voters from their representative government in washington, d.c. makes people walk away from today's hearings, thinking that it was nothing but a political show. let's hope there are a few people who actually have their mind made up and will listen to both kavanaugh and dr. ford with the respect that they deserve. that does it for us this morning. we turn it over now to stephanie ruhle. she picks up the coverage on an incredibly busy news day. stephanie. >> thanks so much, joe. an incredibly important one. hi there, everyone. i'm stephanie ruhle with two big stories today. starting with the landmark hearing. in less than an hour from now, christine blasey ford and brett kavanaugh will testify. overnight, a deluge of new details. new accusations against kavanaugh. >> this is getting into the twilight zone. >> republicans need to immediately suspend the

proceedings related to judge kavanaugh's nomination. >> these people are not propped for us to make political points. nor are they to be demolished like anita hill. >> setting the stage for what was already going to be an historic day on capitol hill with nothing less than a lifetime appointment on the land's highest court. and deputy attorney general rod rosenstein scheduled to meet with president trump after reports earlier this week he was on his way out the door. >> are you planning to fire rod rosenstein? >> i would certainly prefer not doing that. >> this after reports that rosenstein plotted to remove the president from office. >> he said he did not say it. he said he does not believe it.

>> a fascinating and troubling split screen. on one side, the president's supreme court nominee, facing his accuser and accusations of sexual misconduct in an open hearing. the other, his deputy attorney general expected to meet with the president amid reports that he considered ways to get his boss, the president of the united states, removed from office. i have an extraordinary team to break all of it down. one hour from now, the senate judiciary committee will gather in the dirken senate office building for a once in a generation type of hearing. christine blasey ford will testify under oath she was sexually assaulted by judge brett kavanaugh who, a week ago, seemed to be on the verge of becoming the next supreme court justice. this morning, it is far, far, far from a sure thing. make no mistake, what we will see today will change the trajectory of both of their lives and potentially the supreme court as well. that should matter to every

single one of us. so what are we going to hear this morning? we have the opening statements. here is part of fords, requesting what she says happened. it reads, brett groped me and tried to take off my clothes. he had a hard time because he was so drunk and because i was wearing a one piece bathing suit under my clothes. i believed he was going to rape me. tried to yell for help. when i did, brett put his hand over my mouth to stop me from screaming. this was what terrified me most and has had the most lasting img pa impact on my life. it was hard to breathe and i thought bret was accidentally going to kill me. they both seemed to be having a good time. mark was urging brett on. although at times he did tell brett to stop. a couple of times, i made eye contact with mark and thought he might try to help me. but he did not. kavanaugh has denied the allegations, going so far as to say he has never been at a party like that and wasn't friends

with dr. ford. in a statement this morning, he admits to some less than stellar behavior. quote, i was not perfect in those days, just as i'm not perfect today. i drank beer with my friends. usually on weekends. sometimes i had to many. in retrospect, i said and did things in high school that make me cringe now. that is not why we're here today. what i've been accused of is far more serious than juvenile misbehavior. i never did anything remotely resembling what dr. ford describes. in fact, senator grassley now says two men have come forward and each has told committee staff he believes he was the one who assaulted dr. ford back in '82, not brett kavanaugh. but kavanaugh is facing sexual misconduct allegations from at least two other women as well. deborah ramirez and julie swetnik. ramirez alleges kavanaugh exp e exposed himself while the two were classmates at yale. swetnick alleging she went to house parties with kavanaugh in the early '80s.

she says she saw him drink excessively and fondle girls without their consent. she says she witnessed kavanaugh and others trying to get girls so drunk so they could be gang raped. described the behavior she says she witnessed. >> of the things that are in your sworn statement, the particular things you regard as disqualifying? >> i think all of the above. that's not the type of behavior that anybody at any age should do. i don't think women should be treated that way. i don't think any human being should tweet people that way. >> we should make it clear that while swetnick alleges kavanaugh was sexually aggressive and inappropriate, she has not accused him of rape. the judiciary committee has attempted to look into all of those allegations ahead of today's hearing. and late yesterday, we learned the committee asked kavanaugh about a fourth allegation. that he physically a sassaulted woman while drunk in 1998. according to transcripts,

kavanaugh said, quote, we're dealing with an anonymous letter about an anonymous person and an anonymous friend. it is ridiculous. total twilight zone. and no, i have never done anything like that. he's denied all of the allegations. the focus will initially be on dr. ford. after opening statements, she will testify and then answer questions. kavanaugh will go second. several republican senators have said their decision will hinge on what happens in that hearing room today. >> i'm going to be watching. i'm going to see what's said. >> sounds like what you're seeing there is a situation under which you would withdraw brett kavanaugh's nomination, is that correct -- >> if i thought he was guilty of something like this, yeah, sure. >> open minds, open hearts, on

this very serious day. i want to bring in msnbc's garrett haake on capitol hill and nbc's kristen welker at the white house. give us an idea how you see today playing out. >> well, stephanie, you can already feel the gravity of this hearing today. dozens of police officers, media packed in, waiting to see how this hearing will play out today. you mentioned dr. ford will go first. then questioned by the outside prosecutor brought in specifically for that purpose. we've not seen this prosecutor in action. nobody on the hill has heard dr. ford's voice and that scene, how she will respond to sort of thing. the audience is relatively small, despite the fact the whole country is watching. the universe of considered

senators is as many as ten folks. everybody from collins to murkowski to corker and jeff flake. we know most of these senators have cleared their schedule to make sure they can watch all of this hearing. i would put a split screen camera up on jeff flake's face. he spoke out yesterday. said it was important to consider the humanity of both of these people. trying to set a neutral tone, where people can come into this with an open mind. he'll be one of the first people, first republicans, who will have a chance to potentially vote against kavanaugh if he were so inclined. he's someone i'm watching very closely as this proceeds throughout the morning. >> kristen, the president now seems to be in this wait and see mode. we know he had been taking some

jabs. but as of yesterday, sound, like he's leaving the door open he could change his mind, huh? >> it was striking to hear him say that. pressed him on that and he said yes, if he believes after watching this hearing that brett kavanaugh did in fact, commit this crime. then he would change his mind about standing by him. right now, he is standing by his nominee. that'st sentiment echoed earlier by kellyanne conway when we caught up with her on the south lawn and asked her about any other nominees. >> the president has said nothing of the sort. he told all of you yesterday he stands by kavanaugh. and what we understand from the committee is they will receive the testimonies today under

oath. you've seen their statements already. >> that's not exactly what he said -- >> his mind could be changed -- >> he has an open mind. i'm sure that disappointed you but -- he could be convinced, which means he has an open mind for testimony. >> so what does the president what does the white house want to hear from judge kavanaugh today? well there was a sense, stef, after we last heard from kavanaugh in that fox news interview, among some within the president's inner circle that kavanaugh wasn't firm enough. they want to hear him speak as a father and a judge and not just brett kavanaugh. they want him to come out and say sexual misconduct of any kind cannot be tolerated. will we hear that today? how firm will he be? this all becomes a credibility test for both of these that we'll be hearing from today. this is a president who ran on a platform of vowing to put conservative on the supreme

court. in recent remark, he has underscored that. saying look, this is one of the reasons why i got elected. for him, it's a critical test of that promise. it's also a critical test ahead of the midterms. he travels back from the u.n. today about midday. so if his schedule holds, he'll be watching part of this hearing at least on air force one. we would have to assume. just to underscore just how significant this is for the president, stef, he was supposed to have a meeting with his deputy attorney general rod rosenstein today to of course discuss those controversial comments that have been reported recently about rosenstein, which he denies. trump indicating he may delay that meeting so he can focus on kavanaugh today, stef. >> my panel, an extraordinary all women one. andrea mitchell, nbc chief foreign affairs correspondent and host of "andrea mitchell reports." maya wily, nbc legal analyst. my friend, elise jordan, a "time" magazine contributor and

served as an aide in the george w. bush administration. and midwin charles is an attorney from mt lthe law firm midwin charles and associates. if you were advising dr. ford ahead of this massive day, what will you tell her? >> the first thing is be yourself. the most important thing here for the public to see, it's not just the senators, it's also the public, is who she is. because a lot of the conversation happening around this hearing has turned to credibility obviously. there's a lot of information we won't get in this hearing about credibility because other witnesses are not being called because the fbi background check has not been reopened. so since it's really what she's going to say and what brett kavanaugh's going to say, the question becomes who is she? let the public see. so folks can feel like they know what kind of person she is. unfortunately, i say unfortunately, because this isn't the litmus test for

whether or not someone gets a job promotion, but unfortunately, it's become about the people as opposed to the position. >> we have to remind our audience, this is not a trial. there is no -- we're not talking about a criminal case. it's a job interview. republicans brought in rachel mitchell to do the questions. i couldn't understand why they were saying we need to do this for optics. if optics were their priority, they could have said years ago maybe we should elect more women. we're going to get grandstanding. she's there to answer questions. >> well, senator kennedy, louisiana, was on "morning joe" yesterday and decided they made this decision to keep the circus atmosphere down. that's something dr. ford's attorneys encouraged because they didn't want the grandstanding that dominated the first hearing. so while understandably, it's upsetting they are not

questioning dr. ford, hopefully it will keep the tem bow down a little bit if that is remotely possible. >> given that she's there, she has a prosecutor's background, doesn't she need more questions answered? wouldn't an investigation help her get her job done today? >> exactly what is needed in this particular instance. she's made some very strong allegations against kavanaugh. what you do in that instance is often opening an investigation. i can't understand why kavanaugh wouldn't want an investigation. i can't understand why the senators wouldn't want an investigation. what that does is give this entire process legitimacy and their inability to do that i think takes away from what it is they're trying to accomplish, which is to have kavanaugh

ascend to the supreme court. >> andrea what do you believe republican senators are looking for today? it was only a couple days ago, orrin hatch giving us the "dr. ford must be messed up." but do you think they're listening? >> a handful of republican senators are listening. they're not just on the judiciary committee. there are a number of other whom i know of that mitch mcconnell does not have nailed down yet. he's projecting confidence that he has votes on the floor as this gets out of committee. he's already scheduling, trying to push it through, given the aura of inevitability. there are a number from red states who the republicans felt would be forced to go with kavanaugh who are also looking for any kind of political cover here, excuse not to go ahead with it. one thing that gets back to what you were saying is that this is really all, now, not so much about facts but about the

presentations. and the way these two people appear not only to the people on the committee but to the american people. when i was covering clarence thomas and anita hill 27 years ago, after the first day, we thought anita hill had just sold her story. she was so authentic, so credible. then they brought clarence thomas in and he said this is nothing but a high-tech lynching, there was this moment. by saturday night, sunday morn, when i was on "meet the press," even some of the liberal democratic senators had clearly been backed off. they had done overnight polling. they had decided the american people were deciding with him. it was a classic he said/she said. that's when the majority democrats not to let her introduce her polygraph test, not to let her introduce a key corroborating witness she had. that's when they decided to short-circuit the whole thing. >> this is why many people are saying republicans don't have open minds here. it doesn't have to be a he said/she said. they could open a brief

investigation. you know, when you look at the new allegations, whether it's from dr. ford, debby ramirez or the allegations we've seen in the last 24 hours, there are as many questions, if not more, than there are answers. why wouldn't people want them answered? >> i think what everyone that the table would say is this could have been resolved potentially with mark judge. but they're so afraid to call him. the fact that they did not in a case like this, an issue like this, call someone who is in the room -- how often in a sexual assault case or an allegation do you have a witness? and even a per that's pant, a third person? it's so rare and so should not have done any kind of interrogation of him. even if it's not on camera. just some affidavit with committee staff. preferably with the fbi. is really malfeasance. >> if not for politics, for kavanaugh and his family's own name, i find it striking when brett kavanaugh and his wife ashley did the fox news interview the other night and

his wife was directly asked would you want an fbi investigation to clear your husband's name, she looked at her husband, he took the question, and pivoted and didn't answer. >> this is so confusing. because i think everyone can have complete sympathy with brett kavanaugh saying i want the opportunity to clear my name. but the way you clear your name is by having neutral nonpartisan trained investigators dig in to all of the witnesses who are now identifying themselves around his behavior. remember that michael avenatti last night said criminal charges. those words came out of his mouth. >> andrea, thank you so much. andrea mitchell. i want to bring in nina to thenburg into the conversation, npr's legal affairs correspondent. she broke the story of anita hill's allegations against clarence thomas back in 1991. nina, i want to play part of what the president said about all of this yesterday.

>> well, it does impact my opinion, you know why, because i've had a lot of false charges made against me. people want fame. they want money. they want whatever. so when i see it, i view it differently than somebody sitting home watching television, where they say, oh, judge kavanaugh, this or that. it's happened to me many times. so when you say does it affect me in terms of my thinking with respect to judge kavanaugh, absolutely, because i've had it many times. >> wow, nina, can you decode that for us, what is the president saying? >> he's saying i've had this happen to me and i was -- he never says i was innocent. he said -- he identifies with kavanaugh in this battle. at the same time, he also said, well, i'm going to be watching too. and i'm going to see. and we'll see in the famous trumpian words. and that is not the kind of full

throated endorsement that the nominee has gotten without equivocation over the previous days. the translation of of that i think was, well, let's see how she does and he does and if it gets not good for us, i'm willing to pull the plug. >> midwin, i want to share what kavanaugh has even said in the last 24 hours, because he's changing his story a bit when it comes to character. because, again, this is a job interview for the highest court in the land. and it is about how you conduct yourself. here's what he said on monday. >> yes, there were parties. and the drinking age was 18. yes, the seniors were legal and had beer there. and yes, people might have had too many beers on occasion, and people generally in high school, i think all of us have probably done things we look back on in high school and regret or cringe. >> now, this morning, he will testify that, quote, i drank beer with my friends.

sometimes i had too many. i said and did things in high school that make me cringe now. is that important distinction? when he did that fox news interview, he certainly painted a very innocent choir boy persona. my only priorities, school work, community service, church and basketball. after that interview, in addition to new accusations, you saw people who had signed letters of support withdraw their support. one woman who was in an advertisement that was put out supporting him said, you know what, i'm going to need you to stop running that. it sounds like maybe he's adjusting his position. >> it does sound like he's adjusting his position. i think overall he is not sikt with his position. if you're not consistent with your position, guess what, you're not credible. at this very moment, needs to be credible. this is a job interview. this is not something he ought to be expected to have. and i think one of the things we've noticed throughout this

entire process up to this point is that there seems to have been this sort of felt acomply in the way this has been handled. listen, the job is already yours. but that's not how it's supposed to be. you're supposed to prove you have the character, you have thor it you have the temerity for the job. that is the onus upon him. for him to be waffling and going back and forth about who he was, what he did during that time, it doesn't make him credible. >> is it not about what he's conducting himself and what he's doing this week? understanding the difference between right and wrong. many people are saying, are you really going to go after someone for what they did when they were 17 years old? is it about that or is it about how he's managing today and how he views his conduct when he was 17? >> well, first of all, i think it's a bit of an understatement to call this a job interview at this point. this is full blown political warfare. this is a battlefield unlike any

we've really seen in the trump era. >> so he can't go back to district court after this? >> i think he should be able to but that's -- let's see, actually, no, i want to hear what's said today. i, like the american public, i want to hear what both sides had today. i think that's the problem. everyone in this country has become so quick to assume the worst about our political enemies. it's something that we constantly have to check. when you have a week where accusations of the supreme court nominee being involved in a criminal gang-raping, drugging, sex ring in high school are surfacing, the political debate is no longer a job interview. it is a full blown battlefield. >> i can disagree with that, respectfully. i think it is still a job interview. and i think this job interview would go quite well if you just had a sort of neutral, as maya mentioned, neutral and partial investigation. that really will quell this sort of circus that -- >> if brett kavanaugh is not

confirmed, and it is not because of the testimony today, it will be because of the failure for there to have been a full investigation. >> i want to stay on the new allegations we've seen in the last 24 hours. i want to read part of what "the new york times" ed board wrote about the allegations from julie swetnick. quote, these are grotesque charges and like the previous ones they leave oceans of room for the speculation and doubt. this is precisely why the senate needs to stop trying to ram through this nomination by some arbitrary deadline. it's very different to remind our audience it's an arbitrary deadline. today is meaningless. chuck grassley chose tomorrow as the date. everyone can say, hold on what does it mean to say kavanaugh was present? how do you know it was him who spike add drink? what's the argument to not slow things down? >>.

>> well, the argument is, frankly, political one. i asked the democrat and i said to him, if this were you, forget all the facts here, if this were you, would you be pressing for a quick vote, and he said yes, because time is not on their side. and you see that in some measure by the release of information at the very last minute. you see that by the fact they haven't sworn their witnesses. they have a couple of guys who say it may have been us. have they referried that to the police department if somebody is confessing to a crime? the answer to all of those questions think is no. >> time may not be on their side, but is the truth on their side?

it's also brett kavanaugh's legacy. >> you know, absolutely. one of the things we've seen over the past 24 hours is since there are new allegations, and i think we need to be fair on this one point. julie swetnick did not say in her affidavit he participated in the gang rape -- >> we have to be careful about how that gets reported. >> we have to be careful about that. she put him in the room. which suggests he didn't try to stop it -- >> did she put him in the room or at the party? >> it's a little unclear. i think this goes back to the primary point. they are serious allegations. they are serious as to his character. they are serious in terms of someone who's saying i will sit in the highest court in the land, responsible for upholding the law and following the law, to understand what happened here. the reality, though, in terms of the politics of this, is the

republicans had a chaoice to as him to pull back and say i'm out in order, in order to put up a candidate that could be put through with sufficient time. >> if kavanaugh withdrew on his own, isn't that a tacit admission of guilt? >> i was speaking to the politics as opposed to his perm position. doesn't mean he would have. doesn't say why he wouldn't ask for a reopening of his background check. he could have done that over a week ago. he also chose to go on public television, you know, on fox news which was a highly inusual move. one of the reasons we've seen these allegations coming forward is including friends of his from college saying i'm his friend and i'm telling you he would drink to excess and lose -- >> that is what was stunning to me. he did a fox news interview on a platform friendly to him and the outcome was some of his allies

saying, i'm going to withdraw support. elise. >> but that was the second big mistake of the week after not pushing the fbi to come in and investigate. having judge kavanaugh go out on fox news, a partisan outlet, and it sacrificed what he himself has made his big message that he is to be a referee, that he is not for one side or for the other. and so by the white house pushing him to do that interview, that he and his wife participated in, it was a co colossal fail, because then that was an illusion of not being politicized was sacrificed for going on fox news and attracting a base that was already there with him. >> we just saw chuck grassley walk into the room. he was in that room for the anita hill/clarence thomas hearing. here we are, for you, who was covering it back then, and here you are covering it today, what's the most important thing you'll be listening for? >> well, i guess i'll be

listening for a sense of telling the truth. and who is believable. and how both witnesses are treated. especially her. because she's not part of this process. she says in her prepared testimony that she's terrified. and that she really didn't want to come forward. so but that she wanted the information out. this is a classic view of somebody who isn't part of the process. i want my information out, but i don't want my name attached to it. and as any responsible journalist will tell you, you really can't do that. and once -- anita hill wanted to do that too. but once the moment comes where it's fish or cut bait, you either put your name on it and it's important enough to you as a citizen, and she said it is. and you come forward. or you don't. and i think these will be very dramatic hearings. i don't know how this business of having a female prosecutor

will turn out. it may turn out okay for the republicans or they may look like ciphers or they may not be able to stop talking. >> thank you so much. we're watching the room as it fills up. chuck grassley making his way in. it will certainly be an historic day on capitol hill. brett kavanaugh will speak first. his accuser, ford who has arrived, we don't see her in the room yet, she will testify second. while it is not unheard of, it is very rare for women to come forward with false accusations. >> yes. >> what is at stake? what kind of position has dr. ford put herself in? >> well, you know, i've worked with sex crime victims and women who have been victims of violent crime. domestic violence. and one of the things i find most astonishing about her coming forward is that she is brave. she's a very brave woman to do this. she has nothing to gain. she clearly recognized what sort

of scorn she'd be facing. i think we all know what happened with anita hill 27 years ago. i think she's going to be facing the questions about who she is, who is her character, you know, what is her credibility. and what is it she has to prove here. >> we're seeing chuck grassley making his way in. he just spoke to reporters for a moment. we didn't get that sound. we'll try to bring that back for you in just a moment. victims rights, maya, are trying to separate the politicses from the accusations here. most recent accusations, michael avenatti is in the mix. while we know nobody can throw bombs and get the attention like avenatti can, you know, much like donald trump, does it hurt, does it hurt dr. ford? does it hurt these other women to make a choice like avenatti because he is hyper political. not long ago, he was in iowa. some people say this guy wants to run for president. >> well, and he has said he

could beat donald trump. i think the important thing here is, one, people get to choose their own lawyers. so obviously swetnick had the opportunity. i think it is unfortunate that it further politicizes what should be significantly less political. which is the issue of what happened here and what happened to very real people. her allegations are quite stunning. i think one thing that's very clear in them is they corroborate a type of behavior. she's not the only one to corroborate this type of behavior, including as we've heard even friends of judge kavanaugh's who's come forward and said yes, that is the way he behaved. he drank a lot. and sometimes -- so that part of it should not get lost when we're thinking about credibility. credibility doesn't actually establish all the facts. but certain ly dr. ford is

walking into that room of a lot of corroboration of aspects of her story of how he behaves. the michael avenatti aspects of that can help paper over there's that type of corroboration about that behavior. which in the context of someone who is going to be sitting on the supreme court does matter. not necessarily whether there's guilt in the criminal context but certainly in the terms of the character of somebody who is going to be sitting on the supreme court. >> it goes back to judge kavanaugh in his fox interview this week voluntarily painting himself to look very innocent. voluntarily talking about the timing in which he lost his virginity. to me, i'm going, what is he telling us? and other yale students saying, well, he didn't tell me that back in the '80s. elite, did the most recent accuser, julie swetnick, need a michael avenatti-style attorney? because debby ramirez's attorney was on "rachel maddow" saying

they can't even get a call back from other republicans. >> having avenatti as her attorney is a political gift to partisans who want to attack him as trying to milk this for attention and they want to detract from what the actual accusations are. the accusations are explosive. if those accusations are true, this -- they are accusations of a criminal drug date rape/datelineup conspiracy that -- it will be one of the biggest sex crimes in the history of this country. >> we need to step back a little bit because where i'll disagree is not the culture unfortunately is one in which there's way too much violence against women and girls. we know if you're between 16 and 19, you're four times more likely to be the victim of a sexual crime. so that's number one. so it's not about whether there

was a conspiracy. it's more about whether there was a culture of behavior and did kavanaugh participate in that culture -- >> and today we recognize that was bad behavior back in the '80s and things must be different now but to blanketly deny it, if the accusations pile up, could be worrisome. all right. nobody is leaving. we're going to take a quick break. up next, republicans bringing in a prosecutor to ask the questions to dr. ford. rachel mitchell has been tapped to question kavanaugh's accuser. what will a prosecutor be able to ask that a member of the committee could not? hi, i'm joan lunden with a place for mom,

the nation's largest senior-living referral service. for the past five years, i've spoken with hundreds of families

and visited senior-care communities around the country. and i've got to tell you, today's senior-living communities are better than ever. these days, there are amazing amenities, like movie theaters, exercise rooms and swimming pools, public cafes, bars, and bistros, even pet-care services. and nobody understands your options like the advisers at a place for mom. these are local, expert advisers that will partner with you to find the perfect place and determine the right level of care, whether that's just a helping hand or full-time memory care. best of all, it's a free service. there is never any cost to you. senior living has never been better, and there's never been an easier way to get great advice. call today. a place for mom -- you know your family, we know senior living. together we'll make the right choice.

in less than one hour, supreme court nominee brett kavanaugh and dr. ford, the woman accusing him of sexual assault, will take the stand. in a last-minute move, the republican members of the judiciary committee who are all men announced they would bring in a female sex crimes prosecutor, rachel mitchell, to do the questioning. i want to bring in someone who has a lot of experience with cases just like this.

linda fairstein, linda, you have prosecuted many similar cases. >> sure. >> but this is not a criminal case. it is the most high stakes job interview imaginable. >> yes. >> what questions should she be asking? >> it's such a bizarre situation to have a sex crimes prosecutor brought in. her function working with the republican team is obviously to cross examine the victim, which is not what we do with accusers when you're a sex crime prosecutor. dr. ford tells a story. we have more details in the testimony you read earlier today. it's very compelling. miss mitchell is in a very uncomfortable position. she's going to take an accuser

and she's supposed to tear the accuser apart so grassley and hatch and cruz are not the ones seeing to be doing it. on the other hand, where the sex crimes prosecutor would be cross examining and trying to nail the suspect to the wall, how's she going to cross examine kavanaugh? how gently? is she going to accept the fact that this self-proclaimed virginal guy did not have the intent to submit a sexual assault? >> what are your thoughts on the fact they're not subpoenaing mark judge? and the accusations the past few days and those women are not part of the proceeding? >> first to judge, this is absurd.

one of the things to me that made dr. ford so credible. she on the own put another person, another man, in the room. so she puts an eyewitness who could easily contradict her. just knowing way too much about brett kavanaugh. why wouldn't he want mark judge to talk about what happened that night? >> i think you're absolutely right if mark judge could exonerate him. i think the probably brett kavanaugh knows better than anybody that mark judge doesn't remember a lot about the drunken haze years he spent if you read any portion of his book. think independently, the fbi should do it certainly. both sides should want it if it supports dr. ford. and if brett kavanaugh thinks he

could be cleared. >> is it a gift to kavanaugh not to bring forward debby ramirez or swetnick? given the nature of the accusations, especially from sw swetnick, not giving them a platform makes you think, man, he must have done this if he doesn't want to hear from them? >> yes, it speaks also to extending the need -- demonstrates so clearly the need to extent this hearing. instead of republicans saying we're voting tomorrow no matter what. if you wanted to clear your name, to have both of these women. if you think you had some way to clear yourself from them, other than just sitting there saying, gee, now i remember cinki ingdr little more than i did. both sides need an

investigation. but it wouldn't help him to have both women testify. >> there's also a path before they testify. let's say swetnick came to your office and reported, i have a sex crime from years ago. you would have more questions. lindsey graham brought them up. people might like to hear them or not. there are questions surrounding why would you go back to a party ten times or what does it mean to say brett kavanaugh was present at the event? >> yes. a good prosecutor, every prosecutor in the country, including miss mitchell, would know that a woman like that comes in, reports. very different than dr. ford in terms of the nature of the incident and how dr. ford ran out of that house and got away. julie swetnick is telling a story that a prosecutor would have to analyze and you want to believe. >> what would you be asking? >> you would be asking how many times she went to these parties. why did you tcontinue to go bac

when you knew women were being sexually assaulted, about the worst thing that can happen to a teenage girl. was it because she liked somebody at the party? was it because she was into drugs or was into alcohol? at what point did she realize there were rape, there were gang rapes and train rapes? if it were the first or second or third time and she continued to go back, that's one thing. if it was the ninth time, she realized, oh, i was missing something at these parties. she's a much more complicated witness. and so i would think the prosecutor and the people presenting the democrats presenting her would need more time. so push tomorrow's vote back. and have a full exploration of what she said. >> more time. we have to remember that the deadline, the day of today's hearing, tomorrow's vote, these are arbitrary deadlines, and i know what we have right now is a lot of questions. and everyone involved deserves answers. truthful answers.

linda, thank you so much. >> thank you, stephanie. >> coming up, we are just moments away at this point from the opening gavel of the ford/kavanaugh hearing. we will hear first from dr. ford and then from judge kavanaugh. brian williams will be joining our coverage. this is a massive day on the hill. a massive day for america.

you always get the lowest price on our rooms, guaranteed?m let's get someone to say it with a really low voice. carl? lowest price guaranteed. what about the world's lowest limbo stick? how low can you go? nice one, carl. hey i've got an idea. just say, badda book. badda boom. badda book. badda boom. nice. always the lowest price, guaranteed. book now at choicehotels.com if your moderate to severeor crohn's symptoms are holding you back, and your current treatment hasn't worked well enough it may be time for a change. ask your doctor about entyvio®, the only biologic developed and approved just for uc and crohn's. entyvio® works at the site of inflammation in the gi tract, and is clinically proven to help many patients achieve both symptom relief and remission.

infusion and serious allergic reactions can happen during or after treatment. entyvio® may increase risk of infection, which can be serious. pml, a rare, serious, potentially fatal brain infection caused by a virus may be possible. tell your doctor if you have an infection experience frequent infections or have flu-like symptoms, or sores. liver problems can occur with entyvio®. if your uc or crohn's treatment isn't working for you, ask your gastroenterologist about entyvio®. entyvio®. relief and remission within reach.

and good day from new york and washington, as our breaking

news coverage of this event starts to ramp up, we're just over ten minutes from this being gavelled into order. kacie hunt standing by for us on capitol hill. kacie, i know we're seeing the first the first arrivals and got confirmation within the past hour dr. ford is in the build, in an adjacent room. >> that's right, brian. we do know dr. ford has arrived on capitol hill to testify in public for the first time. and what she says happened to her when she was a teenager, that brett kavanaugh attacked her when they were both in high school, is something that has obviously upended this confirmation process and has given republicans here on capitol hill that could confirm kavanaugh without any support from democrats enough pause to go forward with this hearing. so, we're going to hear from her. then we're going to hear again from brett kavanaugh. and, as you know, we are not going to hear very many questions, we don't think, from the republican side during this

hearing. they have hired a woman, rachel mitchell, a sex crimes attorney, to ask the questions in their stead because all 11 of them are men. now we expect democrats will do the questioning themselves, as well. and they have been somewhat critical of republicans for not going forward with that. we should also note dr. ford's accusation has been added to by an additional two on the record women who say that they have claims of misconduct against kavanaugh and one anonymous complaint that the committee has been looking into, an allegation from 1998 of physical assault that a mother says her daughter was a witness to. there has been a lot of back and forth, democrats accusing republicans of trying to muddy the waters and republicans digging in, viewing this as a smear campaign. what matters today, everyone agrees, is this hearing. it will change minds and decide

exactly how this confirmation process proceeds. there are three important votes. lisa murkowski, susan collins and jeff flake. i'm also told by my sources that it's possible that the universe of republicans that could be swayed by what happens today is bigger and judge kavanaugh's confirmation is far from assured at this point. there's been a lot of private concern behind the scenes. there's an incredible amount of pressure on susan kolens and lisa murkowski. this is an historic moment and they'll really be remembered for what they do here and whether this man ultimately lands on the supreme court. that will be brett kavanaugh's audience, dr. ford's audience and we, of course, will be here with you through it all, trying to figure out exactly how this hearing is being received. the one final note i would make, brian, is that the one thing

that i think is a line that judge kavanaugh, if he crosses it, will have real problems is if there's a perception among republicans that at some point he did not tell the truth, that he has lied. that is something that all of my sources, senators, their aides have told me if that happens we certainly couldn't put a person like that on the supreme court. brian? >> casey hundredth will be among or correspondents looking to see what the impact of today is. and while kasie was talking, we've had this development. rachel mitchell from maricopa county, arizona, has arrived. she will sit forward of the committee members at a small desk in front of the kind of horseshoe shaped committee desk. that will put her directly across from dr. christine blasey-ford. let's bring in the folks we have here in the studio. of course, stephanie ruhle. and two former feds, veteran

lawyer cynthia oxney and maya ward are with us. let's get to the elephant in the room. that is the dichotomy between the witness we'll be hearing from, the federal judge second today and the image of him portrayed by the accusers and others. >> yes. i think what we're going to hear -- we have already heard them, right? we are going to hear things that we have probably not already heard from dr. ford except about who she is and how she presents to the public. not just to the senators. for those senators trying to make up their own minds, it's also about how how they'll perceive dr. ford. the issue of credibility.

well before he was nominated for the supreme court, we have witnesses who have come forward publicly and said this is consistent with behavior i have seen from him in various ways. on his end, we actually already have a lot of questions about his own truthfulness. right? both from his description to senators about whether or not he knew that documents that had been stolen from senators back when he was -- worked in the bush white house, that he didn't realize they were stolen. he got three pinocchios from "the washington post" on that and what he did and what he knew in the bush white house and a process in which senators have only had 7% of the documents. this is already in a context in which there have already been questions raised about his credibility and suddenly all the focus is on one set of

questions. and i think that, unfortunately, takes us out of what the process is about. >> we watch kamala harris and dick durbin arrive in the committee room. >> he has a very good lawyer, beth wilkinson. i understand she was out of town for a while and she's back. and you can see the better lawyering, quite frankly, that he has gotten. and she is a very good lawyer. >> first rate. >> they are thumbprint is on. people will be surprised -- this is my experience with sex crimes. because we all watch television and we all think i can handle that. actually, you sort of always are a little bit back but when that camera goes on her, similar to when jurors hear victims in the courtroom, it's a different thing. there's an emotional intensity to it. this is a smaller courtroom. this is a smaller room. the camera will zoom on her.

i think people will find they have an emotional experience that they don't expect in the back and forth of people in boxes talking about this. that could very much -- the intimacy of it could very much change the way people view this -- her testimony. >> this has gotten even bigger than christine ford and will brett kavanaugh get this job. at this point, this is about the process. it's about extreme partisanship. it's about me too. it's about how we raise our boys, what leadership looks like, what news organizations are supposed to look like and how we cover stories like this and our journalistic standards. so, there is so much engulfed in this tornado right now, it's hard to believe it's bigger than a supreme court justice confirmation, but it actually is. >> it's also about optics. as you've been saying, this is about the republican side, as we look at chairman grassley, the majority side realizing they were 11 strong.

what they had in common, they were all white men. >> that's 100% true. so on one hand, let's change the optics and bring in a woman to ask the questions. but does that really change the optics or does it make it more apparent, saying, i'm sorry, fellows, you couldn't handle yourselves asking appropriate questions? but on the other side, maybe it is a positive that there won't be this grandstanding, this performance art that you know we would hear from those asking the questions. >> correspondent garret headache is in the hallway outside this hearing about to begin. what can you see from your vantage point? >> reporter: contrary to what the republicans are doing, the democrats are looking forward to asking their own questions here. people of connecticut, he says, elected him to ask questions

that their constituents care about. both of these democrats said they will look at judge kavanaugh in more of a broad way here, looking at his credibility across the spectrum, even including that fox news interview and the things that he has said about his past that they find contradictory from his high school habits to his frat boy habits to the presentation of himself as a more clean-cut figure, as a judge. they see all of that as part of a broader picture. not just about whether or not these singular allegation that dr. ford is making is true but whether or not judge kavanaugh is credible, is an honest person and is the kind of person who would deserve this promotion, notwithstanding the specifics of the allegation made against him, which in this case i think they acknowledge will be very difficult to judge as though you would in a court of law, up or down, whether or not they think this is true. there's some additional evidence in the form of these sworn statements that dr. ford will

present but both democrats lamented the fact that they won't have additional witnesses that would make this seem a little more clear cut on a purely factual basis. brian? >> garrett haake in the hallway. chairman grassley likes to conduct a timely proceeding. you see the republican side of this committee will be under way very shortly, we believe. once we are under way, we're going to stay in the room and let our coverage just evolve organically, cover the conversation as it evolves. we've been told that dr. ford has something like 15 friends who have traveled with her from california, who will be part of the gallery in the authorized seating behind her, to lend moral support. we already know from the portions of her opening statement that was circulated last night, she intends to say she is