tv Hardball With Chris Matthews MSNBC February 7, 2017 4:00pm-5:01pm PST
to be -- >> 1152 allow for the federal geft government to deem people -- and other reasons but not to make this sort of across the board with that exception that applies to infant, school children, to grandmother and people who possess to threat this countries. i ask the court not to lose sight of that claim. it helps to drive home the court can review this order. the court should review this order and should give it the constitutional and scrutiny that this deserves. if it the court has no question, we ask that the treat this an man damous writ and deny it.
if motion stay we ask that you deny it. thank you. >> thank you i'll give you five minutes for rebuttal. >> i want to address a couple of quick points. whatever den says about looking at counselor decision-making does not suggest we look behind national security determines made by the president that determination four corners of determination are based on the congressional determination that the country at issue is of different. >> i thought you were using den and mandel as your -- now you're saying it's distinguishable, are you relying on those cases or not?
>> we are relying on them for the limits that the court reviews this issue. i'm adding when you have a document itself and that's best evidence of intent of the president relies excluively on the cause made by congress by the safety concerns presented by the countries at issue that is the end of the inquiry and should be. the fact i know counsel for the other side cited this court car danous decision and they in dedescribing the state of the law court say congress should can enacted blanket prohibition on -- it was describing mandel. we have the president making ha
categorical determination based on identify kags of -- >> what if the court said no muslim. you have been analizing to case about case that overthrow of government are you saying that the external evidence that is alleged that that the intent was to ban muslim is equivalent to that? >> if there are executive order that prevented the entry of muslim that would be people would standing to challenge that. and i think that would raise establishment clause first amendment issues. that's not order we have here. this order is limited to the countries defined by congress. >> that was the motivation and
plaintiffs have submitted evidence that they suggest those that was the motivation why should the case not proceed to determine whether that was motivation or not. >> it is -- national security determination based on newspaper articles that's what happened here. that is troubling second-guessing of the security made by the president. >> stop. this is judge cliff ton. you deny the statements adistributed to then candidate trump and political adviser you deny those statements were made? >> judge cliff ton, i no, i would note that judge robart himself said that he wasn't go to look at campaign statements.
i do and i think -- >> that's a different point. i understand the argument they should not be given weight when you say we should not be looking at newspaper articles. both side it's moving too fast. if they were made but not to be serious principle i can understand that. if they were paid it is potential evidence it is basis for argument i want to make sure what's on the table. >> my point is in the expedited procedures of tro taking this extraordinary action that the president national security interest of the united states is an unwise course and it should be stayed. >> if we thought there was a problem this is too preliminary
if we let go forward to injunction hearing do you have evidence to present. >> we would like opportunity to present evidence back in the district court and we think that the scope of lawsuit. >> can you tell us anything about the type of evidence would you present so we could consider whether further proceeding are needed? >> not yet. the scope of the suit and the injunction need to be narrowed as the parties to focus in on the harm. the order goes beyond that tho to the areas of the president, people who have never been to this country have no connection to washington, no connection to the united states and no claim of constitutional rights. either on their own or through washington. >> if i can ask colleagues to
endull j e indulge me for a moment. -- the government position is they not included been the scope of the order, i have to say, is there any legal authority for the counsel or the president to have power to instruct the other department or instruct us to what the order means i'm not sure the counsel or president has that authority. why is it we should be look at this reconceived order why is it we should rather than try to narrowly carve out injunction you're asking for that's i done know how to write such an order. why she we look to the executive branch to clearly define what order means whether or not have to look through the lens of the
substanive interpretations. >> one the guidance from the white house council is defen tifr interpretation of the order. and the white house speaks for the president in this context. on the page of 11 we had suggestion for the kind of order that would address the harms idea by washington. and i'm going to read it. at most injunction should be limited to the class of individuals on whom the states claims rest. previously admitted aliens temporary abroad now or wish to travel and rirn return to the united states in the future. that's the core of the harm. when we're talking about an injunction entered on prelim
nation basis should be -- if there are no further questions stay injurngs or limited to to the state of washington. thank you. >> thank you counsel for your helpful arguments. this matter is submitted. we appreciate the importance and the time sensitive nature of this matter when endefer to issue as soon as possible. that you for appearing on short notice. we are adjourned. in washington we are following -- the question of whether or not an american president is limited bylaw. a law for the states of washington and minnesota have been squaring off over whether or not to reinstate president
trump ban on travel for seven countries. the hearing which was conducted over the phone wrapped up. on friday a seattle judge temporary blocked order. the ninth circuit to appeal it immediately. attorneys argue the travel ban is unconstitutional because it discrimination on basis of -- challenge special counsel to the u.s. assistant attorney general. on that point. let's listen. >> has the government pointed to any evidence connecting these countries with terrorism? >> these proceeding have been moving fast and the strongest
point on that is that in 2015 and 2016 both congress and the administration made determination that these seven countries possessed greatest risk of terrorism. -- there would be real risk if existing procedures not aallowed to stay in play or conducts its review. >> the president determined there was a real risk. >> i'm joined by ari melber. when you're watching this, the judges were tough on both witness, for both the government and the state of washington. i thought. >> judges are going to cut right through it.
there was much respond to the question. on the lawyering, i thought dog came up short. you can tell that's from folks listening live by the long pauses, you can tell when they changed subject. pressed on standing on whether or not washington state can bring the state they would reach out for other arguments that was tough going. the debate you know about from the little side on the seven countries. why these sureven. the seattle hearing where judge robart says are there thaet from these country, arose again today. there were many areas where i thought the dog struggled.
a lot of discussion on religion and whether this is religion ban or not. that's controversy. ended his campaign talking about something different. but at the heart of this case, which is the heart of the appeal here the ninth circuit could reinstate the ban or they could leave the temporary block in place while trial continues. is this discriminations by another means. there's tremendous power over immigration. what the executive doesn't get to do is hind behind the powers while trying to discriminate against first amendment whether this muslim ban or not is important. you heard argument where the judge said, most muslims are not
harmed by this. and at times i thought the washington lawyer struggled and said i'm not sure. there's constitution for discrimination on wide basis or not. we have seen rudy giuliani comments come up twice in this hearing and a republican pointed judge, judge cliff ton say, do you deny that rudy grew out of muslim ban. we don't deny that. that's kind of evidence that's going to hurt this administration if judges think it shows religious an nious.
>> su di arabia, can you argue it's anti-mus lim in the large sense it tarring getting but it is not against muslim but there's not stopping from them coming here from all the places where they live. >> statutorily it doesn't do that it's impact you have a lot of other place that are not effected. that's defense. the reason why rudy's comments are pivotal because that's what we tried to do -- >> it is certainly legally problematic for the administration that all the of the countries they pick do not have a historical link to sending killers here. we know who came here. we know what countries they came from. they murdered thousands of
people. we know about that. when you setup new immigration rules and and you don't -- you have a question. is there a rash that will link. i would tell you they would be on stronger footing if they targeted pa targeted pakistan or other countries. >> if you're a president you do get to decide where the threat it. if he thinks it's coming from those countries based on president obama put in place in those other countries -- >> travel restrictions there's a lot of confusion about. a british person who stops under libya is under suspicion. they stop over in one of those countries, why are they doing that. what's going on there.
the restrictions are not about the threat in those countries. there's been confusion about that. does the courts in the entd do they want to get between president and his authority to decide where the threat is. because historically president have the power to say japan, iraq, if they pick it, they can limit it. that's been part of the president's article 2 powers. >> it's tricky for a judge to see whos coming if from -- president trump willing to take fight to supreme court if necessary. >> mr. president how far are you willing to take the travel ban fight? >> to the system. regardless of me or whoever succeeds at later date we have
to have security in our country. it's common sense. some things are law and i'm in favor of that, this is common sense. this is common sense. >> i'm joined by panel of advisers. what do you think should decide this case. is it constitutional ban, what is the key factor that you would look to in deciding a case like this at appellate or district left? >> i think the question is whether the status quo is deeffective and whether we need this muslim ban if it was a terrorist ban why don't they go against countries that sent terrorists. instead they went against country why not a single person
caved a fatal terrorist attack. at district court the judge said i want to make a ruling based on fact or fiction and i would do it based on faction. there was two issues one can president use authority sweeping sport n authority not connected to -- the appeal court that heard the case was skeptical about the notion you could not review it. they were skeptical that washington could not come in plead the rights of its citizens. if you call something a muslim ban and call you something different, you can put lipstick on a pig but it's still a pig. >> how can you argue that is ba
law is not our enemy. >> i'm not arguing that. >> you said country don't pose a threat in realtime right now his ba law is o problem from iran. >> what kind of system we need and the system we have was extreme vetting. so president trump said i want extreme weighting that's what we already had. it's an individualized -- this not determination people based on background it's based on content of individual character. we have a system where if it you pose a threat you have to individually extremely vetted. they proved there was no new threat. so the national security officialsed involved in declaration, you saw brief
include two secretaries of state, four people on the stream one week before, they said there's no new threat and there's no new reason to think it's not working. >> how do you know as a legal scholar why our threat comes from? it's been financed by iran, the shy ad are behind it. this is complicate, if you're a judge and you're wrong about it, and we do suffer, what do they say it's not my fault? >> what the judge said prove there's a threat -- >> subsequent to this ruling? >> they said to him -- >> president are responsible for the future not the past. >> there's a new threat. >> i'm asking in terms of
consequence. ? >> they have to rely on fact and whether response to the fact are consistent to the law. he had no fact and -- >> i except if it was imper kal we would have beaten by now. >> one week before, all of these officials signed this declaration we are current with the threat stream and we did not think it would be addressed by this. it would be addressed individual system individualized vetting. they say let's three throw away machine and put in the broad ban and the ban turn out to be not based on fact. you don't get deference for being president when you don't make reasonable -- and causing
chaos in the process. >> it's -- here is an exchanges between washington and judge cliff ton on -- let's listen. >> to prove religious. >> we have alleged that. >> how do infer that if in fact muslim are not effected. >> thr statements we quoted in our complaint that are shocking -- discovery to find out what else might have been stayed in private. the statements from president
and his top advisers to allow us to go forward on that claim. >> mr. riff can, how do you respond to that? >> let me point the post co gent notion that federal judges are equipped to second-guess performed on basis of objective allegation had the same intelligence. we're talking about discretionary judgment. >> what are limits of the president's power in this case, what the limit? if it was out right ban could he get away with it? >> it is not a muslim ban. >> if it were in principal it would be establishment clause, first amendment issue. >> i have a problem that states
can vin kat preexercise -- we have two political branchs that delegation of the president's authority to exclude certain classes of aliens plus constitutional authority, so both political branchs came together. and we have both executive and determination these are countries of concern. where my colleague how you slice this, how you treat the concern, what are the measures, he says extreme vetting, that's not -- by the way, breed terrorism, they high quality vetting in the judgment of this administration is impossible.
the notion that that judgment can be article iii judges are -- >> you think legal for the -- you can neighboringmake a list country -- >> if we have is particularly a situation where political branchs have -- i think it would be entirely constitutional. my prediction is this would be dismissed on -- >> you think this would be that way with the president. we way do you think this is going to go. will it go with the president or with the state of washington here? >> it's going to go for the state of washington. how do you deal with the terrorist threat. do you deal with it by a ban on countries or do you deal with it
visas who are granted to individual who are is heavily vetted. the system we have was individualized vetting ask there's prove that it wasn't working. in fact, these countries all the people who would have committed terrorists attack were vetted out. if you don't like that system, why don't you make the vetting system stronger instead of shifting to a system which bans people based on stereotype based on religion and national origin. >> i agree with you and i think that the secretary carriry and president obama way have been secretary clin toton would agre with you. you're not going to get employee
-- me to fight with you on that. if it gets to the question on who smart and who is not, i put my -- >> you're state the buck stops with the president, if president is obeying the law and if it the president has facts to support what he is doing in instead of relying on discrimination. >> it's president or she is responsible for protection of the country. michael due caucus was a good servant. in the end, the public said -- they should not have let the guy
o out. >> where does the power come from. >> from constitution. >> who is last. >> i agree with you. >> exactly. >> we are talking about -- >> the constitution does not provide for judicial analysis of every single issue. body of law political question doctrine. it is utter exaggeration separation of power to say the court has a standing in everything. it is -- >> you said it, you said your side will win argument in this court. >> yes. >> professor you believe your side will win. we look at who is going to win.
>> the majority of the court that have ruled, the vast majority on this have ruled against the president. remember this, donald trump is private citizen, he became citizen, if he violates the law and the court says you're violating the law, you captan't it. >> please coming back. thank you, i agree with you completely. david rift con, thank you. the states have sued to block the president's travel ban. we have heard during the campaign, they are using it as evidence in court. in critiques say trump is using --
on saturday president trump tweeted, the opinion of this so-called judge is ridiculous and will be overturned. what is our country coming to when a judge hall homeland ban -- pouring into our country. a terrible decision. through the judiciary decide with the executive in this cases, some say words can come back to harm him. no one apparently give him anything like a miranda warning anything he says and will be used against him in the court of law. amy is a democrat from minnesota and an attorney and joins us now. >> thank you. >> consequence of legal decision if the court rules the president is beyond his bounds, where does
that lead us? who does set the policy on illegal dangerous immigrants coming into in country. the court or president, doesn't it go back to him? >> the president is responsible for national security. there are through equal branchs of government. and congress gets involved as well. if this were to happen the administration needs to look at what are the bio metrics involved. we have upgraded vetting for the refugees, if from everywhere in the world. we have four-year-old toddler that we were table to get through since the order. if they happens he has to work with people figure out what he want to add with vetting if he has threats of people from these
country and he wants to change some things good. what happened here is this was so rashly directed draft that the next day they came in and said this doesn't include green card people, that became one of the argument here. you can't change what the order meant originally and it shows how many difficulties there r with this order under the law. >> let's talk about to option, if the ninth circuit, this administration is unlikely to have found itself in that court, they are in there they going to rule own this appeal. if they go with the government on this, and they end the ban, what will you think of that? would you think that is mistake or something that has to be remedied in some other way?
how would you react to it as a lawmaker, if it goes the other way? >> two things, i would like to get the administration to simply admit this has not worked. the vetting rule wasn't vetted. there are children, people caught in transit, and they need to fix it. secondly, the congress we do have a bill and right now it is democratic bill to repeal the ban and congress should get involved. we have duty to get involved and to work with the people in our state, those are two twways to change this. we are going to see individual rights asserted because this is constitutional issue as well security issue. number one focus of government is people's safety. a number of national security
expert says this doesn't make us safety because of the way it was done. >> how do we predict the next -- professor ko talk about, we know somalia is a dangerous country, we know the groups are international, they are mobile. cy ran killed boeby kennedy he came from palestine. my question is how do you know? how do you know which country is going to hit us next? >> you use every tool you can. >> isn't it the president -- if this were president obama wouldn't you trust him to decide where threats are coming from?
>> -- he focused on those countries specifically. >> congress have worked on this to change the vetting process acknowledging there's a lot of people that don't to do us harm. that doesn't mean we should throw out entire refugee program. i don't believe this was the right way it go. in stay instead of working with the president to see what change hef he wanted to do. they are looking at trying to change it, we're going to use this inception for that, i think they are better off starting from scratch, working with law enforcement and that would be smartest thing to do. meanwhile, we'll wait to see what the court says.
>> that's better way. legislation with the president banning out with him. thank you. >> i can see you love the law. >> scalia on one thing, i like law. not interpretation. >> there's no way to cover three court judge hearing you done with it class. >> thank you. intentionally down playing terrorists threat. here what he told macdill airport in tampa. >> the dishonest press doesn't want to report it. they have their reasons when up
understand that. >> now u.s. congressman bill johnson. congressman, respond to what you have been hearing from argument we had on this program. >> i think you have been making some of the points i would make. it's one person in this country that gets to make these decisions under our constitution and it's the president of the united states. even the courts have affirmed that in -- the court ruled that no court unless explicitly in law to allow or disallow aliens to come into the united states. so i think you have made the point clear, chris and i have agreed with much of what you said it's president responsibility to support and
defend the united states. he has access to the classified information. it's his decision. >> my concern is, in the end the judges are not going to make policy, they have criticize and restrict, but the dangerous thing we fall into, there's going to be question who is calling the shots in foreign policy and national security office. you don't have to like him, you don't we only have one president you have to decide how to defend this country. we start hamstringing that inappropriately. may be you can argue this is something ha has to be stopped in its tracks, but i with think there's an argument that trump has, he can say these countries are dangerous, we can't predict a country that hit us before will hit us again.
would it have gone to countries that have hit us rather than select another seven to go after? >> you have to go back it -- >> why didn't trump name egypt? >> because he had authority. >> most of those guys came from egypt. >> base he had the authority of the law on his side. the senate judiciary committed conducted an analysis there have been over five hundred people arrested tried and convicted for terrorists acts in the united states. over 380 were found to have been foreign born and 60 of those people arrested tried and convicted came from those seven countries. for anyone one to say there's no
evidence those countries are not a threat, that's inaccurate. >> we have to go overall of that. u.s. congressman, thank you. at the ninth circuit court of appeals. the legal fight goes on as president trump fries to use fear to win answer argument. there is "hardball" where the action is. fees? what did you have in mind? i don't know. $6.95 per trade? uhhh- and i was wondering if your brokerage offers some sort of guarantee? guarantee? where we can get our fees and commissions back if we're not happy. so can you offer me what schwab is offering? what's with all the questions? ask your broker if they're offering $6.95 online equity trades and a satisfaction guarantee. if you don't like their answer, ask again at schwab. bp engineers use robotic ultrasound technology, so they can detect and repair corrosion
before it ever becomes a problem. because safety is never being satisfied. and always working to be better. because safety is never being satisfied. 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. do not drink alcohol in excess. to avoid long-term injury, get medical help right away for an erection lasting more than four hours. if you have a sudden decrease or loss of hearing or vision, or an allergic reaction, stop taking cialis and get medical help right away. ask your doctor about cialis. mattress firmness? fortunately there's a bed where you both get what you want every night. enter sleep number and the ultimate sleep number event, going on now. sleepiq technology tells you how well you slept and what adjustments you can make. she likes the bed soft. he's more hardcore. so your sleep goes from good to great to wow! only at a sleep number store.
and right now save 50% on the ultimate limited edition bed. go to sleepnumber.com for a store near you. this is not a screensaver.game. this is the destruction of a cancer cell by the body's own immune system, thanks to medicine that didn't exist until now. and today can save your life. ♪ ♪ ...stop clicking around...travel sites to find a better price... the lowest prices on our hotels are always at hilton.com. so pay less and get more only at hilton.com. companies across the state are york sgrowing the economy,otion.
welcome back to "hardball." president trump has been in office for 19 days. his administration is currently fighting off a legal challenge that could affect hundreds of thousands of people and is the direction of his presidency for years to come. in typical trump fashion he refuses to bag down. he went after a judge who rent over his -- in court system. people pouring in. bad. it's a third language. for more on the political ramification. i'm joined by the roundtable tonight. gene, let me ask you about the world view of this, trump has been presented a scary view of the world. he wants us to fear we have
circle the wagon and do extreme measures or go under marshal law. >> that was the tenure that i alone can fix it. murders and rapes and it was a dark picture of america and he po portrays himself as the savior. you saw the back ask forth you saw go after states lawyer pretty tough in both case. it seems to me whether or not that is muslim ban. while great majority are uneffected -- >> that was good point from the guy from -- d.c. >> it's true a great majority are not affected almost a 100%
are affected. that would not be okay. that would not be acceptable under the constitution. it's -- >> they are muslim. >> they make argument it's not muslim because we doesn't exclude all muslim. is that j religious ban if -- you don't discriminate against 80% or but discriminate against 20%. i think it is. >> it's hard to affirm conclusions. there was one point where the female justice don't you have exhibits that show that.
yes, i do whether this was seen as a muslin ban. >> running it through the agencies to make sure you have basis covered. once you put it out there, we didn't mean to include legal residents, pull the eo, use your eraser, erase those lines, then you don't have a lawsuit. as you heard in the arguments here, absent those provision, this covers a lot of ground. >> due process, we guarantee under the 5th amendment, we guarantee the right to persons. it seems it's people who are here. if you somewhere in afghanistan,
you don't quality as a person yet. what does due process mean? >> the state was asserting it's basis of universitys are harmed by the muslim ban, in other words it was asserting its standing under harm to the state and its entities whether or not asserting harme. state aessert the we would -- under the protection they have the right because they a card. the constitution attaches to them. they can make the dual argument that we, because those people are not allowed back in, but those individuals are harmed whether we are making that
argument on their behalf. >> excuse me, why don't we push our kids to be engineers too? >> i think it's great to import people around the world. it would be nice to know we did have an ability to learn engineering here, wouldn't it? >> i think that's an argument for another day. >> okay fine. [ laughter ] i'm being restricted here. michael, susan, eugene, we'll be right back. our coverage of the legal and political fight over president obama's immigration ban conti e continues later in this program. plus the confirmation of betsy devos for secretary of education. she's the first person, any person, to be confirmed because the vice president jumped in and broke the tie. you're watching "hardball," where the action is. busy your life can be., wew mom: oh no... tech: this mom didn't have time to worry about a cracked windshield. so she scheduled at safelite.com and with safelite's exclusive "on my way text" she knew exactly when i'd be there, so she didn't miss a single shot.
i replaced her windshield giving her more time for what matters most. tech: how'd ya do? player: we won! tech: nice! that's another safelite advantage. mom: thank you so much! (team sing) safelite repair, safelite replace. ...one of many pieces in my life. so when my asthma symptoms kept coming back on my long-term control medicine. i talked to my doctor and found a missing piece in my asthma treatment with breo. once-daily breo prevents asthma symptoms. breo is for adults with asthma not well controlled on a long-term asthma control medicine, like an inhaled corticosteroid. breo won't replace a rescue inhaler for sudden breathing problems. breo is specifically designed to open up airways to improve breathing for a full 24 hours. breo contains a type of medicine that increases the risk of death from asthma problems and may increase the risk of hospitalization in children and adolescents. breo is not for people whose asthma is well controlled on a long-term asthma control medicine, like an inhaled corticosteroid. once your asthma is well controlled, your doctor will decide if you can stop breo and prescribe a different asthma control medicine,
like an inhaled corticosteroid. do not take breo more than prescribed. see your doctor if your asthma does not improve or gets worse. ask your doctor if 24-hour breo could be a missing piece for you. learn more about better breathing at mybreo.com. earlier today an historic moment at the united states senate. vice president mike pence, there he is, was called in to break the tie to confirm trump's pick for education secretary, betsy devos. it's the first time that's happened ever. two republicans voted against devos causing a 50-50 split between the parties down the aisle requiring phones put betsy devos other the top. devos was sworn in late today. senate democrats are mounting
another talk ay thathon for jef sessions but he's expected to be confirmed. now with zero-dollar copays on select plans... ...and rewards points on all prescriptions, walgreens has you covered. so drop by and seize the savings! walgreens. at the corner of happy and healthy. ♪ king arthur: ready! washington: charge! empress wu: charge! (in chinese) king arthur: charge! ♪ let your reign begin. evony, the mobile game. download now.
withevery late night...g... and moment away... with every click...call...punch... and paycheck... you've earned your medicare. it was a deal that was made long ago, and aarp believes it should be honored. thankfully, president trump does too. "i am going to protect and save your social security and your medicare. you made a deal a long time ago." now, it's congress' turn. tell them to protect medicare.
we're back with the "hardball" round table, michael steele, susan page and eugene robinson. how big are the stakes in terms of our constitution, our country which way this goes in the courts? >> i think it's pretty big. i know administration wants resolution obviously in its favor but it wants a definitive answer so it can then project out into other things. >> is it win-win for them if they blame it on the courts? >> it's a win-win because it will get to the supreme court one way or the other. >> and they'll blame it on the judges if they don't get their way. >> it will take time, though. we have court cases going in multiple states. this will be an issue that won't get settled tonight or tomorrow morning. >> what happens if it goes against the administration, what will it say about our future and their future. >> i think it says trump overreached and they paid the price for the kind of messy rollout failure to consult that marked this -- >> does it hurt steve bannon and help reince priebus? >> that's up to the president.
i think the president probably thinks it reflects on the court, not him. >> yeah, i think this panel's ruling is important. they are supposed to look at what they think is going to happen with the case, right? that's one of the things they take into consideration by it's not december positi dispositive >> so it goes back to washington state? >> it could go back to the district judge, the federal judge in washington who made the first ruling. >> we'll be right back with michael, susan, and you syria. you're watching "hardball," where the action is.
so with our ally cashback credit card, you get rewarded for buying stuff. like what? like a second bee helmet with protective netting. or like a balm? you know? or a cooling ointment for the skin. how about a motorcycle? or some bee repellant. i'm just spit-balling here. nothing stops us from doing right by our customers. ally. do it right. told you not to swat 'em. ally. do it right. befi was active.gia, i was energetic. then the chronic, widespread pain drained my energy. my doctor said moving more helps ease fibromyalgia pain.
he also prescribed lyrica. fibromyalgia is thought to be the result of overactive nerves. lyrica is believed to calm these nerves. for some, lyrica can significantly relieve fibromyalgia pain and improve function, so i feel better. lyrica may cause serious allergic reactions or suicidal thoughts or actions. tell your doctor right away if you have these, new or worsening depression, or unusual changes in mood or behavior. or swelling, trouble breathing, rash, hives, blisters, muscle pain with fever, tired feeling, or blurry vision. common side effects are dizziness, sleepiness, weight gain and swelling of hands, legs and feet. don't drink alcohol while taking lyrica. don't drive or use machinery until you know how lyrica affects you. those who have had a drug or alcohol problem may be more likely to misuse lyrica. with less pain, i can be more active. ask your doctor about lyrica. at bp, we empower anyone to stop a job if something doesn't seem right, so everyone comes home safely. because safety is never being satisfied. and always working to be better.
i want to thank michael steele, susan page and eugene robinson. that's "hardball" for now. thanks for being with us. "all in" with chris hayes right now. tonight on "all in" --. you know, this is a very dangerous period of time. >> the fear factor. >> what we need to do is to remind people that the earth is a very dangerous place these days. >> tonight, president trump's latest effort to save his immigration ban. and the latest dark, dangerous sales pitch coming from the white house. >> a lot of bad people are thinking about, hey, let's go in right now. >> then -- >> for the sake of our children let's do our job. >> after a knock down dragout fight, republicans break the democratic blockade. >> the vice president votes in the affirmative. >> tonight, what devos will mean for public education in america and where the energy from the ma