From professor Christine Blasey fords lawyer saying she has, quote, told the Senate Judiciary committee that she would be prepared to testify next week, so long as senators offer terms that are fair and which ensure her safety, according to an email her lawyer sent to Committee Staff members. The deadline for professor Christine Blasey ford whether to decide to testify or not is tomorrow at 10 00 a. M. Whether or not she does testify, Senate Republicans seem intent on holding a hearing and moving on with a vote to confirm judge kavanaugh for a lifetime appointment on the Supreme Court. Tensions reaching a fevered pitch. Protests are swarming to protest judge kavanaughs nomination. Where does everything stand now. Want to bring in nbc news capitol hill correspondent kasie hunt, we have a statement from blags blasey fords lawyer and that shes in discussions about testifying next week. Reporter this appears to be the headline we have been waiting for. We should underscore nbc news is working to confirm, i keep checking my email, this story the New York Times has. The reporter of the story has an email she writes from lawyers for dr. Blasey ford that say she does want to testify. And i will say based on the sources i was talking to, this actually doesnt necessarily surprise me because those two other letters did leave the door open for her to eventually testify, they just focused on the aspects of this she felt needed to be different. The word fair is of course going to be the big negotiating point. What exactly is fair. The question of her safety obviously could potentially dictate whether it is a private hearing or public hearing. Were pretty used to conducting these high profile events on capitol hill. It is not uncommon for there to be managed chaos is what i would call it, but obviously security protocols here have been pretty strict and is something the hill is used to dealing with, but of course she and her lawyers said she has been the subject of Death Threats so theres obviously a lot of concern about making sure she feels comfortable and safe in whatever context shes going to testify in. One thing that stuck out to me is that according to the times reporting, theyre saying monday is not possible in a flat out way. Theyre saying next week rather as the time frame for her testimony. There are a few procedural complications with that. If theyre going to move forward sometime next week, they have to let the committee know that thursday, today, or friday to hold it a week from today or a week from tomorrow. Thats a rule the committee typically operates under and thats why the deadline of monday was set in the first place, because we rescheduled the hearing for next monday, this past monday, which feels like a long time ago to me now, frankly, i am sure it feels longer to judge kavanaugh and to dr. Ford who have been going through this personally. But i do think that we had sort of reached this impasse where both sides were frustrated how things were playing out. Republicans were drawing a harder line in the sand, no, were not giving you any more time. We move ahead with the vote if you dont show up. Dr. Ford taking time behind closed doors to figure out what she wants to do. Obviously significant step toward the hearing thats been in limbo and which would be just a spectacle of enormous proportions with unbelievable stakes, seems on track to be more likely today at this hour, ali. Thanks very much. As you get more news, please bring it to us. Despite requests from the attorney for the professor, blasey ford, a public hearing is still scheduled for monday in front of the Senate Judiciary committee as she was saying. A group of Democratic Senators comprised of former prosecutors and state attorneys general sent a letter to the white house saying the fbi needs to investigate. The letter argues declining to have the fbi take action under the circumstances also abandons the precedent that president george h. W. Bush set when he asked the fbi to investigate after anita hill raised allegations against judge Clarence Thomas in 1991. One of the Democratic Senators joining me now, senator from vermont, patrick leahy, senior most member of the Senate Judiciary committee, also a member when anita hill testified in 1991, and he was a state attorney in vermont back in the day. Senator, good to see you. Thank you. Tell me what youre trying to get at. The Senate Judiciary committee cannot ask the fbi to reopen the investigation, the president has said the fbi doesnt want to, and it is not what they do, but in fact the Background Investigation if the white house asks them to open it up, they can. Of course they can do it, and of course the chairman of the Senate Judiciary committee could ask them to. Anita hill, republican president , republican chief counsel, they said wait a minute, those allegations came up, step back, and they interviewed a large number of people. I was one of those who believed anita hill, but at least you had all of the evidence before you. Here theyre rushing to judgment, almost like theyre trying to hide something, step back, take a deep breath, let the professionals with no partisan interest in this either way, let them talk to the various witnesses and get us some answers. Lets talk about the function of the Senate Judiciary committee. Youre saying let the professionals handle this because the fbi or Law Enforcement bodies have investigative experience to get to things that the Senate Judiciary committee, as much power as it has, it is not built that way. When i was a prosecutor, you mention i was a states attorney, we had cases, especially sexual harassment, we called in people trained in that area and let them at least do the investigation. Then the prosecutor in this case the senators have to use their judgment, how will they act on it. But were not the ones investigating, let the professionals do that. Let them talk to anybody thats involved and come back with a nonpartisan, nonbiased report and then each one of us have to makeup his or her mind what theyll do on it, but we dont even get the chance to makeup our mind if you rush it through and not allow all of the facts to come out. What are they trying to hide is the first question. If theres nothing to hide, then take the time to show that. Back in 1991, senator Chuck Grassley, chairman of the committee, agreed with the idea that the president asked the fbi to investigate the claims that anita hill made. Lets listen to what orrin hatch said in 1991. I have to say, chairman biden, and the Ranking Member thurmond, when they heard about this the first time, they immediately ordered the fbi investigation, which was the very right thing to do, appropriate thing to do. They did what every other chairman and Ranking Member have done in the past. And the investigation was done and it was a good investigation. Senator, why the difference now . Why would grassley and hatch agree and say it was a good thing to have the fbi investigate in 1991 but not think so now . Back then the senate actually worked and tried to be the conscience of the nation. Sometimes we got things right, sometimes got them wrong, at least you tried to make it work. Now we have a senate that for over a year blocked a consensus and nominated merit garland simply because he was nominated by barack obama. And as soon as they got a trump nominee, theyre trying to rush them through, set all of the old standards aside, for example, on one of the obama nominees, they got 99 of her records, but the white house, here theyre allowing 8 or 9 of judge kavanaughs record. Theyre just changing the rules. The end justifies the means. But the American Public has a right to ask why are you rushing, why are you changing the rules, what are you trying to hide. Senator patrick leahy, thanks for talking to me from vermont, Ranking Member of the Judiciary Committee. Several of you have been tweeting me, asking what the fbis role is in this kind of situation. For more on that, want to bring in shawn henry, former executive assistant director of the fbi and Msnbc National Security analyst. Shawn, the issue seems to be that theres no federal crime that would be investigated, that if this were investigated it would be as a state crime and hence the fbi wouldnt have normal ability to just go in and investigate this, but as senator leahy said, the client of the fbi at the moment with respect to the nomination is the white house. So if the white house were to ask the fbi to do it, they would do it. Yeah. I think it is important to make the distinction. The fbi has already conducted a Background Investigation on judge kavanaugh. In fact, theyve done it multiple times. He is already a federal judge. They have done a Background Investigation previously than this subsequent one for his nomination to the Supreme Court. I think whats important to understand is that this is a suitability for employment investigation. So theyre checking on the nominees character and on his loyalty to the u. S. Government, his trustworthiness, et cetera. The fbi takes the results of that report, they interview coworkers and neighbors and references, they do standard types of criminal checks, et cetera. They take that report, they send it to the white house. The white house reviews that for the nomination process. Theres no criminal investigation here by the fbi. They dont have any jurisdiction about any of the events that occurred more than 30 years ago, but they could go back and do a followup investigation to look at these allegations if in fact the white house went to the fbi and said we want you to followup on these allegations to determine the credibility of the allegation, ali. I guess thats an important distinction to make. Theres likely not to be any criminal charge to come out of this, but theres an establishment of facts that the senate now is charged with trying to figure out, and as senator leahy said, theyre not really good at that, theyre not really equipped for that. So the mind goes to the fbi, you think theyre an investigative body. What can the fbi do if this is not their bread and butter, if they dont investigate one off crimes, do enterprise crimes and bigger things, lets say the white house said open this Background Investigation up. Would the fbi itself investigator get other Law Enforcement agencies involved . So first i would say that in terms of any type of criminal investigation, any statute of limitations would have well expired by now in any event, so theres no criminal investigation here. If the fbi were asked by the white house to go back and continue on their suitability inquiry, their Background Investigation, again, going to the candidates character, his personal beliefs, his loyalty to the United States, they would go back at the direction of the white house and followup on this allegation. They would likely start with dr. Ford to get her perspective of what happened to see if she knew if there were any other people who might corroborate her story, maybe there are photographs, maybe she has a diary entry and documentation she can provide. But it would start with the fbi sitting down with dr. Ford, collecting Additional Information about her perspective, what occurred during the incident. And follow up there if there were additional pieces of information to corroborate this. But theres no criminal investigation. It is important to understand the distinction here. Shawn, thanks for your analysis. This is the third day judge kavanaugh spent at the white house. We have been told he hasnt spoken to the president directly. Despite the ongoing controversy, he is standing behind his pick for the Vacant Supreme Court seat. Kelly odonnell, do we know other than the obvious that theyre probably working on a strategic, and the white house is steering the nomination strategy for Brett Kavanaugh, it is coming out of the white house counsel, don mcgahns office, but do we know specifically whats going on . Reporter some idea. With this nomination and others previously, the white house remains the headquarters for a Supreme Court nomination confirmation process. Thats part of why judge kavanaugh has been here at the white house multiple days this week as he was prior to this latest series of events breaking open. It has sort of been his new office between here and capitol hill. We are told by some of our sources there has been a question and answer preparation. Thats done for every time theres a witness going to appear before a committee. As it stands now, the expectation is that judge kavanaugh would appear monday, be at the Judiciary Committee, facing new questions that would deal with the allegation made by Christine Blasey ford and all of the things around that, and that that would be his moment to stand up for himself, to say his side of the story, and what we understand is that the white house says that according to their assessment of how the judge is doing, that he feels confident, that he believes he can hang in there if you will, have hope about this process. Thats the point of view from here. It is the case that the timing issue has really been driven by Senate Republicans who would like to see a nominee on the court by the first monday in october. Always the start of the new term. Democrats throughout the process tried to slow it down, thats part of the tension that happens when theres a fight over this, and what is new is what you have been talking about, the question of who should investigate and who should not. Senate Judiciary Committee has investigators and Chuck Grassley has deployed them for many different topics over the years, people with investigative skills. He is saying he would do that again. Then theres the issue discussed about potential vochinvolvement the fbi. Biggest difference between this and anita hill and Clarence Thomas, that was workplace with adults and lots of people in corroborating situations in the workplace for the investigation. This as you discussed is a very different thing. The white house will continue to likely be home base for kavanaugh as he prepares for whatever comes next, and youre right the president said publicly he decided not to talk to kavanaugh so there would not be any interference from the oval office to the process. Got it. Kelly odonnell at the white house for us, thanks. Moments ago, the Harford County maryland sheriff held a News Conference on the fatal workplace shooting we were reporting in aberdeen, maryland. We are learning more about the suspect in the case. Listen to what was said moments ago. There are seven people that have been shot in todays incident including the shooter. Three people are suffering from injuries which theyre expected to survive, three others are victims of our shooter who lost their lives here today, two at the scene, and one at the hospital. And the fourth loss of life is the victim. Im sorry, is the suspect, or shooter. The victims names we are not in position to release, we have to make notifications, thats a process ongoing. We are not prepared to release victims names. We will get them out as soon as possible. The suspect is a lone female suspect, age 26, who had last known address in baltimore county. She has died at the hospital from fatal injury, self inflicted gunshot wound. It appears again as i said this morning that she was armed with one handgun and several magazines. No shots were fired by any Law Enforcement responder. Our detectives are still working to establish a time line, but at this time what we know is that the suspect was a temporary employee employed here at the distribution center. She had reported for her workday as usual and around 9 00 a. M. , the shooting began, striking victims both outside the business and inside the facility. We do not at this time have a motive for this senseless crime, and the investigation, even though were only hours into this, it is early in an investigation this size and scope. So the sheriff is saying six people were shot, three killed. The suspect, a 26yearold woman also dead. She shot herself. And as the sheriff said they dont have a motive yet. Well continue to research and find out what went on in aberdeen, maryland. Up next, a year ago today, Hurricane Maria made landfall in puerto rico, decimating the island and families there are still without homes. Rosie perez, Ramone Rodriguez are working hard to put roofs over peoples heads and root for the Community Still under devastation. Youre watching msnbc. Devastati. Youre watching msnbc. Im ken jacobus, im the owner of good start packaging. We distribute environmentallyfriendly packaging for restaurants. And weve grown substantially. So i switched to the spark cash card from capital one. I earn unlimited 2 cash back on everything i buy. And last year, i earned 36,000 in cash back. Thats right, 36,000. Which i used to offer Health Insurance to my employees. My unlimited 2 cash back is more than just a perk, its our healthcare. Can i say it . Whats