tv The Rachel Maddow Show MSNBC March 3, 2017 1:00am-2:01am PST
people are lying and not coming forward. yes. what they're covering up maybe it's not that much i don't know. but we have to find out. >> congressman jerry nadler, thank you for your time. that's "all in" for this evening. the rachel maddow show starts right now. good evening, rachel. >> good evening, chris, thanks my friend. >> you bet. thank you for joining us at this hour. attorney general jeff sessions recusing himself from overseeing investigations into the trump campaign and russia. this is a big deal, we've been following this for a long time, we've been following this intense attention when the attorney general recused himself it felt like one of those moments that was like exactly halfway between oh my god i can't believe that happened and oh my god i can't believe it took this long far to happen. that happened. we'll have more on that story ahead including the super serious allegations against the fbi in this matter.
attorney general jeff sessions says as of today he's getting out of the way but all this time thus thus far, has he been in the way of those investigations already? has attorney general jeff sessions been investigating the fbi's investigations thus far? specifically has he been telling the fbi to not share information about what they found with congressional investigators? because tonight one prominent congressional investigator says the fbi is actually blocking the trump/russia investigation from moving forward. did jeff sessions instruct the fbi to do that before finally recused himself at 4:00 this afternoon. or -- and this might be worse -- did the fbi make a decision to obstruct the investigation on its own? did the fbi itself decide of their own accord to obstruct the congressional investigation into
this matter in which case we have to ask if the fbi will continue to block the congressional investigation of this even now that jeff sessions is out will they continue to do that for their own reasons? and what happens if the fbi has to recuse itself? there's no deputy fbi. i mean, so, yeah, among people who want a real investigation into the trump/russia ties the word today was, yay, jeff sessions is recusing himself from this matter but now it's time for much harder questions with much more worrying implications. is the fbi legitimately investigating this incredibly serious national security matter or not? beyond their own supposed investigation, is the fbi in fact blocking the other major investigation that's supposed to be going on? one very serious, very sober person in a position to know the answer to that says that is what the fbi is doing and he's
demanding to know why. that person will join us live here in just a few minutes. so that flaming comet of a story is coming up on our show tonight in what has been a whipsaw day in the news but we're going to do that story second tonight. we're going to lead tonight with a different story. we're going to lead with news we are going to break here exclusively. we have obtained a document. we have now verified its authenticity. this is exclusive news, you won't see this anywhere else. this new document would appear to be kind of a stake in the heart for the muslim ban, for the new president's travel refugee muslim ban. here's the story. inauguration day was on a friday this year and the weekend after the inauguration you might remember things were a little nuts, what is believed to be the single largest day of
coordinated protests in american history. well over a million people on the streets of d.c. but millions more people all over the country in small marches and in some very, very large marches, there were marches held in all 50 states, that was the first weekend of the new presidency. then the second weekend of the new presidency it happened again more protests, again surprisingly large, except the ones on the second weekend of the trump presidency hadn't been a couple months in advance like the women's marchs the weekend before. these ones on the second weekend in fact weren't planned in advance at all. they were spontaneous urgent reactions to the sudden no-warning announcement that friday one week after the inauguration that ended up being one of the only actual policies this administration has tried to enact thus far. the surprise slap dash barely coherent executive order by the new president banning travel to the united states by citizens of seven specific majority muslim countries. i say it was a slap dash order because there was apparently no
down-the-chain consultation on how to enforce this thing. they threw it out on a friday night, good luck. does it apply to dual citizens, does it apply to people holding legal current visas that give them position to be here? it does? it applies to those people? are you sure? you're not sure? who gets in and who doesn't? some people got lawyers or even members of congress to help them at the airport and try to get them released by airport authorities. some people just got sent back. some people got tricked or bullied into signing away their green cards, which is nuts, signing away your legal residency or people got tricked into signing away their legal visas giving them official government permission to be here. it was chaos. this was the second weekend of the new presidency and it was
this ridiculous thing put in place amidst this unbelievably chaotic rollout and that was what the second weekend of the trump presidency looked like and this policy very soon started to fall apart. the administration said it did apply to legal residents then it didn't. then it did apply to people with current visas and it didn't. ultimately it didn't take long for the courts to start stepping in and say oh, heck no. please stop this. the first ruling that stopped the ban was from a district judge, a federal district judge in new york, hundreds of people waiting in the middle of the night outside that courthouse for that ruling.
people went from the airport to protest saturday night and went government lawyers trying to defend that ban that night for that judge apparently -- they plainly appeared to have no idea how to defend it in court. by monday the acting attorney general sally yates had put in the writing to the new white house. she said she didn't believe this new muslim ban was legal. she said she would not instruct department of justice to defend it. it wouldn't pass constitutional muster. the courts agreed. they all said some legal version of no, no, no. it was one level below the supreme court that issued a unanimous three judge ruling that said no, n-o, you cannot do this. it was a mess and this is one of the only actual policy things the administration has tried to do. it's been a complete mess. the president reacted to that appeals court ruling by saying "see you in court." remember that? then a week later his administration told the court actually we're not going to fight you at all, we're going to
rescind our executive order. we had the attorney general of washington state on this show that night basically taking a victory lap when they rescinded it, right? his lawsuit killed the muslim ban. the only worry was that the administration said they were going to rescind the muslim ban but they were going to write a new one to replace it. here's how you know something is seriously wrong here. on february 16, they told the court they were going to rescind the old muslim ban but a new muslim ban was coming. they said it was going to happen right away, it was going to happen "in the near future." that was february 16, five days later, the 21, the white house said it was almost ready, it was due out right away, definitely this week. then we got to the end of that week. by the 23rd they were saying it's not ready yet. maybe it will come the following week, which meant this week. then on monday night this weeker with told okay definitely it's going to come out on wednesday. then on tuesday like around midnight no, it's not coming out tomorrow or wednesday. the reason it wasn't going to come out on wednesday is because
the president liked his state of the union-ish speech and they didn't want to put out the new muslim ban the following day because they wanted to give the speech room to breathe a little. literally they told us that. remarkable sense of urgency on what's supposed to be an important matter of national security, right? we'll put this off for the day. we like the way the speech is breathing. the respiration of the speech is very satisfying to us. well, now, it's thursday. where's the muslim ban? the latest word from the white house is i know we said we'd let it way a day so that would be thursday but it's not coming today or tomorrow. maybe we'll have a new muslim ban by next week, maybe. here's the thing, this is one of the only things they've tried to do in terms of policy, notice
how it's fallen apart, not gone anywhere? here's the thing, they do have a problem here and i can show you that problem. we have just obtained this document which is produced by an intelligence agency based inside the department of homeland security an office called the office of intelligence and analysis. if that name is familiar, it's because that agency, the office of intelligence and analysis at homeland security, they were in the news a few days ago because the a.p. a few days ago obtained a report from this same agency that was apparently spiked by the trump administration. it was prepared by career
intelligence professionals but then they spiked it, they didn't want to let it out. that document leaked to the a.p., it was a fairly devastating blow against the muslim ban. this was the title of the document. citizenship likely an unreliable indicator of terrorist threat to the united states. "department of homeland security office of intelligence and analysis assesses that country of citizenship is unlikely to be a reliable indicator of potential terrorist activity." . so if you're really going after terrorism, you're really trying to spot and stop terrorists, just banning citizens of some list of countries does not make any sense in national security terms so that was a few days ago. that was leaked. that document from the intelligence agency inside
homeland security was leaked to the associated press last week. the trump administration may not want this to see the light of day but we'll leak it. banning people on their nation of or gin is national security nonsense. so we had that before tonight. now tonight we have this. this is another leaked report. i won't tell you how we got it but the department of homeland security has tonight confirmed that this is authentic, that this is real. you can see at the top of it here, i think we have it on screen it's labelled "unclassified, for official use only" dated march 1, 2017. this is a report from the homeland security office of intelligence and analysis, that's the u.s. intelligence agency based in homeland security, and interestingly it says it was prepared by that intelligence office but look at that small print there, "prepared by the office of intelligence analysis" that's the homeland security agency. but it was coordinated with customs and border protection, state department, immigration and customs enforcement, i.c.e., national counterterrorism center, and the u.s. citizenship and immigration services. all those people coordinated in creating this report. now here's the title "most foreign-born u.s.-based violent extremists radicalized after entering homeland." oh. what's the key finding here? what's the key judgment here? this is it. "we assess that most foreign-born u.s.-based violent extremists likely radicalized several years after their entry
into the united states and why is that important? say it again? we assess that most foreign-born u.s.-based violent extreists likely radicalized several years after their entry into the united states, limiting the ability of screening and vetting officials to prevent their entry because of national security concerns. oh, right, so much for extreme vetting. the whole justification, the whole explanation from this administration for the muslim ban was to stop people coming into this country, at least for a while. a temporary travel ban so we can get the extreme vetting so trump could set up his extreme vetting plan, right? when he announced it in the first place that's the "until we can figure out what is going on" part of how he announced. >> it donald j. trump is calling
far total and complete shutdown of muslims entering the united states until our country's representatives can figure out what the hell is going on. we have no choice. we have no choice. we have no choice. >> you already said that. "until our country's representative cans figure out what the hell is going on" a total and complete shutdown of muslims to the united states. that was the announcement, until we can get extreme vetting in place we have to shut down muslim immigration. until we can get that extreme vetting in place otherwise we can't be safe from the muslims. well, this intelligence
community document we have obtained tonight shows us two things. it shows us it's the conclusion of american intelligence in consultation with the border patrol and i.c.e. and the national counterterrorism center and the state department. it tells us that the national security justification for the whole ban, the setting up of extreme vetting is bull pucky in national security terms. there's nothing they can set up at the border to tell you years down the road who might become a completely and different and radical and violent person years from now because they haven't been radicalized yet so this tells us substantively, in terms of the substance of the matter that the intelligence community thinks the muslim ban is nuts. the sbem jebs community on national security ground thinks the muslim ban and whole justification for it is cuckoo. because we have to be realistic about the politics here, though,
it's also worth talking about why we got this. i'm like -- i'm not like sherlock homes. i'm not some incredible sleuth that's like hacked this somewhere. somebody wanted me to have this. and that also tells us something. that tells us that people inside the government, people who have access to intelligence documents like this, they want this to be known. they want it on tv. they want this out so no matter what the administration says about what they're doing and why we can see what the career intelligence people actually think about what this government is doing before presumably they submarine this stuff. i know there's a lot going on. we're going to be talking about the sessions recusal and there's
a lot going on but in terms of what this administration is doing, one of the only things they've tried to do is this muslim ban and it's a disaster. even if you agree with it, it's a disaster. and when the court shut it down they said they would issue a new one and they've been purning it back and back and back and back and i look at this and you know what i think? i think the muslim ban is dead. joining us now, andrea mitchell, chief foreign affairs correspondent and host of "andrea mitchell reports." thank you for being with us. >> thank you, this is an education. you've shared with this with me and i'm reading a lot. >> department of homeland security authenticated this. they told us that it's a real document. it's obviously not a complete document nor was it apparently prepared for public consumption. reading through it, what's your
take? >> well, the policy implications are fat nating because their conclusions are first of all that people do not enter here radicalized. second that parents do not come and are not radicalized when they arrive nor do that become radicalized. who becomes radicalized? the children become radicalized some 16 years later and how can we intervene? well, they have proposals. there are policy implications for this. that working with religious groups, working with community groups, working with adolescents could prevent the eventual radicalization of those who do become violent years later. but they do not learn this from their parents and they do not arrive this way. nor do their parents. that has important implications. it means as you've pointed out that, "extreme vetting" whatever that is, doesn't work, isn't necessary and second of all that there are things we can do in communities. and i'm thinking back to -- you did an exit interview with jeh
johnson. remember the speech he gave, the first speech by a homeland security secretary in chicago to the muslim community gathering? >> that is the approach that bill bratton would tell you in new york. those are things that work, not fictional extreme vetting at the borders. >> and that constructive policy to say we need to address homeland radicalization. we need to address the people that are not radical become radical through dislocation, through feeling abandoned, through feeling isolated. those are things we can address provided we can work particularly with muslim communities, immigrant
communities, religious communities. that's not just anat ma, that's almost swearing and the beam who leaked this to us, the people who made it public by giving it to us have to know that that is absolutely contrary to where the administration wants to take its national security policies. >> it's the same psychology that -- colin powell was giving a speech at l.i.u. and was speaking against the cuts proposed for the state department, for diplomacy, for development, for usaid. he hasn't answered a single question at any photo opportunity since he was sworn in. he gave an impressive speech the day he arrived but we've heard nothing from the state department pushing back against these draconian cuts in foreign aid and in security, intelligence development, partnerships that we have with foreign intelligence agencies overseas so it's all part of the same attitude towards soft power and towards our borders and muslim refugees and other immigrants. >> andrea mitchell, nbc news
chief foreign affairs correspondents, host of "andrea mitchell reports." thanks for being here on short notice. >> thank you. >> what andrea is saying about not hearing from the state department. one of the remarkable things is what we've heard from the state department since trump has been prt is the dissent cable signed by more than a thousand diplomats objecting to policies of the new administration, especially the muslim ban and the state department is one of the named coordinating agencies behind this intelligence report which we're reporting exclusively tonight blowing out of the water national security justification for that ban in the first place. they may not be saying anything outloud but their leaks and dissenters are speaking volumes. we'll be right back. ...i'm on... ...and on... ...and on. that's why i... ...make time for myself... ...and give my body some love... ...with aveeno® daily moisturizing lotion. its active naturals® oat formula... ...locks in moisture to improve skin wellness in just one day. i really needed that. i bet you do too. aveeno®
naturally beautiful results® i trained as hard as i could when i was a navy seal, to stay alive. i have more than 30 pieces of shrapnel still in my leg. but i still push myself to the limit. if it weren't for my tempur-pedic, i wouldn't be able to sleep on my left side at all. my unit put in a special request to get one and i realized that tempur-pedic was exponentially better than anything else. it gave me a huge performance advantage, it still does. tempur-pedic. this sleep is power.
communication with the russians." that didn't seem notable at the time, at least not to reporters or the public at large. but that moment would have popped, it should have popped, it should have resulted in blaring red sirens at the fbi because at that point the fbi was in a position to know whether or not that statement he made was true because while senator jeff sessions was going through his confirmation hearing to be attorney general the fbi was reportedly investigating his -- his, contacts with russian officials. according to the "wall street journal," the fbi had been investigating sessions' contacts with russian officials for months. at least since mid-november when he was nominated to be a.g. one person familiar with the investigation telling the "wall
street journal" today that jeff sessions' contact with russian officials while the fbi was supposed to be investigating trump campaign contacts with russian officials, that fact left the agency "wringing its hands" about how to proceed. i don't know whether or not they wrung their hands but the way they did decide to proceed was to not peep to congress. the "journal" reports this "it's unclear whether anyone in congress knew about the investigation into jeff sessions' russian interactions before sessions was confirmed." just think about that for a second. i mean, whether or not you choose to think about this in the context of hillary clinton's e-mails and what the fbi chose to disclose to congress and the public around that investigation, even setting that aside, congress, the senate was voting on this man to be the top law enforcement official in the country.
the fbi, because of its investigation into him knew he had contacts with the russian government. and that he had not disclosed them, and when he was asked directly about them in his confirmation hearing he apparently just bluntly lied to the senate about it under oath. the fbi in a position to know all of that and they said bupkis? they didn't peep to congress? apparently the agency didn't think it necessary to inform the senate about these salient details about who it was voting on? we have seen particularly among democrats frustration with how the fbi has been handling this matter but more than frustration, is there something seriously wrong here? congressman adam schiff, the ranging member of the house intelligence committee, ranking democrat in house intelligence told me two days ago he had yet to be assured of the fbi's full cooperation in the congressional inquiry into trump's ties with russia t "new york times" reported last night that u.s. allies including the british and dutch have provided information on meetings between trump
associates and russian officials. they've provided that information to the u.s. government. maybe if we want to know anything we should ask the dutch or british about these things, but not the fbi? today fbi director james comey was on capitol hill. he met behind closed doors for over three hours with members of the house intelligence committee. speaking with reporters immediately after that congressman schiff sounded very, very unconvinced. he's now accusing the director of the fbi, director comey, of not cooperating. of not being forthcoming with the intelligence committee. he's warning of the consequences of what he sees as continued stonewalling by the fbi. >> in order for us to do our investigation in a thorough and credible way we need the fbi to fully cooperate. at this point the director was
not willing to do that. he made it clear there were certain questions that we were asking that he would answer and others he would not. again, i hope that when we next meet with the director he will have a different point of view. i hope the department will. because we're going to need that information and we're better off getting that through the voluntary cooperation of the fbi than having to contemplate whether we need to subpoena the fbi. >> contemplating whether we need to subpoena the fbi. the fbi is blocking the congressional investigation into trump and russia? the fbi is not cooperating with the congressional investigation into trump and russia? what congressman schiff is saying there is that lawmakers, not just need but expect the fbi to cooperate. he says he hopes the fbi director will be more willing to answer questions the next time they meet. why is he not answering those questions?
james comey, joining us is congressman schiff, the ranking democrat on the house intelligence committee. thank you for being here tonight, sir. >> a pleasure, thank you. >> i don't know enough about how intelligence committees work to know how much the fbi should be cooperating with you. obviously the fbi is within the department of justice, they are reportedly doing their own investigations into contacts between trump folks and russia. obviously the house and senate committees are doing a legislative branch investigation as well. how much help do you expect to get from the fbi? >> there are two ways the fbi is supposed to be communicating with us on this. the first is in the gang of eight. the select members of house and
senate that work on these issues and we're supposed to get a quarterly counterintelligence briefing where the fbi sits down with us and says these the cases we're looking at, you need to know about these, these are of national significance, that hasn't happened in the past, isn't happening now, not on i think what the most significant potential counterintelligence investigation of the modern era. more than that. when the intelligence committee is doing an investigation and here on a bipartisan basis, we agreed to do this investigation, we have a detailed scope of investigation that's signed by the chairman and i. "i won't answer that, i won't answer that, i won't answer that." >> to be clear, this is speaking in a closed setting not like there are reporters there and they don't want this to leak? this is behind closed doors? >> absolutely. closed session and a hearing on the subject of the investigation. >> what's the basis for saying no to you? >> well, i don't want to characterize the director's response. but i did endeavor to find out is this his position, a position dictated by the department of justice and i have to say i couldn't clearly establish what
part of this was the direct decision, what part of this is operating under the department's decision or interpretation of department's decision. it wasn't clear. what was clear is we can't do our job if that will be the fbi's position. we can't become the fbi, we need to know what have they investigated? what leads have they chased down? what have they not chased down? how adequate is what they've done already? if we'll going to tell the american people we've done a thorough job, we need that information. more than that, if there's a compromise we need to know so we can protect the country. we aren't prosecutors, we're not trying to be but our job is to determine is our administration or anyone else compromised in a way that threatens our national security? we know russia is trying to undermine our democracy.
we know they're trying to undermine our allies in europe right now and we need to know what they've done and we need to know the fbi's cooperation to do that. the director wasn't willing to give us that full cooperation and that has to change. >> and the remedy to that is to suspect the fbi. to compel them to give more information than they have so far been willing to give? >> that's one remedy. i hope the director will go back with further consultations that he'll come back with a different attitude or different policy. if this pir cysts i don't see what option we have left but to subpoena the director. it's not there was a claim of executive privilege. i think this was a discretionary decision on his part or the department's part. that is a poor exercise of discretion and one that cannot persist. >> i want to ask your advice on -- your take on something and if you feel like it's outside your scope, i will respect it. according to the "wall street
journal," jeff sessions, his particular contacts with the russian government were under investigation by the fbi, at least for the last few months which would mean if that's true that the fbi was aware he had had undisclosed contacts with the russian government and that he had not told the senate when they were asking him direct questions about that during his confirmation hearing. apparently the fbi knowing that decided not to disclose it to the senate which allowed him to become the top law enforcement official in the united states. would it have been appropriate for the fbi to advise the senate they knew about those contacts that they knew he had lied to them? >> well, here's the issue and i can't comment on what particular counterintelligence agency may have been going on. but if they're doing an investigation anyone that may join an administration or not, they -- their priority is often
developing the facts to prosecute someone. and their concern sometimes that they will jeopardize the prosecution of someone if they share information with congress, the administration or anybody else but our priority in congress is the protection of the country, our national security interests, that has to trump in a same way when we capture terrorism suspects the information we need to gather from them takes priority over their prosecution, similarly here the priority for the fbi has to be protection of country first and prosecution second. >> and after the clinton diggs closures during the campaign, that's all the more stark. congressman adam schiff, ranking democrat on house intelligence, thank you sir. >> thank you. >> thank you. we'll be right back. stay with us.
behold. you own this. this is a u.s. navy aircraft carrier. it's the single most hyped aircraft carrier in the world. it can travel at speeds of more than 30 knots, really fast for something that big. it can operate for two decades without having to stop and refuel. it has electromagnetic launch systems for launching jets and drones. it's kind of a beast. at least it will be if it ever actually gets finished.
in addition to being the most hyped warship in the world. the uss "gerald r. ford" is known as the most expensive ship in the world and the most austentatiously unfinished one. construction on this ship began in 2005 -- 2005, 12 years on and nearly $13 kbld later. in 2013 the government accountability office called -- just slammed it citing "inefficient out-of-sequence work driven largely by material shortfalls, engineering challenges and delays, developing and installing critical technology systems. the uss "gerald r. ford" is neat but it's a study in the pitfalls of massive military spending. what better place for the president to announce his huge new increase in the military budget than on board the uss
"gerald r. ford." calling for one of the largest defense spending increases in history on board a ship that serves as the textbook picture next to the entry about the failures and embarrassment associated with unfocused massive military spending. on any other day this would probably be the big story of the day but today the attorney general recused himself from investigations into the president's contacts with russia during the campaign and with the possibility of a special prosecutor taking over the investigation there may be a more pressing historical reference at hand when it comes to the uss "gerald r. ford." president ford was one of many modern presidents to have a special prosecutor assigned to investigate him. in this case, allegations of him misusing campaign contributions. it was 1976, he was running for reelection.
election was a few weeks away. these allegations arose, the attorney general and deputy attorney general recused themselves and passed it to a special prosecutor left over from the watergate scandal. that special prosecutor looked into it and decided there had's nothing here. dropped the case. cleared ford of wrongdoing and did it without much fanfare. he was praised by the ford administration who he was investigating for conducting the investigation in the most discreet fashion possible. and then president ford went on to lose the election anyway. but as the current administration begins to read the some new ground here it turns out there is a lot of precedent, way more precedent than you'd expect for what's happening right now and what is about to happen next, michael beschloss is here with us on that next.
>> i think that's the right decision given his position in the campaign and the need for the american people to think that the investigation i think has to take place about possible connections between the trump campaign and people in russia. has to be has to be done impartially, fairly, thoroughly. i think his decision to recuse himself was appropriate. >> obama attorney general eric holder talking about the decision about the current attorney general that he will recuse himself for investigations with ties with russia.
joining us is historian michael beschloss. thanks for being here. >> thanks to you, rachel. >> looking at this in the historical context, did the attorney general have any decision but to recuse himself? i'm struck that we have the national security adviser, michael flynn, being fired and attorney general jeff sessions just recusing? >> he should have done it a long time ago. it shouldn't have taken the controversy today to take him do that because it's just logic. how could he possibly be expected to lead an investigation into his boss who can fire him? >> in terms of what happens next here, lots of presidents, more than you would think, have had special prosecutors brought on at some point or another because for whatever reason, the attorney general had to take themselves out of the mix, a
special investigator, a special prosecutor is brought in. is it always an earth-shattering thing, the end of a presidency or potential end of a presidency when that happens or is it a fairly run of the mill procedure. >> like you mentioned with gerald ford, a special prosecutor was appointed and ford lost the election but came close. one of the reasons why is because he didn't have to labor under that charge. a law was passed in 1978 that said if there's a serious charge of a federal offense against a president or someone who is a high official, the attorney general goes to a three-judge panel and they appoint a special prosecutor and the person charged has the chance to clear his name. all the way from the time of richard nixon all the way through bill clinton there were special prosecutors appointed
obviously that dealt with things like iran-contra and the monica lewinsky episode under bill clinton. the act generally worked but was allowed to expire in 1999 and hasn't happened seriously since then. >> the process now of picking a special prosecutor, if that's going to happen, maybe the deputy attorney general will take this over. we only have an acting one right now. one has been nominated to be the new one. but they would just pick somebody? >> they would and that's why the old process is so much better. the trump administration the past few days have been very hands on in choosing deputies that are very loyal to them. there's a very good chance that with attorney general sessions recusing himself goes to a deputy, how are we sure that that deputy is also going to be independent of the white house? >> michael beschloss, nbc news, presidential historian raising very difficult questions tonight. michael, thank you for being
here. >> we will see. my pleasure. at the top of the show, exclusive news out of the department of homeland security. a leaked report that we received that maybe a stake in the heart of the muslim ban. we've got reaction from one of the people smack dab in the center of that fight coming up. stay with us.
can swing the other way, it will change which way controls the party in the state of connecticut. it's very exciting. we'll keep you posted. watch this. that does it for us tonight. "first look" is up next. this morning president trump is standing by jeff sessions while democrats call for him to quit with his contacts over russia. plus, there are reports that mike pence used personal e-ml for state business as governor of indiana and was hacked. and the senate confirms two more trump cabinet picks bringing together a so-called team of rivals. good morning, everyone. it's friday, march 3rd. i'm ayman mohyeldin. jeff sessions will stay in his