this is cnn tonight. i'm don lemon. president trump went off on christine blasey ford in front of a raucous crowd, mocking the woman who testified for hours in excruciating detail what she says brett kavanaugh did to her when they were teenagers. >> 36 years ago this happened. i had one beer. right? i had one beer. well, you think it was -- no, it was one beer. good. how did you get home? i don't remember. how did you get there? i don't remember. where is the place. >> i don't remember. how many years ago was it. i don't know, i don't know. i don't know! i don't know! what neighborhood was it in? i don't know. >> hmm. >> so you heard that laughter. no matter how this whole thing ends, professor ford does not deserve to be laughed at. not again. made the punch line to a joke that's not at all funny.

>> indelible in the hippocampus is the laughter, the uproarious laughter between the two and their having fun at my expense. >> kind of what happened tonight at that rally. we are learning more about brett kavanaugh. as the fbi expands its investigation tonight, here's what the "new york times" has published. a copy of a 1983 letter written bill kavanaugh. he writes his law school buddies should warn the neighbors that we're loud, obnoxious drunks with prolific pukers among us. what sounds pretty different from what he said about drinking beer in his testimony to the judiciary committee last week. >> i drank beer with my friends. almost everyone did. sometimes i had too many beers. sometimes others did. i liked beer. i still like beer.

>> and there's more, cac naug signed that letter bart. hmm. where have i heard that before? oh, yeah. >> he references a bart o. kavanaugh. vomiting in sun's car during beach week and then passing out. is that. >> you. >> mark judge was a friend of ours in high school who developed a very serious drinking problem. now, as part of his therapy, or part of his coming to grips with sobriety, he wrote a book that is a fiction naturalized book and an account. i think he picked out names of friends of ours to throw them in as kind of close to what for characters in the book. so. >> are you bart kavanaugh that he's referring to. >> yes or no. >> you would have to ask him. >> so so much to discuss right now. we've got a lot to talk about, robin from "the new york times"

who was a classmate of brett kavanaugh's at yale joins us now, frank bruni of the times" and david swerd lick of the "washington post." good evening. so good to have all of you on. david, why mock her in front of a crowd tonight? he just couldn't resist. >> yeah, don. remember immediately after her testimony, the president on camera called her compelling, credible, a very fine woman, and much of her testimony was very good. this is a stark contrast to what he said then right after everybody in the country had had a chance to see her and she was compelling whether you believe her or not, whether americans believe her or not. the president then a few days later couldn't resist the mocking, and that's i there what has people scratching their head because the president has returned to form, he likes to mock people and this dale that

not just president trump but other republicans even though they're not going to vote -- that they will vote for judge kavanaugh or signaled they'll vote for judge kavanaugh, a wide array of the members of the judiciary committee said, oh, they found her credible. as others have pointed out including our colleague kirsten powers several days ago on twitter, if you are saying she's credible but saying you don't believe the central contention of her testimony, then you're not saying she's credible. >> robin, thank you for coming on. i've had both these gentlemen on before. as i'm sitting here tonight looking at your expression, i can't tell if you, you know, are -- i don't know if it's exasperation, you can't believe it's happening. what do you think of the way he's handled this and the way he's -- the accusations and the testimony? >> i think what's been interesting about my reporting is it's first of all dob tailed with my experience at yale. i was a classmate of brett kavanaugh's. i did not know him well.

he was someone i saw in passing. our kind of worlds intersected somewhat. i think what's really interesting has become clear to me it's not about drawing a bright line from the keg to him being a sexual predator. i don't think anyone finds that argument defensible. the issue is and what bothered so many of my classmates is the way he portrayed himself in testimony for a very important position on the highest court. when you raise your hand and swear to tell the whole truth, particularly to be a supreme court justice, you should be telling the truth. in the memory of the classmates i have interviewed, that's not the pret kavanaugh they remember. >> interesting. frank you don't have big hopes for this fbi investigation and you wrote as much in pur column. why do you say that? >> it's time limited. it was initially narrow in scope. i think these events are 36 years ago. i fear that at the end of this week when we learn what the fruits of the investigation are, it's not going to move people

off of conclusions that are largely partisan they've reached already. >> frank, let me stop you there. all right. i think we're on the same page here because listen, i don't know what happened. we don't know guilt or innocence. but when you consider what your colleagues have uncovered with the money and the taxes and all of that, you consider that he settled a multimillion dollar lawsuit for trump university, when you consider all the other things and they have not mattered it's really all about the supreme court and trump supporters are not about to let this slip away. do you think i'm wrong? >> no, there is a bat did royale. what robin was talking before is quite relevant in terms of his testimony and how truthful or not he was being. we've gotten some wavering republican senators here, three of them we've been keeping an eye on. they could decide not based on what the fbi investigation turns up or doesn't but them could decide based on what they're

reminded of this week in terms of what he said under oath with his hand raised in an audition for the highest court in the land. they had col decide that there are enough questions about his character analyst honesty that regardless of what happened 36 years ago and what the fbi can or cannot verify, he doesn't belong on the court. >> yeah. let's talk about that, david. because the letter was signed, he was asked about bart o'kavanaugh and what mark judge wrote. he said it's a fictional book and wouldn't answer whether the character was him. he dodged the question. so if -- it's interesting that he dodges the question whether it was him or not but then this letter, they uncover this letter and he signs it bart. remember his name is brett. >> right. >> so don, if you take together that letter that the "new york times" reported out today, take his yearbook entry from his senior year, take at least four classmates who have gone on the record saying that he was a

heavy drinker, some of them described him as a sloppy drink and an aggressive drunk. a couple of them on cnn's air last week. if you take those things together and compare that with the way brett kavanaugh portrayed himself in his fox us? interview and in that testimony, i doubt anyone could find he perjured himself. he covered himself with sometimes things got out of hand, the seniors had beer. so perjury would be a stretch. it seems to me he misled the american people and the members of the judiciary committee about what the environment was and about how vaul that was to the social life there, and that has gotten him in this place where it's now not just about the sexual assault allegations which as you said we don't know what happened. but it's also about his credibility. >> robin, you said a couple things here you. said that brett kavanaugh will a reputation as a guy known for holding up the walls, right?

>> right. i mean he definitely was a party guy. he moved in a crowd of athletic folks both females and males and they liked to have a good time on saturday nights. i don't think anyone is holding that against him per se. but i think when they started to watch him on fox sort of sit with his wife and holier than thou talking about being something of a quoirl boy emphasizing church attendance and social service and academic recovered all of that is valid but there was another side to him he was downplaying to the point of real exaggeration and people felt like they had to cry foul. >> you're saying heavy drinking it one thing. my question is, do most of the people you spoke with from yale believe allegations an against cac naug made by blasey ford and deborah ramirez? >> it's a good question. there was a real sense of pride when he was nominated. that was the initial reaction, a yalie made good in a big way and

he always seemed kind of destined for greatness because he had a real upward trajectory. this went to the core of his character analyst fitness for the court. and i think also actually frankly watching his testimony and how he was sort of a red-faced angry white man did not sit well with people in terms of -- it started to sort of square with this image of someone who could be capable of such an act. that undermined his reputation. >> frank, senator jeff flake said if i had he lied to the senate, his nomination is over. in you were opinion, should this be over then if he did lie? >> in my opinion he did lie and it should be over. i don't think it's my opinion that he lied. one of these things we haven't brought up tonight, we've talked about the yearbook, et cetera, he sat there under oath and said that renat tata alumni was a gesture of friendship and respect for a young woman they knew and turned it around and got angry anyone would imply

otherwise. that doesn't pass the smell test. david's right that probably doesn't go all the way to perjury although i'm not sure exactly when it is you say you've gotten to perjury. it is a degree of perception that shouldn't be with someone on the highest court in the land. the question is in flake be joined in that decision by collins and murkowski. they need two and then it's over. >> frank, david and robin, thank you for your time. guess who is back? stormy daniels. a source telling cnn new details about president trump's efforts to keep her quiet. her attorney michael abnatty here to talk about it.

for months president trump insisted he knew nothing about the effort to silence stormy daniels. turns out, he wasn't telling the truth. sources confirming to cnn trump

told michael cohen back in february to get a restraining order against daniels. he said, don't worry. i'll pay for everything. the source says the president's son eric trump was also involved. stormy daniels' attorney michael abnatty joins us. michael, thank you. good evening to you. this is what you have been saying all longing that president trump knew. >> well, that's right. we've been saying that for over six months, don and we've been take taing a point to make it known to the american people it was our belief that will donald trump and michael cohen and the people they surround themselves with were constantly lying to the public and not shooting straight with them. this report confirms that. i don't think there was a big doubt at least not in my mind and many other people's minds. the problem is is that the president of the united states is a liar. and he surrounds himself with liars, michael cohen is a liar, now we see that brett kavanaugh is a liar. and you know that, does not bode well for the future of the

nation. but i was pleased to read the report. i believe the report. and i think that will as additional facts and evidence come forward, we're going to prove without a doubt that there are even more lies that have been told relating to the $130,000 payment to my client. >> okay. and you mentioned michael cohen. did you know, there's another twist. dull know eric trump was also involved in the effort to silence your client? >> i was not aware of that. i'm not surprised by it. i think it goes to show how serious donald trump considered this and the steps that he was willing to take to cover this up. but if you go back and look at the denials, i've been on your show many times over the last six months and other shows. we had david swartz attempting to defend michael cohen and others. all of that was a bunch of nonsense. i mean, all of these folks were trotted out to lie to the american people and now come to find out, what we've been saying all along is true and that is that is donald trump was aware

of the $130,000 payment and was doing everything in his power to cover it up including enlisting the help of his son. >> what does that say about someone they would enlist the help of their son to help pay off a mistress? is this open? number one, what does it say about the president? but number two, does this open eric trump, is he in legal jeopardy in any way? >> he could we'll be in legal jeopardy if he knew of this effort to silence her and had anything to do with the routing of the $130,000 payment. it further calls into question account involvement of the trump organization and what role the organization had in the $130,000 payment. there could be liability there, but the fact that he would enlist his own son, don, to assist in the cover-up of $130,000 payment to a important star he had sex with i think that just shows to the extent there was any question, i don't think there was, are that this is a man that lacks any moral

fiber, does whatever he wants. thinks he can get away with it. he doesn't have the moral fiber to be as the president of the united states. >> what does this do for your case? does it change anything in your case? how does it relate? >> i think it does change things in our case. we made a recent filing with the court and told the court we believe that a sham had been perpetrated on not only the american public but also on the court, that the court had been lied to relating to the involvement of donald trump and i think this problems it. without a doubt. and i think that this is going to become very complicated pore donald trump and michael cohen in the next two months. >> michael avenatti, i appreciate your time. thank you, sir. >> thank you. dubious tax schemes, sham corporations, fraud all quotes from the "new york times" blockbuster investigation into the trump family finances. stick around. d 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. breathe freely fast, with vicks sinex. my congestion's gone. i can breathe again! ahhhh! i can breathe again! ughh! vicks sinex. breathe on.

hey, what do you guys want to listen to? ooh, hip-hop. reggaeton. edm. what about bubble trance? bubble what? bubble trance, it's a thing. my point is everyone's got different taste. that's why verizon lets you mix and match your family unlimited plan so everyone gets the plan they want, without paying for things they don't. and right now, the whole family can get six months of free apple music on verizon. oh. so let's play that reggaeton. old school reggaeton, not the new stuff. (announcer) get 45 million songs with six months free apple music on us. only on verizon. switch now and get $300 off our latest phones. of great savings and service. with such a long history, it's easy to trust geico! thank you todd.

it's not just easy. it's-being-a-master-of-hypnotism easy. hey, i got your text- sleep! doug, when i snap my fingers you're going to clean my gutters. ooh i should clean your gutters! great idea. it's not just easy. it's geico easy. todd, you will go make me a frittata.

so donald trump's carefully craft add image and i say degree of difficulty because it's before he became president, his carefully crafted image as a self-made businessman, it's taking quite a hit tonight.

a bombshell "new york times" report alleged he received a whopping 413 -- look at that picture, a whopping $413 million in today's dollars in wealth from his father's business. not the small $1 million loan that he claims he used to build his own business empire from scratch. nearly a billion dollars in total was transferred from fred trump's business to his children over the course of decades. sometimes through dodgy tax practices. the state of new york is looking into the allegations. the white house responding calling it a misleading attack against the trump family. let's discuss. max boot is here, walter schaub, david cay johnson, the author of the boom "it's even worse than you there, what the trump administration is doing to america." thank you all. david, i was just talking to you last hour with chris cuomo about this, about you telling me once before we get to all of there

egregious stuff alleged here, there is actually no evidence that you know about that he's actually even a billionaire. >> yes, there is not now and never has been one sin till la of evidence. i broke the story in 1990 that trump was not a billionaire. he called me a liar for four months till he had to produce his own net worth statement that showed he was worth negative $295 million or as i wrote you are probably worth more than donald trump. as a candidate he claimed to be worth over $10 billion. as president, he filed a statementing his worth at $1.4 billion. somehow in ten weeks, almost $9 billion just disappeared from his wealth. >> now to this extensive new york tiles" report here. it is extensive, right? what is the most egregious thing you see in here? >> serial tax cheating. if you cheat once, if you make a mistake, that's not such a big deal. this was calculated deception to

cheat the government and in fact, to cheat poor people who were in rent controlled housing. they've got sworn testimony by donald's brother robert and this goes to something i've said for a long time. the trumps are a crime family. and they have been. there incredible reporting and trust me, this did not get in calling the president engaged in outright frauds without incredibly careful editing. this story makes very clear that it is mostly about things in the '70s, '80s and '90s. it's not current data. that's why we need to see donald trump's more recent tax returns and i think they'll show the same kind of fraud that he was tried for twice in the '80s when he lost both income tax fraud trials. >> do you think this -- i need to go to the other folks. is this the reason number one that he said the red line, you're not going to go into my finances because he's afraid of what that people may uncover stories like this. >> don, absolutely, don.

if we had his tax returns and the books and records, that's what the times got its hands on, 100,000 pages of canceled checks and edger entries they will show donald trump is a world class criminal. >> okay. so walter, one pattern that stands out from the story is that the trump parents repeatedly undervalued assets when they passed it on to donald trump and his siblings. the president's attorneys though do insist it was handled bid professionals and that it's totally legal. what do you think about this? >> well, i think that's what's truly amazing is to see the "new york times" go so far as to call this outright fraud and accuse him of crossing legal lines with lis tax forms. that's an pleasing allegation against a sitting united states president. and the fact that trump broke with tradition of all of his modern predecessors by refusing to release his tax returns when

his opponent in the election released years and years of tax returns means he's not entitled to any benefit of the doubt. and so the information the "times" was looking at revealed how he got rich and they don't have current information about where he is now. but i don't think that the man is entitled to the benefit of the doubt. the american people should be wondering if the reason that he has hid his tax forms from us is because there's more of this stuff. that's deeply concerning. i think if we had a congress, they would be calling immediately for hearings or conducting an investigation of their own or referring this to the department of justice. but we have a congress that's decided that it's out of the business of fulfilling its constitutional responsibility of conducting oversight of the executive branch. >> yeah. so max i know you want to weigh in on this. let me ask you a question and whatever you want, you can take it wherever you want. in this report, it says that the president was a millionaire by

age 8. that completely obliterates the image he's built he's a self-made businessman and a success story and it was a small $1 million loan as if that is small. what do you think of all this. >> i think, don, it con firms that basically donald trump is living a giant lie. that he is a con man, he is a liar. and a fraud. and the very foundation of the story that he has sold to the american people is false because he has repeatedly portrayed himself as being the self-made billionaire, this business genius. and we knew in broad general terms that was not the case. we knew that he had had six corporate bankruptcies. we knew he overvalued his assets. we knew all this in broad terms. what the "new york times" account shows in a spec credible way over the course of 14,000 words is how most of his money came from his daddy. there was a business genius named trump and his name was fred trump. it wasn't donald trump.

so donald trump was selling is the american people a bill of goods and beyond that as walter and david have been pointing out, not only is he a fraud in terms of this story of self-made success that he has sold, he is actually also in all probability committed actual no kidding tax fraud. he has defrauded the people of the united states of hundreds of millions of dollars. reading that account in the "new york times," i was reminded of the case against paul manafort. it sounds like a lot of stuff that donald trump and his father did is very similar to what paul manafort has been convicted of doing and has been convicted of eight plus felonies of doing which is shenanigans such as telling invests that a property is wore the a lot of money and telling the tax authorities it's worth very little money, the same financial fraud manafort was convicted of. if donald trump were not the president of the united states and theoretically immune to

prosecution, he would face i suspect the same kind of legal reckoning right now. >> he would. walter, could the president face legal action and what would that look like or no? >> yeah, well, i think that we've already heard that the new york state authorities are looking into this. i certainly hope that the irs will look flow it and maybe the department of justice. we have a president who has been in the business of making threats against executive branch officials who is investigate him but hopefully, they'll have the fortitude to actually do their job and take a hard look at this because these are serious enough allegations with enough detail that any law enforcement official who doesn't pick up the baton here and run with it to find out whether there's -- whether there's anything in fact that can be prosecuted or more likely seek civil penalties for to collect some of that money back because if you cheat on your taxes you're stealing from all of us.

and so hopefully, somebody will looking into that. >> i'll give you the last word here, david. i'm wondering, do you think this is why he won't release his taxes? because here you go. >> well, if donald released his taxes people like me and people more skilled than me would go through and show all sorts of things that don't make sense. undervaluing a property down to only 6% is simply outrageous. setting up a device as 295 devices to funnel money to the children is tax dodges. that's not casual tax cheating. there is no statute of limitations on civil tax fraud. and i believe donald trump should be sued for every penny along with his sister who is a sitting federal judge and the other two surviving siblings. >> and remember, once the democrats take control of the house ways and means committee assuming they win in november, they have the legal right to request those tax returns. he may not be able to keep them

secret much longer >> max, david, walter, thank you for your time. is judge kavanaugh's story unraveling with this letter he wrote we're loud obnoxious drunks with prolific puker among us? -these people, they speak a language we cannot understand.

♪ [ telephone ringing ] -whoa. [ indistinct talking ] -deductible? -definitely speaking insurance. -additional interest on umbrella policy? -can you translate? -damage minimization of civil commotion. -when insurance needs translating, get answers in plain english at progressiveanswers.com. ♪ -he wants you to sign karen's birthday card. it's a high honor.

so you heard president trump taking the low road. mocking christine blasey ford's testimony. well, one of our attorneys is tweeting tonight a vicious vial and soulless attack on dr. christine blasey ford. is it any wonder she was terrified to come forward and that other sexual assault survivors are, as well? she is a remarkable profile in courage. he is a profile in cowardice. wow. all here to talk about it. alice, i just want to play, you saw the tweet there from her attorney. i want to play this from the president in mississippi this

evening mocking christine blasey ford's testimony. here it is. >> i had one beer. right. >> i had one beer. well, do you think -- nope, it was one beer. oh, good. how did you get home? i don't remember. how did you get there? i don't remember. where is the places? i don't remember. how many years ago was it? i don't know, i don't know, i don't know. i don't know. what neighborhood was it? i don't know. where is the house? i don't know. upstairs, downstairs, where was it? i don't know. but had i one beer. that's the only thing i remember. >> is that hard for you to watch, alice. >> yeah, don, it's disgusting. i don't know what's worse that or when he mocked the reporter. he did during the campaign who had some physical disabilities. and there's no need tore for that. he said himself and many people agreed that dr. ford's testimony

was compelling, it was convincing and certainly anyone that didn't feel compassion for her i think there's a real problem with that. and the down fall with what he did is that that just took us back. i think a lot of people realize that she had a compelling story but in terms of republicans making grounds on this and getting the votes they need, they had the public support on their side with regard to how the president himself responded to it, and many others responded to it and he took one step forward, five steps back on that. there's no need for that. she suffered enough. she's been through a traumatic experience without a doubt. he didn't need to dog pile on it. >> nit ta, you have a pained look and your face. >> yeah, don. he's the president of the united states. you know, the other day when he said that she was credible, he found her compelling, that was acting. what we saw tonight was real. and he is stoking this in front of a crowd that just to me lacks what we would call you an eq, an

emotional quotient here. it doesn't matter whose side you're on from a political standpoint. we can't have empathy one to another and to have the president of the united states of america think it is okay to roll dr. ford in this. it's unconscionable. it's shameful. this president doesn't have a shame gene. he can't be shamed. all of america should be embarrassed by what he just did tonight. >> rick, i wonder what your take is on this. why after praising her as credible and a fine woman before, he couldn't resist it seems like the roar of the crowd. he needed like a performerer. >> donald trump has to be the center of attention at all times. and for about the last week, you know, he was getting high marks from certain republicans because they were saying oh, he's shutting his mouth. he's not burning the whole village down. he's not doing the crazy donald act. tonight it came out to play. the statement he read last week

after dr. ford's testimony that was president conway speaking through donald trump's mouth. what you saw tonight was the unfiltered donald trump. if you're a support he of brett kavanaugh you had to look at tonight and say wow, what are the headlines tomorrow? we're not talking about evidence in this case. we're back to donald trump going to war against somebody again because his delicate ego won't let him be out of the spotlight for 30 seconds. >> alice, you've said many times that people put up with the behavior because of things like the supreme court. this is a test whether he can get his nominee through. i don't disagree with you on that. what about the cheering in the crowd? why is that crowd clearing anyway? is that okwu? >> i don't think it's okay. i'm sure tomorrow what we'll hear from the white house and officials is what he was trying to do is highlight different instances where there were some holes in her story. she said she didn't recall an where exactly this happened and how she got home and certaof

inconsistentences. for him to mock her and call attention to it, i'm surprised at the response from the crowd. can i can't imagine as they get in there and they feed off of each other, that's what happens. i can tell you that most republicans i speak to do see her as someone that's compelling and they do see that she has gone through something. the problem is they do not believe that judge kavanaugh is the one that was responsible for that. and they do see that he is someone that many republicans and we're seeing that in key states, west virginia, arizona and others where they do want to see him confirmed to the high court. >> so anyonena, we have this letter from 1983 that "the new york times" uncovered and wait till you hear what it says, how he signs it. you'll be the first one out of the break to talk about it. cancer.

it's very personal. at cancer treatment centers of america, we use diagnostic tools that help us better understand what drives each person's cancer. like christine bray. after battling ovarian cancer for several years, her test results revealed a drug therapy that targeted her tumor. today, christine's metastatic cancer is in remission.

we're not just fighting cancer. we're outsmarting it. visit cancercenter.com. appointments available now. plaque psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis, little things can be a big deal. that's why there's otezla. otezla is not an injection or a cream. it's a pill that treats differently. for psoriasis, 75% clearer skin is achievable, with reduced redness, thickness, and scaliness of plaques. and for psoriatic arthritis, otezla is proven to reduce joint swelling, tenderness, and pain. and the otezla prescribing information has no requirement for routine lab monitoring. don't use if you're allergic to otezla. otezla may cause severe diarrhea, nausea, or vomiting. tell your doctor if these occur. 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. other side effects include upper respiratory tract infection and headache. tell your doctor about all the medicines you take

and if you're pregnant or planning to be. otezla. show more of you.

back now with the panel, nina, alice and rick. nina, i wanted to talk about something else. i need to talk about this before we run out of time. let's hopefully leave that to another occasion. there's a lot of anger in our country right now. some people are dealing with it by getting in politicians' faces. lately it has been overbrett kavanaugh, ted cruz was chased from a d.c. washington by a group of protesters. >> we believer survivors. we believe survivors. >> we believer survivors. >> excuse me. >> betao is way better than you, dude. >> we believer survivors. >> god bless you. >> god bless you. >> let my wife through. >> we believe survivors.

>> have you forgotten -- >> we believer survivors. we believer survivors. we believer survivors. >> so senate majority leader mitch mcconnell was confronted over kavanaugh at the airport. >> why do women have to bare their whole soul to you? >> support them. >> how many stories of sexual violence do you need to hear in order to believe women? >> and, of course, there was the now viral moment when arizona senator jeff flake was cornered by two victims of sexual assault in an elevator. >> i told the story of my sexual assault. i told it because i rec fliesed in dr. ford's story that she's telling the truth. wh what you are doing is allowing someone who violated a woman sit on the supreme court. >> look at me. you're telling me that my assault doesn't matter, that what happened to me doesn't

matter and that you're going to let people who do these things into power. that's what you're telling me when you vote for him. don't look away from me. look at me and tell me it doesn't matter to what happened to me. >> senator flake admits those courageous women played a part in his decision so is this what it takes to be heard these days? do people need to get in politicians' faces? last week i said i didn't like it personally. but this is what politicians sign up for. >> as a person of color i know that especially during the civil rights movement and now sometimes the only agency you have is to protest and to get in someone's face. you don't have any power when it comes to government and in society. i don't like it. but it is one reason why i'm not a public official, that i'm not running for office. in a way i think it goes with

the territory. >> and that doesn't mean condoning violence. that means protesting. telling someone how you feel. it doesn't mean physical altercations. some people didn't agree with that. so let's discuss now. nina, what do you think? am i right? is this part of what a politician signs up for? >> i mean, they definitely need to listen to the people, don. and i'm right where you are because when we think back in history, at least in the civil rights movement, the way that protest was happening it was really the protesters for freedom and justice who were being attacked. so it certainly was the other way around. i believe anybody should put their hands on anybody. i certainly don't believe anybody has the right to belittle somebody's children. that burns my behind in all kinds of ways to have grown folks mocking other people's kids, especially the children who are under 18. but to me even if they're grown, their children didn't sign up for this. but absolutely, elected officials in this climate have to expect that they will be confronted. and confrontation does not mean

being violent but it does mean that people are going to speak their truth and they want to be heard. and this bubbling up of emotion is happening all over this country. dare i say even all over the world. but we definitely have to draw the line if somebody wants to be violent with somebody because that is not what elected officials sign up for and they should not have to endure violence. >> alice, what do you think? we saw how these women were able to have an impact on the whole process with senator flake. >> yeah. i think elected officials are elected to serve the people and when they're in the halls of congress or in their state capitol, when they're at work, when they're at home offices or at an event, they are fair game in terms of constituents going and speaking their mind. but when it comes to them going to public restaurants, when it comes to them going to their home, we also have to remember what they did to sarah huckabee sanders, kirstjen nielsen. they've also shouted them out of public places. that is taking it too far.

and on top of that having congresswoman maxine waters encouraging people to fight against this administration. that in my view is the wrong way to go about doing it and taking it too far when it becomes personal. that being said, the most important way you can have your voice be heard is to go out and vote and encouraging people to get out and vote and make your voice be heard because that's going to make the most change in addition to what they're doing in terms of attacking members of congress or elected officials or those who are public servants. whether in public or in their private lives. >> so rick, is there a right and a wrong place to protest, or to tell your, you know, congressman or senator how you feel? >> look, i have a slightly different view of this. first off, we obviously all agree that when it gets to the point where there's laying on of hands, physical violence or physical confrontation that's a red line, that's a no go. i don't care where you are, what you're doing. once you're putting a fist into

somebody's chest or putting -- or pushing somebody around or engaging in any kind of violent action that's a bright red line. but i will say this. the average member of congress or the u.s. senate has a very comfortable life. they live in a bubble. they're shielded from most interactions with the public. they don't read the e-mails coming in. they don't listen to the phone messages coming in. they don't look at the facebook page themselves. they're given a filter bubble to live in. they live in a very comfortable world. and a lot of the times the aggression and the anxiety and the fury that happens on the left and the right in this country comes because people aren't listening to them because they're protected, they're safe, they're in this little bubble. so once in a while these guys getting out and hearing somebody in their face telling a story that is -- like the women in the elevator with jeff flake, that spoke from real pain and real experience, the political cost of that, yeah, it's real and it's painful, they don't want to deal with it. but folks on the left and the

right have to be available to their constituents and available to the american people or you're going to get this kind of reaction. you're going to get this kind of ramping up. they're going to chase people into restaurants if they can't talk to them in the halls of congress. they're going to chase people into restaurants if they can't get them to answer a question. ask a republican when the last time they did a town hall meeting was in the last year and a half, two years. they don't do it anymore. so you get frustration that grows and grows, in part because these guys live in a very safe little filter bubble. >> but also look at -- just a couple seconds left here, nina. if you look at what happened, remember during the health care debate and congressmen, senators, they were being confronted at town hall meetings or at meetings when these folks would go back to their homes. people feel powerless now. especially. >> they do. and you know, listen, we've got to get comfortable with being uncomfortable. there are lots of citizens in this country who are uncomfortable and they're starting to make it known to the elected officials, especially on the congressional level, to be uncomfortable -- >> i've got to go. >> -- because we're coming to talk to you. >> thank you very much. and again, that does not mean

violence. so when you write your stories and your own twitter, this is not what we're saying. nobody has said that. nobody is advocating that. so check yourself. thank you, everyone. >> thanks, don. >> thanks, all. thanks for watching. our coverage continues. when your craving strikes, you need your wing nut. ( ♪ ) no one can totally satisfy a craving, quite like your wing nut.

all the tools you need for every step of the way. no one can totally satisfy a craving, make it, squarespace

good evening. thanks for joining us. we begin with the president of the united states telling every young women and girl in america after multiple women came forward with sexual assault claims against a powerful man that it's a very scary time in this country, a scary time, he says, for men. speaking today about his choice for the supreme court, brett kavanaugh, the president made clear again who he thinks the real victim is, not the women who says kavanaugh tried to rape