tv All In With Chris Hayes MSNBC October 12, 2017 12:00am-1:00am PDT
tonight. thank you so very much for being here with us. good night from nbc news headquarters here in new york. tonight on "all in". >> right now we have so many nuclear weapons, i want them in perfect condition, perfect shape. >> the president threatens a free press. >> it's disgusting that the press is able to write what they want to write. >> reports of an absolute meltdown in the white house. tonight the nuclear dangers with the president on the edge. >> my attitude is the one that matters. >> and what to make of his threats to challenge the license of nbc news. then -- >> articles of impeachment against donald j. trump. >> the billionaire donor who
wants democrats to pledge they will impeach the president. and an nbc exclusive entire view with the latest weinstein accuser to come forward. >> he said i have contracts for my next three films here and i will sign them today but i want you to have a threesome with me an my assistant. >> all in starts right now. good evening new york. i'm unstable, losing a step and unraveling, words used by the president's confidant to describe his state of mind, echoing the grave concerns of chairman bob corker, that the president's temperament and current disposition could pose a threat to national security. the white house reached a new level of crisis as the president fumes and lashes out over the stall with the latest agenda and preferred candidate's embarrassing loss in the senate primary. he vented to keith shiller, who recently left the administration telling him, i hate everyone in the white house. there are a few exceptions but i hate them.
a white house official denies this. things have gotten so bad that according to one source, steve bannon told people he thinks trump has only a 30% chance of making it the full term. national security leaders he wanted what amounts to a nearly tenfold increase in the u.s. nuclear arsenal during a meeting over the summer. that's according to three officials in the room. the president's comments came in response to a briefing slide he was shown charting the steady reduction of nuclear weapons in the u.s. since the 1960s. according to nbc news, that was the same pentagon meeting that prompted secretary of skate tillerson to called the president moron. the president today disputed nbc's reporting. >> that was just fake news by nbc which gives a lot of fake news lately and it's frankly disgusting the way the press is
able to write whatever they want to write. and people should look into it. we won't need an increase but i want modernization and i want total rehabilitation. it's got to be in tiptop shape. when they make up stories like that, that's just made up and the generals will tell you that. and then they have their sources that don't exist in my opinion, they don't exist. they make up the sources. there are no sources. >> defense secretary james mattis said in a statement recent reports that the president called for an increase in the nuclear arsenal are absolutely false. but importantly nbc news reported that the president took the step for calling for an increase, just that he talked about it in that meeting. there are no plans to follow there. this is what the president treated last year before the inauguration. that's exactly the kind of off the cuff tweet senator corker warned about in his explosive interview with the "the new york times" earlier this week. >> i don't think he understands that the messages that he sends
out, especially when you take into account they're being received in other languages around the world -- >> yeah. >> -- what that does. i know he's hurt, in several instances he's hurt us as it relates to negotiations that were under way by tweeting things out. >> corker may have been referring to an incident two ekes ago when tillerson announced that the u.s. is in direct conversation with north korea over its nuclear career. drawing a rebuke from the president saying i told tillerson he's wasting his trying to negotiate with rocketman. save your energy. it's not clear that's an approach the president supports. >> i have a little bit different attitude on north korea than other people might have. >> your secretary?
>> 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. but i think i might have a somewhat different attitude and a different way than other people. i think perhaps i feel stronger and tougher on that subject than other people. >> ben rhodes serves as the deputy national securitied a vuzer to former president barack obama. that last line, tougher strong nuclear weapons. what do you make of the reporting that we're getting and the president's statements? >> well, first of all, if you have to go around telling everybody how tough you are, you're probably not. i think that this is an incredibly dangerous moment. we already have a nuclear crisis on the korean peninsula. we have the threat of trump initiating a second nuclear crisis by pulling out of the iran deal. and frankly, he seems to approach issues of nuclear
weapons the same way he approaches tweeting about fake news or the nfl. but the consequences are much more severe. and we should all be concerned in which direction he's going to lead us in the korean peninsula and iran. >> as someone who worked in the white house and dealt with the iran deal and also had to deal with north korea, i wonder what are the conversations like at the highest levels of the white house when you're talking about nuclear weapons? it's something that must hang over and weigh on everyone that is involved in making decisions in the white house. >> well, chris, first of all, the entire post war architecture that was built after world war ii, essentially exists to prevent the use of nuclear weapons. and the united states at the center of that architecture works to prevent both the spread and use of nuclear weapons. so everything that you're doing any day has as a backdrop the desire to prevent that
catastrophic outcome. with respect to iran, that meant looking at what the options were, a diplomatic agreement like the one we reached to prevent iran from getting a nuclear weapon. knowing that absent diplomatic agreement the options you're left with is a war with iran or iran obtaining the nuclear weapon. the entire time we were in office we were dealing with a north korean regime that had the nuclear capability. mindful of that we worked to isolate and pressure north korea but were very careful about the types of bluster and threats that he's engaged in that could risk a conflict that could immediately get out of control and prove catastrophic. so these are things that you have to be very careful in addressing. and frankly speak about as senator corker said in very careful language. because around the world people listen very closely to every word the president of the united
states says as relates to the nuclear weapons and they're making their decision based on what the u.s. president is saying there. >> there's an announce thamt the president will decertify the iran agreement this week. and he's doing this despite the fact that people in his own government and republicans in his own party say they're abiding by the toerms of the deal. what do you make of that? >> it's completely utterly dishonest. it's a lie. iran is complying with the deal. the trump administration certified that twice. jim mattis said they're complying with the deal. general dunford said they're complying with the deal.
he likes to listen to generals but now he's ignoring them. he's going against the allies and the views of his own government. iran is complying. they're rolled back their nuclear program. second he's punting the issue to congress who has to make a decision about what to do. if he wanted to kill the iran deal he could do it himself by not waving the sanctions relief that we give to iranians. he's punting this to congress and leaving them with nothing but bad actions. if congress passing new sanctions yoerp won't go along with it, china won't. we'll be isolated and left with a choice as to whether or not to sanction europe and china and russia, there by causing great calamity in the global economy and further isolating us and not the iranians. and the worst case nair jo is iran says we're violating the deal and restart their nuclear program and we're left with war or nuclear iran. >> and then we also have north korea and iran. a double the amount of the nuclear crises the country faces.
thank you. jennifer ruben, a vocal trump critic. jennifer, i want to ask you about the trump deal. but first, sam, here's the irony were peril and paradox. at one point he's describing the president as weak. today he threatened this network with rescinding its broadcasting license which he can't do. these are impotent threats by the president. at the i'm time he's currently navigating two different areas of nuclear diplomacy in which he is the president of the united states. >> yeah. it's a strange paradox. the guy is the president. and you know the real question to me about all of what we're hearing about the leaks that you hear from gabe sherman's piece and bob corker just coming out and saying these thing -- >> that's not a leak. that's on the record. >> why? obviously somebody is trying to send the public a message and the question is, you know, why do we know about what he was talking about in july now.
this -- why were there officials -- >> three people in that room. >> three people in this room willing to tell the story about the president. >> you think they're sending a message. >> people are concerned and want the public no know what's going on. i can't imagine they think that this is going to change the president's behavior. i think the idea is that we need to change the behavior of the people around the president. >> do you agree with that? >> yeah, i do. the washington post is reporting tonight that one reason that trump is going forth with this decertification strategy, which is not exactly wrecking the jcpoa is that he quote threw a fit when he was asked to and told to certify the deal the last time. they're scrambling around looking for a mechl nichl, not to 'em bolden us, not to help our allies but to satisfy a person who has become unhinged. a screaming toddler.
so now we're taking action in the international realm that could damage our relationships with europe, that could 'em bolden iran, isolate the united states why? because the president of the united states has a temp every tantrum. i think this is what we've come to and what is so dangerous. >> we're making nuclear diplomatic policy because of a desire to avoid a fit of people from the president who doesn't like the fact that he had to certify the deal. and there's a sense -- i mean to get back to your warning idea, this is interesting, one of the things in vanity fair is bannon telling trump that he thinks that he'll -- you know, steve bannon told trump the risk to his president was impeachment but the 25th amendment. when bannon mentioned the 25th amendment, trump says, what's that. what's interesting about that is ben is stoking the idea that you don't have anyone loyal around you, you're being circled and enclosed and all of this reporting suggesting that he's
more volatile. >> when bannon left he says he's going to be fight frg the president on the outside. i'm not convinced that that's what bannon's agenda is. i'm more convinced that bannon is using the president on the outside and unbeknownst that he's fighting for bannon's agenda which is very different than any of the other players involved here. he's more interested in chaos. he doesn't care which way it goes as long as it's chaotic. so i don't know who those three officials are, i have no way of knowing. but if they're in the room as the president of the united states is asking about our nukes and they're going out and telling reporters about it, they want, not necessarily me, but us as a society to understand something that they think it's important for us to understand. that is disturbing in a lot of different ways. >> jennifer to play devil's advocate for a moment, there
have been reports of this a lot. there's reports that the president is seething, brooding. do you feel like there's a qualitative difference here, to sam's point, there's a signal that's trying to be sent, some smoke signal coming it of the white house about the stability of the president of the united states which when you get to -- when you read the gabe sherman piece, there's a lot of euphemisms being used about the fitness of the man. >> i think there is a quality of difference. gabe sherman's piece if accurate -- and i have no reason to doubt it. he's a strong reporter -- is that he has gotten worse. it's unraveling. this is deterioration of the president's mood and ability to function in the job. i do think first of all his behavior is worsening and secondly i think the concern of people around him is certainly worsening and that's why you have people in the military who you could never imagine in any other circumstances leaving what
is called the tank where these very high level discussions take place and going to the media with their concerns about the president. and the questions that i have are fist where are the rest of the republicans -- >> other than corker. >> telling him just to make nice with the president. and secondly, where is the vice president of the united states. he has a constitutional obligation to the country. he shouldn't be running around to football stadiums making political gestures. he needs to get in there and satisfy himself that the president is incapacitated or kpas tated and proceed from there. >> the president just tweeting network news as become so partisan distorted and faked that licenses should be challenged. that at 8:09. mr. president if you are watching right now, that's not the way it works. many thanks to you both. next colonel lawrence wilkerson on the dangers of having a president described as
unstable and unraveling in charge of nuclear weapons. that in two minutes. my "business" was going nowhere... so i built this kickin' new website with godaddy. building a website in under an hour is easy! 68% of people... ...who have built their website using gocentral, did it in... ...under an hour, and you can too. type in your business or idea. pick your favourite design. personalize it with beautiful images. and...you're done! and now business is booming. harriet, it's a double stitch not a cross stitch!
build a better website - in under an hour. free to try. no credit card required. gocentral from godaddy. whentertaining us,es getting us back on track,hing? and finding us dates. phones really have changed. so why hasn't the way we pay for them? introducing xfinity mobile. you only pay for data and can easily switch between pay per gig and unlimited. no one else lets you do that. see how much you can save. choose by the gig or unlimited. xfinity mobile.
a new kind of network designed to save you money. call, visit or go to xfinitymobile.com. do you know donald trump's position on nuclear weapons? no? you're not alone. try to decipher this. >> it is an absolute last stance. and you know, i use the word unpredictable. you want to be unpredictable. i would be a very slow trigger. >> can you tell the middle east we're not using nuclear weapons. >> i would never say that. not going to take my cards off of the table. >> how about in europe. >> i'm not going to take it off of the table. >> you might use it in europe? >> no, i don't think so. japan has a big problem. maybe they would be better off if they defend themselves from north korea. >> with nukes? >> including with nukes, yes. i think that once the nuclear alternative happens, it's over. at the same time i have to be prepared. i can't take anything off of the table. >> here to discuss the actions
that the top republican put us on this path to colin paul. colonel, do you feel confident that the structures in place are holding as this president navigates both north korea and now moves to decertify the iran deal? >> i certainly hope they are, chris, because both moves are extremely dangerous and his recent comments on nuclear weapons, which you've highlighted, are extremely disturbing to me. because when president george w. bush, whom i served, as you know, withdrew from the anti-ballistic missile treaty, colonel powell had to rush off to berlin and london and ultimately moscow and placate all of those people who thought that things were turning really dangerous. the result of that was the moscow treaty and a really huge slash in both the soviet union
then russia's stockpile and our stockpile. so the trend was positive. the trend was downward. to hear a president talking about not only modernization and security and all of the things that we talk about all of the time, but actually increasing the number of nuclear weapons is very disturbing, especially in light of the fact that you're looking at a china that might be trying to establish a second strike capability and then russia who might be looking at us, okay, all bets are off, let's go after our nuclear stockpile too. very dangerous. >> what would the consequences be for the world if the president moves to decertify and congress pulls us out of the deal or stops the iran deal. what do you see as the consequences of that action? >> we become as angela merkel hinted at earlier this year, even more trustworthy. the second consequence is all of the talks that are going on now, secret or otherwise with north korea or might go on will have a
huge impediment because north korea will look at that and other things that think that we're totally untrust wore think. i can walk you through a likely scenario for ultimate war in the region with iran and i think that would be a disaster, as general anthony zin any said, would make iraq a disaster there from 2003 on pale in comparison. iran is much bigger, 70 million plus, 51% are persian. and we would turn all of those young people in iran, which is probably half of the population, we would turn them immediately against the united states. but that's the outcome of things like what john bolton and other conservatives want, is war. >> as someone who has operated some of the highest levels of the american government and in diplomacy and in the u.s. armed forces, there is a kind of hope
that mattis and kelly and mcmaster, the generals are going to essentially protect the country from the president. do you think, a, that's credibly how they view their roles and, b, what do you make of that as the posture of the men around the president? >> i don't think that was the way any one of the three viewed their roles in the beginning. i think that with varying degrees with each of them, it's becoming their view. i think that we have a real problem with three of the national security establishments most important people being general officers. when you put that together with the fact that apparently we have a president who is willing to do and say almost anything at any given point in time, i'm really worried. it looks like a dangerous situation. i'm waiting for one of those individuals to wake up one morning, have a cup of coffee, grab him and say what am i doing here.
>> what do you mean by that? you mean quitting? >> well, you've got a situationy where you have a choice. you can stay and continue to try to convince yourself that you are the person between the bomb and reality or you really aren't helping that much and you're going to have a problem convincing yourself that you should stay. i mean to a lesser degree, i went through this with colin powell. you convince yourself that you're essential. that whoever comes in after you will be worse than you and so you stay. and i'm sure that john and jim and h.r., yeah, have that conversation with themselves. i hope they do, any way. because as one of your guests said, this is becoming apparent that this president has something loose somewhere.
the worst wildfires in california's history are raging out of control tonight causing a stunning degree of destruction. even for a state that tends to suffer from wildfires this time of the year. thousands of people are being evacuated. the fires wipe out entire neighborhoods in northern california.
2 is people have died. hundreds of people still unaccounted for. more than 500 in sonoma county alone. officials caution many of those people may be safe but without communication. while the firefighters deal with the catastrophe in california, the full disaster in puerto rico is coming to focus. 45 deaths have been officially accounted. medical workers impatient saying that intense medical crisis exists, communication and electrical crisis. only 15% of the island have electricity. availability of drinking water is at dangerous levels. congress is expected to pass a $38 million aid package for areas affected by hurricanes and the current wildfires. part of it will go to puerto rico. but the massive relief bill cancels $16 billion in debt but not for puerto rico. no. the debt relief instead goes to the national flood insurance
program which has been in the red for a while in which covers homeowners who build in flood zones. but puerto rico which is already more than $70 billion in debt will get zero debt relief. instead, get this, they will get a nearly $5 billion loan. which means puerto rico gets more debt as it struggles for survival. both parties, republicans and democrats are poised to punish the americans of puerto rico for being victims of disaster even more than we've done that through government incomp tension. they're going to charge them a leasing fee for the life raft as they drown. can you imagine telling texas or florida the same? no. well it shouldn't be okay for puerto rico either. om. your privacy makes you my number 1 place to go number 2. i love you, but sometimes you stink.
more than 20 women have now come forward accusing harvey wine stooeb op pred tear sexual behavior and assaulting with ap gagss that weinstein denies. dawn is one of those accusers and today she told msnbc stephanie ruhle what happened in 2003 when she showed up to what was supposed to be a lunch meeting and was sent up to his hotel room by his assistant instead. >> i get to the room and he opens the door and he has a open bathrobe on and there's this coffee table with all of these papers and we had been talking
about his next films and you know, some roles that he had for me in these films. and so he said i have contracts for my next three films here and i will sign them today but i want you to have a threesome with me and my assistant. and you know, he had kind of a, kind of a rough like sense of humor, you know, like a very dry kind of dark sense of humor. and so i laughed, obviously he must be joking, right? well when i laughed 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, so and so, 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, very large domineering man, very loud. sorry. so at that point i left, took off, went to the elevator. and -- sorry. >> don't be. >> his assistant called me a couple of times after that, that night. and i didn't respond because i was just devastated, you snow. >> msnbc's stephanie ruhle conducted that interview, a great interview. joins me now. incredible work. incredible for her to come on camera and tell that story. >> she doesn't have to tell her story. >> right. yeah.
what happened to her desire to be an actress in the industry? >> she believed him. if you're a 24-year-old girl and one of the most powerful men in hollywood when you watch the oscars is thanked by the most famous men and women in hollywood and this guy propositions if you for sex and says this is how hollywood works or you'll never make anytime this town, someone like dawn gives up and changed career aspirations. >> this is a key part of this story. there's lots of stories of that. this is a way in which systematically women -- he said you'll never work in this town and he convinced young women who may have gone on to incredible careers or fulfillment of their talent to leaf. >> this is an industry where a big giant guy like harvey weinstein would make your dreams come through. >> or crush them. >> or crush them. who was she going to go to? her agent?
she didn't have an agent and even if she did her agent would have said ieds love a meeting with harvey weinstein. would she go to the police? he didn't rape her. who was going to believe her. she was a 23, 24-year-old girl who was an aspiring actress. now they've got power in numbers. now this extraordinary reporting by ronan farrow and the "the new york times" have come out and now harvey weinstein says i'm going to go into therapy? >> one of the things that's come out in the reporting of ronan farrow of the "new york times," is the sameness of the m.o. oh wait, which one was that? i've now read that account 15 times. and the fact that he he created a factory. he employed his o to become a factory to produce opportunities for him to do this. >> and the industry allowed it.
just think about it. the fact that there was a joke at the oscars about it. the fact that 30 rock made jokes about it to you and i might be stunning because it's an stray that's near us but we're not part of. but imagine when she first met harvey weinstein, she viewed his assistant as her aid. well i knew he was a predator and i knew he had that casting couch reputation. so she thought if his assistant is going to be there, she'll be my safety net. meanwhile the assistant was helping him, the honey pott all along. and i said would you call his assistant now. she had her number in her phone. in res tro spekt, the assistant is a victim of the system too. >> this is someone with tremendous power who is implicating everyone in this. so like everyone has a little piece of the guilty as a means almost of protecting himself. because who could turn him in. if the assistant turns in
anyone, she's implicated. >> what human resources department are you going to go to. and for the board to say this is inhuman, we're aghast. i'm sorry, chris. >> you didn't think they knew? >> 21st century fox has shareholders saying you made millions of dollars of settlements, how come we didn't know. the board knew. how does a private company as small as weinstein and company, how did the board members not know. >> excellent reporting. coming up, the house of representatives came this close to voting on whether to impeach the president of the united states. what happened coming up. plus alabama's roy moore rides again in tonight's thing 1 thing 2 next.
thing 1 tonight typically when we think of a charity we think of an appeal to our better instringss like the forstalling of sefishness and greed. roy moore who said homosexual conduct should be illegal, muslims should not be allowed to serve in the congress. he has a charity. on the website it was announced that moore would take the title of president emeritus of the foundation. now it's not unheard of and often typical for top executives the a nonprofit to collect a salary but alledgedly not roy moore. the charity employs his children and moore's wife who was pads $190,000 over three years, the washington post reports that moore once said publicly he did not take a regular salary from the small charity he founded. you'll never guess who was paid over $1 million from that charity. that's thing 2 in 60 seconds. hi, i'm the internet! you know what's difficult?
armless bowling. ahhhhhhhh! you know what's easy? building your website with godaddy. get your domain today and get a free trial of gocentral. build a better website in under an hour. will people know it means they'll get the lowest price guaranteed on our rooms by booking direct on choicehotels.com? hey! badda book. badda boom! mr. badda book. badda boom! book now at choicehotels.com
republican senate nominee from alabama, roy moore said he didn't have a salary from his charity but that is not true. far from it. moore pulled hundreds of thousands of dollars from his tax exempt 5013 c public charity. the washington post reports that moore arranged to receive a salary of $180,000 a year for part-time work at the foundation for moral law and he collected more than $1 million as president from 2007 to 2012. compensation that far surpassed what the group disclosed its in public tax filings most of those years. but that's not all. the charity gave him health care coverage, covered the travel expenses. what happened when the charity ran out of money? he was given a promissory note for back pay worth $540,000. keep that that mind when you watch moore say things like this. >> been very hard for my wife and myself to weather two,
today an elected member of the house of representatives took to the floor of congress to declare enough is enough, it is time to impeach this president. >> resolved that donald j. trump, president of the united states of america, has undermined the integrity of his office with impunity and has brought disrepute on the presidency with immunity. has betrayed his trust as president to the manifest injury of the american people and is unfit to be president, and is impeached pursuant to article 2 section 4 of the constitution of the united states of america. >> representative al green has called for impeachment before but this time was a bit different. green planned to introduce his impeachment measure as a
donald john trump, by betraying his trust as president warrants impeachment, trial and removal from office and disqualification to hold any office with honor, trust or profit under the united states of america. >> joined by al green of texas who moved to force a vote to impeach the president before ultimately pulling the measure. why did you pull the measure? >> thank you for having me on. with a few facts usually have much speculation. which caused us to make these comments. no one asked me to pull anything, i went to the floor intending to do exactly what i did because i wanted american public to have the opportunity to understand what impeachment is all about and what the articles of impeachment are all about. rules allow a person presenting a privileged resolution to have the opportunity to have it heard that day or within the next two
days. i chose not to do that because i want people to know what is going on. at some point in the future i'll come back for a vote. >> reporting i've read said that democratic leadership, including nancy pelosi didn't like the idea, didn't want democrats on record for impeachment, didn't think it was tactically smart. didn't want to force a vote at this time. you're denying it's true? >> that's absolutely not true. this is one of those rare occasions. speaker pelosi did not ask me to pull anything, neither did anyone else in leadership. this is a decision i made before i went to the floor. >> but wait a second. it is your belief as i watched the speech, you believe this is genuinely clear and present danger.
president genuinely unfit. seem sincere in the belief, articulated it before. if that's case, why windup and not go through with it. why not force the issue? >> impeachment takes place from the ground up and american people have to get involved and american people hearing us tonight will know this can be done. they also need to know impeachment can take place without the president committing a crime. that's been put into the minds of the public and we have to deal with that. this is an opportunity to educate people to know what impeachment really entails. andrew johnson in 1868, one of the articles of impeachment did not allege a crime. 10. pickering, first to be impeached, for things other than committing a crime. most of the people were impeached for things that didn't
involve committing a crime. this is a chance to educate the public which we must do. there is a lot of misinformation out there. >> phrase that everyone knows is high crimes and misdemeanors but you're right, there's precedent it doesn't mean a crime in the sense of the courts. article 10 for johnson, congress didn't like the way johnson talked about congress. insulted them and ran them down. >> exactly. >> so there's precedent but also seems to me that modern understanding of it is that it's crime. to reach for that particular tool threatens unwinding of the basic political norms in the country. what do you say to people who say that? >> most of the people who say that have rationales other than original intent. if you want to talk about what the framers of the constitution intended, probably the actions that took place close to the time when they were there, many of them alive when john pickering was impeached,
probably best indication what original intent was. a good many people don't understand. will conflate what can happen in judicial aspect of a crime, meaning you have to go to court, proof beyond a reasonable doubt. that's not impeachment. it is a political process. >> constitutional fact. >> process of the house. >> that's absolutely correct. thanks for being with me. >> representative green not only liberal pressing for impeachment. $91 million supporting democrats in 2016 cycle sent a letter to fellow democrats calling for impeachment and saying public needs to know where every single democrat stands on the issue. tom steyer. there is an argument this is tactically short sded or fool hardy because if you turn into impeachment, you will strengthen the president's base and become
radio active if it's on the ballot in the midterms. >> but that's not the question we've been asking ourselves. because the question we've been asking ourselves, is this president a clear and present danger to the american people? if he is, which we absolutely believe he is, and if he's violated the public trust, then in fact don't we have to take action and do the right thing. not do a political calculation for what is going to happen 14 months from now? we're trying to say it's time to step up and do the right thing, not do polling to figure out smart thing for the election cycle when the health and safety of american citizens are at risk. >> i have to ask you this, people theorized the following,
that you're planning to run for senate, diane feinstein's senate seat. she's running again. and it's jungle primary system in california, this will give you wedge issue to use against her as incumbent democrat. what do you say to that? >> if you go back and check the record, we called for impeachment several months ago. what we're saying now is, it's time for democrats to step up and say where they stand on this, whether this president has to go now. in fact saying it to every elected member of congress and senate. go on the record to say whether we can afford to let this president stay in power longer or isn't it time for him to go. that absolutely poses the question to senator feinstein, where does she stand? and every other elected democrat. isn't it time for us to oppose a president who presents a clear and present danger to the american people?
>> are you going to run for that senate seat? >> i have said i am going to try to figure out how to have the most positive impact in the crisis that we're in. i haven't ruled anything out, including running for office. but the fact of the matter is, what we're talking about today is try to protect the american people from a president who is clearly dangerous to them, unfit to hold office and which every democrat will say privately that's true. question is when are we going to go on the record and start pushing the country towards where we know we have to go, remove the man from office. >> question becomes, do you think it's a political possibility? can you imagine that happening before the midterms? i guess the idea is, lot of people think that only thing that would allow that to happen would be a democratic majority in house and senate and those that think that going on the record would hurt or help those efforts.
are you saying you think it's possibility within the next whatever, 14 months? >> i see this differently from the way that those calculations imply. what i see is this, we have 14 months between now and midterm elections. assumption in all the calculations is world would be essentially static and safe. it's just not true. fact of the matter is, i don't believe we can stand pat for 14 months, cross our fingers and toes and help like heck that the world is going to be okay. fact of the matter is we're in grave danger and it's time for us to act, not sit there and hope it turns out okay because that works for us politically. >> tom steyer, whose home state is ablaze right now. would looking you to have back on to talk about that if you're amenable. >> oh, my gosh, that's one of the clear dangers to the people of america that this administration is not just ignoring but is working their
heads off to exacerbate and make more dangerous. >> tom steyer. thank you. the free press. plus did steve bannon really say that about the president? and the concern some are voicing over what they see as an unstable, unraveling man in the oval office, a man who doesn't sound like himself to old friends, doesn't seem to like the people in his orbit. the charges are serious. we'll have a serious conversation about it when "the and good evening once again from our nbc headquarters in new york. day 265 of t t