tv All In With Chris Hayes MSNBC April 20, 2017 12:00am-1:01am PDT
controversy-filled years? what this means for the president who spoke out for o'reilly. >> i bought you so many vanilla milkshakes. you owe me. >> and how this could change the american political landscape forever. >> we are sending an armada, very powerful. republicans enter the spin zone on georgia six. >> i think this was a big loss for them. and new reports that the fbi is using the trump-russia dossier, and the white house was just smearing susan rice when "all in" starts right now. good evening from new york. i'm chris hayes. we just witnessed a seismic upheaval in the landscape of american politics and public life. bill o'reilly is out at fox news after more than two decades as a dominant figure in media and conservative politics. finally brought down by multiplying allegations of sexual harassment. in the two and a half weeks since "the new york times"
published its explosive report that $13 million had been paid out to five women over the years in exchange for their silence, more women have come forward to report their own stories of inappropriate behavior by the cable news host. claims he denies across the board. o'reilly did have his defenders, most prominently, the president of the united states. >> do you think he's being unfairly treated? >> i think he's a person i know well. he's a good person. i think he may -- you know, i think he shouldn't have settled. personally, i think he shouldn't have settled. >> how come? >> because you should have taken it all the way. no, i know bill. bill's a good person. i don't think bill would do anything wrong. >> o'reilly had survived similar allegations before in 2004 after paying millions of dollars to settle a very public, very lurid sexual harassment suit brought by a former producer. he remained on the air as popular as ever. but this time, advertisers abandoned his show in droves, leaving it with at low at one point of just four minutes in ad
time according to research cited by variety. today o'reilly's corporate bosses finally pulled the plug. rupert murdoch and his two sons wrote an internal memo to fox news staff which reads in part, by ratings standards, bill o'reilly is one of the most accomplished tv personalities in the history of cable news. in fact, his success by any measure in indisputable. lastly and most importantly, we want to underscore our consistent commitment to fostering a work environment built on the values of trust and respect. o'reilly has consistently denied all the allegations against him, and he did so again today in a statement about his departure from fox news. quote, it is tremendously disheartening that we part ways due to completely unfounded claims, but that is the unfortunate reality many of us in the public eye must live with today. it's been a truly remarkable year in the history of fox news. last july, the network lost its founding chairman, roger ailes, amid a sexual harassment scandal of his own. ailes resigned despite denying
all the numerous allegations against him. till that point, he had been arguably the single most powerful person in conservative politics. and as of today, the network has lost its biggest star, on air since fox news first started in 1996, taken down by similar allegations of repeated sexual harassment. between those two book ends, a frequent fox news guest, as well as an ally and friend of both ailes and o'reilly came under fire for his own behavior with women. see if this rings a bell. >> i've got to use some tic tacs just in case i start kissing her. i'm automatically attracted. i just start kissing them. it's like a magnet. and when you're a star, they let you do it. you can do anything. >> whatever you want. >> grab them by the [ bleep ]. >> donald trump, you may recall, went on to be publicly accused of sesksial assault or harassment by upwards of a dozen women, which he continues to deny. not long after that, he was elected president. so a second to review the record.
roger ailes out of a job. bill o'reilly out of a job. donald trump, president of the united states. i'm joined now by a media correspondence for npr, author of murdoch's world. i am astonished that this has happened. >> seismic is right. you would have never said a year ago that, hey, you're going to see roger ailes bounced because women objected to his behavior, and bill o'reilly, ways in which he offended colleagues in the workplace, that's going to get him bounced too. you know why? it's because he's been accused of this in the past. we've known colleagues have accused him of sexual harassment in the past. one of them had them on tape. he paid $9 million to make that go away. we know that there are more. >> well, the numbers, it seems to me, matter. >> the numbers matter. the context matters. at a certain point, fox news has to say to itself, do we want sexual harassment to be one of the defining issues that represents to the public what we are and who we are. and women at fox news were
incensed by this, and other executives at other parts of 21st century fox said this is killing us. your public star has been accused by an increasing number of women in the workplace of harassing them. >> let's say for a moment that ailes denied all the allegations. bill o'reilly denies all those allegations. they're allegations. they all are settlements, but no fault has been admitted in those settlements, right? but, you know, at a certain point, enough allegations make it look like the entire culture of a place is fundamentally poisonous and corrupt. >> you saw in a statement put out by rupert murdoch who stepped in to personally oversee fox after they paid ailes $40 million to go away last summer. he had a statement today to the staff that said we want to make sure this is a workplace founded on trust and respect. there are a lot of people within fox who have had great skepticism and even cynicism towards the murdochs because they allowed o'reilly to continue after these allegations. to say what are you saying to us? is this a place that's going to be founded on that? even today, there are at least
three lawsuits, two from women, julie roginsky, andrea tantaros who alleged harassment by o'reilly in tantaros' case, ailes in both, and also a racial discrimination suit that sucks -- >> advertisers obviously was a key fulcrum here as well. they started to pull out. that produces problems in the bottom line. the irony here is that ailes and o'reilly's responses always throughout the years have been we're number one. it doesn't matter. it doesn't matter what we do. >> journalistic or not. >> it was almost as if they were saying, when you're a star, they let you do it. >> think of what people -- what the president has said, what his press secretary have said when people have said, you know, the public wants you to release your taxes. the public wants you to do this. he says, i got the votes. i won. that's essentially what roger ailes has said all the time. we won on the airwaves. bill o'reilly, we are the
highest rated show in cable news. that sort of justifies a panoply of issues and controversies and problems that have arisen over the years. >> the next shoe to drop is whether there is a continuing investigation in the southern district of new york of this organization for the way they used money and moved money around in the payments of this. that's two be continued. thank you for making time tonight. >> you bet. joining me now, women's rights attorney gloria allred. your response to what happened today? >> well, it is a cataclysmic change and it's really important. we have in our 41 years of practicing law, our law firm has represented more sexual harassment victims against all kinds of predators, in corporations, outside of corporations, in sports, in the entertainment world, in the business world, than any other law firm in the country. and we have seen an evolving culture where sexual harassment is often costly to corporations,
and they just can't bear the cost anymore. by the way, chris, it's really interesting to me that president trump, when he commented on allegations against roger ailes, said -- and i'm quoting -- totally unfounded based on what i read. and then the word "unfounded" comes out in bill o'reilly's statement today, where he says we part ways, referring to fox news channel, due to completely unfounded claims. now, that's interesting to me. of course you know i have a lawsuit against president trump on behalf of one of the accusers who accused him of sexual misconduct. he called her a liar. he called all of the accusers who went public liars, said what they said was fiction and fabrication. we filed a defamation lawsuit against him and next month on may 17th, i'll be in court in new york on that case against president trump.
>> you know, part of the reason i want to talk to you is because of that. i think that the moment in the campaign around the access hollywood tape was incredibly enraging and traumatizing to millions of women particularly in this country. it was sort of swept under the rug a little bit, but not forgotten by lots of people and now you have this happening to bill o'reilly, where there does seem to be some consequences again for behavior he says is totally fabricated and doesn't exist. what does it mean for the president of the united states? >> well, let me just say that as to bill o'reilly, when he said he's parting ways to completely unfounded claims, which claims is he talking about? i mean by whom, and which ones are unfounded? are they all unfounded? are some unfounded? that's kind of left for us to guess at on this. as to the president of the united states, he suggested to bill o'reilly he should fight it all the way.
well, president trump, if you want to fight it all the way in reference to summer zervo, whom i represent and am proud to represent, we're going to fight you all the way. we're looking to taking your deposition, your testimony under oath, and of course we'll expect you to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you god. by the way, you know that president trump is going to argue legal immunity. his attorneys have argued that. so somehow of course the case involving president clinton, paula jones versus clinton is going to come into play, and i would remind president trump that the united states supreme court said that no man is above the law, including the president of the united states. and of course they decided that a president's only immune for official conduct. that would not be for personal conduct or personal misconduct. >> that precedent will loom very large in those arguments to come. gloria allred, thank you for being here.
>> i'm joined now by reverend al sharpton, host of politics nation right here on msnbc, and a man who has had some history with bill o'reilly, which is why i wanted to get your perspective. he's someone who has attacked you a lot in the show, someone that you went out to dinner, i believe with, at a restaurant in harlem, producing a somewhat bizarre epiphany in bill o'reilly. bill o'reilly, race and white identity politics was always central to what he did on that show. >> absolutely. and when you talk about an epiphany, he later said in an interview he was surprised that the conduct he saw at a famous restaurant in harlem, that people were not dancing and carrying on. >> they were not yelling and i quote here, m.f.-er, bring me some more iced tea. >> this is a personal reflection of a night that he and i were arguing as you say he would often attack me. it showed his perspective.
he became the spokesman for the right wing in this whole kind of going back to the pre-civil rights days in my judgment. >> i want to play a little bit of his comments because i think it's important to give people a taste of what this looked like. this is just one aspect of the man's career over 20 years. take a listen. >> many of them are ill educated and have tattoos on their foreheads and, you know, how are you going to -- and i hate to be generalized about it, but it's true. >> the white establishment is now the minority. and the voters, many of them, feel that this economic system is stacked against them, and they want stuff. >> i didn't hear a word she said. i was looking at the james brown wig. >> summing up, left wants power taken away from the white establishment. they want a profound change in the way america is run. slaves that worked there were well fed and had decent lodgings provided by the government. >> slaves were well fed and
provided for. so in other words, we treated you nice, but you were slaves. and for this kind of language to be going over -- >> day after day, night after night. >> day after day, and become commercely successful. >> extremely. >> was very, very troubling if not frightening to many of us in the african-american community that he could be so successful having such support in terms of corporations and others and say this from what he said years ago to what he said about maxine waters and james brown. i mean it's amazing. >> he called you a race hustler. that's a term he used about you. was he a race hustler? >> i think the question -- i'm not going to exchange calling names with him, but i think he certainly promoted a very clear and in no way nuanced white nationalism, and saying he said the white establishment, like he
was a spokesman for it. we are the minority, the white establishment, which was in its own essence race-based. and he, i think, really felt that way in all that he expressed. >> you know, he -- you talk about bill o'reilly, and there's such a similarity in the world view i think between him and the president of the united states. they're friends. they've known each other for a very long time. here's someone who kind of cut his teeth in new york in the '80s and '90s and the racial politics of that. in many ways, so did bill o'reilly, and so did donald trump. there's a kind of continuity of the cauldron of that kind of racial strife in this city that i think defines the world view of both those men. >> i think it's true. the irony is i marched against mr. trump around the central park jogging case, something you and i have talked about. and i've had my battles, as you've said, for all those years with o'reilly. we get called the hustlers. we get called the names. we get called all kinds of none complimentary terms for fighting
against people who say that they are trying to preserve something based on their race and based on their privilege. i think, you know, i was remembering today as a teenager when i first got involved in civil rights, i was made to read by dr. william jones, moral man in moral society. when you have an institution that seems to create an environment where that's allowed based on race or gender, soon that institution has to be corrected. >> reverend al sharpton, thank you for making time. >> thank you. coming up, why did the president say an armada was headed towards north korea when it was actually going the opposite direction more than 3,000 miles away? sean spicer's creative attempt at answering that question and why it was a deeply dangerous mistake. that's after this two-minute break.
>> we are sending an armada, very powerful. we have submarines, very powerful. >> white house press secretary sean spicer today had to answer for president trump's suggestion he was sending a, quote, armada towards the korean peninsula when, in fact, the aircraft carrier group in question was more than 3,000 miles away and headed in the opposite direction. >> does the president believe that he might have spoken too quickly on this location of the vessel before it was actually -- >> the president said we have an armada going towards the peninsula. that's a fact. it happened -- it is happening, rather. >> it is -- that's key, the tense there. it is, in fact, happening now. but it most definitely was not happening when the president said it was last week. the trump administration said that an american aircraft carrier group was headed to the korean peninsula with spicer himself suggesting the goal was to deter nuclear north korea.
>> she's just on her way up there because that's where we thought it was most prudent to have her at this time. >> i think when you see a carrier group steaming into an area like that, the forward presence of that is clearly through almost every instance a huge deterrence. >> a few days after those comments as well as the comments from the president himself, the navy published this photo of the "uss carl vinson," the carrier that was supposedly headed to the korean peninsula, which was notable because it revealed the ship, which had been in singapore, was now moving through the sunta straight, which means it was literally heading in the opposite direction from the place they said it was going, which was north korea. so that was strange. according to the defense department, the carrier group is now finally heading towards north korea. a fact spicer is using to try to spin away the trump administration screw-up. >> the statement that was put out was that the carl vinson group was headed to the korean peninsula. it is headed to the korean peninsula. it will arrive there -- >> it's headed there now,
though. >> what's that? >> it's headed there now. it wasn't headed there last week. >> that's not what we ever said. we said it was heading there, and it was headed there. >> i'm joined by lawrence korb, who served as assistant secretary of defense during the reagan administration as a retired naval reserve captain. mr. korb, i do not understand how this happened at a basic level, how something as important as the whereabouts and current direction of a carrier group meant to send a signal to a nuclear power was somehow mangled through some game of telephone. >> yeah. it is incomprehensible, but unfortunately it's very typical of the way this administration makes decisions. the day -- on april 8th, the commander in chief of the pacific, the combatant commander, said it's on its way up to the korean peninsula. the 11, 12, 13, 14, you had mattis, the secretary of defense, you had sean spicer, you had the president all saying, you know, it's on its way up there.
none of them seemed to know. what was general mcmaster, the national security council director, doing? wasn't he tracking it? wasn't mattis? mattis actually met with admiral harris, the combatant commander, before he said this on the 14th. >> so you've got the 8th is the first time someone in the chain of command says this, and then you have it move up -- you know, the commander in dheef and then his spokespeople and then mattis. all these people for eight or nine days while it's moving in the opposite direction. like isn't there a google map somewhere up in the situation room that shows where this thing is? >> well, you would hope that the secretary of defense and his staff or the national security council staff where know where all our carrier battle groups are because you may have to move them. you could have have some more trouble in the middle east, in syria, for example. yes, you should know. and the fact is that they weren't checking on this given the fact that we needed it there by the 15th of april, when the
north koreans were going to have their parade and the missile test. the south koreans are furious. one of the candidates for president is saying, you lied to us. the chinese are laughing at us. so you ended up with the worst of all possible worlds, and you wonder who's in charge in this administration? >> i have to admit that i had the thought in the last few days, i thought about this. if hillary clinton had essentially misplaced a carrier group, deceived about it, essentially used it as a kind of bluffing threat in a game of brinksmanship with a nuclear power and it turned out it was the wrong place, this would be iconic. this would be dukakis in the tank. for decades we would be hearing about it. >> well, there's no doubt about it. i mean general mattis is a career military officer. one of the problems is he doesn't have any staff because they won't allow him to pick the people that he wants. general mcmaster is a career
military officer. what was he doing? he's the president's national security adviser. he should be checking up. when is it going to get there? what kind of signal are we going to send? the president compounded this by talking about submarines. normally we don't know that. i mean it's supposed to be the carrier and, you know, four escorts. the idea that we got submarines, we're not supposed to be talking about where they are and what they're doing. >> it's funny you said that because it definitely struck me in the moment of the interview that he was talking about the submarines, which seemed odd. like we're sending some stealth bombers, too, which the whole point seems to be that you're stealthy with them. lawrence korb, thanks for joining me. coming up, more white house controversy. this time a new report the trump administration manufacture med a political scandal in order to back up an early morning twitter rant by the president.
looking sharp len. who's the lucky lady? i'm going to the bank, to discuss a mortgage. ugh, see, you need a loan, you put on a suit, you go crawling to the bank. this is how i dress to get a mortgage. i just go to lendingtree. i calculate how much home i can afford. i get multiple offers to compare side by side. and the best part is... the banks come crawling to me. everything you need to get a better mortgage. clothing optional. lendingtree, when banks compete, you win. okay! ...awkward.
i think this was a big loss for them. the bottom line is they went all in on it. they said that their goal was to get over 50%. they came up short. they said on the record that their goal was to win this race. they lost. and the reaction has somewhat been, you know, that they almost won. no, they lost. >> the final results in last night's special election on georgia's sixth district. at the top, you've got democrat jon ossoff with 48% of the vote. then below him a bunch of republicans none of whom managed to crack 20%. it's true ossoff didn't get the 50% necessary to win outright. he fell just short and the race goes to what should be a very competitive june 20th runoff between the top two candidates. so while it wasn't a flat-out win for democrats, it was also, despite sean spicer's spin,
pretty far from being a loss. ossoff outperformed the 2016 democratic candidate by ten points and won a higher percentage of the vote than any democrat since the district was established back in 1992. he very nearly walked away with the seat that republican tom price won last year by more than 20 points. in a district that's about 9.5 percentage points more republican than the nation as a whole. president trump, who tweeted and recorded a robocall against ossoff claimed credit for the results, tweeting, despite major outside money, fake media support, and 11 republican candidates, big r win with runoff in georgia. glad to be of help. but a lot of republicans think trump didn't help at all, quite the opposite. ossoff outperformed expectations entering election day, which suggests trump's involvement may have actually benefited ossoff. meanwhile republican bob gray, who made allegiance to trump the cornerstone of his campaign, only got about 10% of the vote. this is not the first sign of trouble for republicans.
last week in kansas, democrat james thompson came out of literally nowhere to get 46% of the vote in a very deep red district. 16 points higher than the democratic candidate last year. and it's easy for republicans to tell themselves that nothing is wrong, that their unpopular president won't be a huge drag down ballot in 2018. the house will remain firmly in their hands. but the evidence so far complicates that picture quite a bit. and if republicans truly think they don't need to worry, they should talk to some democrats who lived through the tea party years. otta rinse that. nope. no way. nada. really? dish issues? throw it all in. new cascade platinum powers through... even burnt-on gravy. nice. cascade.
do you believe that when president trump saw whatever he saw and said what he did about president obama, he had seen something from susan rice? >> i think -- you know, again, i'm speculating about the president's motives here, which is a very tough thing to do with this president or probably any other. i think that he was, you know, looking to make an accusation against his predecessor to deflect attention from the issues involved in the russian investigation and then forced to back it up. >> congressman adam schiff, top democrat on the house intelligence committee suggested today that after donald trump accused president obama of wiretapping him in a tweet, he needed to figure out a way to justify that claim. now a new stunning report by the new yorker's ryan lizza suggests not only is that the case, but the bigger story might be the cord nated effort to use the american intelligence services to manufacture an excuse for trump's original tweet. devin nunes, the chairman of the house intelligence committee, claimed that intelligence
reports he got from the trump administration showed that former national security adviser susan rice had requested the names of trump associates. but lizza reports citing two intelligence sources, the trump names remain concealed in those reports and that rice would not have been able to know in all cases she was asking the nsa to unmask the names of trump officials. in short, it's a quote -- and i'm quoting here -- series of lies to manufacture a fake scandal. recently both democrats and republicans looked at the same intelligence reports and concluded that susan rice did nothing wrong. but according to lizza's reporting, nunes apparently felt pressure from the trump administration to make something out of nothing. quote, the intelligence source told me that he knows from talking to people in the intelligence community that the white house said, we are going to mobilize to find something to justify the president's tweet that he was being surveilled. they put an all-points bulletin, a call to sift through intelligence reports, and said, we need to find something that justifies the president's crazy tweet about surveillance at trump tower. nunes is now being investigated by the house ethics committee
about whether he leaked classified information when talking about those intelligence reports. joining me now, ned price, former special assistant to president obama, former spokesperson and senior director at the national security council. i guess the lizza reporting here, ned, is confirmation of what i think a lot of people's working theory of this has been. but it's still pretty stunning to read. >> well, it is absolutely stunning. i mean consider for a moment, chris, the hubris required on the part of this administration and this president in coordination with devin nunes, to try to manufacture a scandal to defend the president's indefensible tweet. you know, in doing so, not only did they deceive the american people outright, but as ryan list za points out in his piece, they've also furl imperilled an important national security tool in the form of fisa section 702. this is a tool that had already come under pressure from some in congress on both the left and the right. now they've thrown section 702 in the mix and undermined its necessity and suggested that we
have a rogue intelligence community spying left and right on american citizens, which is totally false, totally baseless, and part of this manufactured scandal. >> what struck me as i read this and watched the devin nunes thing unfold was i remember the accounts of dick cheney in the iraq war driving over to langley to basically meet with analysts to essentially squeeze them to produce what he wanted to see about weapons of mass destruction in iraq. and we saw how that turned out. like the idea of the white house coming to some intelligence conclusion and then using the intelligence agencies and community to produce that, to back fill and reverse engineer that, that can be very dangerous. >> oh, it can absolutely be dangerous. look, when intelligence and politics mix, it is a toxic brew, and that is why there is supposed to be a firm, dividing wall between the worlds of policy and intelligence. of course intelligence officials have to go brief policymakers, but analysis is supposed to be
unbiased, unvarnished, based on the facts and intelligence and assessment of those facts, not on any sort of political influence. >> so you've now got -- we learn more and more. to the extent we learn about what the status of the russian investigation is, it happens entirely through the press and entirely through anonymous sources in the press. there's a new report from reuters that putin linked think tank drew up plan to sway the 2016 u.s. election. what i thought was interesting is it basically talks about two documents, and it quotes many sources, right? it doesn't say who it is, but it has numerous sources. it sounds like this group of documents was key in the intelligence community forming the theory that what happened was part of a broader and cord nated campaign. >> well, sure. i mean what the intelligence community has declassified is a pretty thick report on january 6th issued by the nsa, fbi, and
cia that runs through the case of the russian meddling not only what they did, but what they were trying to do. and i think the reuters report today is entirely coherent with what this report lays out. >> i should say it wasn't that thick a report. it was fairly thin because it's the declassified part, and it's essentially claims as opposed to evidence for the reasons i understand. but what was interesting about this is that it suggested to me that, oh, okay. well this was a sort of peek window into the possibility of what might be behind some of those claims. >> well, i think it's worth remembering that the intelligence community came to these conclusions with high confidence on the part of all 17 intelligence community agencies when it comes to these core assessments at play here. so it's clearly not just going to be one think tank report hypothetically or any other one piece of intelligence. this has to be a pretty full body of intelligence to back up the high confidence assessment on the part of more than a dozen intelligence agencies.
thing 1 tonight, the super bowl champion new england patriots were greeted by president trump at the white house today. the president congratulated so many players personally, it felt like almost every major person on that team got a shoutout with one exception. >> bob kraft. he's becoming a pretty famous guy for winning. i'll tell you that. it's called the patriot way, and that really starts with coach belichick. the fourth down conversion by danny amendola. where's danny? the big sack by trey flowers. the incredible catch by julian edelman. marcus cannon and the offensive
line. matt slater. malcolm mitchell, nate ebner, all pro special team guy and player. >> i mean he got into the special teams. for some reason, though, the president did not recognize or even mention the mvp of that super bowl, the captain and quarterback of the patriots, a man the president has called a close friend. you've probably heard of him. his name's tom brady. why didn't donald trump even mention the super bowl mvp? that's thing 2 in 60 seconds.
remember this side by side photo of trump's inaugural crowd versus obama's that caused such a ruckus back in january. check out this one tweeted by "the new york times." the top is all the new england patriot players who showed up to greet president obama in 2015. on the bottom, the players who showed up today to meet president trump. boy, do those staircases look empty in that bottom photo, which means either football teams have gotten a lot smaller in the last two years, or a bunch of players just didn't show up today.
one of the players who didn't show up was patriots captain and super bowl mvp tom brady. brady didn't attend in 2015 either, but perhaps the president was offended because he didn't even mention brady's name once today. and trump loves, loves to talk about tom brady. >> tom brady, who is my friend -- >> tom brady. tom brady. >> do we love tom brady? >> how good is tom? >> i'll tell you what, he's a great guy. that's what he has. >> great friend of mine. great, great champion. unbelievable winner. >> a great guy and a great winner. >> when tom brady says you're a winner, that's a good feeling. >> you always want tom brady as your golfing partner. >> tom brady said some great things about me. >> tom brady said trump is great. >> tom brady likes me, and i like tom brady. >> tom brady likes me. >> i love tom brady. i love him. >> brady announced this morning he wouldn't attend the white house event, citing personal family matters but did not elaborate. in other news, tom brady's wife gisele tweeted today on april 29th in washington, d.c., march
for climate, jobs and justice. to change everyone, we need everyone, with a link to the people's climate march. so we know when the brady family might visit d.c. however a few hours later that tweet was deleted from jidsle's account. 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. it delivers a whole mouth clean with a less intense taste. zero alcohol™. so it has the bad breath germ-killing power of this... [rock music] with the lighter feel... of this. [classical music] for a whole mouth clean with a less intense taste...
why did the trump administration just deport someone who's been in the country since he was 9? that is a question advocates and journalists are attempting to get to the bottom of. as first reported by usa today, montes says he was approached by a u.s. border and customs officer in ca lexco. montes had left his walt in a friend's car so he couldn't produce his id or proof of his daca status and was told by agents he couldn't retrieve them. within three hours, he was back in mexico. montes is now suing u.s. customs and border protection for information about his case. an advocacy group attorney saying, juan manuel was funneled across the border without so much as a piece of paper to explain why or how. in a twist, the case has landed in the court of u.s. district judge gonzalo curiel.
you remember judge curiel. >> we're building a wall. he's a mexican. i'm building a wall, okay? and it's a wall between mexico, not another country. >> he's not from mexico. >> in my opinion -- >> he's from indiana. >> he's of mexican heritage. >> yes, totally coincidentally, it's the same judge curiel who candidate donald trump complained was biased during the trump university case who will now hear this dreamer's case. today trump's attorney general jeff sessions claimed daca recipients are not being targeted while simultaneously sending a warning. >> daca enrollees are not being targeted. i don't know why this individual was picked up. everybody in the country illegally is subject to being deported. so people come here, and they stay here a few years, and somehow they think that they're not subject to being deported. well, they are. >> 14 years in this individual's case. but here's how iowa congressman steve king responded to news about montes.
first non-valedictorian dreamer deported. border patrol, this one's for you. that appears to be a beer. congressman king, we should be clear, is not an outlier. he may be in his tone, but substantively he is in many ways the voice of the republican party on immigration, the trump before trump. if that seems like it's ripped out of a right wing talk radio rant, that's no accident. how right wing took over the entirety of the american right next.
i would say -- yeah, i would say fox has been pretty good. your guys in the morning have been fantastic. you've been fair. i wouldn't say you're the greatest, you've been fair. i think fox has -- you have some great people. sean hannity is a great great person. you have some great people and people frankly don't treat me fairly but you've been fine. >> bill o'reilly was, i say past tense, one part of the right wing media that created political discourse by the time president obama was elected, they radicalized their base to a point where nothing they did in power can satisfy their most fervent constituents. then in a consequential development a large portion of the caucus themselves consumed garbage conservative media and nothing else. that broadly shows the dysfunction of the obama era post tea party freakout. josh, you know, i think it's hard to overstate the influence of conservative media on conservative politics. alex says basically for a long time it was a con for the rubes,
in the know, people knew it was mostly a con and a new generation of politics got elect who'd consumed that as the first order basis of their knowledge. >> right. >> it has made the dysfunction that more intense. >> ironically o'reilly's departure may make that problem slightly worse. he's not a 100% trump sycophant and that's why trump was saying he's been pretty good and he said trump needs to stop sending distracting tweets and stop being silly and govern. i view o'reilly as a cultural conservative figure, this bitter old man that reflects the cultural parts of -- >> what i call old school, a man
who racked up this series of sexual harassment allegations defense of traditional values perfect in some ways. >> to the extent he gets replaced with more coverage that really is 100% inside the bubble instead of 85% inside the bubble will only make that information problem worse. >> it does strike me that the part of what defined this era of the trump presidency in so many ways is the fact that the president himself is getting his information from the bullhorn. that was the thing that was used to communicate to the base. >> right. this is all about base politics. we talk about alternative facts, when kellyanne conway mentioned that phrase, they're talking things that aren't true and people on rush limbaugh and glen beck when he was hot and bill o'reilly.
bill o'reilly's been called out because of sexual harassment. for years, he's been up there saying things just not true while insisting that they are true and if any calls him out saying those people are pin heads or part of a conspiracy to get him or part of a left wing effort to subvert the country. his voice, along with rush limbaugh and sean hannity, give them all credit, mark levin and others, became the dominant voice of a political movement. it wasn't paul ryan and john boehner, it wasn't mitt romney. john boehner had trouble with his tea party cohorts in the house because they were more worried about what rush limbaugh and bill o'reilly would say about them. >> the point you made, i want to read this. it so gets it. if you want to understand in tra gop warfare and the rest of politics if you want to know why they believe so many strange and terrible things you can
basically blame the fact a large and lucrative industry is dedicated to lying to them. the world view of affluent 70-year-old white man who thinks the world has gone to hell and he is under assault and persecution, that is bill o'reilly, conservative media and donald trump. >> i struggle a little bit with how much of that from trump is an act and a shift in his real world view. trump did not always operate inside this bubble. >> didn't talk that way. >> also, trump would start his day every morning with the "new york post" and "new york times." he reads the "new york times" coverage of himself and donald trump is personally not without access to the mainstream media. he has information at his disposal what's happening in the real world. he's not your grandfather watching fox news all day and at times it's politically important
to have real fare he has access to it. when he's spouting it, it's hard to know whether he believes it. >> wait a second. access doesn't mean he gets it. he reads the "new york times" and maggie and glen writes something about it. doesn't read the "new york times" when it's about korea or his own healthcare bill he doesn't understand, can't talk about. he reads the "new york times" selectively about the one thing he cares about in the world. you go back to the 1980s, he was in cosmopolitan manhattan but still acting like the archie bunker bigot when it came to race issues throughout the '80s. he always had that foxiness about him while still supporting the clintons and other things. >> here's the difference, the key thing to understanding the influence and power. basically half of the country,
40% of center to center left people are consuming all the different kinds of media and half the country is literally, this is born out by the data is literally just consuming fox news and things like that. >> no. there are other things people don't think about in the newsroom that are big. people watch a lot of local news programs, some watch network news broadcasts. it's not half the country that operates in this bubble. it's some influential 25% of the country that operates within this bubble ends up being dominant within one political party. i feel like people get a little bit defeatist about the idea half the country operates in a bubble they have no factual information, i don't think that's quite right. >> i agree. >> the interesting thing about fox, there's nothing wrong with a conservative media outlet, nothing wrong with nenational review opposed to nation magazine and mother jones, but fox gives an alternative view of the world of what priorities
are, like talk radio, find hot button issues that play to conservatives and avoid a barack obama speech on race. their agenda is driven to give people a particular view of the world and that is one of the most damaging things. >> people should look at the fox coverage of the bush administration. in the end reality caught up after much destruction and ruin. thank you. >> thank you. >> that is all for this evening, rachel maddow starts right now. >> good evening. thank you. thanks for joining us for the next hour. massachusetts senator elizabeth warren is here tonight for the interview. she will be here live in the studio with me. i'm very much looking forward to that conversation. elizabeth warren tonight for the interview. we start tonight with the founding of the family research council.
the family research council was founded as a very conservative hard line religious right activist group in the early 1980s. james dobson has always been the figure head and prime mover of the family research council. its initial founding came in large part from a michigan businessman, a man named edgar prince. he ran a manufacturing company that made auto parts and other stuff through the '60s, '70s and '80s and '90s. what he became famous for was not his business acumen in michigan, what he did with his fortune. he put his family fortune into super super right wing social conservative advocacy. anti-gay activism, anti-abortion activism. anti-pornography activism, really hard right social conservative stuff. they were one of the rich families in the state of michigan and made a big right wing family impact with that fortune.