tv MSNBC Live With Alex Witt MSNBC September 23, 2018 6:00am-7:00am PDT
while it's going on you don't know what's going on and you kind of keep your fingers crossed. >> oh, my gosh, he does such a grit imitation of you. a very good morning to all of you, i'm alex witt and here's what's happening right now. one step closer. christine blasey ford reaches a tentative deal to tell her story about brett kavanaugh to the senate. >> there is a willingness to testify. >> the lens is going to be sharpened. in those circumstances the tension and anxiety will certainly be higher. >> it will be a judgment call as to who do you believe is more credible. >> thrj what the white house is doing to save the president's supreme court pick. also the effort to keep the president prom firing rod rosenstein. the ripple effects following a bombshell report. plus poll numbers just out this hour whether a blue wave is
becoming more likely in november. but we begin with the bombshell development in the brett kavanaugh confirmation battle. attorneys for christine blasey ford will continue talks now that she's attentively agreed to testify on thursday. her decision coming exactly one week since she decided to go public with her allegation of sexual assault by brett kavanaugh when they were in high school. the white house is calling the tentative call a delay tactic. he has been in and out of the white house just about every day since dr. ford identified herself as his accuser. joining me right now nbc white house correspondent kelly o'donnell. is there anymore reaction from the white house on this? >> not yet this morning. but there were some new developments late into the evening. and you're right that brett
kavanaugh hane on the grounds at the white house throughout the past week, but really has been doing that since he was named as the nominee for the high court. the white house complex is sort of a home base for the confirmation process. so that has certainly been under way and preparations for whatever appearance he might make this coming week, they weren't sure exactly what it would look like, what day it would happen. and the white house has been clearly frustrated by what they perceive to be delays. of course for christine blasey ford and her legal team, they felt that an offer to appear needed to be treated with very specific conditions, and that's a big question this morning. what conditions will ultimately be decided upon. we have been told by both republican and democratic sources that the real break happened in a phone call on saturday where this agreement for thursday came together. thursday was the earliest date that christine blasey ford said she could appear publicly.
that's break through one. but there are other questions that still need to be ironed out about specifics of who will go first, who else might be included. a number of things that will really shape how the public sees this hearing, and that is still to be determined. after a week of drama and blame, a tentative agreement that thursday both the accuser and the accused will tell their sides of a 36-year-old story of alleged sexual assault at a high school party. the white house had grown frustrated and impatient insisting brett kavanaugh remains ready, willing and eager to testify as soon as possible. the supreme court nominee went about his weekend showing no sign of the political fire storm around him. saturday lawyers for christine blasey ford notified the senate judiciary committee she would accept an in vitation to provide her first-hand knowledge of brett kavanaugh's sexual
misconduct. ford claims an intoxicated teenage kavanaugh groped her and tried to remove her clothes. he unequivocally denies this allegation. late saturday the white house released a new statement intended to refute ford's claims about others at the party. all four of these individuals have provided statements to senate judiciary committee denying any knowledge of the incident or having attended such a party. ford's team responded to one of those denials saying it's not surprising, explaining that ford did not share her story publicly or with anyone for years, and that she will never forget this gathering because of what happened to her there. turning to controversy at the justice department, deputy attorney general rod rosenstein is under pressure after multiple reports he discussed wearing a wire with president trump last year and raised the 25th amendment that could remove a president from office. rosenstein called that
absolutely false and said he never pursued or authorized recording the president. some house republicans want an explanation. >> i think he needs to come before congress this week and explain what exactly he said and what he didn't say. >> and we don't yet know how the white house will handle the rosenstein situation. they have a lot on their plate, as you can imagine alex, with the brett kavanaugh confirmation. so with this point they've been dwit with the issues of rosenstein sort of deferring to the department of justice. as for the kavanaugh hearing, today we're working to find out have there been agreements on additional aspects of the hearing? it will be high stakes. and part of the white house is trying to do in defending kavanaugh is to say that others that were at the party as described by christine blasey ford do not recall these events. as i describe in the piece one of the things dr. ford's lawyer says is that people not remembering the event as she
describes is not surprising because they say it wasn't important to them. it wasn't a memorable event in their lives therefore some 30 some years later they twpt remember it. they don't see that as chipping away at her credibility because this was a personal experience for her. but credibility will be on center stage. who will people believe, what evidence will they be looking for to make an assessment? it will be very personal and very high stakes for everyone involved this week including the white house. >> including. the ultimate he said, she said. so let's bring in tessa barrenson, white house correspondent for time magazine and josh barro. and josh, we begin with you here because one of the questions is whether or not dr. ford will testify in an open setting. and until we get all the details on this, how significant is this development to you in.
>> i think it's quite significant they have a tentative agreement, because we've seen this back and forth and sometimes there was not clear motion whether she would testify. i have great difficulty seeing how you could take this testimony on thursday from her and judge kavanaugh and you would satisfy all the republican senators to the point they'd be able to say we've heard from her and we don't find her credible. my guess is the same senators who insisted that you need this hearing to occur in the first place will then need further fact finding. and my guess is if this happens i think it's unlikely you're going to end up with a confirmation vote for kavanaugh. for example, you have republicans leaning on these comments from other supposed witnesses who said they were weren't. but those people have not been called to testify. if you want to rely on, i think there will be pressure where you
will call people, and there are reasons those people have resisted, for example, having mark judge testify. so i think it's likely this turns into more a can of worms for republicans if she testifies. >> is part of the calculus because chuck grassly said this is happening monday, brett kavanaugh said i'm going to testify monday. there was talk about some wednesday compromise because christine blasey ford said i want to do it thursday. and now it's happening thursday. >> my calculus is why do susan collins and jeff flake and murkowski feel they need to have these hear sngz i don't think we're going to have a lot of new information out of the hearing we don't have now. i think you're likely to have a statement now that is compelling, a denial from him. but what are they going to have on thursday? so if there's not enough
information now, there won't be enough information then either. >> tessa, outside of mid-terms being one of the main drivers for confirmation from the republican perspective, what is the calculation whether they standby judge kavanaugh or the president says we have to pull this nomination? >> i don't think there's been any -- as soon as the allegations first surfaced the white house have puddled around him. they're in a really tricky spot because they don't want to anger the base but nor do they want to alieniate women voters. and as you said we're about to head into mid-term season so that could be very problematic for the party.
>> what are you looking for the next few days as the agreement gets hashed out? >> first of all, i'm looking for whether the testimony actually comes together. i know there are still some matters to discuss today. so conceivably negotiations could break down over some issues involving terms. and i'm looking whether this testimony is an open session. because i think if it is private testimony outside the eyes of the public, i think it may be possible for senators who want to get to yes on confirming kavanaugh based on the private session gives them the confidence to have a vote. i think if you have a public session you have sound bites on television. you're basically putting someone like susan collins in a position where you have someone who says she's a survivor of an attempted rape who will be on video describing that. and then her embrissett or explicit statement is i don't believe this will work.
in terms of the white house not wanting to pull this nomination, they don't want to pull the nomination, but it's not up to them. they need 50 votes in the senate. they can stand behind kavanaugh all they want, but they're not going to be able to get him confirm. and at some point they're going to have to do the calculus, at some point ware going to have to pull this nomination and put up somebody else that doesn't have an issue. >> couple of things about the public verse private, tessa. with regard to the public, brett kavanaugh says he wants to clear his name, he wants this to be public. yes, there's a risk as josh is renumerating there. but also just the optics of christine ford blasy and the type of security she wants to have given the death threats that both of them actually have received about this. i mean, talk about the optics of all this. >> right, well one of the things as josh said they're still figuring out details potentially
for thursday. and one of the points sticking for both sides is related to optics and that's whether outside counsel could question christine ford. because christine doesn't want outside counsel and republicans are very aware of the fact it's not a great look for them if they have 11 women questioning a woman as she reveals these very personal details of a sexual assault and it is only men on the republican side of the judiciary committee. so as josh has said there are all sorts of other considerations if this hearing is possible about making sure it's fair but also each side wanting it, of course, to look beneficial to them. >> i'm curious, and i want to get both of you to weigh in on this, how this confirmation battle impacts the mid-terms. i want to look at some numbers from a new wall street journal poll that came out in just the last couple of minutes showing
democrats maintaining their advantage. it was up from 2 points last month. is it too soon, josh, to tell how much this confirmation fight will be a mid-term driver? >> i think people are mostly guessing when they say how they think this is going to affect the mid-terms. it's increasing intensity on both sides of the political spectrum. that could be good for republicans because democrats already have high intensity. on one hand you could have demoralized conservatives who feel they can't even put this guy on the court, and on the other hand, if you say we need to maintain a republican senate majority so we can confirm either judge kavanaugh or some new appointee after the election, then that might give republicans an tilgs reason to turn out or an additional reason for them to stick with the
republican party. so i think on the one hand this is another bad story with voters. so i think there are a number of factors to push in different directions. >> they're catching up there to a degree, 4 point shine out of the democrats as compared to last month. how does this play into reports that republican leaders, they're worried every time the president tries to down-play threats of a blue wave by getting out there and saying as we saw in his rallies last week, we're going to see a red wave in november. >> right, i think the president is drumming up enthusiasm and he loves doing these campaign-style rallies, the cheer of the crowd. so of course he's going to get that when you talks about a red wave. but strategists worry that might make voters complacent, and sometimes maybe the scare tactic
works better in saying, no, there's going to be a blue wave, you guys need to get out there. >> thank you both. a new report about ivanka trump's take on the brett kavanaugh nomination. the advice she's giving her father about how to handle it next. your insurance rates skyrocket after a scratch so small you could fix it with a pen. how about using that pen to sign up for new insurance instead? for drivers with accident forgiveness, liberty mutual won't raise their rates because of their first accident. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪
breathe freely fast, with vicks sinex. my congestion's gone. i can breathe again! ahhhh! i can breathe again! ughh! vicks sinex. breathe on. so shark invented duo clean. while deep cleaning carpets, the added soft brush roll picks up large particles, gives floors a polished look, and fearlessly devours piles. duo clean technology, corded and cord-free. i never count the wrinkles. and i don't add up the years. but what i do count on... is staying happy and healthy. so, i add protein, vitamins and minerals to my diet with boost®. new boost® high protein nutritional drink
on thursday. still lawyers for christine blasey ford argue parts of that gop deal are quote, fundamentally inconsistent with the committee's promise of a fair impartial investigation into her allegations. ford's legal team and the senate judiciary committee are expected to discuss negotiations again today. joining me now msnbc legal contributor and legal team joyce vance. they include not having kavanaugh in the same room at the same time and a guarantee for her safety. so if you were representing ford, how do you balance all these conditions with your client's desire to get her story out there in the public? >> these conditions aren't really much in the way of conditions. guaranteeing the safety of a witness before the senate is simply an expectation and not something she should have to be negotiating for. so the conditions her lawyers
have put forward i think have been wrongfully characterized as bargaining chips. they're just the baselines we would expect for anyone appearing in the senate. >> so ford can name four people who attended this high school party where the alleged sexual assault occurred. all four deny knowing about the incident or going to the party. although there is one person who tells "the washington post" she believes ford's story even though she doesn't remember being there. how much of an issue is this going to be for ford? >> i think that's really the entire situation in a nutshell. who do you believe? were their guarantees of circumstantial fairness in this situation? so it's not surprising people don't remember every party they attended in high school. we would really only expect people to have a memory of an event if something unusual occurred. and that puts the focus on both judge kavanaugh and dr. ford as well as on mr. judge, who is according to dr. ford in the
room. not remarkable that others wouldn't remember. so those are the three testimonies you should focus on. with dr. ford we have this circumstance substantial guarantee of honesty that she related this story long before judge kavanaugh was ever nominated to the supreme court and it is in fact reflected in her therapist notes and her husband was aware of it, too. it seems unlikely she would have made this up all those years ago. those are the issues senators can weigh. >> you mentioned mark judge. he says i don't recall this party and i don't want to testify publicly. ford's team wants him to be subpoenaed and compelled to testify. how does this play out? how vital is his voice to this conversation? >> typically we don't let witnesses make a decision about whether or not they want to testify unless, of course, they're victims, where there's a little bit more leniency. when we've just got a fact
witness being asked what did you see when this happen, what did you observe, there seems to be little rationale for letting him get away from testifying under oath. if he's in fact the linchpin for judge kavanaugh nothing happened he will have to testify before the senate committee. >> and to that end he'll have to remember to say that nothing happened, correct? >> his testimony will be what it is. in his letter he says it didn't happen, so it's important for him to say that under oath. >> joyce vance, always love talking with you. under oath or not. behind the scenes in the oval office and in a few minutes why the first daughter is telling her father cut the judge loose.
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?
today, life-changing technology from abbott is helping hunt them down at their source. because the faster we can identify new viruses, the faster we can get to stopping them. the most personal technology, is technology with the power to change your life. life. to the fullest. a new report says ivanka trump has weighed in on the kavanaugh nomination advising her father to cut loose. joining me now is the reporter who broke this story.
what happened here? why does ivanka want the president, her father to drop the judge and what was his reaction? >> really this story grew out of a question we all last week, why was he not tweeting support of kavanaugh and playing it down the middle in which both sides should be heard. there was a lot of fear more could come out about the judge and ivanka in particular is worried about the president's standing with wo standing with women. and this was more baggage around the president. and she was saying why stand in with guy? so it was looking through the middle of last week that the president was really not going to go all in for him, but as we saw friday he couldn't help himself and went after judge kavanaugh's accuser. >> there were a whole bunch of them that could potentially have been a lot easier but with a nomination process you never
know what's going to cracrop up. why do you think to your point until friday he was silent and it all turned on friday? >> well, he was being implored by white house aides to not jump into the fray and they were successful until the end of the week. but the president were telling aides that the kavanaugh nomination was quote, hit job. and he went in there not helping things, and i think as "the washington post" reported mitch mcconnell was calling him, calling don't do this, this is going to hurt our nominations. >> he's become apparently agitated at some of the specific and detailed questions about his past, sex life and the like.
what's bin the reaction to that? >> really as we saw again another really strong piece "the washington post" was getting at the fact they were just going at him to try to rattle him. because this is what senators could do to him, and he was saying i don't want to answer that question, that's a personal matter. and i think the optics of that are really telling. if you have him on national television really trying to sigh this is not public business after the allegations have been raised, that's a nightmare standing for the gop. >> as you've reported i guess you could say white house counsel don mcgahn, not exactly the president's favorite -- >> already on the way out. >> already on the way out. is the president seething about this? publicly putting on a controlled face but privily seething about all of this? >> what sources tell me is don m mcgahn was pushing kavanaugh,
and the president is frustrated he listened to don mcgahn and he's now in a position of having to stand behind the judge. i think this is one more example of the president's really rocky relationship with mcgahn. and really it's a broken relationship as we just noted. the president tweeted mcgahn is leaving essentially forcing his hand and pushing him out. that's going to be don mcgahn's legacy, of course, not a strong relationship with the president but really reslaping the courts and pushing through conservatives in the judiciary. >> love seeing you on a sunday morning. now to a political family feud and it involves a republican arizona congressman running for re-election and running into opposition from his own siblings. but that's not the only sibling political rivalry this fall. take a listen. >> and he doesn't have your interest at heart. >> reporter: six siblings all speaking out against their brother and he makes another bid
for congress. republican incumbent paul gosar is running against david gill in arizona's fourth district. in this political fight they released ads featuring gosar's family showing how they split on from their brother's views. and it's not just arizona. in wisconsin it's a battle of the bryce brothers. james bryce is endorsing the candidate running against his own brother, randy, for paul ryan's seat. the attack ad has their mom playing moderator. it's another case of politics creating bad blood among family. >> we're looking at this convoluted and very complicated and highly emotional situation where families much like in the civil war are beginning to take sides. >> reporter: now in hut should make for an interesting family reunion candidate paul gosar is striking back on his campaign website.
saying, quote, to the six angry democrat gosars, see you mom and dad's house. what does the 85-year-old a matriarch think about all this? after the times reporter filled her in, she said she was shocked and crushed but she said her son has done a hell of a job for arizona, and she also added his opponent doesn't have a chance. next the potential impact of thursday's judiciary hearing on the mid-terms and which party is likely to benefit. but we're going to go now to the ups and downs and wild ride for people investing in pot stocks. publicly traded companies dealing in the marijuana business are all the rage on wall street. one company saw its shares soar 221% in the last month. but the cannabis boom could gust. >> bottom line, please do not get carried away by reefer
madness. it will end badly when the stock market gets flooded with cannabis stocks. on the down side, president trump's new tariffs against china take effect tomorrow. unlike the previous tariffs this $200 billion penalty will affect mostly consumer goods and wal-mart says shoppers may have to pay the price. the roar is back for tiger woods. he enters today's final round of the championship leading by three strokes. he's trying to capture his 80 pga tour victory, and believe it or not his first win in more than five years. and you think president trump's approval numbers are low, well they're even lower for his french counterpart emmanuel macron. over two months his approval mark has dropped 10 points to 29%. oh!
oh! ♪ ozempic®! ♪ (vo) people with type 2 diabetes are excited about the potential of once-weekly ozempic®. in a study with ozempic®, a majority of adults lowered their blood sugar and reached an a1c of less than seven and maintained it. oh! under seven? (vo) and you may lose weight. in the same one-year study, adults lost on average up to 12 pounds. oh! up to 12 pounds? (vo) a two-year study showed that ozempic® does not increase the risk of major cardiovascular events like heart attack, stroke, or death. oh! no increased risk? ♪ ozempic®! ♪ ozempic® should not be the first medicine for treating diabetes,
or for people with type 1 diabetes or diabetic ketoacidosis. do not share needles or pens. don't reuse needles. do not take ozempic® if you have a personal or family history of medullary thyroid cancer, multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, or if you are allergic to ozempic®. stop taking ozempic® and get medical help right away if you get a lump or swelling in your neck, severe stomach pain, itching, rash, or trouble breathing. serious side effects may happen, including pancreatitis. tell your doctor if you have diabetic retinopathy or vision changes. taking ozempic® with a sulfonylurea or insulin may increase the risk for low blood sugar. common side effects are nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, stomach pain, and constipation. some side effects can lead to dehydration, which may worsen kidney problems. i discovered the potential with ozempic®. ♪ oh! oh! oh! ozempic®! ♪ (vo) ask your healthcare provider if ozempic® is right for you. than rheumatoid arthritis. before you and your rheumatologist move to another treatment, ask if xeljanz xr is right for you.
xeljanz xr is a once-daily pill for adults with moderate to severe ra for whom methotrexate did not work well enough. it 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 your 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. don't let another morning go by without talking to your rheumatologist about xeljanz xr.
we are back with new reaction from capitol hill on the heels of the bombshell development in the brett kavanaugh confirmation battle. republican senator lindsey graham just moments ago defending the conditions republicans on the judiciary committee proposed for dr. ford to testify and also pushed back on the criticism they're wanting for bringing in a female lawyer to question her. >> we're not going to let her determine how many people we call. we're going to call dr. ford, then mr. kavanaugh is the way you would do it in any other
situation and we'll hire our own lawyers and that's it. if they can't accept that, that means they really don't want testify. we've got 11 politicians who really haven't done a trial in 12 years. and i thought it would be smart for someone to come in, ask the questions and be respectful. if she wanted to stay anonymous, those who betrayed her need to apologize, but she will be treated respectfully but she will be challenged just like judge kavanaugh. >> let's bring in the former director for strategic nominations for hillary clinton's campaign, steve israel, also the former chairman of the dccc and the author of "big guns." your reaction to the senator's comments on where the negotiations stand specifically in terms of who's going to be doing the q&a.
>> it seems lindsey graham has not learned one thing from what the republicans went through during the anita hill hearings. he's making it seem like the burden is on dr. ford. and to the extent she does have something to prove here. but the bottom line, this is exactly why the gop are doing so bad with women. these guys have not learned anything how the optics looked or how horribly they looked for republicans after the anita hill hearings. >> what's your take on this? >> it's coming down to basically he said, she said with a 37-year lapse in between. and this isn't meant to discount either party. this is a fact. first it was an anonymous letter and now she's coming forth to make her claim, and she has every right to do it under the conditions and terms she feels comfortable to do it.
but there's also, you know, procedure that has to be done. and i like the way lindsey graham addressed it. and i really think he is on point with it. and this is chance for her to get her message out. i'm also happy the fact that she is going to go first and kavanaugh going second because in the original playings her attorney wanted her to go last. and i think it's better that she get the accusation out and go through the details so that he has a chance to, you know, get his side of the story. >> steve, i want to play for you another clip from senator graham. just moments ago speaking about how the democrats have handled this. let's listen to that. >> all i would tell my colleagues, i know you hate trump. i am going to look at this from the prism of being reasonable and fair to judge kavanaugh. everything i know about judge kavanaugh goes against this allegation. i want to listen to dr. ford. i feel sorry for her. i feel she's being used her.
what's your response to that? >> well, because every mid-term election is about one thing. it is a referendum on the president. look, what's going to happen thursday is not just about whether this process is fair but about the mid-term elections. and everything on thursday is going through that filter. we're 44 days away, and let me just say this 44 days away from a mid-term election. as the former chair of the dccc i can tell you every election is about two things. it's about the message and turn out. and what we will see on thursday is connective tissue between the two. we have 257 women running for congress. we have women who marched the day after the inauguration, they're marching for the polls. >> i want to turn now to a new article in "the washington post," and it is on a practice hearing held between kavanaugh
and white house aides on christine blasey ford's sexual misconduct allegation. it says in that trial run kavanaugh condemned sexual assault and carefully avoided seeming to discredit dr. ford. but kavanaugh grew frustrated when it came to questions that dug into his private life, particularly his drinking habits and his sexual proclivity. and then according to the report, he declined to answer some questions altogether. how problematic would it be for republicans if kavanaugh handles thursday's tentative hearing this way? >> i'm glad they're going through this process with the murder boards. i think we had two or three murder board practices just to make sure we iron out some details so he could be best prepared before you went before senators to answer those tough questions. in this case for judge kavanaugh he's going to have a difficult time responding to those democratic senators who's going
to push back hard on his past. he's not going to be able to say i don't want to talk about those things, those things are personal and i don't want to reveal them to the public because at this point this has become a political thing. i think when you reference the nbc washington journal poll that just came out a few days ago, when you look at the break down by independents, now he's negative. now i know when you look at mid-terms it's about turning out the base. and while republicans have become cemented in their support of kavanaugh in more tight districts where that'll need that additional support to win, i think republicans are going to face a challenge depending on how this goes next week. >> andrew mccarthy writes in the national review that a hear would not establish either that the incident is fabrication or kavanaugh is culpable. at the end of the hearing we'd be exactly where we are now. what do you think the chances are we come out of that hearing
assuming the final details are worked out and it takes place on thursday, no closer to settling the he said, she said? >> look you raised good point here. because number one, it's not like we're looking at dna evidence, and this really does come down to a he said, she said, and it really does come down to optics. i think republicans have got to -- again, if they learned anything from the anita hill hearings is you've got to take the women seriously, you've got to take the women claims seriously and this is what the me too movement has ushered in. republicans have got to look at this from the standpoint not only do we want to confirm kavanaugh but we don't want to alienate women. >> after this anticipated hearing with dr. ford, look it's still a numbers game.
for democrats, to adrian's point, how much of this fight is really about creating a strong position with women in the mid-terms? >> oh, it's vitally important. as i said before, this mid-term -- the message of this mid-term is about three things, women, women and women. they started by marching on washington after the inauguration. they've been marching to the polls in special elections across the country. as i've said 257 women running for congress, that is a record breaker. and if we go into the next 44 days with that message continuing to dominate, then i think we're looking at a significant democratic majority in the house of representatives. still unseen as to whether the democrats could take back the senate. but it will change the landscape. and when we look back on this, nobody's going to be talking about the process going into this hearing. they'll be talking about the galvanization of women going into the mid-term.
>> it's interesting this poll, 42% of women oppose kavanaugh, 28% support him. how big of a concern is that going into the mid-terms? do you think republican would fair better if they pulled c kavanau kavanaugh at this point? >> no, and i think polling can change. >> weigh in. >> just really quickly if you look at that poll actually with republican women, they supported kavanaugh in august this year at 58%. now they're up to 66% or 67%. that support has actually increased with republican women. so i would like to see another poll taken after this week as well. >> okay, all four of you stay right where you are because coming up next proceed with caution. if the president's advisers are advising him not to fire
rosenstein. ♪ come to my window. ohhh. ♪ crawl inside, wait by the light of the moon. ♪ applebee's to go. add a fountain drink to your next order for just 99 cents. now that's eatin' good in the neighborhood. need a change of scenery? the kayak price forecast tool tells you whether to wait or book your flight now. so you can be confident you're getting the best price. giddyup! kayak.
search one and done. uhp. i didn't believe it. again. ♪ ooh, baby, do you know what that's worth? ♪ i want to believe it. [ claps hands ] ♪ ooh i'm not hearing the confidence. okay, hold the name your price tool. power of options based on your budget! and! ♪ we'll make heaven a place on earth ♪ yeah! oh, my angels! ♪ ooh, heaven is a place on earth ♪ [ sobs quietly ] your hair is so soft!a place on earth ♪ did you use head and shoulders two in one? i did mom. wanna try it? yes. it intensely moisturizes your hair and scalp and keeps you flake free. manolo? look at my soft hair. i should be in the shot now too. try head and shoulders two in one.
money managers are pretty much the same. all but while some push high commission investment products, fisher investments avoids them. some advisers have hidden and layered fees. fisher investments never does. and while some advisers are happy to earn commissions from you whether you do well or not, fisher investments fees are structured so we do better when you do better. maybe that's why most of our clients come from other money managers. fisher investments. clearly better money management. new questions about the fate of deputy attorney general rod rosenstein facing the wrath of the white house after "the new york times" reported he floated
the idea of secretly recording the president and invoking the 25th amendment. advisers to the president are counseling against firing rosenstein. but the article says those close to the president consider the midterm elections to be key. and the message to the president is to wait until november to make any changes at the justice department. my panel is back with me. i want to get to each of you before the hour ends. before i go any further, i do want to make clear that rosenstein called "the new york times" report inaccurate and factually incorrect. but do you think midterms are the main reason why he still has a job this morning and that he will be out of a job in november? >> absolutely. i think it would be disastrous for the president to fire him now because i have seen narratives from the democrats that they should be there to be a check on the white house, to be a check against corruption that they believe is coming from republicans who are pretty much
abo with the president. however, they do have a legitimate argument to make for firing him after midterms because the president could say this guy, according to this report, said some things that undermines my ability to be effective at my role. i want someone that i know that i can trust in that position and i think most republicans would standby that. >> the washington post, adrian, says that on friday the president was polling advisers on whether or not he should fire rosenstein. and in those discussions, the president said the story confirmed what he knew all along, that justice department officials were out to get him. from the democrat's perspective, how do you think this reflects on the democrats and the russia investigation? >> i think this is president trump looking at our institutions, our government institutions and just trying to continue to politicize them, trying to continue to say that the deep state is what's controlling our government, which sadly is wrong and it just
adds to the erosion of some of our government institutions, which have a role in playing a check and balance on the president. but, look, even the president's advisers know that a firing of rosenstein at this point in the game, 44 days from the midterm elections would be seen as being politically motivated. shawn hannity, of course, basically the president's outside communications director tweeted at the president saying don't fire rosenstein. so it just looks bad all around. but democrats are already running on this, and they should because there is always this risk, of course. we never know what president trump is going to do from day-to-day, so there is a risk he could fire rosenstein before the midterms. >> president trump on saturday was more suspicious than furious about the report. and then he asked aids whether he was being baited into taking action that could imperil his presidency. what is your read on why this is all coming out now? >> you know, i really think that
nobody knows why this is coming out now, but i think that obviously it's making president trump very upset. you know, he's already been suspicious over the entire investigation, and he feels like he should be cleared. he thinks the investigation should be wrapped up quickly. but he will not fire rosenstein. it's the midterms. he's not going to do anything. he probably should fire him, but he's not going to do it because the republicans do not need to focus on this with 44 days left until midterms. >> steve, i'm curious. how important is the distinguishing characterization of what rod rosenstein said about the 25th amendment and about potentially moving the president or, you know, wearing a wire and having him be recorded that there was an element of sarcasm interpreted by some. lisa page said she took it seriously. but there are those conflicting reports. how important is that? >> well, you know, we now have a
presidency whose slogan seems to be i was only kidding. we go from, you know, a new deal to i was only kidding. this is a real problem for republicans. the fact that we're even having this conversation about invoking the 25th amendment and whether or not it was a joke tells you the disarray and the chaos of this administration and where we may be going into this midterm. >> i will say, it's reminding me of what omarosa told me when she was here and she talked about the #tfa, which she claims was circulated among a number of people on the white house on her level, aids and the like. she said including some family members, that they would put that out there as a joke. you know, what does this do to the ether when you have this kind of discussion that it keeps circling around, the 25th
amendment, what does this do to have this just constantly out there? >> well, what it shows is that the individuals who are surrounding the president, the folks who are expected with carrying out his duties on behalf of the american people do not have confidence in his ability to do that effectively. i think it is something that beyond the political space should indeed concern most americans. why those the closest to the president are joking around with something like that shouldn't be a joke. that guy could get us into a war for god sakes that could impact the entire nation. this is something as a country we should be talking about. if those individuals really do have a legitimate concern, they should come public with those concerns and fears. >> all right. you guys are a rock star final. i want to thank you so much. good to see you guys. thank you. coming up today at noon eastern, i will speak with ranking member of the house intelligence committee, adam schiff. but first valerie jarrett speaks to joy about the impact former
it's gonna be fine. it's a door... ♪ it's doing a lot of kicking down there. waiting to be opened. ♪ whatever your ambition... ♪ whatever your drive... ♪ whatever you're chasing... driver, are we almost there? we're gonna have a baby! ♪ daddy! daddy! opportunity is everywhere. ♪ all you have to do to find it is get out... here. ♪ >> tech: so you think this chip is nothing to worry about? well at safelite, we know sooner or later every chip will crack. these friends were on a trip when their windshield got chipped. so they scheduled at safelite.com. they didn't have to change their plans
or worry about a thing. i'll see you all in a little bit. and i fixed it right away with a strong repair they can trust. plus, with most insurance a safelite repair is no cost to you. >> customer: really?! >> tech: being there whenever you need us that's another safelite advantage. >> singers: safelite repair, safelite replace. so why not bundle them with esurance and save up to 10%? which you can spend on things you really want to buy, like... well, i don't know what you'd wanna buy because i'm just a guy on your tv. esurance. it's surprisingly painless.