tv All In With Chris Hayes MSNBC March 28, 2017 12:00am-1:01am PDT
hour" good night from all of us in new york. deals, a white house in crisis now calling its own health care bill a bad one. it's knowing when to walk away and knowing when there's a bad deal. >> tonight the threats, recrimination and blame game inside oval office. >> paul ryan needs to step down. >> then, the mysterious midnight run of nunes. >> if i really wanted to, i could have snuck on to the grounds late at night and probably nobody would have seen me. i wasn't trying to hide. >> the white house today struggling to explain why the house intel chair was visiting the night before he briefed the president. >> speaker ryan should replace chairman nunes. plus the president's son-in-law agrees to testify in the senate russia probe and new reporting about the growing civilian depth toll in mosul.
>> i would just bomb those suckers and that's right "all in" starts right now. good evening from los angeles. i'm chris hayes, just over two months into his presidency, the man build as the negotiator of the chief and he's earning his lowest approval ratings as president after the collapse of his first large scale undertaking. the gop's bill to dismantle the affordable health care act. it's harder to be one and play one on tv. the white house tried to shift its focus back to executive actions teeing up penalties for so-called sanctuary cities and preparing to roll back climate regulations. the retreat that the president promise and deliver going back today one of his campaign. >> i've watched the politicians. i've dealt with them all my life. if you can't make a good deal with a politician, then there's something wrong with you.
you're certainly not very good. our country needs a truly great leader and we need a truly great leader now. we need a leader that wrote the art of the deal. >> the president's aides have claimed he left it all on the field to try to get the gop's health care plan for the house of representatives from the outset he seemed uninterested in what the plan would actually do. back on march 6 when house speaker first unvailed the legislation, he sat in the oval office and asked his advisers, is this really a good bill? over the following days washington post reports he peppered his aides again and again with the same concern, usually after watching cable news report chronicling the setbacks. last friday after the bill was ultimately pulled, the president got on the phone with reporters, including "new york times,"
trump told me he's happy having this in the rear-view mirror. it's enough already. that was just 18 days, 18 days after the legislation was first introduced. lacking the interest or knowledge to try and persuade gop members of the bill's merits they used tough talk to try to push it through, tactics that would prove widely unsuccessful. the president told members of the hard line house freedom caucus to forget about the little stuff, let's focus on the big picture here, but members were disturbed by his dismiss zifness. one noting we're talking about one fifth of our economy and another meeting with steve bannon opened with a demand to members, according to one report, "this is not a discussion, this is not a debate. you have no choice but to vote for this billion." one member reportedly replied, you know the last time someone ordered me to do something i was 18 years old. it was my daddy and i didn't listen to him either.
it was president's last ditch to republicans to pass the bill on friday or that would be the end of their efforts to dismantle obama care. the president's threat turned out not to carry as much weight as expected, the ultimatum went entirely disregarded. now, after it's all over, the white house says the president was simply walking away from a bad deal. but there were already signs the health care debacle is doing serious damage to the president's popularity and political capitol. his approval rating stand at just 36%, more than 20 points under water. look at the trend when the health care bill was originally introduced, approval on the way down and disapproval on the way up. democrats, meanwhile, are em boldened from their success, house minority leader nancy pelosi was caught on camera kicking off her shoes and jumping for joy after the gop bill collapsed. in the senate there were new
signs to the first supreme court nominee. as they built support to filler buster his nomination. congressional republicans plan to turn their attention to major over haul. as they continue to play blame game, it's not clear how they move forward. on saturday the president tweeted to followers to watch jeanine's show that turned out to be brutal take down of none other than paul ryan. >> paul ryan needs to step down as speaker of the house. the reason, he failed to deliver the votes on his health care bill, the one trumted to repeal and replace obama care. this one he had seven years to work on. >> yesterday the president turned to the conservatives hard liners in his party who oppose,
tweeting democrats are smiling in d.c. the freedom caucus with the help for club for growth and saved planned parenthood and obama care. i'm joined by a member, congress mo brooks republican who opposed the health care bill. congressman, your reaction to the president naming the house freedom caucus to him talking about loyalty to riens priebus. >> i disagree, this is not about loyalty to the speaker or president of the united states. it's about loyalty to the people of the united states of america and that's where our loyalty should be first and foremost. those folks that try to turn this into a win or loss by the speaker or the president or anybody else in the house of representatives, quite frankly, i respectfully disagree. i see it as a victory for america. >> okay. let me ask you this: in terms of your loyalty to the american people, here is something i'm having a hard time processing, the republican party has voted 60 times to repeal.
and after 18 days, you guys can't get a bill to the house floor and you pick up the ball and go on and move to other priority. if you believe it's such a disaster, that seems like a shocking duty. >> i think you'll continue to see us pursue efforts to improve the quality of health care that we have in united states of america and in particular -- >> respectfully, sir -- >> you promised and your caucus promised and the president promised and the speaker promised repeal and replace, they tried to do it. >> that's false, go ahead. >> wait, they didn't promise repeal and replace? >> you said me. >> no -- >> i promised to repeal. >> fair enough. my point is it seems like if you're serious about what you say, that it's a disaster, it's a terrible law, it's bad for people, don't you have a moral commitment to the american
people not to just give up? >> absolutely. >> i'm not a part of the surrender caucus. i think we need to persevere to do our utmost to correct this problem. a lot of americans are suffering, they're discovering that their insurance deductible is so high it's almost like having no insurance. they're discovering the cost to purchase is so high they can't afford and they're seeing that their disposable income are being diminished and having a hard time making other family needs being met. >> how do you square that with what happened on friday? >> it was a bad bill. >> chris -- >> that's been very clear -- >> chris, what we need to do, the republicans in the house and senate, go back to the legislation that we passed two years ago that repealed in substance obama care. we got it through the republican house.
we got it through the republican senate. it got to the president's desk, president obama had a different view. this time take the same path, get that legislation on the desk of the president, this time the president will sign it. between the date of that bill being signed and the effective date of the repeal of obama care, then we have a very vigorous debate in the house and senate about how to improve the system. at that point in time since the democrats are no longer being asked to vote for some kind of repeal of obama care, they're now free to participate in the process and hopefully we can get a bipartisan solution that can persevere throughout these kind of contested proceedings that you're seeing over the last few years. >> you want to go back to that original strategy, repeal first set a date certain. let me ask you about where this relationship goes here. i mean, a lot of people feel like -- i have to say this to your face, you came on my program and i will admit that you were skeptical. you staired down the white house, they tried to roll you and steam roll you. they offered threats and
ultimatums and you won. they blinked. what does that mean now in terms of how you and your colleagues conduct yourselves? >> well, i didn't perceive any threats or ultimatums. did they try to persuade me, sure? president donald trump did the best he could, it's not the same when donald trump in the private sector was trying to market and sale first class product. this was a sub par product that's why he was unable to sell it. it was not up to standards. >> this was more trump steaks and -- >> well, i'm not familiar with all the trump products. i was thinking more of trump towers and maralago and some of the first class ones, i can't speak to the others. >> what does it say about his effectiveness, right. i mean, this was a huge part of the selling point of the president of the united states
from day one was, this was the guy who had the deal, this was the master negotiator, every other politician is all talk and no action. he walks into his high stakes negotiation and the deal falls apart so badly, his own party can't bring it to the floor for a vote. >> well, keep in mind that president trump has not been involved in politics as an office holder before. he's been there now for almost, roughly, two months and he's learning. i believe he's a quick learner. as he learns more and more not only about the process, but also the politics, the public policy, what's good and what's bad for america, i think in time you'll see this be turned around and i believe over time you'll see him have a lot of accomplishments, hopefully, with respect to tax reform, border security and go down the list, perhaps also including, and i hope it will include, health care. >> do you think that steve bannon is playing a constructive role? >> yes, i do. steve bannon, from everything i know about him, i really haven't had much personal conversation
with him, but from everything i understand, he understands public policy. keep in mind, inside the white house there's -- >> he ran a web site, i mean. >> he also has an understanding of public policy that help make that was enn enunciate from that site so effective. you've got edlement of our society. they'll have to work out that give and take. in fairness to the white house, they've been extraordinary successful at keeping the president from having a full cabinet, from having a sub cabinet position filled. he's got about 2,000 or so positions that need to be filled before he can have a fully functional executive branch. it doesn't work quite as well when you're properly working. >> senate is controlled by republicans there is no filler buster for any of the nominees you're talking about. >> that's true but there are rules that enable the democrat senators --
>> right -- >> change the rules -- >> he's not nominated under secretary of state. congressman mo brooks, thank you very much. >> i'm joined by michael steel, msnbc political analyst mo brooks who i have on the show, was in victory. not rubbing in the face of a white house that they managed to completely, completely humiliate on friday. this is my favorite quote of the this debacle, i want to get michael steel, this is joe barton on what happened. sometimes you're playing fantasy football and sometimes you're in the real game, barton said. we knew if we could get a repeal bill to his desks, we know, it would be signed. i thought what an amazing honest and revealing assessment of the republican party at this moment, michael. >> yes, it was. and explained so much, you know, governing is a you know what,
they're seeing it firsthand. the reality of it is exactly that point. they played around with this idea of repealing and replacing. it generated a lot of cash-flow for party officials and candidates over the last four or five years. but now -- >> by the way, i just want -- i want to highlight that point. that is an interesting point. this was -- this repeal and replace attacking obama care was a reliable fund-raising talking point. >> absolutely. absolutely. and so the reality is, now you've got a government and you have the expectation of a lot of americans out there, some of whom didn't support you, but many of whom expect that you're going to at least begin to put in place something that's going to make this health care system work better for them. and they blinked, they punted, they did all of that stuff. they ran for cover and, you know, honest guys like mo brooks
said from the beginning, this is not the bill that we talked to our constituents about, you know, so now the test is going to be, what do you do next? >> and sam, to that point, i thought one of the most significant things that happened on friday, and, again, mo brooks i think is being magnanimous, he has to work with this white house. they said on friday as the hour was drawing, as the votes looked like they weren't there, they were sending to the white house, you're going to have to vote because because there's -- we've burned the votes. there's no escape. the only way -- the only path forward is through and then they blinked. they did not actually make them do that. that to me is tremendously powerful for any opponent of the president on any side of anything to watch his first bluff be called. >> there were two big things i think that happened. one, we found out this past couple of weeks that the american public basically perceives health care as of right now. it is virtually impossible to
roll that back. on the other hands in terms of politically. we found out that donald trump does not have the ability to snap his fingers and get the republicans to do what they want. you and i talked about this months ago, donald trump, i think on some level will be a rubber stamp. all he wants, i mean, it's not the fantasy versus real football, not the proper analogy here. he's coming from business, what's the net dollar value of this. >> right. >> and here you actually have to have some measure of values many of the ones are am -- to mine. he doesn't care. there's no rutter here. there's no horizon. he's just a drift. >> here is my theory, michael, tell me what you think about this. i think tax reform is a mistake in some some ways that repeal
and replace was. no one voted in eerie county, or mcdowell west virginia for donald trump so that they could get corporate tax reform. that might be a priority of donor class, but it just seems to be a terrible -- it makes the same mistake, which is misunderstanding whatever mandate there is in one. but whatever the will of the people was, that ain't it, what do you think of that? >> i appreciate your analysis there, but i think you're a little bit off on it. i don't agree totally. i think this is actually a good play for donald trump. i tweeted to the president at the time, next time play to your instincts, your instincts was tax reform. here is how it works, see, unlike health care, you can do tax reform in bite size chunks. you don't have to do a massive 1986 bill. you can do corporate. you can do individual. you can do repatriot gs.
there are different ways you can approach this for both consumer, taxpayers and the corporate world, where as health care was one big package. he didn't give a damn about health care. never really did. >> it didn't have to be one big package. >> paul ryan had the idea of just repealing and then punting the replace and donald trump came out the next day and gave a speech in front of everybody and said we're going to do it, maybe it will take an hour, or week, maybe we'll do it right away. >> what does that tell you, sam. >> it tells me that donald trump is not in control of any of it. i don't think he has the ability. >> that defines the tax break for millionaires and billionaires it's going to go down. >> i think that was donald trump's way to push back, to do something a way different. >> you know what, i will credit you with ascribing a degree of
farsightedness. >> i think you guys under sell the president on some of this stuff. i think there is sort of a mad scientist formulation behind some of this and this was one of this. >> here is what i'll say, i think democrats say if this what mad scientists look like, keep it coming. michael steele and sam seder, thank you very much. now calling on nunes to recuse himself from the trump investigation. questions about why nunes was at the white house the night before he briefed the president. i'll get the committee member reaction after this two-minute break. liberty mutual stood with me when this guy got a flat tire in the middle of the night. hold on dad... liberty did what? yeah, liberty mutual 24-hour roadside assistance helped him to fix his flat so he could get home safely. my dad says our insurance doesn't have that.
don't worry - i know what a lug wrench is, dad. is this a lug wrench? maybe? you can leave worry behind when liberty stands with you™. liberty stands with you™. liberty mutual insurance. an empire was born evony the original empire-building game that started it all. so what became of this legendary game? well... it just arrived on your smartphone! evony download it now and play for free!
someone else handle this investigation. >> our mark on turn of events tonight, ranking member, congressman adam shift is now saying his republican chair can no longer fulfill his duties. he has to be clear about how we arrived at this point. it started three weeks ago when the president of the united states went on twitter tirade, just found out that obama had my wiretap in trump tower, how low has he gone, bad, or sick guy. and thus began a wild goose chase, in which the vast machinery of the government intelligence services were called upon to look into this entirely unsupported claim which was then repeatedly shutdown. most memorable by fbi director who said under oath that there was no information to back up that claim, but two days after that testimony, nunes who was an adviser to trump transition team went before cameras to announce he had seen incidentally collected information on trump associates.
the president felt he somewhat vindicated, even though he never claimed the original tweets were accurate. he made that splashy appearance and met with the president without bothering to inform fellow members of the intelligence committee. nunes had gotten his information secretly on tuesday evening in what the ranking member dubbed his midnight run, even reportedly swapping cars and keeping his staff in the dark. it raised the question, who gave him information and where. well, now, nearly a week later, chairman nunes admits, he got that information on the white house grounds. in a statement spokesperson saying he met with his source on the white house grounds in order to have proximity to secure location where he could view the information provided by the source. hours ago, he said he reviewed the information in a secure facility on the white house grounds, he refused to say it was where and said it was during the day and not at night. >> if i really wanted to i could
have snuck on to the grounds late at night and probably no one could have seen me. this is something i've been working for a long time and i had to find a way for me to have access to the information because we couldn't get the information down to the committee. >> joining me now, congressman member of that house intelligence committee. do you agree with your colleague adam shift and others, i think, who have called for a recusal? >> i do. at this point, i think that because of his actions, chairman nunes has compromised his ability to lead this investigation and he should step aside and let somebody else lead it. of course, myself, and many other democrats and many americans would like to see an independent commission undertake this investigation. but if it's going to stay in the house of representatives, the investigation should be led by someone else. >> shuck schumer went a step further. he called for paul ryan to remove him from the committee altogether, do you agree with
that? >> that's a decision for the speaker. as you know, this committee looks into many other issues, right now my focus is on this investigation. >> can i -- i have to say, the people are watching this. this looks like -- maybe i'm wrong and maybe i was wrong, a farce. here is an individual who appears to be working to a sort of reverse engineer some substance for what has been shown to be a baseless accusation, maybe there's something he's found that's legitimate. is there any reason to think this wasn't coordinated laundering campaign between the white house and the chair? >> well, the fact that he got his information at the white house, that he hasn't shared that information with anyone on the committee, republican or democrat, it just making me believe that there was some political angle to what happened and that's, of course, very troubling to millions of americans and i think that he should do the right thing and recuse himself.
>> can you explain, people that are just tuning in to this entire thing, i mean, what is going on in your committee right now? how do you explain to people the a, the amount of resources and activity that's been going to something that has nothing to do with the essential substance of the investigation and two the way the chair has conducted himself? >> you're right. this is smoke screen in terms of getting to the bottom of the issue and most of all, whether any americans coordinated or cooperated with the russians who interfered with our 2016 elections. the committee as of about a week ago had been moving along in a fairly bipartisan way, the investigation had been moving forward, open hearing, of course, was held last monday when james comey made his big revelation that there are members who under investigation. there was another committee meeting that was suppose to happen, that got cancelled and
nunes went over to the white house and did what he did and now we've got another committee meeting that's been cancelled for later in the week. if you ask me the question what's going on with the investigation now, i think it's compromised? >> is the chair blowing this up. there are people who are speculating that nunes is essentially taking steps to destroy, to blow up this investigation because he's scared that it will find things that will expose the white house? >> i mean, you know, some people may ascribe that level of deviousness to him. i'm going to hold off going that far for now. but i will say, that whatever the case is, this investigation is going to get done one way or another. we are going to get to the bottom of whether anybody on the trump team conspired with the russians who interfered with the 2016 election. that's going to happen whether it's being led in the house of representatives or whether it's being done by independent commission. if anybody thinks that we're going to let this go, that the american people, most of all,
right now i think the house intel committee is about to fall apart. and i don't know if they can get it back together, i hope they can. i didn't like it when nunes went down to the white house. >> two days after senator lindsay gram said ranking member is calling on chairman nunes to recuse himself.
there's the senate intelligence committee which has its own investigation underway and that committee has called on someone from this photo to testify due to meetings they had with russian contacts during the campaign, reporter broke that story joins me just after this break. and the urinary symptoms . tell your doctor about your medicines, and ask if your heart is healthy enough for sex. do not take cialis if you take nitrates for chest pain, or adempas® for pulmonary hypertension, as this may cause an unsafe drop in blood pressure. do not drink alcohol in excess. to avoid long-term injury, get medical help right away for an erection lasting more than four hours. if you have a sudden decrease or loss of hearing or vision, or an allergic reaction, stop taking cialis and get medical help right away. ask your doctor about cialis.
j. trump are getting mixed up in the russian investigation, first was michael flynn and roger stone, paul manafortment and sessions recused himself after failing to disclose his meetings. now it's senior adviser jared kushner, the president's son-in-law. they want to question him about meetings he arranged. he met with the head of russian bank under sanction by the obama administration. white house press secretary sean spicer said that kushner volunteered to talk with the senate intel committee. >> again, remember, given the role that he played during the campaign and train situation, he met with countless individuals, that was part of his job. that was part of his role. >> joining me now is matthew rosenberg, national security reporter for the "new york times." matthew, did we know about the meetings that kushner had both
with the head of the bank before now. >> we didn't know about the banker and the meeting was always presented, nothing to look at here, it was a courtesy call. then we find out there's a second meeting that was set up but jared and he also set up a meeting with the state owned russian bank that's on the u.s. sanctions list which is, you know, kind of amazing at this point we're finding out now and again we're giving this, there's nothing to look at here. >> what's the timeline here, this is before election day, right? >> no, no. it was after election day. >> it was in transition period. >> you've got an incoming -- right, of course, you eve got the incoming adviser to the president and his son-in-law post sanctions, you know, talking to the head of a sanctioned bank about what? >> that's exactly it. they're saying it was a courtesy call, nothing, this is what they're saying there's nothing to look at here and nothing came of it.
but then the bank put out its own statement today and the bank said that the banker who was here was on a road show talking to different politicians and u.s. -- the u.s. business community and met with kushner. it's a little unusual russian state own sought fit to meet if it was major u.s. conglomerate or something of that nature. at the same time, jared's family business was having trouble with property in new york. we don't know what they discussed, this doesn't look good. >> yeah, and i want to zero in on this, because put aside everything having to do with the russia story and the possibility of any kind of collusion, this highlights, we don't know degree to which he -- the details of how he detached himself from the family business, there's just a big deal with the chinese bank
that, you know, at every moment what role is this individual playing. >> it's a very good question. and we've not gotten frank answers here. when the white house says we've got a courtesy call meeting here and it was done as a courtesy. the banker comes out and said we met with him as head of family business, we're getting two different stories here. this goes this entire issue with russia, we continue to get new little ed. it's all good. it's just small meetings. then we find out more and more and more and more it keeps kind of getting worse. >> that's exactly right. it's the pattern here where, you know, it's always possible it was pro forma, or had, you know, was essentially incidental. it's the fact they keep getting disclosed after the fact in drips and drabs that peak's one
curiosity, you can imagine they'll want to know what was discussed in that meeting. it's going to be hard for him to say what went down. >> they want to discuss that meeting and want to know what they were talking about. was this an attempt by the bank to get sanctions. was it an attempt to help the family business or was it just a courtesy call. they don't know, they want answers. you know, that's one of the other issues here, too, they went to the white house to have to say, we want jared to be questioned. and i think there's a certain frustration among some on the hill and certainly in other parts of the government that they're only finding out about these things in drips and drabs, as well. >> matthew rosenberg, thank you. >> thank you. still to come, senator lindsay graham town hall involves into a shouting match as they demand answers from the health care to trump russian investigation, that scene coming up. plus thing one, thing two, starts right after this break.
thing one tonight for the eighth weekend in a row, president trump spent time at trump organization properties, which this weekend included trump national golf club in virginia and trump hotel in d.c. according to washington postally, nearly one out of every three days as president he's visited a trump property, spending 21 full or partial days at businesses bearing his name on the equivalent of three full weeks of just over nine weeks he's been in commander in chief. this raises red flags, the trips serve, of course, as promotion for the trump organization, which he's profiting from. and the visits give members potential access to the united states, the majority of those trips have been to golf courses where it's believed the president has played golf at least a dozen times. even the white house doesn't seem to want to admit.
president trump visited the trump national golf club on saturday. they would not say he was golfing. it seems to echo this argument from sean spicer last week. >> he had a minicabinet meeting down at his club in virginia. i remember so many people jumping to the conclusion this he's going down and playing golf. just because you go somewhere doesn't mean you do that. he's conducted meetings there. he's had phone calls, so just because he heads there doesn't mean that that's what's happening. >> okay. but after the white house said trump was at his golf course for those meetings, photos like this showed up on social media showing the president the golf club wearing golf spikes and this allegedly showing him on
the golf course. the president spent four-and-a-half hours at the golf club that day, which is roughly the time it takes to play 18 holes. it wasn't the following day that bloomberg learned they golfed yesterday with club proand club member. for the record, the president has made 14 trips to his own golf courses in the nine weeks since inauguration. >> i love golf. but if i were in the white house, i don't think i would ever see doral again. i don't think i would ever see many of the places that i have. i don't ever think i would see anything. i want to stay in the white house and work my butt off and make great deals. who is going to leave. who is going to leave.
or maybe they'll be encouraged by the victory to keep on organizing and protesting. we've got a pretty clear indication this weekend on which way the wind is blowing. >> obama care is a disaster and it is going to collapse. >> fix it. fix it. >> the only way to fix it is to replace it. >> now that their failure to replace obama care has died in the house, i think the next thing we'll do with taxes. here is what i think is important, is to lower the corporate so it can be more competitive. >> good. good. come on, bring it on. bring it on. >> not everyone has a congress person to yell at right now. the residents of georgia sixth congressional district have an open seat after tom price joined the candidate and bake one of
the chief architects of the gop's absolute health care disaster. it is the first true bell race, democrats, normally raise a few thousand dollars every two years to challenge dr. price. this year they say they banked $3 million to take his fdc. the special election is april 18th. if you live in the district and need a ride to the polls, actress melissa is campaigning for democrat and tweeted today she'll personally drive you to a polling place, unfortunately, it looks like she won't be in the van.
let your reign begin. ♪ evony, the mobile game. download now. sooisz making a tremendous amount of money because they have certain oil caps, right? they have certain areas of oil that they took away. they have some in syria, some in iraq. i would bomb the [ bleep ] out of them. i would just bomb those suckers. and that's right i'd blow up the pipes, i'd blow up every single inch. this would be nothing left. >> during the campaign donald trump repeatedly promised to be more aggressive in going after isis than the obama administration. he offered no specifics, but after the election, his transition team rormtdly looked into the rules of engagement, the rules dictate what is acceptable on the battlefield. mosul remains an isis stronghold.
the aspect now investigating reports that those strikes killed up to 200 civilians. it's unclear exactly what happened. "wall street journal" is reporting on a statement from the iraqi military saying the blast that killed civilians was triggered obtaintrack state bobby trap. this is still at the investigation stage. the trump administration had appeared to long-distance the restriction, a charge the pentagon today denied and with reports of growing civilian casualties there are real concerns the trump administration's war on terror is as bulgts as he promised. joining us is michael schmidt. michael, what do we know about how this happened? >> we know that medal of march the united states was really bombing a lot in mosul and he mitt this building.
it began to collapse this building. what we do know is that in the days that fold, it basically pan caked on itself. what the as you say trying to figure out is whether it's hitting of this building is the thing that brought it down, or whether it first isis that came in afterwards and as a way of trying to discredit the united states, set off explosives that ultimately brought it down. >> we should be clear here of the conditions. these are people who are occupied byizes that isis had a all of mosul. they lost east mosul to the iraqi army. these are the people that we are trying to save, trying to liberty. >> these are the folks that didn't have the means to leave. there have been thousands and thousands of people that have fled mosul but with these folks are still there. they're being held captive by isis that has very little left
itself. and isis is relying on them as human shields as a way of trying to stop theitis from hitting and bombing them. >> the president in the past has essentially said that he thinks it's bad to warn civilians about incoming bombing raids. i want to play a bit of sound where he's rejected that. >> one of the things we have to do, we have to take their wealth away. >> do you think this is a -- >> we're not bombing the oil. we're sending leaf lets down. in an hour we may be bombing your truck. please remove yourself. we don't know what we're doing. >> i mean, in the connection of what happened. i know it's unclear, but we know civilian deaths are spiking sharply. there's a question of rules of engagement if they are being changed, if protecting civilians
is no longer anything remotely a priority. >> our reporters were actually able to make it to the scene today in mosul. they talked to commanders on the ground there. what they say is that since the the resumption came in that the u.s. is hitting a lot more targets. so under back home they would ask for things to be hit and there would be a lot of questions and they wouldn't move as quickly, but now they are leaning much more forward in helping this iraqis. was it not whether the u.s. has enough of its own guys on the ground close to the front lines where they can help guide these munitions and provide more information. we don't have that many troops in iraq and we certainly don't have that many on the front lines. so if they are bombing more, you're going to have more mistakes. but i will say that the pentagon has pushed back on this and said that the rules of engagement have not changed. >> i know they pushed back on that, but there was reporting
suggesting it was being considered. it's 80s it'll hard to figure out who's right on this right now. >> look, certainly the iraqi commanders on the ground would know the best. they're the ones that are living through this on a day-to-day basis and really reliant. the iraquis have a lack of capabilities, they rely on the utes to move the troops, to get them water and also to hit these targets, and the u.s. does have air superiority in a way no other country does. but at the same time when you're only relying on iraqis on the ground, they're trying to go block by block fighting through some really awful dense areas, there are awful, awful mistakes like this that happen. there's some thought these will continue to occur as they move into the more and more densely popped areas inside mosul.
>> aside from the sort of moral catastrophe of hundreds of civilians crushed to death, seems to me a fairly major tactical set back in terms of the image of both the iraqi army which itself has had struggles and the american forces for this kind of thing to happen. >> this is a very critical time. west mosul is the last piece basically of iraqi that is controlled by the islamic state. and the united states and the iraqi government need the support of the iraqi people as much as possible here as they try and shore up the country. this is the last battle. they expect isis to give them a tough fight, but at the same time there's a need to keep the iraqi public on their side and this doesn't help that. i'm kicking off the second week of my book tour. if you're watching this and you live in los angeles, bile at the barns and foebl at the grove tomorrow night. i'll be doing this show and then
off to the mark hopkins hotel. take a look at, come out if you can. rachel maddow show starts right now. >> i think we should start a new >> i think we should start a new thing where you tell people where they can come meet you. >> exactly. here's where i'll be, everybody. >> come and get it. well done my friend. thank you so much for joining us this hour. in the cold war, the united states and the soviet union were the opposing super powers in the world. two huge countries with huge militaries, huge nuclear arrests analyze and influence beyond the bounds of the considerable home territory. it was a match in force of equals. but despite that simplistic construct, the whole super powers modeling.