murkowski: loan guarantees. when i think about the many ways we can help, that we here in congress can help those in our native communities deal with, whether it is the impact of climate change through helping them develop infrastructure that will push back against the tide. that is pretty tough. it is very expensive. offering assistance, technical assistance, loan guarantees, grant programs, scientific assistance, research data. there is a host of different ways we can help. but i think it is also important to recognize these are not just initiatives that would focus on moving a village, for instance, a community threatened by erosion and they will lose their school, they will lose their air strip. there are other impacts we see with climate change. particularly health-related impacts. if you have an area that is now drier than it was before, you have levels of dust because you don't have paved roads. so you have got respiratory issues children may be dealing with. there are a host of different ways we have to

with senator lisa murkowski. she talks about her home state, her role as chair of the natural resources committee and her thoughts on supreme court nominee brett kavanaugh. this is just under 30 minutes. lisa murkowski of alaska, there are not too many third-generation alaskans around, is there? sen. murkowski: it's getting to the more and more. we are contributing with a fourth-generation. we have boys who are staying in the state. it is something i am proud of. i love my state, and i love my family's history there appeared >> what brought -- there. >> what brought your grandparents there? the story from my dad's side is that everybody wanted to come up for the gold. most southernthe community, and realized he did not have enough money to get to the goldfield so he stayed there and went to work in a bank where he cashed out the minors when when theye miners came in with gold. brand-newr dad was a attorney and he got a message from one of his buddies saying come to alaska, come to this town. there is only one law

murkowski: it's getting to the more and more. we are contributing with a fourth-generation. we have boys who are staying in the state. it is something i am proud of. i love my state, and i love my family's history there appeared >> what brought -- there. >> what brought your grandparents there? sen. murkowski:

murkowski: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from alaska. ms. murkowski: i request the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. murkowski: mr. president, we are on day two officially of the second tranche of an appropriations package. we have before us the interior subcommittee appropriations bill, the financial services, the t-hud, transportation, housing, urban development, and agriculture. so it's a good combination. it's a good package. it's a strong package. it is a series of appropriations bill that moved through the full appropriations committee several months back. most of these bills advanced either unanimously as the interior can subcommittee appropriations bill did or with a strong, strong bipartisan show of support out of committee. for those who have fald the appropriations process over the years, you know that is somewhat unprecedented, to be able to advance these spending bills through the full committee process, much less to do so i

as part of that, our conversation with lisa murkowski. we asked her about the brett kavanaugh nomination. we will have that for you in just a moment. let me ask you in general about brett kavanaugh. will he be confirmed by the senate? guest: i expect he will be. i think he is a fantastic judge. has we have seen so far been a good reaction on the republican side for sure. senators like lisa murkowski and susan collins have expressed concerns but nothing that looks like a hurdle that cannot be overcome. what you're seeing on the left side is interesting. if you look at west virginia, a thatcame out two days ago showed joe manchin had a healthy lead in that state, but the lead doubles if he supports brett kavanaugh. the lead shrinks to one if he opposes brett kavanaugh. it goes from a 10 point lead to a 20 point lead if he supports him and if he opposes him he is only up by one in that race. that is a significant and shocking swing in that particular race. see similarwill things in states like missouri and indiana and montana that lean repub

key people we're going to have to watch are susan collins and lisa murkowski. talking today with democratic sources on the hill, the view in large part is that if those two were to defect, it will be hard to see those red state democrats joining the president. it's more they would essentially give those red state democrats cover to vote no. so, in large part the big sales job is going to be on both sides to convince lisa murkowski and susan collins to stick with the president. and if they stick with the president on this, then maybe that will convince some of the red state guys to jump ship, but the red state guys are in tough races, it's not an easy vote for them, because they could demoralize their base and supporters by voting for the president's nominee and also outrage conservatives in their states. even someone like joe manchin in a state where trump won big, he does have to worry about the democratic base in the november midterms, so this is going to be a months-long process to see how these ultimately will play out, but lisa murkowski and susan collins

from collins and murkowski? >> what we've heard from susan collins is she said that she is not going to let individual policy positions get in the way and we know frankly that as long as there are qualifications there, we know any of these nominees will avoid saying things like i would not vote to keep roe v. wade. they're going to punt and evade and dissemble as much as possible. and under those circumstances i find it unlikely that collins will vote against a particular nominee. now on the other side, steve, joe manchin, who one would think would be a pretty reliable vote at this point given what happened with neil gorsuch, has said what would really trip him up is if somebody wasn't going to support the affordable care act. and one of the main nominees or potential nominees, a woman amy barrett from indiana, notre dame law school, took a very strong position against the supreme court's decisions upholding the constitutionality of the aca. so that might create an interesting possibility where the pressure coul

senator susan collins of maine and senator lisa murkowski of alaska. and senator collins does not seem to be enjoying being the focus of all of that pressure. >> there are a lot of lobbying campaigns on both sides under way right now. but my vote doesn't count any more than those of my 99 colleagues. >> oh, yes it does. susan collins' vote is in doubt, and lisa murkowski's vote is in doubt tonight. and they are the only two republicans really who might vote against the president's nominee. and so they hold in their hands the power to confirm the nominee or defeat the nominee. and here's what senator murkowski had to say. >> i'm going to have an opportunity to ask more questions myself. i'll have an opportunity to review some of the writings that he has made since the time he gave those statements to the senate back in 2006 and just confirm again or confirm for the first time in other areas again that are also very, very important. so there's some work to be done. >> msnbc's garrett hake caught up with senator collins. >> he was asked about his views on

. >> lisa murkowski, senator for alaska, becoming a number of issues. >> host: senator lisa murkowski of alaska, not to any third generation alaskans around, are there? >> guest: there are getting more and more. we are contributing with that fourth generation. hopefully my two boys will want to plant roots in the state. yeah, it is something i'm quite proud of. i love my state. i love my family's history the there. >> host: what brought you great parents to alaska? >> guest: on my dad side the story goes that everybody wanted to come up for the gold and he made it as far as pitch again which most alaskans most southern community and they realized they did not have enough money to get to goldfield so he stayed there in ketchich ketchichan. my mom was born in nome, alaska. her dad was brand new baby attorney and got a message from one of his buddies saying hey, come up to alaska and come to the sound and ketchichan and there's only one lawyer. long as there's one lawyer there is not much work. i need somebody. he came up as a young man and as they say, the rest was history. both my pare

that gives discomfort to susan collins and lisa murkowski over roe v. wade. you raise a good point about the non-answers that the nominees give when they go to confirmation hearings. they are trained on what to say. they go through briefings on the practice runs with the hearings. the concern will be that we will see a shift in what he said about following precedent and issues like gay rights and abortion. women's right to choose. those things out there. contraception. that is a concern. i think he is a nominee who has made contradictory statements in the past and that will come up and be used in ways to say maybe you don't follow precedent. you have shifted around before. he will have to answer the questions in the hearings. >> you have mentioned collins and murkowski. that is all they need to hear. 51-49 edge. if they need mike pence, they can bring him in for tie breaker. here is what susan collins said. impressive credentials and experience. did hold up a little bit saying i will conduct a careful vetting of the pick. murkowski did not go as far. simply s

those's closely watched are going to be susan collins and lisa murkowski. that: roe v.he issue, holding onto republicans? sahil: that is a key issue here for pro-choice republicans, most notably like susan collins. david, this is the first time since the roe v. wade ruling was handed down a 1973 that there could essentially be a vote to overturn it. one of the things that kennedy sided with the liberal wing of the supreme court was on the issue of abortion in the 1990's, he wrote an opinion that is essentially says the court cannot outlaw abortion wholesale. this could be the fifth vote to overturn a landmark ruling, so there will be a spotlight like never before on susan collins in lisa murkowski. they are pro-choice in some form or fashion. the key thing again about susan collins' rhetoric -- she says she will not support a candidate that has demonstrated hostility to roe. the key word is "demonstrated." it could be someone who is widely known to be antiabortion, but if there is no paper trail -- david: yes, there is a big loophole. you mentioned on the democratic sid

he gets his caucus together, and so long as senators murkowski and collins remain there, they will be able to confirm. and the red state democrats up for election this year, many of whom voted for gorsuch. some who could be pushed to vote yes, too. the margins are thin. and the numbers are there. absent something going really wrong, i think mcconnell is feeling pretty good continue.

she would have the most trouble with senators murkowski and collins in this case. that's why i think for a while it looked like it was between kethledge and kavanagh until mcconnell sort of made this last weekend overture. republicans like, he's from pennsylvania, used to drive a taxi, has a great story. now he's back in the mix as somebody who the president can really get behind and so could possibly -- >> we should also mention his secret weapon, judge hardiman's secret weapon which is the president's sister. on the third circuit court of appeals and recommended him to the president and one thing we know about president trump is he kind of relies on family. >> i would point out, though, that senators collins and murkowski as well as senator mccain and three democrats voted for judge barrett when she was confirmed just last october. >> fair enough. >>> mark, who do you think has the tougher job here, mitch mcconnell in trying to keep senators collins and murkowski in the fold, or chuck schumer, trying to hold the line with joe manchin, joe donley, heidi high camp?

but in any case, i don't know how tough an audience murkowski and collins are going to be. that's really the question. i don't think -- i think the groups like planned parenthood, all those groups, they expect murkowski and collins to vote against any trump nominee. i think that that is not in the cards. you're really going to have to make a case for them, and they both voted for neil gorsuch. >> susan collins has never voted against a supreme court nominee of any president. i mean she -- so it would be extremely out of character for her. >> it would be out of character, but this is obviously different because it's -- >> the first lady just walked into the room. sorry. go ahead, dana. >> it's different because it's a piece of legislation, not a position on the highest court in the land. but they have a sense of responsibility, these two female republicans who are self-described pro-choice republicans, on obamacare, for example, on overturning it on the issue of abortion, making sure that women in their states and across the country had access. so that was something that the

he's just spoken to senator lisa murkowski. a lot of eyes on her as somebody who could have a lot of concerns about where kavanaugh falls on roe v. wade. >> yeah. that's right. look, i've spoken to both susan collins and lisa murkowski. i think you'd probably rather be mitch mcconnell than. both of them voted for kavanaugh back in 2006 when he was before the senate for confirmation for his current role. again, he's issued several opinions since then on that topic and on other controversial topics. both women said they plan to do their due diligence in digging into his record, particularly since the last confirmation vote. here's a little bit of what lisa murkowski told me about kavanaugh and how she'll look into his record just a few minutes ago. >> again, i'll have an opportunity to ask for questions myself. i'll have an opportunity to review some of the writings that he has made since the time he gave those statements to the senate back in 2006. and just confirm, again, or confirm for the first time in other areas that are al

it out of i agree that it was just said about susan collins and lisa murkowski of let me say to be very blunt that i think it is kosta month sensical to believe that what a judge being appointed to what the constitution calls the inferior federal judiciary what a nominee says about precedent will carry over to the very very peculiar office of the supreme court justice it is the case that an inferior court judge is banned by what the supreme court says it would be astonishing if any appellate judge of an inferior court tried to in effect overrule the supreme court once you get out of supreme court all bets are off and the the belief that what judge kavanaugh says about precedent is. something you could take to the bank to get a loan on is just silly he's a very smart guy he will say the right things in order to make it possible for collins. to vote for him but quite frankly the this is not a court that exhibits great respect for precedent and it's not a certainty i agree that was said before if it's not a sure thing he could surprise us i also agree that chief justice roberts is key on t

you've got to make sure that senators colin and murkowski do not lead. you can't take points off the board. and they will be very hard pressed to vote against either judge kethledge or judge hardeman, i believe. on the other hand, how do you get heidi heitkamp, joe manchin and john tess extra under the most pressure, claire mccaskill? i think it is easiest to lose one of the two republicans with judge barrett, because she's so

he wants to say try and secure yes votes from those two pro-choice republicans, lisa murkowski lisa murkowski and susan collins, who you just heard from. lisa murkowski says she's keeping her cards close to the best for now. collins indicated she will oppose anyone who will vote to change existing laws on abortion. administration officials revealed today that the white house counsel has been detailed to shepherd through the eventual nomination through the senate. it's interesting because you mentioned collins saying it's mcgann who told her that because of her concerns the administration is expanding its list be on the 25 names of potential court picks the president unveiled in the campaign, but the administration has to be careful not to stray too far from that list of more conservative names. if they go to moderate they run the risk of upsetting evangelical conservatives who have stuck with the president and love that list. sarah sanders would not answer whether the president wants to see roe v. wade overturned and the president suggested the list is actually getting smaller, not bigger. >>

if they can keep collins and murkowski then they'll be able to confirm brett kavanaugh. the odds are, who knows what's going to happen but the odds are, they will. >> jake, thank you. what's your show called? >> "the lead with jake tapper." >> it is good that i am the one haltom ci that's hosting it. >> presidential pardons, why trump is giving passes to these two men between the u.s. government and militia. we'll get reaction to someone who's involved in a high-profile case, next. ahoy! gotcha! ah! nooooo... noooooo... nooooo... quick, the quicker picker upper! bounty picks up messes quicker and is 2x more absorbent than the leading ordinary brand. ahoy! (laughing) bounty, the quicker picker upper. but prevagen helps your brain with an ingredient originally discovered... in jellyfish. in clinical trials, prevagen has been shown to improve short-term memory. prevagen. the name to remember. (dnice, candace, but this time bold. did someone say "bold?" (gasping) starkist jalapeo tuna in a pouch! loaded with bold flavor. just tear, eat... mmmmm. and go bold! try all of my b

murkowski: it's getting to be more and more. husband and i are contributing with a fourth-generation. hopefully both boys will want to plant roots in the state. it is something i am proud of. i love my state, and i love my family's history there. >> what brought your grandparents to alaska?

all eyes may be on susan collins and lisa murkowski.ator colins said she will conduct a careful vetting of the supreme court nominee. murkowski said she intended to review his writing on and off the bench and pay careful attention to his responses to questions posed by my colleagues. judge kavanaugh's views surrounding investigations of a sitting president are drawing renewed attention following his nomination last night. in a 2009 article in "the minnesota law review" kavanaugh suggested presidents be exempt from criminal investigations and civil suits while serving in office. he wrote congress should consider passing a law, quote, exempting a president while in office from criminal prosecution and investigation, including from questioning by criminal prosecutors or defense counsel. he went on to say, quote, we should not burden a sitting president with civil suits, criminal investigations or criminal prosecutions. the president's job is difficult enough as it is. now, some top democrats are seizing on this in relation to the on- going

we hope that includes collins and murkowski. it wasn't a vote of confidence. >> if you're mark short right now, vice president pence, while the president is aboard, you have to focus on the moderate republicans. before you even start trying to poach a red state democrat to pull them over the line, you have to have the republicans. the question now, is anyone in the republican party, beyond moderates, here with questions? that's what everyone has to watch in the white house. are all the republicans actually there right now? >> what about the red state dems, bob? four of them were invited to the white house for the ceremony an. they wanted to meet kavanaugh one-on-one. schumer thinks there is a shot at picking off republicans. do you think the dems will flip? >> a lot will depend on the hearings. you'll see them sit back and wait, see if he is pressed for working for clinton in the '90s, want to hear his answer on abortion and economicish sh isi. those have been revived as issues for the democrats this year. >> bob costa, love hav

>> i think it all depends on how lisa murkowski or susan collins falls.for this justice knowing his record on choice, knowing -- kennedy: what is his record on choice? >> well, there was a case in texas regarding a minor who wanted an abortion, and he ruled against her -- kennedy: he actually didn't go as far right as social conservatives -- >> yeah, but it was far enough, and the question is it far enough for lisa murkowski or susan collins to vote against him. ing that's really the question. i think based on that and also will he go after, if the case comes in front of him -- kennedy: what's more important for democrats, thwarting in this nomination -- >> no, no, no, this idea of thwarting the nomination -- kennedy: or having people reelected in critical red state where is the president -- what's more important? please answer the question. >> no, i'm going to answer your question, kennedy. i've never come on here and not answered your question. i do believe for these democrats, let's talk about joe manchin in particular, this is not going to -- kennedy:

there is a razon thin margin for error and certain republicans like susan collins of maine or lisa murkowski of alaska, the stance the of abortion and the nominee in thaur belief of the roe v. wade could sink the entire nomination. and earlier today, susan collins spoke to jake tapper about this. this is what she said. >> i would not support a nominee who demonstrated hostility to roe v. wade, because that would mean to me that the their judicial philosophy did not include a respect for established decisions, established law. i believe that this that is a very fundamental tenet of the judicial system as chief justice roberts says helps to promote stability and e vn-hand defen. >> and now, we are reached out to the white house to get a status update of how far the process has gone over the weekend, and the president, as you said, ana, he would be interviewing one or two candidates here potentially in bedminster and they have not confirmed the requests or responded, because that i have said that they have counseled with chief white house counsel don mcdan and they have revealed that one thing

we want that in a judge and senator collins and murkowski and others who went through gorsuch processthat in nile -- neil gorsuch. chris: you just mentioned four names, is it fair to say those are the front runners at this point? >> no, those are certainly people who are under very serious consideration, two of them as you know, chris, are people who were through the process to some extent before. chris: hardiman and kethledge. >> he has 300 opinions, respected by both sides of the spectrum and amy barrett, former law clerk to justice scalia, someone who, again, people across the ideological greatly admire. chris: i want to ask you about circuit court judge kavanaugh. should ill-serve the public interest in terms of financial and security crisis, given the fact that president trump is now facing lawsuits, given the fact that he's now dealing with special counsel would it be conflict to pick somebody like kavanaugh, that's an issue that the court might have to deal with? >> when bret kavanaugh said that when we had independent counsel statute, zero accountability and zero transparency,

and now, so garrett, who is donnelly, manchin, mccastle and murkowski and collins, and so many being targeted with these ads, and so as someone who might potentially break with their party, because of the ads? >> well, the list is shorter than the one that you are laying out talking realistically, and the two republican senators from susan collins and lisa murkowski. and if both of them vote with the party as they do overwh overwhelming majority of the time on the judicial nominations this conversation is effectively over. and you did have three democratic nominees vote for republican nominations. some folks who may want to vote for another trump supporter as well, and also, you can put doug jones on the board, because we have not seen his cards on that the as all. but obviously, the two republican senators, and you are over the line, a nind combination of the democrats, and talking about what is ultimately a fairly comfortable margin here sh, and we won't kn for more than a month and none of the folks are going to be showing their cards before the hearing takes place which is a mont

>> voters are watching you. >> voters are watching you. >> lisa murkowski. >> lisa murkowski. >> voters are watching you. >> voters are watching you. >> senate republicans. >> senate republicans. >> voters are watching you. >> a voters are watching you. >> we support choice. >> we support choice. >> we support workers. >> we support workers. >> we support health care. >> we support health care. >> we support equal rights. >> we support equal rights. >> we will fight. >> we will fight. >> and we will win. we will win! [cheers and applause] >> we also have a very important message to we will wi single one of the 49 senate democrats. we need you -- >> we need you. >> to unify. >> to unify. >> we need you -- >> we need you. >> to stay together. >> to stay together. >> stop kavanaugh. >> stop kavanaugh. >>> stop kavanaugh. >> stop kavanaugh. >> stop kavanaugh! >> a stop kavanaugh. >>> together we have a message for every single democrat and activist out there who is wondering if their voice can make danchese in the next days and weeks. it is very simple. if we fight. we can win. >> we can wi

but in any case, i don't know how tough an audience murkowski and collins are going to be.ally the question. i don't think -- i think the groups like planned parenthood, all those groups, they expect murkowski and collins to vote against any trump nominee. i think that that is not in the cards. you're really going to have to make a case for them, and they both voted for neil gorsuch. >> susan collins has never voted against a supreme court nominee of any president. i mean she -- so it would be extremely out of character for her. >> it would be out of character, but this is obviously different because it's -- >> the first lady just walked into the room. sorry. go ahead, dana. >> it's different because it's a piece of legislation, not a position on the highest court in the land. but they have a sense of responsibility, these two female republicans who are self-described pro-choice republicans, on obamacare, for example, on

for instance, last year in the tax bill, senator murkowski, and senator sullivan got a provision that would mandate the bureau of land management to open up oil and gas leasing on the arctic national wildlife refuge. that is something that had been opposed in washington, d.c. for years, and it had been sought by the state. there has been for years, resentment by state officials that the efforts to develop state resources have been stymied. anytime you have more than half of your state owned by the federal government you are going to have a complicated relationship which speaks to the significance of the alaskan delegation because of the role the government plays. host: how has it changed under the trump administration? guest: the president will sign the bills that the congress passes. the obama administration, consistent with democratic environmental positions, the arctic national wildlife refuge drilling had been opposed. and the president would have the don't provisions. president trump was not particularly aware of the details, but it was something important to senator murkowski an

murkowski and collins, republicans, and then the three democrats, heitkamp, mansion and donnelly.eeling those five are trying to help each other out because they all kind of had the same interest, which is not having to vote on a candidate that will cause them embarrassment in the fall. when susan collins said what she said about roe vs. wade, i really hurt her saying don't send me somebody appear who's going to jam me and embarrass me and forced me into a tough vote on that issue of precedent and roe vs. wade. and of course i think that's probably what senator mcconnell would prefer too, to just do this on the basis of republican votes. we will see what the white house, what kind of response she's going to get out of the white house on that. >> jon: a couple of names that are considered front runners on the president's list this time around were also on the list when he nominated and successfully placed neil gorsuch on the bench. >> one of the opportunities the president has here is the best way he can unify the republican party around him as the leader and also the banner man. t

if you lose murkowski or collins that, gets you to 49.onnell assumption is that at least the three who voted for gorsuch, plus mccaskill, who's been very quiet, will probably save their bacon. >> on the other side is chuck schumer, who understands he might lose two or three or maybe four, and he can't get them -- he needs them to survive. so he gets it, even if he doesn't like their vote. but he has this liberal base. look at the senator's tweet feed this morning. tweeting out a chain of objections. first to the court pick in general, saying mr. president, don't pick off your list. give us senate democrats a call. then a whole bunch of attacks on brett kavanaugh, one of the choices. chuck schumer understands he has to at least show the progressive base that he's throwing everything he can in front of the train. >> i think they think it's more effective to go after the individuals that the president might nominate instead of arguing to stall the decision until after the midterms. i think they realize if this fight drags out, it's going to

first, senator lisa murkowski. how critical will she be? guest: there are two senators that this decision essentially comes down to. let's talk about the math. senator john mccain has been absent from the senate this year. if we assume he will be absent again for the rest of the year or at least up until this supreme court vote, you are talking about a difference of flipping one republican senator from "yes" on the nominee to "no" on the nominee. it will be enough to defeat that nominee. so lisa murkowski and senator susan collins of maine, those are the two republicans were most of the attention is being focused now. if either of them were to the fact from the nominee -- defect from the nominee, that would be enough to kill it. they are confident they can also put pressure on several of the red state democrats out there. even if they do have the defection, they are hopeful they can make that out. the key thing is if they have all republicans, it is likely they get one or two or more democrats. if they lose one or two republicans, that crea

. >> lisa murkowski, senator for alaska, becoming a number of issues. >> host: senator lisa murkowski of alaska, not to any third generation alaskans around, are there? >> guest: there are getting more and more. we are contributing with that fourth generation. hopefully my two boys will want to plant roots in the state. yeah, it is something i'm quite proud of. i love my state. i love my family's history the there. >> host: what brought you great parents to alaska? >> guest: on my dad side the story goes that everybody wanted to come up for the

susan collins of maine, lisa murkowski of alaska are both pro-choice candidate in roe v.ing cries of the supreme court seems to be a big issue with regards to the confirmation. >> it is a big issue, but at the same time that both of the senators understand the confirmation hearings are all about, it's to ask potential nominees that they will faithfully apply the constitution to the cases before them. this really should not have anything to do with politics. but that's who has decried the constitutional rights are you talking about because roe v. wade and planned parenthood versus casey didn't find a constitutional right. that is not even the standard. there is no such right that even exists. from looking at the potential confirmation of brett coney kav, he was an excellent pick and i think both collins and murkowski will eventually vote for him. they both voted for gorsuch and he will get confirmed. train to the "washtington examiner" you believe that this confirmation america has the best and most realistic opportunity to overturn act to country back to president roe v.

susan collins from maine and lisa murkowski from alaska. both of those fine women voted gainst the repeal of the affordable care act because is now ing conditions being litigated in the courts that should also mention trump administration said preexisting conditions are unconstitutional. think both of those senators could be very concerned about that litigation and very that brett kavanaugh is confirmed and would be a case challenging preexisting conditions in the supreme court. about the n you talk potential for rand paul to be something of a wild card in this his concerns about privacy, libertarian leanings? say about rand paul. i know he has respond out raising concerns. can't predict at the end of the day where he will be learn a lot more about brett kavanaugh's views privacy.g the other thing i would say about the two republican women years professed wade supportive of roe v and i think we are going to look bold, e two women to be to be courageous, and to stand up. siobhan: let's turn to the political arena because we are elections.he

how do politics wind out for murkowski and collins? if she is the nominee there is absolutely so much to be fearful of. there is a report that the national catholic register reported last week that talks about her alleged membership in a church called the people of praise in oregon, it is incredibly conservative. it's been described by many as being cult like where the women are urged to adhere to strict gender roles which include submitting to your husband and submitting to men. so people -- when we talk about this discussion and the possibility of her becoming the next justice to the supreme court or any of the president's other possible nominees, we have to remember that abortion rights are not the only thing that is at stake. voting rights. whether or not evolution and science can be taught in the classro classroom, whether or not classrooms will remain integrated or segregated, gay marriage. you talk about it. it's going to be so incredibly important for people and for democrats in particular to step up their game. i personally be

on the republican side, murkowski and collins. i think that people, this is going to be a war until this judge gets confirmed, if and when that happens. this is just the beginning of just a crazy few months. >> jonathan, what about you? what do you think the tuesday morning headlines are going to say? >> war. fight. caitlin is right about that. the other interesting thing is you wonder if there's reverse psychology at work. if the senator says he can't blame cavanagh, maybe it's an effort to get the president to name him. the president doesn't like to be told what he can and can't do. >> a complete surprise. i want to turn to the talks in north korea. here is what secretary pompeo told reporters last night. let's listen. >> i am determined to achieve the commitment that president trump made and i'm counting on chairman kim to be determined to follow through on the commitment he made and, so, if those requests were gangster-like, the world is a gangster. i it was a unanimous decision. >> caitlin, no reaction, yet, from president tr

wade is a sensitive issue, like lisa murkowski and skew can collins in support of keeping roe v. wade? >> right. we have senator john mccain who is ill and back home and we have to take him off the board, as well. you know, it's interesting. jeffrey and i were talking about susan collins earlier today and he made the point that even though we talk about susan collins and you were right in saying this, having a thick skin like a real steel spine, she is voted to confirm every judge, supreme court judge that's come before her. so you have to question would she come out and vote against donald trump's supreme court nominee? i do think murkowski is different situation because she has gone into an election where she lost the republican nomination back in 2010. she went on and ran on her own name and she owns that state of alaska so her -- i think she is more likely to make a move that perhaps could derail this for president trump. >> president clearly like to get some of the red state democrats, especially those up for re-election this time on board and vote to confirm. >> yeah. those

there -- schumer talking to heidi heitkamp, you say you know what i think we're not going to get murkowski or collins sourks know what? you're free. i can hear that conversation. because why commit suicide? >> it's going to all depend on the hearings. they don't have that conversation until they see how these hearings go. and these hearings as you say could be explosive. if it's judge kavanaugh, they're going to go over his time with the special counsel in the 1990s investigating vince foster and president clinton and they'll go over his work in george w. bush's white house. if it's judge hardiman, they're going to look at all these rulings he's done on gun rights that are very conservative. so if you're heidi heitkamp of the world, it's tbd. it all zepds on how these hearings play, how the country sees the nominee. >> can you find -- do you think -- let me go back to the senator. do you think a senator from these red states would find something strong enough to use back home against the nominee that they could justify it? >> absolutely. and i think it's right. this is all going to play ou

--an collins, lisa murkowski the two most moderate republicans who support abortion. we think about jeff flake and who areer, two senators retiring up so he needs to win those folks over, and if you hope he ofneeds to the same three democrats to vote for his nominee that voted for neil gorsuch last time. joe manchin of west virginia, joe donnelly, and heidi heitkamp. >> the new york 11th, joe seat thatlosing that she tweeted that -- you tweeted that politicians face a rorschach test. what did you mean by that? that was a story with multifaceted story lines it, not the least of which mr. crowley was trying to position himself to be the next leader of the house democrats, and the ocasio.of or what she wants people to remember as her message was something i'm going to guess that we are going to your more and more from democrats between now and the election. not so much her message of progressiveness. she is a bernie sanders progressive democrats, wants to eliminate ice, once to medicare to be the sole health care, , i dofree public college not think the democrats are goi

and two are republican women, lisa murkowski and susan collins, they have voted against the president'sgenda in the past. and republican senator susan collins of maine is joining me now. senator collins, thanks so much for joining us. i want to start ontd white house meeting you have with president trump on thursday night about the supreme court vacancy. it's no secret you could be a, if not the deciding vote on the nomination, what did president trump tell you to try to get your vote? >> well, the president wreel l really was soliciting my views on the type of nominee i was looking for. i emphasized i wanted a nominee that would respect precedent, a fundamental tenant of our judicial system and encouraged the president to broaden his list beyond the list of 25 potential nominees that has been public for some time. >> well, that list of 25 names, let's talk about it for one second. are you con fortable with everyone on that list? >> no, i am not. now some of the people on the list i have not vetted at all at this point. one of them i voted against years ago. and i would have to do a gre

maine, lisa murkowski from alaska. both of those fine women voted against the repeals of the affordable care act because pre-existing conditions. it is now being litigated in the courts, and i should also mention that the trump administration has said that the pre-existing conditions are unconstitutional. i would think that both of those senators would be very concerned about that litigation, and very concerned that bret kavanaugh, if confirmed, would be sitting in on a case challenging pre-existing conditions in the supreme court. siobhan: and can you talk about the potential for rand paul to be something of a wild card this debate, given his concerns about privacy, his libertarian leanings? nan: it is hard to say about rand paul. i know that he has spoken out, raising concerns, but i cannot predict at the into the day where he will be, except for we may learn a lot more about brett kavanaugh's views regarding privacy. the other thing i would say about the two republican women is they have for years professed to be su

the president i think has to consider lisa murkowski, collins, ted cruz and rand paul.nds the balance with any of the four leading contenders. i would say pick them at this point. probably kavanaugh is leading. if i had to look to last week, he seemed to be the front runner. this president is very unpredictable. >> dana: i bet you just lit up the twitter. >> kimberly: democrats will vote to confirm. >> sean: this is going to be, the second he announces, it's going to be smear and dispersion and slander and it's going to be ugly and it's going to be coming from your friends on the left. >> dana: we've got to go. >> juan: coming from your friends on the right. you have a left ear. we are out of time because we're going to have a big party for our friend jesse. up next, a big surprise in store for jesse's birthday. huge. don't go anywhere, america. "the five" is back with a party. you're headed down the highway when the guy in front slams on his brakes out of nowhere. you do, too, but not in time. hey, no big deal. you've got a good record and liberty mutual won't hold a g