to be the 50th vote for judge kavanaugh? >> i just -- you know, i never thought of it basically 50, 51, 52. i had to vote on the facts i had in front of me. if i had been in that position, i would have liked to have brought this place back to normal procedure if i had that opportunity to a 60-vote threshold. >> why did you wait for collins to make her announcement before you made your announcement? >> i think that was basically, i saw her announcement that she was going to say that she would do that. >> did you decide to vote that way because she -- >> oh, no, no, i think everyone -- everyone labored with this. everybody labored with this. and we all did our own due diligence all morning long. everything. >> senator murkowski not vote with her party affect your -- how does senator murkowski affect your -- >> senator murkowski is a very, very, very dear friend of mine.

very dear friend of mine and she did everything. dotted every i. she went through the same process we all did and came to different conclusions. i came to my conclusion this morning when i went through another hour and a half of reading the fbi report. >> do you believe dr. ford? >> i believe dr. ford. something happened to dr. ford. i don't believe that the facts showed that it was brett kavanaugh, but i believe something happened. >> did you think someone else did it? >> i think someone else did it. >> senator, what do you say to women who watch this process unfold. heard dr. ford's story and feel like judge kavanaugh is getting confirmed anyway, even though they've stepped forward and that the senate is essentially -- >> -- just the respect but also basically the hurt people have, the trauma they've gone through. i mean, empathy and sympathy. and i'll do everything i can to make sure they're heard and make

sure this doesn't continue. >> do you think there was an adequate fbi investigation -- >> i can only have what's in front of me. >> based on what you've seen -- >> [ inaudible ]. >> i'm sorry, what was that? >> do you think there should have been more witnesses interviewed? >> there's always more that could have been done. i had to look at what was in front of me. >> based on what you see, was that a thorough investigation? >> it was -- the people that i was concerned, about how they said and said they said -- >> do you think there's still a place in the democratic party for you after this? >> i'm just a west virginian. i'm just a good old -- >> you're up for re-election. your concerned -- >> [ inaudible ]. >> okay. we're going to -- >> shame on you.

shame on you! shame on you! shame on you! >> are you going to let our democracy die? >> hi, everyone. it's 4:00 in new york. you're watching democratic senator joe manchin who just described himself as a good old west virginia boy. he's a good old west virginia boy who is a yes vote on judge brett kavanaugh. that follows an announcement moments ago from republican senator susan collins who announced she, too, is a yes vote on judge kavanaugh. those two yes votes all but securing judge kavanaugh's confirmation to the united states supreme court. we're going to go to kasie hunt who was participating in that questioning. kasie, bring us up to date. where do things stand. this is all but a lock on judge kavanaugh's confirmation to the supreme court. >> well, nicolle, i think you got a glimpse of just how

intense this protest has been. i'm going to take my ear piece out. this is what it has been like all week on capitol hill. and it has reached really a fever pitch right now with senator manchin and senator collins both announcing they were going to vote the same way and they were going to vote to approve judge kavanaugh. you saw the emotion and the intensity with which people have approached those senators. the literal pressure that they have been under kind of through these hallways. and many of them are moving into the hart atrium as well to try to continue all of this. but the reality is we've also seen a lot of people with very disappointed looks on their faces. i saw one woman crying. she listened to senator collins on her cell phone. this is something that there are thousands of people here frankly at the capitol that are very, very invested in. and we talked a little bit with joe manchin about the politics of all of this. there was not an expectation

that he was willing to be the 50th vote to confirm judge kavanaugh. and that's something that i think would have set democrats, really, aflame. and it was not necessarily a place he wanted to be. but all the way along, when this really exploded as a nation shall, when dr. ford's allegations came forward, that's when it became clear manchin was under incredible, additional pressure. i would say that before that happened, if anything, he seemed like he was trying to find a way to stick with his caucus, to vote no by focussing on things like health care, saying he's worried about pre-existing conditions. doesn't want the aca repealed at the new supreme court. when this became a litmus test issue for the republican base, one that you saw those numbers picking up republican enthusiasm, suddenly it became almost impossible for him to be there. it's pretty clear how this played out. we got notified off the record he was going to be coming out right after susan collins finished her speech. he wanted to know what she was going to do first and that's the

theme that's been going throughout the day. i'll send it back with that to you, nicolle. >> thank you, kasie hunt. thank you forrior questioning of senator manchin. garrett haake, i want to bring you in. let's play susan collins first. it doesn't sound like she was someone particularly on the fence by the full-throated endorsement she offered today on the senate floor for judge brett kavanaugh. let's listen. >> mr. president, the constitution does not provide guidance on how we are supposed to evaluate these competing claims. it leaves that decision up to each senator. this is not a criminal trial, and i do not believe that the claims such as these need to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. nevertheless, fairness would dictate that the claims at least

should meet a threshold of more likely than not as our standard. the facts presented do not mean that professor ford was not sexually assaulted that night or at some other time, but they do lead me to conclude that the allegations failed to meet the more likely than not standard. therefore, i do not believe that these charges can fairly prevent judge kavanaugh from serving on the court. >> garrett haake, was susan collins' endorsement and yes vote of brett kavanaugh a big surprise, or was it a position and a lean, an inclination she had and simply kept close, kept in confidence? >> i think the latter.

if dr. ford had never come forward with her allegations two weeks ago, i think susan collins would have been an easy yes vote for the republican party here. you heard that in her speech. not only did she go through the allegations made against judge kavanaugh, but she went fairly meticulously through judge kavanaugh's judicial record, making a case for him. this was not someone who gave a speech as though they came to a tortured decision here about this. but what you saw, include with the two female republican senators sitting behind her was what looked like a choreographed climax to this whole debate. if you're mitch mcconnell or donald trump, you could not have had a much better image to end this discussion here about judge kavanaugh than moderate female republican senator giving a pretty strong iendorsement of te nominee. and then having a democrat come out and put a button on the end so you can call this a bipartisan choice here. it's a powerful conclusion there

at the end from the republican side and you have to think that's not the kind of thing that susan collins woke up today and decided she felt about all of this, as we heard from lisa murkowski who made her decision walking into the chamber this morning. >> you just set up the next thing i wanted to show everyone. it stood in such stark contrast. not just for the position she landed on, a yes vote and an enthusiastic embrace of judge kavanaugh's character, his judicial record. she, as you said, it sounded like a speech she could have written two weeks ago announcing her yes vote and what she added on this morning or yesterday or as this fbi report was being supplemented, that seemed like maybe the new section of the speech he delivered today. but it did stand in stark contrast to what we heard from lisa murkowski who came out, as you said, making her decision as she walked onto the floor and in a barely audible voice announced she'd vote no on kavanaugh. let's watch. >> i believe that brett

kavanaugh is a good man. i believe that he is a good man. it just may be that in my view, he's not the right man for the court at this time. >> and the full statement was incredibly thoughtful and incredibly agonizing. you could hear her agony, garrett, when you went through her explanation for arriving at no. she didn't think he was the right man at this moment for the court. >> it's so interesting to go back through this a little bit. when you -- think about last thursday night after the ford hearing. we reported on a meeting that happened in one of the senate hideaways between jeff flake, joe manchin, lisa murkowski and susan collins, who were the four crucial votes here. what we can see now in hindsight is four senators who were trying to get to yes. four senators who were favorably inclined toward judge kavanaugh before all this came out. and what we now know at the end of the day today is three of those senators were ultimately

able to get to that yes vote. and lisa murkowski just couldn't. yesterday afternoon, i ran into a bunch of women from alaska who had been meet with her privately during the day, alone, with just one other aides. women who were in tears saying they had been describing their situation, their own assaults and their own experiences, and they told me to a woman that they really felt like the senator heard them. that she connected with their stories and it resonated with her. i have to think that's the kind of thing still weighing on her conscience when she walked into the chamber this morning and ultimately made that decision. that whatever else she might have felt about judge kavanaugh's judicial record, and we haven't heard a full explanation of her vote yet, she couldn't quite get back to yes as these other three were able to do. >> we're joined today by my colleague katy tur. your thoughts? >> i think this whole process has played out in a depressing way, frankly. and i agree with susan collins when she goes out and says we've

made this more partisan and, unfortunately, the supreme court will look more partisan going forward. she hopes that brett kavanaugh will be able to remedy that somehow and change it from 5-4 decisions that we've seen in the past. but the process is very clearly broken, and what happens next in terms of the next supreme court nominee, whether that is presided over by donald trump and a republican congress or donald trump and a democratic congress or a different president and who knows what, i just wonder how it's going to play out then with the shadow of this looming over them. and the shadow of, frankly, merrick garland that is still very much present in everything that seems to have been happening in the past month or so as we've been watching brett kavanaugh. it is interesting to straddle the line between, i believe dr. ford, but i don't believe that brett kavanaugh was the one that assaulted her.

there's that argument. i think it's also interesting to try and straddle the line with, i think he's going to be an independent jurist when he was somebody who came out last thursday and talked about clinton's revenge and revenge for the 2016 election. that sort of thing in normal times would usually be disqualifying for everybody involved, not just for democrats, not just for people who don't agree with the nominee but for everybody involved. that is not normal. and that's going to cast a shadow over his time at the supreme court. at least for the foreseeable future. who knows if it will last longer than that. >> i had a conversation along those lines that now we know here yet another institution broken in the time of trump. the united states supreme court. also joining us, "washington post" political reporter philip bump and lydia, eli stokols is also standing by for us. phil bump, you've been covering

this day in and day out. your thoughts about today's -- as garrett put it, the climax. >> garrett is exactly right. this was a moment built to take advantage of susan collins. ostensible indecision. very strategic about who was standing behind her. about having her go out and give this speech. they knew everybody would be paying attention to it because she was this person who hadn't made up their mind. all very strategically done. >> by whom? the white house isn't strategic. >> but mitch mcconnell is strategic and it wouldn't surprise me if -- maybe we're overreadings this but it's a fairly safe adjustmention. the vote itself is remarkable. this will be the closest since the mid-19th century. this is not the way supreme court justices were normally confirmed up until about, what, 15 years ago. normally it was generally pretty bipartisan. but since that has happened, collins and senator lindsey graham are the only ones that have consistently voted in

support of nominees. 6 for 6 in terms of their time in the senate. everyone else has a more mixed record. we've seen the process itself become much more partisan. >> lydia? >> i think the thing that's getting forgotten in all of this is we talk about the theater and the placing of female senators behind susan collins are the sexual assault victims whose voices we've heard so much of. i was late getting here because i was calling my mother who is herself a victim of sexual assault. and it, you know, i just wanted her to hear my voice in this moment where she's been having a hard time emotionally. and this back and forth about believing dr. ford, how condescending to say to someone, i believe you, but i believe you're mistaken about who it was. i believe you, but it couldn't have been him. he said under penalty of felony of perjury that it wasn't him. but she also said under penalty of perjury and felony that it

wasn't her. so regardless -- >> that it was. >> yes, exactly, that it was him. regardless of the facts of this case, i think we have to remember that a huge wound has been opened in our country. and women across the country are in terrible pain at this very moment. and we should be thinking about them. >> how is your mom doing? >> okay. >> i'm sure she was glad to hear your voice. i'm looking forward to hearing this next voice. we're joined by senator dick durbin, the second highest ranking in the senate and your thoughts, your reaction. and were you surprised? are you surprised? >> i'm not surprised. i respect susan collins very much. she's my friend, but i respectfully disagree with her. to the point that was just made. i don't know how you can come to the floor as many republicans have and said we believe dr. christine ford but in the end of the day we really, just can't bring ourselves to the point of believing that it could have been brett kavanaugh. my first question to dr. ford, the first question i had the

chance to ask, with what degree of certainty do you believe it was brett kavanaugh who attacked you? sexually assaulted you? she said 100%. 100%. i thought that was the most important element to establish. she has no doubt in her mind. she'll never forget that moment as long as she lives. she has no doubt in her mind who the perpetrator was. now we do have split decision here. contradiction in testimony. i don't think there was a fulsome investigation of the facts behind this or the corroborating witnesses. when 28 witnesses are left on the table and not interrogated by the fbi, how can we take that investigation seriously? >> i want to ask you, because you had a lot of moments that broke through. the other one was when you asked judge kavanaugh to turn to don mcgahn and ask for an fbi investigation. can you give me your honest take on what that investigation included and what it lacked? >> it included ten witnesses, i guess eight of them who went on the record. they were witnesses suggested by

the republicans in the senate and the white house. that has been established publicly and admitted by mr. shah in the white house. they did not include 28 corroborating character witnesses that were asked for by dr. ford, as well as ms. ramirez. so it wasn't really a complete investigation, as it should have been. when you have this kind of contradiction in sworn testimony at this level, you'd expect the fbi to have done a much better and more fulsome job. >> your colleague cory booker last night called it a sham. do you agree with that assessment? >> we can characterize it one way or another, but i expected more from the fbi. if their hands were tied by the white house and by the senate republicans, that i think has to be established publicly so that the fbi as an institution doesn't suffer from this experience. >> would you call the process a sham? >> i'd certainly say the process, the whole process is highly suspect. start to finish. >> if the democrats take over the house, do you expect ---or

the senate, do you expect to want to see more of the background information, the communications between the white house counsel's office and chris wray or rosenstein we know jeff flake was on the phone with, that dramatic moment when he had the pause button pressed so you all could learn more about the incidents in question? are you interested in investigating this? are you suspicious enough to want to understand what happened behind the scenes? >> of course, i want to know. this was a critical debate about an important life-long appointment to the highest court in the land. i think whatever the marching orders were from the white house and senate republicans, the american people should know. >> do you take issue with susan collins' assessment of the -- where the bar should be? she asserted that the overlooked principle, the presumption of innocence was what swayed her in the end. do you accept that analysis on her end, and how did you personally -- i'm guessing you're a no vote.

where did you place that consideration? >> we don't know the standard because it's not spelled out. and if it's a presumption of innocence and guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, we're talking about criminal standards here. i think what she used, the word she used is the same as i would use. fairness in this process. there's another element, too. she did not address at the end. next time i get a chance at a quiet moment to ask her why she didn't. she didn't address the point about the presentation by judge kavanaugh last thursday. there are many people who decided at that moment the demeanor which he showed, what was called a howl of rage by one of his former friends, really disqualified him from the court. she didn't address that element. i wish she would have. >> the person who agrees with you is brett kavanaugh who addressed it in the op-ed in "the wall street journal." he was obviously concerned on a day when he knew republicans would be making a critical decision about his nomination. why do you think that issue -- three of his college friends wrote in "the washington post"

today that he was outright lying under oath in his testimony last thursday when he described his college drinking habits. why do you think allegations of lying to congress weren't treated more seriously by your colleagues on both sides of the aisle? >> well, of course, senator mcconnell made it clear that we were going to, quote, plow through this investigation. he was going to reach this point whether it was a vote this week, hell or high water. he didn't know when the fbi report was coming, but he told us we're going to stay in until it's here, long enough for me to say we've taken a look at it. we're going to vote afterwards. i don't think that kind of haste really serves this nation well and it's in direct contradiction to mcconnell's own strategy when he held merrick garland for almost a year without a vote. if we're going to deal with these issues of lifetime appointments to the highest court in the land we should treat them seriously and not be in a haste. >> senator durbin, thank you.

lydia, i think you got to the point for me. the human beings at the center of this calamity. how would you -- what should lawmakers say to professor ford today? >> i think that the best thing that lawmakers could do for professor ford is to believe her. she took this extraordinary step of coming forward, and it appears to have been in vain. i think the most moving moment for me was the one you played earlier of lisa murkowski deciding on her vote. and that moment felt to me like the first time in a very long time i've seen a senator act like a senator. decide to do something that's not based on partisan pressure but weighing the interests of their state and the voters who elected them, along with the broader principles at hand. whether or not she believed dr. ford or not, it was clear to me that this was a matter of

principle. and to see a senator act like a senator is a rare thing in washington indeed. >> we all need a little chicken soup for our political junky souls, let's listen to more of lisa murkowski. >> and so i made the -- took the very, very difficult vote that i did. i believe that brett kavanaugh is a good man. i believe that he is a good man. it just may be that, in my view, he's not the right man for the court at this time. this has -- this has truly been the most difficult evaluation of a decision that i've ever had to make. and i've made some interesting ones in my political career. but i value and respect where my colleagues have come down from and their support for the judge. i also think that we're at a

place where we need to be thinking again about the credibility and the integrity of our institutions. >> eli is with us. eli stokols, the white house has to be celebrating this vote as a major victory. but do you think they're aware of the anguish? you heard it in lisa murkowski's voice in people covering this story, from otherwise stoic reporters doing their best to cover this fairly and objectively. any sense the white house, sort of the pressure that they put on the senate and even on some of their most stalwart allies? >> well, they are celebrating at this moment. i think there's a huge sense of relief after senator collins said those words at the end of the speech that she'd be a yes vote on judge kavanaugh. but, yes, they were aware of what murkowski, of the anguish she felt but they seem mainly aware of it in the way it related to them and their chances of winning or losing this fight. they've looked at all of this through that same lens which is

this is a partisan, political fight and the reason, the human element and the people who have come forward, the women who have come forward were cast aside because lindsey graham and president trump and others made such a point of brushing right past those women and their stories and attacking their counterparts on the democratic side of the aisle. and it succeeded in riling up the republican base and ultimately, it succeeded in moving this nomination through. and tarit appears getting judge kavanaugh approved to the court. they were aware how tenuous this was when murkowski came out this morning. word had gotten back to the white house that they felt good about collins and felt manchin would be where collins was going. they felt relieved that flake indicated he'd be a yes but they knew this was still on the head of a pin. they knew the words of senator murkowski, the words of senator heitkamp yesterday who said she couldn't vote for judge kavanaugh and still look herself in the mirror. they knew those words would be

ringing in the ears of senator collins as she considered this. and they were just hugely relieved when she finally took to the floor today and gave a speech that did not betray any actual personal ambivalence about this but sounded like a wholehearted boiler plate republican defense of this nominee. >> eli, was there any sense that the president almost blew it when at a rally last night he called al franken basically a folded wet rag for resigning after he was accused of sexual misconduct when a few nights earlier, he went out and mocked professor ford in another rally speech? it seems he's inching toward a he he too message for himself that's going to have him grab them in the bleep in his rally speech soon. >> he, too has been his message the entire time. the mocking of ford. the rude way he interacted with two female reporters during the rose garden press conference on monday. all the statements about how scary it is to be a young male in this country. that is really part of this

president's message, and he has been consistent on that going back past, you know, the last week or so. i think there was more concern in the white house about the impact that mocking dr. ford might have with the swing votes, especially the women senators who were thought to be on the fence. i think the statement that he made last night about al franken and resigning too quickly and saying that democrats are weak and don't stand up and fight through these allegations no matter what, i think that's a point that the white house believes was validated by the way they approached this entire thing because they stood up and fought. they didn't care what other accusers came forward. they pushed through and they got their guy, it seems oto the supreme court. and there are some democrats who look at the franken experience and will privately, you know, nod in agreement with what the white house is saying and regret they didn't fight harder. >> they'll never be on the side of an accuser unless that benefits them.

that's the reason donald trump was on the side suddenly of the accusers against bill clinton because he wasn't on their side back when the accusers came out initially. it was only when they were politically expedeient for him. i've got a lot of thoughts. i'm going to try and narrow them down. >> no narrowing. >> you asked lydia what lawmakers should say to dr. ford today. i think it's simple. i think if you are going to vote for brett kavanaugh because there's not enough evidence in your mind as susan collins says, more likely than not was her standard and dr. ford didn't meet that standard for her, you don't say, i believe you. i think you say, i don't believe you. i'm sorry. i want to believe you, but i'm not there. i believe brett kavanaugh. i think that is the respectful way of going about it because i don't think you can say i believe you and i believe -- i believe him and i'm going to end up voting for him. but what was interesting in the way murkowski approached this. you didn't see her saying i believe dr. ford or i believe

brett kavanaugh. she called him -- she said she believes he's a good man. a decent man. but at the end of her statement, she talked about the integrity and credibility of our institutions. and to me, that points much more to what he did on thursday, not in his defense of himself, but the way he defended himself going after democrats. going after the left and saying this was revenge on behalf of the clintons. it was revenge for 2016. the sort of thing that normally, as i said a moment ago, would disqualify a supreme court justice from serving. it seemed to me she was the one senator on the republican side who decided to say, this is not -- this is not good enough for me. i want to protect the institution of the supreme court more than anything else. she didn't even get into whether or not she believes the allegations. >> do you think it's self-indulgent? i don't disagree, but do you think it's having it both ways

in you heard kellyanne conway say she should be heard and then say we treated her like a faberge egg. there seems to be a lot of, we honor her, but we're going to vote -- >> i think senator flake was having it both ways when he called for the fbi investigation suddenly last week, but that wasn't a fulsome fbi investigation. it just wasn't. i mean, you can say that you believe brett kavanaugh, but you can't say that fbi investigation was enough. they didn't interview very many people and didn't dig far enough. whether that was done on the behefb behest of the white house or the senate. we're going to find out if the democrats take control of the house or senates but they'll subpoena those communications, but i think you're right. it's either, i believe him, or i believe her. and if you're going to say, i believe him, then you have to admit, i don't totally believe her. >> i think the gop should give jeff flake an oscar for his hamlet performance in this whole

saga. i think he created a perfect situation. >> smoke screen. >> you got this very flimsy fbi investigation that gave cover to senators who were wavering and then at the same time, you get the added unexpected bonus of riling up the base, right? you can go out and do these rallies and get everybody super excited. so he's totally the mvp here. he likes to wax on about character and morals and, you know, the decline of our dem democcra democcracy, but he gave birth to this. >> at the end of the day he didn't do anything hard. >> no. >> katy tur, thank you. and eli stokols, thank you for spending time with us. in more of our breaking news coverage on the decision to confirm judge brett kavanaugh to the united states supreme court. and we'll take a look at the al franken/donald trump moment from last night. what it says about the president's approach to the he too movement.

♪ come fly with me, let's fly, let's fly away. ♪ ♪ come fly with me, let's fly, let's fly away. ♪

endless shrimp is back at with all the shrimp you want, any way you want them. there's new sesame-ginger grilled shrimp with savory soy-ginger sauce and sprinkled with asian seasoning. and favorites like garlic shrimp scampi! but endless shrimp won't last endlessly, so hurry in.

he took a wacky guy's place. that guy was -- he was wacky. boy, did he fold up like a wet rag, huh? man. man. he was gone so fast. he was gone so fast, i don't want to mention al franken's name, okay, so i won't mention it. he was gone -- he was gone so fast. it was like, oh, he did something. oh, oh, i resign. i quit. i quit. wow. >> it was donald trump and al franken's home state of minnesota last night putting into words what's been his general approach to me too accusations. fight them. and he took that feeling of hostility to the next level this morning. this time taking aim at the me

too protesters who descended on the capitol in recent days. the very rude elevator screamers, otherwise known as victims, are paid professionals only looking to make senators look bad. don't fall for it. also look at all of the professionally made identical signs. paid for my soros and others. these are not signs made in the basement from love. troublemakers. joining ining us, ashley parker mara gay and the rev al sharpton, president of the national action network. ashley parker, the president is sort of a man in full male glory, i guess. i don't know what else to say. >> yeah. i mean, his comments on senator -- former senator franken were incredibly striking, but part of that was because they were so true. and it gives you a window into how this president believes men

should behave, powerful men should behave when accused of sexual harassment, sexual abuse, sexual misbehavior. and it also gives you an insight into the playbook this white house and largely republicans on capitol hill followed in defending judge kavanaugh. we saw him today have to come out with that op-ed in "the wall street journal" where he tried to explain away his tone, but the truth is, he was doing exactly what the president wanted him to do, which was to be fiery and to be defiant and to be outraged and another key moment that the president also said in another rally that got a lot of attention was when he mocked dr. ford, one of the accusers, and people in the president's orbit and on capitol hill will tell you that privately, it wasn't a planned strategy. the president sort of saw a moment and, as he often, does he seized it. but they believe that was actually a positive thing, despite all the blowback. they think it helped galvanize the base, help bolster

republicans in the senate to be more aggressive and shifted the conversation. and they think that was also a win for this president. so what he says publicly is what he believes and it's what we saw play out with this whole kavanaugh fight. >> rev? >> i think that we must remember, this is the same donald trump that called for five innocent boys to be executed in his hometown in central park. he didn't give them the presumption of innocence. and when we marched on him about that, he condemned us. so, i mean, he always plays this divisive role. i think it really is a shame, though, that we're seeing the supreme court now brought down in terms of its respectability. to match the fact the presidency has been brought down. and the congress. when we talk about the presumption of innocence, that means you assume there is an assumption of an investigation. we didn't have that. and i think that no one is

saying when i listen to senator collins, don't give him the presumption of innocence, you are taking the presumption away when you don't have a real investigation. you really don't go to find out the facts. so you are making everyone assume that there is something there because you didn't really do what you said you were going to do. and i said last week at this table that i didn't know if this was a ruse that was coming from senator flake. clearly it was. they didn't even go the whole week investigating this. less so talk to everybody involved. they couldn't even bear to pretend for seven days. >> what's your take on how quickly this turned into a political strategy. i think the most craven thing about it is that in the good old days, a political crisis would sort of let the political body get a little chilled before it turned to fund-raising. not long, but a few minutes.

they were talking, turning out new polls. i don't know how much more energized each side can be. the trump base lives on its crude, crass, you know, musings. i'm not sure how much pumped they were going to get but the political conventional wisdom that i don't buy is that they're more pumped now. and the other side is -- has been -- is as agitated today as they were since election day. what do you make with the speed we dove into one of the most craven political conversations i've ever witnessed in my career? >> i think what you're hitting on is something very ugly at the bottom of all of this which is that, you know, there's an argument to be made here that whether or not these senators believe dr. ford is quite frankly not the point. i think that the republican senators on the whole don't care. and i frankly think that the supreme court is the golden goose that has motivated many of the -- much of the trump base. and i think, you know, to your point what's disturbing about this, there is a role for

someone who -- for a voter who is devoutly pro life to say, well, all i care about is the supreme court seat. but even in that world, how could you possibly cheer on as the president of the united states mocks a sexual assault survivor. and that's what we're talking about, and i think that's part of what you are getting at which is not just the divisiveness, but the disrespect. >> yeah, and you've written about this, this week. i know that voter. i used to work -- i'm a recovering republican and i know that voter. and that voter wants a person with a conservative judicial philosophy, but they don't care if his name is neil gorsuch or brett kavanaugh or anybody else. so that -- i know that voter. and that voter wants the court filled with conservative justices. but that voter doesn't care which ones they are. that's why i don't understand the political analysis that trashing an alleged victim of sexual assault is amping up the -- people aren't that

disgust, i don't think. >> there was an interesting piece at the atlantic which dove into this and looked at the history of uniting people around dislike of other people. i'm putting a very glossy look on it and people should look at the piece. >> no more gloss. what does it really say? >> he compared this process to lynchings in the south. and that white people would get together and cheer on and smile and edge their way into photographs because they were united in something that united them in hate red. this is, obviously, a very provocative statement to make but it's absolutely the case that trump voters like trump because of his aggression and his argumentativeness and because of the way that he deals with libs, liberals and with progressives. that's why they like him. pew research has done research two years in a row and asked trump supporters, why do you like him? his policies or how he acts? consistently it's because of how he acts. this is the fight he brings. that's why this kavanaugh fight if you look at what happened

with kavanaugh, his numbers with democrats wouldn't his numbers with independents went -- and his numbers with republicans went -- they wanted to see someone who would be the fox news guy and take on these fights even if the fights didn't make sense just because they were fights. that's what donald trump promised on the campaign trail and what he delivers in the presidency n that's why this kavanaugh fight became so hotly contested. >> remember what christine blasey ford said? indelible in the hippocampus was the laughter and these two men were laughing and having fun and their fun was not necessarily about whatever gratification they might get from sexually assaulting this person. it was impressing one another. that's male bonding around the humiliation of women. this is a very common phenomenon. we know all about it. that's exactly the point adam serwer was making in his piece. you bind people together by

making someone else the object of your scorn. >> let me bring ashley parker back into the conversation. ashley, we seem to be pulling back the layers, pulling back the curtain sort of inside the inner workings of the white house political strategy. are we looking at what we've got, not just for the midterms but maybe how the president plans to present himself to voters if he stands for re-election? >> potentially, yeah. and going back briefly to him mocking dr. ford, my colleague jenna johnson was at that rally in minnesota last night and talked to a number of trump voters and they all to a person and this is a minnesota nice crowd but they all to a person said they wish he had not said it. they did not like he mocked her or said it. so you're right that people are sort of not that ugly as you put it. but from the white house strategy, and in terms of what we should see going forward, they say it was less about mocking her and they argue that it was about trying to change the conversation and point to

gaps in her credibility and so i think the broader answer is that, yes, you'll see this white house do whatever it needs to do, make whatever case it believes is most effective, whether there's a lot of blowback, whether a number of people, including republicans, think it is crude and inappropriate and divisive to change the subject to cast doubt on their opponents and to lift the president they hope again to victory. >> rev, i want to hear the point i interrupted you when you were trying to make. but answer this for me, too, after you make your point. why do we continue to allow the president to be graded on such a curve? his voters don't like what he says but they're willing to cut him some slack. this week he was -- an incredible investigation about how he's a giant tax fraud. anybody else would be lawyering up and getting ready to defend themselves in civil legal proceedings. is it because he's so small minded, so inferior? the story revealed he wasn't really a successful businessman.

that his father bailed him out financially and really professionally his whole life. why is he still graded on a curve? >> because i think that we're dealing with a bully and he's been able to make people defensive that ought not be defensive. they ought to be on the offense. and we need to stop apologizing for calling out what it is. what he is doing is outrageous. when he mentions adam's article about the lynchings, let's not forget these people would go to church and then go to the lynching after clothing themselves in morality. and that's what we're seeing today. when susan collins can stand there after this man mocked al franken last night, he not only has mocked the dr. ford, he takes it upon himself to mock people, if it's the me too protesters, his whole thing is bully, bully, bully, and then he acts like he's doing it for the people. the people, the man inherited $413 million from his father and

told the people i'm one of you. nobody that is cheering him has that kind of background. we need to start standing up to donald trump and not be intimidated and not be defensive. >> why won't any democrat -- i didn't hear any democrat say what you've said. >> i think we've been cowered into trying to be too nice to a guy that's a bully. and i come from brooklyn. he started -- his father started his real estate in brooklyn. the way you meet a bully is say, come on, i'll be in the schoolyard at noon. let the best person win. and he doesn't understand anything else. i guarantee you, the democrats did that, he won't show up at noon in the schoolyard. >> i hope they're calling you. ashley parker, thank you for spending part of the hour with us. putting the kavanaugh nomination in its proper place in the history of divisive and polarizing supreme court fights. i wanna keep doing what i love,

that's the retirement plan. with my annuity, i know there is a guarantee. it's for my family, its for my self, its for my future. annuities can provide protected income for life. learn more at retire your risk dot org.

today we have come to the conclusion of a confirmation process that has become so dysfunctional it looks more like a caricature of a gutter level political campaign. >> joining us now, somebody who knows a lot about the history of gutter level political campaigns, john meacham, political historian. did we make history in the animosity, not just partisan divides, but gender divides in this country over the nomination fight of judge brett kavanaugh? >> i think we reached historic levels of exacerbation of those levels absolutely. one of the things that i find so interesting about senator collins' speech is she was voting to confirm a vision of brett kavanaugh that had far more inspect common with susan collins than it does with judge kavanaugh. if you take the first part of

her speech, she was casting him as a centrist, not as a conservative, which flies in the face of the political calculus at the moment. if he was such a centrist, why is the right so determined to have this particular man on the court. and so the real brett kavanaugh, one of the questions going forward, because make no mistake, 40 years of american jurisprudence just got a shape today, 40 years. one of the things that's going to be fascinating is, is brett kavanaugh the kavanaugh who showed up -- is justice kavanaugh going to be the one that showed up and made that partisan speech last week or the kavanaugh that collins thinks she's voting for. a lot hangs in the balance of that question. >> you studied american presidents since the first american president. what do you think? do you think a man shows his full stripes under the circumstances brett kavanaugh found himself in last thursday, or do you think the political life we witnessed before last

thursday is the true man? >> i think he's closer to where he was last week than the one collins wanted him to be, unquestionably. if you look at the world out of which he came, a world familiar to you, it's the conservative legal world of washington. it's the federalist society. it's original intent. it's a very buttoned down but somewhat radical actually legal movement that in its way is as radical as the living constitution of the left, because if you -- if you put your own interpretation of original intent as the central judicial criteria, it is still your interpretation of that original intent. and so i think that we're going to have -- we've had this struggle now for 30 years or more. the other thing that's important to understand historically, and i think to understand the passions around this, is republicans far more often than

democrats have been disappointed in the people who their presidents put on the court. this begins in 1953 with dwight eisenhower who also put brennan on the court. richard nixon who had four appointments and except for justice rehnquist they turned out to be far more centrist than the right hoped for. george h.w. bush and david souter. the insistence of the conservatives since 1990 has been that we are always going to know exactly what we're getting. and that's -- that's at the core of this, i think. and that's who judge kavanaugh is, and he shouldn't be apologetic about it. that's who he is and that's who the president appointed and who 51 senators are confirming. but i wouldn't be distracted by senator collins' attempt to turn him into some creature out of the brookings institution. >> my last question is personal for you. i mean we don't talk enough about the human beings, and i think i was struck last thursday by the line from donald trump's

inauguration speech about human carnage when i watched professor ford, whose life has been destroyed since this incident, obviously, who overcame that trauma and testified before the country and the world, and judge kavanaugh's life will never be what it was before. what do you make of this moment in just human carnage and human calamity? i've had a window that i would trade with anyone on earth into what this has done to the kavanaughs and their circle of friends and their people who support and love him and i've had a window into what this has done to womens who are sexual assault victims themselves and everyone is gutted. >> it's brutal. you're exactly right, one of the things we have to remember in all these moments is that these aren't caricatures, these aren't cardboard people, they are flesh and blood human beings. most of the time they're trying to do the best they can through

what phrase i love, george elliott, the victorian novelist, talked about trying to do the best you could through dimmed lights and tangled circumstance which i thought was the perfect way of explaining life itself but certainly life in the arena. unquestionably there are damaged people here. and the process is brutal. i think that's one of the legacies of this. i do think it's going to be harder to get people to raise their hand and go into the arena, and i think that's a tragedy. unquestionably, though, i think ultimately character is destiny. and again, going forward what affects all of us is will justice kavanaugh be able to put this behind him in a way that makes him a better justice for the next 40 years or so. >> john meacham, thank you for spending some time with us. when we're back, lydia gets the last word. s the last word. packaging for restaurants. and we've grown substantially. so i switched to the spark cash card from capital one.

i earn unlimited 2% cash back on everything i buy. and last year, i earned $36,000 in cash back. that's right, $36,000. which i used to offer health insurance to my employees. my unlimited 2% cash back is more than just a perk, it's our healthcare. can i say it? what's in your wallet? this is actually under your budget. it's great. mm-hmm. yeah, and when you move in, geico could help you save on renters' insurance! man 1: (behind wall) yep, geico helped me with renters insurance, too! um... the walls seem a bit thin... man 2: (behind wall) they are! and craig practices the accordion every night! says the guy who sings karaoke by himself. i'm a very shy singer. you're tone deaf! ehh... should we move on to the next one? it's a great building! you'll love it here! we have mixers every thursday.

geico®. it's easy to switch and save on homeowners and renters insurance.

lydia. >> one note of optimism.

the supreme court is in many ways a self-healing organism and it has a way of shaping the people who sit on it, even if they have that long federalist background or whatever it is. i think the man to watch is john roberts. he cares deeply about the supreme court as an institution, and i think we should watch very closely the moves that he makes as this new court takes shape. >> tries to heal it. >> and i think some of us might be surprised. he could end up actually becoming the anthony kennedy of his own court. >> i like that optimism. my thanks to maura gay, the reverend al sharpton. "mtp daily" starts right now. hello, chuck. >> hello, nicolle. if it's friday, judge kavanaugh is set to become justice kavanaugh. good evening. i am chuck todd here in