tv All In With Chris Hayes MSNBC May 31, 2017 12:00am-1:01am PDT
defend jared kushner's reported back channel to the kremlin. >> did the president discuss it, though? >> i'm not going to get into what the president did or did not discuss. >> then they're the president's personal attorney. >> he's a very talented lawyer, a good lawyer in my firm. >> michael cohen now reportedly refusing to cooperate. >> says who? >> tonight, a white house in disarray as investigations inch closer to the president. then, assessing the fallout from the president's first foreign trip. rebecca traceter on hillary clinton and her russian warnings. and why is darrell issa taking pictures of a protest from the roof when "all in" starts right now. good evening from new york. i'm chris hayes.
yet another member of the president's inner circle has come under scrutiny in the russia investigation. both the house and senate intelligence committees have requested information and testimony from one michael cohen, the president's personal lawyer and longtime confidant, someone not previously known to be involved in the russia probe. cohen was alleged to have attended a secret meeting last summer in prague to discuss russian hacking of democratic targets, something he strongly denies. cohen told msnbc he's declining to comply with the committee's requests. the request letters first reported by abc news were the same ones initially sent to michael flynn, paul manafort, roger stone, and carter page according to a congressional aide. all one-time trump associates whose ties to russian officials are currently under review. flynn, we found out tonight, will provide some documents under subpoena to the senate intelligence panel. another former trump aide, boris epstein has received an information request from the house committee and has yet to decide whether to comply.
the fallout continues from "the washington post's" explosive report late last week that the russian ambassador told moscow that jared kushner, the president's son-in-law, wanted to open a secret communications channel with the kremlin. he reportedly made the proposal in a previously disclosed meeting with the ambassador during the transition. that followed on the heels of news last week that kushner has come under scrutiny in the russia probe. and now according to "the new york times," the investigation is focusing in on another kushner meeting, this one with a putin ally who heads a sanctioned russian bank. current and former american officials say the meeting may have been part of an effort by kushner to establish a direct line to vladimir putin outside established diplomatic channels. remarkably, the white house has not denied these latest reports. instead, administration officials have defended kushner's alleged conduct as perfectly appropriate. >> so generally speaking, about back-channel communications, what that allows you to do is to
communicate in a discreet manner so it doesn't pre-dispose you toward any sort of content of that conversation or anything. so, no, i would not be concerned about it. >> it's both normal in my opinion and acceptable. any way that you can communicate with people, particularly organizations that are maybe not particularly friendly to us, is a good thing. >> by this afternoon, the white house strategy seemed to have evolve somewhat. in his first briefing in over two weeks, white house press secretary sean spicer repeatedly refused to answer questions about the kushner reports. >> i'm not going to get into what the president did or did not discuss. what your question assumes is a lot of facts that are not substantiated by anything about anonymous sources that are so far being leaked out. you're asking if he approves of an action that is not a confirmed action. i'm not going to get into it, but your question presupposes facts that have not been confirmed. i think what i've said speaks for itself. >> regardless of what was
discussed, we know kushner omitted his meetings with the russian ambassador and the putin allied banker on security clearance forms. he joins attorney general jeff sessions and fired national security adviser michael flynn on the list of close presidential associates who, before taking office, had repeated contacts with russian officials that they later lied about, concealed, or somehow forgot to mention altogether. all this while russia was being accused very publicly by the u.s. government and others of having waged an unprecedented campaign of sabotage to disrupt the presidential election. joining me now, former watergate prosecutor jill wine banks and naveed jamali, former double agent. jill, let me start with you. are you surprised by the white house not denying the reports of kushner trying to set up a back channel and this secret meeting with kislyak? >> almost nothing the white house is doing surprises me anymore. i can't believe anybody is surprised because it's always
unpredictable. it is strange that they aren't denying it, but i think it's stranger yet that he made such a request assuming that the kislyak conversation accurately reflects the conversation he had with kushner. >> naveed, what i thought about what i saw the sort of first round of spin from the white house about this meeting, which was basically one was that they were talking about bringing peace to syria. people familiar with the meeting said the idea was to have flynn speak directly with a senior military official in moscow to discuss syria and other security issues. let's say that's entirely true. jared kushner still has a problem in that under penalty of perjury and felony, he omitted this meeting from his clearance security form, right? >> that's exactly right, chris. i mean the point here -- and i'm sure jill can expand upon this. but the idea is as a private citizen, can someone meet with representatives of the russian government, and the answer is most likely yes. that may not even necessarily be
a crime. what separates that action from the one that general flynn and jared kushner took was the omission -- let's just call it omission of those meetings on their sf-86. the sf-86 is a background form for which security officers can determine your eligibility to get top secret clearance. it's very much like apply forg a loan. they look for risk. omitting something that would be considered something that would be a risky behavior and potentially preclude you from getting a clearance, one would interpret there's a motivation to keep that off because if you keep it off, you can now qualify for top secret clearance. i think that omission is really what separates and is frankly going to be the much more legally troubling thing for kushner and flynn going forward. >> jill, if you were investigating right now this white house, what would you -- who would you want to talk to and about what? >> well, first of all, i'd want to know what the actual conversation was that happened. i'd also like to know what the
planned conversation was going to be about. i'd like to know why did they need a back channel? why did they want to evade american intelligence operations and the setup that america has to communicate with russia? there must be a reason that they're hiding these conversations. the other thing is an incoming president does not have the right to conduct foreign policy. so having conversations before inauguration means that we have a competing foreign policy, and that is not a good thing. so i think there are a lot of issues here that need to be explored. obviously you need to talk to kushner. it would be lovely if we could talk to kislyak as well and to flynn and to find out what exactly they were planning to talk about and why they needed this back channel. and also i think it is absolutely true. why would they conceal this? why didn't they disclose it? if i had, in applying for the pentagon job that i had, not disclosed all my conversations,
i would not have gotten my job, and i would have lost my security clearance. that's a serious issue. >> it is the concealment again. >> yes. >> at this point we've got to say the concealment that is almost confirmed and acknowledged. i mean that's what i want to just sort of draw people's attention to here, that the response to the kushner story was not, no, of course that's preposterous. it was, no, it was to bring peace to syria. but whether it was, you know, to end world hunger, whatever the purpose, the fact is that's not a meeting you forget about, right? and, naveed, i want to get your opinion on this other story that crossed today that i don't quite know what to do with. it relates in some ways to some of the insinuations of that dossier that has been denied by many of the parties involved, including the president and michael cohen. but here's a piece that says, russians discussed potentially derogatory information about trump and associates during the campaign, the idea being that through monitored communications, russians said they had derogatory information.
what do you make of that? >> you know, there are so many rumors about this floating around and we have to be very careful that some of this may be coming from the russians. but i know that cohen was mentioned in the steele dossier. look, i go back to that stance about that i think probably the white house is falling back on, which is this idea that as a private citizen, these acts may not be illegal, but it does hint to this larger thing. you know, was there an attempt by the trump associates or people in the trump sort of inner wing to have a dialogue with the russians? and i can tell you, chris, that if we take this from the russian standpoint, if jared kushner called -- and i'm a russian intelligence -- calls me up and says, you know, the son-in-law of the future president of the united states wants to have a meeting with you, of course i'm going to consider this from a russian intelligence perspective how i can take advantage of it. just from that alone, just to put yourself in a room like that, is just wildly, i want to say at a minimum, naive. it seems like these people were reaching out, and i have to believe the russians were going to absolutely take advantage of that.
>> it also seems to me the facts that have been entered into evidence, the reuters piece about 18 contacts, the meetings during transition, when you put them all together, there was a focus, it appears on bilateral u.s.-russia relations with officials, that certainly seems to exceed their interest in basically any other matter of policy, foreign or domestic. >> indeed. and, again, it just throws suspicion on the whole situation. the real question at the bottom line is what did the president know, and when did he know it? it's the same question we had during watergate. and i don't know that he knew that jared kushner was doing this. but after all, it was his son-in-law. he was one of his closest advisers. it's hard to believe he went off on his own to do it. but we need to know that because it changes our perspective of what happened. >> that's right. that point is a really important one and sean spicer refused to answer precisely that question
today. thank you both. i'm joined now by francesca chambers, white house correspondent for the daily mail, and heidi przybyla, an msnbc political analyst. heidi, the white house does seem to -- we seem to be in a new chapter of how they respond to this. first it was sort of the outright flat denial or lie frankly, things as trivial as the inauguration to things that happened later on. then it was accept the basic facts but spin. today it was you're not getting any. francesca, you were in that room. you're not getting any information. has there been an evolution in how they deal with this? >> well, that was exactly what happened today, but it wasn't just today. there were white house officials prior to today when that report first came out that also would not comment on jared kushner, would not comment on whether the back channel did or did not happen the way that "the
washington post" article said it did. the point i was making in the white house press briefing today was that the president tweeted out an article from fox news that relied on an anonymous source that said that kushner wasn't the one who suggested the back channel. it was the russians who wanted the back channel, and it was to talk about syria. but "the washington post" article had relied on anonymous sources, and those were the anonymous sources that sean spicer was slamming and saying they're completely unreliable. how could we trust them? when the president was relying on an article based on an anonymous source to support jared kushner's side of the story. >> yeah. and to the point there, heidi, to francesca's point here, what's remarkable is that the president himself tweeting this article that says essentially the meeting happened but not the same way again gets back to this fundamental issue that jared kushner has, which is if the meeting happened and it is this level of significance, it's hard to believe that jared kushner forgot about it when he filled out that form under penalty of perjury.
>> which is why sean looks so exhausted, because it's really hard to go out and do that job when you're constantly getting undercut by your own boss. to answer your question, initially as well that, yes, i think the strategy is evolving in that the now communications director and main spokesman for the white house won't even answer the questions. that is now where we're at. the thing that i thought is he is now basically under a trance of the legal team that tell him you can't deny it. you can't confirm it. you go out there and spin your way through. you give a ten-minute introduction on the president's trip which, you know, nobody in that press briefing room had intended to ask any more questions about the trip. it was all about russia and kushner. and the main question that we're trying to get at here is probably going to go unanswered for a pretty long time, which is what your previous guest said, is because spicer won't acknowledge anything, which is what did trump know? are we to really buy that both in the case of flynn and now
kushner, there were these high-level discussions going on with the russians, including a russian banker who was under sanctions and that the president knew nothing about it? >> that point, i think, is an important one, francesca. you know, the president gets back. this is him tweeting, you know. he gets back from abroad, and it was almost like someone when you have a friend who goes abroad but then they don't spring for the international data package. then they get back. all of a sudden there was tweet after tweet. today it said russian officials must be laughing at the u.s. and how a lame excuse for why the dems lost the election has taken over the fake news. this is similar in line to what vladimir putin said today. that tweet said to me that whatever discipline sean spicer is showing at the microphone, the president himself will not be able to show such discipline, which is probably why we haven't heard from him in such a long time. >> the difficulty for sean
spicer, as heidi was saying, is when you have the president tweeting things that undercut your message. we've seen that happen often. so sean is also at a point now where you referenced not giving us any information. he will say things like, the tweet speaks for itself. he will just refer back to the president's tweets, and oftentimes those tweets don't speak for themselves. there's a lot of unanswered questions, which is what came up in the briefing today, which is did the president know about the back channel, the alleged back channel that was being set up with russia? when did he know about it? and going back to that fox article that the president tweeted out today, he seemed to be affirming that it did happen. >> that's right. >> he just disagreed with the version of events in the post article, that he was saying that the fox article would have been the one that was right, which is that the conversation did happen. it just -- it just did not happen the way that the post said it did. so in the white house press briefing, one would think that sean spicer would be able to say whether or not did or did not know about this other time, or
it did or did not happen given the president tweeted about it, but he wouldn't do that. >> heidi, is this the strategy from here on out? refer to the lawyers. there's an investigation and basically try to move off it? >> i think so. that was the key sound bite that you were playing and a lot of other hosts were playing, which is that this is an ongoing investigation. i can't comment. at some point jared kushner will speak. i think there's also a bit of -- i mean look at sean spicer. he looked physically pained. i think for these officials who may or may not be hanging out that much longer, we don't know, there's also kind of how many times can you get burned in terms of being put out on that podium, saying things that wind up not being true? so it's better -- you know, let's be fair. we would slam him if he said things today that later this week we found out not to be true. so it's better i guess in his case in terms of survival to not answer the question. >> thank you both. the president's personal attorney now included in the expanding russia probe. some breaking news on how he's handling requests from congress
after this two-minute break. ♪ ♪ king arthur: ready! washington: charge! empress wu: charge! (in chinese) king arthur: charge! ♪ let your reign begin. evony, the mobile game. download now. whuuuuuat?rtgage offer from the bank today. you never just get one offer. go to lendingtree.com and shop multiple loan offers for free! free? yeah. could save thousands. you should probably buy me dinner. no. go to lendingtree.com for a new home loan or refinance. receive up to five free offers and choose the loan that's right for you.
our average customer could lower their monthly bills by over three hundred dollars. go to lendingtree.com right now. but we've got the get tdigital tools to help. now with xfinity's my account, you can figure things out easily, so you won't even have to call us. change your wifi password to something you can actually remember, instantly. add that premium channel, and watch the show everyone's talking about, tonight. and the bill you need to pay? do it in seconds.
because we should fit into your life, not the other way around. go to xfinity.com/myaccount the house and senate probe into russian intrusion into the presidential election has expanded to include donald trump's personal attorney, michael cohen. tonight cohen told nbc news that if he's issued a subpoena, he will testify. a brief refresher on who cohen is. his mantra as articulated in 2011 is, quote, if somebody does something mr. trump doesn't like, i do everything in my power to resolve it to mr. trump's benefit. if you do something wrong, i'm going to come at you, grab you by the neck, and i'm not going to let you go until i'm finished. in 2015 at the beginning of donald trump's run for president, michael cohen was asked about decades-old allegations allegedly made by ivana trump, accusing her then husband of rape, allegations denied by donald trump and subsequently disavowed by ivana trump herself. michael cohen told "the daily beast" that legally, quote, you cannot rape your spouse.
cohen later apologizes, trump distanced himself, saying, quote, he's speaking for himself. he's not speak being for me obviously. then when trump's feud with megyn kelly lead to death threats, michael cohen reportedly brushed them off. >> michael cohen, who is trump's top lawyer and an executive vice president with the trump organization, had re-tweeted, let's gut her about me at a time when the threat level was very high, which he knew. and bill schein, an executive vice president at fox, called him up to say you've got to stop this. we understand you're angry, but she's got three little kids. she's walking around new york, really. and he didn't much care. and what bill schein said to michael cohen was let me put it to you in terms you can understand. if megyn kelly gets killed, it's not going to help your candidate. >> michael cohen then went on to claim on twitter that gut meant, quote, to make something no longer effective. then most recently and perhaps most eyebrow raising given current news is that according to "the new york times," michael cohen hand-delivered a
russia-ukraine peace plan that would have ended sanctions against russia. it was drawn up by a russian american businessman and a ukrainian lawmaker, and he hand delivered that to the white house. the times says cohen confirmed he did this to their reporters. cohen has denied he did any such thing. joining me now, david cay johnston. david, you have covered michael cohen. you've covered trump. give us a sense of how central he is in new york. >> oh, he's donald's replacement for his lawyer in his early life, the notorious roy cohn. he just doesn't have roy cohn's polish. and he's all attack, attack, attack. that may work with journalists. it might work with people thinking about litigation. it might even possibly work with some lilly-livered members of congress in the investigation, especially if they're looking at tough re-election. it's not going to work with robert mueller's team in the fbi one bit. >> i thought about michael cohen
because i remembered when "the new york times" wrote that story and it was such a strange story. he's a guy like mr. cohen sitting down with a ukrainian politician sympathetic to russia, crafting a peace deal that would sort of let russia basically keep crimea and end the sanctions, which is precisely what russia wants, hand delivering it to michael flynn. it seems so random and out of nowhere, but now it seems less random, less out of nowhere given the reporting we've had in the last week or so. >> yeah. i don't see this being random. first of all, michael cohen's wife is a ukrainian. his brother's wife is ukrainian. he has ukrainian business involvements that are very long and very deep both in the former soviet union and here in the united states that have made him very wealthy. and i think the thing we should be asking is why is it that everything around this leads back to russia and the former soviet union? we're not seeing all sorts of very close contacts with people from, oh, i don't know, germany, japan, australia.
it's russia and the former soviet union again and again and again. >> we should say that there's one exception to that, which is flynn's turkey dealings, which have since been disclosed, which is an interesting -- you have a response to that, though. >> but even that one traces back to a russian oligarch. let's remember, the russian oligarchs are essentially a government sponsored network of international criminals who have been out trying to figure out how to loot the west and advance vladimir putin's agenda. he doesn't believe in democracy. he wants to break up nato. he wants to break up the european union. he wants to end democratic governments and replace them with a kind of dictatorial and presumably kleptocratic rule that he is the poster boy for. >> the other person involved with the michael cohen, you know, peace deal -- again, there's a lot of freelancing peace negotiations happening here which at a certain point one has to wonder how much were people just out on their own trying to bring peace to various
places. but felix sader was one of the people that was with michael cohen when this sort of alleged peace deal was brought back together, and felix seder is someone with a strange history with the trump organization as well. >> yes, felix seder, who donald says i wouldn't know him if i saw him in the room traveled with donald for years. he is at the center of the bay rock scandal. he has shown up repeatedly as being a crucial force in understanding donald trump and money that comes out of the russian kleptocracy that has bailed him out several times. you know, we now have about 20 people, chris, who are broadly being looked at here. and while some of them may be very tough and take on the sort of attitude of michael seder or -- i'm sorry -- michael cohen or felix seder, there are people who are going to be subject to leverage by competent investigators. so i think we're going to see more stuff continue to flow out. the smoke's going to get thicker
president's foreign trip. another came from a state department official who told "the daily beast" that when it comes to diplomacy, president trump is a drunk tourist, loud and tacky, shoving his way around the dance floor. he steps on others without realizing it. eli stokeles tweeted he got this text from a gop national security official. had to apologize to european defense attache. i'm sorry. he's an idiot. there were a lot of negative reviews. the president seen here shoving the prime minister of montenegro aside during a meeting with nato leaders. david frum declaring the trip a catastrophe. joe scarborough called it the most damaging for american interests abroad since jfk's disastrous 1961 vienna summit with khrushchev. after an extended tense handshake, french president emmanuel macron compared our president to leaders of turkey. and after the president met with angela merkel, martin schultz
said, quote, i reject with outrage the way this man takes it upon himself to treat the head of our country's government. >> chancellor angela merkel had some pointed words of her home at a beer hall rally which prompted a full minute of applause from her supporters. what merkel had to say right after this break. can you actually love wearing powerful sunscreen? yes! neutrogena® ultra sheer. no other sunscreen works better
cigarette butts are toxic. they release chemicals that poison our water... and harm wildlife. and millions... are polluting our environment. [ sniffing ] [ seagulls squawking ] after meeting with president trump last week, german chancellor angela merkel made a startling declaration, telling campaign supporters, quote, recent days have shown me that the times when we could rely completely on others are over to a certain extent, merkel adding, quote, we europeans must really take our own fate into our own hands. asked about the comments during his return to the white house briefing room today, press secretary sean spicer had this to say. >> that's great. that's what the president called for. he called for additional burden sharing. the president believes that seeing europe and other nato countries increase their burden sharing is a very positive thing for their own countries, for nato as a whole, and for the united states to see these individuals heed the call that
he has so eloquently put out over the last several -- frankly well over a year. >> joining me now, e everybody l farkas. there's two contexts for that quote. one is like, oh, my god, it's the end of 70 years of this project post-world war ii. and the other, this is one person, stop panicking over trump and nato. so they're going to kick in more to nato and we're not going to be their to hold their hands. what's the big deal? >> i think both things are sort of true, but i'm a little bit unsettled. so, yes, we have to get the europeans to pay more. but the reality is we already put out that cry. we out a huge amount of pressure under the obama administration. the european countries are all contributing more. most of them will make the 2% by, i think, next year, end of next year if i'm right. in any event, in the foreseeable future. they're making progress. the problem is that what the president is saying to the allies -- i mean he's unwilling to say that, i'm with you guys
100% of the way, article 5. he's, in public, putting them down, basically, you know, treating them like children rather than our closest allies. >> castigating them, shaming them. >> yes, in the context of standing in front of a monument. he's dedicating a monument to the 9/11 attacks on america when article 5 was invoked, the only times the allies started flying over the united states. they sent ships out to the med. they were with us in our fight against terrorism and they continue to be with us in afghanistan. >> i saw polling the other day about democrats' support for nato has gone through the roof. nato has been at various times a sort of controversial organization both in europe and the u.s. it was sort of seen as a bulwark in the cold war. there's a question about what it was worth after the cold war. then 9/11 happened. what was your sort of interpretation of the trip and
the relationship with nato? >> i've got to start by saying i'm no fan of nato. the last time i was tear gassed was at an anti-nato protest in europe. the last time i was protesting in chicago was at an anti-nato summit protest. so i'm not a fan of nato. i don't think that this kind of a military alliance is what keeps us safe. i don't think it's what keeps europe safe. nato was created for this idea to keep the americans in, the germans down, and the soviets out. the soviets are out. the americans are -- sorry, chris -- all in. and the germans are right there. so the notion that attacking nato rhetorically, because let's be clear. nothing else happened other than the rhetorical attacks. >> right. >> this doesn't mean a change in the reliance on military strength as supposedly what keeps us safe. it simply doesn't turn militaryism into diplomacy. it doesn't start to privilege diplomacy instead of war in afghanistan or somewhere else.
>> at the same time there's also the degree to which he's either -- the point of contention is they need to spend more money on their defense. >> right. but that's assuming that more money is going to keep people more safe, which makes more expensive wars. >> it's somewhat ironic to me that the bipartisan consensus is that, yes, europe needs to arm up more. in a sort of historical sense, when you go back, you're like, well, europe pouring a lot of money into arms has not been the best historical bet for the continent. >> well, i think when they were fighting with one another. but again, as phyllis pointed out, the reason we created this alliance was for collective security in europe. the reason we expand it -- even after the cold war, we continued to expand. when we didn't view russia as a threat at all. in fact, we thought someday russia would join. the reason we did it was to increase stability. we found there would be increased security and stability so you can get increased economic and political development. >> phyllis, at this point, because this is where i think
there's sort of an interesting rubber hitting the road. nato is one institution, but the trump vision seems sort of skepticism of all of them. >> right. this isn't just about nato. this is an attack on europe, and it doesn't take into account, for example, the deal that was made in 1990 at the end of the cold war, when the first bush administration and gorbachev agreed in return for the now russia, formerly soviets accepting the idea that reunified germany would join nato, that the agreement was nato would not expand one inch further to the east. and now we're right at russia's border. >> wait. >> that agreement came later. there was no agreement initially when the cold war ended. >> it was by 1991 there was an agreement, though, in that first year. >> there was. i mean, look, let's be clear. nato took advantage of the weakness of the post-soviet -- i'm just going to -- it's extremely controversial. i'll editorialize for a moment. but here's an important point to
all of this. on top of the nato thing, so there's anyway to too but nato is just one institution. the sort of through line here is the sort of skepticism of all multi-lateral agreements. >> and trade. >> all of the things that might bind countries to other countries is suspect. there's a scoop that trump is telling confidants that the u.s. will quit the paris climate deal. it's like the inverse of the political veilance of nato, right it's the same thing. it's the same idea. >> it's the same idea to donald trump. >> right. that's my point. >> it's the same idea that any -- the european union is clearly suspect. >> not only suspect. he keeps talking about german trade deals. thanks to you both. appreciate it. >> thanks, chris. still to come, rebecca trace ter on the post-election life of hillary clinton.
how she was ringing the russia alarm bell well before election day. plus seeking higher ground. that's tonight's thing 1, thing 2 starting next. when it's time to move to underwear toddlers see things a bit differently thanks to pampers easy ups while they see their first underwear you see an easy way to potty train pampers easy ups our first and only training underwear with an all-around stretchy waistband
thing 1 tonight, a recurring theme in the trump era has been congressional republicans seeking ways to avoid confronting angry constituents back home. beginning back in january when colorado congressman mike caph plan literally snuck out the back door of his office has hundreds of constituents waited to speak with him. tom cotton kept his door locked at his little rock office with staff only speaking to constituents through an intercom before eventually agreeing to a town hall several weeks later. on the first recess in february, more than 200 republicans skipped town halls altogether, a trend that continued in the april recess, prompting billboards calling on representatives to speak to their constituents as well as missing posters for congressmen like darrylell issa.
darrell issa caved and held two town halls later in march and has another one coming up this saturday. but he doesn't seem eager to get the conversation started early. this photo was posted of darrell issa today on the roof of his district office as crowds of constituents gathered below. that story is thing 2 in 60 seconds.
for 10 years my tempur-pedic has adapted to my weight and shape. so i sleep deeply and wake up ready to perform. now through june 11th, save $600 when you buy select tempur-pedic adjustable mattress sets. find your exclusive retailer at tempurpedic.com. a california attorney running for congressman darrell issa's seat tweeted today, yes, this is really darrell issa on the roof of his district office building, too afraid to come speak with assembled constituents below. and several hundred in front of darrell issa's office this a.m. issa came out with five minutes but refused to engage with those across the street. about 90 minutes later, issa tweeted, spent the morning talking with constituents gathered outside the office, then popped upstairs to take a quick pic, along with a photo of him speaking with what appears to be a lone supporter and a smaller group of constituents away from the main crowd. now, if issa spent the morning talking with voters as he
tweeted, perhaps he didn't retreat to the roof as it seemed. but issa had a very different story for the san diego union tribune staffer joshua stewart, who reported, i just received an unprompted call from darrell issa, who said he tried unsuccessfully to speak with protesters outside his office. issa said the protesters wouldn't speak to him so he went up to the roof and took pictures. then issa hung up on me. the only survivor in a horrific attack by a white supremacist in portland, oregon, is out of the hospital tonight. 21-year-old micah fletcher is now back home recovering after
the only survivor in a horrific attack by a white supremacist in portland, oregon, is out of the hospital tonight. 21-year-old micah fletcher is now back home recovering after he was stabbed in the neck. his alleged assailant, 35-year-old jeremy christian, was arraigned on murder charges today. christian is a self-avowed white nationalist who posted hateful sentiments on his facebook page and attended a free speech march in portland last month, where he was seen giving nazi salutes and shouting, die muslims. on friday night, according to witnesses, christian boarded a light rail train in portland and
began yelling slurs at two young women, one of whom was black, the other wearing a hijab. michael fletcher and two other men intervened and christian stabbed all three of them in the neck. 53-year-old rick john best and 23-year-old meche lost their lives. rick john best was a veteran serving 23 years in the army. he ran for county commissioner in 2014 as a republican and worked for the city of portland. he was on his way home friday night to his wife and four children when he was murdered. one of portland's city commissioners said as a veteran, he served our country with honor and distinction. he stood up for two young women and others he didn't know because he wanted to help. meche was a 2016 graduate of reed college in portland, where he majored in economics. his mother posted a letter to president trump on her facebook page saying, quote, these brave men saw the immediate injustice and didn't hesitate to act. they recognized the truth. we are more alike than we are different.
to ride the train home without being assaulted because of the color of your skin or your religious believes is an inalienable right. at a time when this country feels more polarized than ever in recent memory at least, the victims of this unspeakably heinous attack, one a republican veteran, the other a graduate of one of the leftyist colleges in the country, together in this moment acted with bravery and decency in a way that transcends whatever political differences they might have had, had they ever had the chance to talk about them. and in the midst of this horror, they, these men, are marters for a shining vision of our shared country that can make us all proud. may they rest in peace. when it's time to move to underwear
toddlers see things a bit differently thanks to pampers easy ups while they see their first underwear you see an easy way to potty train pampers easy ups our first and only training underwear with an all-around stretchy waistband and pampers' superior protection so you'll see fewer leaks and they'll see their first underwear pampers easy ups, the easiest way to underwear. pampers
look, from everything i see has no respect for this person. >> well, that's because he'd rather have a puppet as president of the united states. >> no puppet. you're the puppet. >> it's clear you won't admit the russians have engaged in cyberattacks against the united states of america that you encouraged espionage against our people, that you are willing to spout the putin line, sign up for his wish list, break up
nato, do whatever he wants to do. and that you continue to get help from him because he has a very clear favorite in this race. >> despite the president's repeated assertion the russia story is just a post-election rationale for hillary clinton's loss, clinton herself were very clearly talking a lot about the trump/russia connection back when she still thought she was going to win the election. and today, six months after her historic loss, she's still talking about it, in a profile in "new york" magazine that what i was doing, i was working. i would have won had i not been subjected to the unprecedented attacks by comey and the russians aided and abetted. it's a great piece. i read it in one single sitting. it strikes me. i was going back. and it was striking how much they were talking about it during the campaign and freaking out about it to the extent i felt at the time was too much, i think. >> both pre and post-election they've gotten the rap for it
being too much. pre-election, stop focussing on this. especially from the left. this was a weird conspiracy theory and it was taking ah way from what we should really be talking about, and that's -- there's a real argument behind that. >> in terms of politically, right. >> why isn't she making a positive case for herself. those are the critiques before the election. now the election has happened. there's increased evidence a lot of the stuff she was saying before the election was prescient and pretty well informed. now stop making this excuse for why you lost. on both sides of the election, her talking about russia isn't received very warmly. >> so one of the things i liked is that the hillary clinton that comes across in that piece is the closest in print rendering of the hillary clinton i've heard about from people that work with her.
>> right. one of the things that seems clear is that when we talk about the blame game and whether she's taking responsibility, like she and the people around her feel like they were robbed. >> yes. >> that's the tweet length version of how they feel it went. >> but i don't think they're alone. >> i'm not saying they are. obviously, they think they made mistakes. everyone does. but if you got jobbed by a horrible call at the end of a game, that is fundamental lie how they have processed this election. how she has. >> christiane amanpour said something in my piece where she says everybody is talking about comey. why isn't hillary clinton allowed to talk about comey. when she does talk about russia or comey, people pile on and say she's making excuses. why is she talking about this. she's not blaming herself. the fact is many people, many of us, many in the media are talking about this. nate silver has done lengthy analysis that this is probably what led to my loss.
and the thing about this election, we've talked about this before is that the win/loss in the electoral college came down to 77,000 votes. that means that whatever you think caused it, did. you're right. i'm right. she's right. everybody else is right. >> the butterfly effect. >> and so -- but there is this sense that like, if she talks about the thing that she believes caused it, which is comey and russia, then that is -- that's invalid in a way. >> but the reason that i think part of why this is so fraught, part yf there's such a fight over this is because people think that for a debate about what the core message of the democratic party is that there's two ways to look at it. one is that we did not -- our candidate and campaign didn't talk enough about the kitchen table issues that would appeal to those across the greater industrial midwest. the other is we did assemble the biggest coalition and then got jobbed by the butterfly effect. >> there's a middle ground that gets lost. it's about a messaging failure in part.
so a lot of criticism clinton got is she was running these ads warning about donald trump. the stuff about i.c.e., the deportations, that gutting ad about the child at the end of the election saying, can we stay? and this is a criticism that i happen to agree with. you aren't laying out a positive argument for your own administration. you are just warning us about donald trump. so she was simultaneously prescient and correct about trump. at the same time she was not getting across that message of what i'm going to do. the other thing is that part of what she was going to do and what -- and i didn't write about this in my piece though i talked to her about it. she had all kinds of policies she was very interested in regarding the white working class and that got some air but bad air during the primaries. when she went to coal country, she wanted to talk about retraining coal miners. policies that address the opioid addiction. that stuff wasn't getting the positive airing and messaging at
the end in the general election. >> having spent all this time with her, what do you think she understands as her role right now? >> well, it's interesting. she's experimenting with a new role actually outside of politics. and that's one thing she's often criticized as the sort of consummate democratic party insider as a first lady, a senator, a presidential candidate. she has talked about herself as an activist citizen. she's talked about herself as a member of the resistance. she's positioning herself experimentally, i think, this is my take, as somebody who is opposing from the outside. she's not the candidate. she said several times, i'm not running. i'm not the candidate. but she's redirecting using this c4 thing she set up. she's directing funds into resistance organizations. >> it's a fascinating chapter and rebecca tracer who is just a master at these sorts of things profiled hillary clinton is the cover story of this week's "new york" magazine. that is "all in" for this
evening. the widening investigation tonight. two more people in trump's orbit reveal they have been asked for more information. and michael flynn changes his tune, now saying he will hand over at least some documents to senate investigators. it's all part of "the 11th hour." it begins now. and good evening on this tuesday night from our headquarters here in new york. day 131 of the trump administration. and when we last spoke, the president had nearly wrapped up his overseas trip and was headed home albeit overshadowed by the big story here friday night alleging jared kushner had proposed a com