Skip to main content

tv   MSNBC Live  MSNBC  January 31, 2017 11:00pm-12:01am PST

11:00 pm
good evening again from our head quarters in new york city. tonight, a 49-year-old federal judge from denver gorsuch nominated to serve, it's 12 days into the new presidency, coming in the middle of a huge fight over other nominees and over the rollout of a travel ban into this country. the nomination comes after president obama's nominee was turned away, not given a hearing by the senate even though justice scalia died almost one year ago creating the vacancy.
11:01 pm
gorsuch is the son of ronald reagan's controversial head of the epa. he's on the u.s. court of appeals. he studied at columbia. at harvard law, and oxford university in the u.k. as a marginal scholar, married father of two daughters, ages 18 and 15, worked under president bush 43 and worked for anthony kennedy and for justice byron white appointed to the court by jfk. >> i have always felt that after the defense of our nation, the most important decision a president of the united states can make is the appointment of a supreme court justice. depending on their age, a justice can be active for 50 years, and his or her decisions
11:02 pm
can last a century or more, and n ten be permanent. i took the task of this nomination very seriously, and i've selected an individual whose qualities define really, and i mean closely define what we're looking for. judge gor such has outstanding dit plin and earned bipartisan support. when he was nominated, he was confirmed by the senate unanimously. also, it's unanimous -- can you believe that? nowadays with what's going on? [ applause ] yes. does that happen anymore? does it happen? i think it's going to happen maybe again. >> standing here in a house of history and acutely aware of my own imperfections, i pledge if
11:03 pm
confirmed i will do all my powers permit to be a faithful servant to the constitutional laws of this great country. when we judges dawn our robes, it doesn't make us any smarter but serves as a reminder of what's expected of us. impartiality, independence, collegiality, and courage. as this process now moves to the senate, i look forward to speaking with members from both sides of the aisle to answering their question es and hearing their concerns. i consider the united states senate the greatest body in the world, and i respect the important role the constitution affords is in the confirmation of our judges. i respect, too, the fact that in our legal order, it's for congress and not the courts to write new laws. it is all for judges to apply, not alter the work of the people's representatives. a judge who likes every outcome
11:04 pm
he reaches is very likely a bad judge. stretching for results he prefers rather than those the law demands. i am so thankful tonight for my family, my friends, and my faith. these are the things that keep me grounded that life's piques sustained me in its valleys. >> has to be said judge gorsuch could not have been more earnest or grashsz in the remarks. following is said as well, make no mistake, this was a prime time rollout of a court nominee by a president who came from the world of reality television. immediately following the reveal, the president asked the crowd in the room and the assembled media, quote, so wasn't that a surprise? let's bring in our panel to talk about all of it, our veteran pete williams who covered the supreme court for us for years, speaking of which, npr is here, who is from the press room, and
11:05 pm
our political analyst, nicole wallace, former communications director, of course, in the bush 43 white house. pete, home field advantage, you go first. what's expected of this jurist. why were supreme court kind of conservative groups hoping that he would be named? why are they happy tonight? >> two reasons they wanted him chosen. first of all, they think he's the most ga legal like, if that's the right term, of the nominee. like scalia's approach to the law, statutes based on what the words say, that the constitution should be looked at based on what founders meant. that's in the scalia mold. a persuasive writer, opinions clear, readable, and dare i say entertaining. doesn't have the rough edges scalia did. from the judicial philosophy, they like him. he's been a standup guy on
11:06 pm
religious liberty, important to conservatives. there's a second reason here, brian. the fact is he mentioned that he had clerked for justice anthony kennedy. justice kennedy went to denver when he was sworn in, so he's friendly person for justice kennedy, and the conservative groups are really looking for the next chess move. this, remember, is replacing a conservative justice scalia with, obviously, another conservative. what the conservative groups really hoped for is to get one of the seats of somebody who is going to retire soon, and they wonder when that's anthony kennedy, and they hope by putting neil gorsuch on the court, doesn't make kennedy think, uh-oh, there goads the neighborhood. i better stay. >> nina, in your view, is this net-net, unchanged, status quo, basically going from scalia gorsuch if confirmed? >> i'm sure there's some issues on which they disagree and would
11:07 pm
have different outcomes, but, basically, this is a conservative seat that will be occupied by a conservative if he's confirm, and if he's not confirmed, they'll name another conservativ this is going to be a conservative seat. pete is right, though. the next battle for the next seat, if there is one, and there's every possibility there could be one, is where the rubber meets the road, to use the cliche, and for the last six months, conservatives have been saying privately that kennedy either was willing to resign, was getting close to resigning, that he really would like to resign. truth is, they would like him to retire. and i don't know what justice kennedy's feelings are about it, but at minimum, they hope that a justice gorsuch could drag justice kennedy away from the liberal block where he sided
11:08 pm
with that block on a number of important issues of late, and at best, as pete puts it, they would get the next chess move. they'd get another seat and kennedy would say, this is great. i know neil gorsuch, if all the nominees are like neil gorsuch, i feel very happy leaving this to president trump. >> nicole wallace, we come to you for the politics of it all. what do you think? >> donald trump needed this night tonight. he had in the eyes of all of his detractors much of the media and maybe even some of his supporters made a bit of a mess of the first 12 days of presidency. the muslim ban, support it or not, rolled out in a manner that i described last night as criminal incompetence. he raised some of that nighty rollg out a supreme court justice who you may disagree with on policy, but impeccable qualifications. >> can't be more impressive. >> and donald trump will always
11:09 pm
benefit when he stands next to someone with humility and humor. standing shoulder to shoulder with a man who embodies the best practices of that humility people look for that george bush looked for the in the selection of justice roberts. he elevated himself for a moment, but what always happens with now president trump is that he tends to step on even his own good news. i don't think anyone should hold their breath. >> five it a few hours? >> don't call it page turning. by the end of the hour, another twitter war with a medial personality, but for that hour tonight, he picked somebody who is, obviously, qualified, he rolled out an event in a competent matter, impressive manner. >> pete williams, a proud product of wyoming, living proof they make good people out there, and while this nomination is not
11:10 pm
a monument to diversity, at least judge gorsuch, a white male, married, two daughters, is very much a product, while he's lived all over the place, defines himself as a product of the american west and the rocky mountain states, and that ideologically, at least on this court, is saying something. >> it says a lot about what the current court is. looked at as a type of diversity given he's gone to ivy league school, ten years in private practice in washington, went to high school here with a page in the u.s. senate. in one of the page classes was another presidential daughter, amy carter, but he is an avid westerner. he's a fourth generation coloradoan. loves to hike, fish, ski, outdoor activities, and he's a protestant. that's one diversity he brings to the supreme court, nevermind the ct he's a white male. >> definition of feeling old tonight is remembering when his mother ran epa under ronald reagan as i do vividly, and i
11:11 pm
want to quote from her obit in the washington post in 2004, a striking woman with jet black hair, she was described as having television star good looks and perfect manicures, wearing fur coats and smoked two packs a day, her government issued car got 15 miles to the gallon. she could charm opponents, but she did not shy from political combat. denver's rocky mountain news said about her she could kick a bear to death with her bare feet. that is the obit actually you want written about you when you go. nina, to your previous point, if i could steer this back to the supreme court. i just had to read that. it's a ghoulish business wondering where the next vacancy comes from. we've seen in our lifetime justices who stay too long at the fair. we have seen strokes take place and people incapacitated like justice brennan who should have
11:12 pm
been off the court recently on his own after he suffered with health issues, but it's another thing to say that justice kennedy may feel pressure to get off the court. justice ginsberg had health issues and stands in there in the batter's box. >> yeah. and does 20 pushups a day. she's 83, about to be 84. kennedy's 80. another liberal justice, steven briar, is 78. these are realities that face the court. nobody's sick. everybody does his/her job actually quite well at the moment, but this is a reality. it's a reality that the democrats know about. they are particularly bitter because they feel that this is a nomination essentially stolen from them because the republicans refused to even consider garland's nomination to the supreme court for a year,
11:13 pm
and nobody among them said it was not qualified, but a political move democrats thought republicans would pay, and they did not. instead, it paid off for republicans. so i wouldn't expect a lot of cooperation from the democrats. nonetheless, they don't have the vote. they can filibuster, but the republican majority can change the filibuster rule. i don't think mcconnell wants to do that, but unless something dramatic happens to change the equation here, this is a qualified nominee, and as you said, the person who is not full of himself and has some humility and sense of humor and is well-regarded, and is, i must say, has a reputation quite up like his mother who was known for bomb throwing and take no
11:14 pm
prisoners attitudes, and he's known for being a completely unfailingly polite colleague who listens to everybody, and nonetheless reaches very conservative conclusions, some of which will be controversial when discussed in the judiciary committee. nonetheless in the last analysis, the vote in the senate is 52-48. there's 52 republicans. they control the calendar. if you're a betting person, and don't bet on supreme court nominations because they go awry, but it's with the republicans. >> one reference from nina that's important tonight. mitch mcconnell is third in line tonight for -- first goes to supreme court nominee, second to donald tmp who pulled off a smooth rollout after a bumpy first 12 days, but mitch mcconnell gets praise in con seventive circles for holding
11:15 pm
the line, something viewed as risky and a little dicey for the republicans should hillary clinton had won as everyone thought she would. breathing a sigh of relief, but celebrated tonight in conservative circles. >> could not have started the broadcast with better guests on this the night we learned of the nominee for the supreme court. thanks to pete williams and nina, both joining us tonight after the long day in washington, d.c. pete and nina, thanks. when we return after our first break, an "11th hour exclusive," the new jersey governor chris christie takes our question on the supreme court nominee and critical view of the first chaotic days of the new administration.
11:16 pm
11:17 pm
11:18 pm
11:19 pm
he's going to get confirmed. i took a lot of crap voting for obama's judges. thought they were qualified. tried to be fair to everybody, the best i know how to be, this president won. he deserves the right to pick qualified people, and this is one of the most qualified people i've ever met, so time will tell. >> agree or disagree, refreshing to hear people speak english on occasion. we got one prominent republican's thoughts on the president's supreme court pick. we thought we'd talk to yet another prominent republican on that very same topic, and so we are happy to welcome the sitting republican governor of new jersey, chris christie, back to the broadcast.
11:20 pm
our friend, nicole, remains with us. thank you for being with us. what do you think of the stage craft and substance of it? >> substance unquestionable. this guy is clearly qualified. he's got a great background and experience, not just educational, but everything in you talked about in the first segment. stage craft, it was well done. it was a donald trump production. everything we've seen over 12 days, this was a donald trump production. this is one of the things that the president does very well. builds suspense. come to a moment. use all of the atmosphere that he has in his disposal, and then deliver what he did this time which was a very good substantive product to the people as well with judge gorsuch. >> a question on stage craft. 8:00 p.m. eastern time, over the
11:21 pm
air networks got out of programming and took it live. obviously networks like this that's our stock and trade. can he do that many more times for a non state of the union address? >> no. this is extraordinary important as you talked about tonight, though, so he can for this, and he picked the right way to do it. he picked the right time to do it. it was quickly, early this week, and what he's hoing, i'm sure, this will dominate the conversation into the weekend. >> let's talk about what nominated the conversation so far. there's many items, but most recently, something that started when it was called a rollout of this executive order, a travel ban into this united states. looking at it from your perch, involved into the edge of the administration. what do you think went wrong? >> well, listen, first off, let's talk about what went
11:22 pm
right, then we'll talk about what went wrong. what's right is this policy is better than the policy talked about in the campaign. during the campaign when i was running and others, he talked about a muslim ban. that's not what this is. so it's been called that by others, and let's make sure we're precise about what we're talking about here. now, i said earlier today, this wouldn't have been my exact preference. i would like to base our decisions on how to restrict visas based upon actual intelligence rather than broader generalizations, but this is better than where he was were before. he took a step from where he was to a position that's workable to protect the country. he was ill-sved by wever it was that came up with the way to roll this out, not including irrelevant people that needs to be included like general kelly and others, not getting all the briefings from the airports, all the security folks to ensure things were not done inkrengtly,
11:23 pm
which obviously were, and then trying to defend it as if what you see is not what you really see. what it allowed the president's adversaries today was to call it a muslim ban, which it is not. it took the president further back than it needed to. tonight, frankly, the president was ill-served, took a reasonable defense position than he had taken in the campaign, and it's one that's in the right direction in terms of defending our country, and i think he was extraordinarily ill-served by the way it was presented. >> stop grading on the curve. most botched foreign policy. general mattis carved out interpreters in combat with american soldiers so they don't die when their planes -- you want a person who comes to the republican field, you came with a lot of foreign policy, knowledge, experience, and depth of understanding. how could that happen? >> well, listen, you know this
11:24 pm
from working with president bush. i know it as a governor. set out policy we want to have. we defined the outer contours of it. we say to the staff, okay, i want to do it x times, whatever it is, and they have an obligation that it's get it done in that period of time and get it done the right way or say, you can't get it done in that time. we need three or four days. suspicion here is, and i don't know, but whoever it was arranging that stuff let the president down. not grading on a curve. >> the washington post, unless you know it's not true, reports that they ran around, secretary of defense, secretary of homeland security, how apaling is that? is he psyched with steve bannon tonight? >> i don't know. i don't know that he did that. listen, with all do respecfor "washington post" i'not taking everything they print as gospel, but i'll say this. i don't care who did it or who was involved in it. the president is not going to be happy about that because he spent a lot of time and wasted a lot of time dealing with something that, in fact, he
11:25 pm
didn't do. the most frustrating thing is that executive in charge of large government is, you know, when mistakes happen that are your fault, it's annoying. when mistakes happen that are not your fault, then that becomes enraging. i'm sure knowing this president that he's rightfully upset with the people who did this because he feels, i'm sure, that, wait a second, i've changed this policy from where i was in the campaign to a a policy that my experts told me was much more reasonable, doable, and better to protect america, and i'm blamed for the old policy because the rollout was bad. whoever it was in there, it was not a president move. >> number one on content, at the briefing, media, not to use the president and spokesman previously used the word "ban," but to prove your point on substance, how is it not a muslim ban when it's seven majority muslim nations with carveouts for religious minorities?
11:26 pm
>> first of all, the carveout is to make sure those people are not discriminated against because of religious believes in the country can come to america. that's what the statue of liberty is about. if you're oppressed for wanting to exercise your religious believes by a government in another country, you can come here freely to exercise your beliefs. he did not pick countries based on religion, but picked countries based on information they have regarding threats to the united states. he should have been more specific about it. there's intelligence out there that's going to allow him to be more specific about it, and i hope they use -- i think they should use that time before they announce to refine it further, but now that that 90 days to refine it further, and they should do that to just put to rest this idea that the muslim ban because it's not a muslim ban. he advocated a muslim ban earlier. that's not where he was as
11:27 pm
president. give credit for that. because of the way it was done, he's set on defense rather than offense. >> do you really think you could defend this as a doj lawyer in court if that was your job? >> sure, based on intelligence, salute absolutely. >> have we been slap danced in vetting? >> i don't think we've been as good as we could be. the fbi director said that. the fbi director said that regarding syria refugees that we don't have at our disposal now vetting to let in refugees at the volume president obama remmed. he testified that before congress. i have great faith in him, we worked together, and i don't believe he said something off the top of his head, so i think there's improvement to be made and can be made, brian, and i think that was one of the messages of the selection was that president trump took seriously the idea of protecting the american people from terrorist attack like san bernardino and florida and people felt like he was serious about it. now, policy backing up -- i can tell you from talking to the
11:28 pm
president about it, i have no doubt that tes deadly serious about doing this the right way. the way it was rolled out did not show the seriousness. he deserved better. it will get better going forward. >> do you think it's weird, you mentioned two attacks that did not come from another country. they -- they nevermind the seven he banned travel from, but do you think it's weird he didn't tackle things that radicalize people that killed the people in our country? >> those are more complicated issues. >> he's president. >>e tried to roll that out in the first 101 days, criticism would be he had not thought about that. >> he didn't give thought to thp. >> a lot of thought from where he started, nicole. you have to remember -- >> because it's less negative, but still -- >> listen -- >> religious ban, and it was not a religious ban, but it's still rolled out in a way that have green card holders out of the country. >> that was clearly a mistake and problem with the
11:29 pm
interpretation of the policy. it does not say that in the executive order. the vetting of this, before you make it public, is important. >> vetting, like, a policy process? >> a practice where, okay, if you go to the homeland security secretary saying this is what it looks like, okay, well, let me ask a few questions, what do do with green card holders? it's part of the communication to be clear. this was not a problem with the executive order if you read it. it was a problem of varying interpretations of people of how they thought it should be enforced and there was stories in different airportsings right? what that tells you is this was failed communication. you know this as a communication director. failed communication is based on
11:30 pm
bad planning, and not bad policy. it could be bad policy based on -- >> it's separate. i agree. >> it is bad planning. this, it was not the president planning. it's not his job. if it was, you'd be scared, right? what i know donald trump knows tonight is that he was ill-served. now, he's not going to say it publicly because these folks are his staff. he's going to work with them and improve going forward, but i know him. he knows tonight he could have been serve better because his policy is not a bad policy for the country. now, it's going to be refined over 90 days and will be better as we realize more intelligence, but he was ill-served by the way this was rolled out, and contrast is tonight of a long planned rollout that went the right way with the right person and he looked great tonight. he deserved to look that way signing that at the pentagon and failure of people around him to do that ill-served the president. the president deserved to be rved well. he worked hard. the guy is working like crazy. eds to be received well. >> does not make us look good detaining 5-year-olds at aiorts. taking a break here. when we come back, this growing theory that two of the bad days in the trump administration so far have one thing in common. we'll keep talking to governor
11:31 pm
christie when we come back.
11:32 pm
11:33 pm
11:34 pm
back with a special long hour long edition of the broadcast tonight. governor chris christie is here with us annie coal wallace. i wanted to run past the new theory from the online pages of vanity fair.
11:35 pm
they've run two straight columns alleging the same thing, and that is that the really bad days of the trump administration have been saturdays. what do saturdays have in common? jared kushner is not working those days. to quote from the magazine, during the tumult some noticed conspicuous absence of the allegedly coming presence. he was not rolling calls on saturday when it happened, one person close to kushner told me last week. to me, that's not a coincidence. i can't imagine who would be, but is telling them put two and two together. do you think jared kushner has that much potential influence in the building, and are you surprised at what's happened has happened on your friend's, reine's, watch? >> yes. i've seen it up close and personal throughout the campaign.
11:36 pm
no doubt about it. i don't know if you can put two and two together in the way that wonderfully anonymous quoter does it, but no question that that influence is based upon trust. jared's his son-in-law. i think that's familiar relationship, as we see with the president with all of his family, is extraordinarily important to him. he's very trusting of the people in his family, and i think jed pls a very, very important role in that, and so i don't know whether that is reay why that happens or didn't, but as to jared's influence with the president -- >> what about positive one, reince as a manager, chief of staff. >> it's been 11 days rp give him a break and time to figure it out. it's a huge job, complex job, and it's a job that's being done by one working incredibly hard. he's never been in government before.
11:37 pm
that's an adjustment. he's going to need to adjust. i don't think now -- a press person today asked me to grade them. like, you can't grade people after 11 days. that's unfair. this is the chief of staff -- people are in place -- >> you ran the transition for a while. there are candidates, and they don't -- i mean, there's no one -- four chiefs of staff, not one worked in the building before. i mean, you can't keep blaming donald trump. at some point it has to be that he's been put in place in a process that would have presented the botched rollout. >> i didn't blame donald trump. >> i know you didn't. >> i specifically didn't. i don't know. again, i don't know who was in charge. >> chief of staff in charge? >> listen, i think every white house -- look at reagan's white house. there was three people in charge. baker chief was staff -- first lady, but, you know, we had jim baker, ed, and mike with
11:38 pm
specific areas of responsibility and in something like this, responsibilities were overlapped, right? ed, i spoke to the former attorney general about this in transition. he was policy centric. jim baker was the guy making sure trains ran on time and communications were there, and mike was the guy to arrange a rollout like tonight. it's not that easy. that's why i'm not here at all to blame anybody else specifically because this white house is still evolves. now, you know, you wish that it wouldn't have happened that way because it's cost the president. >> yeah. >> again, as a governor i know this and say to the staff all the time, and when i worked for folks, your job is to make sure that nothing bad happens to the principal. that's the main job of staff. that's why, you know, my view was, this is not throwing anybody under the bus. it's just the truth. when something goes wrong, it's not the president's fault.
11:39 pm
it is the fault of the people who are in charge of making sure that his policy was accurately communicated, properly vetted, and expertly rolled out. that was done today on the supreme court. it was not done on the travel situation. >> governor, thank you for coming by tonight. >> happy to be here. >> appreciate the conversation. another break for us. when we come back, talking about the news from tonight and the politics of the president's supreme court selection when the "11th hour" continues.
11:40 pm
11:41 pm
11:42 pm
i only hope both democrats and republicans can come together for once for the good of the country. >> that was in the east room tonight of the white house. still with us, our political analyst, nicole wallace, and returning tonight, msnbc contributor and long time conservative talk show host from wisconsin, and in our d.c. bureau, white house reporter for the "washington post", ashley
11:43 pm
parker, returning to the broadcast. thank you for being here. charlie, what do you think of what you heard and tonight's event at the white house? >> it was extraordinary, a message delivered by chris christie through the white house staff reading between the lines, obviously, the president is very, very unhappy about the way this was played out. he recognized it was a fiasco. obviously, he would not have had this rollout of the supreme court nominee unless, of course, the president realized he had to change the narrative and subject matter as quickly as possible. he did it effectively tonight. >> you think this -- chances are good this will fill the ninth vacancy? >> well, the key thing, though, is this will unite conse conservatives, first time since 2015 republicans and conservatives are on the same page. even never-trumpers are praising this as about a good a choice he made. it's scalia 2.0. to energyize the conservative base, this was the base to do it.
11:44 pm
this is going to bring together all the wings of the republican party behind this nominee. >> ashley, this is a guy in the studio tonight who, as of this week, is at a 17% approval rating in his home state of new jersey. got up to the altar with the trump crowd and was left behind, painting a picture tonight of what he saw as the management failures. you wrote the benchmark piece on turmoil inside this trump white house, have you learned debacle they're still recovering from? >> yes and no. one thing was striking tonight discussed already on the show, this supreme court rollout went quite well.
11:45 pm
people maybe anticipated some of the realty show theatrics. donald trump was in fact presidential. one thing i was struck by we reported earlier, the trump team on this is putting in place a disciplined group of professionals. they have former senator kelly ayotte shepherding the hopeful justice around the hill. they brought in a capitol hill professional. i was struck unlike the other rollout leadership wasn't consulted and cabinet not consulted they're going down the chain and doing something very typical for washington in most administrations but does not afternoon happen with the trump world. >> you're left with the dynamic of this staff, as we've been discussing tonight. you have bannon and miller and kellyanne conway and you have reince priebus. the buck's got to stop in that office before it goes into the oval. chief of staff in the white house is everything. >> yeah. that's absolutely true.
11:46 pm
in this last botched rollout, there were two camps and factions of blame. we viewed it as the people active, steve bannon and miller making policy and trike to push trump in one hard right direction. then the people inherently reactive and reince priebus and sean spicer who have to take this and try to smooth out the edges and explain away some of these disasters, there is a thought someone like reince as chief of staff should have programs in place to prevent this from happening. there is a sense he is chief of staff in title but not ia typical way. most chief of staffs don't have to deal with this level of chaos. >> in the 30 seconds we have before a break, this falls to you, nicole. it's 11, 12 days in. >> it's 11, 12 days in. there was a transition. even if they didn't expect to win there was plenty of time to figure out how a policy would be vetted. that is a process, you could have turned to the transition books of any of the last
11:47 pm
outgoing presidents, we know the obama white house was told to be as helpful as possible. a white house announcement, the governor kept calling it vetting which gets confused of vetting of people coming in, it's called a staff document, what it means you send it out to the cabinet. i thought ashley's work this morning was absolutely startling. it is still 12 hours later a startling read about steven miller, almost like a rogue agent inside that west wing with the blessing of steve bannon doing so much harm to a new president 12 days in is stunning. >> we will take a break with our panel with our conversation right after this. this is the 11th hour.
11:48 pm
11:49 pm
11:50 pm
we are back with a few closing moments with our panelists.
11:51 pm
back to washington and ashley park we are the "washington post." ashley, we saw from the podium today scott spicer -- another -- >> sean. >> sorry. i know it's late for all of us. sean spicer, another relitgation of the english language, where terms came from. muslim ban, media term, no, sean spicer, president trump, is the new benchmark how many hours they can live in a successful event like tonight? is there a clock, rhetorical clock running? >> i think they're going to try to ride the momentum from tonight as much as humanly possible. i think that's absolutely right. one thing so striing to me in that briefing, this debate over the word ban, donald trump himself used that word in a tweet, which was pointed out to sean spicer in the briefing and sean spicer blamed the media for that and said he was just repeating the media's word. while there is a lot of blame to
11:52 pm
go around to the media, i have to say we know donald trump's tweets are the most clear disstillation of what the president is thinking any given moment. i don't think you can explain that away to the media. >> i know i just cast doubt whether his name is sean or not. tonight, what we saw was changing reality or the narrative. >> it is important to do this. why are we talking about a muslim ban? donald trump proposed a muslim ban and he ran for presint on a muslim ban and they have this hurt innocence, why would any think we are proposing a muslim ban? maybe because you talked about it 12 months. >> it's a lie. what sean spicer did from the podium today was again lie. we didn't make up the word "ban," donald trump used the
11:53 pm
word "ban" when he talked how wonderful it was going on at the airport. i won't call that a lie. he may have actually thought that. >> from delta airlines. it was creative. >> sean spicer had to have known when he took to the podium to say it was a lie when he said the media attached the word ban to this. his boss used the word ban. >> have you ever seen anything change from the administration to a judge and the administration versus the attorney general just last night. it's moving at the speed of light? >> my feathers are totally ruffled. having been out covering trump vetters and going to wisconsin next, i bet trump voters are having this rational emotion and they will take this supreme court justice nominee and will balance out the mayhem. >> i'm hearing this is the
11:54 pm
justification, you cannot overstate how important this was for trump and conservative voters. my timeline on social media is, now, don't you understand, don't you wish you had supported donald trump? this is the alpha and omega for a lot of trump conservative voters to turn the page and talk about the supreme court. >> nicole did this to some extent. we urge our viewers to read what ashley parker has written in the "washington post" about this young administration, this white house staff under this president. it's been truly remarkable journalism. thank you very much from washington. we know it's late. charlie, thank you, nicole, thank you. a final word about the highest court in the land and those who have the honor to sit on the bench, when we come back, when "the 11th hour" continues.
11:55 pm
11:56 pm
11:57 pm
11:58 pm
finally tonight, the nomination of neil gorsuch, a federal judge out of denver virtually assures there will only be justices on the u.s. supreme court who went to either harvard law school or yale law school. it's really an incredible development. the asterisk is ruth gader ginsburg who went to harvard but eventually graduated from columbia. there are eight justices and one hopeful justice, all of them have one thing in common having attended the same two law schools. one in new haven, connecticut and the other cambridge, mass. think of all the other law schools and judges left out of this equation. if you're a blue blood kid or scholarship kid, getting your degree from harvard law or yale law changes you. it can't help but change you and it stands a good chance of chaning your world view. you will be attending law school with mostly well off fellow law
11:59 pm
students from better than averages colleges. it's easy to argue yale law and harvard law are the best at what they do. whether the lawyers they train make the best justices to decide laws we all live by in 2017, that of course a broader question for all americans. that is our special hour-long edition of our broadcast for tonight. thank you so much for being with us. good night from new york. good evening from new york, i'm chris hayes. minutes from now donald trump will perform one of the most solemn constitutional duties assigned to the president of the united states nominating a justice to the u.s. supreme court. borrowing from his previous career as reality tv host, the president has narrow it had list of candidates down to two finalists. both were allegedly summoned to the white house to ensure maximum secrecy but we're
12:00 am
learning both men did not go to washington tonight. it will be the second time a president has nominated someone to fill this particular seat on the court after the sudden death of justice antonin scalia exactly 352 days ago. senate republicans vowed to block anyone president barack obama chose to succeed him and that's what they did, refusing to hold a confirmation hearing for supreme court nominee judge merrick garland. it worked and now there's a republican in the white house. joining me from the east room where president trump will announce his choice, msnbc national correspondent peter alexander. give me a sense of what it's like. >> we got the two-minuteteleprom this room is filled with republicans right now, the leadership is here. also donald trump's inner circle, steve bannon, reince priebus, kellyanne conway, all in this room.


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on