tv All In With Chris Hayes MSNBC January 31, 2017 12:00am-1:01am PST
we can all agree on that. rachel maddow is going to continue our live coverage now at the top of the hour with a live edition of her broadcast. rachel, good evening. >> good evening, brian. rachel, good evening. >> good evening, brian. thank you so much, my friend. thanks to you at home for staying with us for the next hour. good do be with you, we're here live at midnight eastern time. our new president does not like to be upstaged. but this president is being upstaged because whether you like this new president or you don't, he is doing some version of many of the things that he promised to do as a presidential candidate. so, yes, it may still pursuing t muslim ban, for example, but he did say trump era thus far is the thousands of people, the tens of thousands of people, the hundreds of thousands of people who have turned out to march and protest and demonstrate against him starting the first day after his inauguration but it turns out that wasn't a one off and turns out giant protests against the new president don't need weeks of planning and big
protest and demonstrate against him starting the first day after his inauguration but it turns out that wasn't a one off and turns out giant protests against the new president don't need weeks of planning and big coalition efforts by existing organizers and existing organizations bringing people together from all around the country. turns out you can get a really big protest against our new president almost any day justice because the transition didn't get it together to have top justice department officials in
place in times to start the new administration. lot of administrations don't. lot of transitions to a new presidency will leave important they asked her to stay on. she became acting attorney place. jobs unfilled at least until people can get confirmed and in place. they didn't get all their seats filled at the justice department.
they asked her to stay on. she became acting attorney general. as acting attorney general, she is responsible for leading the justice department in all of its actions. and earlier this evening, she made a dramatic statement. she said in a letter under her the justice department would not defend the new trump muslim ban because she said she at present, i am not convinced that the defense of the executive order is consistent with these responsibilities nor am i convinced the executive order is lawful. which means that until donald trump gets a new attorney general, the department of justice will not be presenting any arguments banning refugees and some category of immigrants.
>> saying that the justice department as long as she was in charge would not defend the president's executive order banning refugees and immigration people from several muslim majority nations. tonight the democrats in the senate held that senate floor for hours basically in resistance to the muslim ban promising to bring legislation that would overturn it. while that was happening, while the senate democrats were there, while chuck sheemer was there we also got some interesting news,
some news we don't know the implications of it yet. but don't know the significance but we have confirmed word that in addition to firing the acting attorney general the president has also replaced the person who was the acting director of i.c.e. immigration customsen enforce men. his name is daniel ragsdale. he served in that role as director of i.c. since the day of the president's inauguration. prior to that he was the director of that agency since 2012. tonight he is apparently out. it's unclear the circumstances of him being taken out and replac replaced. we has been replaced by tom homan, who is a 30 year veteran of law enforcement. he last served as a head of enforcement and removal operations within i.c.e. tom homan had been expected to retire, basically now. but now for some reason he is running i.c.e. and daniel
ragsdale is not. and at this hour we don't know what that's about. we don't know if this is a tire firing, if this was ump jing or being pushed we don't know if this move was related to the firing of the acting attorney general or the events that sparked her removal. but she was fired on a point of principal about an immigration marry. this is the acting director of the immigration agency. and the timing is weird. she was fired around 9:30 this evening. daniel ragsdale was replaced around 10:30 this evening. again, we don't have any explanation as to why he was taken out. tonight's personnel moves come as multiple lawsuits have come challenges the constitutionality of friday's executive order and after huge protests erupted at airports nationwide following the temporary detention of people traveling to the u.s. with valid green cards and visas. today five judges in five districts all ruled against the
order. the order went 0 for 5. also by council on american-islamic relations the largest muslim civil rights organization in the country. there is a lot going on. a lot of it is as yet unexplained. again, the big headline tonight, president donald trump firing the acting attorney general of the united states sally yates after she refused to defend his executive order in court. this story broke in the 9:00 p.m. eastern hour. and one of our guests in our 9:00 p.m. eastern hour was eric lish bloe blou, an investigator for the "new york times" who was essentially learning the news as we were as we went to air earlier this evening. we have asked him to come back now tonight in terms of updating us on his understanding of what has happened tonight. eric, thanks for being with us. i appreciate your time. >> good to be back. >> since we spoke earlier this evening, do you have any updated
reporting or any further understanding about how this happened in the justice department or the consequences now that it has? >> we actually just got word just about ten minutes ago now that the replacement for sally yates, dana -- has now rescinded her order. so that was his official act as acting attorney general was to announce that he was rescinding yates's order and defending the immigration order. that just came down within the last few minutes. >> terms of that order it's presumably the case that the department of justice lawyers who would be defending the order in court -- would those be people who are brand-new political appointees of the trump administration? have they had time to get those people in place.
or these would be career lawyers? >> no, no, the lawyers who would be appearing in the court in the five cities where lawsuits have been brought would new mexico presumably be career, career assistance u.s. attorneys. it would be an usual for a political appointee to appear in court. these are people who from the civil division who would be there to state what in normal circumstances would be the justice department's defense of the government's position. what the acting attorney general said tonight is we are going to continue to defend this as we were going to do before around 6:30 when sally yates said she could not in good conscience defend it. >> now we've got an interesting human question about these assistant u.s. attorneys. we have got assistant u.s. attorneys as you say in the civil division. these are career attorneys working in the justice
department. justice department is a place where people work for 20, 30, 40 years if they can and if they so desire. we are now going to see individual attorneys faced with the question of whether or not they in good conscience can follow justice department orders on this and defend the law or whether they too like sally yates believe that this law is unconstitutional and shouldn'tishouldn't i be defended. am i right to assume thattate u.s. attorneys will be bumping up against that now? >> i think you are right that that could very well be a dilemma at least for some of them in the span of just five hurs or so they have had conconflicting advice from the very top of the justice department. not to mention the white house. and they are the ones who will have to be both appearing in court and also responding in motions to that have been
brought in in five different locales, virginia, boston, los angeles and also in brooklyn. >> this is a fascinating human story already with the personnel that we've just been talking about. but it's about to become that in miniature in all of those jurisdictions you just described. eric, thank you for joining us especially now, after midnight. really appreciate it, eric. >> thanks for having me. as i mentioned at the top of the show we have confirmed word that the president, in addition to replacing the -- to firing the acting attorney general and replacing her with the u.s. attorney who was previously serving in the eastern district of virginia, a man named dana bonte, in addition to that news the president has also replaced the act oog director of i.c.e. he is the head of immigrations and customs enforcement.
are these two issues related? did daniel ragsdale get pushed out of ice on the basis of some sort of policy dispute with with the new administration? was this routine and it happened at a odd time that seemed coincident. daniel ragsdale served as the acting head of ice since trump was inaugurated but tonight he has been replaced. a short time ago we got this tweet from reporter it says contrary to reporting detail daniel ragsdale has been deputy director for more than four years and remains deputy director. what does that mean? was he never acting director? was he promoted and then demoted? what is the impetus for any of this the you have and how do we follow this when we don't know who to believe. christina joins us now. thanks for coming on the show to help us understand this. i appreciate it. >> thanks for having me. >> it is confusing at this
point. can you tell us who daniel ragsdale is what just happened to him? >> certainly, daniel ragsdale is now the former acting director of ice. he was the acting director for exactly ten days from the 20th to now, from trump's inauguration. and as a civil servant. he wouldn't have been fired. he was simply demoted. and he was replaced with a mon named thomas hoe homan who was until now the chief enforcement officer at ice. detentions and deportations. >> sorry to interrupt you there. so was this -- does this mean that, you know, thomas homan is now going to serve in the job for ten days and they have got some other person in mind? is this an unexplained musical chairs thing or does this mean thomas homan is the choice of trump administration to be the new head of ice. >> from what i understand homan
is the choice as announced by johncaly tonight. he is the choice to lead ice. his expertise is in law enforcement. he calls himself a cop's cop doing a cop's job. he used immigration enforcement as really as a law enforcement and not you know a paperwork or a refugee or a complicated issue. he is a guy who finds people who shouldn't be here and gets rid of them. and i think this reflects what the trump administration has said they were planning to do which was really to reemphasize the detention and deportation elements of u.s. immigration policy. >> forgive me though, but he was an obama administration official in this role, yes? >> yes, he was. >> so that's an interesting -- right? so the reason that strikes me as politically ironic is that the trump campaign f it was about any one thing right it was
about -- on the immigration issue it was about the obama white house and the obama administration being disasterosly weak on enforcement, on throwing people out, on finding people who shouldn't be here and making them leave this country. to now put the -- not just keep in place the obama administration official who was in charge of that specific thing, but to elevate him and put him in charge of all of ice would seem to be contrary to the way they denounced the obama administration on this issue. almost more vociferously than they did on -- they denounced the obama administration more vociferously on this issue than on almost any other issue. >> yes, this is certainly not the only place where the trump administration appears to be making appointments that are contradictory to some of his campaign promises or his attacks upon -- certainly upon the obama administration and their choice of appointees. but i really think the big picture here is that this was quietly announced tonight as
everyone else was focused on the attorney general and this big news. here we have the quiet little announcement out of dhs that the ice director was now going to be the enforcement guy. and i really think this pour tends to what we should expect to see in the future from immigrations and customs enforcement. it's sort of a doubling down, really, for the trump administration in the face of all the criticism they have been receiving. >> yeah. yeah. i don't know. keeping on the obama administration enforcement guy doesn't seem to be a doubling down to the extent that what they are doing is taking a hard right turn. christina well,y appreciate you being here with us. i feel like we have a lot more to do in terms of understanding these moves but it's very interesting tonight. 2 timing you are right, very interesting. want to bring in to the conversation david sanger, chief washington correspondent for the "new york times" and he is a guy
who i don't like to think of myself as keeping up after midnight because he is in charge of a lot of important stuff. david, thank you for abobeing w us. >> good to be with you again. >> we have got confusion in terms of what is happening with this ice job, the customs enforcement replacement. putting that aside for a second the larger news tonight is the firing of the acting attorney general. can i just ask you as from your reporting your experience how big a deal you think this is and what you think the immediate consequences will be? >> i think it is a big deal. i also think it is an entire avoidable deal, rachel. i mean supposing for a minute they had done this all in order, that they had taken some time to write their immigration and seven-nation suspension and syria ban order with some care, that they had circulated it around to all the places that
could comment object it. they have gone through the usual process and waited for their attorney general and a few other officials to get confirmed by the senate, it would have been a couple of weeks' wait. it would have crossed the ts and dotted the is and understood the risks of cutting out people who have green cards and had a team in place that would enforce it. so we've only gone through this swir drama because they were in such a rush to do this in week o one. >> do you see any explanation for why that might be? obviously there is the shock and awe politics thesis which is that you want to do everything really quickly before anybody gets their bearings and you take advantage of the fact that your opponents are on their heels. there is something just about the kinetic activity of doing a lot very quickly that maybe has advantage over proceeding in a more deliberate way. i don't really buy that in a way because in this case they know
they have got republican congressional majorities for two years. they have got plenty of time to operate. they have got plenty of i think political capital to the extent they are going to have it as long as republicans stick with them. do you see any thesis, any explanation as to why they moved so quickly, even to the point whereas you say, it undermined what they were trying to do? >> well, every administration that comes in wants to demonstrate to their base right away that they are making some big changes. so when barack obama came in you may remember that he promised he was going to close guantanamo bay and signed orders along those lines in his first week. and you saw president bush when he came in sign some executive orders to undo steps that had been taken by bill clinton. so that's not unusual. the only thing here that would have justified moving quickly is if there was an imminent threat from these seven nations.
and since we know that there has been little to no terrorism we've had in the united states from immigrants to these nations and sean spicer said himself at the press briefing today that there had been no immediate actionable threat they were acting on, i think that would have been the only thing that would have justified taking an immediate step. so here i think they just rushed. and you know, like most things in life, if you rush it, you are going to make mistakes. particularly if you have never served in government, never gone through these procedures, and suddenly discovered that it's a little more complicated than it looks like when you are on the campaign trail. >> david sanger, chief washington correspondsent for the "new york times." david i appreciate your time tonight helping us with this. >> great to be with you. >> what dave was just saying there in terms of undermining themselves, knowing what they want to do and not being able to quite do it well enough so that
it's going to stick, like they didn't, you know, cross the ts and dot the is. they didn't get the sort of personnel they would need to back stop what they were doing and instead they rushed through it. if you are an opponent of what the trump administration is doing, at some point you have to wonder whether that's a blessingor curse. right? do you want people who are doing incredibly reckless things to the country to be bad at doing those reckless things? or do you want them to be good at doing those reckless things? the slipshod way in which they have tried to do this will likely be the undoing of this executive order as a policy matter. but the slipshod way in which they have done this also tells you the way they operated. and sometimes we need a presidency and an executive branch to operate with care. they have yet to prove that they are capable of it of much more to come on this breaking news night and the rest of the day's news. stay with us. daily moisturizing body yogurt.
tadirectv now. stream all your entertainment! anywhere! anytime! can we lose the 'all'. there's no cbs and we don't have a ton of sports. anywhere, any... let's lose the 'anywhere, anytime' too. you can't download on-the-go, there's no dvr, yada yada yada. stream some stuff! somewhere! sometimes! you totally nailed that buddy. simple. don't let directv now limit your entertainment. only xfinity gives you more to stream to any screen.
so inside the white house we have easyt president firing and replacing the acting attorney general for refusing to carry out his executive order on refugees and travel from majority muslim nations. the acting attorney general sally yates refused to defend that travel ban and the refugee ban that the president signed off on this weekend. outside the white house, and across the country we of course are seeing hundreds of thousands of people out in the veets making their voices known, denouncing the travel ban, the refugee ban. those people are not letting up. one of the interesting things to watch this weekend was to see lawyers, to see lawyers of every
stripe turning out in their street clothes with their lap tops under their arm and going to the airports of this country to try to offer individual help for people who were getting stuck in the system because of this order for people who may have been facing confusing situations and ultimate will he to bring legal actions that brought a halt to the enforcement of some parts of these orders. joining us now is omar, the director of the aclu's immigrants rights division. he was one of the toers attorneys able to get a stay on saturday in new york. thanks for being here. >> thanks for having me. >> you are a busy guy now. >> yeah a lot of us are. >> let me ask you about the -- obviously the aclu is a big organization. >> uh-huh. >> we are also seeing attorneys who do all sorts of different kinds of law making theflg themselves available. >> that's right. >> one attorney rights group put out a call this weekend asked for volunteers to come help on the refugee issue they got 3,000
volunteers in the first four hours when they put out that call. what's going on in the legal profession around this issue. this is your life but it's becoming a lot of people's work now. >> yeah. it is and -- you know, it really is, i think a small part of the overall phenomenon of people turning out to support immigrants to fight this muslim ban, to tell donald trump they are not going to stand up for unconstitutional actions in their names. and you know, i think what you see at the airport is tables if you feel lawyers and halls full of ordinary people who are trying to find any way they can to support refugees, to support immigrants. and that's what it is. the lawyers happen to have an extra sit of schedulkills that n handy at times like this. it is amazing the see how people are turning snut how wide of a scope was the stay you were able
to get from a judge in new york this weekend. >> it is a nationwide stay. while the case continues in the eastern district courtroom here in brooklyn, then nobody will be removed under the terms of the muslim ban order. >> removed means sent back to another country? >> that's right. deported in ordinary parlance. >> and how long does that stay good for? >> it depends on how long -- what we would hope is that the stay lasts for a while and then it's replaced with a permanent order that accomplishes the same thing and more. >> when is your next day in court. we have briefing over the next few weeks and then we will be back in court at some point after that. >> we've learned tonight the first act of the new acting attorney general whose name is dana bonte he was a u.s. attorney for the eastern drj of virginia. seems to be an appointee for the judge w. bush administration and into the obama administration we
think he had a key role in the prosecution of basketball mcdonald the former virginia governor. which is a story we followed on this show. we know his first act was to rescind the order from sally yates the woman who was fired tonight from the president. which essentially means that dana bonte has ordered justice department lawyers that they must defend the trump executive order in court. how do you think that will play out? >> i don't think this is an order that's defensible in court ultimately. the constitution is very clear that you can favor a certain religion. you can't disfavor another religion as the government. you can't discriminate among people based on their religion. and this order does all of those things quite clearly. and it's even clearer when you look at, you know, the way that trump has described how he came to enact this order.
he told us do you go the campaign season that he wanted a muslim ban. then it morphed into this order. rudy giuliani explained that he had asked legal experts how to accomplish a muslim ban through kind of slightly more deevious means. and you know, that's just not okay -- i mean it's worse than not okay. it's not constitutional. >> you think it's plainly unconstitutional? >> yeah, and i think that it's going to be clear as it's been clear to every judge that's looked at it so far that this should at least be put on hold. you know, i think ultimately the rulings are going to continue to go in the same direction and they are going to be broader rulings that are more personal inn and this ban will go away. >> director of the aclu's immigrants rights project. busy man. thank you for abouting with us tonight. much more ahead this busy monday night -- sorry. this very busy tuesday morning on the east coast. we'll be right back. stay with us. .
last time we saw a u.s. attorney general replaced under duress was nearly ten years ago when alberto gonzalez resigned amid controversy. chief among them he was accused of orchestrating the mass firing of federal prosecutors in the middle of their terms without explanation. unlike what we are seeing tonight with the president axing the acting attorney general and the white house repleasing
statements trumpeting the decision. president bush didn't want gonzalez to go. he was forced to accept gonzalez's resignation due to mounting pressure and public outcry. that's how it pent in 2007. the prize for most faimous removal of a attorney general naturally was richard nixon. all in the service of getting an independent special prosecutor fired during the watergate scandal to save his own skin. that was the saturday night massacre, nixon's mowing down of the justice department in service of his own aims. this obviously is different. but history tends to rhyme on matters like this. joining us is abc news presidential historian and a columnist for the daily beast. gentlemen, i appreciate you bothing with here staying up late to cover this. >> pleasure. >> michael, let me start with you in washington we talked a
little bit about the historical precedent of the saturday night massacre. we are now on to a new level of expectation with this story. the new kt aing attorney general the one installed tonight after sally yates was fired he immediately rescinded her order which told department of justice lawyers that they shouldn't defend their refugee and immigration executive order in court. that means he has rescinded that order, he is effectively oshding the department of justice lawyers that they need to go to court and defend this thing. >> right. >> do we expect that her resistance, the principled stand she took here might echo down through the lower levels of the justice department? >> i think very good chance. i mean the new acting attorney general i guess gets the robert bourque award if we are talking in terms of the saturday night mass car, bourque being the number three in the neckson justice department who would make the decision that nixon wanted that his two superiors did not. and i think yeah because there are a lot of very principled you
know, career people in the justice department just like sally yates who came into the justice department in 1989 under a republican president george h.w. bush. and i have to assume that if they think that the independence of the justice department that's gone back an awfully long way is going to be jeopardized under donald trump they may not feel very comfortable. >> john, you have seen a left presidential transitions over the years, especially when you flip from party to party and sometimes when you stay in the same party, just president to president you get friction and you get people not wanting to be party to something that the new administration is doing even if they were a holdover. what degree of magnitude is this different than the normal amount of friction we get? >> i think it's substantially different. the president only has several hundred appointments out of a government that's over a million people in the government in the
federal government. every president tries to change leadership and does change leadership at the top. but i think what we are headed for mere is what could only be described as a purge. i think you are going to see in agency after agency the trump people saying these holdovers are going to try to underminus. we will do what we can to have them transferred. many can't be fired because they are protected by being civil servants but they can be transferred out of positions ever real responsibility. and other civil servants that they deem to be republicans can be promoted. so it's great to resign on principle. and you know, a lot of people are going to do that. you are seeing that in the state department prince right now. b >> in this case, sally yates didn't resign.
she got thrown out. she wasn't volunteering to leave. >> for instance in the state department you have ambassador ann patterson who is one of the most deeply knowledgeable people about the middle east. >> victoria new lin. >> they quit in recent days. these are long serving public servants. and you are seeing that in different parts of the government. and you know, it remains to be seen who their replaced by. but when you don't have any bench strength any institutional memory bad things can happen. >> michael torque that point of jonathan's in terms of whether or not a purge might be coming,ing people being thrown out if they can be thrown out or transferred to bureaucratic siberia if by civil service rules they can'ting fired is there a historical context in which we should view that? >> i hate to keep dragging richard nixon into this conversation tonight but it's
pretty irresistible. nixon tried to do it in the state department, in the justice department, tried to do it in the cia memoribly. he came in in 1969 thinking the cia was full of democratic ivy league liberals who did not like him and were not loyal. he came in with a very narrow margin in 1968. he thought he couldn't do that during his first term and actually reappointed helms. but once nixon got his landslide in 1872 he fired helms, he put people he thought were loyalists in at the cia with the idea that he would oversee a purge of the intelligence community. the obvious parallel here is that donald trump has come in with you know making it very clear that he's very unhappy with elements in our intelligence community in all sorts of ways. so that's another example of something we may see this. >> as we are trying to make sense this ice change with the
directing being flushed out or moved in some way. >> omarosa, i had to mention her from the apprentice sees in the white house and she indicated during the transition they will have an enemies list which is what richard nixon had. so they are taking names. and they are looking for people in the media to be fired. i don't think that's going to work out for them. but the problem is this might work for a president in the short-term. in the long term, these institutions are not as fragile as they are in some other countries. and even if you act like a bap an republican like you are in a banana republic, these institutions the courts, the congress, the bureaucracy, they have ways of fighting back. it's not really a good idea to get into a fight with the cia. >> john than alter is a columnist for the daily beast.
we thought today we would get some movement on a couple of president trump's key cabinet nominees. in the case of rex tillerson, the exxon ceo, the pick to be the next secretary of state wooet we had expected a full senate vote on him tomorrow. steve u.n. muchin, we had expected a senate finance committee vote on him today or tonight. neither of those things is happening now. senate democrats succeeded in delaying both the rex tillerson vote and the steve mnuchin vote. jeff sessions vote has delayed until tomorrow. now we'll see if that changes too given today's firing the
acting attorney general and the ongoing and now spiraling controversy over the refugee and muslims ban. also n case you were bored we are expecting a prime time announcement of the president's supreme court pick tomorrow night. just in case you didn't have enough on your plate. tonight senate democrats held the senate floor until veryid late into the evening protesting against talking about this version of the muslim ban and the refugee ban that the new president signed over the weekend. democrats tonight held the senate floor until it was too late to vote on anything and it was time to turn the lights off. elizabeth warren took the floor and spoke for more than an hour. here's a lit little of what she had to say. >> it is unconstitutional. it is immoral, and it must be overturned. what's happening is shocking. it is shocking. but it is not surprising. donald trump is doing exactly what he said he was going to do.
where are senate republicans when their republican president issues an order forthing one religious group -- targeting one religious group. president trump acted unilaterally to issue this order. and make no mistake, while it might not affect every muslim in the world donald trump's executive order is a muslim ban. >> after elizabeth warren spoke tonight -- again, she spoke tonight for an hour on the senate floor senator chris murphy of connecticut went next. today he introduced legislation that would essentially defund president trump's executive order. it would call it illegal and effectively resipped it. democrats are in the mine oarity in the senate. they have got 48 votes they need to persuade republicans to join with them if they want to pass anything. but in the meantime they can slow down the process, delay
confirmation votes they can hold the floor giving speech after speech until it's too late to vote on anything. they can draw out all the business of the senate. they can draw out the confirmation battles until the very bitter end. the question is what happens at the very bitter end and what does this do to galvanize the already growing and impressive anti-trump movement in the streets that the democrats are trying to align themselves with? we'll be right back.
this is interesting. look what we have found. this was march, 2015. the now former acting attorney general sally yates, she was on the hill for her confirmation hearing for the position of deputy attorney general which is the job title she had during the obama administration. during that hearing there was what is now a very, very interesting exchange between her and the senator who is now nominated to be donald trump's attorney general, jeff sessions. listen to this.
>> you think the attorney general has a responsibility to say no to the president if he asks for something that's improper? a lot of people have defended the lynch nomination for example, by saying, well, he appoints somebody who is going to execute his views. what's wrong with that? but if the views the president wants to execute are unlawful should the attorney general or the deputy attorney general say no? >> circumstance i believe that the toermg or the deputy attorney general has the obligation to follow the law and constitution and give their independent legal advice to the president. >> if the views the president wants to execute are unlawful. if the president wants to justice department to do something unlawful should the attorney general say no to that? no, mr. president, i will not do that u.n. unlawful thing.
yes. the attorney should tell the president in that situation to stuff it. sally yates went on to become the acting attorney general of the united states. tonight she was fired for doing exactly what she told senator jeff sessions she would do back at this confirmation in hearing in 2015. that said, i cannot imagine senator sessions objects to her being fired over that. not now, not with this president. more ahead. don't just eat yogurt... wear it. new aveeno®... daily moisturizing body yogurt. enriched with the nutrients found in greek yogurt,
tonight for this special live midnight hour. we will see you again tomorrow when we will have a supreme court nominee to talk about, we think. our continuing coverage of the president's firing of his acting attorney general continues >> there is breaking news tonight. the president fires the acting attorney general hours after she said the justice department would not defend president trump's immigration ban. the 11th hour begins now. and good evening once again from our headquarters here in new york. the trump administration is only eight days old and already tonight there has been a showdown between the president and the justice department. donald trump tonight has fired the interim attorney general because of her ruling earlier this evening that the justice department would not defend the trump administration's travel ban that was in that executive order.