tv All In With Chris Hayes MSNBC February 3, 2017 8:00pm-9:01pm PST
people are going to want to stay, they're not going to want to risk it. >> thank you for your important coverage of this today and tochbl good evening from new york, i'm joy reid in for chris hayes. breaking news, a federal judge in washington state issued a temporary restraining order nationwide to immediately halt enforcement of donald trump's executive order on travel to the u.s. from seven predominantly muslim nations both washington and minnesota sued the federal government over the ban arguing it was specifically intended to keep muslims out of the united states. this comes as we finally got information about the number of visas already revoked worldwide in the weeks since president trump issued his executive order. anywhere from 60,000 visas, according to a spokesman for the state department, to a hundred thousand according to a justice department lawyer defending the ban.
minutes ago, washington attorney general bob ferguson talked to reporters about what the judge's decision means for the president's travel ban. >> it's obviously a historic decision and an important one for the rule of law and for the people in the state of washington and the people of our country i said from the beginning it is not the loudest voice that prevails in a courtroom, it's the constitution. that's what we heard from the judge today. i want to be very clear about what his decision does then i'll turn to my sister general who will add a few comments as well. judge roe bar robard's decision halt to president trump's unconstitutional and unlawful executive order. i want to pe that.
it puts a stop to it immediately nationwide, so for all those individuals that relief is there. folks can travel to this country as they could before the executive order. that relief is immediate, it is happening right now. >> the attorney general was asked if the timing of the decision might cause any problems coming late in the day on a friday. >> the question went to, hey, because this happened at 4:00, will there be confusion? i'll tell you where there's confusion, the president's executive order. there's no other way to put it, it's keystone cops. it really is. that's not just me speaking, that's republican members of congress. that's what caused the confusion. there's nothing confusing about the judge's order and the federal government will be expected to abide by it and they will. >> joining me now is the executive director of the legal advocacy firm muslim advocates. farhana, walk us through what this means in real terms. you just heard the attorney
general of washington say it's immediate relief for travelers. what does that mean in terms of nuts and bolts for people getting off the plane in the united states right now? >> good evening, joy, and thank you for having me. let me first commend the washington state attorney general for his tremendous leadership and taking this fight to the courts i can't underscore enough how important this ruling was today because there was some confusion about whether prior court rulings were effective on a nationwide basis and the federal judge in washington made it clear that this particular stay is effective on a nationwide basis and what that means in practical terms is that people who hold -- who are visa holders and are nationals of the seven muslim majority countries should be allowed entry into the united states and so people who may have been overseas visiting family members, overseas for work will no lger have t
worry and can reenter the u.s. >> we did see with the previous court order the trump administration essentially ordering its officials to ignore it and to continue to do what they call extreme vetting or keeping people -- either putting them back on planes or keeping people out of the united states. what would happen if the administration were to ignore this court order and continue to deny people entry? >> the administration would be in contempt of court. and it would be up to the litigants -- and i have confidence in the washington state attorney general -- to make that clear to the judge and the judge would take action to ensure compliance with the judge's decision. >> and presumably this will be appealed by the administration. just walk us through the legal process. where does it go from here if they decide to appeal? >> so there certainly is that possibility of an appeal and -- or it's also possible they won't appeal the temporary stay, because this was a temporary
stay to allow the judge to hear the case in its full on the merits so it's possible the administration could wait until they get a full decision on the case. but, i am feeling confident that the affected communities joined by states and corporate leaders in america are going to be vigorously, vigorously challenging this executive order and i might add, joy, that this lawsuit that was brought by the washington state attorney general was supported by major corporations in washington. like amazon, expedia. it's a tribute to these companies for standing up and realizing that closing borders means closing innovation in our country and no reasonable american can think that's a good thing. >> indeed. as well as supported by thousands and tens of thousands of protesters who have stayed with this over the past week. farhana khera, thank you for joining me. >> thank you, joy.
>> joining me is gadeir abbas, co-counsel for the council on american islamic relations wch filed a second lawsuit saying that the order was unconstitutional. what does this say for your lawsuit given this stay that was issued for the washington state suit? >> it's still pending and there's still a lot of things that need to be done even with a stay in place nationwide, now, just as different parts of the executive order were stayed over the last weekend, this stay is not necessarily going to be permanent. it's temporary injunction in regard to the executive order so at the end of the day what needs to happen and what our lawsuits and other lawsuits are seeking is a final disposition of the executive order that would declare it once and for all unconstitutional and the appeals process would start from there. >> what do you make of this discrepancy? it's a big discrepancy between the number of visas denied for
the state department which says 60,000 visas were denied and then the justice department saying it was more like a hundred thousand. what do you make of this discrepancy between the administration's different departments and the numbers? >> well, the justice department in court seems to indicate that there was about a hundred thousand or so and regardless of whether it's 100,000 or 60,000, those are despicable numbers. these people are people who came to the united states to study, people that work at the technology companies and in other places so that's the carnage donald trump is imposing on america. 60,000, 100,000 people that can no longer live their lives in america as they had initially planned. >> and what do you make of the administration's argument that there's something particular about these seven countries that they decided that these were the ones they had to single out above any other country and
they're laying that at the feet of the obama administration? >> well, there is something particular about these seven coun countries. there has been not a single american citizen on u.s. soil that's been killed by someone from these seven countries. and so it's really just a level of opportunism and litigation planning they've engaged in in terms of selecting those countries. my folks are from iraq. i have friends and family from iran and libya and so in the muslim community this is a personal issue and i think there's been a lot of inspiration taken from the protests across the country and so far the courts have weighed in vigorously on behalf of what is an unpopular minority, muslims in the u.s. >> the washington solicitor general called the justice department's argument frightening in court today. let me play that.
>> i said at one point the department of justice argument was frightening and the argument was essentially that if the president says i'moing this in the national security interest, then a court cannot review whetr that'she real reason or any rational reason for the president's action. our view is that's not the law, that's a scary view of the law and luckily the judge rejected that idea. >> gadeir, what do you make of that characterization, the argument by the administration that it's frightening. >> it's true. the department of justice has taken the position that the president has unfettered discretion as to determine who comes in and does not come into the united states and that's not the law, thankfully. the constitution places limitations on the ability of the executive branch and the legislative branch from discriminating on the basis of race, on the basis of religion. remember, the constitution roibt -- prohibits religious discrimination not in one place but several places.
in the first amendment, the establishment clause and free exercise clause those provide restrictions on the executive branch's ability to place restrictions on people's religious beliefs. the equal protection clause also redundantly protects people's religious beliefs and practices and so the government is making a terrifying argument and it's similar to arguments that the executive branch has made in defense of some of the most despicable policies including torture, indefinite detention, indiscriminate surveillance. so we're seeing a recycling of those same tired arguments the executive branch is omnipotent and all powerful. >> gadeir abbas, thank you for being here, sir, we appreciate your time. >> thank you. >> joining me now is a fellow at the international center for counterterrorism at the hague, steve clemens and former intelligence officer malcolm nantz, now an msnbc terrorism
analyst. i'm going to go across with you, gentlemen. i'll start with you jm. the administration's argument is that they chose these countries and issued this avel ban in order to further national security. what do you make of the argument and what do you make of this judge's decision to now at least temporarily halt this travel ban? >> well, i'm not an immigration law expert so i won't comment on the judge's decision. i do think the ban is more symbolic of the groups that the trump administration wants to exclude from the united states than from any kind of national security imperative. i don't think it makes us safe. >> why not? their argument is well, if these are countries that are unstable and internally are having issues with jihadism that are facing those countries, why brick somebody who is exposed to that here? why does it not make us safer, if you could explain. >> well, it exacerbates the perception that the united states is at war with islam,
that lease there's a clash between the united states and the muslim world. but even on a pragmatic basis it basically fails. we're talking about really such tiny fractions. when we look at this kind of thing as other people pointed out these countries have not been sources of terrorist attacks on u.s. soil over the last ten years but more to the point is we're really doing -- taking actions that impact hundreds of thousands or millions of people to deal with a problem that can be counted in handfuls. >> and to stay with you just for a moment, jm berger, the white house in this cve, this counterterrorism document, are excluding american terrorists, white nationalist groups, etc., from their designation in terrorism in terms of trying to counter violent extremism. you wrote about that today. can you expound on that? >> yeah. we only ever had a token presence of white nationalists in our counterextremism program.
these programs are meant to counter terrorism by doing community building and different kinds of non-kinetic things where you don't arrest somebody or kill somebody and they were theoretically color blind. they could apply to any ideology but in practice they were mostly targeting muslims. the decision which has been reported but not announced, we're still hearing this from sources, they're going remove white nationalism and domestic extremist on from that mix and make it solely focused on islamic extremism. similar to the travel ban, this is about the optics of who this administration wants to exclude. throughout the campaign we saw that white nationalists in this country were ecstatic about the things the trump campaign was saying and they are ecstatic about his first two weeks in office. all of this is designed to polarize people and to start moving us toward a definition of
an american identity that is white and christian. >> and malcolm nantz, we know there are at least two people -- two or three people inside of the administration that have this ideology that is this sort of the real fight is between if christian west, white christians, and islam. so talk about this influence that steve bannon and general michael flynn are having on this administration and are they making the matter -- making matters worse when it comes to counterterrorism? >> well, they're absolutely making matters worse. that's pal tently obvious by this blapg -- blanket travel ban they had on these countries. i think they're test beds to see how they can move forward and start excluing people from other muslim countries but like jm said earlier there is an ideology, there is a movement within the white house that i think they're pushing as well which is this nationalist christian identity of the united states.
and it's interesting because i didn't accidentally use that word, christian identity. there have been right wing extremist nation, dominionist in nation, that believe the united states should be a christian only nation d who have carried out acts of terrorm in the christian identity movement itself. but steve bannon himself believes in a form of political anarchy against liberal democracy and people who are liberals themselves based on the writings of alexander dugin of russia who is a -- the best way to put it is he's the rasputin of the eastern european nationalist movement and he aligns very closely with him as well as general flynn who has some very interesting -- and i'm being polite -- words -- beliefs about what he thinks this alliance against isis, al qaeda,
iran and north korea should be and that he should align, now, the united states and russia together as this christian bulwark to stand against islam itself. all of this is a validation of osama bin laden's ideology where he believed that there was going to be a clash of civilizations between christian west and islam. and so it's very fascinating to see these top tier ideologues in the white house fulfilling bin laden's wish so to speak. >> to reset for those tuning in, a federal judge in washington state has issued a temporary restraining order, a nationwide temporary restraining order that immediately halts enforcement of donald trump's executive order, the travel ban he issued to those traveling to the united states from seven targeted countries. this is in response to a lawsuit filed joint baby washington state and a second state so this for now is a halt to the travel
ban. i want to go to steve clemons for just a moment. steve, this ideology that we're seeing in the white house that want this is clash of civilizations between the christian west, including russia and islam, is also being played out in europe where these alexander duganites are operating. this is not just the united states, right? >> no, we have a set of elections in france, we're interested in what begins to evolve in france with the rise of marine le pen and a break down of one of the leading conservative candidates who was looking like he might win there and black her ascension to some degree. so these populist movements that have reacted to economic troubles, to terrorism inside their countries from foreign-trained fighters that have gone into syria, come in and wreaked havoc in their countries in addition to the refugee crisis has created a politics of pugnacious nationalism in those countries just like our own.
so that's why you see donald trump hanging out with nigel farr -- farage. these are movement revolutionary conservatives trying to turn the structures of their governments upside down much like donald trump is doing in the united states. >> steve clemons, you've even seen donald trump criticize angela merkel for being too permissive in terms of allowing refugees in. you saw this weird phone spat with the australian prime minister over the admission of maybe 1200 refugees that the obama administration agreed to take in who are in australia so we're seeing this being pushed from the united states to europe. that is unusual, right? we haven't had -- >> it's totally unusual. i have to tell you, i got off the plane from japan, i just arrived two hours ago and japan, you have prime minister abe coming to town in a few days to
meet donald trump. say in ear really in shock at the way donald trump treated malcolm turnbull, the prime minister of australia, it's such a stalwart ally of the united states at the time things are getting tense with china on a bunch of fronts. we talk about europe but there's also a brewing set of equities and problems in asia that that -- malcolm turnbull encounter has created real shock throughout the world, not just in japan but also in europe. the angela merkel kind of slap around was extraordinary for such a fundamentally important partner of the united states and europe and even the various questions of nato and i find it an interesting gap between the national security team like general mattis, general kelly and others that are trying to calm the waters and the white house itself which seems to be riling up the waters simultaneously. >> jm berger, australia isn't just a close ally, they fought with us in war after war but is
a close intelligence-sharing ally. how much of a risk do we have of alienating the people not only with whom we fight but share intelligence. >> there's going to be a lot of questions about what intelligence we share with whom. if you're in another country, particularly intelligence regarding russia, i think that you have to imagine that our allies are going to think this is sensitive material that maybe th don't want tohaith the united states at this point, that they don't know it can be secure. that are particularly affects syria. in syria we're really probably headed intuncharted waters here. we don't know what the administration's intentions are but they've talked about the assad regime and the russian efforts there. as an intelligence matter there's a disaster lurking there because there's a vetted opposition of moderate rebels in syria. we collected that intelligence on the basis of being a good faith partner and that intelligence is in the hands of
the administration which may choose to share it with assad or russia or somebody else. >> that's not comforting. jm berger, steve clemons and malcolm nantz, stay with me. joining me by phone is the attorney general of washington state bob ferguson. mr. ferguson, thank you for talking with me. i want to read you what pete williams is now reporting. he's reporting a department of homeland security official is saying the seattle judge's order will have no immediate practical affect. the official from the trump administration is saying all previously issued visas from the seven affected countries were canceled by last week's executive order so anyone hoping to come to the u.s. would have to go to consular offices and reapply for a visa and in the meantime the trump administration is likely to seek a stay of today's order. can you make sense of that for us? >> i'm not sure -- thanks for having me on. appreciate it. i'm not sure if i can make sense of the first part. what i can say in general at a high level is that the judge's decision today was very clear that he said that -- he granted
a temporary restraining order that has the effect nationwide of nullifying president trump's executive order so it allows people to travel to our country. if there are specific visas they need to attain, i can't get that information but at a high level, the judge's decision essentially strikes it down as a temporary restraining order until he weighs in on the issue on its merits. >> one of the things that has been confusing when it comes to the trump administration is whether or not it's clear they're willing to abide by these kinds of orders. you have the department of homeland security sounding at least as if they are sort of refuting what's in this judge's order. what would happen then if people are getting off planes, now subject to this stay and are still stopped from coming into the country? what relief could they have now that the judge's order has come down? >> i don't want to be overly dramatic joy but you would have a constitutional crisis. we are a nation of laws and that applies to everybody including the president of the united states and in a courtroom it's not the loudest voice that
prevails it's the constitution and it's my expectation as the attorney general for the state of washington that the federal government, including the president, will obey and follow the order of the judge. i understand they may not like it and they have rights to appeal it which they're entitled to. they will lose but they're entitled to appeal but it's their obligation and responsibility to the people of our country to follow and uphold the rule of law. >> we're speaking with attorney general bob ferguson, the washington state attorney general, washington and minnesota filed this lawsuit which has resulted in a washington state judge issuing a temporary nationwide restraining order which haltings the enforcement of the trump administration's travel ban to the united states, if you could in lay terms walk us through the argument made by yourself and your fellow a.g. from minnesota that wound up prevailing in this case. why in your view is this travel ban not lawful? >> the arguments were made by my solicitor general, noah purcell
and the judge was very thoughtful, he asked difficult questions of both the federal government and my solicitor general. in essence, the judge went to a couple key issues. we t state of washington did not have a dog in the fight and there was a fair amount of time spent onhat issue. the judge made it clear that the state of washington did have standing, that we could bring this claim. in order to grant a temporary restraining order, joy, a judge -- it's a tough burden to meet for obvious reasons. you're shutting down this entire executive action by a president so it's not easy to have a judge give you that relief. one thing the judge has to decide is that it's likely that the state will ultimately prevail on the merits of our claim. in order to grant that restraining order, the judge has to conclude we're likely to win when he gets to the merits and the judge reached that decision
as well as he said it's in the public interest, another standard he must review for this executive order to be struck down on this restraining order until he has a chance to rule on the merits. >> i want to quickly play something the solicitor general said today about the justice department's argument. please take a listen, sir. >> i did say at one point that the department of justice argument was frightening and the argument was essentially that if the president says i'm doing this in the national security interest, a court cannot review whether that's the real reason or whether there's even any rational reason for the president's action and our view is that's not the law. that's a scary view of the law and luckily the judge rejected that idea. >> attorney general ferguson, why -- well, in the view of your solicitor general is that a frightening argument? >> well i was proud of noah for saying it because that was part of the federal government's argument is a court cannot look behind an executive order. in other words, trust us, national security, judge, you
cannot take a look at it and what is motivating that executive order. you can't look at whether it favors one religion over another, you can't do that. and this cannot be the rule of law in our country. we've been through too many experiences in our country to know better. that you have to have everybody be under the rule of law and that includes presidents and to have that check and balance system in our system of government is critical and so, frankly, noah purcell, my solicitor general, he got it right. that is straight ng and should be frightening to the people of our country to think that somehow a court cannot review an action taken by a president, is there deference given to a president when he or she executes an executive order? of course, but that doesn't mean there can be no scrutiny at all and judge robart got it right. >> how important to your argument was the fact it did seem the administration was trying to create a carveout from people from "minority religions" meaning if you go to the logical argument that christians would
be able to come in. how would they dhaerm? >> those are good points. the judge didn't need to address the specific grounds in which he concluded we were likely to prevail. he gave an oral ruling at the end of the oral arguments, he'll give a written opinion that i suspect will lay out in more detail which arguments persuaded him so i would not be able to state with certainty what it was about the arguments that moved the judge on our specific claims. >> one of the other things you said? the press conference was you said the administration were, in your words, keystone cops. >> those weren't just my words. republican leaders in congress and the senate in congress have made it clear this was not a thoughtful process in writing and executing this executive order which is, frankly, deeply troubling when the broad strokes and the impact of that executive order impact so many people and their lives in a fundamental way, not just people in my state but also businesses in my state. it's the reason why entities
like expedia and amazon wrote declarations last weekend so we could file them with our complaint on monday because they wrote about the impact on their employees, the impact on their business as a result of this executive order, it was not well thought out. i think virtually everybody agrees with that and that did not help the government's case today. >> all right, attorney general from washington state bob ferguson, thank you so much for taking the time. >> thank you, have a great night. >> tha you. joining me now is the director of the aclu's immigrants rights project who successfully argued for the emergency stay of trump's executive order. it was issued in federal court in brooklyn saturday night. give us your response to this. >> it's great. ours is national as well but the more courts reinforce what's going on, the better. what we're seeing is when judges look at this and the legality, they're saying wait, wait, there's something wrong here. i think going forward with
communities mobilizing, judges looking at this, we're going to see a real pushback on this executive order. >> and attorney general ferguson, of course, would not speculate on what would happen if the trump administration did not abide by this order but he said it would be a constitutional crisis, obviously. do you have concern? it didn't seem the first time there was a stay they were that mindful of it. >> that's a great point. that would be a bigger issue than any particular civil liberties issue. an administration not feeling like they had to comply with federal court orders and not respecting the rule of law. what we've seen in our brooklyn case is non-compliance so far and we will go back to the dport that continues. the judge in our case said provide them with the list, a nationwide list of every detainee affected so they can
provide counsel. we still haven't seen that list. it's friday, she ordered that on saturday. we'll be back in court and that's a scary proposition if the administration isn't going to comply. >> what is the redress that's available to people? there have been people who have been detained in the airport. we've seen children and grandmas handcuffed. it's been a horrifying sight to see in the united states of america. what redress is available for people who have been subject to this? >> absolutely. i think to the extent people can get in touch with people on the outside and counsel, they need to contact the aclu or other groups. what's scary, though, is that the government is taking the position that we can't see the people in what's called the secondary inspection areas. >> meaning lawyers can't come to them? >> exactly. and some people don't have lawyers understandably already. we would like that go in and say we're offering you counsel, you may not want it but we can't get back there. so it's critical we have a list of everyone detain sod we can offer them counsel but that's the scary thing is that no one knows where everyone is. >> and to whom are you making the request for this list of people? >> to the united states
government. >> to the united states government. is there a court that can order them give it to you? >> there is. the court in brooklyn can order it if she feels they're not complying. the government said they'll try to get us something by monday. we'll see. >> what rationale are they presenting as to why attorney generals from the aclu and presumably other attorney cans not speak to the people being held in this detention? >> they're not spelling it out but that's their position that people can't go back into secondary inspection areas in the airport. secondary inspection lasts for 45 minutes, so be it but what we've seen and what you have reported over the last week is people languishing back there and then getting deported. that's the danger. it's bad enough to get detained for 24 hours but what we've heard are people being coerced into giving up their right to come here and being sent back. so we'll not only be asking for the list of people detained but the peep sent back after our case was filed because we're going to try and get them back.
they have the right to get back. >> can you give us an update. one of the things we've been hearing that is scary is the idea that green card holders were being subjected to this -- i guess they call it extreme vetting or not being admitted in and there were rumors people were asked to sign a document that would invalidate or make their green card situation less tenable. can you explain whether that is true? >> there's no question people are being subjected to questioning, including lawful permanent residents. we sne from our office happen today. so i don't know what forms they're being asked to sign. we're trying to document that but there's no question people are being interrogated at the airports and it's one thing to be asked questions. another thing to be asked invasive questions about your political views, your religion and that type of thing. >> hold with me for just a second. don't go anywhere. i want to bring in pulitzer prize winning daily beast columnist david cay johnson, the editor of dcreport.org.
donald trump rebuked by a second federal court. your thoughts? >> well, donald has a long history of thumbing his nose at the law. that's why he was involved in over 4500 lawsuits. and donald does what he wants to do and it's very important that we have cases brought that say we are not a law of men, we are a law -- a nation of laws. the idea presented by the administration today that an action of the president is above the view of the courts should be deeply disturbing to everybody and it's indicative of the fact that donald in his campaign repeatedly talked of the job of president as being a dictator and now you're now seeing this in action and you're seeing in the other areas not just here and we need to be on guard if we want our republic to survive trump's presidency. >> and, david, how much of this is donald trump and how much of it is the ideology being served
up to him like a blue plate special by people like steve bannon and general michael flynn? >> well, donald chose these people to be around him. steve bannon has taken objection to the idea that he's a white nationalist. his publication, breitbart, is a racist publication. donald trump has a long history of conduct where he's been found to have discriminated against blacks, women, asians, and the rental housing, in employment and other actions. donald trump is a racist and we need to recognize we've put a racist in the white house. we also need to recognize donald doesn't know anything. donald doesn't know a sunni from a shi'a from a sikh nor why that would matter. so he's very much under the sway of these other people and all you have to do is look at the countries we've chosen. not the countries where donald trump has investments, not countries like saudi arabia that sent the 9/11 hijackers here but
seven countries that include sudan where a number of people work alongside our soldiers, diplomats and spies to help us. >> and what do you expect him to do? tracking him for so long and being a reporter that's followed him for so long, what do expect him to do in regards to this executive order especially in someone like bannon who is a self-described leninist who wants to destroy the institutions of the state. >> the big unanswered question here is whether donald trump will defy federal judges' orders. you may not like a judge's order. if a police officer says stop, you may think he has no reason to do so but your only sagacious to stop. the same thing with federal cord orders. presumably some of the people around donald are cautioning him not to overplay and if he's going to defy an order to carefully pick. this would be a very, very unfortunate case if he wants to do that for him in his effort to
essentially assume dictatorial powers. >> everybody stay where you are. on that note we'll take a quick break. everybody much more to come, stay with us. for those just catching up, a judge in washington state issued a national stay of donald trump's executive order barring why pause a spontaneous moment? cialis for daily use treats ed and the urinary symptoms of bph. tell your doctor about your medicines, and ask if your heart is healthy enough for sex. do not take cialis if you take nitrates for chest pain, or adempas® for pulmonary hypertension, as this may cause an unsafe drop in blood pressure.
for those just catching up, a judge in washington state issued a national stay of donald trump's executive order barring muslim migrants from seven countries from entering the united states. we spoke earlier with the attorney general of washington state who succeeded in getting that order and we are also joined by the aclu's immigrant's rights project leader in new york who got a separate order so
that is breaking news. we'll keep following that. meanwhile, we're getting another window into the world view of the president's senior adviser and chief strategist steve bannon. the alt-right former breitbart editor who's reportedly calling most of the shots in the white house. the "washington post" obtained an outline of a documentary style movie pitch by bannon an eight-page draft warning of an islamic state of america. joining me now mattea gold, national political reporter for the "washington post" who wrote the piece about bannon's movie pitch. mattea, explain about what this script was for, what kind of movie it was, if the producer put up that first passage of it we can look and see the script you were able to obtain. >> sure, we obtained an outline for a movie, a documentary-style knew see there bannon considered making in 2007. this was after he had made a well-received documentary about ronald reagan several years earlier. he was sort of in the midst of a string of documentary films that
really echoed a lot of the conservative and populist themes we've seen come from him since then. this is going to be a three-part documentary and what i think is fascinating is that it did not just focus on the threat of radical muslims as the outline put it but it really warned very darkly that muslim community groups such as care were operating essentially as a fifth column giving a chance for jihadists to sort of hide in our midst and it warned major institutions, the "washington post," the "new york times," the caa, american jewish community were effectively appeasing some of these elements in society and allowing them to flourish. >> whatever happened with this project? >> we don't know why it was not produced. we were able to confirm authenticity of the document but it appears, like many things in hollywood, it was an idea that was developed but didn't get executed?
>> and steve bannon, so a lot of people don't know, he did dabble in hollywood, he owns a little piece of "seinfeld" which was a source of his wealth. is he just a crank that wanted to make a right wing documentary because he definitely seems to be still showing strains of anti-islamic feeling. >> he had a career in hollywood both producing, directing and writing films and it wasn't just political documentaries, though that's what he focused on towards the end of his career there but i think what's really telling about this outline is it gives us a sense of how long he has been focused on this issue of radical muslims as a threat to american security and it's something he's spoken about at length. he sees the west with these elements and has suggested that islam is not a religion of peace and something to be fearful of as christians and americans so i think we get a sense of how long his philosophy has been developed around these issues.
>> and this is something he's repeated in a vatican speech he gave in 2014 on his radio show, his online radio show he did for breitbart.com. it does seem we're seeing evidence that he is really in control or the driver's seat of a lot of the policies we're seeing coming out of the administration. is there a definitive reporting? >> we have reported in the "post," i know other news organizations have as well that he had a very strong hand in the drafting of this executive order and i think the reading, this outline ten years later as this order is now being debated and its motives are being discussed is fascinating. there's no question that he is practically without peer in terms of his influence in the white house, perhaps only the president's son-in-law jared kushner has more influence and access to trump. >> all right, mattea gold of the "washington post," thank you very much, appreciate your time. >> thank you. i want to bring in former intelligence officer malcolm nantz now, an msnbc terrorism analyst.
malcolm, this script that was created by steve bannon, this eight-page outline, it opens with a dramatic reading of zooming in on the american flag but realizing there's something wrong with it and that when you look closer you realize we are no longer the united states of america, we are the islamic states of america and there has been this great takeover of the united states and as mattea just mentioned, he see this is vast conspiracy including as far-flung organizations or conspirators as the "new york times," the "washington post" and even the american jewish community as being conspirators in allowing this islamic state to take hold. what does this say about bannon's ideology and, i mean, it has been consistent since then, too. >> you know, i don't often use technical intelligence vernacular but this is crazy. this is not something that a person ten years ago would have been believing would be appeal ing to anybody.
this is dangerous thinking. we have been at war for almost 15 years or so in defense of islam, in attacking the enemies who were attempted to corrupt islam. if this actually expands into a story that bridges over to the middle east and it becomes very popular or becomes -- they become aware that this is the ideology of the man that is the brains of president trump, this will kill americans overseas. especially our american service members and intelligence officers who have to sit el woe bow to elbow with muslis everyday, every night trying to fight the enemies who attack the united states. and we have these green on blue incidents where our muslim allies shoot us because of things and perceptions they
believe were racist. >> very quickly, what does it say to you that bannon and general flynn who shares this extreme anti-muslim ideology are sitting on the national security council? >> well, it's absolutely terrifying to me. i mean, as a war fighter, as an intelligence war fighter, these people have the ear of the man that controls atomic weapons. now, granted, that's a little hyperbole, we hope that is not part of their strategic planning but it shows their world view is islam itself is a danger to them and they are going to take it on and i think that's where we're going and this nation will be in great, great danger if that's true. >> all right, malcolm nantz, thank you. please stick with us, we'll have much more to come. everyone stay where you are. don't go anywhere. does psoriasis ever get in the way of a touching moment?
if you have moderate to severe psoriasis, you can embrace the chance of completely clear skin with taltz. taltz is proven to give you a chance at completely clear skin. with taltz, up to 90% of patients had a significant improvement of their psoriasis plaques. in fact, 4 out of 10 even achieved completely clear skin. do not use if you are allergic to taltz. before starting you should be checked for tuberculosis. taltz may increase your risk of infections and lower your ability to fight them. tell your doctor if you are being treated for an infection or have symptoms. or if you have received a vaccine or plan to. inflammatory bowel disease can happen with taltz. including worsening of symptoms. serious allergic reactions can occur. now's your chance at completely clear skin. just ask your doctor about taltz. now's your chance at completely clear skin. like their photo claims tool. it helps settle your claim quickly, which saves time, which saves money. and when they save, you save.
that's auto and home insurance for the modern world. esurance, an allstate company. click or call. esurance does insurance a smarter way, which saves money. like bundling home and auto coverage, which reduces red tape, which saves money. and when they save, you save. that's home and auto insurance for the modern world. esurance, an allstate company. click or call.
(sfx: park rides, music andoooh!d sounds) when your pain reliever stops working, your whole day stops. (sighs sadly) try this. only aleve can stop pain for 12 hours. plus, aleve is recommended by more doctors than any other brand for minor arthritis pain. aleve. live whole. not part. we are following major breaking news tonight.
a federal judge in washington state issued a nationwide stay halting president trump's entry ban for refugees and citizens from seven muslim-majority countries in response to a lawsuit brought by the attorneys general of washington state and minnesota who argued the ban specifically discriminates against muslims. washington's attorney general bob ferguson says the decision takes immediate effect. i don't think we have that sound. all right, joining me on the phone is nbc news chief justice correspondent pete williams. pete, clarify for me this note i read earlier in my -- not really understanding the legalese. you said earlier the department of homeland security is saying the judge's order has no immediate practical affect. can you explain what you mean by that? >> sure, i think they're both right. i think the attorney general of washington is right for this reason. yes, the order has an immediate affect but what is the affect?
as a practical matter, nobody can come to the u.s. under this travel restriction because they don't have a visa. all the people who have visas as of before last friday suddenly when this executive order went into effect all those visas were in a sense revoke sod no one who is hoping to come to the country who earlier had a visa can now because of this court order go to the airport and get on a plane because they don't have a visa. so they have to start all over again. the question is can they start all over again. if they got a visa the judge would give them another one, the u.s.ould. but in the meantime the trump administration would undoubtedly trying to get this ruling today put on hold by going to a federal appeals court. stepping back from this, joy, there are nine other lawsuits now around the country, there were ten, one was done away with. in boston the judge said the
obama executive order appeared to be legal and constitutional. there's going to be a whole bunch of rulings like this coming in the next couple of weeks so we're going to go through fits and starts with this. it's not going to be a pretty sight but that's the way these lawsuits started up. they started as emergency efforts to get people into the country who were in danger of being sent back home again. we're now getting into the merits of whether the executive order is legal and constitutional but i would guess you'll see conflicting rulings like we did today and these rulings stopping and starting. the main thing to think of is as a result of this ruling tonight by a federal judge in seattle, nothing changes. except that now presumably these people can get visas again when the consular offices open again on monday. >> wow. >> unless another court intervenes and puts a stay so you know this stuff is going to play out for a while, nothing
changes right away. >> yeah. it stays complicated. always thankful to have you here to explain it to us. pete williams, thank you very much, sir, appreciate it. >> you bet. >> joining us is the governor of washington state, jay inslee. governor inslee, your thoughts on the ruling tonight, the successful argument by your state's attorney general. >> well, i think it's obviously important. i think we've reined in donald trump's unconstitutional action and we'll probably need a lot more but it's great to know states can stand up and protect constitutionalhts of all of the citizens because because this action by the president wasn't an insult. it damages our national security and it obviously has huge ramifications and it hasn't --
it does have immediate impact on people leaving their -- so it does have a real world ramification and a very positive way for the people of my state and congratulations to bob ferguson, our ag for great work on this and the court standing up. they realize on occasion executives would need to be reined in and no more so in this case it's heartening. i haven't seen the full text of the ruling but our claims were several and not just that this was a religious test which is clearly unconstitutional but there were some comments by the
judge where he questioned this assertion that this was a national security basis. i heard somebody say he asked the homeland security how many refugees had been involved in fatal terrorist attacks and he said he knew the answer, which is zero. so this is a big step forward. >> governor, you talked about the checks and balances. republicans are so far declining to check or slow down the administration on anything. do you see the states becoming now much more involved in trying to be that check on the administration, whether it's on this or things like sanctuary cities and immigration. do you expect to be in litigation with this administration for some time? >> i suspect there will be many places where this occurs, unfortunately, because we have a very unpredictable executive branch which seems to relish petty fights rather than helping forge consensus and listening to people. we saw the horrendously inhumane rollout of the executive order which caused so much chaos so i
don't think this is the end, i don't think it's the beginning of the end, i think it's the end of the beginning of our efforts to protect our citizens and states will be major players on that and this is perhaps the first victory for states and i think that there will be more and it's not just this. you look at histories like climate change where we are going to lead the country in climate change. we will not be stopped by president trump. these are things within our own destiny and we'll control our own destiny. >> thank you very much. governor jay inslee of washington state, thank you so much for your time, appreciate it. joining me now is michelle goldberg, columnist at slate and author of "kingdom coming." okay, michelle, a strange two weeks has gotten stranger but to that last point are we going to wind up seeing governors have to be the balance the republican congress will not? >> hopefully because we have -- because there's nobody else standing between the majority of
people in this country who voted against trump and disapprove of what he's doing and an administration that has shown itself kind of unwilling to bend to normal -- to ordinary political nerms. >> does it surprise you? we were just talking with an executive, with a governor of a state that trump doesn't seem to have adjusted to the role of executive. he seems to still be in reality show mode. >> no, because he's wholly unsuitable to be president of the united states. one of the bizarre things that you -- maybe you saw it, too, when you were covering this campaign is that you would go out and talk to people and they were maybe a little bit skeptical of his demeanor at trump rallies but they assumed beyond the brash pernod that was th sober business genius, right? they assumed he's as rich as he is, he's been playing a mogul on television for however many years that there was a person behind trump who was not an erratic megalomaniac unstable demagogue. and so whatever institutions
remain that can protect us are going to be the ones that -- if anything is to be salvaged of this country it's going to be because governors and judges and people who aren't complicit in this regime step up. >> and you know if he is a madman than his rasputin is somebody even more disturbing in a lot of ways, steve bannon, what does it say to you that we have not seen pushback in washington from the professionals, the people who do politics and presumably do it for love of country. no pushback against the presence of bannon and flynn who are extremists. >> you see pushback among democrats, you see pushback among career bureaucrats. i think you see a level of complicity among republicans that i think is frankly traitorous. >> and they don't appear to be changing their minds. you've seen paul ryan become quite supine in the face of donald trump.
he seems to be willing to let him do what he wants. >> i think they are willing to let him whatever they want to this country if it means they get tax cut, voucherized social security and forced childbirth. >> as somebody who covered the trump side, the trump voters, is there some point at which they say enough? >> you know, it depends because i think first of all some of them have to understand what's actually happening. >> or see it if they're watching news channels that don't tell them. >> so part of it is when does it filter down? i think that starts to happen when and if it a their material well-being which soon enough it most likely will. >> absolutely. michelle goldberg, thank you very much. appreciate it. that's "all in" for this evening. i will be back tomorrow morning for my show "a.m. joy" so stay tuned for that. next week on thursday chris hayes will be hosting a special town hall looking at the actual reality of what's happening in chicago. the rachel maddow show starts right now. what's going to happen this weekend? two weekends ago this was washington, d.c., right? one of the biggest protests in
d.c. history combined with the other simultaneous protests and all 50 states that same day. it may have been the single largest day of protest in american history. so that was two weekends ago. then last weekend it was this. and at least the white house had notice there was going to be a protest the day after the inauguration but when this happened the following weekend as well you could tell they were taken aback. that outpouring of dissent, that was a response to the refugee muslim ban the president signed a week ago tonight, led to protests last weekend. we had this weekend of chaos and confusion and protest and recrimination and the white house walking parts of it back and not others and lawyers flooding into airports across the country to help people who were stranded. after all that, the white house tried to say, geez, this is no big deal, geez, you people just calm down.