tv Deadline White House MSNBC October 11, 2017 1:00pm-2:00pm PDT
now. donald trump taking aim at this white house this afternoon in a series of tweets that includes a threat. the president's anger is in response to a report from nbc news this morning that the president said he happened to quote, nearly ten fold increase in the u.s. nuclear arsenal during a gathering this past summer of the nation's highest ranking national security leaders. this based on three accounts from three officials in the room. the president's comments surprised the officials including secretary of state rex tillerson and the joint chiefs of staff. quote, officials briefly explained the legal and practical impediments to a nuclear build up and how the current military posture is stronger than it was. this meeting will forever be etched in donald trump's presidency for another reason. as the meeting broke up, officials who remained behind
officials heard secretary of state rex tillerson say, quote, trump is a moron. >> it's fake news by nbc, which gives a lot of fake news lately. no, i never discuss. i think somebody said i wanted ten times the nuclear weapons we have right now. i want them in perfect condition, perfect shape. that's the only thing i've ever discussed. general mattis is putting out a statement saying that was fake news, it was just mentioned that way. and it's frankly disgusting the way the press is able to write whatever they want to write, and people should look into it. >> and here are the tweets from the president this morning, quote, nbc making up i wanted to a ten fold increase in our
nuclear arsenal. pure fiction made up to demean. and this one, with all of the fake news coming out of nbc and the networks at what point is it appropriate to challenge their license? bad for the country. let's get to our white house bureau chief, phil rucker and msnbc national security analyst, jeremy bash whose a former chief of staff at the cia and department of defense. jeremy, you spend a lot of time at the pentagon. i know you're over there every week. let me read something that broke in the last couple of hours from vanity fair from reporter dave sherman. he writes that one former speculates kelly and secretary of defense james mattis have discussed what they would do if trump ordered a strike. would they tackle him, they
said. jeremy, let me ask you to lay out for us the entire context and degree of alarm about the president and, one, the nuclear arsenal that nbc is reporting about, and two, i think something that under girds all of these stories that he displays instability. >> it's also called national command authority, and that means the president and only the president can order a nuclear strike. so not withstanding whether someone was in the room with him and could quote, unquote tackle him, he could order that strike on the phone with his military commanders and no one could attack him. there's nowhere in our system to counter that order. but i think it points to a larger issue, which is the president's fascination with a larger nuclear arsenal. i have heard discussions from
folks who have been in conversations with national security officials that the president has discussed drastically increasing our nuclear weapons numbers. and of course that's dangerous for several reasons. number one, it's very expensive. number two, it'll cause other countries to proliferate. and third and most important if we have nuclear weapons, it's more likely we'll use them. >> and the scrutiny we play to donald trump's utterances, his tweets and moods, let me show you something he said today making it abundantly clear even when he disagrees with his advisers, he's the one that makes all the decisions and tough calls on these matters. let's watch and talk about it on the other side. >> i think i have a little bit different attitude on north korea than other people might have. and i listen to everybody, but ultimately my attitude is the
one that matters, isn't it? that's the way it works. that's the way the system is. >> this is exactly your point, jeremy, if he were to order a nuclear strike, there's very little standing between that decision and said strike, is that right? >> yeah, when people in the chain of command whether a secretary of defense or combatant commander, whether strategic command with an air force base in alaska, what they would have to do is resign. eventually the president would have to find somebody to carry out the military orders. that's our system. he has that power. >> how long does it take from the president making that decision to a strike being carried out on say north korea? >> well, it could take minutes, and in fact it's not a lot of time. and the whole system is designed to react to an incoming strike. and under most scenarios -- and
by the way, this is ruhearsed three times a day is rehearsed all the time at the pentagon. and the rehearsal times have it under ten minutes or so when the president would make that decision. >> phil rucker, let's bring this back to bob corker's description of the west wing that it's a day care facility, that there aren't enough people covering their shifts. can you talk to me today about the tweets about a growing sense of unease at best and alarm at worst inside the west wing? >> yeah, that's right. and we've been hearing this for several days. and there's been this period here where the president is frustrated, and he's angry and he sees his agenda on capitol hill really going nowhere. and he's been in office now for nine months. so he's irritated and frustrated. he's chafing a bit at the structures in his white house, because he doesn't have the same kind of access he used to enjoy
to a lot of his friends and a lot of the sources of information he had become acusmed to. and to begin with he's a volatile person. he has a bit of a temper. it's something he's actually prided himself on over the years through his life. and we've seen it on reality television through his shows, but now he's in office exhibiting a lot of these character traits. >> what seems to be apparent today is it's become public what john cell ea ozable to accomplish. he came in did big public things right around. he got rid of scaramucci, reince priebus -- he got rid of reince priebus who had been viewed as weak. he made a decision of the firing of secretary jet price after the spending was revealed.
what is now known is this was what motivated trump's friends in public life to step out and sound their own alarms. is it the limits of his authority to change the president at all are now obvious to everyone? >> that's right. and when kelly came in he made it clear to people who wasn't going to come in and try to manage the president and his behavior. the president refuses to be managed. in fact if you try to manage him, he'll prove you can't manage him and react. and he'll do what you're telling him not to do. and there's an interview my friend had with tom barrack who has spoken out now publicly about his concerns with the president's behavior and the tone of his rhetoric and his tweeting. >> jeremy let me get back to you, you were the chief of staff on the cia and department of defense, two agencies on the
front lines of protecting this country from threats abroad. can you talk about scaramucci did have that kernels of wisdom and all that flamboyance, he talked about white house staffers in some countries protecting them from donald trump. are there some people in the cia viewing it as their responsibility to protect the-country from the president's with their instinct? >> going to 10,000 nuclear weapons to 30,000 nuclear weapons is not keeping our policy on an even keel. we have war plans. it says how many tanks, how many soldiers, how many nuclear weapons we need. and what the joint chiefs and pentagon had to explain to the commander in chief is that our
war plans have more than enough nuclear weapons with the current stockpile. and doing this in an increase of ten fold or whatever the president was discussing with his team was so far-out of the range of normal that it would endanger our country. >> you served as chief of staff to a secretary of defense. if you were chief of staff to this secretary of defense, what would your counsel be to him? >> look, i think the people serving the president whether the pentagon or intelligence community, they know they've got to be in the room, talking to the president, they've got to keep him close, and they've got to give him the best dead level advice they know how to do. and if the president decides he's going to go a different way, that may be okay. but if he totally disregard those national security interests, i don't think you're going to see him in that position much longer. >> he know views them as enablers.
let's add to the conversation, our panel. msnbc national affairs analyst john whileman joins the table, philip pope, and herald ford, jr. first, just react to nbc news report that while it wasn't carried out, we did not increase our nuclear stockpile ten fold, and secretary mattis did respond saying that the president didn't call for it. that does not knock down our report that he inquired about it. you saw over the course of the campaign donald trump's instincts and impulses on nuclear weapons. it was really fascination, and like with all things trump, often contradictions as well as an obsession with the size of the arsenal. >> right, i've talkin' to shawn on multiple occasions about size mattering to donald trump and big things and the notion of big
things that go boom are appealing to hill. and we have reporting during the campaign from the network and other places that trump was fixated on the notion of nuclear weapo weapons. why do we have them, why can't we use them? asking the serious questions that other people in the past understood. since world war ii the set national policy is to never use them again and the notion to try to reduce the nuclear stockpile around the world has been one of the fundamental goals and one of the fundamental accomplishments of the western democracies is we still have too many. most sane people on the right and left probably think it would be better to get to zero. it would be the right place to go to because it would make the world safer, and apparently
donald trump thinks the other. >> let's watch some of these clips. >> several months ago a foreign policy expert on an international level went to advise donald trump, and three time he asked about the use of nuclear weapons. three times he asked. at one point if we have them, why can't we use them? that's one of the reason we just doesn't have foreign policy experts around him. >> trump asked three times. >> three times in an hour briefing why can't we use nu nuclear weapons. >> this meeting took place in july, he'd been president for six months. this is the meeting that ended with rex tillerson drawing the conclusion that the president was a moron. but can you just speak it to
your body of reporting about trump's erratic nature in his public comments and anything you've detected from your sources that it extends into his national security thinking? >> i can say this without any sort of -- i'm not passing judgment, but he really is getting a realtime lesson in modern american foreign policy. this is not the first time we've heard him talk about the nuclear arsenal. with vladimir putin he said something similar he wanted to boltster the nuclear capabilities. he likes talking about nukes. remember this was a guy that was a ceo for decades, he came into a position he didn't have the same tickatorial power he had as ceo. but as commander in chief, he
understands the value to it. and whether or not the decision to use these things are erratic, it makes sense this is the donald trump we've seen all along. >> i've been asked why doesn't he read five books, why doesn't he want to understand america's role in the world anymore? it's clear that he doesn't. it's clear he hasn't spent any time as president reading or listening to books on tape or whatever he does. but i'm wondering the dangers of having a president completely ignorant of history. >> it does present dangers. >> no joke, do you think he knows about the ristry of the cold war? >> i think it's true he trusts his gut so much, he does not feel compelled to do the reading of history that previous presidents have felt they need to do. >> what do you think his degree of understanding is with what
the cold war was and how it ended? >> i don't know. i've never talked to him about it, but there'd be no reason for him to have an in-depth knowledge of the cold war because that wasn't the field he was at the time and he hasn't chosen to immerse himself in that. when you hear the president say today he's at odds with his advisers on what to do because their perspective is steeped in something his is not steeped in. >> and he's so disdainful of knowledge. i've heard accounts he's so distrustful. he views them as tainted for having worked other republicans. and they want to keep going back and back to other administrations that aren't viewed as establishment. and they want to go back to '80s. you can't go back that far. but there's such a disdain that they're almost devoid of any
unsitutionest that can sort of tutor him on the history of america's military might. >> and he seems to celebrate that. not only does he not know these things but he doesn't seem to be particularly curious or interested in learning it or even how learning it will help make a better decision. when he was sitting down with just justin treaudo -- and you've got to feel bad for treaudo -- he made clear, he was at least honest about one thing. who knows if he didn't ask that question about ten fold or not, but it was reported. but he did say, look, i have an idea on north korea. ultimately you may understand this differently when i'm the decider, he made it clear his attitude is the one that matters the most. and you have to hope when you bing it back to the conversation he's willing to read and understand the packed history here and how to unpack some of
this in a way to get us out of this. he seems more determined to do it his way than the right way. and i think that's more disconcerting to those watching. >> the ceo mentality, you come into this office, the president turns out to be a lot less powerful in almost every way than you think when you become president. you're way more powerful running the family business or in a public company where you have a spineless board around you to let you do what you want. this is great, you have the constitutional straints, congress, courts, regulatory hurdles, public opinion, the press. all of those are the guardrails that keep the president from doing a whole bunch of stuff on domestic affairs on foreign policy. here's what you can do alone as the president, there's not much, you can watch the nuclear weapons unilaterally. this is what barack obama is
afraid of -- he's not afraid of tax cuts or environmental regulations, all those things are fixable even if they do great damage. this is one thing where there's no constraint. there's very few things like this the black ops, the power of it intelligence and the commander in chief to launch a nuclear war. here it is october now, and actually the guardrails have worked pretty well on donald trump in the first ten months. this is the place, though, they might not work at all. >> we're hitting pause. when we come back, steve bannon is out with a blockbuster tease of his own, reportedly giving the trump presidency an expiration date that will shock that loyal trump base. and the white house staff at a breaking point with a long time friend and advisor saying the president can do better. more reports that the staff is feeling the strain of trump's constant chaos. and painting a rosy picture,
prominent republicans and trump advisers and they've all described a white house crisis as advisers struggle to contain a president that seems to be increasingly unfocused and consumed by dark moods. this on top of a stunning rebuke by one of trump's closest friends, long time friend tod barrack who says he's socked and stunned, telling "the washington post," quote, he thinks he has to be loyal to his base. i say who's his base? you don't have a natural base. your base is all of america. you have all these natural constituencies. show them who you really are. in my opinion, he's better than this. hi, matt. >> hi, nicolle. >> i want to read you something that's been attributed to steve bannon who's been way out front this week since leaving the white house, sort of bannon unplugged. this is from that gabe sherman piece. ask it reports that several
months ago according to two sources told steve bannon told trump the risk to his presidency wasn't impeachment but the 25th amendment. when bannon mentioned the 25th amendment, trump said what's that. according to a source bannon has told people he thinks trump has only a 30% chance of making it the full term. what do you think the chances are of trump making it the full term and a second term? >> every day's a new day, nicolle. they have a special council going through everyone's under wear drawer. i'm pretty confident that the under lying chances -- but i think he's taken on the press, the swamp, the establishment, the republican party like nobody else he's taken on everything. and you get powerful enemies when you do that. i do think he's got a lot of
people shooting at him. i think he's a very high percentage chance he finishes out his term. i also think there's a high percentage chance as people attack him back pretty ruthlessly, it helps him. >> well, i was asking you about the 25th amendment, which based on my google search is something that the cabinet invokes. these aren't people that attack him. these are people that see him up close. so you've got steve bannon who i think views himself as a close ally of cpac. a provoigz by which a majority of the cabinet, not the kinds of people you just talked about can vote to remove the president. bannon has told people he thinks trump has only a 30% chance. so i'd like you to respond to the fact that -- >> what location was that in? >> it's a gabe sherman piece. listen, i don't want to have a
fight with you about the media because i'm guessing you came on this network because you at least were generous to share your insights. but i want you to respond to steve bannon possibly warning the president. he's not the only one. there's plenty of reports out there. >> i'm a subskriesh of vanity fair. i read it cover to cover. all i can say is i know their point of view well. steve bannon has never raised that with me. you're right he's a close ally of cpac. i have heard steve talk about with his typical gusto and passion that this president is taking on so many powerful forces that, you know, the reverberation is going to be substantial. so i can see him talking in these apocalyptic terms that when you do this, it can result in some pretty bad political options. but i don't think -- i have never heard him say that's a viable option. i do think, look, he's at logger
heads even with some prominent republicans, and this is the way donald trump's going to be president. >> do you think that bob corker's comments over the weekend and in an interview with "the new york times" are justified? and i know you have a lot of, we should just disclose to our viewers your wife works in the white house. you and i both have a lot of friends in this white house. >> and i just came from there. and i can guarantee you i saw nobody running around in panic or people running around with their raiser blades out. it seemed like a happy environment, i can tell you that. >> i take your point. i was just inside the white house. bob corker, he says i see this up close a personal. he has talked about tillerson and mattis and kelly being the only thing that stands between this president and chaos. and i wonder what your assessment is of this stability that the president has displayed
and how he carries out foreign policy. >> i obviously disagree with bob corker completely. i think his comments are petty. i think they're alarmist. >> you think it's petty to think that donald trump has displayed incompetence and attacking tillerson and mattis? >> yes. i think corker doesn't like the president -- >> he doesn't like the president, he was one of the first people to endorse him. that's just not true. >> i think he doesn't like this -- this is my version of events, which i don't think the president respects the president. i don't think he likes the president. i think he's gone public with his criticism of the president. for conservatives like myself we have long had concerns with bob corker including some of his actions around the whole background of the iran nuclear deal. i think it's unfortunate. i don't like tasee republicans at each other's throats. but when it comes to this fight
of trump versus corker i am firmly in trump's fight. i think it's put him in this position where he wouldn't be able to win if he ran again, which is why he's not running. >> to hear donald trump sort of weaponizing, galvanize his supporters against the chair of the senate foreign relations committee. >> yeah, it was really amazing to me because i think fundamentally what senator corker -- with all respect, matt, he's a serious republican leader, the chairman of the senate foreign relations committee. he's no democratic, not a member of the media. he has watched up close the way the president conducts policy. and for him to give an assessment that potentially the president could be leading us to world war iii, i think everyone needs to take that seriously. it's also a case he talks to
often those three cabinet officials that you reference, that they are reflecting back to him the grave concern they have about the state of affairs. >> rucker -- i don't want you want to respond, but let me let phil rucker give us your most recent reporting about the chief of staff and it's become clear in the last 48 hours, i'd say, that he's more embattled than he appears. and the president obviously caught wind of this. i think put out a couple of tweets in the last 24 hours saying i love my chief of staff, and he's happy here. >> no chief of staff is happy. >> okay, but phil rucker, can you share the latest reporting that the post has its hand on about the state of john kelly's grasp on this west wing? >> look, i don't think trump is going to fire him at any point soon. if anything, trump wants to keep him on.
but from our understanding with reporting there remains some tension between these two men. there two individuals with very different styles of doing their work. and there have been friction points over the last few months, and those friction points remain. there are a lot of crises going on around the world and in this white house. and kelly has to deal with that. and trump made a comment over the weekend that kelly would be there for the full seven years. i cannot imagine that kelly attempts to be there for seven years. i don't think any chief of staff can make it that long. we'll see if he makes it seven months. i don't think a brick up is imminent here according to the reporting we have. but there remains frustrations ask tensions than trump is speaking of publicly. when we come back, president trump says nobody could have done what he did in puerto rico. thank god. but three full weeks after the storm, only 10% of the island
has power. wait until you see how the president struck back at people critical of the federal government's response. had. the classes, the friends, the independence. and since we planned for it, that student debt is the one experience, i'm glad she'll miss when you have the right financial advisor, life can be brilliant. ameriprise for her compassion and care. he spent decades fighting to give families a second chance. but to help others, they first had to protect themselves. i have afib. even for a nurse, it's complicated... and it puts me at higher risk of stroke. that would be devastating. i had to learn all i could to help protect myself. once i got the facts, my doctor and i chose xarelto®. xarelto®... to help keep me protected. once-daily xarelto®,
a latest-generation blood thinner... ...significantly lowers the risk of stroke in people with afib not caused by a heart valve problem. it has similar effectiveness to warfarin. xarelto® works differently. warfarin interferes with at least 6 blood-clotting factors. xarelto® is selective, targeting just one critical factor interacting with less of your body's natural blood-clotting function. for afib patients well-managed on warfarin, there is limited information on how xarelto® compares in reducing the risk of stroke. don't stop taking xarelto® without talking to your doctor, as this may increase risk of stroke. while taking, you may bruise more easily, or take longer for bleeding to stop. it may increase your risk of bleeding if you take certain medicines. xarelto® can cause serious, and in rare cases, fatal bleeding. get help right away for unexpected bleeding, unusual bruising, or tingling. if you've had spinal anesthesia, watch for back pain or any nerve or muscle-related signs or symptoms. do not take xarelto® if you have an artificial heart valve or abnormal bleeding. tell your doctor before all planned medical or dental procedures... ...and before starting xarelto®-about any conditions, such as kidney, liver, or bleeding problems. it's important to learn all you can...
today marks the three weeks since hurricane maria hit puerto rico and nearly 90% of the island is still without power. 48 people have died. earlier today the house of representatives was briefed by fema on the recovery efforts there, and speaker paul ryan plans to visit the island at the end of this week. but from the beginning this story has been about more than the storm. for the president at least it's been about the white house's response. that kind of reporting clearly touched a nerve for president trump. he released a highlight reel in response. it begins quote, what the fake news media will not show you in puerto rico. it's meant to show all of the effective efforts of the federal
government. the panel's back. i've got a little quiz. yes, i'm going to show you -- take notes. i'm going to test the limits of your add. i'm going to show you a video that aired in the montage. let's watch that first. >> -- to come and help out clear roads to get that help in puerto rico. what we're finding out we're coming out and evaluating the situation to other intel and with our other resources a lot of work we're trying to do and get roads passable has already been occurring with the public. >> that sounds pretty good, get roads passable. here's what they cut out. >> and to get roads passable has already been occurring with the public. so the citizens of puerto rico are doing a good job and helping to clear roads.
because that's occurring, we're bringing our folks in and making the roads wider and more useable. >> why does trump have to be in the middle of this story about puerto rico? why is puerto rico about him? >> you know everything is about him, right? it's all about him. our world is trumpy world right now. >> these people don't even have power. they're not even watching this on tv. >> when he's attacked, when he's criticized, he was to figure out some way to attack back. he just can't stop himself. he took heat for throwing the paper towels and the way he behaved over there, and he's not going to let go. he's still talking about his electoral college -- it's all fake news and he's going to go out of his way to try and prove it even if it's fake news to try
and prove the original news was fake. >> there are trump supporters who will look at this and say these are things the news is not telling me. they're getting food and medicine. and just the fact the white house is putting out a video like that that is very selective edited corrodes faith in news outlets that go ahead and reports things that are happening nationally. >> but donald trump as he was taking reaction started to actually blame the puerto rican people and in the tweet said they needed to take more responsibility for themselves. and what we just saw in that video was them editing out what the puerto rican people were doing to bolster his own point, which is just amazing. >> i know how you feel about pile ones, so i'm not going to ask you to defend on this.
you and i in many regards are the worst equipped to evaluate his response to puerto rico, okay. but let me just ask you what your advice to be to this white house. is this helpful, editing a clip of puerto rico for them helping themselves, something obviously the people of puerto rico needs to do more of? >> no, i agree with you, what happened down in puerto rico and the virgin islands, which not getting coverage as well and texas -- the really comes down to some funding questions using national guard. but it's that local government and the state government that plays a big role. and what the white house needs to do is simply continue to be a helping hand in the process to get these people in a better position. the problem is when you have
this many people in desperate need of the basics of life, it could lead to very bad things, which it's bad for that society, bad for our country. my advice to them is keep trying to help. it's frustrating. they're not going to get a break on the coverage on this. i don't know why we blame presidents for mother nature. i think it's stupid. but presidents do have to be the consoler in chief. my guess is people on the ground appreciate the help when they get it. >> you said that society, they're americans, we're americans -- >> what do you mean? >> i just want to make sure you weren't suggesting somehow their problems -- i mean you're not suggesting fema not do everything to help rebuild puerto rico -- >> no, maybe i need to look at the tape. and of course puerto ricans are americans. we should help them. we should hem the people in our u.s. territorial virgin islands.
the federal government can only do so much when natural disaster hits. they can facilitate and help coordinate. it's unfortunate politics has come down to this question somehow it's a white house response to a storm that is the biggest impact. and it's just not. there's things they can do, but they can't wave a magic wand and make everybody better. >> donald trump has waved a hate stick at the mayor of san juan. he has constantly attacked her for simply standing in front of the cameras and begging for help. he hasn't done what matt just counseled him to do. he'd be wise to do so, but he has attacked the mayor of san juan, the paper towels. his actions have not helped him and definitely not the people of puerto rico. >> before he answers, one of the
things that concerns me a lot about this president, sort of where we're going with politics and the way people think about the federal government, i'm a strong believerer and i hope we all are when the federal government marshals it's resources and determination and marsales its focus, there's very little it can't help solve. i can agree you can't prevent a natural disaster, but i take issue with matt and others may make the point there's only so much the federal government can do. but i cannot believe we think as a nation that we're doing all that we can in puerto rico and in the virgin islands. and if we are, it says more about the inepiitude and ineffectiveness, and frankly not the incompetence but inability of the people. how that that project around the globe when the federal government can't help u.s.
people? >> the idea what matt, what donald trump is being criticized for is mother nature is ridiculous. there were two major natural disasters. what happened in texaco, what happened in puerto rico? texas was helpful, did a lot of good work. the one in puerto rico is a disaster and continues to be a disaster. >> that's not right. >> so the disparity between the two the of them and a the underlying differences between them is what's confusing. people are looking at puerto rico and saying why is puerto rico getting a second, fourth, fifth field kind of treatment than texas got. you can't claim they've gotten equal treatment or the federal government response has been in any way competent in the way in puerto rico? >> what we learned with katrina
when you have competent state and local government when a storm hits you're in a bad spot. i actually think the governor of texas did a magnificent job. when you talk to other political leaders who have been involved in puerto rico, you do have a problem when the fact you did have some mayors and some local response especially in san juan that was quite poor. and that's the problem when these storms hit. >> matt, we don't want to nationalize everything. but when people are begging for their lives, it's not the time for the president of the united states to trash talk them on twitter. that's the last word. when we come back, we get the latest on the scandal consuming the entertainment industry. more questions on the powerful in hollywood about what they knew and whether the industry will change. morning on the beach was so peaceful.
until... it... wasn't. don't let type 2 diabetes get between you and your heart. because your risk of heart attack or stroke is up to four times greater. but there are steps you can take to lower your cardiovascular risk. talk to your health care provider today about diabetic heart disease. and find out more at heartoftype2.com. your heart and type 2 diabetes. make the connection. t music) - [announcer] imagine what you wear every day actually making your body feel better. that's exactly what tommie copper does for people everywhere. they call it wearable wellness,
and tommie copper has infused it into everything they do. why not experience the difference tommie copper can make in your life? visit tommiecopper.com to see the entire line of wearable wellness compression. go right now and find out how you can save 25% on your first purchase plus free shipping. life hurts. feel better.
wemost familiar companies,'s but we make more than our name suggests. we're an organic tea company. a premium juice company. a coconut water company. we've got drinks for long days. for birthdays. for turning over new leaves. and we make them for every moment in every corner of the country. we are the coca-cola company, and we're proud to offer so much more.
he said i have contracts for my next three films here, and i will send them today but i want you to have a threesome with me and my assistant. when i left, he got angry. and he said you'll never make it in this business. this is how this industry works. how do you think so-and-so and so got to where they are today? and just started yelling at me. and so at that point i fled from the room. i was scared at that point because he is a very domineering man. >> that was don dunning in an nbc exclusive recounting her experience with hollywood producer harvey weinstein in 2003 when she was a fledging actress. don is one of 20 women who has accused weinstein of sexual misconduct. he was fired from his production company on sunday, and his wife has since announced she is
leaving him. he's announced he's now seeking treatment. clare, sometimes scandal everything is under the surface, it all comes up at once. in politics we call it the tip of the iceberg. are these accounts in the "new york times," the nbc news interview, "the new yorker," are they all that exists or do you think there are many more women who will come out? >> well, i have never seen anything like this. in my 20 years of writing about the entertainment business the only thing i can think of anywhere close, mel gibson when he made anti-semitic statements maybe a decade or so ago. so i think there's more to come. i talk to a lot of high powered hollywood publicists what they think every time i look down at my phone, another actress saying
he's done this to me, too. it's the speed everybody came out. the first story hit friday, reports over the weekend. and rona farrow's piece in the "new yorker" and the floodgates opened and twitter played a big role. rose mcgowan, one of the original ladies who said that he'd abused her, she's been hitting twitter nonstop, like, day in, day out, calling for these guys to be accountable on the board of weinstein, guys like ben affleck who may have touched other people and she's been calling them all out and that's created this kind of avalanche of other women saying, well, hey, you know, i share what you, i share that view and i applaud you for saying what you have said, and it's kind of like created this huge firestorm that i don't think stops. i think it keeps going. >> i'm surprised to hear you say that it isn't similar to the cosby scandal, because as someone in a different industry, seems to me to have a lot of similarities to the way that scandal unfolded and i remember the image of all of those women
on the kcover of the "new yorker." how is this dissimilar? >> bill cosby's career was very much over. weinstein still popular, but on the decline. no longer king of the hill why these women felt compelled to come forward. to me it's kind of amazing how many women are involved, and over these decades. it's like nothing happened for a long time and then suddenly the guy's career is over. his wife is leaving him. and you have, like, weird side fights between lisa bloom and her mother gloria allred, whether she should be representing harvey weinstein, and why nobody really prosecuted harvey. amazing side stories, that the
whole situation brought up. >> but at its core it's about men in power. let's watch something rona farrow said last night and talk about it on the other side. >> the abuse of power is a phenomenon we see over and over again in industry after industry. this is about a culture of silence around powerful men, it is about a machine described to me my source after source in this story designed to silence accusations like this. talking about powerful p.r. teams designed to smear people publicly. talking about a legal team that uses aggressive non-disclosure agreements in settlements you talked about in your a block. this is a fuselage of attacks. this is why it's so brave what they've done here. >> so stunning about this story and, again, i don't know harvey weinstein, never met harvey weinstein. seems to me he operationalized rape, and the behavior of a sexual predator inside a company, and i don't know we've seen -- i think in some ways
that's the difference -- cosby lured people to his town house and rooms. this is someone who ran an operation, i don't know what else to call it, other than a sexually, a sexual predator, acting an a sexual predator in his office, in the restaurant, in his hotel rooms for business trips. i mean, have you seen anything like this? >> and enabled by his executives and his assistants who facilitated this behavior and impossible to defend and impossible to believe deninals given the number of credible women who have stepped forward. here's the question. it isn't just in this industry. right? it happens in other industries as well. a little sexier because we've all seen his movies and seen the actresses implicated in this now. i wonder if you think this is just harvey weinstein or will this be like the profusion of developments in, against catholic priests where we found
one catholic priest, then another and a culture that pervaded that entire organization and this was just the string that began to unravel it? >> i think it's clearly not just in hollywood and clearly not just who are vi weinstein in hollywood but the hollywood aspect is important to understand in this one respect. there's almost no industry where the power dynamics between men and women are so out of whack. they're out of whack in a lot of places, to be clear, but this thing that in the movie business that women, again, and i totally unfair ridiculous system, that women have this very narrow window where you can be a star. that if you're 20 years old, 18 years old to 30, you can have a lead role in a movie, but after 30, you're done. until you're, maybe, judi dench and in yourur 70s. a rare woman can get parts in hollywood at 40, 35, or even 30. the narrow window increases
pressure to find a way in. to find that way in they feel they have to appeal to people like harvey weinstein and with that degree of power can get away with almost anything and that's what he did. >> claire, thank you so much. we'll keep covering this and calling on you. thank you for joining us. we'll sneak in a quick break and be right back. or your digestion... so why wouldn't you take something for the most important part of you... your brain. with an ingredient originally found in jellyfish, prevagen is now the number one selling brain health supplement in drug stores nationwide. prevagen. the name to remember.
we're life line screening... and if you're over 50... call this number, to schedule an appointment... for five painless screenings that go beyond regular check-ups. we use ultrasound technology to literally look inside your arteries... for plaque which builds up as you age- and increases your risk for stroke and cardiovascular disease. and by getting them through this package, you're saving over 50%. so call today and consider these numbers: for just $149 you'll receive five screenings that could reveal what your body isn't telling you. i'm gonna tell you that was the best $150 i ever spent in my life. life line screening. the power of prevention. call now to learn more. 'saved money on motorcycle insurance with geico. goin' up the country. later, gary' i have a motorcycle! wonderful.
♪ ♪ i'm goin' up the country, baby don't you wanna go? ♪ ♪ i'm goin' up the country, baby don't you wanna go? ♪ geico motorcycle, great rates for great rides. thoughts? >> i want to pick up something -- this idea of the powerful man. one of the things we're seeing now i think with weinstein and roger ailes, with bill cosby that era ended and fostered by internet. make all of these connections, all of these people can feel strength in numbers that wasn't possible probably 30 years ago.
>> this weinstein thing also, the nypd and the office, questions have to be answers there. we'll probably get some of this sorted out very soon. >> in the middle of reporting about ivanka and jared, too. our thanks to all of you. that does it for our hour. i'm nicolle wallace, and now "mtp daily" and katy tur in for chuck todd. tonight, a meltdown over nuclear. >> i think somebody said i want ten times the nuclear weapons we have now. >> firing back on the president's nuclear ambitions. >> general mattis put out a statement saying that was fake news. >> plus, steve bannon's war.