Skip to main content

tv   All In With Chris Hayes  MSNBC  January 15, 2016 12:00am-1:01am PST

12:00 am
tonight on all in. >> stupid mike keeping popping. >> the next big thing is here. >> well, i heard it's a big thing. >> donald trump's new attack. >> i know nothing about it, but i hear it's a very big thing. >> tonight, new polling sends chills down republicans' spines as talk of a broker convention heats up. then the republican birther fight and the democratic congressmen threatening to sue. plus the single biggest endorsement since kennedy backed obama. tonight as democrats push to pick who should win the elizabeth warren primary. and first the president challenged the nra. >> you'd think that they'd be prepared to have a debate with the president. >> today, a response. >> i'll meet you for a one-on-one, one-hour debate. >> but should the president
12:01 am
accept? when "all in" starts right now. >> good evening from new york. i'm chris hayes. an hour from now on a stage in north charleston, south carolina, the two gop candidates duking it out for victory will come face to face for the first time in 2016. for most of the campaign, donald trump and ted cruz had been reluctant to take each other on. trump waiting until provoked although poking the bear a bit. cruz hoping to curry favor with his rival supporters, a strategy he's referred to as bear-hugging trump. but now with the iowa caucuses less than three weeks away, all that is starting to change. today's debate is hosted by fox business. it features seven candidates on the main stage with rand paul and fiorina having been bumped. all eyes will be on trump at center stage and the man standing just to his left. at a cam pan rally last night in florida, trump remarked on the new dynamic between cruz and himself. >> ted's been really nice until
12:02 am
the last couple of days. ted cruz. he's been really, really nice other than the last couple of days getting a little testy. i've been waiting. >> as iowa comes down to the wire, things have started to get a bit testy between the two front-runners. with a conservative tleek moat vitted by demographic fears, each is selling the same negative story about his opponent. he's just not one of us. that was the sub text of a somewhat bizarre comment trump made a few weeks ago about cruz's religion. >> you got to remember in all fairness, to the best of my knowledge, not too many evangelicals come out of cuba. okay? just remember that. okay? just remember. >> it seems to underlie trump's claim that because cruz was born in canada, there may be questions about his eligibility to run for president. meanwhile cruz has countered trump's birther by tying him to
12:03 am
elites. after harvard law professor lawrence tribe, who actually taught ted cruz, penned an op-ed questioning cruz's eligibility, this was the candidate's response. >> it is more than a little strange to see donald relying on his authorityive, a liberal harvard law professor, who is a huge hillary supporter. it starts to make you think, gosh, why are hillary's strongest supporters backing donald trump? >> then there was cruz's comment about new york values. >> i think he may shift in his new rallies to play on new york, new york. because donald comes from new york, and he embodies new york values. and listen, the donald seems to be a little bit rattled. >> despite his credentials, he's managed to forge a very different political identity. yesterday, cruz scored the ultimate validation of that
12:04 am
created identity, an endorsement from duck dynasty's phil robertson. >> he's godly. he loves us. he's the man for the job, and he will go duck hunting. >> the reason we're going to vote for you, all of us, is because you're one of us, my man. >> unfortunately for cruz, on the same day "the new york times" published a report telling a different kind of story about who ted cruz is. aloan he took out from goldman sacks to help finance his senate campaign which he later failed to disclose in presidential filings. cruz chalked it up to an inadvertent error, but donald trump seems pretty concerned. >> well i heard it's a big thing. i know nothing about it. but i hear it's a very big thing. he hope he solves it. i think he's a nice guy, and i hope he gets it solved. >> a new national poll from nbc news and "the wall street journal," trump and cruz are leading the pack. between them they've got more than half of all republican support. while many pundits have argued that the glut of establishment
12:05 am
candidates is splitting the anti-trump and cruz vote, that does not seem to be the case as of now. according to this poll, in a three-way race between trump, cruz, and marco rubio, trump still finishes first and rubio comes in a distant third, all of which makes it less likely that a single candidate will be able to win enough primaries to lock up the nomination. and more likely, the republican party is headed toward a contested convention this summer. joining me now from the debate hall in south carolina, let's start with this dynamic. the first time that cruz and trump, the gloves are coming off. it sort of took a little while. it was somewhat inevitable. cruz was drafting behind donald trump. he's now kind of making his move. what do you expect with the two of them standing next to each other tonight? >> well, i think that we're now, i think, 18 days out from the iowa caucuses. if there are moves to be made, they're going to have to make them. we actually saw a report earlier this week that ted cruz campaign
12:06 am
or backers had actually been testing lines against donald trump. the new york values was, i believe, one of them or something like that. apparently that one tested well because now cruz is using it. i will say, though, that the fascinating dynamic here and you got at this a little bit in that intro is that both trump and cruz are trying to cast each other as, you know, exotic or different or not one of us, right? ted cruz has been doing it -- or ted cruz has been doing it by pointing to, you know, donald trump's past liberal positions a little bit, the fact that he's from new york, which is apparently exotic to the rest of the world. but also i can tell you so donald trump, of course, has been raising this issue, the birther issue and saying, you know, is ted cruz even eligible to be president? and i can say it's amazing how trump, when he first came out about that, that was something that a lot of people kind of laughed at even in the party, even in the republican
12:07 am
presidential field. i will say just a few minutes ago, right before i came on here, i was on the floor there, and i interviewed mike huckabee briefly. i asked him what he thought of this eligibility issue, and he actually said that he has evolved on this. he has changed his mind. he said at first i thought it was ridiculous, but i've been reading some constitutional scholars now and actually i'm not sure. it seems like maybe it is a real issue. i mean what i think that shows is the ability that trump has to take literally any issue, any idea as, you know, wacko or as farfetched as it seems and kind of insert it into the middle of this race and make it something that is actually mainstream in the primary. and i think that that's what cruz is contending with. >> you know, this is going to be the first time tonight that you've got -- so you've got the three people in the middle who are polling at the top right now, which is rubio, trump, and cruz, right? now, again, a theoretical three-way race national poll
12:08 am
doesn't mean anything, per se. but that number has to be giving people heart burn. i mean you wrote a great piece today in buzzfeed about the sort of anti-trump cavalry that never came. the idea always was we're going to come after this guy, and it hasn't happened yet. >> it's actually -- i mean remember, i was one of the people who had been convinced of this idea. i thought that if trump's campaign didn't naturally organically melt down, then before things got too serious, before we got anywhere close to iowa, you know, this coalition of super pacs and opposing campaigns would come in and carpet bomb the swing states or the early primary states with attack ads and trump would be exposed and be chased out of the race. not only did that dynamic not end up playing out, nobody has spent any money to attack trump. we have a ridiculous kind of unreal situation right now where we're literally a couple weeks out from iowa, and people are spending millions of dollars to blujen each other, these candidates in the single digits,
12:09 am
while the front-runner is facing virtually no attack ads. nobody is being sent to criticize him. >> as far as i can tell, there are $0 of paid negative advertising on donald trump, who, if you look through his record, there is stuff you can cut negative ads. >> yes. >> i mean it's not hard to cut a 30-second negative ad against donald trump. there's none. there's not a single one. >> right. >> so he and cruz are going to fight. meanwhile, you know, the convention has to start -- the republican party has to start thinking about if you go far with cruz and trump, each maintaining a sizeable base of support, and some establishment candidate emerging, you know, you're looking at a very, very messy spring and summer. so we'll see how that all plays out tonight. >> yeah, i think you're right. >> thank you, mckay coppins. i'm joined now by david dieian. he's contributing writer for the new republic. you had a great piece about the meaning of that goldman sacks loan for ted cruz. you know, cruz in some ways has been so successful at so
12:10 am
minutely crafting his positions and persona to match perfectly the base's positions and persona that it's -- i think it's been hard for opponents to find ways to outflank him. this strikes me as actually possibly a problem for him politically. >> yeah, this certainly could be it. i mean there are just waves of hypocrisy here. first of all, cruz said in sort of his biographical information that he risked his net worth. he put all his chips in to become a senator and, in fact, what he did was he risked -- didn't even risk. gold man sacks' money. he got a loan to actually put that money into his race. you know, he's been banging crony capitalism. he's been banging that drum on the campaign trail and then taking money from large banks, not just goldman sacks but citi as well. there's a lot there, but i think
12:11 am
this is more of an inequality issue, an issue about the kind of candidates we get to run for office. they're usually the kind that can afford to, you know, get a million dollar loan to have the collateral to back that up rather than the ordinary person who has no means of getting that kind of support. >> and, in fact, i mean this is one of the things i found fascinating about some of the stories about marco rubio. i mean marco rubio has not been someone who has a ton of money. i mean ted cruz and his wife -- ted cruz works as a very well compensated law firm. rubio did not have money like the other people standing up there on that stage, and you've seen these stories about him trying to sort of put together -- you know, cashing out his ira and stuff like that. people don't realize how much personal money goes in as essentially seed dough for candidates when they're trying to run for office. >> right. it's all perfectly legal. you can self-fund to the tune of
12:12 am
unlimited amounts if you want to run for office. you can take out loans. you can take out a second mortgage. you can get a loan backed by a brokerage account, which is what ted cruz did. and i'm sure the fact that ef was a multi millionaire in his law practice and his wife worked for goldman sacks, they didn't blink an eye when they underwrote that. the only risk of him not paying it back was if he won because he'd actually earn less of a salary in the senate than what he was earning at the law firm. >> thank you very much. >> thanks. >> still to come, donald trump's power of not so subtle suggestion showing signs of chipping away at another candidate. plus the nra had to think about it for a week but now they're completely ready to debate president obama. later the big endorsement democrats are waiting for why it's taken so long, why it might never come. those stories and more ahead.
12:13 am
12:14 am
as the republican candidates prepare to face off with the seemingly unsinkable donald
12:15 am
trump tonight in south carolina, last night mr. trump battled a different kind of opponent at a rally in pensacola, florida. >> 505 billion. by the way, i don't like this mike. whoever the hell brought this mike system don't the son of a bitch who put it in. stupid mike keeps popping. did you hear that, george? don't pay him. don't pay him. you know, i believe in paying, but when somebody does a bad job like this stupid mike, you shouldn't pay the bastard. terrible. it's true. you got to be tough with your people because they'll pay. they don't care. they'll pay. so we're not going to pay. i guarantee you i'm not paying for this mike.
12:16 am
12:17 am
>> ted cruz has a problem because the question is is he a natural born citizen. it doesn't matter what he does. you can't have a nominee who is going to be subject to being thrown out as the nominee. you just can't do it. >> i think without question he is qualified and would make the cut, you know, to be prime minister of canada. without question, he's qualified and meets the qualifications. >> i think the democrats will challenge it at the very least, and i think it will have to be decided by the supreme court. >> donald trump's birther attacks on senator ted cruz are not just becoming fodder for other candidates. they very well may be taking a toll. an undecided caucus goer in iowa
12:18 am
talking to the weekly standard after he went to a trump rally. i'm quoting here. i was kind of on the fence before coming down and now i'm pretty much 100% for trump he said after the rally. i like ted cruz as well, but now there's questions about his citizenship. i don't want to wait and see what's going to happen with that. kicking up dust about whether cruz qualifies as a natural born citizen seems to be working. since cruz's peak in iowa around january 7th, his lead over trump has decreased. now trump has a light lead in the real clear politics polling average. that lead is statistically insignificant, the fact remains cruz has dropped. well, there is broad legal consensus that cruz would in fact be deemed a natural born citizen, it certainly could be challenged. it is also true the supreme court has never actually ruled on the issue. this law professor wrote an op-ed in "the washington post" that cruz is not eligible for president. the only question remaining is who would file such a legal challenge? this man says he would. joining me now, congressman al
12:19 am
grayson of florida. congressman, you're going to sue about ted cruz's qualifications to be president of the united states? >> sure, if he's the nominee, i will do that. >> why? >> because the constitution means what it says, and it says what it means. that's why. i don't agree with you that there's any sort of consensus about this at all. larry tribe seems to be on my side of the argument. >> let's just be clear here. naturalized at birth is something that has been implemented by statute. constitution says natural born citizen. most people interpret that the naturalized by birth essentially now in this modern era means a natural born citizen. that's a sort of important principle, right? if you're outside the country and your kid is born, you want them to be an american citizen, right? >> look, there's a legal argument which you just addressed and a factual argument. let's start with the legal argument. you seem to think that natural born citizen means somebody born to an american parent, right?
12:20 am
there is not much legal authority to support that, and the supreme court has in fact never addressed that. a better argument can be made that it means that you're simply born in the united states. what are the words actually connote? natural born citizen. maybe somebody born in the united states. certainly there's no reason to think that it for sure means anything other than that. now, with regard to the facts, there's another problem he has which is that his mother was a registered voter. he relies upon his mother for his american citizenship. his mother was a registered voter in canada. that just came out this week. if she was a registered voter in canada, it's safe to say she was a citizen of canada like his father was. and if both parents were canadian citizens, how can he claim american citizenship? >> okay. in any real sense, what standing would you have to sue? what would the suit look like? what injury have you sustained by him being the nominee to be president of the united states? >> you know, i've heard that argument. it's a fake issue. let's assume that the republican party nominated an elephant for president, and the democratic
12:21 am
partner nominated a donkey. do you really think nobody could raise an issue about that? that we basically have to choose between the elephant and the donkey? >> someone is going to have to grant you standing. we went through this. we went through it with the president obama birther stuff. the idea there was he was obfuscating about where his place of birth was, that the on fusscation that he was actually born in kenya, which is not true, but because he had been born there, he was illegitimate, right? there were all sorts of wackos suing all over the place who couldn't get into a courtroom for standing. >> that case is not this case, okay? that case was about someone who was born in the united states. this case is about someone who was born in canada. i'm not going to get into legal strategies here. i'm pretty confident that standing is not a problem. by the way, the whole standing doctrine comes from our friend justice scalia who i worked with for a year, so i know a thing or two about standing. >> so you will actually bring this suit and you think if he is
12:22 am
the nominee, that -- i mean i guess it's america, right? so at some level, what trump is saying is true, which is anything like this is going to be litigated by someone, i imagine. >> yes, that's exactly what makes america so great. anybody can sue anybody for anything. >> says the man who was once a lawyer doing some -- >> and prosecuted war profiteers in iraq with a great deal of success. >> would it be possible, i guess, legally -- so this idea, i think you're a little bit persuading me in the moment although maybe i'm just -- >> so you're evolving. >> well i just think you're a good lawyer. i'm sure as soon as this interview is over, i will come back to my senses. >> i'm a pretty good lawyer, and a damn good congressman. hopefully a good senator next year. >> i guess is it possible to resolve -- is there some legal means? you know, trump's been talking about some sort of declaratory judgment. could this be resolved -- you wouldn't want it resolved after the guy is elected.
12:23 am
let's just say that. >> well, you know, look, if the republicans are foolish enough to nominate somebody who is ineligible for the job, that's really not my problem. i'm a democrat. remember what they did in bush v. gore, how they beleaguered us over nonsense. that was a bad piece of litigation there, and it knocked out president gore. what am i supposed to give them a free pass? i don't think so. >> congressman alan grayson, appreciate your time. >> you're welcome. >> up next, chicago mayor rahm emanuel is facing new questions about the timeline he initially gave about when he knew about the dash cam footage showing the death of laquan mcdonald. that report ahead.
12:24 am
12:25 am
12:26 am
you've upgraded all your old technology... so what about this? it's time to get into the new with ford ♪ come and get it if you really want it... ♪ new is ecoboost technology. new is a foot-activated liftgate. new is tougher, stronger and lighter. new is ford. america's best-selling brand. now get into a new focus, fusion, or escape with 0% financing for 60 months plus $2,000 dollars trade-assist cash. only at your local ford dealer.
12:27 am
a damning new report out today calls into question exactly what chicago mayor rahm emanuel knew about the fatal police shooting of an african-american teenager, perhaps even more importantly, when he knew it. 17-year-old laquan mcdonald was shot and killed october 2014. at the time, police said he lunged at an officer, who then shot him in the chest. the autopsy report, however, showed that mcdonald was shot 16 times, and video of the shooting showed that he was shot as he was walking away and shot multiple times while already on the ground. the officer who shot him has now been arrested and charged with murder. the shooting happened four months before chicago's hotly contested may oral election. the video of the shooting wasn't made public until a court ordered it released late last year, but that video was crucial, according to the city's top lawyer n the city's decision
12:28 am
to settle with laquan mcdonald's family. that settlement came down eight days after mayor rahm emanuel won his runoff election. according to "the chicago tribune," mayor emanuel has maintained he didn't understand the gravity of the shooting death until just before the city reached that settlement with the family. and, b, he wasn't aware other officers may have falsified reports about the shooting until just after the video was released to the public. but now the tribune reports emanuel's top staffers became keenly aware the mcdonald shooting could become a legal and political quagmire. in december 2014, more than three months before the mayor has said he was fully briefed on the issue. and lawyers for mcdonald's family informed emanuel's law department in march that police officers' version of what happened differed dramatically from the infamous shooting video. more than eight months before the mayor said he found out about the discrepancy and well after he agreed to settle the case for $5 million.
12:29 am
tribune reporter john byrne pressed mayor emanuel on this particular point earlier today. >> mr. mayor, administration knew for months about the -- how is it that you could possibly not know that -- >> john, the answer, which is consistent with and also what i've said before, at that point, the federal bureau of investigation, the u.s. attorney, and the state's attorney are looking into it, and that's exactly where it should be so they can get to the bottom of it. >> but you're talking your advisers did know and they weren't telling but it? >> the answer is because if you're going to get to the bottom of something and get justice is exactly with the u.s. attorney, fbi, and the state's attorney. >> a short time after that press conference on the orders of a federal judge, a video was released showing another deadly
12:30 am
police shooting, this one from 2013. the shi of chicago had been trying to prevent the footage from being reld. but then yesterday the city's top lawyer suddenly changed course and dropped the city's objection. the video was recorded from a surveillance camera, and it's not exactly clear as to what's happening. you can make out what appears to be two plainclothes officers approaching a car that had been reported stolen. 17-year-old cedric chapman can be seen running away from the car, and an officer can be seen drawing his gun. in the next image, it appears that an officer is standing over chapman's body. the officer who pulled his gun told investigators he thought chapman was holding a gun, and he feared for the safety of himself and his partner. chapman turned out to be just holding a box for an iphone. lorenzo davis, a former supervisor for chicago's independent police review authority said he investigated the shooting and said, quote, he was running away, so why kill him? he also recommended the officer lose his job, but his decision was overruled. we had davis on the show last summer. he told us he was fired because
12:31 am
he would not change his findings about police shootings he considered unjustified. the city of chicago maintains chapman was shot justifiably. meanwhile, the latest polls of chicagoens show that 51% want rahm emanuel to resign.
12:32 am
12:33 am
12:34 am
>> tharz a reason why the nra is not here. they're just down the street. and since this is the main reason they exist, you'd think that they'd be prepared to have a debate. >> just so i'm clear, tonight you're saying you would welcome to meet with the nra? >> anderson, i've said this repeatedly. i'm happy to meet with them. i'm happy to talk to them. >> today a full week after refusing to attend a town hall on guns with the president, the national rifle association says they are ready to talk or rather debate one-on-one. nra had wayne la pierre versus
12:35 am
president obama. today the group released a video telling gun owners they could face arrest, prosecution, and prison as a result of the president's executive action on guns and ending with an offer. >> i'll tell you what. i'll meet you for a one-on-one, one-hour debate with a mutually agreed upon moderator on any network that will take it. no prescreened questions, and no gas bag answers. let's see if you're game for a fair debate. it's your chance to show the american people you're not afraid to meet the nra on neutral ground. >> now, it's important to keep in mind that the man in that video, that's wayne la pierre, is the same man who seven days after 20 children and six adults were murdered by guns in newton, connecticut, gave one of the most unnerving and bizarre speeches in recent american politics. highlighting the impact of video
12:36 am
games. >> here is another dirty little truth that the media try their best to conceal. there exists in this country, sadly, a callous, corrupt, and corrupting shadow industry that sells and stows violence against its own people. through vicious, violent video games with names like bullet storm, grand theft auto, mortal combat, and splatterhouse. >> now, if the president of the united states does decide to debate la pierre, i would say i would be more than happy to host it on this hour on msnbc. but should obama debate la pierre? joining me now, david corn, washington, d.c. editor of mother jones. what do you think, david? >> well, i think it's good of you to make that offer, chris,
12:37 am
because i don't know anyone else who might. >> i can't imagine anyone would want to broadcast that. >> no. it's a little farce cal. it makes me think of president assad in syria saying i'll debate the president of the united states if he's brave enough to debate me. i can't wait for all the conservatives out there to say i compared la pierre to a dictator. then again, i think i can take that. the nra and wayne had a chance at cnn to come in and be part of a communal discussion with the president, and they chose not to take it. that event itself, i know, wasn't under the network. i thought it was done rather well. there were a lot of questioners there who actually had a different view on gun safety and gun control than the president, and they did give him some very sharp questions. so nobody, and cnn certainly was not in the can or in the tank on this. and the nra decided not to participate. they often go dark after mass shootings, and then as you just
12:38 am
showed, they come up with some of the most ludicrous responses. they have done everything they can to handcuff the atf, the bureau of alcohol, tobacco and firearms, and then they complain that the federal government doesn't enforce gun laws. you know, the list goes on and on. years ago, wayne la pierre made headlines when he called federal agents, what, black -- what was it? >> jack booted thugs. that was what led to george hw bush his resignation letter to the nra. this was a moment during kind of a lot of malish shah hysteria that happened in the mid-90s. >> yeah, so i think the president, you know, is right to kind of giggle at this phony invitation. the nra can act like any other, you know, interest group in this country and participate in the appropriate forums, and to demand that they will only do so if the president debates wayne la pierre, you know, is a little
12:39 am
ridiculous. >> so you've just given the argument, which i think is generally a persuasive one, about why the president of the united states would not potentially stoop to the level of the nra to, you know, respond to this somewhat preposterous video. let me say as someone who is looking into a camera right now, you know, there's nothing less tough than looking into a camera and reading something, particularly when it's not live. so this idea that, like, you are showing how tough you are by reading into a camera, like, give me a break. that said, i actually think that would be amazing frankly, wayne la pierre versus president obama. i think the gun debate has become so in need of some kind of disruption, that i think they should do it. >> that's an interesting point. i would say maybe when the president doesn't have his day job. >> right. >> you know, he can come up with an hour for wayne la pierre. but for now, i mean i do think that wayne la pierre is not an honest or reasonable actor in
12:40 am
the debate. and if he wants to join a panel discussion that the white house is participating in, if he wants to accept one of the white house invitations to join those sort of discussions there, he's been free to do that. but this is a guy who has behaved pretty rep rehenceably on a lot of fronts. so for that reason alone, i don't think the president should have a stage mano a mano with him. >> here's what is so striking to me. what the president is really trying to do, i think, in good faith and whether he's effective or not, is trying to persuade people on these issues. wayne la pierre is not in the persuasion business. i remember watching that press conference, that speech after sandy hook and thinking, oh, this is clearly the end of this guy's political career and possibly the end of the nra. this is so bizarre and so offensive in its tone and sort of disrespectful. it wasn't aimed at anyone but basically the hard core of their member. >> well, they've become very
12:41 am
good at fear monday gering aimed at that hard core, whether it's 10% or 20% of people who support their general policies. remember, the line for the last seven years has been -- and you've reported on this a lot, chris -- that from the nra is that the president is coming to take your guns. >> right. >> it's not true. you know, he may want gun safety measures. he may want some limitation on gun ownership, but he's not coming to take your guns. and by, you know, sticking to that point, i think wayne la pierre and the nra has proven that they are not good-faith actors in any sort of policy debate here. i mean if obama decided, you know, to take your advice rather than mine on this, i would not be upset about that. >> yes, it would be amazing, and david corn, you would watch. >> and i would certainly watch, particularly if you were hosting. >> david corn, thank you for joining me. >> my pleasure. >> coming up, could just one endorsement outweigh the power
12:42 am
of hundreds. when a moment turns romantic why pause to take a pill? or stop to find a bathroom? cialis for daily use is approved to treat both erectile dysfunction and the urinary symptoms of bph, like needing to go frequently, day or night. tell your doctor about all your medical conditions and medicines, and ask if your heart is healthy enough for sex. do not take cialis if you take nitrates for chest pain, as it may cause an unsafe drop in blood pressure. do not drink alcohol in excess. side effects may include headache, upset stomach, delayed backache or muscle ache. to avoid long-term injury, get medical help right away for an erection lasting more than four hours. if you have any sudden decrease or loss in hearing or vision, or any symptoms of an allergic reaction, stop taking cialis and get medical help right away. ask your doctor about cialis and a $200 savings card.
12:43 am
>> so i have had two different republican consultants e-mail in the last week who basically say the carson campaign is adrift. this is a consultant grift in which money is being raised much ben carson is a beloved figure, charismatic. raises money. the money then goes back out the door to people hired to do the fundraising and mailers. when you look at the numbers, 14 million spent, 11 million on fundraising, there's no other campaign in the field that has numbers like that. >> dr. carson didn't have a political fundraising list. he started this campaign with zero donors on the list. number two, when you go to it, it's the people and the pundit status that have the list that want to talk to us. number three, the people are interested in raising money, and they are interested in giving to dr. carson. so as we oh go through this fro ses, we're continuing to do what we need to do. >> now, there's been some talk
12:44 am
for some time now that ben carson's campaign is essentially, as i said, a grift. a list-building, money raising enterprise. evidence supporting that theory just keeps pouring in. politico reported today on carson's financier dean parker. as carson campaign insiders tell it, parker's operation has piled up unnecessary expenses and paid hefty consulting fees to an inexperienced staff. to top it all of 0, parker recently began earning $20,000 a month salary for a position that is typically an honorary one, that is a volunteer job. as chris christie's finance chair put it, if they think i'm getting a scrape on the money as a finance chairman, you lose all your credibility. just hours after that political cal report was published, parker resigned from his post. he defended earnings earlier noting he was on the job 24/7. >> what national finance chairman travels 26 to 28 days a
12:45 am
month, is not home with his wife and four kids and gives his whole heart to everything to raise money for a candidate that has no history? most finance chairmen pick up the phone and do it from their office. >> as "the wall street journal" reports, carson's campaign spent more money than it raised in the month of october when carson was peaking in the polls. almost all the money was being poured back into efforts to raise more cash from small donors. a carson spokesman now tells the journal the campaign is carefully determining who will fill the finance chairman role on a volunteer basis going forward.
12:46 am
12:47 am
>> violates a crucial sanders promise. >> there are two democratic visions for regulating wall street. one says it's okay to take millions from big banks and then tell them what to do. my plan, break up the big banks, close the tax loopholes, and make them pay their fair share. >> the ad doesn't mention clinton by name on a conference
12:48 am
call today, the clinton camp claimed the spot violates sanders' pledge not to run negative ads. in an interview that will air right after the show, clinton said the ad was not just an attack on her. >> i mean basically it's also a very direct criticism of president obama, who, as you might recall, took a lot of money from the financial industry when he ran in 2008. that didn't stop him from fighting for the hardest regulations on wall street since the great depression, signing dodd-frank, getting everything he could get out of the congress at that time. >> polls show clinton and sanders in a tight race in iowa and new hampshire. but when it comes to endorsements, clinton is dominating. hillary clinton has a whopping 457 endorsements according to the website 538, compared to just two for sanders and one for martin o'malley. there is still one democrat yet to weigh in whose endorsement could have a bigger impact than
12:49 am
all those folks put together, a person with the power to fundamentally change the race. i'm not talking about president obama who is unlikely to back a candidate while there is still a primary. i'm talking about elizabeth warren, who happens to be the only female democratic senator who has not thrown her support behind clinton. warren is in a difficult spot. she would seem to be more aligned on sanders on ine quality, the shrinking middle class. warren is reportedly concerned sanders is less likely to win the general election. her prime directive is not to damage the party's chances in november. if there's growing pressure on warren to choose a side, including from her fellow democratic senators. at least one of whom has reportedly pushed warren to back clinton. if sanders manages to win both iowa and new hampshire, that pressure will increase dramatically. coming up, i'll speak with the editor of the nation magazine, which made its endorsement today about the warren primary and her
12:50 am
potential to change the game. that's next. guys, to celebrate super bowl 50 i'm rewarding fans with a special offer. order a large pizza and get a second large pizza for 50 cents. 50 cents?! that's pocket change! if only we had pockets... what? purely decorative. get a large,1-topping pizza for only 50 cents
12:51 am
when you order any large pizza at regular menu price. add our new brookie for just $6 more. better ingredients. better pizza. better football. papa john'
12:52 am
12:53 am
but zzzquil is different have pain medicine because why would you take a pain medicine when all you want is good sleep? zzzquil: a non-habit forming sleep-aid that's not for pain, just for sleep. joining me now to discuss the potential impact of an elizabeth warren endorsement in the presidential democratic race, katrina van den hool, rebecca traceter, writer at large for new york magazine. rebecca, as someone who's written an entire book about hillary clinton in the 2008 election, a warren endorsement would be massively game changing and wrenching, particularly if
12:54 am
it went against hillary clinton, but in either direction, right? >> no. i'm serious when i say i personally would be totally heartbroken if she endorsed either one of them. i think that it's -- i mean i think it's not in her best interest. i don't actually think it's in the best interest of the voters to have elizabeth warren come in and weigh in. i know it's all the game of who endorses who and everything, so it doesn't matter that i don't think it's in the best interest of the voters. but to me, there are real arguments for her supporting either or both of them. fundamentally, they're two really strong candidates, which we tend to forget, especially in this ugly season. and even hillary, who warren has had a tough relationship with in the past, is now moving closer, not close enough for many people's taste, to warren's -- >> substantively, right. >> i don't think it's in anyone best's interest for warren to give an endorsement. >> here you have someone who is telling the truth to the american people about a rigged system that benefits the few, not the many. if there is a watch word for elizabeth warren, it's been we're living under a rigged
12:55 am
system. but i agree with rebecca. i think elizabeth warren is the defender of the warren wing of the party. you do have bernie sanders as the representative of the warren wing of the party. and her power is to lift up issues that bernie sanders has taken onto the campaign trail. i think elizabeth sanders -- >> elizabeth warren. >> thank you. >> that is a funny freudian slip. >> elizabeth warren wants to ensure there's a democratic senate, which would be critical for any democratic president, and she knows it will be a more progressive senate. >> this gets to the question, right? so put yourself in the position of someone who has her politics. okay? the warren wing of the party, right? describing the system as an ol garky is great, and i think accurate, right? but what are you going to do about it? to me, that is the part of the sanders' vision which is a little bit of an ellipses.
12:56 am
>> he's very clear. he's not going to enact medicare for all tomorrow, and he's not going to enact -- by the way, a piece of legislation that elizabeth warren has responsored, which is to restore -- >> he is going to day one most likely walk into -- >> a morass. >> exactly. >> he needs an ally in elizabeth warren. >> they're both going to walk into a morass. so there's an issue of pragmatism, which comes down to a lot of conversation about practic practicality and electionability. >> i don't think practicality works in our system anymore. i'm not sure i love political revolution. it's a term bernie sanders has used, but it essentially means you have to mobilize people. you keep people at your back. you engage with the movements of our time, which he's doing. >> it's easier said than done. >> it's also the ability, forgive me, to bring in different kinds of people, to
12:57 am
appoint different kinds of people, to fill agencies with different kinds of people. and if you have a democratic senate, you know, but bernie sanders would have a different kind of team both in domestic and foreign policy. >> that i totally agree with. that i totally agree with, right? but i mean, rebecca, here's one of the things i think, and when you saw this quote about her prime directive is not to hurt the party, right? what's so remarkable about the state of this race is i think the most brutal way to attack bernie sanders is an attack they can't use, which is do you really think america is going to elect a 74-year-old democratic socialist to be president of the united states? what planet are you living on, right? they can't say that, right? >> no, they certainly can't. >> and they shouldn't. >> right. they shouldn't, but that is also the bar that sanders has to get over. >> but look at who we are. who would have imagined a year ago that bernie sanders is competing with hillary clinton. admittedly, iowa and new hampshire, there's a long stretch ahead. but a younger generation which lived through the financial crisis is open to the idea of
12:58 am
democratic socialism. millions of people are looking beyond the labels and meeting bernie sanders. more important, his issues have been margin alized by a corporate media. that i think is a moment to open a space for progressive movements and possible continuation of all of this campaign even if he doesn't make it. >> right, i agree with that and i agree he's done all of that. i admire him tremendously, and i think he is mobilizing people, but i don't think that the only way that that story ends well is with him getting the nomination and the presidency. do you know what i mean? in fact, i think there's a way in which that mobilization of people, if it actually met the presidency and was stopped completely short, would be actually really detrimental to the larger cause. >> well, the other thing is here's a question that you can't ask people. let's say in all likelihood -- you never know what's going to happen in an election. but senate and house in republican hands, okay and a democratic president. so the question is who do you want to be grinding out in this
12:59 am
toxic dysfunctional swamp for the next four years of just endless venomous, marginal, brutal little fights around? >> chris, you forget you're not you're 2008 endorsement of obama for the nation. >> no, i don't. barack obama -- wait a second. barack obama had the largest majority since lbj, who had the largest majority since fdr. you tell me bernie sanders as a filibuster proof majority in the senate and the house in his hands? >> it becomes even more important to move outside of that venomous beltway toxic atmosphere and rally the country because he's not going to get legislative accomplishments, but there are other ways of making change in this country that hillary clinton, who is more transactional, i think she's moved to meet the populist moment, i agree with rebecca, and i think she's made some good moves, but i think she is still fundamentally a transactional politician. >> you think bernie sanders is going to be elected president of
1:00 am
the united states. >> i do. >> i hope so. >> thank you. i hope so. >> rebecca is also honest. >> never say never. >> katrina and rebecca, thank you both. >> that is all for this evening. the rachel maddow's show and rachel's exclusive interview with hillary clinton starts right now. >> thanks for being with us tonight. usually this is the time in the show where i'm about to start talking for an uninterrupted 17 minutes that involves a lot of really archean, historical illusions. we're joined by a special guest who was hard to get. she was here in the building to do a show with jimmy fallon and we asked if she could stay and she could. >> i thought i would come during historical illusion time. >> we've heard enough about 195, maddow. >> let's go fur


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on