tv All In With Chris Hayes MSNBC March 6, 2019 5:00pm-6:00pm PST
scores. >> i have lied, but i am not a liar. and i have done bad things, but i am not a wbad man. >> in conclusion, i know that i was wrong. and i know it because i got caught. >> "all in with chris hayes" starts right now. tonight on "all in" -- >> mr. trump knew of and directed the trump moscow negotiations throughout the campaign and lied about it. >> -- michael cohen returns with receipts. >> in his way, he was telling me to lie. >> tonight, reports of new evidence backing up cohen's claims. >> i have no deals in russia. >> and new reporting on a trump campaign to keep cohen from flipping.
then, as federal prosecutors investigate the trump inauguration -- >> that doesn't have anything to do with the president or the first lady. >> -- new reporting that the president was intimately involved. plus -- >> will fox news get at least one of the 2020 democratic presidential debates? >> the head of the democratic national committee joins me with his decision tonight. and kirstjen nielsen faces democrats -- >> when you saw those pictures of babies in cages, what did you do? >> and the unanswered questions about child separation. >> are we putting children in cages? >> when "all in" starts right now. >> do you know how outrageous that sounds?! good evening from new york. i'm chris hayes. congress now has the documents. they have the evidence in their hands as of today, evidence of possible wrongdoing by the white house. and here's michael cohen wheeling it into his closed-door house intel meeting this morning. you may recall that one of the
numerous crimes that michael cohen is going to prison for is lying to congress. and it's a specific lie. a lie that when cohen testified before congress last week, the consultant with the president's lawyers about that lie. >> which specific lawyers reviewed and edited your statement to congress on the moscow tower negotiations and did they make any changes to your statement? >> there were changes made, additions. jay sekulow, for one. >> were there changes about the timing, the question of -- >> gentlemen's time has expired. you may answer that -- >> there were several changes that were made, including how we were going to handle that message. >> mr. -- >> which was -- >> will you finish? >> yes. of course, the message being the length of time that the trump tower moscow project stayed and remained alive. >> today the documents, the testimony, and the edits by trump's lawyers about the message, the big lie of the
campaign, no business in russia, no dealings with russia, russia has nothing over me, that is now in the hands of congressional investigators. and that's not the only thing. tonight, abc reports that shortly after the fbi raided michael cohen's homes and office last spring, two attorneys claiming to be in close contact with rudy giuliani, who is, of course, trump's current personal attorney, reached out to cohen. and again, according to abc, the attorneys who have no known formal ties to the white house urge e ed cohen not to leave th joint defense agreement and offered a plan "b." in the event that cohen on theed to exit the agreement, they could join his legal team and act as a conduit between the president and his lawyers. there was an implicit message that if he hired these lawyers, there was the chance of a pardon down the road. cohen revealed plenty to abc in a statement about how he couldn't comment. he said, unfortunately, this topic something that's being
investigated right now by the southern district of new york and i've been asked by them not to discuss and not to talk about these issues. meanwhile, "the new york times" has obtained six more checks that president trump or his trust paid to cohen while trump was president. checks cohen says were reimbursements, of course, for the hush money he paid stormy daniels on the president's behalf before the election. and and as experts warn, the existence of these checks puts trump at risk of criminal prosecution, once he leaves office. "the times" reports the following. some people close to mr. trump have privately predicted he will ultimately choose to seek a second term in part because of his legal exposure if he is not president. joining me now, congressman raja krish krish krish krish krishnamoorthi. so the documents your committee got today, what is their significance, what do they mean for what you can now learn? >> well, thanks for having me on, chris.
i think the significance of the document that is they help to corroborate his testimony. i think whenever you have written testimony to bolster oral or verbal testimony, i think you just come across as more credible. and i think that's how michael cohen came across. >> don't you think that the -- i mean, there's a real question about a cover-up here, right? i mean, there is just a factual question of, what edits were made by which lawyers when, pertaining to the lie that he pleaded guilty to congress over lying over. that's something that is now fairly resolvable, based on the documentary evidence you have in your possession, correct? >> potentially. i can't get into the specifics of the testimony, as you know, in this closed-door setting. but suffice it to say that the documents do shed light on a lot of these types of questions. and i think they also point to why the investigation needs to continue and more witnesses need to be questioned, quite frankly. >> i want to play for you just because, at the center of all of
this, of course, is the president's contention throughout the campaign back in 2016 that there was no business relationship with russia, at all. this was a central contention and it was central enough that michael cohen chose to lie under oath about it. jut wa just want to give you a flavor of what the president was saying during the campaign. take a listen. >> i mean, i have nothing to do with russia. i will tell you right now, zero. i have nothing to do with russia. i have no relationship to russia. i don't deal there. i have nothing to do with russia, folks, okay? i have nothing to do with russia. i have no dealings with russia. i have no deals in russia. i have no deals that could happen in russia, because we've stayed away. i have nothing to do with russia. i have -- john, john, how many times do i have to say it? are you a smart man? i have nothing to do with russia. i have nothing to do with russia. >> is it significant that that's the core lie here? >> i think that that definitely seems to be a falsehood based on the three days of testimony that i've heard from michael cohen
and, you know, during this cohen trilogy, so to speak, you know, it's clear that even in the oversight hearing, which was open to the public, you know, the negotiations with the russians continued not through just january 2016, which was the initial lie, but it continued all the way through june 2016 at the least, and according to rudy giuliani, it might have gone all the way up to the election. so, when president trump says that he had nothing to do with russia during the election, i think that's just a plain falsehood. >> i want to get your reaction to this story from abc, again. it's not independently confirmed by nbc and the details of it are strange. i don't even quite know what to make of them. but the idea, i guess, is two lawyers approaching michael cohen essentially claiming to be intermediaries of the president's legal team about essentially coordinating in some way. is that something you would like to know more about? >> absolutely. i would like to know more about this. you know, during the oversight hearing, one question that i asked michael cohen is, when was
the last time -- >> yes. >> -- that donald trump or any of his advisers contacted mr. cohen. and he said, just a couple of months after the raid, which is highly unusual timing, as you can understand. and your viewers can understand. and so we need to get to the bottom of why that happened. he wasn't willing to tell us during the oversight hearing, because he said the southern district of new york is investigating it. >> that's right. that was your line of questioning was the president or his agents, basically, when was the last time you talked? right after the raid. tell me more about that. and mr. cohen says, i can't because the southern district is actually looking into that, which is the same thing he said in response to this abc story. >> yes, sir. yes, sir. and then i asked the follow-up question, which you may have tracked, which was, is there any other wrongdoing or illegality that we haven't discussed this afternoon that you can tell us about? and he said, yes. i asked him again, what is it? and he said, again, i can't talk about it because the southern district of new york is
investigating. so those might be connected. i'm not sure. but we need to get to the bottom of it. >> and you have not learned anything further on that specific question since you asked that question in the hearing? >> well, um, i can't get into the specifics of the closed-door testimony, but i don't have all the answers yet. the one thing -- >> that's not a "no." >> the one thing i can say, chris, is, you know, we in congress have to get to the bottom of this, because unfortunately, we can no longer trust that the u.s. attorneys who are operating under the supervision of william barr, the new attorney general, are actually going to turn over the findings of their investigations. just as mr. barr has intimated or hinted that he's not going to turn over the mueller report, which is completely unacceptable in my opinion, as well. >> all right. congressman raja krishnamoorthi, thank you very much. more now are harry litman and melissa murray, a professor of
law at nyu. it's like the oldest cliche that comes out of watergate, it's not the crime, it's the cover-up. and ultimately, it was the clumsiness of the cover-up that nixon engaged in that did him in. and we have two possible pieces of evidence about a possible cover-up here. one is the lawyers making edits to that testimony. how significant that? >> i think it's when making edits, did the lawyers have knowledge of what they were doing? that they were making edits for the purpose of shielding information from the public or for encouraging michael cohen to lie before congress. >> meaning, and this seems crucial, the lawyers themselves could think the true is that the deal talks stopped -- >> yes. >> -- and if that is the case, it's less egregious -- in fact, it's not wrongdoing on their part. >> what really matters here is what they knew, when they knew it -- >> the lawyers. >> yes. and what they knew when they were making these edits. and that's the stuff we don't yet know. >> what do you make, harry, of
this story that the abc story, two guys approaching cohen, sending him a screenshot at one point of their talks with giuliani, as intermediaries, essentially, basically saying, don't leave the joint defense agreement, but if you want to, we can be a back-channel, which does sound a little like what it looks like may have happened with paul manafort. >> yeah, it's very kind of cloak and dagger and ham-handed, but just ham-handed enough to be potentially, you know, a rudy giuliani signature move. you might think it's just clever enough to dangle it. it's very vague at this point, chris. and it's designed to be very vague. but obviously, what sdny is interested in is this dangling of pardons. we've talked about it before. if that's what they have in mind in terms of sculpting his testimony, that would be an obstruction crime. if i can just briefly turn back to the other point, i agree with melissa, but i think the surmise here is probably, sekulow -- it's not just sekulow, by the way.
it's abbe lowell, the attorney for ivanka and don junior. they may not know -- and remember, the draft they got, cohen has already said january. so there's a lot of edits. but if you look at sekulow's statement and cohen's, i think they're probably not directly to the timing. the real issue here is not what they knew and when they knew it, it's what cohen and trump and others knew and when they knew it about legislate this go forward. it's quite possible that the lawyers were innocent here, but it wouldn't matter in terms of piercing the communications and learning about the knowledge of the other parties to the -- like trump junior, ivanka, and the president. >> and that brings us back to the questions that we know the president's already answered for mueller, which may pertain, i think they do, the ones we saw, materially to this. >> well, sure. but, again, while it doesn't really matter for purposes of the larger conspiracy, if you will, if the lawyers actually knew at the time, it does matter for the purpose that the lawyers
are part of the conspiracy. >> right. right. >> which is one of the suggestions here. >> one of the possibilities. >> yes. and i think that's a big question and whether they're also implicated in this. obviously, michael cohen is spinning a tale where this branches out and has tentacles that exceed even the president or his immediate family, but also the inner workings of trump world. and so the lawyers and what they know, i think, is actually quite relevant to what he's presenting. >> there's also the fact, we've now got these checks. and there's just this sort of shocking fact that, you know, the president of the united states, he and his trust are cutting these checks as he's in dish mean, as he's in the oval office. and i guess my question, this is such a basic question, but i want to ask both of you. like, if you are a lawyer anywhere in the vicinity of the president of the united states and knew this was happening, what would you be saying? harry? >> you know, i'd be -- i would be too busy having to put out the six different fires that
happened that day. i would be saying, are you crazy, and it failed maybe weisselberg to say, are you crazy? but nothing like evidence. it paints this vivid picture of taking a phone call, signing a dirty check, having a meeting, signing a dirty check. it's got this vividness to it. but the whole -- this is the follow-through on the whole dirty deal. it shouldn't have been made that way in the first place. so, you know, yeah, they should have arranged for somebody, somehow, to sign the checks reimbursing him, but they wanted to keep it, remember, in this small circle. it's basically at this point, weisselberg, trump, and cohen. and, you know, those -- at that time to trump, are trusted soldiers. >> right. >> cohen's gone now and weisselberg, you know, he's going to get immunity and he's not the kind i think willing to take a bullet at age 71 for the president. >> this goes to show that from the beginning, this was not your standard political operation, right? this wasn't operating the way any other white house would have operated. it was operating like a small family business.
and with the president writing checks. >> of dubious legality, we should also note. or of dubious compliance, let's just say. >> sure. >> not real compliance nerds up in there. >> this is not what was happening in the obama white house. >> no! >> for sure. >> i know that for a fact, yes. >> so again, it's all a little sopranos-ish, i mean, this is not business as usual. >> but then the question becomes like, what's the bar, right, for what that trespass means in a sort of constitutional sense and a criminal sense. in a criminal sense, the southern district has already implicated the president as individual one in conspiring with or directing these illegal payments. in a constitutional sense, and you're someone who does constitutional law, like, there's a constitutional question of like, what rises to the high crimes and misdemeanors threshold? >> again, not clear that this is it. we've never. in this situation before. the constitution doesn't specifically lay out what would constitute a high crime or misdemeanor. but again, the president writing checks to cover up the fact that he's had affairs with adult film
stars, probably not something the constitutional framers had in mind. >> clearly, i think -- i think that's -- >> i would especially say -- i'm sorry, one thing they certainly wanted to see impeachable is crimes in order to gain office in the first place. that's famous in the convention, that's the george mason quote. so, remember, this isn't just paying off film stars, this is to try to rig the election. that's a serious. >> and this is the key thing to always remember about this election, which is what's been established. criminal conspiracies or criminal conduct, two of them, in parallel, both benefiting trump. one undertaken by the russians and perhaps americans, although we only have doouindictments of russians, one undertaken by michael cohen, perhaps at the direction of others, both to the benefit of the sitting president of the united states. harry litman and melissa murray, thank you both. >> thank you. next, new reporting tonight on one of the investigations related to president trump that despite denials from the white house, the president was deeply involved with the inauguration. that is now under scrutiny. i'll talk to the reporter with the details in two minutes. he rh the details in two minutes dealie shouldn't be more frustrating
than the accident itself. that's why esurance makes it simple. just take some pics. [picture noises] go to sleep. wake up. grab a bite. maybe some racquetball. and boom - your money's on the way so you can get back on the road fast. well, not that fast. the editor had to make it fit in 30 seconds. it's pretty tricky actually trying to ... and ... tagline. when insurance is simple, it's surprisingly painless. when insurance is simple, the chili pepper sweat-out. ways to lose stubborn belly fat: not cool. freezing away fat cells with coolsculpting? now that's cool! coolsculpting safely freezes and removes fat cells with little or no downtime. and no surgery. results and patient experience may vary. some common side effects include temporary numbness, discomfort, and swelling. ask your doctor if coolsculpting is right for you. and visit coolsculpting.com today for your chance to win a free treatment.
i can customize each line for each family member? yup. and since it comes with your internet, you can switch wireless carriers and save hundreds of dollars a year. are you pullin' my leg? nope. you sure you're not pullin' my leg? i think it's your dog. oh it's him. good call. get the data options you need and still save hundreds of dollars. do you guys sell, other dogs? now that's simple, easy, awesome. customize each line by paying for data by the gig or get unlimited. get $250 back when you pre-order a new samsung galaxy. click, call, or visit a store today.
among the many investigations that donald trump and his circle are now facing is the active criminal probe into donald trump's inaugural committee. how it raised a record $107 million and where exactly all that money went. federal prosecutors in new york, new jersey, and washington, d.c. have issued subpoenas as part of an investigation into a range of issues, including whether foreign donors illegally donated to the inaugural committee in exchange for influence and political favors as well as whether donor money was funneled into the trump organization through inflated fees for rooms, meals, and event spaces. house democrats are also investigating. now, the white house maintains that trump himself could not have done anything wrong, because he just simply wasn't involved. >> on the inaugural committee, that doesn't have anything to do, uh, with the president or the first lady. uh, the biggest thing the president did in his engagement in the inauguration was to come here, uh, and raise his hand and
take the oath of office. the president was focused on the transition during that time and not on any other -- >> no idea what's going on, very little interest, totally checked out. a new report suggests that claim was false. bloomberg reporting today that trump was actively involved in planning the inauguration and fussed over everything from tablecloths to a performance from the rockettes. the reporter who broke that story, caleb melby of bloomberg joins me now. thanks for being here. >> thanks for having me. >> what did you learn about the level of the president's involvement in the inauguration? >> our sources tell us that he was intimately involved, as you said, from everything from decor to the performances, but also more importantly, we're told that tom berric, his longtime friend, chairman of the inaugural committee, told staff, president-elect trump wants to know everything about the finances and keep that in mind while you're making your budges. and during a lot of those planning meetings, he would call up trump in realtime so trump could weigh in and help with the decision-making process.
and again, that was on a whole gamut of topics and issues. >> what is the decor one? >> so there were going to be these white, really retro white leather tables at trump's candlelight dinners and he was shown photos of what those table settings were going to look like and he said, he needed tablecloths. he could not imagine a black tie dinner without tablecloths and he got his tablecloths. >> got to respect that. and the rockettes, he wanted to make sure they were rocked down to perform. this was like a presidenti presidential-elect imperative. >> yes, as you may remember, they had been announced just before christmas, but some of the rockettes were unhappy about performing for trump given his politics, they had political differences. so he was really concerned. trump has liked the rockettes for decades. >> he's about to be the most powerful man in the world, just stressing the rockettes, are they coming to my inaugural party? >> they're great performers. >> they are. >> and, yeah, called to make sure, hey, do we have the
rockettes? >> all right, so he's consulting on the tables, the performers, the rockettes, he's getting patched in live to conversations about planning. barrick says he intimately connected to the finances. barrick, of course, said he's cooperating with the investigations, right? >> barrick has said that, with the house judiciary in all of the subpoenas. >> all right, so he's got subpoenas happening. do we know if the president played a role in fund-raising, which seems like one of the key nexuses here? >> we don't know that yet. so there was actually multiple fund-raising efforts going on at this point in time, right? there was the inaugural one, which raised a record $107 million, but at the same time, there's the trump victory fund, right? and there's other -- there's other teams raising money for other purposes at the same time. >> what are -- what do we know about what investigators are looking at with respect to the inauguration? >> it's -- so far, it is incredibly broad. as you said, they're looking at
how money was raised, who it was raised from, how it was spent, and conversations with donors about, as you said, whether or not there was any expectation for anything in return. and we don't -- we don't know where they're going across that entire -- entire spectrum of information. >> one of the things we do know, though, is that in terms of regulation, inaugural funds are kind of wild west, right? >> absolutely. >> there are essentially no regulations, although bribing people is illegal in any circumstance. but you can take any amount of money from anyone as long as they're not a foreign national. is that basically the rules of the road? >> that's right. if they're a u.s. -- a u.s. citizen or a u.s.-based company, it's fair game. >> and we already also know that at least one foreign individual had a straw purchaser to come to the inauguration, right? >> yes. so rick gaetz, who was deputy chairman of the inaugural, who, of course, worked with paul manafort on the campaign and before that in ukraine, another one of their associates, a guy by the name of sam patton used a straw donor to donate $50,000 on behalf of a ukrainian oligarch.
>> so there's just one example, but that's the one that's been pinned down, and we do know that rick gaetz is cooperating with federal investigators and the mueller team, correct? >> right. >> caleb melby, thanks for being with me tonight. >> thanks for having me. the dnc has had it with fox news, today announcing the network is barred from hosting any democratic debates. dnc chair tom perez on the tipping point, next. rez on the tipping point, next.
yeah, i totally agree, they don't have any of those. i want to know what i'm paying upfront. yes, absolutely. do you just say yes to everything? hm. well i say no to kale. mm. yeah, they say if you blanch it it's better, but that seems like a lot of work. no hidden fees. no platform fees. no trade minimums. and yes, it's all at one low price. td ameritrade. ♪ itreat them all as if, they are hot and energized. stay away from any downed wire, call 911 and call pg&e right after so we can both respond out and keep the public safe.
pg&e wants you to plan ahead by mapping out escape routes and preparing a go kit, in case you need to get out quickly. for more information on how to be prepared and keep your family safe, visit pge.com/safety. in just under two weeks, "all in" will present msnbc's first town hall of the 2020 campaign. as presidential hopeful kirsten gillibrand joins me in michigan to talk about her vision and take questions from voters. and then, it's really just
around the corner, because in june, the first democratic primary debate, nbc news and sister networks nbc and telemundo will air that one. cnn will host the second one in july. after that, there will be ten more. but so far, the dnc has only awarded programming rights to those first two. and it had been a question for a while now whether fox news would get one of those other ten debates. that's even though the network has not hosted a democratic primary debate in more than a decade. here's what dnc chair tom perez said on fox news last month when asked about fox news' chances of hosting a 2020 primary debate. >> you have scheduled 12 democratic debates, this year, end of this year, six the beginning of next year. will fox news get at least one of the 2020 democratic presidential debates? >> we haven't made that decision yet. we have made the decision on the first two debates and what we're doing in the first two debates, chris, is unprecedented. two nights, making sure we have random draw and here's our
goal -- >> you know what would also be unprecedented? giving us a debate. >> so thirsty, chris wallace. well, as of today, we know that's not going to happen. in the wake of jane maier's story about fox's efforts to coordinate with and boost trump, including killing a story they had about stormy daniels right before the 2012 election because, i quote, rupert wants donald trump to win, the dnc said it has decided against letting fox news host a debate. perez said recent reporting in "the new yorker" on the inappropriate relationship between president trump, his administration, and fox news has led me to conclude that the network is not in a position to host a fair and neutral debate for our candidates. and dnc chairman tom perez joins me now. good to have you, chairman. >> always a pleasure. >> first yes, i guess, is was it really the jane mayer reporting? i mean, the dnc has not given fox news a debate in a long time. i remember this being a fight ten years ago. the net roots was fighting against it. did you really need to be tipped over by the jane mayer piece?
is that what did it? >> well, there were two north stars, chris wit, as we have be preparing for this debate. number one, i want to make sure as many people as possible see our candidates. because i believe that our views, our vision demand the respect of the majority of the american people, including people who watch fox news. people, republicans, democrats, independents have pre-existing conditions and believe that they ought to be able to keep their health care, including people who watch fox news. so we reached out to all of the media outlets, including fox news as we were preparing for these debates. our second north star principles in this these debates is to make sure that whichever network runs them ensures that our candidates are treated fairly. now, you had the video before of chris wallace. i have great respect for chris wallace, and my concern is not about chris wallace. it's about people above chris wallace. because what we have seen now, and it's been really most recently now in the new yorker story, is that at the highest levels of fox news, they're not playing it straight. and again, this isn't about
chris wallace. i have respect for him. but i do not have the confidence that we need to take such an important part of the nomination process, these debates, and trust them to folks who, at the top levels, are consulting donald trump before they do anything. i couldn't do that. >> you know, as the field grows, it strikes me, these debates are extremely important. i mean, they have this kind of breakout potential. they will be the subject of a tremendous number of eyeballs and potential, lots of people are going to watch them. and we saw, of course, the way in which donald trump manipulated that attention, i think, in the republican primary, to his benefit. tell me about the rules that you're undertaking here to try to make sure that it is an even playing field for all candidates. >> well, in the first two debates, chris, we have set forth unprecedented sets of rules. and you pointed out, by the way, there's an unprecedented partnership for this first debate. not only nbc, but msnbc,
telemundo, you can live stream it, however you get your news, you can watch it. >> right. >> in addition, we have put in place a system whereby it's not only polling that will determine whether you can get on the debate stage, but also grassroots fund-raising. so if you raise -- if you can demonstrate that you have received donations from 65,000, at least, unique donors, including at least 200 donors from a minimum of 20 states, that's another way to get on the debate stage. and we did that because we want to encourage people to get out there and talk to the grassroots. we modeled this after the campaign finance laws of 1971 and we modernized them to fit today's world. and the most -- one of the most important things is, again, if we have 14 people who qualify, we'll do it two nights in a row and it will be random selection. we want to make sure people get a fair shake and we want to make sure, chris, that we're talking about the issues. >> yeah. let me ask you a question. so random selection, right? so you don't have the kids'
table and the grown-up's table, right? which was another weird part of the last go-around, because, obviously, it segments things in a certain way. this is a very technical question, but it proved to be an important one. does the person polling at the top get the middle of the stage? this was -- i think this was a sort of understated part of donald trump's sort of ability to sort of get the attention in that he was always in the center, because he was always polling with some plurality lead. >> right, those are the things we'll work out with you all, but, again, our goal is to make sure that everybody is treated fairly and everybody has a fair shake. that is what, i think, is going to separate us from what has happened in the past and i think the fact that we're having that random selection for the first two debates, and we'll figure out what we're going to do in september and thereafter, after we've had these first two debates. but i think. and i appreciate you're doing these town hall meetings, because i think our candidates
are spectacular. and what i want to do is let the american people see where they are on the issues. >> well, you're the chair of the dnc, you better think that. why the first two debates? there's going to be ten, but the rules do change after the first two. is there a reason? what's the thinking there? is this a sort of, like, let's see how this goes situation? >> well, we'll re-evaluate. i mean, over the course of time, you need to demonstrate that you're getting traction. >> i see. i see. >> so in past cycles, you have seen the rules get revised in subsequent debates. so this is no different than that, because, again, people, our candidates are talking to the american people now. some are going to connect and take fire and these first two debates are going to give them that chance to do it. and others, for whatever reason, may not do so well. and that will be what we'll take a look at the end of july and make an appropriate judgment. >> so as the campaign kicks up, the candidates are front and center as avatars of the
democratic party. right now, the congressional house democrats are, they control a body of government, there's been a tremendous amount of attention paid to the freshman class, particularly some of the younger members, particularly ilhan omar with comments she's made over the past week that were possibly going to be the subject of a kind of censure or resolution, which now looks pushed back. critics called them anti-semitic. alexandria ocasio-cortez, who basically makes up about 50% of all of the fox programming these days. a good thing or a bad thing for the democratic party for attention on this freshman class and these new members of congress? >> well, listen, i've -- i've campaigned for so many of them, i think the entire freshman class is spectacular. they reflect america. how many people served in the military? look at that. look at the diversity, the first two native american women. and what we need to do is to make sure that the american people see the entirety of the freshman class. because they are, indeed, spectacular. you know, frankly, if you watch
fox news, you would think there were only two democratic members of the u.s. house of representatives. now, i have great respect for those two members and they are fighting for really important things. what we want to do is make sure we put forth everybody and what we're fighting for. and what everybody has in common, every member of that freshman class has in common is they want to make sure that if you have a pre-existing conditions, you can keep your health care. they want to make sure that we know climate change is real and we're doing something about it. they want to build an america for everyone. they all support hs-1, our democracy reform bill. and that's what we're going to get back to. that's what we need to be focusing on every single day, are those nuts and bolts issue about how we make america work for everybody, not just the few at the top. and how we make our democracy work. i take my hat off to my friend, congressman john sarbanes, who's been one of the lead sponsors of hr-1. that is a game changer. we've got to take money out of
politics. mr. dnc chairman tom perez, thank you so much for making the time. just ahead, the woman charged with executing the trump child separation policy met democratic members of congress for oversight for the first time today and it was not a pretty scene. we'll show you what happened ahead. and ivanka gets a seat at the table. that's tonight's thing 1, thing 2, next. table. that's tonight's thing 1, thing 2, next. yeah. now i'm ready to focus on my project. yeah. ♪ ♪ this is why we plan. ♪ ♪ you never cease to amaze me, maya. see how investing with a j.p. morgan advisor can help you. visit your local chase branch.
was a success for lastchoicehotels.comign badda book. badda boom. this year, we're taking it up a notch. so in this commercial we see two travelers at a comfort inn with a glow around them, so people watching will be like, "wow, maybe i'll glow too if i book direct at choicehotels.com". who glows? just say, badda book. badda boom. nobody glows. he gets it. always the lowest price, guaranteed.
dawn is for more than just dishes. it provides 3x more grease cleaning power per drop, which cuts through tough kitchen messes, pre-treats laundry stains, and even tackles grease build-up on car rims. tackle tough greasy messes around your home, and save money with dawn ultra. brand power. helping you better.
been a lot of talk about ivanka trump and clearance lately. and it's not just about the slashed prices on her made in china fashion stuff. no, it's the new report that says that ivanka got her security clearance as a special gift from dad. according to cnn, president trump pressured his then chief of staff john kelly and white house counsel don mcgahn to grant his daughter and senior adviser, ivanka, a security clearance against their recommendations after red flags were raised during her background check process. it's the same thing he reportedly did for his son-in-law, ivanka's husband, jared kushner, who trump says is a good boy, and so he has top-secret security clearance. that is just one of the ways that it's weird, really weird, to have trump's family working in the white house. but there are other weirder ways. and that's thing 2 in second 60 seconds. biopharmaceutical researchers.
driven each day to pursue life-changing cures... in a country built on fostering innovation. here, they find breakthroughs... like a way to fight cancer by arming a patient's own t-cells... and a new therapy that gives the blind a working gene so they can see again. because it's not just about the next breakthrough... it's all the ones after that. remember that time when president obama held a meeting with top business executives and called one of his senior
advisers honey in front of everyone and he weirdly grabbed her hand and wouldn't let it go and it was all just a little bit awkward and inappropriate? no, of course not, because that would never happen. because president obama didn't make his daughter who has zero experience in government a senior presidential adviser. donald trump did that. >> we are takeri ingtaking adva this incredible moment to make sure america maintains its incredible leadership role. and now, mr. president, i turn the floor over to you. >> she's so formal. special person and she's worked so hard, as you all know. and i want to thank you, ivanka, for your devotion to the america workers, our great workers. and nobody has workers like we do. so i just want to thank you, honey, because, great job. really great job. >> okay. i -- it's weird in a thousand different ways. he called ivanka "honey," which is to the
the weirdest part of that whole back and forth. but it's weird than what he
called tim cook, the ceo of apple. >> tim, you're
expanding all over and doing things that i really wanted you to. i said, tim, you have to do it over here and you really have. you've put a big investment in our country and we appreciate it very much, tim, apple. very much, tim, apple. we don't follow the naysayers. ♪ ♪ the communal feast.
potluck. this parade of dishes will soon be yours to scrub. and they're not even... yours. new and improved dawn ultra can finish off this buffet. each drop now has even more grease-cleaning power. so you can scrub 50% less, and get done faster. next month, their place! a drop of dawn and grease is gone. you wouldn't accept an incomplete job from any one else. why accept it from your allergy pills? flonase sensimist relieves all your worst symptoms, including nasal congestion, which most pills don't. and all from a gentle mist you can barely feel. flonase sensimist.
life isn't a straight line. things happen. and sometimes you can find yourself heading in a new direction. but at fidelity, we help you prepare for the unexpected with retirement planning and advice for what you need today and tomorrow. because when you're with fidelity, a partner who makes sure every step is clear, there's nothing to stop you from moving forward. a partner who makes sure every step is clear, conventional wisdom says you can't make a 400 horsepower sedan,
she never answers a yes or no question with a yes or a no, and i think that's because if she did, she would have to say what we all know. that her department's treatment of migrant children, the policy of ripping those children from their parents is indefensible. despite her evasiveness and her previous lies on the subject, and there have been many, democrats still did their best to rtry to pin her down today. >> are we still using cages for children? >> sir, we don't use cages for children. >> madame, madame -- >> i'm being as clear as i can, sir. i'm trying to answer -- >> just yes or no, are we still putting children in cages? >> to my knowledge, cbp never purpose flip p purposefully never put a child in a cage. >> purposefully or whatever, are we putting children in cages, as of today? >> children are processed at the border facility stations that you've been at. some of the areas -- >> and i've seen the cages.
i want you to admit that the cages exist. >> sir, they're not cages. >> were you aware that the zero-tolerance policy would lead to minors being separated from their parents, yes or no? >> as we increased consequences for those who break the law -- >> i have such limited time, madame secretary. i'm sure you can appreciate that. >> as a consequence of a parent going to jail, we do not take the children to jail. >> so i take that as a "yes". >> the president said that there were never so many apprehensions at the border in our history up until now. is that accurate? is the president -- was the president accurate? >> again, it depends on the context, because it depends on the type of migrant, sir. >> but it's either -- the 400,000 figure is either accurate or it's not. if it's accurate, the president was not accurate. is that correct? >> again, we've had -- we've had monumental high numbers in some areas of the border -- >> i'm just trying to get a yes or a no. >> when you officially began family separation in spring
2018, were you aware of research showing it causes trauma that can do both immediate and long-term damage to children's health? >> the information that i was aware of at the time was that the trauma of the journey to come up to the border illegally. >> okay. so again, we're looking for yes or no answers, ma'am. >> do you know that two members of congress had to sleep overnight and spend 14 hours in the cold on the concrete at the mesa port of entry so that maria, the woman who was teargassed at the portd port of entry could present herself and she was on u.s. soil and that is legally what asylum allows. did you know that? >> i would ask you -- >> yes or. no did you know that two members of congress had to do that. >> we have a process. >> you obviously don't know. >> that last congresswoman, nannet barragan joins me next to get to the bottom of all of that spin. next. ottom of all of that spin next just take some pics.
[picture noises] go to sleep. wake up. grab a bite. maybe some racquetball. and boom - your money's on the way so you can get back on the road fast. well, not that fast. the editor had to make it fit in 30 seconds. it's pretty tricky actually trying to ... and ... tagline. when insurance is simple, it's surprisingly painless. when insurance is simple, thanksmrs. murphy. unitedhealthcare, hi, i need help getting an appointment with my podiatrist. how's wednesday at 2? i can't. dog agility. ñ. tuesday at 11? nope. robot cage match. how about the 28th at 3? done. with unitedhealthcare medicare advantage plans, including the only plans with the aarp name, there's so much to take advantage of.
securiti -- seekers are not being turn as way at the point of entry. >> they are not turned away. they are brought in. i'm not sure if you are talking about the migrant protection protocol. >> any asylum-seeker who comes to a port of entry, you basically have just said -- >> they have to make their claim. >> let me tell you madam secretary, either your lying to their committee or you don't know what is happening at the border. and i have been there firsthand and i have seen it twice. >> congress woman nanette barragan of california challenges kirstjen nielsen today as the testimony repeatedly clashed with the fact and congresswoman joins me now and along with jakeop soberoff who has done work on the border. is the homeland security secretary's claim that people are not being turned away from sile em at ports of entry.
>> that is what she's saying and it is on the dhs website as a myth and why i pointed it out and why she had to be challenged. american people should know what is happening. >> which is what? >> which is people who are going to the port of entry, which is what the president said people should be doing, are not being processed like they should be under u.s. law instead they're told -- this weekend i was there and i heard a gentleman told if you don't have a visa, go away. the secretary also said that people were told about their rights, where they can go get an attorney or get some assistance, where to get on a list and that did not happen this weekend when i was there. and we have heard many, many reports of that not happening. bottom line, chris, is that people are presenting themselves at the ports of entry like they should be and it is legal to do so, and they should be processed and they're not being processed. >> jacob, i want to ask you because i think this relates to something we're seeing with new data from cbp. so apprehensions on the southern
border since 2001 have declined steadily. and then we've seen this increase and the new numbers out for january were enormous spike, according to cbp. how do you make sense of the numbers. >> well, we saw this at the end of president obama's term too, the numbers did go up. i guess you could say substantially but still within the context near historic lows. but president trump comes in and talks very aggressively about building a wall during the campaign and you sea people rush in before donald trump became president and as he talks about the national emergency and building a wall and prevent people from coming into and people rush in and i think the cartels are taking advantage of it. >> that is interesting. you think there is incentive from all of the tough talk which is basically that some huge change is going to happen and you need to get in the door now. >> in a weird way, he's giving cartels this line that gives them increased business by threatening a policy we know
doesn't work which is deterrence. >> and congresswoman, let me ask you, do we know if the a apprehensions or the spike is the turning away at the port of entry. if you are turning people away, you are going to increase between ports of entry apprehension which will boost the numbers. do we have any breakdown from dhs about what is happening wide receiver? >> i don't have a break down. it is something i wanted to follow up with the secretary today but didn't have time. i had way more questions than i had time but that is something we'll look into. >> and was she truthful today before your committee under oath. >> you know, to be honest with you, either she doesn't know what is going on or she wasn't prepared or lying because there were several questions you could tell she didn't want to answer them. maybe because she was under oath. she was fiddling around. having a lot of semantics issues with not really coming forward. about i just couldn't let her do that on the issues i grilled her about. >> i want to ask you about a story that was just broken by
our san diego affiliate and i want to ask you about this jacob. cbp having compiled a list of 59 mostly american reporters, attorneys and activists to stop for questioning when crossing the u.s./mexico border at san diego area check points, the ones you've been around and they have arrested 21 of them according to documents obtained by knsd tv and interviews with people on the list. what do you think about that. >> i think that is outrageous. this is the administration emboldened and feels like they could do whatever they want and go after reporters and in this instance we have heard stories of people being detained. look, when i was down there in december, my -- one of my staffers was with me crossed the border to basically go get something from my car and was detained at the port of entry and i even had to ask the gentleman, hey, are you detaining my staff now as an intimidation factor? >> wow! >> it is sad to hear and -- to see the report. i'm not surprised.
>> don't forget this is the administration that didn't want to let people in facilities and on june we got in and never gave us pictures. they are limiting the transparency -- go ahead. >> i want to hammer home ow creepy this is. it is one thing to say we won't let you into the facility which is the level of transparency it is another to spy on journalists and owe to send ahead a list to people manning a border to say you should question or detain this person simply because they are practicing their first amendment right. >> and the same government and department of homeland security that would not answer any questions where the children, where are the girls or the babies and now looking after the same journalists that want to ask the same questions. >> is there going to be more oversight or more documents from dhs. >> aiks -- aigs. there are a number of questions.
they are slow in responding and this is the beginning and we'll see when we can get the secretary back and continue oversight. >> i would like to see the numbers. congresswoman and jacob sober off. and that is all rachel maddow is here. >> john gotti died in prison after serving ten years of a life sentence for his convictions for five different murders. john gotti was the boss of the gambino crime family in the mafia. but before he died, while he was still in federal prison, one of the things that john gotti got tone joy -- got to enjoy in fed prison is that he fairly regular visits from members of his family and because they are conversations were monitored by prison authorities and in his case they were not just audio taped, they were video taped, we