tv The Last Word With Lawrence O Donnell MSNBC October 3, 2018 10:00pm-11:00pm PDT
orf your asthma worsens or if you have a parasitic infection. fasenra™ is a targeted treatment for eosinophilic asthma. that's important. ask an asthma specialist about fasenra™. that does it for us tonight. we will see you again tomorrow. now it's time for "last word" with ali velshi in for lawrence tonight. good evening. nice to see you. >> rachel, nice to see you. >> rachel, nice to see you. and you've just reported that the white house has the investigation. will be submitting to the senate tonight, and i think the response from anyone on the receiving end of that would be from mitch mcconnell is great, we've got a report, let's read it. but he's already announced he plans to hold the first procedural vote friday before which he says the senate members will have plenty of time to review and be briefed on the supplemental investigation. why can't we read it first, why can't they read it first? >> if there's anything in the fbi background investigation
that suggests there's not going to be a vote, they're not going to take that chance and schedule a vote before anyone's looking at it. >> in 50 years they're going to say you just couldn't take the adequate time to pretend it's worth studying and looking into. but alas there will be some procedural vote and after debate maybe a next vote. senator murkily is going to join me to discuss the bombshell "the new york times" report on the presidents tax troubles and the problems it could cause. but the report breaking just moments ago, senate majority leader mitch mcconnell just said on the senate floor that senators will receive the fbi report on brett kavanaugh tonight. mcconnell also set up a procedural vote for as early as friday an kavanaugh's nomination. nbc news confirmed a short time ago, senators will start viewing
the report on a schedule starting tomorrow at 8:00 a.m. that's according to sources briefed on that schedule. senate judiciary chairman chuck grassly will go first at 8:00 a.m. ranking member senator diane feinstein, 9:00 a.m. after that ranking member senate judiciary republicans at 10:00 a.m. followed by ranking member democrats at 11:00 a.m., but bloomberg reports the fbi hasn't interviewed brett kavanaugh or christine blasey ford because it doesn't have clear authority from the white house to do so, according to two people with knowledge of the matter. instead, the white house has indicated fbi the testimony from kavanaugh and ford before the senate judiciary committee last week is sufficient. in the newly released letter to senate judiciary chairman chuck grassly, lawyers for dr. ford are rejecting the request from
the committee to provide certain materials like dr. ford's therapist notes from 2012 when she reportedly first discussed her alleged sexual assault. dr. ford's lawyers say they will turn over those documents to the fbi if the fbi reaches out to her, which it apparently hasn't. it's not just kavanaugh and ford, by the way. nbc news is reporting tonight that more than 40 people with potential information into the sexual misconduct allegations against brett kavanaugh have not been contacted by the fbi. sources close to the investigation as well as a number of people who know those involved say the fbi has not contacted dozens of potential corroborators or character witnesses. the issue extends to the allegations of this woman, deborah ramirez, who has accused kavanaugh of exposing himself to her while the two attended yale. according to the same nbc report more than 20 individuals who know either kavanaugh or ramirez have not heard from the fbi despite attempts to contact
investigators. including kavanaugh's roommate at the time and a former ramirez friend. they've been trying to get to the fbi. diane feinstein, the ranking member on the judiciary committee says this raises serious concerns that this is not a credible investigation, and begs the question what other restrictions has the white house placed on the fbi? regardless of those concerns, as we reported at the top of the show, senators will start reading the report tomorrow morning. it will not be made public. as axios notes, that could mean that we're in for some selective leaks from senators. expect republicans to leak areas where the fbi didn't find evidence of an assault and the democrats to leak evidence where investigators found new dirt or desired more time. while all senators will eventually be able to read the report, mitch mcconnell has rejected a request from chuck schumer to brief the fbi on the results of all the findings. mcconnell has admitted to holding a vote as soon as possible.
>> then pursuant to last week's agreement of a delay no longer than one week, the senate will vote on this nomination this week. the senate will vote on this nomination this week. >> as the vote on kavanaugh's nomination draws near all eyes are on three critical republican senators. jeff flake, susan collins, and lisa murkowski. to see what will happen after they read the fbi report. all three of them blasted president trump today after he mocked dr. ford at his campaign rally last night in mississippi. >> there's no time and no place for remarks like that, to discuss something this sensitive at a political rally is just -- it's just not right. i wish he hadn't have done it. just say it's kind of appalling. >> the president's comments were just plain wrong. >> i don't approve of the
comments from last night. i thought that they were wrong, and extraordinarily unfortunate. >> all right, so big questions remain at this hour. did the president make it more difficult for senators flake and collins and murkowski to get to yes? did he make other republicans think twice about their vote? and the biggest unknown -- what is actually in that fbi report? will it contain some truths about brett kavanaugh or will it be an unfinished document hampered by a constrained investigation leaving questions than answers? joining me now lisa graves, was also deputy assistant attorney general in the justice department. jennifer ruben an opinion writer at "the washington post" and an msnbc contributor. and julia aimsly, national security and justice reporter for nbc news. julia, let's start with you because you've been involved in our reporting that there were
many people who the fbi could have interviewed, didn't interview, some who approached the fbi. and all week wave been speaking to fbi experts, something lisa can confirm to us, who said the fbi could have interviewed ten times as more people. something have constrained them from doing so. what do we know about this, julia? >> that's right, ali. this works differently than a criminal investigation where the fbi can lead wherever the bread crumbs take them. they were given at the beginning of the week a list of only four witnesses that they were allowed to interview. that later expanded but we believe by a very small window, and they still had to go back to the white house when they happened to go interview additional witnesses. and as we learn today, more than 40 of those additional witnesses, potentially some who went to yale with ramirez and kavanaugh, others from high school who were able to be a character witness were not contacted. as we understand from the fbi perspective that's because they've been constrained by the white house.
the white house wants this to wrap up quickly, and frankly they aren't looking for bombshells. so purely based on the people we believe the fbi has been allowed to interview, there may be others we simply don't know about that haven't come public. but based on the ones we already know about, we don't believe there will be any bombshells tomorrow. and i think it's telling mitch mcconnell is already scheduling his vote. but i don't think he's expecting anything in that report to change his schedule to get kavanaugh confirmed this week. >> it does feel a little, lisa, like we're prejudging. but, lisa, last friday there was this sort of collective sigh of relief against those institutionals like jeff flake or those people thought a potential cloud is being lifted from the senate judiciary committee and supreme court by moving forward this investigation. could it be the worst of all
worlds, where they had an investigation and it wasn't thorough? >> i think we are in the worst of all worlds. it look like a white house whitewash. according to a number of reports a few number of people who could be interviewed. the vast majority of people who have information pertinent have not been interviewed by leaps and bounds. and they're turning in the report early. including brett kavanaugh's college roommate from freshman year who said he was never interviewed by the fbi. not during the initial background investigation nor this one. it looks like the fix was in, which is exactly what the white house counsel wanted to do in trying to constrain this. he certainly wasn't interviewed about these matters in any significant way during the hearing which was limited to five minute increment questions. the idea they would not go back to dr. ford also is appalling. i'm not going to blame the fbi
itself. it's clearly been operating on this leash. >> jennifer, it's a little ridiculous for democrats to think that if brett kavanaugh were to withdraw or his name were to be withdrawn because of anything that's found in this report, that suddenly donald trump is either not going to nominate somebody for two years or is going to nominate a liberal to the bench. why then for conservatives for whom it is important to have another conservative on the supreme court, why does this become about it being brett kavanaugh? >> well, i think the president has just dug in as he usually is. he's made this into another one of the divisive issues, a gender war he's used to rev up his base for the mid-terms. had they pulled him weeks ago they might have gotten someone through. there's now a general concern that they won't.
one, the white house is playing chicken with these three senators. they asked for a real investigation. they're not getting it, and the white house is daring them to simply crumble. that may be a very good bet. these people may find the pressure too much to bear and may give way. but none of this is going to stay confined to the fbi. when and if the democrats win one or both houses they're going to call up christopher wray, they're going to ask about constraints put on the investigation, they're going to call up all of these witnesses who weren't talked to by the fbi and ask them. and after they've collected all of this information, don't you think they're going to pursue an impeachment proceeding against a sitting supreme court judge? that's why this is so shortsighted, so really cavalier in its disregard for the institution of the supreme court. this will not end. and instead the fbi will be embarrassed, the court will be embarrassed, judge kavanaugh
will be embarrassed. this will not end. the only way it ends, frankly, is if those three senators get the nerve to vote no. >> or -- or, julia, an investigation that passes the smell test of being thorough is conducted and everybody gets to be satisfied that the best investigation was done and comes to their own conclusion. because we're still in this world where people are dug in on either side. and by not interviewing these 40 people or 400 people or six more people, i don't know, i'm not an investigator. but by not investigating them as jennifer says it leaves the whole process open to investigation. it leaves the judiciary committee open to question, and it leaves the supreme court open to question and challenge. >> exactly. there will be a lot of people left out of in the open here without a lot of cover. but i want to go over what these senators are going to look at tonight or potentially tomorrow. it's probably past the bedtime of a lot of senators already. but when they see this tomorrow and on the schedule that we
understand, they're going to be looking at reports. these are summaries of interviews that they've done with these witnesses. the fbi does not come up with its own conclusion. so nowhere in there will they say we did not find any evidence that supported dr. judge's or ms. ramirez's allegations or, you know, let kavanaugh off the hook. in this case they won't be able to talk about the interviews they could not do. so really it's up to these senators to be watching this conversation, reading the newspapers, to understand who was left out of this conversation. because what's not in the report might not be in front of them tomorrow morning. and as far as the fbi being worried about this, i've spoken to a number of people who say that field offices across the country, the rank and file that make up the fbi are really worried that they are going to be put through another pr disaster. >> right, they're getting thrown under the bus here. because your reporting speaks to people who went to the fbi, wrote a letter to them, who said i'd like to tell you -- i think
for regular americans it's kind of puzzling that you can't get the fbi to listen to you when you have information. if i'm the fbi agent and you give me a report and it's no good, i throw it away. i say it was not of any use. but to actually not listen to some of these people, lisa, maybe the problem is we're all lying to ourselves about the robustness of this process. maybe bringing in rachel mitchell in, the prosecutor from arizona and making it feel like a court case was fooling everyone into thinking the senate judiciary committee was in a position to actually get to it bottom of this. >> i think you point that out very well. because this is upside down and backwards. what happened in the anita hill circumstance is the fbi did its investigation and then there was a hearing that included 20 witnesses. right now what's happened is there was a very truncated hearing that didn't include many witnesses, and there's no further opportunity to ask questions, no further hearing. all these people are being
excluded from the process and all their information bears on key facts about brett cav that behavior, whether he was belligerent when drunk, whether he had the capacity to attack a woman when drunk. and he's lied about that and many other things in his testimony. and the question of why they would want to put someone on the supreme court who has such disrespect for the rule of law in terms of his own cannedness in testifying before the senate is beyond me. the court is supposed to be held in the highest esteem, the highest respect. it's our most -- supposed to be our most neutral and trusted institution, and they're about to trash it by trying to put this guy on the court as quickly as possible with this sham investigation. >> jennifer ruben, the danger now we are seeing, by the way, that for a lot of republicans this is, it's working what the president's doing. it's becoming a cultural rallying cry on some levels with donald trump saying that he's scared for young men.
it's -- you know, who you believe should be on the court and what politics you believe they should have or what ideology you believe they should have is a conversation we've been having for more than 250 years in this country, and it's a relevant and valid conversation. but it's becoming something else. this has become a strange wedge issue. you believe kavanaugh if you want a conservative on the court, and you believe christine blasey ford if you don't. >> this is the tribalization of all of our politics as we've seen. that the goal determines your thinking process all the way through, and it corrupts our thinking, corrupts our debate so that everyone is simply trying to get to the place they wanted all along. and i think you have to go back to the basics, kavanaugh's own words about the judge's responsibility to be a neutral arbiter. you have to go back to the canons that the lower court judges all abide by, which is to ashoot politics, it to not be a
partisan, not have any hint of bias. i was speaking to senator blumenthal on the committee tonight, and he said two things are of great interest. one is that he really has trouble understanding how his colleague, his good friend jeff flake, can accept this as anything approaching a reasonable investigation. the other thing he said which i think is so important, he along with jerry nadler as you know are both leading the investigation and the lawsuit, one of the three lawsuits concerning the president's emoluments. senator blumenthal told me if that ever reaches the supreme court he would demand the recusal of then would be justice kavanaugh. he's already declared his allegiance to one party. and what about all those lawsuits that are brought by democratic attorneys general from the state? how could they appreciate, how could they plan on getting a fair shake?
what about the aclu, what about all the liberal interest groups that come before the court? they have already heard this judge pronounce himself as someone who feels really victimized by grand leftwing conspiracy. so i think he does himself and the court huge damage, and right now there are about three people who can stop this. >> one week ago tonight our eyes were on those three people, jeff flake, lisa murkowski, and susan collins. and one week later our eyes are on the same three people. thank you to all three of you. lisa graves, julia aimsly, and jennifer ruben. coming up tax experts have weighed in just how much the trump family could owe in penalties. and how all this is playing out with americans who could vote in the next few days. we have alarm bells which might trigger democrats.
because there are options. like an "unjection™". xeljanz xr. a once-daily pill for adults with moderate to severe ra for whom methotrexate did not work well enough. xeljanz xr can reduce pain, swelling and further joint damage, even without methotrexate. xeljanz xr can lower your ability to fight infections, including tuberculosis. serious, sometimes fatal infections, lymphoma and other cancers have happened. don't start xeljanz xr if you have an infection. tears in the stomach or intestines, low blood cell counts and higher liver tests and cholesterol levels have happened. your doctor should perform blood tests before you start and while taking xeljanz xr, and monitor certain liver tests. tell you doctor if you were in a region where fungal infections are common and if you have had tb, hepatitis b or c, or are prone to infections. needles. fine for some things. but for you, one pill a day may provide symptom relief. ask your doctor about xeljanz xr. an "unjection™". ask your doctor about xeljanz xr. if these packs have the same number of bladder leak pads, i bet you think bigger is better.
actually, it's bulkier. always discreet quickly turns liquid to gel, for drier protection that's a lot less bulky. always discreet. they won't hike your ratest foover one mistake. see, liberty mutual doesn't hold grudges. for drivers with accident forgiveness liberty mutual won't raise their rates because of their first accident. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty ♪
so a totally false attack based on an old recycled news story. i'm not going to sit and go through every single line of a boring 14,000 line story. it showed the president's father actually had a great deal of confidence in him. >> that's the strengthen of the argument, it's boring and old. i'm boring and old but it's still real. debunks the myth of donald trump as a self-made billionaire, detailing how donald trump was
given hundreds of millions of dollars by his father. not a million dollars as he often says, hundreds of millions of dollars who repeatedly bailed him out when he was at risk of defaulting on his debts. >> i borrowed very little money from my father. my father gave me a small loan of $1 million. i built a company that's worth more than $10 billion, okay? with a million dollar loan. >> okay, according to "the times," as for that $1 million loan, fred trump actually lent him at least $60.7 million or $140 million in today's dollars. the president attacked "the times" this morning tweeting they used the concept of time value of money in doing a very old, boring and often told hit piece on me. all right, based on more than 100,000 financial documents, "the times" also reveals how donald trump and his siblings engaged in potential illegal tax schemes including filing improper tax deductions, undervaluing real estate
companies and setting up a sham corporation to help their parents damage taxes. the president's parents, transferred over $1 billion in wealth to their children which could have produced a tax bill of at least $550 million under the 65% tax rate that was then imposed on gifts and inheritances. the trumps paid a total of $52.2 million or about 5% as tax records show. president trump and his siblings could owe new york state about $400 million in unpaid taxes, interest and penalties. mayor bill de blasio vowed to recoop any money that the trump's may owe, period. orrin hatch told reporters the president might have to do just that. all right, joining us now is tim
o'brien. i thought we were going to listen to orrin hatch, but we're going to listen to you guys. his investigations into donald trump's financials were cited in "the new york times" report. and josh barro, both are msnbc contributors. these are big stories that digs into a few interesting issues, one of which, tim, there are all sorts of different things floating around about how rich donald trump is or how successful he is. given what the truth is if he inherited anywhere close to this kind of money or took transfers from his parents to this sort of money, he should be a lot wealthier where he is right now. >> garbage. he relied on his father to get started in the business, and he routinely relied on his father to piggy bank the problems when
he wasn't doing as well. to stave off personal bankruptcy, which was accurate, he told me i gave you my word, i never borrowed money for estate. i printed that in my book, we went to court, he sued me for liable. he had to acknowledge that in fact he had borrowed $30 million from his father. "the times" has made that exponentially larger. they say it's $60 million. the notion donald trump has been borrowing money from his father during the period his father was alive is not new. to the extent trump, his siblings and his parents orchestrated a bunch of tax maneuvers to lower inherititances and gift taxes is new. >> josh, let's talk about this. something i saw from you earlier today mentioned something we all know. lots of rich people do this.
lots of people handing over property in their business do this sort of thing. so what we have to try to determine is what's bad practice that tax authorities just don't follow up on, what's fuzzy in this and what might be absolutely illegal? >> first of all, some of the things that are illegal are some of the things commonly done by wealthy people. i sort of do the tax evasion schemes described in "the times" falling into two buckets. there's some of the tax stuff common among wealthy people. that are difficult to value. you do these things where you get appraisals that say they're worth less than they're really worth, and because the value is a matter of opinion, because it's difficult to demonstrate an appraisal is wrong -- >> and because the tax department is underresourced. >> right. and the trump family are certainly not the only family that do this. and there are other things that
sound quite unusual and brazen. particularly this borrowing thing to basically process invoices for the buildings they own to inflate -- i'm sorry, all counting. to inflate expenses of businesses they own and then pass that money through to the trump children as though it were just reimbursements for expenses when really that is a transfer of wealth to the children. >> which would have been taxed at a rate of 55%. >> right, that strikes me as quite unusual and quite a bit more brazen than getting an aggressive and favorable appraisal. i think you can say lots of rich people do stuff like this, and yet the trumps did more of it in a more aggressive and brazen way. >> and there was a history of doing this. this wasn't in "the times" article, but fred trump built his empire on government subsidized housing. he got called in front of a federal committee in the 1950s and a state committee in the 1960s because he had setup little shell companies that were
overcharging the government for supplies and for mortgages, and he was pocketing the differences. this is exactly what they did with all county. he got pushed out of his programs and essentially ended his life as a public builder in the late 1960s. so the family had this long history of actually scamming payments, taxes, et cetera, et cetera in their own interests by setting up little shell companies that they proved things through in an overvalued way. >> you were describing how families with properties sometimes do this because evaluating the value of a property is sometimes difficult. if your property is worth $500 million and your evaluation comes in between 450 and 550, that's the thing you're talking about. so maybe the government let's you go at 450. we're talking about shaving off 80, 85, 90% value of these properties. no reasonable person would have valued these properties the way the trumps managed to do. >> and these are things that
come up when people have mortgages. the scale of the differences and even some that were appraised -- there was one example in "the times" story, one that was contested by a tax authority and they got a tiny adjustment to it that was drastically below fair market value was, i think to what the building sold not that long ago -- >> which is the best proof how everything else in the neighborhood sold. >> to your point it's remarkably aggressive. it's not necessarily in the window of whose to say it worth $2.5 or $3 million. >> i think they're going to face severe civil penalties. they're not going to face criminal penalties. i think it's going to be this popping of this balloon he's a self-made person. >> there's one other thing, i wouldn't assume these practices
are over. an element am to michael cohen case something the state has looked at is falsification of business records. and whether they were improperly paying some of these things out of the trump organization. >> you know the new york city and new york state tax and finance people are on the case tonight trying to get to the bottom of this. thanks to both of you. coming up "the new york times" expose at the trump family taxes is not just a problem for the prez. another trump on the family payroll was mentioned several time in the article by name. that's next. (whispers) with the capital one venture card... that's next. urchase, that's next. "airline purchase. think about all the double miles you could be earning... (loud) holy moley that's a lot of miles!!!
it's softer than ever. charmin ultra soft is softer than ever so it's harder to resist. okay, this is getting a little weird enjoy the go with charmin kayak compares hundreds of travel and airline sites so you can be confident you're getting the right flight at the best price. cheers! kayak. search one and done. ♪ the kenya tea development agency is an organization that is owned by tea farmers. every week we sell this tea, we get paid in multiple accounts. we were looking for a bank to provide
a safe and efficient technology platform to pay our farmers. citi was the only one that was able to ensure that this was done seamlessly. and today, at the touch of a button, all the farmers are able to get their money, pay school fees and improve their standard of living. with citi, we see a bright future for our farmers and their families. ♪
let's keep in mind donald's sister maryanne trump barry is a sitting judge on the third circuit court of appeals. she's a senior judge. i tweeted today that i think she should immediately remove herself from the bench. we should not have a tax cheat in the white house are on the federal bench. >> "the new york times" detailed report of possible tax fraud by the trump family is raising questions about the role of judge mary anne trump barry, donald trump's sister in the scheme. legal expert reported today, quote, if barry was knowingly participating she could be impeached. "the times" report mentions maryanne trump barry by name-touch it says she was present at a 2003 meeting at trump tower for one of their periodic updates on their inherited empire. it attributes potentially fraudulent behavior of the trump siblings saying donald trump and his siblings setup a sham corporation to disguise millions of dollars in gifts from their
parents. she's an inactive senior federal judge, so she no longer hears cases, but she could return to being an active judge. and if the story is accurate, she might have violated tax law on the federal bench. senator murkily, good to see you. it's not a major surprise to a lot of people that donald trump not only exaggerates his wealth but also his money making prowess. most americans don't get a million dollar loan from their parents let alone illegal transfers of what amount to millions of dollars weather of assets. but the president still hasn't release said his tax returns because they are apparently under audit and his sister is a federal judge. is this the kind of behavior democrats might want to investigate if you get control of congress? >> well, i can tell you that this type of criminal activity certainly tax fraud should be investigated. whenever significant evidence
comes forward for anyone. i think there's a lot of issues that the democratic house would be holding hearings on for sure. >> senator, you and i have been talking about this for more than a week, about your particular concerns about brett kavanaugh. you filed a motion in federal court today in d.c. asking for an order requiring the disclosure of details around the 100,000 withheld records of brett kavanaugh's time in the white house. this is separate in part. you started this before these allegations about christine blasey ford came out there. your concern as a senator is that you still don't have enough information about brett kavanaugh. how do you -- where do you stand on this now? >> where we stand now is that the judge in the case has ordered the white house to respond to the demand for the records. our request was for the courts to compel the white house to deliver 100,000 pages that have been marked presidential privilege with no justification,
no explanation, no index of what standards have been met that would provide a constitutional screen for this or test for this. this is a case of the president intervening in the ability of the senate to review the record of his nominee. we have never seen this type of action before. it's a gross violation of separation of powers, and none of us in the senate can do our job if we haven't seen those records. >> let me put aside the allegations of sexual assault. if you were concerned you wanted to see these 100,000 documents, some of which pertain to brett kavanaugh's time in the white house, to understand his ideology or anything he was involved in of a partisan nature, does brett kavanaugh's testimony -- again, putting aside his sexual assault allegations, his discussion of temperament issues give you pause? >> it does if it's a pattern. he was brought in to be kind of an attack dog against president clinton. that shows a very partisan presidential role that's
unsuitable for a judge. plus when he was confirmed in 2006 for his current position, there are a number of things that he's said that have turned out not to be accurate. he has claimed he wasn't involved over certain discussions over certain nominees, and yet he was. he claimed he didn't know about the stolen democratic records from the senate, and it turned out he received them. and so when you see that kind of misrepresentation then, and then you combine with all of the whoppers he told in his testimony last week, you have a real picture of someone who basically is not honest and is extremely partisan. and used the words what goes around, comes around. so he is promising retaliation. every bit of this makes him unsuited to serve in that beautiful supreme court building. >> you -- i'm trying to do the math on when someone like you who's not on the judiciary committee is going to see the report that starts with chuck
grassly at 8:00, diane feinstein at 10:00 and democrats at 11:00 and i guess after that senators like you get to see it. what are you looking for in the fbi report? >> here's what's absurd. we've been told there's only going to be one copy. and so essentially 100 senators would have to line up sequentially. this is yet another gross unfairness of access. >> why does it make any sense? >> it doesn't make any sense at all. because if you have 100 senators who should go and read this material. and quite frankly none of us expect to see much of value. the president said he wanted a very thorough, very comprehensive review. that's what he said to the public. but behind the scenes he apparently put huge limitations on it that many, many dozens of individuals who had information that they wanted to share with the fbi have not been contacted to share that information even though they had contacted the fbi.
so we're looking at what looks like a significant cover-up in lou of having an actual thorough comprehensive fbi investigation. >> senator murkily, perhaps we will talk tomorrow. thank you for joining us. coming up we're just 34 days away from mid-term election day. what affect is the kavanaugh confirmation day having an voters, especially women voters? that's next. when you have pain,
to put on our website? i mean i would have but i'm a commercial vehicle so i don't have hands... or a camera...or a website. should we franchise? is the market ready for that? can we franchise? how do you do that? meg! oh meg! we should do that thing where you put the business cards in the fishbowl and somebody wins something. -meg: hi. i'm here for... i'm here for the evans' wedding.
-we've got the cake in the back, so, yeah. -meg: thank you. -progressive knows small business makes big demands. -you're not gonna make it, you're not gonna make it! ask her if we can do her next wedding too! -so we'll design the insurance solution that fits your business. -on second thought, don't...ask that. that fits your business. my mom washes the dishes... ...before she puts them in the dishwasher. so what does the dishwasher do? cascade platinum does the work for you, prewashing and removing stuck-on foods, the first time. wow, that's clean! cascade platinum.
we are 34 days away from the mid-term elections. the nominations of judge brett kavanaugh will have an impact on voters on election day. despite dr. christine blasey ford's allegations, president trump thinks it will help. >> i actually think it's like a >> i actually think it's like a rallying cry for the republicans. they are so in favor of judge kavanaugh. >> all right, we've got new polling that shows the impact kavanaugh's confirmation battle may have on the mid-term elections. according to a marist poll, 31% supporting, 40% opposing. marist polling shows a 2 point
gap, down from 10 points in july. and democrats have a 6 point advantage over republicans down from 12% in september. according to a new fox news poll, republicans are now just as likely as democrats to say they're extremely interested in the mid-terms in five key battle ground states. when we come back we'll take a look at how women, especially the 52% of white women who voted for trump are saying how they'll vote this time. we'll discuss that next. i never thought i'd say this but i found bladder leak underwear that's actually pretty. always discreet boutique.
that's president trump just tweeting that a few moments ago. the president must have seen your tweet that we were about to talk about this and decided to jump the gun on it. but has he got a point when he says that something -- something has set a fire under republicans who until now were not as enthusiastic about the mid-terms
as democrats were? >> republicans have to be awake right now because it's not winter is coming. it really is november is coming for them. and i think what they have done is they have underestimated women. they do not realize what they have unleashed, especially with brett kavanaugh and how they behaved around him the last ten days or two weeks or so, which is standing up for the men, the man, and attacking the woman. everything that i have seen just looking at what's going on across the country, you have democrats who have posted record numbers of fund-raising. you have democrats who are on the offense while republicans are on the defense. and time after time you're seeing situations that we shouldn't be in. for example, the senate just a few months ago early this year we were saying oh, yeah, you know what? the democrats are not going to be able, the political climate is too toxic, there's no way that we're going to have a chance. in the terrain of the senate.
and here we're talking about texas, tennessee, arizona. so there is something happening that republicans started and i don't think they're aware of what's about to happen in november. >> jennifer, let's just talk about how this has all gone down in terms of this cultural divide. right? we've got an issue in this country in which women, whatever you want to divide it, however you want to subtabulate it, whether it's republican women or all women. women tend to believe christine blasey ford more than they believe brett kavanaugh. men are believing generally speaking brett kavanaugh more than they're believing christine blasey ford. and then you've got the situation of republican women who broke for donald trump last time around. how does this play out for republicans in the long term? >> i think this is really a short-sighted strategy. donald trump has just about the full amount of white college
educated men he's going to get. he got them last -- in the 2016 election. they've been with him ever since. the problem he is now facing, you alluded to it, is that he is losing women. he's losing white women, who he won by, as he keeps improperly quoting, 52%. not all women but white women. he is losing college-educated whites. these are the groups that are fleeing the republican party. we saw it in 2017 in some special elections and in the state elections in my home state. and that's continuing on. so by doing this i think he is doubling down on his very narrow base. he can only get so many votes out of those people. what he's doing is breaking loose a whole chunk of other voters who are much more likely to leave the republican party. there's also the intensity problem. you look in the latest quinnipiac poll. 55% of women strongly disapprove of him. that's compared to 36% of men who strongly approve.
that's an intensity gap that i don't think the republicans are going to be able to make up. now, will it make a difference in some races? perhaps. on the other hand, you look at the house races, political report just moved another seven seats in the direction of democrats. so the house is practically gone at this point. we've just had mayor michael bloomberg, former mayor of new york, drop $20 million in the senate republican races. there's a reason for that. he doesn't throw away his money. and that is that those races are all nip and tuck and could win -- you know, they could go either way frankly about six or seven of them. >> and karine, you and i have talked about this on this show before. the record number of women who are running for congressional seats this time around. this has got to be a sort of -- so many of those women are running for some of these very particular reasons. because of the "me too" movement, because of some of the realizations that this country has come to face in the last few
years. this has got to be wind in their sails. >> exactly. it's because of this president. it will be a rebuke on this president, when we see the results of november. i mean, you have the rob porter. you have roy moore. i mean, it goes on and on and on with this president. and women are finally stepping up and saying, we're not playing by these rules anymore, we're not standing for this. like jennifer said, he's losing women by double digits. he's losing independents by double digits. i do believe that women and young people are going to be the defining factor of this race in november. and also just to add, nrcc, who is kind of the republican house side of the committee, have pulled out in key districts. they're pulling money out. i mean, they don't do that unless they know that this is not looking good for them in november. >> all right. and of course the new rallying cry from the president, from donald trump jr., is that it is a very scary time for young men
in america. we're going to have to see how well that ends up working out. but you know what? i think, jennifer, there are young men in america who are thinking that. who are thinking that this is a zero sum game, if they win we lose. we're out of time to discuss it but we will continue this discussion again. thank you to both of you. karine jean-pierre and jennifer rubin. tonight's last word is next. my name is elaine barber, and i'm a five-year cancer survivor. being diagnosed with cancer made me rethink everything in my life. the things that became important to me were the relationships with people. we pulled together closer as a family. i had so many people at ctca helping me find a way to go through the treatments, to prepare me for anything i would've faced.
cancer showed me what true living is all about. so i started helping at a school for special needs children. i think they do more for me than i do for them. the reality of cancer is not everybody survives. surviving for five years is a big deal. at ctca, they have a huge celebrate life event. that was amazing because the whole day was about all of the survivors. i'm not exactly sure what's ahead of me, but i'm excited about my future. visit cancercenter.com to schedule an appointment now. with new, more secure numbers. but con artists, they never change. they'll always try to steal your medical identity. so, what can you do?
guard your card, just like a credit card. don't give your medicare number over the phone or email. and remember, medicare never calls unless you've asked them to. to find more ways to guard your card, go to medicare.gov/fraud. don't let your guard down. ♪ i'm not picking it up. you pick it up! i'm not picking it up. i'll pick it up! they're clean! ♪'cuz my hiney's clean.♪ ♪oh yeah i'm charmin clean.♪ charmin ultra strong just cleans better. enjoy the go with charmin. our mission is to provide complete, balanced nutrition... for strength and energy! whoo-hoo! great-tasting ensure. with nine grams of protein and twenty-six vitamins and minerals. ensure. now up to 30 grams of protein for strength and energy! opportunlike here.rywhere. and here. see? opportunity. hi! cinturones por favor. gracias. ev-er-y-where.
time for tonight's last word. with 34 days to go until the midterms, america remains deeply divided over president donald trump, and now whether brett kavanaugh should be the next supreme court justice. but it turns out there is one issue virtually every politician in washington agrees on, and that's opioids. today the senate passed a sweeping opioid bill. 98-1. with only senator mike lee of utah voting no. that's after the house passed it
393-8 last week. 72,000 people in the united states died of drug overdoses last year. that's tonight's last word. i'm ali velshi. "the 11th hour" with brian williams starts now.tonight's l. i'm ali velshi. the 11th hour with brian williams starts now. >> senate majority leader mitch mcconnell announces from the floor of the senate the fbi investigation is over. the senate will get to see it in the morning and they will vote on brett kavanaugh by the weekend. tonight the latest on kavanaugh, on what his former college roommate had to say tonight, the letter from 650 law professors who say don't put this man on the court and the president's role in all of it including the damage his words might have caused last night. from warrior to u.s. senator to presidential candidate to secretary of state john kerry is our guest tonight. the 11th hour on a wednesday night begins now.