tv The Last Word With Lawrence O Donnell MSNBC September 17, 2018 7:00pm-8:00pm PDT
been breached by flood waters. there's also numerous north carolina hog farms all but under water and at the risk of spilling over. that's dangerous because hog farmvi farms have basically giant pits of toxic waste. the state tonight confirms spills from 20 of them with another 20 or so close to overflowing. a nuclear power plant south of wilmington officials are calling an unusual event. they say the plant remains safely shutdown, but the floodwater means it would be impossible to evacuate that nuclear plant if anything further went wrong. so we have a lot to watch out for tonight for our fellow americans in the carolinas and vun waters continue to rise. we're entering day five of this storm and clearly there's a good way to go yet.
we'll see you tomorrow. and now it's time for "last word" with lawrence o'donnell. >> good evening, rachel. and on friday night we were kind of getting close to the feeling we would by now know the name of the accuser in the brett kavanaugh case. and of course we do. and this story has been changing by the hour today with i think republicans in the white house catching up to reality, maybe an hour later than reality was landing on them. >> yeah, you can see them sort of grappling with the gravity and enormity of what's going on here. and i do think they've been catching up. it's interesting to see in the senate republican senators whether or not they're seen as key potential votes against kavanaugh or not, you see republican senators hitting their own thresholds, hitting their own tripwires, hitting their own i'm not going to go there moment in terms of whether or not they've got real concerns about these things.
these are not coordinated republican responses, but today they were speaking on their own terms and it was wildly different responses from different senators. >> yeah, and i'm not sure that they will this time all get on the same page the way they basically did 27 years ago. the movement has been stunning even watching the difference between what lindsey graham said yesterday, what he said today. i don't know what he'll be saying by thursday. every day that goes by without that kavanaugh vote the republicans know is a bad day for that vote. that's why they always want to rush these votes. >> and we're now going to have another week between now and when that hearing happens. and that means another week of reporting, honestly, to a certain extent this is journalistically driven story. and it's going to make it that much harder in terms of what dr. ford is enduring having come forward as the named accuser in this case. if there are any other people
that are going to come forward of brett kavanaugh, this gives them an tuopportunity to do tha and also the opportunity for the fbi to do an investigation here. this story has been evolving hour by hour but i think we're going to see that continue, another solid week. thank you, rachel. and so history repeats itself. and i mean repeats itself like we've never seen before. we have never seen in united states senate history repeat itself as flawlessly as it has been doing for almost two weeks now. when rumors first surfaced about a possible accuser of supreme court nominee brett kavanaugh and then those rumors became thinly sourced news stories online, thinly sourced because there was no stronger way to report them at that time. and then last week the story of the accuser got wide circulation and more detail.
in an interview in "the washington post," and today the republican hope of keeping the confirmation on track, the brett kavanaugh confirmation, keeping it on track and on schedule, that hope collapsed. and so now history will fully repeat itself, and we will see a supreme court confirmation hearing reopened to take new testimony from an accuser of a nominee and new testimony from a nominee defending himself against those accusations. just as we saw 27 years ago when anita hill was sworn in to testify about the sexual harassment she said she experienced from clarence thomas while working for clarence thomas in the federal government's equal employment opportunity commission. the quick refresher course on that story if you need more detail and you should, there's the masterful book "strange justice." i was work in the senate then but had no role in the
confirmation judicial process than to offer my opinion to my own boss, who was not a member of the judiciary committee and didn't need anyone's advice to making his decision to volt against clarence thomas. the senators who were not on that committee watched on tv the spectacle as it unfolded and the seemingly relentless attempts by united states senators to find new ways to humiliate themselves. >> now, let me just -- people hearing yesterday's testimony are probably wondering how could this client, you know, retired woman know about something like long don silver.
did you tell her that? >> he's still on the judiciary committee. senator orin hatch is still on the senate judiciary committee. and the question tonight is what has orin hatch learned in the 27 years since he embarrassed himself and the senate in that hearing? what have the republicans and the judiciary committee learned? the answer might be they learned absolutely nothing. before completely surrendering to democratic demands today they postpone thursday's vote on brett kavanaugh's confirmation the republicans led by mitch mcconnell and chuck grassly, the chairman of the judiciary committee, were trying to power through. they were insistent the vote would take place on thursday. and they were trying to arrange some kind of private conversation with professor christine ford. they were still trying to do that even after professor ford told her story in detail to "the
washington post." but today history caught up. lindsey graham said if the commit eis to hear from ms. ford it should be done immediately so the process can continue as scheduled. and tonight not a word about the schedule from senator graham. >> is there the possibility that you believe her story but he is still qualified to serve on the court? >> i'd have a hard time putting somebody on the court that i thought tried to rape somebody. >> period? >> a hard time. and that very nervous chuckle about the hard time that lindsey graham is going to have in the senate judiciary committee. clarence thomas squeaked by in his confirmation vote on the senate floor 52-48. but before anita hill testified against clarence thomas he was on his way to getting at least 90 votes in the senate, all republican nominees all got more than 90 votes before him.
professor anita hill took at least 40 votes away from clarence thomas including two republican votes. if professor christine ford takes only two republican votes away from brett kavanaugh, only two, then he will not be confirmed. for most senators anneala hill's testimony about sexual harassment was the very first time they had ever heard what sexual harassment even is. the first time they even thought about it when they were listening to anita hill. professor ford will step into a different atmosphere when she testifies in the now reopened confirmation hearings of brett kavanaugh next week. this time everyone on the committee and on the senate will know what she's talking ability. attempted rape -- something much worse than clarence thomas was ever accused of.
clarence thomas lost 40 votes when he was accused of sexual harassment. how many votes will brett kavanaugh lose after being accused of attempted rape? professor ford will be testifying more than a year after the me too movement which saw fox news host bill o'reilly lose, and harvey weinstein charged with criminal rape and a long list of prominent men, most recently ceo les moonves knocked offtrack, knocked off their career paths. fired on the basis of sexual harassment or some form of sexual assault accusations. after more than a year and a half specifically republican senators susan collins and lisa murkowski, how will they decide that there still should be some safe employment havens left for men accused of sexual assault, and that those two safe havens should be the white house and
the united states supreme court? is that what they will decide? we now have the only president in history who has publicly confessed to sexual assault and described his preferred methods of sexual assault. >> i'm automatically attracted to people, and just start kissing them. it's like a magnet. and when you're a star, they let you do it. you can do anything. grab them by the [ bleep ]. you can do anything. >> when it comes time to vote republican senators will have to decide if they're going to give the self-confessed sexual assault president what he wants, the confirmation of a new accused sexual assaulter to supreme court because that nominee has now indicated that he no longer believes the president of the united states can be subpoenaed. that's why brett kavanaugh is so important to donald trump.
donald trump's belief that brett kavanaugh might save him from a subpoena in the mueller investigation. that's what this confirmation has always been about. the reason why the republicans wanted to rush this vote is the age-old senate strategic principle that the quicker the majority party can get a vote on something, the more likely they are to win. and the longer the issue or the nominee hangs out there without a vote, it becomes more and more likely that you lose that vote. but the senate minority always has ways of slowing things down, and so brett kavanaugh has been slowed down. and every day that brett kavanaugh does not get a vote in the senate is a day that support for brett kavanaugh can only weaken. it can't get stronger. one of the many weaknesses in the confirmation process that anita hill exposed is the senate judiciary committee does not have a standard of proof for accusations made against a
nominee. no committee does. so we might hear a republican senator like lindsey graham after all the testimony is say he does not know who to believe, he doesn't know who's telling the truth. brett kavanaugh, now his outright repeated denial he did not do what he's accused of, and lindsey graham saying he doesn't know who to believe might just say that because the accusation against brett kavanaugh was not proved without a reasonable doubt, he cannot deprive brett kavanaugh of a seat on the supreme court. he cannot deprive him of career advancement based on a mere suspicion. and at the same time we might hear democrats say he or she is not sure to believe and because brett kavanaugh did not prove his innocence beyond a reasonable doubt, he cannot be elevated to a position that is supposed to be above suspicion on the highest court in the land. the standard of reasonable doubt is a criminal courtroom stand.
it is our highest strictest standard for fact, proof beyond a reasonable doubt. that is the standard we require before we take someone's liberty away and put someone in prison or in this country execute someone. but what is the correct standard for a awarding someone, giving someone a position on the highest court in the land? should senators ever vote for a supreme court justice if they have any doubt at all about that nominee's integrity? the senate judiciary committee has never decided that question in the 27 years since clarence thomas. they have never figured out that question. and without that fundamental procedural standard, a standard of proof, what we are likely to see on monday is a complete repeat of history. with republicans once again
humiliating themselves. orin hatch today seemed eager to show that he has learned absolutely nothing in the 27 years since he cross examined anita hill. >> do you think that any of these claims are legitimate? >> no, i don't. >> i think this woman, whoever she is is mixed up. but i can't speak for her. all i can say is no, i don't. i know the judge very, very well. i know how honest he is. i know how straightforward he is. i know how he stands up for what he believes and what's right. and frankly, if you were going to believe anybody you'd believe him. >> i think this woman, whoever she is, is mixed up. doesn't know who she is. he doesn't know who she is. that's orrin hatch speaking about a professor affiliated
with stanford university who he's never seen, never heard speak, he knows nothing about her, but he thinks she's mixed up. in 27 years orin hatch has learned absolutely nothing. on monday we'll find out what the rest of the senate has learned. leading off our discussion now, ron klain, former chief of staff to joe biden, and most importantly tonight he was also the chief council for the senate judiciary committee during the clarence thomas, anita hill hearings. and lisa graves is with us also a former chief counsel for nominations for the democrats on the senate judiciary committee and was a deputy assistant attorney general in the department of justice. and ron, let's start with you. i know you've been thinking about those days 27 years ago,
and those of us who were watching from the outside couldn't quite believe what we were seeing. what one of the reasons for it it seems to me is the committee like all the rest of the committees in the senate have never quite figured out how do you decide in that room whether an accuser has reached an adequate standard of proof. >> that's right, lawrence. and look, back then robert seabird, the great dean of the senate, great institutionalist, it has to be protected as an institution. if there's a doubt, the doubt should be resolved in favor of making sure we have the right people on the supreme court. that his view. >> so, ron, just to translate that for a second. the doubt should be resolved in favor of the accuser? >> look, i think you have to hear all the evidence. you have to hear what she says, you have to give judge kavanaugh a chance to be heard.
it has to be weighed against all his other testimony. questions ability his credibility have already been raised and evidence on behalf that's already been put in. so i think it needs to be weighed and in a fair and balance way. and i also think the judiciary committee needs professional help. having the senators ask the questions i think is the wrong way to go. i think they should get expert outside counsel both the democrat and the republican side to put these question. it shouldn't be a time for grandstanding or speech making but a time to get to the bottom of this. >> to ron's point about the professional question, we've seen that before in earlier hearings, the watergate hearings and others where senators realized let's let the real professionals do this. what is your sense -- you worked on the committee most recently. what is your sense of what they have learned how to handle this in the last 27 years? >> i think it indicates
republicans have not learned very much from that history. you saw senator grassly this weekend talking about the fact there was supposedly no cooberation. you saw and you played the statement of senator hatch questioning professor ford. and so i don't think that the men who are in the majority on that committee are in any position to cross-examine a witness, treat her like they treated anita hill back in 1991. i think what the senate democrats have done this evening in asking for a professional investigation by people who are trained in trauma, trained in dealing with sex crimes, to investigate this before there's
live testimony, before these members are unleashed to try to defend kavanaugh or attack her. there needs to be a full and real and serious investigation by professionals. and those senators regardless if they've been elected are not professionals who are trained to do that. >> the big break in the republican wall actually came when jeff flake yesterday said he was in favor of delaying the vote. and jeff flake's a member of the senate judiciary committee. so if the issue of having the vote came to a vote in the committee the republicans could not have won it. and ron, that seems to have been a decisive turn for republicans realizing what they were going to have to do. brett kavanaugh has issued a written statement saying this is a completely false allegation. i have never done anything like what the accuser describes to her or to anyone. ron, that simplifies the trial position in a courtroom. if you don't believe brett
kavanaugh then you also are left with at least a suspicion of perjury by brett kavanaugh. >> that's right, lawrence. it doubles down and raises the stakes on this proceeding next monday. you could imagine brett kavanaugh says, look, maybe i was drunk, a youth, i don't recall, a lot of things he could have said. but he said categorically it didn't happen. but now it's not just a question of what happened at some party decades ago, it's a question of whether or not he's going to be truthful when he testifies under oath about it. that's a critical issue for any judicial nominee. and i'd say the other thing that, you know, you've got to remember that has not changed in the 27 years is that every single member of the senate judiciary committee on the republican side is a man. 11 men, 11 male republicans will be asking the questions, if they do ask the questions on the republican side. democratic side, we've seen some progress. three of ten democrats are
women. if we see them try to discredit dr. ford it will be 11 men on the republican side who try to do that. >> talk to me about the three women on the senate judiciary committee side and how we will be seeing a different hearing on that side than we saw 27 years ago. >> that's right in 1991 there were only men on that committee and you've women elected in the wake of that hearing. i think that changes the conversation, to have women in the room, women who have that role, that responsibility. in this instance i think one of the points you made at the beginning, lawrence, is so important, which is what is the standard of proof here? no matter who's doing the questioning, the fact is no one is entitled to a job on the united states supreme court, on our highest court. this isn't some sort of he
said-she said where the default goes to lifetime job decades ruling for all of us. this is situation where you have serious and credible allegations of rape. and i think that for in this instance you don't have a candidate who has an unblemished record. you have a candidate, a judicial candidate who's been caught lying under oath to the senate, misleading including the theft of watergate's own files. and i also should point out rob porter was one of those under senator hatch. >> i said we need lisa graves and ron klain for monday night. this is going to be big on monday night. i don't know where it's going to be, but that's where we have to start the show. thank you for your unique
experience in the senate judiciary committee for starting us off tonight. and when we come back we're going to have more on the accusations of brett kavanaugh. and later congressman adam schiff will join us on president trump's stunning order tonight to release documents on the russia investigation while the russia investigation is still going on. ♪ hungry eyes ♪ one look at you and i can't disguise ♪
christine blasey ford has been received multiple degrees and been wild lee published in her field, but in 1982 christine blasey was a 15-year-old in maryland who attended a party who has changed her life. while his friend watch, she said, kavanaugh pinned her to bed on her back and groped her over her clothes, grinding his body gents hers and clumsily attempting to pull off her one piece bathing suit and the clothing she wore over it. when she tried to scream she said he put his hand over her mouth. i thought he might inadvertently kill me, said ford. she ran from the room, briefly locked herself in a bathroom and
then fled the house. the therapist's notes were given to "the washington post" saying she was attacked by students from an elitist boys school who went onto become highlyermented high ranking members of society in washington. the results concluded ford was being truthful when she said a statement summarizing her allegations was accurate. professor ford's lawyer explained why she was reluctant to come forward with her allegation against judge kavanaugh. >> no one in their right mind regardless of their motive would want to inject themselves into this process and face the kind of annihilation that she will be subjected to by those who want this nominee to go through. this is not a politically motivated action. in fact, she was quite reluctant to come forward, and she was in fact outed after she made it
decision not to come forward. >> joining us now correspondent for slate.com and dal you, it is hard, you're a supreme court watcher. and it's hard to believe we're here again 27 years later, and we're going step for step in this repetition for history. >> i think i want to push back. >> okay. >> because i think the theme has become we're just living it over again what we lived 27 years ago. 27 years ago was all men on that judiciary panel. 27 years ago women were mad, they watched that footage rachel showed of professor hill being interrogated about grotesque porn graphic detail over and over and being called slutty over and over and being compared to the exorcist. and we have the micro year of the woman and suddenly they were six women in the senate in 1992.
now women aren't just mad. now women have power. and they have kamala harris on that judiciary committee, amy klobuchar on that committee. no man is going to do i don't believe to dr. ford what was done to anita hill. and no woman watching it is going to say we don't have power. >> and cam lah harris may be the best prosecutor who's ever been on that committee. let's listen to what professor ford's lawyer had to say about this. >> my question to you is does she consider this an attempted rape? >> she does. she clearly considers this an attempted rape. she believes if it were not for the severe intoxication of brett kavanaugh, she would have been raped. >> your reaction to the attorney's description of this. >> well, it's definitely attempted rape. i don't see it any other way. i want to point out something that is again another parallel
but also another point of departure between this and the clarence thomas hearings, and that is in the aftermath of the anita hill hearings reports of sexual harassment in the workplace went up 71%. in the wake of the me too movement the national hot line has seen spikes, and what's going to happen on wednesday is that millions of women and men who have been through something like this in their lives are going to have to live through it again. the national sexual assault hot line is 800-656-hope. and i think those people have to know they don't have to go through what this woman goes through to start to heal. it was children, two children, it was a long time ago, and it should be judged differently. but i think a parallel here is
that we need to judge brett kavanaugh not just on what he may or may not have done but how he treats a woman's pain. and that is something i'm going to be paying attention to on monday. how he responds, whether or not he agrees this happened with her, does he take her pain seriously? i'll give you a spoiler alert, i don't think brett kavanaugh takes womens pain seriously and i know that from the decisions he's made as a judge. but to have that unfold on national television live will be quite instructive. >> and dahlia, we have this sort of contest of letters. very quickly suddenly there were letters of 65 women and girls who brett kavanaugh knew in high school who were coming utin support of him. that letter has been tracked down and there's maybe half a dozen who are publicly formally in support of him.
i have to say i went to all catholic boy school like brett kavanaugh. i didn't know 65 girls when i was in an all boys catholic high school. but then, you know, professor ford, graduates of her school have put out a letter with more than 200 signatures including julia dreifus and others, and this is all the wind up for this giant moment that's going to occur on monday when professor ford raises her right hand and we finally hear her story. >> you made the point, lawrence, and it's so important we have no process, we have no template, we have no burden of proof. senator blumenthal is saying we have no findings of facts, we don't have a record. we have one person's allegations, we have another person's denial. there's no machine to input this into. i think in lieu of that you get
this reflexive people line up on their sides, they believe who they want to believe. and i think it's incumbent on the senate to say this is more than just picking teams for red rover. this is a lifetime appointment, an article iii appointment to the highest court in the land. and it has to be taken seriously as a fact finding enterprise and as a reason based enterprise. and for me what's terrifying about people lining up and saying "x" is a liar, "x" was just a kid, the process is broken because we found out at the 11th hour, that's all deflecting from the real issue. the real issue is did this happen, and if it happened how do we find out and press the factual allegations? and if we find out to our satisfaction, what do we do next? those should be the questions, not just lining up and pledging fealty based on who you know and who you went to school with.
>> ana, what will you be listening to for on monday as you try to decide who's telling the truth here? >> like i said i think what i'm going to be listening for is whether or not kavanaugh seems to have grown as a person since whatever happened happened. you know, i come to this just just a survivor of sexual assault but as a person from recovery of drugs and alcohol. and quite frankly i have done stuff in blackout. i have done things i would never do sober in a blackout. it's my practice and it's the way i've sort of have been taught to conduct myself in recovery that if someone says i did something terrible and i don't remember whether i did it or not, i'm not in a position to deny it. and my place is to listen to that person and to hear their pain, to hear their experience and ask what it it is i can do to make it better, you know, to look to something restorative,
whether or not i can deny or agree to the allegation. that's not the process we have in the senate. but, you know, it would be an interesting instructive moment. i want to point out it's likely more people, women and men -- that is to say something that happened once that is terrible and that they've never spoken about again rarlgt than something systematic that had witnesses, that had a whole trail to it, which is what happened with anita hill. there are a lot of people who had a terrible thing happen to them that will go to their grave not telling anyone. and what i hope happens in these hearings these people are not confirmed in their belief that's what they have to do, that they learn there's a way they can come forward and talk about these things that happened with them. because until we have full testimony about theme's experiences, we're not going to
be able to get better as a society. >> thank you very much for joining us on this important night. please come back and share more of your thoughts with us. coming up congressman adam schiff will join us on president trump's stunning order tonight for the fbi and just department to release documents on the russia investigation while the russia investigation is, of course, still going on. congressman schiff joins us next. when nighttime nasal congestion closes in, breathe right strips are designed to simply open your nose right back up.
♪ breathe better. sleep better. breathe right. i can do more to lower my a1c. because my body can still make its own insulin. i take trulicity once a week to activate my body to release its own insulin, like it's supposed to. trulicity is not insulin. it works 24/7. it comes in an easy-to-use pen. and i may even lose a little weight. trulicity is an injection to improve blood sugar in adults with type 2 diabetes when used with diet and exercise. don't use it as the first medicine to treat diabetes, or if you have type 1 diabetes or diabetic ketoacidosis. don't take trulicity if you or your family have medullary thyroid cancer, you're allergic to trulicity, or have multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2. stop trulicity and call your doctor right away if you have symptoms of a serious allergic reaction, a lump or swelling in your neck or severe stomach pain. serious side effects may include pancreatitis.
taking trulicity with a sulfonylurea or insulin increases your low blood sugar risk. common side effects include nausea, diarrhea, vomiting, abdominal pain, and decreased appetite. these can lead to dehydration, which may worsen kidney problems. to help lower my a1c i choose trulicity to activate my within. ask your doctor about once-weekly trulicity. to help lower my a1c i choose trulicity to activate my within. ♪ south l.a. is very medically underserved. when the old hospital closed people in the community lived with untreated health problems for years. so, with the county's help we built a new hospital from the ground up and having citi as an early investor worked as a signal to others to invest. with citi's help we built a wonderful maternity ward and we were able to purchase an mri machine.
going on. congressman adam schiff, the top democrat on the house intelligence committee who will join us in a moment released a statement saying president trump in a clear abuse of power has decided to intervene in a pending law enforcement investigation by ordering the selective release of materials who ebelieves are helpful to his defense team and thinks will advance a false narrative. i have previously been informed by the fbi and just department they would consider it a red liep th line that must not be congressed. this is of no consequence to a president who cares about nothing and only of his self-interest. president trump has ordered everything from had russia investigation from james comey, andrew mccabe, peter struck, lisa and bruce ohr. and also 21 additional pages of the secret fisa application.
congressman, i don't even know how to -- i don't even know how to form a question almost about this because it's so unprecedented and so strange in the middle of an investigation the fbi is ordered to make public its own information inside an investigation. is this the president trying to help all of the potential witnesses in the investigation and give them ways of getting through any possible interviews with robert mueller? >> well, i think it's first and foremost a way of donald trump helping his own defense, providing materials to his own defense team. he's no doubt conferred to his loan lawyers what information would be youthful to you, confirmed with rudy giuliani and his own allies in congress.
yesterday quite unexpectedly out of the blue the chairman of the house intel committee devin nunes says he's going to release the transcript of the interviews. we have pressed them and they have refused despite earlier promising to do that. why the sudden about face to be immediately followed by the white house ordering it's own release. this is coordinated between the president and his allies, and the precedent and the policy and the norm that we've had since watergate that a president does not interfere in specific cases of justice let alone one in which the president himself may be implicated is shattered. and in the process important sources and important precedent of protecting those sources may be violated by this president who cares little about the national security. >> well, this is a president who
violated source protections when he was inviting the russian ambassador and foreign minister into the oval office in his first month in office. this is consistent pattern with him. but what more can you tell us about what the fbi and justice department told you previously about why none of this should be relea released? >> well, a few things. with respect to some of the materials that the president has tonight ordered to be declassified, that the fbi and department of justice consider this to be gang of eight material. meaning not only material that should shouldn't be shared publicly but material that shouldn't be shared outside the top officials in congress, as well as the speakers and leaders of both house and senate. so it's among in their view material that must be closely held. and beyond that they have said that release of it, some of it would be a red line that they would not be willing to cross
under any circumstance. so they ought to live up to that. they ought to fearlessly defend their sources. otherwise it will not only compromise them but other people will be unwilling to cooperate with our intelligence agencies because they will feel they won't be protected. so the fbi, and this will be difficult for the fbi director and the head of national intelligence dan coats. both chrisfer wray and dan coats are going to have to stand up to this president and say no. they're not going to release material that they have committed to keep confidential to protect people, and it's going to be difficult because the president's allies in congress are going to be threatening them with impeachment like they did with rod rosenstein. but you have to say no to this president because otherwise he will continue to ask for more and more and more. and the precedent and the danger it will set will be enormously destructive. >> but congressman, does the president have the legal authority to order this release?
and if he does wouldn't he then just fire anyone who refused? >> he has the power to order things declassified, yes. he has the power to ignore the admonitions of his own intelligence agency. he has the power to declassify information which would jeopardizes u.s. interests. and the response to that would be i'm not going to carry out this order, i will resign if you force me to do this. now, i would imagine the department of justice and the fbi will try to find some compromise where they propose redactions, which of course will just lead to another round of complaining by the president and his allies. so where this leads us, i don't know. maybe this was merely a distraction from the kavanaugh problems. but of course to people around the world whose identities are -- you know, whether they
live or die, they look at this precedent and wonder whether they should continue to cooperate with the united states. >> and congressman, i know you don't have a vote on the senate of supreme court confirmations, but i want to get your reaction to what we learned about brett kavanaugh and the accuser as she went forward yesterday in "the washington post". >> well, these are enormously disturbing allegations and i feel for the woman who's been forced into the spotlight because of this, and i can only imagine what testifying is going to be like. i don't think it's efficient merely to hear her testimony or the judge's denials. i think the senate responsibly needs to look into these allegations. we're talking about a lifetime appointment to a court which will have a decisive impact for decades. and we need to make sure that people are of upright moral
character that we put on that court. so this needs to be thoroughly vetted. and they need to be respectful of this witness who did not choose to put herself out this way. this needs to be thoroughly vetted by the senate. >> and as a former federal prosecutor yourself and an experienced congressional investigator, would you -- if you remember the senate judiciary committee demand the testimony of the other people who were at that party, the other boy who the accuser says was in the room, for example, at the time? >> i would. there are witnesses who will either corroborate or not corroborate what the witnesses are saying. it's hard to look into this in a serious way if you're going to leave it at he said and she said. so, yes, bring the witnesses under oath and hear what they have to say.
put them under the penalty of perjury and require them to tell the truth. as our president has demonstrated time and time again, he's more than willing to make false statements publicly. he thinks that's perfectly fine. he himself has distinguished between lying to the public and lying to bob mueller, which is obviously -- terrifies him into refusing to speak to the special counsel. but let's have these other witnesses come and be placed under oath and let's hear what they have to say. >> congressman adam schiff, thank you very much for joining us. and when we come back more on the kavanaugh confirmation hearing and what we can expect next week. waze integration- seamlessly connecting the world inside... with the world outside...
making life a little... easier. introducing the well-connected lincoln mkc. the full value oft wyour new car? you'd be better off throwing your money right into the harbor. i'm gonna regret that. with liberty mutual new car replacement we'll replace the full value of your car. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty ♪
. i have no idea who these women are, i have no idea. i have no idea. >> roy moore denies it. he says it didn't happen. >> when you looked at that horrible woman last night, you said, i don't think so, i don't think so. >> as you probably know, he says he's innocent, and i think you have to remember that. he said very strongly yesterday that he's innocent. >> believe me, she would not be my first choice, that i can tell you. >> what happened to donald trump's deny, deny, deny strategy today? >> he is somebody very special.
at the same time we want to go through a process, we want to make sure everything is perfect, everything is just right. i have great confidence in the u.s. senate and in their procedures and what they're doing, and i think that's probably what they're going to do. they'll go through a process and hear everybody out. i think it's important. if it takes a little delay, it will take a little delay. >> joining us now, mara gaye, a member of the editorial board. what happened to that guy? what happened to the deny, deny, deny guy? >> i think susan collins may have happened. there is something to say about the role of women who actually have positions of power here. but listen, i think even the president knows that the republicans are in a tough spot right now. their prize nominee is under attack. they have, by the way, now the weekend to get through. and i think they're thinking about the midterms. the president has actually been
quite restrained this week on twitter. we haven't heard him talking about manafort, either, in the way that you would expect. so i think that we're seeing uncharacteristic restraint, and it does give you a sense of just how vulnerable republicans are, because think about what we've seen so far and think about what's going to happen when professor ford gets on the stand to have a bunch of men treat her like orrin hatch, which the things that come out of his mouth today sound to me like maybe before i was born. i was born in 1986. i'm just thinking to myself, did he not get the memo? this is not good for republicans, and i think the president knows that. >> orrin hatch is officially the senate's slowest learner. let's listen to what susan collins said today about judge kavanaugh. >> if judge kavanaugh has lied about what happened, that would be disqualifying. that's why it's so important
that we have testimony under oath with a lot of questions asked of both of them. >> so she's just set out the terms of her vote. if she doesn't believe judge kavanaugh, then he's got two problems in front of her. one, his conduct as a 17-year-old, but most importantly, his conduct as a nominee lying in the confirmation process. >> i think it's really clear this is not a court of law, right? this doesn't need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. multiple people have said on the airwaves today, and i completely agree, that this is about suspicion and this is about character, and no one is entitled to a supreme court seat. you know, if you commit sexual misconductor a or are accused o even when you're younger, it doesn't mean you can't have a position in society or redeem yourself.
but it doesn't give you a court seat. >> it may be that many in the hearings on monday can't decide who is telling the truth. that's okay, you don't have to decide who is telling the truth, but if that means you don't know if your supreme court nominee is telling the truth, how can you then support that nominee? >> yes, but, and i think buzz of the ha#metoo movement, everyone knows someone who has been in that situation. tomorrow's "last word" is next. ♪ big jim, he's got you covered ♪ ♪ great big jim, there ain't no other ♪ -so, this is covered, right? -yes, ma'am. take care of it for you right now. giddyup!
(avo) new nyquil severe with vicks vapocool. the vaporizing, nighttime, coughing, aching, stuffy head, best sleep with a cold, medicine. this is not a screensaver.game. this is the destruction of a cancer cell by the body's own immune system, thanks to medicine that didn't exist until now. and today can save your life. ♪ ♪
seem pretty generic. on the weekend mike pence makes extra money as a sears mannequin. >> stephen colbert gets tonight's last word and that word was generic. "the 11th hour" with brian williams starts right now. tonight there will be another hearing, but this time we will hear from brett kavanaugh and his accuser. trump's nominee for the court is a california professor and her allegations are now public. all eyes remain on two critical republican votes, senator susan collins of maine, lisa murkowski of alaska. plus robert mueller announces the sentencing day of michael flynn three days after paul manafort agrees to cooperate. and the president orders documents he calls classified significant they have to do with a massive investigation into russia.