tv MSNBC Live MSNBC October 22, 2017 1:00pm-2:00pm PDT
grieving gold star family turn into such a political firestorm? here's your take. >> i feel he's the one who introduced, he's the one who politicized it. >> if it's going to be a priority of the administration, just make it that, and it doesn't have to be something that's always made publicized. >> the way that other people tried to characterize their grief or their issues, that should be off limits. they should be able to speak for themselves. >> and white house chief of staff john kelly's defense of trump falls short of the truth. is the four-star general getting a pass and should he apologize for his misstatements? >> not only does he owe me an apology, but he owes an apology to the american people, because when he lied on me, he lied to them. and with sexual assault allegations against harvey weinstein and bill o'reilly dominating the headlines, president trump's accusers want to know, why is there a double standard? >> i would like to see people who are accused of sexual
harassment, i would like to see that taken seriously, especially people in the public eye. and a steady treme of trump officials get brought before the russia investigation special council. is putin still pulling the strings and what have we learned from all of it? >> i'm definitely more wear of the things i see on social media, and as far as news goes, i pay a lot more attention of where i'm getting my sources from. >> i think a lot of it is doing your own investigation and talking to different people and having conversations with co-workers and friends. welcome, everybody. we're starting with president trump expected to preside over a medal of honor certainly tomorrow, awarding the country's highest military honor to retired army captain gary michael rose for his bravery saving numerous lives on a secret mission during the vietnam war. the ceremony is set to take place as the president continues his feud with democratic congresswoman frederica wilson. not letting this go, trump tweeting this morning, "wacky congresswoman is the gift that keeps on giving for the
republican party, a disaster for dems." we're six days into this controversy which began with the president, when he was asked why he had not spoken publicly about the deaths of four slain soldiers killed in niger. take a listen. >> if you look at president obama and other presidents, most of them didn't make calls. a lot of them didn't make calls. >> you said president obama never called the families of fallen soldiers. how can you make that claim? >> i don't know if he did. no, no. i was told that he didn't often, and a lot of presidents don't. they write letters. i do -- excuse me, peter. i do a combination of both. you could ask general kelly -- he get a call from obama? and i had a very nice conversation with the woman, with the wife who sounded like a lovely woman. did not say what the congresswoman said, and most people aren't too surprised to hear that. [ inaudible question ] let her make her statement again and then we'll find out.
>> i was stunned when i came to work yesterday morning, and brokenhearted at what i saw a member of congress doing. a member of congress who listened in on a phone call from the president of the united states to a young wife. and in his way tried to express that opinion. >> all right, let's get into this. joining me now, msnbc contributor and medal of honor recipie recipient, retired u.s. army colonel jack jacobs and wendy hunter, who lost her husband in a suicide attack in afghanistan. thank you both for joining me. very much appreciate it. whitney, i want to start with you. what's your reaction to what you've been hearing over the last six days? >> i don't really have -- it's consumed a lot of my thoughts. it really has. i don't know what to believe necessarily. all i know is that i just want these men, the fallen soldiers, my husband, christopher harris,
the four who were killed in niger, i just want them to be remembered and honored in the way that they deserve. >> do you think, whitney, that didn't happen with everything that took place over the last six days? do you think that that very point that you just made was lost? >> i don't know that it was lost. i don't know if it was handled appropriately, but it's not my position to make that call. i'm just here to speak on behalf of my husband and for the fallen soldiers and for the gold star families, because i know that i am in that position, and i just -- i want us and the gold star families to just, to be respected the way that they deserve. >> colonel, it seemed as if general kelly's job was to stand in the white house briefing room not only to clarify trump's phone call but to help us who have not served, who are not a family member of a gold star, and do not understand the plight of a gold star family. is there a divide, a lack of
understanding, really, between civilians and the military and their families? >> you mean, and the rest of the population? i think there is. don't forget that we've got less than 0.5% of the american public in uniform. most americans don't even know anybody in uniform. we have a very small number of brave, young men and women who are out there defending the rest of us. there is no universal service. and as a result, i think there is a gulf between those who are serving and those who are being served. it's really important that all of us who are defended by these young people understand what they have to do and be thankful that we have people who are doing it. >> whitney, do you feel like your husband and your family and what they've been through is misunderstood by people who haven't been through that? >> i don't really know how to comment on that. i was actually having a conversation last night with a family member. being that i have spent my entire life near a military
base, i guess i didn't realize it until recently, but i have just this enormous sense of pride for the men and women that make up the backbone of america. i mean, they fight selflessly to defend our nation. so, i don't know. i just feel like these men and women who fight for our country and all of the family members that support them deserve the utmost respect. and it's not my place to say how that's done, but it is my place to, you know, speak out and say that i truly believe that me and all the other gold star families deserve the respect and the condolences that we are due. >> absolutely. absolutely. i think we all agree that you and your family and all gold star families and everybody that serves deserves the utmost respect. colonel, in talking about the divide that we were speaking of, how do you bridge that?
how do you get people to understand what you've been through, what gold star families have been through, how you have served, how other people have served? >> well, it's almost impossible to do if everybody doesn't serve. i grew up in a neighborhood in new york city where every household had made a contribution to the defense of the republic, everybody knew what everybody had gone through, and that's not the case now. we have an all-volunteer force, and that's a good thing, but the down side is, of course, nobody fully understands what our troops are up to, how they're defending us and the sacrifices that they make. i think the only way that you can make an impression on the electorate about what our young people are doing to defend us is to talk about it all the time. for leadership at the highest levels, the top of the food chain to be talking about this and convincing the electorate that they're very well served by a small percentage of the population.
>> colonel, i want to circle back, obviously, to the controversy surrounding the white house and kelly in that briefing room. there were things that kelly said in that briefing room that were proven wrong with regards to congresswoman wilson. he also called her an empty barrel. general petraeus reacting to kelly's briefing on "abc this week." want to listen to that. >> he also had very harsh words about congresswoman wilson. is that appropriate, especially given he was wrong? >> well, it's obviously an unfortunate situation. we need to unite behind our gold star families to embrace them with compassion and with support, not to drag them into partisan politics. i have to think that this weekend he's sitting at home or in the white house trying to figure out how to turn down the volume, how to get this behind us. >> colonel, you know kelly. is that what's happening? >> oh, i'm sure it is. you know, we all say things and two seconds later, we're really sorry we did it. i mean, i think there's plenty of blame to go around. some people were suggesting that
perhaps apologies are in order. you know, apologies are a lot like punishment -- the farther in time you get from the incident which created the problem in the first place, the less effective they are. i hate to think that it is now too late to undo all this, to turn down the volume, as general petraeus says. i hope we're not in a situation where we just sit back and watch this shoddy spectacle continue and continue to erode the quality of public discourse and confidence in the people at the top of the food chain. >> colonel jack jacobs and whitney hunter, thank you for joining me. kevin cirilli, politics writer for the business insider allen smith and political reporter with real clear politics kaitlin hewey burns. thank you all for joining me. kevin, i'm going to start with you. i want to play the remark from sarah huckabee sanders during
the briefing on friday that's gotten a lot of attention regarding general kelly. >> if you want to go after general kell, that's up to you, but if you want to get into a debate with a four-star marine general, i think that that's something highly inappropriate. >> so, she then tried to actually clean it up with a statement that night reading, of course, everyone can be questioned, but after witnessing general kelly's heartfelt and somber account, we should all be able to agree that impugning his credibility on how best to honor fallen heroes is not appropriate." but is she actually missing the point here about kelly's inaccurate criticism? and is this really only making it worse? is kelly just immune to things or should he be? >> you know, i've got to be honest, i think we're all missing the point. i mean, the notion that our political discourse right now, democrats, republicans, we in the media. i mean, it used to be that the families of victims who gave up their lives -- i mean, they're heroes. and so, i really think the focus on everyone's behalf really needs to go back to honoring the
families and their friends for the heroes who fought for us overseas. >> well, do you think that kelly should have stopped short of then criticizing the congresswoman, should have stayed with the point of talking about the gold star families and his experience in losing his son but stopped short of criticizing the congresswoman? because it seems like that's what most people are obviously criticizing. >> yeah, i think that it's just unfortunate that this is where the discourse around the families of folks who have died overseas, that this is the state of the political rhetoric in washington, to be really blunt. >> kaitlin, congresswoman wilson was also on this network earlier and again addressed kelly's remarks about her. let's take a listen to that. >> not only does he owe me an apology, but he owes an apology to the american people because when he lied on me, he lied to them. >> would an apology solve this whole thing from the president? would it shut it all down? although he was tweeting about it this morning once again. >> exactly. i was going to say, i don't think we should expect --
>> and also she was on every television network, so we should put that out there as well. >> exactly. i think there has been politicization by all sides of this. you could certainly argue that the congresswoman has engaged in political rhetoric here, has taken her expressions of condolence for the family, who she was very, very close to, taken that a step farther. you can make that argument. you can also make the argument that kelly was trying to do damage control the other day and got ahead of himself, actually created more controversy for the white house. i think kevin brings up a good point that the people kind of missing from this conversation is this family in particular that has been at the center of it, and the white house, you know, days have gone by and they have not shifted the focus back to that family. and you didn't hear from kelly or huckabee sanders or others involved in this kind of bringing back that focus to this family. >> so do they shift the focus now on? would that help things? or do they just stop talking
about it altogether? >> you know, with these kind of controversies in the white house, they tend to play out where president trump really doesn't tone down the battles until the point where we've moved on to the next thing, and this just sort of gets forgotten about. so, i don't expect that the level of this is going to change in tone coming from the white house until this really passes and the next storm sort of sets in. >> kevin, this report from "roll call" has gotten a lot of attention over the weekend, that not only has the president not contacted virtually all the families of military personnel killed this year, the white house did not even have an up-to-date list of those who have been killed" and scrambled to get it from the pentagon. is this indicative, you think, of a bigger problem in the white house right now? >> well, i think it's -- you know, look, i think it's kind of hard to believe that there's no list within the government of folks who have so bravely, again, given up their sacrifice and their lives overseas. but again, i think it's just
baffling, to be really honest here, that we, that the discourse around the brave men and women serving overseas, that this is how we're having this conversation. and i think that the administration, that this has gotten -- >> so, how should we deal with it? >> i think this has gotten completely away from the administration, it's gotten completely away from democrats, and quite frankly, i think that, you know, we all need to really move this beyond the level of plasticity that we're talking about, some really serious issues, especially when men and women have lost their children overseas. i mean, the funeral was just yesterday, and it just seems incredibly plastic that this is how we're handling these horrific tragedies. and it really is unfortunate. and i think most people watching at home and across the country, republican or democrat, would argue that we need to be giving these families the utmost respect. >> i think we can all agree with that, but the question is -- >> yeah, i agree. >> but the question is how? how should we be talking about
it? and does it need to come from the top down? >> well, i think that everyone has a role. >> because when everyone wakes up and sees the president tweeting about it yet again this morning -- >> absolutely. >> and yes, like i said, the congresswoman was also on our network talking about it, so the conversation continues. so do we just shut it down? do we move on? do we stop talking about it, or do we call it for what it is? >> you know, look, when i talk to senior aides, to republican members on capitol hill, there is a frustration that the president keeps tweeting about these controversies. and i think that, you know, look, i think at the end of the day, that's going to limit their ability to get some type of policy accomplished through the congress, whether it's on tax reform -- we saw what happened with health care. >> go ahead. >> and i also think we need to look deeper beyond the rhetoric. i mean, there were four soldiers killed. there are questions on capitol hill about why this happened, and there are also questions among the broader public of why we are in these sorts of places, right? what the work that's being done overseas, the very important
work. i think there's been a really big civics lesson to be had throughout this presidency at various points, but particularly this one. so why it matters, why this conversation matters, is because the president's behavior on these issues matter. he's the commander in chief. hopefully, there are no more incidents like this, situations like this, but he presumably over the course of the next 3 1/2 years will be faced with these kinds of challenges, and we have an example of how he handled this one. what happens next? >> allen, i see you shaking your head, but isn't part of sort of the solution having this conversation and getting it out there and saying, how do we change things, how do we stop having these conversations to a certain extent, how do we, you know, stop sort of the train wreck that we see happening? >> yeah, i agree. look, i mean, this is really an unavoidable conversation to be having when it's the president going back and forth with a member of congress over this. i mean, it's really unavoidable to be having this conversation, no matter what your feelings are on it. and i think, you know, it's worthwhile to look back and say
how this whole thing started was with a question at the press conference on monday about why the president hadn't addressed the situation in niger. why he had not yet addressed -- >> exactly. >> -- the soldiers who were killed there. i believe more than a week had gone by since this incident happened and nothing had come out of the white house. there was a report that a statement had been drafted and wasn't released, and it was not immediately clear why that statement was not released. i know lawmakers on capitol hill have a lot of questions about what happened here and what went wrong in this ambush, so they're going to be looking into it. that's really how this whole thing started was with a question on that that president trump had sort of spun into, well, president obama never called gold star families, then sort of backtracked on that. and then what happened with congresswoman wilson, and it just spiraled from there. >> and i'm glad you bring up the question of why and what exactly happened in niger, because coming up next hour, my colleague, ayman mohyeldin, will have more on the deadly ambush in niger and why exactly the u.s. troops are there. kevin cirilli, allan smith and kaitlin burns, thank you for joining me.
when we come back, bill o'reilly and his time at fox, new details. plus, president trump's accusers asking why not him, and is there a double standard when it comes to the allegations leveled against him? >> clearly, one woman is not enough to actually be credible. there has to be a whole group of women, and even then, it's still really not enough for a lot of people's eyes.
when it comes to strong bones, are you on the right path? we have postmenopausal osteoporosis... ..and a high risk for fracture, so with our doctors... ...we chose prolia®... ...to help make our bones stronger. only prolia® helps strengthen bones... ...by stopping cells that damage them... ...with 1 shot every 6 months. do not take prolia® if you have low blood calcium, are pregnant, are allergic to it, or take xgeva®. serious allergic reactions, like low blood pressure; trouble breathing; throat tightness; face, lip or tongue swelling... ...rash, itching or hives have happened. tell your doctor about dental problems, as severe jaw bone... ...problems may happen or new or unusual pain in your hip groin, or thigh, as unusual thigh bone fractures have occurred. peak to your doctor before stopping prolia®, as spine and other bone fractures have occurred. prolia® can cause serious side effects, like low blood calcium; serious infections, which could need hospitalization; ...skin problems; and severe bone, joint, or muscle pain. if your bones aren't getting stronger... ...isn't it time for a new direction?
why wait? ask your doctor about prolia®. ...has grown into an enterprise. that's why i switched to the spark cash card from capital one. now, i'm earning unlimited 2% cash back on every purchase i make. everything. what's in your wallet? yeah, i got some financialbody guidance a while ago. how'd that go? he kept spelling my name with an 'i' but it's bryan with a 'y.' yeah, since birth. that drives me crazy. yes. it's on all your email. yes. they should know this? yeah. the guy was my brother-in-law. that's ridiculous. well, i happen to know some people. do they listen? what? they're amazing listeners. nice. guidance from professionals who take their time to get to know you.
i think we can do more. i think these people should be seriously in trouble and be made to compensate for the hurt and pain they've caused. >> we need to as a society, especially men, take an introspection when it comes to sexual harassment, even just be aware of how we contribute to that. >> i think that the really sad truth is that sexual assault is something that lots of people sort of dismiss as not really
being that consequential. >> that certainly is the sad truth, isn't it? welcome back, everybody. i promised we are not going to stop talking about this, and week two, even more revelations of sexual harassment claims. powerful men accused of assault or harassment, losing their jobs, their reputation, but is it changing anything? in a new "washington post" story, women who say they were assaulted and harassed by president donald trump share their agony in watching harvey weinstein being shunned by society, asking of the president, "why not him?" also, a bombshell "the new york times" report last night revealing fox news renewed bill o'reilly's $100 million contract after he agreed to a $32 million settlement in a sexual harassment case. and now weinstein breaking his silence to respond to actress lupita nyong'o's recollection of his alleged sexual harassment in a hotel room. joining me now are denny vevalos and lynn smith, former deputy campaign manager for martin o'malley, and kirsten hagelin, conservative commentator and the 2008 reigning miss america.
welcome to you all and thank you for joining me on this sunday. liz, i'm going to start with you. weinstein, he's lost his job, his status, his respect, almost everything at this point. the president, despite ten women named as accusers in a recent subpoena. why do you think that is nothing has happened? >> well, you know what i think is especially dispiriting about this, is sure, during the campaign, you did see republican officials sort of be silent about this. there were a few that came out and condemned him, but the american people ultimately decided that he should be president, and they voted for him. and i think that's maybe the most hurtful part was that, you know, he wasn't just being protected by his party, he was being protected by the voters who thought, well, i'm still going to vote for him. and now to adding insult to injury, you see, you know, the rnc chair going out there and raising bloody hell about harvey weinstein and then saying, well, you know, this is very different from what donald trump faced, when in reality, he had a dozen women come out, and it was a
pattern of behavior, much as we have seen with harvey weinstein. so, there is sort of -- even though it's not a corporate culture, there is a culture around donald trump and the republican party that's protecting him, and he's the president. he's not just like a hollywood producer, so that does contribute to a lot of pain. and you know, it's hard to explain, because the voters ultimately backed him. >> and it does seem like there could be a double standard, because we haven't necessarily talked about trump since he became elected president. >> oh, yeah. >> and all the allegations that were leveled against him. >> because it's almost like him getting elected president washed away the sins. and it almost is like the republican party's now willing to go out and watch this completely morally hypocritical campaign against harvey weinstein while completely turning their backs on all of the allegations donald trump faced, and even worse, diminishing the women who accused him of all of this wrongdoing in the process. >> denny, let's talk bill o'reilly. fox essentially said that the company was aware of his sexual harassment settlements, but they still signed him for another
four years at $100 million. weinstein's contract allowed him to pay off alleged victims and keep his job as well, which we talked about last weekend. how does one even get away with this, in negotiating a contract? >> there are two ways of looking at this. on the one hand, a company that has knowledge that its supervisor is committing sexual harassment or a hostile work environment will be automatically liable in states like california and also under new york law. but on the other hand, to be fair, in any civil settlement, you routinely have a non disparagement clause and a clause that says no admission of liability. in other words, the parties are agreeing to settle, but neither side is admitting whether one is right or wrong. so to be fair to fox news, they may have known of the fact of a settlement, but that in and of itself, the very essence of the settlement was likely that neither side admits wrongdoing, including bill o'reilly. >> but didn't they think this was eventually going to leak out
anyway? because it always does, and it it did. >> of course. and i have to be fair, any settlement of $32 million, in an age where even the largest companies, if they think your lawsuit is not worth much -- and i've dealt with this personally -- they will offer you hundreds of dollars to make the case go away. no company, i don't care how big it is, or any individual will offer $32 million unless they fear some liability. that's generally how it works. maybe this is an exception. but i will say that what did fox know? they knew there was a settlement. that alone, in fairness, does not admit liability. it does not tell fox that anything actually happened. >> o'reilly now has appeared on "hannity" several times, i believe. isn't there a liability there for the network, to have o'reilly to continue to appear there? >> as a guest? no. >> does it matter? >> it does matter, because as part of a news group -- and by the way, booking is beyond my pay grade -- but as part of any news organization, you have guests on. sometimes those guests have checkered past. i don't know that that makes
bill o'reilly -- he's no longer a supervisor, that would hold him liable under new york law, and under california law, automatically with strict liability. there is a difference between somebody you invite on as a guest. i would imagine he would be chaperoned. someone like him might be chaperoned, i don't know. but i will say there is a massive difference between employing someone as a supervisor and inviting them on as a time-to-time guest. >> yeah, but maybe the bigger question is what is the message that you're putting out there when you're booking someone like bill o'reilly on a show that's been accused of such things as he has. there's a #metoo that's trending where people are sharing experiences of sexual harassment, sexual assault, trying to create a place of comfort for those people that have gone through this and to allow people to sort of freely come out and comfortably come out. you've gotten in on this conversation as well on twitter. talk to us about your situation. >> well, you know, being someone who served as miss america, which was actually not something that i ever planned on doing -- i entered a scholarship pageant, right, a local, in order to get some scholarship for college,
and i won that and then a year and a half later, i was miss america. so, that was a huge, new world for me at 19 years old. and you travel all around the country and you meet a wide variety of different people. and i can tell you, throughout that year and since, i have been touched inappropriately at autograph signings, photo opportunities, and as a miss america who competed in a swimsuit competition, men generally feel that gives them permission to say, do, and touch you however they want. but what's so sad is that for me and my fellow miss americas now participating in this hashtag and telling some of our stories, we're just amazed at how normal we considered it and how just a part of the job, unfortunately, we considered it. and no one -- i mean, i would be shocked. liz, liz, yasmiyn, how many men are harassed on a daily basis sometimes that you shrug your shoulders and move on because it's so normal? i mean, who can't post a me too hashtag? and i worked in the performing arts industry beforehand and there are a lot of young men, and men generally in the performing arts industry who are victims as well.
so, this hashtag is great, but it needs to be followed up with action, and we need to have men as well that are coming into this conversation to support the women and young men that are being abused. >> and by the way, i'm not trying to make light of this, but i have heard stories of men being sexually harassed as well, so we should include danny in that conversation. >> no, but it's important to. in all seriousny it happens as well. quickly, i want a roundtable sort of reaction. is anything going to change here, do you think? do you think -- is this going to make a difference, a dent? >> the fact that we are still talking good it one week later, yes. we just need to make sure that we continue to keep the pressure on everyone. >> yeah. liz? >> yeah, we are seeing changes happening. like, 20 years ago, would harvey weinstein be gone? no. he was doing this 20 years ago. would bill o'reilly be gone? no. so, things are changing, but as kristen said, we need to keep following up on it and have men and women be part of the conversation. >> danny. >> we're seeing changes in the law, like expanding of the statute of limitations, but with every law change comes a price. we have to be comfortable with the fact that rape allegations,
other sexual assault allegations may be brought any time, decades after the case happened, when people have a harder time proving where they were and what they may not have done. >> all right, danny cevallos, lynn smith, thank you for joining me. kyle: mom! mom! kyle, we talked about this. there's no monsters. but you said they'd be watching us all the time. no, no. no, honey, we meant that progressive would be protecting us 24/7. we just bundled home and auto and saved money. that's nothing to be afraid of. -but -- -good night, kyle. [ switch clicks, door closes ] ♪
welcome back. as all the president's men and women get hauled before the russian special council, what is moscow saying? when we come back, could russia still be pulling the strings? an inside look at putin's intentions next with moscow chief of station for the cia. we'll be right back. i'm ryan and i quit smoking
with chantix. smoking was comforting. it was like a security blanket. it made me feel good, it really did. i would doubt myself that i could actually quit, but with chantix i did it. along with support, chantix (varenicline) is proven to help people quit smoking. chantix reduced my urge to smoke. when you try to quit smoking, with or without chantix, you may have nicotine withdrawal symptoms. some people had changes in behavior or thinking, aggression, hostility, agitation, depressed mood, or suicidal thoughts or actions with chantix.
serious side effects may include seizures, new or worse heart or blood vessel problems, sleepwalking or allergic and skin reactions which can be life-threatening. stop chantix and get help right away if you have any of these. tell your healthcare provider if you've had depression or other mental health problems. decrease alcohol use while taking chantix. use caution when driving or operating machinery. the most common side effect is nausea. i'm so proud to be a non-smoker. ask your doctor if chantix is right for you. many insurance plans cover chantix for a low or $0 copay. he's brought us to the obstructed justice at the fbi. and in direct violation of the constitution, he's taken money from foreign governments and threatened to shut down news organizations that report the truth. if that isn't a case for impeaching and removing a dangerous president, then what has our government become? i'm tom steyer and, like you, i'm a citizen who knows it's up to us to do something. it's why i'm funding this effort to raise our voices together and demand that elected officials take a stand on impeachment.
a republican congress once impeached a president for far less. yet, today, people in congress and his own administration know this president is a clear and present danger who is mentally unstable and armed with nuclear weapons. and they do nothing. join us and tell your member of congress that they have a moral responsibility to stop doing what's political and start doing what's right. our country depends on it. welcome back. vladimir putin at a forum of foreign policy experts this week saying russia remains open to cooperation with washington, despite political foes preventing president trump from fulfilling his agenda and campaign promises. but just whose agenda is putin talking about here and how worried should we be about the dangers posed by russia nine months into this presidency? we still do not have answers about russian involvement in the
election. when attorney general jeff sessions was grilled this past week on capitol hill about things like his meetings with russian officials and conversations with president trump on russia, he did not share many details, but sessions did acknowledge the cyber threat posed by the kremlin. >> do you think we're doing enough to prepare for future interference by russia and other foreign adversaries in the information space? >> probably not. we're not. and the matter's so complex that for most of us, we're not able to fully grasp the technical dangers that are out there. >> yet, the next day, cia director mike pompeo made this astonishing declaration about russia's role in the 2016 election. >> yes, the intelligence community's assessment is that the russian meddling that took place did not affect the outcome of the election. >> that statement conflicts with the conclusion by pompeo's own
cia and other intelligence agencies. they didn't say one way or another if moscow affected the results of the election. michael hoffman, former station chief with the cia and president of sovereign policy group. daniel, thanks for joining me this sunday. appreciate it. >> thank you. >> you've written extensively about the threat from russia, including last week in "the washington times," saying "cybersecurity response" should take minutes, not months. and you point out that congress is nowhere near done with its russia probes. is putin taking advantage of this? >> yeah, well, i think there's a couple things that are really important to understand about vladimir putin. first, two formative experiences in his life, one that he's kgb officer, served as director of the fsp, so he's naturally going to rely on espionage to conduct his foreign policy. secondly, he's a black belt in judo, and judo experts like to use their opponent's strength against them. in our case, it is our freedom of the press and first amendment, and he is seeking to use that against us by targeting our critical cyber
infrastructure, and he's doing it pretty effectively, as you noted. >> what does the u.s. need to do to stop these cyber attacks? and are we armed appropriately? >> well, i think there's probably three things that i would suggest we need to do. the first one is, as you pointed out, we need to do the forensics. incident response is supposed to take minutes, so we need to mount countermeasures quickly. but we need to collect all the information, and that involves historical analysis because russia's been doing this for years, and it's ongoing now. secondly, i think the ic needs to collect the strategic intelligence on what the kremlin is planning on doing. i think that's of critical importance for us, just to understand what strategy putin is seeking to implement. secondly, we need to mount some technical countermeasures. those are tricky because the russians are out in the networks and they're going to be prepared for whatever actions we might take and would certainly mount countermeasures themselves. and then third, i think we probably need some legal
structure, rules and regulations that the congress can pass about how the private sector manages this incredible challenge. >> talk to me about the conflict of interest here, because twitter, facebook and google, they're all sending people to appear before congress next month. twitter actually in particular has been scolded for only giving a bread crumb's worth of information to the senate. is there a conflict of interest with troordz regards to relying on companies like twitter and facebook to build up the got's defenses against countries like russia? >> it's trainingy challenge. let me look at that from the perspective of russian intelligence and president vladimir putin, who understands that the internet is really a critical backbone, infrastructure, for our democratic process, modern democratic process. and so, what he sought to do was to use it to weaponize the intelligence he had to interfere with our election, and then also
degrade our trust in those social networking and media sites, and by extension, our trust in our political process. he's doing it not only to influence events in the united states, but also his own country, because he knows with elections approaching in russia in march of 2018, that his own opposition, many of whom will risk their lives when they take to protest on the city streets, are essentially gathering by using leaderless protests and using social media networking to enable their movement. >> you also wrote in your op ed in "the washington times" that the u.s. needs to identify russia as an enemy and understand their motives, as romney said years ago. is that even possible when you have a president who doesn't do that with everything, who doesn't identify russia as an enemy, per se, who hasn't come outright and said that? >> yeah, you know, i spent my career focused on external threats to our national security and doing the best i could with my colleagues at the cia and
with the military to ensure that those threats weren't visited on our shores, so i'll leave it to others to grade the administration. but what i would say is that, you know, 70 years ago, george kenyan wrote that famous article in "foreign affairs" about the sources of soviet conduct, and it was really a clear blueprint for how we needed to contain soviet influence. and i think that we need something similar against russia. we need to be transparent about the threat and then what we plan on doing about it. russia's been resurgent ever since putin became prime minister, particularly the last 20 years. we need to counter his nefarious activities in our own country and in this region. >> daniel, i've got about 30 seconds left, but i want to get this in. an op ed you put in "the new york times" in august, you said this wasn't about collusion for putin, it was about something else. are we exactly where putin wanted us to be with regards to the mueller investigation, with undermining the democracy, as you said in your op ed? >> yeah, i do believe that he knew that the june 2016 meeting
in trump tower would induce a media feeding frenzy that would serve his interests. when you link our political process with the kremlin, it really highlights a measure of conspiracy. and i think that's exactly what vladimir putin would have wanted, and maybe his intelligence officers would have predicted that we would have taken this path. >> all right, daniel. i hope you come back again. thanks for joining me, daniel hoffman. >> thank you. >> thank you. just ahead, we go beyond the scope, diving into the importance stories you may have missed, including how some harvey victims are being asked to surrender their rights to much-needed insurance funds.
welcome back, everybody. let's go beyond the scope. president jimmy carter told "the new york times" that he'd like to serve as president trump's envoy to north korea. president carter told "the new york times" that he was concerned about rising tensions with the isolated country and spoke to national security adviser h.r. mcmaster, saying, "i told him that i was available if they ever need me." and the city of dickinson, texas, has a controversial
clause in an application for grants to rebuild homes and businesses damaged by hurricane harvey. in the agreement, applicants promise that they have not and will not boycott israel. the clause has received criticism from the texas branch of the aclu for violating the first amendment. my colleague, ayman mohyeldin, will have much more on the constitutional showdown coming up at 5:00 eastern right here on msnbc. all right, just ahead, does an undocumented, pregnant teen have the right to an abortion? the late yost a legal battle being waged by the trump administration. ♪ if you have moderate to severe plaque psoriasis,...
...isn't it time to let the real you shine through? maybe it's time for otezla (apremilast). otezla is not an injection or a cream. it's a pill that treats plaque psoriasis differently. with otezla, 75% clearer skin is achievable after just 4 months,... ...with reduced redness,... ...thickness, and scaliness of plaques. and the otezla prescribing information has... ...no requirement for routine lab monitoring. don't use if you're allergic to otezla. otezla may cause severe diarrhea, nausea, or vomiting. tell your doctor if these occur. otezla is associated with an increased... ...risk of depression. tell your doctor if you have... ...a history of depression... ...or suicidal thoughts,... ...or if these feelings develop. some people taking otezla... ...reported weight loss. your doctor should monitor your weight and may stop treatment. other side effects include upper... ...respiratory tract infection and headache. tell your doctor about all the medicines you take... ...and if you're pregnant or planning to be. ask your dermatologist about otezla today. otezla. show more of you.
welcome back. i know abortion is a very divisive topic. the next story isn't about whether abortion is right or wrong it's about the rights of undocumented women in this country. an undocumented 17-year-old girl who traveled to the u.s. from central america alone and ended up in immigration custody just to find out that she is pregnant but the office of refugee
resettlement. instead they say her attorneys the government drove the unaccompanied minor to a religious center where workers tried to convince her not to terminate the pregnancy. the official policy has been changed to prevent undocumented miners in custody from accessing some reproductive health care in what the aclu says the violation of the law. here with us now is the lead attorney on the aclu case. this is unbelievable. it's hard to sift through all of it. what's the latest with jane doe and her case? >> we went to an appeals court on friday and on friday the appeals court said that we had to wait another 11 days to try to find an immigration sponsor for jane doe so that she may be released to have the abortion. the court refused to rule on the constitution question and now we're in limbo again. >> i want to point out this is a class action lawsuit. it's not just about this one
teenager. tell us about the new policy that was issued in march and the e-mails in which lloyd says point-blank that shelters quote, should not be supporting abortion services but only life farming options counseling. is that an official policy? >> it is. it's not a law. it's a policy developed by this new appointee by the trump administration who is antiabortion himself and is using his official power to try to block young women who are in federal custody from getting abortion care. >> you shared e-mails with us that details how he personally visited some of these underaged girls at the shelter to try and convince them not to pursue their abortions. is that unusual? >> it's incredibly unusual. this whole case is unprecedented, it is constitutional and frankly it's unconscionable that someone in a
government position would travel to a shelter and talk to an unaccompanied minor about her abortion decision and tried to persuade her to carry her pregnancy to term all the while this official has her immigration in his hands. >> so and just to be clear here she did get the judge's approval to get this abortion that was then overturned by another judge this past friday. >> it's a little complicated. she did receive a state court judge's permission to consent to the abortion on her own. texas has a law that says if you are a minor you have to get your parents consent unless you go to court to get an order showing your mature enough or the abortion is in your best interests. >> that law is for u.s. citizen. >> any minor in texas. >> she did that. the shelter is under direct instructions from the federal government not to allow her to be transported by anyone to the
abortion facility as a result she's been held hostage by the federal government and she's not allowed to access her constitutional rights. >> i know at one point her parents weren't involved. they were contacted. what happened there? >> her parents in her home country were contacted which also is just unbelievable. she suffered abuse at the hands of her parents in her home country and nevertheless, the federal government contacted them and told them about her pregnancy. this is extremely dangerous for young women who are already abused at the hands of their parents for the government to be telling them confidential information that could further damage that relationship. >> and at one point the government said we're not saying she can't get an abortion, she can return to her home country to get one. >> which is absurd. nobody should have to choose between going back to their home country, facing abuse and exercising their constitutional rights. she's here in the united states. she has constitutional rights and the government is denying her.
>> i want to read part of another e-mail from lloyd telling staff that the unborn child is a child in our care and also says a pregnant girl should be prevented from meeting with her attorney or going to a judge, prevented from meeting with an attorney or going to a judge. >> that's right. scott lloyd wants to authorize every single step in the way of any sort of abortion process. he wants to be able to say yes or no to the ultimate abortion decision and the spreekt has said that that is unconstitutional. no one can have a veto power over another person's abortion decision. >> thank you. we'll be right back everybody. she's nationally recognized
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... ...to help protect yourself from a stroke. talk to your doctor about xarelto®. there's more to know™.
[fbi agent] you're a brave man, your testimony will save lives. mr. stevens? this is your new name. this is your new house. and a perfectly inconspicuous suv. you must become invisible. [hero] i'll take my chances. welcome back. at the start of the show we touched on the divide between those that have served in the military and those that have not. that divide grew over the last six days. i've asked myself how do you bridge that divide and understand the other side without asking or saying the wrong thing, then i read a piece on the "the new york times"
written by thomas gibens nef. it stood out to me. he lost his arm in 2006. the entire last six days were completely overblown and then he said this, my arm is gone and it's not growing back. people will give you the whole pat on the back and the thank you for your service but it doesn't go beyond that because they don't understand. and sometimes, we just don't understand but maybe we can so long as we continue to talk about it we are encouraged to ask questions and also most importantly we listen to each other. in the briefing room after general kelly's defense, he took two questions from people who either had a member either killed or people that knew people that were killed. let's hand it over to my colleague. >> very powerful words from that veteran. yasmin, thank you very much for bringing it. >> this hour we've got a lot to
talk about as the war of words between the white house and a congresswoman continue over a fallen soldier. we're taking a deeper look into the mission into niger that left four soldiers dead. the fight over the soul of a gop continues with the harsh response from steve bannon to former president george w. bush reveals the fault lines that threaten president trump's agenda. your money or your rights. that's the choice hurricane harvey victims are facing in texas. the breakdown on all of that straight ahead. we begin this hour with the continuing political fallout from the ongoing feud between president trump and a florida congresswoman. the commander in chief attacking representative wilson again today tweeting new insults calling the lawmaker whacky and a disaster for democrats. the congresswoman is not shrinking from this