he changed it to the white house. david: linda, what is the fondest memory of your father being president? when you think back on those years, what do you enjoy the most, or what is the best memory you have about it? linda: i think when he went to the congress and asked them, it was bipartisan, he went and asked them to pass massive civil rights legislation. and i'm -- [applause] david: that wasn't easy for somebody whose best friends in the senate were not in favor of it, and had come from texas. why did he decide he wanted to do that? linda: he knew it was the right thing. before he represented texas, he represented his constituency. time had changed. and he personally knew of discrimination. he'd seen it, not just with people who were african-american. but for instance, when he was the senator, our phone number was in the regular phone book, and he got a call, a hispanic in texas, i believe he was killed in korea. the local funeral home in texas, refused to take his body. they said, that if they took his body from

this is a picture that white house press corps on the lawn of the white house. one of the reporter says laddie boy was supposed to be in the picture. he's right in the front row. he's right here. saidurse right when they they couldn't see him, i said i have to find him now. he's right in this front row there. george, who gave up his house in the campaign. tois personal secretary harding. he's also going to act as a press secretary, although that term wasn't used yet. they didn't have a chief of staff. but he's everything rolled into one. to george to get through the debt you to get through george to get to president harding. he's the one that white house correspondents are going to go to first to say can we talk to the president or when is he scheduled come out and talk to us? going to filter a lot of those press requests. until the hoover administration that they had some of called the press secretary. you can see how we are moving in that direction. until the hoover administration that they had some of called the press secretary. oren harding loved the new tec

the white house still wants to investigate this writer of the anonymous op-ed. but they cannot cite a law that was violated. is this an abuse of the department of justice, in your view? >> just another one, unfortunately. the president needs to appreciate the fact that justice department is not his own private law firm. the fault lies not in our stars, but in ourselves, mr. president. clean your own house. you need to address this internally. obviously, you have issues to address. >> and some democrats have said that using the attorney general to carry out a personal political investigation could be an impeachable offense. do you agree with that? >> you know, i do. but it joins a long list of issues that could meet that standard, unfortunately. i think the president is in panic mode. i think he's far too worried about an op-ed. he's far too worried about a book. if his press secretary says reviewing all the mistakes the book a waste of time. if the president thinks these aren't true, then treat it as a waste of time and get on with the nation's business. obvious

>>> white house on the offensive. aides slamming the anonymous senior official who wrote "the new york times" op-ed and bri t bracing for the bob woodward book releases tomorrow. >>> and watching hurricane florence when it makes landfall this week. >>> and cbs's long time chief executive is out amid new allegations of sexual misconduct. first fortune 500 ceo in the me too era. >>> welcome to "early start." i'm christine romans. >> good morning. i'm dave briggs. it is monday, september 10th. 4:00 in the east. we look for the author of the op-ed. appearing on the sunday talk shows supporting the president's claims saying whoever wrote it is guilty of criminal behavior. mike pence denying any involvement and calling on the one to come forward. >> i'm 100% confident that no one on the president's staff was involved in the editorial. i know my people, margaret. they get up every day and they are dedicated as much as i am as supporting the president's agenda and supporting the president for the country. whoever this was, th

house and you described the clinton white house as running a, and i'm quoting you here, a presidentially approved smear campaign, was one phrase you used, a disgraceful effort to undermine the rule of law was another phrase you used, an episode that will forever stand as a dark chapter in american presidential history. >> that was about something different. >> and you presidentially approv approved smear campaign against starr. you said in a later memo that the president has tried to disgrace starr and his office with a sustained propaganda campaign that would make nixon blush and he should be forced to account for that. have your views of presidential interference or smearing of independent or special counsel changed sense you made those statements? >> those comments were in a memo written, as i recall -- >> two, actually. two memos. close enough. yeah. >> well, the one that i'm remembering writ ten late at night an an emotional meeting in the office. i think i told some of the senators in individual meetings, it was heated, and i understand that. but that was my memo at the time. i hav

the exact reverse of what a white house staff is supposed to do. going back to richard nixon and watergate, this is the ninth white house woodward has covered. >> in the eight others, i never heard of people on the staff in the white house engaging in that kind of extreme action. >> in woodward's telling, donald trump does not see america as the indispensable nation. he sees it as an international sucker taking advantage of by allies and trading partners. he complained his advisers don't know anything about business. all they want is to protect everybody, that we pay for. according to woodward, the president is obsessed by the fact the u.s. pays $3.5 billion a year to station troops in south korea as a first line of defense against the trump. >> i don't know why they are there, he said. let's bring them all home. at another meeting secretary of defense james mattis explained why the u.s. has 28,000 troops in korea. we are doing this in order to prevent world war iii. >> the united states has great strength and eff it ally, w totally destroy nort ko

resistance at the white house. the fear, bob woodward's explosive new book describes a near mutiny in the white house against president trumwa >> this wo book is a total -- it's a total fraud. these people, libel laws, libel laws. >>> the resistance, an anonymous ite house official writing that colleagues are working diligently from within to frustration parts of his agenda inclinations, the president calling on the justice department to investigate. >> i think it's a national security matter, they should look at it, they should look at it very strongly and we sho od fi who it is. >> is president trump in charge of his own white house? >>> plus the supreme court, brett kavanaugh says very little, while protesters and senators. >> there is clearly rule that applies. >> then applynd the rule bring the charges, bring it. >> take the spotlight. >>> my guests this morning, counselor to president trump, kellyanne conway, republica b senatoren sasse of nebraska and democratic senator dick durbin of illinoi >>> also, guess

the white house. the white house, in coordination with the republicans have di- vised a strategy aimed at satisfying his defenders and appeasing senate republicans who say they are uncomfortable with forging ahead until christine ford gets a full public hearing. senate republicans, such as susan collins, the moderate swing vote in the supreme court confirmation said as much, this accusation deserves a full, public hearing. as you mentioned, brett kavanaugh was here working the phones calling senators, defending his name, defending his own nomination as white house top officials and president trump say they want him to do. here is what president trump said yesterday. [ inaudible question ] >> has he offered to withdrawal? >> next question. what a ridiculous question. say it? >> do you think the confirmation is on track? >> i think he's on track, yeah. he is very much on track. if they delay to make sure everybody is happy. they want to be happy. i can tell you, the republican senators want to be 100% h

house is now doing the murder boards with brett kavanaugh behind the white house doors. >> that makes total sense, if you're unemployable at fox, clearly the white house will open their doors to you. that's what they do. the idea that these men have gotten away with everything their entire lives. they are elite, wealthy and white. this is their m.o., they can do what they want when they want it with whom they want to. there is nothing that dr. ford stands to gain from coming out at this moment, nothing. her life has been turned upside down. she has had to relocate. tell me why you would do that if you were lying. is she looking for a reality tv show? no, she's not. she's just looking to be heard for the first time in her entire life. and taking a huge gamble in order to do so. >> yeah, and it's clear that in the context of the white house, i mean, there was reporting that mitch mcconnell had problems with kavanaugh, we don't know what the nature of those were, but it's quite clear as to what goes on at the white house that the idea that there was a past involving some type of sexual a

nbc white house correspondent is back in front of the white house. jeff, what more can you tell us here? >> reporter: it appears to be an it ration of th iteration. he says he was not at this party in question some 35 years ago. it also matches what our hill team reports. our hill team spoke with senator orrin hatch. he adenies having been at the party. et would explain what he's been doing at the white house.iet won doing at the white house.t woul doing at the white house. he's been calling senators defending himself as white house counsel don mcgahn wanted him to do. there was no sign he would be withdrawing his no, ma'am medication. the latest news is he's denying ever having been at this party. i can tell you i reached out to debra katz, the attorney, we're waiting to hear back from her. add to that, the white house pool of reporters, the small group of reporters that cover e the president is in the roosevelt room. we expect to hear what the president has to say, if anything, about all of this. >> if we do hear anything from the president, we'll

that is really the challenge every white house, i don't care what people say, every white house has had officials in it that have sought to do something different than what the president says. that's not the problem here, the problem is how donald trump reacts. >> does the president need to assert publicly, though, that he's in charge? i mean, look at the number of people that crit -- i want to put this up here. the chief of staff is quoted as calling him an idiot, the defense secretary says he has the understanding of a fifth or sixth grader, a former economic adviser calls him a professional lawyer and rex tillerson the former secretary of state used f'ing moron. president obama had to fire stanley mcchrystal when he was -- when his staff was humiliating vice president biden. there was this sense of the commander in chief has to assert himself. doesn't the president of the united states need to assert himself. >> who is he going to hire to put in these places? >> in this case it's the 25th floor of the trump tower. >> the reason why those ring true is because we've been hearing the sa

they take that report, they send it to the white house. the white house reviews that for the nomination process. there's no criminal investigation here by the fbi. they don't have any jurisdiction about any of the events that occurred more than 30 years ago, but they could go back and do a follow-up investigation to look at these allegations if in fact the white house went to the fbi and said we want you to follow-up on these allegations to determine the credibility of the allegation, ali. >> i guess that's an important distinction to make. there's likely not to be any criminal charge to come out of this, but there's an establishment of facts that the senate now is charged with trying to figure out, and as senator leahy said, they're not really good at that, they're not really equipped for that. so the mind goes to the fbi, you think they're an investigative body. what can the fbi do if this is not their bread and butter, if they don't investigate one off crimes, do enterprise crimes and bigger things, let's say the white house said open t

the white house is calling the tentative call a delay tactic. he has been in and out of the white house just about every day since dr. ford identified herself as his accuser. joining me right now nbc white house correspondent kelly o'donnell. is there anymore reaction from the white house on this? >> not yet this morning. but there were some new developments late into the evening. and you're right that brett kavanaugh hane on the grounds at the white house throughout the past week, but really has been doing that since he was named as the nominee for the high court. the white house complex is sort of a home base for the confirmation process. so that has certainly been under way and preparations for whatever appearance he might make this coming week, they weren't sure exactly what it would look like, what day it would happen. and the white house has been clearly frustrated by what they perceive to be delays. of course for christine blasey ford and her legal team, they felt that an offer to appear needed to be treated with very specific conditions,

white house counsel don mcgahn prepareag to. erica: that's a question that was brought up with the announcement of mcgahn's departure. we also learned that the overall office of white house counsel is like drastically understaffed now compared to what it a w the beginning of the administration. i believe they have 25 attorneys now compared with somethinike 35 when the administration began. some ofut those d positions right under mcgahn are unfilled or about to be unfilled. it would appear that a lot of people don't want to work in that office and that willecome a ver big problem, if democrats take over the house. not just because of the specterral prospect of impeachment but the investigations, the subpoenas. every committee in the house will be investigating one aspect or another of the administration and they have to be able to respond to that and clearly they're not really in ato positn do so. robert: the white house has an attorney, specialist in peachment, worke for president clinton in the 1990's on that issue but havde't

they had conversations with the white house to thatffect. had no indication that there was anything that was different about it, at least in the near future. on the flip side, another republican source reminded me about the house in particular, about the fact that they absolutely despised rod rosenstein and they tried to push articles of impeachment against rosenstein. >> the freedom caucus activist. >> exactly. there is a move and maybe even if he stays in, it could happen to call rosenstein up to the hill to get him to answer questions under oath about whether he said in a serious manner he wanted to record the president and or that he discussed invoking the 25th amendment. that is the dynamic and the backdrop that all of this is autopsy against. it is really important to know and those are the thing that is the president is hearing. which is why, frankly, he was not gone right away when the story came out on friday. even though the president has no love lost there, he understands the dynamics and not to mention the public pressure. republ

it paints a great picture of the white house. i hate using the word, but i had a question about collusion. a number of conservative columnists have been saying your book's absence of discussion of collusion is somehow exculpatory and i wanted to know what your position was on all things in that matter or if the book was even intended to cover that angle. guest: it is covered in a way. what i have said is i found no new evidence of collusion. there is some out there on the record, publicly. some of the reporting by my own newspaper, the washington post, the new york times. i have found no new evidence, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. in fact, president trump's lawyer for 18 months, john dowd, concluded that mueller had something he was not telling john dowd about in the meetings that dowd had with mueller. other point on this, i think, and it is critical, the real answer to collusion is in russia. as a reporter, if i went there, i almost certainly would not come back. you cannot operate in russia. intelligenceates agencies

the white house sets the parameters. the reason why this matters is the limited scope seems to be at odds with what some members of the senate judiciary committee expect when they agree to give the fwi the week to investigate the allegations. we have seen the white house defending brett kavanaugh and the entire confirmation process. kellyanne conway brought up her own history of sexual assault and defended brett kavanaugh. >> i feel very empathetic, frankly for victims of sexual harassment and rape. i'm a victim of sexual assault. i don't expect judge kavanaugh or jeff flake or anybody to be held responsible for that. you have to be responsible for your own conduct. >> it's the first time i heard you talk about something personal like that and i'm really sorry. you work for a president who said all the women who accused him are lying. >> don't conflate that with this and what happened to me. it would be a huge mistake. >> this other issue about the kavanaugh investigation, we asked him about the role in forcing the week

nancy cook, white house reporter for politico. eli stokols, white house reporter for "the new york times." we welcome all three back to the broadcast. mr. lemire, trump went on a rant out in montana tonight. of note on social media, his pronunciation of anonymous. also talking about lincoln's gettysburg address. he said many of us know it by memory. that was notable. went on a rant about impeachment, almost treating himself as a disassociated third-person character of it. what does it say about what you know to be his state of mind? >> he also suggested that lincoln -- and the gettysburg address was something that was not too popular at the time -- >> like his speeches. >> like his speeches. as the decades went on, it was seen more favorably. he predicted the same for himself so he made the lincoln comparison. certainly this is a moment where impeachment or certainly crisis is on the mind of the president and people closest to him. he is, in our reporting, very much in a bunker mentally right now. he is not sure who he can trust.

white house insider, former white house communications director anthony scaramucci. anthony, always a pleasure. >> congratulations on the show. >> you've heard what's going on with the reactions to this. mattis says never happened. kelly said, i never said it. the white house comes out and says this is all untrue. bob woodward? months of interviews taped, documents all untrue? what's the chance of that? >> well, i mean i think the chance is low but where i would disagree with van is let's say it's 10%, 20% true, even 50% true, what everybody is missing about this is that the president has an operating style that's different from the other 44 presidents. and he's an aggressive guy. he has a tendency to say what's on his mind. he wears things on his sleeve, and despite all that, i think he's been resoundingly effective. if you look at his record, chris, a lot of great things have happened for the country over the last 19 months. so what's really at issue is, is the style of his communication and who he is as a person, is that what the american people voted for? is that

house. >> he may be a guy inside the white house. he may be upper level, lower level, maybe he's in the old executive office building. >> the 538th, nate silver makes a living with predictions zeroed in on anti-trade, tweeting it made him wonder if it's someone in treasury or highly concerned with economic policy. whoever anonymous is, it's a whodunit taylor-made for tv. >> i'm surprised by how good a writer ivanka is. >> randi kaye, cnn, new york. >> cnn chief political correspondent, dana brash and douglas brinkley, saw in randi's report. you've been talking to sources, what's going on behind the scenes? >> it really is still an explosion of anger. what we saw in the initial outburst yesterday we saw in public when the president came out and talked about all the great things his administration has done, has become a little bit less so according to people i'm talking to who are speaking to those in and around the president, and more kind of a -- i wouldn't say shoulder shrug but more of a hope that this is like so many other big exp

the white house gives the green light to the fbi probe. is it now the white house who gives the direction to how the probe goes? how extensive the fbi will search or how limited in scope it will be? >> it seems to be coordinated between the senate judiciary committee and the white house counsel's office. the president has said free reign, but the reporting is don mcgahn, white house counsel working with the senate judiciary committee are trying to set parameters for the investigation. that's not are inially bad if the parameters are brought enough to allow the investigation to proceed from step know to step two. you can't know where the investigation is going to take you. you have to have the authority to follow leads as they evolve. we will see if they have free reign or whether it's cirque um scribe and not legitimate. >> kellyanne conway said earlier it will unbiassed. listen. >> the white house is not getting involved in the fbi investigation in that way. the president very much respects the independence of the fbi and feels as he said

he told for some reason the white house economic adviser and the white house staff secretary, and he told them that it was confirmed both by him and his shop and by intelligence experts that the president had obtained and was distributing russian government propaganda. oh! that seems like a story. i would like to know more. were there consequences of that? how did the national security council handle that? how did the president get the propaganda? was he -- i have -- here's another one. this is from chapter 10. quote, on january 26, 2017, so right after the inauguration, deputy attorney general sally yates had come to white house. she told white house counsel don mcgahn that intercepts showed that mike flynn, the had not been truthful about contacts with russian and was worried that flynn could be a blackmail target. reince priebus determined that flynn had denied discussing the sanctions with the russians at least ten times. priebus tracked down white house counsel don mcgahn. priebus asked mcgann if they could get the transcripts of the conversations that flynn had had with the rus

is the white house opposing the fbi? people look at the situation with clarence thomas and anita hill and the white house supported putting together a thorough investigation. >> there is a big differences, one of the biggest ones that has gotten lost in the conversation is when anita hill made her allegation it was privately. it was submitted to chairman biden who gave it to the white house, unlike senator feinstein who sat on it for 6 weeks knowing she could have brought it up anytime or given it to her colleagues and then at that point the white house decided to do interviews and the hearing after that, it was public information. the purpose of an fbi investigation is to keep things confidential and private because that ensures people will speak with candor and they can be anonymous and that is not where we are. everything is public. the fbi has done its job, the senate judiciary committee has done its job and they are looking seriously at this allegation. shannon: we are all paying very close attention. the media play

a white house spokesperson said his denial has not changed and the white house and the judge still stand by it. there's a statement, i categorically and unequivocally deny this allegation. i did not do this back in high school or at anytime. the white house is letting up a bit when it comes to the process. yo u saw what kellyanne conway said. she says christine ford should not be ignored, the claim should be heard. conway putting the ball back in the court of the senate judiciary committee to weigh this claim, perhaps publicly. professor ford is willing to testify before the committee. that's what her attorney told the "today" show this morning. the attorney also addressed this notion that ford's allegation might be politically motivated. take a look at what she had to say. >> no one, in their right mind regardless of motive would want to inject themselves in this process and face the annihilation she will be subjected to by those who want this nominee to go through. this is not a politically motivated action. she was quite reluctant to come forward and she was outed after she made the d

he's at the white house. what conversations are happening, that reporting we'll get in moments. the eyes are on susan collins and lisa murkowski. two senators who also had major questions about where does this judge stand on roe v. wade. two senators who were highly critical of former democratic senator from minnesota al franken who pushed for him to leave amid those multiple allegations of sexual harassment. what do they do now is the key question. jennifer rubin, you pointed out this column to me last night in "the washington post," a conservative columnist in "the washington post." let me read you what she said. once more, all eyes turn to collins, murkowski, and perhaps another brave republican or two. will they act like responsible members of an equal branch of government? this is the job of congress. you check the other branches. what happens? >> when we look at it, collins and murkowski have been two key voteses already. they wavered on whether they would support kavanaugh. one would hope we were looki

inside the nixon white house? >> i did at one point. >> and later came forward to become a key witness here. when you saw all of this playing out, what did you think? >> i found trump's reaction kind of nixonian to be frank. >> didn't he prove what bob woodward is saying in his book, and what the writer of this op ed is saying? >> he did. what nixon did when he had leaks, he put wiretaps on reporters and white house staff. i wouldn't be surprised if trump would do the same. >> an educated guess, an idea of who this unnamed person is? >> kelly would be high on my list. >> you think so? >> yeah. >> why do you say that? >> the off the rails remark that you repeated is in that op ed as well. and that was his remark. >> lode star referring to john mccain, is that a military term? >> yes. >> the new york times wrote a story with an unnamed anonymous source. the new york times didn't write the story. this is an op ed from someone, a senior official, the new york times published it. >> i think they added to it too. >> ult

white house will be? we were talking at the beginning of the hour about how some of his officials act as guardrails. do you think if he wants to investigate and really go after "the new york times" and try to get them to reveal the author of this piece, who will try to stop him? >> this will be another telling moment. whether someone actually does. whether there are people who, as described in the woodward book and as we've heard in our reporting to slow walk it and hope the president moves on to someone else or whether someone will get up in his case and defy him, which happens rarely, not very much in this white house. >> mcgahn has been fired and kelly is on his way out or on the outs. >> while sitting here reaching out to trump administration officials both inside and outside the white house and allies, my colleagues and i at the a.p. have been asking what is the reaction there. to a person, they're blindsided and they're asking us, who do you think it is? which i guess if you're the author, that's wh

the white house is nervous about that. they don't feel confident. they don't want to speak about a plan b for the record because it would cut his legs out from under. they will be watching on thursday just like everybody else. >> we could fill an hour with our big 3 tonight without breaking a threat. we regret calling an end to this conversation. thank you so very much for starting us off. >>> coming up the other big story of the day, the latest reporting on rosenstein and his job future. later, new numbers tonight on where these midterms may be headed, exactly six weeks from now the 11th hour just getting started with a new week on a monday night. please stay with us. monday night please stay with us. when it comes to making bones stronger, are you headed in the right direction? we are. we have postmenopausal osteoporosis and a high risk for fracture. so with our doctors we chose prolia®. to help make our bones stronger. only prolia® helps strengthen bones by stopping cells that damage them with 1 shot every 6 months. do not take prolia® if you

the white house. we don't know yet what's going to happen. in an interview with geraldo over the weekend we'll see what will happen. >> we'll see. we heard a lot of we'll sees before our former secretary of state was gone. >> brit, a little more from john roberts reading this off the email. rosenstein not expected to be fired. he is expecting to be fired. got it. okay. >> thinks he may be fired. >> you see through it now. what happens within d.o.j. catherine herridge is trying to be careful not to get ahead of this and rightfully so. what is the impact within that department? jeff sessions has been criticized almost on a weekly basis by the commander-in-chief. >> he certainly has. the question then becomes who would take over supervision of the mueller investigation? they would have to get -- the job of deputy attorney general can't remain unfilled for any period of time in the midst of all this. i believe it requires senate confirmation. i'm quite sure it does. and i'm not sure whether the president

give me a sense of what's happening at the white house. >> well, the white house and the president are on the defensive across multiple fronts. you got white house staffers still trying to do damage control over bob woodward's book that paints a picture of a chaotic west wing. and of course, this anonymous op-ed in "the new york times" serving up a scathing indictment of president trump. i've got to tell you, when you ask white house officials about this, alex, they often say, why are you so obsessed with this. but it's clear the president himself is still obsessed with finding the author, although we understand he is being counseled by senior staffers at the white house to let this pass. the concern is he's bringing more attention to the claims in the op-ed, which as we know, raises alarms about his fitness for office. and suggests there's a resistance working within the station, really acts ago a check on the president's more dangerous impulses. now, to be clear, there is no active white house investigation all of this. but there has been talk of using lie detector tests and sworn af

last year obsessed there being leakers inside the white house. he said to our sources, there are snakes everywhere there are two issues, trump suspects people who work in his white house and broadly than that, across the administration, he sees this vast sea, this deep state, he believes it does exist. and he can't fathom the idea of a career official. yes, political appointee, suspect. if you worked over-obama, how could you possibly work for me. that is his mindset. trump's organization is a family business. it was basically about a dozen core employees, his cfo has been with him since fred trump. he enters the white house and there is a sea of people he has never seen before. there used to be meetings where trump turns around and scans the wall. >> ashley, you guys are in the business of covering the white house. you are all acting like it is the dismay, the mistrust, that he has reason to wonder about the disloyalty of the president. they talk to the press all day long. >> he absolutely does. and it is not just the leaks that he has reason fo

>> it's a common statement by the white house. the white house isn't the entire driver in this process. they say as long as the senators hold, they will move forward. if something happens between now and thursday, the nomination is hanging on the edge and could be knocked off. >> jill, i want to get your reaction to what we have seen develop over the last 12-18 hours, sjs letter from dr. fordó where she says she needs to know who is going to be interviewing her thursday. who should do it? not going say i4 to be us. we want an expert to come in to make it happen? >> i think her question is a very fair one. it's the senate judiciary committee that has the responsibility on behalfxd of t public to consent. this is their proceeding. toe1 bring in an outside expert somebody who is experienced in sex crimes is just like trying to evade responsibility, in my view. this hearing should be about trying to get to the truth on behalf of the american?; people. bobby, charged with that t senate judiciary committee and members. >> sorry to inte

this white house is in crisis. when you have a group of unknownses unelected officials taking over the white house and taking over things because of someone they consider inept, you are in crisis. >> to be clear, there is a data point. there is an norms amount of data points. the omarosa data point. >> it's not a surprise. i don't think voters had an idea how unhinged donald trump is. i think they're progressively becoming more aware of that. >> i think that's true. i was speaking to republicans and democrats earlier, it could mobilize voters and demobilize republican voters keeping them home. a lot of people that voted for donald trump saying we like what's happening in the country with taxes and jobs. we don't like what comes out of his mouth and don't support his more controversy comments and policies but people are still willing to vote for him or his agenda. if this op-ed resonates with them, if they realize this is such a critical moment, it's coming from someone from the white house, they might stay home. >>

. >>> plus, a real witch hunt in the white house. how the president is on a mission to track down aides who spoke to bob woodward. >>> and another major upset in the democratic party. long time congressman unseated the woman who started the trend. good evening, everyone. i'm kate bolduan in for erin ber net. the resistance. not the resistance from the left but from within. "the new york times" is publishing a shocking anonymous op ed from a senior trump administration official. it is so unusual, it is so biting, it's such ab indictment of the president, the only way to lay out the case this person makes is to read the entire thing to you. so, here it is in full. the opinion piece in "the new york times." president trump is facing a test to his presidency unlike any faced by a modern american leader. it's not just the special counsel that looms large or that the country is bitterly divided over mr. trump's leadership or even that his party might well lose the house to an opposition hell bent on his downfall. the dilemma that he does n

let's go to the white house where abby phillip joins us. what is the feeling in terms of the power controversy about these document this is. >> well, good morning, poppy. the white house is looking at this as the opportunity for judge kavanaugh to introduce himself and they feel despite all of this talk as ariane just talked about, the documents being the subject of such controversy among democrats, they don't think that controversy has touched kavanaugh at all. it's being seen as a bureaucratic dispute that ranks-and-file folks watching this hearing, maybe tuning in, won't pay attention to. in other words, brett kavanaugh according to the white house's view of this, has an opportunity to lay himself out to the public without having been damaged by what the white house thinks is such an in-the-weeds controversy that it has not affected his nomination. that being said, we will see him talking about his personal life a lot today. the white house is looking for clues as to where democrats will be going with their attacks on kavanaugh later in

with us jonathan lemere, white house reporter for the associated press, and nancy, white house reporter for the "washington post." nancy, is this an issue because some have branded this the white house for females? >> traditionally they're pushing back on the white house attorney and trying to get trump and the white house and congress to have a very muted and necessary response to these kavanaugh allegations, and it's very different than what we have seen from president trump before. he likes to hit back and write on twitter. that was his instinct when he heard about it on sunday and i wanted to hit back as well. but he didn't address the allegations until monday afternoon, this afternoon, and even when he did, he did so in a much quieter way than he normally does. >> and the dems used this point. she said she would never put witnesses directly on the stand before having an investigation. the dems say they're trying to run out the clock because the midterms are coming and all of it is one big traveling mess. >> everyone is cognizant that the midterms are looming. and it's hard to imagi

so to what extent do you think the white house is removing itself from the white house probe? >> i would be really surprised if the white house is, as trump said, giving free rein to the fbi on this. it's been reported by multiple outlets including your own that there have been significant limits put on the scope of this investigation. they're not letting the fbi talk to swetnick, who has made explosive claims against kavanaugh. it seems like that would be relevant in any criminal investigation of him. they're not letting -- the fbi talked to his old drinking buddies at yale who have is said that the picture he painted himself under oath is very different from the man this they remember, and they're limiting the questions that they can ask mark judge about where he worked at the grocery store, they can't contact the grocery store, so it sounds like the white house is severely hampering this investigation, and there is a lot of questions about whether the fbi can be impartial, anyway, when it is being directed by the white house to do this. >> so, john, laura is talking about h

the white house closer to finding out who the author is. the administration has a dozen names on its list. >> melania trump weighing in and calling it cowardly saying he or she is sabotaging the country. she cites the response of the free press. senator rand paul offered this stunning idea. >> i think if you have a security clearance in the white house, i think it would be acceptable to use a lie detector test and ask people if they are talking to the media against the policy of the white house. >> smoke them out. >> lib s -- libertarian rand paul. the president in billings, montana. jim acosta was there. >> reporter: during the rally in front of thousands of supporters, the president said he didn't know who it was, but reporters at "the new york times" should investigate who the writer is. here is what he had to say. >> unelected deep state operatives who defy the voters to push their secret agendas are truly a threat to democracy itself. and i was so heartened when i look. people who don't exactly dig us or like me, they are fighting for

and then of course a lot of journalistic accounts of the trump white house. even though it's still so early in the administration. >> some of the books coming out, a longtime white house correspondcorrespondent. anthony scaramucci. - - will has a book coming out. - - has a new book coming out as well. >> is political season. it's nice that some of these books are not actually a trump book. - - is her expense covering the trump white house and what has become a contentious relationship . - - book looks back on the shooting that he was a victim of and the heroism of the capital police officers and so many others and averted a much larger tragedy. it's remarkable that it's been nearly 14 months since that event. and is recovering and it's been part of writing this book. >> out of the books we just named, did you review any of those? >> i might. it takes a while to figure out what makes the most sense for me to review. my reviews are small part of the overall output of what the post does. even nonfiction we have a lot of freelancers. i suspect we will cover them

what's life like in the white house today? >> you get the sense that this sort of latest west wing soap opera is defined by paranoia. you have heard of people using polygraphs. when the president was asked do you trust your staff? his response was yes but i often look around the room to see who is there. so imagine that. >> it forces the activity of this so called resistance within even further under ground. that's what all of this done, right? to the extent that there were a number of senior administration officials who were disagreeing with the president and trying to advance their own policy agenda makes it even harder to do that if that's what they were doing. >> i have all right talked to somebody here outside of the incident. s he is angry but not going shake anything up. >> it would be that's normal and smart behavior. it is untrump-like. >> it is. again, this white house is even beyond the word dysfunctional. i think that's clear every day. i can't imagine what it is to be inside of a white house and not to know who yo

so, they moved to the white house in 1889. caroline harrison is interesting an first lady, because she did all the hostess duties, had her daughter help her, had a niece help her, the cabinet ladies help her. she was not a terribly comfortable person in the public role of first lady. she liked to paint china and so forth, was something of an artist. that they had lots of family living in the white house, and it was quite cramped. so caroline harrison conceived this idea, what you needed to do was to expand the white house. she worked with committees in congress to develop an elaborate program that would have changed the white house essentially into a quadrangle. as the drawings were made, architectural historians say, it was a monstrosity. one of the great things that happened, that it did not happen. but she did get some money to refurbish the white house. as i said, assisting her in her social duties was a niece, her sister's daughter, named mary dinnick, a widow. she had been married only three months. a widow for six or ei

house is defending president trump's call to have the white house investigate who wrote that "new york times" op-ed. press secretary sarah huckabee sanders echoed the president's demand for a probe. >> certainly if there's an individual, we don't know who they are. if that individual is in meetings where national security is being discussed or other important topics and they are attempting to undermine the executive branch, that would certainly be problematic and something that the department of justice should look into. >> do you know if the president believes the denials coming in from top advisors or does he believe it's coming from within? >> no lie detectors are being used or talked about or looked at as a foeblt. frankly the white house and the staff here are focused on doing their jobs, not dealing with cowards who refuse to put their names in an anonymous letter. >> joining us is daniel litman of politico. let's talk about this whether it's lie detector tests or a justice department probe. what does that do when it comes to freedom of speech? >> i think it's interesting how muc

house.wi yet in the white house press no, but that is true. mentioned it quickly., not like, you know -- and i would certainly have thought that maybe you would have called the office. but that's okay. i'll speak to kellyanne. i am a little surprised that she wouldn't have told me, that she just walked in -- i'm talking to bob woodward. he said he told you about speaking to me. but you never told me. why didn't you tell me? i would have been very happy to speak to him. all right. so what are you going to do? so i have another bad book coming out. >> it goes on. and you know, i -- what you can count on is that i've been very careful. evelyn, are you on? >> yes. >> evelyn duffy, who's my assistant -- >> hello, evelyn. >> she transcribed all the tapes because with permission i taped people for hundreds of hours. >> good. >> and i think there's nothing in this book that doesn't come e from a firsthand source. is that correct, evelyn? >> but are you naming names or o do you just say sources? >> the names we're -- >> do you name sources? i mean, are

i mean, you know, journalists, our cnn colleagues who cover the white house, when i cover the white house, we quote senior administration officials all the time. this is just sort of an elaborated quote of senior offici administrations officials. more personal and the idea of sources in the administration who will talk anonymously to journalists is not new. it's not new with the trump administration. wh what's new is sort of magnitude of the betrayal here. >> well -- >> and, you know, people can believe it or not but you have to conclude that it is consistent with basically all the other evidence coming out of this administration. >> also interesting is what was highlighted there in the tweet, this is a bit of a difference between, you know, our colleagues and friend maggie haberman and the hard news folks at "the times" and run independently. >> right. >> different rules apply. and so what does that do? why did this person go to mag any or someone who covers "the times" on a daily basis and writes with a lot of credibility and say, hey, i have a story with you. >> we don't -- the truth o

now, the white house says there's a chance it could be postponed again. lauren blanchard is live in washington with more. lauren, when might that meeting happen, and do we expect the president to ask rosenstein to resign? >> well, jon, the white house said they didn't want to have the meeting on the same day as the supreme court nomination hearing last week, and now that the fbi has opened an investigation into judge brett kavanaugh, it is likely to be delayed again. president trump and deputy attorney general rod rosenstein were planning to talk following a "new york times" article that reported rosenstein considered wearing a wire to record the president and that he brought up the topic of the 25th amendment with cabinet members. rosenstein has denied the report. there was speculation last week the president was going to fire the deputy attorney general, something the president later said he'd prefer not to do. the white house press secretary saying on fox news sunday that the new york times article won't be the only topic the two men discuss, but that

and a white house destabilized. and a president who does not believe in the constitutional realm of free press. >> based on your reporting, what do you put this op-ed in to the broader context of what is coming out with woodward's book and what unhinged onmarosa? >> it does seem like someone is making a new entry because of the op-ed. but we knew a lot of this from countless reports, anonymous officials like bob woodward's and others before that, but what is notable about this is that somebody felt they were able to do this, meaning to do this, that somebody inside the administration is currently working for the administration, not a former official and depose to "the new york times." one of his least favorite editorials in the world. there are so many people who it is plausible inside the administration would feel the willingness to do this. and that is unheard of on many levels in an administration. and i think that makes this different than just the reporting we see in places like bob woodward's books. >> another