i know you always refer to that, but the garland nomination -- hang on. >> can i refute? >> there's nothing to refute. all those statements are correct. neil gorsuch sailed through with democratic votes. i guess your standard now, just to be clear -- first of all, happy birthday. >> i feel like i should be asking you questions at this point. >> it's the swing vote >>> what i'm saying for democrats is that they know a swap for constitutionals like brett kavanaugh for anthony kennedy means if you look at the decisions over the course of the last 25 years, would you have five justices who have a reputation for having an original understanding of the constitution and upholding that in their decision. >> but they didn't with gorsuch. >> john, let me talk just a little bit longer. let me just say this. >> just answer me the neil gorsuch. did they like gorsuch? did he get confirmed? >> yes, as the fourth vote and kavanaugh would be the fifth. there are nine members of the supreme court. this is the important opening. if you look at the senator from hawaii who said basically she

so that we are not subjected to the hardball behavior of the republicans that we saw in the garland nomination. and we're not subjected to the outrageous denial of the information that was requested on kavanaugh. i mean, there can't be one set of rules for democrats, and one set of rules for republicans. that's one of the reasons why people don't have any confidence in the congress. how can you? you don't know what's going to happen from day to day? i remember back in the thomas hearings when senator byrd was asked what he was going to do. and he said in a situation like this, we should give the benefit of the doubt to the court and the country. and that's what the republicans should be doing right now, from the white house down pennsylvania avenue to the senate. give the benefit of the doubt to the court and the country. and that means have an investigation that will then lead to a hearing that will then lead to a vote if appropriate. and instead, they are playing the hardest of hardballs to try to pack the court with another nominee regardless of the questions. remember, rachel, there were l

they grasp how all this works and they are confused about why the senate blocked the merrick garland nomination. the reason is voters put republicans in charge of the senate and the senate is schmoesed to be the one to confirm the nominee. kennedy: like democrats will have that power. >> and they will one day again have that power. it's why republicans have the power to confirm kavanaugh to the courts. but i think it's amusing watching these people in the senate judiciary committee doing their best to make it look like they are trying to stop them. at one point they had somebody asking brett kavanaugh himself to take himself out of contention until some documents are released. that's the most of ludicrous thing the world. the senate judiciary committee is in charge of making this decision, not the nominee himself. kennedy: i love protests. i love chaos. i think all of this is good fun. but i know that if this were a democratic president with his or her nominee and you had right-wing groups screaming and shouting the whole thing down, elizabeth warren would birth kittens in the chamber. >> it ha

i don't think we can overstate at all the impact that holding judgem judge merrick garland's nomination up and then killing it has had on the democrats, but i would also say that the president's dismissiveness is not helping republicans and chuck grassley has gone out of his way, i would say, to be respectful to all of these women who has raised questions. the only problem is tomorrow we're only going to hear from one of them and there happen to be two others. >> right. to underscore how serious lithe allegations are, julie swetnick swearing in her affidavit where she was at a party where a woman was gang raped and she was saying later on she was gang raped, not by kavanaugh. swetnick says that she saw kavanaugh, quoting her, pressing girls against him without their consent, grinding against girls in attempting to remove or shift girls' clothing to expose private body parts. this is the same brett kavanaugh we watched on fox saying this. >> i was focused on trying to be number one on my class and captain of the varsity basketball team, doing my service projects, going to church. the vas

garland took place. we've had a whole supreme court nomination in between. in the public mind and the way people think about these things, it becomes more difficult as time goes on to convey an urgency about a wrong done to merrick garland two years ago when we're talking about a nominee that is not even the most recent nominee to follow garland. there is no question that is lingering out there. there is a lot of bitterness on democrats on that side, and i also think among democratic senators when many of them cast their votes you'll see that issue of merrick garland raised again and again. perhaps that will even be at the forefront in kavanaugh's qualifications or views on these issues might actually take a back seat to some of that ongoing strife between the two parties about the supreme court. >> kim, you're a lawyer and not a politician, god bless you, but this question involves both. collins and murkowski, two prominent republican senators who are notably, publicly and loudly pro-choice. how do you think they get to a yes vote on this guy unless he's bee

none of them did publicly during the more than 400 days merrick garland's nomination was hanging out016 to 2017, and right now we haven't heard from any of them. it doesn't mean they aren't saying things behind the scenes. here's their general concern. it's that the very politicized confirmation process would suggest to anyone in the public that the court itself is very political and that any individual who emerges from this political process would personally have those kinds of political instincts, whether it be republican or democrat. and chief justice john roberts has spoken a lot about that and a lot about his worries. so he is not going to step to the forefront here and say anything that he thinks would exacerbate that kind of public perception. >> some of these justices have personal connections to kavanaugh. tell us more about that. >> that's exactly right. and including the chief justice of the united states, john rober roberts. he worked with brett kavanaugh dating back to the early 1990s when they were both in the u.s. solicitor general's office. both of them had supported

rush, and there's been -- the republicans are playing hard ball all the way, quashing at the garland nomination under president obama and then choosing kavanaugh and trying to dump it through. i think that's already caused a sense that this thing is rigged. but i do also think that senator grassley deserves a salute for taking mrs. ford's word that she needed more time. he's met many of her demands and been somewhat reasonable. a couple bars here that i think kavanaugh has to pass. there's one bar which is low, and that is can he get the votes out of the senate. senator mcconnell's been talking as if he already has the vote. >> hold your thought because i want to play some sound with senator mcconnell, with lindsey graham who's one of those on this committee who will be questioning christine blasey ford as well. even the vice president. listen to this. >> i believe that judge brett kavanaugh will soon be justice brett kavanaugh and take his seat on the supreme court of the united states of america. >> you've watched the fight, you've watched the tactics, but here's what i want to tell you. in t

but to jim's point, 13 months is how long the merrick garland nomination held up. high court for months and months on end when it came to merrick garland. it is up to the chairman of the judiciary committee to determine how fast or slow this should go. in the name of justice, should time be valued here? >> this was an about seg raxecc process, too. >> if we can agree that the confirmation hearing process thus far has afforded both sides the opportunity to ask whatever questions they would like to ask and at this point in time the sole remaining issue is now something that could have been handled confidently. >> if i -- if i understand correctly, the documents they are claiming they did not get to see are documents that passed through judge brett kavanaugh when he was white house secretary. if i'm also understanding correctly, judge brett kavanaugh has been a part of hundreds of decisions over the past ten years as an appellate judge. for whatever reasons democrats have not focussed on a lot of those decisions. i actually felt the most probative interesting part of

senate majority after the midterms and that's whether doing this as a quid pro quo against mary garland nomination? i think voters could be really upset by that because we were having a substantive conversation. they were senators, democrat and republican alike opposing challenging questions to this judge but now were to be go with this process and what is the threshold of this conversation we are having about the me too movement. >> melissa: the most important thing is to try to figure out what the truth is. way beyond that is a clinical implications. kennedy brings up this idea of a potential backlash. as this plays out closer and closer to the midterm, it does have the potential of firing up the right to come out because having a judge has proven to be one of the things that motivates them to the polls. >> ari: i think it's too early to say. it all depends on what happens, when they both have that day in court. and if the right feels that judge kavanaugh is being a victim of something that's unfair and not provable, it will probably fire up the right. and on the other hand if she comes across a

you have to remember that they held up for a year judge merrick garland's nomination by president obamaand now they're trying to ram road this through. greatfully flake stood up and said i won't vote until we have an investigation. if they haven't done, so they would have rammed him through on a saturday. i'm grateful to any senator that will do what the president said, have a free reign rain of the fbi. why didn't they investigating to begin with? when credible charges came forward, and i understand that three credible women that are bringing charges, they should immediately be talked to, they should immediately investigate it. i would hope that all of the senators would want to work from the same set of facts in the case. now it's attack one back and forth. and i must say that judge kavanaugh, it sounded to me more like a political campaign or a political speech than a confirmation hearing. attacking democrats, attacking people, it was to me unbelievable. >> let me ask you this. in the event what we're witnessing right now is purely theoretical, you have sheldon whitehouse and others

they held merrick garland nomination for a year. think republicans have to be careful, suburban women and independents looking closely at this. i wouldn't rush it. give her time. have the fbi do it. both sides should want that to happen. cheryl: we all want to hear from her, hear her side of the story. hopefully we'll get it soon. hopefully we'll not have to wait too long. we appreciate it very much. we appreciate the discussion. >> thank you. cheryl: coming up the judge is here as a suggestion for the chuck grassley, judiciary committee, the whole team. judge napolitano is here. love you. good to see you here. ♪ jardiance asked- and now you know. jardiance is the only type 2 diabetes pill proven to both reduce the risk of cardiovascular death for adults who have type 2 diabetes and heart disease... ...and lower a1c, with diet and exercise. jardiance can cause serious side effects including dehydration. this may cause you to feel dizzy, faint, or lightheaded, or weak upon standing. ketoacidosis is a serious side effect that may be f

they're mindful of how merrick garland's nomination was blocked in the obama era. see this seat stay vacant until 2020? >> well, that question is the reason why mitch mcconnell committed a grave error, not only was it a constitutional assault, because he deprived the president of the united states of his constitutional right to have an appointment to the supreme court heard and judged. but he also laid down a marker. he basically said to democrats, do this to me, do it to the republicans, please, because that's -- and then what i fear is a cycle of revenge. yes, of course the democrats could sit on a nomination. it won't uldn't be healthy. it's not a good thing. we should restore respect to the presidency. but that could happen. and it would be in many -- in the eyes of many americans, a fair retribution for the mistreatment of president obama's nominee, merrick garland. >> if i could add, i think it's entirely possible that if kavanaugh went down to defeat, say by october 1st, that still leaves three months before early january. and even if the democrats took back

don't know, but if he doesn't move forward he'd ultimately end up in the same place as merrick garland, nominated from the d.c. circuit, who didn't join the court and goes back to the d.c. circuit. >> right, there's no due process right to a seat on the supreme court. >> ari, you're a lawyer and i'm a journalist and we both know that process really matters. we heard from a whole bunch of senators saying if this were true, that they would consider this disqualifying. well, how are they going to know it's true? without there being an adequate investigation? i can speak to those two investigations, the charlie rose ones that you mentioned, they were published at "the washington post." i can speak to their extremely rigorous editorial processes. before this woman's story was given a platform in "the washington post" they went through as much corroboration as possible and they checked it out thoroughly. that said, the fbi and the senate can do them one better if they establish a process here where they could actually find out -- they could actually use their subpoena power with mark judge. they could

you could imagine two years ago when barack obama nominated merrick garland, the positions were reversedrepublican president nominated a justice for the court and there was a democratic control senate. i'm not sure the democrats would have thought of or been able to accomplish the stonewalling that was done to garland. maybe that's admirable but in the political game they have never been as good at it as the republicans. ultimately, the breaking of norms is bad for the court. but i argue in the court -- in the book that some of what we see in confirmation hearings in the last decade was brought on by the court itself. the court is involved in so many it raises theues, stakes in nominations and it was always like that. host: david kaplan's book is out today, the most dangerous branch, inside the supreme court's assault inside the constitution. he is with us until we take you to the hearing room on capitol hill. that's where today's events will be taking place. we invite you to join into the conversation. democrats can call in at (202) 748-8000, republicans at (202) 748-8001, independents

the garland nomination. i think we will always look at of donalds the era trump. he looms large over the landscape. but i think the most powerful figure over the last 10 years has actually been senator mcconnell, and i think he has been quite destructive. host: but go to alex: from lexington, kentucky, and alex supports judge kavanaugh. i support, yeah, judge kavanaugh, but i can tell you this, i do believe dr. ford was assaulted by something, it is called indoctrination of the colleges, and moving to liberal california. we have already had six investigations by the fbi to prove his character. how much more money to we have to waste with another investigation from the fbi? it is obvious this woman is mentally ill. she can speak with a raspy voice like this to the prosecutors and be almost giggly to the democrats when they asked her questions during the hearing. even i can break up my words with a rhythm. it is ridiculous. this is interesting, because she has already confirmed to be at the women's march. she is a political derailer. mean, obviously people have diff

man in the office when alabama nominated garland? i think his point is my point.le to get things through, every president was. why was it a different standard for barack obama? >> it's a double standard. and the folks who have been controlling this process, chairman grassley and others, speak from both sides of their mouth. during justice kagan's nomination, folks like jeff sessions insisted on disclosure each and every document from kagan's time in the white house. but now we see the senate at every turn changing the rules of the game, abanding the long-standing pro decision and rules that have helped guide the most important task the senate carries out, installing lifetime judges on our nation's courts. this hearing should not be going forward on tuesday. we need to press pause, we need to give the senate time to evaluate each and every document underlying mr. kavanaugh's record so we can understand who he truly is before we think about whether he qualifies for a life-time seat on our nation's highest court. >> let me go back to john because i promised you could

judge kavanaugh spoke glowingly of judge garland during his pending nomination stating that "chief judge garland is a brilliant jurorist, thoughtful, he's considerate, collegial, works well with others, he's a good man, great integrity and supremely qualified by the characteristics of experience, temperment, writing ability, scholarly ability to the supreme court." all of this is equally true of judge kavanaugh. i do not think it is fair to hold judge kavanaugh responsible for the fact that judge garland is not a justice today. instead, i would urge this committee to treat him as we expect him to treat litigants that appear before him. on his own merits and with an open mind towards someone whose views may different from our own. our judicial system is not well served by tit for tat politics. at the end of the day, i enthusiastically support judge kavanaugh and i am proud to introduce him because he is unquestionably qualified by his extraordinary intellect, experience, and temperment. he does fit in the mainstream of legal thought. i look forward to the committee over the next few days

monday, when lindsey graham and chuck grassley and the entire republican senate sat on merrick garland's nomination for i think 293 days. i do understand, though, kasie hunt, their concern that there are some democrats who are just trying to stall this, and any democrat, or if anybody who claims that this isn't in the back of the minds of democrats, it's just not honest brokers. they're lying to themselves, if not lying to all of us. that said, there should be a middle ground. the fbi conducted an investigation during the clarence thomas hearings after the anita hill information came out. it took a couple of days. it's not like they're going to have to go to new zealand to find people. most of these people could be interviewed very quickly. it could be turned around in a couple of days. what is the problem with conducting a two or three-day investigation, making sure that the facts are all before everybody and then her testifying at the end of next week? >> well, some of my sources are suggesting that perhaps, you know, allowing an fbi investigation to go forward would potentially yield additional

merrick garland is a friend of mine and i think the world of him. i wish obama had nominated him right out of the bat. but that was the jill biden rule. joe biden announced at the end administration, if there is any vacancies that come up for the supreme court this year in an election year, we are not going to approve anyone. that is when the democrats were in charge of the senate. so that was a long-standing rule. not long-standing, but it had already been put out by the democrats. so beautiful because were just saying, ok, let's let the electorate decide. whoever they elect president, they can get the judge. and was not six months. february and the election was in november. she is being invited to testify. your other issue is about how many witnesses should be brought. into the, i believe that the senate -- the said it, i believe in the judiciary will you believee one other -- i the judiciary says he could have one other perm. host: we will go to eric in maryland, republican. caller: good morning. victoria, just want to say how refreshing it is to hear you this morning talk

ginsburg retires you a democrat majority in the senate and donald trump turns around and nominates merrick garland to the high court now is there any want to mung us who believes that they want that nomination would not be immediately met with the region and ridicule and would be obstructed by the current by the by the democratic majority i mean that is where we've come to because specter everything is slipping away from them they're becoming more and more and more radical left and again j.f.k. couldn't run as a democrat and i maintain bill clinton could really run as a democrat anyway he had to apologize for all of his a big achievements during his wife's campaign so the whole party is unrecognizable ok steve going to stay with you are a few more seconds here is this going to end badly or do we get to get some cooler heads go ahead i don't see color heads i see people saying get in their faces if they trumpet ministration officials if you see him in a restaurant you see him in a shopping mall get a group together harass them stay outside their houses this is a recipe for disaster and it's going t

stomach anyone who supported keeping the supreme court vacancy open for a year when mayor garland was nominated to somehow complain of the process. there are a lot of capable lawyers on that judiciary committee and the fact that he does not want to ask the witness question and in the gop, they have not put a single woman in the committee making key decisions of a whole range of them and including women's reproductive health. what their goal is trying to push these through and try to avoid any further damage before the midterms but that's really all they care about here. it is not about getting to the truth and it is not showing respect to the witness. it is about avoiding a perception that they're simply not interested in whether brett kavanaugh committed attempted rape that there are more important things in their view in having this conservative majority supreme court is all that it matters. >> the continuation of this topic will happen. i want to turn now to the new reporting from "the washington post" on how the white house is preparing the judge to testify. there are three people familiar

even meet with or even have a hearing for president obama's nomination, merrick garland. we have another nomination that may have slipped by you but i hope you reflect for a moment. the committee rules set and rules that we have followed for decades. that one member of the minority had to be voting in favor of the motion to close debate on a subject. by the earlier vote that was taken, we have eliminated that et a new majority precedent. stepping on the concept to respect the right of the minority. we have seen in this nomination, something we have never seen before. i have no idea where we came up with this standard. it used to be strictly limited to questions that were so sensitive that we took them behind closed doors. now we have allowed someone named bill burke to rewrite the rules of the senate, if not the constitution. why are we giving away all this authority on this committee? we step back for a year and a half now from a relevant investigations of this president and allowed other committees of jurisdiction to ignore our spots ability. we are a whisper, a shell of

judge kavanaugh spoke glowingly of judge garland during his pending nomination stating that "chief judge garland is a brilliant jurorist, thoughtful, he's considerate, collegial, works well with others, he's a good man, great integrity and supremely qualified by the characteristics of experience, temperment, writing ability, scholarly ability to the supreme court." all of this is equally true of judge kavanaugh. i do not think it is fair to hold judge kavanaugh responsible for the fact that judge garland is not a justice today. instead, i would urge this committee to treat him as we expect him to treat litigants that appear before him. on his own merits and with an open mind towards someone whose views may different from our own. our judicial system is not well served by tit for tat politics. at the end of the day, i enthusiastically support judge kavanaugh and i am proud to introduce him because he is unquestionably qualified by his extraordinary intellect, experience, and temperment. he does fit in the mainstream of legal thought. i look forward to the committee over the next few days

nomination so quickly and without due diligence. and investigating this matter. address the merits garland situation. he is a friend of mine and i think the world of him. and i wish that obama nominated him right off the bat. -- joet was the rule biden said that if there were we won't approve anyone. that is when democrats were in charge of the senate. ruleat was a long-standing -- well, not long-standing but it had been put out by the democrats. so republicans say, ok, let's let the electorate decide. it was six months. allowed she should be to testify? she is being invited to testify. and your other issue is about how many witnesses should be brought? the senate, i believe, the judiciary committee has a pool that you can have one other witness that could come in. i've no problem with that. the chairman sets the rules senator grassley always confers with feinstein gazette that is the way it works. host: we go to eric. a republican. by want to hear you talk about the process and how refreshing it is. it is obvious from the beginning that this has been nothing but a character's fascination from the lef

and condemn this process when merrick garland -- there were 238 days between the day merrick garland was nominated2016 election, almost eight months. they never held any hearings. the fact is, they both play politics here. and these -- i think to lump these accusations into just politics, it unnecessarily and i think wrongly lessens them. and that we should hear. >> and he said he wants to tell a story. >> right. >> he's going to tell a story. that's appropriate. >> and very clear that republicans are going on offense, and they want to move forward with this as swiftly as possible. they want to put this behind them. they don't want to prolong this process with the potential that there are other allegations that might come out. but it's also important to remember that we're heading into the midterm elections, and we don't know what the backlash might look like if they do confirm kavanaugh. because the climate has changed. and we have had this moment of reckoning, where the standards for what is acceptable behavior toward women has changed. and so we'll see, of course, how women respond at the polls

ginsburg retires you a democrat majority in the senate and donald trump turns around and nominates merrick garland to the high court now is there any what among us who believes that they will that nomination would not be immediately met with the region and ridicule and would be obstructed by the current by the by the democratic majority i mean that is where we've come to because it gets back to what you were talking about peter and what gregory steamboat talked about there is no sort of not just moral not a common but there's no reasonable compass inside them there's no keel that is keeping their ship righted so they can sort of be fluid and change depending on what is happening in front of them and we all deal in rationality we all deal with the reality in front of us and that is one of the great divides between left and right is that they just don't deal with reality you know gregory the thing that you know when i look at you know when these revelations about peter struck in lisa page in the d.o.j. and. komi clapper brennan you know it's not that you can like or dislike these people that's fine

question this is not a tit for tat we are dealing with apples and oranges in regards to garlands potential appointment nomination and that of course judge kavanagh well this i appreciate your time the ability to to what the viewer gets out of this and since we're seen around the world david can you give us the sixty second version of the supreme court tell our viewers some of whom don't live here how cases get there and how the court works. well there are there are nine justices on the supreme court and there's a majority vote and the cases arrive two different ways one from the federal trial courts they go to the federal appellate courts and then a very very small number are granted. and are accepted by the united states supreme court they also arrive there from the state courts and after a litigant has exhausted remedies in the state court in certain limited situations their case will be taken by the united states supreme court so there are appeals both from each of the fifty states highest courts and there's also appeals from federal courts and finally there are pills from federal agencies if some agency like

we're here in part because mitch mcconnell held open the seat merck garland was nominated to throughhe pronidential elecnd that's how president trump has, too, and some could argue that is one of the wasiys pdent trump would be is that conservatives and especially evangelicals cared so much about that seat that they were moat motivated to vote fo him. >> yang: tam, we've lot the last primaries coming up this month, five in all, and four ratse are insurgent democ challenging incumbents as the party still tries to figure out who they are after 2016 what should we be looking for in those contests? >> you know, i thk that it would be oversimplifying it to say it's the berniecrats versus the hillarycrats. i think that's a mistakee there her interesting dynamics including racia dynamics where some of the candidates who have on wn, like alexandria cortez, in a district heavily latino she was challenging a big irish guy and she won. rand in the massachusete, there's a similar discussion about representation taking place. >> the interesting thing about the primaries thus far, so we are here a

obviously, sort of the ghost of merritt garland's nomination is hanging over brett kavanaugh's hearingrs writing. first of all, do you think that's fair? second of all, did republicans make a mistake not giving merritt garland a chance to talk in their offices and to talk in front of the judiciary committee and at least get an up or down vote? >> so, i think here we get to a place where it becomes hatfields and mccoys quickly. this works better if we have an hour and a bunch of beer. can you go back to the prior send to the prior send. where we are right now there's a tradition going back to world war ii that people are not confirmed to the skourtd in a presidential election year. that's just been the tradition. that really comes most fundamentally even though it's a tradition going back to 1945 it comes most directly from the mid to late 1980s when every supreme court nomination since has been politicized going back to the bork hearings in 1987 we have a situation where you can predict the craziness what was going to happen here yesterday. the lunacy the way we do protests because peo

ginsburg retires you a democrat majority in the senate and donald trump turns around and nominates merrick garland to the high court now is there any want to mung us who believes that they want that nomination would not be immediately met with derision and ridicule and would be obstructed by the current by the by the democratic majority i mean that is where we've come to because it gets back to what you were talking about peter and what gregory steamboat talked about there is no sort of not just moral i'm not going to call more but there's no. reasonable compas inside there's no keel that is keeping their ship righted so they can sort of be fluid and change depending on what is happening in front of them and we all deal with irrationality we all deal with the reality in front of us and that is one of the great divides between left and right. apologies for interrupting cross talk there but we go live now to berlin where the russian foreign minister is speaking and we think to about the script our case let's listen in just answer as to whether you did this deliberately or by by mistake by coincidenc

now we have a senate that for over a year blocked a consensus and nominated merit garland simply because he was nominated by barack obama. and as soon as they got a trump nominee, they're trying to rush them through, set all of the old standards aside, for example, on one of the obama nominees, they got 99% of her records, but the white house, here they're allowing 8 or 9% of judge kavanaugh's record. they're just changing the rules. the end justifies the means. but the american public has a right to ask why are you rushing, why are you changing the rules, what are you trying to hide. >> senator patrick leahy, thanks for talking to me from vermont, ranking member of the judiciary committee. several of you have been tweeting me, asking what the fbi's role is in this kind of situation. for more on that, want to bring in shawn henry, former executive assistant director of the fbi and msnbc national security analyst. shawn, the issue seems to be that there's no federal crime that would be investigated, that if this were investigated it would be as a state crime and hence the fbi wouldn't hav

democrats say there is no hurry when president obama nominated garland in 2016. there's no surprise how this should unfold. >> you need this investigation before she should be forced to testify. >> they are given tremendous amounts of time. they have postponed a major hearing. they are hurting somebody's life very badly. it's very unfair i think to, as you know, justice kavanaugh has been treated very, very tough. >> the president told reporters he finds it very hard to imagine a sex assault happened. >>> the president got to see firsthand the devastation left behind by hurricane florence. the president spending time giving out hugs, thanking volunteers and passing out meals. he also walked through new bern, north carolina, one of the hardest hit towns. president trump reassured survivors that more help is on the way as more flooding is expected. >> nobody would believe a thing like this could happen. already, you have broken all records. this is going to add four, five, six feet of water all over the state. so washington is with you. trump is with you. we are al

unfortunately, the republicans brought this on to themselves with the fiasco of the merrick garland nominationi believe they should extend an olive branch and let the democrats review all the documents. as i understand it, there is no need to have nine justices, so time forjust give the democrats to read the documents. byt: there is an effort congress to pass a series of spending bills. a unique element of one of those selling bills, one of the winners, federal energy veterans and legislative branch programs, sledders,ll'hill -- u.s. capitol police not to enforce regulations -- used as playgrounds or otherwise when encountering snow sledders on the ground. attention inewed 2015 when capitol police indicated ahead of a big snowstorm that they planned to enforce the ban, but ultimately after theo do so public flocked to the capitol grounds. luther on the democrats line. i just want to comment on two things i've heard on c-span the past few days. yesterday, when they were talking about the 9/11 commemorations, there were many say theycalling to believed it was some sort of set up. i commend john

both side of the aisle and help build a strong center on the court and did he just that when he nominated garland chief judge of the d.c. circuit, who i know you also admire. my republican colleagues refused to even meet with him much less hold a hearing or vote. on his confirmation. during the 400 days the majority refused to fill the supreme court, he release add list of potential nominees to the court, a list compiled by two highly partisan organizations, the federalist society and heritage foundation. after our president was elected he picked from that list and nominated neil gorsuch to the supreme court. when he testified before this committee he told us repeatedly how deeply he under-the-stood precedent. he cited a book on precedent he co-authored with you. in the first 15 months of service he's voted to overrule at least five important supreme court precedents and question many others. to name just one different it was just labor day, he voted to gut public sector unions. overturning a 41--year-old precedent which there were great interest in impacting bhls of workers across the country mi

garland proposal. anyway or nomination i guess it was. because they insulted and humiliates a very fine jurist for ten months. so i wouldn't worry about that. as far as the delay in reporting the incident on the part of the lady, are the thing is that this is a trauma we're talking about, a sexual aggressive act known as rape. and the fact is that there are people who have these experiences and they're so traumatic that it becomes buried you know in the memory. look at the roman catholic situation with people coming forward now about when they were children. so that's the kind of thing that happens. but and lindsey graham, i don't know where this guy is coming from. i mean, whether he's running for late night comedian or something else, but he seems to have suddenly become big buddies with our president. finally, i say look at the person who nominated kavanaugh. hosteling us that kavanaugh is a very honest person and how well qualified he is. it's donald trump who is, you know, demonstrably a liar. so. >> thank you for your three points.

many of them are harking back to merritt garland and saying, look, when president obama nominated merritt garland, mitch mcconnell had no trouble waiting a whole year to fill a supreme court seat. why are they in such a hurry? and, you know t longer this goes on, i think, frankly, the worse it gets for brett kavanaugh. >> i want to talk about some corroborating details, or suggestively corroborating details about this allegation. from julie swetnick today, heidi. and it centers on mark judge who is the sort of missing figure, and has always been hard to square, that you would not want to talk to mark judge. the new yorker talked to an ex-girlfriend of mark judge who recalled that judge had told her of an incident that involved him and other boys taking turns having sex with a woman. in an interview the woman recalled -- jungle juice, and try to take advantage offer. it was disgusting, they treated women like meat. this does bring up the question of mark judge and why he will not be before that committee tomorrow, heidi. >> so, i spoke directly with senator cassidy of louisiana today, chri

still battling the injury merrick garland president obama nominated him and the republican senate wouldn't dana: character assassination wasn't a part of that. that was a principle. >> yes. >> dana: thank you. i love law school with you any time. a major offensive against the last rebel strong hold in syria now on hold. why the guns are falling silent, at least temporarily. plus, a democratic senator saying there is no rush to fill the supreme court vacancy. we will see what the other side says when republican senator john kennedy joins me next. george woke up in pain. but he has plans today. hey dad. so he took aleve. if he'd taken tylenol, he'd be stopping for more pills right now. only aleve has the strength to stop tough pain for up to 12 hours with just one pill. aleve. all day strong. we are the tv doctors of america, and we may not know much about medicine, but we know a lot about drama. we also know that you can avoid drama by getting an annual check-up. so go, know, and take control of your health. it could save your life. cigna. together, all the way. ♪ >> i think we have this h.

garland stings. some say that is why democrats should try to hold up judge kavanaugh's nomination. how much of a factor is that for you? >> it is not for me. it is not a question of revenge or anything like that. what happened to judge garland was unfair an should not have happened. dwas a wrong of historic import. but i think judge kavanaugh deserves to be considered on his own merits. before, it is not a question of professional qualifications or character or anything like that. i think it is a question of finding the right balance. we're a very divided country. thee narrowly at margins of republicans and democrats. the last presidential election was extreme the close. the senate is externally divided and it tilts the supreme court very far to the right when the country is balanced between left and right, republicans and democrats. throws that institution out of kilt. that is the central issue in the kavanaugh confirmation. >> beyond roe v. wade, the abortion issue, where else to have concern about legal precedent when it comes to judge kavanaugh? >> his views on executive power a

hatch said ignores the fact that for nearly a year they refused to even meet with merrick garland on his nominationiming some sort of abuse of process. i think the democrats actually have it right on this one. allow dr. ford to offer her testimony. she should be callithey should additional witnesses. there should be an fbi investigation. and quite frankly judge kavanaugh should want one because he shouldn't want to enter onto a court with this stain and what some have described as an asterisk by his name. i have a feeling this is going to go really south for republicans really quickly on thursday. >> congressman david jolly, do you think any minds will be changed by the fox news interview tonight with the judge and his wife? >> i don't think any minds will be changed. the question is does it become political for any single senator that kind of begins a domino effect? i know a lot of people are looking at murkowski and collins because they're the two female sometimes moderate united states senators. but frankly, that's embarrassing as a republican to suggest that only women can recognize the controv