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 with the escalating fallout after the fbi

completed its supplemental background investigation into judge brett kavanaugh. this was the scene just moments ago as anti-kavanaugh protesters descended on parts of capitol hill. it appears the capitol police made more than 100 arrests. the first votes, by the way, on kavanaugh's confirmation are expected to begin tomorrow. after reviewing the fbi's latest report, the white house and senate republicans are full steam ahead with his pending confirmation. >> we are fully confident after reviewing this information, senators can be comfortable voting yes. >> none of the allegations have been corroborated by the seventh fbi investigation. not in the new fbi investigation, not anywhere. >> there was no corroboration, no corroboration, again, no corroboration whatsoever. for me, again, no corroboration. not any corroboration. >> democrats, however, are livid, they say that the white

house constrained the fbi, rendering its work meaningless at best and a conspiracy at worst. >> our fears have been realized. this is not a thorough investigation. >> the fbi did not interview brett kavanaugh nor did the fbi interview dr. blasey ford. >> they didn't interview all the potential eyewitnesses. they didn't interview all the corroborating witnesses. i'm actually shocked. >> i'm not allowed to discuss it, the public can't see it, it's a complete sham. >> it smacks of a whitewash, even a coverup. >> if that's an investigation, it's a [ bleep ] investigation. >> full disclosure, we haven't seen the fbi supplemental investigation, it's being closely guarded. but pretty much everyone who has seen it or has been briefed on it agree that there isn't much new in it. and as you heard in those clips, republicans see that as vindication for kavanaugh, while democrats see it as an indictment of the white house, which limited the scope of the fbi's work. either way, brace for an impact,

folks, because this moment in american politics is likely going to have serious consequences. regardless of your political persuasion. most immediately, it appears that kavanaugh should have the votes he needs for confirmation. susan collins and jeff flake appear to be satisfied with the fbi's work when they spoke publicly earlier today, although neither has announced which way they plan to vote. it feels like they're looking to get to yes, not no. another key holdout, lisa murkowski, is still apparently truly undecided, but they may only need two of the three. but here's one of kavanaugh's toughest democratic critics on where he thinks the vote stands. >> i think this will be a very close vote. it hangs by a few undecided democrats and republicans. i haven't read this report yet. if i were to just guess today, he will be narrowly confirmed. >> now, there could always been unpredictable drama. though it appears that the biggest drama, at least when it comes to the vote will be its

margin. 51-49, 52-48? but folks, the shockwaves from this episode are going to touch everything. the midterms, the partisan warpath of washington, control of congress, the legitimacy of the supreme court, the presidency, the institution of the senate, the fbi, maybe even the 2020 field. how? let's dive in. and i promise you, we'll pile even more on top of this. joined by tonight's panel. including heidi przybyla, ramesh pinuru, the father of a new third child, he's back from paternity leave, good to see you. and ruth marcus from "the washington post." all right, heidi. it looks like we know what's going to happen. >> yeah. >> i think -- there's so many consequences. let's start with the nearest term consequence, which will be the midterms. >> right. >> i feel like each side is trying to will a certain conventional wisdom, republicans are saying, this has really

helped our enthusiasm. i've heard democrats say, this is your health care moment. >> all right, let's separate the house and the senate. first of all, the house is on an inescapability trajectory of democrats gaining seats. that's going to happen no matter what. >> we don't know how many. >> fair enough. >> let's talk about the senate. the senate, republicans are seeing, they believe, what is, you know, closing, a narrowing of the gap, based on this enthusiasm, outrage over the way they think kavanaugh is being treated. so, the question is, they're likely to get what they want here. he's likely to be confirmed. so, are you still going to see that type of anger and outrage last into the next four weeks? probably not. however, on the other side, the democrats are furious and i take you back to the whole dawn of this presidency, the women's march, the whole premise that this president would pick supreme court justices in part who would overturn roe.

this is the guy, now, who is positioned to do exactly that. and i think that that is going to be a huge motivating factor. women were already, but women were already motivated, chuck. >> i've had republicans say -- >> what is the value added here? >> ramesh, voters don't go to the polls to say thank you. they usually go to the polls to say f you. they do. >> which is the problem that the president's party usually has, because the president's party is usually satisfied and the opponents are usually very aggrie aggrieved. and that's been an asymmetry all through this year. the republicans -- >> asymmetry through three decades. >> but the republicans have been trying up to now, a lot of congressional republicans, at least, wanted to move a message of satisfaction. the economy is doing well, you should be happy about tax cuts. whether or not those things are true, they're not get out of, you know, get out of bed in the morning and go vote.

they're not a grievance. the question is, if they win on confirmation, people on the republican side are still mad enough in a few weeks time to come out to the polls and vote republican. who knows. >> ruth? >> well, i don't know if they will be mad enough in a few weeks time, but i do know from the republican point of view that winning is better than losing, and so -- >> last time i checked, right. >> and so, while you have the essential inherent asymmetry of a president that -- who is destined by history to lose seats in a midterm election, this is a better situation -- confirmation is a better situation for republicans than not confirmation. i do wonder why it has been played even if he is confirmed so badly for my point of view by republicans, and i would cite two things. one is, why does the president go out and attack her? i understand -- >> seemed unnecessary in the

moment. >> it seems unnecessary in the moment, it seemed bad, if your target is three undecided republican senators. >> two of which are women. >> yeah. >> last time i checked, right? >> you know, yes, it might be a base play, but maybe there aren't any women left in america to turn off, but i don't think that that's true. so, that's number one, and number two, why be so resistant on the fbi investigation and why once you've been bludgeoned into an fbi investigation by jeff flake, why not do just a little bit of a better job so you can take away that argument from democrats? >> you know, on trump, whether it's the strategy or not, i do think there is one way that it actually helps some of the senators get to yes, because they said, we're not for trwhat trump said, we're reasonable people, though we ultimately come down for kavanaugh. >> it made their life easier? >> i'm not -- i'm not saying -- i'm not saying if you ask them, they're going to say, yes, keep it up, but in a curious way, it

does sort of play that way. >> okay. we just need to also point out the insanity of this moment, chuck, that we have this report here and only republicans and democrats can see it you the public can't see it and they can't agree on some pretty basic things. like, even who was interviewed. the democrats say eyewitnesses were not interviewed. the republicans say they were. the republicans say that there was no whiff of misconduct in here, chuck schumer says that's a lie. we can't agree on some pretty basic things, it's going to be a political -- >> can -- >> it is, i agree. i'm struggling here with, we have had a raw fbi report, good or bad, do they belong in the public square or not? in the russia probe, we think they don't. in the supreme court debate, we think they do? i mean, look, and maybe you can make an argument and in one sense, no, in one sense, because -- but it -- we are -- it is interesting to watch the two parties argue different sides of this issue with this fbi report. i'm just saying.

ruth? >> i am not -- i'm trying -- i'm struggling with -- i love raw fbi reports, like the next reporter. >> but you have to be careful. >> we have to be really careful of them in both settings, in the criminal setting and equally in the background setting. but there should be -- i think senator cornyn said this, there needs to be some mechanism, without giving the public access to people's cell phone numbers and social security numbers or whatever else is collected, give them some sense of confidence that, yes, there was a thorough investigation and, yes, reasonable bases were covered even in a limited period of time. >> remember, this is a result. why are we struggling with this? why don't we have any trust? we don't trust the institutions. the lack of trust is the problem. >> who has been telling us not to trust the fbi? i can't remember that guy's

name? >> well, it depends from day-to-day. >> investigation to investigation. let's talk about the impact on the supreme court. first of all, which impeachment articles get drawn up, president trump's or justice kavanaugh? heidi? >> well, we can say for certain, one of the first actions that the house oversight -- >> if it is controlled by the democrats. >> if it is controlled by the democrats. they will subpoena every record of every person that was turned away from the fbi, which, by the way, nbc news, among other news organizations have talked to those people who have just been put into a black hole. so, that will be the first thing, the second thing they'll do is, they will get -- subpoena all the correspondents from the white house, because we know, what we know based on our own reporting is the white house picked who the witnesses were. what were the orders that the white house dictated the parameters to christopher wray and also does the fbi agents who did this, do they believe that they were limited or that they did a full investigation? >> fbi agents were asked to do a

background check, that's different than -- and it is different than an investigation, and i think -- i do think, for the public's consumption, we've conflated this. >> i've been thinking a lot about the future of the court, and as you have those photos of the protesters, i'm wondering what chief justice john roberts is sitting, thinking sitting in his chambers. and he's thinking, this is not good for my -- >> and he's an institutionalist. >> i would argue we have three heads of the three branches of government. let's let the speaker of the house be the head of the legislative for now. there are people who are -- they don't like the head of the executive there's a majority that doesn't like the head of the led legislative. roberts was the guy that put the institution above his own politics. >> this is making it a lot harder for him to do that. and this is something that he's been talking about, if people start to understand the court as a partisan institution with partisan players who are suited

up to use his balls and strikes and umpires metaphor, you suit up your team, this is bad for the court. justice roberts has said it, justice kagan said it. >> guess what? when it was 5-4, bush v gore, that's whenever robe became red and blue. >> and he's been dealing with the legacy of that. >> ramesh, i'm sorry. >> you know, the impeachment question, i think one of the things you've got to wonder about is, is the public really going to be clamoring for a prolongation of this argument, are people enjoying this that much? >> by the way, a bunch of republican and democratic senators, it's my understanding, if kavanaugh wasn't confirmed by tomorrow, it -- everybody just wanted it out, there were democrats that were just, confirm him already, and republicans were like, i'm tired of this. like, he only had another, i think, day to live had this not gone, because i think there's almost pure exhaustion. >> yeah, that's -- >> that's certainly what i detect and not just from senators. >> i want to play something that justice -- i am also curious

about how justice kavanaugh is going to be treated on the court, perhaps by litigants and things like that. because this is going to be a quote that i think the thrown back at him a lot. take a listen. >> this whole two-week effort has been a calculated and orchestrated political hit fueled with apparent pent-up anger about president trump and the 2016 election. as we all know, in the united states political system of the early 2000s, what goes around comes around. >> hey, i think the next day john harris wrote his own version, comparing kavanaugh's work on the ken starr investigation to what's happening to kavanaugh now. you know, this cycle of what goes around comes around, ruth, is why we're here in the first place. bork beget garland. i mean, every side has a, i'm going to get you, moment, right? it's got to end.

>> it's got to end -- look. but judge kavanaugh that we saw in that really scary glimpse of him is not the judge kavanaugh that people have seen on the court for a dozen years. i suspect on the bench, with his colleagues in conference, that scary judge kavanaugh will not return. but it also can't been unseen. >> it's funny you say that. we've never had this with a justice before. but if he's going to get confirmed on a 51-49 vote, 52-48, it strikes me that he probably needs to do a little bit of an apology tour on the temperament front or a reassurance, whatever you want to call it. some have said he shouldn't apologize. but he may need to, if he wants to not have to feel like he has to recuse himself from half the cases, what do you think? do you think he has to do something to at least publicly say, you know what, i went too far? >> well, i don't know whether he's going to be making public statements of that nature.

he may want to be a more cautious and minimal judge -- >> that worked out well for justice thomas. >> no, but justice thomas hasn't been -- justice thomas has been willing to cut a wide swath through precedent. justice kavanaugh might have the other reaction. i think justice thomas is a good example for us to look at. he was in the senate, he was talking about a high tech lynching, i mean, that was a pretty harsh statement, essentially, about the democratic opposition, and you didn't see the recusal, you didn't see a lot of, you know -- >> let me pause at something. he sometimes -- he's the lone wolf more often than anybody. do you think he really is that kind of conservative or do you think he got -- the process made him more radicalized? >> the experience may have radicalized him, but different people are going to react in different ways to this kind of thing. >> that was a racial reference. this is an expressly political reference that actually named

names. and you see some reporters doing reporting on the democratic groups that may have cases before the court where they're going to ask him to recuse himself. and that's just the path that we're headed on. >> and he'll brush them off, as he should. >> good luck with those nine starting to get along. i think that's going to be interesting. all right, you guys are stuck for the hour with me. sorry, you've been penalized. up next, what's going on right now on capitol hill behind closed doors? closed doors

at&t provides edge-to-edge intelligence, covering virtually every part of your finance business. and so if someone tries to breach your firewall in london & you start to panic... don't. because your cto says we've got allies on the outside... ...& security algorithms on the inside...

...& that way you can focus on expanding into eastern europe... ...& that makes the branch managers happy & yes, that's the branch managers happy. at&t provides edge-to-edge intelligence. it can do so much for your business, the list goes on and on. that's the power of &. & when this happens you'll know how to quickly react... billions of problems. dry mouth? parched mouth? cotton mouth? there's a therabreath for you. therabreath oral rinse and lozenges. help relieve dry mouth using natural enzymes to soothe and moisturize. so you can... breathe easy, there's therabreath at walmart. but prevagen helps your brain with an ingredient originally discovered... in jellyfish. in clinical trials, prevagen has been shown to improve short-term memory. prevagen. healthier brain. better life. if that's an investigation, it's a [ bleep ] investigation. >> well, as we saw earlier, that was bob menendez's pithy

reaction to the fbi report on brett kavanaugh. seems like he's adopted the same language choice that lindsey graham's adopting. welcome to the new united states senate. it's a sentiment shared by most senate democrats, though they may not have used those particular words. it's a sentiment shared by christine blasey ford's legal team, which was furious that the woman whose accusations led though that investigation wasn't even interviewed as part of it. in a letter to christopher wray, the legal team calls the investigation, quote, a stain on the process, on the fbi and our american ideal of justice. with me now, ben wittis, a senior fellow at the brookings institute, and he knows brett kavanaugh, personally, i think you call him a friend. >> ah -- >> still a friend now? >> i do, but i mean, after what i wrote this week, i wouldn't be surprised if he doesn't consider it that way. >> so, would you have written that piece -- you wrote a piece in the atlantic, basically, i know brett kavanaugh, you

publicry write that you sort of regret that you have come to this conclusion. would you have come to that conclusion before dr. ford and his testimony, before the controversy, his first confirmation hearing, did you find that satisfactorsatisfacto? >> oh, very much so. and, in fact, one of the reasons that i vouched for his character was that a lot of people were accusing him of lying in that, and i thought those allegations didn't have merit, and said so and said nice things about him and his character in that context, and that's one of the reasons i felt -- felt it necessary to comment separately on the hearing last week. >> you're obviously extraordinarily familiar with how the law enforcement process works, background checks, how all that stuff works. so, i'm going to pause at a theory here. one of the things that's been a head scratcher for a lot of us is why judge kavanaugh was just so reluctant to admit that i may have liked beer a little bit too

much in high school and college, not been a problem since and there's been no record to indicate. but walk me through the background check system, you know, they kept saying he'd been through six of these. how specific, when it comes to questions about alcohol and questions about heavy drinking, does it get -- is it possible he was worried about looking like he was contradicting a previous background check, which, of course, would have led to lying to the fbi? >> well, i don't want to speculate about motives and i don't want to speculate about facts not in evidence, and i want to be clear that i'm generally familiar with the background check process, but i've never been through it and i'm not, you know, it's not something -- >> you've been called, i'm sure. >> i've been called many times. >> as i have, yes. >> look, questions about abuse of alcohol and illegal drugs are routinely asked and the -- they go -- these background investigations go back aways, and so, you know, if you imagine

that there was, you know, certain amount of very heavy drinking early in his, you know, late teenager and early adult life and that it didn't continue into his significant professional life, you could imagine that they just wouldn't have talked to people who knew him in the realm. >> let me put up a full screen here. we have the questions on alcohol, the different questions, alcohol in the last seven days, has your alcohol had a negative impact on your work? have you ever been ordered, advised or asked to seek counseling or treatment? and you have ever received counseling or treatment? and these are the various types of questions when it comes to the use of alcohol, and the first time he got this background check, we got to estimate he was probably, so, it was in the ken starr era, so he was probably in his early 30s. >> right, so, those words in the last seven years, and those

words, have you ever sought treatment. >> last seven years was a buzz time period during george w. bush and that presidency when democrats were convinced somehow he may have messed up a background check. >> yeah, and look, there is a lot of opportunity, you know, these are time delineated questions, and the have you ever questions tend to refer to things like, you know, seeking treatment, gotten treatment, being ordered to get treatment and so, i think it's perfectly plausible that, you know, you could have a period of being quite the frat boy and it not necessarily show up -- >> okay. >> you know, 10, 15 years later. >> all right, let's talk about this investigation itself. what -- what did you envision it was going to be in a one-week period other than what we saw? >> well, i certainly envisioned it would be more comprehensive than it was. >> you thought it could have been even more comprehensive than what we saw? because i thought this was about

the best we could expect. >> well, so, i guess i -- i fully expected them to do what they did, but i also thought, you know, if you're trying to evaluate her story, one component of her story that the entire thing hinges on is, you know, a certain pattern, certain claims about alcohol use in, you know, in a particular culture. they do not seem to have evaluated that claim, which strikes me as an important background -- >> do you think that is important here? her claim is a very specific incident and a very specific time period. some of these other claims, and i -- i guess -- are you trying to establish that he blacked out? and if you are trying to establish that, i guess i get what you're saying. you know, if your mission was to investigate this incident, then how far should you have gone? >> well, i mean, i guess the question is, you want to verify,

first of all, whether you can corroborate the specific claims in this incident, but secondly, whether the specific claims in this incident are plausible, given what you know. and it does seem to me that the question of, for example, is the house that they were hanging out at on july 1st, 1982, is it consistent, the floor plan, is it consistent with her memory that she described of where this event happened -- that would, it seems to me, tend to validate it. if he had a pattern of drinking at that time, in the fashion that she's describing them drinking at the time, that would tend to validate it. if he doesn't, that would tend to negatively corroborate, so, there are questions beyond the specific corroboration of the specific incident that strike me as germaine.

i don't think a general inquest into how much he liked beer in his late teens and early 20s is appropriate at all. >> i went too long with you, but one final question. do you think a justice kavanaugh owes the public some sort of explanation for his partisan outburst? >> i think the partisan outburst was -- >> you believe that's disqualifying? >> i think it was incredibly inappropriate and that alone -- >> for you, it was disqualifying. >> if i were a senator, that alone would give me a real problem voting to confirm him. that said, you know, once you're confirmed as a justice, you get a vote, and the result of getting a vote is that you kind of get to be whoever you want to be, and so, it is ultimately going to be up to him whether and how he tries to establish that we should have confidence in him. >> right. so, it is on him. >> it's on him. >> that's a fair point. ben wittes, thank you for coming on. >> good to see you.

>> nice to e so you. coming up next, i'm obsessed with some past words of wisdom, speaking of wise words, from chief justice john roberts. they particularly ring true today. ring true today. cancer ... it's very personal.

each of us is different. and each cancer is different. how it reacts, how it evades and adapts. and how we attack it. that's why at cancer treatment centers of america, we use diagnostic tools that help us better understand what drives each person's cancer. this is what we mean by outsmarting cancer. and for some, it may uncover more effective treatment options. like christine bray. after battling ovarian cancer for several years, her test results revealed a potential treatment not considered previously

a drug therapy that targeted her tumor. today, christine's metastatic cancer is in remission. this is precision cancer treatment. because at cancer treatment centers of america. we're not just fighting cancer. we're outsmarting it. visit cancercenter.com and schedule an appointment with our cancer care specialists today.

that's where i feel normal. having an annuity tells me my retirement is protected. learn more at retire your risk dot org. welcome back. tonight, i'm obsessed with a speech chief justice john roberts gave to his son's ninth grade graduating lass laclass l year. i'm going to play a small part of it, and for people on both

sides of our political divide, listen to this, thinking it does apply to you, too. >> from time to time in the years to come, i hope you will be treated unfairly, so that you will come to know the value of justice. i wish you bad luck, again, from time to time, so that you will be conscious of the role of chance in life, and understand that your success is not completely deserved and that the failure of others is not completely deserved, either. i hope you'll be ignored, so you know the importance of listening to others. and i hope you will have just enough pain to learn compassion. whether i wish these things or not, they're going to happen. and whether you benefit from them or not will depend upon your ability to see the message in your misfortunes. >> you should pay attention to justice roberts' message. so should i, and so should everyone else. because if you heard what you

just heard and you don't think this is about you, then you weren't listening. humility and generosity of spirit and empathy are rare commodities in our polarized cultural environment. so, let's listen before we speak, think before we act and empathize before we condemn. might help us all just a little. we'll be back. entless. tremfya® is for adults with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. with tremfya®, you can get clearer. and stay clearer. in fact, most patients who saw 90% clearer skin at 28 weeks stayed clearer through 48 weeks. tremfya® works better than humira® at providing clearer skin, and more patients were symptom free with tremfya®. tremfya® may lower your ability to fight infections and may increase your risk of infections. before treatment, your doctor should check you for infections and tuberculosis. tell your doctor if you have an infection or have symptoms such as: fever, sweats, chills, muscle aches or cough. before starting tremfya® tell your doctor if you plan to or have recently received a vaccine. ask your doctor about tremfya®. tremfya®. because you deserve to stay clearer.

janssen wants to help you explore cost support options. attention homeowners age sixty-two and older. one reverse mortgage has a great way for you to live a better retirement... it's called a reverse mortgage. call rfree information kityour with no obligation. it answers questions like... how a reverse mortgage works, how much you qualify for, the ways to receive your money and more. plus, when you call now, you'll get this magnifier with led light absolutely free! when you call the experts at one reverse mortgage today you'll learn the benefits of a government-insured reverse mortgage. it will eliminate your monthly mortgage payments and give you tax-free cash from the equity in your home...

and here's the best part... you still own yohome. call now! take control of your retirement today!

welcome back. senate republicans are moving full steam ahead with confirming kavanaugh in the next couple of days. i'm joined now by south dakota senator mike rounds. welcome back to the show. why wouldn't he get confirmed at this point? or does it look like -- is there any reason we should assume he doesn't get confirmed? >> i think he gets confirmed. and i think he gets confirmed because we've done our due diligence and the individuals who have taken their time to work their way through, and those who had concerns, i think those concerns have been answered. the fbi has now done a seventh review, not only on him, but on

other individuals that they felt compelled to look at. i think they did a total of ten additional reports. we had a chance to look through them today. there were a group of us that sat in a room and literally went through them page by page. we actually had people read some of them so we could hear the full context and ask questions of one another. this is, as we talked earlier, this is really individuals trying to make the right decision and do their due diligence. >> look. a lot of the lawyers for dr. ford, the lawyers for ms. ramirez said, they didn't talk to different people. i'm going to set them aside. there were two people that didn't get interviewed that i thought would, judge kavanaugh and dr. ford. do you understand why some people think, wait a minute, you didn't interview those two again? why? >> i think you answered your question. interview those two again? >> but the fbi hasn't done it. >> actually -- judge kavanaugh's

already gone through an fbi interview to begin with. >> not on this. not on this. >> no, no, wait. this is a case of where we didn't give them any limitations to who they could go to. we let the fbi decide where they wanted -- >> that's not true. the white house did put limits on who could be talked to and -- that made it clear, they didn't want either -- their excuse was, well, they were interviewed by the committee. >> my understanding is, our judiciary committee did not make -- >> they're not your limits. it wasn't your limits to put on it. it was the president. >> well, i haven't heard a discussion that says you cannot do -- >> would you have preferred that the two of them had been part of the interview process, as well? it would have made it a little bit more comfortable to those what there uncomfortable? >> look. for those individuals who aren't going to vote, it wouldn't have matters. because they're not going to vote for him anyway. look. >> yeah, but what about --

>> there was a partisan move in this thing. you understand that. >> that i get. >> this is a search and destroy mission. >> okay, but how do we fix -- i understand this, and guess what, every side thinks the other side did it first, and i'm not getting into that tit for tat. i'm going in the, how do you have the american public, a mar jo i testify to american public feel confident that justice kavanaugh is going to be fair? >> right now, we're three weeks past the average time it takes in which to make an investigation. he's gone through not six, but now seven separate fbi investigations. >> background checks. they're not -- >> background checks. these are 302s. along with that, based upon the request of the senate, remember, the senate makes the decision as to whether or not we move forward. individual senators, republicans, who were undecided said look, we want more information. that was granted. they said, look, we want a limited one, but we want it done within a week. these are the people that are making the decision. and the senate's role is to make that decision. the fbi doesn't make the decision. they provide additional data.

they were directed to make a review and if those individuals, those republicans who made the request are satisfied, then we move forward. as our leader says, leader mcconnell says, it's time to vote. it's time to find out if we've done our job. >> this could be the first supreme court justice we have that basically -- may not get a single vote of a party, a member of the other party. i mean, i think joe manchin votes yes on this. but it will be the slimmest margin since clarence thomas. >> and we don't have a lot to say about that, because we have to make up our own mind. and as, you know, senator schumer said, look, the decisions and the delay, as he called it, were being made by republicans. so, regardless what happens, he's going to say republicans made this decision. he's not going to say democrats made the decision. >> both dick durbin and chuck schumer suggested that if democrats win the congress, they

would be open to reinstating the filibuster. would you say, okay, you restore it, i'm going to be part of the team -- >> pretty hypothetical, but remember, in this case, they're the ones -- >> don't give me the tit for tat. harry reid and -- no, they don't get to blame each other. >> but they did. >> but they each did it. >> they each did it. and they each broke a promise. >> and who did the nuclear move? >> who started -- >> harry. >> and earth cooled. >> and we can't take it back. if you say, we're going to take it back and what happens? the very next time that we have an issue, you can't put the genie back in the bottle. >> you know what i'd say, forget 60, make it 75. i actually think it's -- you know, that's what we tell our kids. it's one of those things, you tell your kids, you can't figure it out? no, you're stuck in your room longer. we got to have something here. >> listen, this is -- this is going to be partisan. there's no question about that.

this has become partisan. i said it earlier. we really do feel like the dems have done a search and destroy, only their search didn't work. >> a lot of democrats will say one word to you. garland. and there's raw feelings on that. >> and i met with him. >> you were one of the few. >> i met with him. i said, look, president obama had a constitutional obligation to present someone. if mr. garland would not have allowed to his name to be put in, president obama couldn't have fulfilled his obligation. you allowed yourself to put in the nomination, i appreciate that. he was a fine gentleman. he was a nice man. >> you didn't do advice and consent. >> no. that's not my choice to put him on the calendar, either. now we sat with this individual and, look, the dems made it clear, they weren't going to vote for him to begin with. we knew we had to do this with primarily republicans only. if we had enough to pass it -- >> what do you think the unintended consequences are going to be over an entire

judiciary that's passed with 51 votes? >> i wish it wasn't that way, but i don't think -- >> i think they're good people, but how do we get from, it seems as if -- i'd say the biggest beef, do you think there's a difference between being partisan and it logical? you know what i mean by that? >> yeah, and they're different. but in the same time, in this particular case, there are some similarities between the two. they're not necessarily mutually exclusive. >> neil gorsuch didn't give off an air of partisanship. >> i think that's fair. but remember, it didn't have to start this way, but it's there today. fair enough? >> yeah. how do you fix it? or are you giving up? >> no, no. i don't think so i think both republicans and democrats, and we talk, we actually, in a lot of cases, we get along -- >> i know you do, individually, in the senate. >> and we've talked about this. we've talked about in small groups, face-to-face, and we've said, look, when this is done,

regardless of how it comes out, we really do have to find some things we can work together on to show the nation that there is a healing process that will occur, and remember, during this time in which this very partisan activities happen, very partisan, at the same time, we just passed an faa reauthorization bill, we passed and opioid bill that's been in the process for two years, and we did it in a near unanimous fashion. >> i'm convinced that your trust issues are at the top, not with the rank and file. i think you just have proven that, anyway. senator rounds, i'm not going to make you comment. thank you for being here. much appreciate it. up ahead, some big developments and new indictments in the russia hacking saga. have medicare, you have an important choice to make. you can purchase a separate drug plan for an additional cost; or you can choose a humana all-in-one medicare advantage

plan that includes your medical benefits and drug coverage in one. in fact, last year humana medicare advantage prescription drug plan members saved an estimated $6900 on average on their prescription costs. call us to find out if you can save on your prescriptions. here's what you get when you choose an all-in-one humana medicare advantage plan. you get part d prescription drug coverage. so there's no need to purchase a separate drug plan with this all-in-one plan. you get coverage for doctor visits and hospital stays. and this benefit is very important - you pay nothing for many preventive services, annual tests and necessary vaccinations. you get all this coverage for a zero dollar monthly plan premium in most areas. your medicare coverage is an important decision, but it doesn't have to be a confusing or difficult decision. humana strives to make finding the right plan easy for you. if you want the facts, call the toll free number on your screen right now and get the free decision guide from humana.

humana has a large network of doctors and hospitals, so call to find out if your doctor is in our network. see if you can save on your prescriptions and get our free decision guide. licensed humana sales agents are standing by. pick up the phone and call humana today. welcome back. we got multiple new developments related to russian hacking. the justice department today announced indictments for seven russian intelligence officers, accusing them of hacking into the u.s. anti-doping agency. this indictment says the operation was done in retaliation for exposing russian athle athletes state-sponsored doping. according to the justice department, three of the seven dieted russian officers had been indicted in conspiring to interview in the 2016 election. see a pattern here? and by the way, that's not the only cyber attack being blamed on russian intelligence today. officials in lon down say the russians attempted to hack

british officers investigating the poisoning attack on sergei scr scripal. russia called the hacking claims, quote, western propaganda. and a russian deputy attorney general, who has been accused of directing the russian lawyer who took part in the infamous trump tower meeting, well, he happened to die yesterday in a helicopter crash, last night, according to russian media. how about that for your russian anti-hacking news of the day? we'll be back with our panel to talk about russia after the break. break. pivotal who developed fordpass, allowing you to reach out to your car from wherever you are to check your fuel level, unlock your doors and start your engine...

so when you're ready to go, your car is, too. magic can't make digital transformation happen... but we can. that's the power of pivotal, part of dell technologies.

douglas! we're running dangerously low on beans. people love your beans, doug. they love 'em. doooooooooug! you want to go sell some tacos? progressive knows small business makes big demands. doug, where do we get a replacement chili pepper bulb? so we'll design the insurance solution that fits your business. it's a very niche bulb. it's a specialty bulb. welcome back. you know, on any other day, when kavanaugh blocks out the sun these days. got to gi kavanaugh credit and

the supreme court credit. we didn't think anything could blot out the sun that donald trump has, but it there is a coordinated western ally attack of sorts today or i guess you call it a clearly some coordination fingering the russians for a whole slew of different things. and it happened. these weren't coincidences today and denmark. you had london. i think the canadians put out a supplemental report. i think the australians did too. not connected to mueller, but it is connected to putin's motivation. the fact mueller seems to be narrowing on the obstruction argument in terms of the coordination. i haven't actually seen the reports, but it does seem that in a number of places germany,

all throughout western europe and france, absolutely. they're wise to the fact there has been tampering and they also have news agencies putting out a lot of reports, documenting exactly what happened in the election >> one of the reasons why i wanted to make a bigger deal out of these announcements, when you get, there's always been why did putin do this? what motivated him? why did he decide to basically alienate and restart the cold war to do this. the biggest thing this country embarrassed him on. >> one thing we also underestimate. the extent to putin has overplayed hand in a way to weaken his position.

kind of influential. >> you're right. left and right are united state instead saying russia is not so good. inevitably in some ways against donald trump. i think reaping the consequence s. then i think he maybe -- >> the irony is the whole point of the campaign was to break up the western alliance against him. >> in europe, if anything, how

much unity there was among western leaders. except for the united states and it may be even a simmoresponse e lack of leadership on behalf of the united states. president trump actually made this remark, if you remember, first press conference in 2017, he said, i couldn't even be for russia now because it's become so radio active. remember he said he couldn't follow through on efforts to make friendly alliance. >> there was helsinki moment that came after that. >> and got isolated inside his own administration. up ahead, stars and stripes, emphasis this time on the stripes. stripes, emphasis this time on the stripes. the fact is, there are over ninety-six

hundred roads named "park" in the u.s. it's america's most popular street name. but allstate agents know that's where the similarity stops. if you're on park street in reno, nevada, the high winds of the washoe zephyr could damage your siding. and that's very different than living on park ave in sheboygan, wisconsin, where ice dams could cause water damage. but no matter what park you live on, one of 10,000 local allstate agents knows yours. now that you know the truth, are you in good hands? get stronger...

get closer. start listening today to the world's largest selection of audiobooks on audible. and now, get more. for just $14.95 a month, you'll get a credit a month good for any audiobook, plus two audible originals exclusive titles you can't find anywhere else. if you don't like a book, you can exchange it any time, no questions asked. automatically roll your credits over to the next month if you don't use them. with the free audible app, you can listen anytime, and anywhere. plus for the first time ever, you'll get access to exclusive fitness programs a $95 value free with membership. start a 30-day trial today and your first audiobook is free. cancel anytime and your books are yours to keep forever. audible. the most inspiring minds. the most compelling stories. text "listen27" to 500500 to start your free trial today.

in case you missed it, first lady melania trump is in africa right now. quite literally learning her stripes. spent the day in malawi. traveling press photo. reporters covering an event captured just a pack of zebras

wondering on the ground. seemingly unp inglingly undistu excitement by them. there's just zebras walking along in malawi. president and first lady of the white house tenant in recent memory not to have their own pet. t what about the trumps? so i'm suggesting the president and first lady a adopt a zebra as a pet. too exotic you say. not true. john quincy adams, he had an alligator. wood row wilson had a heard of sheep. teddy roosevelt, legendary for having an entire white house. make the first family photos irresistible.

good evening chuck. we are beginning the night with massive protests over brett kavanaugh. looking at the scene that spilled over washington. that is a type of ziccivil dis disobedien disobedience. officers removing many of the protesters you're seeing on screen forcibly. report in the fbi has come out for senators eyes only. looks into the allegations of sexual misconduct against brett kavanaugh. allegations he has publically denied. tonight we are hours from the scheduled vote for tomorrow morning. and let me be clear right now. anyone telling you they know what happens next, what's going to happen tonight or tomorrow