tv The Last Word With Lawrence O Donnell MSNBC September 21, 2018 7:00pm-8:00pm PDT
significant threat to nearby communities. but they say, quote, they cannot reel out coal ash has escaped from the flooded dump and now is washing into the river. open question. this was shot by the water keeper alliance. they tell us based on their decades of experience in the region that this appears to be coal ash pouring into the cape fear river in north carolina. coal ash is toxic not just to people but to all life forms and they were able to rescue that baby turtle. here on the way to downtown wilmington you can actually see this oily film on the water. it's floating down north carolina, towards the banks of wilmington, north carolina, which is about 9 miles away. i do not what is going to washup in wilmington, by monday. watch this space. now it's time for the "last word" with lawrence o'donnell.
we're here at what was the 10:00 p.m. deadline to tell the judiciary committee what she was going to do next week. and as you've reported dr. ford's lawyers have asked for one more day to make that decision. and there's no conceivable reason why they can't give her that one more day, but these are people who are fighting over wednesday instead of thursday next week, as if that makes any difference. >> and again what they're using to bolster their argument is we don't want to delay anymore, we want it to be wednesday and not thursday. and we want to go. we want to do this. and if you say no, we will vote on this lifetime appointment to the supreme court without ever hearing this allegation, without hearing from the accuser or any witnesses or anybody who might be able to cooperate or deny this story. that doesn't seem like a very strong place from which to push from the senate republican side, but that's where we are. >> yeah, and they try to use
normal juris prudential norms like the accuser goes first and then the person who's defending himself goes second, which is norm in jurisprudence. but every other norm in jurisprudence, they want to deny. it's a stunning selective use of what we think is fair, and it's very clearly designed to make sure this hearing is anything but fair. >> insisting that they will not allow allow testimony from any witnesses when christine blasey ford from the very first instance when she came forward, from that first letter to diane feinstein she already was citing people who could corroborate her story, people she had told in advance, people she'd told about this before kavanaugh was ever nominated to the supreme court inasmuch she's made corroborating witnesses, part of what bolsters her story from the very beginning. from the very beginning it has never been i say this thing and he denies. she's had other people who could
back it up. and they're insisting they don't want to hear from any of those people. and if she wants them to hear from those people, that's a deal breaker for them and she can't come to the senate at all. they're not playing from the history books on this. >> no, they're not even pretending. we just got this information from dr. ford's lawyer. their response to this threatened deadline of 10:00 p.m. to make up your mind, and i'm going to read you the final paragraph of what debra katz said to the committee staff in response to this threatened deadline tonight of 10:00 p.m. she said the 10:00 p.m. deadline is arbitrary. it's sole purpose is to bully dr. ford and deprive her of the ability to make a considered decision that has life altering implications for her and her family. she has already been forced out of her home and continues to be subjected to harassment, hate mail and death threats. our modest request is that she
be given an additional day to make her decision. and i'm so glad that debra katz has used the word "bullied" to describe exactly what chuck grassly and all the republicans in the senate are trying to do. because every republican senator has joined chuck grassly in the bullying tactics chuck grassly has been using with dr. ford. the first deadline senator grassly gave to professor blasy ford to agree to his terms to testify for the senate judiciary committee was 10:00 a.m. this morning, and then he moved that deadline to 5:00 p.m. today and moved that deadline to 10:00 p.m. and each time senator grassley did that, he did it to the media first. he announced it to the media before he announced it to -- communicated directly with dr. ford's lawyers.
he reached some compromises with her attorneys, but refused some of dr. ford's most important requests. senator grassly agreed to the request brett kavanaugh would not be in the room when dr. ford was testifying, but would not agree to her request that kavanaugh testify first. dr. ford requested that only senators be allowed to ask questions, but senator grassly said the committee will, quote, reserve the option to have female staff attorneys who are sensitive to the particulars of dr. ford's allegations and are experienced investigators to question both witnesses. we believe this will allow for informed questioning, will generate the most insightful testimony and will help depoliticize the hearing. chairman grassly has refused dr. ford's request that the committee subpoena the testimony of mark judge, who dr. ford says was in the room when brett kavanaugh sexually assaulted her
and participated in that assault. the ten democrats on the senate judiciary committee sent a letter to chairman grassly today saying, quote, the committee should at a minimum hear from the fbi, the individual who administered dr. ford's polygraph test and all witnesses to the event. this includes mark judge, and other relevant witnesses. there is simply no reason not to hear all it facts. the committee should also hear from character witnesses from judge kavanaugh and dr. ford. it is only fair to both. as well as from outside experts who can speak to these allegations. and one reason the democrats want outside experts to testify is a tweet by the president of the united states this morning. i have no doubt that if the attack on dr. ford was as bad as she says, charges would have been immediately filed with local law enforcement
authorities by either her or her loving parents. i ask that she bring those filings forward so that we can learn a date, time and a place. as bad as she says. that is the new prejudice defen -- presidential defense of his nominee. donald trump is not pretending anymore, but he does seem willing to accept the notion that christine blasey ford was attacked by brett kavanaugh when they were in high school, but the attack just wasn't that bad. he said if the attack on dr. ford was as bad as she says. the president's acceptance of an attack in that tweet suggests that the white house and the republicans are anticipating very convincing testimony from dr. ford. that is also the working principle behind a twitter campaign launched yesterday and then quickly abandoned in which
a republican operative pushing the nomination of brett kavanaugh suggested another suspect from brett kavanaugh's high school class because he looks like brett kavanaugh in their high school photos. now, we're not going to show you those photos posted on twitter because it is so reckless and irresponsible a charge that republican ed wheelin' who posted this theory has completely retracted it. ed wheelin' is head of an organization that falsely calls itself the ethics and public policy center. and he's obviously a morally bankrupt ethically vacant human being. but he works closely on supreme court confirmations. and the most interesting part of ed wheelin''s perverse theory of the case is that he completely accepts the idea that dr. ford was sexually assaulted, it just wasn't brett kavanaugh. that tells you that the republican machinery that is working overtime to defend brett kavanaugh is expecting dr. ford to be so convincing a witness
that the only two defenses in the end might be mistaken identity or as donald trump says, just wasn't that bad. republicans have no intention of offering dr. ford a fair hearing. fair is out of the question. the question is only how unfair will it be. it's going to be so unfair that the republican leader of the senate today said he already has the votes for the confirmation of brett kavanaugh. it's a done deal. >> you've watched the fight, you've watched the tactics, but here's what i want to tell you. in the very near future judge kavanaugh will be on the united states supreme court. so, my friends, keep the faith. don't get rattled by all of this. we're going to plow right through it and do our job. >> plow right through it. mitch mcconnell knows the outcome. he has not heard one word from
dr. ford, but he knows he is going to plow right through it. mitch mcconnell does not have a public record of lying when he says he has the votes to get something through the senate. and that's what he said today, he has the votes. so the question tonight about those republican votes in the senate is mitch mcconnell lying or is senator susan collins lying when she says that she's undecided? is senator lisa murkowski lying when she says she's undecided? is senator jeff flake lying when he says that he wants to hear the testimony of dr. ford? why would jeff flake need to hear that testimony? mitch mcconnell just said he has jeff flake's vote in his pocket right now. it's a done deal. the democrat senator's letter to chairman grassly says there is not an effort -- this is not an effort to get to the truth. we fear that rather than learning from the pass senate republicans and the trump administration are repeating this committee's repeated
mistakes and making new ones. up to this point the committee's treatment of dr. ford has been unquestionably worse than the disgraceful treatment that anita hill received 27 years ago. and that disgraceful treatment was delivered to anita hill by chuck grassly who was a member of the committee then and orrin hatch who was a republican member of the committee then. they have both spent the week lying about the precedent set by the anita hill case. and in every controversy in the confirmation process, the standard procedure of an fbi investigation. they're not doing that for dr. ford. no fbi investigation because their plan is to treat her with even more unfairness than they treated anita hill. anita hill's accusations got three days of testimony in the senate judiciary committee. 22 witnesses were heard am. chuck grassly wants one day of a hearing with only two witnesses, judge kavanaugh and dr. ford. because chuck grassly's job is to do what you heard mitch mcconnell just promise, to plow
right through it. the democrats want to hear from all the relevant witnesses and, quote, outside experts who can speak to these allegations. that's always a good idea. but now for fairness it is an absolutely mandatory idea. now that the president of the united states is publicly questioning why christine blasey ford did not report this assault when she was a teenager. the reasons that young girls and women don't report these assaults are well-known. they've been discussed many times on television. we know donald trump watches television. there's a vast body of scholarly literature about it. there's articles in the popular press about it. and there have been for decades. we all know the painful reasons that sometimes these cases are not reported. hundreds of thousands of women tweeted today under the #why i didn't report, and i urge you all to spend some time reading their reasons, their personal
reasons. women know the reasons. you know who else knows the reasons? sexual assaulters. they're counting on women not reporting. and the president of the united states is both an accused sexual assaulter and a confessed sexual assaulter. we all heard him describe the sexual assaultive way in which he likes to grab women when he was recorded on that "access hollywood" bus surrounded by strangers, a camera crew, a bus driver, all sorts of people he didn't know. and that's what he was willing to confess to them, to strangers. so imagine what his real personal truth and his real personal history is on sexual assaul assau assault. his first wife accused him of rape under oath. and so an accused sexual
assaulter has now given his opinion in a sexual assault case. and his opinion is that whatever brett kavanaugh did to christine ford, it just wasn't that bad. wasn't as bad as she says. presidents are not supposed to comment on criminal investigations, but donald trump has done that many times. presidents are not supposed to comment on ongoing criminal cases, but donald trump has done that many times. presidents are not posed spooto comment on a criminal trial, but he did that. he tried to influence the manafort jury because he had every right to believe there were trump voters on the manafort jury, and he was right. but the one manafort juror who we heard from was a trump voter, and she took her oath as a juror very seriously. and she voted guilty on every single count against paul manafort. republican united states senators do not take their oaths as seriously as paul manafort's
jurors did. and so their minds are made up. if you believe mitch mcconnell, their minds are made up, they're going to plow right through it. minds are made up before dr. ford has spoken a single word. dr. charles manson's trial for multiple murders president nixon made the mistake in a press conference of suggesting charles manson was guilty and the nishen white house immediately issued a statement retracting that statement saying the president did not intend to make that comment, the president did not intend to influence that trial and influence that jury in any way. donald trump is now trying to tamper with the jury. mitch mcconnell has surely told donald trump that he has the votes to confirm judge kavanaugh. so the senate is not the jury donald trump is trying to influence. donald trump is trying to influence the jury that votes on november 6th. he's trying to influence the jury whose first chance to make their statement about what they see in the senate judiciary committee next week will occur on november 6th. and what he's saying to that jury is what donald trump has
always said, you cannot believe the woman, you must never believe the woman because whatever happened was not as bad as she says. after this break we will be joined by a group of congressional experts who know the confirmation process well. wendy sherman, lisa graves, neeka oyang. neeka oyang. i've always been about what's next. i'm still giving it my best even though i live with a higher risk of stroke due to afib not caused by a heart valve problem. so if there's a better treatment than warfarin,
i'm up for that. eliquis. eliquis is proven to reduce stroke risk better than warfarin. plus has significantly less major bleeding than warfarin. eliquis is fda-approved and has both. so what's next? seeing these guys. don't stop taking eliquis unless your doctor tells you to, as stopping increases your risk of having a stroke. eliquis can cause serious and in rare cases fatal bleeding. don't take eliquis if you have an artificial heart valve or abnormal bleeding. while taking eliquis, you may bruise more easily and it may take longer than usual for any bleeding to stop. seek immediate medical care for sudden signs of bleeding, like unusual bruising. eliquis may increase your bleeding risk if you take certain medicines. tell your doctor about all planned medical or dental procedures. eliquis, the number one cardiologist-prescribed blood thinner. ask your doctor if eliquis is what's next for you.
faculty of yale law school wrote a letter to the senate judiciary committee about of the yale school graduates, brett kavanaugh. we are concerned about a rush to judgment that threatens both an integrity in the process and the public's confidence in the court. those at the fbi or others tasked with such an investigation must have adequate time to investigate facts. some questions are so fundamental to judicial integrity that it senate cannot rush past them without undermining the public's confidence in the court. joining our discussion now ambassador wendy sherman under secretary of state. 27 years ago she helped anita hill deal with the senate judiciary committee hearings, which she describes in her new book "not for the faint of heart." neeka oyang, a former staffer on
the house intelligence committee and importantly here, former chief of staff to ana eshoo who was the first member of congress who dr. ford communicated with about her sexual assault charges. and also joining us is congressional scholar norm orstein. and wendy sherman, i want to go to you first. very important they make in their letter to chuck grassly, that the majority of republicans in this committee are intent on delivering a more unfair hearing this time than they did for anita hill. >> right, it was one the most dismiss weekends of my life, lawrence, and this appears to be worse. the republicans believe they were holding a trial, and they put anita hill on trial. i actually agree with you. i think that in this case dr. ford should go first, but that's really for her negotiations so that in fact she can lay the
terms of this discussion. but even in that case there were witnesses, but back in the time of anita hill the witnesses who had also been harassed by clarence thomas were not allowed to testify. there were so many ways in which she was cis disabled, and that has happened and this time completely bullying dr. ford here. it is quite disturbing, and today the senate nominee, republican nominee for the united states senate, mr. kramer said what's the bieg big deg de essence, they were drinking and nothing came of it. it's astonishing to me we live in a time with the me too movement, with all we're doing trying to change this world, that we're seeing even worse behavior than we did in 1991.
>> lisa graves, i want to get your reaction to where the nominations stand now. attorney katz in representing dr. ford in her response to committee tonight did for the first time use the word "bully." that republicans and the republican staff on the committee speaking for chairman grassly have been trying to bully dr. ford every step of the way. >> i think that's an accurate description of what's going on, and i would go a step further in trying to say this is an effort to railroad her or create some situation in which she doesn't testify. i think a fair reading what's going on this week is terror on the part of the white house, on the part of the nominations team for kavanaugh at letting her testify fairly. they've thrown up every roadblock, made a pretense in the press. senator grasshy has lied to the american people and other members about the precedent of having it go back, and meanwhile
his allies have been out bringing forward the most discredible claims to try to smear an innocent person, a schoolteacher, trying to blame someone else. you have senator mcconnell today basically taking for granted that susan collins that lisa murkowski, jeff flake, senator cork, that they're all just going to go along with this charade, this sham. it's despicable, discredible, this honorable, and the american people are watching. american women are watching, the american men who love them are watching. and they'll be held to account if they do not allow this woman a chance to really tell her story and have that opportunity to make sure the american people know they're about to put someone accused of attempted rape on the highest court in urcountry. nothing could be more serious when it comes to the integrity of our courts. >> i think it's much worse than he's taking senator murkowski's
vote for granted but he's actually been promised those votes by those senators secretly because he's not it type to go out and talk about votes he doesn't have. you were chief of staff by congressman eshoo. that's actually where this information was first delivered to congress, the very first letter that dr. ford wrote wuss delivered to the congresswoman who you used to work for. what can you tell us about congresswoman eshoo's reaction to this, what it felt like to have that anonymity request while she was reading this explosive information? >> yeah, i think this was one of the real differentiates between what you see in the anita hill experience that wendy talked about today. the first people handling dr. ford's allegations were women, who were deeply empathetic to what she was going through and what she was saying, who were very respectful about her wish for confidentiality, and let the
victim's wishes really guide the ways in which they were handling the information instead of turning it into the this media circus. congresswomanish oo h congresswoman eshoo has issued a strong statement. and once it's turned over this thing is completely turned upside down. z >> let's listen to what susan collins said today about president trump's tweet. >> i was appalled by the president's tweet. first of all, we know that allegations of sexual assault -- i'm not saying that's what happened in this case -- but we know that allegations of sexual assault are one of the most unreported crimes that exist. so i thought that the
president's tweet was completely inappropriate and wrong. >> when mitch mcconnell says he has the votes she usually has the votes. >> yeah, but i'm not sure he does in this case, lawrence. i think he's trying to push this through before things can turn in a very bad direction. and it may be that he thinks he has the votes, but the pressure on susan collins and lisa murkowski is extraordinary right now. and i must say if the democrats end up just sort of watching this happen and we get a vote in the committee on monday and then they begin to move towards a schedule on the floor, they ought to hold their own hearing with mrs. ford. they auts to bri they ought to bring in lisa fairstein, ronald reagan's daughter, patty, john dickerson's wife anne who had
this happen and didn't tell anybody about it and lay out the case themselves. and make it so the people who vote for brett kavanaugh including those like jeff flake and lisa murkowski where said we shouldn't do this until we hear from her, the idea that because she didn't want to do it on monday or wednesday and wanted to wait until thursday is going to been a excuse. i think you've got to put these cards on the table and force this so that mcconnell maybe won't quite prevail. >> and wendy sherman, the only clear ask that is left on dr. ford's side is literally thursday instead of wednesday. and these republicans who left the supreme court seat open for more than a year are going to try to make the case that, no, america cannot proceed without having this hearing on wednesday. it can't possibly wait 24 hours. >> look, lawrence, they not only
waited a year to fill this seat, they didn't allow merit garland to sit at all, to even have a hearing. so delay -- republicans saying there shouldn't be a delay is an absurd notion. when patty davis wrote her op-ed today she waited 40 years for having the justice of at least being able to tell her story. what matters here is what my colleagues have said on tv tonight, which is this is someone we are putting on the supreme court for a lifetime appointment. dr. ford has already had to live with this assault for her lifetime. the least we can do is really truly hear her. >> i think we all remember that march of women, members of the house of representatives who marched over to the united states senate to demand that anita hill be heard by the judiciary committee. that's because there weren't enough women in the united states senate at the time --
>> two. only two. >> -- to create that image. that's right. and lisa graves, every has a right to be presented in that senate room at any time. and if chuck grassley tries to move towards a vote on monday, i would expect every senator to be in that room raising their voices to stop that. >> i think there will be a lot of voices raised on monday if this goes forward with a vote. i think you have senators and members of the house extremely upset about this and they're hearing from people across the country. brett kavanaugh is the most no supreme court in the history of polling. and i don't think he's going to be able to bang that gavel and force it through with the number of voices speaking out. i would also point out, lawrence, that google and facebook in their negotiations for their hearing got a lot more due process for dr. ford.
what does that say about chairman grassly. >> they got their demands met on both scheduling -- and by the way scheduling is the easiest thing. witnesses get the schedule they can comply with. and when i think about the women 27 years ago making that march, house members all have senate floor privileges. they can walk onto the senate floor at any time. i would expect the senate floor to be filled with every single democratic member of the house next week if chuck grassly and mitch mcconnell are really trying to ram this through. >> that's right. and that's actually how those women including my first boss pat shroeder got into the senate dining room to harangue their colleagues about what's happening to anita hill. but the rage you're seeing now we're really talking about tearing the country apart. and as the yale law school letter says at some point we have to ask what's good for the
country. richard nixon lost two supreme court nominees and couldn't get any others appointed. at some point they've got to find someone who meet the standard of integrity for supreme court justice. and there's no reason they shouldn't be up in arms if they can't find that person. >> norm, i think the truth on this thing is dr. ford's accusations accepted at face value are okay with us. and they're okay either because they happened in high school or because as donald trump puts it, it just wasn't that bad. >> well, this has gone from this absolutely didn't happen, it's an 11th hour hit job to, well, maybe it happened but it wasn't so bad to, well, maybe it happened but it was a case of mistaken identity. but the bottom line here, lawrence, is this has been for a while a devil's bargain. they will take anything donald trump says or does in return for getting judges. what mcconnell did for a number
of years to block judicial nominations from going through, merit garland was one. dozens of district court and especially appeals court judges saying he wouldn't let any d.c. circuit nominees through for years when obama was president, this is the number one priority for them because they know they won't be in power for all that long, and they can have people who can make decisions for 30 or 40 years, and it is immoral to operate in this fashion. and that is the only appropriate word we can say on television. >> thank you for joining this discussion tonight. thank you for all this important discussion. really appreciate you being here. when we come back, trump supporters are using a "new york times" on rod rosenstein to try to get rod rosenstein fired. the question is was it a joke when rosenstein was talking about wearing a wire and using the 25th amendment to get donald trump out of power? the 25th amendment to get donald trump out of power
and you have the determination to keep going. humira has a proven track record of being prescribed for over ten years. it's the #1 prescribed biologic by dermatologists. more than 250,000 patients have chosen humira to fight their psoriasis. and they're not backing down. for most patients clearer skin is the proof. humira can lower your ability to fight infections, including tuberculosis. serious, sometimes fatal infections and cancers, including lymphoma have happened, as have blood, liver and nervous system problems. serious allergic reactions and new or worsening heart failure. before treatment get tested for tb. tell your doctor if you've been to areas where certain fungal infections are common and if you've had tb, hepatitis b, are prone to infections, or have flu-like symptoms or sores. don't start humira if you have an infection. join over 250,000 people who have chosen humira. ask your dermatologist about humira & go.
was it a joke, and in trump world what difference does it make? that's the question or the questions donald trump is facing tonight as he thinks about firing deputy attorney general rod rosenstein after "the new york times" report today indicating rosenstein discussed wearing a wire to record president trump so that recording could be used to gather the support of the vice president and the majority of the candidate to use the 25th amendment to remove donald trump and install mike pence as the acting president as provided for in the 25th amendment. the first public discussion of using the 25th amendment to
remove donald trump from power was on this program one month into the trump presidency when we had already seen enough madness in the white house to know this president is a danger to us and the world. and it turns out the trump administration was thinking about it almost as early as i was. the report confirms -- today's report confirms an anonymously written op-ed piece in "the new york times" who said there were senior officials thinking about using the 25th amendment. why john hannity leaned into his camera tonight to tell the president of the united states directly not to fire rod rosenstein. not to fire rod rosenstein opportunity is everywhere.
like here. and here. see? opportunity. hi! cinturones por favor. gracias. ev-er-y-where. about to be parents. it's doing a lot of kicking down there. meeting the parents. it's gonna be fine. and this driver, logging out to watch his kid hit one out of the... go dani, go! opportunity is everywhere. all you have to do to find it is get out... here. ♪
we distributeus, i'm the owner environmentally-friendly packaging for restaurants. and we've grown substantially. so i switched to the spark cash card from capital one. i earn unlimited 2% cash back on everything i buy. and last year, i earned $36,000 in cash back. that's right, $36,000. which i used to offer health insurance to my employees. my unlimited 2% cash back is more than just a perk, it's our healthcare. can i say it? what's in your wallet? start with 100% cleancheese? ingredients. like vermont white cheddar. then... add bacon, bbq chicken, or baja blend. catering and delivery now available. panera. food as it should be.
shawn hannity has some advice tonight about the breaking news story that "the new york times" began today about deputy attorney general rod rosenstein talking about possibly wearing a wire to record president trump to amass evidence to use the 25th amendment process to remove president trump from power and install mike pence as the acting president. shawn hannity's advice to donald trump about this is very surprising. >> i have a message for the president tonight. under zero circumstances should the president fire anybody.
these actors tonight, and i've had multiple sources confirming this and more information coming, they are hoping and praying that the president does just that. they're hoping he gets mad, that he gets sick and tired of it and they can turn this politically into their equivalent of a friday night massacre. the president needs to know it is all a setup. >> accepting the challenge to try to make sense of this is are har har har harry litman, and mieke eoyang is back with us. so then an avalanche of criticism would come down on the president for doing that before the mid-terms and then help turn out democratic voters for the mid-terms. >> yeah, how's that for a triple bank shot? >> that's the hannity theory.
>> and who's on the other side of the pool cue? the whole thing is completely crazy, of course. but what put in mind at first is just the sense of crisis that pervaded the justice department back in may when we were first sort of getting the exposure to the mad man in the white house. now it's become almost normalized. but in those early days when you were first seeing erratic and anti-constitutional behavior, you were having these serious meetings at the department. i don't believe that rod rosenstein would or did seriously consider himself wearing a wire. but nevertheless you have all the officials around the table broaching the 25th amendment, broaching even in humor wearing a wire. that is just a crazy situation. and yet things have only gotten
crazier since. but we've somehow gotten inert to it. >> rod rosenstein's first response to this was to say "the new york times" story is inaccurate and factually incorrect. i will comment on a story based on anonymous sources. but then he was forced to further comment. hours later, in a second statement rosenstein said i never pursued or authorized recording the president. and any suggestion that i have ever advocated for the removal of the president is absolutely false. so, mika, rod rosenstein did feel it necessary to refute the article. >> so he needs rosenstein to make all kinds of statements of loyalty, telling him he's not a target of the investigation, assuring him that he didn't intend to suggest he was going to wear a wire.
but to hannity's point, from trump's point of view the last time he fired someone senior at the department of justice we wound up with the mueller investigation. so if he's going to do it again who knows what consequences are going to ensue. firing rosenstein at this point is going to trigger this red line from congress he's really interfering in an ongoing investigation. roadenstein is the one who gave him the leaf for firing comey. >> knowing what you know from the trump white house from bob woodward's book and the reporting that we have, it's clear someone in the white house must have believed that the president was close enough to firing rod rosenstein that someone needed to enlist shawn hannity to tell him not to do it on tv. >> that's right. now, is it a friend or foe? we also know, by the way, to k
mieke's point, the white house actually pushed for him to issue his second denial. so that doesn't seem like the institution response from a white house gearing up to fire him. nevertheless, i certainly take the point were all to follow were he to be fired. but he'll never have a better excuse than this. if he asserts this was done seriously and there's a lot that happens at the meeting other than that joke and jest, he'll be on firmer ground than he was yesterday and will be tomorrow. >> we await donald trump's announcement of the firing because he believes "the new york times." harry litman and mieke eoyang, thank you both for joining our discussion tonight. president trump said things about dr. ford who has accused brett kavanaugh of sexual assault. said it today on twitter. and he asked why she didn't come
the malala fund invests in education champions who work in the community and pave the way so that girls can actually go to school. to have our financial partner guiding us is very important. the fact that citi is in countries where girls are vulnerable ensures that we're able to get funds to the people that we're working with. when girls go to school, we're going to maximize their talents. we could have a solution for climate change in that girl. that girl could be the next nobel peace prize winner. ♪
just very, very sad. you say why didn't someone equal the fbi 36 years ago? >> donald trump knows why. confessed sexual assaulters like donald trump know the answer to that question, that's why people like trump repeatedly sexual assault women as he's accused of doing through the his entire adulthood and as he boasted about on that "access hollywood" video. there are hundreds of thousands of answers to donald trump's question on twitter under the the hashtag #whyididn'treport. sexual assaulters know why women don't report. that is what sexual assaulters are counting on, that they will never be reported. and i hope i'm just one of millions of men who spent a couple of hours today reading those answers. thousands of them contained an identical line word for word, no
one would believe me. it keeps recurring as a haunting refrain as you read why i didn't report. angel ward said i was 17 and he was my best friend and told me no one would believe me. he had more friends than i did and his parents knew mine and i thought i would be blamed. why i didn't report. darrell hannah said i did, it didn't matter. and i still get blamed. paisl paisl paisley flower said both times i was frozen with fear, i didn't tell anyone for fear no one would believe me. i was a little girl, and i was terrified. i still haven't told. i still freeze up when i think about it. why i didn't report. amy vander pool said i was humiliated. i knew everyone would find out. i was afraid it would ruin my professional reputation before i had even started. i was afraid they would not
believe me and let him hold my grade back. i was afraid they would not let me graduate from look like. why i didn't report. chrissy said, why i didn't report? because i was a new private in the army deployed overseas and i didn't know anyone. i trusted him because he was my nco. everyone loved him. he could do no wrong. no one would have believed me. cindy mcfarlane said at 13 i was given a list of questions that would be asked if i reported. most were accusatory, no traumatized 13-year-old is going to agree to that. when i tried to report a few years later, the question was, do you have proof? why i didn't report. jessica raven said the first thing i wanted to do after being raped was take a shower and shower again and think and think to get the violated feeling off me with supported of friends i did attempt to report it and i was told that there was no proof
because i showered. why i didn't report. christine reynolds added an important footnote when reading these stories. she said the why i didn't report tweets are powerful, but please understand that those are only coming from people comfortable about talking about what happened to them in some way. there are many people who are still silent. this represents just a portion of the problem we face as a society. maureen shaw said i was only 15 and scared. nobody would believe me or worse, would blame me. i was scared he would do it again if i told anyone. it was and still is humiliating to recount, such profoundly sexual violent details i didn't want to break my parents' hearts. why i didn't report. and so parents of daughters have a big job to do.
. we began this hour with the report that daesh deborah cats was asked for an extension of a 10:00 p.m. deadline to decide whether dr. ford would testify next week. one of the lines in her letter to chuck grassley says the 10:00 deadline is arbitrary. it is so arbitrary that the deadline has passed. dr. ford has not agreed to
testify next week, and chuck grassley had not responded to his own arbitrary deadline that he set for 10:00 p.m. tonight. that's tonight's last word. "the 11th hour" with brian williams starts now. tonight we're covering the bombshell from "the new york times," deputy ag rod rosenstein reported to have considered invoking the 25th amendment, suggested wearing a wire to record the president. he has issued a second denial tonight and donald trump reportedly already asks advisers if he should fire them. attorney asking for more time in dr. ford's decision to testify after the president lashed out at ford on twitter for not reporting the alleged assault when it happened. and the trump about-face today on declassifying those documents in the russia investigation. "the 11th hour" on a friday night begins now.