tv The Rachel Maddow Show MSNBC December 28, 2016 1:00am-2:01am PST
the rachel maddow show starts maybe you're lucky enough to coming off a long weekend. maybe you hosted some family, maybe you fwent on a trip, maybe you engaged in cherished holiday tradition just like president-elect donald trump does. for 20 years he spent the holiday at his golf club in florida, although it's a little different for the residents of palm beach. >> along with trump's visits will come the road closures and tightened security each time the president-elect lands. there will be some delays in the sky and on the ground around his mar-a-lago estate. the coast guard is restricting boat traffic on the intracoastal waterway and on the ocean. traffic will also be restricted if he decides to leave the property during the five or so days that trump was here for thanksgiving, pbso racked up a
bill of about a quarter of a million dollars. the sheriff tells us that he is looking to recuperate that money from the feds, but one thing is for sure. it is likely that this price tag for this vacation will be much larger since he'll be here through at least the 1st of the year. >> presidents and president-elect's doing have a way of inconveniencing people wherever they go, which is not to say the people of palm beach aren't thrilled to have the president-elect of the united states calling their town his home. but this isn't the first time he inconvenienced the residents of palm beach. first time quas years ago and had to do with a really, really big flag pole.
>> the town says trump also never got a permit, never filed for landmark approval and is breaking setback rules. code enforcement claims trump had three months to file for a permanent but chose not to. so thursday they had no choice but to start fining him. trump has filed a $25 million lawsuit against the town claiming it's singling out mar-a-lago while ignoring other big flags. the town says if there are other violators, they'll look into it. >> we'll tell you that he was owing palm beach $125,000 in fines thene anthe city ttled the suit. palm beach agreed to waive the fines and trump agreed the his
club would make a donation to a veterans charity. that would be a nice thing. you might think it's the end of the story. but then less than two months before election day this year, "the washington post's" david farenthold discovered trump never donated that money to those charities at all. instead something called the trump foundation made those donations and the trump foundation gives new meaning to opp, other people's property, because it's funded almost entirely with other people's money. right around the time that trump was embroiled in this lawsuit against palm beach over the height of that flag pole, he was transforming the trump foundation, quote, into something rarely seen in the world of philanthropy, a name-branded foundation whose namesake provides none of its money. so donald trump solicits donations from wealthy people for the foundation, then doles that money out under his own name, which would be a weird and pretty misleading way to run a
foundation even if all that money was genuinely going to charity, but if that money is being used to settle donald trump's own personal business legal problems, that itself is illegal. that can be called self-dealing, and trump used his foundation to do things like that again and again. it was the time a man who won a charity at a golf course sued trump for refusing to pay out a promised million dollar prize. they also settled. trump agreeing to donate $158,000 to a dhart of the man's choice. that donation, which was a legal settlement trump was required to pay also ended up coming out of the trump foundation coffers. other people's money. charitable foundations are also legally barred from making political contributions but trump used his to give 25,000 to the re-election campaign of the attorney general who was investigating him for fraud allegations against trump university. the foundation did, we want to
note, pay the irs a penalty for violating tax law on the issue. then there are the paint also. you may remember these from the campaign. two paintings of donald trump himself, one going six feet tall that donald trump bought using, yes, money from the charitable foundation. on t of all the obvious crassness of using other people's money donated to charity to buy pictures of yourself, at least one has been found decorating a wall at one of trump's commercial properties which tax experts say, duh, you are definitely not allowed to do with a charitable purchase. you don't have to take my word. you don't have to take "the washington post's" word for it or all the tax experts that have been consulted, all you have to do is take the word of the charity itself, the donald trump foundation. just take their word. we'll show you on the screen in the box here. they basically copped to it in the new tax filings. the irs tells you just check here if you engaged in self-dealing.
yep. the foundation checked yes. now there's news about this foundation thadonald trump apparently hoped you would miss because he used what we kind of think ofs the mother of all news dump days to drop it. christmas eve. that's the evening that trump chose to make the unusual announcement that he says he will dissolve the foundation to avoid any appearance of conflict, although he's happy that the foundation has run for essentially no cost for decades with 100% of the money going to charity and we can tell you tonight that percent figure is false. it's not true as many who have covered the foundation have shown. they paid that fine for a political donation and admitted to self-dealing. all of that would have been enough to provide a poetically messy end to the messy and
misleading saga of t trump foundation, but there's a little bit more. the foundation is still in so much hot water that it can't legally shut down anyway, that's according to the top cop in new york where trump's foundation and businesses are headquarters. it is currently still under investigation by the new york attorney general and almost immediately after the president-elect announced his sort of unilateral plan to close it, the ag's office said actually he's not allowed to do that under the law until their investigation is complete. so donald trump cannot complete even this tiny gesture towards resolving his conflicts of interest. let's be clear, this is a very tiny gesture. no doubt the trump foundation is concerned about good governance, good philanthropy but it doesn't get near the president-elect's financial entanglements. it is his for-profit businesses that are the biggest problem there. that's the point rachel was trying to drive home when she interviewed kellyanne conway. as long as trump remains the owner of his businesses and companies, people have an easy way to put money into the pocket of the president of the united states.
>> so government of azerbaijan, they rent out trump hotel suites at the trump hotel in washington. the president-elect makes money from that. when his building project gets green lighted by the government in buenos aires. >> well, the corporation. >> he's the president of the corporation. that's money for him. anybody who wants to, any foreign country, anyone, they now have the option basically to pay money to the american president by doing favors for this business that he owns. it's still corruption. >> it's not corruption. that is not corruption. it's a hotel room. >> but if you want to give money to the president, the american president, we have never had a way to do that before. no foreign government has had a way to do that before. the american people, special interests haven't had a way to funnel money to the american president right now. >> no one is funneling money to him.
>> but you can through his businesses as long as he still has an ownership stake in it. >> he said he won't be involved in his businesses when he takes yourself a. >> but he'll still benefit from their financial bottom line. >> donald trump may have had his n self-interested reasons for dissving his charity, which is a charitable term for an organization that hasn't given out any money in the haas years. these things do get resolved, they get ended. ending the foundation will draw a line in the sand. and donald trump's ownership and benefits from his companies would also draw a line. it would protect him and, more importantly, the united states from undue influence. is he considering draws that line? >> is he going to give up ownership? his business? >> he said he will do whatever is necessary to comply with the law and the -- >> he's never said he's going to give up ownership. are you making news here?
>> no, i didn't say that. i said he'll do whatever is necessary. >> but as long as he owns it, any benefit to his business goes to him. >>downing us now is an investigator reporter for "the new york times" who has been covering trump's issues with the foundation. good evening to you. a lot there. what does shuttering the foundation if that's aloud under new york law, what does that achieve? >> you have a soon to be sitting president with the foundation and the considerations that go into who can donate to that? how do you resolve those issues? you dissolve it. then you are the issues of the baggage, all the concerns about where the money went so by dissolving it you can put an end to that. that's the mission, i guess. >> would anyone have ever known much about the weird way the foundation ran, which ishe most charitable way to put it, the intings, the use of other people's money, had he not gotten as far as he did in the presidential race?
>> it certainly became a key issue. we had the clinton foundation on one side we were examining and the trump foundation on the other side. two very different things but the kind of thing that did certainly run a lot of headlines and intrigue. and part of the vetting that went on deep into the presidential campaign. >> and what did that find? it's fair to say this foundation didn't do normal charitable works. it had a lot of things that seem to overlap with his self-interests, which would have been fine for a business to do or a pac, a lot of rich people set up pacs where they say we have a political agenda. then you can donate to all the attorneys general you want. >> sure, there are all sorts of questions that came up. the new york attorney general was looking at it. it was sort of a fraught situation that, you know, exposed all sorts of questions and concerns about the way that this thing operated and how donald trump allowed it to operate. >> do you think that there is
any corollary with what's going on with the foundation because there's a public storyline that we heard from trump and his advisers, he told "the new york times," legally i can run my business and the country if i so choose. then there's a suggestion and your paper's reporting suggests this as well as others that off the record they're actually worried this could consume a good bulk of his first terif theyon't figure out some lines. >> conflicts are certainly a huge part of the discussion right now as we look forward to this presidency in days. it's a big part of what we'r discussing. but one of the things that we have seen, "the new york times" reported was the idea of an overseer type person, experts say that's probably not enough. >> does an overseer mean anything if they're still reporting it to the family? >> the experts are skeptical. but we'll see this playing out in the bright lights. >> investigative reporter for "the new york times," thank you. still ahead the
as we all know the president-elect is a pretty prolific tweeter, but today he has chosen to tweet just one thing. quote, president obama campaigned hard and personally in the very important swing states and lost. the voters wanted to make america great again. now, with all respect to all involved, the race is long over and president obama wasn't even in it. but to also be fair, trump isn't the only one here redebating this election. as the old saying goes, one man tweet is another man's podcast. and one man stirring this up in a new pod cast interview, that story is ahead.
during t cold war, the united states military stockpiled hundreds and hundreds of nuclear missiles in the open fields of places like north dakota, nebraska, montana and wyoming because most efficient way to fling a nuclear missile is not to fling it east over the atlantic and europe or other the pacific but rather north. the u.s. government built hundreds of hardened missile silos in those open fields in places like north dakota these were huge to house nuclear missiles and then launch them at even a moment's notice. the missiles were kept in what's called hair trigger alert so that if the soviet union suddenly launched hundreds of thousands of their nuclear missiles at ours, ours could launch before they were destroyed.
that's why it was always called mutually assured destruction. the cold war is over now, thankfully, but the u.s. still does have hundreds of nuclear missiles on that hair trigger alert. they're staffed and maintained 24 hours a day by highly trained military personnel. at the same time as all this for the next 24 days the u.s. has a president working to reduce the need for those missiles. nuclear weapons have only been used, of course, twice in warfare, two u.s. strikes against nagasaki and hiroshima japan killing japanese citizens. thankfully no one has used them in combat. and in may president obama made a visit to hiroshima where he talked about the importance of pursuing a world without these nuclear stockpiles. today th gesture was returned by prime minister abe who left a wreath at memorial for service members killed in those attacks
on pearl harbor in 1941. >> wars can end. the most bitter of adversaries can become the strongest of allies. the fruits of peace always outweigh the plunder of war. this is the enduring truth of this hallowed harbor. it is here that we remember that even when hatred burns hottest, even when the tug of tribalism is at its most primal, we must resist the urge to turn inward. we must resist the urge to demonize those who are different. >> now, on the one hand, the u.s. has a president you see there working on the delicate multi-year effort to reduce nuclear nonproliferation through soft powered diplomacy and hard powered treaties. on the other hand we have a
president-elect mocking the u.n. as a quote club and tapping out policy on twitter. the u.s. must greatly strengthen and expand its nuclear capability until such time as the world comes to its senses about nukes, which is a scary enough thing for the president-elect to say weeks before he takes office. even scarier as it becomes clear that the higher echelons of the trump administration cannot really explain why he wrote that. >> the american position on nuclear weapons worldwide for a very long time now, not just as a partisan matter but over multiple presidents is that we are trying to lead the way in reducing the number of nuclear weapons in the world. he's saying we're going to expand our nuclear capability. >> he's not necessarily saying that. >> he did. >> and what he's saying is we need to expand our nuclear readiness or our nuclear capability to be ready for those that have nuclear weapons. >> a lot of people are hiding
under the bed now because it doesn't seem like he knows what he's talking about. >> that's not fair. >> how can you make policy on twitter? >> he's not making policy on twitter. >> he's not making policy on twitter. kellyanne conway does have a point there that trump's words about new policy weren't really about new policy. and maybe it's just part of her job to buy trump time after he tests out his thoughts or slogans or whatever on twitter. but trump himself doubled down on the very next day on this issue saying he meant what he said and this is adding to mika brzezinski, quote, let it be an arms race, we'll outmatch them at every pass and outlast them all. an arms race. it's not clear if donald trump realizes that an arms race is exactly what the u.s. avoids in the nuclear arena, a basic premise shared by everyone from reagan to obama because r one thing the u.s. is already one of e top two leaders in that race people into catching us with us,
pretty basic, and for another, the biggest threat from nuclear weapons isn't the difference between having a hundred and 101, it's the different between having zero and one. that's why obama's worked so hard to prevent nuclear powers from surfacing like iran. trump seems to be implying a very different approach whether he realizes it or not. now, joining me now is president of the ploughshares that argues for disarmament. for those of you who don't follow nuclear proliferation all the time, generally how different is what donald trump saying here different from what presidents have done in the cold war post world war ii era? >> night and day. in 24 days donald trump will take control of the american nuclear arsenal.
this is by far the most destructive, the most capable death machine on the planet. he will be able to launch at his order one or 1,000 nuclear war heads almost as easily as he now tweets. no one can reprimand him. no one can pull those missiles back once launched, there is no self-destruct mechanism. it's extremely important that the president understand what's at stake here. every word that he says and now every tweet that he makes matters. so when he had those words last week, it's not clear that he understood what he meant. his handlers certainly didn't understand what he meant. nor did our adversaries nor did our alli. this is why still a week later we're still talking about this, why it's still sending tremors throughout the global national security architecture. >> what do our adversaries think then, in your view of this?
>> they're afraid that he's about to overturn four decades of bipartisan cooperation, republicans and democrats, as you said, who have been steadily reducing the number of nuclear weapons in the world. we're down from about 60,000, 65,000 nuclear weapons during the height of the cold war down to to about 15,000 weapons now. the u.s. and russia have 95% of them. so we're the big guys. what we do matters. if putin and trump are now both talking about strengthening and expanding, as trump said, their arsenals, that's a signal to the other guys to start their engines. what's china going to do? what's india going to do? what's pakistan going to do? that's what's so worrying about what donald trump is saying. if he's talking about a new arms race, it's all the eight, nine if you include north korea nuclear nations in the world. >> you're putting your finger on this specifically, which is the difference between tone, whether it sounds put tatively tough to
say let's race and let's build or strategy and capacity, who is actually in this race, does he know the number of countries? is he talking to them or is he talking to nonnuclear countries and saying, come on in, the water's warm? yeah, there's two things here. one as you pointed out in that excellence, we still have weapons under a cold war posture. we still have weapons on hair trigger alert. president obama said when he came into office he was going to end that practice. he did not. what that means is that donald trump can launch a weapon within four minutes of an order to do so. why? why would you give any person that authority? so president obama still has 24 days to correct that mistake. he could stand down u.s. nuclear weapons. >> you're circulating as a public petition on that. it says take off trigger alert so it would take days instead of minutes.
why would president obama do that if it's something he's open to? >> we have a petition at change.org to do just that. the trouble is the military has been resistant to this. the nuclear bureaucracy and the pentagon has been resistant to this. obama has tenned to be a consensus president so he went along with it. this is a moment where consensus in the country, outside the beltway, would be mr. president, stand down these weapons. it doesn't stop donald trump from firing them. it just stops him from firing them quickly. it would take hours or days, give you time for deliberaon, give you time for consultation. right now he doesn't have to talk to anybody. he could just give the order and the missiles fly.
>> right. that's one of the moments you just said that if a couple months ago someone heard on television, oh, donald trump can launch thousands of nuclear weapons or hundreds within four minutes, they'd think they were in a movie. had is real life. thanks for sharing some of your expertise with us. >> thank you, ari. despite everything i said, happy new year. >> yes, let's all have a happy new year. preciateour time very much. what do i want to tell you about next? well, president obama says he would have won had he been able to run against donald trump. this is a topic, as i mentioned, that he's priing up, which itself is kind of politically interesting other than the fact he wasn't able to run against mr. trump. advice for democrats on how to win again when he's not on the ballot.
a time pore patience is long gone. we're calling on the leadership of the house to bring common sense gun control legislation to the house floor. give us a vote. let us vote. we came here to do our job. we came here to work. >> congressman john lewis there on the house floor. that was back in june. shortly after that speech congressman lewis and other house democrats sat down on the floor of the house chamber. you may remember this. they said they wouldn't leave until they got that vote on gun legislation. then just as people were getting wind of what was happeni, st as people started tuning in to c--span to s something different, the cameras cut out. recess. republicans said that the house was in recess.
more importantly that met the chamber would have its cameras go dark and so they wouldn't broadcast a thing. but luckily for those opposition protesters who were all democrats in this instance, their message still got out from the house floor. for more than 25 hours they continued their protest and it was actually seen because they themselves livestreamed it on these new apps that allow these kind of broadcasts straight from anyone's smartphone. namely apps like facebook and periscope. then c-span did something interesting, they started airing the video feeds because the actual cameras had been shut off. pictures of the sit-in started to flood social media, colleagues like senator elizabeth warren went over to join in solidarity. those went virals. house republicans tried to shut it down but the demonstration took on a life of its own. there were spontaneous protests outside in support of what was going on on the house floor that those people outside only knew about from those floor videos.
now, in the end, that particular instance was considered pretty effective at getting attention. they didn't ultimately get that instant vote they were asking for on the gun bill. but as they marched out of the capitol more than 25 hours after the protests began, those democrats were greeted by something members of congress do not seed all that often outside the place where they do business. a crowd of spontaneously cheering supporters of people psyched and inspired by something that happened on the floor of congress. the reason all this is interesting right now is because today there's an update on this whole story. today we learn that the house republicans are proposing rules that would further punish members of congress who shoot video or take any photos on the floor of the chamber. the new policy would even fine members up to $2,500 for the offense money that would be taken out of the member's salary directly. the proposal is seen as a direct response to the protests from june and the prospects of those
protests reairing. but if history is any sort of guide republicans would realize they're trying to shut down a protest in the internet age usually only garners it more attention. as for democrats, maybe there's a lesson to be learned, too, about fighting back now that they are in a clear minority if the people against you are trying to literally ban your strategy, it might be a sign your strategy is pretty effective. and we have more tonight on the democrats' plans for fighting back in the trump era straight ahead. xe
every new incoming president gets to choose who will make up their cabinet, who will head up the 15 executive departments like treasury and defense. white house chief of staff and u.n. chief ambassador. new people usually fill all those slots. that tradition is different when it comes to filling the judicial branch where the president only fills vacancies left over by the previous administration. through most u.s. history those were caused by a pretty usual process, unexpected deaths, the hearing process.
even when george bush left office seats were left to president obama to fill. but thanks to senate republicans trump will enter office with over 100 judicial vacancies to fill. that's double bush's amount. plus the biggest vacancy of them all, the supreme court seat left open by the death of antonin scalia. if this were a history lesson, it's not a history of the executive or judicial branch. although it involves them. the president has submitted his nominations for the supreme court and other judicial vacancies. what has changed here is obviously the republican senate under mitch mcconnell. mitch mcconnell has frozen judicial nominees and famously refused for the first time in history to even hold a hearing to consider or look like the senate was considering barack obama's nominee for the supreme court merrick garland. now, republicans are writing to
reap the rewards of that unusual or unprecedented strategy. depending on how you see it, this was either an unprincipled, unprecedented power grab of the worst kind or maybe just the shrewd politics that has come to define the last few years, a necessary tactical move. in that new interview with david axelrod, president obama said that as a matter of politics, mcconnell's tactics worked. >> mitch mcconnell's insight, which i've said just from a pure tactical perspective was pretty smart and well executed, the level of discipline he was able to impose on his caucus was impressive. his insight that we just have to say no to that. >> we just have to say no. and that was smart and well executed is one way to put it. presidt obama might be looking for ways to avoid any notes of sour grapes as he turns the over his desk to donald trump. but other democrats and liberals see this obstruction very
differently and they're right now arguing that republicans should actually be forced to pay a price for it, otherwise, liberals warn, that rewarding the tactic will only further normalize it. an unusually scathing christmas day editorial, for example, "the new york times" said basically the republicans supreme court maneuver was a robbery, the crime that can only be put right by the nomen ais of a centris to the bench. pat leahy called the blockade, quote, the most outrageous act of obstruction and irresponsibility he's seen in, count them up, his 42 years in the senate. others want a leveling up here that trump's picks be given the full garland treatment. senator dianne feinstein, quote, what goes around comes around. but does it? they're looking to stack the courts with heritage foundation
approved picks not the candidates they demanded on president obama. democrats in washington and whoever takes over the dnc extract a price for that obstruction or simply turn the other cheek to invite another beating? joining us now is jamie harrison, chair of the south carolina democratic pay and more importantlyhe reason he's with us tonight he's currently running to be thchair of the dnc. thanks for joining tonight. what is your view of how to handle that new question that i just discussed? >> well, first of all, happy holidays, ari. it's good seeing you again. i believe in this philosophy. you go the a lot of five and ten stores that are still left in south carolina and you usually see signs that say, touch it, break it, own it. they touched this government, they broke it under president obama and now they own it. and now, retribution is at play.
we cannot allow donald trump and the republicans to ramrod into this government these folks who want to bring us back to a bygone era as it relates to so many that we enjoy. we see what's going on in north carolina right now in terms of rolling back on right. i expect similar things to happen in our federal government. >> so what should your party do with regard to trump's supreme court nominee? >> it's time to roll up the sleeves and fight back. you know, there are so many of us that when the republicans took control in both the house and the senate who just begging the senate democrats to filibuster, and i'm not just talking about the filibuster where they'll pull a bill from the floor and continue on with legislation, we're talking about
brging out the cots, making sure that people arehere late at night and stopping everything in its tracks. that's what people are looking for right now. we have to remember, there were more than 3 million more people who voted for hillary clinton than donald trump. so in essence, the majority of the american people want what hillary clinton was fighting for in terms of policies and rights. >> right. you talk about the 3 million, that goes to political strategy with folks saying, gosh, hillary clinton had the mandate, had the edge, and there was some kind of execution problem in getting some of the people out in the states. take a look at donald trump on the ground game also in that david axelrod interview. >> part of what we have to do to rebuild is to be there, and that means organizing, that means caring about state parties, it means caring about local race, state boards or school boards and city councils and state
legislative races. and not thinking that somehow just a great set of progressive policies that we present to "the new york times" editorial board will win the day. >> now, candidly, jaime, you're not the candidate in the dnc race who is closest to president obama. are you running more as the state party or grassroots candidate then? >> i am. i'm running for 57 -- i know we got 50 states, but we got six territories the and our democratabroad. i'm running for all of them. our problem, ari, was we sort of got drunk off the fact that we were able to elect president obama in 2008 and 2012 and we forgot how we were actually able to do that, how we took back control and that was with howard dean's 50-state straj gee. we stopped investing in state parties. as a result the party infrastructure was broken.
that's how republicans now control 33 of 50 governorships. that's why they control 69 of 99 statehouses and we've lost over a thousand or almost a thousand democrats in state legislatures the over the past eight years. we have to go back to that strategy and rebuild state parties. it is essential to our success. we can't be the democratic national committee. the dnc is more than just the presidency. it's about the down ballot folks who have more of an impact on the day-to-day lives of people than the person who sits in 1600 pennsylvania avenue. >> appreciate your time tonight. >> thank you, ari. >> happy holidays. now still ahead, remembering carrie fisher in her own words
force, the force is with me. if y've seen the new "st wars," you know what i mean. the highlight ser not the problem. i keep the highlighter here because if you put two highlighters together it makes a light sabre. that's not a prop. it's my light saber. i want you to stay this bright blue forever, that's why you'll stay in this drawer forever. i can't live without you, and that's why i'll never ever wash you. protect your clothes from stretching, fading and fuzz with downy fabric conditioner. fading and fuzz with downy fabric conditioner. it smooths and strengthens fibers to protect clothes from the damage of the wash. so your favorite clothes stay your favorite clothes. downy fabric conditioner.
carrie, you're starring in "star war," and this is your first starring role. >> yes. >> and the critics say it's going to be the movie of the year. >> i hope so. >> everybody knows who princess leia is, and as a result, everybody knows who carrie fisher was. it defines film and cinema and characters that hadn't been written yet. princess leia has become a shorthand for the damsel who refuses to be in distress, who refuses to be saved or use any prop for another male character's heroics. princess leia was carrie fisher, none the other way around. and there were so many things that kept her relevant for years. first, she played a part in one of the biggest films of all time.
she led a scandalous hollywood life and third, she was honest and candid about that life in her interviews and wring. there is a fitting tradition that when someone like this dies, for so many of us who have grown-up with "star wars," you talk about them. which is worthwhile, but there's another thing that nobody talked about, carrie fisher quite like carrie fisher. and almost all of her interviews began with princess lee princess inevitably, what would shine through would be her sharp wit, her presence.
princess leia will live forever. decades from now, new generations of "star wars" fans will be rooting for her and falling for her. carrie fisher died today at the age of 60, and we are all going to miss her. >> you have said that in fact you had a drug addiction at one point in your life. >> mm-hm. >> can you give me the range of drugs you took? did you just take prescriptives or cocaine or -- >> everything. >> what does everything mean? >> i took, prescription drugs were my preference, i took ha lusnagenics. cocaine, pretty much the gamut. >> you wrote some in "wired", about john belushi's death. it was said he could get you to take almost any kind of drug.
didn't that scare me? >> he had convinced me that everyone had overreacted, and i was like, okay. because he did survive a long time at a loefl when most people don't. >> was that a catalyst in helping you? >> no. >> didn't help. >> you know, all the things are supposed to. i'd love to say, i was watching the show and i saw liz taylor talk about her problem and i really realized, when john died, he took heroin. of course he died. you just tell yourself that you are different. >> and what made you finally quit taking drugs? >> i was in an emergency room. that's a strong indicator that your life isn't working. >> help me. you're my one and only hope. >> i'm on a diplomatic mission
to alderon. >> one that got my is your marriage to a hollywood agent brian lourde, who left you for another man. >> he did? you're kidding. >> he did. >> oh, my god, that must have been really upsetting. >> where is this? >> little chechnya. >> try not to write when you're living here. >> is that guy carrying a gun? >> don't worry, he's not a cop. >> you don't have to stay there. it's an extra country. they can't extradite you for failing to pay child support. it's not a war cream. it's just a foreign baby. >> it's not a foreign baby. it's my baby. your grandson.
okay. it is time for the best new thing in the world today. and this one is all about a glimmer of hope, though it doesn't begin that way. when they handed out the pulitzer prizes, one of them went to a reporter who isn't in the news business anymore. he left the newspaper for a gig in public relations.
he wasn't alone. a winner for a different award turned in work and the day she got the news that her work had won a pulitzer, she had to celebrate with what were her former colleagues. for every reporter who leaves for a better paying or somewhat happier gig, others are handed a cardboard box and shown the door in mass layoffs. newspapers have just three quarters of the resources they had when jimmy carter was president. and we are about to get a president who's way more difficult to cover. he not only attacks the press as well as on his beautiful twitter but hasn't held a press conference since july.
and beyond the limits of tweets, this is not a president who makes it easy to keep up with what is going on inside his administration or what is coming. excellent reporting is never easy and is often risky in multiple ways of as a business, it is literally risky. some of the best reporting on presidential politics was done by the whington post. their newsroom is a ten-minute walk from the white house. it's worked, because the post says they're hiring five dozen more journalists. the jobs are spread across video, print and online, one is focussing on deep dives in a hurry, the kind of coverage we're going to need for the next decade and beyond. for bucking the trend of offering a glimmer of hope that excellence will be rewarded with jobs, the wash post help wanted sign is the best new thing in
the world today, and as rachel ys, wherever you le, please subscribe to your local paper. most of them don have a billionaire owner. they need you. most don't have a billionaire owner. they need you. "first look" is up next. when i heard that president-elect trump basically dismissed the intelligence, i was very shocked because i've been briefed by the fbi. there's no doubt in my mind that russia hacked the entire political systems. reince priebus says the president-elect would accept the results if all the intelligence community is on the same sheet of music. the fbi, the cia, the director of national intelligence all are saying the same thing. >> this morning, new reports president obama is preparing to retaliate against russia for cyber meddling as donald trump gets set to take over the white house. and prayers at pearl harbor. the prime mi