that that triggered harry reid action, and they reacted to that by holding back merrick garland, and now we are trapped in this situation. reid said that in 2013 that really no one was going to be clean in this whole process. everyone was sort of switching sides. kane, senior executive reporter for "the washington post." thank you for joining us. come back anytime. for the last 30 minutes, we returned to the question from the beginning of the session. filibuster thes nomination of neil gorsuch? and should the republicans use the nuclear option if they do? we will get to your calls and just minute. -- in just a minute. ♪ >> in case you missed it, on c-span, quinton watts of the foreign policy research institute at the intelligence hearing. >> at the start of 2016, the pushed influence system measures to influence the outcome of the election. covert operations that saw to sideline opponents on both sides of the clinical spectrum with adversarial views on the kremlin. they were in full swing during the democratic and republican binary seasons. -- primary seasons. pilots in thee of milita

harry reid was trying to protect the filibuster. he was the new minority leader, and republicans were trying topu push through george w. bush is appellate court judges. then this sort of bipartisan group came together led by john mccain and a few others. they defuse the issue, and harry reid at the time told me that some of the colleagues, when we were at roll call at the time that it was his greatest moment in the senate, was preserving the filibuster. then he becomes majority leader. barack obama becomes president o and they're trying to get through what becomes this repub republican blockade on several different fronts. for all wilder mitch mcconnell and republicans were not even allowing a quorum to convene at the national labor relations board. and then especially at the district, d.c. circuit court of appeals down the street from here, which is considered the second most important court in the land, republicans were not allowing any more nominees to go through. it finally came to a head in november 2013. harry reid essential i

if you regret what harry reid did, why continue down this slippery slope? >> i think breaking the rules of the senate to change the rules of the senate, which was done in 2013, was terrible for the senate. when we came to a majority a year and a half later we discussed about whether or not to restore the old system. we decided not to do it because the custom, although it was possible to filibuster judges, the custom was not to do it. the senate restrained itself and gave every supreme court nominee and up or down vote down to 2000. thisrecent invention of level of controversy we decided was best left alone by just leaving us where we were. >> do you believe harry reid made the right decision? >> no, i don't think he should have broken the rules. that is the precedent. that is the precedent they set on what we call the executive calendar. the supreme court is part of the executive calendar. >> are you comfortable in 10 years we may not have a filibuster anymore. we may continue down this slippery slope? >> i don't think the legislative filibuster is in dange

if you regret what harry reid did, why continue down this slippery slope? >> well, i think breaking the rules of the senate, to change the rules of the senate which is what was done in 2013 was terrible for the senate. but when we came to the majority a year and a half later we discussed this. about whether or not to restore the old -- the old system. and we decided not to do it because the custom, even though it was always possible to filibuster judges, the custom down to 2000 was not to do it. the senate restrained itself and and gave the supreme court nominee an up or down vote, down to 2000. so this recent invention of this level of controversy we decided was best left alone by just leaving us where we were -- >> so you now believe harry reid make the right decision? >> no, i don't think he should have broken the rules. but that's the precedent on what we call the executive calendar. and the supreme court is part of the executive calendar. >> are you comfortable in ten years we might not have a filibuster anymore, because someone else may replace you an

this is from senator harry reid in 2013. [video clip] >> the change we propose the change we propose today will ensure executive and judicial nominations. yes, no. the rule change will make closure for all nominations other than the supreme court majority threshold vote, yes or no. the senate is a living thing. , it must change as it has over the history of this country.the average american adopting rules to make the senate work again is common sense. this is not about democrats versus republicans. this is about making washington work regardless of who is in the white house or who controls the senate. to remain relevant and effective as an institution, the senate was be involved to meet the challenges of this era. i have no doubt my republican colleagues will argue the fault is ours. it is the democrats fault. i can say from experience that no one's hands are entirely clean on this issue. today, the important distinction is not between democrats and republicans. it is between those who are willing to help break the gridlock

this brought by senator harry reid, the democrat, and now that decision, made by harry reid, a democraty years ago, now coming back and hunting democrats as they try to prevent neil gorsuch from being seated on the court. we'll have much more on that. also, a disturbing prediction about when north korea could have a nuclear missile capable of hitting the u.s. mainland. >> that's right, we'll have new information about when a nuclear tip icbm might be in the arsenal of north korea. that's coming here from south korea, south of the dmz >> jon: a fox news alert. at the procedural vote to end debate on the nomination of the al gore search to sit on the supreme court has failed. that means get ready for the so-called nuclear option. the vote was 55-45. four democrats voted to end debate. they are gorsuchs -- 51 of the republicans also joined and debate, but you notice, there are 52 republicans and the senate, that's because the majority leader, mitch mcconnell, switched his vote at the last minute so that he could vote with the winning side. that gives him the parliamentary option to ask for

what about harry reid referring to george w. bush as a loser and a liar?fter week after week we were told lie after lie after lie, ted kennedy saying that. george w. bush lied into the iraq war. we have serious people on the left making very serious allegations. we don't need to go to comedians to find trump derangement syndrome. >> sean: you are right about every observation we are you ag making. but if i used the same incident terry language, somehow i don't think it would become -- >> he would be off the show. that is certainly for sure. the level of disrespect -- >> sean: i would hire you as my lawyer. you'd keep me in. >> i would try. at the level of this respect is just outstanding right now but this leave wow liberal media. he is the 45th president of the united states of america. they lost the election, allowed him the opportunity to succeed as a president. if he succeeds, we all succeed as a country. it's almost as if they want to see the country fall so that in four years they can say look, he didn't do what he said. it is a defeating personality

i think chuck schumer, he took over for harry reid.here's no love lost between me and the former minority leader but i thought chuck schumer would be different and i thought he would be able to lead his democrats in a different way. he's making them walk a really short plank in the long term pain for democrats will be a lasting effect, not just on the senate but for america. it's a 200 year tradition. maybe the tradition needed to go away. maybe it is past its time. i don't think mitch mcconnell wanted to do this but if you heard what senator leahy was saying, it's not about gorsuch as a person, it's about the tactics mcconnell use last year to block merrick garland, who was president obama's appointee. payback for what? gorsuch is going to be confirmed. they basically are forcing this now so that they can't use it later if there's another chance for another nominee. >> kimberly: what do you think about the strategy on behalf of the democrats? >> eric: failure. dana is right. so they will get the republican. they will get gorsuch on th

you can thank harry reid for that. he set the table for this. he can also thank people like you, chris hayes, you as a progressive have been very vocal in your support for fill buster reform. you should be sheering mitch mcconnell for doing this. this is another step. >> the fill buster antidemocratic procedural mechanism that is nowhere in the constitution. i think of sort of selective thing it's fine. just to be clear on the impeer cal skyrocketing which became de facto super majority one of the houses which is nowhere in the constitutional architecture and we all know how much you and everyone loves originalism. this is obama just in his first four years, that's just the first term, 307 fill buster, there's just nothing like it. so if it becomes a de facto, you know, super majority, i mean, yeah i think they should kill it. >> yeah, but senators are lazy. to be honest, the way that i think this should happen, i am not a fan of the nuclear option. i do not -- i'm not happy about the senate traditions being chipped away. i think this is a terri

i'm going to send a thank you and i amarry reid calling it the harry reid option.f democrats have a fit over any of the stuff that pumpkins wanted -- that republicans want to do -- maybe the next time the democrats will get the base out. host: do you think it is bad for the chamber for bipartisanship? is there any such thing is that? caller: can you tell me the last time we had cooperation bipartisanship? ever since george w. bush, it is getting worse. they can lose an election, a court case -- anytime they come up on the short end of the stick, they have the worst temper tantrum. like people are going to die, women are going to die. it is amazing to me. we are talking about a conservative replacing a conservative. let's do the harry reid option and then went -- and then when ruth bader ginsburg steps down, we can get another conservative. host: cornell is waiting in new jersey. good morning. caller: i think it is imperative that the democrats show some spine and deny the nomination, because first of all, the not --cans of today were would not even give judge garla

and so in a new and unprecedented fashion, senator c harry reid change the cloture rules once again, so-called reid rule. it was a naked power gri grabbing t was to pack the deceased circuit court of appeals, one of the least busy circuit court in the country in order to have judges confirmed by 51 democratic votes that would rubberstamp president obama is administrative actions during his administration. and sadly it worked. they did just that. so in a way, mr. president, we are coming full circle, back to what the tradition in the senate was before the year 2000, before democrats went to this retreat led by liberal legal activists who cooked up this idea that you could filibuster judges. and try to impose a requirementr of 60 votes for confirmation when, in fact, the constitution contemplates a majority vote, 51 votes for confirmation. so some have said that this represents the end of comedy in the senate. i don't believe that. some of said this threatens the end of -- comity -- the end of legislative filibuster or cloture requirement. i don't believe that either. there's a big dif

let us remember that in november of 2013, senate majority leader harry reid established a new precedent of how many votes are necessary on executive branch nominees with the exclusion of supreme court hicks. what's even more shocking to me is over the past few weeks to the hearing process, through the debates and discussions about judge gorsuch on the floor, and with support from across my state of montana -- let me just name some of those organizations of people in support of judge gorsuch. the montana chamber of commerce, four of montana's tribes, they see as kt, the crow tribe, fort belknap and fort. peck. the support of the montana farm bureau who supported judge russell of the 13th judicial district. judge jeffrey langton of the 21st judicial district, judge joan larson o of the fourth judicial district. state senator retired judge from the sixth judicial district hasa endorsed judge gorsuch. the montana nra members, the montana grain growers association, the men, will growers association, the montano stock association. our attorney general in montana, our auditor in montana. our s

started with harry reid, when harry reid said, okay, for judgeships, now you're only going to need aecause he got sick and tired of republicans blocking his judges, but he said it didn't go for supreme court nominees. we'll leave that aside. that will be different. low and behold now, a lot of democrats warned him, well the tables may turn and they did. low and behold now, republicans control the senate and they're saying, okay, we're going to do away with the filibuster for judgeship. for supreme court judgeships because, look, they can't get their nominee through any other way. the question is is this a slippery slope. dana knows more about this than anyone. i will is ask her this. is this a slippery slope that then will lead to legislation no longer being approved by 60 votes and that will be the huge problem. because for example, something like medicare which no one would disagree is an important piece of legislation was passed in 1965 in the stat by a vote of 70-24. and that way, everybody had a buy in on something that was so important. and now, this could be the beginning of t

the filibuster issue was something that was put in place by harry reid. e xwoghost of harry rei returning. so to somehow suggest that mitch mcconnell is single handedly responsible for getting rid of the filibuster is not in keeping with the facts. >> but chris, i want to talk about the facts quickly because when you look at the number of filibusters in this republican-led senate, 79. up to this senate, we had some 60 odd filibusters in the history of is country. so some might say,el yes, harry reid may have pulled the switch, but look at the number of filibusters that have been employed by this republican senate. >> well, i mean, the numbers speak as they speak. bull relative specifically to the question of supreme court nomination, democrats wanted to filibuster an imminently qualified nominee. they knew they didn't have the votes to win outright, so they wanted to use the filibuster. and i don't think there is absolutely anything wrong with what mitch mcconnell did in this case. >> tara, would you agree with what is being said by chris when you look at

>> harry reid changed the rules after five years of intransigence by republicans.udge jeanine: here is the problem. the viewers are listening saying each side is doing this. they are blaming the other side. we want a full supreme court. this guy doesn't have a conviction or anyone waiting in the wing. >> the president could end this right now. put up merrick garland and let the senate vote. rise above it. >> give us the vote we are entitled to. judge jeanine: stop fighting with each other. i have had enough. how many parents do we have to parade in front of you to convince you that these mayors and liberal lefty governors and whoever they are with sanctuary cities are creating criminal asylums for american citizens. this innocent not quite 16-year-old. come on. >> a couple miles from where i'm signature right now. my heart goats out to that family. it really does. what we have to determine in america is when we ask people where they are from. that's the divide. i say when you are convicted as a felon if you are here illegally you should be deported. i'm here for sa

dagen: harry reid opened the door to this.n 2013 he changed the rules. >> harry reid offed the door. it doesn't make it sow kay in either case. but this is politics at its finest. we as a nation have become far too polarized and now we are beginning to pay the retribution for it. on both sides of the aisle you have supreme court cases coming up that are politics being legislated from benches on both sides. conservative groups trying to if you are for social spree forms through the courts. no elected official wants to take a step on this and be bold. you played this out today. and i think what democrats are saying is this idea that for 100-some odd days as my mother would say, merrick garland sat on capitol hill. he wasn't given a hearing, he wasn't given the time of day. mitch mccouldn't said we are not interested. that's unfair. and i think what's happening now is democrats are saying if you are giving merrick garland a hearing and voted them down, we didn't even get a hearing. dagen: according to president trump the healthca

. >>> republican senators souping you the harry reid rule change in 2013 to include supreme court nominees. this change will fundamentally alter the way the supreme court justices are chosen. the senate currently is in 30-hour debate period before voting on supreme court nominee neil gorsuch. melissa: back to the markets, the dow pulling back in the final hours of trading. lori rothman is on the floor of the new york stock exchange. lori, what is behind the downturn? reporter: politics, melissa, summing it up. markets broke 2:30 p.m. eastern that steps are underway to remove bashar al-assad in syria, in response to the chemical attack earlier this week. that changed sentiment. we saw a pretty significant reversal. the dow gave up 200 points. today it was about 85 points. the dow managed to hold on to 15 of those points. some of the gainers were the banks also. politics, the chief economic advisor gary cohn says that he does back the separation of the big wall street banks and commercial banking from investment banking, so-called glass-steagall which was originally repeal in 1999. he is in

. >> democrats say this is continuing the option the harry reid began. that the 60 vote threshold for nominees is all but gone, so they might as well get rid of it for the supreme court as well. they say historically there successfuleen a partisan filibuster of a supreme court nominee, though there was a bipartisan filibuster that blocked the ascension to chief justice in 1968. they say this is returning the senate to where it has always then, where nominees are usually confirmed by simple majority votes. democrats say they explicitly carved out the supreme court nominee when they changed the rules in 2013 because they thought the court was too important. because of the important election to the highest court of the land, you need to have some consensus. if mitch mcconnell goes ahead and triggers the nuclear option, he would essentially need a ruling from the chair, most likely mike pence. he would will that you only need a simple majority to invoke closure on the nominee and move him to a final up or down vote. that really would have to be sustained by

you can trace it back to harry reid or senate republicans. you can trace it back to the treatment of judge bourque. there is much bipartisan blame to go around. the escalation that democrats point to is it was unusual to not have a hearing or vote of any kind for garland. republicans saying that was up to the voters in the election. now we see, as a political manner, that strategy working. what i was mentioning is senator coons creating the democratic filibuster, donald trump did run on this. he did put out a transparent list and picked a name from that list. so republicans are cheering this as the first big victory. but the question now is, how do the republicans try to move on the floor? how nuclear do they go? they said they're ready to. >> he's got to get votes to support him going nuclear p mitch mcconnell, right? >> that's right. he needs a republican majority and a ruling of the chair. i think the big headline here is republicans united about backing up donald trump. the president himself said this is a reason he got elected. democrats

bush, filibustering his lower court nominations and in 2013 harry reid invoked the "nuclear option". the republicans had no choice because essentially if the democrats weren't going to accept gorsuch, who were they going to accept? and what never gets explained on tv, everyone hears about the lower federal courts and what harry reid did. the lower federal courts and the united states supreme court are interconnected. a lower federal court crafts the case, that outcome has a direct bearing on the united states supreme court regardless whether you have nine conservatives or nine liberals up there. i think this is a bad day overall, what's going to wind up happening going forward, a short-run victory for the republicans but we'll have justices who no longer are bipartisan who are going to be far more ideological, every united states senate seat up for grabs is a referendum on the supreme court. trish: in this case, the "nuclear option" the conservatives favor, because they have donald trump there for the next nearly four years. >> if we have justice ginsburg or justice breyer get off th

with harry reid a few years back breaking precedent to eliminate the filibuster rule of the above all other nominations this was the last nail in the coffin so i am not surprised and an argument can be made the filibuster rule never should have been there anyway to offense and nomination. but i do think the leadership of senator schumer has been very distressing in the antics that i regard childish of obstructionism does no credit to senator schumer or the democratic party which is why believe they lost to the last election i come from a very blue state it is very difficult of someone that is a conservative but their resistance is leading the democrats into more disarray. and nothing his brand of politics cells west delaware river or east of california at nobodies tactics not that i agree with all of his views but he has not been reversed very often in has been joint by democratic appointed judges with most of his decisions he is not an extremist by any measure by any judicial standard. >> now we will get another viewpoint of the democratic line. what do you think? >> by half to prote

lou: yes, just like harry reid built it, what is wrong with 51 votes, majority is essence of democracy, i think reason is perhaps the person of donald trump, reason has begun to take hold in nation's capital, syria. -- syria, the president sounded very much like he was contemplating military intervention in syria as a result of the chemical weapon attacks by bashar al-assad on his people. your reaction? >> i hope he is listening there has been a wide backlash pro-- a broad coalition of people who did support trump who don't like this dipping of the toe in interventionist waters, this is not sabre rattling that many trump supporters signed up for, i hope this is just diplomatic rhetoric, and not much more than that behind it. that where i am on it. lou: and i am in the same place as i recall all of his statements from the campaign going back to 2013. he makes all of the since in the world, a great advocate of a modest foreign policy but robust military, essence of american values in my judgment. i just hope that the newo cons that -- neocons that have afixed themselves to the institutio

and here's what harry reid said in 2005. the duties of the united states senate are set forth in the constitution of the united states. nowhere in that document does it say the senate has a duty to give presidential nominee a vote. all i can say is in the hundred-year history of the senate from today going backwards, there's been one person put on the court when the president was of unparty and itself senate was -- of one party and the senate was held by the other party and a vacancy occurred in the last year of a presidential term. we've done nothing that would justify judge gorsuch to be treated the way he's been treated. and he's been treated pretty badly. here's what nancy pelosi said. if you breathe air, drink water, eat food, take medicine, or any other way interact with the courts, this is a very bad decision. all i can say is that judge gorsuch does not deserve that. that is a political statement out of sync with the reality of who this man is and the life he led and it's that kind of attitude that's go gotten us hee

. >> senator harry reid when he decided to change the rule for lower court judges required 51 votes instead60. how is this any different? >> i would say at the time reid laid the ground work. unfortunately, for this situation, i did not like that. many of the colleagues that i served with at the time did not think it is the right move when he changed cabinet members. they they are blocking this exceptionally qualified nominee leaving republicans no choice. they are in a situation where if you are going to block neil gorsuch, that means you will block anyone the republicans nominate. >> the republicans were blocking all sorts of judges. >> that's so debunked and not true. it was the pac, the dc circuit where most of obama administration rules were going through. it did not need to happen. i was bipartisan. many of us were trying to work to make sure that did not happen. >> before everything gets blown up. is there not an opportunity here for say ten democrats and republicans arrive at a deal where perhaps democrats would allow the vote on neil gorsuch to go forward and in exchange republican

and he's got some nerve, he and harry reid are responsible are in this. hoisted on their own petard, who doesn't like a good petard. >> i'm glad you pointed that out. what happens if they pull the option and gorsuch gets confirmed but the next time around, what if two more justices -- >> everybody stay alive, that's what i say and don't retire. rbg will make it. >> that is morbid, jesse. >> that's clearly what we were talking about. >> i'm just calling it out. [laughter] >> that is a compliment. >> is it? >> she exercises a lot. >> she does. >> hopefully not with the harry reid equipment. >> you know the little band, she would be so cute? and hot. >> what if under the robe she is like chica bow-bow. >> i think it starts now. a new fettish, this is fantastic, the party panel is coming back. dnc chair tom perez will not apologize for taking fresh digs at president trump and the republicans, he's doubling down on the insults. >>> did you know the irs can take your assets even if you haven't been charged with a crime let alone been convicted of one. it is so

more of his democratic nominees on that court, and so in a new and unprecedented fashion, senator harry reid changed the cloture rules once again, so-called the reid rule. for what purpose? well, it was a naked power grab. it was to pack the d.c. circuit court of appeals, one of the least busy circuit courts in the country, in order to have judges confirmed by 51 democratic votes that would rubber stamp president obama's administrative actions during his administration, and sadly it worked. they did just that. so in a way, mr. president, we are coming full circle, back to what the tradition in the senate was before the year 2000, before democrats went to this retreat led by liberal legal activists who cooked up this idea that you could filibuster judges and tried to impose a requirement of 60 votes for confirmation when in fact the constitution contemplates a majority vote, 51 votes for confirmation. so some have said that this represents the end of comity in the senate. i don't believe that. some have said this threatens the end of the legislative filibuster or cloture requirement. i don't

harry reid is the guy who changed the filibuster that his been used since 1837.the senators reason for being, it's what distinguishes him from being more than house members. but he did that and now we are at this point and now the stakes are so high both for neil gorsuch and president trump and for the republicans that there is no option if the democrats insist on going down the strategy, to blow it up. paul: does he get confirmed, gorsuch? >> i think he absolutely gets confirmed. there's no way that three republicans could go along with chuck schumer and survive. paul: what do you think? how many votes? >> i think it's going to be close. i'm not going to make the vote call but i think he's going to get confirmed. paul: kim, do you agree? >> yeah, he will probably get 54. paul: thank you, when we come back the president target it is freedom caucus following the gop's failure, is there still a path forward on repealing and replacing obamacare? >> i know that we are all going to make a deal health care. that's such an easy one. i have no doubt that that's going to

republicans say, harry reid started it. >> harry reid in 2013 got rid of the filibuster for lower court nominations and what will happen by doing this for supreme court nominations many fear to it leading to legislation going away as well. i understand jeffrey toobin doesn't have a problem with that, legislation pass with 351 votes. in an atmosphere that's so polarized, i don't think we need less bipartisanship. i also think it's going to be really a corrosive move on both bodies, both branches, not only on the senate and therefore the congress but on the supreme court where you're going to see more polarizing partisan figures. because if everyone is confirmable, no one is held to the standards with which these justices have always been confirmed, which is that they are uniquely qualified and come with sterling credentials to the job that neither party in the past has objected to, even when there's a disagreement over ideology. i think that's why so many of us are lamenting that this is doing to happen because it's going to affect not only congress but the supreme court. >> president-el

you had harry reid, got rid of the filibuster for the other nominations.merican garland hold, whatever you want to call it, nothing filibuster is gone. but i think is interesting, mitch mcconnell is very clear, not while i'm the leader. no interest on my side to get rid of the legislative bill buster. i think it probably only is a matter of time before it goes, and that will not be good for republicans. >> new mexico and make it to the house? >> look how hard it is for republican majority to get rid of a piece of legislation passed by democrats. if democrats have the maturity again, which they will eventually at some point, they will pass all sorts of stuff without filibuster and it will be very hard for republicans. >> so far, that's not happening. >> i find it hard to join in the lamentations for the filibuster. it has been completely abused, not just on judicial appointments but for the last 30 or 40 years. historically for the 200 years before that, it was rarely used in association cannot most important historical situation is with southern segregatio

. >> brian: you can go back to harry reid and say who started this in modern politics? it was him so many years ago that was held up by the republican senate. he pushed it forward, senator schumer at that time reportedly was not for him doing that. this is not for supreme court justices, and other doing it. this looks like a real dumb move tactically. he is giving in to the people who were protesting outside his window the day that gorsuch was named. >> harris: that's abrasive to say he's listening to any of the people. critics say it would say that it's something else. it's him wanting to carve out who he is politically. >> meghan: it seems like revenge for merrick garland and it's really sad day for democracy in a lot of different ways. i didn't want republicans to be forced to use a nuclear option. i understand why they are, but we may not be empowered at all times and history of this country and the pendulum swings both ways and i'm concerned about what the president will say today. >> melissa: i feel like democrats probably would have done this the next opportunity

and voters never really had a negative reaction to harry reid.as soon as the consultants put nancy pelosi in an ad, it was get her out. i don't want her in power. so if there's one sure bet, it is nancy pelosi who is less popular than donald trump. she is very unpopular. >> it is obviously harder to be the defender of the party in power than to be the challenger. you can sort of brush that off. but could get awkward. the districts they have to win are not places she is going to be. going after someone, she may be the leader of the democratic party but doesn't have a leadership position as a whole. >> i think it motivates republicans to turn out. >> so nine out of ten most educated districts in the country are held by democrats. the one exception was georgia 6. and it might still swing to a democrat. but in those districts running against nancy pelosi, in highly educated districts, it is not that effective. >> i was struck by ossoff saying to me yesterday, i said what is the message if you get sflektd and said i think the voters are saying, we hav