tv All In With Chris Hayes MSNBC November 22, 2016 12:00am-1:01am PST
determine who can fill key posts in the new administration. in the case of donald trump, the first president-elect in history with zero background in public service, the meetings fall into two separate categories. there's the people's business and then there's the trump family business. and some meetings have even blurred the line between the two. for example, today, talking points memo circulated a report from argentina where trump has an office building project held up by permit requirements and other road blocks. when the president called president-elect trump to congratulate him on his election, trump asked him to deal with what was holding up the project. they deny the trump venture was discussed but the truth is, we have no way of knowing for sure whether the president-elect brought up his own private business during a phone call with a foreign leader in his role as president-elect. we do know, thanks to photos spent on twitter, trump spent
time meeting with these guys. that's not a delegation from the government of india. those are trump's indian partners currently, working on a branded complex outside mumbai. a spokesperson for the trump organization told new york times, quote, this is not a formal meeting of any kind. the discussion resolved around the indian economy and prime minister modi and donald trump jr. showed interest in expanding it further." we didn't even know this meeting had happened until it was reported in the foreign press. these two anecdotes could be the tip of the iceberg, of course. according to washington post analysis, at least 111 trump companies have done business in 18 countries and territories across south america, asia and middle east, including places like turkey, united arab emirates which have complex relations with the united states at least. some companies were launched as
recently as trump's campaign including eight that appear tied to a potential hotel project in saudi arabia. according to trump transition senior adviser, kellyanne conway, it's all on the up and up. >> he has many lawyers and accountants who tell him what he must do and what he can't do and he's a businessman. he is also working a transition. he's the president-elect. and, you know, we're in unprecedented times. >> unprecedented indeed. they are not subject to the same conflicts of interest laws like cabinet secretaries. congress feared that could tie the president's hands in unforeseen ways. presidents going back to lyndon johnson have voluntarily adhered to putting their assets in a blind trust over which they have no control. as he's already done, trump is posed to trample this one into the ground. listen to how he described his approach himself at a republican
debate earlier this year. >> i have ivanka and eric and don sitting there. run the company, kids, have a good time. i'm going to do it for america. i would be willing to do that. >> so you'll put your assets in a blind trust? >> i would put it in a blind -- well, don't know if it's a blind trust if ivanka and eric and don run it. is that a blind trust? i don't know. >> no, no. it is most definitely not a blind trust. already we're watching the trump children blur the lines between their family business and father's new role as president-elect. trump's son-in-law and three oldest children are all members of the transition team and participated in several meetings over the last week. in fact, it wasn't until the japanese government released photos of the meeting with the prime minister last thursday that ivanka trump and jared kushner we learned were present. u.s. media were not permitted to attend the meeting. all of this mixing of official and personal business less than two weeks into trump's transition led the very
conservative "wall street journal" editorial page to take the extraordinary step of calling on president-elect to limit his stake in the trump organization. of course, that decision is entirely up to trump himself. we rely almost exclusively on president norms. there's one aspect of this that falls under federal law. specifically, a document called the u.s. constitution. according to article 1, section ix, clause viii, "no person holding any office or profit or trust under them shall without the consent of congress, accept of any present from foreign of state." put simply, no gifts from foreign governments. it raised a few eyebrows when "the washington post" reported that about 100 diplomats gathered at the trump international hotel in washington to sip trump-branded champagne, dine on sliders and hear a sales pitch about the u.s. president-elect's newest hotel.
joining me is former rnc chair michael steele and mr. painter. this is an area of expertise where you actually had to oversee this. how unprecedented and unchartered is this territory? >> very much so. and presidents have avoided conflicts of interest going back a lot further than lyndon johnson. imagine where we would be now if fdr had owned office buildings in germany and had millions of dollars of deutsch bank. this is unprecedented and i think very dangerous for the united states to have the president have investments all over the world like this. going back to world war ii, yes, there were rich business people who had investments in germany and wanted us not to stand up to foreign dictator but fortunately the president was not conflicted out and knew that we needed to
do the right thing and today president-elect trump needs to conform with the standards of behavior that have been adhered to by all of his predecessors in recent history. he needs to divest himself of this global real estate empire and do his job being president of the united states and there are some serious legal problems. the monuments closed of the constitution, allegations that could arise of bribery, litigation against the trump business empire. but the main focus has to be, he needs to be president. he needs to be a good president and he needs to be free of conflict of interest. and until he sells the business empire, he is not going to be free of conflict of interest. >> michael, do you agree with richard and "the wall street journal," that he should divest himself? >> i do. i think the trump team is creating a lot of unnecessary news because of what the professor just said.
the history is there. this is not something you have to do a lot of research on and it's obvious, you know you have stakes around the world. this has been a subject of the primary debate, the general election debate. you castigated your opponent in the general election for the holdings of her husband and the relationship to that and her relationship to that, the family relationship and all of that. so i just think that this is a no-brainer of the first order here. if you're going to create a blind trust, you can't put your children in charge and you castigated your opponent in the general election for the holdings of her husband and the relationship to that and her relationship to that, the family relationship and all of that. so i just think that this is a no-brainer of the first order here. if you're going to create a blind trust, you can't put your children in charge and especially if they are going to have a role in your administration. there needs to be an unbiased, impartial third party in which you liquidate your assets. that's the result here. it's not, oh, i get the whole title to this building in someone else's name. you get to liquidate your interest here. >> michael, i want to get richard's response to that. since you brought this up, part of what's so remarkable,
obviously, is we heard president-elect trump on the campaign trail savage the clinton foundation. it was a common point of refrain and in the media, too, and lots of examination of a possibility of that foundation which, again, the trump organization on a new piece of land or what trading secret one might get in a conversation with a foreign leader that allows you to make an investment. the conflicts seem endless to me. michael? >> i thought you were talking to richard. no, i agree. that's the problem. you've just laid it out there. i mean, the conflicts are boundless. the opportunity to create a lot of distracting noise around big and important things that the administration is going to want
to deal with, whether it's the economy, immigration, jobs as they have suggested puts all of that into question. and then there's the infrastructure plan, particularly when you've got holdings that could be affected by that plan. so -- >> we built a great new highway which happens to go just right to my hotel. where you mean to or not, right? >> it's a problem and i think it's an unnecessary one for the incoming administration and i know that there are a lot of sobering heads around saying, we've got to deal with this right away. >> richard, let me ask you, one of the things that is fascinating here, we had the constitution on the monuments, but we don't have hard and fast rules. there is nothing statutorily barring the president of the united states from running a business enterprise out of the west wing. who polices this, ultimately? >> congress does. and that's why we have the impeachment clause. this is a situation that could
be very dangerous for national security. are we going to swap the national security or for a new casino in saudi arabia or somewhere else. these are issues that ought to concern our allies. and also, who is going to provide security for all of these trump installations all over the world that have his name on them. i would think they would be sitting ducks for a terrorist or someone else. and who is going to pay for that? the united states government, trump organization or a foreign government and then the foreign government does, we get into the questions of the monument clause or constitution which prohibits anybody holding an office of trust with the united states government, including the president from accepting any gifts from foreign governments and so we're going to need to look at the loans from the bank of china which is owned by the -- controlled by the government there.
any deals with sovereign wealth funds, these diplomats or staying in trump hotels and the issue of who pays for the increased security that you're going to need to have when you stick the president of the united states' name on the building. we don't have an obama tower all over the world. that doesn't work. >> you know, what i'm hearing from you is you think all of the things you've listed are at first brush colorful arguments for possible violations of the monuments clause just two weeks in. >> well, they could be. and as i say, the monuments clause is there for a reason. we cannot have officials of the united states government beholden to foreign governments and that brings me back to the example about franklin roosevelt. there are times you need to stand up to foreign dictators and defend america and we cannot have our loyalties outside the united states and it's really ironic that this whole campaign was dominated by a language, in
my view, that is xenophobic and very frightening and yet we now have a situation where the president could be beholden to foreign powers. >> yeah. "america first" was the phrase and so that sort of put your money where your mouth is kind of conversation. >> michael steele, richard painter, thank you. >> all right. concerns about rights of muslims as trump's cabinet takes shape and a review of a policy memo does nothing to calm those fears. that is after this break. are you aware of what mr. trump has said many times about the muslim registry? >> tell us what he said. >> look it up. he said it many times on the campaign trail.
tweeted that fear of muslims is rational and for a decade he had been at war with a component of islam which he compares to malignant cancer. >> it is a political ideology. it hides behind this notion of being a religion. >> then, trump's incoming chief of staff reince priebus said yesterday, the president-elect shares that view. >> is he in line with how president-elect trump views islam? >> well, i think so. i mean, look, phrasing can always be done differently but clearly there are some aspects of that faith that are problematic and we know them. we've seen it. >> some aspects of that faith that are problematic. and one of the darkest moments in the presidential campaign, a proposal that remains, as my colleague was pointing out, on his website. trump does not appear poised to pursue a muslim ban at least for now, reuters was told that trump's policy advisers have discussed drafting a proposal
>> we heard him say it's not going to be based on any one religion but that's the talking point that civil rights advocates fear will be used to reshift the attention to a country of origin where you mentioned 24 out of the 25 were muslim countries. this program was, under the bush administration, disproportionately targeting muslims and not only applying those coming from those countries but those who were already here. >> visa holders? >> visa holders and had to register in person. not only did it not bring a single terrorist conviction, it alienated allies on that list as well as muslims here in this country and are critical to part of this fight against terrorism. >> you see here the 2.0 version of the muslim ban, right? people are aghast and there's ways that you can achieve
something that looks like that, some kind of profiling through things that are not about, quote, muslims. >> that's how they actually tried to watch back the muslim ban. >> right. >> it was similar phrasing where they said, well, we're actually going to look at high-risk countries and the list that the trump campaign put out when they moved from a total shutdown on all muslims from entering the united states were a list of muslim majority countries and actually republicans in the house and senate did vote for a ban on what they called immigration from high-risk countries which were muslim majority countries. there is a potential that a republican-controlled congress might move a partial ban, even though a lot of them had condemned that proposal on the campaign trail. and the fact of the matter is, when donald trump himself will not unequivocally rule out registry or a ban based on religion, then of course it gives absolute scrutiny to what he intends to do as president. >> you know, in that kobach piece of paper we saw, the sort of idea of these advanced
vetting questions about ideological commitments, like belief in equality between men and women. let me say, i'm a huge fan of that. >> right. >> i think that's an important thing. think for a second about is that going to be applied everywhere? is that going to be true of every irish person that wants a visa or every orthodox jew coming from israel? >> just because they are coming in from a muslim country, they might happen to be muslim and practically speaking it doesn't make sense. why would someone be truthful to you if in fact they intended to inflict harm? i don't know how that works from a practical sense. >> that's right. it's an expression of something as opposed to an actual -- >> and holding people to a completely different standard and i think that, again, you're just marginalizing the muslim community and creating a sense of fear. you have them saying fear of muslims is rational and you're telling other people in this country that these are individuals to be feared when the vast majority of well over a
billion people around the world who are muslim are obviously peace-loving people. >> i mean, there is a way that we allow -- we allow -- that sort of the current political discourse allows muslims to be talked about and invoked that if you were substituted in another religion. >> right. >> evangelical is a political ideology masking in religion. people would be angry about that. >> people would be very incensed and this is something that's been brewing within the republican party for a long time with kind of the rise on the right of figures like frank gafney. this used to be newt gingrich, michele bachmann, herman cain and mitt romney was willing to stand up for muslims and reject the conversation that they were having and now you have a situation where many of the republicans in this primary did absolutely pander by making
comments about muslims, criticizing obama for going to a mosque, talking about shutting down mosques which is a proposal that trump said he would embrace and foster some of that trump voters and make sure that they can appeal to them. >> general flynn is arguably going to be in the most important position as a national security adviser, for folks not familiar, runs a process inside the white house that is probably the most important consequential process that happens inside the white house. this is a guy who, you know, is quite clear about what he thinks of islam. >> he is framing this as a clash of civilization. he's going to make it very clear what his view of muslims is in general. he's not differentiating between extremism and the vast majority of muslims and he is, as you mentioned, going to be in this position of utmost importance.
it validates this kind of campaign that donald trump ran. a lot of people were asking, is he going to pivot? is he going to follow through? based on everyone that he's appointing thus far, i think he's very much revealing that what he campaigned on is what he would like to do as president. >> sabrina siddiqui, thank you for your time. an unbelievable story just ahead.
i'm assuming that we are all here today because we're thinking the same thing. spray painting swastikas in a children's playground is a messed up things to do. >> hundreds of people showed up in brooklyn heights in solidarity after graffiti appeared on playground equipment in a park named after the beastie boy and activist. the defaced equipment was filled with hearts and flowers. nypd commissioner james o'neill said hate crimes are up 31% this year from last year, which is disturbing. most recent count puts those incidents at 701. "the splc collected reports from news articles and made efforts to verify each report but many remain anecdotal." the data reveals trends since the post-election strike, there has been a dropoff and anti-trump incidents, 27 since the election.
we cannot independently confirm the 701 cited by splc. trends are notable. and someone was yelling at a uber driver who gave it to "the washington post." here's a portion of the recording. >> [ bleep ] terrorist. >> you're a loser. you're not even from here. >> [ bleep ]. >> [ bleep ] you and your family and terrorist [ bleep ]. you're an arab. you're a [ bleep ] loser. exactly. take a video of me. wasn't that going to do? what's that going to do. trump is president so you can kiss your [ bleep ] visa good-bye, scumbag. >> trump is president so you can kiss your visa good-bye.
cooper. the latest count from the state election board has cooper ahead by more than 6,000 votes out of nearly 4.7 million votes cast. that's a lead of .14%. now, there are still provisional ballots to be counted. the cooper campaign says they have an insurmountable lead. kelly ayotte in new hampshire conceded to maggie hassan after losing by 1%. governor mccrory is claiming election fraud. as mark joseph stern points out, "republican-controlled county election boards have forcefully rejected mccrory's challenges." the real objective may to trigger a state law that gives the republican-controlled legislature the power to
validate the results of the election and hand it over to mccrory. i asked how the election would be characterized in north carolina. >> it was a hotly contested election up and down the ballot but the governor's race was a bright spot for democrats and in many ways a referendum on the direction of this state, the far right direction, the legislature has taken us with pat mccrory going right along as governor has raised great concern and strong passions in this state. and so it was that kind of an election and the sitting governor lost and it now appears that he lost by upwards of 8,000 votes. and so that was, from our standpoint, a silver lining in a night that was pretty disappointing otherwise. >> and yet despite that 8,000-vote margin, or
notwithstanding that margin, the governor hasn't conceded contesting results, stories, sort of fomenting stories of fraud, et cetera, what is your understanding of the game plan of mccrory and others in your state? >> that's what we were asking. there seems to be no warrant whatsoever for any of these complaints. it's kind of a fishing expedition and extends to over half of our counties where the governor has made these charges of one sort of election fraud or another, often with no evidence being presented. now, this is in the hands of these boards of elections, all of them republican-controlled, by the way. and the presidents -- the governor seems perfectly willing to throw these elections under the bus and has rejected the findings of all of those that have come in. all that have come in have had findings that the election was perfectly legitimate and should be certified.
>> i want to be clear -- the county's board of elections, controlled by republicans in these counties -- >> that's right. >> -- they say they are baseless and stand by the results. the governor has rejected them. this is a -- strikes me as kind of a democratic crisis in your state. i mean, the governor appears to have lost by 8,000 votes. it's been essentially vouched for by local republican elected officials. what are they going to do next? there's some talk about a provision of state law that would essentially allow our republican legislature to install him as governor. >> surely, surely not. i mean, the man is losing by 8,000 votes. and these charges in 51 counties, even if they were valid, and there's no indication that any of them are valid, but even after they were valid, you're talking about a few hundred votes. so there's no warrant whatsoever for him stringing this out, for
him trying to undermine the legitimacy of the election, for him refusing to concede. at a minimum, maybe he's trying to lay the predicate for a new round of voter suppression attempts, that north carolina is rife with voter fraud. he and the legislature put in the most extreme voter suppression law in the country. the courts have struck that down. but they seem to be, at a minimum, preparing for that. but the fact that he is refusing to concede is really casting an apaul over this whole situation. this is a threat to democracy. this is not the way things work. the person with the most votes wins. >> and yet he's refusing to how long can he play this out? >> well, we're not sure of that. the board of elections, the state board of elections had an
emergency meeting yesterday. they have another meeting tomorrow. supposedly to lay out a formula by which the county boards are to deal with these complaints. the county boards that have dealt with the complaints, three or four of them, have found no merit. but presumably, the other county boards will go through this and so it is not clear how long it will take. meanwhile, the governor should concede. it's clear that he's lost the election. >> i just want to be clear on the math here. we're talking about 8,000 votes. in new hampshire, that senate race was decided by less than a thousand votes. 8,000 votes is not something that plausibly would be made up and say a full recount of the state. this is mathematically out of reach for the governor at this point. >> that's right. that's exactly right. >> really remarkable story. congressman david price, thank you for taking the time. >> thank you so much. just to be here clear, the latest count by the state election board has roy cooper ahead by 6,000 votes and the
republican house speaker in north carolina responded to a question about the state legislator's ability to throw out the gubernatorial results saying this, and i'm quoting, the media has certainly covered the constitutional provision that gives the general assembly the authority to weigh in on that but given that the elections are not finalized at this point, i think further comment will be premature. still to come, democrats debate over how to proceed in a trump administration, what the soon-to-be top democrat is calling for. and next, thing 1 and thing 2. thing 1 tonight, a few
polling numbers out tonight. first, according to gallup, donald trump's favorability is now at 42%, which is up eight points since the election when he was elected president. but still under water with the majority of people. 55% holding an unfavorable view. his approval is also way below. the last several presidents polled as president-elect obama's favorability was at 68%.
george bush was at 59%. trump is at least 19 points more unfavorable than any of the last three president-elects. meanwhile, pew research greeted the conduct of each candidate in the election that we had. remember that? voters gave the losing candidate higher marks than the winner. 43% of voters would give hillary clinton an "a" or "b" grade while only 30% said the same for trump. neither of which seem to make much sense given that she lost and he won. which brings us to the popular vote margin, which is still growing. and that's thing 2 in 60 seconds.
voters say the losing candidate conducted herself better than the winning candidate. but here's the thing, it shouldn't be all that surprising because while donald trump won more electoral votes which is all that matters in winning the presidency, a lot more people actually cast ballots for hillary clinton. in fact, clinton's margin of victory in the popular vote is 1.7 million and it's expected to increase. there are still nearly 3 million votes left to count in california, a state which clinton won by a 2 to 1 margin. currently, clinton is winning the popular vote more than jfk and jimmy carter in '76. while trump rightfully won, when we think about diagnosing the will of the american people and where they stand politically, you should probably keep that popular vote margin in mind.
facing democrats right now on supposed areas of agreement or oppose them at every turn. a survey is out about two-thirds of hillary clinton voters say they should stand up to trump even if it means getting less done in washington. chuck schumer have the willingness to work with trump. >> surprisingly, on certain issues, candidate trump voiced very populists opinions so we're going to challenge trump to work on those issues where we can, if he does he'll be breaking his promise to particularly the blue collar workers, many of whom voted for him on those particular issues. >> schumer was quick to add the democrats would stand up against trump on issues where, quote, our values will at stake and gave a thumbs up to chuck schumer. he is far smarter than harry r. the original tweet was deleted and it was cunning.
"the wall street journal" reporting that trump has donated $96,000 to schumer and saying trump was not my friend, never even had a meal together. the broader issue of how democrats should deal with an incoming president trump and how to expand the reach of the party is a subject of much debate within the party. what bernie sanders and president obama are saying about it, next.
"one of the struggles that you're going to be seeing in the democratic party is whether we go beyond identity politics. i think it's a step forward in america if you have as an african-american head or ceo of some major companion." joining me now is joan walsh, political analyst, and i wanted to have you both here because
there is a really intense constant debate happening, democratic, progressive, black circles about these sorts of visions, and to oversimplify -- it's sort of the identity politics of stronger together, you know, on one hand versus black populism and class on the other. >> i will concede that certainly at the end of the campaign, the clinton campaign was not clear enough about an economic message. the commercials were good but harped on disqualifying him. we saw a lot of children aghast and you made the.she won the popular vote and also, if you knew about her platform, she had policies for coal country. she didn't push it out enough. i think senator sanders right now is having a little too much fun. i think he's going on a "i told you so" tour. >> i don't think he's having fun. i think he's like --
>> miserable? >> yes. >> just to be clear. >> that was too clear. >> he's not having any fun. >> the way that came up, a young latino woman asked him, how can i be the second latina in the senate? how can you help me do that? give me advice. he says, i'm going to disappoint you and blasts, well, you just can't do it running as a latina, as a woman coming to him, a fan of his, is going to run on being a latina. he stereotypes people who care about race and gender in a particular way that is why he wasn't the democratic nominee. >> but didn't he get -- in some ways, heather, it's like this idea -- it's sort of an idea of what you emphasize, as part of the conversation is happening. and it's a more involved version of, i remember back in the '90s and 2000s, it was like how far to the right do we have to go on cultural issues. >> right. >> this seems more about emphasis than it seems about --
>> no, it seems pretty either/or and also, more importantly -- >> first of all, kellyanne conway, no one is better at identity politics than donald trump, let's be clear. >> exactly. >> so i wrote an article about this during the nomination for the democratic party. how populist bernie sanders should talk about race and what i believed then and feel more committed to now, we need to have one story that we talk about with people of color and with white people about how race and class are mutually defined. the problem is, when we just talk about race to people of color and just talk about class to white people, it doesn't matter how economically populist any democratic is with a white-working class base, when they can leave that rally and turn on talk radio because of the mexicans, the women, muslims
and black people. we're acting as if this is a vacuum and there is not this cacophony and now donald trump made it a bull horn that has these deeply racist narratives so it feels like we're starting from zero, of showing who is using them to benefit and it's the 1% and the corporate elites who have used race as a way to make people of color seem undeserving at best and criminal at worst and tar the very idea of government with that. >> you can't escape it. >> it's contributed to economic inequality and racism in this way. >> there's also a way in which -- like, i was thinking about -- so there's a -- when you look at the demographic bet of the clinton coalition, and that was not successful, although going to end up with 2
million more votes, it has really been gutted at the local level and a lot of places where southern state senate districts that are 25% african-american and 75% white ruled by republicans forever unless democrats talk -- >> there needs to be party building in these states and the fact that she lost only by a point but she did lose -- she did lose michigan, wisconsin, pennsylvania, no one saw pennsylvania going so clearly something did happen in western pennsylvania. clearly he did -- you and i -- we have to go back. you and i sat here and said this is fascinating. we're going to see what happens when one side runs almost no ground game, although that's not entirely true, and the other has this ground game -- >> yes.
>> we found out -- >> actually, you can -- >> that's when you run the experiment. >> he got those white working class voters out of -- he got people who hadn't voted for two cycles. >> there was an idea of white working class. yes, he won white people without a college education, handily. but that's not the typical trump voter. it was not actually a lower income voter. >> but the thing that is so -- here's the thing to me that's -- like, the thing that's worrisome if you're in the democratic party, is watching the white working class, a huge chunk of votes. >> in the rustbelt. >> and it went by this insane margin. 40, 50 points. we're talking about basically people who are in the racial majority voting in some ways like a racial minority. ways that demographically cohesive in ways that we haven't seen before and for the democratic party -- >> that's trouble.
>> those margins are trouble. >> right. >> we agree. >> absolutely. and also, the majority of white voters have gone for republican presidenal candates. i just don't think that we can act like this is -- >> and won by one point. >> i don't feel like we can act like this is brand new and a short cut to this when honestly for 50 years, the racial priming of blaming the racialized other for your economic problems, talk about fox news to talk radio to candidates frankly in both parties who have undermined the idea that we have economic faith. >> this is a really key point. the idea that the economic -- i'm sympathetic to it in certain respects. we are on your side working person. >> right. >> that is like you're going to do some sort of hurdle move over racial politics. >> right. >> that's not the way american
politics work. good evening, my friend. see you later. it's thanksgiving week, which in theory means this should be a slow news time. slow news time. this should be a particularly slow time in terms of politics in particular. but, no, there's a lot going on, both in the home skyscraper of the president-elect and also in washington, d.c., where republicans in congress are planning their new agenda, looking to see which obama policies they want to undo first. republicans in congress announced today that they are planning on working five days a week to try to accomplish as much as possible when they get sworn in in january. that poses a real risk that some of them are going to pull a muscle. five days in a row in one week? democrats are trying to decide