but but i do want to say one moe thing about brett kavanaugh. i know brett kavanaugh. i worked with him. i saw him day in and day out in the office. i did not win in high school. i didn't know him in college. i didn't know him in law school, that i've known him since he was an adult professional. what you seen if an outpouring of commentary, the people know him who say that this is completely out ofhi character fr brett kavanaugh. and that is my sense. i will say this, as an employer i from time to time heard complaints about sexual harassment. not a a hint of anything like t on the part of brett kavanaugh. he has led an exemplary life. we saw that in the confirmation hearings. i hope that exemplary life will be again taken into account by the world's greatest deliberative body, the united states senate. >> host: tom is in hampton connecticut democrat, good morning. we lost him. marie, virginia, independent, good morning. >> caller: good morning. the reason why i'm calling is because 72 years ago i was five years old, the last day of school, early part of june and i wa

you went after brett kavanaugh.ed where you featured bill cosby, harvey weinstein, the tv presenters matt lauer and charlie rose, with a voice—over saying "we‘ve seen all this before, denials from powerful men". you tight brett kavanaugh, who has not been tried in a court of law, who is guilty of nothing in a courtroom, who is innocent until proven guilty, you tied him to men like bill cosby, who is serving up to ten year prison sentence for and molesting women. you are a lawyer. you think that is acceptable? so, he has not been convicted of anything, nor has matt lauer harvey weinstein or bill clinton, who was in that out. bill cosby has been. bill cosby was the person in that advert convicted of anything. that is the point, cosby is a convicted criminal, a serious sex offender. you put in an advertisement, you put alongside the name of brett kavanaugh, alongside the name of brett kava naugh, used the alongside the name of brett kavanaugh, used the line "we‘ve this before, denials from powerful men". you think that

one of those people, brett kavanaugh. and what are your thoughts this morning on this hearing that will be happening on monday where we will here get from brett kavanaugh in his accuser. >> guest: i don't know the accuser but i do know brett kavanaugh. i've been reaffirmed in my firm belief in brett kavanaugh and his integrity and character by the outpouring of support from those who have known them for all these years, not just people who worked with him the people who grew up with him p includina lot of women who say this is not the brett kavanaugh who we knew or went to school with and so forth. i hope there will be a balance in ultimate judgment that we have this long and distinguished career and then this one alleged episode from high school but i believe in brett kavanaugh and his integrity. >> host: we like viewers to join inie and the segment with judge stark democrats call -- republicans call -- independence call -- speaking of the judgment here from what people see on monday. who's the burden of proof on monday?

kavanaugh and i have been reaffirmed in my firm hisef in brett kavanaugh, integrity and his character by the outpouring of support from those who have known him. not just people of worked with him, the people who grew up with him, including a lot of women who say this is not the brett kavanaugh who we knew and went to school with. i hope there will be a balance in the ultimate judgment, that we have this long and distinguished career, and this one alleged episode from high school. but i believe in brett kavanaugh and his integrity. host: we invite viewers to join in. for democrats (202) 748-8000, for republicans (202) 748-8001, for independents (202) 748-8002. speaking of the judgment here from what we will see on monday, who has the burden of proof? is it on the accuser to prove that this happened? on brett kavanaugh to prove that it didn't? guest: i don't think it will sort out that way. i think this is an ultimate judgment by the world's greatest alliterative body. they need to go through a process and they are going -- body.st deliberative they need to go through process and then

but kavanaugh was not being tried.sault against you when you applied for a job and the interviewer concluded that the allegations were credible, he does not have to prove it in a court of law, he would say i'm not going to hire someone when there are credible allegations. that is just an ordinaryjob, this is a lifetime appointment to the supreme court. there were other people who were fighting and fighting very hard to get brett kavanaugh off that court and to block his nomination. i come back to what the aclu in particular is known for, let me quote you another former board member, wendy kaminer, who was appalled by that particular ad that we discussed, appalled by your stand against brett kavanaugh. for a long time, she has been appalled by virtually everything the aclu does... you keep saying that, butjust because they disagree with your policies does not mean that they are wrong, it means they are worried about the aclu's. .. i am just giving you some context. what he says is i wonder how david cole is going to fee

all voted against kavanaugh. the one who did vote for kavanaugh prevailed. i wonder if chuck shumer made a mistake saying vote for kavanaugh, save your seat. what's more important? to save the seat or have the issue that you ultimately ended up losing on? >> yeah. i don't know if you can order people to vote. i haven't had that much luck with that on my side. >> dana: you sort of give permission. you do what you have to do to win your seat. >> i do think voting against kavanaugh was a mistake. i think ed o'keefe's tweet sums it up. those in competitive races who voted against kavanaugh loss. one who voted for him won. it was like a shot of adrenaline to our side. people felt justice kavanaugh was being treated unfairly, being presumed guilty instead of presumed innocent. we all watched the mob tactics of those who were up here chasing my members out of restaura restaurants. it was counter productive. it registered with the american people how important it was to continue to control the senate right before the election. as unpleasant as it was to go it there,

"whatever happens, i'm just glad we ruined brett kavanaugh's life."t for a second, stand back and think how ugly and despicable and disgusting that is. she later apologized and she's being sarcastic, nothing funny. that tweet sums up pretty much what we have witnessed now for far too many elections, far too many confirmations in this country. it's all they are offering you the american people in 29 days, the politics of personal destruction. their motivations. it's clear, it's obvious, it's transparent. they want to regain power and they do it trying to make conservatives as evil as you possibly can. as you can imagine, they are taking -- they are not taking the kavanaugh confirmation tonight very well chlt this is a shocker, take a look. >> this is the institutionalization of tribalism on the court. >> women are shrieking out in agony, you can't send us back to the 50s but mitch mcconnell says yes i can. >> the president says he's for law and order but not when it comes to sexual assault. >> this is a crushing defeat for women and women's rights. >>

judge kavanaugh deserved it, and didn't get it. rush to judgment, this is ae dangerous thing in this country. remember richard jewell, falsely accused of being the loan bomber and the olympic park bombing an '96. he fit the profile of the loan bomber because he lived with his mother. i didn't know at that time, he was listening to my radio show, and i was saying, that makes no sense. it turned out he was a hero. he wasn't the bomber. i found out later, he told me, i was the only one, listening to the show, that stood out for him, and at least gave him a fair shot, the presumption of innocence. by the way, you might remember the duke lacrosse team. they were falsely smeared. on our show, we didn't rush to judgment. i took theon time to go and meet with some of the kids and their families to do some investigative work. let's t not forget what the left it in ferguson, police officer darren wilson was never charged in that case. his career was ruined anyway. remember what happened in baltimore? everyone rush to judgment, all those offi

i've had demonstrators in my office for two weeks now, both for kavanaugh and against kavanaugh. one time, the people that were for kavanaugh wanted to be interviewed! and they said, "we only-- we're only interested in interviewing people against kavanaugh." now, that's a bias that none of you should be proud of! >> stephen: okay, if that's true, that's not good. although, i think it's a little late for chuck grassley to call for interviewing all the witnesses. ( laughter and applause ) >> whoa, now! >> stephen: "look, it's not good-- it's not good, you kids! you're doing that-- i like all of you guys! i like all of you guys and i would never say the things that i'm saying right now, i would never say all the things that i'm implying right now! and i've had it, i've had it." ( laughter ) ( cheers and applause ) i've got to wear different underwear if i'm going to do that. ( laughter ) yes, welcome to moose knuckle junction! ( laughter and applause ) ( piano riff ) what, what? it means nothing! it means nothing! it means nothing, jon. you can get the kids back in the room. ( laugh

what he did to now justice kavanaugh, judge kavanaugh at that time was terrible.and what the democrats did to him was terrible. it was a disgrace. i have to say. chuck schumer, nancy pelosi, maxine waters, if they gain the majority, they will try to punch our country. it's not even a question of trying. it's going to happen. their policy is so bad. there lousy politicians and lousy policy but they stick together. one thing i will say is they stick together. they really do, the democrats. doesn't matter what, even a hoax like they tried to pull off with judge kavanaugh, they stick together, or the russian hoax with the election. they use that as an excuse because hillary clinton loss. next time, they will learn. you have to going campaign in wisconsin. you have to campaign harder in pennsylvania. you have to campaign in michigan. you have to campaign harder in north carolina. you know? not russia. i call it the russian hoax. it's a hoax. they use that as an excuse for losing the electoral college that is set up that they should win. you have to run the whole east c

wang: yes, justice kavanaugh. and the consequence -- justice kavanaugh: and yet congress did not put in a time limit, whether it's reasonable time, as justice breyer says, or a year or two years or six months or 48 hours. and so when you combine those two points, congress knew it wouldn't be immediate, and yet congress did not put in a time limit. that raises a real question for me whether we should be superimposing a time limit into the statute when congress, at least as i read it, did not itself do so. how do you respond to that? ms. wang: well, justice kavanaugh, we're not asking you to superimpose a time limit. we're asking you to give meaning to all the words of the statute that congress enacted, which say -- justice kavanaugh: but you're -- ms. wang: but -- justice kavanaugh: i'm sorry to interrupt -- but when you say when, you are saying that is in essence a time limit of immediate, same day, i think you said. and my point is that's very odd when you think about what congress was doing in 1996, because they

alexi: we have heard a lot about the post-kavanaugh bump for republicans. whether it is in enthusiasm or donations. we have seen how the battleground has shifted after that moment. what is one race think was genuinely helped by brett kavanaugh's nomination? john: i am not sure there was just one. i think either side would agree that there was a kavanaugh bounce that helped all races. i do not know if there is one, off the top of my head, that stands out. maybe rod blum?

the kavanaugh bump was real.oveday who was running a senate race and you can feel the kavanaugh vote all the way down in the senate race, so it is real. but the excitement is something that i think worked for both parties, because women in this country, it is yet to be seen, especially college-educated white women which we have been discussing. >> i think if this election were a month ago we would be talking about republicans taking the house very seriously. that still might happen, but most likely today we'll see. i'm very curious to see what the kavanaugh effect will be -- and we won't know until exit polling -- will be on joe donnelly in indiana. he came out earlier than he probably had to -- >> yes. >> -- against brett kavanaugh. heidi heitkamp had to make that decision. as you said, claire mccaskill had to make that decision. >> but there was a reason -- >> the kavanaugh factor will be interesting the look at for democrats. >> but manchin, there was a reason he did what he did. >> let's quickly go back to jo

kavanaugh, how could you do that?nts, the common thread here of course is powerful men whose careers are on the line issuing denials about wrongdoing. in this instance we believe the denial issued by brett kavanaugh goes right to integrity, a position that he's applying for on the supreme court in which he sits in judgment of the rest of the nation, integrity is of critical importance. he is not entitled to the presumption of innocence, if you assume that you're saying he's entitled to the job. >> tucker: i'm asking you why you put him next to a man who was tried in court and convicted of felonies and sentenced to prison. >> that individual also denied the accusations. i think you could appreciate -- >> tucker: i don't care about the left in the right, i care about the principles, now you o on. let me read the memo from your group. were not going to advance the goals of white supremacists or other whose views are contrary to our values. if you're not defending people who are unpopular, who you disagree with, why are w

i mean, we haven't seen decisions from kavanaugh yet, we haven't seen much of kavanaugh yet. question of whether there will be a lingering effect from that hearing on the institution of the supreme court. >> chairman steele, those suburban women that the gop has lost, is that a loss for the foreseeable future in your view? >> it's -- yeah, potentially, i think that's right. what was significant about this past election, and the folks i want to talk about, is that the number of republican women who voted democratic, who went to the democratic party. now, is that long term? probably not. but it does send an important message to the party that we have a problem with the ladies. we are not -- we are not in the space where they support or adhere to a lot of what we have to say or the candidates that we are putting out there. so there's a lot of work ahead for the republican party. and when you layer into that, brian, the problem we have in the hispanic and african-american community, particularly with african-american women whose numbers at the polls in the past year, not just in

but yes, kavanaugh helped the republicans and omits me. >> one of the biggest consequences of the kavanaugh fight is that it united the trump wing of the republican party with the bush wing. that energized going into the elections, but the contrast between that and the immigration fight, the discussion of the caravan which moore animates the cultural conservative wing of the party, that shows the difference of the two battles. it was united fight over kavanaugh, republicans united from all stripes of the party to fight for the justice who again has confirmed. immigration issue is one that rallies the base but alienates the softer suburban side. >> bret: didn't characterize it as a pleading with the president to talk about the economy, says they talk of the time. he's heard the president in fort wayne. >> if that's the advice he's been getting from people he listens to him he seems now to be taking it. we did have an intervening event, and blog jobs report that came out the other day which underscores the point that the full employment, should help republicans. we agree that this satisfactio

been treated more unfairly than brett kavanaugh. >> they've been trying to destroy judge kavanaugh sinceecond he was announced. >> never has a man been treated so badly. >> on behalf of our nation, i want to apologize to brett and the entire kavanaugh family for the terrible pain and suffering you have been forced to endure. >> we are back to talk about all of it with our panel. tamara, what do you think the damage will be of the justice kavanaugh chapter? how do you think it has affected the voting habits of american women so far? >> well, american women were pretty pivotal in these midterms just now, you know. democrats dominated in areas that previously had been controlled by republicans, in particular in suburbs among affluent people in suburbs, affluent white women, married women, highly educated women. republicans lost a lot of them where they had previously voted republican before. those suburbs fell. was that because of brett kavanaugh? was that because of the access hollywood tape? was that because of 15 other things that have happened in the intervening time? maybe a little bit

i think you're being unfair to kavanaugh. kavanaugh, the hard charge against him came from professor ford who said something happen when he was a teenager and then they had to get her to testify in there trying to find if they could confirm. in the case of what we are seeing with avenatti, you've got the women right there that the investigation is ongoing. i don't think it's analogous and i don't think it's analogous to stormy daniels saying something happen with donald trump and then discovering there was a payoff. now everything is about the same and it's all about due process? >> jedidiah: still has a right to make his k heard -- case heard. >> jesse: kavanaugh was 30 years ago. this is an actual arrest. >> juan: that's what i just said. that's why it's not analogous. the burden of proof is more on avenatti. >> jedidiah: what is analogous is that the public should be willing to say innocent until proven guilty. it is still america regardless of the situation. it's not the same situation. you are right. there is an arrest h

why is he so quick to call judge kavanaugh as unfit. >> kavanaugh is not fit. should not be a rush to confirm this man. ♪ ♪ the greatest wish of all... is one that brings us together. the lincoln wish list event is here. sign and drive off in a new lincoln with $0 down, $0 due at signing, and a complimentary first month's payment. only at your lincoln dealer. as one of the nation's largest investors in infrastructure, we don't just help power the american dream, we're part of it. this is our era. this is america's energy era. nextera energy. back pain can't win. this is america's energy era. now introducing aleve back and muscle pain. only aleve targets tough pain for up to 12 hours with just one pill. aleve back & muscle. all day strong. all day long. trish: migrants arriving at our border with mexico by the hundreds tonight. also experiencing a migrant influx, none other than europe. it was a big issue in the u.k.'s brexit vote in 2016. now the fallout from the european union may cost prime minister theresa may her job. joining me, steve hilton, host of ""the

ainsley: kavanaugh effect? steve: kavanaugh effect was really big.how big was the economy? it was big. i asked about immigration? not so big. i asked if it was referendum on president of the united states? they didn't really feel that, a number people. health care not so big but kavanaugh was the number one noisemaker in the bar there. brian: steve the polls were wrong. they were flat-out wrong. steve: yep. but it is becoming so, brian, just become so hard to calculate who is, done early voting. just like we saw two years ago, with a hidden trump voter who did not want to tell the pollsters who they voted for, that was one of the problems. it is hard to get an accurate read who showed up at polls. as we know they showed up in historic numbers. ed: who has a cell phone. who doesn't have a landline. steve, we appreciate your report, other big races. let's move to florida, former congressman ron desantis defeats mayor andrew gillum. gillum was up several points. not one or two points. desantis wins a nail-biter. wins the race for governor. rick scott th

if they take the house they will reinvestigate kavanaugh and possibly impeach kavanaugh?ould-be new chair of the judiciary committee said he wants to impeach justice kavanaugh. we fought to give more power to the american people, giving them more control of their money, lives, jobs and businesses. democrats said we have to stop the winning and reempower washington. to do that they have to distract and destroy donald trump. they can do that, they hope they can win in 2020. that's what this all about. jesse: the democrats are saying whoa, whoa. let's slow this thing down. this economy is getting too good. we have to pump the brakes. the president has not released his taxes. i don't think he is going to release his taxes. if the democrats take the house back, can they subpoena donald trump taxes. >> they can try, and the irs can try to stop them. the president doesn't have to release his taxes. many in the past have released their taxes. but donald trump didn't and he's not required to. jesse: it will take so much attention. they will throw subpoenas everywhere. the media wi

the most outrageous thing about this process is not what they did to brett kavanaugh.ice they did to the me too movement, future victims, that were truly victims because now, hesitate a little bit. >> is that why we are not hearing about it from democrats? >> it is counter to their narrative. they were saying 99.9% of all women tell the truth 100% of the time no matter even if there is no evidence every single woman has to be believed especially as relates to attacking gop men and this is counter. shannon: we are not hearing it from them but will it motivate them to go to the polls, might motivate republicans but will it motivate democrats? >> not much else could be done to motivate them more than they are being motivated. we are seeing enthusiasm level on the democratic side high since donald trump came down the escalator. shannon: and doing the same thing he did in the presidential election. you would think they knew he would do that. >> one thing no politician has the ability to do, turn out his base at these rallies. you can't underestimate the significance of that

it is clear, he wanted to derail kavanaugh's life. he didn't give a rip about due process, or presumption of innocence. now this issue has come full circle for him. take a look. >> i have never struck a woman. i never will strike a woman. i've never sexually assaulted anyone, not in high school, not in college, not ever. >> i'm looking forward to a full investigation at which point i am confident that i will be fully exonerated. i know that any kind of investigation, senate, fbi, montgomery county police, whatever, will clear me. >> sean: in this country, these protections, due process, should never, ever be a partisan issue. it must be applied to every american equally. sadly, michael avenatti was not the only person on the left with no forethought or principles and, just a short time ago, so many democrats and so many in the mainstream media were willing to throw out fundamental basic rights right out the window because of an unyielding partisan hatred for judge cavanaugh. remember this. >> this is a monumental defining moment this

not only did they drag senator kavanaugh -- judge kavanaugh's family through the mud, they also dragged out of the me too movement a woman that wanted to stay anonymous. what is amazing to me is with the hush fund in washington, they are questioning the credibility of a supreme court judge and i think the people and names should be exposed. i don't know what they are hiding behind, but i would not want to send my daughter -- there are powerful people in washington. the process should have been easier. they cannot garnish enough public support for policies. what we need to do is the legislature is down in washington need to legislate and not look to the activist courts to fulfill their policies. dennis: you have 30 seconds. sen. murphy: president trump did win the election, but not here in connecticut. ultimately, my job is to represent the state of connecticut. people in connecticut did not support judge kavanaugh. they were worried about what he was going to do to try to help president trump steel health care away from the residents of this state. it doesn't matter to me what the whole

the one who refused the bait and voted for kavanaugh, joe manchin. he won.s many americans which trial unfold before their very eyes and they didn't shrug it off. it's true that the two biggest monsters feinstein and mazie did fine but for the rest of currently actions have consequences. four people lost their jobs. maybe next time they're asked to play fair, democrats might fear for their careers before destroying another's. it will be nice if they didn't resort to such horrible tactics because they are good people, but their politicians. on the evolutionary tribal people we admire, you will find nurses at the top and politicians at the bottom. they do what they do a lot of desire for power. they can understand right and wrong, you they will understand living there crap out inboxes. do you think it had an effect? >> dana: mccaskill declared she would vote against kavanaugh before the doctor forward allegations came forward. she didn't even give them a chance on that. i feel like chuck schumer made a mistake. i said why don't the democrats cave early because

and kavanaugh is attached to that. >> he may be the reason we see these numbers, it will be because of trump. >> think you gentlemen. >> will republicans block the blue wave? or will democrats make significant gains and take control of the house. we go live capitol hill with a look at what could happen with the balance of power and how these numbers need to move or not move. >> speaking of numbers, we are making a big change to give us a better understanding of how voters, what their thinking and how they make their decisions, breaking down the new fox news voter analysis system, next. a once-in-five hundred year storm should happen every five hundred years, right? fact is, there have been twenty-six in the last decade. allstate is adapting. with drones to assess home damage sooner. and if a flying object damages your car, you can snap a photo and get your claim processed in hours, not days. plus, allstate can pay your claim in minutes. now that you know the truth... are you in good hands? and i found out that i'ma from the big toe alian. of that sexy italian boot! so this holiday seas

i used to hear about a man named brett kavanaugh who someday will be on the supreme court becausee of the intellect. and then he gets treated the way he getted treated. how unfair was that? but we got him in, and this will be the election of kavanaugh, the caravans, law and order, tax cuts and common sense. common sense. [cheers and applause] a republican congress means more jobs and less crime. a democrat congress means more crime and less jobs. and that sort of works. that's pretty good, isn't it? wow. i'd almost like to repeat that. that's pretty good. [laughter] this election is a choice between republican results and radical resistance. it's a choice between greatness

>> i don't think that necessarily the kavanaugh thing is over.s for undecided voters. i think it was a lot about enthusiastic voters and the g.o.p., and the unification of the republican party behind president trump because of what happened to kavanaugh -- not the only reason, but i do think that the kavanaugh effect was going to have a lasting impact is because if you look at that late august situation, then it goes into late september when the second testimony is heard, he is confirmed by my first saturday of october. i think it does have a lot of a fact. i don't think it will be the final straw for anybody but i do think it'd have a motivating effect for republicans across the country. >> shannon: a lot of them, chris, told us it was one of the best things that happened because it brought them together in a way that was not happening organically at that point. >> but it did as it brought together the two warring tribesn party. it was on a very important issue for conservatives, may be the most important issue for conservatives, the supreme cou

brett kavanaugh. two supreme court justices are currently in their 80's, so it is possible president trump will get to nominate another judge or possibly two. we have seen his list of possible choices. are any on the list acceptable to you or what kind of jurist would be acceptable? sen. murphy: when i am talking to folks in connecticut, they tell me they want a supreme >> when i was out there talking to folks in connecticut, they tell me they want is up in court that squares with connecticut values. that's what i've heard loud and clear. unfortunately, president trump has outsourced the decision about who gets elected into supreme court to two right-wing political groups. >> you've asked him to come up with the list. almost everyone on the list that they gave to put travis president trump, would lead to criminalization of healthcare in this state would threaten the affordable care act which is delivered insurance do 200,000 keconnecticut residents which is up for corporate rights is that of worker an

and all voted against kavanaugh.expect he would have this kind of impact on the race? >> richard: i thought he would have support on both sides. i thought he ginned up support among women and also republican support. i think the midterms is larger than just the united states senate. i also would say democrats expanded the map. in january we will have a democratic governor in the state of kansas and we also picked up a seat in kansas. kansas is as ruby red as they come. places where donald trump one. congressional seats in pennsylvania, and we defeated long term republicans, longtime republicans like pete sessions in texas and barbara comstock in virginia. so what we will do moving forward as being a party of not only urban america but also suburban america. and the results on tuesday show that. >> is there any surprise in the outcome of some of the senate races? >> the senate was -- we saw can tell mike a contest where we think we would see contests. and the law allows for that. but as you kind of look at the landsca

the kavanaugh factor.was such a huge factor in those races of democrats up for reelection in red states. every senator who voted against kavanaugh lost except manchin, who voted for kavanaugh and won. i have think it was a major move in those races particularly in some places like indiana and missouri. >> bill: interesting to see what mitch mcconnell says that about next hour. voter analysis, we did it differently this year. not just exit polling on the day. we did a rolling coverage for a week's time. this is what we found. on the trump factor, reason for your vote. it is split here, bret. do you express support 26% expressed opposition, higher by 11 points. trump is not a factor 36%. does that tell us much there? is that declarative in a way, or not? >> i don't think so in that particular one. i do think that president trump was a big factor. 63% said he factored into the race. and when it comes to the house versus the senate, it's two different animals. i think you heard lindsey graham last night saying

if they take the house they will reinvestigate kavanaugh and possibly impeach kavanaugh? would-be new chair of the judiciary committee said he wants to impeach justice kavanaugh. we fought to give more power to the american people, giving them more control of their money, lives, jobs and businesses. democrats said we have to stop the winning and reempower washington. to do that they have to distract and destroy donald trump. they can do that, they hope they can win in 2020. that's what this all about. jesse: the democrats are saying whoa, whoa. let's slow this thing down. this economy is getting too good. we have to pump the brakes. the president has not released his taxes. i don't think he is going to release his taxes. if the democrats take the house back, can they subpoena donald trump taxes. >> they can try, and the irs can try to stop them. the president doesn't have to release his taxes. many in the past have released their taxes. but donald trump didn't and he's not required to. jesse: it will take so much attention. they will throw subpoenas everywhere. the media

both parties claiming the fight over brett kavanaugh is motivating their voters. from a 400 plus page senate report on allegations made against brett kavanaugh and the president is taking note. >> what would have happened if he didn't make it because of her lies? think of that, how unfair, can you imagine? >> chris stierwalled with predictions about the so-called kavanaugh effect after the break. ♪ >> shannon: it was the most >> the most talked about story in america last month, the confirmation process for supreme court justice brett kavanaugh who was confirmed after a political brawl stemming from allegations of sexual misconduct against him. we take a look at new details released from the senate judiciary's reports on those accusations and the people who made them. >> despite unanimity among democrats of brett cavanagh's guilt a 414 page majority report of the kavanaugh allegations released by the senate judiciary may outrage republicans on the eve of the midterms finding, quote, no witness who can provide any verifiable evidence to support any of the allegatio

>> this morning: a letter from brett kavanaugh's past-- perhaps a relevant one in light of his comments before the committee. "the new york times" releasing this from 1983, where kavanaugh, in his own writing, describes himself and his friends as "loud, obnoxious drunks." ♪ ♪ ( laughter ) >> my dearest squi, my heart sings with anticipation as our upcoming beach week blowout approaches. like me, you are a prolific and prodigious puker, and the most ebullient boofer i've had the pleasure to know. ( laughter ) how i eagerly await to join you in another devil's triangle and form two points of a lustful isosceles. this fall, i begin my days at yale, where we will party most hearty to the exotic white reggae sounds of ub40. ( laughter ) in conclusion, please burn this letter, as i one day may wish to

he backed brett kava naugh kavanaugh hearings, where he backed brett kavanaugh and he didn't back downg we will wait to see what happens, we will wait for the evidence. he could have withdrew him and he didn't. and he started to show republicans how to fight. what you said, interestingly, is that you are getting used to him now. does he have your resounding backing? well, ididn't have your resounding backing? well, i didn't vote for him in 2016, i didn't vote for the president because i couldn't decide. i thought he was the same type of person as hillary clinton. now, if the election were today, i would vote for him. i like his policies which are more popular than him. while there is an election today. you voted for your party? yasir. and i presume you have? i have. -- yes. many people here have voted as a postal vote, have you got a sense of the grassroots base, here in the uk, that they have been galvanised to wa nt to that they have been galvanised to want to vote in the midterms? yes, a big issue for american expats is tax. we are one of two countries in the world where citizenship

it seemed to derail the nomination of supreme court justice brett kavanaugh. leslie? larry's point, and i agree, i always say i am a woman first, before i am a democrat. actually, 90% or more of claims by victims, male or female, are accurate. you are talking about between 2 percent on 10% of the claims are fraudulent. the innocent until proven guilty, everyone who is accused is innocent until proven guilty, and i tend to believe the victim, but until we find out more as to the relationship of this victim, and he is denying it, just like others have denied it, i think we have to let all of the information on the facts play out, and i think we should do that in every situation. >> shannon: his name has been bandied about, he has entertained the speculation that he would run in 2020 for the democratic nomination to be president, but during the kavanaugh hearings when he -- he has been referred for potential criminal charges, he and a julie swetnick, with allegations against brett kavanaugh, we'll have to watch that, as well. they were democrats who wanted to distance th

support brett kavanaugh. came out opposed to him. what joe donnelly and claire mccaskill realizes is that their on stoition brett kavanaugh and their support of schumer in this crazy agenda is not popular back home. ed: susan, let's turn to the house. nancy pelosi would be the speaker if democrats take the house and there would have to be a vote. here is how confident she was on the colbert show the other night. watch. >> let me say, this up until today, i would have said if the election were held today, we would win. now i'm saying we will win. he haded what he struck me about that susan, is stephen colbert very anti-trump called her out and said where are you going to do this celebration on the fireworks barge that hillary clinton rent the thought 2016? he is not buying it. >> i may not buy it this is not a new place for her. you celebrate because you see where things are leaning. she has been a very good strategist and i believe it is going to go the democratic way. and i think she is right to celebrate. s

davis: brett kavanaugh was given an extra fbi investigation. ven joe biden said the fbi was not going to provide an adjudicated decision that a court of law would. i support brett kavanaugh as supreme court justice because the u.s. senate confirmed him. >> you have a minute response if you'd like. ms. londrigan: it was not a full investigation into the allegations made. that did not happen. i think the american people eserve that. i think he deserved, one way or the other a clean bill. dr. ford deserved to have that looked into to the fullest extent of the law. that did not happen. it should have happened. i think it was incredibly brave of her to share her story in front of the senate judiciary committee and the world. i admire her courage. i think she deserved for that to be fully investigated. i worry about what it tells the next generation of young women who come forward and display that kind of courage and bravery. and it doesn't even warrant a ull investigation. >> a quick follow-up. we heard from a high school student. but this is also a

but one telling us breaking with him on brett kavanaugh may cost her her job. here's mary bruce. >> reporter: from west virginia, to north dakota, and missouri, in the states won by donald trump, senate democrats are now fighting to hold on to their jobs. for joe manchin, that means walking a fine line. >> i stand up and support him when it's good for west virginia. and when it's not, i stand up to him. >> reporter: in missouri, claire mccaskill is eager to show she's willing to take on her fellow democrats. just listen to her closing ad. >> claire is not afraid to stand up against her own party. >> yup. and claire is not one of those crazy democrats. >> reporter: but in north dakota, a state trump won by a whopping 36 points, heidi heitkamp broke with the president on a key issue just one month before the election -- voting against his supreme court nominee, brett kavanaugh. >> this isn't a political decision. if this were a political decision for me, i certainly would be deciding this the other way. but, you know, there's an old saying, "history will judge yo

and why we are at it, what about brett kavanaugh?t about his high school yearbook and his purported teenage drinking problem and those gang rapes that he supposedly committed? what about those? those were the biggest stories in the world not so long ago, 24/7 on the other cable channels and those stories will define this election and it defined the entire historical era. everyone on television told us that. now these are just fading memories. it turns out they were sideshows. the midterm elections were never going to be fought over vladimir putin or brett kavanaugh or just about anything else we spent most of our time talking about. this election like all elections was going to turn on issues that actually affect the life of the country. this year there are three big issues. immigration, the economy and nationalism. the first is the most obvious. immigration determines who lives next door to you. it determines who works in your office and who chooses your leaders. there is nothing more fundamental in any country than the a question o

>> the only race we don't know as kavanaugh, and tester voted against c c kavanaugh -- >> heller supported him. >> oh, man, he ruined it. >> kavanaugh, would you like to say that democrats had a good night in the senate, bakari? >> no, not at all. >> the same about o'connell going all in on the senate delivered the senate. donald trump is going to have to embrace the boring. i live in the suburbs. you want your life to be boring. you watch tv and you want boring and not drama. >> is this what i have to look forward to? >> yes. >> if there's a lesson to be learned, you are fine in middle america but if you want to recover the suburbs, peace and prosperity is what donald trump has to look at. >> you just made me feel so bad about myself. >> but another thing we saw last night, republicans really do and trump himself has a tight hold on two previously blue states, florida and ohio. you really saw it in terms of the governor's races there and the senate. we don't know yet clearly with nelson. they were not able to move the needle. you heard democrats ringing their hands last night in that stat

how did you feel watching the kavanaugh confirmation play out? was somebody that was not even on the first list of candidates. he was there because he believes in the power of the presidency over the supreme court. he was there for a specific purpose. but obviously i believe the accusations against him. but even if you didn't. >> right. >> if you saw him on television, refusing to let his wife talk, or she sat there the entire time, and finally the interviewer asked her a question, and he answered. i mean, she opened her mouth. >> nothing came out. he honed right in. >> that says it all, right? the one thing worse than having him on the supreme court is to be married to him. >> but clearly, it lit a fire, a prairie fire. >> do you think it did? there was all this talk oh, this is really energizing republicans because they think he is being treated unfairly. >> well, i don't know how they can think he was treated unfairly, but we don't woent do there. that involves logic. there were women on street corners talking to each other about it, furious.

kavanaugh and the caravan, they say. those messages from republicans, those messages from president trump enabled people, ooin even like claire mccaskill to lose decisively. do democrats not have to come up with a better response when it comes to border security and did you not get outplayed when it came to the kavanaugh nomination? not just the fact that he's on the court but also the politics of it? >> the bottom line is, you know, kavanaugh dispute, i think, helped us more than it hurt us. it's one of the reasons we won the house so decisively. suburban voters, traditionally republican, came to our side. if the coalition -- the old democratic coalition can add suburban voters to it and continue to focus on issues like health care, which matter to working class americans throughout the country, we're going to win. west virginia. the state that trump won by more votes than any other, other than wyoming, joe manchin, despite president trump's efforts, won. and he focused exclusively on health care. the issue of health ca

joe manchin saying i didn't like the way we handled kavanaugh and he voted for kavanaugh.ou think about it? >> greg: first of all, what's his name, bredesen? whatever. now he speaks up about kavanaugh. would have been nice if it was during the time that he actually said something. what did he say? i don't remember it. >> juan: he voted for him. >> greg: forget that i said that, he's a great guy. vote for him. i think it would be healthy for the democrats, what happened to the republicans, a challenge to their orthodoxy. that will happen in 2020. what's the democratic orthodoxy? identity politics, grievance theater, who was more grieved. ultimately these people will eat themselves alive. that's why they need a new message and they need a message of unity, bringing america back together again. the, what happened with kavanaugh is a perfect example of the stalinist end game. this is where identity politics will take you in the individual becomes subservient to the political party because as nancy pelosi said, to achieve a political aim, collateral damage is collateral damage.