"the washington post," not "the new york times." lieve it or not, that headline, it's not just click bait. "the washington post"" actually laid out a case in the editorial for why president trump is responsible for bad weather. look at this quote. "when it comes to extreme weather, mr. trump is complicit. he plays down humans' role in increasing the risks, and he e continues to dismantle efforts to address those risks." not only is the claim totally absurd, it's also factually wrong, not that they care. o the american enterprise institute.org, aei.org, put out in president's first year in office, the u.s. rigorous co2 emissions more than any other country in the world. so trump derangement syndrome has now reached a new height. these people are just downright sick in their obsession to hate the president. the slogan from "the washington post" is democracy dies in darkness. sadly, the final nail in the coffin for democracy, journalism, if you will, issa e kind of blinding anti-trump hatred that is on display from them and all their fr

i have been reading the washington post since the 1950's. i read washington post and new york times and a lot of other stuff every day. i have seen the washington post over the years, it has gone from a fairly, it is a live in democrat liberal newspaper. they never found any kind of a tap -- cap tax cut that they support, it used to be on the editorial page. now, it is in every -- you can read -- if you want to go through it, i would do it online. what's an example of something you saw today or yesterday? caller: i haven't been to the post yet. what i see is everything they is down for trump. ,ou can't find any article occasionally they do something that is actually worthy, i print out stuff that is worthy of reading. good analysis, something that covers something in a fair way. host: why do you still subscribe? caller: living give you an example. he just said this. this is how they do their fact checking. trump said the unemployment rates for blacks is the best in history. glenn just said because we have 1776,pt it for the entire when trump

in your text to "the washington post" dated 7/6. so that's the very first statement we have from you. you put in there, quote, have therapy records talking about it. i want to make sure i understand that. did you already have your therapy records at that time? >> i had looked at them online to see if they existed, yes. >> okay so this was something that was available to you via a computer, like a patient portal? >> actually, no it was in the office of a provider. >> okay. >> she helped me go through the record to locate whether i had record of this conversation that i had remembered. >> did you show a full or partial set of those marriage therapy records to "the washington post"? >> i don't remember. i remember summer rising for s who they said, do i don't know if i ever actually gave her the record. >> so it's possible the reporter did not see these notes? >> i don't know if she -- i can't recall whether she saw them directly, or if i just told her what they said. >> have you shown them to anyone else besides your counsel? >> just t

she's a reporter for the washington post. the post has broken this story that christine blasey ford is the woman who filed this against brett kavanaugh. a research professor at palo alto university in california. i want to finish this conversation now. we talked about what response we got from the white house thus far. emma brown said she submitted bunch of questions to brett kavanaugh through the white house. talk to me about the existence of this allegation. >> anybody who has been watching the white house response to these ongoing hearings knows the white house has rolled out a detailed battle plan to make sure this nomination goes through. the fact they are silent is not surprising this white house unfortunately has dealt with a series of women who came forward against the then presidential candidate with stories of varying degrees of inappropriate sexual misconduct. if that pattern is going to play out with kavanaugh then we'll see attacks or this is nothing more than dirty tricks when in fact this white house should be t

at the washington post, is the customer the people who buy advertising? the customer is the reader. in school, who are the customers? is it the parents? is it the teachers? no, it is the child, and that is what we will but do. we will be of sense obsessively, compulsively focused on the child and use heart and -- hardened intuition when we need to. david: when you use your intuition to make decisions, where is the intuition leading you now on your second headquarters? [laughter] [applause] jeff: all right. [applause] jeff: can we just take a moment to acknowledge that that may be the best segue in the history -- [laughter] [applause] jeff: -- of interviewing. david: right. jeff: seriously, david. david: all right. jeff: that is amazing. david: the answer is? [laughter] jeff: the answer is simple. we will announce a decision before the end of this year. we have made tremendous progress. the teams are working on it, and we will get there. no, no, be nice. come on. it is dangerous to demonize the media, call them lowlifes, say they are the enemy of the peopl

why did you contact the washington post? >> i was panicking because of the decision and people were giving me advice. people that don't know about the process and many people told me i should hire a lawyer. i didn't do that. i didn't understand why i would need a lawyer and somebody said call the washington post and the new york times or your congressperson so i weighed those options i thought the best would go the route with my congressperson so i called her office and put an anonymous tip to the washington post and unfortunately neither got back to me. >> so the congresswoman's office contacted you july 9th? >> the date the nominee was announced. >> had you talked about your allegationsn with anyone before july 9th. >> i spoke with someone on the phone. >> july 10th you texted the washington post which again was really the third time. >> correct and been advised to contact senators or the new york times haven't heard back from washington post who advised you to contact senators or the new yorkt times? >> friends of coming u

things the washington post says, and you have been remarkably quiet. i have no idea what you are talking about. [laughter] david: you have been remarkably quiet in not defending yourself. jeff: i do defend the post. it is a mistake for any elected official in my opinion. i don't think this is an out there opinion, to attack media and journalists. [applause] jeff: i believe it is an essential component of our democracy. there has never been, i was going to say there has never been an elected official who has likes their headlines. i think there has been no public figure who has ever like their headlines. it is ok. it is part of the process. if you are the president or governor, you don't take that job thinking you will not get scrutinized. you are going to get scrutinized. it is healthy. somebody very, you know, what the president should say is, this is right. this is good. i am glad i am being scrutinized. that would be so secure and confident. but it is really dangerous to demonize the media. it is dangerous to call the media lowlifes. it is dangerous

in your text to "the washington post" dated 7/6. so that's the very first statement we have from you. you put in there, quote, have therapy records talking about it. i want to make sure i understand that. did you already have your therapy records at that time? >> i had looked at them online to see if they existed, yes. >> okay so this was something that was available to you via a computer, like a patient portal? >> actually, no it was in the office of a provider. >> okay. >> she helped me go through the record to locate whether i had record of this conversation that i had remembered. >> did you show a full or partial set of those marriage therapy records to "the washington post"? >> i don't remember. i remember summer rising for s who they said, do i don't know if i ever actually gave her the record. >> so it's possible the reporter did not see these notes? >> i don't know if she -- i can't recall whether she saw them directly, or if i just told her what they said. >> have you shown them to anyone else besides your counsel? >> just t

she says in july she first called t"the washington post" through the tip lines. line wanting to let the post know. that was before kavanaugh was nominated. >> the short list. >> expected to be nominated, but not officially. she wanted to alert "the washington post" and alerred her local congresswoman and at the end of july she wrote the letter to feinstein's office which we heard about. however, throughout the month of august, she wrestled with whether to go on the record and whether to stay anonymous or speak out and put her name on it. according to the post, she decided to stay anonymous. she decided she did not come to come forward, in doing so it would up end her life and probably would not affect kavanaugh's confirmation. she said why suffer through it if it's not going to matter. her story was starting to leak out anyway. the existence of the feinstein letter started to be better known. others wrote about it. there was this allegation, but not a face. not a name. just an anonymous allegation. she apparently changed her calculation and feels she has to speak

lou: billion air owner of the "washington post," the richest person in the world. says president trump should accept the constant attacks from the "washington post" and the rest of the national left-wing media. >> what the president should say is this is right, this is good, i'm glad i'm being scrutinize. but it's dangerous to demonize the media and dangerous to call the media low lifes and dangerous to say they are the enemy of the people of. lou: dangerous he says, but isn't it dangerous to demonize the president and constantly attack it unfairly in many cases? what about barack obama who didn't get any scrutiny from the "washington post" that i recall. and they seem to have at the post no problem taking aim at a media that president obama doesn't agree with. >> we are going through this moment where the forces of retrenchment and backlash and anger are constantly being faked. we have some media outlets who like to do the fanning. lou: do you think it was "the washington post" he was thinking of? the great divider demonizing as he con dements the demonization of a

the "washington post" and i was nervous about doing that. my preference was to talk with my congressperson. >> okay. the "washington post" texted back that someone would get in touch -- get you in touch with a reporter. did you subsequently talk to a report we are the "washington post"? >> yes. under the encrypted app and off the record. >> okay. who was that reporter? >> emma brown. >> okay. the person who ultimately wrote the story on september 16th? >> correct. >> okay. did you talk to any member of congress, congress includes the senate or house of representatives or any congressional staff members about your allegations between july 10th and the july 30th, which was the date of your letter to senator feinstein? >> yes, i met with congresswoman eshoo's staff and i think that's july 18th. the wednesday and then on the friday i met with the congresswoman herself. >> okay. when you met with her, did you meet with her alone or did someone come with you? >> i was alone. she had a staff person. >> okay. >> what did you talk about with congressw

"the washington post." i was nervous about doing that. my preference was to talk with my congressperson. >> of "the washington post" texted back that someone would get in touch, get you in touch with a reporter. did you subsequently talk to a reporter with "the washington post"? >> yes, under the encrypted app. and off the record. >> okay. who was that reporter? >> emma brown. >> okay, the person who ultimately wrote the story on september 16th? >> correct. >> okay. did you talk to any member of congress? again, remember, congress includes the senate or the house of representatives. or, any congressional staff members about your allegations between july 10th and the july 30th? which was the date of your letter to senator feinstein? >> yes, i met with congresswoman eshoo's staff, and i think that's july 18th. on the wednesday, and then the friday. that was the congresswoman herself. >> when you met with her, did you meet with her alone, or did someone come with you? >> i was alone. she had a staff person. >> okay. what did you talk about wi

things the washington post says, and you have been remarkably quiet. ve no idea what you are talking about. [laughter] david: you have been remarkably quite in not defending yourself. jeff: i do defend the post. it is a mistake for any elected official in my opinion. i don't think this is an out there opinion, to attack media and journalists. [applause] jeff: i believe it is an essential component of our democracy. there has never been, i was going to say never then an elected official who like to their headlines, i think there has been no public figure who has ever like their headlines. it is ok. it is part of the process. if you are the president or governor, you don't take that job thinking you will not get scrutinized. you are going to get scrutinized. it is healthy. somebody very, you know, what the president should say is, this is right. this is good. i am glad i am being scrutinized. but it is really dangerous to demonize the media. it is dangerous to call the media lowlifes. it is dangerous to say they are the enemy of the people. we live in a s

>> why did you contact the washington post on july 6?>> i was panicking because i knew the timeline was short for the decision. and people were giving me advice on the beach. people who do not know about the processes but that they were giving me advice you need to hire a lawyer and i did not to do that. i did not understand why i would need a lawyer. somebody said, called the new york times. call the washington post. put in an anonymous tip. go to your congressperson. when i waived those options, i felt like the best option was to try to do the civic route, which is to go to my compass person who happens to be anna eshoo. i called her office and i also put in the anonymous tip to the washington post and unfortunately, neither got back to me before the selection of the nominee. like you testified that the congresswoman anna eshoo's office contacted to july 9. >> they contacted me the data that the nominee was announced. that seems likely.>> had you talked about your allegations to anyone in your office, before the date of july 9.>> i tol

she's a reporter for "the washington post." "the washington post" has just published a piece naming christine blasey ford as the one who filed the allegation against brett kavanaugh to be the next supreme court justice. you spoke to her husband as well. what did he have to say about this incident and about her coming out with this as well? >> i mean, i think this is an incredibly painful and private thing to be now dealing with in public for both of them. he said that in 2012 he recalls that therapist session very clearly and recalls not only that she described the event but that she used kavanaugh's last name and even expressed some concern. the at time kavanaugh of course was on the d.c. circuit court of appeals. she said what if he some day goes on the supreme court. he recalled that. and he also said he was thinking some people may hear about this and think it doesn't really matter, it was back in high school, but from his perspective, it says something. his wife's story says something important he thinks about the nominee t

to speak out publicly to a journalist who had originally responded to the tip i'd sent to the "washington post" and to it gained my trust. it was important for me to describe discuss the details of the assault in my own words. since september 16, the date of the washington post story, i have experienced an outpouring of support from people in every state of this country. thousands and thousands of people have had their lives dramatically altered by sexual violence have reached out to share their experience and have thanked me for comingg forward. we have received tremendous support from friends and our community.he at the same time, my greatest fears have been realized, and s the reality has been far worse than what i expected.s my family and i have been the target of constant harassment and death threats. i have been called the most vile and hateful names imaginable. these messages, while far fewer than the expressions of support, have been terrifying to receive and have rocked me to my core. people have posted my personal information and that of my favorite online on the internet. this has r

somebody said to call the new york times, call the washington post. an anonymous tip, go to your congressperson. options, ihed those thought the best was to do the civic route, to go to my congressperson. so i called her office and also put in the anonymous tip to the , andngton post unfortunately, neither got back to me before the selection of the nominee. that thestified congresswoman's office contacted you on july 9. >> they contacted me on the date the nominee was announced, so that seems likely. about yourtalked allegations with anyone in her office before the date of july 9? dr. blasey ford: i told the receptionist on the phone. >> july 10, you texted the washington post again, which was really the third time, is that right? second date, third time? >> one moment. dr. blasey ford: correct. toyou texted, been advised contact senators or new york times. haven't heard back from washington post. to contact you senators or the new york times? dr. blasey ford: beach friends iming up with ideas on how could get to people because people were not respondi

"the washington post." i was nervous about doing that. my preference was to talk with my congress person. >> okay. "the washington post" success texted back that someone would get you in touch with a reporter. did you subsequently talk to a reporter with "the washington post." >> yes, under the encrypted app. and off the record. >> okay. who was that reporter? >> emma brown. >> okay. the person who ultimately wrote the story on september 16th? >> correct. >> okay. did you talk to any member of congress, and again, remember congress includes the senate or the house of representatives or any congressional staff members about your allegations between july 10th and july 30th, which was the date of your letter to senator fine steieinstein. >> i met with congresswoman es choo's staff on the wednesday and the friday i met with the congresswoman herself. >> okay. when you met with her, did you meet with her alone or did someone come with you? >> i was alone. she had a staff person. >> okay. what did you talk about with congresswoman es choo and he

later in your interview with the washington post, you were more specific. you believe it occurred in summer of 1982 and use at the end of your sophomore year. >> yes. >> you said the same your prepared statement. how are you able to narrow down the time frame? >> i can't of the exact date. i would like to be more helpful about the date. if i knew when mark judge works for potomac safe ways i could be more helpful in that way. i am using memories of when i got my drivers license, i was 15 at the time and did not drive home from that party or to that party. once i did have my drivers license i liked to drive myself. >> legal driving age was 16? >> yes. >> you talked about attending therapy. in your text to the washington post dated 7-6, the first statement we having you you put in there, quote, have therapy records talking about it. did you already have your therapy records at that time? >> i had looked at them online to see if they existed. >> this was something available to you via computer like a patient portal. >> i was in the office as a provider. helped

"the washington post" is reporti reporting that an accuser is now coming forward to tell her very personal story. supreme court reporter is joining us from washington. boris sanchez is at the white house. also with us, cnn legal analyst shan wu. what are we learning about this accuser and what he says happened to her? >> right, ah thana. this woman has come forward publicly accusing brett kavanaugh of assaulting her at a party more than 30 years ago when they were both in high school. according to "the washington post," the woman's name is christine ford. she's a professor at palo alto university. it's worth noting that brett kavanaugh has vehemently denied her allegation. on friday, he issued a statement saying, i categorically and unequivocally deny this allegation. i did not do this back in high school or at any time. but in "the washington post," the woman said that she attended a party in suburban maryland back in 1982, and kavanaugh and his friend were there. she said they were stumbling drunk. she alleges she was corralled into a bedroom, and at one point, he tried to take her cloth

on "the washington post" article, did you submit to an interview by a reporter with "the washington post" for this article to be written? >> correct. >> okay. and then finally, was the statement that you provided this morning, i assume that to the best of your recollection that that was accurate? >> that this whole article is accurate? >> no, no, no, the statement that you made this morning? >> yes. >> okay. i want to talk to you about the day that this happened leading up to the gathering. >> okay. >> in your statement this morning, have you told us everything that you remember about the day leading up to that? >> yes. >> let me ask just a few questions to make sure that you've thought of everything. okay? you indicated that you were at the country club swimming that day? that's my best estimate of how this could have happened. >> okay. and when you say best estimate, is that based on the fact that you said you went there pretty much every day? >> mm-hmm. >> is that a yes? >> yes. >> okay. do you recall prior to getting there -- so i'm only talking about up to the gathering. >> okay. >>

on the washington post article, do you submit to an interview by a reporter with the washington post for that article to be written? >> correct. >> ok. finally, was the statement you provided this morning, i assume to the best of your recollection that that was accurate? >> the physical article was accurate? >> no, the statement you made this morning. >> yes. >> i want to talk to you about the day this happened, leading up to the gathering. >> ok. >> in your statement this morning, have you told us everything you remember about the day leading up to that? >> yes. >> let me ask a few questions to make sure you have thought of everything, ok? you were atd that the country club swimming that they? -- that day? >> that is my best estimate of how that could have happened. >> when you say best estimate, is that based on the fact that you went there every day? >> yes. >> is that a yes? >> yes. >> do you recall prior to getting there -- i am only talking about up to the gathering -- had you had anything to drink? >> not at all. >> were you on medication? >> nine. >> -- nine. -- none. >> do y

this is his op-ed today in the washington post. if the president over rides his professional staff and insist on unreda unredacted declassification, it would force some officials to consider resignation. john mclaughlin was more blunt on twitter. this would qualify the president's most serious assault on the justice system yet. former cia director, wrong on so many levels if he forces all the way through, it ought to be a resignation issue for someone in justice, period. then he ends with this question. maybe trump's intention? right? maybe that's the idea. people say no, he gets to fire him. or they say no, i will resign and protest, great, we have been looking forward to replace. here is how it is unfolded. monday night, trump gives the order to declassify all these stuff. on tuesday, the president said online that he was basically very excited about these declassifications. he said they would prove that really bad things are happening with the fbi. that was tuesday. wednesday, the president admitted he did not read any of these d

the "washington post" editorial board saying -- if we've got the full screen, please. there we go, the "washington post" editorial board saying -- now, this is just about as idiotic as anything i've seen in the "washington post" in the last week or so. another hurricane about to batter our coast, trump is complicit. >> he gets no credit for the stuff he's effected, which is the strongest economy. seen certainly in my lifetime. lou: have you seen the "washington post" get idiotic? talk about blinded by -- >> i need to read it, but it's getting more idiotic and more drooling from the mouth try and get trump every single day. this reaches a new level. >> i think the president probably gets some entertainment relief from watching this kind of nonsense in the "washington post." i know we had to be thrilled when jamie dimon. do we have the sound bite of jamie dimon carrying on? let's go to that full screen, if we may. and this is jamie dimon, the chairman of jpmorgan chase. here we go. he was saying he could beat trump. oh, man, it proves i wouldn't make a good politician, i

this from paul kane of the washington post. "republicans were afraid to look angry and insensitive until they realized they were losing. lindsay let loose and others followed. the core of disappeared and anger and sued. decorumore -- disappeared and anger ensued. betty on the republican line. betty, mute dear television set and go ahead with your comments. that they comment is lady that is accusing mr. --anaugh for all this host: you have got your tv up. mute that and go ahead with your comments. i will put you on hold if i can. hang on, betty. go ahead with your comments now. are you still there? caller: i'm still here. host: you are feeding back a little bit on us. we go to portland, tennessee. in ohio rather. caller: hello. both dr.en watching ford and kavanaugh all day long. contrary to what [indiscernible] not as learned a doctor as judge kavanaugh is. [indiscernible] believe her story but i also kavanaugh -- when you're 15 years old, 16 years old, 17 years old, it doesn't take [indiscernible] host: i will let you go. you a

people in that oval office huddle telling the president that he could trust them, then told the washington post about the oval office huddle, proving that donald trump can't trust anyone in that room. tonight's washington post report from inside the trump white house says, quote, trump's aids challenged little of the column's substance, indeed. seen yr officials have i don't think along acted to slow walk the president. there is now no way for donald trump to forget that there is, as "the new york times" op-ed headline put it, quote, quiet resistance inside the trump administration. joining us now, david corn, washington bureau chief for mother jones, an opinion writer for the washington post and co-author of the book "one nation under trump" and the author of "trump-nation." tim, i want to go to you first because you know donald trump well. you got sued by him. you beat him in that lawsuit. here he is surrounded by people tonight who are saying trust us. it certainly wasn't any one of us. and then immediately one of those people leaks the dialogue of that huddle in the oval office to the washi

later in july, she contacted "the washington post" through a tip line. she also took a polygraph test regarding the incident, which the paper reviewed, and she passed. but for weeks she declined to go public, citing concerns about her and her family and privacy even as judge kavanaugh could still be confirmed. blasey fordd -- told "the post" -- "why suffer through the annihilation if it's not going to matter?" but last wednesday, the intercept broke the news that senator feinstein had a letter describing an incident involving kavanaugh and a woman in high school, and that feinstein was refusing to share it with her democratic colleagues. feinstein then issued a statement that the author had "strongly requested confidentiality, declined to come forward or press the matter further, and i have honored that decision. i have, however, referred the matter to federal investigative authorities." the fbi reportedly sent the letter to the white house to be included in kavanaugh's background file after redacting blase ford's name, which then sent it to all of the se

to speak out publicly to a journalist who had originally responded to the tip i had sent to "the washington post" and who had gained my trust. it was important for me to describe the details of the assault in my own words. since september 16th, the date of "the washington post" story, i have experienced an outpouring of support from people in every state of this country. thousands and thousands of people who have had their lives dramatically altered by sexual violence have reached out to share their experience and have thanked me for coming forward. we have received tremendous support from our friends and our community. at the same time, my greatest fears have been realized and the reality has been far worse than what i expected. my family and i have been the target of constant harassment and death threats and i have been called the most vile and hateful names imaginable. these messages well far fewer than the expressions of support, have been terrifying and have rocked me to my core. people have posted my personal information and that of my parents on-line on the internet. this has resulted in

we have heard her story, as we read it in "the washington post." as we read it in this statement that they released yesterday. but it is a whole different thing to really feel it. and the humanity that we're seeing here, no matter what you believe going into this, no matter what you believe now, it is impossible not to feel that. >> oh, yeah. >> and again, you know, we're all watching it and trying to sort of gauge how this is going to go. but the people who are going to have to vote on this, particularly again, those two female republican senators, it is hard to imagine them not watching this and saying, as they were even thinking going into this, whoa, whoa, whoa, let's take a breath here. >> one thing that is also interesting is she's bringing her professional expertise, essentially saying the brain can't forget this trauma. i think she used the phrase the hippocampus can't forget this sort of indelible memory of those people she says who were laughing at her while it was going on. what's also interesting is the way in which i thought rachel mitc

says this story in the washington post -- he's not the only politician that says oh the washington post says this. thank you. >>> up next, billionaire basketball owner mark cuban chokes up and apologizes and an overdue apology from jane fonda these folks, they don't have time to go to the post office they have businesses to grow customers to care for lives to get home to they use stamps.com print discounted postage for any letter any package any time right from your computer all the amazing services of the post office only cheaper get our special tv offer a 4-week trial plus postage and a digital scale go to stamps.com/tv and never go to the post office again! we used to play so beautifully together. now... we can barely play anything... even cards with the girls. (vo) if you have bent fingers and can't put your hand flat, talk to your doctor. it may be dupuytren's contracture. (hand) isn't it time to do something about this? (vo) your hand is talking. isn't it time you speak to a doctor? learn more about dupuytren's contracture... at factsonhand.com. more information is within reach. h

just within the last couple of minutes, the "washington post" has said that that statement, the one iin says "i never pursued or authorized recording the president, i've never advocated for the removal of the president," "the washington post" has new reporting about that, saying, quote, that statement from rosenstein came after white house officials pressured the justice department to issue a more forceful denial of "the times's" reporting. the president asked advisers on friday if he should fire rosenstein, and some of those around trump sought to sway him not to make any decision friday night. joining us now is chuck rosenberg, msnbc contributor, former u.s. attorney, former fbi and justice department official. mr. rosenberg, it is nice to you here tonight. thank you for being here. >> my pleasure, rachel. thank you for having me. >> this is obviously still a developing story. we're watching two big developing stories right now. the continuing connotation/impasse this the senate over the confirmation hearings for brett kavanaugh and whether the senate will hear allegations from a wo

is aau cording again to a source familiar with her story, and, of course, again today with "the washington post" story we saw how ford ultimately changed her mind and decided that if her story is going to be told, she should be the one to tell it. >> and i'm looking at "the washington post" story as to why now. it says as the story snowballed after dianne feinstein report having received this left, ford said she heard people repeating inaccuracies about her and with the visits from reporters felled her privacy being chipped away and her calculation changed. now you're outside the home ford. what is the scene like there? >> reporter: yeah. so we're in palo alto outside of what we believe is christine ford's home. we didn't see anyone go in and out of the house all afternoon, but about an hour ago had a man came into the house and then went out a few minutes later with a dog. we don't know the man was, but he said that he was friends with the fords and that he was helping to take care of their dog. he said that ford is doing fine but that she's not interested in talking to anybody. he said she's

to speak out publicly to a journalist who had originally responded to the tip i had sent to the "washington post" and who had gained my trust. it was important for me to describe the details of the assault in my own words. since september 16th, the date of the "washington post" story, i have experienced an outpouring of support from people in every state of this country. thousands and thousands of people who have had their lives dramatically altered by sexual violence have reached out to share their experience and have thanked me for coming forward. we have received tremendous support for our friends and our community. at the same time, my greatest fears have been realized and the reality has been far worse than what i expected. my family and i have been the target of constant harassment and death threats and i have been called the most vile and hateful names imaginable. these messages, while far fewer than the expressions of support, have been terrifying and have rocked me to my core. people have posted my personal information and that of my parents online on the internet. this has resulted in

the "washington post" now reporting the name of the woman who wrote that confidential letter making sexual against supreme court nominee brett kavanaugh. she has chosen to come forward and reveal her identity. the "washington post" writing that she is a professor at palo alto university. her name is christine blazey ford. she's decided, quote, if her story is going to be told, she wants to be the one to tell it. i want to bring in former nevada state chairwoman and independent journalist, jonathan altar, columnist of "the daily beast" and former prosecutor barbara mcquaid is still with us. i know you're all just getting a copy of this article. it's pretty long, pretty extensive, but i want to point out a couple of things so folks know what we're dealing with here. people already know the allegations that were purported. she said in the summer in the early '80s, she describes them both as stumbling drunk and he corralled her into a bedroom at a gathering of teenagers in a house in montgomery county, that she was groped, that they were attacking her, and now she's a researcher in california

the washington post article , did you submit to an interview by a reporter for the washington post for the article to be written quick. >> correct. >> finally the statement that you provided this morning, i assume to the best of your recollection that was accurate quick. >> the whole article was accurate quick. >> know. the statement that you made this morning. .> yes i >> i want to talk about the day that this happened leading up to the gathering. in your statement this morning have you told us everything you remember about the day leading up to that. >> you indicated you are at the country club swimming that day quick. >> that is my best estimate of how it could have happened.g >> does best estimate mean you were there pretty much every day quick. >> yes. >> do you recall prior to gettingmmmm their? only up to the gathering had you had anything to drink quick. >> not at all. >> any sort of medication quick. >> none. >> do you recall knowing before you went who was going to be at the gathering? >> i recall that expecting that mark judge and leland would be at that gathering. >> do you

it's not my passion to read the washington post and it isn't my passion to watch c n n m s n b c or the b.b.c. there's hardly a word about this but as i once for some for a pointed out in the alternative media this is one of the biggest hottest topics out there in the mainstream it's invisible well i mean just look at the title of the nation's article how to start syria's bloody fight first of all it's not the final showdown because the syrian government still has the turkish and in american invasions and in eastern north syria to deal with but you say how to stop the wounds and then you talk about creating as many quagmires i.e. bloody conflicts as possible right until they get the regime change that they want and the article he goes on to talking about us how is it enduring interests in syria beyond killing islamic state terrorists no you don't you have no militias yet a bit dangerous he didn't hear it with those interests i mean i mean this is again this is the people like john bolton that want to kill as many birds with one stone as possible certainly doesn't want to stable syria un

portions of the therapist's notes were provided by ford to the "washington post" but they did not mentionanaugh's name. but the notes do mention she was attacked by members of an elite boys school who became high r k ranking people in washington. nbc news has reached out but has not independently confirmed ford's identification. the author of the "washington post" report emma brown will be coming up on "morning joe" this morning. >> when asked for comment on the "washington post" piece, the white house issued kavanaugh's state from friday where he said, quote, i cat gorily deny this allegation. i did not do this back in high school or at any time. mark judge strongly denied the incident occurred. on friday, judge told the weekly standard in an interview, quote, it's just absolutely nuts. i never saw brett act that way. judge did not respond to the "washington post" for comment on sunday. >>> rudy giuliani is trying his pest to spin the cooperation agreement between paul manafort and bob mueller. in fact, the deal calls for manafort to cooperate fully, truthfully, completely and forthright