huh, what? no, huh, no, i didn t huh, well, wait one minute. did we leak? no, we didn t leak. and as if there wasn t already you enough drama surrounding the hearings, conservative states like red.com added to it by img applyi imply feinste feinstein s staff manipulated wikileaks pages of the senate committee. and joining me now is that congresswoman maxine waters. always good to see you. thank you. so let s go through this, because this was a strange sort of twist in the whole kavanaugh saga. red state.com and some other conservative sites claim that a group of people are were editing the biographies of republican senators that are on the senate judiciary committee making public their private information, their phone numbers and home addresses. they implied that it mitch been one of your female staffers
his job. 1:30. this is when the committee vote was supposed to happen. senator chris coons just walked in the room and talking with jeff flake for a listening time. they re very close. jeff flake said he is voting in favor of kavanaugh. coons is up he was torn last night. we think coons is working on him and reporting that conversation we think to die nan feinste feinstein. to their right, there s a conference of senator sass and leahy and talking and laughing. seeming like they re hamming it up. i m not sure whether they re killing time. doesn t look like a serious conversation about the topic. their aides are around them. i don t think they re discussing how they re voting but coons and feinstein are discussing we think what just happened with jeff flake so that s where we stand. here s the thing about jeff flake. he said he s voting in favor of kavanaugh. but he is a vote on the judiciary committee.
anonymity. instead, you choose to sit on the allegations until a politically opportune moment. i cannot overstate how disappointed i am in this decision. does he have a point? whether or not he has a point with feinstein, with senator feinste feinstein, is no longer the point. right now the issue isn t what feinstein did. judge ford i m sorry, professor ford reached out, sent the information. she did what she felt she had to do. it s now public. she has to make another decision. you can t if you think what senator feinstein did was wrong, okay, let s have that debate, but you can t hold that against professor ford. if you think mitch mcconnell blocking merrick garland is wrong, you can feel that way, but he still got the outcome he wanted. the supreme court, how that is what the real base is about, but there s another issue for the real base. if the republicans lose the
informative subcommittee meeting where we explored social media and russia s involvement in the 2016 election. i hope we have more hearings like that. my sense is that senator grassley has made the decision to defer more, not exclusively but defer more to the senate intelligence committee. some of my colleagues who happen to be defendants like senator feinste feinstein, blumenthal don t agree with that. so what s going to happen? i don t know. congress does have a role to play here, obviously. so does the fbi. but the fbi is concentrating on what criminal violations, if any, were committed. the role of congress is to look out a little further and talk about policy. i would like to see us play a bigger role.
i played a clip from senator feinste feinstein. she expressed in very strong terms about a week and a half ago, he concern she felt the president was going to start firing more people, we might try to fire robert mueller, the deputy attorney general, rob rosenstein, who the president has publicly attacked. that would start going through the ranks of the justice department. we ve also seen this week conservative media in the last couple days starting to train their fire not just on director comey, robert mueller, but also a andrew mccabe. i don t know how much conservative media telegraphs the president s actions, but do you share senator feinstein s concerns that the president may be gearing up not to discredit these people, but to fire them? i would hope that would not