tv All In With Chris Hayes MSNBC August 11, 2018 3:00pm-4:00pm PDT
simple. easy. awesome. ask how to get $300 back when you sign up for xfinity mobile, and purchase a new samsung phone. visit your local xfinity store today. >> that's katy tour after two hours of live tv. hi, everyone. it's 4:00 in washington, d.c. we're keeping a close eye on paul manafort's trial this hour. it was on pause for most of the dap as the judge in the case huddled with lawyers from both sides. it is unclear what was discussed in the hours-long secretive meetings or what the delay will mean for robert mueller's case against donald trump's former campaign chairman paul manafort. that mystery follows a new ruling from the judge that should serve as a flashing red warning light to donald trump's lawyers, that the broader russia investigation is now moving full steam ahead and that the public has seen only the tip of the iceberg. from "the new york times," the federal judge overseeing the federal trial of paul manafort
sealed the transcript on thursday of a private discussion in front of his bench after prosecutors from the special counsel's office argued that they needed to protect an ongoing investigation. the conversation concerned whether investigators had questioned rick gates, the government's star witness, and mr. manafort's long-time deputy, about the trump campaign. prosecutors argued that they needed to protect the secrecy of the inquiry and limit the disclosure of new information. the judge, t.s. ellis, ruled in their favor. the ruling confirms what we believed to be true rick gates has more to offer evidence than manafort's alleged financial crimes. that could mean danger for trump or members of his inner circle. maybe that explains the new battle cry emanating louder than ever out of trump's orbit. >> if it isn't over by september then we have a very, very serious violation of the justice department rules that you shouldn't be conducting one of these investigations in the 60-day period.
>> this needs to be over with soon. i think it's been very bad for the country and we're at a point in this inquiry where they can wrap it up. >> mayor, i know you've said and i said we want to see this come to closure soon here. mayor? >> yes, we do. it's about time that it ends. i also think and i hope the special counsel is as sensitive to it as we are. we do not want to run into the november elections. so you back up from that, this should be over with by september 1st. >> i think it needs to end very soon and it needs to end very soon because the nature of what's taking place here is irregular and that's being kind. >> from lock her up to wrap it up, that sounds like lawyer speak for we might be losing. the latest evolution of their messaging strategy from no collusion to collusion isn't really a crime to let's call the whole thing off is we see more signs just today that mueller is zeroing in on another one-time trump ally, roger stone. he's being investigated for communicating with russians over stolen e-mails. he seems likely to become the
probe's next target. one of his close allies, the manhattan madam, testifying before a grand jury in the investigation today, while another one of stone's allies is being held in contempt of court today for refusing to comply with the judge's order to testify. which means he's choosing potential jail time over cooperating with robert mueller. here to help us understand all the day's developments, joyce vance, former u.s. attorney and law professor, frank figliuzzi. on set with us white house reporter from the "the washington post" ashley parker and mike schmidt from sniemz. -- "the new york times." joyce, let me start with you and the machinations of this for a nonlawyer and someone outside this court, it seems like a bizarre, bizarre trial with a very interesting character as a judge. tell us what it means that they were on pause for so long, do we know what they were doing and what are the scenarios for what could have been going on.
>> we don't know exactly what was going on, but this really isn't at all unusual for a trial. sometimes when you get to this point and even earlier on in a case, issues can come up. there can be the need for a lot of back and forth between the judge and the lawyers as they sort out legal issues. and sometimes you can see juries either sitting in a courtroom or back in the jury room wondering what the delay is about because the judge doesn't necessarily share it with them either if it's purely a legal issue about admissible evidence. here we had a little bit of a curiosity thinking that perhaps it might involve jurors who had begun to deliberate prematurely. the rule is that the jurors aren't supposed to begin to discuss the evidence until the trial is complete and until they're all in the room together. they are admonished not to talk in twos or threes, but only to deliberate as an entire group. we don't know for certain there is any problem along those lines. the judge did give an additional instruction that they are back in the room and listening to
evidence or it looks like the parties agreed the case was ready to move forward. >> frank, i know we were pinging you all day with questions about your theories of what this pause could have been about. can you share them with our viewers? >> well, my first thought was indeed what appears on its face, that some juror may have been reported as saying or doing something inappropriate, but as joyce said, this happens all the time. it can be remedied. the key for me on this is whether there is any appealable issue, but it sounds like there is no disagreement between the defense and the prosecution on this. it sounds like it was an amicable agreement to resolve it. and if this is what happened, we move on. and don't forget, there are alternate jurors that if indeed this continues to happen, that's why you have alternates. you can insert someone and dismiss the juror who is causing an issue. that may have been it. we may be wrong. there may have been something else going on as well. >> joyce vance, let me ask you to weigh in on the other story we mentioned at the top of the
show, this ruling that this conversation could be sealed because of concerns about gates' testimony in the context of the larger ongoing investigation. >> this, i think, is very interesting. we also heard this week that it was possible that gates wouldn't serve any jail time at all at the end of these proceedings. and you'll remember that he was indicted along with manafort for the whole kit and kaboodle. so how do you go from that sort of a mess to possibly not serving jail time. i don't think it's by testifying in the manafort trial. frankly the government didn't really need gates to prove this case. so it must be that they are getting assistance from him on something else, and that something else is the content of those six sealed pages of the transcript from yesterday. gates was around for the republican convention. he may know details, for instance, about how the republican party platform was softened towards ukraine. he could know about money donors to the inauguration.
he could know about contacts between people involved in the campaign and russians. so there are a lot of possibilities for what he might be able to narrate. we'll just have to remain curious a little bit longer. >> frank figliuzzi, he was around on the campaign when figures like carter page were also swirling around, that rather chaotic campaign. george papadopoulos was around that campaign. it started as a counterintelligence investigation, something you know a little bit about. how would you use rick gates in the larger investigation into potential collusion or conspiracy with the russians to impact the 2016 campaign? what questions would you have him answer in exchange for what joyce just described, potentially no or little jail time? >> so i never thought that rick gates was all about a white collar crime case against manafort. he can answer the key question, the umbrella question of what this is all about, which is to
what extent did this campaign collude with an adversarial government to impact the outcome of an election. and did the president of the united states have as his campaign chairman an agent of a foreign power. that's what gates gets to the heart of. that's what he's answering. and i believe he knows the answers to those questions and has already provided them to the mueller team. >> and you reminded us today that gates was around a lot longer than manafort was. there's been a lot of fire attacking manafort saying he wasn't around long, he gets the papadopoulos coffee boy treatment. rick gates was and they haven't done nearly as an effective job of distancing themselves. he was around during the transition, he was around in the white house, he was in and around these meetings until he was indicted. >> rick gates is a survivor. i remember on the campaign the president wants him gone, the president wants him fired, then there he was. not only does he have this
perch as manafort's right-hand man but he's there through the rest of the campaign. the convention is mentioned. he was a role on the inaugural committee. through president trump he was deeply involved in the day-to-day business of the white house, spotted on those 16 or 18 acres. really, as you said, up until the day he was indicted. this is another reminder of how deep the tentacles of mueller's probe potentially go and how much we don't know. and so while there's not a ton of concern at least yet in the west wing of manafort flipping, there is more concern about, a, gates has already flipped and, b, what he may know. >> do you have any sense, mike schmidt, there is any growing anxiety about all these fronts they're managing now since the manafort trial? the ruling yesterday there is a value gates has to the larger investigation. we haven't heard much from cohen this week but that's obviously ongoing and unfolding. is the president there sort of stewing? is that why we see jay and rudy?
>> jay and rudy are keeping the president calm as much as possible and trying to hold him back unsuccessfully -- >> he'd be doing more if they weren't out there? >> they've shown time and time again the failure as he continues to tweet about this and talk about it in ways that pretty much everyone in the legal community says are damaging. why would he continue to talk about such sensitive matters that relate directly to his own conduct? he continues to do it. so, you know, look, i think the president gets very upset a lot and he gets reported a lot in the press. he obviously has to look at this and be concerned, but i'm not sure what else he can do. i mean, he has one decision he can make to do that and that's to fire mueller and he just doesn't seem to have the guts to do that. >> you may have just waved a red flag in front of a bull, doesn't have the guts to do that. jay sekulow and rudy giuliani were on the air when we came on. let's listen. >> when you say a perjury trap, you have one witness that says
this is what happened. then you have another witness that recalls, well, no, that's not how i recall it, it happened this way. someone writes a report and says, well, we believe this one, we don't believe that one, thus it's perjury. >> flynn is the example. no crime. if it had been said, president says go easy on him -- >> which the president says -- >> he didn't say stop it, don't do it, so no crime. however, it didn't take place according to the president. according to comey it did. now -- >> of course if it did, it wouldn't have mattered. but you're right. >> i'm thinking my cousin vinny. why are they acting out how the president might perjure himself in interview after interview after interview? >> this cannot be said enough. they believe the only thing that matters is public opinion. and if they can muddy the waters and make it more difficult for the average voter, the average voter will put less pressure on people in the house of representatives and the president will not face an impeachment.
it's that simple. if they're on the air going on and on about different things making it more confusing, muddying the whole thing, then to them they think that's effective. rudy will look at the poll numbers from before he came in and where they are now, and they'd say, look, we have eroded mueller's standing with voters. that is an accomplishment for us. that's how they see it. >> joyce, it seems like that is a strategy of necessity. and if that's a strategy of necessity, it would seem the facts are not on their side. i think there are probably, what, four witnesses who can corroborate the other side of what rudy is describing, who can corroborate comey's side, andrew mccabe who is his deputy and others in the fbi. but the larger point seems to be that his own lawyers are making their client sound guilty of at least obstruction of justice and maybe making it sound like a legitimate line of inquiry to ask what he knew about the meeting with russians to get dirt on his opponent. >> they are on the one hand, but
i think it is absolutely 100% accurate that all that they are doing here is playing the public relations strategy. they don't want to see motivated citizens doing what they did on health care or on immigration, calling their representatives on the hill and demanding impeachment. so they're willing, in essence, to sacrifice the more legal argument in favor of that strategy. but what they're describing as a perjury trap and we know we discussed this a time and two before, that it really is utterly inane. what the government has to do is prove perjury beyond a reasonable doubt. so, when you have rudy saying, well, one person says one thing and another person's memory is different and the government charges perjury, that's utter nonsense because the government will have to go into court and prove it beyond all reasonable doubt. a he said/she said isn't enough. when you have perhaps a president who tweeted he knew michael flynn lied to the fbi and the president goes to jim comey and asked him to go light on flynn, you might be talking
about obstruction and perjury and a little bit of a different manner than just this he said/she said that giuliani consistently talks about. frank figluizzi, let me get you in on this. why did they acting out this? why are they doing that? we know rudy believes in hanging a lantern around your problems, but this is a spotlight. >> when you're deciding something beyond a reasonable doubt you've got to put things on a scale and you have to start determining who do i believe and is there enough credible evidence to make a conclusion. what they're afraid of is that the president is unable to tell the truth because the truth is going to jam him up. that's the problem here. so he's going to have to lie to the mueller team if he's going to come out of this, and they
know that they're trapped. it's not mueller trapping them, they have put themselves in a box. the president himself has said conflicting statements. so it's a question of -- it's not only a question of who do we believe, which statement from the president do we get to believe. so this is simply why i'm continuing to assert that he's not going to be interviewed. if he is interviewed, it would be completely on his own defense all advice of counsel. i'd love to see it happen. >> is it going to happen? >> what they also have to do, if the president doesn't do an interview and it looks like it's going to be difficult, they're going to have to explain that to the public. there is going to be a political question. if you did nothing wrong, why can't you answer questions? so part of softening the public relations thing is coming up with an explanation for that. and that is why you see them say perjury trap because they're going to have to say to the public, look, here's why he can't do this thing, that most people would say if he did nothing wrong why can't you answer. >> that's their strategy as well for ignoring a subpoena? that would be their strategy?
>> the president would have to explain. he can say this is a witch hunt over and over again. the average person will say, just go and answer the questions. >> if you have nothing to hide, that's what i tell my 6-year-old. ashley parker, roger stone seems to be the person in the swirl today on the collusion side of the investigation, the manhattan madam went in and testified, another former aide is being held in contempt of court today. does that trigger any anxiety around the don junior circle or the jared circle or any of the other individuals who were in the room with the russians who promised dirt? >> i think right now yes and no. roger stone is pretty loyal to the president. they have a very complicated love/hate relationship that goes back decades. >> as far as we know. >> but stone sort of understands the psychology of president trump better than most people in that orbit. and he said publicly so far he's not going to testify against the president. i think that's probably viewed as reassuring, although this white house understands that people can flip like, for instance, michael cohen. >> michael flynn. >> and michael flynn.
and rick gates. so -- >> and pretty much everybody except paul manafort has flipped. >> so they're aware that people can change when they're getting pressed by the feds. there is also a sense when you have someone, a sort of self-described colorful character, a practitioner of the dark arts like roger stone who sort of relishes in that image and plays up that idea of himself, it's never great if he ends up going before mueller's team. >> he does have these long ties to donald trump. it doesn't seem like a good fact, good piece of the pattern. the person who arguably was around him in the context of politics the longest was the colluder. >> right. >> not a good fact. >> not a good fact. >> frank, what would you do as an investigator if you were able to put roger stone in the category of people who you can prosecute beyond a reasonable doubt if you were able to do that, able to charge him? where does he fit into this collusion puzzle? >> yeah, i think we've been -- because there's been so many people to focus on, we've been ignoring the significance of
stone. stone is a significant player here because, let's not forget, the whole connection to russian social media propaganda, the connection to julian assange, the wikileaks issue, hacking, all of this is encircling stone. and mueller is getting closer and closer. let's not forget that the manhattan madam was interviewed first voluntarily by the mueller team, and then put in front of a grand jury. that tells us she said something very significant, very worthwhile, and likely against stone or someone else being targeted by the mueller team. so this is a man to keep watching. i'm beginning to envision a cafeteria table in a federal prison where one guy says to the other guy, hey, what are you in for? i'm in because i couldn't rat out the president. yeah, me, too. these people are going to prison. >> that's a good tv show. i think you just pitched a pilot. after the break, in service of an audience of one.
the president's allies up the ante for their war on justice, readying subpoenas for leadership. the one-year anniversary of the deadly protest and counterprotest in charlottesville is this weekend and the president who saw good people on both sides, he marked it by reupping one of his favorite wedge issues, attacking nfl players who kneel in protest. and more hush money. brand new reporting from "the washington post" about another woman offered money to keep quiet about donald trump. all of that coming up. stay with us. (door bell rings) it's open! hey. this is amazing. with moderate to severe ulcerative colitis, are you okay? even when i was there, i never knew when my symptoms would keep us apart. so i talked to my doctor about humira. i learned humira can help get, and keep uc under control when other medications haven't worked well enough. and it helps people achieve control that lasts. so you can experience few or no symptoms. humira can lower your ability to fight infections, including tuberculosis.
serious, sometimes fatal infections and cancers, including lymphoma, have happened; as have blood, liver, and nervous system problems, serious allergic reactions, and new or worsening heart failure. before treatment, get tested for tb. tell your doctor if you've been to areas where certain fungal infections are common, and if you've had tb, hepatitis b, are prone to infections, or have flu-like symptoms or sores. don't start humira if you have an infection. be there for you, and them. ask your gastroenterologist about humira. with humira, control is possible. p3 it's meat, cheese and nuts. i keep my protein interesting. oh yea, me too. i have cheese and uh these herbs. p3 snacks. the more interesting way to get your protein. but prevagen helps your brain with an ingredient originally discovered... in jellyfish. in clinical trials, prevagen has been shown to improve short-term memory. prevagen. healthier brain. better life.
money managers are pretty much the same. all but while some push high commission investment products, fisher investments avoids them. some advisers have hidden and layered fees. fisher investments never does. and while some advisers are happy to earn commissions from you whether you do well or not, fisher investments fees are structured so we do better when you do better. maybe that's why most of our clients come from other money managers. fisher investments. clearly better money management.
>> it's pretty clear -- >> first it was no puppet, you're the puppet. now maybe it's no collusion, you colluded. rudy giuliani tweeted this this morning. maybe it's time for attorney general sessions to appoint a special counsel to investigate the conspiracy to defeat donald trump by buying and disseminating fake dossiers, obtaining illegal wires and commencing baseless fbi investigations. and as is so often the case in the new world in which we live, giuliani apparently has backup on capitol hill. a new report out today says the republican chairman of the house judiciary committee is readying subpoenas for people connected to the controversial steele dossier. sources tell the hill. the committee will go after other current and former fbi and doj officials, including jim baker, sally moyer, jonathan moffa, and george toskas the sources said. joyce is back. ashley is on set. you believe it to be an important piece of all this. why?
>> once again, nicolle, we are seeing not oversight, but rather complete attempts to obstruct by calling as witnesses under subpoena to the hill people who -- some of whom are career public servants. jonathan moffa, for example, is a long-time career intelligence analyst in the counterintelligence division of the fbi. he's very smart. he's been with this case since day one. so what they're doing is they have identified him by name. they are going to call him to the hill under subpoena. they are going to threaten contempt if he doesn't spill everything he knows as sensitive as it is about this case, and it's shameful that they're going to attack a public servant for political reasons. that's what we're going to watch happen here and i hope it doesn't happen. >> mike schmidt, how do they destroy the credibility of the fbi attacks land at the fbi? some of these people were, are highly regarded figures who had the bureau's interest in mind and they are now political chum in the water for rudy and the president.
>> look at the damage they've done. they got rid of the director, the deputy director, the general counsel and the top counterintelligence agent. so, in that sense they've cleared out the folks the closest to this investigation. i think the fbi is as good enough of an organization that whoever replaced those folks are probably as capable. but what a deterrent and what a success it has been to hollow out the agency in the way that they have. >> but is there any fear -- all those people did that we just named, they've scrutinized the fisa application. they've scrutinized the dossier and original application. the surveillance was fruitful enough to continue to reauthorize it. is there any change how they go about doing their jobs because of these attacks? >> i don't think so. my guess is they're probably a little more nervous. do you really want to be on a big case now if you're a line fbi agent knowing you may get called before congress. you may have hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal
bills, you might turn out like pete strzok who actually has millions of dollars of legal bills. there is a deterrent to get if involved. if you're the republicans i can see why they've done that. the fbi has been the greatest gift to donald trump in this story. the page and strzok text messages, between the agent leading the investigation in which he expresses this anti-trump bias. that was a very important thing for trump trying to turn the narrative in the other direction. >> frank, do you want to get in on that? >> it's a good question as to whether or not people will think differently or do their business differently in the fbi. and the one thing that i can think of is actually unfortunate, which is that now fbi professionals have to start thinking politically. how is this going to be perceived on the hill? how is this going to spin politically? should we be doing something to counter political appearances? i can tell you that's not how fbi professionals thought in the past. they just go about their business. the unfortunate by-product of this is we now are going to have fbi professionals at all levels thinking about political repercussions and trying to
figure out what the game is going to be on the hill. >> is there anyone in the white house that's concerned about any of this, that they see, is there anyone in leg affairs, national security apparatus, the counsel's office that is ever squeamish about what the president's defenders in the house do? >> i will say very, very, very privately, there are some people who think it is wildly unhelpful, some of the sort of more overtly political initiatives that are getting started in the house. but it's certainly not something anyone would, as we discussed before, resign over or even raise concerns in a public way. >> but would any of them -- i mean if rod rosenstein is there in the morning or callahan or chris wray, do any of them turn on cable in the afternoon and see goodlatte or trey gowdy really decimating the integrity of the fbi or the doj and pick up the phone and say back off, i was just with rod and he's a good guy. chris wray is doing his best.
he's doing his best to turnover a new leaf is a right word, do any of them try to stop this or is it green lit? is it ordered from the white house? >> it's not ordered from the white house but i think the way a lot of people in general -- this is somewhat of a blanket statement, have learned to deal with this white house and this president as sort of tuning out what can euphemistically be described as the noise, right. it's not helpful to try to engage the president on his tweets. it's not really helpful to try to have a discussion about the latest thing that devin nunes has said. it's sort of to try to get in there and do your job and persuade or sway the president or move the institution a very tiny bit in the direction you believe it should go. and that on the whole is how people are handling a tricky situation like this. >> joyce, speaking of devin nunes, rachel maddow our colleague had a tape of him speaking privately. he never once in private said he thought the president was innocent. he never once said he thought collusion was perfectly legal. he said the opposite, collusion is criminal. what he said is if we don't protect trump from all of this, this all goes away. what does that sound like to a prosecutor or an investigator?
>> whether it's technically obstruction of an investigation or not, it sounds awfully close to it. it sounds like nunes is saying we'll lie to the american people until this election is over, but then we'll come back and put an end to rod rosenstein, which means curtailing the mueller investigation. so now in advance of this election, every republican and probably democratic member in the house, those up for re-election, those not up for re-election, need to be asked, will you vote for rod rosenstein to be impeached so the mueller investigation can be terminated after the election is over? they need to all be on record so the american people can hold them accountable. what nunes does is just disgraceful but not particularly surprising. my thanks. we're not done yet with ashley parker. when we come back, more hush money. this time it's omarosa claiming she was offered cash to keep quiet after being fired from her
white house job. that story is next. (vo) why do subaru forester owners always seem so happy? because they've chosen the industry leader. subaru forester holds its value better than any other vehicle in its class according to alg. better than cr-v. better than rav4. better than rogue. an adventure that starts with a subaru forester will always leave you smiling. get 0% percent apr financing on the 2018 subaru forester. ancestrydna can open you to a world of new cultures to explore. with two times more detail than any other dna test... you can get a new taste of your heritage. save 40% with our lowest price ever. you know how painful heartburn can be. for fast-acting, long-lasting relief, try doctor recommended gaviscon. it quickly neutralizes stomach acid and helps keep acid down for hours. relieve heartburn with fast- acting, long-lasting gaviscon.
and helps keep acid down for hours. i've been making blades here at gillette for 20 years. there's a lot of innovation that goes into making america's #1 shave. precision machinery and high-quality materials from around the world. nobody else even comes close. now starting at $7.99. gillette. the best a man can get. is not a marathon. it's a series of smart choices. and when you replace one meal or snack a day with glucerna made with carbsteady to help minimize blood sugar spikes you can really feel it.
glucerna. everyday progress. at the marine mammal center, the environment is everything. we want to do our very best for each and every animal, and we want to operate a sustainable facility. and pg&e has been a partner helping us to achieve that. we've helped the marine mammal center go solar, install electric vehicle charging stations, and become more energy efficient. pg&e has allowed us to be the most sustainable organization we can be. any time you help a customer, it's a really good feeling. it's especially so when it's a customer that's doing such good and important work for the environment. together, we're building a better california.
it was always about the country. i was haunted by tweets every single day. what is he going to tweet next? >> should we be worried? don't say that. >> because we are worried, but i need you to say it's going to be okay. >> it is not going to be okay. >> i'm sorry, i couldn't help it. now we get know why it's not going to be okay, because former white house aide omarosa is speaking out in a new report in "the washington post." the trump campaign tried to stop her. according to omarosa's new book and people familiar with the proposal, she was offered $15,000 in hush money after she was fired from the white house in december. quote, she proposed nondisclosure agreement said omarosa could not make any comments about president trump or his family, vice-president
pence or his family or any comments that could damage the president. it said she would do diversity outreach among other things for the campaign. omarosa turned down the offer. instead, writing a book titled, "unhinged." an insider account of the trump white house, where she call the president a racist, a bigot and a massaisogynismisogynist. her book hits the shelves next week. good thing for us, we have a lot of friends from the washington post here today. phil rucker white house bureau chief joining us on set along with ashley parker opinion columnist jennifer ruben and jason johnson with the root.com is here. phil rucker, it's your report. your colleague josh dawsey's reporting. so take us through it. >> so, josh read a lot of this book and it's a pretty explosive portrayal of president trump. she describes him as a narcissist, as a racist, as a bigot, as a misogynist, all the bad words. but there are some specific things -- >> did she leave anything out? >> ashley is smiling in here because we were joking in the office. there is a scene where michael
cohen comes into the oval office with omarosa. president trump according to omarosa's account actually chews pieces of paper in the oval office. so there's a lot of -- >> wait, wait. let me just ask a question about this. there is so much bad news, like what would be so bad, he would eat it? >> i will just -- i will never not find that passage amusing. it's totally unverified. we should add our colleague said omarosa is wildly incredible. he did listen to some tapes omarosa made that verified what she's quoting in the book. best we can tell, there's no munch, munch, munching of paper. >> can we find a sound effect of chewing? we need to find that for ashley. let me read this excerpt because it is pretty delicious. in early 2017 omarosa said she walked michael cohen -- this is so funny. sorry.
then trump's personal errant hoping to flip. into the oval office for a meeting with trump and saw the president chewing up a piece of paper while cohen was leaving the office. this is the president of the president of the united states. good god. i saw him put a note in his mouth, since trump was ever the germop germophobe, i was shocked. he was chewing and swallowing the paper. it must have been something very sensitive, she writes in the book. several white house aides laughed and said it wasn't true. why wouldn't it be true? there are all sorts of weird conduct that's happening for the first time and as mike schmidt and frank and joyce said, it defense is never he didn't do it, it's always that he can get away with it. >> correct. listen, he hired this woman. so the fact that she's -- >> she's not like a media plant. >> exactly. this is a loyalist. what's bizarre is she presumably knew all this when she worked at
apprentice and went along with it anyway. why would she make things up in a book? $15,000 is not much. she should have held out for $150,000 like some of these other gals. is this credible? who knows. and at some point you have to kind of don't care. she doesn't have anything probative in terms of any of the scandals that i've heard of yet, so it is amusing i suppose at some level. it's also indicative of the fact that this president was surrounded by low life, by people who were not competent, by people who were not professional, not honest, and maybe it's going to come back to haunt him. >> jason, i was thinking about how his supporters might do -- view this. jennifer says she was a loyalist. >> yes. >> she was a lifer. she was on board for the duration of the campaign. she did defend him against all of the attacks, attacks for being racist, attacks after access hollywood, i think she was still out there for -- this is a defender and a loyalist turning on him. and i wonder if within that -- this is not, you know, someone from the media. this is not someone that came in and wrote a tell-all.
this is someone from deep inside his inner circle. >> i say this as someone who has had a lot of conversations with her during the campaign. none of the stuff about him being racist is surprising. i remember her saying that to me during the debates. none of this is shocking. as far as being a loyalist, no one actually thought she was loyalist. she was loathed among african-american republicans. none of them liked her. she was not even liked very much in the campaign. she was not a loyalist, she was a hanger-on when it comes to donald trump. like most people when it comes to donald trump, if it's not financially viable, $15,000, she can get in a speaking fee in certain sections. i'm not surprised by any of this. betrayal is the standard when it comes to this president. working with him, if it doesn't payoff, you have to stab him in the back. >> do you think this book -- sarah huckabee sanders put out a response that was eerily similar to the one she put out to "fire & fury." instead of telling the truth
about all the good president trump and his administration are doing, this book is riddled with lies and false accusations. that sounds like most of her briefings. it's sad she is trying to profit off the attacks and the media is giving her a platform. we didn't give her a platform, he did. even worse, they're not taking her seriously -- let me see. we don't take a lot of you seriously. so much wrong with that. phil rucker, the way to ignore a book, the way to say about a book what you're all saying, is to ignore the book. this is not to say if you're not worried about it. >> i imagine we'll hear from the president at some point because he's not going let these grudges occur silently. one of the problems the white house has is they don't have credibility because of the 18 months of the presidency so far where they've told the american people things that are not true. >> right, right. >> again and again and again. so if they're now saying this book can't be taken seriously, they're not credible -- >> it's like two tarantulas in a bowl. who do you root for? it's like the white house
lies -- >> not credible. >> who is? what's the answer? >> probably neither one of them so you don't believe either one of them. phil brings up a good point. this is exactly what they did to push the last tell-all book to the top of the charts. >> right. >> so having sarah huckabee sanders tweet about it or put out a statement and better yet having the president tweet about it, that is what omarosa is praying for because that means she's going to sell more books. >> and i think it would be an elite fairy tale to think people won't buy it because she's a low life. people are curious. he's the president of the united states. she's a famous reality star person, i think. >> realistically speaking, she has one of the longest relationships with him of anybody in this white house right now. outsize of his family, omarosa was the first apprentice, 2002 or something like that. if there is anyone who actually knows him, it is her. so that part is reasonably credible. but again, i don't think from what i've heard, i don't hear anything that we haven't already heard. i interviewed some of the black members of the apprentice
including the one who comes on msnbc. everyone says even if they haven't heard him say these kinds of thing, no one said they're surprised. i don't know she's telling all. she's reminding us of what we already know. >> and what she saw. it's either the greatest trump troll ever. the attorney for stormy daniels is making a serious run for the presidency. that story is next. ♪
-morning. -morning. -what do we got? -keep an eye on that branch. might get windy. have a good shift. fire pit. last use -- 0600. i'd stay close. morning. ♪ get ready to switch. protected by flo. should say, "protected by alan and jamie." -right? -should it? when you bundle home and auto... run, alan! ...you get more than just savings. you get 'round-the-clock protection. ...you get more than just savings. that's confident. but it's not kayak confident. kayak searches hundreds of travel and airline sites to find the best flight for me. so i'm more than confident. how's your family? kayak. search one and done.
♪ it's so hard to believe ♪ but it's all coming back me. ♪ baby, baby, baby. all you can eat is back, baby. applebee's. i think it's really important that the democrats, whoever they nominate, he better be a fighter. i think i've shown a unique ability the last five or six months to take the fight to donald trump. in the event i decide to run, that's going to be a big part of my message. >> out of the courtroom and into the critically important early voting state of iowa, michael avenatti, attorney for adult film actress stormy daniels has taken a big step to introducing himself to voters today. he will speak at the iowa wing ding in an hour. i spoke to him about an hour before we came on the air and
asked him if he thinks he can win. he said, quote, there is a handful of people who can beat donald trump, i think i'm one of them. democrats have made a mistake by underestimating trump by thinking he can't win again or he only won because of 80,000 votes in a few states. democrats need a candidate who takes him seriously and an opponent who can connect with voters to defeat him, i understand i can. voters will make that determination, of course, but i got a sneak peek at his prepared remarks tonight and they hit a lot of the right notes, telling his personal story, talking about shaking up washington and bringing more nonpoliticians into d.c. but running for president your first campaign is straight up crazy, right? donald trump didn't think so. will it work for michael avenatti? the panel is still here. what do you think? >> it could. i mean -- >> every time i was like, no, it can't. this is trolling trump. you know, someone said that -- we all said that about trump. i said that about trump. >> trump made it happen in the republican party a few years ago. you look at the field of democrats right now and avenatti is the one who stands out.
he's the one not a politician, not a senator or governor or mayor or what have you. if he gives the base what they're looking for and shows that he can go toe to toe with trump, he'd have a chance. >> i think the determining sort of factor for him will be what do democrats value most? if they decide they value a fighter most, people would be foolish to underestimate michael avenatti. >> i have always said they need a fighter. that's why i said, whether it's elizabeth warren, governor of virginia, you need someone who is actually going to go head to head with donald trump. you need someone who is not going to try and take the high road because the high road doesn't work with this guy. to be honest with you, an avenatti/holder ticket who knows if that ends up being effective one way or another. i don't think we're at a poimt point anymore, when you're running against a president that is in office, democrats will want to win. whoever they think can win regardless of what his or her background might be, that person can be ahead. if avenatti can give a good speech, why not? >> the asymmetry seemed to be what led the 16, 17 republicans who ran against him and
ultimately hillary clinton to lose. they tried running factually accurate ads. donald trump didn't say anything factually accurate. they gave speeches. they prepared for their debates. he didn't do any of those things and he won. >> i think this is a really bad idea. simply because donald trump ran as a celebrity and has become the worst president in history. doesn't mean the democrats should duplicate it. democrats are different than republicans. they do care about governance. they do care about some of the policy issues. i think looking at him, democrats would and should be insulted that he thinks he can come into their party at the last moment and run for president. >> it's not at the last moment. it's 2018. >> he's not been a political in his career, in his life. at the last moment, he hasn't been a democrat operative, he hasn't been a democratic candidate at any level. i do agree, however, they better get somebody with a decent personality. >> who is it? >> they haven't found one yet. they're going to go out looking. they have mayors, they have
governors, they have senators. i really haven't seen anyone who grabs you by the throat. >> i haven't met, ashley parker, a democrat who feels good about their pool for 2020. i haven't met a democrat who feels good about bernie sanders. other than people who were for bernie sanders, who feels like joe biden would be -- i haven't met a democrat who likes their odds with anybody else. i'm not advocating for another person who hasn't worked in politics. i'm just saying why not? >> there are a lot of things as we know running for president the democrats still value. understanding policy and someone who can withstand -- >> i've been to the movie. i can tell the democrats how it ends. care about national security, >> fair. the one thing i will say that is compelling about him is democrats, whoever they nominate, will need to be someone who understands the trump psychology, who can go one on one with him and isn't going to be dismissed by a silly nickname or being called sleepy. michael avenatti has shown, keep in mind all those women came out during the campaign. they did not breakthrough. it was not until he began representing these women with
his tactics to bring that issue to the forefront. does that qualify for him to be the nominee for the democrats as president? probably not. certainly not necessarily. it does show he can command the media attention and has that showmanship that the president has which is important going head-to-head with him. >> i think we live in a post qualification era. no offense, michael avenatti. up next, one year after charlottesville, the president wading into his favorite culture war again. the amount of damage that water could do. we called usaa. and they greeted me as they always do. sergeant baker, how are you? they were on it. it was unbelievable. having insurance is something everyone needs, but having usaa- now that's a privilege. we're the baker's and we're usaa members for life. usaa. get your insurance quote today. i needthat's whenvice foi remembered that my ex-ex- ex-boyfriend actually went to law school,
so i called him. he didn't call me back! if your ex-ex- ex-boyfriend isn't a lawyer, call legalzoom and we'll connect you with an attorney. legalzoom. where life meets legal. capital one and hotels.com are giving venture cardholders 10 miles on every dollar they spend at thousands of hotels. brrrr! i have the chills. because of all those miles? and because ice... is cold. what's in your wallet?
and because ice... is cold. stop fearing your alarm clock... with new*! zzzquil pure zzzs. a drug-free blend of botanicals with melatonin ...that supports your natural sleep cycle... ...so you can seize the morning. new! zzzquil pure zzzs. ugh we're gonna be late, we're gonna be late! hold on, don't worry, there's another way [siri: *beep beepá] directions to the greek theater. ♪ can i get a connection? can i get can i get a connection? ♪ ♪ i can see it in my, see it in my reflection. ♪ ♪ ohhh can i get a connection? ♪ tryna find the old me
several nfl players last night took a knee or raised their fist during the national anthem. one of those was malcolm jenkins of the philadelphia eagles, the team that had its visit to the white house in june cancelled by trump, who wasted no time this morning pouncing on one of his favorite talking points tweeting, quote, the nfl players are at it again, taking a knee when they should be standing proudly for the national anthem. find another way to protest. be happy, be cool, stand proudly for your national anthem or be suspended without pay. i want to read something else he said. he said most of them, the players, are unable to define what their outrage is about. that seems to me -- what does that seem like to you? >> it's just a lie. it's just more racism from the president of the united states. i think what's really interesting, there was an article in the ringer where they interviewed aaron rodgers. he's like america's golden boy. even aaron rodgers says this is nonsense. this is nonsense.
he said we didn't even come out for the pledge when i was behind brett favre. all of this is a creation of right-wing white nationalists who want to attack african-american players for being ungrateful. that's what the president wants to do, that's the reason he's talking about it and all the rest of the owners are capitulating. and it doesn't effect the game. so it's obvious it's for political purposes, not for any practical financial reason. >> this is one step above laura ingraham saying it's the america that she has lost. the degree to which the republican party now turns on race, on xenophobia is one of the things we find horrifying. it's the only card they have to play. they still believe it's a base election, they still believe they have to turn out their people and the way to do it is always going back to the race issue. it's not taxes, it's not trade, it's race. they go back to it again and again. >> i get the politics, i don't get the moral
compass. where's paul ryan, where's mitch mcconnell. where are the guys who used to run as politicians with character. there are none. >> this goes a little bit to what we talked about earlier in the show that people have decided that the best way to deal with this president is to sort of stay quiet and to not pick fights. you make a fair point, there are a lot of people we look to, whether it was the policy arbiters or the moral barometers. there's a few of them, but often these are people who are leaving congress or who are retiring or who have some other reason to be outspoken but there's not that many of them. the president has also shown that you thought -- he took on lebron james the night there he -- before he was heading to ohio. he's taken on the nfl. a sport that is huge with his base. so far there have been no major repercussions with him. if you're one of these politicians who is not a profile in courage and you look at the situation, you don't have much incentive to come out. >> it does seem, though, like when women have to go to the
polls, there will be a -- these are cumulative. these attacks are racist. they are against people who are not sticking their toe into politics. they're exercising their first amendment rights to peaceful protests. >> and we're at the one-year anniversary of charlottesville. everyone remembers what the president said about charlottesville and what he didn't say which he didn't forcefully condemn it and he hasn't forcefully used his bully pulpit to condemn racism in our country. sunday there's going to be a protest of white supremacists right near the white house and he's said nothing about it. so he's judging about how professional athletes decide to protest but he says nothing about how kkk members or white supremacists decide to protest. that's an absence of the kind of leadership that we're used to seeing from people who were president. >> and worse than anything nothing, he said good people on both sides. we'll be right back. alice is living with metastatic breast cancer,
which is breast cancer that has spread to other parts of her body. she's also taking prescription ibrance with an aromatase inhibitor, which is for postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive her2- metastatic breast cancer as the first hormonal based therapy. ibrance plus letrozole was significantly more effective at delaying disease progression versus letrozole. patients taking ibrance can develop low white blood cell counts, which may cause serious infections that can lead to death. before taking ibrance, tell your doctor if you have fever, chills, or other signs of infection, liver or kidney problems, are pregnant, breastfeeding, or plan to become pregnant. common side effects include low red blood cell and low platelet counts, infections, tiredness, nausea, sore mouth, abnormalities in liver blood tests, diarrhea, hair thinning or loss, vomiting, rash, and loss of appetite. alice calls it her new normal because a lot has changed, but a lot hasn't. ask your doctor about ibrance. the #1 prescribed fda-approved
you know how painful heartburn can be. for fast-acting, long-lasting relief, try doctor recommended gaviscon. it quickly neutralizes stomach acid and helps keep acid down for hours. relieve heartburn with fast- acting, long-lasting gaviscon. and helps keep acid down for hours. hey, i'm curious about your social security alerts. oh! just sign up online and we'll alert you if we find your social security number on any one of thousands of risky sites. that sounds super helpful. how much is it? well, if you have a discover card, it's free. no way! yes way! we just think it's important for you to be in the know. all right! hey... ewww! everything ok? being in the know is very good. yeah, it is. ooo don't shake! don't shake! ahhh! know if your social security number is found on risky sites. free from discover.
my thanks for phil rucker, jennifer rubin, jennifer johnson and ashley parker. that does it for our hour. i'm nicolle wallace. see you back here monday at 4:00 p.m. so it is a small enough range what they're looking for aesthetically that i'm thinking you have to register as having acceptable haircut a, or acceptable haircut b. throws the two lanes that are available to you.