tv All In With Chris Hayes MSNBC September 25, 2018 5:00pm-6:00pm PDT
what dr. ford says is true, it's a problem, no matter your culture or politics, whatever. that's where trump began before he got the whistle that the base will blame him if he loses this fight. this fight he never looked to me he was so thrilled to have to make in the first place. thanks for being with us. "all in" with chris hayes starts right now. tonight on "all in". >> the accuser has nothing. >> the president uses the world stage to attack kavanaugh accusers. >> she admits she was drunk. >> tonight, mounting evidence, the kavanaugh nomination is in serious trouble. >> do you have 50 votes to confirm judge kavanaugh? >> i believe he'll be confirmed, yes. >> and my interview with senator kirsten gillibrand. >> she's being disparaged publicly by this president, it's disgraceful. >> mitch mcconnell's new hire. >> we have hired a female assistant. >> and the growing concerns about a rigged hearing.
how brett kavanaugh is widening his own credibility gap. >> the vast majority of time i spent in high school was studying. >> and making sense of donald trump's unexpected laugh line at the u.n. >> didn't expect that reaction, but that's okay. "all in" starts right now. good evening from new york. i'm chris hayes. it is a striking testament to the politics of this moment in america, 2018, that today, as brett kavanaugh, supreme court nomination, threatening to fall apart over sexual assault allegation which he is denying. bill cosby was sentenced to three to ten years in prison for his own sexual assault conviction, and that, outside the courtroom, cosby's spokesman drew an explicit link between the two men, describing them both as victims of what he called a "sex war." >> the racist and sexist mass media was attacking and denouncing dr. cosby. what is going on in washington
today with judge kavanaugh is part of that sex war that judge o'neill, along with his wife are a part of. >> that is probably not a connection republicans want to make, as kavanaugh's nomination hangs in the balance just two days before the nominee and the woman accusing him of sexual assault, dr. christine blasey ford, are set to testify under oath before the senate judiciary committee. as negotiations continue behind the scenes, one thing seems very clear. at this moment mitch mcconnell does not appear to have the votes to confirm brett kavanaugh. if he did he would have probably already called a vote. and now, two days before the american people get to hear dr. blasey ford's story in person, in her own words, republicans are trying desperately to savage kavanaugh's nomination through bluster and legislative force. that includes the president who's speaking at the u.n. general assembly in new york, has now abandoned any restraint on this topic, maligning deborah
ramirez, a second woman accusing kavanaugh of sexual misconduct, which kavanaugh also denies. >> now a new charge comes up, and she said, well, it might not be him. there were gaps. she said she was totally inebriated. and she was all messed up. and she doesn't know it was him, but it might have been him. oh, gee, let's not make him a supreme court judge because of that? this is a congame being played by the democrats. the second accuser doesn't even know -- he shies maybe it could have been him, maybe not. she admits that she was drunk. >> maybe because of comments like that, because of the risks of trying to "demonize" an accuser, as bob corker put it. the republicans outsourced their own questions to a female attorney, described as an experienced sex crimes prosecutor. this is how mcconnell characterized her role. >> we have hired a female
assistant to go on staff and to ask these questions in a respectful and professional way. >> a female assistant. they have found a female assistant to help them. republicans have declined to identify said female assistant. but i'm guessing that's not what's on her resume. gop senators just announced plans to move forward with a vote the morning after thursday's testimony. but it's hard to imagine how they're going to convince more senators to support judge kavanaugh after they've heard dr. blasey ford's own account of what happened to her. one of the senators they'll have to convince is lisa murkowski who does not sound like she's there yet. she told "the new york times" it's important for her colleagues to take the accusations against kavanaugh seriously and she acknowledged today that an fbi investigation, which republicans ruled out, would have helped to get to the truth. >> an investigation would certainly, certainly clear up some of the questions that are
out there. i think what is most important for not only our process in the legislative branch, but for the integrity of the judiciary, i think it is important that we have a process that is viewed as credible and respected. >> for more on where kavanaugh's nomination stands i'm joined by democratic senator kirsten gillibrand of new york. what's your understanding of where things are at right now? >> well, i feel like what we're seeing from the republican party, and certainly the white house is just attack, deny, attack, deny, and try to shove this through so quickly so that you can't actually have a real hearing. or a proper investigation. the fact that they won't allow the fbi to investigate these claims is shocking. the fact that they don't attend and call corroborating witnesses is concerning. the fact they're not even going
to assess ms. ramirez's claims is also unacceptable. so i just feel like they're just pushing this through at all costs. >> the president today referred to the claim by ms. ramirez, that she was drunk, that she was confused, is and that all of this is a "con job in his eyes". i hope american women are paying attention. president trump has shown in words and deed that he doesn't value women. he's attacking someone who's come forward, a survivor. they wonder why survivors don't come forward, it's exactly this reason, because they're treated so poorly, by the commander in chief. she's being berated, accused of lying, disparaged publicly by this president. it's disgraceful. i hope the american public and women all across this country are paying attention so they can call senators and urge them to vote no on kavanaugh. clearly he doesn't have the character or honesty to be a supreme court justice.
>> do you think the republicans or -- have they convinced themselves this is a conspiracy, a grand plot that you and your colleagues on the democratic side have cooked up to sabotage kavanaugh. >> i can't get into the minds of the republicans. but i can tell you what they've done is unconscionable. they're not even giving the basic process that they gave to anita hill, to not even have the fbi investigation, to make it impossible to call corroborating witnesses who have relevant information to offer, i think, is really disconcerting. but i think if america's public does speak out we have a chance of defeating this nominee on the merits. >> you don't think it's a done deal? you think it's an open question as to whether the votes are there and whether this will happen or not? >> i believe it's an open question. because i believe that if the american people speak out loudly on this, and really talk about their own personal experiences, and how they see this unfolding and how offended they are by the president's remarks and offended
they are by this process, i think they can change votes of senators today. it's a moment when america's women need to be heard and that americans who care about justice need to be heard. >> let me ask you, there's been a strange line i think republicans have tried to walk here, clearly they've been counselled not to try to not disparage or attack the accusers and have an open mind, but a lot of them just want to go ahead and vote anyway. i want to get your reaction to some of the comments we've heard some of your colleagues and also from kevin cramer, trying to be one of your colleagues running in north dakota for the republican party. take a listen. >> so you think these women are making it up? >> they had a little help, i have a feeling. >> accusations are being made about things that didn't happen, and i think it's very unfortunate. >> if the accusation is enough, god help us all around here. i will respectfully listen. but if there's nothing new here, i am not going to deny him a promotion to the supreme court based on a 35-year-old
accusation. >> even if it's all true, does it disqualify him? certainly it means he did something really bad 36 years ago. but does it disqualify him from the supreme court? >> start with that last question. what's your answer? >> the fact that this candidate, for senate, doesn't believe that someone who assaults a young woman, who's a minor, 15 years old, assaults her, covers her mouth when she tries to scream, and that story's being corroborated by people who have heard this story before, the fact that she told her therapist five years ago, the fact that she told her husband five years ago, a friend a year ago, the fact that she's taken a lie detector, asking the fbi to investigate, those are all indicia of truth. the fact he says that even if it's true that it is not grounds to disqualify him, i don't know what planet he's living on. that's a violent crime. he should be going to jail if he was allowed to be prosecuted today. it's not okay. and so i think the fact that so many people, so many republicans
and my colleagues are saying oh, it's just an allegation, well, it's not just an allegation. you assess their credibility. that's their job as senators. they're supposed to assess the credibility of people who are coming forward to say i don't think this person's trust worthy. i don't think this person's telling the truth. they've lied under oath about their past and then to roll out a fox news interview as if it's an fbi investigation. a fox news interview is not an fbi investigation. they didn't even ask all the relevant questions. and the fact that he downplayed his drinking while his best friend wrote a whole book about their drunken behavior, the fact that his college roommate said that he would come home drunken and would come home belligerent, the fact that he said about ms. ramirez, again brett kavanaugh's college roommate said i believe her because she has the kind of personality, she was kind and thoughtful, he couldn't imagine her making this up. that's called corroborating evidence. it's things you hear and listen to, and then assess. who do i believe?
that's your job. this is not a court of law. we are not proving beyond a reasonable doubt. no one's going to jail. this is about, do you deserve the promotion? do you deserve this job opportunity to be a supreme court justice? to have a lifetime appointment, to make fundamental decisions about women's rights for perhaps decades to come, do you have the privilege to serve? not whether you're going to be convicted in law. every time you hear on fox news, assume you're innocent, you have to have proof beyond a reasonable doubt, they're trying to confuse voters. they're trying to confuse people across this country. that's what -- that is not what this is about. this is about, do you believe he's honest? do you believe he has the character to have a lifetime appointment? do you think his story isn't adding up? and based on hearing from these two women, strong, credible women and their stories and all the corroborating evidence, i believe them. >> all right, senator kirsten gillibrand, thank you for joining me. >> you're welcome. for more, i'm joined by sun
min kim, and the former deputy chief of staff to harry reed. i've been following your commentary, adam, as someone who's spent a lot of time working on the other side of mitch mcconnell, knows him well and his staff well. i want to play a question he had today about getting votes and his response to it. take a listen. >> we're going to be moving forward. i'm confident we're going to win. i'm confident he will be confirmed in the very near future. >> do you have 50 votes to confirm judge kavanaugh? >> i believe he'll be confirmed, yes. >> didn't answer the question, adam, what do you think? >> he didn't answer the question because he doesn't have 50 votes, what he's betting is he didn't get 50 votes when he call it is vote. he's doing an extremely aggressive strategy against his own members. this is the same strategy that mitch mcconnell employed on health care repeal. he called the vote when he didn't have the votes, betting that he could put some
combination of collins, murkowski and mccain on the spot, force them on the carpet to vote if way he wanted them to vote and they didn't. i think a big issue here is that senators do not take kindly to being called on the carpet. what happens from here remains to be seen. but i think it's very clear that he doesn't have the votes right now. >> sun min, we got word the committee chair chuck grassley has noticed a vote for friday, procedurally giving enough warning for that. senator harris of california saying that reacting to that saying republicans just announced a committee vote at 9:30 a.m. on a friday, less than 20 hours after thursday's hearing ends, this means little to no for the american people to contact and weigh in. it's a sham. grassley is saying, after hearing, if we're ready to vote, we'll vote. if we aren't ready, we won't vote. it seems they're putting the conditions in place they can vote a day later if they want to, right?
>> exactly. committee rules getting wonky here, you have to announce it three days before they want to hold a vote. so they're clearly holding the option, if the hearing goes very bad for judge kavanaugh and folks on their side to delay it if necessary. but looking at it in the context of what republicans have been saying the last several days, once we got that thursday date hearing locked down for that very highly anticipated hearing, we -- a lot of senior senators have said we'll probably vote friday. we're looking at friday for a committee vote, party lunches, republican senators were told to be prepared to stay in washington this weekend to start processing the kavanaugh nomination. if the clock goes as planned, we could see a confirmation vote for judge kavanaugh on tuesday. it does seem like, from that clock, and also from the comments that we've seen from the senators, as you played earlier, a lot of their minds are made up. and i think some republicans tell me privately they expect, you know, perhaps both judge kavanaugh and dr. ford to do
well, kind of, in speaking generally in front of -- in this very tense situation, in front of a national audience. so members kind of have to determine their own credibility threshold and figure out who they believe. >> although, the rush here, adam, it seems to me, is partly a kind of confidence game by mcconnell. i think this is a key point here. like all of the rushing, the way they're conducting this, mcconnell is not bargaining from a position of strength at this point. in terms of the signals they're sending about how they manage this. >> mcconnell is running game on his own conference, on his fellow republican senators. he is betting that he can basically bully them into voting, yes. whether that happens or not remains to be seen. but this is a very interesting approach from a leader. it's exactly what he tried on health care. we'll see if republican senators have the courage to stand up, as senator mccain did on that vote for what's right here.
it's very interesting to see a leader to sort of take an antagonistic approach when it comes to strategy so his own conference. >> seung min, you spend time in the halls all day. is it your thought minds are made up? >> that's what it seems like. the leadership tells us a lot of members are watching thursday's hearings and will make it official after then. senator bob corker told us earlier on the capital he has asked his staff to clear out his entire day to be able to watch that hearing. but in that same conversation, you know, senator corker made it clear he will officially make up his mind after he watches that testimony. but at the same time, knowing what he knows of judge kavanaugh, like he thinks he's a good guy. like the -- his interview with him went well. you have significant skepticism from senior republicans, particularly on the second woman, the woman whose allegations were outlined in the new yorker over the weekend. so clearly, as it often is, it's down to just a handful of votes.
senator susan collins of maine is obviously very closely watching the hearing on thursday. i thought senator lisa murkowski's comments to the "new york times" were very interesting, someone who we should be watching. and senator jeff flake as well, who's on the committee. they're not doing the questioning, but it will be interesting to see his reaction to the responses. >> it was flay sayike saying he not vote out of committee. i bet murkowski and flake are not in the pocket of mcconnell. he needs one of those two. thank you both. coming up, more, the "female assistant" the republicans have hired to interview kavanaugh's accuser. why democrats are raising alarms over the emerging details of thursday's hearing in two minutes. take this left. if you listen real hard you can hear the whales.
oop. you hear that? (vo) our subaru outback lets us see the world. sometimes in ways we never imagined. when you rent from national... it's kind of like playing your own version of best ball. because here, you can choose any car in the aisle, even if it's a better car class than the one you reserved. so no matter what, you're guaranteed to have a perfect drive. [laughter] (vo) go national. go like a pro. see what i did there?
high school sexual assault allegation against supreme court nominee brett kavanaugh, an allegation kavanaugh denies. even putting aside the massive stakes for both parties, it's shaping up to be a very strange scene. for starters, the 11 republicans of the committee, all of whom are men, are not planning to ask questions. they've hired a woman instead to do the job. >> we have hired a female assistant to go on staff and to ask these questions in a respectful and professional way. >> they don't say who their new assistant is, all we know is that she is an experienced sex crimes prosecutor who republicans won't identify. that, we should note, is contrary to the wishes of dr. ford. her lawyer writing in a later this is not -- repeatedly expressing concern they're trying to rig the hearing against her.
mike davis, playing a central role in setting all this up, tweeted last week that he was unfazed and determined we will confirm judge kavanaugh. former senior white house aide to president obama, chief council of the senate judiciary cree, and heidi perrison bo la. this female sex crimes prosecutor who is mysterious and unnamed. >> the republicans have hired her, they confirmed that in a letter that nbc obtained earlier today. however, they are determined to keep her identity a mystery because they say that it is for her own security that given all of the anger and tensions around this entire process, that they have to keep her name private. of course, the democrats are crying foul because in addition to all of the other requests that dr. ford has made that have been rejected, she and her team want to know who this person is
because they feel like this is yet another example of how the cards in the deck are being stacked against her. so many of the requests, chris, from the start, have been denied with the very basic request of just having any kind of corroboration even being allowed here, any kind of value day fors, any kind of testimony, the polygraph expert, her therapist, all of that denied and now it looks like we may not know the identity of the questioner either. >> following up, is the idea she's going to get there, walk in the room and there will be a complete stranger she doesn't know who's going to start asking her questions? >> if we the media do our jobs, then maybe this name will leak in advance. >> that is the plan. that's what they're going with? >> for now. >> okay, so -- >> i didn't get any indication from the republicans today on the hill that they intend to reveal who this person is. if they do, it will be very soon before the hearing. i mean, we're tuesday now, right? >> ron, i'm not crazy here, you worked on this committee, this
is highly, highly, highly irregular and anomalous. >> overall, we're shaping up for the red queen's courtroom from alice in wonderland, verdict first, trial later. they've already announced they're going to vote the day after, rejecting the idea of holding an fbi investigation before the hearing. they've rejected the idea of hearing any witnesses other than kavanaugh and ford. that includes they will not hear from the woman who's now brought a new charge against judge kavanaugh. they won't hear from dr. ford's therapist who can corroborate this. won't hear from other people who knew them. won't hear from the other person in the room, mark judge, who is hiding out with a comic book collection. this is a crazy process. it is designed to ramrod judge kavanaugh through, to try to get a vote, to try to call the vote and to try to get him on that supreme court as quickly as possible. >> you said this, ron, i thought it was interesting, here's some advise, both demes and gop should want professional and outside to question kavanaugh, not senators to make this a search for truth, not a
political platform for either party. is that what they're doing? >> no. i still think the idea of having counsel ask these questions instead of senators would be a good idea. but that's only a good idea as i said in the piece that's from, chris, if you first have a professional investigation done. if you have transparency about who those counsels are going to be, and on what basis they're asking the question. if it's even handed and balanced, if there's a chance to call witnesses. you know, i was chief counsel of the judiciary committee during the thomas hill hearings. those hearings have been roundly criticized, understandably. but we did call 22 witnesses to testify in public session about the interactions between thomas and hill, 22 witnesses. in this case, chairman grassley says no other witnesses will be called, including, as i said before, rejecting hearing from the person who was in the room when this happened. that's an outrageous proceeding. >> yeah, there's some new details in, a fourth statement with no time limit, a round of questions, five minutes each senator, not much time, and they
can give other time to other senators or staff counsel. so, heidi, it -- here's my read on this. tell me what you think. five-minute questions, they've hired this attorney to do it for them. they're not talking to anyone else, as ron said, mark judge, the person who is alleged to have been there, which basically, very rarely happens in allegations like this, usually it's just two people at issue, right? it seems to me like they are just trying to get through the day. that's the point of the whole thing is to have a hearing they can plausibly call a haerl and th -- hearing and gavel the vote. >> lindsey graham said if nothing changes, then we'll vote and my mind will be changed. it's been predetermined nothing will change in this hearing because you can't possibly uncover new information if you don't allow new information to come to the table, which is what's happened here with the express banning of any kind of value d validaters or additional
testimony or polygraph being submitted. it is fair to say that a lot of republican senators have made clear they've made up their minds. but there could be some kind of, you know, dramatics in this hearing that we cannot anticipate that will affect the outcome of this vote because they cannot take it to a vote unless they have a majority:. there's one very important person on that committee, it's jeff flake. and i think jeff flake will have the courage to stand up, potentially, depending on what happens in that testimony room. >> i'm just -- i think they're underestimating what's going to happen on thursday in terms of what it will be like to hear dr. ford, say in her own words, what happened to her. i think that -- >> chris, one note here. >> the idea they're steaming through and plowing through in mcconnell's words. >> i want to add to your beginning question about the unprecedented nature of this, some individuals are comparing this to watergate when they did bring in outside counsels, that's a red herring. we've never seen this before
where an outside counsel is expressly brought in, in order to shield the senators from having to ask potentially indelicate questions. >> right. >> or to look awkward. iran continue tra, watergate went on for months, iran cantra was a long process. we've never seen this before. >> having all men on your committee is not a problem of optics, it's an actual problem that can't be covered up by hiring somebody else. thank you both for being with me tonight. brett kavanaugh's latest defense strategy only added to the pressing questions about his credibility, talking about that after this.
from the local all-girls catholic schools. and yes, there were parties and the drinking age was 18 and yes, seniors were legal and had beer there. >> judge brett kavanaugh's memory of himself as a teenager is that of a young man fixated on church and his studies. that portrayal seems to be at odds with what others are staying. i'm joined by sam stein, an msnbc contributor. he has chosen to tell a story about his high school life that seems plainly ton tcontradicted the facts. >> the yearbook. >> 100 kegs or bust. >> mark judge, but we can't talk to him. it's a weird p.r. strategy. two routes, one is to say i was a choir boy, i worked on friendships, i was into
academics and athletics. and like most teenage kids, i got in trouble. i wasn't a choir boy, and now i'm a grown man and grown from those experiences. they've clearly gone the other route. it opens him up to other -- >> what do you make of this strategy from kavanaugh in recounting the life of his time in georgetown prep? >> well, people who live in washington know what the culture was like in georgetown prep, at least then, people who have children who went through it, who are now middle-aged like kavanaugh. but what i can't quite get over is that they have all these people who potentially have evidence who write to the committee through their lawyers and say i don't remember anything, i don't want to say anything. and they don't even have to sign an affidavit, much less be subpoenaed, which is normally what you do when there is a
dispute over facts, forget the fbi. just the committee. if there's a dispute over facts, you subpoena everybody. you put them under oath. some people you don't put on in public. some people you do put on in public. but either way, you make sure that the evidence you get is under oath, subject to a charge of perjury. otherwise, it's not worth the paper it's written on. >> and one of the key people you've mentioned him now, and nina, i think this is one of the people you're referring to is mark judge, the person alleged to have been there by dr. ford. in his book, which is -- i mean, that's the thing that's so by sar about this. we know that judge and kavanaugh are friends, they refer to each other in the yearbook pages with a bunch of inside jokes about how much they drank. there's someone in a memoir that shows up passed out drunk. it's contradictory. >> it gets to the big hole in what kavanaugh is doing. if anyone were accused of something like this, and they
were innocent, the natural instinct of course would be open up my life, talk to everyone i knew back then. >> right. >> bring them in, subpoena them, launch an independent investigation. >> of course talk to mark judge, i have a friend who can vouch for the fact i did not commit sexual assault. please talk to him. >> the reason you would do that is precisely because this is not a criminal trial, a trial of politics and he may end up on the court, but he will end up on the court with a huge cloud over his head. if you want to -- if you're brett kavanaugh, you don't want to just get to the court, you want to get to the court and be legitimate. what he's doing now, he may very well end up there, but with an illegitimacy that could taint him for a while. >> what do you think of that, nina? >> i think that's possible. and i think this is a problem for the supreme court. justice thomas has outlived the accusations against him. anita hill is a person of great distinction today and so is he. but i'm sure he is not enjoying going back over this. if there are two of the seven
members of the court, the supreme court of the united states, who have these kinds of allegations about them unresolved, that is not a good thing for the court. it makes the court look like a pawn in political gamesmanship. and we depend on the supreme court to be the last place that protects our rights. and if we can't depend on that, because the people on it are puppets that are pushed through without the kind of process that we would hope they would be subjected to, then we've lost a great deal. >> there's also, i think, to nina's point about the legitimacy. there's something strange about watching the spectacle of someone operating as a political operative, going on knox fuse for a fairly safe interview when the whole idea is that this is someone exuding this kind of found authority and legitimacy in the court. >> this is the problem with the kavanaugh nomination, his roots
were as a political operative. he was part of that field. the association with ken starr, a huge irony for him going for fibbing and lying, he's being caught in these accusations. there's always that issue with this nomination. whether he can surmount it is a difficult question. i don't know. i mean, that is going to linger with him, whether he's confirmed or not. >> well, don't you think that this sort of is a moment, also, for the republican party? >> yeah. i mean, absolutely. >> how so? >> well, in the sense that they are pushing through this nomination, the republican leadership at the behest of the president, after all, brett kavanaugh wasn't -- was not mitch mcconnell's guy. >> no, he was not. >> he was not. he worried about the fact that he had a long paper trail. so a good deal of that paper trail was not given to the judiciary committee. so now there are all kinds of
questions about this. mcconnell is carrying the water. there's an election in, what, a month, five weeks, something like that? and the gender gap keeps growing bigger and bigger. >> yeah. >> and it's just -- i think it is not a great position for the republican party to be in either. >> i think that's quite, quite true. sam stein and nina totenberg, thank you both for joining us. coming up, michael moore is here to talk about trump and the midterms, which nina just talked about. an international joke in tonight's thing one, thing two, next.
with large debris and stuck-on dust, so shark invented duoclean, replacing the front wall with a rotating soft brush. while deep cleaning carpets, two brush rolls pick up large particles with ease, make quick work of stuck-on dust, giving hard floors a polished look, and fearlessly devour piles. shark duoclean technology, designed to do more on carpets and floors, available in corded and cord-free vacuums, and only available from shark. thing one, tonight, one of donald trump's go-to lines is how the whole world is laughing at us. all the time. the whole world is laughing at us, during the obama years he tweeted, we need a president who isn't a laughing stock to the entire world. and yet today, we have a president at the united nations where almost literally the
entire world was laughing at us. >> in less than two years my administration has accomplished more than almost any administration in the history of our country. america's -- so true. didn't expect that reaction, but that's okay. >> that was laughing at, not laughing with, just to be clear, the white house official transcript memorialized the moment for the record. trump's got another go-to strategy which he deployed after the speech. >> i think really well. it's gotten very good reviews, certainly, and i think it went very well. >> what did you feel about that? >> it was great. that was meant to get some laughter, but it was great. >> yes, the i meant to do that strategy. tried and true. and that's thing two in 60 seconds.
regular viewers of thing one, thing two know president trump is a very effective construction strategy when he flubs something on the teleprompter. all of us who read teleprompters, making mistakes. but when trump messes up, he adds a word and then corrects, making it seem like he meant to say the first word, no matter how incorrect or nonsensical or just plain weird it might sound. >> let us rethink old assumptions and open our hearts and minds to possible and possibilities. >> today at the united nations, big teleprompter speech. while his delivery has gotten smoother, careful listeners caught a few new ones. as they struggle to reclaim their religious and righteous destiny. but despite reported and
repeated warnings, tolerance for human struggling and human smuggling and trafficking is not humane. >> he is definitely getting better. but that last one is a sure thing for our own hall of fame. >> he goes by dj, and cj. he said call me either one. >> instead given unelected regular -- >> we will arrive at a peace and a place. >> they work two jobs and sometimes three jobs. they sack rayfies, every day, for the furniture and future of their children. >> authority and authoritarian powers. >> through their lives and though their lives were cut short. >> our hope is a word and world of proud independent nations.
>> what standard -- and really if you think of it, when you talk about the great sailors and the great sailors of the world, we have them. but what stranded sailor doesn't feel relief. >> tolerance for human struggling and human smuggling. and this is laura's mobile dog grooming palace. laura can clean up a retriever that rolled in foxtails, but she's not much on "articles of organization." articles of what? so, she turned to legalzoom. they helped me out. she means we helped with her llc, trademark, and a lot of other legal stuff that's a part of running a business. so laura can get back to the dogs. would you sit still? this is laura's mobile dog grooming palace and this is where life meets legal. you wouldn't accept from any one else. why accept it from your allergy pills? flonase relieves your worst symptoms including nasal congestion, which most pills don't. flonase helps block 6 key inflammatory substances. most pills only block one.
flonase. "have you lost weight?" of course i have- ever since i started renting from national. because national lets me lose the wait at the counter... ...and choose any car in the aisle. and i don't wait when i return, thanks to drop & go. at national, i can lose the wait...and keep it off. looking good, patrick. i know. (vo) go national. go like a pro.
so let's promote our falle a homecomingtravel dealame, on choicehotels.com like this. touchdown. earn a free night when you stay just twice this fall. or, badda book. badda boom. book now at choicehotels.com but let's be honest, nobody likes dealing with insurance. which is why esurance hired me, dennis quaid, as their spokesperson because apparently, i'm highly likable. see, they know it's confusing.
i literally have no idea what i'm getting, dennis quaid. that's why they're making it simple, man in cafe. and more affordable. thank you, dennis quaid. you're welcome. that's a prop apple. i'd tell you more, but i only have 30 seconds. so here's a dramatic shot of their tagline so you'll remember it. esurance. it's surprisingly painless. remember when the trump administration started getting criticism for ripping immigrant families apart? homeland security -- security secretary kirstjen nielsen repeatedly insisted there was no such policy like when she tweeted on june 17th, we do not have a policy of separating families at the border, period. she followed that up the next day at a white house briefing. >> there's a lot of misinformation about what dhs is, and is not doing as it relates to families at the border. i want to correct the record. here are the facts.
first, this administration did not create a policy of separating families at the border. >> that was obviously untrue, as we noted repeatedly and loudly at the time. not the least because the department of justice had just announced publicly a new so-called zero tolerance policy. with a public release out on their website for all to see. now we have even more on the paper trail contradicting the secretary's statement. a group called open the government request found a memo dated -- addressed to the secretary increasing prosecutions of immigration violations, in this memo, the sentence "dhs could also per missably direct the separation of parents or legal guardians and minors held in immigration detention so that the parent or legal guardian can be prosecuted pursuant to these authorities." this is, of course, exactly what happened, pursuant to the policy that had been announced. yet they told us what we knew was happening was, in fact, not
happening. federal court you'll remember earlier this year ordered the government to reunite the children it took from their families an order with which the government has only partially complied. as of september 20th, 182 children and the wolf huffed and puffed... like you do sometimes, grandpa? well, when you have copd, it can be hard to breathe. so my doctor said... symbicort can help you breathe better. starting within 5 minutes. it doesn't replace a rescue inhaler for sudden symptoms. doctor: symbicort helps provide
significant improvement of your lung function. symbicort is for copd, including chronic bronchitis and emphysema. it should not be taken more than twice a day. it may increase your risk of lung infections, osteoporosis, and some eye problems. tell your doctor if you have a heart condition or high blood pressure before taking it. grandpa: symbicort could mean a day with better breathing. watch out, piggy! (giggles) get symbicort free at saveonsymbicort.com. if you can't afford your medication, astrazeneca may be able to help. if you can't afford your medication, not in this house.? 'cause that's no ordinary family. that's your family. which is why you didn't grab just any cheese. you picked up new kraft expertly paired cheddar and swiss for eggs. beat that! kraft. family greatly. not long ago, ronda started here. and then, more jobs began to appear. these techs in a lab. this builder in a hardhat... ...the welders and electricians who do all of that. the diner staffed up 'cause they all needed lunch. teachers... doctors... jobs grew a bunch.
what started with one job spread all around. because each job in energy creates many more in this town. energy lives here. minutes can mean the difference between life and death. proposition 11 saves lives by ensuring medical care is not delayed in an emergency. proposition 11 establishes into law the longstanding industry practice of paying emts and paramedics to remain on-call during breaks and requires they receive fema level training
in active shooters and natural disasters. vote yes on 11 to ensure 911 emergency care is there when you or your love one need it. today is national voter registration day and is also six weeks until the midterm elections on november 6th. filmmaker michael moore has a new movie out, fahrenheit pegged to the elections we talked about during our hour-long show in flint earlier this month. he joins me tonight. have you gotten your registration? >> i'm registered. i vote in the first precinct voting in traver city, michigan. >> first the president of the united states in front of world leaders and a room full of trained diplomats who are trained not to react burst out laughing. >> and who were sure that they
were not at caroline's or stand-up new york, but they were -- and trump clearly -- first thing i thought of, though, whatever happened to him in that military school that he got sent to, what happened to him today happened every day. and, you know, i wasn't there, but i'm just guessing that we're paying the price for -- and what we heard today were the tweens who were laughing at him back then. >> i had the exact same thought. this is a reported story that his determination to run was the crucible being mocked at that infamous white house correspondent's dinner where president obama and seth meyers absolutely took the stuffing out of him. and that is the motivating factor for so much of what he does. >> which means what hell will we pay. >> that was the first thought i had as well. >> or which countries laughing the hardest will be bombed tomorrow. really, you can't laugh at him like this. and i --
>> but you can. see, that's what makes us a free society, thank god. >> we can. we have the right. to but in his mind, that's not allowed. and i thought during the debates, during the campaign had hillary just slipped a comedy shiv under his very thin skin, just with anything that would have, you know, zinged him, he could have imploded right on national tv. >> she did get under his very, very thin skin repeatedly, repeatedly. a lot of people do. >> but when he was stalking her during the debate. >> right. >> there are at least three or four great lines to turn around and give him. >> so we know that he sort of is looking around constantly assessing who is loyal to him and whose not. >> yes. >> and there is all this crazy hullabaloo about rod rosenstein. >> yes. >> in the last few days. and a real question. i was talking going back and forth to folks, some sources of mine what do you do if he is fired. this the moment? when is the red line moment of
america slipping past some sort of, you know, guardrail. >> let me tell you what i think happened yesterday with everyone in that fire drill that everyone was participating in. remember in new york, trump was one of the number one leakers of information news, even calling up with his own voice and pretending to be somebody else. >> loved talking to the press. loved feeding stories to page 6. >> it's quite likely that what happened today, all the rosenstein stuff was put out there by him or his people to create a distraction from what? the fact that he may have a supreme court nominee going down. and, remember, he is the master distractor. he is the king of the misdirect, and we're always being played by trump. he always knows what he's doing when he does this. so he's got everybody all thinking about thursday. we're confused now. do we cover rosenstein? do we organize walkouts on kavanaugh? and he is just a genius, an evil
genius at this. don't assume --. that is attributing more tactical acumen to him. >> i give him the credit for figuring out how to win an election by losing by three million vote, oh, yeah. when you have that kind of -- that kind of twisted thinking and the ability to do that -- >> you think this is a setup? >> i think it's a possibility, and we should consider that, that we're being played again. because the real issue is are women going to have rights over their own reproductive organs. that's what this whole kavanaugh thing is going to be about. and do we allow the sexual predator in chief, the admitted sexual predator in chief to place people on the supreme court first while he is under investigation, which he shouldn't be allowed to make any of these appointments. but also, he is picking the type of people that are essentially like him. and this whole thing needs a whole investigation now. this should not go forward. and i don't -- i don't see
how -- somebody must be advising the republicans that if you do this, we're going have hell to pay on november 6. >> i think they are, but i think they don't care. i really do. i think they are going to have hell to pay, but i also think they desperately want a conservative court, and they think this is the way to get it. >> okay. do you remember back when we were in high school, there were those guys. >> we were in high school, michael? >> well we were not in high school together at the same time because you're a little older than i am. but when we were each in high school, we know these kinds of guys. we know these sexual predator guys, the guys that were abusive to women, the guys that were all -- we called them d-bags, right? that was the term. we had to live with these guys our whole lives. and this thing, whatever went on, if you read that yearbook, it's stunning that this is a catholic high school. we don't have time to go into it now, but please google and go in and read these pages of the
yearbook, because i can't believe this is a catholic -- i went to catholic schools. and first of all, can i just point out there is no st. brett? so i don't know where the brett comes from, but there is -- unless he is the patron saint of taggers. >> that's disqualifying. >> that is disqualifying. everybody had a brett or a brad in their high school. >> right. >> and you know what i'm talking about. >> well, they're very evocative of a certain specific kind of loudish macho male adolescent behavior that's gross. >> correct. >> and one hopes that people engaged in outgrew, and it would nice to see someone be honest about their change. >> right. but now we hear about these stories from college. >> right. >> and, you know, yes, he is innocent until proven guilty, but this isn't a court of law. this is about what we know. what does your instinct tell you? my instinct, what we all know is that men, boys who behave in this manner once, they do it again. they do it a third time, they do it a fourth time, and there are
other women who will come forward. and if he ends up on the supreme court and we have to deal with it, we don't want to do that. this is crazy. and everybody should go to cancel kavanaugh.com. what we really need to be dealing with in the next four days. >> michael moore, thank you again. the movie "fahrenheit 11/9" is out in theaters now. you can check it out. >> thanks, chris. that is "all in." "the rachel maddow show" starts right now. good evening, my friend. much appreciated. thanks to you at home joining us this hour. one of these nights i'm going to be able to hoe "the show, thanks, chris, thanks to you at home joining us this hour, and i'm not going have to say hey, we're in the middle of breaking news and we're going to do things that are unusual and i had to throw away half the show. one of these nights we will get to the shore of normal news. we are not yet on that blissful shore. tear up the show, let's start with a developing story again this evening. late this evening, senate republicans announced they've