tv All In With Chris Hayes MSNBC January 27, 2017 12:00am-1:01am PST
>> why did he write the report? >> tonight, why the president abruptly canceled the kickoff of his voter fraud probe. and what we learned from his first big interview. >> this goes all the way down here. all the way down. i. plus, today's diplomatic meltdown with mexico. >> the american people will not pay for the wall. >> and a political firestorm after the white house floats a 20% tax hike to pay for the wall. then the resistance takes aim at executive orders. and new alarms from the military about the commander in chief's explicit endorsement of torture. >> do i feel it works? absolutely i feel it works. >> when "all in" starts right now. good evening from new york, i'm chris hayes. during his first week in office in speeches, tweets, and now his first interview president trump has shown himself to be a man consumed by questions about his
own popularity and legitimacy operating in a world governed not by facts and information but rumors, falsehoods and whatever helps to bolster his vulnerable self-image. as a case in point, the "washington post" broke the story that in a saturday phone call, this is the first morning that the president was president of the united states, trump personally ordered acting national park service director michael t. reynolds to produce additional photographs of the previous day's crowds on the national mall. that's according to three individuals with knowledge of the conversation. the president believed the photos might prove the media lied in reporting attendance had been no better than average. today trump took his first trip as president, flying to philadelphia on air force one to addrs a republican congressiol retreat. he begin by revisiting his election victory. >> nice to win.
do we agree? it's been a while. the state of pennsylvania is very special to me for lots of reasons, especially from a couple of months ago, remember. pennsylvania cannot be won, remember? pennsylvania cannot be won, right congressman? there is no path to victory for trump in pennsylvania. except we won. >> well, the president was inside speaking and hundreds of people took to the streets outside to protest the new administration and republican efforts to repeal the affordable care act. president trump remains at this moment historically unpopular. his approval rating now somewhere between 46% according to the gallup poll and 36% according to quinnipiac. numbers like those seem to haunt him, frankly as does the size of his inauguration crowd and his loss in the popular vote by a margin of three million. those fixations were on display in trump's first big tv interview as president which aired last night. he was asked why he chose to make his first full day in office all about his inauguration turnout. >> does that send a message to the american people that that's more important than some of the pressing issues?
>> part of my whole victory was that the member and women of this country who have been forgotten will never be forgotten again. part of that is when they try and demean me unfairly because we had a massive crowd of people. that was some crowd. when i looked at the numbers that happened to come in from all of the various sources, we had the biggest audience in the history of inaugural speeches. >> the biggest audience in the history of inaugural speeches. that is false. trump was pressed about his speech saturday at the cia delivered in front of a wall commemorating fallen officers where he drew criticism for continuing to harp on crowd size. >> that speech was a home run. that speech ifou look at fox, okay? see what fox said. they said it was one of the great speeches, they showed the people applauding and screening. >> you would give the same speech if you went back? >> absolutely.
>> people gave me a standing ovation for a long period of time. >> abc released the full transcript. the rest of trump's response is worth reading outloud. "i got a standing ovation, in fact they said it was the biggest standing ovation since peyton manning had won the super bowl and they said it was equal. i got a standing ovation, it losted for a long period of time. what you do is take out your tape, you probably ran it live, i know when i do good speeches, i know when i do bad speeches, that speech was a total home run, they loved it." in regards to the peyton manning reference i have no idea what the president is talking about but the president of the united states has not just been making stuff up about his adoring crowds, he spent his first days in office repeating dangerous lies about voter fraud which he blames for his popular vote loss. earlier this week, the president tweeted he plans to launch an investigation into supposed voter fraud. in the abc interview he was asked why he continues to raise the issue even though there's no
evidence widespread voter fraud exists. >> millions of people agree with me when i say that. if you would have looked on one of the other networks and all of the people calling in, they're saying we agree with mr. trump. they're very smart people. >> let me just ask you. you did win, you are the president. >> that's true. >> you're sitting across from me right now. >> that's true. >> do you think your words matter more now? >> very much. >> do you think talking about millions of illegal votes is dangerous to this country without presenting evidence? >> not at all because many people feel the same way that i do. >> you don't think it undermines your credibility? >> not at all because they didn't come to me, believe me. those were hillary votes. >> the president was supposed to sign some kind of executive order launching his voter fraud investigation at the white house today. that signing was abruptly delayed without an explanation late this afternoon. adds for rare the president of the united states got the investigation he's using to start a white house investigation, we got a sense from the "new york times" which reported that when he met with congressional leaders according to witnesses, trump said he was told a story by the very famous golfer bernhard langer who he described as a friend.
according to the president, langer, a german national, was standing in a line at a polling place near his home in florida when an official informed him he would not be able to vote. ahead of and behind mr. langer were voters who did not look adds if they should be allowed to vote, mr. trump said, according to congressional staff members but they were nonetheless permitted to cast provisional ballots. witnesses said the president threw out the names of latin american countries where the voters might have come from. no longer quoting here, obviously there are plenty, tens of thousands of millions of american citizens and registered voters from latin american countries, even if the president thinks they are inherently suspicious. in a statement today langer himself had to clarify saying the voting situation reported was not conveyed from me to president trump but rather was told to me by a friend. i then relaid the story in conversation with another friend who shared it with a person with ties to the white house. in other words. a game of telephone. a game of telephone that is
driving decisions by a man that is the most powerful man in the world. that are poised to actively undermine the basic confidence in the most fundamental part of our american democratic institutions. joins me now, senator cory booker, democrat from new jersey. are you confident, senator, that the president is making his decisions based on sound information. >> i don'tnow what his s motivating him i know there are many things troubling. we have the president of the united states only seven days in office has provened himself to be a repeated liar and prop bannist about facts. number two, he's dangerously attacking some of the fundamental institutions that make us a great democracy and number three we're having a conversation about crowd size when really some of the most powerful people on the planet earth, secretary of state,
attorney general, head of the epa are being pushed through a process that they're going to send to seats where they're going to have a chance to affect policy in dramatic ways, in my opinion, very dangerous ways so this is this has probably been a seven-day stretch where all americans should be outraged by a propagandist and someone who is repeatedly lying as opposed to talking about the issues are going to affect everyday americans. like the efforts to repeal the affordable care act and not replace it with something which will destabilize, according to the congressional budget office, millions of americans' health insurance. all the way to the fact that we have real issues with voting in america, not these manufactured made up ones but the ones that independent civil rights organizations, federal judges are saying is going on which is not in-person voter fraud which you're more likely to be struck by lightning than experience that but by voter suppression, laws being pushed in america right now that federal judges have said, at least in a north carolina case, are narrowly tear tailored to affect specific populations. so i'm outraged and america, i don't care if you're on the right or left, to have a
president lie to you repeatedly, distract you from the real issues of health care, of jobs, of our fundamental freedoms is unacceptable and demands that we as a people respond. >> to that end on the voting standpoint, there might be an executive order, he said he's going to order an investigation. presumably that would be done by the department of justice. your colleague, senator jeff sessions, who you testified against in an unprecedented step do unl he is going to get democratic votes for attorney general of the united states. yobelieve hehould not be confirmed? >> so i don't know about the heart and votes of my colleagues but i know that there is a massive movement amongst democrats and others who believe that the justice department should be investigating voter presentation. whoebl the justice department should be protecting women, lgbt rights, making sure there's greater accountability and policing in this country, all the things jeff sessions has spoken against, whether it's
laws, regulations or activities at the justice department. there will be many of us who will try to stop him from ascending to that seat. >> let me ask you this. you've had strong words about -- right now we've seen a garage of executive orders. some of which have been signed by the president. we know what the texts are. others are circulating as drafts, they've been leaked. i know you've had strong words about one circulating as a draft that we don't know what state it's in about refugees. i was struck by the fact the white house canceled or postponed an executive order today. do you think there is political pressure effectively being brought to bear on this white house even this early on something like the final text of these executive orders? >> so i don't know. this would be has been doing things against what it even said it would do, trump said he would do during campaigns. he's going after -- to go after literally cost people on their mortgage reduction -- principle reduction like they had, to sign an executive order that will cost the average american
hundreds of more dollars. those things i can't explain. there's no understanding what's going on from the white house right now and i think a lot of folks are confused and frankly i think a lot of us should continue to be outraged and be resisting. let's put it this way. the drafts i've seen of his executive orders affecting people based solely on either religion or country of or gin violate our fundamental principles as a nation. this idea that america whose statue of liberty is called the mother of exiles, this nation that has made a name for itself to helping persecuted people, the fact donald trump would do something in violation of these core fundamental values in the name of fear, i believe a nation as strong as us, when we're being attacked we shouldn't abandon our values, we should be doubling down on them. these are the kinds of things i intend to mount a serious challenge and i hope he hears these things from all of us before he signs his name to such
anti-american executive orders. i hope he's feeling the pressure but given who he's putting up as cabinet secretary what is's coming out of his mouth i don't have confidence this relentless assault on our values, on the truth, this propaganda, i do not see it abating at all. >> senator cory booker, thank you for your time. appreciate it. i'm joined by katrina vanden huevel and republican strategist matt mikoviak. matt, the president demanded the park service show more photos showing a bigger crowd. do you look at that as a republican and say, yes, this guy -- this is good. this is a man with the proper temperament for the job and i'm happy he's there? >> well, i'd focus more on the actions he's take than are directly affecting people. i wish he had decided to be more disciplined. part of this is that he's
learning how to do this job, he's an outsider. he never had been in the oval office until he was there after he won the election. so there's a lot he's learning quickly and he only has four cabinet secretaries in place. obama had seven when he became president so part of the reason why senator booker is frustrated that these executive orders may not make sense is they're not working with cabinet secretaries but we have to put the crowd size debate behind us. i don't see why that matters to regular people. >> matt, i couldn't agree more. literally i'm trying to think -- no there's nothing i care less about. i just checked in with myself. what i do care about is how the president parses information particularly because information is key and i want to talk about the executive order. katrina, your reaction to this? >> one reaction is that trump and white house advisers like steve bannon, i think, have decided that this administration is going to be run as a permanent campaign and that means constant distraction, constant chaos, constant diversion from the real issues. it means trying to delegitimize
institutions that can hold this administration accountable like steve bannon today saying the media is the opposition. i think this is a radically different kind of presidency. i think the media needs a radical rethink. i would simply say i know it's tough, but let's not cover donald trump's temperament and character as much as the gap between what he has promised those forgotten men and women and what he's actually producing and the danger, the collateral -- not the collateral, the direct hit and damage his policies will cause to this country seem to me a focus. not the hyper coverage of his tweets. but the media has to be fearless and fair and i think it's important to demonize if we're going to demonize -- not demonize but to cover those policies and what they mean for people in kentucky, detroit. >> you said something that's important.
you said the gap between his promise. trump said he would drain the swamp, he said he was going to help working people and he's helping billionaires. matt, you wrote a column saying the opposite. basically that he's keeping his promises and i think in certain ways, at least the initial executive orders line up with things you could see coming on the campaign trail i think so. i would love to hear more from folks about what they think he's doing that's so different from what he promised to do as a candidate. these executive orders are things he's talked about for over a year. so you can like or dislike the executive orders but he's doing what he said he would do and that's why his voters are pleased with what he's doing and republicans on the hill right now are not that surprised by what he's doing. >> oh, no. >> obviously there's -- >> they love it. matt -- >> let me just say this, aside from transpacific partnership, there's nothing he's signed that i think is out of the norm for gop. >> what i mean about failing to
fulfill his promises is he's put together a cabinet of billionaires, of ideologues, these are not even reactionary populists. so you'll have three branches of government. put aside the supreme court. you'll have congress run by the heritage foundation in many ways, off white house run by economic and cultural nationalists and you have a cabinet which is run by goldman sachs and it's like a davos. it's like a goldman sachs executive retreat and so where that comes out -- and let's be honest, with all the talk of forgotten men and women -- and all power to that, i believe in an inclusive populism of solidarity -- what we're witnessing are policies that are going to roll back the human civilizing reforms of this country. >> this is a question about the
affordable care act. one thing they did, they withdrew from the final ads for enrollment even though that money has been spent. that's images of philadelphia where there's live protests, the site of the gop retreat. matt, let ask you this. is there -- are you uncomfortable with the president wielding the pen in this way? i remember if i'm not mistaken an inknow mouse about of ink being spilled and cable news minutes being spent on president obama being a tyrant for using executive orders. what i have seen from liberals in their resistance is on the substance as opposed to formal. are republicans fine with all this now? >> that's a great point. it's a great question. look, i think president obama was aggressive using executive orders, particularly as it pertained to things that really mattered, that were effectively laws and there was a study today released that showed he was overturned by the court more than any modern president so i think when trump begins to pull back on many of president obama's executive orders that to me i think is definitely fair game but all presidents use executive orders.
trump is doing what he can do now. he'll be moving a legislative agenda forward in the first 100 days. we'll see what happens. >> voting rights shouldn't be a matter of left and right, it's right and wrong and i think we'll see a rollback of participatory democracy and just to note, chris, some of these are just drafts and they're getting driven back. resistance matters. we saw last saturday. resistance matters and take it from marches and protest to action. that's our mandate and mission. >> the other thing we'll talk about later in the show, you know one of the things the president did on the first day? he closed guantanamo with the strike of a pen. >> right, right. >> so we'll see if the wall meets the same fate. thanks for your time. ahead, the diplomatic and political meltdown after the white house floated raising taxes to pay for the president's wall on the mexican border. they did that today. plus as protests mount in the streets like tonight in
you totally nailed that buddy. simple. don't let directv now limit your entertainment. only xfinity gives you more to stream to any screen. >> i'm going with general mattis. i'm going with my secretary because i think pompeo is going to be phenomenal. i'm going with what they say. but i have spoken as recently as 24 hours ago with people at the highest level of intelligence and i asked them the question. does it work. does torture work? and the answer was yes. absolutely. i want to do everything within the bounds of what you're allowed to do legally but do i feel it works? absolutely i feel it works. >> the president of the united states last night explicitly endorsed the idea the u.s. might bring back torture. while claiming he would stay within the bounds of what you're allowed to do legally, trump repeatedly pised torture. to be clear, even when the bush administration cled torture enhanced interrogation techniques, it was still torte.
trump, however, didn't bother renaming it. he called it torture. he used the war torture either unaware or unconcerned torture is by definition a war crime as well as a federal crime. trump made those statements on a day when both the "new york times" and "washington post" published what appeared to be draft of an executive order entitled "detention and interrogation of enemy combatants." it would lift a ban on cia black site prisons which detained and tortured suspects during the bush administration in which president obama had ended. now, while press secretary sean spicer claimed the draft was not a white house document, today he tacitly acknowledged the document could have been circulate bid white house staff. torture is not the only thick the president appeared to be advocating that would violate the geneva convention while increasing the tangible danger our service members face, we'll talk about that with msnbc national security analyst jeremy bash who served as chief of staff at both the cia and department. jeremy, the president talking about senior intelligence
officials in the last 24 hours who told him torture works. the cia carried out the or the -- torture in the first place. >> i don't know which intelligence professionals he's spoken to and the reality is within the leadership there's unanimity which is we don't need to go back to the tactics that were ended in the mid-2000s. we've been able to keep our country very safe, safe from international terrorism over the last decade bout them. it's totally unnecessary and to order our intelligence professionals to go out and violate the law, to subject themselves to criminal prosecution and do things that would actually assist the enmip in its recruitment efforts would not only endanger our people but
it would endanger our national security. >> i want to follow up on that on criminal prosecution. there is a case some make that the lack of criminal prosecution for what were clearly criminal acts in some sense, even if they were sort of defined by the olc as not criminal acts that that lack of prosecution has meant the possibility of going back to the bad old days still remains in place. do you agree with that? >> no, i don't. chris you and i may disagree here. i think the individuals who did things that the justice department told them were approved and lawful should never be prosecuted for that. that would basically be totally unfair to our national security professionals. >> but -- >> however, it's important to note that since that happened the law has changed. congress overwhelmingly voted to state those interpretation techniques may never be used and senator mcconnell and speaker ryan validated they want to keep that law there place. >> i want to play something else i found troubling in the interview which is about taking the oil, which has been a refrain of the president during his campaign. take a listen. >> we should have taken the isle. >> you've heard critics who say that would break all
international law, taking the oil. >> can you believe that? wait a minute, can you believe that? who are the critics that say that? fools. i don't call them critics, i call them fools. >> let me talk about your words. >> excuse me. we should have taken the oil and if we took the oil you would haven't isis and we would have had wealth. >> my understanding is about 5,000 u.s. service members embedded with the iraqi army fighting isis. do you believe it tangibly increases the risk to them to have the president of the united states say something like that? >> yeah and here's something chris, i don't say this lightly, i think isis was absolutely thrilled to hear those words come from washington because it frankly validates the narrative, the propaganda they're trying to spread around the middle east and they're very good at it, they use social media, they use innovaive propaganda techniques and for us to hand them on a silver platter the notion that america is there to steal the oil from the people of the middle east, that's a big win. >> the former u.s. assistant to the secretary of defense said
trump's careless words bind his own military's hands. the fear is that once the islamic state is defeated, they will be tempted to turn their attention to u.s. and coalition forces in iraq. is there a way for the president to declare unequivocally this is not something the u.s. is going to do and have it be believed? >> well i think it will be important for general mattis, secretary of defense mattis, to make clear in his initial engagements with his counterparts both in europe, asia and the middle east that this is in no way america's intention. i think secretary mattis will be the first to stand up and agree that. >> jeremy bash, thanks for your time tonight. appreciate it. coming up, the new idea floated by the white house about how to pay for trump's proposed border wall. a new tax. that's right. how that unfolded ahead.
an important update to a story we first reported for you yesterday about the president using an unsecured phone and possibly also violating the presidential records act -- though we don't know. today we learned not only is the president potentially using an unsecured an drid phone for official bays but as recently as this morning the official potus twitter account was linked to a gmail account and did not have two-factor authentification. meaning they had not even taken the most basic step any twitter user would to protect the account from being hacked. thanks to "tv guide's" alex alban who first discovered the gmail link, we discovered some time after it was made public someone added to white house e-mail addresses to the account and removed the gmail address though it appears they have not enabled two factor
authentification and i want to say this to whoever is watching, please do that. now, we hear at "all in" reached out to the agency who oversees presidential record keeping to ask about whether or not all personal devices and gmail accounts and other accounts being used by the president and his aides are in compliance with the presidential records act. as of this broadcast we have not heard back. think about the security implications of this for a second. if a hacker were able to break into the twitter account of the president they could do anything from drive down the stock price of a major u.s. company to provoke ago conflict with a foreign adversary with the push of 2 a button. the use of a private device for official white house business would also seem to be sort of a slap in the face to the many, many trump supporters who voted against hillary clinton precisely because they believed she had been too careless with her own digital security. but this is hardly the first issue from the campaign trump has reversed himself on. in fact, just today sean spicer suggested trump might be about to renege on what was by far his
about how trump planned to pay for his notorious border wall, the one he has repeatedly claimed mexico will pay for and this is what the press secretary said in response to that. >> if you tax that 50% -- $50 billion at 20% of import which is is, by the way, a practice that 160 other countries do right now, our country's policy is to tax exports and let imports flow freely in, which is ridiculous. by doing it that way we can do $10 billion a year and easily pay for the wall. >> if you tax impors 20% you can easily pay for the wall. i guess that's true but it wouldn't be mexico, that tax would fall on american consumers who would by necessity pay higher prices on the imported goods. things like food, clothes, consumer electronics and things like that. because lower income americans spend a larger chunk on consumer goods than reach people it would mean poor and middle-class americans get hit the hardest. the trump campaign later walked back the statement trying to suggest the 20% tax was not a policy proposal per se, simply
an example of one option of how to pay for the wall. then nbc's peter alexander asked the president himself about the tax and he replied, and i'm going to quote here. "we're going to tax people coming in. look, we cannot lose our companies to mexico or any other place and then have them make the product and send it across our borders free. we're going to put a substantial tax on those countries." democrats and republicans alike have started criticizing the proposal on the merits. republican senator lindsey graham succinctly put it on twitter saying "any policy proposal which drives up costs of corona, tequila or margaritas is a big time bad idea, mucho sad." joining me now a reporter with the texas tribune. patrick, one of the things i find fascinating is the way all of this so much is about the border and the way the border plays nationally is so different than how it plays along the border so a 20% import tax on max can products, how would that be for texas and particularly those areas along the border?
>> it really remains to be seen. there was a lot of confusion as you pointed out whether this is a real proposal or something trump is pushing for. i personally didn't hear much support for it from texas republicans. our lieutenant governor dan patrick had some remarks. he was a major trump supporter. he said he doesn't view it as something that will happen but maybe a negotiating tactic donald trump is using as he tries to take a stuff stance toward mexico. but as you pointed out, a lot of uncertainty about whether this is a serious policy proposal or something being floated. >> as to the wall which there's insistence is going to be built. i talked to a lot of texans and texas republicans who basically said what congressman hurd said, building a wall is the most expensive and least effective way to secure the border. is that your sense that even if they're not saying publicly, privately republicans in texas who think the idea of building a physical barrier over every inch of the boarder is crazy?
>> you're right will hurd is the lone republican in texas to say that publicly. all others since the election in their public statements have tried to appear like team players, like they're generally supportive of the idea of a wall but once you press them on the details, you either get silence or vague answers. i think other texas republicans have a more nuanced view on it. our governor for example said it doesn't make sense to build a wall in some parts of the border including big bend national park which is an area that will hurd represents. but a lot of republicans since the election have kept their statements on this generally supportive and vague or silent when you get pressed on the details. >> what would an increasing trade war and diplomatic standoff with mexico, say a set of tariffs exchanged in a kind of tit for tat fashion or negative economic -- like a recession or economic shock to mexico. wh would that do for the state of texas?
>> well, i think it would obviously hurt the economy in some ways but when you talk about politics it would further deepen the schism that we're seeing between parts of the republican party in texas and the business community. the business community in texas, at least certain corners of it, have been alarmed by donald trump's proposals when it comes to trade. the texas association to business put out a statement making clear they believe this proposed import tax would hurt the texas economy so i think you would see a further distancing in the political realm between hearts of the republican party that have been pro-business and the business community in texas. >> patrick svitek, the texas tribune, thank you very much, appreciate it. still to come, president trump has signed a flurry of executive orders since his first day in office but there are new questions if they were proproperly vetted to make sure they are even legal.
thing 1 tonight, donald trump is calling far major investigation into what study after studies show is non-existent voter fraud. it was a big theme for the few president on his sixth day in office, yesterday sending out a couple tweets on the subject specifically calling out "those registered to vote in two states." and he talked about in the an interview with abc news. >> you have people registered in two states, they're registered in new york and new jersey. they vote twice. we're going to launch an investigation to find out and the next time -- and i will say this. of those votes cast, none of them come to me. none of them come to me. they would all be for the other
side. none of them come to me. but when you look at the people that are registered, dead, illegal, and two states and some cases maybe three states? we have a lot to look into. >> the president keeps harping on this example of what he claims is voter fraud. voters registered in more than one state. it's true, there are people in this country registered to vote in multiple states. 2.75 million of them according to one study. usually it happens when people move and their old registration is never deactivated but it's not illegal to be registered in more than one state and it's not the same thing crucially as committing voter fraud even though the president seems to think it is. and if he convinced that's the case. we have five voter fraud suspects who will be very easy for him to start investigating. we'll tell you who they are in 60 seconds. used to? neutrogena hydro boost water gel. with hyaluronic acid it plumps skin cells with intense hydration and locks it in. for supple, hydrated skin. hydro boost. from neutrogena
ballots in multiple states. but it must have been come as a shock when nbc confirmed his own daughter tiffany is registered to vote in pennsylvania and new york. white house counselor kellyanne conway called the report "flatly false" on the "today" show this morning but that's not true. tiffany is listed on public voter records in both states and the pennsylvania elections officials confirmed her active registration to nbc news. here's the thing, tiffany isn't the only one. the president's son-in-law and adviser jared kushner is registered to vote in both new jersey and new york. steve bannon, trump's chief strategist and senior counselor was registered in new york and florida during this election. treasury nominee steve mnuchin is registered in new york and california and even the president's press secretary, sean spicer, is registered in both virginia and rhode island so it looks like the president's investigation should start very close to home.
president vladimir putin by phone this weekend. also there are reports an executive order to roll back sanctions placed on russia under the obama administration could come as early as this weekend. the news coming 24 hours after the president's first sit down interview as president of the united states in which he talked about a whole range of things from building his famous wall to his opinion that torture works to the size of his inauguration crowds to his false claim of widespread voter fraud. what he didn't talk about was russia. neither the intelligence community's assessment this russia tried to influence the election in his favor nor the multiple reports amid ongoing investigations by several different u.s. intelligence agencies into possible links between russian officials and members of trump's presidential campaign. there's also an ongoing senate intelligence committee investigation into trump's campaign tries to russia as part of its inquiries into russian efforts directs against the 2016 u.s. elections. the house intelligence committee has lunch add similar investigation so perhaps it doesn't matter if trump doesn't
may not be worth the paper they are written on. that's because as politico pointed out, trump neglected to consult with federal agency lawyers or lawmakers which means he could be looking at orders that are unworkable, unenforceable or even illegal. some contain manifest internal contradictions or, like trump's executive order on the keystone pipeline which was drafted without guidance from the state department, it turns out the company that wants to build the pipeline is suing the u.s. for $15 billion. for that reason, that executive order could end up bolstering the company's case in court. because trump's executive order seems to have excluded the review process involving federal agencies and lawyers and had been reportedly written by stephen miller and steve bannon, trump's chief strategist, they appear to be as much communications documents as legal orders. joining me now is congressman jamie raskin, democrat from maryland.
congressman, i'll start with you. there's a feeling many people have about this kind of tsunami because there have been all these executive orders. it remains unclear how many of these will stand up in court and how much power they have. what is your plan as a member of congress to find that out? >> well, all of them are politically problematic and are vulnerable to different kinds of objections on funding grounds, as is the case with the building of the wall at the mexican border but a number of them appear to be unconstitutional. the one i spent a little time with todayas the one about sanctuary jurisdiction which is almost certainly unconstitutional for two reasons. one it's basically a godfather offer presented to the states -- either you do what we say or we're going to cut off all federal funding to your state. the first problem with that is that the supreme court has been very clear that where there's a quid pro quo like that it has to be explicit and unambiguous in the original statute so if a state were to be collecting money from the department of education, for example, or the department of state it would have to say right there this money is conditioned on your cooperating with us in terms of
being basically part of the administrative apparatus dealing with immigration. that's problem one. problem to two is the law itself tries to reduce the states and localities into administrative cogs in the machinery of the federal government and the supreme court said in the 1997 case dealing with the brady handgun violence prevention act that you can't -- the federal government cannot commandeer the resources and the bureaucracies of state and local governments. >> in fact, this is an abiding belief -- >> that one i think will be out the window. >> it's an abiding belief of conservative justices including john roberts and the reason we don't have medicaid in a lot of states is because the court struck down in a 7-2 vote the way it was written. you're looking live at tempe, arizona. anna, there's popular mobilization and things in the court. how are you seeing these? >> we are seeing an unprecedented motion certainly in our lifetimes and maybe in history of people in the
streets. move on held a conference call on sunday night and we expected a couple thousand people to show up. we had 60,000 people join a national conversation call to talk about how to fight back. we had rallies on tuesday in front of senate offices with partners and, again, 15,000 people showed up to senate offices that said they had never had a rally in a decade. so you are seeing this massive overwhelming unprecedented resistance movement hit the streets and in many cases you're seeing local and state mayors, governors, secretaries of state, attorneys general stand up and take principled stands, standing with that resistance movement and i think that combination will be potent and powerful in days to come.
>> how do you see this connecting? one of the things we saw was there was tremendous mobilization against the obama presidency by people on the right and the tea party and it manifested in all kinds of ways. one of them was electing attorneys general who promised to essentially use their office to legally -- to sue the president. this was the -- they bragged about that. is that something you imagine taking shape as this sort of comes together more? >> i think you'll see this resistance movement, which is so powerful and visible in the streets already is going to take a number of next steps. we're going to keep showing up on the streets. we're going to keep showing up in front of congressional offices. there's something called resistance tuesday already taking shape where people will commit to show up week after week after week because this is a long road. we'll prevail in the end but it's a long road. then you'll see people running for office and we'll see elected officials standing up and fighting with that resistance movement.
again you're seeing that on the state and local level. we'll e itncreasingly on the federal level as well. >> congresan, what role do you have in a congressional minority in the house which is often not particularly empowered. the house gives a lot of power to the majority. not like the senate where there's procedural elements that every senator has access to. what do you see as your role as you watch these executive orders being issued and the ones you substantively don't agree with how you oppose them. >> well, we're increasingly empowered by the massive popular resistance anna was describing. the more people get out and protest and manifest their opposition, the stronger we are in congress. but, look, i think the opposition to trump's agenda is already starting to be bipartisan in nature. representative will hurd, with whom i serve on the house oversight and government reform committee expressed his pop sigs to the trump wall today and he represents the district that has
the moist territory that would be covered at the border with mexico. and he's a republican congressman. and so we're starting to see big cracks in that republican coalition as a lot of the republican leaders increasingly want to distance themselves from what the trump administration is doing. >> and they're hearing from their constituents. >> we'll file briefs when we can and fight on the floor wherever we can. >> congressman jamie raskin, anna gallon of move on, thank you for joining us. that's "all in" for this evening, the rachel maddow show starts right now. >> good evening, thanks, my friend. thanks for staying home the next hour. this is one of those a-blocks that isn't going to sound like anything else in the news and it will sound like it comes out of nowhere but every once a n a while we do that in the show because i think there's something going on in the news that even though people aren't following i think might be important. so bear with me, this is going to seem like it's out of the blue but you will soon see why
this could be e of the most important things in the world. all right. when he won they called it the world's biggest consolation prize. it was 1990, the berlin wall had fallen the year before, the whole soviet union would disintegrate in 1991. but in 1990 mikhail gorbachev in the words of the "guardian" newspaper at the time he "took the nobel peace award for losing the cold war." consolation prize. mikhail gorbachev, of course, was the last soviet leader. he did win the nobel peace prize in 1990 as his country collapsed and when you win a nobel peace prize you get a medal, you go to a big ceremony in norway, you give a big speech but you also get a big pile of money. and it's interesting. that nobel peace prize mikhail gorbachev won in 1990 it was worth a little more than a half