tv CNN Tonight With Don Lemon CNN October 5, 2018 12:00am-1:00am PDT
this is "cnn tonight." i'm don lemon. judge brett kavanaugh taking his supreme court nomination into his own hands tonight, writing a last-minute op-ed in "the wall street journal" with the vote looming. and here's what he writes. he says, "at times my testimony both in my opening statement and in response to questions reflected my overwhelming frustration at being wrongly
accused without corroboration of horrible conduct completely contrary to my record and character. my statement and answers also reflected my deep distress at the unfairness of how this allegation has been handled. i was very emotional last thursday, more so than i have ever been. i might have been too emotional at times. i know that my tone was sharp and i said a few things i should not have said. i hope everyone can understand that i was there as a son, husband and dad. i testified with five people foremost in my mind, my mom, my dad, my wife, and most of all my daughters." kavanaugh's defense tonight comes hours before a vote to move his nomination to the senate floor. senators combing through the fbi report all day and well into the night. what's in it? well, it depends on who you ask. this is what republicans say. >> what we know for sure is the fbi report did not corroborate
any of the allegations against judge kavanaugh. >> the witnesses they have identified saying they were present at the event have all refuted their allegations. so i think that ought to settle it. >> and here are the democrats. >> our fears have been realized. this is not a thorough investigation. >> it looks to be a product of an incomplete investigation that was limited, perhaps by the white house. >> so now it all comes down to these four people. here they are right now on your screen. susan collins, lisa murkowski, jeff flake, and joe manchin. both collins and flake seem confident in the fbi report calling it thorough. flake adding we've seen no additional corroborating information. >> hey hey, ho ho, kavanaugh has got to go. >> cancel kavanaugh! >> so today, protesters trying to sway those undecideds. they rallied outside the supreme court.
so where does this leave our country? how will this go down in history? i want you to take a look now. this is "time" magazine's new cover. it's an illustration of christine blasey ford using words from her testimony, words like these. >> with what degree of certainty do you believe brett kavanaugh assaulted you? >> 100%. >> 100%. >> indelible in the hippocampus is the laughter. the uproarious laughter between the two. and their having fun at my expense. apart from the assault itself, these past couple of weeks have been the hardest of my life. i've of to relive this trauma in front of the world. and i've seen my life picked apart. >> well, the cover's title, "her lasting impact." so what is the lasting impact of christine blasey ford?
if the fbi report doesn't support ford's allegations as some republicans are suggesting and kavanaugh does end up on the supreme court, what message does that send to this country? what message does it send to victims of sexual assault? what does it tell them about the consequences of speaking out about a horrifying experience? did the leaders of this country really listen to christine blasey ford? we're going to discuss right now. chris cillizza's here. he is cnn's politics editor at large. haley sweetlin edwards is here as well. she is the author of that "time" magazine cover story. good evening. i want to get into the cover story with you but i have to ask our politics editor about this op-ed. >> yeah. >> it is a last-minute dramatic move. >> yeah. you know at a baseball game when it's the ninth inning you're ahead by one run, you bring in your closer. this is an attempt to be a closing argument with a very narrow audience.
this is not aimed at everybody in the country. this is aimed at four people, the four people you showed, manchin, murkowski, flake and collins. and i would say manchin is kind of the fourth out of those four. it's really aimed at those three republicans. >> the testimony last week was aimed at the guy in the white house. >> yeah. i think what this op-ed is is you want to try to, to the extent that he hears, he kavanaugh and the white house more broadly hears, there's still some worry about sort of your temperament, the way in which you present yourself. matt damon on "saturday night live" sort of turned this into a cultural moment. is there any way you can address it. this is the wait to address it. this is the way to say to susan collins, lisa murkowski and jeff flake, i may not have handled myself great there but the fbi investigation doesn't -- according to republicans doesn't show any corroborating evidence so you can be for me. that's all this is. >> and tug at some heart strings. >> i'm in a tough spot. i was in a tough spot. >> father.
>> i'm not normally this emotional. you can understand all the things. again, it is aimed at for people and honestly, don, the scenario you laid out which is that christine blasey ford comes forward, she testifies, brett kavanaugh testifies and he gets confirmed, i think as of 11:04 p.m. on the east coast, that to me looks like the most likely outcome. >> it's 11:05 right now. >> let me change my -- >> i want you to listen to senator flarks what senator flake, what he said yesterday about kavanaugh. >> the interaction with the members was sharp and partisan, and that concerns me. i tell myself you give a little leeway because of what he's been through. but on the other hand, we can't have this on the court. we simply can't. >> that was tuesday, by the way. there you go. >> look, it's not an accident, okay? brett kavanaugh just didn't wake up this morning and say you know what would be interesting is to write an op-ed on the day before the cloture vote.
>> it said it was his idea. >> okay, but i would say that if he had the idea it was strongly encouraged. that doesn't make the sentiment wrong but look, they are playing all their cards because they know they are close. this today was the best day brett kavanaugh politically speaking has had in weeks. he is as close as he has been to being on the supreme court. i honestly think, don, you know, you look at what collins and flake said, we know lisa murkowski is getting a late night briefing. > she's getting a briefing tonight. what are you hearing? >> look, none of them, not flake, not collins and not murkowski if and when she comes out and says anything after this briefing, none of them are going to say i'm a yes or no. they'll hold off till the vote or very close to it sometime tomorrow. look at what will collins said and look at what flake said. thorough investigation.
that's exactly if you're kavanaugh or an ally you what you want to hear. the momentum is moving in his direction. >> thank you for sitting by patiently. i want to ask you about, i'll get to the cover story about christine blasey ford. why do you believe that she will have a lasting impact on this country? there is the cover there. >> i think that there's a couple reasons. i mean, there's layers of it. one of the points we make in the story is at a time when you had the full force, the full sort of freight of the republican power moving in one direction, she stood up and halted it. perhaps temporarily but that showed us that it's possible, that a single voice standing up -- she said, she used those words very early on in her testimony. she said, "i don't want to be here. i'm here because i feel like i have to be. it's my civic duty." the other reason is that the reaction to her testimony was so powerful for women all over the country, all over the world. 45% of americans believed her
afterwards compared to 33% of -- to 33% who believed kavanaugh. that's quite a spread. and one that we didn't see after anita hill testified. >> is this why we're seeing scenes like this, do you think? >> absolutely. the outpouring of anger and frustration that we've seen across the country and across the world is just absolutely a result of her. >> here's what you write in part. say the facts remain unsettled and her testimony may not prevent his confirmation. but it was a powerful warning that wealth, status and a record of professional accomplishments were no longer enough to override credible allegations of sexual assault no matter when they occurred. to young men it was a message that drunken violence could shadow them all their lives, and to victims ford's testimony was an invitation to speak up no matter how powerful the accused, no matter how long ago the attack. people will listen. the country seemed to reassure them. we will believe you." but it looks like if it goes the
way it's going it looks like he will probably be confirmed on saturday. what message do you think this will send to victims? is it the same message that you wrote about? >> i think that progress when it comes to large cultural issues especially gender issues is often two steps forward, one step back. but after anita hill testified in 1991, 55% of america believed justice clarence thomas. only less than 30% believed her. we are in a different moment now. things have changed. and even if he is confirmed, she didn't stand up in order to block his confirmation. she stood up to offer information to the american public, to the senators. >> i think just to add, i think it's important to remember, what you're talking about when you talk about confirmation or not confirmation, you're talking about 100 people. yes, they are elected to represent us broadly. you're talking about 100 people
out of a nation of 300-plus million. i think the more interesting test, though admittedly a lifetime appointment to the nation's highest court is a lifetime appointment to the nation's highest court, period, full stop. but it's 33 days until the 2018 midterms. i think this election was going to be good for democrats anyway. donald trump's approval rating among women in the cnn poll last month was in the high 20s. i am interested, we have more democratic female nominees than we've had since the year of the woman, 1992. you're not talking about all 300 million people voting. that would be great if everyone voted. they won't. you're talking about a much larger group of people when you're talking about cultural movement, that may be the better judge of how this impacted people. with that being said, even if democrats make a bunch of gains, if brett kavanaugh gets confirmed on saturday brett kavanaugh's still a supreme court justice.
so it doesn't change that reality. >> the court still leans conservative. >> absolutely. >> here's my question i sent to some activists last night. i said why aren't people out on the streets. and there were some. but to the degree that they were after the election and some of the subsequent protests. because in a sense the president -- the presidential election was the vehicle that got us here. but who sits on the supreme court and whether that court is balanced or imbalanced left or right, that is of more import than actually who is in the white house. >> right. and our cultural temperature doesn't reflect our electoral -- the structure of our elections. and particularly in the senate. this is a great example. right in 2018, but going forward, we are going to see a supreme court that is out of step with the opinions of the american public. we've already seen that over
major issues like gun control and gay marriage and things like that. the court was way behind where america was moving. i think we are going to see that if we -- >> by the way, politicians were even further behind. the court in a way on gay marriage was ahead of where a lot of politicians were, which speaks -- on gay marriage. not on everything but -- >> if you look at the makeup of the senate and the congress, especially the senate because we've been looking at them in depth now, it's like is this really representative of the country? >> remember, don, some of these things are nerdy. but look, you're talking about six-year terms. that body was built to be less reactive than the house in two-year terms. it's six-year terms. i always point this out to people. the three people asking -- the three highest-ranking people on the senate judiciary committee are chuck grassley, age 85, orrin hatch, age 84, dianne feinstein, age 85. i mean, you are dealing with folks who -- this is not -- if we picked -- let's pick 100 of the most representative people
of our sort of broad american democracy, it would not be the 100 people currently sitting there. that's just the reality. >> listen, that is -- i'm not saying anything about -- this isn't about age. this isn't about -- but that happens to be what it is. and these people, their age, their ethnicity is not reflective of the entire culture and the diverseky ity of this country. >> and by the way, take it out of the very fraught debate you saw in front of the judiciary committee with christine blasey ford, i think i would urge anyone to go watch any senate hearing on any tech issue and ask yourself if you are being well served. i mean, it's like so i can get the facebook on my phone? again, like this is -- they do some things quite well. they don't do all things quite well. >> i sat there and watched in awe and said i cannot believe that this is happening.
look at this. just look at the demographics, look at the optics. unbelievable. >> people are going to be writing their ph.d.s about this moment. >> no republican woman has ever served on the senate judiciary committee ever. >> thank you both. thank you. fascinating. as the battle rages over brett kavanaugh's supreme court nomination, how is christine blasey ford handling all of this? i'm going to ask one of her friends. i'm alex trebek here to tell you
about the colonial penn program. if you're age 50-85 and looking to buy life insurance on a fixed budget, remember the three p's. the three what? the three p's? what are the three p's? the three p's of life insurance on a fixed budget are price, price, and price. a price you can afford, a price that can't increase, and a price that fits your budget. i'm 54 and i was a smoker but quit. alex, what's my price? you can get coverage for $9.95 a month. i'm 65, retired, and take medications. what's my price? also $9.95 a month. i just turned 80 and i'm on a fixed income. what's my price? $9.95 a month for you, too. if you're age 50 to 85,
call now about the number one most popular whole life insurance plan available through the colonial penn program. it has an affordable rate starting at $9.95 a month. that's less than 35 cents a day. you cannot be turned down because of your health. no medical exam, no health questions. your acceptance is guaranteed, and this plan has a guaranteed lifetime rate lock, so your rate can never go up for any reason. and with this plan, you can pick your payment date, so you can time your premium due date to work with your budget. options start at $9.95 a month, plus, you get a 30-day money back guarantee. so call now for free information. and you'll also get this free beneficiary planner, and it's yours just for calling. so call now.
so republicans in the senate say they plan to hold the first of two votes on judge kavanaugh's nomination tomorrow morning 10:30. as we've learned over the last few days, anything could happen. i want to bring in cheryl, a friend of christine blasey ford. good evening. i'm so glad you could join us. i really appreciate it. i know that you -- >> thank you very much. >> this has to be an incredibly trying time for christine blasey ford. she's inspired protests, people not only in washington but all over the country, people have been coming forward telling their stories.
i know you haven't had much contact if any with her since after the hearings. but how do you think she's handling all of this? >> you know, i think as unflapably as i think she handled having to sort of bare her soul in the most enormous glare of both the media and the american public. she's an unassuming straightforward, honest person, and i am certainly hoping that what she's doing is avoiding the media as much as possible and trying to return to some normalcy in her and her family's life. i think that will take a while. i really do. she certainly sacrificed a lot to come forward. >> and you're a friend and you were there for her right after her testimony in front of the senate judiciary committee. how did she feel afterwards -- >> yes, i was at the hearing and i saw her after.
>> was it relief no matter what happens? whatever way this goes, i -- how did she feel? >> absolutely. she was definitely relieved. she took off those heels and, you know, sat down and we just talked, a few of her good friends and honestly, i was just trying to lighten the mood and crack her up. and she felt the pressure of the moment to some extent but as i told her and others told her, what she's done is so incredible, it's a turning point i like to think in terms of women coming forward and women understanding and more importantly, men understanding the pervasiveness of sexual assault in our society.
whether or not kavanaugh does you know receive enough votes and i would guess that actually it's going to break down along party lines, the vote. what she's done at this moment in history is exactly what there country needs right now. >> yeah. so i've got to ask you because -- about this investigation, they completed the investigation. and democrats are saying there wasn't enough time. christine's attorneys wrote a letter to the fbi director christopher wray wray to say the bureau did not interview about eight witnesses christine told them about. the investigation is a stain on the process on the fbi and on the american ideal of justice. what do you think? disappointed in the investigation? >> yeah, well, i thought it was very strange to put it charitibly they did not speak with people who could have corroborated that she told them about this harrowing account years ago. and not just her husband in 2012.
other people, other acquaintances, counselors. in 2013, 2016, 2017. as recently as july, before judge kavanaugh was the final candidate. i thought that information would have been helpful. i really think that there were tight parameters put on this investigation. it really wasn't much of an investigation. it was just sort of like a glorified extra security clearance i think because they finished up two days early. i mean, you would think that you're going to go to the last minute to get in as much information as you can possibly get. and yet, they finish a full two days early. i was surprised. >> you have called kavanaugh's testimony petulant and combative. just tonight he wrote that op-ed saying he's an independent impartial judge, that he was just emotional. do you believe he has the right temperament for the supreme court? >> you know, i really think
america can do a lot better. i think democrats understand that a conservative judge is going to be appointed to the supreme court. i do not think it should be that conservative judge. forget about the fact that he assaulted my friend for a moment, but the fact about his aggression and how he handled adversity, i think just shows that his demeanor might not be the best when certain issues come before the court. >> cheryl amitay, thank you. i appreciate you coming on tonight. >> you're very welcome. >> a vote looming on this nomination as judge brett kavanaugh puts out a last-minute op-ed. but did he make his case?.
max, this is a quote from kavanaugh's op-ed. he said "i was very emotional last thursday more so than i ever been. i might have been too emotional at times. i said a few things i should not have said. i hope everyone can understand that i was there as a son, a husband and a dad." what do you think of that? do you think it's going to convince senators that he has the right temperament to be on the supreme court? >> well, we'll find out in about 24 hours, don. it's clear what that op-ed indicates is he knows he screwed up, he knows he acted injudiciously before the senate committee. a lot of people had the same reaction as the retired justice john paul stevens who said i was okay up until that point but he lost me there and his performance was disqualifying. and he's trying to address that. but he's undercutting himself because look at where he's addressing it. he's addressing it in the pages of the "wall street journal" editorial page, the right-wing "wall street journal" editorial page, just as he previously went on the right-wing fox news. so if the concern about him is that he is biased and he is partisan, and that is a widespread perception which i frankly -- a concern that i share, he is not dispelling that
perception by speaking to the right-wing base. >> and jeff flake said -- voiced a similar sentiment, saying he was concerned about the way he conducted himself during the hearings. this is -- steve, here's the reason so many people are concerned about kavanaugh's performance. watch this. >> this whole two-week effort has been a calculated and orchestrated political hit. fueled with apparent pent-up anger about president trump and the 2016 election, fear that has been unfairly stoked about my judicial record, revenge on behalf after the clintons, and millions of dollars in money from outside left-wing opposition groups. >> so is it too late for kavanaugh to come across as nonpartisan? has the damage already been done? >> look, i don't think so. i think he's exactly right by the way when he said let's be
honest about this. this is really about trump, not about brett kavanaugh. i think what the country saw right there last thursday i guess it was was a dress rehearsal for impeachment. that is where the democrats are headed if they win the house, they will impeach the president and some of those very same senators, senator feinstein, kamala harris, and others will be trying the president rather than effectively putting on trial brett kavanaugh. i think he's right this is far more about trump than it is about him and his judicial opinions. >> but my question was -- hold on, hilary. hilary, hold on. i just want an answer to the question. my question was, does it sound -- is it too late for kavanaugh to come across as nonpartisan? has the damage already been done? i appreciate you said okay, you think he's right. but is it too late? should he have conducted himself, should he have used those words? it appears he doesn't think so because he would not have written what he wrote in "the wall street journal." so what do you think? is it too late? >> i'm glad he wrote that. i do think he had a bit of cleanup to do. i don't think it's massive cleanup but he had some to do.
by the way, i also would agree with i think the point you made earlier which is he shouldn't have just gone to fox news. he should have come to a liberal network and done a tougher more adversarial interview. as well. that would have also been do optics i think. >> thank you for saying that. hillary, go ahead. i know you wanted to weigh in. sorry to cut you off. go ahead, hillary. >> well, i mean, i think he just made our point, which is that actually it is a hyperpartisan guy having shown his true stripes at the hearing worried about things like impeachment instead of, you know, fair judicial decisions. i feel like we are living in the twilight zone here of supreme court nominations. this kind of last-minute attempt to say everything i've said before and every attitude i had in my years of attacking, like ignore that and just realize i'm really just a loving dad. i don't think it works but i think he had audience of two or
three tonight with that op-ed. and who knows whether it will work. >> what do you think of the former supreme court justice stevens saying he shouldn't get the job? >> i think it's improper for justice stevens to be weighing in on current nominees to the court. but i share his sentiments. i think he's speaking for a lot of people who are very disquieted by kavanaugh's performance before the judiciary committee. and it wasn't just the -- i can understand -- look, i can understand kavanaugh being angry if he thinks he was a genuinely innocent person who was being accused of these horrible things, you can understand that anger. but i think he took it too far. he took it in a partisan direction. he took it in a conspiratorial direction claiming this was somehow payback for the clintons or as steve was suggesting this is part of a vendetta against trump when in fact the previous trump nominee, neil gorsuch, he didn't face these accusations because there was no woman coming forward to say that she had been sexually assaulted by him. this has to do with the claims put forward by dr. christine blasey ford.
and i think that brett kavanaugh's reaction hurt him with the mainstream of the country but it probably helped him with republicans because it mobilized trump behind him and mobilized the republican base behind him. so politically, i think it was probably a smart thing to do, but i think it's going to hurt the supreme court in the long run and further politicize the court. and who could ever imagine in the future that a justice brett kavanaugh is going to be impartial when he has liberal plaintiffs coming before him? >> i want all of you to take a look at this. >> okay, but -- >> hold on. this is an ad which is targeting senator joe manchin for staying "silent while kavanaugh's family was destroyed." watch this. >> west virginia senator joe manchin spends a lot of time shooting up pieces of paper to try to make a point. but when he sat silently as a democratic mob tried to end the nomination of judge kavanaugh to the supreme court with uncorroborated allegations, he
shot a much bigger hole in something far more important. joe manchin was silent on due process. the rights of the accused and whether you are innocent until proven guilty. >> steve, it shows you the pressure these senators are under. a ton of pressure on this vote. especially joe manchin and the other three. >> for sure. by the way, i think it's wrong for us to pretend somehow that the court is above politics. that's just not the reality of the history of the court or the court at present. ruth bader ginsburg for instance called our president a fake. that was an exact quote from her, a sitting justice. >> and she apologized within less than 24 hours. >> extreme partisan -- okay. and brett kavanaugh, by the way, apologized to senator klobuchar for the comments he made at the actual hearing -- >> but he didn't apologize for what he said. he didn't -- >> yes, he did in the hearing. yes, he did -- >> i'm not talking about that.
i'm talking about he did not apologize for anything that he wrote in this op-ed. he just said -- he gave reasons for yes was emotional. but there was no apology that said i am sorry for saying these things. >> but there was an apology at the time, which is even better. within minutes. >> senator klobuchar's -- accusing senator klobuchar of drinking. he didn't apologize for anything -- >> if you're going to excuse ruth bader ginsburg because she apologized then we have to also -- >> i think ginsburg was wrong. this is all wrong. this is all terrible. it's all politicizing the court. both sides are guilty. >> but can we just go back to this ad for a minute, though? because it really speaks to something bigger, which is this constant desire to portray judge kavanaugh as a victim here. i think that that is what is super offensive to women across america. he is not a victim. he is actually the accused. and importantly, he is the one who decided to go on fox tv and present himself as a choir boy
and throughout his high school and college years. he brought this upon himself. so this constant notion that republicans are pushing in these ads and others that there are multiple victims here starting with brett kavanaugh which he then reiterated again in his op-ed i think ends up being the thing that most angers women. >> stick around, everyone. we have much more to talk about. i want to talk about what happens when a republican senator tells protesters to grow up. we're going to play the intense confrontation for you next. >> don't you wave your hand at me.
i wave my hand at you. >> when you grow up i'll be glad. >> when you grow up? >> how dare you talk to women that way? how dare you! >> max, how did you think senator hatch handled that? >> probably not very well which probably just reinforces stereotypes about clueless old out of touch white guys. but i have to say that overall i think just the level of vituperation and partisan anger over this issue is very disquieting to me because i see it on both sides. i see really a rejection of reason on both sides and it's very hard to find any kind of center here. you know, you look at democrats, for example. they were all pretty much prepared to reject kavanaugh no matter what even if he was a complete choir boy. eminently qualified. they didn't care. they were going to reject him no matter what. republicans on the other hand, they don't care if these charges are true, even if they're all
true they're still going to push for him because he's going to advance the republican agenda. and of course you see these emotions boiling over. it's not helped by the fact that the judiciary committee did not do a serious investigation. it was a faux investigation. the fbi only talked to nine potential witnesses out of dozens that were out there. and so there's a sense that this process was rigged. and that just feeds into that partisan anger, which i think is very debilitating for our country. >> i'm actually surprised that these guys are -- steve, hold on. i'm actually surprised that these guys are surprised or upset that people are getting into their faces because isn't this one of our founding rights here, to protest and to be heard? >> yes, it is. >> steve? >> yes, yeah, i certainly think it is. i think senator hatch comes across, he's got one foot out the door, he's retiring. he came across a bit grumpy there, to be quite honest. but i wanted to ask max because i've heard this point endlessly from liberals when they're criticizing people like senator hatch. they keep mentioning that the senators on the committee are white. what does the racial component have to do with this? as far as i can tell, everyone
involved in this entire saga, both the accusers and the accused, are white people. >> can i answer that for you, max? >> yeah. >> it is because all you have to do is look at your television you will see the makeup of the judiciary committee, the makeup of the senate who we've been looking at, we can talk about the congress later, the makeup of this administration is not reflective of the diversity of the country. we would be saying the same thing if all the people who were doing the questioning were old and black or old and hispanic. we would say that they don't represent the diversity of the country. so no one's trying to make it a racial issue. it is what it is. it's old white guys and quite frankly, on the democratic side it was an older white lady. so what's wrong with saying that, what's wrong with pointing out the obvious? there's people like rush limbaugh and other senators who are also mentioning -- lindsey graham. the same thing. rush limbaugh said the same thing. they actually pointed it out more so than the people on this
panel. >> there's actually -- i think you're being polite, don, in your education here. he think there's also more to it. which is that sort of the diversity breeds empathy in a way that the patriarchy of the senate does not historically do. we have not seen the kind of empathy for a change in culture, a change in the way women are treated. the way that you have seen it in other places in this country. the way you've seen it in the democratic party. it's just not happened much in the senate. even the way the bullying of susan collins and lisa murkowski by the senate republican leadership, you know, it's like they're picking on the women and putting them in this awkward position. so i do think that it's more than just you know, a fact that they're white. i think that it's representative of a resistance to change that we have to stop at this point -- >> but the fact is --
>> there's never been a republican woman on the judiciary committee. so that's a problem. that's why they couldn't trust themselves to question judge kavanaugh or dr. ford. >> i understand there's a gender component. but there's not a race component. and yet liberals constantly keep bringing race into this -- >> okay. i'm not a liberal, steve. i'm a conservative. >> you sure sound like one. >> i've been a conservative my whole life. >> it's diversity -- >> hold on. why do you think it's not about race? there's no racial component? >> because everyone involved in the case is white. there's not a racial component to the kavanaugh nomination. there's absolutely a gender component. i understand that. what i'm saying is i think what liberals are doing here is there's a grievance overlay where they want to inject race even into issues where race doesn't have relevance. and i think it's indicative unfortunately of their fixation -- >> how is race not relevant when you don't have people who are making decisions for america who don't represent the diversity of this country? everyone on that committee, all
three of the people are 85 or 84 years old. they are white. >> right. >> what's wrong with talking about that? we -- >> listen, i'm all for -- >> hang on. hold on, hold on. we break people down into categories talking about who is voting for who. we've got the black vote. we've got the white vote. we've got the female vote. the young people vote. what's wrong with pointing out the obvious and talking about it, that the country -- >> by the way -- >> -- that these people are not on the same page as most of the people in this country? it has left them behind. >> and it goes to the access to power. >> let's talk about ted cruz who is a hispanic -- and by the way, when you want to talk diversity, the republican party, the final three presidential contenders, trump, cruz and rubio, two of the three hispanics, two of the three men of color -- >> steve, come on. get real. >> that was supposedly a party that hates -- i'm being very real with facts. >> get real. >> donald trump is promoting a white nationalist agenda. donald trump is dividing us by race catering to white
nationalists. >> america's not a race. >> he is saying that white supremacists are very fine people. >> listen, i have to go. i'm sorry. i'm out of time. >> it's about access to power, who has it and who doesn't. >> so listen. >> white men have it. >> i've got to go. but just do a google search on the average age and race of the senate. and the young people in the senate, cory booker. he's 50. not so young. we'll be back. we'll talk about your book next. thank you, thank you. what do harvard graduates know about cognitive performance? as you'd probably guess, a lot. that's why a new brain health supplement called forebrain from the harvard-educated experts at force factor is flying off the shelves at gnc. forebrain's key ingredients have been clinically shown to help enhance sharpness and clarity, improve memory,
and promote learning ability. and now every man and woman in america can claim a complimentary bottle. just use your smartphone to text the keyword on the screen to 20-20-20. scientific research on cognigrape, a sicilian red wine extract in forebrain's memorysafe blend, suggests not only sharper recall, but also improved executive function and faster information processing. your opportunity to get into harvard may be gone, but it's not too late to experience a brain boost formulated by some of their brightest minds. just text the keyword on the screen to 20-20-20 with your smartphone to claim your complimentary bottle of forebrain. do it now - before you forget. that's the keyword on the screen to 20-20-20.
your book is all about your journey from being a lifelong republican to a trump opponent. you said, when the primaries began and trump began winning state after state, i thought i had entered the twilight zone. the torment worsened when he locked up the nomination and republican after republican dutifully lined up to endorse his candidacy after having lambasted him in the harshest of terms. former governor rick perry had called trump a cancer on conservatism before endorsing said cancer and being rewarded with a cabinet post. i've been asking people this. what happened to the republican party? >> i've been asking myself that question, don. it's -- it's soul crushing for me. i mean, this is just unbelievable. because i was a part of the republican party and the conservative movement my whole life. i could have never imagined that they would support this kind of populist demagogue like donald trump who has very little in common with the beliefs that conservatives have been propounding for years, at least conservatives like me have been propounding. it feels like they've been victims of the invasion of the body snatchers. they've had their brains sucked out and replaced with trumpian mush. and it makes me really wonder,
who were these people that i was in the trenches with all these years? did i not know them? have they changed? what's happened? i don't recognize the republican party, the one i grew up in in the 1980s. >> maybe they didn't actually believe in true conservatism the way that you believe in it. >> i think that's exactly right. >> but i've got to ask you, because it's frustrating for me as a person of color to sit here and have someone say why do you have to inject race? when the obvious is right in front of your eyes. the people who are making decisions in this country are so out of touch with the culture and where people in this country are going and where this country is going. it's got to be frustrating for you as a conservative, is it not? and you write about that in your book. >> no, it's really frustrating. and for years, don, i was in denial about the way that republicans were dog whistling to the racist constituency at election time, when liberals said, you know, republicans are racist i indignantly denied it because i said i'm not a racist, my friends aren't racist. but i can't deny it anymore,
with donald trump, it's gone from a dog whistle to a wolf whistle. he is so blatant in his appeal to racism and xenophobia, the way he is stigmatizing muslims, mexicans, the way that he is praising white nationalists, the way he's referring in harsh derogatory terms to the countries of africa. it's very clear what's going on. and it makes me realize, wait a second, donald trump is appealing to a much larger constituency than i had realized. there is a much larger base in the republican party that thrills to his racism and his xenophobia, his prejudice and bigotry. and that saddens me. it makes me realize, this is not a movement i can be part of anymore. >> the name of the book is -- can we put it up? the book is "the corrosion of conservatism: why i left the right," by mr. max boot. we love having you on. good luck with the book. >> thank you. >> and thank you for your candor. i appreciate it. thanks for watching, everyone. our coverage continues.
if you're turning 65, you may be learning about medicare and supplemental insurance. medicare is great, but it doesn't cover everything ...only about 80% of your part b medicare costs. a medicare supplement insurance plan may help cover some of the rest. learn how an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan, insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company might be the right choice for you. a free decision guide is a great place to start. call today to request yours. so what makes an aarp medicare supplement plan unique? these are the only medicare supplement plans endorsed by aarp because they meet aarp's high standards of quality
and service. you're also getting the great features that any medicare supplement plan provides. you may choose any doctor that accepts medicare patients. you can even visit a specialist. with this type of plan there are no networks or referrals needed. also, a medicare supplement plan... ...goes with you when you travel anywhere in the u.s. call today for a free guide. . .
kavanaugh has got to go. >> when you grow up, i'll grow up. >> you grow up. >> this confirmation process has become a national disgrace. >> his performance during the hearings caused me to change my mind. >> judge kavanaugh put out an op-ed to convince americans he's not political. >> all eyes are on three senators. along with joe manchin. >>