tv Morning Joe MSNBC October 5, 2018 3:00am-6:00am PDT
kavanaugh, what are your thoughts? >> if that's an investigation, it's a [ bleep ] investigation. the reality is that is not a full an thorough investigation. >> why aren't you brave enough to talk to us and exchange with us? don't you wave your hand at me. i wave my hand at you. >> when you grow up i'll talk to you. >> you grow up! >> how dare you talk to women that way? how dare you? how dare you? how dare you. >> you can't hold the door. you're going get arrested. >> that is the scene on capitol hill where in just a few hours the u.s. senate appears poised to push forward and brett kavanaugh's nomination to the u.s. supreme court. good morning, it's friday, october 5 along with joe, willie
and me. we have msnbc analyst susan del percio. co-host and executive producer of show time's "the circus," john heilemann, and pulitzer prize winning columnist and associate editor of the "washington post" and msnbc political analyst eugene robinson. joe, set the stage for us today. >> it's been building up to this for a couple of tumultuous weeks. talk about the circus. this has been the circus. a couple developments overnight that we'll be talking about. first of all, brett kavanaugh wrote an epiop-ed for the "wall street journal." very surprising for a lot of people. it's not what supreme court justices or certainly not what people who were aiming to be supreme court justice usually do, just like they don't usually go on fox news or any cable news show to state their case which suggests that maybe the white
house maybe kavanaugh doesn't feel like it's over yet, though it's moving in his direction. and also tonight, for the first time three decades the "washington post" actually editorialized against a supreme court justice. they didn't do this with thomas, roberts, alito, gorsuch, anybody over the past 30 years but their paper's editorial says if mr. kavanaugh truly is or believes himself to be a victim of mistaken identity, his anger is understandable but he went further than expressing anger, he gratuitously indulged in hyperpartisan rhetoric against the left. and he talked about a calculated orchestrated political hit fuelled by pentup anger fuelled by president trump in the 2016 election and revenge on behalf of the clintons and the
"washington post" concludes, rightly, that with the sort of rhetoric regardless of how angry he was that sort of rhetoric, which was calculated, which he himself said he wrote, nobody else wrote, he tore up the notes that somebody else wrote for him, those were his partisan words. they were calculated. he wrote them himself and as a judge he certainly understood the weight of every word that was put in that statement. so the "washington post" coming out today editorializing against his elevation to the supreme court. first time that paper has done that in over 30 years. >> amazing. and this morning the senate plans to hold a key vote at 10:30 a.m. which will move supreme court nominee brett kavanaugh a step closer to confirmation. after the vote, there will be up to 30 hours of debate leading to a final confirmation vote
saturday night. two critical republican votes, senator susan collins of maine and jeff flake of arizona indicated yesterday that the fbi probe into kavanaugh was adequate. but they cautioned they would continue to read the closely held report. satisfying flake and collins as well as republican lisa murkowski of alaska would be enough to confirm kavanaugh to the u.s. supreme court. democrats on the other hand, are nearly unanimously in their opposition of kavanaugh's nomination. one moderate senator, senator heidi heitkamp of north dakota who is facing a tough reelection announced she will oppose kavanaugh's nomination. that leaves one potential democratic vote for kavanaugh and that's senator joe manchin of west virginia who has yet to announce his plans. yesterday, manchin was seen reviewing the fbi report and said he would return today to study it more. >> willie, you have a possible
situation where a democrat could be in the position to cast the deciding vote for or against judge kavanaugh. in most states for a democratic senator that would probably be pretty great news, they'd put a statue of you up in massachusetts or vermont if you were that senator. in west virginia they may tell you to never come back home again. joe manchin, if he were in that position, that would be pretty bad but i don't think it's going to get there, do you? it looks like collins and flake are breaking kavanaugh's way. >> it does. they came up quickly yesterday after reading that fbi report and both said it was a thorough report. the release and publishing of this report pretty much tells us everything we knew about the process which is that democrats were going to always say it wasn't thorough enough, that this is not a real investigation and it was going to give some republicans cover to go ahead and vote for the confirmation of brett kavanaugh. i agree with you. i can't see, although he's an honest broker and i bet he's
looking closely, i can't see joe manchin voting against brett kavanaugh in a state donald trump won by 30 points. it remains to be seen but we'll learn tomorrow. there's a fun twist here. steve danes, the senator from montana, his daughter is getting married on saturday. obviously republicans need every last vote for brett kavanaugh. he's going to walk his daughter down the aisle but he says he will be there for the vote wherever he can get which means if you look at montana to d.c., you're going to a wedding, you have to have the first dance with your daughter, he may cast the decisive vote some time sunday morning, making it official. you mentioned kavanaugh's new on ned the "wall street journal." kavanaugh looks to overcome the perception that he has, after last week's hearing, that he is too political. it's titled "i'm an independent, impartial judge." in it he writes i was very emotional last thursday, more so than i have ever been, i might have been too emotional at
times. i know 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. going forward, he writes, you can count on me to be the same kind of judge and person i've been for my entire 28-year legal career. hardworking, even keeled, open minded, independent and dedicated to the constitution and the public good. joe, obviously he's doing mopup work there. the other concern he didn't address in this on said that he sounded partisan. he talked about effectively a clinton conspiracy against them to take down his nomination. >> and, again, if it were in realtime, if he were ticking off a list of things he felt the left had done against him and their motivations and off the top of his head threw out the clinton conspiracy, that would be troubling enough.
but the fact that he wrote it himself. it reminds me of when ross pro spoke to the naacp convention and he said "i wrote this myself." and then he went on to keep talking about "you people, you people." and they were booing him and insulting him and didn't really help him that he wrote it himself. it's the same people as brett kavanaugh, wrote it himself, tore up what the others wrote for him and that's what you had the clinton conspiracy theories. here's a clip just for those who don't remember what happened one week ago. >> mr. chairman, ranking member feinstein, members of the committee, thank you for allowing me to make my statement. i wrote it myself yesterday afternoon and evening. no one has seen a draft or it except for one of my former law clerks.
this is my statement. this whole two-week effort has been a calculated and orchestrated political hit fuelled 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 of the clintons and millions of dollars in money from outside left wing opposition groups. this is a circus. and as we all know in the united states political system of the early 2000s, what goes around comes around. >> well, you know, mika, that is -- those are -- it doesn't matter where you stand, whether you're conservative or liberal, whether you support the judge or don't support the judge, it's so problematic. to think about somebody like that sitting on the supreme
court where there is never going to be a decision that he makes that isn't tainted by partisanship. and, yes, federal judges can be partisan. they do have their own beliefs, their own opinions but my god, every federal judge i've ever known has certainly shown -- i've been fortunate, i guess -- a lot of dignity and you can't get them talking about politics because they find it unbecoming. >> yeah and he takes a lot of this personally. i think that op-ed was telling. if anybody is looking really close at this senator joe manchin, he says i know my tone was sharp and i might have said a few things that i should haven't said and i hope everyone can understand. no. no. uh-uh. we don't understand that at all, actually. you're not sitting here defending your name. this is a job interview for the highest court in the land and
everyone is trying to understand whether or not you are fit for the job. so i don't take his highly emotional raging reaction, i don't think it makes him guilty. we have no idea whether he's guilt or innocence of what he's accused of but it does show something susan del percio about his fitness and i really hope susan collins and lisa murkowski, jeff flake and joe manchin think about the display he put forward and whether or not he's truly fit let alone what he's said about presidential pardons and whether or not certain people from certain backgrounds should have access to this country and how he couldn't answer basic questions about the foundation of this democracy, susan. >> and look at how he handled the senators who asked him questions, especially senator klobuchar. he is a federal judge. he is used to high-stress situations. he was flippant and really
disrespectful. yes, he apologized for it after. but he should be better than that. he had been practicing for a week. he did the fox news interview as prep work. that is inexcusable on top of the partisanness that we saw. what's also disturbing to me is how president trump spoke about dr. ford at the rally and then seeing senator grassley and majority leader mcconnell, their behavior yesterday, as if the president gave them an okay to destroy good will that they were trying to put as far as dr. ford went. forgetting even -- just using kavanaugh's words and looking at the president, i don't think susan collins or lisa murkowski or senator flake should reward this president with this nomination. he is now -- president trump seeks to divide us.
this nomination will further divide us. >> i think about leaders like ronald reagan how they handled adversity or john mccain, when the woman at the rally said something very disparaging about obama. and there's a moment where you can really show what you're made of, brett kavanaugh had two opportunities, one in that hearing where he raged, defended himself, cried like a baby and basically couldn't -- said it was everyone else's fault but his own what was going on. and secondfully this op-ed where he could have called out the president. he could have called out people who were mocking christine blasey ford and said don't mock her, don't mock her, leave her alo alone. >> well, i want to be really clear, if he is an innocent man and so far if you look at
corroborating witnesses nobody's -- it doesn't appear there's a corroborating witness so let's give him the presumption of innocence just for this argument right here. i can understand him being extraordinarily emotional. i think many of us would be extraordinarily emotional if we were wrongly accused of those claims but you have a decision to make. you can go out and rail against partisans, you can rail against the democratic senators and they certainly had a lot to be attacked for. you can rail against the partisanship, all the ads that run against you, but if you're going to do that, be a politician, run for office. if you want to be a federal judge, you don't do that. you just don't. and people that are on twitter saying, well, he was attacked. yeah. you know what? save it. save it for politicians.
i get it, it's a blood sport but if you want to be a federal judge, if you want to be one of nine people shaping the laws of this country and interpreting the constitution you have to rise above. that and we saw an example, jane, this isn't pie in the sky thinking by mika about how he should have defended dr. ford against donald trump's attacks and said, no, you know what? that's over the line, i didn't do what she said i did but she's been hurt, my family has been hurt, that's over the line. he would have gained a lot of points by doing that. you know who did that? neil gorsuch, when donald trump was attacking federal judges and gorsuch was under a vote, he attacked donald trump for being disrespectful to federal judges. that's the leadership kavanaugh
should have shown and at every turn he never showed any leadership at all. >> that would have shown a certain generosity and grandness of spirit that we saw none of from judge kavanaugh. that op-ed is all me, me, me and they made me do it, the distardily liberals turned me into that creature that you saw yelling and frothing at that hear hearing i don't think we should forget dr. ford in this equation when senator heitkamp made her announcement yesterday that she is going to vote against judge kavanaugh. she said it was because she believed dr. ford and she did give hours worth of very
credible evidence, sworn testimony is evidence against judge kavanaugh and you write that there have not been corroborating witnesses who -- who can attest to her account but it was compelling and she opened herself up to what has come at her including from the president and i don't think she did that with any ulterior motive. she did that because she thought something happened to her and she thought the american people needed to know about it. >> you're down in d.c., let's do a whip count on this. we'll have the procedural vote for cloture today. susan collins yesterday said the fbi report was, quote, very thorough. jeff flake said he saw no additional corroborating information.
so that leaves us basically, i think, with murkowski. i mentioned joe manchin in a state won by 30 points, i was wrong. donald trump won that state by 32 points. it's hard to see joe manchin crossing all his voters with this. how will this shake out? >> i'm not sure. i think anybody who makes predictions about these things given what we saw last friday is foolish. everyone who has been paying attention to this thought that of those four that maybe lisa murkowski is the most likely no in the group. she has a governor and lieutenant governor in alaska who is against javg. she survived the primary. there are these native american issues kavanaugh is in the wrong place for on that issue. so the politics for lisa murkowski at least open up the space for her to vote no if she wants to. i think that joe manchin, unlike other red state democrats, heidi
hide camp vote of enormous courage yesterday. she may lose her seat over that vote but unlike people like claire mccaskill who is a committed no, joe donnelly who's a committed no where you see the polls shifting in those states on kavanaugh, joe manchin has a comfortable lead in the state of west virginia. i think it's right he wants to vote yes on kavanaugh but if we get to the point where we would be the deciding vote i think it will be very hard for him to cross the entirety of his party and do that. so the question comes back now to susan collins and jeff flake. >> let's talk about the politics of being the vote that takes down brett kavanaugh and takes down the fifth vote to end roe v. wade. in west virginia, i think joe manchin can survive just about anything. i don't know if he can survive being the fifth vote, being the
guy that kept roe v. wade in force as law of the land. >> he's a pretty popular politician in west virginia and i don't think we know -- as i said, i think he's inclined for reasons of his politics is inclined to want to vote yes but he'd prefer to do that and not be the person on whom the outcome is pin sod he's waiting like the rest of us to see what happens with these three republican senators. that's my guess that he's going to wait that out. he doesn't want to get out in front of them. so then you come back to susan collins and jeff flake. and if you're reading tea leaves based on what they said yesterday you would think they are more inclined to vote yes than no. jeff flake last week said before the supplemental investigation began, he said -- he announced he was for kfg aavanaugh and hee head would still be for kavanaugh on the back end of this investigation. that's a strong indication. susan collins had been saying she believed that judge kavanaugh indicated that he
regarded roe v. wade as settled law. there's many people who think that is a foolish reading or self-serving reading. both people said they wanted to be at yes but they left themselves enough opening to change their minds before today and some of the things you were talking about, joe, i think are weighing on them, these questions of partisanship and the fact -- the way kavanaugh behaved not on the question of sexual misconduct but on the question of partisanship and i'll say one last thing, know yesterday, an extraordinary thing happened yesterday, justice stevens, former supreme court justice, came out against brett kavanaugh. i do not believe it's ever happened before that a sitting or former supreme court justice has come out in opposition to a nominationing to the court. i don't think that's ever happened before and that's unprecedented. >> american bar association. law enforcement. >> politics are unfortunately playing a part of it. justice stevens, of course, conservatives will remind you
that ruth bader ginsburg said unkind things about donald trump and now brett kavanaugh doing what he's doing. the supreme court unfortunately becoming more political. mika, everybody i talked to in maine involved in politics says the same thing, susan collins is deeply concerned about the 2020 -- her race for 2020. she was going to run for governor, decided to run for reelection in the senate but at the same time she has been a pro-choice candidate for decades now and how many times have you seen it where somebody casts a vote a certain way to protect themselves and then they end up losing anyway in the republican primary or the democratic primary. let's hope she makes this decision not based on 2020 but on the fact that are right in front of her today. >> same goes for joe manchin and the senators on the fence. maybe this is worth losing over.
maybe it is. still ahead on "morning joe," not only could republicans get their swing vote on the court, they may also get a boost at the ballot box. we have new numbers on how the battle over brett kavanaugh is impacting the midterms. plus, something you won't be reading in the "washington post." why there is a big blank space in the middle of the opinion section. we'll explain that. as we go to break, we want to introduce brett kavanaugh of last week's hearing to brett kavanaugh from 2015. >> to be a good judge and a good umpire it's important to have the proper demeanor, really important, i think, to walk in the other's shoes, weather it be the other litigants, the litigants in the case, the other judges, to understand them, to keep our emotions in check. to be calm amidst the storm. on the bench, to put in the the vernacular, don't be a jerk. i think that's important. to be a good umpire and a good judge. don't be a jerk. to remodel your bathroom.
♪ no fees on loans to consolidate your credit card debt. see no fees just feels good. ♪ boo yeah. if you've got the drive, you can do a lot with no fees on personal loans. boo yeah. so let's promote our falle a homecomingtravel dealame, on choicehotels.com like this. touchdown. earn a free night when you stay just twice this fall. or, badda book. badda boom. book now at choicehotels.com
it was always our singular focus. to do whatever it takes, use every possible resource. to fight cancer. and never lose sight of the patients we're fighting for. our cancer treatment specialists share the same vision. experts from all over the world, working closely together to deliver truly personalized cancer care. and these are the specialists we're proud to call our own. expert medicine works here. learn more at cancercenter.com appointments available now.
all you have to do is look at the polls over the last three or four days and it shows that their rage-fuelled resistance is starting to backfire at a level that nobody has ever seen before. >> that's the president at a rally last night in minnesota and, gene, your latest piece in the "washington post" gets to this. it's titled "democrats get mad about kavanaugh then get even." gene writes, pay attention, democrats, watch what republicans are doing. you'll see what raw power looks like and understand why winning in november is so vital for the nation's future. president trump, aware the country passionately divided on many critical issues could have nominated a moderate injury wrist, instead trump nominated brett m. kavanaugh, a darling of far right progressive groups.
republicans have always taken judicial nominations more seriously than democrats and kavanaugh's defiance seems to have inspired some gop stalwarts who see trump as a clownish interloper but if democrats are not equally motivated by this outrageous power play then they don't deserve to win. democrats can not afford to be discouraged. they need to talk about the issue that has found resonance among voters, they need to get young voters and minorities to the polls. democrats need to keep their eyes on the prize. so, jean, we've seen a spike, a short-term spike in gop enthusiasm, we've seen the closing of the gap in some of these close senate races. the question is what happens in the interim. we have a vote saturday night or early sunday morning whenever steve daines gets back from the wedding. what happens to that enthusiasm? if kavanaugh is confirmed, does republican enthusiasm fade? does democrat go up? that's the question with a month
to election day. >> that's the question right now. and it depends on what happens. i have always believed that this huge enthusiasm gap between democrats and republicans was going close somehow. i didn't know that there would be the way it would close, i didn't know it would close as rapidly as it seems to have but there was no way that that gap was going to stay that way through november. but what happens depends on the vote really. if kavanaugh gets confirmed i think that does fade somewhat as an issue for republicans because they will be on the court and i think democrats will continue to be motivated which they probably will anyhow. if he gets defeated, then i can see republicans continuing to be
riled up. i don't know that we're going to see a diminution of democratic enthusiasm because democrats have been enthusiastic for a while looking toward this midterm but it kind of depends on what happens. >> i will say, gene, you look at the pulse and senate races, you look at the cook political report. after watching a year of races break democrats' way they're starting to break republicans' way. you can look at the montana race, that was lean democrat, it's now a tossup. you can look at other races that were likely republican like for instance the nebraska senate seat, now it's solid republican. that again from the cook political report. and same thing with new jersey. new jersey has tightened up according to the cook political report. it's gone from likely democratic to lean democratic. but there's a much bigger issue here, jean and one you're
getting to and that is that as bill clinton always complained about, republicans just know how to fight tougher and meaner and dirtier than democrats do. occasionally you will have a bill clinton that knows how to win elections, barack obama surrounded himself with a masterful team and boy they put it on mitt romney hard, hard, starting in the spring of 2012. but that's the exception and not the rule for democrats. democrats get rolled over with merrick garland and now this. you wonder when they're going to learn how to fight. >> it's like they're playing to two different games sometimes and being a republican -- republicans know they keep their eye on the prize and look at the result. republicans who are a distinct minority in this country, by the way, there are a lot more democrats than republicans and
more independents than either right now but there aren't that many republicans. republicans are in control of our government. the white house, both houses of congress, most statehouses and they have been ruthless in the way they have -- and efficient in the way they have carried out gerrymandering to perpetuate that power. they have just kept moving ahead and democrats have done a lot of sort of woe is me this ain't time for kumbaya, folks. >> john heilemann, right now you're hearing a lot of woe is me people talking about how a small percent of americans control over 50% of the united states acting as if there's something wrong with how the founders set up the united states senate. actually, the truth is democrats are clustered on the coasts. you don't see a lot of democrats running things west of the
hudson river or east of las vegas. it seems to me democrats have to figure out how to start winning in middle america again like bill clinton knew how to do. barack obama knew how to do it. but they have to learn how to do it on the state level as well or else this is going to keep happening. it's not an easy remedy, it's a straightforward recommend i do the democrats' problem which is go out and win elections. you saw it in alabama. alabama, one of the reddest states in the country. there's plenty of people who should vote democratic, their values align with democrats, on the issues they're democratic. when those people were mobilized in that election they voted for doug jones and put him in office it so's not like it's an impossible fantasy for a democrat to win statewide in any state in the country. if they can win a statewide election in alabama, there are enough voters in any state in the country for democrats to win statewide. the question is, can you find the right candidate who runs the right race and mobilize your
voters and find that sense of urgency. you want to do something to constrain donald trump? you want to do something to constrain these supreme court choices, win some elections, guys. these that's all there is to it. i'm not saying it's easy but i'm not saying it's that hard. still ahead, the latest on whether brett kavanaugh has the 50 vote he is needs to be confirmed. axios's jonathan swan and nbc's kasie hunt and peter alexander join us with new reporting on this. "morning joe" will be right back. be right back to most, he's phil mickelson, pro golfer.
helps stop irreversible joint damage and helps skin get clearer. enbrel may lower your ability to fight infections. serious sometimes fatal events including infections, tuberculosis, lymphoma, other cancers, nervous system and blood disorders and allergic reactions have occurred. tell your doctor if you've been some place where fungal infections are common, or if you're prone to infections, have cuts or sores, have had hepatitis b, have been treated for heart failure, or if you have persistent fever, bruising, bleeding, or paleness. don't start enbrel if you have an infection like the flu. since enbrel, dad's back to being dad. visit enbrel.com and use the joint damage simulator to see how your joint damage could be progressing. ask about enbrel. enbrel. fda approved for over 16 years. so let's promote our falle a homecomingtravel dealame, on choicehotels.com like this. touchdown. earn a free night when you stay just twice this fall. or, badda book. badda boom. book now at choicehotels.com
we're all under one roof now. congratulations. thank you. how many kids? my two. his three. along with two dogs and jake, our new parrot. that is quite the family. quite a lot of colleges to pay for though. a lot of colleges. you get any financial advice? yeah, but i'm pretty sure it's the same plan they sold me before. well your situation's totally changed now. right, right. how 'bout a plan that works for 5 kids, 2 dogs and jake over here? that would be great. that would be great. that okay with you, jake? get a portfolio that works for you now and as your needs change from td ameritrade investment management.
it makes me sad to think that some people have determined or their political consultants have determined that there is a political risk associated with voting against judge kavanaugh. that makes me sad. it makes me sad that we're saying that right now in our country today if you stand with a survivor of sexual assault
that will be a political liability. >> including for some of your democratic colleagues. >> for anybody. >> but including somebody of them. >> for anybody. >> it's not just republicans, right? >> for anybody. i realize in a certain context i must sound naive but call me naive. i know we are better than this, right? i know we are better than this. >> well, you know, willie, we haven't really been better that than that for a long time. political considerations have always gone into votes. barack obama, then a senator, was incredibly impressed with john roberts and axelrod told him you have to vote no. he said if you vote yes for john roberts, every single decision he makes will follow you around the campaign trail in 2008 so barack obama voted no. >> and ironically it's jobts who saved some of -- who saved
obamacare and gay marriage as well. also i would point out, john heilemann, that was john speaking to senate kamala harris. she announced her opposition to bra brett kavanaugh 20 minutes after he was announced. i'm interested how you're going to handle the show sunday. what if the vote happens sunday morning? how will you capture that? are you going to the wedding in montana. >> i can't tell you where i'll be on saturday, willie, but i will say the show is constantly trying to bend the space/time continuum and sometimes we manage to do it, sometimes we don't but we've managed to get late stuff into the show sunday nights and i'm hopeful we'll do it again. i agree with you about senator harris. she's running for president probably in 2020. her politics have made it clear she was going to be against judge kavanaugh long before
there were accusations of sexual misconduct but i will say what i thought was compelling about that is that i believe there are a lot of people -- the emotion she showed and the sense that -- the sadness that she was expressing i think is something that a lot of democrats and republicans feel about this moment that they feel like this process got out of control and the various political calculations people are having to weigh and the explosiveness of the sexual misconduct allegations just has torn people up. >> jeff flake, for instance. what about jeff flake? you talk to jeff flake. he was very disturbed by the partisanship. >> i talked to senator flake this week and to come back to our whip count question, i think the thing i think about judge kavanaugh now is not the things that relate to sexual misconduct although he wanted to the inbound investigation and he got what he wanted and he's satisfied he says. but the stuff you were talking about about whether judge
kavanaugh given the fierce partisanship of some of the things he expressed, the conspiracy theory, those things at the hearing, i said is this not going to pose a huge institutional problem for the court if someone who is perceived to be this partisan is put on the court, will it make it hard for him to rule, will it open him up to impeachment hearings and flake looked at me with a pained look on his face and said it is really not ideal, this situation, putting that guy on the court for that reason. i said so what are you going to do? he said i'm going to have to think about it much later in the week but it's something i have to consider. >> john, somebody else who doesn't think it's ideal. this is just my gut but i know that chief justice john roberts so loves the supreme court, so believes in the institution he's got to be horrified by what's been happening over the past three or four weeks from democrats and republicans alike
but especially, again, just my gut instinct mika, john roberts has to be as concerned as anybody about judge kavanaugh getting on the supreme court. here is a guy who voted to uphold the affordable care act because he said no, the supreme court won't get in the middle of your political dispute. we're not going reverse what happened at the ballot box. for him it was about holding the integrity of the institution. now i have no idea how he feels about judge kavanaugh. he's such an institutionalist. he has to be horrified by fox news, "wall street journal" op-eds and the display we saw last week from judge brett kavanaugh. >> and the display alone has got to bring pause to every member of the supreme court. this is the highest court in the land and you hear judge kavanaugh himself with that tape from 2015 talking about the temperament, what it takes,
what's called for to be a federal judge. and he blew through every stop sign he laid out. i think it can be argued he failed? >> in 2015 he talked about what a federal judge must be. must be non-partisan, must be sure they don't act like jerks, must be sure they stay calm and stay measured. again, his supporters could always say, well, he was under a lot of pressure, he had been attacked unfairly. i think history has shown us the great leaders, the great jurists, the great public figures are the one who in the
darkest moments keep their head and are churchillian about these challenges like church hill was in 1940. brett kavanaugh did the exact opposite under extreme pressure of what he told law students just three years before that they should do. >> yeah and it takes some of the mystery away from a supreme court justice, these men and women in black robes who we rarely see or hear from. it's almost like we know too much now from that bit of testimony. it doesn't mean he shouldn't be confirmed but he revealed some partisanship that if he is confirmed beyond the allegations against him i think will trouble a lot of people in this country. joining us now, national political reporter for axios, jonathan swan. good to see you. let's pick up our conversation about the whip count. that's what you've been following. where do you have it as of 6:46 this morning. >> well, they were still very
nervous fairly late last night and even to the point at which i was talking to a senior source involved in the confirmation process helping kavanaugh be confirmed, fairly late last night, they didn't even want to with 100% confidence declare that the cloture vote would happen at 10:30 today. they thought that it would, they were under the understanding that it was barrelling ahead but they said to me we still don't have 50 and inside the team they worry about flake, particularly the comments he made about partisanship earlier in the week. they were very concerning. he's since said some things that have alleviated concerns. it's literally been an hour by hour roller coaster from the team. susan collins wanted more information to have another look at the fbi report so -- and then, of course, lisa murkowski had some women female
constituents including sexual assault survivors talking to her so there were so many moving parts and even one person i spoke to late last night was worried about who was coming out in the morning. that's the kind of frenetic atmosphere surrounding us at the moment. >> gene? >> jonathan, is it all about collins, flake, murkowski, or is there concern about any other republican senators that we might not be talking about? >> they don't mention any others. it's flake, collins, murkowski. the other person they mention is manchin. as far as they're aware, everyone else is -- republican is going to vote yes. >> and who are they watching closest, jonathan? is it lisa murkowski given what jeff flake and susan collins said about the fbi report, that it was thorough and that flake saw no new corroborating evidence. >> it certainly seems they're more confident about collins and flake and that perhaps murkowski for political reasons that john
heilemann outlined earlier could be give an reprieve there. >> they'll take a vote on cloture in just under four hours. jonathan swan of axios, thank you. after the "access hollywood" tape, donald trump plowed right through. brett kavanaugh took the same approach. al franken, however, stepped down after facing misconduct allegations, something president trump mocked last night during a campaign rally in minnesota. we'll show you that moment when we come back. a once-in-five hundred year storm
should happen every five hundred years, right? fact is, there have been twenty-six in the last decade. allstate is adapting. with drones to assess home damage sooner. and if a flying object damages your car, you can snap a photo and get your claim processed in hours, not days. plus, allstate can pay your claim in minutes. now that you know the truth... are you in good hands?
willie, apparently there's some major league baseball teams not in new york or boston. >> oh, my lord. >> apparently, they played a couple of games last night and at least, man, that brewers-rockies game that was a great one. >> i was working under the assumption they would give the world series trophy to whoever
won the red sox-yankees series. brewers hosted rockies. yelic hrch has a two-run home r. the game went into extra innings. in the bottom of the 10th, a single home run. 3-2 walk off win and 1-0 series lead. >> i tell you, willie, the brewers are a good team. eight really incredible innings, and yeah, they gave up two in the ninth. they are a team to watch. >> they are. they are sneaky good. mike barnacle has them in the world series and he watches every baseball game played all season. to los angeles where the dodgers came out swinging against the braves, peterson, a three run
home run. this one by rickey hernandez puts l.a. up 5-0. they have a 1-0 lead. today four game. indians-astros. then at 7:30 tonight up at fenway yanks-red sox. ian we feel the pressure is on you. >> first of all, i'm shocked the braves got beaten as badly as they did. been waiting for the dodgers all year. i've been asking when the dodgers would take off. they are a much better team than they played in the regular season. looks like they may have found themselves last night. if that's the case, watch out for the dodgers. it's interesting, we haven't had a good, good run through our rotation now since july. i'm serious. listen, if it were the middle of july and we had sale -- you're
laughing. sale hasn't pitched. >> i won't weep. >> chris sale has pitched two innings. he'll give up two runs. everybody will go that was a great warm up outing for chris sale. it all comes down to this. we have extraordinary hitters. mookie, j.d., but it comes down to our pitching. sale hasn't had a good start in two months. david price had one good outing in a couple of months. had a great outing. porcello in the number three spot has had one good outing. it all comes down to pitching. we don't have to have all three of those guys having a good game, but if two out of the three can give us six innings we have a shot. if not, man it is all pin stripes all the way. >> we're in the same boat. we can hit the heck of the ball.
set the record for home runs in the major league. it's down to pitching. >> that astros. they will go to sleep on that astros-indians game. we got two extraordinary games today. if you love baseball, get in front of the tv and just stay there. two classics. >> like joe does. eugene robinson and john heilemann, thank you so much to you both for being on this morning. still ahead, in just a matter of hours republican leaders are expected to hold their first vote on president trump supreme court nominee. kasie hunt and peter alexander will both join us with what they are hearing. also be joined by a member of the judiciary committee, senator john kennedy who said yesterday, quote, there aren't going to be any winners in this. "morning joe" will be right back. in. i take trulicity once a week to activate my body to release its own insulin, like it's supposed to.
trulicity is not insulin. it works 24/7. it comes in an easy-to-use pen. and i may even lose a little weight. trulicity is an injection to improve blood sugar in adults with type 2 diabetes when used with diet and exercise. don't use it as the first medicine to treat diabetes, or if you have type 1 diabetes or diabetic ketoacidosis. don't take trulicity if you or your family have medullary thyroid cancer, you're allergic to trulicity, or have multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2. stop trulicity and call your doctor right away if you have symptoms of a serious allergic reaction, a lump or swelling in your neck or severe stomach pain. serious side effects may include pancreatitis. taking trulicity with a sulfonylurea or insulin increases your low blood sugar risk. common side effects include nausea, diarrhea, vomiting, abdominal pain, and decreased appetite. these can lead to dehydration, which may worsen kidney problems. to help lower my a1c i choose trulicity to activate my within. ask your doctor about once-weekly trulicity.
discover.o. i like your card, but i'm absolutely not paying an annual fee. discover has no annual fees. really? yeah. we just don't believe in them. oh nice. you would not believe how long i've been rehearsing that. no annual fee on any card. only from discover. it's a revolution in sleep. the new sleep number 360 smart bed is on sale now, from $899, during sleep number's fall sale. it senses your movement, and automatically adjusts to keep you both comfortable. it even helps with this. so you wake up ready to put your pedal to the metal. and now, during our fall sale weekend special, the queen sleep number 360 c2 smart bed is only $899. plus, 24-month financing and free home delivery.
ends monday. sleep number. proven, quality sleep. we're also joined by the next united states senator from minneso minnesota, karen housley. karen is running against a far left democrat, tina smith who nobody knows who she is. who is she? she was appointed -- she took a whacky guy's place. that guy was whacky. boy did he fold up like a wet rag, huh? he was gone so fast, i don't want to mention al franken's
name so i won't mention it. he was gone, he was gone so fast it was like oh, he did something -- oh, i resign, i quit. i quit. >> what do you think, joe? >> well, i think donald trump actually mocking somebody for having -- for doing what's in the best interest of the country and stepping away from a position even if you feel that you were wrongly accused of things. something that donald trump wouldn't understand because even after the "access hollywood" tape he didn't change his behavior, he didn't change his attitude and still hasn't. so, no, he wouldn't understand that. but, mika, what a day today on capitol hill. this drama continues. it's been two weeks running. we've had testimony, of course, last week from brett kavanaugh, an fbi investigation. it's been clouded in controversy
from democrats. you never really expected democrats to accept the findings unless they were devastating to brett kavanaugh, but also a lot of criticism around the process itself. all that said, like we said last week, we're still today where we were last week and that is wondering what susan collins going to do, wondering what lisa murkowski will do, wondering what jeff flake will do. >> and joe manchin. >> we don't know about joe yet. we shall see. >> along with joe, willie and me, we have nbc analyst, associate editor of commentary magazine and nbc contributor noah rothman. white house reporter for "the washington post" and msnbc contributor ashley parker. and legal affairs correspondent for npr is with us. great group and, joe, this
morning the senate is going to be holding that key vote at 10:30 which will move the supreme court nominee brett kavanaugh a step closer to confirmation, and i think there will be drama continuing. >> yeah. the drama will continue. nina, you've seen a few of these things over the years. seems like a new precedent is broken every day. this morning an op-ed by the man nominated to become a justice on the supreme court. you have "the washington post" for the first time in 30 years telling senators they should vote no. you have a retired supreme court justice coming out criticizing brett kavanaugh. it's quite a spectacle and as kavanaugh said himself, a circus. >> well, i don't think at the moment it's a circus. this is pretty serious business. and there are people who don't remember the era of the famous
nov novel advise and consents. this is like that. this has all the drama. i wonder if the floor will be different than it was in a couple of other key supreme court battles where i was in the chamber and in those cases everybody was in their seat quietly. it was very serious. i don't know whether people will be milling around or doing that. by the time you get to that chair, presumably you've made up your mind and there are a few people who are -- you know, mitch mcconnell has to be pounding the hell out of susan collins and lisa murkowski. and on the other hand they have their own thoughts and this is a tough vote. >> it is a tough vote. it shouldn't be a circus but it has been a circus over the past couple of weeks. it is very serious business. there seems to be on both sides as john heilemann was saying
last hour, a feeling of regret that it has become so partisan and a feeling, even among veterans on the hill that the past two weeks saw us crossing a line of par the tisanship that t happened. >> there's a feeling of regret. part of that is length of time -- of course part of that is the behavior of everybody involved. but also the length of time this has been allowed to play out and you have sort of, as there's a delay and a waiting period and more requests, frankly more opportunities for partisanship and grandstanding and, for instance, very emotional and partisan testimony on behalf of judge kavanaugh that we now see him coming out and trying to clean up. obscured in all of this he said-she said of what actually happened in that bedroom 30
years ago and is judge kavanaugh who really did or did not have a problem with underage drinking is also this issue of just something that should be a pretty easy choice normally, becoming just another example of something that helps cleave our nation apart. >> ashley, all eyes is on susan collins. they have been for some time. lisa murkowski also a swing vote. there's a belief she may be a bit more circumspect in her support of the nominee. what about susan collins. what's motivating her today politically as she decides whether to support brett kavanaugh or not? >> you're right. i will say senator murkowski very briefly has been described to me as the wild card, she keeps her own counsel, hardest to whip. behind-the-scenes all eyes are on susan collins. people described her of doing
absolutely all of her homework. i believe she's someone who met with judge kavanaugh early on in this process one-on-one for about an hour. she's reading reams of material, talking to as many people as possible. if you're leader mcconnell and sort of believe this is a man who deserves to be on the supreme court there's a slight reassurance in the idea that the more information she gets the more confident ultimately she will feel voting yes. but, again, you're right, no one actually knows right now. >> so noah rothman we can do a post mortem what this process was like. in the here and now everyone is looking at these four senators, joe manchin, lisa murkowski, jeff flake and susan collins. what's going into their decisions today as they get ready to vote on this cloture first and the full vote tomorrow. >> i hope it's the judge's record. it seems as though it has come down now to this issue of temperament.
that's what we saw focused on "new york times" op-ed, 1700 law professors saying that the judge lacks a quote commitment to a judicious inquiry into the allegations against him. i find that uncommon pelg that the judge should have a focus, a bloodless focus on his own guilt rather than his own innocence. strikes me as something that's uncommon pelg. the judge would never be on the bench focused on his own guilt or innocence in adjudicating the matter. he would be recused. now we have this focus on what don mcgahn told him to do in that hearing, how to approach that hearing. there's a lot of cost benefits. we have this new avenue of inquiry. the judge behaved in a matter that was partisan and unbecoming of a supreme court justice. there's a lot to that. however, if you were to approach that moment after the wrenching effecting testimony we heard
from dr. ford, which frankly was very convincing and he approached that in a dispassionate manner and said i really welcome an inquiry into my own guilt in essentially what's a sex crime he would have been accused of being a soc sociopath. democrats would have found his lack of emotion unconvincing and his nomination would not have survived the day. now we have a different situation that's better for kavanaugh. but if he approached it as his critics say he should have his nomination wouldn't have survived. >> susan, you think about this "wall street journal" editorial he wrote saying he was emotional. that he said some things he shouldn't have said. obviously he made a mention of the clintons and brought partisan angle to the hearings. he says he raised his voice. when you watch the hearing you can see him raise his voice and make blanket statements in defense of himself like i like
beer. and it just flies in the face of his own words back in 2015 when he talks about what the temperament of a federal judge should be. listen to brett kavanaugh in his own words. >> to be a good judge and good umpire it's important to have the proper demeanor. really important, i think. to walk in the other's shoes, whether it be the other litigants, the litigants in the case, the other judges, to understand them. to keep our emotions in check. to be calm amidst the storm. on the bench to put it in the vernacular, don't be a jerk. i think that's important. tube good umpire and a good judge. don't be a jerk. let me run through what i think a judge as umpire means. first and probably most obviously not being a political partisan. you have to check those political allegiances at the
door when you become a judge. you have to shed them. what's very important at the outset for a judge who wants to be an umpire to avoid any semblance of that partisanship of that political background, of that background they might have had in a particular line of work. that's the first, probably most fundamental thing for a judge who wants to be an umpire. >> i mean, isn't this part of what they are looking for, the senators who have to make this decision looking for, temperament. whether he has it. i mean, when he asked senator amy klobuchar who was very politely and respectfully asked him if he ever drank to the point where he blacked out getting to the point where maybe there was a situation he did not remember, he was defensive. he didn't sound like he was telling the truth. not for me to say, his answer was very weak, his no. then he throws it back at her so ruddily, saying do you?
and, again, he says you're not supposed to be a jerk. what was he like at that hearing? >> he was a jerk. he was a jerk at that hearing. and i have no problem that he was angry and when he -- >> no problem. >> none whatsoever. i realized what he was accused of. you have to look what he used for his defense and that's that idea of a conspiracy theory. that was something that showed. he also used the word i am damaged. now is he so damaged that he cannot go forward and be a responsible jurist? that's my biggest concern. is he so damaged from this process that -- and the bitterness that must go along with it, which is understandable, it means he should not be the one who is going to be, you know, making the swing decision in this court. he's representative of what's now dividing our country.
when he was nominated, i said he's a typical conservative nominee. and elections have consequences. so we saw it going forward. it is solely his words that concern me, and really made me second guess his fitness for the court. >> nina, has you go down the list of attributes that judge kavanaugh said that any judge should have, you have to have a proper demeanor, walk in the other shoes, keep your emotions in check, remain calm in the storm, don't be a jerk, don't be a political partisan. avoid any semblance of political partisanship. i'm sure, nina, are there not most likely people like chief justice john roberts who has to be very concerned, in fact
kavanaugh basically blew through every one of his instructions to those students. >> yeah, he did. and the chief justice and i assume the other members of the court are sitting there -- they are truly not very political people. they have ideologies that are conservative and more liberal. but they are not political people. when you have a conversation with them, you're struck by how unpolitical they are. almost foolishly unpolitical. but that's not a bad thing. and the supreme court still, up until now has far exceeded any other institution in terms of confidence of the public. this performance, i think, injected a kind of partisanship and rage, not just anger, but rage into the system that has to be enormously concerning to the people that judge kavanaugh would be serving with, and i am
sure that they are going a little nuts privately. i've seen a couple of them. and when they look at me they get sort of what i call long island lock jaw. yeah. help me get out of here. she's a reporter and this is awful. >> that is so true. this is so hard to talk about. and for ashley parker, you know, for senators making this decision and the white house pressure they might be feeling but what pressure from their home states as well, but it's not a question as to whether or not he did it at this point only. i think it's a question of fitness, of temperament, and of some of the other answers that he gave on the record in terms of how he perceives the constitution and questions he wouldn't answer. there's a lot of reasons why
somebody might want to vote against him even if they are a republican. >> you're right. it's all of those things. and as sort of it became clear that what happened again 30 years ago between him and dr. ford was likely not going to be adjudicated with any clarity to anyone's satisfaction, the democrats began trying to paint him sort of as an angry drunk, someone who is temperamentally unfit and those questions did, again, turn to temperament and fitness and other answers de he or he did not give. it's less he's apologizing and more he's trying to explain away what's become a very problematic performance by him. he's trying to alleviate some of those concerns coming up in the final hours and there's a central irony that performance
raised concerns for voters, for former justices, for senators who have to vote. but the person who loved that most of all and this points the danger of performing for that audience of one was president trump. the president thinks that was a high play in judge kavanaugh's nomination process, that he was fighting for himself and he loved that anger, emotional, cot baltimore battive tone that these three key senators did not. >> noah, as you know well, this conversation, a lot of criticism that's come since kavanaugh's testimony sounds to conservatives and republicans like gold post shifting, which is to say if in the absence of corroborating evidence of dr. ford's compelling testimony, we're going say he's a jerk who threw ice at people in 1985, maybe. is being a jerk, is his temperament enough to keep him off the court if that's what you believe? >> certainly valid. i agree with mika the constitutional questions, the notion that maybe he stretched
the ginsberg rule about not answering his judicial philosophy necessarily and weighing in on cases that had not yet been brought and arguments that had not yet been made i think those are valid questions although i don't necessarily agree with them. i have to disagree with my friend susan the notion these allegations are such into damage him alone to the point where he's not confirmable. these are crimes and they will damage him forever. the notion it can disqualify him from taking a set on the court is a precedent we should resist because it will be used again. >> you are misstating what i said. mark judge was supposed to fix this all. he was supposed to be interviewed. this witness was going to take down kavanaugh.
obviously, that didn't happen. i think he was right -- i understand judge kavanaugh's frustration in that testimony. it wasn't that he was angry that bothered me. it's what he chose and took the political angle to really, to double down in it and to be so angry and to get so into the political fray on it and then on top of that, the temperment ame showed in the hearing. i think that anger and this whole process is something that really destroyed a part of him and it's a part i think that will haunt him for a long time and it could be a big problem for him on the bench. >> and, noah, i agree with you that uncorroborated allegations by themselves can't be disqualifying for a republican or for a democrat, i certainly
agree with you there. but if you just -- let's just look at what the judge said in that speech that we played in 2015. the guidelines to be an effective judge. i can go down every one of them again. he failed every one of those tests. and there are two that really keep, really stick out to me. one, keep your emotions in check, one. and two, remain calm in the storm. yes, he was in a storm. and he will most likely if he goes on the court and serves for 30 years be in several other storms. but didn't you find his response lacking? didn't you find at least in that character test brett kavanaugh failing his own test in such a way that should cause all of us great concern? >> i thought the invocation of partisanness, partisan rancor,
the idea people are opposing him to seek some form of revenge for the clintons unseemly and untoward and also something that hasn has imperilled his nomination. i don't think republicans would have rallied to him as we've seen and republicans who have rallied to him include never trump republicans, maga hat wearing republicans. we've not seen this kind of engagement. it's genuine. not partisan. a real perception there's a wrong here. the protestations of the chief not with standing, the american bar association has recommended him highly, he has a paper trail a mile long, i has demonstrated his fitness for the bench and his recommendation comes reportedly from justice kennedy himself. so we have to weigh one statement against a career that has been otherwise exemplary. >> all right. ashley parker, nina, thank you
both. still ahead, donald trump and mitch mcconnell want kavanaugh on the court. but right now it's not really up to them. where those four key senators stand. we'll have live reports from capitol hill. you're watching "morning joe". we'll be right back. right back. so, that goal you've been saving for, you can do it. we can do this? we can do this. at fidelity, our online planning tools are clear and straightforward so you can plan for retirement while saving for the things you want to do today. nana, let's do this! aye aye, captain! ♪ and as you go through life -whoo! -♪ tryin' to reach your goal
♪ and as you go through life if you have moderate to thsevere rheumatoid arthritis, month after month, the clock is ticking on irreversible joint damage. ongoing pain and stiffness are signs of joint erosion. humira can help stop the clock. prescribed for 15 years, humira targets and blocks a source of inflammation that contributes to joint pain and irreversible damage. humira can lower your ability to fight infections. serious and sometimes fatal infections including tuberculosis, and cancers, including lymphoma, have happened; as have blood, liver, and nervous system problems, serious allergic reactions, and new or worsening heart failure. tell your doctor if you've been to areas
where certain fungal infections are common, and if you've had tb, hepatitis b, are prone to infections, or have flu-like symptoms or sores. don't start humira if you have an infection. help stop the clock on further irreversible joint damage. talk to your rheumatologist. right here. right now. humira. i decided that i wanted to go for electrical engineering and you need to go to college for that. if i didn't have internet in the home i would have to give up more time with my kids. which is the main reason i left the military. everybody wants more for their kids, but i feel like with my kids, they measurably get more than i ever got. and i get to do that. i get to provide that for them.
views for reasons that have really, no relationship to his intellectual ability or his record as a federal judge. he's a fine federal judge. and he should have been confirmed when he was a nominee. but i think that his performance during the hearings caused me to change my mind. >> what we were just talking about. retired justice paul stevens who previously praised kavanaugh for
his ruling said yesterday kavanaugh should not be nominated to the supreme court because he lacks temperament for that lifetime appointment. joining me now is kasie hunt and party alexander. kasie you're looking at the whip count. how does it took? >> reporter: honestly one of those rare occasions where we go into a high stakes vote and we have no idea. those four undecided senators are the ones we should still be focusing on. they kind of run in a spectrum based on my sources. i would point susan collins on one side as somebody who wanted to find out a way to get to yes. and lisa murkowski on the other who seems according to all accounts like the person most likely to vote no and then you have senator jeff flake who really no one has been able to get inside his head lately and senator joe manchin who wants to be able to vote yes but doesn't
don't the deciding vote to confirm kavanaugh. so you have a very high stakes game of chicken to a certain extent right now with manchin waiting for these other senators to take the first leap. willie, i want to underscore, i think we can show everyone a little bit of what it was like to be up here at the capital yesterday with these protests that have been going on, and this is a really emotional decision, especially for the women involved. so senator lisa murkowski met all afternoon yesterday with survivors of sexual assault. they came out of her office crying. senator susan collins, on the other hand, has been accosted by protesters basically from the beginning of this entire process. people are raising money in her home state to defeat her in a general election challenge. she's had, before these allegations surfaced she had nasty calls to her staffers. if anything she wanted -- she viewed that as bullying her and wanted to push back against
that. she's in a very, very tough position here. the reality is we just don't know how it will play out. this is the key most dramatic day for kavanaugh because this is the first time people have to go on record even though yes another final vote perhaps tomorrow on saturday. >> kasie, quickly should we read much into susan collins the fbi inquiry the followup that was produced yesterday that senators could read in that secure room was very thorough. >> reporter: there won't be another iteration of an investigation and it distances her from where a lot of democrats are. so, yes, i do think it's noteworthy. one thing i should add is another thing that sources have been telling me at the 11th hour and i think this speaks to why judge kavanaugh may have done that open sed that questions about temperament and partisanship have risen to the surface behind-the-scenes that has emerged in the last 24 hours or so so i think that's also a
last minute factor here, protests and emotions aside. i think senator collins has been a more receptive audience to those criticisms here. >> kasie hunt on capitol hill. busy day, busy weekend for you. we'll let you get back to the halls of the capital. let's move to the courthouse where peter alexander is standing by. where is the white house focused. people feel good about manchin. they think flake is there and fbi inquiry provided him some cover. honestly we're not sure about collins and murkowski. >> reporter: you're dead on on that. they don't say they have the votes they say they are confident they will have the votes. we have a little way to go. one official said he puts his confidence level in the 70s and 80s noting particularly susan collins and jeff flake's public comments yesterday. but on joe manchin, this was important. the white house looked at the
numbers. know the numbers for donald trump is so popular in the state of west virginia, deep red state and they say manchin secures re-election by voting yes. he just starts a knife fight by voting no. but to puthe point kasie made, e president is working the phones. it's important to note that that op-ed yesterday, it wasn't i didn't attack dr. ford, i didn't sexual assault dr. ford, it was i am an independent impartial judge. they recognize that is really one of the danger spots right there, one of the risky positions. that's why judge kavanaugh made his own closing argument. that's highly unusual for a judge to do that. they recognize with the limited number of senators as his audience he had to directly make his case to them on that. they had be queueing white house officials to me something like this would be coming. >> the white house is confident
judge kavanaugh will get confirmed. what if he's not. what if susan collins and lisa murkowski vote against him. what happens on sunday? >> a good question. a lot of people wish the white house would say you look at two guys. one you like a lot and another one with a bad facebook post. let's take the other guy. this is going to be more froth. the reason he won his election he put out a list of supreme court justices. they got some other names but no plan b right now. they are trying to barrel through the finish line on this one. >> we'll find out saturday or sunday. a human moment we've all been, there the president of the united states climbing the steps to air force one. got something stuck to the back of his shoe. what's going on? >> reporter: good question. we reached out to our white house sources for independent
corroboratation if there was charmaine or angel soft on his shoes. he boarded air force one in minnesota. for a guy that's all about optics not a shot he wanted. >> nbc's peter alexander. thanks very much for your important reporting on that aspect of the day. still ahead the winner of the nobel peace prize has been announced. while donald trump was a contender he did not win. we'll tell you who is taking home the prize and why next on "morning joe". nd why next on "morning joe". time for medicare, huh.
this morning we learned this year's recipients of the nobel peace prize. the 2018 prize has been awarded to denis mukwege and nadia murad for their efforts to end the use of sexual violence as a weapon of war and armed conflicts. denis mukwege has spent large parts of his adult life helping the victims of sexual violence in the democratic republic of congo while nadia murad has revealed the abuses perpetrated against herself and others by isis and other groups. last year's peace prize went to the international campaign to abolish nuclear weapons. and now this story something missing from today's "the
washington post" opinion section. readers will see a large blank space in a spot usually reserved for the thoughts of saudi journalist columnist and author who entered a saudi consulate in istanbul to take care of routine paper work on tuesday afternoon. he has not been heard since. his criticism of saudi arabia's leadership over the past year has surely rankled the crown prince who is leading a campaign to silence dissent. we will be following this closely with our friends at the "the washington post". >> it's so important right now, obviously when you look at press freedom across the globe, it is so important to follow this story closely. i'm glad, so glad "the washington post" did what it did today. made a very powerful statement. the saudis right now are at a
pivotal moment in their history. they are at a turning point in their history. we've heard about the liberalization, the possible liberalization of saudi arabia under their new ruler. this is the wrong step to take. it sends the wrong message. not only to the united states of america, but to the world. >> and finally, the hotel bus boy who came to the aid of senator robert f. kennedy who was shot in los angeles has died. juan romero was working in the kitchen on june 5, 1968 when kennedy passed through moments after delivering his victory speech. as kennedy briefly paused to shake his hand he was shot in the head. romero rushed to his aid holding the senator as he laid on the floor wrapping a rosary around his hand.
later he said that movement kindness haunted him for years as he always wondered if he could have done something to prevent tragedy. remarkable photos of romero next to the mortally wounded kennedy were seen around the world. the presidential candidate was pronounced dead at a hospital hours later. romero indicted of a heart attack on monday. he was 68 years old. up next, a followup to that revealing "new york times" report detailing how donald trump allegedly helped his parents dodge taxes. new york says it's investigating and it may not be the only state. we'll explain that next on "morning joe".
if she or us, which is kind of, a lot. and if that pain could mean something worse? joint pain could mean joint damage. enbrel helps relieve joint pain, and helps stop irreversible joint damage. enbrel may lower your ability to fight infections. serious sometimes fatal events including infections, tuberculosis, lymphoma, other cancers, nervous system and blood disorders and allergic reactions have occurred. tell your doctor if you've been some place where fungal infections are common, or if you're prone to infections, have cuts or sores, have had hepatitis b, have been treated for heart failure, or if you have persistent fever, bruising, bleeding, or paleness. don't start enbrel if you have an infection like the flu. since enbrel, my mom's back to being my mom. visit enbrel.com and use the joint damage simulator
our show, it's like people are pushing in and the kids are always there. it's that scene after mccarthy got busted for pot in japan and jail was surrounded. so i walk outside this morning to get my smoke and the kids -- i don't smoke kids, and the kids are are saying, you're talking about baseball old man. and i'm like -- they said what about the ufc fight tonight. mcgregor. conor mcgregor tomorrow night. come on. like am i just -- am i old? because when i think about fighting i think about ken norton force george foreman or ali. do you watch this stuff? >> i continue to follow the ufc closely but it's huge. it's huge. conor mcgregor the biggest star in ufc is one of the biggest star in all of sports period around the world. >> really? >> we talk about baseball and
lebron and those guys and they are huge stars. mcgregor who is from ireland is quite literally one of the biggest stars on the planet and will make $50 million off the fight tonight. >> you know what? we need to get beckham, you and me over the holiday inn and smoke a couple of cartons, watch the next fight. >> or maybe you and i get in an octagon for charity. we can game this out a little. old princeton club fighting like that. >> let's do it. yeah. >> we'll toggle between the fight and baseball. meanwhile next year potentially could see democrats back in control of congress. and the increase in chatter about possible impeachment proceedings. our next guest reports the 2019 conclude something far more frightening for the president than the fear of losing his office. president trump could lose his money. joining us now staff writer at the new yorker adam davidson. today marks the start of the 19th annual new yorker festival
here in new york city and on saturday adam will moderate a discussion about the president and his money entitled trump, inc. it's been amplified by that reporting in the "new york times" about tax schemes and everything else. what should president trump be worried about when it comes to his money? >> first of all, the "new york times" piece, this massive 14,000 word investigation i think it will take a while for sort of the body politic to absorb it, but it is a fundamental game changer. it really reveals that the trump organization was far more than even people like me who are highly skeptical, far more than we realized was built on fraud and trump himself added very little value to no value. it was just inherited money passed on to his son through fraudulent means. we have a situation where the main places trump does business,
new york, new jersey, florida, virginia, california are likely to have or florida the race is too close to call democratic attorneys general and all democratic candidates are saying yeah we're going hard after the trump organization. my understanding is attorneys general, state attorneys general have been differental to mueller. they've not wanted to step in too aggressively. that's over come january. we're going to see multiple, multiple investigations with a goal of pursuing his wealth and the trump tax bill in new york state alone just for new york state taxes is over $400 million if the "new york times" story bears out. if you add up all those states plus federal think that must be what's scaring him more than the possibility of removal. >> as a practical matter what would that look like. let's take florida where he has mar-a-lago and other properties. what would a new attorney
general do and what would they be looking at? >> are there taxes he did not pay through fraudulent means. which the "new york times" essentially says yes, he avoided taxes through fraud len means.m. so you look at that you look at what the. a he owes, add penalties, the "time's" story describes things that happened mostly in the '90s the statute of limitations is six years. however, it is six years from the last act of concealment. so arguably, that last act of concealment is continuing to happen. so i think that's the first pass. then you start looking at criminal allegations, his sunny isles property bears money laundering. his use of selling this house to this russian oligarch for double its value. bears hallmarks of money laundering.
mar-a-lago raising the price as he becomes president, a candidate in florida says he's going to look very aggressively at. i think you will see it's in the of these democratic investigators a race to who can be the first to start really hurting the trump organization. >> so as you say, if democrats take over the house, they will begin investigating everything, subpoenaing everything. >> the taxes the next day. >> a lot of republicans how this administration behaved on dhs, sec, et cetera. so what we've heard is the white house legal counsel is pretty under staffed. are they able, will they be well equipped to navigate this environment? can they respond to subpoenas? >> no the president's personal legal time such as it is, it's many legal teams that change a lot. jay seculo, rudy guiliani, the people close to him have had i always thought it was a fantasy, this week we know it will not
work. they have this red line strategy. there is one issue, did president trump knowingly collude with the russian government to sway the election? nothing else is fair game. that's how they built their defense strategy. they do not have a multi--state, multi--different federal level investigation of all of trump business strategy. they just don't have it. and alone -- can you imagine any one of these cases, if this was happening to you the kind of legal team you'd want just to defend say florida state tax fraud, but we're going to be talking about dozens and dozens of investigations and cases, if this year it was nothing. this was a calm, relaxed year in the trump presidency. >> now it's between father and son. it just makes me think the trump organization is a family-run business. how much did donald trump learn from his father that he passed along to his children?
and what kind of avenue could that open up? you talk about the six years? you would keep looking. i would think his children who have taken different roles within the organization are probably have been treated similar? >> absolutely. we know that trump sold eric trump a condominium at a far below market value, which seems very clearly an effort to avoid taxes much like fred trump did with donald. you know, the people who engineered these until frauds for the trump organization, we think alan weiselberg, a long-time ceo, worked for the dodt. he is now running the company. there is zero evidence there was some shift at some point where they said, hey, let's stop those shenanigans. it's the same people doing the same things. when michael cohen createed that tape with donald trump talking about creating this llc to pay off stormy daniels. you can see cohen said i'm dock
it the way weiselberg told me to do it. >> that ircomfortable with this. >> the new york tomorrows office is suing to shut down donald trump's office, barbara underwood filed claims on thursday alleging the foundation sevened as a quote shell organization that functioned as a checkbook for the trump organization during the president's 2016 campaign the filing states this, donald j. trump uses his control toed a mans personal business and political interest in violation of federal and state law governing charities. the suit seeks to temporarily ban them from serving in other capacities. the trump organization is attempting to get the suit dismissed in court. worry talking self dealing? >> yeah. i do want to mention my boss and friend david rem nick is interviewing. >> tonight. >> tonight, joe and mika, its
$50 million prize. live. there are still tickets. festival at google festivalnewyorker.com. i'm have an this conversation with aven noti. >> even though you will be often tv, my apology. do explain who you brought with you. >> yeah, i read an article how a group of journalism students at liberty university, two students were fired. and the rest from the school paper and much of the rest of the staff quit because jerry falwell, jr. would not allow them to report the truth. not scurrilous op-eds, just the truth. i reached out to jack pinart. he's here. he brought some of his colleagues. i'm going to give them a tour of
the new yorker later today and arrange tours, i think they're journalism heroes and seniors in college. they were brave. >> they were fired about telling the truth of the school. a lot resigned with their colleagues with when they were . >> we'll be looking for them in the media world. >> adam davidson, thank you, for more information about the new yorker festival, go to festival.newyorker.com. still ahead, there will be a slowdown as republicans push ahead on brett kavanaugh's confirmation. senator john kennedy will join our conversation ahead of the crucial vote. "morning joe" is coming right back. "morning joe" is coming ri back 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,
so let's promote our falle a homecomingtravel dealame, on choicehotels.com like this. touchdown. earn a free night when you stay just twice this fall. or, badda book. badda boom. book now at choicehotels.com senator you just read the fbi background report on kavanaugh. what are your thoughts? >> well, that report, if that's an investigation is a blank blank investigati [ bleep ] investigation the reality is that is not a full and thorough investigation. >> why aren't you brave enough to talk to us and exchange with us? don't you wave your hand at me. i wave my happened at you. >> when you grow up -- >> when we grow up. how dare you talk to women like that. how dare you.
>> you will get arrested, ma'am. >> that is the scene on capitol hill where in just a few hours the u.s. senate appears poised to push forward on brett kavanaugh's confirmation to the u.s. supreme court. good morning, welcome to "morning joe" it's friday, october 5th. along with joe, willie and me. we have a republican strategist and msnbc political strategist and pulitzer prize winning columnist and associate editor of the "washington post" and political analyst eugene robinson, joe, set the stage for us today. >> well, it's been building up for a couple tumultuous weeks. talk about the circus. this has been the circus as brett kavanaugh said during his testimony. a couple developments we will be talking about overnight, first of all, brett kavanaugh wrote an
op-ed for the wall street journal, obviously, very surprising for a lot of people. it's not what supreme court justices are certainly not what people who are aiming to be a supreme court justice usually do. just like they don't usually go on fox news or any other cable news show, to state their case, which suggests that maybe the white house, maybe kavanaugh doesn't feel it's quite over yet. though, it certainly looks like it's move income his direction. also i don't have night for the first time in over three decades the washington post actually editorialized against a supreme court justice. they didn't do this with thomas. they didn't do it with roberts, ali to gorsuch, anybody, over the past 30 years. but in this morning's washington post, there are papers, the editorial says if mr. kavanaugh truly is or believes himself to be a victim of mistaken
identity, his anger is understandable. but he went further last week in the hearing than expressing anger. he gratuitously indulged is hyper partisan rhetoric against the left and talked about a political hit fueled by pent-up anger about president trump in the 2016 election and revenge on behalf of the clintons and of course the washington post concludes rightly that with this sort of rhetoric, regardless of how angry he was, that sort of rhetoric, which was calculated, which he, himself, said he wrote, nobody else wrote. he tore up the notes that somebody else wrote for him. those were his partisan words. they were calculated. he wrote them, himself. and as a judge, he certainly understood the weight of every word that was put in that statement. so the washington post coming out today editorializing against
his elevation to the supreme court the first time a paper has done that in over years. >> amazing. this morning the senate plans to hold a key vote at 10:30 a.m., which will move supreme court nominee brett kavanaugh a step closer to confirmation. after the vote, there will be up to 30 hours of debate, leading to a final confirmation vote saturday night. two critical republican votes, senator susan collins of maine and jeff flake of arizona indicated yesterday the fbi probe into kavanaugh was adequate. but, however, they both caution, they would continue to read the closely held report. satisfying flake and collins as well as republican lisa mur you ka ski of alaska would be enough to confirm caf na ug to the u.s. supreme court. democrats on the other hand are nearly unanimous mus in their opposition of kavanaugh's nomination. one mortar nomination, heidi
heitcamp, announced yesterday she will oppose kavanaugh's nominati nomination. >> that leaves one critical vote. that's senator joe manchin of west virginia. yesterday, he was seen reviewing the fbi report and said he would return today to study it more. >> willie, you have a fobl situation where a democrat could but in the position to cast a deciding vote for or against judge kavanaugh. >> wow. >> now in most states, for a democratic senator, that would probably be pretty great news, they'd put a statue of you up in massachusetts or vermont if you were that senator. in west virginia, they may just tell to you never come book home again. see joe manchin, if you were in that position, it would be pretty bad. i don't think he will get there. >> no. >> it looks like collins and flake are breaking kavanaugh's way.
>> they came up quickly. both said it was a thorough report the release and publishing of this report pretty much tells us about the process the democrats will always say it wasn't thorough enough. this isn't a thorough investigation. it will give some republicans cover to go ahead and vote for the confirmation of brett kavanaugh. i agree with you. i can't see, i'm sure he is an honest broker, joe manchin voting against kavanaugh in a state that trump won by more than 30 points. it remains to be seen. we will learn tomorrow. a fun twist, steve danes the senator from montana, his daughter is getting married on saturday, obviously, republicans need every last vote. he will walk her down the aisle. he says he will walk her down the aisle. which means if you look at montana to d.c., you go to a wedding, have you to have that first dance. he may cast a decisive vote sometimes sunday morning making
it official. >> joe, you mentioned kavanaugh's new op-ed in the wall street journal. kavanaugh looks to overcome the perception he has after last week's hearing that he is too political. it's timed i am an independent, impartial judge. in it. kavanaugh writes, i was very emotional last thursday. more so than i have ever been i may have been too emotional. i know my tone was sharp. i said a few things i should not have said. i hope everyone can understand i was there as a son, husband and dad. i testified with five people foremost in my behind. my mom, my dad, my wife and most of all my daughters. going forward, can you count on me to be the same judge and person i have been for my 28-year-old legal career, hard working, open minded, independent and dedicated to the constitution and the public good. joe, obviously, he is doing a little mop-up work there. the other thing is he sound partisan.
he talked about effectively a clinton conspiracy against him to take down his nomination. >> again, if it were in real time, if he were ticking off a list of things he felt the left had done against him and their motivations, just off the top of his head, thrown out there, the clinton conspiracy, that would be one thing. >> that would be troubling enough. but the fact that he wrote it, himself, it reminds me of when ross perot went and spoke to the naacp convention. he said i where this, mile he went on to keep talking about i people, they were booing him, insulting him, it doesn't really help him that he wrote it, himself. it's the same thing as brett kavanaugh wrote it. tore up what others wrote for him and that's where you have the clinton conspiracy. here's a clip for those that don't remember what happened one
week ago. >> mr. chairman, rasking member feinstein, members of the committee, thank you for allowing me to make my statement. i wrote it, myself, yesterday afternoon and evening. no one has seen a draft or it except for one of my former law clerks. this is my statement. this whole two-week effort has been a calculated and orchestrated political hit, fuelled with apparent except-up anger about president trump and the 2016 election, fear that has been unfairly stoked about my judicial record, revenge on behalf of the clintons, and millions of dollars and money from outside left wing opposition groups. this is a circus. and as we all know, in the united states political system
of the early 2000s, what goes around, comes around. >> well, you know, mika, that is -- it doesn't matter where you stand, whether are you a conservative or liberal or whether you support the judge or don't support the judge, it's so problematic to think about somebody like that sitting on the supreme court where there is never going to be a decision that he makes, that isn't tainted bipartisanship and, yes, federal judges can be partisan. they do have their own beliefs, their own opinions, but my god, every federal judge i've ever known has certainly shown -- i have been fortunate, i guess, a lot of dignity. you can't get them talking about politics because they find it unbecoming. >> yeah. and it's -- he takes a lot of this personally. i think that op-ed was telling, if anybody is looking really
close at this, senator joe manchin, he says i know my tongue was sharp and inmight have said a few things i shouldn't have said. i hope everyone can understand. no no uh-huh, we don't understand that at all actually. are you not sitting here defending your name. this is a job interview for the highest court in the land and everyone is trying to understand whether or not you are fit for the job. so i don't take his highly emotional raging reaction makes him guilty. we have no idea whether he's guilty or innocent of what he's accused of. but it does show something susan del percio about his fitness. and i really hope susan collins and lisa murkowski, jeff flake and joe manchin think about the display that he put forward and whether or not he's truly fit, let alone what he said about presidential pardons and whether or not certain people from
certain backgrounds soumd have access to this country. and how he couldn't answer a lot of bake questions about the foundation of this democracy. susan. >> and especially look at how he handled the senators, who asked him questions, especially senator klobuchar. she a federal judge. he is used to high stress situations. he was flippant and really disrespectful. yes, he apologized for it after. he had been practicing for a week. he did the fox news network as prep work. >> that is inexcusable on top of the part sanship which we saw, what also is disturbing to me is seeing how president trump spoke about dr. ford at the rally and then seeing senator grassley and majority leader mcconnell, their behavior yesterday as if the president gave them an okay to just kind of destroy any good will that they were trying to
put as far as dr. ford went. and i think that alone, if forget even using kavanaugh's words and looking at the president, i don't think is that susan collins or lisa murkowski or senator flake should reward this president with this nomination. he is now. president trump seeks to always divide us this nomination will further divide us. >> that is all me, me, me. and they made me do it. you know the dastardly liberals turned me into that creature that you saw, yelling and frothing at that hearing. you know, to me, i don't think we should forget dr. ford in this whole equation. when senator heitcamp made her nomination she was going to vote
against judge kavanaugh. she said it was because she believed dr. ford and you know we do have -- she did give hours worth of very credible evidence. >> still ahead on "morning joe," late last week we were joined by senator john kennedy. >> that was a great conversation. >> it was amazing, an honest and pointed conversation around the surrounding issues surrounding the brett kavanaugh nomination. the louisiana governor joins you was. you are watching "morning joe." we'll be right back.
it's a revolution in sleep. the new sleep number 360 smart bed is on sale now, from $899, during sleep number's fall sale. it senses your movement, and automatically adjusts to keep you both comfortable. it even helps with this. so you wake up ready to put your pedal to the metal. and now, during our fall sale weekend special, the queen sleep number 360 c2 smart bed is only $899.
know how a vote is going to go before it goes. this is one vote we probably won't know until the votes are actually cast. >> wow, that is what the chairman of the senate judiciary committee chuck grassley told casey hunt moments ago, joining us the republican member of the judiciary committee, senator john kennedy, thank you for being on. joe has the first question. >> senator, curious if how republicans are feeling ability brett kavanaugh's vote that's coming up. does mitch mcconnell, does the caucus believe they have enough votes to move for the final vote tomorrow? >> reporter: i can only give you my opinion, joe, i don't know, my hunch is that we have the votes, but that's just a hunch. i think senator grassley was correct when he said, we won't know for sure until the vote is counted. but i feel like judge kavanaugh
will be confirmed. i think it will be close, obviously. >> have you been worried from time to time over the past year-and-a-half about the judiciary wanting to make sure that people get put on the judiciary weren't just put there for political reasons. wanted to make sure they had the experience and temperament to be federal judge and you let the white house know that and the judiciary know that, even when the white house may not have appreciated it. i'm wondering what your thoughts are here today after two weeks of the circus, just a brutal fight. stakes couldn't be higher. and what concerns do you have moving forward, regardless of how this vote turns out? >> reporter: well arc couple of thichgs. if you look at judge kavanaugh's body of work, his 307 opinions, i haven't read all of them. i read most of them and his law view articles, i'm convinced he is very qualified.
number two, i take away from this that the confirmation process really is amess. it needs to be cleaned up. it's gotten so bad at times, if our foundersed a envisioned this, some might have voted to stick with king george. i mean it's just amess. it's got to be addressed. number three, i felt the anger of mostly women who have been sexually harassed and it's something that the american people want to us to deal with. we should deal with it. i think we have to be very careful. some of my colleagues believe that you are morally tainted if you don't automatically believe the accuser every time. i don't agree with that. i think are you morally tainted if you don't treat the accuser and the accused with respect and
fairness and due process. now, i've said before, sexual assault is prevalent in this country. i didn't revise it. i've talked to many of my friends about it who happen to be women i say, i didn't -- i'm shocked. they say what planet did you just parachute in from? it exists. it has to be dealt with. this is no country for creepy old men, but at the same time, it's no country at all without due process and people are entitled to fair treatment on both sides. and i think i hope we've learned something from this exercise. >> what about judge kavanaugh's temperament? obviously, you have read through his opinions. >> yeah. >> you read through law review articles. you've seen as a judge he certainly has the qualifications. what about the temperament and we're going to play you a clip in a moment of what judge kavanaugh told students back in
2015 about being non-partisan. he hasn't talked about staying calm in the eye of the storm. do you believe judge kavanaugh after last week has the judicial temperament to sit on the occupation supreme court? >> yes. and i, two points, number one, i've talked to and listened to his law clerks. i used to clerk for a federal judge. the person who spends the most time with a federal judge is his or her law clerks and they know him well and to a person, they testified to me and i've heard them on interviews say how even handed and fair minded he s. but number two, look at the context. judge kavanaugh has been called a rich lying drunk, sexual predator. and he took offense to that. and he responded in a very forceful and i think human way. and i don't hold that against
h him. >> well. >> you saw him with your own eye, senator, at the hearing. here is his words. >> to be a good judge and umpire. it's important to have the proper demeanor, really important, i think, to walk in the other's shoes, whether it be the other litigants. the litigants in the case, the other judges, to understand them, to keep our emotions in check. to be calm amidst the storm. on the bench to put it in the vernacular, don't be a jerk. i think that's important. to be a good umpire and a good judge. don't be a jerk. >> so from what you saw in the opening statement, that very emotional hearings, did he meet that standard? >> in my opinion, yes. if you canner the circumstances and what he said is absolutely right.
i know federal judges. you do, too. some of them -- >> well, he was partisan. he brought up the clintons. he was a little one would, one might say that he was kind of a jerk to senator amy klobuchar and he was extremely defensive and emotional. everything that he said in that speech, i don't think i saw the same thing you did. i saw someone who failed at every standard that he laid out there. >> well, i think again you have to consider the context. he had been called once again, some call it a character assassination. i know some people think it's accurate. i don't. they called him a liar a drunk. they called him rich. they called him a sexual predator. it affected as it did dr. ford's, his family, his parents, his reputation and the man responded. i do think it's important that judges have the proper demeanor.
i know some federal judges. some are fine. others can strut sitting down. they get on the bench and they become all of a sudden impierial and you don't want a federal judge like that. i don't think kavanaugh has ever been like that. i listened to his opening statement. i've listened to dr. ford's opening statement i was there every minute. i can tell you at the end of the day, there were no winners in that room. all i saw is two people in pain. it could have been avoided because the confirmation people let them down. there haven't been many alexander hamilton's throughout this whole moment this whole episode. i haven't seen many lincoln moments in this whole experience. >> senator, willie geist, good to see you this morning. >> hi, womanly. >> you said yesterday after reading the record, the report is thorough. i am convinced judge kavanaugh is innocent to the charges against him. you made a statement i really
wish you could see this, read the report. there are things in there that really make me anything ril. what was it in there that made you angry, snower? >> i can't tell you. i wish i could. i think we're making a big mistake not releasing this report. i think the american people have the right to read it and draw their own conclusionles. it's a decision by the white house and the tomorrow. senator feinstein, senator grassley with all respect i think they're wrong. i know normally a background investigation is not released for privacy reasons, but this is not a usual circumstance. there were five witnesses interviewed for judge kavanaugh, four for miss ramirez a fifth miss ramirez didn't want to talk. these witness all identified by either miss ramirez or dr. ford as people who could corroborate their allegations. none of the witnesses corroborated the allegations. and you could, few read this
report, i really wish you could, you could see there were some politics involved. >> did the report lead to you believe, senator, that judge kavanaugh had been falsely accused by dr. ford? >> i'm not going to say. that i think he -- well, let me put it another way. i trust the american people to make their own decisions and conclusions. i've reached mine. i don't think judge kavanaugh did it. i'm not saying dr. ford and miss ramirez aren't telling the truth. i don't know them. >> aren't you by definition saying they're not telling the truth that kavanaugh did it? >> you could make that argument. but when it's a he said-she said or he said-he said or she said-she said circumstance, you have to look at the corroborating evidence. if there is any and there is none here, womanly. there is none here. every witness and these are all witnesses identified by the folks making the allegations, did not corroborate.
and i know that dr. ford's counsel has made a big deal ability her not being interviewed, but the fbi asked dr. ford's counsel to submit additional evidence and they refused. they refused to submit anything. >> senator, susan del percio here. you said at the top that this whole process is a mess and should this vote go down on party lines, i think it will be very difficult for americans not to look at the supreme court as a political body and trust that they're doing, not doing things along party lines. since this process has been such a mess, would you and make some of your colleagues think about going back to 60 votes, which would require consensus and perhaps take away some of this partisanship? >> i'm sure that's one of the things we'll talk about. >> would you support it, though? >> i don't know yet. i need to get a little distance from this to try to decide how
to fix this mess. i just know we've got two choices. we can ride the anger or we can solve the problem. i conclude we've got a problem. i will say i think the american people unfortunately felt the supreme court was political even before this freak show that we just went through. people unfortunately think of the supreme court as a mini congress. but they're not and they shouldn't be. and it's something we need to work on. part of that is the falt of congress. congress will not take hard votes, make difficult decisions. i hear it every day. oh, we can't vote on. that i can't take that vote so a lot of the difficult issues on american life and socioeconomic policy have been butched to the u.s. supreme court. that's not what our founders intended, in my judgment. >> senator, noah rothman, just to tag on susan's question, if joe manchin declines to vote with the majority and as the
party line vote, does justice kavanaugh have a legitimacy problem and by extension the supreme court? >> i think in light of this episode, both judge kavanaugh and dr. ford, their lives will never be the same. i don't think in the long run it will hurt judge kavanaugh. i have confidence that he will be a good justice. i do think he has the right demeanor. and i have read all or at least most of his body of work. but the longer term implications upon of the u.s. supreme court as an institution, that's something we've got to work on. there is no question about it. but it was a problem even before this confirmation fiasco. the american people believe the supreme court is a mini congress. it's not. it's not supposed to be. and we've got to work pretty hard to try to fix that and a default lies with congress.
>> all right. thank you. we appreciate your opinion. thank you very much. up next, no matter what happens with judge kavanaugh, it is undeniable that the me too movement played a role in how this nomination fight played out. we'll talk to a pair of journal openingists who have covered these issues as closely as anyone. keep it right here on ""morning joe"." keept iright here on ""morning joe"." time for medicare, huh.
while i say that it's a very scary time for young men in america when you can be guilty of something you may not be guilty of. this is a very, very a very difficult time. >> that was president trump's response on tuesday when asked what he would say to young men in america as his supreme court nominee brett kavanaugh faces decades old allegations of misconduct. yesterday the president tweeted, this is a very important time in our country. due process, fairness and common sense are now on trial. joining us now, investigative reporter for the "new york times" and msnbc contributor, megan tui, an author one year ago today that brought to light
sexual harassment by movie producer harvey weinstein, which is widely seen to have sparked the #metoo movement. also with us, editor chief joanne litman, author of the book "that's what she said, and i love it." so megan, the president was talking about more than brett kavanaugh there. wasn't he? what do you think he was talking about? and what's your reaction? >> right so i would also point out i was one of the reporters that worked with women who came forward with allegations against trump in 2016. so i was a part of the coverage of the allegations of sexual misconduct by trump, weinstein and moving forward. i think it's interesting. i heard so many echoes in what trump has said over the last couple of weeks, it's not just that men are being unfairly attacked, he's gone on the counterer offensive and attacked blasey ford the same way he
attacked the women that came forward against him in 2016, attacked them, mocked them. it is a part of the sort of consistent guns blazing, attacking the accusers. >> and i think he's focusing on a problem that is around the edges of the #metoo movement, which is so important as we move forward trying to create a better workplace a better society for our daughters and sons. but what has happened to due process in this realm, especially with people like the president and also all the drama surrounding brett kavanaugh and the conviction of brett kavanaugh and the attack on the credibility of hills accuser. >> yeah, i think we sister do look at the context of what's happened in this past year. when you think about it me too started. it's about all women. it did not start as a political as in a republican or a
democratic issue. it was about all women. what we're seeing now unfortunately is it is becoming political i politicized. it's becoming a political litmus test if you are a supporter of kavanaugh, you are with the president in saying that in mocking blasey ford, in mocking al franken. and that's really unfortunate. that's not what the movement is about. what we are seeing about women is the frustration is that thanks to megan and others who did this great reporting a year ago, this has been top of mind. we have been talking about #me too. we have been talking about the broader gender inequality for the whole year. but then if you look at what action has actually happened in the past year, it's been very, very minimal. some powerful men have lost their jobs, yes. but if you look at what's happened within workplaces. there was actually just a survey that the american psychological
survey did of employees that found that the vast majority of employees say nothing has changed. no new policies within their own organizationles. so there is this frustration. there is even, you know, we're going backwards in some ways. the world economic forum tracks this, in their most recent look at gender inequality, which was late 2017, they found gender inequality globally, including the united states, has gotten worse. it's the gender gap has increased. i think there is, we are seeing this frustration. >> i think that's all true, megan, beginning a year ago with your piece and the colleagues at the "new york times," it's not an overstatement to say the worked began to change because of the article you published. which is to say men, not just powerful men i don't think understand there are consequences to those actions and a young generation of men are growing up in a world that they understand that is completely unacceptable and there may be costs to that
behavior. >> i think that's right. a year ago we couldn't sew how things would une-- see how thin change ltd.. have you seen powerful figures from all industries ousted after their jobs if you seen credible allegations brought against them. companies have grappled with this issue over the years. i think privately you've also had and i think this is hard to measure, the private conversations that have happened in living rooms, office cafeterias, over the bars, as people have had thieb own personal reckonings over what has happened with family members and friends. i think what remains to be seen systemically what has changed and what hasn't changed. i think what's happening with kavanaugh is a sort of an example of the problems with hr, at large. there were no guidelines on how to field these allegations. there still aren't.
this is a point that anita hill made. how is it possible that decades after her experience the senate judiciary does not have a form am process of protocol to field these allegations. they have been making up the rules as they go. this is a real important way to have sound systems to basically adjudicate these issues. >> that's why she said is so meaningful, women are having this voice, having conversations with mothers, daughters, siblings, they're finding their voice. it also doesn't make them always right. we have to say that not all men are bad guys and not all women are saints. and that there is room for misrepresentation and we can't just always say, well the woman said this happened so it must be true. because we have to look at the whole picture. i sometimes think that's what we're afraid of doing because it makes you look bad if we say, let's look at the whom thing.
so how does that work? >> i would agree with you, we need to have as megan said, protocols in place. what we've had is, you know, at this point we are now seeing, we're experiencing what a lot of women have feared, which is backlash, particularly among men who in the past year have felt like they're being beaten up. i think a lot of what we're seeing in the empathy, particularly among white men for kavanaugh is they're seeing a reflection of themselves there. they're saying, i feel like all year i have had to bite my tongue. i haven't been able to say anything as i have been beaten up for being a white man. >> by the way, i think it's a great point that the vast majority of guys out there are not harassers, are not abuserles. and, you know, we are talking earlier with willie, like, you know, you got a lot of good guys out here. i think it's really important for us to understand that and not turn this into sort of a
black and white kind of situation and really understand that women and men together really have to work on this issue together. it's about all of us. >> amen. >> so this is one of the most honest conversations we've had on this issue and i really appreciate it. thank you very much. let's do it again. i feel like we're less than halfway there, in terms of what #metoo wants to accomplish. we have the release of the jobs report. domenic chu, how many jobs were added last month? >> reporter: good morning mika. we have a report that the labor department says 134,000 jobs were created in america for the month of september. that came in below estimates. i'll take you through the headline numbers here. h the headline numbers here. the unemployment rate fell to 3.7%. >> that would mark the lowest unemployment rate since december of 1969. a lot of attention also being
paid to what people make. average hourly earnings up by 2.8% over the same time last year. that was in line with expectations. the average workweek for american stood at 34.5 hours. that's unchanged. participation stayed steady. 62.7%. also the unemployment the real unemployment rate is 7.5%. that was slightly higher highlights include professional and business service was, adding 54,000 jobs, health care, 26,000 jobs added and of course transportation and warehousing 24,000 added there as well. one of the things -- >> let me ask you really quickly. so we come in under the 180,000 expected. we've always heard you need usually pick up 200,000 a month to maintain pace. you said job participation stayed steady, historically low
62%. it's been that now three, four, five years. why did the rate drop from 3.9 to 3.7%, despite the fact that we actually came in below expectations in. >> so we came in below expectations. 21 of the reasons why is people are actually still working. this was not because people dropped out of the work force. what we did see was a fairly sophisticate rise revisions to what happened in auktd and judgment, in fact in august the old number was 201,000 jobs. it turned out it was revised to 270,000 in the month and july from 140,000 previously up to 165,000 jobs. when you do the math here, it could else the three-month average right around there around that 190,000 month for three months and 201,000 jobs on average created over the last 12 months. >> cnbc dom physical chu.
thank you. >> 3.7%, man, that is a low unemployment rate. up next the supreme court fight isn't just about this moment in time, but rather, its impact for generations to come. we'll talk to a best selling historian, whose key moments in the american story, stay with us. we'll be right back. i know that every single time that i suit up, there is a chance that's the last time.
from christopher columbus's fake voyage to fake news in the 2016 election, our next guest is a chronicle of american history. entitled "these truths," the book uses thomas jefferson's three key ideas behind the american experiment to trace the intertwined histories of u.s. politics, law, journalism and technology. professor of history at harvard university and staff writer at the new yorker whose festival we're heading to tonight, best-selling author jim lapoor
join us. joe, tell her how many shirts you're going to wear tonight, in a row, one after the other. >> probably six or seven. playing the role of steve bannon, i need at least that many. jill, thank you for being with us. so many fascinate things run through your book, but one that jumped out at me that i thought our viewers would be fascinated by was the fact that, quote, fake news, you explain how that did not begin with a digital age. it's been with us a very long time. >> yes, i mean, the phenomenon has been with us since the birth of the newspaper. there's an awful lot of commentary about it in the time, in the 18th century. with the term fake news, which think trump credits himself with coining, it is from the 1830s. the german minister of propaganda used broadcasts to send essentially artificial news reports about nazi victories in
europe and the decline of the nazi resistance. calling this fake news to alert people about it. >> this book looks absolutely fascinating. i happened to turn just to the middle of it and found exactly what i wanted to see in this moment. the presumption seems to be among members of the media that women would fall automatically behind the accusations against justice kavanaugh because it is -- me too is a pro-movement women. presumably, even republican women, would bulk. i don't know that's the case. i think republican women are misunderstood. it goes back to the prohibition era. the campaign to overturn the amendment, repeal the volsted act and into the roosevelt area and the crash of 1937 in which you had women turning against, you know, roosevelt's campaign, a very gender oriented campaign. he talked about the evolution of the republican woman, this mysterious figure. >> i think we have very little
sense in the past of women as political actors because we have this weird segregated history. people of color as well. we have this weird public understanding of the history of presidencies and maybe there's social movements and a side bar but, in fact, those things are always operating together and the book is attempting to integrate american history. if you put women back into that story, you see that long before women had the right to vote or guaranteed the right to vote, in 1920, they acted politically in all kinds of ways, chiefly through moral crusades. they couldn't vote themselves but they could try to brow beat into voting in the ways that would protect women and children and advance their own rights and ultimately gain the right to vote and thoseusades often involved violence against women. the temperance movement is essentially an attempt to reduce violence against women. politics at large, because there's a lot of moral crusades
not led by women, but once women did get the vote, there's a battle over whether democrat or republican. people seem to believe they will line up in one way or the other. but much of the 20th century political history is, in fact, a fight over the votes of women, especially white women, because black women aren't fully enfranchised until 1965 with the rights act. with you see with republican women is they built the modern conservative movement as a moral crusa crusade. you know her best as fighting and successfully defeating the e.r.a. that is what built the modern conservative movement. >> the book, these truths, a history of the united states, is out now. jim lapoor, thank you very much. >> it looks so fascinating, jill. we're up against a hard break, but please come back. we want to talk much longer about your book. >> we're quickly closing in on a
make or break moment in the u.s. senate for supreme court nominee brett kavanaugh, a key vote is scheduled in just 90 minutes from now. stay with msnbc all day for the developments on this fast-moving story. the coverage picks up in three minutes. at t. rowe price our experts go beyond the numbers to examine investment opportunities firsthand. like e-commerce spurring cardboard demand. the pursuit of allergy-free peanuts. and mobile payment reaching new markets. this is strategic investing. because your investments deserve the full story. t.rowe price. invest with confidence. i have no idea how we're going to get through this. follow me. unitedhealthcare has the people and tools to help guide you through the confusion, well that wasn't so bad at all. that's how we like it. unitedhealthcare.
that's how we like it. (door bell rings) it's ohey. this is amazing. with moderate to severe ulcerative colitis, are you okay? even when i was there, i never knew when my symptoms would keep us apart. so i talked to my doctor about humira. i learned humira can help get, and keep uc under control when other medications haven't worked well enough. and it helps people achieve control that lasts. so you can experience few or no symptoms. humira can lower your ability to fight infections, including tuberculosis. serious, sometimes fatal infections and cancers,
including lymphoma, have happened; as have blood, liver, and nervous system problems, serious allergic reactions, and new or worsening heart failure. before treatment, get tested for tb. tell your doctor if you've been to areas where certain fungal infections are common, and if you've had tb, hepatitis b, are prone to infections, or have flu-like symptoms or sores. don't start humira if you have an infection. be there for you, and them. ask your gastroenterologist about humira. with humira, control is possible.
should happen everydred five hundred years, right? fact is, there have been twenty-six in the last decade. allstate is adapting. with drones to assess home damage sooner. and if a flying object damages your car, you can snap a photo and get your claim processed in hours, not days. plus, allstate can pay your claim in minutes. now that you know the truth... are you in good hands? hello, to everyone. i'm ayman mohyeldin in for stephanie ruhle. the senate will gavel in with the very first vote on kavanaugh
expected in about 90 minutes. all eyes turn to four still undecided votes, as anger and emotion grip the process. >> don't you wave your hand at me! i wave my hand at you! >> you grow up! >> when i grow up! >> hundreds of protesters arrested on capitol hill as judge kavanaugh pens an op-ed apologizing for his tone during the hearing and insisting that he would be a fair and impartial judge, but it's that tone which most concerns a former member of the supreme court. >> his performance during the hearing caused me to change my mind. >> and friends becoming enemies. a new pentagon report concludes that the u.s. is too reliant on foreign countries for defensive parts and equipment. and china is attempting to exploit that vulnerability. this, as the administration paints beijing in increasingly adversarial terms. >> beijing has