tv The 11th Hour With Brian Williams MSNBC April 2, 2019 11:00pm-12:00am PDT
"the 11th hour" with brian williams starts right now. president trump shifts his attacks to the origins of the mueller investigation. the white house security clearance whistle blower speaks exclusively to nbc news and after fireworks from elijah cummings and jim george, we learn those subpoenas have been served. and a chinese woman arrested after a security breach at mar-a-lago. she was carrying two passports and a thumb drive with malware. "the 11th hour" on a tuesday night starts right now. good evening once again from our nbc news headquarters in new york.ea aimew ali velshi in for brian williams. day 803 of the trump administration and as house democrats intensify their scrutiny of the white house, the
president is fighting back. his administration is up against two powerful committee chairmen. both are moving swiftly demanding more information, testimony, dockments or whatever they say they need to carry out investigations into the trump administration.y today four subpoenas from the house oversight committee ef concerning white house security clearances and the 2020 sen cuss were served. we are now hours away from what will be a closely watched move on capitol hill. tomorrow morning the house judiciary committee led by jerry nadler is expected to vote to authorize a subpoena for special counsel mueller's report without redactions. attorney general william barr did not deliver the report by the committee's deadline, which was today. chairman nadler made his case for legal action. >> we'll use the subpoenas as necessary. to make sure we get the whole
report and all the underlying documents.rt the special prosecutor said that he couldn't rule in or out, he couldn't exonerate the president of obstruction of justice. so barr took it upon himself to do that. that's not the job of the attorney general. >> the president has said he wanted the mueller report to be released. today he was asked about the upcoming vote to subpoena the report. >> i think it's ridiculous. we went through two years of the mueller investigation. after $30 million we're going to start this process again because jerry nadler wants to start it or because schiff wants to start it? i'll rely on the attorney general to make decisions but bill tell you, anything that's given to them is never good enough. you can give them more documents than they've ever seen and it would never be good enough, so i think it's somewhat of a waste of time. this is just politics.
i hope they now go and take a look at the oranges of the investigation, the orphans of the investigation, the beginnings of that investigation.e the mueller report i wish covered the origins, how it started, the beginnings of the investigation, how it started. it didn't cover that. and for some reason none of that was discussed. >> the origins of the investigation. keep in mind president trump has not seen the mueller report, we believe and the attorney general has said he does not plan to give the white house a copy of it before releasing it by mid-april. trump's comments today seemed to echo some of his recent twitter messages, quote, no amount of testimony or document production that can satisfy jerry nadler or shifty adam schiff. it is now time to focus exclusively on properly running our great country and no matter what information is given to the crazed democrats from the no
collusion mueller report, it will never be good enough. also, no matter what the radical left democrats get, no matter what we give them, it will never be enough. just watch, they will harass and complain and resist. so maybe we should just take our victory and say, no, we've got a country to run. today the white house press secretary suggested efforts to find out what mueller learned are nothing but partisan politics. >> so know by the actions we've seen from nadler is that the president is right. they will never be satisfied. they're sore losers. at some point they have to decide they're ready to move on like the rest of the country. >> all of this is fueling doubt over whether trump still wants the puler report to be released. journalist olivia nuzzi of "the new york" magazine has been reporting on the mood in the white house following theoo release of barr's four-page summary that appears to clear the president. she spoke earlier with our colleague, chris hayes. >> both the president and
members of the white house staff have been saying we don't need the full report now. they seem to be striking a different tone than they were at least in the initial wake of the barr letter. >> lots to discuss. our leadoff panel for a tuesday night, here with me, susan page, washington bureau chief for "usa today," she's anchor of an excellent new book just out today "the matriarch" which we will get to late they are hour. also here, maya wiley, former assistant u.s. attorney for the southern district of new york now with the new school, frank figluizzi and ashley parker, the pulitzer prize winning white house reporter for "the washington post." good evening to all of you and ashleigh, let's beg
ashleigh, where does this fit into the picture of what we will learn is in the report? >> well, it'shi unclear, frankl how much will be forthcoming when he issues, if he issues those subpoenas but i can tell you the white house thinks that from a politicalho point of vie which is the lens through which they view it all they believe it is advantageous. the barr summary report which is to be clear only four pages summarizing 400 pages but they believe that it is a political cudgel to go after democrats for overreach and when any subpoena comes on this topic or, frankly, any of the other investigations that are already under way or may yet be launched for some future potential bad behavior, they can just sort of say, look, we were cleared of collusion. we told you for two years it was a witch-hunt and, therefore, this other thing, that other thing that we don't like is also a witch-hunt. so they think it works in their favor politically. in terms what have it actually yields i think that's an open
question. we have to wait and sue. >> olivia nuzzi's piece says as it waned cooler heads emerged with brand-new anxieties about a president inclined to inflict self-harm by taking thing too far. there will be plenty of unfavorable things about the president in the full report which we think will eventually come out so let's not go overboard say nothing wrongdoing and let's move on. what else could be in the report that while the president claims exonerates him and that's not what william barr said, what else could be worrying the president. >> first, bob mueller and his team don't work for two solid year, have dozens of fbi agents and prosecutors detailed to them, dig into crimes and counterintelligence and come out and say the president is a boy scout. we're going to see in this report if we're allowed to some dirt. now, what that looks like, whether it's on the counterintelligence side, whether this so-called lack of
criminal elements on the conspiracy with russia is not there but rather there is incredibly inappropriate conduct and, of course, on the obstruction issue what we're all waiting to see is mueller's intent. is there a footnote or a paragraph thattn says, i believ this question needs to go to congress and we're beginning to see the w president slowly but surely back away from his assertion that he wants that whole report to come out. >> maya, william barr says he's working with mueller on the resdakzs and those redactions stated four different thing, one of them was grand jury testimony and there's some debate about whether or not we absolutely shouldn't or won't see grand jury testimony and the fourth point was about other characters involved who are not otherwise named, unindicted people or people who were in the investigation. what do you make of the redactions and what we're going to end up seeing? >> well, i have to start with the fact that if william barr as he said in his confirmation
hearing were really interested in making as much of this report public as possible, he himself would have already petitioned the court to release grand jury material. i mean, he has the power to do that and is the highest law enforcement officer of the land. if he said it was in the public interest and that he thought it should t be revealed, it's very hard to imagine a judge would say no. and so i just start there because we're already talking about redactions in a context where if he were truly interesteded in transparency he would have taken steps to make it public and i think that's part of why you see representative nadler really being quite on top of saying, i tried, i gave you some time, i am not confident that i'm going to getfi the cooperation on transparency but i also think there are legitimate things that could be redacted. there are ongoing investigations, any officer of
the court, anyone who's prosecuting a case will want to say there are some things we may legitimately want to hold back, certainly if you went through a court process, you could make those recommendations to the court to say what should be public and what s should not be. and protecting the privacy of witnesses is another legitimate form of redaction. so but i think the point here is, i personally have not seen some of the decisions i would expect fromon an attorney gener that believed it was in the public interest to ensure that the public understands what the evidence was and what the evidence wasn't. >> susan, let's go back in history to the starr report. donald trump made a reference to the fact that jerry nadler is now going to subpoena to get the mueller report earlier today. let's listen to what he said. >> jerry nadler thought the concept of giving the starr report was absolutely something you could never do. but when it comes to the mueller
report, which is different on our side, that would be something he should get. >> it's being used hypocritically by the white house now, congress had everything and the question was how much of that was going to be made public and what had to be redakked to protect individuals. congress is going to make that decision. >> they're bothto accusing each other of hypocrisy in comparison to the two reports. >> and they're both right because both t parties approacht from the place where they sit at this moment, not from where they sat with the clinton investigation. i willhe say i approach this wi the sharp legal minds but politically this is going to come out. it's going to be released bought eight out of ten americans including and overwhelming majority of republicans want to see it. so one way or another it's going to come out. ioi don't know how.kn it is a risk for democrats to look like they're concerned only about investigating the
president but they'll be willing to take. >> polling has changed. people are perhaps not as interested in doing everything -- >> they want them to do things that affect their own lives but continue to see americans saying, yes, we want to see the report.e some believe he will be exonerated and includes american was are skeptical that's what it's going to say. >> frank, former u.s. attorney for the southern district of new york, preet bharara said about thisa topic of exoneration. >> one of the most terrible things for the president in the underlying report we know about is that it explicitly says we do not exonerate the president on obstruction of justice. they felt thee need to sort of anticipate that rhetoric and refute it then of course bill barr comes in and puts his own exoneration gloss on top when i think it was w meant for congre.
>>ea it's an interesting topic. the report, anybody can read, can sayan it did not exonerate e president and yet the message that the white house has been sticking with is that it did. >> bob mueller is someone who carefully memorializes his thought process and done that ae fbi director. i've seen him do it. s that how he operates and that's a reason why that got through and the attorney general felt compelled to include that in his summary. there is going to be some tension on this issue which is, again, why we need to see the report. every day that passes that the attorney general doesn't release this report, he looks more politicized and the tide could turn back and go, why is he taking so long? isn't there a declassified version he would have handed the attorney general? i believe there is. mueller is noten the guy who throws the report on the desk -- >> because he would have known this discussion was going to take place. >> i think he would have gone and said here's my suggestion on declassification. it's there for you.
you don't need to go through the declass process. i did it for you.he >> woe have institutions that hold firm but this attorney general who has a storied history in past administrations, the fact is he was chosen by the president and the president knew that theen biggest job for the attorney general of the united states right now was how he was going to handle the mueller report. isdl there some danger that americans start to lose faith in the institution of the justice department as separate from the administration? >> well, i think that's already something that's come into question because even though the conversation about recusals before william barr got there had already created this conversation for the american public and the president himself, frankly, you know, i thinkra we've all been sort of astounded by a sitting american president really undermining and destroys the morale of an independent law enforcement agency of the united states government. and, so this has been -- it's
been a significant issue. the thing about william barr storied career, storied history, lots of conversation about his commitment to the institution of justice, at the same time, you know, that memo that he wrote -- >> the unsupplies tolicited -- >> something that legal scholar, some werel quite astounded by d those who read case law thought was quite an overstatement and then his view of obstruction of justice andw even in his four-page summary letter he adds in his kind of litany on obstruction of justice that not proving the underlying crime in this case, the conspiracy or the -- >> is why there can't be er obstruction. >> is why there can't be obstruction. >> and every lawyer and fbi agent i've spoken to tells me
that's just not true. >> it's just not true so the fact -- >> i can obstruct a case that has nothingtr to do with me whe i haven't been involved in any crime whatsoever. >> of course, you can. issues o like that that are concrete legal arguments that give us all pause. >> let's bring this full circle. it's been a little over a week since we've had news of this report. and the president is acting strangely. he's talking about shutting down the southern border. he was discussing the oranges of the report today. several times he mentioned that his father was born in germany. his father was born in new york. the stress seems to be getting to the president. >> well, i think it's twofold. i think when it actually comes to the report itself there is a recognition within i the white house that no day was going to be better than when barr's summary came out. when 400 pages are released, especially on the obstruction
side, there's going to be stuff in there that the white house, the president will likely not "i like it" and could be problematic for him, even if he still goes on the offense. also, this is a president who is mott comfortable not just on this issue but with an opponent, a rival, with someone to attack. so with the mueller report sort of temporarily out of the way, you've seen him move on some issues to domestic policy and kind of floundering there with his health care 180 saying republicans are going to own it and oh, wait, they're actually not going to come up withtu a plan until after the 20 election on immigration saying he's absolutely potentially going to close down the southern border but, well maybe not the entire southern border and so, you know, in a weird way i don't think donald trump wanted this cloud hanging over his presidency at all but he is sort of most comfortable when he is fighting something rather than trying to say legislate on some of these policies. >> susan page, maya and frank
and ashley. coming up, tensions erupt between top committee members on capitol hill over whether to force trump insiders to testify and later, the president declares t the border maxed outs he repeats his promise, ashley just mentioned to shut it down. despite the economic fallout. "the 11th hour" just getting started on a tuesday night.
authorized to subpoena for karl klein, he's the former white house personnel security director to testify about his role approving security clearances. tonight we've learned cline has been served the committee subpoena. white house whistleblower told law makers shoo was targeted with retaliation after declining to grant security clearances based on protocols. our own peter alexander sat down with newbold and asked her what kind of retaliation she faced. >> the most recent suspension, 14 days unpaid. probably the worst is the retaliation against my disability. so moving the security files out of my reach, not once, twice, three times. and moving other office equipment out of my reach. >> literally putting it out of your reach? >> yes. so it was definitely humiliating. >> so that's not a euphemism. out of my reach.
tricia newbold has a rare form of dwarfism so moving things out of her reach is clearly a terrible way of retaliating against her. newbold also told the committee 25 security clearance denials were overruled by the trump administration. she said they were issued for multiple reasons including foreign influence and confluct of interest. we should note today's oversight committee to authorize a subpoena for klein didn't happen without a few fireworks. >> she came forward because the system at the white house is so dysfunctional that she believes congress needs to intervene. >> first a saturday deposition, then yesterday a press release after talking to just one witness where you hand pick a few parts of her testimony and now today we're going to subpoena a guy who said he's willing to come here voluntarily.
i've been on this committee ten years. i've never seen anything like this. >> oh, please. >> i haven't. >> you've done it. >> carl cline's attorney released a statement saying the subpoena issued today does not change mr. kline's willingness to appear and answer legitimate questions truthfully. what is left out is that kline's attorney said he will not speak specifically to this question but general questions and elijah cummings said we want specific answers. >> we need to know specifics. we need to know what positions in the white house are currently being filled by people who should not have security clearances and then what access do they have? is it top secret? top secret comparted. is thor it secret or confidential and what are the real issues for each of those
positions that surfaced? drug abuse, foreign entanglements? when the system works properly, you get to sit down with the employee and work through the issues. you even make referrals to employee assistance, counseling to deal with financial indebt indebtedness or perhaps an alcohol abuse problem and make your workforce a safer, more secure workforce. when you're looking the other way and granting clearances you have a spiraling out of control workforce. >> maya, it's more series than letting someone through because you want them to work at the white house. if the protocols that tricia newbold found indicated a vulnerabili vulnerability, the reason someone doesn't get one because there's a vulnerability and someone else may know about it. >> that's right. we already know from jared kushner that at least four foreign governments were looking forward to finding ways to
exploit his businesses in order to gain some superior position. >> a guy who always needed to raise money for properties. >> and so donald trump himself obviously this has come up under the emoluments lawsuits but just as a point of comparison, when barack obama was going to be awarded the nobel peace prize in 2009, he went to get an ethics decision about whether that would be taking a benefit from a foreign government. >> wow. >> the nobel peace prize. that is the level of attention we would expect a sitting president to pay to, paying attention to the rules and make sure you're not crossing a boundary. when you're talking about national security, that's the most primary boundary any country has and, remember that we're already in a context where we already knew that russia was
actively trying to infill yacht our election system and not just in 2016 but had plans to do it in the midterms and in this context, in this context of very explicit vulnerable, we already have a situation in which the white house has said -- >> tricia newbold knew of 25 times in which somebody didn't pass muster and you're from the fbi. there are reasons people don't pass muster which we may not know about. and she was overruled and the way in which it was done, she's short and raised the level of her files. but regardless of how they treated her because whistle-blowers get treated this way, there is a national security issue here to be concerned about. if there is a protocol and it's just ignored that should worry americans. >> here's the deal, the same factors that go into deciding whether we should have a clearance or not are the same factors that a foreign intelligence services -- foreign intelligence service as ses for your vushl neshl wheth--
vulnerability and looking at that from that perspective. you have to work through it. my mantra is the system is broken and needs to change. here's why, this notion that the white house is a client for the fbi's background investigation and they get to ultimately make the call is flawed. we need to give that decision to career security professionals so that it's kept pristine and objectistic. >> nonpoliticized people. >> congress needs to look at the system that allows the white house to roverride career professional. >> maya, a chinese woman made her way into mar-a-lago with a thumb drive that may have had malware on it. i don't know what to make of it. >> i think it falls into the category of not paying attention to the appropriate boundaries, protocols and processes to
protect us. it's just that simple. it's an astounding story. i do want to just go back to newbold. one other thing, this matters. we have laws in this country that protect people with disabilities from discrimination. to have the white house mistreat someone who is a career nonpartisan public servant who cannot reach a shelf that falls directly in the americans with disability act, it is abhorrent we would have a white house that would have behaved like this. >> this isn't a ramp that wasn't there and took too long to get there. they moved the shelf. >> that level of vindictiveness is also a violation of our anti-discrimination laws so we're violating national security, we're violating human dignity and our anti-discrimination laws. there's so many problems with these stories and all comes down to a basic lack of respect for
government, its processes, its rules, its norms and its service. >> thank you to both of you. maya wiley and frank figluizzi. catastrophic, that's how mitch mcconnell describes his latest threat to close the border. will it spell catastrophe for republicans in 2020? "the 11th hour" back after this. n intense rush of vicks vapors. (acapella) ahhhhhhhhhhh! (vo) dayquil severe with vicks vapocool. the daytime coughing, stuffy head, vaporize your cold, medicine.
go you worry about the impact on the u.s. economy by closing the border. >> sure, it's going to have a negative impact on the economy. it's one of the biggest trade dies in the world we've done with the usmca. it's a very big trading partner but to me trade something very important. the borders are important but security is what is most important. i have to have security. >> those comments lukely caught the attention of some republicans worried about the economic impact of the president's threat to close down the southern border. here's what senate majority leader mitch mcconnell had to say earlier today about a possible border shutdown. >> we certainly have a crisis at the border. the president is right about that. closing down a border would have potentially catastrophic economic impact on our country. and i would hope we would not be doing that sort of thing. >> okay, meanwhile many republicans are clickly relieved by the president's announcement he would delay a push to replace
obamacare until after the 2020 election. the president's shift came after a conversation with mcconnell monday. mat majority leader said he told the president the senate would not be taking up comprehension-health care reform before the election. back with us tonight wanda summers, political reporter for the associated press and jeremy peters, political reporter for "the new york times." welcome to both of you. thanks for being here. wanda, the closing of the southern border, there are all sorts of people that said he wouldn't do that. that's president trump redire redirecting people and misdirect ago tension from things. i remind people he did shut down the government when he didn't get a deal he wanted and it didn't end up getting him a better deal. at this point there seem to be a lot of conservative interests and business interests and a lot of republican interests who are whispering in his ear, this is really not one to be joked out. >> it's been made by members of
the president's own party, mitch mcconnell being one of them. one thing i've noticed in following the president on this particular issue is it is one that animates his base and literally what he was running on from day one when he launched his presidential campaign and it's something that he has carried on. he seemed to have left wiggle room as to whether he would do that in his remarks today. you know, he suggested he was happy with some of the action that is mexico has taken and his hisaides are looking at partial ones. whether he continues to talk about it and use it as a rallying cry and what position that could put republicans in who are listening to democrats at home in their district particularly in the white house who are campaigning on had issue of immigration and quite a few see that as an area where they want to compete with the president and want to compete with republicans and show a contrast with how he views the situation at the board en. >> for the first two years of this presidency, jeremy, there
was some sense that what the president goes out and speaks to his animated base at rallies about would be different than what policy would be and this as wanda says seems to be one of those instances where the president does not have alignment of thought with republicans or other conservatives or the business community or most americans on actually shutting down the southern border. maybe we just don't have enough of an understanding of the consequences of that. i assume the president does and that his advisers have told him that that would be economically disastrous. >> a couple of things there, i think trump is always going to do what trump wants to do. you're not going to push him into a corner as all of his advisers who know him well enough by now and know not to tie to control him will say. he ultimately will make up his own mind and he resists any efforts to try to push him in a particular direction. he doesn't want to go n he's always been that way. i think, though, there is a
difference between republican voters and trump voters. those are not always the same thing. there's overlap, of course, but trump voters by and large will back this president as a matter of tribalism. they see him as their defender. they take on his battles and his scars as their own. and in a situation like this, i think they're probably not thinking of what the ramifications of a border shutdown would be in specific detail. they're looking at it in the abstract and think, hey, you know what, he's being tough. he's honoring his promise. he's keeping his promise. i mean, there's a reason trump travels the country with signs behind him at rallies that say, promises made, promises kept because that's all he has to his base. >> and one of those promises made was the repeal of obamacare. he talked about how he would have a replacement the same day, maybe the same hour if you recall him saying that. some of those people who fake on donald trump's battles as their
own, rehema ellis was in the state that stands to lose the most if obamacare is repealed where trump voters said we can't have a repeal of medicaid and obamacare which doesn't allow people to be ensure fundamental they have pre-existing conditions. there is no republican effort under way whatsoever to draft some replacement to obamacare. the president seemed to come out with in this week and throw everyone off guard. >> absolutely. he since backed off that in a signal that's not something he'll take up until after the 2020 election. the thing i found interesting about this and that the president started talking about health care again is, one, back in 2017 when his party controlled both the house and senate, they tried to do it and were not successful and there's divisions among the democrats running for president on how to best address health care and seen republicans, other republicans not trump
republicans necessarily come out and lambaste those people, say that socialist and want to push a single payer government run system and do away with private insurers people like and that seems like a strategy republicans could use in the general election if depending on who the democrat is that gets elected rather than going at this right now and it's not clear they would necessarily be successful. >> wait until the democrats have nominated a candidate so that person has a position on what the new health care plan for democrats will look like after 2020. at the moment the president is now promising something in his second term he wasn't able to do in his first term as wanda points out when he controlled both houses of congress. >> exactly, frankly, ali, it's something no president has been able to do. no entitlement program benefits to voters to the american citizens has ever been taken away once it's been given out by congress. it just has not happened. so i think that's kind of a
fantasy that republicans continue to have. there's a reason they haven't been able to do it since it was passed in 2010. you're looking at this in terms of 2020 it raises all sorts of interesting questions about what republican also run on. right now what they have is a message about how awful and radical and leftist the democrats are. that's what they're going to say and what the president is already saying and done a very effective job in talking to democrat, this is what they've told me of branding aspects of their agenda like the new deal in very negative terms this. is what he does. he reduces serious people and serious ideas to punch lines and childish nicknames and right now democrats are very worried that the way he's attacking things like the green new deal, their efforts to broaden health care coverage, the way they're doing that is -- the way the republicans and trump together are doing it is going to be damaging to whoever the nominee
is and from here on out, their job as they see it, the republicans are going to try to tie whoever the nominee is to this idea that the democratic party is so far left and so radical it's essentially a socialist party. >> thank you to the two of you tonight for your analysis. wanda and jeremy, the untold stories of a first lady revealed by diaries kept private until now. susan page is back with that story when "the 11th hour" tips.
before shared details including about one of the darkest times in her life. page write, quote, overwhelmed by pain and loneliness she contemplated suicide. she would pull over to the side of the road until the impulse to plow into a tree or drive into an oncoming car had passed. and from her very last diary entry written 12 days before her death she wrote, quote, pardon me. the doctor came in and had a very sweet talk with me. as she rubbed my arm she told me the most ghastly thing. she told me the next time i go home, i will have hospice. i said doesn't that mean i'm dieing? she said, yes, it was like being hit in the solarplex. i asked her to keep it a secret. back with me, to talk a moment while i clear my throat is susan page, remarkable author of "the matriarch." i heard you talk about this, susan. and i heard you talk about when you were first given access to her diaries.
and what you found when you went through them. it was much more personal than you expected. >> it was extraordinary. just having access. the first time i interviewed her she said don't even ask. the fifth time i interviewed her she said, i've decided to give you access to all my diaries and my -- >> you didn't see coming. >> my words back to her were are you sure? which is not what you should say in that situation. don't let her think about it. exactly. but for whatever reason she gave me access to the diaries which started in 1948. she kept a diary from 1948 until 12 days before her death. >> in remarkable. >> in remarkable detail. >> she kept track of who she saw and what she thought about them an how she felt. it is an extraordinary gift to historians. >> went through a great deal. thought of as one of the strongest people around, in fact, from your book you write, in some ways barbara bush walked the walk of feminism.
competent and confident, she had strong opinions and wasn't afraid to express them. that said she didn't talk the talk. she refused to call herself a feminist. you pressed her on it. >> we went around and one of the interviews we went around and around because i think of her as a feminist. she expressed feminist principles but refused to say she was a feminist and went around and around and i gave up. you're being so slippery. she said, yes, i am. you know, i think that was a residue of some resentment she felt at the start of the women a movement when women who chose to stay home and raise their children felt they were being dissed by the movement. she felt that way. she felt that way when students at wellesley college signed a petition saying she was not an appropriate choice to give their commencement address in 1990 and in public she was breezy about it. in her diaries she makes it clear she was hurt. >> on equal payday we recognize the value of women who did make
that choice to head their families to raise their children. she is a testament to the power of doing that. everybody in her family, her husband, her sons, it was very clear that she was in many ways the boss of that family >> she was the enforcer. jeb bush her son told me she was the traffic cop. she was -- her husband had this wonderful career, building a private business, running for office. but she was the one who was at home making the trains run on time, making sure the kids got to school. exerting the discipline when that was necessary and building extraordinary relationships with her children and late weather her grandchildren. >> what did she tell but donald trump if she did not like donald trump. that went back a long way. decades ago she said donald trump was a symbol of the greed of the 1990s. and she liked him even less when he attacked her son during the
2016 primaries and one of the most surprising things she said to me in these interviews, the last interview i said, do you still think of yourself as a republican in the age of trump and she said, that, no, i think i don't. >> what a remarkable book. there are things in here for all of us who thought we knew about barbara bush we didn't. what a remarkable piece of history and, of course, we lost her in the last year so to be able to have this book out and have you talk to her so close to her pass something remarkable. congratulations. "the matriarch" by susan page. "the 11th hour" is back after this. n homes 24/7. we're on the move. roger. hey rick, all good? oh yeah, we're good. we're good. termites never stop trying to get in,
broadcast. coming up across the pond, britain's p.m. talks postponement again with parliament still paralyzed over brexit when "the 11th hour" hours. if your moderate to severe ulcerative colitis or crohn's symptoms are holding you back, and your current treatment hasn't worked well enough it may be time for a change. ask your doctor about entyvio®, the only biologic developed and approved just for uc and crohn's.
entyvio® works at the site of inflammation in the gi tract, and is clinically proven to help many patients achieve both symptom relief and remission. infusion and serious allergic reactions can happen during or after treatment. entyvio® may increase risk of infection, which can be serious. pml, a rare, serious, potentially fatal brain infection caused by a virus may be possible. tell your doctor if you have an infection experience frequent infections or have flu-like symptoms, or sores. liver problems can occur with entyvio®. if your uc or crohn's treatment isn't working for you, ask your gastroenterologist about entyvio®. entyvio®. relief and remission within reach.
get our special tv offer a 4-week trial plus postage and a digital scale go to stamps.com/tv and never go to the post office again! the last thing before we go tonight is an update of our close allies across the pond. it's been eye truly wild week in the united kingdom. they used the brexit debate to strip down and protest climate change. 12 were arrested for perhaps the most british sounding crime possible. suspicion of outraging public decency. but it was that unfolding slow motion drama of brexit that took a very unexpected turn. of a marathon seven-hour meeting today with her cabinet, british prime minister theresa may came to the microphone and spoke. she said she is seeking a further delay to the brexit deadline which was triggered
when the united kingdom formally informed the eu of its intent to leave two years ago until a deal can be reached. and then she said something unexpected that she would sit down with her political opponent, labor leader jeremy corbin to try to find a compromise. >> this debate, this division cannot drag on much longer. it is putting members of parliament and everyone else under immense pressure and it is doing damage to our politics. so today i am taking action to break the logjam. i'm offering to sit down with the leader of the opposition and to try to agree a plan that we would both stick to to ensure that we leave the european union and that we do so with a deal. >> now, to put this into perspective think about donald trump turning to nancy pelosi do enact a policy that would impact this country and the rest of the world for generations. a partnership between theresa may and labor's jeremy corbin,
something noted in tonight's coverage. here's itn's julie etchingham. >> there is no doubt what happened on downing street was momentous, potentially tearing the conservatives apart and heralding a shift to a softer brexit and that's before we even get to what the eu make of it. >> her announce the she'd work with labor comes after another member of her own party nick bowles announced on live television during yesterday's brexit debate he is now an ex-conservative. >> my party refuses to compromise. i regret therefore to announce that i can no longer sit for this party. >> oh, nick. nick, don't go. come on. >> so tonight the future of the united kingdom and its relationship with the european union remains unknown that is
our broadcast for tonight. you can schaech me back at 1:00 p.m. and 3:00 p.m. eastern. thank you for being with us and good night from nbc news headquarters in new york. >> tonight on all in -- >> the muller report i wish covered the oranges, how it started. the beginning. >> the white house gets squirrely on the mueller report. partake a look at the orangorang the oranges of the investigation. >> democrats demand the release. >> they will never be satisfied. they are sore losers. >> the white house stonewalling congress. >> we have an unprecedented situation. >> amid the subpoena votes from the new house majority. >> what is next? putting nuclear codes in instagram dms? >> they have not come to $91 billion with all we have done in that country. >> the mayor of san juan