tv All In With Chris Hayes MSNBC March 28, 2019 12:00am-1:01am PDT
rico but you've thrown our th budget out of wack. >> we are going to be the republicans, the partee of great health care. >> my guest tonight, someone taking the trump agenda head on. >> you had zeroed out special olympics once again.ad >> trump's education secretary called out for slashing fundinge >> i still can't understand why you would go after disabled children in your funding. >> and reacts to the mueller report.ue >> can't understand why he -- >> and alexandria ocasio-cortez. >> this is a quality of life
issue. >> when "all in" starts right now. >> this is serious. ♪ good evening from new york. the president is ready to move on and focus on his agenda now that his hand picked attorney general issuing a pefungtry letter. until we can see the mueller report, trump has something of a window to focus on his agenda.in one, take health care away from more than 20 million people and literally destroy the infrastructure and take funding from puerto rico as they recover from the worst disaster in the island's history and cutting 7 million from the school budget and eliminating all funding for the special olympics? we're going to talk to barbara wlee who grilled betsy devos
yesterday. we know donald trump is not exactly a policy wong. he'd rather live tweet trump tv. but he's found an issue he's passionate about. screwing over the people of puerto rico.e he doesn't want another single dollar going to the island. that is a senior official talking to the "washington post." he's made up figures to suggest the island has got too much recovery money. 1,000 or more people died there in the national disaster. 3,000 at least in the deadliest hurricane in american history. and explicitly asked top advisors for ways to limit federal support from going to puerto rico. i wonder what could have him so laser focused. and there's the decision to have his administration back a lawsuit to completely eliminate obamacare. it's a decision infuriated republicans who were burned in
the midterm. and the equivalent of punching yourself in the face repeatedly. and at the urging of acting chief of staff who helped convict trump that his base would love the move.p most republicans most certainly danot. how about a few more victory laps on mueller while you can get away with trump and republicans have no plan to replace obamacare. though trump does have a slogan and plenty of empty promises. >> if the supreme court rules obamacare is out, we'll have a plan far better than obamacare. >> we are still waiting. here's what happens. 21 million people could lose coverage, spending to fight
opioid addiction will be slashed, 133 million people with preexisting conditions will lose protections. 171 million would no longer have cap the entire health insurance system, the whole thing will be thrown into utter chaos this is the battleground the election will be fought. what dayou make of the reporting that they tried to convinsz the president not to do this >> it's been clear from the beginning all they wanted to do was burn
down the health care system and i assume it's because it help as lot of people who are not wealthy and part of the flump aerj and so my view on this is we just got to fight him back. they have put it in front of us and we said this is part of what democrats are about. we defend health care. that's one of our principal core issues and we will fight this all the way. >> i followed your writing and speaking on the subject of
skrupgz the influence of corporate american big industries. the helgtsz insurance industry does not want this. this is something so destrulktive, out past the bounds of what people want, even inside the industry with a lot of money and they're still doing it. how do you make sense of that? >> in something like the health care drae, there's a lot of conflicting areas. you may be right but the flip side is a lot of the drug companies, they're fine. however long they can keep charging high drug prices, good with the big drug companies and there's a bottom line of ugliness about this. take away health care from
millions of americans and celebrate afterwards. i watched the house after they passed the repeal of the affordable care act and gave each other high fives. what kind of people give each other high fives about taking away health care from 20 million americans? >> obviously they don't have the majority in the senate. mitch mcconnell runs floor time. is there any way to aclyel legislatively get arounds this in some sort of defunding of th doj's use of the lawsuit. t >> we'll try and we'll try to restore funding as part of the budget negotiations. i see this as the war of ideas. this is about where you think this country aught to go and what you think the 2020 election all ought tabe about. he thinks hegets his base all stirred up and shows how tough and manly he is by taking away health care from millions of people.ar i think there's another set of ideas democrats need to be talking about. i proposed a wealth tax and out of that universal child care and
cutting the student loan debt burden and building millions of new housing units and attacking racial redlining head on. those are changes that we should be talking about with the american people. we have this incredible opportunity during a primary to talk about ideas. and if you think that ideas are important and going to be an important part of what happens to this can country going forward, then we're coming to the end of the quarter and i could use everyone's help. go to elizabeth warren.com. volunteer, sign up but be part
of the notion that we need to be in a war of ideas, that we need to push our ideas forward. t i need help to keep put those ideas in the debate. we need our democratic ideas to talk about, not just the tail on the dog that donald trump wags. >> and agri business. i do want to talk about puerto rico. the president has like really fixated on this. all the reporting says this is the rare policy issue he's obsessed with. what's your response? >> first all of we have already allocated money to puerto rico and that money is not nearly enough. so this is ugly piled on ugly. donald trump has done this to puerto rico and it is y. fundamentally wrong. 3 million american citizens who are held hostage to a government
right now that doesn't want to make sure that they get basic health care, that they have decent housing. . donald trump is fundamentally wrong on this and whether you're democratic or republican, everyone of us should be pushing that. the people of puerto rico are part of all of us. they are american citizens. they send their sons and daughters to serve in our military in higher proportions that almost any group in the united states of america. and right now this is an island with people who are suffering. it is our responsibility as american citizens and human beings to step up on behalf of puerto rico. the entire congress should push back at donald trump over this. >> you do have a new policy you rolled out over agri business.
i think using antitrust tools. one of them is a specific policy interesting to me and i've read a bit. which is called right to repair. can you explain what is a national right to repair law? >> so let me put it in the context. i've been talking for a very long time about the importance e of enforcing our antitrust laws. the giant corporations begin to just take over. whole markets. they wipe out competition. they squeeze everybody else's profits and we need a level playing field. we simply enforce the antitrust laws or they're incomplete. right to repair starts with this problem. company puts out reallyicated equipment and then says if it breaks the only one that can repair it is to bring it back th the company. that means you don't get to repair it at home, the way my daddy and three older brothers e used to do.
that means you don't get to take to a shop in town where there are three competing places.to both of those keep costs down for small farms. instead you got to take it back to the one company that sold it to you and they can charge whatever they want to charge because as long as it's broken, you can't get any use out of it. right to repair says you got to make the information and the parts available. you get a sell them, make a profit but you got to make them available to everyone. so once a small farm has purchased a piece of equipment, they can try to repair it themselves or take it to repair shops in town. it's one more way to try to level the playing field a little bit.
>> let me ask you. and you have a policy on redlining. do you believe that policy can win people over? particularly a general election? when you salot of democratic candidates, i understand you're differentiating yourself. do you think in a general er election it's what people -- can you win over voters with stuff like that? >> i believe in a primary this is my chance to talk about policy and to be able to explain to each other and the rest of the world these are the things we think are important and worth fighting for. understand it's not policy in the abstract.t it's a statement of our values. when i say a millionaires' wealth tax, 2%. and that we could pay for universal child care and pre-k for every single one of our children, we could actually build more housing, we could ll
attack racial redlining head on with that money. that's not just about the budget. it's a statement about our values. i think if we keep those ideas in the debate right now, that w makes us a stronger democratic e party.mo it's why i said i could use help. go to elizabeth warren.com. it's not even about who you're voting for in a year. it's about keeping these ideas. the democrats should be the party of ideas. we should be the party driebing the it debate and that's how we do it with tangible ideas that will touch peoples lives. an example. that wealth tax is not only popular among democrats and independents, a majority of republicans support it and once
you see how much money it produces, go out and talk to families about what it would mean to have universal child care, high quality child care available for free efor millions of families, what that would mean and for low cost for other families, what it would mean to reduce the burden. and this is how the democrats show, not tell, show that we really are out there on the side of working people, that we don'e believe the pub llk should work for the rich and powerful. we believe it should work for all of us. next the sweeping cuts proposed by secretary of education, devos.
betszy devos and the trump administration are under fire for zero oing out funding for the special o-olympics. she issued a defensive and angry administration. quote the federal government cannot fund every worthy program. i got to say it's a bizarre thing for the administration to do given the budget is fundamentally a messaging document and the amount of money for special olympics, $18 million is minuscule in terms of the entire budget. for democratic congressman barbara lee who called out devos when she testified yesterday. >> your cuts here specifically target students of color. unbelievable low income students. and i got to say you have zeer eoed out special olympics once again. i can't understand why you would go after disabled children in your budget.
it's appalling. >> joining me is congresswoman, barbara lee. congresswoman, flagged this for you and what's wrr your rational of cutting the programs that goes to special olympics? >> let me tell you this isn't the first year they proposed to eliminate funding. this is the third time we've seen this unbelievably appalling proposal and we did not go along with it and congress rejected it. so i don't know when the secretary and trump administration will understand we're not going to allow them to take away support for children with special needs. and it's no way that we're going to let them it do that. >> is there some staffer that really has it out for the special olympics and every year
keeps zeroing out their funding? why? >> i don't know. why they would do this because remember the budget reflects our value. it's a moral document. and you know when you look at this, is this what the values of this administration speak to? we know they submitted a budget that decimates and i suspect this is partf their efforts to prives it and they're just taking federal support and role out of the public sector and try -- as they reminded us. they want to deconstruct the state, they want to dismantle government. >> you had another exchangen on a issue you're passionate about. in terms of reporting requirements.
i want to play that exchange and explain what that was about. take a listen. >> students of color are suspended three times more than white students. we put into place some requirements that would begin to turn this around. you rescinded those requirements. >> the letter amounted to quotas. children are individuals, they're not -- >> this didn't involve quotas. this gave direction on how to correct this horrible problem that we have throughout the country. >> what happened there, congresswoman? >> well, under president obama, the department of education began to look at our, at our urging, at the disciplinary issues as relates to black and brown kids the huge number of expulsions and suspension oz of young people. and one report showed 40% of
african-american pre-school children were being expelled from preschool. so we wanted to wrap our heads around this and understand what's going on. the obama administration issued direction on how to begin to address the issues around school expulsions so the kids could have a spot at re7ing a quality education without being expelled or suspended. and what happens under donald trump? they come in and rescind all of those efforts to begin to close these gaps on suspensions andpulsions. the secretary, for the life of me, doesn't understand and side stepped all of the answers when we ask the hard questions about low income children, children with special needs, children of color, children who were poor. it's amazing their agenda becomes very evident when it
comes to their education agenda. >> the chair in the senate appropriations subcommittee said the special olympics zeroing out was dead on arrival. is generally the entirety of the cuts that are proposed to your mind? >> i believe so. when you look at the druconian cuts to education, they're sinister and they really show this administration wants to prives it public education. at least 30 programs that address low income children, children of color, special needs children that they totally eliminated. so yes, this is dead on arrival and i wish this administration would step up anderalliy present a budget that puts children first. >> thank you very much. >> thank you.
the whole reason there is a mueller report is because robert mueller was appointed special counsel after the president abruptly fired fbi director james comey and claimed at the time it was because of comey's hand thoflg investigation into hillary clinton's use of her private email server, namely he was too tough and disparaging on her and two days later trump confessed the firing was actually about russia.
>> but regardless of recommendation i decided to fire comey knowing there was no good time to do it and in fact when i decided to do it i said to myself i said you know this russia thing with trump and russia is a made-up story. it's an excuse for having lost an election that they should have won. >> tonight lester holt salt down for the first interview and asked him about mueller's's decision not to reach a conclusion about whether or not the president obstructed justice. >> mr. mueller decided not to make a judgment on that particular issue. does that alone surprise you? >> it does. the purpose of the sp special counsel is to make sure that politicals, in this case the attorney general, doesn't make the ultimate call on whether the subject of the investigation, the president of the united
states should be held criminally liible for activities underings have. so the idea a special counsel would reach a decision and hand it to the political leadership doesn't make sense. i'm not judging. i'm just saying it doesn't make sense on its face. >> and two analysts who know well. and chief of staff and senior counselor to then fbi director james comey and editor and chief and personal friend of james comey. do you sar that same reaction that comey has to what is described in the barr letter about mueller descreening to reach a decision on that question? >> certainly curious. so, yes i share his curiosity and can concern. let me haysn to add, i don't attribute anything nefarious to bob mueller. both men of tremendous
integrity. so i assume, i presume that there's a perfectly good reason why he didn't reach a conclusion. we have to read the report in order to understand what that reason is. curious? absolutely. but i want to reserve judgment until i see why he did what he did. >> ben, one possible explanation, which seems like the obvious one to me is if the president can't be indicted, it's unclear what the point of reaching a decision about a crime is because you can't charge him anyway? so what does that mean in the context of a sitting president? it seems that is clearly front
of mind for mueller. >> so i share that. my -- one of the reasons i've spent a lot of time this past year trying to get the watergate road map released was that i was interested in it as a model for bob mueller. that is what he did is he presents to congress just a kind of set of facts about what president nixon had done. and i thought that's an interesting model for bob mueller and when i read this letter my first reaction to it was wow, it seems not like he was deferring to barr, although barr appears to have interpreted it that way, but that he was trying to lay this out putensh frael congress. that's my working hipoth ssz and in that case, if that's the case, my instinct is it may be a very reasonable and defensible set of judgments and so my instincts are, to the extent that jim comey is potentially criticizing mueller for this, my instincts may be a little bit
closer to chuck. i want to see why he did what he did and i'm not averse to the idea that it may have been a very smart and reasonable thing for him to do under the circumstances. >> so chuck, george conway wrote a piece today. he says trump is guilty of being unfit for office. and we don't know how long the report is, although it appears to be quite long and there's 42 words quoted. and in the things is that it does not exonerate the president. the report does not exonerate the president? that's a stunning thing for a prosecutor to say. do you agree with conway? >> well, i agree that it's an unusual thing 23r a prosecutor to say. i was a prosecutor for a long time and i've never said that. then again i've never had a case involving the sitting president of the united states. i think your instincts are precise. the notion you can't charge a
sitting president, might mean that you ought not to recommend you charge a sitting president. that makes sense to me. as i try to puzzle through why bob mueller did what he did or didn't do what he didn't do, that strikes me a as a plausible explanation. i don't want to get into the political leanings or political ditribe. i have my own views and i'll keep them private. but it is strange. i agree with that. to say our findings neither implicate or exonerate beyond the other. >> jerry nadler had a conversation with barr tonight and developments in back and forth and barr about the delivery of that report. take a listen. >> i had a phone call with the attorney general and i asked him about the length and breadth of
the mueller report. he told me it was a very substantial report. a very substantial report. one, that in my judgment a four-page summary cannot begin to do justice to. i asked him when we would see it and he couldn't get specific. he said weeks not months as we heard before. >> do we learn anything there? >> we had 3rd word comprehensive before. very substantial is a slight advance over comprehensive. dwroob think -- look, my working assumption has been we're dealing with many hundreds of pages and i think it tends to support that. i don't know that -- and i also think week withes not months is a reez -- it's not a precise time frame but it does say that barr is committing himself to this not dragging out in a protracted sort of way and so i do think we can reasonably expect basised on the letter and what justice has said and this
that in a relatively brief period of time we're going to have a cupasches set of disclosures about the substance of what bob mueller found and i think that will be a salueitary thing. whether or not the results of that make us admire the four-page summary that barr issued or be ignore annoyed by it >> i agree with you. thank you both. rngtsz still ahead alexandria ocasio-cortez rips apart the green new deal. (client's voice) remember that degree you got in taxation?
he's quite a guy and quite a character and i think our relationship is very strong. you know, there's a warmth we have. >> our relationship is a very special relationship. i like him, he likes me. you know, we have a good chemistry together. >> i think we have a very good relationship. we understand each other. we have a very good relationship. rrs he likes me, i like him. he wrote me two of the most beautiful letters. we have a back and forth and then we fell in love, okay. no, really. he wrote me beautiful letters and they're great letters. we fell in love. >> they fell in love. which may seem to explain why the president tweeted he would be withdrawing the sanctions on north korea except there had not been any new sanctions announced. quote president trump likes chairman kim and he doesn't think these sanctions will be necessary. well, wait, what sanctions and like? i thought it was love. and trump was referring to a future round of previously unknown sanctions scheduled for the coming days and if that sounds confusing and sketchy, it
so president trump sparked massive confusion last week with this tweet. it was announced that additional large scale sanctions would be added to those already existing capitol "s" sanctions. despite the weirdness of the president tweeting a policy change, the other problem was there weren't any new sanctions announced that day. the treasury announced sanctions on two chinese shipping companies for trading with north korea the previous day. at first press secretary noting how much president trump like chairman kim and then the leaky white house saying that trump was actually talking about a future as yet unannounced round of sanctions against north korea.
today rumors news report that story was an attempted cover up to hide that the president in fact intended to remove those penalties, treasury had announced the day before against two chinese shipping companies and persuaded him to back off but trump stunned current and former government officials that he forwarded their withdrawal anyway. >> we have a back and forth and then we fell in love, okay. no, really. he wrote me beautiful letters and they're great letters. we fell in love.
this friday we're hosting our special with alexandria ocasio-cortez in the bronx and not just because the congresswoman and i are both from there, although that's part of it, but because climate in the abstract is thought of as divorced from its effects on human beings. but it is quite literally everywhere and will effect every one of us. which is why it's patently absurd to call it elitest as duffy did yesterday during a hearing of the house services committee. >> we should not focus on the
rich, wealthy elite who look at this and say -- i'll take a private jet from d.c. to california. a private jet? or i'll take my uber, suv. i won't take the train or i'll go to davos and fly my new jet. >> now, when we talk about the concern of the environment as in elitest concern, one year ago i was waitressing in a taco shop in downtown manhattan. i just got health insurance a month ago. this is a quality of life issue. you want to tell people that their concern and their desire for clean air and clean water is elitest.
tell that to kids in the south bronx suffering from the highest rates of child hood asthma in the country. tell that the families in flint whose kids have their blood is ascending in led levels, their brains are damaged for the rest of their lives. you're telling them their kids are trying to get on a plane to davos. people are dying and the response across the other side of the aisle is to introduce an amendment five minutes before a amendment on a markup. this is about our constituents and our lives. iowa, nebraska, broad swaths off the midwest are drowning right now. under water. farms, towns that will never be recovered and never come back and people are more concerned about helping oil than helping families? i don't think so. i don't think so. this is about our lives.
this is about american lives, and it should not be partisan. signs should not be partisan. we are facing a national crisis, and if we do not ascend to that crisis, if we do not ascend to the levels in which we were threatened at the great depression, when we were threatened in world war ii, if we do not ascend to those level, if we tell the american public that we are more willing to invest and bail out big banks than we are willing to invest in our farmers and our urban families, then i don't know what we're here doing. >> well, the entire green new deal debate has revealed that for whatever real policy divisions that are on the democratic side, and they are there, the other side basically has nothing. we'll discuss, ahead. mbc doesn't take a day off, and neither will i. and i treat my mbc with everyday verzenio- the only one of its kind that can be taken every day.
in fact, verzenio is a cdk4 & 6 inhibitor for postmenopausal women with hr+, her2- metastatic breast cancer, approved, with hormonal therapy, as an everyday treatment for a relentless disease. verzenio + an ai is proven to help women have significantly more time without disease progression, and more than half of women saw their tumors shrink vs an ai. diarrhea is common, may be severe, and may cause dehydration or infection. before taking verzenio, tell your doctor if you have fever, chills, or other signs of infection. verzenio may cause low white blood cell counts, which may cause serious infection that can lead to death. serious liver problems can occur. symptoms may include tiredness, loss of appetite, stomach pain, and bleeding or bruising more easily than normal. blood clots that can lead to death have also occurred. talk to your doctor right away if you notice pain or swelling in your arms or legs, shortness of breath, chest pain or rapid breathing or heart rate. tell your doctor if you are pregnant, breastfeeding, or plan to become pregnant. common side effects include nausea, infections, low red and white blood cells and platelets,
decreased appetite, headache, abdominal pain, tiredness, vomiting, and hair thinning or loss. i'm relentless. and my doctor and i choose to treat my metastatic breast cancer with verzenio. be relentless. ask your doctor about everyday verzenio. we're on the move. hey rick, all good? oh yeah, we're good. we're good. terminix. defenders of home.
i've done all sorts of research, read earnings reports, looked at chart patterns. i've even built my own historic trading model. and you're still not sure if you want to make the trade? exactly. sounds like a case of analysis paralysis. is there a cure? td ameritrade's trade desk. they can help gut check your strategies and answer all your toughest questions. sounds perfect. see, your stress level was here and i got you down to here, i've done my job. call for a strategy gut check with td ameritrade. ♪ one of the many problems for republicans in rejecting or mocking outright efforts to
combat climate change is people quite like the green new deal. at least right now. "new york times" survey showing support in three states where republican senators are up for reelection in 2020. in colorado, cory gardner's state 60% of likely voters supported the green new deal. in north dakota, thom tillis' state, 66% did. in maine, where susan collins is likely to face a tough reelection battle. increasingly having a hard time coming up with any affirmative policy of their own. i want to bring in two veteran reporters on republicans, conservative move and their policies, jane coatston and mackay coppins, who is on the same staff beat as a staff writer for the atlantic. i think the green new deal attacks have been interesting, because there a lot of ridicule, but there is very little desire to substantively engage. >> right, right. when you have senator mike lee
makes the point that more people need to have children in order to combat climate change, i think that's a particular challenge. but i think it does go back to the basic issue that the republicans are having right now, which is that they are acting as if they are not in power, while in fact being in power. and so obviously, republicans don't have control of the house, but they do have control of the white house. i think it's interesting that the green new deal has not been rejected, but there isn't an effort by the senate or the house to say okay, here's what we would propose doing. we're seeing more and more republicans agreeing that climate change is an issue, and that humans have been impacting climate change. but there is no real effort to come up with a policy solution because i think that for a lot of republicans in congress, the
idea of finding a policy losing at the government level is anna -- anathema. >> they're acting like the opposition party as opposed to the party in control. mckay, i remember newt gingrich and the contract with america. i remember tommy thompson's governorship in wisconsin. even the reagan administration. we've got all these ideas. we're going cut back the welfare state. we're going to change the way government works. we're going to do this, do that. what does the republican party want to do? it's just completely unclear what the actual affirmative agenda. >> it's strange. i read a news story today, and i'm not going to name the publication of the reporters because it's not necessarily their fault there is so much ambiguity here. it was about how president trump had met with republicans at a private lunch today to discuss a sweeping ambitious new legislative agenda. and it took until the fifth or sixth paragraph before it got at any of the policy items on the agenda. it basically amounted to a couple of trade deals, get a couple of nominees confirmed, and then a fairly far-fetched proposal to create a new republican health care plan to replace obamacare with, which i think they've already been down
this road and it didn't go so well. it is actually quite strange how few new ideas we see coming out of the republican party at a time when they're actually positioned to implement them. >> and jane, i would say at a time, for the third year in a row, 2015, 2016, 2017, us life expectancy declined for the first time since the flu pandemic in world war i. it's been 100 years. something is going on in the unto can. and you can imagine a republican party that felt a fidelity to the, quote, so-called trump base coming up with some ideas for something to do about that, and yet there doesn't seem to be much. >> right. you're starting to hear ideas percolating, especially along with members of congress who are interested in conservative populism specifically. you're starting to hear representatives talking about expanding earned income tax credits and taking on this idea of okay, government should be involved in some means. but again, they have to reckon with house freedom caucus. >> yes.
>> they have to reckon with the conservative members of their own party for whom the problem here is government intervention in the first place. and so i think that there is a sense that, you know, a real difference of opinion in what is the government supposed to be doing. we are in charge of the government. what are we supposed to be doing? and they're not really getting much leadership from the white house when the white house is saying we're going to become the party of health care when that's clearly not been the case over the last couple of years. >> and one of the things, mckay, is that the white house never actually called the shots on the two big domestic policy priorities which was health care repeal and the tax cut. those are both things that president marco rubio would have pursued probably in that order. that was paul ryan and mcconnell and the establishment. now that that's done, you can feel this nihilistic listlessness, aside from confirming nominees in the senate, emanating from congressional republicans. >> manage jane said is true
which is from the very beginning, the republican control of government has really been more like a coalitional government that you would see in british parliament where you had various factions with distinct ideologies that were working together sort of, especially on the tax cut, like you mentioned. but other than that, they just frankly disagreed on a lot of issues. the one issue, the one area where the trump administration has been quite successful is in appointing federal judges. and they've been moving at a rapid pace compared to past presidents. and this is in keeping with the republican strategy that the party has been pursuing for decades which they realized frankly earlier than a lot of democrats and liberals that shaping the judiciary was a way to implement their agenda on social issue, regulatory issues, economic issues, and that's where i think that you see a lot of the movement. but thooefn is not really coming from president trump. it's being led by mitch mcconnell and a very kind of ambitious, aggressive way of confirming these nominees. >> yeah, i'm reminded there is a grover norquist line i think it was back in 2012 when he was trying to rally the faithful
around mitt romney and the said faithful were not particularly excited about mitt romney. he said all we need is a hand for member to sign stuff. jay coaston, mckay coppins, thank you so much for joining us. that is "all in" for this evening. "the rachel maddow show" starts right now. good evening. >> thanks, my friend. much appreciated. >> you bet. and thanks for joining us at home this hour. it was september 12th, 1962. it was a really, really hot day that day. and the president's speech was held in a big outdoor stadium where there was not a single inch of shade for anyone who was sitting there listening to him. and that whole event ended up being a bit of an endurance test pour the thousands of people who were in attendance, not only because of the unrelenting heat, but also because before the president eventually got up to give his speech, all these other people went first. the university president and a whole other cast of sort of lesser dignitaries all gave fairly long remarks of their own.