tv The Rachel Maddow Show MSNBC October 25, 2017 9:00pm-10:00pm PDT
all right. see if you can spot the pattern here. within days of the trump administration starting, justice department was warning new white house, white house counsel specifically there was a serious security issue with the president's new national security adviser. he had been having secret communications with the russian government and publicly lying about that. acting attorney general, justice department, came to the white house, told the trump white house their national security adviser was compromised by the russian government. later emerged that national security adviser mike flynn had also not declared income he had received from multiple russian and other foreign sources. he and his business relations
ended up being the subject of multiple federal grand jury subpoenas. and mike flynn had to retroactively register as agent of foreign power. and after that learned about further meetings between flynn and russian officials during the transition he never disclosed. so mike flynn turns out not to be awesome choice to be advising the president of the united states on national security matters. he was allowed to resign in february. but by march the white house was insisting, honestly, they never really even heard of the guy. >> has anyone from the white house -- can i just amend? obviously just to be clear, trying to think through this for a second. obviously general flynn -- >> in the campaign before the election. >> and i'm not aware of any at this time. even general flynn was a volunteer of the campaign. >> he was -- like mynn?
mike finn? no. we didn't think of him as the national security adviser, more of coat check boy. he was campaign volunteer. volunteered for a minute, made coffee. so national security adviser mike flynn downgrade after the fact to a volunteer for the campaign. then the chairman of the campaign, seen here with the last boss he's known to have have before he inexplicably starting working for the trump campaign for free in 2016, paul manafort's previous employment before the trump campaign was working for pro-putin political party and dictator in the nation of ukraine. paul manafort also ended up having to retroactively register as agent of a foreign power, turned out to have had multiple communications during the campaign with russians even though for months he publicly denied having done it. in march, the associated press
reported that paul manafort had signed up for a multi-million dollar contract with a russian billionaire close to vladimir putin. the contract said that it would promote the interests of putin's government around the world. associated press published that in march, russian billionaire sued and lost his case in federal court against the ap and ap stands by that reporting. paul manafort also later revealed to have offered private briefings on the campaign to that same putin-connected russian oligarch, manafort made the offer to him to get private briefings while he was serving as the campaign chairman, and therefore, definitely in a position to deliver them. when you're chairman of a presidential campaign, that generally means you are chairing the presidential campaign, right? just as mike flynn was dismissed as merely a campaign volunteer,
when all this stuff started to come out about paul manafort, the white house, true to form, insisted they never even really met paul manafort. maybe he was around for a while but definitely there and gone in a minute. i don't remember what he even looks like. >> then obviously there's been discussion of paul manafort, who played a limited role for a very limited amount of time. but beyond -- >> are you saying -- >> john, can you stop interrupting other people? jonathan, somebody is asking a question. it's not your press briefing, julie is asking a question, please calm down. >> who needs to calm down? follow-up question was limited role for limited amount of time? but he was chairman of the campaign. calm down. the pattern here is, in a way it's kind of funny. there are a large number of people, surprisingly large number of people involved in the
trump campaign who turned out to have had not just undisclosed but extensive and bewildering contacts with russian officials during the campaign and transition. but the way it goes, as soon as it's exposed, trump white house insists they never knew that guy. happened with carter page as well. >> heard you might be announcing foreign advisory team soon. >> we're going to be doing that in fact very soon, during the week we'll be announcing some names. >> any you can start off with this morning with us? >> i hadn't thought in terms of -- if you want i could give you some of the names, i wouldn't mind. do you have that list -- >> taking notes. >> ferris, who you probably know. ph.d. adviser to the house of representatives caucus and
counterterrorism expert. carter page, ph.d.. >> carter page, ph.d.. that was candidate trump announcing to "the washington post" heditorial board advisers on presidential campaign. carter page as well, had multiple contacts with russian officials during the campaign and also turned out to turn up in indictment for russian spy ring run out of a bank called veb. same bank meeting with jared kushner in the transition in a meeting that jared kushner did not publicly disclose. now, the only reason we ever heard the name carter page, was because then presidential candidate donald trump bragged that a guy named carter page,
phd, was one of his five foreign policy advisers for the campaign. but once we learned about his undisclosed contacts with russia in the campaign, parter cage? why are you saying this name? never heard of this person. >> one person, i don't think i've ever spoken to him, met him, actual said a low level member of i think a committee for a short period of time, i don't think i ever met him. now it's possible i walked into a room and he was sitting there, but i never met him. i didn't talk to him ever. >> that's why it's a coveted job to be foreign policy adviser to presidential candidate, you'll never ever speak to the candidate ever. pattern has been, on the one level, alarming the way the whole story is but kind of funny in a way. today we got the latest iteration. >> this just came out. this just came out. wikileaks, i love wikileaks. >> all the new charges, just came down today, wikileaks, brutal stuff. >> hillary clinton documents, released by wikileaks.
>> wikileaks showed something i've been warning people about for long time. >> you know, wikileaks just actually came out, john podesta, said some horrible things about you. wikileaks, folks. in january, wikileaks was described as a key element of the russian investigation. gru, russian military intelligence relaid material it acquired from dnc and senior democratic officials to wikileaks. candidate trump repeatedly talked about how much he loved wikileaks and how thrilled he was with the actions taken by wikileaks which we now know is on behalf of the russian military intelligent --
intelligence. mike pompeo, also praised wikileaks for its role. once he became cia director, noted in first public comments after confirmed that wikileaks is a quote, hostile intelligence service, often abetted by russia. now today betsy woodruff of "the daily beast" reported that the data firm that worked with the trump campaign during the election, cambridge analytica, run by a family that financed, steve bannon has multimillion dollar stake, mike flynn worked for as well. ran data operations for the trump campaign. head of the group, ceo, wrote in e-mail last year that he reached out to wikileaks about hillary clinton during the campaign. according to an e-mail described
by two sources familiar with the congressional investigation into this matter, the head of cambridge analytica, reportedly told a third party he had reached out to julian assange in wikileaks about his firm somehow helping wikileaks. so wikileaks was a major part of the operation in the election next year. to help donald trump and hurt hillary clinton. wikileaks is how they disseminated portions of the documents hacked and stolen by russian government hackers. documented lovingly promoted by candidate trump himself throughout the campaign. we've previously linked wikileaks and behavior on behalf of the russian government to a few different people who were basically associates of trump and the trump campaign.
people like roger stone for example. but this new story from "the daily beast"," this is the firm doing the trump campaign's data operations. that firm trying to collude with wikileaks on hurting hillary clinton and helping donald trump during the campaign. cambridge analytica doing this is different. than like some guy trump hangs out with doing this thing. so what is the reaction from the trump side of things? by the point, you know what the pattern is. you know it's coming. the trump campaign put out this statement after the report came out. "daily beast" report that indicates that they were trying to collude with a russian cutout, wikileaks, to hurt clinton and help trump during the campaign. the statement in response to this makes clear that cambridge -- who? we have so never heard of them, can't even spell it. this is the statement today from the trump campaign, in response
to the leak. we as campaign made choice to rely on the voter data of the republican national committee to help elect president donald j. trump. any claims that voter data from any other source played a key role in our victory are false. ambridge canalytica? did they volunteer? for a minute? bannon flynn mercer who? they didn't do anything for us. cambridge -- as more and more ties are proven between the russian government and the russian campaign to affect our election and all the different people and entities involved in the trump for president campaign, it's starting to feel like one way you can know that something is salient story and proving a point they can't get away from is when trump white house or campaign starts denying all knowledge of the people and entities involved. flynn who? carter? what's that? cambridge? carter who? what's that? and as things keep happening, it's harder to dismiss all as
coincidences, can't all be random people who walked in off the street the campaign never noticed or one-offs all disconnected from one another. maybe the continuing revelations are why the congressional investigations into the russian attack and questions of whether or not the trump campaign is involved in it, maybe that's why the investigations this month seem to be going off the rails. yesterday, we really did see republicans walk out of their own committee interviews with the digital operations chief of the trump campaign and the personal lawyer to instead announce they would be launching new investigations into hillary clinton. we have seen multiple reports from "the new york times" and other publications, however well the various congressional investigations into the russia
issue might have been doing in the past, now starting to fall apart. today "mother jones" was first to report that one of the big committees, senate judiciary committee has officially blown up. will no longer even attempt to put out uniform report. republicans do their own thing, democrats will do theirs, and that means there won't be a judiciary committee report as to what happened. we'll be speaking with members of that committee in a second to find out if the reports are accurate and if it's really as all over as it seems. but there's one last thing that seems important that we keep getting more and more evidence about. that committee that just reportedly blew up, what they specifically were supposed to look at, obstruction of justice. whether the president fired fbi director james comey or took other actions to divert, suppress or try to influence the criminal counterintelligence operations into what happened with russia. that is what the judiciary
committee in the senate has been looking at. oversees department of justice, justice system. so obstruction of justice is in their wheelhouse. in the house never even bothered saying they would investigate that. in the senate, saying they would but now appears to have imploded. on that issue, a bunch of new public evidence all of a sudden getting more damning and more funny at the same time. i'm sorry i find some of it funny but some of it is so ridiculous i find it funny. you will see what i mean in just a second. in may, "the new york times" published this photo, this article about an investor's pitch that was being made in china by jared kushner's family's real estate company. the kushners reportedly did a presentation in china in which they appeared to offer green cards to live in the united states to any chinese citizen who would give the kushner family $500,000 for one of their real estate projects.
and you know making that pitch is one thing, making that pitch while bragging and showing pictures to remind everybody in the room that your family is in the white house, that is something else. and that was apparently the subject of a subpoena to the kushner organization by federal prosecutors operating out of the eastern district of new york, at least one of the properties where they were apparently trying to sell the green card cash deal, was headquartered in brooklyn. so that was the specific u.s. attorney who subpoenaed the kushner company for information on the real estate. "the wall street journal" this week reported that trump campaign chairman paul manafort is under investigation for alleged money laundering.
it is also true that they are considering to run the two u.s. attorney's offices, this is something no president has done before as far as we can tell. meeting people who you may appoint to be federal prosecutors, in jurisdictions where you or your family are in the campaign or potentially involved in criminal matters that may come before that office? no president is known to have ever done this with potential u.s. attorney nominees before. i asked the former attorney general eric holder before it, this is how he characterized it. >> unprecedented, the way it was done in the obama administration and the clinton administration as well, and the bush administrations, the highest level person that you spoke to as an incoming attorney general, as a u.s. attorney general, was in fact the attorney general. that was it. nobody went to talk to the white house. >> and why is that? why was it structured that way? >> to again, ensure the
independence so that the u.s. attorney would understand that your boss is the attorney general of the united states. you're not supposed to have any contacts. the u.s. attorney is not supposed to have any contacts with the white house except through the justice department. and the people who we spoke to, i think are interesting, two u.s. attorneys in new york, and u.s. attorney in florida, where mar-a-lago is. that gives me some concern that he has decided to have these interactions with the united states attorneys who may possibly be in a position to get at him. >> and what is the correction? >> you know, to hopefully have good people in these positions who will in spite of the fact that they had these meetings with the president, will understand what the nature of their jobs is. >> that is the corrections? to hope they're good people? >> yeah. >> the only corrective we know for this situation in terms of
defending the independence of federal prosecutors, defending the independence of of the criminal justice system is to hope that these candidates for u.s. attorney jobs, that the president is inappropriately meeting with, we just have to hope that they are good people who are rigorously independent from the president and his interests, despite the fact he is meeting with them before he considers appointing them. we just have to hope he has no connection to them whatsoever. well, the potential nominee to run the u.s. attorney's office in new york turns out to be one of mark kasowitz office, and the other is a member of rudy giuliani's law firm, a presidential supporter and very good friend. you heard there may also be a meeting with the potential attorney in south florida.
one that may have been present during the speech in florida. we have contacted multiple people in florida to figure out who the potential nominee would be. the personal in florida would have jurisdiction possibly over the president's estate at mar-a-lago. our best guess coming out of south florida right now as to who the contender for the job is right now in the trump white house is this man. who in this clip is feeling very sad because in this clip he is being fired by donald trump during season five of the apprentice. a guy from kasowitz' law firm, and from rudy giuliani's law firm, and the guy from the apprentice, from mar-a-lago. if the president is stacking people during his campaign who could have federal or criminal liability, this is the kind of
thing you would expect the judiciary committee to be all over as to whether or not the white house is trying to pervert the law enforcement system in this country to meet the president's needs. that is the sort of thing that the senate judicial committee may have been looking into today, until that apparently blew up. that's next. $25 i didn't even want to go. ahhh, your diary. "mom says it is totally natural..." $25 is nothing. abracadabra, bro. the bank of america mobile banking app. the fast, secure and simple way to send money. hi, i'm the internet! you knoarmless bowling.lt? 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.
do you know of any president, anywhere in our history previously interviewing a candidate for united states attorney? i certainly wasn't interviewed by the president, you weren't interviewed by the president before we were appointed united states attorney. has it ever happened before? >> a lot of the new candidates, as you know, u.s. attorneys have friends of the president. friends and family of the president. >> you're not answering my question. >> democratic senator richard blumenthal wanted to know if anyone u.s. presidents went around and interviewed candidates for the job. despite tradition of remaining independent of the white house so they can do their jobs. joining us now, senator richard blumenthal. i appreciate your time. thanks for being here. >> thank you. >> there is a number of things i
want to talk to you about. the first one is the subject of that questioning, that moment that you with had attorney general jeff sessions. we can't find any other instances of presidents meeting with u.s. attorneys while considering whether or not he was going to be appointing them to jobs. senator sessions didn't answer your question on that, have you turned up other incidents besides what president trump has done this year? >> there is no precedent, rachel, for the president of the united states interviewing potential nominees for the u.s. attorney. the reason is simple, because it smacks of political interference and conflicts of interest. does certainly in these incidents when the jobs have -- property. money laundering investigations ongoing involving trump associates and potential prosecutions of trump campaign associates if those kinds of cases are referred by the special counsel.
so there are lots of good reasons there's no precedent for it. >> the other thing that seems to be emerging alongside this news about the president taking unprecedented step of meeting with potential u.s. attorneys, appears to be considering number of people for key jobs, where he's doing personal meetings, people about one or two degrees of separation from him. member of mark kassowitz's law firm, rudy giuliani's law firm, obviously rudy giuliani a close personal friend of the president's and a major campaign supporter. there are new reports, not confirmed, but florida reporters tell us best consideration is maybe a former contestant from "the apprentice." is talking to the president
about that florida job that touches on mar-a-largo. that degree of closeness to the president, is that also troubling to you? seems to me that other presidents may have had incursions into those territories as well. >> more than troubling, profoundly disturbing. i'll do everything possible to block these nominations, especially if there's no adequate explanation of the president's meeting with them. which is in itself, improper in my view under the circumstances. >> former senator and current attorney general jeff sessions has announced he would recuse himself from matters involving the 2016 presidential campaign because of his role in the trump campaign. should the attorney general make clear he's recused from any matters that might involve for example the kushner companies or paul manafort, there's reports
that the kushner family real estate business and paul manafort are both under investigation by u.s. attorneys' offices in new york. should jeff sessions make clear he's recused from those as well? >> not only should, must. to maintain the integrity of the office. as a former united states attorney myself and attorney general of the state of connecticut for 20 years, my basic rule of thumb was if you ask the question, if you have to ask that question you know the answer. and in this case, the mere question dictates the answer. certainly with kushner, any of the trump properties, issuing involving them, he must recuse himself. >> the chairman of senate judiciary committee, chuck grassley and top democrat diane feinstein today announced that democrats and republicans on your committee are parting ways and no longer attempting to work together to investigate obstruction of justice or other
issues under your purview in the investigation of the russians and the election. what is your understanding of the decision that the ranking chairman member have come to and what is your understanding of the decisions they have come to today? >> my understanding they've decided to go somewhat different paths but not unreconcilably. members of the committee on both sides of the aisle, there is consensus the results should be bipartisan. my hope is it will be. and the kba -- emphasis must be on the obstruction of justice, because of our oversight responsibility regarding the fbi where james comey was fired as potentially obstruction. department of justice and russian meddling and possible collusion. we have to have investigation to
prevent this harm from happening again. if the russians are not made to pay a price, anybody colluding with them will do it again. that has to be the focus on the committee in my view. hopefully we'll have agreement both sides of the aisle as priority. >> so legislation might be bipartisan but the investigation, is it over? is that done? or do you anticipate there would be further bipartisan cooperation there despite what we heard today from grassley and feinstein? >> i've been frustrated by the lagging pace of our investigation. i hope maybe this method of proceeding on two tracks will break that log jam. far from being over, think it's moving ahead. >> senator richard blumenthal, we really appreciate your time. thank you. all right, we have much more, stay with us.
so now she does it with dr. scholl's orthotics. clinically proven to relieve and prevent foot, knee or lower back pain, by reducing the shock and stress that travel up her body with every step she takes. so keep on climbing, sarah. you're killing it. dr. scholl's. born to move. america's small business owners. and here's to the heroes behind the heroes, who use their expertise to keep those businesses covered. and here's to the heroes behind the heroes behind the heroes, who brought us delicious gyros. actually, the gyro hero owns vero's gyros, so he should have been with those first heroes. ha ha! that's better. so, to recap -- small business owners are heroes, and our heroes help heroes be heroes when they're not eating gyros delivered by --
♪ it's not just a car, it's your daily treat. ♪ go ahead, spoil yourself. the es and es hybrid. experience amazing. 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. national archives is the government agency in charge of keeping track of our country's most important records. they also sometimes try to solve mysteries. for example, what were president nixon and his chief of staff talking about just a few day before the watergate break-in, in the oval office, when there was inexplicable a gap in the white house tapes.
nixon's secretary claimed to have accidentally erased that tape when she stretched out across the office like normal people do all the time. 2001, got a forensic panel of audio experts to try to recover the audio. after two years, announced couldn't be done. but said that time would preserve and keep the tapes in case future technology would make it possible some day. a few years later they took another whack at it. they turned to the chief of staff, h.r.halderman's notes from the meeting. they believed a chunk was
missing from the part of the discussion where the tape was erased. set about using forensic technology to analyze the indentations on the pages of notes they did have, hoping to uncover what had been written underneath and later thrown away about that part of the conversation. spent two years reading the indentations, trying to recover the missing pages but again they fell short. that nixonian 18:30 minute mystery is still a mystery. but tomorrow the national archives is going to do something not really about an unsolved mystery, but a lot of people think it is. it's going to drive people in this country plumb crazy, let's be honest. how crazy are people going to go about this tomorrow, that's maybe an answerable question with some expert advice. and that's next. i no longer live with the uncertainties of hep c.
wondering, what if? i let go of all those feelings. because i am cured with harvoni. harvoni is a revolutionary treatment for the most common type of chronic hepatitis c. it's been prescribed to more than a quarter million people. and is proven to cure up to 99% of patients who have had no prior treatment with 12 weeks. certain patients can be cured with just 8 weeks of harvoni. before starting harvoni, your doctor will test to see if you've ever had hepatitis b, which may flare up and cause serious liver problems during and after harvoni treatment. tell your doctor if you've ever had hepatitis b, a liver transplant, other liver or kidney problems, hiv or any other medical conditions and about all the medicines you take including herbal supplements. taking amiodarone with harvoni can cause a serious slowing of your heart rate. common side effects of harvoni include tiredness, headache and weakness. ready to let go of hep c? ask your hep c specialist about harvoni. when you clock out, i'll clock in...
sensing and automatically adjusting to your every move. there. i can also help with this. does your bed do that? i'm the new sleep number 360 smart bed. let's meet at a sleep number store. you're searching for something. whoooo. like the perfect deal... ...on the perfect hotel. so wouldn't it be perfect if... ....there was a single site... ...where you could find the... ...right hotel for you at the best price? there is. because tripadvisor now compares... ...prices from over 200 booking... ...sites ...to save you up to 30%... ...on the hotel you want. trust this bird's words. tripadvisor. the latest reviews. the lowest prices.
two days after president john f. kennedy was assassinated in dallas, texas, in 1963, his alleged shooter, lee harvey oswald was being escorted from jail, in the basement, in police custody on the way to being put in the police car, and oswald was shot and killed. happened on live tv. no one knew it was coming but nbc was there and caught whole thing not on tape but live broadcast. and a reporter on the scene reacting and describing what he was seeing in realtime was the reporter, tom pettit. >> to dallas, texas and tom pettit. >> there's the president. >> there is lee oswald. [ shot ]
>> lee oswald has been shot. lee oswald has been shot. there is the man with the gun, absolute panic, absolute panic here in the basement of dallas police headquarters, detectives have their guns drawn. no question about it, oswald has been shot. >> reporter's voice in that remarkable live broadcast was the voice of the late nbc news reporter tom pettit. tom pettit went on to become a very big deal political reporter. went on to interview three u.s. presidents. won awards over a decade's long career. fast forward to 1991, oliver stone movie "jfk" had come out. the jfk film by oliver stone posited a theory that it wasn't oswald acting alone but a
broader conspiracy. had always been that around the assassination but movie drove interest into overdrive. in 1992 congress passed a law, jfk records act, idea to tamp down the assassination conspiracy theories. the first batch of documents under that law were released the following year in 1993, and nbc sent tom pettit to the national archives to report on the new details that were sure to turn up in those records. there was a lot of interest. turned out to be kind of a bust. >> the thousands of documents do show that the cia was deeply involved in the assassination investigation. nothing of any other cia involvement so far. one file from 1963, kgb defector tells the cia the assassination may have been planned by the kgb, but no evidence. the cia did serious
investigation, proving that oswald was on a bus trip from mexico city. but we already knew that. from inside the soviet union, found photos of oswald and his wife, marina. oswald had defected to russia. some ordinary people were curious. >> i didn't really expect to see any glaring thing. >> i'm talking mafia, maybe cia in general. i think they in turn killed kennedy. >> about all the secret stuff still held back by the president, it will be sent to the review board as soon as the white house poiappoints one. >> the conspiracy theories did go on and on and on. the man now president said that
ted cruz' dad did it. sure, why not? but eventually the review board you heard tom pettit talk about did eventually come together to review the secrecy that was deemed too sensitive to be made public. that only fuelled more conspiracies. later, congress gave the national archives a 25-year grace period after which they had to release everything they had, including the thousands of pages they had set aside as super secret sensitive material. the national archives is legally obligated to release the last of the secret documents by a specific deadline and that deadline is tomorrow. national archives say they're complying with that, the president announced he will take no action to stop them, but something is coming out tomorrow. questions? what are we actually going to get? how much and what type of documents will these be? how hard will it be to go
through these documents and who knows what to look for, if anyone. what is the range of things we might learn that we didn't know before. and honestly, given how insane we have been as a country on this subject for more than 50 years now, how crazy are people who are crazy about this subject likely to go tomorrow? whether or not you're invested in this story as many people are, should we are briefing ourselves for what the reaction is going to be. joining us now is philip sheenan, mr. sheenan, thank you for joining us. really appreciate your time. >> my pleasure, rachel. >> up to the first question i asked just the logistical issue of what is being released, how much of it will be, what types of documents. i wanted to ask you about it specifically because you wrote you expect tomorrow to be a logistical nightmare, why is that? >> i mean, i think it has the potential to be a mess.
we're talking about tens if not hundreds of thousands of documents released on line at the same time. millions of people around the world trying to get access to them. when the national archives tried to release a much smaller amount of documents this summer their website went down and we could not download anything for days. we're talking about a much larger set of documents tomorrow, we'll see if the technology holds up. >> and originally it was 400 documents, 400 pages of material. do we know the number of documents they will release tomorrow? >> we do, 3100 documents tomorrow we've never seen before. and on top of that, 30,000 documents that had been released previously in part that will be released in full. so again, tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of pages. >> did the national archives have a choice in terms of the way they release these things? could they have released the things in a more staggering or
cur curated way? >> they talked about releasing the documents in batches over the course of the year which would have been a much better way for researchers to do that, anybody trying to make sense of the materials. they ended that plan because the white house could not make a decision on which documents they would hold back. i still don't know if they made that decision. >> in terms of the decisions made over the years about what documents to hold back and the fact that those documents previously held back will be released tomorrow, what should we expect tomorrow on the types of documents, the types of information previously retained that will be released? what new information will we see in terms of the types of information the government had access to? >> well, i think a lot of information will emerge, and again it may take months or even years to figure it out entirely. but i think a lot of documents
will be released tomorrow that reflect just how much the government knew, the cia knew about lee harvey oswald. immediately after the assassination, many tried to prove that lee oswald was innocent in the plot. the proof seems to be that actually those two agencies knew a lot about oswald, including the fact that he may have been talking about killing the president openly weeks before the assassination. and the question is, did they bungle the intelligence? kind of like 9/11, did they have a lot of information they didn't act on? >> last question for you, i am asking for just a subjective gut answer here. how crazy do you think people are going to go about this tomorrow? i mean, let's assume that people can get access to the documents and there is not such a logistical fiasco that people can actually access the
material. are you expecting quite a bit of upsets tomorrow? >> well, i think there will be a lot of frustration, because a lot of people, especially laymen are not going to understand the documents. they're going to be filled with cia and fbi code names, and pseudonyms, and code names, they will be hard to understand. i tell you though, for conspiracy theorists, this will be like christmas tomorrow to seize upon the documents f s to if their theories are true. >> i know this is an important night for you to be getting your sleep as well, thank you for helping us understand this. thank you. the federal government gave us an answer to the that has me wondering why i asked, since now i'm more confused than ever. but i'll tell you what we got out of them coming up next. but there is another way to live. ♪
as we enter the sixth week since hurricane maria made landfall, i want to put a flag on that. it's at least worrying me in addition to all the compromise of the hospitals and lack of water. the death toll that is being attributed to hurricane maria is 51. but we are starting the sixth week. so people who are dying in puerto rico are not dying because of the strength of the storm. they're dying because of the weakness to the response of the
storm by the federal government. of the 51 deaths listed on the official rolls, three of those deaths were attributed to a treatable infection that you get from not having access to running water, and having to rely on open sources of water like rivers and streams. three have died in puerto rico from this since the storm. but there is no evidence that the number of puerto ricans that are getting sick from and dying of leptos pypleptos pyro sis ar the rise, they are suspected cases, they're being checked to see if they can be confirmed as being lepto. that is two lab cases confirmed, and other deaths. the 76 are up from 74 cases we're told from being investigated last week. we don't know how many of these current 76 cases are people who
have died from this water-borne disease. but we're trying to track the number down, it's up to the centers for the disease control, we contacted them tonight to find out if this disease is becoming a significant source of mortality on the island because of the lack of running water. the cdc is testing water to see if there are samples of the disease. but they said please contact the department of health in puerto rico, we reached out and are waiting to hear back. as you can imagine, the communications are tough at this point. they're the ones who referred us to the cdc in the first place. one local paper is reporting that there are 70 cases being investigated, of lepto, but some are not reported. stick a flag in this, if some of the cases reported turn out to be lepto and fatal cases of it
then the response of this storm will have entered a very serious and bad new phase. again, the death toll right now is listed at 51. but we're going to keep chasing it and at the very least honestly whoever is in charge of this recovery should start to answer some questions about it. building a website in under an hour is easy with gocentral...
ltry align probiotic.n your digestive system? for a non-stop, sweet treat goodness, hold on to your tiara kind of day. get 24/7 digestive support, with align. the #1 doctor recommended probiotic brand. also in kids chewables. that does it for us tonight, but there is one thing i want to tell you about concerning tomorrow night's rachel maddow
show. senator blumenthal told us tonight on the show that he has high hopes that even though the senate judiciary committee is not going to work together now on the russian investigation, and they're going to go their own way. tomorrow night on this show we'll that committee blowing up means a significant part of the russia investigation is blowing up right now. we'll have a special report on that tomorrow night's show and that's the fair warning. now it's time for "the last word with lawrence o'donnell." good evening, lawrence. >> good evening, rachel. i watched the president today explaining to people that he's so smart and he's one of the reasons -- one of the proofs of being so smart is he went to an ivy league college and wondering why you never seem to feel compelled to tell your audience how smart you are and where you went to school because you're asking people to believe a lot of research that you do and that you present, a lot of stuff that they have never heard before. how are they supposed to believe it if you don't tell them how smart you are? >> it's called showing your