tv The 11th Hour With Brian Williams MSNBC April 25, 2017 11:00pm-12:01am PDT
accepted the accusations of the women and still thinks that's not wrong. alof that is in that room and watching ivanka trump pretend it doesn't exist was something to see. thank you for joining us tonight. thank you for joining us tonight. appreciate it. the 11th hour starts right now. tonight, did president trump's most senior national security official break the law before he was fired? also, another legal blow to this president and his hard line approach to illegal immigration. and ivanka trump making her debut as a white house adviser on the world stage today. but not everyone liked what they heard. "the 11th hour" begins now. good evening once again from our headquarters here in new york. day 96 of the trump administration an it's all turned back to russia again and mike flynn.
the top democrat and the top republican in the house oversight committee say trump's former national security adviser may have broken the law by not disclosing money he made from russia and turkey. how much money? quote, flynn received $45,000 in december of 2015 to speak at a russia tv event. he also received more than $500,000 for lobbying for the turkish government. both chairman jason chaffetz and elijah cummings talked about flynn with msnbc today. >> as general flynn was required to proactively ask permission prior to eaging with russia and turk. not ly w he supposed to ask for permission, he was supposed to get permission and he didn't. and so this goes back for, you know, a year prior to donald trump ever becoming the president. so it's not as if the white house isn't responding.
there just aren't documents and that's the problem. >> do you think michael flynn broke the law? >> it doesn't appear as if he complied with the law. i don't see evidence that he complied with the law. >> this is not some witch hunt. this is about a fight for the soul of our democracy. and i want to be real clear on that. what i'm trying to do is make sure that we pursue this investigation and go where the evidence leads. our next step is to hopefully sit down with the white house and explain to them that they don't determine what we investigate as a congress, we do. >> sean spicer was also pressed on this today during the white house briefing. >> the president feel that he was misled by general flynn? >> i think the president made a decision a while ago because flynn was not straight with the vice president at the time and let him go. i think he stands by that decision and it's up to others to review all of the information that's coming out. >> does he now feel that he also wasn't straight with him -- >> a lot of the facts are still
coming out. i know the president made a decision a couple of months ago, it was the right decision and we've moved on and we'll continue to stay focused on -- >> at the time he made the decision he said that flynn was a victim of a media witch hunt, said he was a good man. does he still feel that way? >> all of the facts are coming out on that. i think he made a decision a few months ago and stands by that decision. >> on the senate side, richard burr talked to reporters on the hill today. while he wouldn't say whether he thinks michael flynn broke the law, he did discuss the issue of immunity. >> is there any way you give flynn immunity to testify? >> no. >> there's no way? >> no. >> would subpoena him to -- >> anybody who has at least been associated in some way, shape or form through news articles have walked in the door volunteering to testify or publicly said they would love to testify. i don't see the ne for any of subpoena process. >> let's bring in tonight's
panel. the deputy national security adviser during the george w. bush administration, now he's msnbc's senior national security analyst, former chief of staff at the pentagon and the cia, jeremy bash, and host of npr's indivisible. juan and jeremy and i have filled out the paperwork that you have to fill out if you are going to work in the white house and look at secret stuff. this is the form. it's really, really big. there's a question i want to put on the screen. because it says do you have or have you had close or continuing contact with a foreign national foreign he last seven years. power. juan, explain to me how the white house can't produce this document that could hold open a
very heavy door. >> well i think there's some -- several issues here at play, not only with respect to general flynn's legal liability but also questions about what contact she was having perhaps even on behalf of the president or the white house. and i think that's where you have some of the debate and discussion. because i think there have been requests to understand what contacts general flynn was having on half of then president-elect and then also president trump as he served as the national security adviser. but with respect to the form itself, i can't speak for the white house. i don't know why they aren't producing it. i'm sure they will have to at some point to the committees investigating this. and no doubt this is going to be further subject of consideration, given the fact that's a pretty clear question. but it could be that there was confusion on the part of general flynn, who knows. but at this point -- >> confusion. i filled this form out twice. i went to work in the white
house and then i got married and went back to the white house. on my honeymoon i went to turkey and bought a rug. i remember having a discussion about whether that constituted any sort of contact with a foreign agent. people who work in the government take these forms deadly seriously and you're interviewed by fbi agents afterward. how did michael flynn get the needed security clearances to be present in donald trump's briefings during the transition without having a current and accurate background check form on file? >> well, nicole, you're imminently correct. this is a huge red flag. it's not the only time we've had red flags regarding general flynn. first he failed to disclose the information on his clearance form. he failed to disclose this on his ethics form, his oge 278 form. he failed to disclose his work under the foreign agent's registration act on behalf of
the government of turkey. that is three forms that were incomplete, sloppily filled out or purposely incorre. and then of course he failed to comply with the constitutional and policy requirement to go back to the department of the army, back to the pentagon and seek to obtain payments from a foreign government which every single military general officer, even people i work with have to do all of the time. so when you're four for four it really strains credulity to say he was just sloppy. >> i want to get you back in on this, juan. you have deep ties to this administration's security officials. and i know you were an informal or formal adviser during the transition. i don't want to get that wrong. >> formal, to director pompeo at the cia. >> what concerns did you hear
about general flynn, if any? >> well i don't think i can speak to anything i was hearing during that time period, nicole. i'm sorry about that. but i think certainly there were questions about general flynn in terms of his capacity in that role. keep in mind he was a very successful military intelligence officer. but had not served in a policy role and certainly had not been at those levels and certainly not worked in the white house. there were questions and in general in the policy community about whether or not he was ready for this role. keep in mind as well, this may have something to do with the forms. he had just recently retired or been asked to leave as head of the defense intelligence agency. he then took on private practice and then returned back fairly quickly thereafter. it's in that period where he was engaged in all of these activities that he's gotten into trouble with. and it may be that he was not prepared to return properly and
had not checked not only all of the forms properly but had not thought through the consequences of what he would have to do to assume the role of the national security adviser. i think there were questions as to whether or not he was prepared. there may be a question now as to whether or not he was, you know, preparing properly with all of his paperwork and certainly thinking through the due diligence that's required to assume this kind of a role at the highest levels of the u.s. government. >> juan, this is something i heard from general hayden as well about whether he was properly suited, whether he had the proper profile in terms of experience and temperament. but i think this goes deeper than just not filling out forms properly and not being prepared. do you think he lied on these forms? >> i have no idea, nicole. it's hard to tell. again, i think jeremy is right that there's a number of instances where he's avoided providing complete information both inside the white house as well as apparently on these forms. it looks suspicious. and the problem here, of course,
is perception becomes reality. perception of whether he was evading, perception of whether there was potential collusion, perception of whether or not he was promising things to the russian government before he had authority to do so. all of this is problematic regardless of whether or not he was actually intentionally evading or lying. i can't peer into his soul and that's certainly what investigates may be looking at. the perception is damning and that's why we're having the conversation. >> jeremy, i'm going to ask you to do some soul peering in a moment. listen to sean spicer's response when he was asked about the money flynn got from russian tv today. >> does the white house consider mike flynn's payment from russia today to be a payment from a foreign government? >> i don't know. all of that occurred prior to his service. >> does this white house consider a payment from russia
today to be a payment from a foreign government? >> what i'm saying is everything he did was prior to coming to this white house. >> right. >> for us to determine someone else -- >> do you consider that to be a payment from a foreign government? >> i'm sorry, what? >> if someone took money from russia today -- >> if they were an employee of the white house, absolutely. >> jeremy, do we have a problem here? >> yeah. i mean russia today is basically the state propaganda arm of the russian federation. and the intelligence community on january 5th when they issued hair assessment that russia meddled in the election and favored donald trump, they cited russia as the tip of the spear of the attack in the democracy. is there's no getting around this. this was collusion between the russian government and at least one member of the trump inner circle to get paid for this action and then of course the action and the payment wasn't disclosed. this is something that investigators will have to
follow up with. >> what's your sense of how this team is doing in terms of getting anywhere close to a place that's anywhere close to a place that allows them to turn the corner on the russian story? >> now you have flynn out of the white house so one could ask why not turn over whatever paperwork you have. you've cut ties with this person. why not say here you go, he's not working for us anywhere, have at it. with the president doing what he's doing, with sean spic doing what he's doing, he's leading to the conversations that we're having. no one had the president's ear on foreign policy throughout the campaign and the early part of this administration than michael flynn himself. at the very least there was a conflict of interest with areas of turkey and russia with the payments. did the administration, did the president know -- we also know that michael flynn out of all of the other people who are part of the administration should have known better. this is his second administration. the second one he's been fired from as well. >> charlie, let me ask you directly.
mike flynn was someone who made democrats anxious for a whole lot of reasons, his temperament, policy instincts, what not, but he also made republicans uncomfortable for the questions that emerged very early on about possible ethics. what's your sense of the party's tolerance for this story dragging on and on. >> it is going to drag on an on. there are a number of innocent explanations for this, none of which is plausible. and the white house's refusing to be transparent is compounding the problem. when he was fired, the story never added up in the first place, the fact she was having a conversation that donald trump says i would have no problem with him having that conversation and yet he lied. ain y would you lie about something that didn't -- so the question is what did the whi house know that general flynn was up to and when did they know it. there's sothing about the story as it keeps unraveling that raises more and more
questions. so again, you go back to this transition which was a challenged transition. this was probably one of the worst selections and i think it reflects very very poorly on donald trump's judgment and of the judgment of the administration. >> and you see sean spicer now trying to distance michael flynn from the administration. no, he was the guy. he was the foreign policy guy. his name was floated as a possible vice presidential running mate as well. you're not going to fool us when it comes to michael flynn. he was front and center from day one. >> let's end with juan because i want to ask you on the substance of this. we know that michael flynn was having conversations with russia about the easing of sanctions at the same time that the obama white house was announcing new sanctions and expelling russian diplomats from this country. i'm not going to ask you to
speak about anything privileged. is this a problem not just on the optics that you described. is there a smoking gun here at the policy level? >> i think there is a policy problem when you have, you know, two governments in essence operating on behalf of the u.s. or at least the perception of that by one of the major world powers. if you have, you know, general flynn having a voice on behalf of then president-elect trump arguing against existi u.s. policy or at least suggesting that there's going to be a change in policy, that's never good. and i have been an advocate for the continuity of our policy, especially in foreign policy. there can be changes and shifts in opinion, of course. but when you have this moment of transition, which was without a doubt the rockiest we've seen in recent memory and in the midst of that you have perhaps different policy messages coming out from perspective of foreign policy and on something as
important as russian policy, that is troubling, problematic. purely from a policy perspective. there are lots of lessons learned here. but one of the lessons is one government at a time. we're all americans first. and everyone needs to remember that. >> jeremy, former acting attorney general yates is scheduled to testify on may 8 president. what do you expect her to say? >> she's going to answer the question what did the white house know and when did they know it. she came to the white house in the early days of the administration. she flagged the concerns about the conversation between flynn and kislyak and the fact that flynn has not been truthful with the vice president and maybe others. but for 17 days as we've talked about many times, for 17 days with to be white house, the president kept flynn in access, meaning they kept him in the white house as national security adviser, gave him access to highly classified information and put him in the seat of power. and it wasn't until the press revealed the fact of those kislyak conversations that the president turned around and
fired him once pence was of course embarrassed by the sayings. sally yates is going to have to describe the 17 days. we're going to hear about that on may 8 when she testifies. i think juan is right, we're all americans first. we should have one government at a time. this transition requires us to ask very hard questions about how this all went down. >> we'll see that testimony in the senate judiciary committee. no one is going anywhere. stay with us. when we come back we'll dive into the latest legal speed bump for this white house. "the 11th hour" continues in a moment.
who is going to pay for that wall? you better believe it. and they'll do it. on day one we will begin working on an impenetrable physical tall powerful beautiful southern border wall. on the first day i will take the following actions to restore the rule of law. we'll cancel all federal funding to sanctuary cities out. >> welcome back to "the 11th hour." last night it was funding if are the big beautil wall a tonight it's his pledge to gut funding for sanctuary cities that's in jeopardy. a federal judge issuing a hit to one of trump's executive orders. the injunction forbids the white house from withholding federal funds from the sanctuary cities.
my panel is still with me. let's start with the stakes for donald trump if he reverses himself. yesterday news about he's backing down from funding the wall. what price could he pay for this? >> he does back down on the funding for the wall and rush limbaugh who has been carrying water for him rather consistently -- >> he's been carrying elephants for him. >> rush limbaugh says that the president is caving on this. that's what president trump doesn't want. that he's caving on a central promise of his campaign. >> i think he have that sound. let's take a listen. >> i'm not happy to have to pass this on. i'm very very troubled to have to pass this on.
but it looks like, from here, right here right now, it looks like president trump is caving on his demand for a measly $1 billion in the budget for his wall on the border with mexico. >> and here's how reince priebus white house chief of staff reacted to the court action. he said it's the ninth circuit going bananas. the decision is something that will be overturned eventually and will win at the supreme court level at some point. is this war against the federal judiciary to explain every failure and failed campaign promise going to end well? >> it's the third time an immigration order has been shot down for this president. as you were saying, he hears people like rush limbaugh, he's talking to his base. and i think that's why you heard the rhetoric from jeff sessions last week, hitting hard against new york city as a sanctuary
city saying crime has gone up here when it has not. that resonates well with the base with the president saying at the end of the day i may not be able to accomplish this but boy did i go out fighting for it. >> this will play very well with the base. on the other hand the court ruling is on conservative constitutional ground, citing the 10th amendment, the supreme court decision saying that you couldn't force states to take the extra medicaid funding. >> it's about the appropriations process. >> and going back to congress. >> that's right. that the president does not have this power, that congress has this power. all of these are principles that five minutes ago conservatives would have been supportive of. it's going to play out. but this issue of the sanctuary cities is red meat for the trump base. >> i want to bring juan and jeremy back into this. one of the arguments that donald trump made during the course of the campaign for his hard line immigration policies was a national securitarnt. look what's happening in europe,
look what's happening with the flood of refugees, the wall in mexico keeping a flood of drugs and crime from coming over. i wonder if any of you ever bought that argument and i wonder if there's ever been any talk of the tie between donald trump's immigration policies and national security that you've ever heard, juan. >> there's always been talk of a potential wall. obviously we've had funding for a wall in the prior two administrations actually and it's been built in pieces and parts. so the idea of a wall isn't new, frankly. and the idea that there are drugs and human smugglers and even potential terrorists coming across that border is not new. i think the challenge is that it's not the only source of the threat. most of the illegal immigration that we deal with has to deal with visa overstays and other types of immigration that have nothing to do with the southern border. but the southern border presents real risk. there are challenges.
the question is do we want to put all of our faith and confidence in building a wall to deal with all of the potential national security threats that we have. when you look at terrorism, we have to deal with the radicalization of home grown individuals, american citizens, naturalized citizens and that's a reality. there are other kinds of threats in terms of the rise of crime and drug use and criminality in the country. it's not all just reliant on the southern border. but that is an issue. and i think we can't make this a binary question of either/or. at the same timee do have to make a ratiol choice here. is it worth a billion dollars to put into a wall versus, for example, an exit system that tracks who actually leaves the country when they're supposed to, which we presently don't have in place. >> and jeremy, i know that juan
just made the point about the people here on visa overstays. obviously the 9/11 hijackers were by and large all here on some sort of visa overstay. what from a national security perspective is the wisest course when it comes to immigration policy and do you see any link between the case donald trump makes when he talks about homeland security, national security and this big beautiful wall? >> i don't know of a single case of a terrorist coming across the southern border who committed acts in the united states who would have been stopped but for the absence of a wall. i don't understand the nexus there. as far as the overall travel ban, the muslim ban which the president signed as an executive order and of course the federal courts stepped in and blocked. >> twice. >> there was a 90-day time period in which the president said the terrorists are streaming over the border. here we are at day 100 of the administration. no terrorists have streamed over the border. and i think again the fear, the stoking of fears is unnecessary
we can have a rational discussion about immigration but to tie it back to the terrorists streaming over the border is unproductive and dangerous. >> thank you jeremy, juan and charlie. still to come, an unexpected response to ivanka trump while she was sitting alongside some of the world's most powerful women. "the 11th hour" is back after this. 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.
first daughter ivanka trump was booed on the international stage today as he defended her father. he spoke alongside angela merkel and the head of the imf. it's a bit hard to hear but take a listen. >> he's been a tremendous champion of supporting families and enabling them to thrive. in the new reality of -- >> you hear the reaction from the audience. >> i have certainly heard the criticism from the media and that's been perpetuated. >> the boos didn't stop ivanka trump as she defended her father and her own white house role in an interview with nbc's hallie jackson. >> one of the things that's amazing abt my father is he's always been a huge advocate of curating ideas and no one person or party has the monopoly on the ideas. he knows i'm an honest broker. even when my view points are diver gentleman, don't have a
hidden agenda. >> joining our conversation, stephanie rule. thank you for being with us. i want to start with you because you have been on this story and on this beat and covering ivanka trump's role, sometimes changing role in the administration an i wonder what you make of today's events. >> listen, ivanka trump has now put herself officially in the hot seat. and the issue is she has to choose a lane. those who are saying how can the first daughter get booed. you have to understand the comments she makes about president trump. they're through the eyes of his daughter. you lose those privileges when you take one of the most prominent roles as senior adviser to the president. and to sit there and simply say he's been a tremendous asset to women in all that he does to support families.
the problem with her message, though it's inspiring and making people feel optimistic, it's simply not reflected in policies set by the administration. so he's putting herself in a position where she wants to be the face and the brand but behind that you have to be accountable. and so we'll give her some period of time because she said this is a learning period. but take this for one moment, not just is she supporting her father. she herself said women, it is our obligation to come together, support one another and raise one another up. she then sat down and gave an exclusive print interview to breitbart news. this is the organization that penned the headline, birth control makes women unattractive and crazy. so which is it? number one and two just don't seem to be aligned. >> steph, i want to tell you what i heard. i talked to one of the senior advisers traveling with her today and they said it was a hiss that came from three people in the audienc i asked if it bothered ivanka
and this official told me she's one tough cookie and seemed to suggest that ivanka know she's not going continue to have it both ways. but does it appear that she's building a coalition within the government of like minded men or women for the policy she first laid out at the rnc in her convention speech. one of these thing is not like the other. she gave a speech that could have been given at the democratic convention. have you seen any evidence at a policy level that she's building consensus around her policy ideas? >> absolutely not. one would say what is it exactly that she believes in because one of the attributes many people says she has, she's the president trump whisperer. yet she has been by his side for the last 34 years when he's said and done things that we found outrageous. she was in palm beach the
weekend he sent the tweet saying that president obama wired tapped him. now she cannot be held accountable for all of her father's actions. but seeing she's in that position. today she said gender pay gap is an issue. women in the workplace. we already know that workplace protection regulations that were put in place by president obama have now been rolled back. we know that president obama wanted large corporations to disclose how they were specifically paying their employees so we can see by race and gender how they were being impacted. none of those things are on the table. does it mean they can't be. are we hopeful that ivanka's passions will turn into policy. without a doubt. >> the thing i hear most frequently from republicans privately is they're not sure it's appropriate for her to be there, they're not sure anyone else could get away with it. but of all of the things that keeps them up at night about donald trump, ivanka trump is not one of them. >> we've heard the jokes from
"saturday night live" to dinner conversations. as long as jump and jared are in the room, people can be a little more at ease with regard to how sporadic her father can act. she's the exact opposite. everything she does is said with precision. she doesn't turn to twitter right away. when she was speaking in germany, she had the same talking points. i've heard that myth perpetuated through the media. people are asking are you adviser, are you first daughter. what is your role here. that's yet to be determined. but i think it goes back to trump's base. i think he loves having her with him. he trusts her. and as long as his base -- you spend a lot of time with these women who voted with trump in this country with all due respect to women in germany who were there listening to her, i think the president is paying more close attention to what women at home are saying about her and when that turns is when he's going to start to worry. >> let me ask one for question. do you think her brand is taking a hit? her brand is much broader than
politics obviously. >> her brand has taken off globally, internationally. it's more of a partisan brand given her last name and the role she's cided to take with her father. sheer revenue, she's doing pretty well right now and i think obviously she's thinking about what happens four to eight years after the fact. it's no just her father's image and brand she's protecting, it's her own. >> steph last word. >> she's thinking about that brand right now. to the point she made to hallie, people know how i feel, where i stand. do they? while she's taking a leave from her job, she owns the company. she is the sole owner of the ivanka trump. the people left behind are her employees. i remind you three trademarks in china the day she then at dinner sitting next to xi jinping. and we're dancing around this is, what does complicit mean. i don't feel good about the word accomplice.
it's pretty clear. president trump has done things that are not positive in terms of equality. the idea of make america great again. in the past it wasn't so great for anyone seeking equality. so it's time -- rubber is hitting the road. action time. let's go. >> we would be having this same conversation if this was chelsea clinton was sitting there. if her mother had won the election, speaking on behalf of her mother or first daughter. this isn't limited to the trump family. >> think of w criticized hillary clinton was when she was first lady. >> thank you so much. steph, you're north going anywhere. when we come back, just how serious is the threat from north korea that the white house is taking the unusual step of bringing every member of the u.s. senate into the white house grounds for an update? we'll talk about that when "the 11th hour" continues.
tomorrow the white house will host all 100 senators for a briefing on north korea. but the white house is making it clear that just because they're hosting the meeting doesn't mean it's their meeting. joining our conversation, david jolly joins me in the studio. senior politics reporter from u.s. today is here and vivian joins us, the white house reporter for the associated press. i want to start with you guys. tell me what the white house is saying about bringing 100 senators down to the oeob where they have to create a secure space for a briefing like this. have you heard them offer any explanation that makes more sense than it makes to me? >> it sounds like trump extended the offer to mitch mcconnell and they're saying it's for logistical reasons. but as you pointed out, why would you bus 100 members of congress down pennsylvania avenue to a space that you would have to custom outfit to make it
secure. and that's why it's raised some skepticism among democrats in particular. particularly since the president is unclear whether he's going to attend. why this is being done. they may be being used for a photo op. but when you talk to republicans, they say well, it's just an indication of the important nature that the president is assigning to this issue. and then the white house contradicts that. i guess i'll let vivian have a crack at it. >> my question for you is are you picking up the sense that this is about the optics of the 100-day mark and looking like he's sort of firmly in command? and i understand that it's his secretary of state and secretary of defense who are at this point scheduled to attend the briefing. what are you picking up as the rationale for this from white house sources? >> there may be a little bit of the 100-day mark trying to check off a couple of accomplishments before those final days roll in.
but i have a different theory from my conversations with folks at the white house. keep in mind way back at the beginning of april, when missile strikes were launched against syria, against the assad regime, president trump went ahead and did it and he did not consult congress and there was a lot of backlash. even though the move was very much celebrated, there was some backlash by people who said he didn't go about it the right way, he didn't go through the constitutional protocols necessary to launch -- to have any kind of military strike. so i think there's a little bit of that at play with the north korea issue, is that if he's going to take action, he wants to do it right. he does not want any pushback from the hill and he wants everybody on board, everybody being on the same page and it's part of his outreach effort in a way. so there is, there is something to be commended -- he has to be
commended for that, that effort there. >> and it seems like national security is an area where she is trying to build more consensus than he's been able to build about his domestic agenda. he had senators mccain down to dinner. is it effective? >> it's bread and butter for men like donald trump to protect strength. this is not normal. this does not happen. this is a president who is learning national security and defense of foreign policy on the job. go back to the cpaign. the constructively ignorant statements he made about nato. and about our presence in the pacific. and now he is confronting, as commander in chief, something that he said in a recent ap interview was much greater than he ever realized, matters of national security, life and death. this is a president who is learning on the job. and many presidents do, right? george bush came in, 43, thinking he would be an education president, a domestic
policy president and then he was faced with 9/11. he at least had the dignity and self respect to recognize that he was new to the game of foreign policy. donald trump has engaged in bluster and now he's engaging real-life threats. >> all right. so coming up, donald trump is headed for another face-off with with members of his own party it so appears. "the 11th hour" will be back after this.
president trump's big reveal on his tax plan comes tomorrow. based on what we know about the plan the white house may be setting up for a showdown with speaker paul ryan. it is starting to look like health care 2.0 with trump administration already at odds. david is laughing, why? >> if you thought health care was hard welcome to tax reform. >> explain that. people don't understand that you don't have money for tax reform. >> you need savings from an obamacare reform or repeal. very importantly and this is important for viewers. eventually republicans are going to do republican things.
they are going to pass a package that will likely lower corporate taxes. >> talking about lowering that to 15%. they are going to -- and starting to say that this is a proposal. he feels burnt on the health care beat. >> is it too complicated or are the odds too long? >> president trump doesn't like complicated things. we know from his personal business he doesn't mind racking up debt but let's look at what they are trying to do. to say we are going to solve
things by lowering the corporate tax rate. there is not a direct line by taking corporate tax rate at 35% and moving it to 15%. you not going to have we are suddenly going to create jobs. you already have the majority of those companies paying more like 22% rate. some even pay nothing. president trump, though, we haven't seen his taxes has likely paid none. so it's not that this 35% is a sticking point holding corporate america from creating jobs. there are many issues like repatrioting the trillions of dollars that corporations have sitting overseas. those specific things that we want to hear out of the white house that is going to change. president obama, they wanted to get that done and couldn't. so like all things the devil is in the details and remember many people will push back because we still have not seen president trump's taxes. he comes from real estate development. that industry has more tax loopz loopholes than any other.
he has yet to show us that he will put country before self. we have seen the amount of self dealing that continues with president trump not divesting himself from his businesses. this guy can change things around net operating losses and erase the hundreds of millions of dollars he could potentially owe the government in taxes that he has been rolling forward. people want to see president trump's taxes. when guys like steve mu mnuchin are faced with these road blocks it is pretty tough. >> you are covering this washington, this donald trump white house. what is their side of the story? >> well, i think steph is actually right in this is the same thing as on health care which is that the president just wants something and that he is outsource ag lot of it to the republican leadership and saying summoning paul ryan and saying get this done without giving them much detail is setting an unrealistic goal at 15%.
let's put that in perspective. president obama talked about a rate of about 28%. while there is generally broad bipartisan agreement 15% is nowhere in the range of realistic. every member i talked to on the hill including republicans are a little bit angry at the white house for putting them in this impossible situation. it does ring bells back to the health care debate, as well, where the president sets unrealistic expectations in terms of timing and puts it on the shoulders of the republican leadership. now, the reason why they are trying to do this this way now in terms of corporate is because they think they can jam it through on reconciliation with 51 votes and without democrats. that doesn't guarantee you anything in the way of growth. >> we should defend the trump administration for a moment. one of the reasons you are seeing stocks up so much isn't because it is this 15% mark.
it's because of clarity. there was a threat that the obama administration was going to put more and more regulation on corporations so they weren't spending. when they know what regulation looks like they are more inclined to spend and move forward. that is a positive as far as corporates go. >> steph will get an extra commercial in her show tomorrow. thank you. coming up, president trump with a message so many people have been waiting to hear from him. we're back right after this.
those who deny the holocaust are an accomplice to this horrible evil and will never be silent. we just won't. we will never, ever be silent in the face of evil again. this is my pledge to you. we will confront anti-semitism. [ applause ] we will stamp out prejudice. we will condemn hatred. we will bear witness and we will act. >> we spent a lot of time on politics tonight as we do every night. but we will give the last word to president trump earlier today at the holocaust remembrance ceremony. i'm nicole wallace. good night.
tonight on "all in --" >> if i did a tenth of what she did. >> michael flynn back in the headlines. >> lock her >> the bipartisan announcement alleging it was michael flynn who broke the law. >> it doesn't appear as if he complied with the law. >> tonight, why the white house is refusing to release documents on flynn. then -- >> i don't like the word accomplice. >> the first daughter booed on her first foray onto the world stage as an adviser to the president. >> whom are you representing? your father as the president of the united states, the american people, or your business? and how did donald trump get $400,000 from someone living at an empty lot in jersey? >> i turn on one of the networks, and they show an empty field. >> the incredible new investigation of donald trump's inaugural fund-raising when "all in" starts right now.