publications including two "new york times" reporters who dug into this for a year and found deborah ramirez credible, one of the alleged victims that i wrote about. the consensus has come to understand that the individual careful pieces of reporting that i put out were there. , because it was newsworthy there was a high level of cooperation. that said, i want to know something about the media climate. there were dubious claims that i declined to report on that were out there in the context of that frenzied political flights of that confirmation. that is deeply disturbing to me. i was as troubled as all of the people that came to question the full body of reporting about brett kavanaugh. but the complicated case there was that the allegations were

and i believe deborah ramirez. amy: the weekend rally at the supreme court came after justices announced friday they will weigh the constitutionality of louisiana's anti-choice legislation, which requires any doctor performing an abortion to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital. pro-choice groups call such statutes trap laws, or "targeted regulation of abortion provoviders." they say the louisiana law would leave the state with just a single doctor legally allowed to perform abortions. meanwhile, the court is set to hear arguments tuesday in three cases to determine whether lgbtq people can be fired from their jobs due to their sexual orientation or gender identity. after headlines, we will have more on what's been described as the most important case directly addressing lgbtq people ever to reach the united states supreme court. in hong kong, tens of thousands of protesters defied a ban on face masasks saturday and marchd through a pouring rain storm as the prohibition took effect. hong kong chief execut

brett kavanaugh and say let's not do this, which was so clearly unrealistic on some level but deborah ramirez said if he had just apologized you now and it's so weird to hear that it may have been enough that there was enough sexual victims i have talked to who had said like sometime that's kind of what you need for closure is an acknowledgment that he did this to me. whether or not these are alleged situations, but i think it's lost in the conversation. it's a quest of sugar although in this case just in kavanaugh said he was innocent. the cultural moment we are living in so hard it's a moment we are the advent of social media you can say needful thing the someone can get away with it and this happened to christine was a ford, two brett kavanaugh, to ashley kavanaugh, deborah ramirez, many key players and their lawyers and people had bodyguards because they were worried about death threats and a lot of that comes from social media and the feeling anything that goes when it comes to language. i think the #metoo movement has been a galvanizing cultural event and at the time of the capital hear

she could call him to just say let's not do this which was so unrealistic at some level, but deborah ramirez if he had just apologized and it's so her hardo hear that might have been enough but the victims i talked to said that is what you need for closure o there is an acknowledgment that you did this to me. it's lost in the conversation. should there be an apology and is the apology even possible if it feels worth it although in this case he said he was innocent of these charges and presumably didn't find it warranted but the cultural moment we are living in is just so hard it is a cultural moment in which you have the advent of social media where you can say any hateful thing to somebody and get away with it and make death threats they were worried about death threats and a lot of that comes from social media and feeling anything goes when it comes to language. i think the need to movement has also been a galvanizing cultural event for the last two years and at the time of the confirmation hearings, the movement had been underway for a while and i think there was a backlash brewing that i

and i believe deborah ramirez.cheers] pressley.t is ayanna chase strangio, if you could summarize brett kavanaugh's career in this last year, his judicial record on the supreme court and respond to the call for his impeachment. his first terms on the bench. this is his first full term on the bench. what strikes me as most important in this moment is that it is a reminder of the power that these nine human beings hold over our lives. he will be hearing a case tomorrow that is directly about sex discrimination in the workplace, including, i might note, sexual harassment in the workplace, sexual v violence in the workplace. so he has s the power, along wih his eight colleagues, to really decide what the law is going to permit, what it is going to require, and how we as human beings in this country are either going to be protected or cast aside. so whether or not he is impeached, whether or not we can look back on clarence thomas and alall of the accusations against these individuals, i think what we need to do now is

interviews of corroborating witnesses that could have corroborated the accounts of accusers like deborah ramirez. our call on the house democrats, who now have the power of the gavel on the house side, is to do the fact-finding. do the investigation that the senate republicans looked the other way on. washe fact-finding the fbi not permitted to do because of the white house's meddling and do it in a formal impeachment inquiry. host: time for just one or two more calls of brian fallon. vermont, independent. >> thank you for taking my call. i had a question about the balance of power and the supreme court position in that, where today it seems the executive , through executive order, issue basically what are like laws. who knows if an executive order comes through that we all have to wear polkadotted underwear, the extent of that power. they seem to be able to go to war. we essentially have a king like structure. congress seems to hand too much power to the executive. , was wondering if the court which if you follow the constitution, does not really say congress can hand this power off to make law

publications including two "new york times" reporters who dug into this for a year and found deborah ramireze alleged victims that i wrote about. the consensus has come to understand that the individual careful pieces of reporting that i put out were there. , because it was newsworthy there was a high level of cooperation. that said, i want to know something about the media climate. there were dubious claims that i declined to report on that were out there in the context of that frenzied political flights of that confirmation. that is deeply disturbing to me. i was as troubled as all of the people that came to question the full body of reporting about brett kavanaugh. but the complicated case there was that the allegations were worth reporting on. i did so carefully along with colleagues of mine. >> bret: the book is "catch and kill." it is quite a read. we appreciate you coming on special report. >> ronan: thank you, bret. really appreciated. >> bret: a meeting the white house calls. he is getting some pressure from the right. we will get reaction from the panel when we return. ♪ adp helps

interviews of corroborating witnesses that could have corroborated the accounts of accusers like deborah ramirez. our call on the house democrats, who now have the power of the gavel on the house side, is to do the fact-finding. do the investigation that the senate republicans looked the other way on. washe fact-finding the fbi not permitted to do because of the white house's meddling and do it in a formal impeachment inquiry. host: time for just one or two more calls of brian fallon. vermont, independent. >> thank you for taking my call. i had a question about the balance of power and the supreme court position in that, where today it seems the executive , through executive order, issue basically what are like laws. who knows if an executive order comes through that we all have to wear polkadotted underwear, the extent of that power. they seem to be able to go to war. we essentially have a king like structure. congress seems to hand too much power to the executive. , was wondering if the court which if you follow the constitution, does not really say congress can hand this power off to make law