. that's what you're witnessing right now. i'll see you back here tomorrow at 1:00 p.m. and 3:00. thanks for watching. "deadline white house" with nicolle wallace starts right now. hi, everyone. it's 4:00 in new york. a firestorm in washington. protesters descending on capitol hill at this hour as brett kavanaugh inches toward confirmation in the senate. republican susan collins and jeff flake, two of the key swing republican votes, announcing they are satisfied with the fbi report on kavanaugh. senators have spent the day reading the updates to the fbi background check into kavanaugh. those reports are in a secure briefing room on capitol hill where most senators have to go to read them. and this afternoon, one of the red state democrats also thought to be a swing vote on the kavanaugh nomination, heidi heitkamp from north dakota, announced she'd vote no on kavanaugh. >> the process has been bad, but at the end of the day, you have

to make a decision, and i've made that decision. >> and that decision will be what, senator? >> i will be voting no on judge kavanaugh. >> amid the growing uproar from protesters, chuck schumer calling for the fbi background check to be made public. >> one, we had many fears that this was a very limited process that would constrain the fbi from getting all the facts. having received a thorough briefing on the documents, those fears have been realized. second, i disagree having received this briefing on all of the documents, i disagree with senator grassley's statement that there was no hint of misconduct. and third, we are reiterating our call, given how limited this -- these documents were and

how limited the scope of this investigation was, we are reiterating our call that the documents with proper redaction be made public. why shouldn't all of america see the facts. >> at this hour, we're still waiting for official word on how collins, murkowski, flake and manchin plan to vote. the first procedural vote is tomorrow. and chairman chuck grassley announced today he'd like to hold a final vote on kavanaugh's confirmation on saturday. here to discuss the day's developments, some of our favorite reporters and friends. garrett haake is on capitol hill with kelly o'donnell joining us from the white house. former u.s. attorney and former senior fbi official chuck rosenberg, "washington post" columnist eugene robinson is here. kimberly atkins, now the washington bureau chief for the "boston herald" and nick confisore. garrett, let's start with you. we've seen protesters on capitol hill. you've been reporting all week about how high the tensions are.

where do things stand this hour? >> well, nicolle, the protest happening behind me and may make me hard to hear is by far the largest and most well-organized protest against brett kavanaugh i've seen yet this week. it's really coming at the right time from the protesters' perspective. after this announcement from heidi heitkamp of north dakota that she'd vote no on kavanaugh's confirmation. gave really a boost of energy to the opposition here. the protesters are a few floors down from me. a huge cheer and round of applause in the direction of heitkamp's office. they've been thanking her staff for her vote. in terms of the optics, this is all definitely audible to joe manchin's staff and lisa murkowski's staff who are also in this building. you mentioned we're still waiting on jeff flake and susan collins and lisa murkowski on their votes. the jeff flake vote is, to me,

the most interesting open question at this point. remember, as of friday morning last week, he was a yes vote. and then he switched to wanting this fbi investigation. between what we heard from him this morning, the idea that he appears at least initially satisfied with the fbi investigation, and his initial yes, the longer he goes without saying more, without coming out as a firm yes and without appearing in front of cameras, and believe me, we've been looking for him all day, that makes me think his support is maybe not as strong as it appeared last friday. so while things appear to be moving in the direction of a kavanaugh confirmation, most of the day here today, i wouldn't say the momentum has turned the opposite direction but it's slowed down. there's more of a question, despite the ticking clock towards that first vote tomorrow morning. >> i'm a train wreck fan and recognize amy schumer there on the left. i want to bring kelly o. into the conversation. we've got collins, murkowski, flake, manchin and heitkamp who

is a no vote. how many more votes can kavanaugh lose and still get confirmed? >> he can lose two and then mike pence would break the tie. so if manchin -- if manchin holds, and i think it's probably more likely than not he does. i have a hard time seeing joe manchin being the only democratic no vote. that gets us back to a situation where one of these republicans can still vote no and mike pence could break the tie. so you still need two of these republicans to come over to no votes to stop this thing. >> kelly o., bring us up to speed on what you're hearing. you've got great sources on both ends of pennsylvania avenue. what do you know? >> some interesting things to look at are some of the dynamics here. joe manchin, democrat of west virginia, will not, i am told, make his position known until tomorrow. so he will not do what height heitkamp is and put the pin in

the balloon and end the speculation. there's a lot of pressure on joe manchin in a way that's different than what we saw with heidi heitkamp and it's this. joe manchin has been very popular in his home state. a former governor who has now been in the september for a couple of terms. he's in a tough race as well this november against the state's attorney general patrick morrisey. president trump has been to west virginia seven times in the time that he's been in office. brought a lot of pressure there. it is also notable that manchin and flake are good friends across the aisle. you could almost imagine a scenario where jeff flake decides he's voting no but manchin would be a yes. or you'd have the combination where murkowski could be a no and she's got reasons that have to do with alaska's native american community and judge kavanaugh's record on federal lands and sovereignty as an issue. that's not the thing we talk about typically in national news but in alaska, native american

sovereignty, incredibly important. and so there's a dynamic amongst this remaining group that is both political and personal. and we don't yet know if they're sharing their strategy but that is often the case in the final hours where if one person sort of needs to take the lead politically and do something risky, they may do it knowing they have cover from someone else. for example, if flake has to vote no for his conscience perhaps but he doesn't want to be a conservative who tanks this nomination, he might try to have the friendship of a democrat across the aisle vote in his place. you know how that sort of math could work out. we don't have answers to this yet, but that's some of the pressure that's being brought to bear. and for your "people" magazine moment, amy schumer is a cousin of chuck schumer. there's a family connection there as well. >> it all comes back to six degrees of separation, eugene. kelly o. is talking about alaska. of course, having been a palin staffer, i know all about

sovereignty in the state of alaska and state politics. >> i did not know that chuck schumer and amy schumer were related. >> what is this moment? we see passions on the left here. we see protesters coming out. it looks like the protest after -- on the day of the inauguration. this looks like the same nerve that's been struck. but on the other hand, all signs indicate from collins and flake's public statements about the fbi report that it gave them, perhaps, the justification to be a yes vote on kavanaugh. >> yeah, totally just heard garrett's caution there. my assumption all day has been he's going through. he's going to get confirmed. i am very skeptical that joe manchin would be vote number 50 to put him over the top. but assuming that only -- maybe

only flake decides of the republicans decide he can't vote for kavanaugh and everybody else holds, then it's 50/50. pence breaks a tie. and in that scenario, i could see manchin voting for him because it -- because it wouldn't matter in a sense. he'd get through anyhow. i don't think he'd be forgiven by the democratic party for being the vote that put kavanaugh over the top. >> kimberly, i can speak to the split screen moment. we've had so many of them since donald trump's ascension in american politics but this is undoubtedly yet another. >> what we're seeing is outside of this confirmation process. this sort of, you know, open bare knuckled partisan fight that has gender battles in it, that has classism in it and the patriarc patriarchy. it means so much more. i and other journalists have been hearing for weeks now from women who call me and e-mail me just to tell me their stories of sexual assault and how appalled

they are at how the women who are coming forward are being treated. whether you believe them or not or believe judge kavanaugh or not, that's an aside. it's the treatment of these women and this idea at the president and others are saying this is a dangerous time for men when they say this has been a dangerous time for women for a long time. and at that other side of it, you see people who are tagging democrats saying all they want to do is keep this seat open. so we're seeing all of these politics play out. and the cultural divide play out over this supreme court nominee is really extraordinary. >> can you think of a time, chuck, when the fbi has been thrust into the middle of a moment that kimberly atkins just accurately described? >> not quite like this, nicolle. that's what pains me. the last thing the fbi wants to be is in the middle of politics. and here, i know -- i'm afraid, i don't predict a lot of things, but i predicted from the outset they were in a box.

and that if their investigation was circumscribed, then they'd be blamed for not doing a full investigation. >> right. >> and that is exactly where they find themselves. and so it's deeply unfortunate. it's not where they want to be. and i can't think of a parallel. >> do you think the fact that collins and flake came out and said that what they'd seen in the report was satisfies to them, that was the word they used, what does that mean about the report? that seems to indicate it was good information for kavanaugh. >> probably, nicolle. it probably means it was at least more corroborative of what he claimed happened or didn't happen than what dr. ford claimed. >> but he's claiming, as you just said, you were trying to prove a negative with him. i'm guessing they had more character accounts. i'm just trying to understand what the substance of the investigation was. when ford spoke to "the washington post," she called for an investigation into her allegations, which would have

required that kind of long lead. >> much broader. >> right. so did they have the time to do the kind of investigation ford was calling for or did they simply go out and find more character witnesses for kavanaugh? >> well, they certainly had the time. remember, they have 13,000 agents. it's not like two folks driving around the country in a beat-up ford trying to track down witnesses. the fbi has the capacity to do this. they didn't have the authority. and so i'm not -- if they ask for a deadline, if they say we'd like this back by friday, that part doesn't trouble me but imagine a bank robbery where you had five tellers and they said pick three. you can talk to any three but not the other two. that's not how you do investigations. >> frank figliuzzi, can you hear us? do we have frank up yet? >> i sure can. >> frank, can you pick up this thread and talk about -- this is something you've been sounding the alarm on. if it turns out they didn't have the authority, that would be more indicative hough this was going to turn out than capacity or intellect or ability.

it seems like that's exactly where we've landed. >> yeah, this certainly appears to be the case that the constraints were so tight that we're left reportedly, if accurate, with nine or ten interviews perhaps. and as chuck said, that's not how you do this. let's talk about the most routine of applicant investigations. someone is applying to be an fbi agent. you go out and do the background. the candidate has given you the name of all their friends and loved ones who will say great things and be references for them. your job is is to talk to them and at the end say, who else should i talk to? who doesn't like this candidate? that's your job. essentially what sounds like has happened is the white house said talk to the references. talk to the ones that aren't going to tell us the bad things and only do that. for me, this is an institutional moment for the fbi, for director chris wray, it's a damned if you

do, damned if you don't. damned if you follow the written rules, damned if he doesn't come out and ask for more. damned if he doesn't give a statement, here's how we do backgrounds and damnede if he doesn't call for reform and the client relation and comes out and does that. this is a conundrum i'm sure that has people sequestered on the seventh floor of the hoover building. >> one more follow up to both of you. professor ford's attorney is out with a pretty damning statement about today's fbi. ford's attorney saying, the investigation conducted over the past five days is a stain on the proer process, on the fbi and on our american ideal of justice. you first, frank. >> well, look, it's -- the fbi motto is fidelity, bravery, integrity. and the question is, the fbi is filled with excellent rule followers. they do the right thing.

as chuck said, they do not want to be in the limelight. they do not want to be in politics but this is where they are right now. so the decision is, what does fiddle uelit fidelity, bravery and integrity mean right now. does the director need to make a statement? will he respond to congressional questions? this is a painful, painful moment for the fbi. >> i'll put you on the spot, chuck. does he need to respond to questions? does he need to respond to professor ford's attorney who says the past five days are a stain on the process, on the fbi and our american ideal of justice? >> first, does chris wray need to say something? he needs to say something to his people, to the fbi. because they watch the news, too. and they're all over the world. and so i would think at the very least, you'd want to go out and in some way, in an all-hands e-mail and say, look, here's what happened. here's what we did. here's why i did what we did. here was my decision-making process.

i think that's imperative. whether or not he makes a public statement is much more difficult because, again, to frank's point, whatever he says can be turned against the fbi. so there's communicating to your own people which is very important. and there's that much more difficult decision about it communicating externally. >> and he did that at one other point either after the mccabe firing. there was one other flash point in this presidency where he did find it imperative. >> frank is right. the men and women of the fbi are extraordinary. and they don't want to be in this position and they do want to hear from their leadership. they want to understand what the thinking is. they may disagree. they may agree. >> they want to feel like good guys. i've covered the fbi long enough they want to feel like they're on the just side of things. i wonder if this whole episode has made them question that. >> they know why they're there and what they do. this is a different thing. this is not a place where they want to be. this is not a place where they're comfortable. because this is politics.

and, frankly, fbi doesn't do politics. and they don't do it well. so i hope -- i hope that chris wray communicates with his people because they need to hear from him. >> kelly o'donnell, thank you for your great reporting. if you have anything else in the next hour, please jump back in front of that camera for us. we'd love to hear from you. when we come back, the debate over who benefits pllly fr politically from the kavanaugh fight. how strategists on both sides of the growing partisan divide see the emotional debate over kavanaugh shaping the midterms. brand-new reporting from "the washington post" about white house counsel don mcgahn's last stand. unceremoniously shown the door by donald trump on twitter weeks ago, mcgahn is working feverishly behind the scenes to reshape the supreme court on his way out. that story is next. insurance that won't replace

the full value of your new car? you'd be better off throwing your money right into the harbor. i'm gonna regret that. with liberty mutual new car replacement we'll replace the full value of your car. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty ♪

where we're changing withs? contemporary make-overs. then, use the ultimate power handshake, the upper hander with a double palm grab. who has the upper hand now? start winning today. book now at lq.com.

we are watching those kavanaugh protests on capitol hill and new reporting in "the washington post" from our friend robert costa on white house counsel don mcgahn. he reports white house counsel don mcgahn grumbled to his friends in late august that his expected exit was announced by president trump on twitter without even a warning. don was surprised and a little annoyed but eventually shrugged it off, said a person close to mcgahn. it seems like the last little bump in the road. but then there was a car wreck ahead. that car wreck was the kavanaugh nomination fight. the post goes on to weapon tempers have flared in the

fallout over the allegations against kavanaugh. both inside the administration and on capitol hill. where mcgahn's tight grip over the fbi's investigation of ford's claims have sparked sharp questions from both parties about the increased scope and extent to which the white house is limiting the probe. "washington post" national political reporter robert costa joins the conversation now. robert, it's an incredible piece of reporting about someone at the center of so many of these central story lines. our friends at "the new york times" reported it was mcgahn who spent 30 hours interviewing with the special counsel. mcgahn at the center of the kavanaugh pick, his selection. he fought for it, championed him and kavanaugh has become increasingly embattled, your reporting suggests he's held on even tighter to this process and he's taking it from all ends inside the west wing, including from the president. tell us about that. >> he's such an important player. and he gets very little attention because you never see don mcgahn on television. you don't see him behind president trump in camera shots

or on air force one. you have a lawyer here who is an ideologue, a conservative who worked for president bush in the 2000s as a member of the federal election commission, eventually chaired the fec and now wants to install a second justice on the supreme court for president trump. he's running the fbi investigation on the white house side. coordinating with senate majority leader mitch mcconnell. this is the power broker but a quiet one. >> and what is at the center of the tension between mcgahn and the president? >> there are multiple reasons they have tension. but the big one, of course, is the russia investigation. as you said, mcgahn has been a cooperating witness for robert mueller. the special counsel. and you also have mcgahn being someone who has clashed with the president over the department of justice. the president has, at times, recommended sweeping dramatic action be taken at doj. going as far as to maybe get rid of top doj officials. mcgahn has always pulled him back or tried to from some of

those decisions. and that's caused the tension. let me ask you, do you see kavanaugh's confirmation in stronger standing today than it has been since friday? >> it is certainly improved today because of the response from republican senators. and mcgahn walking them through it all over the last few days. mcgahn even talking to senators like chris coons, a delaware democrat, and this whole process playing out that a lot of republicans just wanted to check a box with fbi investigation and the extent of it was really not a huge debate inside of the gop conference in the same way it was for democrats. >> if don mcgahn gets two supreme court justices on the bench for donald trump before his first midterms, certainly before the first two years are over, how is he among the people like rex tillerson who were fired on twitter? >> mcgahn was almost really fired on twitter. he had the president announcing

his dismissal without mcgahn knowing. he's not really close with the president at all times but sometimes personal relationships don't matter in politics. what matters is the power. mcgahn knows how to navigate power in washington. the court potentially tilting to the right for generations and the conservative legal establishment in this country now having immense influence with president trump. so it's important to remember while don mcgahn and president trump don't always get along, they are a pact. they have a pact together, a partnership that's going to change this country and already has in many respects. >> nick, robert costa's reporting is so illuminating in this -- that donald trump accomplishments don't matter. it's not a meritocracy because mcgahn has accomplished more than anybody neelse in the west wing. if kavanaugh goes through as you're suggested the response from these senators is they have what they need in this fbi report, he'll have done more to reshape the court than in

quick -- more quickly than anyone in history, yet he's on his way out. >> shaping the courts is perhaps the most important thing that trump has done in office. on much to tax reform. it's the most longlasting thing he's done. it will affect conservatives for generations and generations, but it was always an alliance of convenience. not one based on mutual beliefs or long-standing held beliefs by donald trump. was what was the price of admission to the gop club in washington and the price of the alliance with them. this is it. and mcgahn is the guy who delivered it. >> but -- >> and mitch mcconnell. >> that will be part of mcgahn's legacy. but if it turns out, as we suspect, that on his way out, don mcgahn squashed the fbi investigation of his good friend brett kavanaugh so he wouldn't find out anything bad, that will be another part of don mcgahn's legacy and also a rallying point for democrats in the midterms. >> it's also been reported, by

your paper, that he spent at least 30 hours talking to robert mueller. so it's a complicated -- >> very complicated. >> at best. mcgahn is so essential and we talk so little about him, but is there concern that if he had that role if he is someone who at least understands if he doesn't always prevail, the importance of the rule of law and that relationship between the counsel's office and the justice department, what happens if he leaves, when he leaves? >> right. so i mean, we're all fungible. everyone can be replaced. it seems to me, as an outsider, that he's played a very important role in this white house. and maybe has acted at times as a governor or break on some of the president's worst instincts. we've heard stories about mcgahn stepping in to prevent the president from firing certain people. >> mueller. >> mueller, for example. >> sessions. >> just a couple. rod. >> and a wild coincidence, those

are the three i had in mind. and that's probably why the mueller team spent a lot of time speak with him because there are probably more. more than that. and it seems like he has been thoughtful part of this. >> robert, can you just pick up on chuck rosenberg's point that he has those relationships with sessions and deputy attorney general rosenstein and he threatened to fire, quit if donald trump fired mueller. can you talk about -- we overuse this idea of a guard rail but he's been someone inside the white house who has used whatever capital he has to warn the president about some of his most reckless impulses when it comes to the russia probe. >> frank's points were so interesting because he is a guardrail inside the white house and some of the president's decision-make, but mcgahn advocated internally against cooperate with mueller at this level. and to exert more executive

privilege at the start. that was against what dowd and cobb wanted. mcgahn put his head down and said i'll go talk to mueller. i'll do it. base od my reporting, even though mcgahn didn't want to go talk to mueller for 30-plus hours, he did. as much as he's a conservative and a partisan, at his core, mcgahn, he cooperated because he has a lawyer. he has a duty to the law to answer questions frankly from federal investigators. so that's what's made him somewhat of a ghost in this west wing. people who know mcgahn say he may not like cooperate with mueller but he did. he probably told federal investigators everything because he knows his law license, his reputation, it's all on the line if you even go off. >> we want to know what everything is. hopefully some day we'll learn. robert costa, glad to have you. thanks for spending some time with us. our cameras just caught up with senator joe manchin. is he still undecided? garrett haake asked him.

we'll play you his answer after the break. ignition sequence starts. 10... 9... guidance is internal. 6... 5... 4... 3... 2... 1... ♪ to put on our website? i mean i would have but i'm a commercial vehicle so i don't have hands... or a camera...or a website. should we franchise? is the market ready for that? can we franchise? how do you do that? meg! oh meg! we should do that thing where you put the business cards in the fishbowl and somebody wins something.

-meg: hi. i'm here for... i'm here for the evans' wedding. -we've got the cake in the back, so, yeah. -meg: thank you. -progressive knows small business makes big demands. -you're not gonna make it, you're not gonna make it! ask her if we can do her next wedding too! -so we'll design the insurance solution that fits your business. -on second thought, don't...ask that.

that fits your business. minutes can mean the difference between life and death. proposition 11 saves lives by ensuring medical care is not delayed in an emergency. proposition 11 establishes into law the longstanding industry practice of paying emts and paramedics to remain on-call during breaks and requires they receive fema level training and active shooters and natural disasters. vote yes on 11 to ensure 911 emergency care is there when you or your love one need it. traffic and roads... a mess, honestlyrents going up,le. friends and family moving out of state, millions of californians live near or below the poverty line. politicians like gavin newsom talk about change, but they've done nothing. sky-high gas and food prices. homelessness. gavin newsom, it happened on your watch. so, yeah. it is time for a change. time for someone new.

senator, tell me how the review is going. >> i'm not finished. >> not finished yet? >> tomorrow morning. i'll go back -- >> from what you've seen before, does it seem like the fbi talked to everyone they needed to? are you comfortable with the scope? >> i've only gotten through about half of it. >> garrett haake, not much to read through those tea leaves. what did you hear? >> i heard someone very uncomfortable with making a decision at this point. joe manchin has tried to not get pinned down on how he'll vote on this nomination. this is no exception. he's setting himself up to be the last senator who announced his decision saying he's not even done reviewing the documents until tomorrow morning. senators have been trading off

time here today. not necessarily a reason that would take until tomorrow morning unless you're joe manchin and you do not want to be the deciding vote here. and you want to try to come across the finish line potentially after kavanaugh's either at 50 votes or definitely not getting 50 votes to minimize your political exposure here a little bit. that being said, i don't want to totally impugn his motives. it's 46 pages of documents. a lot to go over. he's not on the committee so he's not been involved in these discussions up to this point. but there you saw a senator who does not want to be pinned down before he absolutely has to. >> garrett, how do they change so much from aing week ago. during professor ford's testimony she was so gripping and compelling that donald trump watched her and had that reaction. how are we talking about a democrat that may actually vote for kavanaugh? >> i think they're sort of back to -- the politics are back to where they would have been

before dr. ford came forward. before that, you had three democrats who voted for neil gorsuch who were thought to be in play here who might find is advantageous in a tough re-election fight to make this vote. you can make the argument that some of those senators, including manchin, probably wanted to get to yes. i remember him telling me when kavanaugh's name was first announced he was going to go back to west virginia and talk to his constituents about it. his constituents overwhelmingly supported donald trump in the last election. they were lubl to iable to be t him to support this nominee. that's a big part of it. also we've seen just this enormous explosion around this. this is the only game in town in washington right now and it's forced people to make choices that otherwise -- you can never really go under the radar with a supreme court pick but everybody is being backed into a corner of where they want to go. manchin's whole reputation is built on being the democratic senator who republicans can work

with. that still includes issues like this. >> i -- i agree with everything that garrett is saying, and i hear it, but i can't believe it. i can't believe that a democrat a week after that testimony and in sort of the throes of the culture moment we're living in for women with accounts of what she just described, women calling you, sexual assault, because with all that in the water, i can't believe there's a democrat that may be a yes vote on kavanaugh, or two. >> i don't think he's going to be the deciding vote, manchin. i do think that jeff flake has shrewdly boxed in democratic colleagues, very shrewdly. they asked for an investigation. he gave them one. what you see now these last few days is this is a fight over process, not details. not substance. it's about facts that aren't known instead of facts that are known. once they push the conversation in that direction, i think it was over for the democrats and a go for kavanaugh. >> it's interesting to me also, eugene, that while they had him friday, sort of successfully, if

you look at their political goals being to build support around hitting a longer pause button or expanding the scope of the investigation, they had raised questions about his -- whether he was telling the truth in his testimony. if you look at where we were a week ago, there were questions about whether he committed -- whether he told the truth when he testified. >> and there still are. >> undeniably powerful and credible account from professor ford. it's remarkable that six days, seven days later we're talking about which democrats are yes? >> they hit the pause button. but what do you do with that pause? who was in charge during that pause? it was the white house in charge. senate republicans in charge. democrats had no input into how this was done. and so the investigation was framed so narrowly just about, i don't know. just about what dr. ford said during part of her testimony. it was so narrowly focused and so limited that all the rest of

that just sort of evaporates. and it goes away. but about manchin -- >> listen to gene right now. this conversation right now. he's an eloquent person, stating it well but how power civil that compared to the testimony. it's not going to push republicans at all. >> i don't think -- for manchin, i think his calculation might be different now that heidi heitkamp has come out and said she will not. i think that's powerful. and i think that puts additional pressure on manchin, even if he's not the pivotal vote. i think it becomes harder for him to vote for kavanaugh. >> i'm not buying the kavanaugh bounce, if you will. i think the same people that were likely to vote in midterms for republicans are still likely to vote in midterms for republicans and the same people that were energized because of their feelings about donald trump are still more likely to vote for democrats. and i think that this whole idea

that this issue has sort of turned this back in the republican's favor is lunacy. the senate was always barely in reach for democrats. maybe, maybe not. the house was always more likely to be something they could take over. but this narrative is sinking in that because of brett kavanaugh and the fight and donald trump talking about a scary moment this is for men, democrats blew it. i don't see it. >> i don't either. this was largely a defensive move. republicans were saying they were afraid that backing away from kavanaugh would cause the base to revolt against republicans. >> they didn't. >> i blinked. i missed it. >> the democratic energy is still there. that's not been diminished. i think we've seen an increase in republican base energy as well. but i think what the long-term calculation we're seeing here is whatever potential short-term peril or benefit on the republican side, depending on who you ask if you measure it against what could be the long-term blowback, if you look at history, republicans and

democrats, whether it's bill clinton, whether it's clarence thomas and others, by and large, they were not hurt in the long run by these allegations by women. i think that people think when women make these allegations against a man in power, in the long run, the men tend to win. joe biden has gotten away really not really feeling the effect of his role in the anita hill hearings. history gives republicans every reason to believe in the long run this is going to be a win. we may see a difference heading out of this in the midterms and beyond. but i think republicans think history is on their side. >> if you want to be just machiavellian about this, i think if you want to sustain any political advantage to the midterms, you should lose this fight. and keep that sort of smoldering anger and activism that comes out of that anger. keep that alive.

it looks likely, i think, that that will be more alive among democrats right now than among republicans. it certainly would be among republicans if he gets rejected. i think it will be a rallying cry and i think it will bring more people out. >> how do you keep it alive? after -- yes, after anita hill, there was the year of the woman. we saw some women get elected to congress. it's still a white male pa patriarchy here. >> i'm talking a matter of weeks. i'm not talking like getting rid of the patriarchy. >> it's hard to stay angry if your side is winning. and if they get kavanaugh in, the anger on the right is not going to be as strong as the anger on the left. the anger on the left is really strong. >> what do you think the impact is of sort of treating -- i talked -- i watched on thursday with brian williams and talked about the human carnage. my reaction as a human being was to sit there and watch these two human beings with family members

up there in the senate whose lives had been destroyed. what is the fallout and where we are if all this human carnage is just baked in now. this time of trump. her life is rinneuined. she tells this wrenching story. no one believes her. it is so dehumanizing to have these conversations. where are we? >> that's the tough question people are saying. we're at a place where people are in the streets yes again protesting because what they see is -- has a fundamental sense of unjustment. look, i'm not to say that i don't hear from women who say they are fearful of their sons that they'll be accused of something. as pointed out even by senator sasse. >> why can't we have two thoughts in our human being. we value due process for men and women and human beings who listen to a credible account and say let's have the fbi, all 13,000 of them go check that out. why can't we hold two thoughts in your head anymore? >> in this political, polarized, political environment, we cannot. i hope that we -- that people,

citizens, can have that in their communities and their households and elsewhere in their churches but in the senate, that is not a place that that can happen right now. not in this partisan environment. >> do you see a direct line between the daily assault on the rule of law, on the fbi, on the intelligence community, on the deep state, and people feeling like this fbi -- no one thinks -- no one on the left thinks this fbi report is on the up and up. and everyone on the right is going to use it to vote for kavanaugh. >> so, yes, but the fbi report, whatever it may be, however long it may be, however many people they may have spoken to, is on the up and up. but the agents were told, they recorded what they -- >> the 302s. >> but you know that's not what i'm asking about. i'm asking if the scope of the investigation. >> and that's where i was going to go to. i'm sorry i took a while to get there. >> part of the problem. sound bites. >> make it fast and make it smart, right? >> take uppior time.

we just blew up a commercial for you. >> i do slow and stupid, not good at fast and smart. >> human xanax. >> so the report itself is true. it's faithful. it's what they were told. but it's never going to be enough. and that's the problem. again, that's the box the fbi is in. that's the bigger point here that their work isn't trusted or at least it's not trusted by enough people. >> so let me move -- let's make people feel better. so what they are reading in that room, these are interviews. and they oare -- there's no reason to doubt them. but the scope of the investigation that will go on, that's a legitimate -- >> again, whether, and i don't believe this but i'll just say it, whether the fbi should have bucked the system, whether they should have refused to do what the president or don mcgahn asked them to do and gone and interviewed everyone they wanted to or would have interviewed had it been a criminal investigation. but that's not the rule of law either. that's the box.

if we expect the fbi to be faithful and brave and men and women of integrity like frank said earlier, then we also expect them to follow the rules. the rule is, talk to the people we tell you to talk to. there's the -- that's the dilemma. >> that's the chain of command and the discomfort of having someone like donald trump sit atop it. at least for me. >> it's whiplash, though. a few weeks ago, according to the president, we were supposed to believe that the fbi was a cesspool of politics. >> i don't think it's been weeks. these are like dog years. it's only been a few days i'm sure. >> now we're supposed to believe, the fbi says, we have to believe it. so -- >> i know. here we go. coming up, we'll switch gears. a national security threat collides with the mueller investigation. stay with us. a once-in-five hundred year storm

should happen every five hundred years, right? fact is, there have been twenty-six in the last decade. allstate is adapting. with drones to assess home damage sooner. and if a flying object damages your car, you can snap a photo and get your claim processed in hours, not days. plus, allstate can pay your claim in minutes. now that you know the truth... are you in good hands?

(door bell rings) it's ohey. this is amazing. with moderate to severe ulcerative colitis, are you okay? even when i was there, i never knew when my symptoms would keep us apart. so i talked to my doctor about humira. i learned humira can help get, and keep uc under control

when other medications haven't worked well enough. and it helps people achieve control that lasts. so you can experience few or no symptoms. humira can lower your ability to fight infections, including tuberculosis. serious, sometimes fatal infections and cancers, including lymphoma, have happened; as have blood, liver, and nervous system problems, serious allergic reactions, and new or worsening heart failure. before treatment, get tested for tb. tell your doctor if you've been to areas where certain fungal infections are common, and if you've had tb, hepatitis b, are prone to infections, or have flu-like symptoms or sores. don't start humira if you have an infection. be there for you, and them. ask your gastroenterologist about humira. with humira, control is possible. a new twist connected to robert mueller's russia investigation. the justice department today indicting seven russian officers on charges related to cyberwarfare. their alleged activities

connected to russia's doping scandal. three of them are also on the list of russians indicted in robert mueller's russian meddling investigation. frank figliuzzi is still here. frank, this was a story put on my radar by chuck rosenberg. we've been dying to ask you about it all day. tell us about the significance of this and what does it tell us about what russia is up to while we're busy fighting each other to death over domestic politics? >> well, first, welcome to the new breed of espionage today. the spies aren't now wearing cloaks and daggers, they're sitting in front of computer screens. and some of these very same people that were indicted in this hacking operation are the same people that putin used to -- and were indicted by mueller for hacking involving the russia investigation. so this is what -- this is how it's going to play out from now on. this is the new battlefield, cyber. so we're dealing with a country that is incredibly sophisticated.

you know, a lot of folks say it's china, china, china on the cyberscene. but russia is more sophisticated and more willing and able to use cyber as needs. and that's what's going on here. they got angry they got caught doping in the olympics, they lashed out at the olympic organizations in the u.s. and abroad and then they went even further and started to hack nuclear organizations and also looking at the poisons and toxins that have been used to assassinate people. so, while our president, our president meets with putin, one-on-one, doesn't give us the details of the meeting, the reality is that putin is very much engaged in operations against us. very much putin against the world when it comes to cyber. >> let me press you on that. so, donald trump stands next to putin and says, why wouldn't i believe his account, admiral rogers, when he was head of the nsa, in a very exasperated

manner talks about not having all the authorities he needs to do his job to fight against the russians. christopher wraych thes s -- testifies that he's not been directed to do more than what he's been doing before. we have cabinet officials testifying under oath they're not being able to toughen up our defenses. are we at risk because of president trump's posture on putin? >> i think president putin feels like he's got free rein. he's got license to do what he wants to do, and i don't think he expects retaliation from the white house. so, what i would expect under normal circumstances, is for a statement from the white house, from cia director, from state department, from the dni and sanctions to be considereds i would expect congress to start investigating and endorsing sanctions, but we're not yet there, and the american people need to understand the cold war is not over, by any stretch.

>> talks about what congress should be doing, all i can do is the republican chair of the house intel committee probably spent his weekend drafting new articles for the deputy attorney general. they are railing against the people who are trying to protect us. >> and disclosing our secrets. i'm going toe try to put this in context without putting people to sleep. >> you never do. >> when chairman nunez puts out fisa materials and we scream about the effect it may have, it's a very real fear. here's why i say that. in the press release the department of justice put out today to accompany this indictment, and i think frank is spot on, this is a big, big deal, we thanked the dutch intelligence service, the swiss intelligence service and the british intelligence service. we work with our allies and even some of our not so allies around the world regularly, sharing very sensitive information, and they give it to us and we give

it to them because we trust one another. and if they see our stuff going into the public sphere for partisan political purposes, maybe we don't make cases like this. maybe our next indictment doesn't thank the dutch, and the british and the swiss because they don't want to be part of this and don't want to share their stuff with us. >> or they don't want the president to out the intel in a meeting with a russian prime minister in the oval office. or to yield to devin nunez, who wants to overrule the fbi director. >> and that's why we protect the stuff. we're not just protecting our stuff, we're protecting the stuff of our friends, too. and incidentally, and this is true in both law enforcement and intelligence, when our officers, be they agents or cia case officers, try to get people to talk to us, or to even become assets, right, to join us in a sense, it's only happens if they trust that they will protect them. if we don't have credibility with our partners around the world, we don't get this stuff and maybe we don't make these

cases. >> it seems like another example of this two-tract presidency, that woodward writes about, that others have reported on, that there are these adults, whatever you want to call them, who are continuing to nurture these relationships with our allies, and then there's the president. >> look, this country is in a cyber war with russia right now. they are currently, actively involved in the midterms on social media, they are even trolling the kavanaugh debate. they are out there, they are doing this. and while we have done sanctions on the russians, and we see the two-track presidency, there is a lot more we could be doing or considering doing. there are resources we have that as far as i can see are not being deployed, and there are questions about how aggressively we are using capacities we have to fight back. and it's because the president is not putting out the signal and prioritizing it. you have to lead from the top on these things. >> and is there resistance on the tone he sets when he's in front of the world, standing next to vooladimir putin? >> there's no push.

there's no direction. >> we have to sneak in our last break. we'll be right back. k. we'll be right back. quick, the quicker picker upper! bounty picks up messes quicker and is 2x more absorbent than the leading ordinary brand. bounty, the quicker picker upper. on a budget? try bounty essentials.

it's a revolution in sleep. the new sleep number 360 smart bed is on sale now, from $899, during sleep number's fall sale. it senses your movement, and automatically adjusts to keep you both comfortable. it even helps with this. so you wake up ready to put your pedal to the metal. and now, during our fall sale weekend special, the queen sleep number 360 c2 smart bed is only $899. plus, 24-month financing and free home delivery. ends monday. sleep number. proven, quality sleep.

your insurance rates a scratch so smallr you could fix it with a pen. how about using that pen to sign up for new insurance instead? for drivers with accident forgiveness, liberty mutual won't raise their rates because of their first accident. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪

we let our friend robert costa go too soon. he tweeted this. "the view inside gop that postnovember elections things k0u8d get wild. house could flip, mueller report expected, subpoenas could start flying. different players have different levels of visibility into these possibilities, but the tensions and desire to confirm kavanaugh are ubiquitous." it's going to get worse? >> all of us just exhaled at this table. oh gosh. >> what do you think? >> i think he's probably right. look, i think by next week, we're going to be talking about something else, and that is just the new normal in this new political environment.

it's breathless. >> frank, are you still with us? we lost frank. i want to ask you, the idea of subpoenas flying, are the democrats up to the task? do you think they're going to have to focus their efforts or is everything going to be on the table? >> well, look. if democrats take the house, there will be a bunch of committee chairs who will each have their investigations they want to launch, so, it will be all over. and the idea that things are going to get crazier after the election just depresses me to no end. because we're trying to get to the election. >> well, i worked in the white house with a democrat-controlled house, henry waxman subpoenaed my e-mails around the energy task force, i mean, i turned over my e-mails as a white house staffer multiple times. do you think the white house is equipped for what would come if the dems take over the house? >> i don't know that any white house is fully equipped for what might come. you know as well as anybody on this planet how difficult it can be to be in any place that's under scrutiny, even if you did

nothing wrong. >> we don't think that's the case here. >> i have a contrary view. i think in general, in this era, term of divided government, there is more emotional stability in washington. the factors are different. it's the one party rule periods where one party just jams things that all the energy is repressed and gets extraordinary. >> so, you're telling me i'll be happier, i won't need -- >> maybe. >> you made me feel better. thanks to chuck, eugene, kim and nick. that does it for our hour. i'm nicolle wallace. "mtp daily" starts right now. hello, chuck. >> happy thursday. >> happy thursday. >> persevering. all right, if it's thursday, the fbi report is out. but how many senators are in? good evening. i'm chuck todd here in washington. welcome to "mtp daily." we begin tonight wit