tv All In With Chris Hayes MSNBC September 20, 2018 12:00am-1:00am PDT
>> very hard for me to imagine that anything happened. >> tonight, the stone walling continues. >> well, it would seem that the fbi really doesn't do that. >> at the calls to slow down grow. >> my advice is to push the pause button on this hearing. >> plus, my interview with the high school friend defending dr. blasey ford. >> when you have someone's hand over your mouth and you think that you might die by accident, you know who you're dealing with. >> as the attacks on kavanaugh's accuser continue. >> whoever she is is mixed up. >> just how credible is the supreme court nominee? >> are you certain you've not had a conversation with anyone at that law firm? "all in" starts right now.
good evening from new york. i'm chris hayes. tonight, dr. christine blasey ford, the woman accusing judge brett kavanaugh of sexual assault has issued a new statement as the 11 republican men of the senate judiciary committee issued her an ultimate im. testify before the committee or its staff by monday or we will move forward with our plan to place the man that you say sexually assaulted you on the supreme court for life. they're not even giving dr. blasey ford until monday. in a letter today the top republican of the committee chuck grassley said her prepared testimony and biography are due by friday, september 21st, just two days from now if she intends to testify on monday. last night through her lawyer dr. blasey ford requested that the fbi investigate her allegation before she told her story to the committee. tonight, she is refusing to back down. in a new statement her lawyer reiterated the call for a full investigation and said that at the very least multiple witnesses should be included in any proceeding.
attorney lisa banks adding the committee is not conducting a fair or good faith investigation, and that the rush to a hearing is unnecessary and contrary to the committee discovering the truth. in their rush to confirm kavanaugh, who categorically denies the allegation, senate republicans are ruling out either an outside investigation or testimony from anyone besides kavanaugh and his accuser. and they are suggesting dr. blasey ford's requests aren't fair. >> i think it's not fair to judge kavanaugh for her not to come forward and testify. both of them need to testify under oath next monday before the judiciary committee. >> now, at the moment dr. blasey ford is not refusing to testify. her lawyer says she is willing to do so, despite the death threats she says have already come her way. but she seems reluctant to play by the rules of the 11 republican men on the judiciary committee who are refusing to seek testimony from kavanaugh's
high school friend mark judge who dr. blasey ford says was an eyewitness to the assault, which she says took place when all three were in high school. judge says he has no memory of the incident. anita hill, who faced skepticism and outright hostility in many cases from republicans when she accused clarence thomas of sexual misconduct in 1991, suggests today that she's now seeing a similar script play out 27 years later. >> moving forward on this, at this pace, with this kind of sort of black hole of a process, being foreseen by many of us, we are really under the impression that the senate doesn't take this seriously and doesn't see this as part of the core responsibility. >> senate democrats are making a similar case. >> it's unreasonable for the committee to force her hand without doing the appropriate investigation. in my opinion. >> i'm just absolutely stunned
at why we are so -- why the republicans and the president is opposed to letting the fbi do what the fbi has done for decades. and that is background checks on nominees. >> for his part the president again claimed today the fbi simply doesn't do that. >> well, it would seem that the fbi really doesn't do that. they've investigated -- they've investigated about six times before and it seems that they don't do that. >> that isn't true. in fact, as senator ed markey notes they directed the fbi to conduct a full, thorough and expeditious investigation. the investigation was completed in three days. ken dilanian and zoe tillman. ken, let me start with you, what
is your -- what's the answer to the question, can the fbi do this? and does the fbi do this? >> yes on both counts, chris, absolutely. to be clear, there's no federal criminal allegation here. this alleged incident happened in the state of maryland. it would not be a federal crime. so it wouldn't be a criminal investigation. it would be part of the fbi's role in backgrounding federal nominees, particularly supreme court nominees. they've already done that with judge kavanaugh and they've also reported on this allegation. that was their mandate was to gather the information about this allegation and transmit it to the white house. what they cannot do, unless the white house asks them to do it is investigate further, seek to corroborate, and view witnesses. they are fully -- i've talked to people in the fbi and former officials, fully prepared to do that, fully capable at doing that, expert, in fact, of doing that, people who do nothing but interview survivors of sex crimes. people who know how to get to the truth.
interview witnesses outside the glare of the national media spotlight. none of that can happen unless donald trump lets it happen. it's clear he's not going to let it happen, chris. >> you've done some reporting about the timeline here, which has become a key cog wheel by the president and himself saying why did everyone wait so long? what have you found about how and why this timeline developed in the way it did? >> what we know is that at some point this summer senator dianne feinstein received a letter about dr. blasey ford's allegations. the letter was dated july 30th, but i'm not sure we've been clear on when exactly senator feinstein got it. but what we do know from the senator's office is that dr. ford had requested confidentiality. she asked that her identity, that the allegations she was raising remain secret.
so what we've heard from senator feinstein's office is that they were respecting that. that's why they didn't share it when they got it. that's why they didn't bring it to anyone's attention. it's really not until last week when sort of rumors were circulating that this letter existed, ask that democrats on the committee knew that senator feinstein had it. there was some tension about wanting access to it. no one really knew what it said. and, you know, it was really a week ago that all of this started when the intercept published a story saying a letter exists and there's something going on. and from there it all kind of broke open. and it's hard to imagine, but it really was just three days ago that we got, you know, the full story of who dr. ford was, and what her allegations were. this has all happened extraordinarily quickly. but i think there's been some rhetoric accusing democrats of sitting on this for weeks. and that's not born out by at least what we've gotten, what we've reported from senator feinstein's office. >> and now there's this question of the timeline going forward.
and i think that the republican case is that the calls for an fbi investigation are a bad faith effort to stall. but i thought it was interesting, ken, that in the case of anita hill and clarence thomas, that was a fairly quick operation. >> of course. look, you know r it's a 30 plus-year-old allegation. so there may be some questions the fbi can't answer. one question they can answer is, was anyone else told about this at the time? we have a piece today about a social media post by a woman named christina king miranda who claims -- who was a schoolmate at holton arms prep school with blasey ford and who claims she learned about this at the time, that people were talking about it at school. that may or may not be true. it's somebody the fbi may want to interview, she happens to be in mexico city. you'd want to interview all the holton arms classmates, and brett kavanaugh's classmates and determine whether this party happened and there are absolutely things the fbi could seek to corroborate in this case that would add to this hearing
that may or may not transpire. >> zoe, do you have a sent of a unified strategy on the republican side? the republicans seem to have aligned on a strategy going forward? do you have a sense of what it is? >> a week ago the story was that there was tension among democrats on the judiciary committee about access to that letter. you know, i think that tension, if it's still there, is no longer on the surface, at least, and democrats have gotten behind the idea that there should be some further investigation, whether it's, you know, the fbi conducting further interviews, whether it's some other fact-finding investigation as anita hill has put forward, a suggestion for a neutral fact finder. democrats have really united behind this idea that the hearing shouldn't happen as quickly as it's scheduled to happen and that dr. ford's wishes should be respected. whether it's to push it out or to have some kind of an investigation before she goes before the senate judiciary committee. >> all right, ken and zoe, thank you.
what do you make of today's developments? >> i mean, basically, i think that the republicans have sort of played this well, right, by going out in front of -- they took the statement from her lawyer that she's willing to testify. announced this hearing. make it seem as if the hearing has been agreed to by all parties so that then when the hearing seems like -- they can go say and now she doesn't want to do it when she never heard it about it in the first place. they've trapped her, kind of sandbagged her. and now they've put the democrats in a difficult position because when she doesn't show up, it's going to seem as if she, you know, is somehow afraid to face this sort of scrutiny. when what she's really saying is i want to be interviewed by the fbi and lying to the fbi is a crime. >> she's saying she wants the other person who i named as being there to testify under oath.
that should not be lost in all this. >> it's something that's driving me crazy. why won't she testify? what is she afraid of. mark judge has said he does not want to testify under oath. she says she wants to show up before a panel. she just wants it to be done in sort of regular order. it's mark judge is the one who's saying i do not want to testify publicly about what i've said -- about what i've said in this case. >> yeah. >> and i think ken, your guest earlier said something earlier today in his conversations with fbi agents in law enforcement, they said typically someone who's making something up doesn't really want the fbi to come in and conduct an investigation. >> right. and this is what she's affirmatively -- what do you make of this process argument that's happening? >> look, our task when we were vetting people for nominations in the white house was to make sure that someone we were putting forward, we felt, had the character and fitness to serve and hold the public trust of the united states. and also, that the american people had the confidence that they could serve.
i think one thing that's being missed here is right now there's 31% of the public that supports the confirmation of brett kavanaugh. and about 37% that oppose it. both the executive and the senate haven't done the job yet of proving to the american people that this person should be given a lifetime appointment to the supreme court. let's not put the burden on either dr. ford or on judge kavanaugh. the burden is on the senate and the president to prove to the american people. >> let me ask you this. my recollection of people who have gone through there process is right now we're having this discussion of how outrageous it is that somebody would have to be held accountable for something they did at 17. i think that isn't it true that people are regularly, when they're being vetted for these kind of positions, they regularly provide information about people they knew all the way back to high school and college and kind of the fbi goes and talks to people from way, way deep in your past? i mean, i believe that's happened to people i know who've been vetted for some of these positions. >> yeah. it depends on the role. the typical background investigation does not go back an entire lifetime.
but if someone were to raise something in an investigation that came up, this is the important point about process. even if we had completed an initial process and put forward a name, if something came up after that that caused us to think we should go back and sort of do our diligence in order to do what i said before which is confirm for us and the american people that someone is fit to hold the public trust there's no reason not to do that. the only reason you're not to do that is some sort of not natural rush to push this through. >> this is the lindsey graham tree, the two simultaneous ideas have been put out. we want to hear from her, and we can't slow down. it is imperative the judiciary committee move forward, and the committee vote be taken asap. there's this grassley committee people being like tell me your story, i've got ten minutes before i catch a train. >> it's not imperative. only imperative because they're trying to create the illusion to be imperative, or before something else comes out. they all want to vote for him,
confirm him, jam this through and that they at least have the illusion of taking her charges seriously without actually having to dig into them. >> let's take a step back about why that is. this process is fundamentally broken. we're the only advanced democracy in the world that puts people in the supreme court for lifetime appointments. when the founders wrote the constitution, the average life span was 36 years old. today we could have people serve until they're 102. our organization has called for a move to 18 years supreme court terms with david lee, left and right agree on it. we've got to fix the stakes to fix the process. >> there's also the fact that we're having process arguments that are proxy for substantive arguments. we're having process arguments about whether the fbi in investigated whether she should testify, stand-ins for arguments about who people believe, which themselves stand for broader commitments have for the world
view they share. >> it's interesting, though, that republicans and kind of defenders of judge kavanaugh don't actually want to have that argument about are these issues -- are these accusations credible? they either want to have this process argument, or an argument about whether things that you do in high school are relevant to your reputation in midlife. because they really don't want her sitting there before the judiciary committee telling her story to the american people. >> the grand irony here, they do not want her to show up on monday and they sort of have created conditions in which it doesn't seem likely to happen. i should note, the full letter that grassley wrote he did offer a private hearing for for staffers to fly out to her. i want to make clear that is on the record, in the offing, it has not just come out monday or else. we will see how this continues to develop. ian bassen and michelle goldberg, thank you to you both. a high school friend of dr. christine blasey ford on what she's going through as the entire nation waits to see what happens next. new evidence that republicans are willing to do whatever it takes to solidify a
this is moving day with the best in-home wifi experience and millions of wifi hotspots to help you stay connected. and this is moving day with reliable service appointments in a two-hour window so you're up and running in no time. show me decorating shows. this is staying connected with xfinity to make moving... simple. easy. awesome. stay connected while you move with the best wifi experience and two-hour appointment windows. click, call or visit a store today.
when it comes to getting brett kavanaugh, senate republicans have a clear course of action, despite a serious allegation of sexual assault against trump's supreme court nominee republicans are planning to have a hearing on monday, come hell and high water, and then move forward with a committee vote to confirm kavanaugh as soon as possible in the words of lindsey graham. there's a chance, however slim, republicans lose the senate in november, and that would hurt their chances of confirming a conservative justice to the supreme court. as we mentioned earlier, senator lindsey graham gave up the game this morning, tweeting it is imperative the judiciary committee moves forward on the kavanaugh nomination and the committee vote be taken asap. i am joined by christina greer, an association profrt. mickey, i will start with you. this is what it's all about, the kind of eye rolling at donald trump behind his back by the
conservative establishment, the deal with the devil and the anonymous op-eds and all that, this is what they get in exchange and they're not going to let it slip through their fingers. >> i think that's true. i think they've been willing to swallow all kinds of terrible things trump has done because they have their agenda, whether it was taxes or now the supreme court appointments. but there's a couple of issues here, chris, that number one is you've got to let the fbi look at this because otherwise you get he said/she said. the democrats are going to believe what she said. the republicans are going to believe what he said. and we're not going to get any ability to find out what really happened. you know, it's just plain common sense, due process to get the information first instead of two people just arguing about what happened. the second thing is, i really think that we should listen to mitch mcconnell. there is an election happening. he has made it very clear in the
past that when an election is pending, we should not confirm anybody to the supreme court. we should wait until after the election. we have an election in less than two months. i think we should wait until after that's over, just exactly as mitch mcconnell said we should. >> that, of course, is the absolute nightmare for republicans and conservatives. >> indeed. >> absolutely. >> for whom this has been a priority. this is just a little bit of -- you know, the republicans have confirmed one supreme court justice already. at this point in his presidency, trump has nominated more appeals court judges than obama and george w. bush combined. if you talk about trump, judges, judges is what they say. >> remember, that was one of the issues that obama kept putting up qualified individuals and the republicans kept shooting down. so there was this stalemate he had for six years of his presidency. and so many of the republicans, we keep scratching our heads asking us why, why are they dealing with this man who doesn't read the constitution, is pushing our institutions to the brink, really.
>> he called the fbi a cancer today. >> yeah. but this is the key though. he's giving them what they want, this $1.50 in tax breaks we're supposed to get in a few months, and lower level judges. but the president right now, i think the most dangerous thing he's done, besides pushing our institutions to the limit, besides ignoring separation of powers is calling into doubt two things. one, the media which in many ways is the fourth arm of the government. or of the institutional structure. and the other thing is when he talks about the fbi, which he's been talking about since day one, because of his own issues, he's made them the villain since day one. so now that we actually need them to come in and intervene in a very important situation that holds, i think, patriarchy in question, our full institutional norms, the history of this nation and why it is that we have the supreme court and why we would think about putting yet another man accused of sexual improprieties on the bench by a
president who's been accused by over 20 women of his own sexual improprieties. when he says the fbi can't be trusted, well, that also is just more fuel for the republicans to say, yes, we agree and we can't trust, you know, the media to report on this either. so all of these things are called into question and it only helps the president. >> institutional assault, somewhat similar to trump in the way he waged the fbi stuff, come to the broader movement. there's also the fact, mickey, what i have seen in conservative writers and folks on twitter, and in all sorts of places is support for kavanaugh unifies the broad center-right coalition, the establishment of republicans. here's george w. bush who very obviously does not like the president of the united states saying laura and i have known and respected brett kavanaugh for decades. fine husband, father and friend, man of highest integrity, he will make a superb justice of the supreme court of the united states. this guy is a made man in the conservative and republican establishment. >> right. you know, he came out on the
federalist society. they did a really good, thorough job looking for who was going to support the agenda that we want in place, including when you have this president that the president is above the law, which is a strange thing that kavanaugh seems to believe. no, i think what's happened here is republicans have said these are the things that matter to us. and you go right down the line. repealing roe v. wade, getting our tax cuts, doing all kinds of things that they've been waiting for for years, waiting for obama to leave and to get a chance to do these things. they're willing to pay any price at all, including giving up their own moral standards in order to make it happen. >> including what's striking to me the political price here. there is a -- >> oh, yeah. >> here's the polling. this polling is pretty crazy. the latest poll that kavanaugh's under water 36% opposed, 31% support, don't know 33%. that's not usually where supreme court justices are, they're fairly popular. they're introduced as --
>> all the sudden we care. >> in the case of the aca and the case of tax cuts and now on kavanaugh, three of the biggest things this republican congress has tried to do, all three they were fighting against public opinion. >> that's true. and now they're fighting against the clock because whether it's going to be a blue wave, a blue tsunami, a blue river, who knows, but some of them will be unemployed after november 6th. they are fearful of the possibility of a democratic house because that also brings in the question of possible impeachment, which will slow everything down, especially their agenda. and we know americans tend to like divided government and we tend to have shifts during first midterm election of a president's first full term. >> although i will note this, they could beacon firm whoever they want in the lame duck session. honestly. if you thought that kavanaugh was deadweight, it's not like he's the most -- people say he's bright and he's got -- you know, there's like a list of 15 of them floating around that's on the internet.
>> it's true. but we also know this president likes to double down. he's already said -- >> absolutely. >> he's a good guy and i don't know why she would say that. he also doesn't want to give the appearance that he's been bullied into making a change, a big decision, ego. >> you can see it from conservatives, if we let them get this one, we are showing weakness. mickey edwards, and christina greer, thank you both for making time. a woman coming forward to allege she is the survivor of a sexual assault turned into a national political fight. i'll talk to someone who's known dr. blasey ford for 40 years about what she's going through next. this is judy. judy is 63 years old. her mortgage payment is $728 a month. that's almost 9 thousand dollars a year. now judy doesn't think that she'll be able to retire until her mortgage is fully paid off. this is mike. mike is also 63 years old. his mortgage payment was $728 a month.
mike thought he would have to work for another 12 years until his mortgage was paid off... and then mike heard about a reverse mortgage and how that might help him. he called one reverse mortgage to get the details. mike retired immediately after getting his one reverse mortgage loan. maybe you too can benefit from a reverse mortgage. call one reverse mortgage now and find out if you qualify. they'll send you an information kit that includes all the details and the stories of mike and others. a reverse mortgage... is a mortgage with no required monthly payments. it was created for homeowners 62 or older so they can continue to afford and own the home they love. many one reverse mortgage clients find they can retire sooner, do more the things they love, or simply put more money in the bank. a reverse mortgage could change your retirement, and your life.
i examined my finances and i said, there is no reason why i shouldn't retire today. 10, 12 years earlier than i had anticipated. in the first year, mike's cash flow savings totaled $8,736. after 5 years, it will be over $40,000. it really is worth a call to find out if a reverse mortgage can help you too. call one reverse mortgage now and ask for your free information kit.
ford will attend monday's judiciary committee hearing, an endless discussion of the political tactics at play, it's important to remember the human being at the center of it all. a woman who tried desperately, from what we can tell, to avoid the exact situation she now finds herself in. a woman who now finds herself subjected to intense national scrutiny, intimidation. as she put it, annihilation, all because she says she was sexually assaulted. in a letter senator chuck grassley, her lawyer wrote she has been the target of vicious harassment and even death threats. as a result of these kinds of threats her family was forced to relocate out of her home. her e-mail has been hacked and she has been impersonated online. her attorney's letter also mentioned that dr. blasey ford has received messages of support. an open letter from the 1984 alumni of holton-arms, those women wrote, quote, we stand with our friend dr. christine
blasey ford and admire her honesty and resolve on behalf of our nation. with me now, samantha guerry. describe your relationship to dr. blasey ford. >> christy and i met in seventh grade. we've known each other for 40 years. we were friends in -- you know, for the six years we were at holton-arms, and we've said in touch loosely since then. our class is a pretty tight class and we've stayed in communication for what is it, 35 years now. >> it strikes me it's a pretty tight knit school, it's a small school and people are pretty connected. is that fair? >> absolutely. you can see that in the response that the school has had on a number of levels in the last few days. >> what was your reaction when she came forward this weekend and put her name to this accusation that has been floating out there anonymously?
>> i'm not she did put her name to it. i think that it got leaked, and then she had to respond in order for it not to kind of completely spin out of her hands. she didn't ask to be in the situation she is in now. she asked for confidentiality. but apparently that wasn't possible. so we were all obviously shocked that it was somebody that we know and respect. >> reading the account that she provided, both in the letter and in the interview she conducted with the "washington post" as someone who moved in the social circles she did, who was friends with her in high school, how did it strike you? >> well, it struck me as true. it struck me as someone who had to make a really painful decision to essentially, at this point, forfeit her privacy and have to relive a traumatic event in a very public and traumatic
way. >> did you know either brett kavanaugh or mark judge when you were in high school at holton-arms? >> they were acquaintances of mine. they were good friends of good friends of mine so you know how those circles kind of go out. but i don't have any specific recall of either of them, and i'm not able to comment on their -- on them specifically from that time. >> in terms of the social networks you were embedded in, they were around at the periphery, this is not implausible that they would be at a party together or something like that? >> oh, no, they were definitely at parties together. i think that -- and i say that because, you know, in talking with a lot of my classmates, you know, our sense is that between the summers that they were involved in a variety of
different, you know, country club activities and sports and just the general diagram overlap of our schools and our dances and events and festivals and things, there was just quite a bit of overlap. and people have to remember that these are classes of just like 65 people. we're not talking about thousands of people. so you really knew each other. you really did get to know each other. >> have you spoken to your classmate christine recently? >> i have not spoken to her directly. she has been communicating with me and several other people through one of her best friends who's a good friend of ours. >> do you have a sense of how she's doing? >> she's a strong woman, and she has a strong foundation with her family and her friends. she's tremendously grateful for the support that she's gotten from everyone. i think that's important to her so that she doesn't feel that
she's just hanging out to try here by herself. >> as someone that's known her for as long as you have there are people out there who think that she is either making this up, either fabricating it, or she is misremembering what happened, both of those things have been said by folks. and i would like you to say, what would you like to say to those people? >> i think they should be ashamed of themselves. to suggest that someone who's been sexually assaulted isn't remembering this correctly is -- just makes my head explode. i think it makes a lot of women feel that way. sexual trauma is real and deep and lifelong. it's something that christy has spent her life trying to forget. this isn't a mistake of identity or experience. and we need to stop suggesting that women who come forward with
these experiences and tell their truth are somehow mistaken. >> as someone who went to school with her, and thinking about children, there are folks in that school right now and many of the alumni who are not from that year signed a letter of support as well. what kind of message do you think it sends? what do you think that folks moving in the social circles you did as a teenager at georgetown prep and holton-arms are going to learn about how they should conduct themselves based on what the congress does? >> well, it's an interesting question, really. i think that to the extent that we still look to our public leaders for any kind of guidance, what congress does now is going to register in the debate about how these things are handled in our country, how women coming forward with these types of experiences are treated.
and whether they can be dismissed out of hand, or whether they are going to be taken seriously. and i think i stand with my classmates, and my schoolmates, and say we expect to be taken seriously. we have to be taken seriously. and we will find a way to be taken seriously. >> samantha guerry, thank you very, very much for making the time this evening. thank you. the ongoing and large credibility issues facing judge brett kavanaugh starting with the first words he spoke at his own nomination. plus, the return of thing one, thing two next. cancer ... it's very personal.
each of us is different. and each cancer is different. how it reacts, how it evades and adapts. and how we attack it. that's why at cancer treatment centers of america, we use diagnostic tools that help us better understand what drives each person's cancer. this is what we mean by outsmarting cancer.
and for some, it may uncover more effective treatment options. like christine bray. after battling ovarian cancer for several years, her test results revealed a potential treatment not considered previously a drug therapy that targeted her tumor. today, christine's metastatic cancer is in remission. this is precision cancer treatment. because at cancer treatment centers of america. we're not just fighting cancer. we're outsmarting it. visit cancercenter.com and schedule an appointment with our cancer care specialists today.
thing one, tonight, donald trump has added a new feature to his twitter feed lately, home made video addresses shot outside the white house in which trump stares directly at the camera and sort of wings it with heartfelt thoughts on the topic of the day. >> it's september 11th, and as i stand on the really beautiful lawn of the rose garden at the white house, i think of the 3,000 lives lost. >> that was the first one, september 11th. the second one, posted the next day, this one was about hurricane florence, obvious he recorded it at the same time as the first video. >> bad things can happen when you're talking about a storm this size. it's called mother nature. it's a big one.
maybe as big as they've seen. and tremendous amounts of water. >> third episode came last night. it was an update on that storm and on the tremendous amounts of water. >> i just want to thank all of the incredible men and women who have done such a great job in helping with florence. this is a tough hurricane. one of the wettest we've ever seen from the standpoint of water. >> just to reiterate from the standpoint of water, it's one of the wettest we've ever seen. today the president actually went to the carolinas to see things from the standpoint of all that water. it was no less awkward. thing two in 60 seconds.
well, he certainly brings his singular touch. trump handed out free meals to storm victims in new bern, north carolina this afternoon, telling one of them, quote, have a good time. he then toured a nearby neighborhood stopping behind a house where a large yacht washed into a man's yard. trump asked the homeowner, is this your boat, the man replied no, the president said with a smile, at least you got a nice boat out of the deal. trump turned to the cameras and said i think it's incredible we're seeing the boat just came here, they don't know whose boat that is, he said, what's the law? maybe it becomes theirs. the president met with officials for a briefing on the damage where he seemed especially interested in how one particular location fared. >> how is lake norman that area, how is that doing? >> good. but still 10 or 12 inches of rain. >> i love that area. i can't tell you why, but i love that area. >> why would the president have special reasons for asking? well, why do you think?
if your moderate to severe ulcerative colitis or crohn's symptoms are holding you back, and your current treatment hasn't worked well enough it may be time for a change. ask your doctor about entyvio®, the only biologic developed and approved just for uc and crohn's. entyvio® works at the site of inflammation in the gi tract, and is clinically proven to help many patients achieve both symptom relief and remission. infusion and serious allergic reactions can happen during or after treatment. entyvio® may increase risk of infection, which can be serious. pml, a rare, serious, potentially fatal brain infection caused by a virus may be possible. tell your doctor if you have an infection experience frequent infections or have flu-like symptoms, or sores. liver problems can occur with entyvio®. if your uc or crohn's treatment isn't working for you, ask your gastroenterologist
i'm going to submit a list of justices, potential justices of the united states supreme court that i will appoint from the list. i won't go beyond that list. we're working on it already. heritage is a foundation and others are working on it already. >> the president made a very explicit deal with republican voters in 2016, vote for me and i'll only nominate supreme court
justices pre-selected from the list, the one put together by two conservative groups, the heritage foundation and the federalist society. that's what he did. neil gorsuch and brett kavanaugh were on the list. everyone knew they were on the list. kavanaugh knew he was on the list. it was really strange when the very first words brett kavanaugh chose to speak when he was introduced to the nation were blatantly and obviously untrue. >> no president has ever consulted more widely or talked with more people from more backgrounds to seek input about a supreme court nomination. >> more people from more backgrounds, really? in that moment we all learned the man seeking to be the supreme court justice was capable of telling untruths, or maybe it's mostly harmless to tell little white lies when you're vetted by donald trump. kavanaugh was less than forthcoming during his first
confirmation process back in 2006. at worst, he lied under oath. kavanaugh testified that during his time in the bush white house he was not involved in handling several controversial judicial nominations. but newly released e-mails show that, in fact, he was. he testified he never received briefing materials stolen from democrats back -- but the e-mail showed that, in fact, he did. and then there was the moment under questioning from kamala harris that kavanaugh rather dramatically appeared to not be familiar with the law firm that represented the president of the united states. >> have you discussed mueller or his investigation with anyone at kasowitz, benson and torres, the firm of president trump's personal lawyer -- >> i -- >> be sure about your answer, sir. >> i'm not remembering. but if you have something not had a conversation with anyone
at that law firm? kosowitz, benson, founded by mark kasowitz, president trump's personal lawyer. >> kaso who now? not only is it a pretty high profile law firm, it turns out kavanaugh has a personal connection. he acknowledged a close relationship with ed mcnally, whom he worked with in the bush administration. now that they question the woman who says kavanaugh attempted to rape her in high school, it's worth asking what about the credibility of kavanaugh himself? her mortgage payment is $728 a month. that's almost 9 thousand dollars a year. now judy doesn't think that she'll be able to retire until her mortgage is fully paid off. this is mike.
mike is also 63 years old. his mortgage payment was $728 a month. mike thought he would have to work for another 12 years until his mortgage was paid off... and then mike heard about a reverse mortgage and how that might help him. he called one reverse mortgage to get the details. mike retired immediately after getting his one reverse mortgage loan. maybe you too can benefit from a reverse mortgage. call one reverse mortgage now and find out if you qualify. they'll send you an information kit that includes all the details and the stories of mike and others. a reverse mortgage... is a mortgage with no required monthly payments. it was created for homeowners 62 or older so they can continue to afford and own the home they love. many one reverse mortgage clients find they can retire sooner, do more the things they love,
or simply put more money in the bank. a reverse mortgage could change your retirement, and your life. i examined my finances and i said, there is no reason why i shouldn't retire today. 10, 12 years earlier than i had anticipated. in the first year, mike's cash flow savings totaled $8,736. after 5 years, it will be over $40,000. it really is worth a call to find out if a reverse mortgage can help you too. call one reverse mortgage now and ask for your free information kit. what if you had fewer headaches and migraines a month? botox® prevents headaches and migraines before they even start. botox® is for adults with chronic migraine, 15 or more headache days a month, each lasting 4 hours or more.
botox® injections take about 15 mins. in your doctor's office and are covered by most insurance. effects of botox® may spread hours to weeks after injection causing serious symptoms. alert your doctor right away, as difficulty swallowing, speaking, breathing, eye problems, or muscle weakness can be signs of a life-threatening condition. side effects may include allergic reactions, neck and injection site pain, fatigue, and headache. don't receive botox® if there's a skin infection. tell your doctor your medical history, muscle or nerve conditions, and medications, including botulinum toxins, as these may increase the risk of serious side effects. with the botox® savings program, most people with commercial insurance pay nothing out of pocket. talk to your doctor and visit botoxchronicmigraine.com to enroll. it seemed like the initial knee jerk reaction of many was to call into question the credibility of the accuser whachlt about the credibility of the man accused?
anita gupta, the president and ceo of the leadership conference and civil and human rights. vanita, you covered and watched the hearings very closely. what's your assessment of how trustworthy or credible kavanaugh is? >> during the course of the hearing i was in the room every day. it was clear, media documented it after, that kavanaugh had been misleading in his testimony, had been misleading about stolen e-mails that had -- where senator leahy got pretty angry that he lied in his 2006 confirmation hearing. through numerous other incidents where he misled, deflected. and you showed some of those instances. his credibility was already pretty shot. and the reality now as we're going into this, we have to ask ourselves what's happening here because dr. blasey-ford is asking for what is standard procedure of having the fbi do
an investigation. she's actually asking for more scrutiny on her story, not less. and the republicans, who have insisted throughout this entire process that they are going to take unprecedented action to conceal documents, to conceal three years of kavanaugh's record as staff secretary, they're now pushing just to jam this confirmation through on a totally created artificial deadline. there's no reason why dr. blasey-ford should be getting less due process than anita hill got. we all know how terribly anita hill was treated. that's essentially where we are right now. >> one thing that struck me, josh, when allegations first surfaced was that a lot of people rushed to defend kavanaugh not in the way he did. he said this is not true and denied it. and a bunch of people want to make the argument, if you do something when you're 17 -- this is ari fleischer making a version of that argument. >> there's a bigger ethical issue i want to get to. i want to say it with a lot of
sensitivity because these are sensitive issues. high school behavior. how much in our society should any of us be liable when we have lived a good life by all accounts, but something that took place in high school, should that deny us chances later in life, even as for a supreme court job, you name it. >> that was an argument that so many rushed to, it was interesting. >> that's not the argument that kavanaugh has made, possibly because it's not a very good argument but also possibly because he didn't do this. if he didn't do this, why would he need to defend his theatrical actions in high school? i think you know we're likely to end up in a position here, regardless of whether there is further fbi investigation here, senator susan collins today has raised the possibility that they could go back to the fbi after there was a hearing on monday, if dr. ford testifies monday. because of the nature of this allegation, 35 years in the
past, i think it's unlikely that the fbi is likely to produce information that is conclusive in either direction. back to your point of kavanaugh's credibility, it will be on this committee to make a valuation of the relative credibility of these two people and make an evaluation of what to do if you're unsure whether brett kavanaugh has done this or not. it's not like a criminal proceeding where you have an evidentiary standard set out in law. it is up to the senators' discretion, how sure they have to feel about whether or not kavanaugh did this. i think they need to do some soul searching on that. i think it's very unlikely that we'll have conclusive evidence either way. >> there is no escaping through process coming to a determination about who you believe. >> look, i think that's right if we had faith that the republican senators were actually acting in good faith and trying to take seriously their role of advise and consent. when you have a whole process where only 10% of the documents
were made available, where there has it doesn't give one much faith. >> they want to seem to get to a yes. >> brett kavanaugh will be on the supreme court and everyone will believe what they want to believe about this. if she testifies we may still end up in an unsatisfactory position like that. if she testifies it's very likely that this nomination will get pulled. i don't think they believe they'll be able to make her look noncredible before the committee and after testimony it's not like they're going to be able to turn around and say great, we heard from her. we don't believe her. let's vote on wednesday. it's likely they'll need to delay more, and the white house
will pull this. if she testifies it's very likely that this nomination will get pulled. i don't think they believe they'll be able to make her look noncredible before the committee and after testimony it's not like they're going to be able to turn around and say great, we heard from her. we don't believe her. let's vote on wednesday. it's likely they'll need to delay more, and the white house will pull this. >> it's her decision ultimately but if she shows up on monday it's hard for me to see them holding a committee vote a day or two later.
tonight republicans appear to be going ahead with a vote on kavanaugh even if they don't hear from his accuser, dr. christine blasey ford. she wants an fbi investigation first. her attorney now wants more witnesses to take part in a senate hearing. meanwhile, as dr. ford says she's received threats to her life as her public testimony hangs in the balance, the president says it's very hard for him to imagine anything happening between brett kavanaugh and his accuser. and trump said it's very sad he doesn't have an attorney general. though we checked, at air time jeff sessions is still in office as "the 11th hour" gets underway on a wednesday night. good evening from our nbc headquarters in new york. day six of eight in the -- 608 of the trump administration and christine blasey ford is turning