accused him of sexual assault when the two were in high school. ford's account may have been bolstered by fresh accusations from a woman who claimed kavanaugh and his high school friends engaged in a pattern of sexual misconduct during the same period of time that ford claims she was assaulted. these accusations which we want to warn you are graphic come from a woman named julie swetnick. she's represented by michael avenatti who has been teasing for days that new allegations were coming. today avenatti shared a sworn declaration from her client in which she says i became aware of efforts by mark judge, brett kavanaugh and others to cause girls to become inebriated or disoriented so they could then be gang raped in a side room or bedroom by a train or numerous boys. i have a firm recollection of seeing boys lined up outside rooms at many of these parties waiting for their turn with a girl inside the room. these boys included mark judge and brett kavanaugh. in response to the new

allegations, kavanaugh responded in a statement saying, quote, this is ridiculous and from the twilight zone. i don't know who this is, and this never happened. one adviser to the president tells me the president has done what he can do in terms of defending kavanaugh and thinks his fate will be determined by kavanaugh's performance tomorrow in front of the senate judiciary committee. here's a preview of kavanaugh's testimony in prepared remarks out today that i'm warned could change. "i drank beer with my friends, usually on weekends. sometimes i had too many. in retrospect, i said and did things in high school that make me cringe now, but that's not why we're here. what i've been accused of is far more serious than juvenile misbehavior. about tomorrow's testimony tomorrow, jeff flake today implored his colleagues on both sides of the aisle to remember the human carnage of the controversy. >> what i do know is i don't believe dr. ford is part of some

vast conspiracy from start to finish to smear judge kavanaugh as has been alleged by some on the right. and i do know that i do not believe that judge kavanaugh is some kind of serial sexual predator as some have alleged on the left. separate and apart from this nomination and the facts that pertain to it, i do not believe that the claim of sexual assault is invalid because a 15-year-old girl didn't promptly report the assault to authorities. as the president of the united states said just two days ago. how uninformed and uncaring do we have to be to say things like that? much less believe them. do we have any idea what kind of message that sends, especially to young women? how many times do we have to marginalize and ignore women before we learn that important lesson? >> flake's comments come as two

republicans close to the process conceded to me today that if an fbi background check had been requested by the white house when ford's original account was published in "the washington post," senate republicans might have a firmer grasp on the facts of the case in question. it would probably also already be done. here to discuss the developments, some of our favorite reporters and friends. joyce vance, chief white house correspondent peter baker on capitol hill and nbc's garrett haake is here, steve schmidt at the table, which is always a special occasion. former democratic congresswoman donna edwards is here and elise jordan, a former aide in the george w. bush white house. she and steve are the host of the podcast "words matter." i'm told the president and his public statements and private conversations is still firmly behind kavanaugh but that if tomorrow goes as badly as the fox news interview did, in his mind, that they may consider other options. what are you hearing? >> i think that's right.

the president was a little disappointed in the fox interview. he thought kavanaugh came off too week. he thinks what judge kavanaugh should do is be more like president trump and express anger and unequivocal pushback on these accusers. that's not what judge kavanaugh wants to do nor what he ought to do strategically given the current environment. his goal tomorrow, according to his advisers, is to make sure his denials are as powerful as possible but express some indignation without looking like he's angry. the environment is so fraught that he could easily turn people off by going too far in one direction or another. >> peter baker, i'm hearing there's a little remorse about this question of an fbi background check that in hindsight with the second and third batches of accusations, it may have been helpful to dispatch fbi agents to do what

is a routine background check for any nominee or any high-ranking white house official that if they'd don that, they might have been able to have completed it by tomorrow and might have been able to give senators like collins and murkowski and flake something to grab onto. >> i think that's right. you heard senator micowsky say she wasn't on board and the proliferation of allegations without necessarily corroboration but certainly adding up to a larger picture of a youth spent, at least in times, in drunken parties and potentially more than just drinking is really troubling to some of these republican senators who were on the fence. susan collins, lisa murkowski. this is not something they want to try to sort through and now it's been left on their doorstep depending on who says what in

tomorrow's hearing. >> jeff flake gave a remarkable speech and in this swirl on this crush of news with the rosenstein meeting tomorrow, the kavanaugh and ford testimony tomorrow, it shouldn't be missed that jeff flake asserted himself as the conscience of the republican party, maybe of the senate today. >> yeah, he really did. he tried to set the tone for tomorrow, reminding everyone of the humanity of the people involved. there will be two people sitting in front of the cameras, in front of the senators tomorrow who have families and lives and both of their lives have been turned upside down by this whole operation. and flake is going to be fascinating to watch here. he's a leading indicator on how kavanaugh's fate will turn out in a number of ways. he'll be on this committee. so he could conceivably ask questions, although we know most of the questions on the republican side will be handled by this staff prosecutor who has been brought in from the outside. flake could get a chance to vote on this as early as friday morning. we'll know whether he finds dr. ford or judge kavanaugh to be

more credible before we hear from those senators collins and murkowski and the others who have been quietly watching this develop over the course of the week. he is, to my mind, the man to watch over the next 24 hours. >> garrett, take us behind the curtain. how are these senate offices prepared to sort of explain either conclusion that they reach? i thought flake put down a marker today to say that you don't judge a 15-year-old woman for not reporting a sexual assault and so i thought he was leaning into believing her account. at the same time, he was acknowledging that nothing in the public record suggests that brett kavanaugh is a serial sexual predator. those are flake's words. what balance is he trying to strike and is that indicative of other members pretestimony preparations in terms of the ground they're staking out? >> i think it is. that's flake trying to aggressively show that he is keeping an open mind here. in my view, the republican senators are in essentially two camps now. those who are digging in, in

defending kavanaugh and those going underground and not talking about him at all. you saw senator burr from north carolina last night under no particular pressure to do so released a statement saying he will support judge kavanaugh and vote for his confirmation. well before this hearing takes place. there are folks like that who have made up their mind. lindsey graham has been a vocal defender of judge kavanaugh through each iteration of these new allegations. but after you get past those vocal defenders, there are a lot of republicans who aren't talking about this. i had doors shut in my face multiple times today by some of the senators who we don't see on tv as often who have not been pressed on this. maybe they don't have their own local affiliates up here to grill them on this. people are trying very hard to keep their powder dry ahead of thursday. there's just not a lot of up side to dedicating yourself to a nominee who we don't know how this is going to go on thursday. there are so many jump balls. so many unknowns with an outside prosecutor. with a witness who no one has

heard speak or seen appear on video. it's impossible to predict how this is going to go. a lot of these senators are trying to stay behind this and not get out in front of it unnecessarily. >> i want to ask you about something senator corker said yesterday. you or one of your colleagues caught him talking about this hidden, undecided caucus. it's a lot big ager than all of you in the media want to make it out to be. he seemed to suggest there was a much bigger universe of unknown or undecided voters. do you have any sense of where the vote stands right now if it were held on kavanaugh right now? >> i think it's tough to say. corker is one of these people. that was my interview with him. you can tell if he's looking straight up. corker is one of the people who told me, he's favorably inclined toward judge kavanaugh. he had a good meet with him. watched the hearings in front of the judiciary committee. a lot of these republican senators came away very impressed with him. and they want to be yes votes. they want to be yes votes

barring further information that they see as disqualifying. but i do think that he's right. i think there is a larger universe of people who have stayed out of this. the folks who are -- you can consider the republican morality caucus. where is lamar alexander? where's james langford, marco rubio? these are folks who liked kavanaugh but also talk about decency in politics who talk about their faith. you don't see them rushing to the ramparts to defend judge kavanaugh. so i think there is that larger universe of people we should be paying attention to after thursday's hearing concludes. >> peter baker, i understand don mcgahn is a firm defender of kavanaugh and very involved in his defense. even today in the face of the avenat avenatti's client, the latest accuser. are there any cracks in that facade? anyone in the press office or political operation looking at the midterms and getting nervous? >> oh, they're very nervous. of course they're nervous about the midterms. they may not say it on camera or out loud but this is a volatile

moment for this to be happening. the clarence thomas/anita hill hearing happened a full year before the election and still influenced a number of races. this is six weeks before election day. people are already voting early voting now. and they're doing it while we're having this conversation. so a lot is at stake. the control of the senate is at stake, and if the senate were to go democratic and the president had to put up a new nominee to replace judge kavanaugh, should that not be successful, a democratic senate will not look at it the same way. this is his chance to get a nominee through. everything is on the line right now for him. >> steve schmidt, what's your take on where things stand right now for kavanaugh? >> i think he's in a lot of trouble. it's hanging by a thread. we'll see this testimony tomorrow. and i think that there is a huge burden on both collins and murkowski. it's not that they're going to adjudicate who is more credible. they're going to have to answer this question. and it's why don't you believe

her? and i think that's a very difficult pop cision for two republican women senators to be in. and so i -- >> you men if they vote yes. >> if they vote yes. and so i think that when you look at the politics of -- >> i never disagree with you, but doesn't everyone have to answer that question if they vote yes? >> i think that for the women senators and, yes, everyone has to answer it, but two women senators who have built their careers saying that we're independent, we are pro-choice, we are defenders of women's rights in our state that they have a higher burden on them. and i just think that's the reality. that question is going to come. politics is a self-interested business. they all have to stand up in front of the voters and they have elections coming down the road. and i think the politics on this for republicans heading into the midterm, it's nothing but bad options. it's literally death by shark or tiger or cobra.

those are the three political options here. >> donna? >> you know, i spent a lot of years before i came into congress working with victims of domestic violence and sexual assault. and what you know about them is that the story that they tell when they're right in front of you will be a really compelling one. and it seems really difficult for me to believe that dr. ford would put herself in that position, swear under penalty of perjury and tell the story that she will and have senators ignore that. i think that this is damning for republicans. i've been saying all along, especially with these increasing number of allegations, that it seems to me that the best option for judge kavanaugh and for senate republicans is for him to withdraw his nomination, and there's still time to do that because tomorrow's testimony from dr. ford is going to be compelling. there's no reason to think that it won't. and hearing those words that are in a "washington post," you know, article, will be very

different listening to them from her mouth with her telling her story. it will be damning, and i don't think that senate republicans are going to be able to overcome that. >> and they have to overcome more, joyce. with the new allegations today of which avenatti says my client is ready to meet with fbi agents to disclose what she knows in detail. she'll take a polygraph if brett kavanaugh will take a polygraph. i'm looking forward to anyone attempting to challenge the credibility of my client because she's absolutely credible. avenatti is a bit of a showman but has represented women whose stories have turned out to be true in the past if you look at stormy daniels and others. >> it's three very different sets of allegations, and as steve says, senators will have to answer this question. why don't you believe the women? it won't just be dr. ford but all three ofs t these women who have come forward. it's true victims' stories are more compelling in person,

particularly with dr. ford. there's some guarantees of her credibility just in what we've seen in writing. she doesn't come forward with a story of a rape. she comes forward with a story of an assault. and if you're going to make it up, usually you're going to tell the big lie. tomorrow when senators listen to her, they'll have the opportunity to decide if she's trustworthy, if they believe her story. >> it seems like if we look back and either the nomination of judge kavanaugh fails in the committee or on the senate floor or he withdraws, that the one strategic mistake everyone will agree on is the reluctance when the first allegations came out. at professor ford's request for the fbi to go and investigate her allegations. do you have any insight into why there was resistance? there's already, i wouldn't call it a circular firing squad but a little finger pointing about that decision is under scrutiny. >> i heard from a source in the white house they were just concerned with moving the process forward and preventing the democrats from stopping the

confirmation. so that's their defense. they say they might not have an objection to it. they just want to move and they don't want to do anything that is going to slow this down. that turns out to be probably the most critical mistake throughout this entire process, especially this week as it's apparent going into tomorrow that they could use anything, any facts, any evidence to bolster their own case. you look at the second mistake it was that fox news interview, choosing to go on a partisan outlet and choosing to politicize the process more than perhaps it should ever be during a supreme court confirmation, which, steve, you have worked on two of these confirmation processes. did any nominee participate in interviews during -- before the hearing? >> no, of course not. institutionally, the prerogatives of the senate constitutionally to advise and consent. so the senators have always had an expectation that the committee is where you come to

answer questions about your fitness to be on the supreme court. >> qualifications. >> the fulfillment of the advising and consent clause. now that doesn't mean going on fox. so the nominee, and this is for both sides, gets to speak when they're introduced and gets to speak again when they're introduced at the hearing. and that's it. and so that interview was a mistake. >> joyce, i am going to ask you about rachel mitchell. she's been selected by the republicans on the judiciary committee to carry out the questioning. and "the washington post" reports that republican senators have selected arizona prosecutor rachel mitchell to question kavanaugh and ford. mitch cell the chief of the special victims division of the maricopa county. a registered republican, mitchell has worked for and in the county attorney's office for 26 years. enlisting mitchell to join their staff, republican senators are taking an unusual step. they are turning to her to ask what are expected to be personal and potentially painful

questions about the woman's youth on live television sparing the all-male panel of 11 republican senators some uncomfortable exchanges that could sway the public's opinion about this session. >> she's by all reports highly qualified. will certainly handle the testimony with a lot of sensitivity. when there were concerns in maricopa county that a number of sexual assault cases had been sidelined, she engaged in the review of those older cases. so she looks to have all the qualifications here. i can't help but wonder, though, as a prosecutor, you're used to moving forward after investigators have completed their work. this isn't a trial. it's more like a job interview. her job isn't to put anyone in jail, but it still is to bring the facts to life. and i wonder how comfortable she is doing that without an adequate background investigation so she can do her job tomorrow. >> i see the -- i don't want to call it wisdom, but i see the idea in these men on the senate judiciary committee thinking

they didn't have the chops to handle this questioning. but it also depresses the you know what out of me. what do you make of this state of gender inadequacy on the republican side that they can't even handle a supreme court confirmation hearing. >> here we are a couple of decades from anita hill and you think the september hnate has l nothing in that time. it strikes me the senators will still have to be there sitting stone-faced looking while the questioning is going on, maybe hiding out in their offices watching it on television? i think either way, it's a really bad look for republicans in the senate that they can't do their jobs and sit there and ask the tough questions that have to be asked of both of the witnesses. >> real quick. >> it's a political disaster starting with 83-year-old chuck grassley, orrin hatch. they literally put two stars on their sleeves. it looks like the cast from the handsmaid's tail.

octogenarians, all male, all white. it does not look like the country. this political tactic to avoid thousands of ads that show insensitive, unempatheting i questionic questions. >> and conceding their abilities are deeply -- >> it's going to be front and center. >> peter baker and garrett haake, come back if either of you learn anything in the next 40 minute ss. more on the senate showdown tomorrow between kavanaugh and his accuser. also the other showdown in washington tomorrow. this one between the sitting deputy attorney general and the president of the united states. with the mueller probe hanging in the balance, the outcome of their sit-down will have far-reaching implications. and awaiting a rare presidential news conference with all eyes on tomorrow's events in washington. what will donald trump say about his embattled supreme court nominee and his equally embattled deputy ag?

stay with us.

and the wolf huffed and puffed... like you do sometimes, grandpa? well, when you have copd, it can be hard to breathe. so my doctor said... symbicort can help you breathe better. starting within 5 minutes. it doesn't replace a rescue inhaler for sudden symptoms. doctor: symbicort helps provide significant improvement of your lung function. symbicort is for copd, including chronic bronchitis and emphysema. it should not be taken more than twice a day. it may increase your risk of lung infections, osteoporosis, and some eye problems. tell your doctor if you have a heart condition or high blood pressure before taking it. grandpa: symbicort could mean a day with better breathing. watch out, piggy! (giggles) get symbicort free at saveonsymbicort.com. if you can't afford your medication, astrazeneca may be able to help.

i think it's ridiculous. it's a con game that they're playing. the democrats are playing this game that is disgraceful. it's a disgrace to the country. and i think you're going to see it in the midterms. i think people are wise to it. it's just a con game. he's a high quality person. they're bringing people out of the woods, and they can do that to anybody. >> he would know. that was the president at the press avail today. a warm-up for a press conference we're expecting at 5:00 p.m. we'll bring that to you live. joyce, what do you make of this line on a man's innocence.

this presumption of innocence is, of course, appropriate in a criminal justice proceeding but this is the court of public opinion. a cultural moment changed forever by the me too movement and this is a man in president trump accused by more than a dozen women. >> he has self-interest wrapped up in kavanaugh being excused from these claims because so many claims have been raised against the president himself. they've never been fully investigated. he, i think, becomes more vulnerable if kavanaugh's nomination has to be rescinded. >> and i picked up the beginnings of this conversation about when, if and whether to cut kavanaugh loose. and, of course, it wasn't about what we're talking about. it wasn't about the cultural moment in which we find ourselves or his own vulnerabilities as a man credibly accused of sexual misconduct and assault. it was about the midterms and the calculation inside the white house goes like this. if we cut kavanaugh loose we can

cut him and get someone oels the bench before the midterms. >> is there realistically time for that? and you look at donald trump and what really matters the most to donald trump? i would still argue donald trump cares about donald trump and his own ego. and so now his ego is invested in this nomination. and he doesn't want to lose a scout to michael avenatti as on this is complete and utter ambivalence about bush folks. he interviewed brett kavanaugh, was impressed by him but to cut him loose would not cause donald trump any pain. >> i think it causes him pain in that you have somebody who is accused of sexual misconduct who is out, and donald trump again, you know, is made vulnerable by that. as joyce points out. but trump's base, the 35% of the country, they 100% of them believe that this is a smear. they are completely in line with what donald trump said, that

this could happen to anybody. this is a baseless accusation, a conspiracy, a smear. that's what they believe. so these people will be distraught if he's pulled and they will be demotivated heading into a midterm election. and the size of the democratic wave is going to be dependence on the intensity of either side. a defeat this close disinnoce disincentivizes from a turnout basis republicans and women are already energized. if we see this vote jammed through, it's going to increase the intensity overwhelmingly on the democratic side. and i think you'll see a huge peel-off of college educated republican women in suburbs who are going to be pulling down their first democratic ballots in november. >> i want to bring in emily jane fox. she's a senior reporter for "vanity fair." there's a really important piece. this is not a piece about professor blasey ford.

it's a piece about the culture in the community in which she went to high school at the time in which she went to high school. emily jane fox has done more remarkable reporting. from emily's piece. in interviews with more than a dozen alumni from area schools who graduated between the mid'70s and early 2000s i repeatedly heard stories of parties. many witnessed moments like the one ford described or heard about them or experienced them first hand. when i read this story on sunday i said, of course this happened. a woman who graduated from holton told me. there was nothing difficult to believe about what she's saying. how could anyone doubt this. it felt personal to a lot of us because the story is so similar to a lot of us so the attacks on her felt personal. emily joins us now. >> you know, nicolle, over the last few days i talked to seven women who went to holton arms which is a very small private school that dr. ford went to who

themselves came forward with stories of sexual assault when they were students there. and what kept coming up as they shared their stories, which were all various shades or degrees similar to what dr. ford shared was that they wanted to share their stories because they wanted people to know that there was a reason they didn't come forward with their stories. many of them were telling me their stories for the first time. one woman who was sharing her story with me said she didn't tell her husband about what happened. she's been married to her husband for 19 years and she didn't tell him until last week. and they wanted to say that the attacks that they were witnessing happening, some of what the president was saying, why didn't they come forward at the time or why were they alone in a bedroom? why were they drinking alcohol that that was what the culture was at the time. if they had come forward when they were teenagers, they would have been shamed. that they still feel shame about it now and that this was just a way the community worked and that the way the women were silenced and that they don't

want to be silent anymore. they want to speak out and feel like they're supporting one of their own and they're ready to tell their own stories. >> this is not -- you report the fbi. you didn't go out and investigate professor ford's claims. >> no, these are their own personal stories. >> it seems to me that your reporting will be taken as it should, to bolster ford's credibility but also perhaps as republicans try to prepare for what they're up to tomorrow. to help them understand what it was like for women 36 years ago who had an experience like this. it feels like one of the most important installments of telling this story to travel back in time and to talk to other women who may have been in her position. do you have any sense from these women that the way the republicans are handling this, that the way kavanaugh's defenders are handling this is going to lead to more, if you will, me too stories like this? >> these are women who have never told these stories before. i talked to one woman who

graduated in 1978. so that's 40 years ago. and she was inspired this week for the first time to say, this happened to me. and this happened in the environment of this private school environment. and the way the republicans have been reacting, the way people have been questioning dr. ford. a lot of them haven't been saying we know for sure. none of them said we know for sure what happened in the room with dr. ford and judge kavanaugh, but all of them have said something similar happened to me, and the way that the republicans have been behaving has made me want to come forward to share my story. >> emily jane fox, another extraordinary piece of reporting. we're grateful to you for jumping on the phone with us. thank you. dawna edwards, jeff flake was trying to say for me personally, i can hold in my mind these two seemingly contradictory ideas.

one, i do not believe he's a serial sexual predator and i do not believe a 15-year-old goes to the authorities when something like this happens to her. she's clearly traumatized, and i want to hear her out as well. why can't we have those two thoughts in our head at the same time? >> i think it's really difficult. if you look, for example, at the case of bill cosby, there are plenty of sexual predators who told themselves out in the community. people believe one thing about them and it turns out that they have a very private other self. and one of the things we're seeing, at least it appears to be coming out this week, is that there may have been a couple of different brett kavanaugh. and it's going to be up to the senate to try to get to that. >> and does the fact that there are now three different tales and two come from one period of time. another comes from another chapter in his life, from college. so some of the sort of talking about -- and they talked about this in the fox interview and it's in his prepared testimony. when he was in high school. it seems if you are right that

that conduct carried on into college. is that just someone investigating these kinds of attacks, sexual assaults, does that give more credibility to the accusers? >> you know, it does. i'm not sure that it should, right. it's a sad state of affairs if one woman who comes forward can't be believed simply because she's only one person. but the reality is that these cases start to reach critical mass when there are multiple accusations, and we also have this concept of corroboration. did the victim tell someone close in time to the attack occurred or before she would have any motivation to make the story up? so there's both this idea of numbers of complaints and then corroboration for each of the accusations that have been made that will, i think, at the end of the day make the question that the senators have to answer fully formed for them. >> you are four of the smartest people i know. what do you think happens tomorrow? >> well, i think that she'll give testimony. she's an accomplished woman.

i think she will be credible. the optics for republicans are going to be terrible. and the reality of kavanaugh is that if you look at the modern era of supreme court nominations going back to roberts, alito, harriet miers never took the floor for confirmation. kagan and sotomayor and gorsuch. he's had the weakest appearance and the worst answers and has rendered himself not credible by some of those answers on any one of a number range of subjects. so tomorrow is overwhelmingly going to be the most personal, the toughest, the hardest day of brett kavanaugh's life. and just as a matter of public performance in testifying, he's not shot the lights out thus far. and it's about to get a lot harder for him tomorrow. so i think it's very difficult to see how this ends well for him. >> your prediction? >> i think it's done. whether it's done at the opening of the gavel or close of the

gavel. >> joyce? >> tomorrow feels like a capstone day for the me too movement. we'll see what happens when we hear the testimony. it will be a day of soul searching for the country not just the kavanaugh nomination. >> i think both sides are going to dig in and keep assuming the worst about the opposite side. and i think almost what happens tomorrow, it matters, but both sides have their narrative and are going to seize on what they want to grab. >> and this process has vandalized a fundamentally important institution in this country which is the united states supreme court. and no matter what, whether he gets on the court, he doesn't get on the court, the court has been weakened in the eyes of the american people. and if he is on the court, he could could be on that court for 40 years. until 2058. and he will always, always, always have a tarnish on him because of this. and that is unfortunate because we're in this moment in time where our institutions are weakening, and they are

constantly being assaulted by the political leadership of a country that is supposed to be in the business of strengthening them. >> after the break, the other showdown in washington tomorrow. donald trump sits down with rod rosenstein, the number two justice department official and the man in charge of the mueller probe. - [narrator] the typical vacuum head has its limitations, so shark invented duo clean. while deep cleaning carpets, the added soft brush roll picks up large particles, gives floors a polished look, and fearlessly devours piles. duo clean technology, corded and cord-free.

>> tech: don't wait for a chip like this to crack your whole windshield. with safelite's exclusive resin, you get a strong repair that you can trust. plus, with most insurance a safelite repair is no cost to you. >> customer: really?! >> singers: safelite repair, safelite replace.

with a fresh standoff between the president's allies and the house intel committee in the justice department shaping up, the stakes for the president's meeting with deputy attorney general rod rosenstein could not be any higher. from "usa today," house judiciary committee chairman bob goodlatte said his committee will subpoena fired deputy fbi director andrew mccabe's memos if the justice department does not hand them over this week. goodlatte told reporters he'd issue a subpoena as soon as thursday if the documents are not handed over before then. this will likely be among the topics discussed when rosenstein

meets with donald trump remember to discuss his own future at the department. the meeting at the very least, is likely to be unpredictable. white house aides stress that they believe that the only way rosenstein would leave his post is if he resigns. while justice department officials say they believe he would have to be fired. a potentially problematic action by trump that could be interpreted by mueller and his investigators as obstruction of justice. joining the conversation now is former u.s. attorney and former senior fbi official chuck rosenburg. i understand rosenstein doesn't have any intention of resigning and the white house doesn't have plans to fire him. do you think he keeps on keeping on? >> i think he keeps on keeping on. he got off to a rocky start. my sense of it is that things have calmed, believe it or not. that's hard to believe we're using that word calmed since his rocky start. >> it counts as calm in this climate. things have calmed, relatively

speaking. >> it's calmed, relatively speaking. he seems to be serving an important role as a buffer between the white house and mueller investigation. let me tell you one mistake i think we're making. we tend to talk about these events in personal terms. what happens if mueller goes or rosenstein goes. we're really should be talking about the institutions. steve schmidt made an important point earlier. they are weakening. but they're not weak. these institutions have an enormous gravitational pull on the people who work there. they have a very, very strong set of rules and procedures which we follow when we work there. and so the new york yankees survived the retirement of joe dimaggio. rod rosenstein isn't dimaggio or williams but there were deputy attorney generals before him and there will be deputy attorney generals after him. >> i take your point. you're trying to gird me for the

tumultuous times we live in. a government official said if rod goes, it's a serious blow to the justice and the department of justice. >> yeah, i mean, i get that. i don't necessarily disagree. i just know that we are all irreplaceable until the day that we are replaced by somebody who else is irreplaceable. it's not a good day for justice if rod rosenstein is fired. despite my public criticisms of him, i hope he stays. i do think that he's fulfilling an important role. but the justice department will be around next week and next month and next year. and will be doing its job. >> let me get into what they view at the justice department as the next big fight. this isher fight over sensitive documents. these are former deputy and at one time acting fbi director andrew mccabe's memos. contemporaneous memos. we keep talking about the culture at the fbi and doj.

taking memos at the time important discussions and interviews took place. why do you think the house republicans, donald trump's most fierce and partisan allies in the congress, why do you think they want them so badly and how far do you think rosenstein and the justice department is willing to go to protect anything that jeopardizes national security? >> well, one concern i've had with deputy attorney general rosenstein, nicolle, is they seem to be more willing than in previous administrations to turn over sensitive national security documents. i imagine the same thing will probably happen here. i don't know that the memos are all that important from a legal perspective. i imagine they can be quite inflammatory from a political one. so i knowledge that mr. goodlatte and members of the house judiciary committee on the republican side want to score political points. i hope they don't do that. i hope the department holds fast, but i imagine those documents, nicolle, will find their way to the committee. >> i love chuck's optimism,

joyce, but i think that it's more -- they want to score political points. they want to bring down the justice department. they want to bring down the investigation into potential ties between donald trump's campaign and russia. and their tactics, if we're to believe what they've done in the past is what they'll do in the coming days, they probably want to continue to impugn the integrity of mueller's investigation. >> that's right. that's been their goal all along. i wish they would have attacked the allegations that russia interfered with our elections with the same vigor on trying to damage bob mueller. i agree with chuck. the institution exerts gravitational pull on the people that work there. folks rise to the occasion when they are in the justice department. if deputy attorney general rosenstein is fired, a lot will turn on who his replacement is and what that person is made of, what their character is like. but they'll be surrounded by people who will have the

expectation of them that they will deliver fair and impartial justice. that's the oath that we all take when we enter on duty at doj. i think the institution will hold. >> your dose of optimism today. after the break, bracing for a donald trump news conference. we'll be right back with that preview. i know that every single time that i suit up, there is a chance that's the last time.

300 miles per hour, that's where i feel normal. i might be crazy but i'm not stupid. having an annuity tells me retirement is protected. annuities can provide protected income for life. learn more at retireyourrisk.org than psoriatic arthritis. as you and your rheumatologist consider treatments, ask if xeljanz xr is right for you. xeljanz xr is a once daily pill for psoriatic arthritis. taken with methotrexate or similar medicines, it can reduce joint pain... ...swelling and significantly improve physical function. xeljanz xr can lower your ability to fight infections, including tuberculosis. serious, sometimes fatal infections, lymphoma

and other cancers have happened. don't start xeljanz xr if you have an infection. tears in the stomach or intestines, low blood cell counts and higher liver tests, and cholesterol levels have happened. your doctor should perform blood tests before you start and while taking xeljanz xr, and monitor certain liver tests. tell your doctor if you were in a region where fungal infections are common and if you have had tb, hepatitis b or c, or are prone to infections. xeljanz xr can reduce the symptoms of psoriatic arthritis. don't let another morning go by without talking to your rheumatologist about xeljanz xr. don't let another morning go by without and i heard that my cousin's so, wife's sister's husband was a lawyer, so i called him. but he never called me back! if your cousin's wife's sister's husband isn't a lawyer, call legalzoom and we'll connect you with an attorney. legalzoom. where life meets legal.

donald trump's supreme court nominee is walking a tightrope in the situation at the justice department closely resembles a tinderbox. if you are wondering how can this day get any moreaotic, you may be sorry you asked. in a matter of minutes, donald trump will hold a prescheduled news conference. it's always unclear what he'll say but maybe put money on him to throw a hand grenade of his own. this will only be trump's fourth solo news conference as president so buckle up. nbc's chief white house correspondent hallie jackson is

inside that room where the news conference is set to begin any moment. what your expecting? >> well, listen, you set it up pretty well. we expect the president to walk in in about 10 to 15 minutes, if he's on time. he's had some meetings here at the midtown manhattan hotel where we are which is why a number of members of the white house press corps and foreign press have gathered here, too. this is a news conference focused on the united nations general assembly and the news of the day. you know what that news of the day is going to be. all about his supreme court pick brett kavanaugh. the expectation. so wife been to these. they usually go about an hour or so. maybe an hour and a half. if this starts late we're talking 5:15, 5:30, perhaps 7:00 eastern time. a little later than we might normally hear from the president. it caps a day of fast-moving developments related to brett kavanaugh. let me share a little of what we understand, based on our reporting, is happening inside the west wing. sources i've talked to today, there's a concern that brett kavanaugh on his interview on

monday night on fox was not forceful enough. they want to see perhaps a more forceful brett kavanaugh tomorrow during this hearing. there's a sense that there is no backup plan. brett kavanaugh is the guy. i had one person familiar with the president's thinking say to me, we're not 100% behind bret kavanaugh, we are 100,000% behind brett kavanaugh, which gives you a little insight into where the mood and where the attitude is. the president here at the united nations events has engaged on questions relating to his supreme court nominee. he's stopped and talked about kavanaugh. he said, listen, and i'm paraphrasing, he's a good guy. i back him, i believe him essentially which is what you have heard from some republicans over on capitol hill. despite the insistence that brett kavanaugh is the president's guy, that the president stands by brett kavanaugh, ultimately, you know, and you know this, it's not really going to be up to president trump in the long run. if jeff flake, susan collins, lisa murkowski come out and say i cannot do this after tomorrow, mitch mcconnell will not put him

up for a vote and there will need to be a backup plan from this west wing. by the way, that's just on brett kavanaugh. we haven't even gotten into the rod rosenstein discussion happening tomorrow at the white house or the other news of the day, the president blaming china for election interference because of the trade war. so there are a lot of. >> reporter:ers in the room who want to know all of it. >> we know where you all wear sneakers. we'll be cheering for you and all the reporters in the room to get as much news in the room as you can. steve schmidt, hallie is more diplomatic than me. i understand that the president thought the fox news interview was terrible. so the idea that it needs to be more forceful, that may be a specific constructive piece of criticism, but at the end of the day donald trump is grading people based on their performance and so far he's not impressed with kavanaugh. >> here's what's going on. brett kavanaugh is under tremendous stress as a human being. >> right. >> he is surrounded by people in the old executive office

building holed up preparing for this hearing. he probably has 10, 15 people asking questions. he probably has 10 to 15 people -- >> on a horrific actually -- >> he's telling him how to sit, what to say and it's distracting. at the end of the day what you're preparing a person to do if you do this well is not to answer questions, it's to listen. there's only three types of questions you'll be asked. i think questions, i feel questions and i know questions. he better understand which is which when it's incoming from the senators or from the interrogator tomorrow, who is asking him. so brett kavanaugh right now is probably disoriented. he's probably being overwhelmed with information on the eve of the biggest day of his life. two weeks ago, brett kavanaugh was on the edge of fulfilling a destiny that was chartered for him many, many years ago, to be

a justice of the supreme court. and his life has fundamentally imploded in this hour. so he sits there tonight. all the chips in the middle of the table. his career, his life, maybe even his current judgeship. he'll be accused of sexual assault in front of the judiciary committee on national television by a credible female witness. and tonight, that white house, which has shown a consistent and staggering ineptitude on all things related to communications, is in charge of prepping him. so there has to be a great deal of anxiety, great deal of worry, great deal of stress unfolding there right now. >> you prepped the two successful nominees to the united states supreme court for george w. bush, chief justice roberts and chief justice alito. you were not involved in the process for hear myers who was

nomination was withdrawn. what would you be asking brett kavanaugh right now? >> he's going to be hammered with all of the questions he's going to be asked tomorrow. they're going to be brutal, they're going to be personal, and sometimes the reality is there are no good answers. so the number one thing for him is the maintenance of his credibility, is that we were talking about this during a break. when you're asked going into the marijuana have you tried marijuana and you say, yes, i have, they're not looking to disqualify you for smoking pot in college. the test is are you lying about it now on the eve of going to work in the white house. these questions are a character testimony. the issue isn't did you drink in high school, were you drunk in high school, were you a sloppy drunk in high school. it's that as a grown man, a federal judge nominated for the supreme court, are you lying about being a sloppy drunk in high school. and so any dissembling, any

contradictions from reality will be exposed in the most brutal way in this hearing tomorrow. >> i wanted to get from steve sort of what the nominee is being prepared to field. what do you think democrats are thinking tonight? what do you think their questions are going to be for professor ford and for judge kavanaugh? >> i think there are, i don't know, five, six, former prosecutors among the democrats there. i think that he can expect some really tough questioning. even though there aren't the witnesses, mark judge and his other high school people, there have allegations and quotes that have appeared from some of his former classmates in news reports. i would expect that he's going to be asked about those things because he portrays himself as a boy scout. some of those things that have been said about him don't portray a boy scout. and i think the democrats are going to be very pointed in asking about those things that may not be able to come into the record as witnesses, but they will be asking those questions.

>> hallie mentioned it, the kavanaugh questions for the president in this news conference that we expect to be under way in a little less than two minutes is only half of the big picture of crises they're juggling. the otherw one is the fate of rd rosenstein. i understand he's made a decision not to resign and is at peace with whatever will be will be, but what does the department hear from the president of the united states about rosenstein and the justice department? >> you know, unfortunately, it's a little bit late for anything to come from the president that would reassure the justice department. it's a horrible thing to have to say but it's the truth, thispen energy in turning the fbi into a villain, in calling out federal prosecutors by name, it would have to be a total reversal of fortunes here. he would have to acknowledge that he understands the independence of doj, that he appreciates and will abide by the rule of law, and a lot of other things we're not going to hear from him. >> elise, we are watching the

president's national security team file into this room, only under the trump presidency would the entire unga be the eighth story of the day, one that doesn't make it into our one-hour program very easily. what do you make of the president getting laughed at, literally laughed at on the world stage yesterday? i understood that he was buoyed by someone saying it was the best speech he ever heard. i missed that. but this president always a sucker for a good review. >> well, donald trump gave a speech that had no real meaning, it had no real philosophy. it talked about something called principled realism, which i don't know what the heck that is, especially in context of this administration's foreign policy to talk about anything being, quote, principled. and he threw out just a hodgepodge and we all know that he doesn't mean anything and is reading it for the very first time when it's prepared remarks. so, yes, i understand why he was received with skepticism in that

auditorium. >> we are looking at the president's senior advisers, bill shine, john kelly and here is the president walking to the podium for just his fourth news conference of his presidency. >> we've had a great three days at the united nations in new york. this is quite a gathering. wow. it's a lot of people. a lot of media. we've -- we've covered a great deal of territory. just left, as you know, prime minister abe of japan. we're starting trade talks with japan. they were not willing for years to talk trade, and now they're willing to talk trade. and i'm sure we'll make a very good deal. just concluded, as you know, two days ago, signed a deal with south korea, a trade deal, tremendous deal with south korea. it means a lot of business for our farmers. we're opening up for farmers. we're opening up for a lot of

different groups. we're going to be able to sell much more than double the number of automobiles that we were allowed under a deal that was totally defective that was there before. and so we're very happy with that. that deal is actually concluded. we're very well along the way with mexico. the relationship is very good. and with canada, we'll see what happens. they charge 300% tariffs on dairy products. we can't have that. we can't have that. with china, as you know, we put out an announcement today. they would like to see me lose an election because they have never been challenged like this, but i want to open up china to our farmers and to our industrialists and our companies. china is not open, but we're open to them. they charge us 25, 35, 55% for things and we charge them nothing in terms of coming into the country. cars, they're at 25% and we're at 2% and 2.5% and don't even

collect it, but we collect it now. so we're doing very well in our situation with china on trade. i have a great relationship with the president of china, president xi. but it's got to be a two-way street. for 25 years or longer it was not and trillions and trillions of dollars was taken out of the united states for the benefit of china. we just can't have that. we have to make it fair. so we're at $250 billion now at 25% interest. a lot of money is coming into our coffers, and it's had no impact on our -- absolutely, by the way, no impact on our economy, which i said it wouldn't. in fact steel is like the hottest industry there is. if you look at what happened with steel, we're charging a 25% tariff for the dumpers. they dump massive amounts of steel. they want to put the steel companies out of business.