tv The Rachel Maddow Show MSNBC September 25, 2018 6:00pm-7:00pm PDT
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 scheduled a potential vote on
the nomination of brett kavanaugh to the united states supreme court. that nomination, of course, has been in turmoil since allegations arose of sexual misconduct against brett kavanaugh, including one case of alleged attempted rape. the allegations center on his time in high school and in college. judge kavanaugh has roundly, flatly repeatedly denied all of. >> dr. christine blasey ford says that brett kavanaugh assaulted her and tried to rape her when he was 17. she has requested that the judiciary committee considering his nomination and the white house, they should allow the fbi to reopen its background check of brett kavanaugh to look into her allegations about this alleged attempted rape. senate republicans said no to that. dr. ford also asked for the committee to take testimony from witnesses who she said could potentially corroborate elements of her story. senate republicans also said no to that. she further asked for senators to at least question her
themselves rather than appoint outside lawyers to question her as if she was being put on trial herself for some kind of wrongdoing. republicans not only said no to that, they announced today that they've appointed an experienced former prosecutor to question dr. ford in front of the senate, and they won't say who it is. it's a secret. nevertheless, dr. christine blasey ford is now scheduled to testify before the senate judiciary committee on this matter on thursday morning. and now this evening, senate republicans have announced that they think they'll be ready to vote on kavanaugh's nomination the very next day, first thing friday morning. which apparently means they plan to move forward on a vote without ever hearing testimony from the second accuser who came forward after christine blasey ford with a second serious claim about judge kavanaugh. her name is deborah ramirez. ms. ramirez seinfeld out her
allegations against brett kavanaugh in an article in the new yorker that was published this weekend. she said essentially when she was in college and brett kavanaugh was a classmate of hers as an undergraduate, he put his genitals in her face, forcing her to touch them as she tried to push him away. quoting from the new yorker, quote, i was embarrassed and ashame and humiliated. she says she remembers brett kavanaugh standing to her right and laughing, pulling up his pants. brett was laughing, she said. i can still see his face and his hips pulling forward like when you pull up your pants. she recalled another male student shouting about the incident, quote, somebody yelled down the hall, brett kavanaugh just put his penis in debbie's face. she said it was his full name. i don't think it was just brett. and i remember hearing and being mortified that this was out there. another classmate of debbie ramirez's told the new york they're while he himself was not present at that party, he says he is, quote, 100% sure that he was told at the time that brett
kavanaugh was the student who had exposed himself to ms. ramirez. so after that allegation was published this weekend, senator dianne feinstein, she is the top democrat on the judiciary committee, she asked for a further delay in the confirmation proceedings for brett kavanaugh so this allegation could also be looked at. tonight the republican committee chairman chuck grassley rejected that request from dianne feinstein. he said he sees no reason why there should be any further delay, and he sees no reason why ms. ramirez should be invited to testify or participate in the hearing that has been called for thursday. why wouldn't they want to hear from her. they're holding the hearing already. the attorney for deborah ramirez says she stands by her story and she has been trying to get her story to the senate judiciary committee. ms. ramirez's attorney says tonight, quote, deborah ramirez only came forward after being contacted by ronan farrow at the
new yorker and carefully working through her memories, only to ensure her accuracy. we reached out to the senate judiciary committee to schedule a call to discuss how best to bring them that information. and they have refused to meet all scheduled appointments. hmm. we have officially requested an fbi investigation and our client remains adamant that that is the appropriate venue for her to discuss her drama. ms. ramirez is ready to swear to the fbi under penalty of perjury. why won't the senate judiciary committee welcome that? here her attorney's name is john clune. you can hear him asking out loud publicly why the senate judiciary committee, which is hearing the nomination of this man for the supreme court, why they wouldn't want to hear testimony from his client, why they wouldn't want to receive information from his client about that nominee that they are considering. and it does seem a little mysterious. why senate republicans are not waiting for her allegations to
be heard, and in fact, even the white house said today basically, yeah, maybe she should testify. how about that same day that dr. ford is going to be there on thursday? >> does the president want ms. ramirez to appear before the senate judiciary committee as well? >> certainly we would be open to that, and that process could take place on thursday. >> certainly. the white house could be open to that. it's our nominee. it could take place on thursday. but that is apparently not what's going to happen. tonight senate republicans are not just saying they don't see what the testimony of one woman might have to do with the testimony of the other woman. not only are they not waiting to hear from deborah ramirez, they are bulldozing ahead, preparing to vote the day after they could hear from that accuser, but they decided they won't. why are republicans trying to move this so fast? why do they not want this new person's testimony before they vote, particularly because she's offering to testify under pain of perjury?
and if as mr. clune says there has been contact that they have made an effort to contact the senate judiciary committee, the judiciary committee is refusing to meet all scheduled appointments to discuss this allegation against brett kavanaugh, i mean, my basic question here is this a live issue now? is it possible that she would still testify or that the committee in some other way will hear her allegation? joining us now is the attorney who represents deborah ramirez in this matter, john clune. mr. clune, thank you very much for joining us this evening. i appreciate you making time for us. >> thank you, rachel. >> so you said publicly today that you have reached out to the senate judiciary committee, that there was an effort made to discuss how best to bring him this information that has been put forward by your client. can you tell us the status of those discussions or those negotiations? >> sure. so we've had a number of e-mail communications back and forth, and every time we try to set up
a phone call with them, they end up pushing the phone call back. and then since i sent out that tweet about two hours ago, we had a phone call scheduled, and we called in for the phone call, and only the minority party showed for the phone call. >> so you received communication from the chairman or the chairman's staff, from the majority committee staff, but only democrats were on the call? >> that's correct. >> what do you make of that? that seems odd. >> you know, it's disturbing. they keep on kind of changing the rules of how they want to go forward, and every time that we talk about -- want to talk about how that's going forward and just discuss it on the phone, then they push it back. it's hard to see that they're really interested in getting the information that ms. ramirez has. >> in terms of ms. ramirez and this allegation that she's made against judge kavanaugh, it was explained in the new yorker when jane marin and ronan farrow's piece that ms. ramirez did not
come forward and offer her story to these reporters, but rather these reporters approached her after they had heard about this incident from other people. they suggested and in fact said in their piece that your client, ms. ramirez, was reluctant and unsure about whether or not she wanted to make this allegation publicly or have her name associated wit. can you shed any more light for us on her thought process and what she's been through over the past few days as this allegation has come to light. >> yeah, sure. she received a phone call from ronan farrow one day, a voice message when she was at work at the boulder county health and human services. she had not talked about this matter for many years prior to this. and she had a hard time deciding whether or not to call mr. pharaoh back. and then she started getting some messages from other reporters, and obviously this wasn't going to go away so, she made the decision to go ahead and cooperate with mr. farrow. but she certainly wasn't seeking out any public disclosure of this on her own and she was just
responding to the call that she got, and she responded and told as candidly as she could the recollections about what happened. >> the fact that other people may have alerted other people to her story, that it didn't come from her raises the issue obviously -- that tells us something about the human factor of what she is going through here in terms of learning that her name might become public, learning that reporters were already discussing her with regard to this allegation. it also raises the issue of corroborating witnesses and whether or not there were people who were aware that this had happened who had reason to believe talking about it, who had reason to be speaking to reporters about it. in terms of ms. ramirez and her recollections, her allegation here, can you tell us if there are corroborating witnesses, if there are other people she either spoke to stat time or close to the time of the incident or knew than incident when it happened who would be willing also to speak publicly about it now? >> well, there have been, and some of those witnesses were
identified in the new yorker piece, and some of those witnesses didn't cooperate but still could be interviewed by the fbi. i'm sure that would be the investigation the investigation turns. there is not a lot of question that this actually happened. you have a situation where there are a number of people who were interviewed who said yes, they heard about it. they heard about it that night. and then a couple of days afterwards a couple of people who were fellow yale students were talk about it saying i'm wondering if this story is going to come forward. i don't think there is any question the incident actually occurred. judge kavanaugh might discuss it's a case of mistaken identity, but something clearly occurred. our client disclosed to her mother and her sister 35 years ago about what happened. there is plenty more people that need to be contacted that if there is going to be a real investigation and find out what happened that can be. but at this point it doesn't look like there is much momentum for that to take place. >> in terms of the discussions that you have tried to start with the senate judiciary committee as they consider judge kavanaugh's nomination, have any
of those discussions included the possibility of other people also offering testimony to the committee or being interviewed by committee investigators, has that either come up or is that part of what you would be willing to talk with the committee about? >> here is the problem, rachel, is they won't talk to us. the minority party spoke to us for the very first time tonight, and the majority party wouldn't speak to us. so we don't know what they're willing to do. the demand that they keep making of us is give us every piece of information that you have now and then we can talk about scheduling a phone call. and that's just not the kind of partisan game playing that our client deserves. that's not fair to her. >> why do you see that as partisan game playing, just as an attorney in terms of advising your client here, why does that -- why is that something you don't want to do? >> you know, the idea that they won't even talk to her counsel what the process might look like, what the options are, that tells me that whatever they're
plan, it's either going to be by ambush or it's going to be used as just a footnote to the confirmation process and this will all be dealt with within a few days. >> we do now have some detail tonight in terms of how this hearing is going to go on thursday, at least how the majority is suggesting the thursday hearing is going to go. they've suggested that the republicans on the senate committee will not themselves ask questions of christine blasey ford. they will instead essentially have a pinch hitter to come in, an outside counsel who will ask questions on their behalf. they've also said there will just be five minutes per senator for questioning, and there will be a single round. nobody will be allowed to ask any follow-up questions or come up for a second round of questioning. we also know basic things in terms of the timing, of the committee hearing which witness will go first, when there will be a break in between those two witnesses and certain details. given what's been spelled out about that hearing on thursday,
if the committee changed course and was willing to talk to you about the circumstances and was willing to invite testimony from your client along those same lines, along those same logistical lines, would your -- would your client testify? >> you know, i'd let her make that decision, but i wouldn't advise her to. it's a very unfair process. i was a former prosecutor, and, you know, a case that is 35 years old, the only way you're going get out what actually happened besides talking to the two people who are involved is talking to the corroborating witnesses for both sides. this is going to be a process where judge kavanaugh and either dr. ford or debbie ramirez are taking questions. you're never going to find out what really happened, or you're certainly not going to find out any corroboration. it makes it a lot easier to just ignore these women if they're going to yes the actual women and judge kavanaugh. >> mr. clune, i know you said you want and your client wants to speak to the fbi and would happily do so under pain of
perjury in order to have this matter investigated properly. the white house and the republicans in the senate seem adamantly dug in against that process. they do not want the fbi to reopen its background investigation of judge kavanaugh. if they will not budge on that issue specifically, how -- how else would you want to proceed? if the fbi investigation isn't going happen, what do you think should happen next here in terms of having your client treated fairly and having this allegation considered fairly? >> well, first of all, i think that would be a real failure on the part of the senate judiciary committee if they were not to open an fbi investigation. we've really had only one process for the background investigations into potential supreme court nominees for many, many years. the only way that the actually not a partisan process is for the fbi to do the investigation. so that would really be a failure on the part of the senate if that's the route they decided. if they decided to do something like -- or not do something like
that and just go forward, i would have to talk to the senate judiciary committee. the fact that they refused to actually get on the phone with me and talk to me about what other options have in mind and instead sit back and demand i give them all the information we have which feels like an effort to just gather the information and sweep it under the rug, then it's hard to say that i would suggest that she do anything further. but they need to be able to have a meaningful conversation with debbie ramirez's council and talk about what other options they're proposing if it's not going to be fbi. i don't know what that would be, but i would love to talk to them about it. >> john clune, attorney representing debbie ramirez in this matter. thank you very much for joining us this evening. i know got to us tonight on short notice. thanks for being here. >> thanks, rachel. >> again, underscoring what's going on there, this is news tonight. so deborah ramirez is the second woman to come forward with a serious allegation of sexual misconduct against judge brett kavanaugh who is up for a supreme court nomination. her attorney telling us tonight
that she wants to talk to the fbi, that she volunteers to talk to the fbi, that both her and people who could be corroborating witnesses for her account should be interviewed by the fbi, but separate and apart from that, her counsel telling us that while there has been a concerted effort by her and through counsel to reach out to the senate judiciary committee to provide this information, that republicans on the committee are literally not showing up on the phone calls that they have set up to discuss how she might get them this information. only democrats are joining those calls, even after the republicans, the republican chairman and his staff set those things up. why the republicans would refuse to even negotiate over how to obtain this information, that's unusual. i might suggest to the senate judiciary committee tonight there may have been some misunderstanding here. that's the best possible spin i could put on this. if this is a misunderstanding,
you can clear it up by calling john clune. you have his number. much more ahead tonight. stay with us. (vo) this is not a video game. this is not a screensaver. this is the destruction of a cancer cell by the body's own immune system, thanks to medicine that didn't exist until now. and today can save your life. ♪ ♪ the full value oft wyour new car? you'd be better off throwing your money right into the harbor. i'm gonna regret that. with liberty mutual new car replacement we'll replace the full value of your car. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty ♪ (indistthat was awful.tering) why are you so good at this? had a coach in high school. really helped me up my game. i had a coach. math.
ooh. so, why don't traders have coaches? who says they don't? coach mcadoo! you know, at td ameritrade, we offer free access to coaches and a full education curriculum- just to help you improve your skills. boom! mad skills. education to take your trading to the next level. only with td ameritrade. there's nothing small about your business. with dell small business technology advisors, you get the one-on-one partnership to grow your business. the dell vostro 14 laptop. get up to 40% off on select pcs. call 877-buy-dell today. ( ♪ )
yet more breaking news since i said something to the contrary moment ago in the last segment. it's been a little thorn in the side of judiciary committee chairman chuck grassley that when he brings in brett kavanaugh's original accuser, dr. christine blasey ford, who says that brett kavanaugh sexually assaulted her and tried to rape her when he was a 17-year-old, it has been sort of sticking in the craw of senate judiciary committee chairman chuck grassley that the republican majority that dr. ford will face in that committee hearing room on thursday looks like this, all dudes, not a single woman. there is not now and there has never been a republican woman on the judiciary committee in the senate. well, now so as to avoid having to question dr. ford themselves, the 11 male republicans on the senate judiciary committee have
decided to hire a woman lawyer to handle the questioning for them. that's sort of strange in itself, but one of the extra strange things about this story is up until right this second, up until moments ago, who they've actually picked to do that questioning for them has been a secret. they have not said who that female lawyer is. they announced today that they had hired someone but said that they wouldn't announce who she was for her safety. well, now "the washington post" has reported that an arizona prosecutor has emerged as the senate republicans' top choice for this unusual gig. quoting from "the washington post" just moments ago, arizona prosecutor rachel mitchell has emerged as senate republicans' choice to question brett kavanaugh and the woman who has accused the supreme court nominee of sexually assaulting her. "the post" is citing two people familiar with the decision. rachel mitchell is the sex crimes bureau chief for the
maricopa county's bureau office in phoenix. she is posted as the leading candidate to question both kavanaugh and ford at thursday's highly anticipated hearing in the senate judiciary committee. we don't know much more about rachel mitchell, but she is according to "the post" a registered republican and she has worked for the maricopa county attorney's office for a very long time, for 26 years. joining us now is one of "the washington post" reporters who just broke this story, rosalind helderman. ms. helderman, congratulations on this scoop. thanks for joining us on short notice. >> thanks for having me. >> so you and your colleagues describe her as the leading candidate, the top republican choice. has she actually been chosen? has she been hired to do this job? >> it is our understanding what she is the -- she is the choice, she is the one they want. obviously, this has been a fluid process and there have been negotiations under way with dr. ford's team for days now on this issue of who would do the
questioning, but our understanding is that she is their choice. she is the republican choice. >> she represents maricopa county and the maricopa county attorneys office. and as you report, she has been the sex crimes bureau chief there and has worked there for 26 years. i am learning this story as you are reporting it. so i hope you will forgive me if i am fuzzy on this. but i have a dim recollection in the back of my mind that part of the local controversy about long-time maricopa county sheriff joe arpaio was his handling of sex crimes as a sheriff and sort of large backlog of sex crimes cases in maricopa county. rachel mitchell is the sex crimes bureau chief there for the county. that a recent promotion for her or was she in charge of that bureau throughout that longer ra of controversy with sheriff arpaio at the helm? >> so this is very new to us as well, and we are doing reporting
around that very issue. we have spoken with another in that area, another prosecutor in that area who had indicated to us that the issue at the sheriff's office was an internal issue, that they were failing to investigate crimes properly to give cases to the prosecutor's office to take into court, and that it was discovered through an internal audit, and that ms. mitchell might have been involved with essentially cleaning up that mess. but i say that as our reporting is just beginning. and so there is a lot more to learn than situation. >> last question for you on this, rosalind. the choice by republicans in the judiciary committee that they will effectively pick a pinch hitter here, that they will outsource their questioning so that the senators themselves do not question either witness,
either judge kavanaugh or dr. ford, instead bringing in the outside counsel to do it, it's an unusual thing. can you tell us anything further just from your reporting with your colleagues about how the republicans on the committee might have approached this, what sort of process they went through in order to arrive at rachel mitchell as their top choice. this is just something that really isn't done frequently in the senate. as far as we were able to tell today from our own research, this is something that hasn't been done in the senate in decades. >> yeah, i think we understand the motivation why they wanted to handle this. but how it is -- particularly how it is that they went all the way out to arizona to locate someone to do this. there is obviously a lot of attorneys right here in washington, d.c. is something we have not yet been able to figure out. obviously the live there are people in this process important who are from arizona, key vote jeff flake and jon kyl, the
senator had been involved with the kavanaugh nomination before he was appointed to his seat to replace john mccain. but honestly we don't yet know how they found her. >> rosalind helderman, one of a team of reporters who this night has broken the news about who the republicans in the senate judiciary committee have chosen to do their questioning on judge brett kavanaugh and dr. christine blasey ford in this highly anticipated committee hearing on thursday. rosalind, thank you very much for joining us. appreciate you being with us right after this scoop was posted. really appreciate it. >> thank you. >> all right. more to come. surprise! stay with us. -ice dispenser, find me a dog sitter. -okay. -and make ice. -pizza delivered. -what's happened to my son? -i think that's just what people are like now. i mean, with progressive, you can quote your insurance on just about any device. even on social media.
it's now been 24 hours since yesterday's fire drill in which it was reported that the deputy attorney general rod rosenstein who oversees the mueller investigation, he was being fired, or he was resigning or he was expecting to be fired or he was expecting to be resigning. he appears to be in motion. who is he talking to. what's going on? a day after that weird media spasm yesterday which ended with rod rosenstein still holding the job of deputy attorney general, the question of what's actually going on with him and the justice department and supervision of the mueller probe in the long run is still not clear, but there was one important detail we learned from that strange sort of fire drill that we had over rod rosenstein that now today seems pretty important in terms of what to expect next.
in the middle of that media confusion yesterday, a justice department spokeswoman actually drafted a statement for attorney general jeff sessions to issue in the event that rod rosenstein was actually dismissed. that draft was never formally sent, but it was drafted, and the contents of the draft were leaked to both axios and "the new york times," and in part that leaked draft confirmed what we already suspected, that if rod rosenstein was out, that he was resigning or he was being forced to resign or he was fired, the current solicitor general, noel francisco would step in and take over as the top justice department official in charge of the russia investigation. in other words, that's the person who robert mueller would now have to report to and who he add have to get permission from for important steps in his investigation, things like new indictments, new grand juries. but that draft statement also told us something new. it said rod rosenstein's
replacement as deputy attorney general, as the number two official at the justice department wouldn't necessarily be noel francisco who would now be running the mueller probe. it would be jeff sessions' chief of staff matt whittaker. it's a little bit surprising revelation because rod rosenstein has a top deputy. think it's man with a beard whose name said o'callahan. you might expect rosenstein's top deputy to ascend to rosenstein's job to be the acting attorney general if in fact rosenstein was forced out. but according to this leaked draft, mr. o'callahan wouldn't be taking over the number two role. it would instead be sessions' chief of staff, whittaker. the "new york times" called that an unusual move. they said typically a top aide to the deputy attorney general would take over the post. instead, though, apparently the acting deputy attorney general to take over for rosenstein would be this guy matt whittaker. see a former conservative attorney from iowa. he became jeff sessions' chief of staff last year the reason
this is important, if whittaker was to become acting deputy attorney general, if rosenstein is forced out and whitaker steps up to that job, yeah we think rosenstein's aide would take over. but whitaker would take over a lot else. he would take over day-to-day operations of the justice department and its 100,000 employees. he would also suddenly oversee every other active investigation related to but not officially part of the mueller probe. so all the stuff that the mueller team has handed off to other prosecutors, including the u.s. attorney's office in d.c. and their prosecution of alleged russian spy maria butina, or the southern district of new york and their prosecution of michael cohen. also, the reported ongoing investigation by those same southern district of new york prosecutors into the finances of the president's business, the trump organization. those prosecutors investigating the trump organization's finances in the event of rod
rosenstein's dismissal, they would now report to matt whitaker. and that's interesting because he has overt past comments on that very subject that will raise your eyebrows. he wrote an op-ed late last year in which he said that mueller's investigation of trump and in particular the investigation of trump's finances was, quote, going too far. he said, quote, mueller has come up to red line in the russia 2016 meddling investigation that he is dangerously close to crossing. if he were to continue to investigate the financial relationships without a broadened scope in his appointment, this would raise serious concerns that the special counsel's investigation, say it with me now, was a mere witch-hunt. mueller, it's a witch-hunt. well, now we know the person who wrote those words could any minute now depending on what happens to rod rosenstein, he could have authority over all of those investigations within the
justice department, including what we believe is an active southern district of new york investigation into the president's finances. that's received testimony under promise of immunity from the president's chief financial officer at his business, that has received cooperation from the president's senior attorney at his business, michael cohen. the person who all those investigations are going to report to says that part of the investigation is a witch-hunt? top democrat on the intelligence committee joins us next. stay with us. experts say to eat a lot of fruits and veggies,
but are you getting enough of their nutrients? new one a day with nature's medley is the only complete multivitamin with antioxidants from one total serving of fruits and veggies. new from one a day. 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, ♪ one look at you and i can't disguise ♪ ♪ i've got hungry eyes applebee's new 3-course meal starting at $11.99. now that's eatin' good in the neighborhood. i am extremely concerned about the fate of the deputy attorney general. if there's any attempt to fire or force out deputy attorney general rosenstein, that would
be a huge red flag and very problematic. >> so much attention on maine republican senator susan collins right now in terms of her potential vote on supreme court nominee brett kavanaugh, but today nbc news was able to get that comment from her on a different matter. susan collins saying it would be a huge red flag and very problematic if there is any attempt to fire or force out deputy attorney general rod rosenstein. that being echoed across the aisle from the top democrat on the intelligence committee in the house, adam schiff, who is saying, quote, under no circumstances should rod rosenstein resign. this would place the mueller investigation in even greater jeopardy. rosenstein should continue to do his job, protect the independence of the department of justice, and if the president intends to obstruct justice, force trump to fire him. joining us now is adam schiff. he is the top democrat on the intelligence committee in the house. congressman, thank you very much for being here. appreciate your time tonight. >> you bet. >> so you are expressing
concern. susan collins, republican senator also expressing concern. we've had other sort of scattered expressions of concern in terms of what's going on with mr. rosenstein right now. after yesterday's sort of media confusion as to whether or not he might have quit or been in the process of being fired, do you have any further clarity as to his fate and what's going on right now between him and the white house? >> i really don't, but i think we need to see this is part of a long effort by the president and his allies in congress and his allies on fox to push rod rosenstein out of the way so they can put someone in there who is pliable, someone that the president can get to do his bidding, his own roy cohn, as the president would say. that of course is a much more shrewd way to kneecap the mueller investigation than overtly firing bob mueller. you're right to point out concerns about the deputy attorney general matt whitaker.
he wrote an op-ed, as you mentioned, that is factually wrong and legally wrong, suggesting that it would cross a red line, it would be beyond the scope of mueller's investigation to look at whether the russians were laundering money through the trump campaign. in fact, the clear language of that scope of authority provides that bob mueller can look into any connection between the russian government and trump or anyone else affiliated with his campaign. so he is wrong on the facts and he is wrong on the law, but if he is the deputy attorney general, then should bob mueller be investigated investigating that issue, he is in a position to say no, that's within my jurisdiction and i'm not going to allow that to happen. >> if mr. rosenstein is forced out, forced to resign, or if he resigns of his own accord or he is fired, we know he is due to speak with the president on thursday, if rosenstein is removed, would congress have any say over what happened in terms of the line of succession?
there have been questions raised as to whether or not noel francisco, the solicitor general actually would be appropriately in charge of the russian matter and overseeing the special counsel's office given the fact that he used to be at a law firm that also represents the trump campaign, which of course may be relevant to that case. the questions that you were just describing that i just referenced a few minutes ago about whether sessions' chief of staff matt whitaker would become an appropriate acting deputy attorney general to replace rosenstein, would congress have any role in deciding who took those jobs? >> well, we certainly should have a role. there should be a process if rosenstein were fired or forced to resign where anybody who would be put in a place of supervising the mueller investigation would have to be senate confirmed so that we could make sure that they would remain clear and not interfere and not take orders from donald trump. we certainly ought to find out whether noel francisco or matt shepard has had any
conversations with the white house about the mueller investigation as well as those potential conflict issues with the solicitor coming from the same firm that represents a part of trump world, but, you know, technically, we're not within that line of command. i would think that if we're able to change the majority in congress, we can bring these people before congress whether it's in a confirmation hear organize not and ensure that they're not interfering with the mueller investigation. and one other point i would make on this, rachel, is a lot seems to be made of whether this is going to happen on thursday or it's going to happen after the midterms. it doesn't matter when it happens. it is part of a slow-moving saturday night massacre in which the fbi director who is the head of this investigation was fired, the deputy attorney general supervising it, they planned to fire after the midterms and the attorney general they planned to get rid of after the midterms so that they can install their own
people to cripple this investigation. and i think voters need to keep that in mind whether this is the kind of rubber stamp they want to see in the congress of the united states. >> if you think that these moves are being made to cripple the mueller investigation, essentially to stop that investigation or at least to try to, i think a lot of people have been wondering, and part of the freak-out that was engendered yesterday by that confusing reporting as to the fate of rod rosenstein, i think people were sort of wondering is this an in case of emergency break glass moment. there has been a lot of public discussion, a lot of civic minded sober discussion about what counts as -- what counts as a dangerous move by the president, what counts as a move that should engender protests or a political response of a kind that signals that this isn't sort of business as usual for
the president and he shouldn't expect to be able to the this without blowback. does this rise to that kind of a moment for you? how have you been thinking about this in terms of the overall magnitude of the challenge that we face as a country and the seriousness of that investigation? >> well, you know, i think of it this way. for the last year or more, mitch mcconnell and paul ryan, the two senior republican leaders in the congress have been saying we don't really think the president is going to interfere with the investigation. we don't think he is going to fire bob mueller, so we don't have to take any legislative action, even though there is bipartisan legislation that would protect bob mueller. well, that fig leaf has been yanked away and exposed for what it is, a bunch of wishful thinking. well ought to act affirmatively now. we ought to take up this bill in the last week of this session and make sure that mueller is protected so that we don't have to wonder what happens in the kind of constitutional crisis that would follow a fast or slow-moving saturday night massacre. it's one of the reasons i think susan collins' comments are very
important and they run quite contrary to what you're hearing from others, though, like grassley and graham who are saying that if the president wants to fire these people, they're happy to find replacements. this really puts our democracy on shaky ground. so the best thing we could do in this break the glass moment is take up a bill to protect mule sorry that we don't invite a crisis. >> congressman adam schiff, the top democrat on the house intelligence committee. sir, thank you for being with us tonight. much appreciated. >> thank you. >> all right. much more ahead with us tonight. stay with us. ngs can be a big d. that's why there's otezla. otezla is not a cream. it's a pill that treats moderate to severe plaque psoriasis differently. with otezla, 75% clearer skin is achievable. don't use if you're allergic to otezla . it may cause severe diarrhea, nausea, or vomiting. otezla is associated with... ...an increased risk of depression. tell your doctor if you have a history of depression or suicidal thoughts,... ...or if these feelings develop. some people taking otezla reported weight loss.
your doctor should monitor your weight and may stop treatment. upper respiratory tract infection and headache may occur. tell your doctor about your medicines and if you're pregnant or planning to be. otezla. show more of you. (sighs) i hate missing out missing out after hours. not anymore, td ameritrade lets you trade select securities 24 hours a day, five days a week. that's amazing. it's a pretty big deal. so i can trade all night long? ♪ ♪ all night long... is that lionel richie? let's reopen the market. mr. richie, would you ring the 24/5 bell? sure can, jim. ♪ trade 24/5, with td ameritrade. ♪
representing one client who i can describe as a witness and victim as well as additional corroborating witnesses to what she is going to allege publicly within the next 48 hours. >> so, that was attorney michael avenatti last night on this show. here, look, it's like it's last night's show, see? now, get back, get back. okay. that was him last night on the show setting out his expectations for when his client who he has not named, but he says has some allegation to make about supreme court nominee brett kavanagh. that was him setting expectations last night as to when we will learn who new client is and what she alleges
exactly about brett kavanagh. judge kavanagh continues to flatly deny all of the allegations against him, including those implied by mr. avenatti. but in terms of actually hearing what mr. avenatti's client has to say, as of last night he was saying we can expect to hear from his client by wednesday night. today he stuck with that timing saying he would disclose the client' name and accusations and when she is ready and he has adequate security measures in place to protect her. it is her choice and hers alone when to surface because it is her life. but he did say, quote, we expect it within the next 36 hours. that was as of this morning. by my watch that means he expects his client to go public by tomorrow night, by wednesday night. so that will be on the eve of dr. christine blasey ford testifying thursday morning before the senate judiciary committee. so, we are all expecting that thursday hearing. if mr. avenatti is correct, we are expecting to hear from his client or at least what his
client has to say, whatever it is that he's going to put forward about his client's alleged accusations. we think those will probably be tomorrow. so we'll be watching for that. and now in addition to that, we just saw earlier this hour the lawyer for deborah ramirez tell us here on the show that he is in contact with the senate judiciary committee about trying to convey to them information about her serious allegation about judge kavanagh, telling us tonight that he has contacted the senate judiciary committee, that republicans on the committee have been willing to set up specific times, specific circumstances for discussions about whether or not his client could provide them this information. she, of course, has volunteered to speak to the fbi under criminal penalties. if she lies to the fbi, which we know is a serious criminal matter, oddly deborah ramirez's attorney telling us tonight that
although he has made contact with the committee, republicans on the committee have not kept up their end of the bargain and even answered the phone or joined those phone calls even when they've been set up in advance to discuss her potential testimony or her providing them information. so that's a weird development in this story. but if you are keeping track and thinking about what's going to happen over the next day, two, three, christine blasey ford is going to be testifying before the judiciary committee thursday morning. we are expecting michael avenatti's client, if she is going to come forward, to come forward by, we think tomorrow night, and pending, although we don't know when or how this will be resolved, debbie ramirez, her counsel is also talking to the committee about potentially providing them information about her allegations to add to the mix, the white house press secretary today did say that the white house would like debbie ramirez to testify at that hearing on thursday alongside dr. christine blasey ford. all of these balls in the air. any of this could happen, any of it could fall apart.
we'll all watch it together. stay with us. whoever came up with the term "small business", never owned a business. are your hours small? what about your reputation? is that small? owning your own thing is huge. your partnerships, even bigger. with dell small business technology advisors, you get the one-on-one partnership to grow your business. because the only one who decides how big your business can be, is you. the dell vostro 14 laptop with 8th gen intel core processors. get up to 40% off on select pcs. call 877-buy-dell today. ( ♪ )
here is something else you should be watching out for. something that came up in my conversation with congressman adam schiff. this is noel francisco, solicitor general of the united states. he's the guy that represents the federal government whenever they have a case before the supreme court. before mr. francisco worked for -- became solicitor general, he was a lawyer in the private sector. he worked for a big law firm
called jones day. he worked at jones day right up until the president plucked him out of jones day and made him solicitor general. but that association with that law firm has been a little bit of a speed bump during his tenure in the trump administration because of the overlap. when trump was running for president, jones day represented the trump campaign. that was their law firm. mr. francisco worked at jones day at the same time his law firm was being paid by the trump campaign. because of that timing, because of his association with the law firm that represented the president's campaign, he's got notice in legal circles for recusing himself from case that's involve jones day since he's been solicitor general. there is a risk conflict of interest with his former firm so he recuses him 1eself. he gits out of tets out of the somebody else represent when they are a party in the matter. francisco could find himself with more responsibility at the justice department if rod rosenstein leaves or gets fired.
it will be noel francisco next in line to oversee the mueller investigation. mueller would start reporting to him. if noel francisco has made a habit of staying away from anything to do with jones day during his time in the trump administration, how would that factor in if he gets put in charge of overseeing the mueller investigation? right? this investigation into whether the trump campaign colluded with russia. the campaign that was represented by his former law firm, jones day. we asked the justice department if mr. francisco would recuse himself from the russia investigation given his ties to jones day and jones day representing the trump campaign. we were told to not expect that. spokesperson told us that mr. francisco would take the helm of the mueller investigation if rod rosenstein leaves d.o.j. that would be controversial. like i said, rod rosenstein is still in place, none of this has come to pass, but this is a potential speed bump on what is turning out to be yet another very fast-moving news day. stay with us.