tv All In With Chris Hayes MSNBC March 26, 2019 12:00am-1:00am PDT
graham's idea to turn that over to the feds, not john mccain. well, that is our broadcast for this monday night as we begin a new week. thank you so much for being here with us and good night from nbc news headquarters here in new york. tonight on "all in" -- >> robert mueller is finished. >> no collusion. no collusion. >> and the barr report on the mueller report is out. >> we don't need the barr report. we need the mueller report. >> tonight, what we now know about the 2016 election of donald trump and the push to learn more by making the special counsel's report public. >> wouldn't bother me at all. >> plus, the problems with the barr leather, mueller's punt on obstruction and no exoneration. what all of this means for the candidates trying to take donald trump's job -- >> everyone needs to get a chance to read the mueller report. >> -- when "all in" starts right now. >> good evening from new york.
i'm chris hayes. so we have considerably more information today than we had friday about what exactly the mueller report concludes, though crucially it is far less than we need. you have probably seen the top line conclusions as filtered through the president's chosen attorney general who quotes only three sentences, two of them partial, from the actual report itself, a report whose length like nearly everything else about it remains a mystery. but before getting further into what william barr says the principle conclusions are, it is probably worth taking a step back to ask the question, what exactly was the goal of this undertaking? here is how i have seen it and still see it. for a million reasons having to do with polarization, the internet mono culture as a social media and a widespread campaign as sustained foreign intervention, the 2016 election was, i think, a uniquely disorienting moment in american history. it was an election defined by disclosures and secrets and informational sabotage at every turn.
we learned things that had been secret, that were wrenched into public light through criminal theft and sabotage by russian intelligence, revelations that ended up generating enormous amounts of coverage and having genuine real-world effects. heck, the chair of the dnc lost her job on the first day of the party's convention to name one example. it was also a campaign defined by what we did not learn. for instance, there were active fbi investigations into both candidates at the same time including a counterintelligence investigation into donald trump's campaign and that, that was never leaked or disclosed during a time when the fbi ignored protocol twice to give updates on its investigation into hillary clinton's e-mails. there's always been a very simple question that really needed answering about 2016. what happened? what are the facts of the matter? who did what when? in answering that deceptively interesting question was difficult for a number of reasons. you had a professional intelligence service attempting to manipulate and hide its track, and, of course, the trump
campaign, an administration we know will just about lie about everything all the time. this is the reason for the mueller investigation in the first place, to create some entity with sufficient authority, access to intelligence, subpoena power and search warrants and political independence, the authority and resources to make a comprehensive finding of fact. and the completion of that task is an important one, which is why it is rather ironic for the biggest critics of the entire undertaking to take a four-page summary of what could be a 1,000 page report for all we know as total vindication. it is also more than a little ironic that a president who spent months berating mueller and those who worked for him and covered him, who tried to fire the man himself takes a summary of a report that explicitly stated it does not exonerate him as, of course, exoneration. even as the investigation's public activities have demonstrated conclusively, the president was the beneficiary of two separate criminal
conspiracies undertaken for his benefit during the campaign. it is a good thing it was done, whatever it shows. because the whole point here is that we need to know what happened. it has always been my personal investment and our collective one i think as a democracy, which is why of course we need to see the full report, the facts are what matter here. joining me now, julie ainsley who has helped us navigate the submission of the mueller report. where are we in terms of the negotiations between the white house and congress about next steps in seeing more of the actual report itself? >> well, chris, we know tonight that congress wants to see, at least the house side where the dems are in control, they want to see the report by april 2nd. that seems a little fast. from what i understand inside the justice department, the attorney general is reviewing what he can put out to the public, but a lot of that depends on robert mueller who will still have to continue working as he identifies for the attorney general what pieces of information are subject to grand jury testimony exclusivity,
meaning they can't be given out, also what pieces might be used in other investigations. just because robert mueller is finished with him doesn't mean other investigations that spun off of those, even some we might not know about, don't need a lot of the information he collected to stay protected. so there's a lot of back and forth. today was asking officials, are we talking weeks, are we talking months, are we talking a year? i was told, gosh, not a year, but we can't tell you weeks or months hat this point. it certainly doesn't tell me it is coming any day soon, but you're right. there's so much information, especially if you get down to what they say about obstruction, but even on the collusion question when william barr said that the mueller report lays out many different ways the russians attempted to get in touch with the trump campaign to meddle in the election and that they were not successful. but we know of so many interactions between trump campaign associates and people with known ties to the kremlin,
and what about those interactions didn't rise to the level of conspiracy? we need more facts. we need more evidence to figure out why mueller ultimately came to that decision. and then, of course, why barr is characterizing that decision and the nondecision on obstruction the way that he does in that letter we got yesterday. >> do we even have -- one basic question here. there's three different -- you know, there's two principle conclusions that they did not find evidence there's any u.s. person or a member of the campaign that coordinated with the russian government's attempts to influence the election, and an inconclusive finding about obstruction with arguments presented on both sides, barr ultimately making a unilateral decision about that. do we have any sense of the length of the thing? is it -- you know, like ken starr, these reports that were stacked this high, thousands and thousands of pages? is that what we're talking about? are we talking about 100 pages? no one knows, right? >> no one knows.
i asked that question. in fact, from the very beginning we were told they weren't going to tell us the length. i don't know if we will ever know the length of the mueller report because we would want to know how much they're condensing here, but they do layout how many subpoenas there were, how many interviews there were. i mean it was hundreds, thousands of pieces of information that they're collecting to assemble into this report. so to guess that it is anything less than -- i mean i will be very conservative here, like 20 pages, that would be pretty obscene for it to be less than that. >> right. >> we know that the attorney general had to do a lot of condensing. the one thing i was told today was that the attorney general did get a lot of information about this report before friday. yes, the full thing came to him friday afternoon. we all scrambled out to the cameras. but there had been meetings between mueller's team and with barr's team for weeks now. the special counsel actually came over to the justice department march 5th and then told the attorney general that he wouldn't be making a decision on obstruction. i was told that really took barr and rosenstein both by surprise. >> all right.
julie ainsley, thank you. we will talk more about that. joining me now democratic congressman of rhode island, a member of a committee that launched a sweeping investigation into the president, his associates. what is your game plan now, congressman? >> i think at the beginning of your show you laid out an important reminder what it is about and how essential it is that the american people know the results of the investigation. we have forwarded a letter to the attorney general, signed by the six chairs of the committees of relevant jurisdiction, requesting the production of the full mueller report and all of the supporting materials and setting april 2nd as the deadline. that is sort of the next step, is hopefully the attorney general will comply with this request and the report will be furnished. if not, obviously the committee has the authority to issue a subpoena to compel its production. but the bottom line is the american people have a right to see the conclusions contained in this report. the congress has a responsibility to see the report and continue its oversight work. so we've now seen the barr report, which is a partial
summary or his take on one piece of it and then his conclusions on another. that is not a substitute for the full release of the mueller report we've been waiting two years for. >> i want to be clear about something here and get a clearance from you, which is are you satisfied for a process perspective that the report had everything it needed, it had the authority it needed, the political independence it needed, the budget and resources it needed to pursue this fact-finding mission and ergo whatever is contained therein, once you get your hands on it you are prepared to accept as the facts of the matter without there being some countervailing revelation? >> yes, i think that's generally right. obviously we fought hard to protect the special counsel, to protect his independence and make sure he was permitted to complete his work. some of the events at the very end of this where prosecutor barr made some conclusions about fact and law that were not made by the special counsel are curious. it is also curious that the special counsel didn't render a judgment on the obstruction of
justice provision. one of the reasons the special counsel was created and tasked with this was because of their independence from the executive branch so he could make judgments based on fact and law separate and apart from the president and the administration. to then shift that responsibility to the appointee of the president who essentially auditioned for the job by preparing this memo saying that essentially a president can't be charged with obstruction of justice because he's in charge of the justice department caught the president's eye, he said, you're the man for the job and he delivered on it in 48 hours. so i think there's some concern about that process, but i think we respect the integrity of mr. mueller, the professionalism of his work. we want to see the evidence he relied upon, the judgments he made, the conclusions he came to, and the american people have a right to see that as well. >> i want to play you something that the chair of judiciary, jerry nadler, had to say about testimony before committees which obviously will be something. this is what he had to say about the attorney general. >> as much information as can be
made public should be made public without delay. i intend to fight for that transparency. we will ask the attorney general to testify before the house judiciary committee. we will demand the release of the full report. >> do you imagine there will be more testimony on this? >> oh, no question about it. i expect that mr. barr will come before the judiciary committee. i expect we will have mr. mueller before the judiciary committee to answer our questions about the contents of the report and mr. barr to answer questions about the decisions he has made and the judgments he has made with respect to the obstruction of justice charge in particular. yes, it is important that the attorney general be prepared to come before the judiciary committee, to produce the report and answer questions. >> final question on the april 2nd deadline, given two sets of concerns about grand jury secrecy and classification, do you think it is a realistic timeline and do you have a sense of what length of material we're even talking about?
>> we don't have a sense of the length of the report. i do think that it is a reasonable timeline. presumably they have done a fair amount of review of this already and certainly i think if they need additional time to scrub, classify or protect methods or sources but, look, we need to push hard to get this as quickly as possible. the american people have been waiting for 22 months for the conclusion of this report. we have fought hard to protect the special counsel to complete his work, but the american people have a right to know what happened. this was an attack on our democracy. everyone has a stake in understanding what happened and make sure we prevent it from happening again. mr. barr made a pledge during his confirmation hearing he was going to be as transparent as possible. it is time for him to make good on that progress. >> all right, congressman. thank you very much. joining me is marcy wheeler, an independent journalist and nic akron, an msnbc legal analyst. marcy, let me start with you as someone who followed this extremely closely. what stuck out to you about the encapsulation of the as-yet to
be disclosed length report by bill barr? >> as it was presented in barr's memo, it just focuses on the part that's not on obstruction, just focuses on the two ways that the russian government interfered in the election, the trolling and the hack and leak. that's really curious because as julia mentioned, when rosenstein hired mueller he said, we want you -- we want to know if there's any coordination between the campaign and the russian government, and this memo, by the way, is limited at least as -- on its face to the russian government, not to people like konstantin kilimnik who doesn't work for the russian government but was in the loop between paul manafort and handed on polling data to others. so that's one issue, but the other issue is when rosenstein hired mueller he said, go find out the nature of links between mueller's people and these russians, which is exactly what julia raised. it is like what is the nature of
the link between paul manafort and konstantin kilimnik or oleg darapaska, what is the link between trump family and nitskaya. it is not in the barr memo. >> even if the information is all exculpatory, i am still curious about it. after the trump tower meeting, maybe they said, man, that was weird, what the heck was that? never deal with them again and there's an e-mail sitting there shows them being, you know, boy and girl scouts about the whole thing. >> well, we should have -- >> also, we should see that as well, right? >> we should know what the standard is robert mule per applied. i assume he said he wasn't charging because he didn't have proof beyond a reasonable doubt. it is like a client of mine has been acquitted and says, the jury found me innocent.
>> right. >> no, they didn't find you innocent. they just didn't find you guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. so what is the evidence? >> right. it is also possible, i want to be clear, it is possible the evidence in there is quite exculpatory. possibly. >> possibly, sure. >> we don't know what the evidence is. it is the point of the need to read the thing. is it precisely on all of these questions. even marcy questions having nothing to do with the trump campaign, something i have been thinking about and focused on, it is just about, you know, when we got the indictments on the russian side there was a lot we learned but it was fairly limited, about like what exactly they were up to and how they were doing it and how the information got its way into wikileaks. all of that stuff seems useful for everyone to have access to. >> right.
and by scoping the coordination between the campaign and the russian government, it ignores the entire question of wikileaks which, of course, roger stone is going to trial in november on. it is not a crime necessarily to coordinate with wikileaks, but we know that the campaign was very actively involved in asking stone to optimize the release of the e-mails. is that in there? that's not included in the scope of what barr described as the read. again, coordinating with wikileaks may not be a crime at all unless you lie about it as roger stone is accused of doing. >> right. >> but it is something that i think is important for people to understand. >> how do you see in terms of this -- you know, the grand jury issue is an issue that has been faced before. how do you see the methods for sort of making sure as much of the report is produced as possible? >> well, to me what barr is doing right now is a big scam. he's basically put out a statement to exonerate trump. the fact of the matter is he could take this entire report, bring it into the grand jury, have them approve it and ask the chief judge and the district of
colombia to send it over. >> which has happened before. >> we did it in watergate. >> right. >> this idea of waiting any kind of period for this is nonsense. they could do this immediately. there is no reason for people to be waiting around in the judiciary committee for this report. >> it also seems obviously -- i mean, marcy, in a moment of rare public consensus on anything, you had a 420-0 vote in the sense of congress think it should be made public. chuck schumer attempted unanimous consent in a resolution today and was blocked by mitch mcconnell who objected. it doesn't seem there's bipartisan interest in what actually happened. >> yes. i mean one of the things i wrote before the report came out is, you know, whatever is in this report, it would be nice for the left and the right to be able to move beyond russia as their area of contention, because if we don't do that we won't be prepared against the next time russia tries to interfere or attack the country. we have plenty to disagree
about, left and right, without russia ripping the country aside. i think by the way in which barr wrote that memo and the way barr inserted himself in what should be the role of congress to decide whether the president's actions amount to a high crime or misdemeanor i think only exacerbates this -- this tension and this problem over russia. that's really unfortunate because i think both sides have said, show us the report. instead, barr has thrown more fire on to the -- >> we will see. we will see if we get more from him. i suspect we will get some more, just a question of how much and in what short order. marcy wheeler and nick ackerman, thank you both. coming up, from collusion to construction, why robert mueller punted on the question whether or not the president obstructed justice and why william barr's conclusion on that matter raises red flags. neil joins me in two minutes. according to the attorney ♪
you know reliable support when you have it, and that dependability is what we want to give our customers. at comcast, it's my job to constantly monitor our network. prevent problems, and to help provide the most reliable service possible. my name is tanya, i work in the network operations center for comcast. we are working to make things simple, easy and awesome.
according to the attorney general robert mueller did not find that the trump campaign conspired with russia to disrupt the 2016 election, did not find evidence that established that. the special counsel didn't come to any conclusions one way or the other about whether the president committed obstruction of justice. instead, evidence was presented on both sides and the decision was left to two individuals who were not exactly disinterested in the matter, deputy attorney rod rosenstein who wrote the letter giving the president a pretext to fire then-fbi director james comey and attorney willian barr who appeared to audition for the job he has by writing a memo last year by arguing that mueller's theory of obstruction was fatally misconceived. that's whose judgment we are asked to accept without seeing the underlying evidence. i'm joined by a former active solicitor general under president obama who wrote special counsel rules in 1999 with a new open ed in the times "the many problems with the barr letter." is it then the attorney
general's role to make the decision florida the special counsel? >> i don't think it is the attorney general's role. yesterday if you read donald trump's tweets he would think, oh, this report by mueller clears trump of any wrong doing and that is not what the barr letter -- we don't have the mueller report, but the barr letter even says. with respect to obstruction of justice, mueller basically couldn't decide. he said he laid out the evidence on both sides. now, barr then takes it on himself and inserts himself into the process and says, oh, i will decide. now, it is not at all clear that mueller wanted that result. indeed, if mueller thought that the attorney general should decide this matter, i suspect that would be in the report and be one of the very first things barr would have quoted since that letter of four pages was really an advocacy document yesterday. we saw nothing like that, so i think barr put himself in this process.
i have no indication whatsoever that mueller wanted that result and the result is a really scary one. the idea you can have a 22-month independent investigation and in a matter of 48 hours have that just cut short with an attorney general who says, oh, i don't see anything there. >> we should note that he says he was briefed on that part of it three weeks ago. that's the word from the department of justice, that they've been making that decision for a while. >> that's not in the letter. they've been leaking that today, that they knew about three weeks ago mueller's conclusion he wasn't going to reach a conclusion. that's really nice. all that meant is that, you know, they knew that. there's no indication even in these leaks that they had all of the evidence and the like. >> right. >> and so, you know, here barr says in his letter, i see no evidence that trump had a corrupt intent and therefore there's no obstruction by justice violation. now, i don't know how quickly he was able to review all of the reams of evidence, but the one
thing i do know is that they didn't interview donald trump. >> right. >> and any reasonable prosecutor i think when faced with a question, does someone have corrupt intent, the first question is the first thing you do is ask that someone. >> maybe i'm dumb here, but the weird thing about the whole structure to me is this. we have been talking about the guidelines about indicting a sitting president which says you can't do it. we have largely, i think, people think that mueller would follow those guidelines. the question is like what is even the determination being made here, right? if the department of justice can't indict sitting president and they say they don't know if he committed the crime, there's evidence for and against, what is the role in making the determination? had he found the other way, what does it amount to constitutionally? >> exactly. it is a great question. there's basically two ambiguities and we don't know because we don't have the mueller report to decide between them. one is this question about whether or not a sitting president could be indicted influenced mueller's thinking. the barr letter said it didn't
influence him but for mueller you can see him saying, look, obstruction of justice is a crime, i can't indict a president under these olc opinions therefore i'm leaving it up to congress, not the attorney general. is it in the mueller report? we don't know. it is a crucial question because it will guide how the next months should unfold. the second thing is has the office of legal counsel, the justice department, effectively given the president a get out of jail free card, not on the can't indict a sitting president but the bizarre interpretations of criminal statutes william barr laid out in that 19-page ridiculous memo last summer. so, you know, even if they put aside the question of whether a sitting president could be indicted, they haven't put aside this ridiculous barr theory. it does look like that's part of what is going on in the four-page letter. >> it seems in the terms of precedent, right, when articles of impeachment have been drafted against two -- the last two articles of impeachment both included obstruction of justice as one of the impeachable offenses. both of those cases, that's the determination the congress made. it wasn't a determination that someone in the doj made. >> yes. chris, you're 100% right. in both of those cases the special prosecutor, both
jaworski in the nixon case and starr in the clinton case, expressly refused to decide whether or not there was an obama -- enough evidence for obstruction. they said it is a call for congress to make. here you've got the attorney general jumping into the process in a way that hasn't been done historically before. it really i think smells bad and i think we need to see the mueller report to know just how bad this is. >> yes. there's always this question too i have when i was reading about the evidence being, you know, difficult questions. the report sets out evidence on both sides of the question and leaves unresolved what the special counsel feels are difficult issues of law and fact. one of the questions there is there's a lot of reporting on this, right? a lot of publicly known things. my question to you is what are the other things? is it just that what we've publicly saw presents difficult questions of law and fact, which they do, or is there other stuff that was found in the course of
doing this? >> there's indication in the barr letter in which he says, i reviewed the evidence of obstruction and some of it is public and some not and then he said there's evidence on both sides that mueller found. we don't know what the nonpublic actions are. that's another reason why we're so in the dark at this point, and it is outrageous that the president goes on air and the press secretary and says total exoneration and stuff like that. if it is a total exoneration, then they should be the first ones to say, let us see the report. you know, before they had this argument, oh, it is a witch hunt and so on. all of a sudden now they've said, no, mueller is great, the president said he is an honorable man. they said the investigation worked the way it should. if that's the case, let the american public see the report, decide for themselves. i would love to close the chapter on this book as much as anyone. >> yes.
few reported on russian interference in the 2016 election and the connection to donald trump as comprehensively or as early as my next guest. david corn was first to report on the steele dossier in october 2016 a week before the election. michael isikoff reported on u.s. intelligence officials looking between ties between carter page and the kremlin. isikoff interviewed michael flynn asking about his paid speaking engagement and the book "russian roulette" and the election of donald trump.
joining me now michael isikoff, misnbc analyst, mother jones political chief david corn. gentlemen, having immersed yourself in the story, and starting with you, david, your reaction to the barr letter? >> i think the main point is that this is not the full story. i mean we have this tossed ball on obstruction and it is interesting that the prosecutor, that is special robert mueller, could not put it to the side. he couldn't come up with enough information to say there is no case here. it is very unusual for robert mueller or a special counsel to end up in a tie. so there's -- right? so there's more to be gotten from that and the public deserves to know. and on the coordination front, i mean i have to say that that was never a big part of the book "russian roulette" in fact, on the last page we say collusion
or no collusion it is clear that donald trump and his campaign aided and abetted the attack, the russian attack on the election. we still need to know more about that. i watched your opening, your introduction to the show, chris. the one thing i would take issue with you is that it was never robert mueller's job to give us the truth, to find out the whole story and present it. it was his job to look for crimes and also to investigate the counterintelligence side of this. >> right. >> which is never going to be made public if it is classified information. and so we always needed congress, an independent commission, to kind of pick up where the book left off and dig deep and figure out what happened and what those interactions meant if they weren't a crime.
they were certainly acts of betrayal i think on the part of the trump campaign, but those might not have been criminal. >> you know, michael -- yes, go ahead. >> no, i was just going to say, picking up on what david said, he's right that it was not mueller's job to tell us the truth, to layout everything he's learned. he's -- he was hired as a criminal prosecutor, but it was his job to make the tough calls. >> right. >> that's why i find it completely baffling that on what was the most crucial decision he had to make he punted. i mean nobody has ever described robert mueller as a hamlett-like figure who has trouble making decisions, and yet here he is, his biggest decision he had to make, it bucks it to the political appointees at justice. it seems to me baffling on so many levels. the whole purpose of the special counsel is to insulate the process from, you know, political appointees who could be perceived as having conflicts of interest. >> right. >> here, that's exactly the opposite of what mueller did.
until we hear from mueller i am just flummoxed about that part of the letter. >> here is one set of factual matters i think is fairly established, even with the thin gruel that we have gotten, david and michael, i will ask you both. starting with you, david. in the dossier, say the most lurid ideas of collusion/conspiracy are not true definitively. the idea that michael cohen went to prague and there was an extended and coordinated back-and-forth happening as they were running the operation hand-in-glove that comes through in some of the dossier, like that just did not happen we know pretty definitively at this point. would you be comfortable saying that? >> i think more or less. i think there was never a need for there to be that direct, you know, a collusion or coordination as i think is the term mueller prefers. >> right. >> the russians knew how to
attack the dnc. they knew how to dump documents. they knew where the swing states were. they had that research agency knew what issues got american voters riled up. they didn't need to sit down with donald trump and have donald trump tell them how to get into the dnc servers. i always thought the collusion or what was wrong here was that while this is happening trump keeps -- and people connected to trump, they keep meeting with the russians and they keep signaling to the russians they don't mind that the russians might be intervening, and trump is even out there after it becomes a public issue, after he's briefed on this by the u.s. intelligence community and saying, "there's nothing going on." >> right. >> if you're the russians it is like, this is a green light. >> right. >> there were specifics like the trump tower meeting, the meet between manafort and a ukrainian russian business colleague that may be connected to russian intelligence that are particularly suspicious, trump not telling anyone about the trump tower project in moscow. all of those things add up to i think the biggest scandal in american political history. >> right.
>> without there having to be direct coordination. >> mike. >> all right. that said -- and i agree with everything david said except that the dossier did set expectations and it did shape what people were looking for, what they thought might have happened. you know, it was endorsed on multiple, multiple times on this network, people saying it is more and more proving to be true, and it wasn't. in fact, i think one of the reasons people were so surprised by the mueller finding is that it undercuts almost everything that was in the dossier which postulated a well-developed conspiracy between the russians and the trump campaign. that's what got people worked up initially and we do have to acknowledge that, you know, that -- >> yes. >> -- which was alleged has not panned out. >> the first appearance in the public domain, the document that, you know, first begins this sort of real coverage of this during the transition, was that he was briefed on the
document shortly after "buzzfeed" publishes it, postulates in a series of memos, a well coordinated set of memos with the russians and a back and forth with the introduction that sets a framework. >> chris, a lot of this was we could have -- we did see, some of us did see just in the court filings that mueller was making, take the roger stone indictment. everybody got worked up about the fact that the trump campaign was trying to use stone to find out what wikileaks had. >> right. >> well, go back to what the original allegation was in the dossier. it was that it was all a well-developed conspiracy. >> exactly. >> and the trump campaign was in on it from the beginning. >> right. >> which means they wouldn't have needed roger stone to find out what wikileaks had if the allegations in the dossier were true. they already knew what they were. >> right. >> those allegations were not true. >> there were a lot of different pieces to this, and the first
memo that steele sent he said that russians had had a long-standing campaign to co-op and cultivate trump. that was one of the big takeaways when i was one of the first reporters to write about that. that seems born out in general, the russians were trying to cultivate trump and make nice with him while the trump campaign was receptive to that, and they were receptive to that knowing that the russians were trying to mess in the election. now, you know, we don't have them sitting down together, and in our book we don't have them sitting down together and plotting this out. >> right, no. >> i do think that the whole focus on collusion or no collusion has distracted a lot of people from some of these core elements of the scandal which i think trump has never really been called to task for. >> michael isikoff and david corn, thank you both. coming up, did robert mueller just ensure 2020 will not be about 2016? plus the latest edition to the trump dream team, is tonight's the next one-two? next. tonight's the next one-two next
(danny) after a long day of hard work... ...you have to do more work? every day you're nearly fried to a crisp, professionally! can someone turn on the ac?! no? oh right... ...'cause there isn't any. here- (vo) automatically sort your expenses and save over 40 hours a month. without you, we wouldn't have electricity. our hobby would be going to bed early. (vo) you earned it, we're here to make sure you get it. (danny) it's time to get yours!
(vo) quickbooks. backing you. thing one tonight, donald trump's propensity to hire the wrongest people in the word, people like kevin hassett, coauthor of the book "dow 36,000" which promised in 1999 the dow jones industrial average would hit 36,000 mark within five years. he was only off by about 26,000 points. now he's trump's chairman of the council of economic advisors. then larry kudlow, the cnbc guy
that famously said before the financial crisis that gop economic policy will continue the bush boom for years to come. tlum made him director of the national economic council. these guys insisted, of course, trump's tax cuts would not explode the deficit so naturally the government posted the largest deficit in history, at least in nominal terms. sometimes being that wrong is just right for trump which would make his latest nominee a perfect fit. that's thing two in 60 seconds.
donald trump's new nominee to sit on the board of the fed does not necessarily hold all of the credentials you would want for someone in that position, although he did co-author a book called trumponomics" and he is fairly well-knowned for getting owned on cable tv shows. >> both of the rate hikes were unnecessary and caused deflation in the economy. i think there's a danger -- >> wait, wait, i want to stop
you there because you said it last time i was on with you. >> yes. >> there is no deflation. >> yes, there is. >> there is not. that was stephen moore being wrong about the state of the economy, but being wrong a lot has had few consequences for moore, although he holds the distinction of being banned from the pages of one midwestern newspaper for using misleading numbers in his writing. he recently wrote an op-ed insisting that the fed is a threat to growth and apparently larry kudlow showed it to the president and he responded, why don't we make him fed chair. now the man who is said to not have the gravitas for the job is up for senate consideration. he has even called for the firing of current fed chair jerome powell and the rest of the fed board. now that he is poised to join them he doesn't sound so expert anymore. >> i'm kind of new to this game frankly, so i'm going to be on a steep learning curve myself
these are pictures of the air force base in nebraska under water. several buildings remain submerged after a large portion of the runway flooded last week. preliminary estimates to fully repair the base are tens of millions of dollars expected to take months and often one of the many areas through america's
river and plane states devastated by flooding and looking at a spring flood map that looks like this and last october, this is what the air force base in florida looks like that will take five years to repair. the damage included 17 f-22s left on base during the storm representing 10% of the military's entire fleet of f-22s that cost 300 million dollars a piece. we are on track for an up to five degree rise by the end of the century unless we absolutely transform the way we do everything. so when people say the green new deal or tackling the climate crisis would be expenive look at the alternatives. we're hosting an event with the freshman congressman alexandria ocasio-cortez.
don't miss it this friday at 8:00. today breaking news out of new york just under a year ago. he was seen by many as a man who could bring down donald trump, but avenatti, the lawyer that form early represented stormy daniels was arrested charged on two different sets of federal prosecutors ask jailed on charges of embezzlement and attempt to extort nike. they accused him of embezzling a client. prosecutors in new york say avenatti attempted to extract $20 million from nike and threaten the company if they didn't pay his client, an armature basketball coach. in one exchange recorded on audio, avenatti is demanding to
be paid $10 million or more by nike in return for not holding a press conference and he said if you don't pay, i'll take $10 million off your client's market cap and i'm not f-ing around. he announced he'd hold a press conference tomorrow and then arrested. he is out on bail on $300,000 bond facing 97 years in prison. he addressed the charges moments ago as he left federal court in manhattan. >> i am highly confident that when all of the evidence is laid bare in connection with these cases, when it is all known, when due process occurs, that i will be fully exonerated and justice will be done. >> is that -- i don't know what
the word is? remarkable turn of vents for a man eight months ago was prodding around new hampshire exploring a run for president in the democratic party. his attempt went nowhere because avenatti fight his role in the stormy daniels suit would make him a bigger star than prove to be the case, which is probably a useful thing to remember on a day when people are discussing the political ramifications of barr's four-page summery of the report and disconnected from that investigation and certainly were in 2018 and look to be in 2020, as well. here to talk about what will matter in 2020, two msnbc political analysts, cornell belcher, corinne pierre. my general feeling is everything is sort of a recession in the world doesn't move things that much at the margins. what do you think? >> that is spot on, chris.
the only way to beat donald trump will be at the ballot box. that was true a year ago and last week and true tonight. we have to remember that donald trump won in 2016 electoral college votes to be clear, not the popular vote. he won by less than 80,000 votes in three states. for all the folks who thought that the mueller report was going to take down donald trump, here is what i say to them. advice i give them is just go out there, organize people, get them registered to vote, remind folks the type of things donald trump has done for the last two years is separate children from their families, which is banning people because of their religion, which is trump tax cuts and also don't forget, he tried to take ten health care from tens of millions of people. so these are the things that people care about. they care about the economy and jobs and they care about health
care and that's how we won in 2018 and what people cannot forget. if you go to any of the early states, the mueller report is not a problem for us. no one is talking about that, thinking about that. they care about the issues. >> yeah, the downside risk again, i thought it turned on what the facts were. the downside risk if he would actually engage in something criminal that could have negative consequences but short of that, it was not driving conversation politically. this piece says to get to what corinne was saying, that's what i've been hearing from you over the past two years. >> i think we had an election, midterm election we had close to 10 million more people vote for democrat and republican and it wasn't just about health care. health care was a big deal but also about sort of direction of the country and the division. the division that you're seeing in the country particularly with women voters was really impactful. donald trump said he could shoot
someone and it wouldn't move. suburban district says don't talk donald trump. this isn't about donald trump. this is about who we are and how do we get them sat out and back when barack obama voters choose between two evils and the third party back into the fold. this is what democrats tell what they will tackle. >> deglobalization, right, you saw sort of hair on fire levels of activism among a huge swath of the country a day or two, the next day there is the women's march and people showing up at airports and showing up to protest child separation and midterm turnout, special elections. the question, right, is having a democratic congress and leadership that doesn't want those people too active against them going to create a condition of demobilizing, folks. you see this up close. what do you see? >> i see it differently, chris. i see people are energized and
mobilized and the thing about it is voters are smart. they are not stupid. they know what is going on and we can't treat them that way but what they want to hear from these almost 20 candidates, probably a dozen now i think is they want to hear what is their vision. what are they doing for them? when you see the small town halls or candidates in the different early states, that's the questions they are asking them. so i think the key is how do you keep that energy going and how do you keep folks continuing to pay attention and they are
paying attention so you have to inspire, you have to show a contrast to what we have now in this presidency and where we're taking the country. >> there has been reporting about attendance at events for 2020 candidates and they have been higher. i've heard from folks that work the circuit that suggestion there is still a high level of interest happening here. >> i think that's right. what i've heard is, you know, it's not 2008, which we saw interests really peak. it's moving towards that direction. i'm less worried about sort of based democratic energy than i am about sort of how do democrats hold on? look at the suburbs around philadelphia where they turn blue and how do we hold on to moderate swing voters while keeping the base energy high? i think that is a tough line to walk.
>> yeah, that's always a tough line to walk. cornell and corinne. thank you both for being here. that is "all in" for this evening. >> tonight robert mueller's work is done. until we see it we're left to debate a four-page summary how the attorney general sees it. tonight the president going after the media, demanding apologies while others offering a reminder what else is out there. the investigations under way now spooling out to the president, his family, business, campaigns and inauguration. still unsolved what have we decided to do about russia's involvement in our election. all of it as "the 11th hour" gets under way on a monday night.