.

california had the worst wildfire season on record. scientists say, our weather is becoming more extreme and we all have to be better prepared. that's why pg&e is adopting new and additional safety precautions to help us monitor and respond to dangerous weather. hi, i'm allison bagley, a meteorologist with pg&e's community wildfire safety program. we're working now, to enhance our weather forecasting capabilities, building a network of new weather stations to identify when and where extreme wildfire conditions may occur, so we can respond faster and better. we're installing cutting edge technology to provide real-time mapping and tracking of weather patterns. and we use this information in partnership with first responders and california's emergency response systems. to learn more about the community wildfire safety program and how you can help keep your home and community safe, visit pge.com/wildfiresafety

. he was being fired or he was resigning or expecting to be fired or expecting to be resigning and he appears to be in motion, who is he talking to ? what's going on? a d a day after that ended up with rosenstein still holding the job as attorney general. there was one important detail we learned from that strange sort of fire drill that we had over rod rosenstein that now today seems pretty important in terms of what to expect next. in the middle of that media confusion yesterday, a justice department spokesperson drafted

a statement for jeff sessions to issue in the event that rosenstein was actually dismissed. that draft was never formally exce sent but it was drafted. in part, that leaked draft confirmed what we already suspected that if rod rosenstein was out and he was resigning or being forced to resign or fired, the current solicitor general, francisco would step in and take over as the top justice official in charge of the russia investigation. that's the person that robert mueller would have to report to and who he'll have to get permission from for important steps of his investigation, things like new indictments or grand jury. that draft statement also setel us something new. it would not necessary be

francisco? it would be matt whitacwhitaker. you may expect rosenstein's top deputy to ascend to rosenstein's job to be the acting department attorney general if rosenstein was forced out. mr. o' callahan would be sessions' chief of staff, this man whitaker. instead though, the acting attorney general to take over for rosenstein would be this guy, whitaker. he became chief of staff last year for sessions. if whitaker to become the

attorney general, and he steps up to that job, we think francisco would take over supervising the mueller investigation, whittaker would take over a lot else. he would assume day-to-day control and day-to-day operations of the entire justice department and it is 100,000 employees. he'll oversee every other active investigations related to but not officially related to the mueller probe. all the stuff that the mueller team handed off to other prosecutors including the u.s. attorney's office and d.c. and maria butina. those prosecutors investigating the trump's organization finances. in the event of rosenstein's dismissal, they would report to matt whitaker.

he wrote an op-ed late last year where he says mueller's investigation of trump's finances is quote "going too far." he says mueller has come up to a red line of the 2016 investigation that he's dangerously close to crossing. if he's willing to investigate the election-meddling -- this would brought a concern that the special counsel investigation is a mere witch hunt. now we know the person who wrote those words could my minute now depending on what happens to rosenstein, he could over authorities overall of those in the justice department which we believe it is an active justice

of new york's office into the president's finances. that's promised over immunity and the chief finance from his business and the president's senior president, at his business, michael cohen. the person who all those investigations are going to report to says that part of the investigation is a witch hunt. our top democratic and intelligence committee is joining us next. stay with us. i wanted more from my copd medicine... ...that's why i've got the power of 1-2-3 medicines with trelegy.

the only fda-approved 3-in-1 copd treatment. ♪ trelegy. the power of 1-2-3 ♪ trelegy 1-2-3 trelegy with trelegy and the power of 1-2-3, i'm breathing better. trelegy works 3 ways to... ...open airways,... ...keep them open... ...and reduce inflammation... ...for 24 hours of better breathing. trelegy won't replace a rescue inhaler for sudden breathing problems. trelegy is not for asthma. tell your doctor if you have a heart condition or high blood pressure before taking it. do not take trelegy more than prescribed. trelegy may increase your risk of thrush, pneumonia, and osteoporosis. call your doctor if worsened breathing, chest pain, mouth or tongue swelling,.. ...problems urinating, vision changes, or eye pain occur. think your copd medicine is doing enough? maybe you should think again. ask your doctor about once-daily trelegy and the power of 1-2-3. ♪ trelegy 1-2-3 save at trelegy.com. each of us is different. and each cancer is different.

how it reacts, how it evades and adapts. and how we attack it. that's why at cancer treatment centers of america, we use diagnostic tools that help us better understand what drives each person's cancer. this is what we mean by outsmarting cancer. and for some, it may uncover more effective treatment options. like christine bray. after battling ovarian cancer for several years, her test results revealed a potential treatment not considered previously a drug therapy that targeted her tumor. today, christine's metastatic cancer is in remission. this is precision cancer treatment. because at cancer treatment centers of america. we're not just fighting cancer. we're outsmarting it. visit cancercenter.com and schedule an appointment with our cancer care specialists today.

with my bladder leakage, the products i've tried just didn't fit right. they were very saggy. it's getting in the way of our camping trips. but with new sizes, depend fit-flex is made for me. introducing more sizes for better comfort. new depend fit-flex underwear is guaranteed to be your best fit. i am extremely concerned of the fate of the department attorney general. if there is any intent to fire or force out deputy attorney general rosenstein that would be a huge red flag and very

problematic. so how mu today nbc news is able to get that comment from her on a different matter. susan collins is saying it would be a huge red flag or problematic to force out rosenstein. that being echoed across the isle from the top democratic in the intelligence committee in the house. under no circumstances should rod rosenstein resign? rosenstein should continue to do his job and protect the independence of the department of justice and if the president intends to obstruct justice, force trump to fire him. joining us now is adam schiff, the top democratic on the house. thank you for being here tonight. appreciate your time. >> you bet. >> you are expressing concerns of susan collinss and republican senators are also expressing concerns. we had scattered expressions of

concerns in terms of what's going on with mr. rosenstein right now. after yesterday's media confusion as to whether or not he may have quit or been in the process of being fired, do you have any further clarity as to his fate and what's going on between him and the house? >> i don't. i think we need to see this is part of a long effort by the president and his allies in congress and his allies on fox to push rosenstein out of the way so that they can put someone in there who someone the president gets to do his bidding. th that's a shrewd way to kneecap, and you are right to point out concerns of attorney general, matt whitaker, that he wrote an op-ed suggesting that would

cross the red line and beyond the scope to look at whether the russians are laundering money to the trump campaign and the clear language of that scope of authority provides above mueller can look into any connection between the russian government and trump or anyone else affiliated with this campaign. he's wrong on the facts and he's wrong on the law but if he's the deputy attorney general then should bob mueller be investigating that issue. he's in a position to say no, that's within my jurisdiction and i am not going to allow it to happen. >> if mr. rosenstein is forced out and forced to resign or if he's resigned and we know he's due to speak with the president on thursday. if rosenstein is removed, would congress have any say over what happened in terms of the line of succession? there has been questions raised as to whether or not francisco, the general would be appropriately in charge of the russian matter and overseeing

the special council office and given the fact that he's used to be at a law firm that also represents the trump campaign which of course is maybe relevant to that case and the question that you are describing that i referenced a few minutes ago whether matt whitaker to be an appropriate choice to replace rosenstein. would congress has any role in deciding who took those jobs? >> well, we should have a role. there should be a process if rosenstein were fired or forced to resign where anybody would be put in a place. it would have to be senate confirmed and we'll have to make sure they remain clear and not interfere and not take orders from donald trump and we have to find out francisco or matt shepard had any conversations with the white house about the mueller investigation as well as potential conflict issues with the solicitor coming from the

same firm representing apart of trump's world. you know technically we are not within that line of command. i would think that if we are able to do the majority of congress, we can bring these people before congress whether it is a confirmation hearing or not and ensure that they're not interfering of the mueller investigation. one other point i would make is a lot seem to be made of whether it is going to happen on thursday or after the midterms. it does no matter when it happens. it is part of a slow moving saturday night massacre in which the fbi director ahead of the investigation was fired and the deputy attorney general was supervising it and they planned a fire after the midterms and the attorney general planned to get rid of midterms so they can install their own people to cripple this investigation and i think voters need to keep in mind whether this is the kind of

stand play you want to see in the united states. >> if you think these moves are being crippled to stop the investigation or troy ty to. i think a lot of people have been wondering of the confusing reporting of the fate of rosenstein, i think people are wondering if this is in case of an emergency break glass moment. there has been a lot of public discussions and sober discussions about what counts as a dangerous move by the president and what counts as a move that in gender protest or political response of a kind that signals that is not sort of business as usual for the president and we should expect this without blow back. does this rise for a moment for you and how are you thinking about that in terms of the

overall magnitude of the challenge that we face as a country and the seriousness of that investigation. >> for the last year or more, mitch mcconnell and paul ryan, they have been saying we don't think the president is going to infer or interfere with the president or fire bob mueller, we did not have to take any legislation action that would protect bob mueller, that is fig leaf had been yanked away. we got to take up this bill in the last week of this session and make sure that mueller is protected so that we don't have to wonder what happens in the kind of crisis that would follow a fast or slow moving saturday night massacre. it is one of the reasons i think susan collins' comments are important. they run quite contrary to what you hear from others though like grassley or graham if the president wants to fire these

people, they are happy to find replacements. the best thing we could do in this break the glass moment is take a bill to protect mueller so we don't invite a crisis. >> congressman adam schiff, thank you for being with us tonight. much appreciated. >> thank you. >> much more ahead with us tonight, stay with us. it's not sy. or delicious. or fun. but since you need both car and home insurance, why not bundle them with esurance and save up to 10%? which you can spend on things you really want to buy, like... well, i don't know what you'd wanna buy because i'm just a guy on your tv. esurance. it's surprisingly painless.

mike and jen doyle? yeah. time for medicare, huh. i have no idea how we're going to get through this. follow me. choosing a plan can be super-complicated. but it doesn't have to be. unitedhealthcare can guide you through the confusion, with helpful people, tools and plans. including the only plans with the aarp name. well that wasn't so bad at all.

that's how we like it. aarp medicare plans, from unitedhealthcare. aarp medicare plans, the smoother the skin, the more comfortable you are in it. and now there's a new way to smooth. introducing new venus platinum. a premium metal handle boosts control... to reveal up to 100% smooth skin. venus

i can describe it as a witness or victim as well as corroborating witnesses to what she is going to allege publicly within the next 48 hours. >> that was attorney michael avenatti last night on this show. >> it is like last night's show. see? get back, get back. okay, that was him last night on the show setting out his expectations for when his client who he has not named. he says has some allegations to make about supreme court nominee brett kavanaugh. that was him setting expectations as night as to when we'll learn his new client is and what she alleges exactly about brett kavanaugh. judge brett kavanaugh continues to flatly deny all allegations including those implied by mr.

avenat avenatti. as of last night hef was saying we'll expect to hear of his client by wednesday night. today, he's telling us he'll disclose the client's name and accusation only when she's ready and he has security measure in place to protect her. it is h"her choice and her alon" as to when to service." we are expected in the next 36 hours, that was of this morning. he expects his client to go public on wednesday night, on the eve of dr. christine blasey ford testifying before the senate judiciary committee. we are expecting to hear from his client or what his client has to say, whatever it is he's going to put forward of his client's alleged accusations. we think those will probably be tomorrow. so we'll be watching for that. now in addition to that, we just saw earlier this hour, the

lawyer for ms. ramirez telling us here on the show that he's in contact with the senate ju judiciary committee about trying to convey to them information of serious allegations of judge kavanaugh, telling us tonight that he has contacted the senate judiciary committee that republicans are willing to set up specific stance about whether or not his client can -- if she lies to the fbi which we know is a serious criminal manner, ramirez's attorney telling us tonight that although he had made contact with the committee, republicans on the kmicommittee have not kept up their end of the bargain or join focus phone cal

cal calls even though when they are set up in advance. that's a weird development of this story. if you are keeping track and thinking what's going happen. christine blasey ford is going to testify on thursday morning and we are expecting avenatti's client is going to come forward if she is by wednesday night and pending although we don't know how or when how this is going to be resolved, debbie ramirez and add to the mix, the press secretary did say the white house would like debbie ramirez to testify alongside christine blasey ford. all of these falls in the air. any of these could happen or any of it could fall apart. we'll all watch it together. stick with us. what?! -welcome. -[ gasps ] a bigger room?! -how many of you use car insurance? -oh. -well, what if i showed you this?

-[ laughing ] ho-ho-ho! -wow. -it's a computer. -we compare rates to help you get the price and coverage that's right for you. -that's amazing! the only thing that would make this better is if my mom were here. what?! an unexpected ending! is if my mom were here. family and farxiga,re fighting type 2 diabetes with food, the pill that starts with "f". farxiga, along with diet and exercise, helps lower aic in adults with type 2 diabetes, it's one pill a day. and although it's not a weight-loss drug, it may help you lose weight. do not take if allergic to farxiga. if you experience symptoms of a serious allergic reaction such as rash, swelling, difficulty breathing or swallowing, stop taking and seek medical help right away. do not take farxiga if you have severe kidney problems, are on dialysis or have bladder cancer. tell your doctor right away if you have blood or red color in your urine or pain while you urinate. farxiga can cause serious side effects including dehydration, genital yeast infections in women and men, serious urinary tract infections,

low blood sugar and kidney problems. stop taking farxiga and call your doctor right away if you have signs of ketoacidosis which is serious and may lead to death. ask your doctor about the pill that starts with "f". and visit farxiga.com for savings. if you can't afford your medication, astrazeneca may be able to help. here is something else you should be watching for that came

up with my conversation with adam schiff. mr. m before mr. francisco became solicit solicitor, he worked at jones' day. that association of that law enforcement been a speed bumps. wh ma mr. francisco worked at jones' day because of that timing. he's got notice and legal circles for recusing himself including jones' day since he's

solicitor general. he gets out of the way if jones represents a party in a legal matter. old francisco can find himself a lot more responsibilities at the justice department if rosenstein leaves or gets fired. it will be knonoel francisco wh next in line to see the mueller investigation. mueller will start to report to him. how would that factor in if he gets put in charge overseeing the mueller investigation in this investigation whether the trump campaign colluded with russia? the campaign that was represented by his former law enforcement, jones day. we asked mr. francisco would recuse himself from the russia investigation given his ties to jones day and representing the trump campaign, we were told to not expect that. a spokesperson told us mr. francisco would take the helm of

the mueller investigation if rosenstein leaves the oj. that would be controversial. rod rosenstein is still in place. this is a potential speed bump on what >> good evening, rachel. can i have all the scripts you didn't use tonight? >> yeah. >> thanks. it turns out we have an hour to fill and more things are happening by the minute here. this story about rachel mitchell being the mystery lawyer who is emerging tonight as the person who is likely the washington post uses that word likely to be asking the questions for the republicans. it's so fascinating that this was a -- and remains a closely held secret. mitch mcconnell announced it publicly today, and yet it's a secret, hiring of a public employee in the united states senate is a secret? what has to be secret about that? >> i mean, this whole thing is