tv All In With Chris Hayes MSNBC February 21, 2020 12:00am-1:00am PST
statement. [ booing ] little wise guy, he's a little wise guy. >> the distributor of "parasite," the superb south korean film with subtitles which won with best picture and then some, responded to trump's attack with this. "understandable, he that's our broadcast on this thursday night. thank you so much for being here with us. good night from our nbc news headquarters here in new york. breaking news that the president tonight on "all in," breaking news that the president fired his top intelligence official because officials briefed democrats on russian efforts to get trump re-elected. then -- >> they say he lied but other people lied, too. >> roger stone sentenced to prison, despite incredible pressure from the president. >> roger has a very good chance of exoneration in my opinion. plus, a bombshell claim by julian assange.
that on instructions from the president, a u.s. congressman offered him a pardon. >> it says a confidential now interaction with myself and the white house to determine what can be offered. and worrying numbers for democrats in wisconsin as millions watch the top candidates fight it out. >> this is not just a question of the mayor's character. this is also a question about electability. >> "all in" starts now. good evening and welcome from las vegas. i'm joy reid in for chris hayes. if you're the president of the united states and you learned that a foreign adversary was trying to manipulate the elections in your country, essentially to rig them toward the outcome they wanted, what would you do? if you found out they were trying to manipulate the election for you, would you take the help or resist it because you understood that your legitimacy depended on you winning election in your own
right and not with foreign help? well, we're learning tonight that donald trump was so angry that his own intelligence officials told lawmakers that russia is actively interfering in 2020, in the election to help him win re-election, that he fired the man who oversees our intelligence agencies, the director of national intelligence, joseph maguire. it was first reported by "the washington post" but then "the new york times" broke it wide opening report trump grew upset after intelligence officers warned house lawmakers last week that russia was interfering with the 2020 campaign to try to get president trump re-elected. democratic congressman adam schiff was at that briefing and trump was reportedly stewing that he thought schiff and other democrats would use the fact that russia was once again working to boost the trump campaign effort against him. "the daily beast" following "the times" also reported that it
wasn't just trump and that the republicans on the committee went nuts when they were told the russians were working to help trump. just think about that. the intelligence community concludes that a foreign power is meddling in our election and the response of trump and his allies isn't to try to stop it, it's to lash out and fire the messenger for telling. now, i want to be clear about just what a big deal this is. back in 2004, congress created the position of director of national intelligence in the wake of 9/11 to serve as the head of the intelligence community. the dni is the principal adviser to the president on intelligence matters. he or she produces the top secret briefing given to the president every day. documenting the latest intel from all 17 of the nation's spy agencies. it's a really big job, and it's supposed to be apolitical. they work with lawmakers from both parties on issues like election security, and sometimes they need to tell the president something he might not want to
hear. its purpose was to literally prevent another unforeseen disaster like the september 11th attacks. trump's first dni was former republican indiana senator dan coats, but trump fired coats last year in part because he issued intelligence assessments confirming that russia did, in fact, meddle in the 2016 election that made trump president. coats was then replaced in an acting capacity by retired vice admiral joseph maguire, and now maguire has been fired as well. and trump is now replacing him with a partisan hack, a guy with virtually no intelligence experience. his name is richard grenell. he is the former spokesperson for john bolton when he was the u.s. ambassador to the u.n. where he had a reputation for lying and berating reporters. grenell is currently the ambassador to germany, a position he's planning to keep while serving as acting dni. as ambassador he has attacked the german gocvernment and proclaimed that he, quote, wants
to empower other conservatives throughout europe to reverse the, quote, failed policies of the left. but most importantly, he has downplayed russian interference in our elections, writing dismissively that such efforts have been around for datas so what's the big deal? there was another aspect that must really please donald trump. he has a rare gold trump card member of the trump d.c. hotel. perfect. this is who will now will responsible for briefing congress and the president about the conclusions of our collective intelligence community. i'm joined now by erin banko, national security reporter at "the daily beast" who has been reporting this story out. thank you so much for being here, erin. i want to ask you, first of all, regarding this meeting where the republican members got upset, reportedly, at hearing that russia is back at it again trying to help trump get re-elected. what -- do you have reporting on
what they were upset about? were they upset about the fact that basically the intelligence services were snitching on what russia was doing or were they upset the way they were delivering the information could be used politically against donald trump? >> what we know from speaking to several sources about this briefing is that republican lawmakers -- i think the correct word for it would be they were exasperated, right? they were confused about what intelligence was actually being put in front of them. they had a lot of questions about the credibility of that intelligence, about what exactly it said, and how true it was that russia was interfering in the 2020 election in favor of president trump. what we know about this meeting so far is pretty vague, and i think we all have to be kind of careful here. we don't know exactly what odni briefers told lawmakers about this -- whether it was a campaign by the russians, whether it was something on
social media or whether it was something further than that. but what we do know is national security officials have for months and years even said that it was a possibility that russian, you know, forces or sort of officials or malign actors would interfere in the 2020 election. now, we know that this has been a possibility for some time, but national security officials have said that that mostly, in their eyes, takes place on social media. so we don't know exactly what's going on here yet. >> and i -- and i realize -- i assume this was a classified briefing so we may not know, as you said, exactly what was said, but my question comes back to sort of a fundamental. this is the intelligence community. the gang of eight. these are people who presumably read the mueller report, or at least their staff read it. is the reporting here they don't believe russia did it in 2016 and therefore they're annoyed at hearing mueller report-type
information, is that what the annoyance would be about? >> i think it's too soon to say, but i think putting this all in context, for the republicans and for trump himself, you know, they just got through the impeachment trial. first it was the mueller report and then it was the ukraine scandal, and i think having this information come up yet again in a different way is, of course, going to ruffle some feathers. but, again, the details of this classified briefing are still very, very vague. but we do know that republican lawmakers were a bit worried about what the intelligence actually said, how credible it was, and, you know, whether or not it was specifically saying whether russians were interfering in favor of trump. >> right. this is the house intel committee, not the gang of eight. last question, what are lawmakers telling you even on background about how they feel about mr. grenell getting this job for which he does not seem to be qualified? >> we've talked to several people about this, you know, intelligence officials who are still in place, former high-ranking intelligence
officials, lawmakers, and everyone seems to sort of have the same answer, right? grenell has very little or no experience in the intelligence field. he has sort of alienated his counterparts in germany. we had one intelligence official tell us that he's been sort of shut out almost every meeting he's had in germany. that people there don't really respect him or take him for having much value for the work that he does. and then having somebody come like grenell come into the position that he's coming into at odni, it creates all sorts of concerns, mostly because as you said earlier, the director's supposed to be apolitical. this person's supposed to gather, you know, unbiased facts and is supposed to have relationships with foreign counterparts and sort of be able to communicate with them about intelligence matters, and i think people are really concerned that grenell might not be able to carry out those kinds of duties as other past directors have. now, i should note that grenell
will only be in place for a few weeks. unless, you know, president trump says he's going to nominate somebody different, in which case he can stay on, but grenell said this morning on twitter he only plans on being there for a short while. in that short time, a lot can happen, so we'll have to see. but, again, things could change in the next couple of weeks. >> all right. thank you very much. really appreciate you being here. >> thanks. >> now i want to bring in democratic congressman david cicilline of rhode island. he is a member of the judiciary and foreign affairs committees. let's also talk about mr. grenell. even if he's only there for a few weeks we heard he plans to be there, in your mind, is it risky to have someone with that little experience and that little amount of respect afforded to him in the country where he's already ambassador and holding both jobs at the same time. what are the risks of that from your point of view? >> well, there are tremendous risks. this is an important position.
we rely on the director of national intelligence to report to the president and the congress about security threats to our country and have the chief responsibility of sharing that information with congress in a bipartisan way. richard grenell is basically an internet troll. he is a loyalist to the president. he is not qualified to hold this position even for a single day, and now we're learning that mr. maguire was remove from the position likely in response to the briefing he provided to the intelligence community. the president has installed someone on a temporary basis someone that is loyal to him. we need someone that is loyal to our country and the director of national intelligence, not somebody who is going to be a sycophant for the president and be afraid to tell him what the intelligence has found. we have the best men and women who are working incredibly hard to keep us safe and to give accurate information about threats and we need someone in that position who is willing to stand up to the president and share information, whether the president likes to hear it or not.
so i think it's very, very alarming that richard grenell will be in this position, even an acting position, for a short period of time. >> there is a sense in which donald trump is trying to break all of these institutional forces in washington, that he wants really to just answer to him and be loyal to him and for that to be their principal duty. are you concerned that republicans do not have a resistance to that and that they don't seem to be showing much of a resistance to the idea of a foreign country, a foreign adversary maybe helping keep donald trump in power? >> yeah, i mean, look, i would hope that every single american believes that the american people get to decide who will be our president. the citizens of this great country have that important responsibility, and no foreign power has a right to interfere in that in any way. when this first happened in 2016 and never was a systematic and sweeping interference by the russians, what a president should have done is said, this will never happen again in the
united states of america and put together an interagency effort to make sure that we made it clear that the russians would pay a price for that interference and that we've taken every step possible to prevent them from ever doing it again. instead, what the president did from the very moment this was revealed, he diminished it, he called it a hoax. he prevented members of his administration from participating in the investigation of it. he undermined and attacked the intelligence community. he sided with vladimir putin in helsinki. he repeated the russian propaganda that it was really ukraine. so the message to the world has been the president of the united states will not take these threats seriously, and it t's t responsibility of the congress, both republicans and democrats, to stand up as americans and say we will not allow any foreign power to meddle or interfere or unmine our elections. we fight for free and sffair elections around the globe. so the american people ultimately get to decide who their leader is not some foreign
power. i'm very concerned that my republican colleagues failed to hold the president accountable for his inviting the ukrainians to involve themselves and cheat in the 2020 election and now it appears if this reporting is true he became enraged when he learned that the intelligence community shared with the members of congress the current state of affairs. this is very disturbing. >> you did answer the question i was going to ask you. congressman david cicilline, thank you very much. really appreciate your time tonight. let's turn to natasha bertrand, national security correspondent at politico and clint watts author of the book "messing with the enemy." clint, i'll go to you on this first. you know, it's one thing for donald trump to have his own sort of phycological reasons for not wanting to accept he was assisted by a foreign adversary to get elected. it's a next level for him to get enraged when he's told through the intelligence community that it may be happening again or when congress is told that. i am concerned that republicans
are not showing resistance to donald trump's way of thinking here. for the republicans in that house intel committee to also get angry at the intelligence community rather than be enraged that russia was trying the same game again, that is a next level of disturbing to me. what about to you? >> yeah. joy, why would we have 17 intel agencies that we spend billions of dollars on to only tell political leaders what they want to hear? that doesn't make any sense. the role of the intel community is to inform policy-makers whether they be the legislative or the executive branch, the president, give them the best information they can so they can make decisions about protecting the national security of americans. that's their whole mission. so when they're going into these briefings, part of the reason it's probably a classified briefing is they're trying to give them an honest assessment that's not going to be politicized. they're trying to let them know what's coming into the election because, oh, by the way, we've been embroiled by scandals and
debates and flex in our country for the last four years because russia interfered in our last election. how do we mitigate this so we don't make these mistakes again? several things quickly came up. we didn't build a strategy after russia interfered in the last election. now the intel community is doing exactly what they should do, hey, this is what our assessment is. just from reading russian state-sponsored propaganda and reading the news russia wants president trump to be re-elected again. that's not some big classified assessment. we run this at the foreign policy research institute. it's openly available. i'm sure maguire when he went in was prepared for this, but at the same point, what do we want our government servants to do? what we've just given is russia another victory as of tonight. we are talking about this again right now. the president is creating reactions, moving people, dismantling the dni, moving people around, bringing in an
ambassador part-time. that shuts down our defense for the lengthelection. that's what we should be focused on right now. >> natasha, to your reporting, there are two reasons he should do that. i don't know which of those it is, but i'm wondering if there is any reporting which backs up which of those two it is and whether republicans want it as well. >> yeah, so we don't have the reporting that suggests that the president has told aides, for example, that he really wants russia to interfere because he thinks it's going to help him, right? so far what we've heard is he gets enraged because he thinks it questions the legitimacy of his election in 2016 and re-election in 2020, potential re-election in 2020. but i think a lot of former national security and security experts are telling us they're concerned that the intel community now is self-censoring. they're going into these briefings with congress and intel officials are actually holding back on the real threats that are posed by russia with regard to helping trump win
re-election this year. "the new york times" reported that some intel officials were very irked by the fact that shelby pearson was telling members of congress the truth about this. and that is what disturbed a lot of former intel officials that i spoke to the most, this idea that, you know, not only that the president is purging people at director of national intelligence and replacing them with loyalists. we are actually reporting tonight that a former hill staffer who worked to discredit the russia probe is now being placed atop odni to serve as a senior adviser to rick grenell. the senior officials already in place that are career officials are actually holding back information because they fear a political backlash from the president. the worldwide threats hearing that is a tradition every year public by the intel officials to tell the public what the biggest national security threats to this country are. that has been cancelled because the intel leaders of this country are afraid of backlash from this president.
and that's a really bad precedent to set. these former experts tell me and former officials tell me because it will ultimately make it so the intel community does not feel comfortable telling the president things he does not want to hear. >> the affect of it, clint, is what exactly donald trump was wanting it. if you put incompetence at the head of intelligence, afraid to tell the president this, if people are holding back and essentially doing their jobs less, you know, aggressively, then we wind up with a situation where this country is open to having its election manipulated again. how safe do you feel the next election is, given all of this? >> joy, it's just remarkable, right? russia couldn't ask for anything better. their ultimate goal is to erode trust in the electoral systems, the elected officials, in our ability to counter what they've been doing. we've had nonstop rotation of officials.
justice department, just rolling over. we have been essentially moved under, subverted entirely just by this little pin prick of an attack. we can try to defend voting machines, databases, cyber defenses, but a lot of this is about manipulation and if we don't understand what other countries, not just russia, other countries trying to flounce our election as well, if we don't understand what they're saying about the actual candidates how can we possibly defend against it? it is literally fly blind in terms of election defense. we're handicapping our elected officials, our institutions, all the resources taxpayers pay. how are we going to use them if we don't even know what to look for? >> yeah, very difficult to get people to defend against something that's in their interests not to defend against. that's the problem here. thank you both very much. really appreciate it. next, another trump ally is headed to prison. roger stone was convicted for
can you help keep these guys protected online? easy, connect to the xfi gateway. what about internet speeds that keep up with my gaming? let's hook you up with the fastest internet from xfinity. what about wireless data options for the family? of course, you can customize and save. can you save me from this conversation? that we can't do, but come in and see what we can do. we're here to make life simple. easy. awesome. ask. shop. discover. at your local xfinity store today.
as we learn more about donald trump's attempts to hide russia's interference in the upcoming election on his behalf, we're seeing more repercussions from the last time. russia fooled with the elections to help trump win. judge amy berman jackson sentenced roger stone to more than three years in prison for a number of crimes, including lying to congress, obstruction of justice and witness tampering, all to cover up for the trump campaign's courting of russian campaign help during the 2016 election. stone was convicted in november of lying to the house intelligence committee about his attempts to contact wikileaks. and of pressuring another witness to lie as well. judge jackson specifically pointed out that the crimes stone committed were to help donald trump, period. quote, stone knew that some
would view it as incriminating for both him and the campaign if he asserted his right to testify and said nothing. so he lied instead. he was not prosecuted, as some have claimed, for standing up for the president, he was prosecuted for covering up for the president. joining me now for more on today's sentencing and whether a presidential pardon is on the horizon, former associate white house counsel to president barack obama. he's also the executive director of the nonprofit organization protect democracy and dahlia lithwick, senior editor at slate. the likelihood of a pardon, it feels like donald trump is telegraphing it with some of his other pardons and comments. what would be the ramifications if he did it? >> well, he clearly signalled that he's thinking about it today, and i think we need to put this in context if he does it. for the last year there are data on record, the federal government prosecuted 165,000
people around this country. how many of those people has donald trump looked at and considered whether their sentence is too harsh? how many of those cases did william barr personally look at? the answer is they're looking at just the friend of the president and creating a system in this country where if you're a friend of the president you get special treatment. not only is that fundamentally at odds with foundational principles of american democracy and the rule of law, but here's another thing that both donald trump and roger stone can keep in mind. if it's shown that donald trump offered this pardon to keep stone quiet, there are criminal statutes that speak to that. statutes like obstruction of justice. so this pardon may be coming but the saga may not be over. >> let's play donald trump himself. this is donald trump talking about his old pal roger stone today. >> before we go any further, i want to address today's sentencing of a man, roger stone. roger stone. he's become a big part of the
news over the last little while, and i'm following this very closely, and i want to see it play out to its fullest because roger has a very good chance of exoneration, in my opinion. >> dawhlia, that sounds like a preview to a pardon. one might call it a bit of a banana republic situation, just being friends with the president, just being his ally, just covering for him is how you get enhanced justice on your behalf. your thoughts? >> yeah, i mean i think i completely agree with what ian says. this cuts against basic notions of what rule of law means, equal justice under the law, right, carved into the supreme court. we're supposed to believe that everyone gets treated the same, and if the president is say he doing special favors for people who did special favors for him, that's unbelievably problematic. the other thing joy that i think has happened this week and we
can't look away is he is telling us now he is the chief law enforcement officer of the united states. he is saying he actually is bill barr's boss and that so far he's happy with what barr has done but he's keeping an eye out, and he's saying i have the power to get involved in this, i choose not to, but i certainly have the power to second-guess every player in this system. that's kind of chilling. it's frankly terrifying he is telling us that he is restraining himself from jumping in here, but at any point he could jump in and do a favor for his old pal roger stone. that's sort of anathema to any country that thinks of itself as believing in foundational rules of rule of law. >> right. the flip side is if he has the power to exonerate, he has the power to have his perceived enemies prosecuted as well, which is the next level we hope we don't get to. let me show you donald trump's alloys in their sentences.
paul manafort sentenced to 7 1/2 years in prison going all the way down to 40 months for stone, three years for michael cohen, mr. papadopoulos, 45 days, the lowest sentence. if the sentence seeps relatively light, in this case it was far less than the seven to nine years, the longer sentence the original prosecutorial recommendation. on the other hand, i wonder if any average black or brown kid that was sentenced as a nonviolent drug offender could expect to get even a 7 1/2-year sentence? that leniency seems to only be for the rich and the well-connected. >> here's what i think we can expect to happen in coming weeks, is the criminal defense bar across the country, i would imagine, are going to be filing motions in just those cases of young people swept up in the criminal justice system and asking the court to ask doj, is
the barr sentencing recommendation for a sentence that is far less than the sentencing guidelines that barr personally authorized in the roger stone case, is that department-wide policy? is there a knnew leniency polic in the department of justice? now, i hope the answer to that is yes. two reasons. one is we should have more lenient sentences in this country. the second is at least it would mean the stone memo means equal justice for all. if it answers no, it really calls a problem here, which is special treatment for friends of the president, harsh law for everyone else. >> and, dahlia, william barr is at the center of this. he is not a check on the president, he's the enabler. >> yeah, i mean, remember, we heard rumors at the beginning of the week that barr was thinking of quitting if donald trump couldn't stop tweeting and
inte interm er if he said last week the president is making it impossible for me to do my job, yet, nevertheless, he persists. he's doing his job. apparently the president has won this standoff and it does raise real questions. if barr has told us, i cannot do my job, judge burman jackson today was very clear on the sentencing how she was trying to be neutral. she was trying to cabin the political issues from the judicial issues, but how can she do that if bill barr is saying, i can't control the president, it's out of my hands, best of luck. >> joy, there might have been one bit of optimism. >> very quickly. we're out of time. >> one note of optimism is that barr was chacined by the fact that so many doj officials worked out. activism does work and we need
this week donald trump pardoned or commuted the sentences of 11 criminals. one other potential pardon which hasn't happened yet but trump has seemed to be telegraphing is for trump's longtime friend and ally roger stone who was sentenced today to just over three years in prison. now, remember, stone held
himself out to the trump campaign as the connection to wikileaks in the run-up to the 2016 election. and wikileaks is the outfit that published the emails that russian intelligence stole from the democratic national committee. so we're waiting to see what happens with him. yesterday, we got news about another explosive potential pardon. this one for wikileaks' founder julian assange. in a british court, one of assange's lawyers said his client was offered a pardon, quote, on instructions from the president if he would turn over proof that russia had nothing to to with the wikileaks hack of the dnc. that pardon offer reportedly came through former republican congressman dana rohrabacher who met with assange back in august of 2017. the white house denies this ever happened, but back in 2017 after that meeting, rohrabacher indicated a pardon might be in the works. >> if julian assange will make available to the people of the
united states and disclose the fact that they have been the victim of a power grab and a con job, yeah, i think that deserves a pardon if he is expose that. >> what's assange asking for in return for this? >> that's all confidential. it's a confidential now interaction with myself and the white house to determine what can be offered. >> well, back then he might have been deliberately vague, but now the former congressman has told yahoo! news' michael isikoff exactly what he was offering julian assange and he joins me next. - i've been pretty stable with
my schizophrenia for a while, and then my kids asked me why my body was rocking back and forth. my doctor said i have tardive dyskinesia, which may be related to important medications i take for my schizophrenia. i also felt my tongue darting and pushing against my cheeks. i was worried what others would think. td can affect different parts of the body, and it may also affect people who take medications for depression and bipolar disorder. i know i shouldn't change or stop my medication so i was relieved there are treatment options for td. - if this sounds like you or someone you know, visit talkabouttd.com to sign up to receive a personalized doctor discussion guide to help start a conversation with you doctor about td. you'll also be able to access videos and a free brochure that show the different movements of td. visit talkabouttd.com or call to learn more. - i was glad to learn there are treatments for td. learn more at talkabouttd.com.
in a british courtroom this week, a lawyer for julian assange made a shocking claim. he claimed he has evidence that then republican congressman dana rohrabacher dangled a trump pardon if assange would say russia wasn't behind the dnc data leak. yahoo! news investigative correspondent michael isikoff that he did offer a trump pardon to assange. let's go through what the offer was, and, michael, specifically is what dana rohrabacher told you, that donald trump sent him to offer a pardon in exchange for this information about russia to clear russia of the dnc -- >> no. >> hack? >> he did not say that. what he said is he went to london to meet with assange
along with this sort of alt-right provocateur charles johnson who helped arrange the meeting in hopes of getting assange to turn over evidence that would prove the russians didn't do the 2016 election hack. and he said if assange did that then he would arrange for trump to give him a pardon. assange knew he could get to trump. and rohrabacher did say he did call after this meeting and had a conversation, discussed this with then white house chief of staff john kelly. but he also made clear that there was no follow-up. kelly was -- kelly understood what a -- how politically problematic it would be for the president to do this. so it didn't go further than that, but it is interesting that
rohrabacher went down this road. this is of a piece with all the testimony you heard during the impeachment hearings about conspiracy theories, about a server and ukrainian intervention, all designed for the same purpose, to deflect and discredit the idea that the russians engaged in their systematic attack on the 2016 election that we know about. >> but, you know, my understanding of mr. rohrabacher when he was in congress he was more of a back bencher. did he explain to you what would have been his authority to even talk about a pardon for anyone? what did he think his authority was to say that? >> i mean, his authority was sort of, you know, his self-authority. he took it upon himself to do this, but the most interesting thing about this, joy, is what rohrabacher told me his real goal was here. yes, to knock down the idea that the russians had hacked the election, but he wanted proof
that -- that -- that the real source for those dnc emails was not the russians but seth rich, the slain dnc staffer who was murdered on the streets of washington in july 2016. and that's really the conspiracy theory that grew out of the 2016 election, this young man who worked for the dnc. it was all his doing. there's, of course, absolutely no evidence for this. it's been dismissed by the fbi, the washington police department, everybody who's looked at the case, but what we discovered when we did a series on the seth rich conspiracy theories last summer, "conspiraciland" is it was really a plant by russian intelligence to begin with. within days after rich was killed on the streets of washington, russian intelligence agencies were -- agents were
floating the idea, circulating the idea that seth rich was behind it, and then the internet research agency, the troll farm in st. petersburg was amplifying it, tweeting constantly through these fake bots and trolls that they had, and soon it migrated from there through social media to alt-right sites like breitbart and others, and ultimately fox news itself. >> yeah, the weird ways in which russian intelligence has been able to dig in and sort of manipulate, you know, republican figures right up to donald trump and this guy, mr. rohrabacher, is really incredible. it's really wild. michael isikoff, thank you very much. really appreciate you being here tonight. >> any time. thank you. last night's democratic debate was a record breaker in more ways than one. the big numbers coming out of nevada just ahead. colonial penn can help.
hi, i'm jonathan, a manager here at colonial penn life insurance company. and with coverage options starting at just $9.95 a month, you can get a whole life insurance plan to help close that gap with a benefit check paid directly to your beneficiary. it's cash they can use right away, and generally, it's free from federal income tax. if you're between age 50 and 85, coverage options start at just $9.95 a month. and the rate is locked in, so it can never go up. there are no medical questions. you cannot be turned down for any health reason. and it comes with two lifetime guarantees. one, your coverage can never be cancelled, and two, your rate can never go up.
this is our #1 most popular whole life insurance plan. take the first step now. call for free information and you'll also get this beneficiary planner free just for calling. use it to record important information and helpful direction for your loved ones. so don't wait, call now. (announcer) and when you call right now, you'll also get this free prescription savings card that can help you save up to 80% on prescription drugs at over 35,000 pharmacies locally and nationwide.
today we got new polling from quinnipiac in three crucial states that donald trump narrowly flipped in 2016, giving him the presidency. while the democratic candidates beat the president across the board in michigan and pennsylvania, well -- even within the margin of error, in wisconsin trump leads all the democrats well outside the margin of err ever. now, of course, it's just one poll, but it is still a big red flag for everyone vying to replace trump in the white house and who need to win back the
states like wisconsin to do it. the state of the democratic race for president is next. she said it was like someone else was controlling her mouth. her doctor said she has tardive dyskinesia, which may be related to important medication she takes for her depression. her ankles would also roll and her toes would stretch out. i noticed she was avoiding her friends and family. td can affect different parts of the body. it may also affect people who take medications for bipolar disorder and schizophrenia. she knows she shouldn't stop or change her medication, so we were relieved to learn there are treatment options for td. - if this sounds like you or someone you know, visit talkabouttd.com to sign up to receive a personalized doctor discussion guide to help start a conversation with your doctor about td. you'll also be able to access videos and a free brochure that show the different movements of td. visit talkabouttd.com or call to learn more. - we were so relieved to learn there are treatments for td. - learn more at talkabouttd.com.
oh no, here comes gthe neighbor probably to brag about how amazing his xfinity customer service is. i'm mike, i'm so busy. good thing xfinity has two-hour appointment windows. they have night and weekend appointments too. he's here. bill? karolyn? nope! no, just a couple of rocks. download the my account app to manage your appointments making today's xfinity customer service simple, easy, awesome. i'll pass.
we are not going to beat donald trump with a man who has who knows how many nondisclosure agreements and the drip, drip, drip of stories of women saying they have been harassed and discriminated against. that's not what we do as democrats. >> nearly 20 million people tuned in last night. the most ever to watch a democratic debate. and according to her campaign, elizabeth warren's strong performance inspired her best fundraising day yet. she hauled in more than $5 million from her supporters and even inspired online memes over how that he came off the top rope and her competitors, particularly michael bloomberg. speaking of michael bloomberg, he just released his fundraising numbers and since launching his candidacy in late november, he has pumped a staggering $464 million of his own money into his campaign. bloomberg has spent
approximately $82 every second just in the month of january. let's talk about the state of the race. right now i'm joined by a former senator barbora boxer from california. and an msnbc political analyst, and medhi hasan, columnist for "the intercept." thank you all for being here. i want to start with you, senator, first. can you explain just as somebody who's been in political races yourselves, what is the relative value of money itself versus something like the horrible debate performance that bloomberg had? does the money wind up overwhelming how poorly he did? >> well, he has to do better because people are going to judge you on your debate performance to some degree but also by the message that you put out there with paid media and free media. but i think what michael bloomberg did, and it was really
interesting, is he really woke up elizabeth warren, and he woke up joe biden who was very nervous. and i think the two of them really had better performances than they have in a long time. >> well, but let's talk about elizabeth warren for just a second, though, because i feel like moments can sometimes make your future in the sense that if you go back and look at amy klobuchar's moment she had new hampshire, it wound up boosting her probably higher than she'd be at the end. you have elizabeth warren doing incredibly well going after every single one of her competitors and really beating up on bloomberg while other people are already voting. so let's just go through it right now. california in already voting. i believe early voting is already taking place in colorado, north carolina, and some other states. let's go to jelani first. there is the map of people who are actually already able -- that's super tuesday. but there are some people who are already voting for super tuesday. is it possible that warren had
such a big moment last night that she winds up changing her future through that debate performance? >> sure. i think people who are warren supporters have been waiting for her to catch on like this for some time. i think that there is the kind of blood sport aspect of it when people have the memes of her with ether, the famous track of jay-z playing in the background. i think that is not quantifiable in any traditional metric, but it is significant. people are going to be early voting, people are going to be giving money to her campaign, that gives her a kind of boost. i will go back to one thing, though, about the earlier question about mike bloomberg. i think that the thing that has to be kept in mind and, you know, there was a -- that incredible opening line that elizabeth warren had about not being able to beat republicans with a candidate who had all of those kinds of liabilities, but if we think back to where the republicans were in 2016, trump was not their first choice. but it became apparent that they
would have to swallow all these other kinds of things, all these other huge liabilities in order to get the thing they wanted more than anything else, which was to prevent hillary clinton from occupying the white house. so the question is really, do democrats feel about donald trump in 2016 the way republicans felt about -- excuse me, donald trump in 2020 the way republicans felt about hillary clinton in 2016. >> yeah, and that is a very good question to bring to you, maddie, paw the fear that i've been hearing articulated across almost every democrat that i've spoken with is number one, we're going to wind up with a brokered convention, a contested convention where no plaone dos to actually clinch the nomination but senator sanders goes in with the most. and then the question becomes because democrats' other huge fear is that bernie sanders ends up as the nominee and then that, you know, makes it very
difficult to win the senate, may even lose the house. that's the fear that people have about him as a nominee. >> some people. >> what would happen, if your view -- some people feel that way, right? what if we go into a contested convention, what would be the outcome if that winds up with somebody other than senator sanders being the nominee? what do you think would happen? >> i think whatever your view of bernie sanders, it would be a disaster. let's be clare, elizabeth warren won the debate. she was a brilliant debater and she was put on earth to destroy michael bloomberg. bernie sanders won the debate in his own way in the sense that nobody laid a finger on him. he was the front-runner yesterday. he's the front-runner today. he's got a 35% chance, according to 538 of getting to the convention with the number of pledged delegates. politico is reporting michael bloomberg's whole strategy is to go to the second ballot at the convention to beat bernie that way. it would be a disaster for the democrats. donald trump would get
re-elected. in 1952, the last time we had a brokered convention. hammered by eisenhower in the general election. bernie people will rightly or wrongly say our candidate had the nomination stolen from him on prime time television. they're already pissed about 2016. i just think the idea he gets there with the most delegates and michael bloomberg somehow ends up as a candidate because of some back room dealing and, you know, throwing his financial weight around in the second round, that's a disaster for the democrats and donald trump will be laughing all the way to re-election. >> can i add one thing to that really quickly? >> sure -- >> i'd like to, too. >> one thing to keep in mind that is this cuts both ways. it doesn't have to be a brokered convention. when you have disunity at your convention, you lose. >> agreed. >> this is 1924, 1952, the democrats in 1972, republicans in 1976, republicans in 1980
again. it almost guarantees you will lose the general election. >> senator boxer, go ahead. >> yes, i think this is a year like no other, and i think your guests are very well-versed on what could happen, but i don't think we can really predict it. what we've got in the democratic primary is two lanes. i call them all progressives. some are pragmatic, but bernie really is the ideolog in the race. and i think it's a really big problem for us. so we have to dee what happens. i wondered why he stopped attacking millionaires. he used to attack millionaires. now it turns out he's a multimillionaire. so i guess he still likes himself. but he goes after people. he's very angry. and so i think we have to do -- >> oh, come on. >> what's right for the country. >> there is nothing wrong with being angry. there's a lot to be angry about. senator warren was angry, too. righteous anger. >> you don't have to be angry at someone because they're
successful. that's ridiculous. >> i think we're seeing -- >> there are bad people who are successful. >> yep. i think we're -- we're out of time but we're seeing the debate. keep your eyes on warren, though. keep your eyes on warren, she's not done yet. thank you all for joining us tonight. >> "the 11th hour with brian williams" starts now. tonight blockbuster reporting from "the new york times" and others that russia is already interfering in our next presidential election and trying to tip the scales for trump's re-election. further, they report the president fired his intelligence chief for telling congress about it. plus roger stone, trump's political adviser for decades, receives his sentence and a stern lecture from a federal judge, but his smile upon leaving court might have been a preview of the kind words he then received from his friend of over three decades, donald trump. and about the democrats. they held a two-hour knife fight