tv All In With Chris Hayes MSNBC October 27, 2017 12:00am-1:00am PDT
w york. >> the uranium sale to russia and the way it was done so underhanded. >> the plot to stop robert mueller. >> there's no way the american people can trust robert mueller. >> tonight as the mueller investigation closes in, new signs that trump is getting desperate. then -- >> they are trying to take away our history and our heritage. >> shades of charlottesville as the virginia governor's race becomes a referendum on confederate statues. >> i'm for keeping them up. and what to make of the president's opioid announcement. >> if we can teach young people and people generally not to start, it's really, really easy not to take them. >> when "all in" starts now.
good evening from new york. i'm joy reid in for chris hayes. tonight amid signs that robert mueller's investigation could be closing in, the white house is scrambling to discredit the messenger with a big assist from his partners on fox news. >> there's no way the american people can trust robert mueller to investigate anything russian related. >> what really stinks here is mueller, rosenstein, andrew wiesman and james comey appear to have covered it all up, the uranium one deal. >> we have to have mueller fired. >> yes, robert mueller, i hope you're watching. oh robert mueller, are you awake tonight? robert mueller is now investigating anything involved with russia, how is that possible? to be fair and impartial, it's impossible because of his past role in this. he should resign immediately
tonight. >> fox news has been relentlessly hiping a claim that hillary clinton sold out our national security by supposedly personally approving a 7-year-old uranium deal with russia in exchange for a big donation to the clinton foundation. it's a claimed that's been debunked for years. note that false graphic on snoeps.com. but the truth hasn't stopped the president and his guard from pushing the story as the new watergate and the real russia scandal. with white house water carrier devin nunes still the chair of the house intelligence committee announcing his own parallel investigation to the real russia-gate probe. take that, democrats. and fox news hyping the supposed conspiracy so defcon one as evidence that every trump antagonist needs to be locked up. >> somebody's got to go to jail over this and not just the one who's been convicted. >> who are the top people in jeopardy? >> i think hillary clinton, anybody at the dnc. >> eric holder? >> james comey in particular because he may have abused his office, and he could have done
it for -- >> mueller? mueller knew. >> covering it up to congress -- >> he should have recused himself. >> he should recuse himself. >> same with rosenstein? >> absolutely. and jeff sessions needs to get off his duff and appoint a special counsel. >> immediately. >> yes. >> hillary clinton. comey, loretta lynch, everybody. >> everybody. tonight, a new fox news reported development that the president himself personally intervened to lift a gag order on someone with knowledge of the supposed deal. in an apparent effort to give the debunked story even more oxygen. the uranium claim is not the only line of attack. conservative media is using the news that the clinton campaign helped paid for the steele dossier alleging trump ties to russia to both discredit the claims in the dossier and undermine mueller. the news means the fbi's role in the russian interference must now be investigated writes "the
wall street journal". adding that mueller could best serve the country by resigning to prevent further political turmoil. why is this counter offensive happening now? well, for starters, both sarah huckabee sanders and juliet kai i am or predicting that mueller could go public soon and predicting that mueller could drop something before thanksgiving and claiming this is more than obstruction. there is something big underlying the obstruction. meanwhile, each day seems to bring new material for mueller to work with. last night the journal added new details to the bombshell revelation that trump linked data firm reached out to wikileaks with its ceo contacting julian assange to offer help organizing the clinton related e-mails the website was releasing. these are the e-mails that our government says were stolen by russian aligned hackers during the campaign.
if this is true, it means that the trump campaign's data firm was trying to help the russians disseminate anti-clinton documents stolen by agents of a foreign government. the trump campaign is trying to play down its connection to cambridge, claiming in a statement that it relied only on data from the rnc. quote, any claims that voter data from any other source played a key role in the victory are false. according to the campaign's own fec filings, the trump campaign paid cambridge an lit ka $5.9 million. and there were dozens of profiles of the mercer-funded cambridge an lit ka as the beating heart of the trump campaign's data operation, including this bbc tour of where the operation had been housed. >> cambridge an lit ka was here. so it was just a line of computers. this is where their operation was and this is kind of the brain of the data. this was the data center.
>> this is the data center, the center of the data center. >> exactly right. yes, it was. >> i'm joined by business insider political correspondent natasha bare trant who's been covering this and msnbc contributor and former fbi agent, author of "how to catch a russian spy." what's the significance of this? >> it's the first known instance that we've seen where the trump campaign directly reached out to wikileaks during the election. we saw that trump throughout the entire election was praising wikileaks, was telling russia to please find these 33,000 missing e-mails. and if true, which julian assange said that this was accurate that the ceo did reach out to him and wikileaks basically denied their overtures. that indicates that someone with a very important prominent role
in the trump campaign, really the beating heart was trying to conclude with julian assange who has been characterized as a tool of the kremlin. >> give us a timeline of when this outreach was taking place, what point in the campaign. >> we don't know exactly when this happened. cambridge an lit ka was hired in june 2016 and the e-mail was supposedly sent in late july right after the republican national convention. it was right around the time that the dnc e-mails were released by wikileaks. it was just before the kickoff of the dnc, the democratic national convention, that wikileaks did this data dump of the dnc e-mails, around the time that allegedly alexander knicks sent this e-mail to julian assange. >> do you get the sense that revelations like that might be the reason that you see this almost sort of hysteria to get some other russia related story that targets democrats? they've listed literally every democrat they can think of. eric holder should go down,
james comey should go down, hillary clinton and even bob mueller. do you think those two things are connected? >> i think they are. joy, this isn't watergate. this is stupid watergatewatergat you're absolutely right. there's something big coming. i think that these people are worried and the best they can do is do a preemptive attack on whatever it is that's coming. we don't know what that is. the fact that these things are coming out now when there's no reason to rebut anything is for lack of a better word curious. i think it's exactly what you're leading towards which is there is something coming, they know about this, and they're preemptively trying to distract the american public from something fairly big that's coming down the pike. >> do you get the sense that because you do have -- there were two sort of lines of attack. there's the we don't have anything to do with cambridge an lit ka so that's not us, but then you have not only the trump white house but also people in and around the donald trump campaign saying, no, no, look at the connections between these
uranium deals and everyone from eric holder to robert mueller. do you get the sense that their ultimate target is mueller? >> so trump last week said that he has no intention of firing robert mueller. he kind of, you know, came out and said, no, let the russia investigation take its course in so many words. he basically said he doesn't have any plans to impede the investigation because if they gave any indication that he was going to go after mueller that would be bad. that said, his allies have been working over time to discredit mueller. i was also thinking that the trump administration kind of blew past this october 1 deadline to implement the sanctions on russia so perhaps it's not so much something that they're looking to preempt that's happening in the future but something that they're trying to distract from that they didn't do already. >> that's a good point because you do have an administration that despite its sort of desperation to distance itself from the russia investigation, it's been ostentatiously doing things like not implementing the russia sanctions. do you get the sense that this is a white house that's nervous
about ties to russia or flagrantly flaunting it? >> both. i went to hip c and briefed the members back in the spring. >> explain what hip c is. >> sorry. the house intelligence committee of which adam schiff and nunes is part of it who supposedly recused himself. the fact that no republican showed, this was a nonpartisan brief on the dangers of russia from a national security standpoint. i was double agent under bush. there's nothing partisan about that. the fact that none of them could come or even send a staffer, from that day forward told everyone they weren't serious about considering that russia is a threat. somehow this has become politicized and because of that they've actually refused to acknowledge that there's a russian threat. joy, this isn't russian meddling in our election. this was a russian campaign against the united states. at the end of the day they're distracting us, throwing flares to try to take away from the fact that there was something
significant that happened, it needs to be fixed and most likely americans in some part aided the russians in that activity and that's very disturbing and should be disturbing and should be given the full and honest treatment that the severity of what's being alleged deserves. >> thank you both for your time tonight. i'm now joined by former federal prosecutor and matt miller, former chief spokesman at the u.s. department of justice. matt, your take on what does seem to be an attempt by the white house and its allies to create a parallel russia gate that targets every prominent democrat they can think of. >> it goes back to the campaign when in the debate hillary clinton called donald trump a pub et of vladimir putin. his answer was no puppet, you're the puppet. that's basically the answer here. there are two things. one, republicans in congress basically have to get through every news cycle. there continue to be new
revelations about the president's campaign and their interactions with russia, about what's happened in the white house, and they don't have good answers for why they're not aggressively investigating that. instead they come up with these conspiracy theories that get them onto fox news and repeated on fox news. that's the first thing. the second thing and the much more strategic long-term plan they have is to completely try to undermine the mueller investigation so when it ends, if the president -- if mueller finds that the president either knew about something criminal that happened during the campaign or obstructed justice in the white house, when that referral comes back from mueller to congress in the form of an impeachment referral, they have done everything they can to undermine his credibility with their base. >> that suggests that they think there might be something serious coming out of the mueller probe. what would you guess that that could be? >> well, the most serious allegation that impacts the president that we know about right now is obstruction. i mean, clearly he was the one
who made the decision to fire james comey. you notice, you were talking about all of the cast of characters that fox news is trying to throw into this years old story and one of them was james comey. he's sort of out of place. all these other people were prominent democrats. james comey is a career law enforcement guy but he's thrown in there because they also have to smear his name because he is the person who was fired by the president and that conduct is at the center of what probably is going to be the most serious charge against the president of the united states. >> and matt, they also through in eric holder. it's not clear really what his connection to their conspiracy theory might be and of course hillary clinton. so they do seem to be sort of naming an all-star list of people that -- base that watches fox news dislikes. >> that's right. i think eric holder like hillary clinton, republicans can't quit either of them. hillary clinton they've been going after for 25 years. there's this crazy thing on the right now where all of the structure is wrong.
fox news raises a conspiracy theory. sean hannity is going about this for weeks. republicans in congress answer that conspiracy theory, answer the fox news coverage by ginning up subpoenas, opening up investigations. they're rewarded with more coverage on fox news and there's no incentive for them to investigate the president when they live in a parallel world that's disconnected from reality. so if you turn on fox or look at breitbart, you would think that loretta lynch and eric holder were the ones that hacked the election, that helped steer it towards russia. it is absolutely absurd. >> yeah, i've taken to calling it earth 2 sometimes. it's sort of a completely different world. i'm wondering then as a legal matter if this kind of where you're trying to blur the lines between who was talking to russia, who was really colluding with russia, does that have any impact on the investigators? >> i don't think it does. i will tell you it's actually a fairly common technique by people who are subjects of a criminal investigation. when i was a federal prosecutor,
they always tried to go after me. they tried to go after the investigation. they tried to create distractions and it didn't work. i think the difference here unfortunately is we're talking about the president of the united states and as you pointed out, there's this sort of propaganda machine behind him. i will tell you, i have family members who voted for donald trump and watch fox news and they do live in that parallel universe and it's a problem for us as americans because we can't come together and deal with the same set of facts. so, i think as matt said, i think the setup here is for a political process in congress if there is, for example, an impeachment referral giving them cover not to contact. >> absolutely. matt miller, thank you for being here. ronado mariachi, who i understand may be getting back into the game. >> i am. i guess i should tell you, joy,
i am going to be running for illinois attorney general and i just made that decision. i'm making it now. it is definitely a big change for me but i feel like i can't sit on the sidelines. donald trump is doing too much to, frankly, trample on our rights and he's somebody that can only be stopped by state's attorney general and frankly, i think what we just heard about today is part of that. congress can't be counted on to check him. so i don't want to sit on the sidelines. so i'm going to be running for that. i'm not a millionaire or insider so i do need people's support. you can check out my website or twitter. >> making the announcement right here on "all in." thank you very much. tonight republicans talk of waging a gop civil war, a fight for the soul of the party. but if there was a war, it's over and the victor is donald trump. that's in two minutes.
my "business" was going nowhere... so i built this kickin' new website with godaddy. building a website in under an hour is easy! 68% of people... ...who have built their website using gocentral, did it in... ...under an hour, and you can too. type in your business or idea. pick your favourite design. personalize it with beautiful images. and...you're done! and now business is booming. harriet, it's a double stitch not a cross stitch! build a better website - in under an hour. free to try. no credit card required. gocentral from godaddy.
what should i watch? show me sports. it's so fluffy! look at that fluffy unicorn! he's so fluffy i'm gonna die! your voice is awesome. the x1 voice remote. xfinity. the future of awesome. despite all you've heard about a republican civil war raging in wash and around the country, all evidence points to
the fact that whatever war there was is already over and donald trump has won. now he and his allies are purging the last holdouts among republicans who disagree with his style. few ever really disagreed with him on policy. leaving behind only those in the gop who are willing to publicly fall in line, swear undying loyalty to trump and look the other way at his abuses of the norm that used to define the presidency. take john corn of texas. here he is justifying his endorsement of disgraced former alabama chief roy moore who's running for jeff sessions' old senate seat. >> did you see these comments where he said that homosexual comments should be illegal. do you agree with that? >> i don't have to agree with somebody to support them over the democratic nominee. so this is a -- i support the nominee of my party. >> he's also said that he didn't think keith illson should be able to be sworn in because he's a muslim. these are things that --
>> i have disagreements within my own family. doesn't mean i care for them any less or -- so that's -- i support the nominee of my party. >> there you go. no matter how outrageous a republican might be, how bigoted or ignorant, as long as they can win and if they vote with the party, if they let trump build his wall, get extravagant tax cuts to the rich and take away health care from those who aren't rich, they're family. david weigel of the "washington post" recently wrote about mcconnell allies, declaring war on steve bannon. it was written that establishment republicans agree that steve bannon is kicking our -- bleep. dave, i will start with you. i want to play paul ryan and marco rubio, the latter having been very critical of donald trump during the campaign right before he said he would be honored to help him win election. this is the two of them today doing a briefing. >> you know what the american
people want to see us do? solve their problems. i don't think the american people want to see us up here yelling at each other. they want to see us fighting for them. >> he was elected president. i'm going to work with him for the good of our country and we're going to try to get good things done. >> you know, david, there is a civil war in the republican party. one would think that steve bannon and friends would want guys like those to be defeated, but they are not fighting donald trump. those guys are absolute utter loyalists to donald trump. >> what our story was about in part was the republican groups that do exist are trying to protect incumbents like the senate leadership fund which is mitch mcconnell's organization. they are trying to make bannon toxic personally. they're sort of acknowledging that he is a famous figure with more clout than frankly most of them when it comes to the republican base in large part because of conservative media. so they're trying to make him toxic with the moderate voters
who still can decide republican primaries in some states. but that's it. within the senate there's not much of that going on. there are not people -- jeff flake did not make his announcement and then go down to campaign for a candidate of his liking in alabama. there's a bit of carping and then wishful thinking as you saw in the clips. >> tim miller who i believe used to work for mitch mcconnell tweeted out today. he's a former spokesperson for jeb bush. he says there's a war for the future of the gop. i'm amused that in the media you keep hearing there's a great war dave is right. if there's a war, it's a rhetorical war against steve bannon and utter obedience to donald trump. >> if you look in terms of who has the president's ear, the ear of the most powerful man on the face of the planet, people who align themselves more with folks like mitch mcconnell, so-called establishment figures, are in open war with the president and having public feuds back and forth all the time.
steve bannon, even though he no longer works within trump's west wing still speaks to the president on the phone fairly regularly to give him advice and counsel. my sources in the white house in and outside of the white house tell me that in the past two or three weeks the frequency of the calls between steve bannon and president donald trump has actually increased. so if we're looking at which side is winning and which side is losing, at least for now and this could change, we'll see how the 2018 race is torn out, but it appears that steve bannon's side is asen dant and even people both in and out of congress are starting to take note. >> dave, it strikes me that rather than this being a war or a real purge, what you really basically have is steve bannon issuing a blanket threat. you will either be obedient in public to donald trump, or we'll threaten you to primaries. he doesn't have to win any for that threat to have salient. >> he's already won one although bannon did kind of jump to the
front of the parade in alabama. roy moore won for a number of reasons, had been famous in the state for two decades. he's also very smartly i think endorsed republican candidates who are fairly well supported by the establishment. in breitbart they're taking credit for josh holly in missouri who was recruited by people like john danforth, one of the most prominent never trump critics, the former senator. bannon and him are on the same side. what they take credit for is coming out and saying maybe he won't vote for mcconnell for majority leader. there's a constant state of argument about what the party stands for and in bannon's mind this party stands for whatever donald trump stands for at that moment. it stands for populism. when it comes to the economic issues and a lot of individual candidate positions, they're really negotiable. all that's needed is for these
guys to be pro trump and anti-mcconnell. that's how the establishment is defined by somebody who was in the white house until recently. >> have you been able to find substantive differences in terms of policy. jeff flake and cornyn may not like the style of donald trump but do you see differences between him and them on policy? >> between those guys and people like donald trump and steve bannon, there certainly are substantive differences on hot button issues such as immigration. people like trump and bannon would like something far more restrictive than people like jeff flake. >> but they'll vote for it if it's put in front of them, right? they'll vote for trump's version if it's put in front of them? >> we'll see if jeff flake votes for a wall. but in terms of people like mitch mcconnell and jeff flake, in terms of weaponizing the so-called republican base for the 2018 races, i think what steve bannon and people of his ilk are counting on is that mitch mcconnell is becoming a name synonymous with people like john boehner and even barack obama in terms of what people in the republican and conservative base finds an ath ma.
emergency. it's a national emergency. we're going to draw it up and we're going to make it a national emergency. but this is a national emergency and we are drawing documents now to so attest. >> next week i'm going to be declaring an emergency, a national emergency on drugs. the opioid is a tremendous emergency. we're going to be doing a very, very important meeting some time in the very short, very near future on opioids. in terms of declaring a national emergency which gives us power to do things that you can't do right now. >> today when donald trump stepped forward to present his administration's battle plan on a crises that last year alone took the lives of 60,000 americans, do you suppose he went ahead and declared it a national emergency? we'll give you the answer, next. they'll get the lowest price guaranteed on our rooms by booking direct on choicehotels.com? hey! badda book. badda boom! mr. badda book. badda boom!
today donald trump did not declare a national emergency on the opioid crises. a technical term that would have immediately freed up federal funds to fight a problem that experts say could cost billions of dollars. instead, he declared the opioid crises a public health emergency. a different technical term which basically makes it a little easier for states to shift some very limited funds dedicated to other problems. trump did use his press availability today to tell a personal story designed to demonstrate his empathy for those facing addiction. >> i had a brother, fred. great guy, best looking guy,
best personality, much better than mine. but he had a problem. he had a problem with alcohol, and he would tell me, don't drink. and to this day i've never had a drink. and i have no longing for it. i have no interest in it. to this day i've never had a cigarette. don't worry, those are only two of my good things. i don't want to tell you about the bad things. the fact is if we can teach young people and people generally not to start, it's really, really easy not to take them. and i think that's going to end up being our most important thing. really tough, really big, really great advertising. >> advertising. now, if that sounds exactly like first lady nancy reagan's just say no campaign launched back when president ronald reagan declared a war on drugs, that's because it is exactly the same. trump today also announced that this saturday is national prescription drug takeback day, meaning on saturday you can
personally solve the opioid crises by simply throwing away your pills at a designated collection site. >> when you can safely turn in these dangerous and horrible drugs for disposal, that will be a wonderful, wonderful period of time for you. >> republican congressman james comber of kentucky joins me now. thank you very much for being here. i want to start with what you make of the fact that the president, despite having said that the opioid crises is a national emergency that he didn't declare it a national emergency. he declared it a public health emergency. is that good enough for you, sir? >> it is good enough. i think it's a great start. i plaud him for bringing attention to this. i represent a rural area. it makes it more accessible for tele health to get access to be able to treat this addiction in the rural areas. it frees up federal funds that can be shifted from one agency into the fight against the drug epidemic, and the president is
using the bully pulpit to bring attention to this. it's great that we're talking about this tonight. everybody in america is talking about this. no one has a real clear answer as to how to solve this, but we have to take a scientific approach and let the metrics determine the best way to solve this and i think the president did a great job today bringing this to the forefront. >> the bully pulpit is important and part of the ceremonial duties of the president. i'm sure as you understand fighting something like the opioid epidemic takes money. federal data show that medicaid currently pays for about one-fourth of all substance abuse treatment, up one-fourth from 1986. this is from the atlantic, losing expanded medicaid coverage would absolutely harm string our operation to address opioid addiction in eastern kentucky. that's according to public health director christie green. despite the dependance on
medicaid as a way that people in the grips treat themselves, you, sir, voted on a budget that the hill reports. there's a lot of unjust fewable provisions in this budget. on top of massive tax cuts for the rich, it cuts vital national investments, citing more than $4 trillion in mandatory spending cuts including almost $2 trillion in cuts to medicare and medicaid. how can you justify voting fo are a budget that cuts the very funds needed to treat the opioid addicted in your state? >> well, there are people that are addicted to opioids that aren't on medicaid so this affects a large group of people. >> but the majority of those who are addicted utilize medicaid in their treatment. how can you justify cutting those funds? >> we're still going to have medicaid. in kentucky we have a medicaid problem where we have too many people on medicaid but that's another story. with respect to this, i
supported the 21st century cures act. came to congress last november during the lame duck session. that was the first major bill i voted for. that provided $1 billion worth of funding that would be sent to the states to battle the opioid crises. $1 billion over two years. so i have supported increased drug funding. but you know, it's going to take more than money. we've spent a lot of money in america to fight this problem. it's only getting worse. i think we have to step back and i think that the president can lead this as far as trying to bring the federal government in line with the state government and local governments. we have to have everybody working together. the hospitals, the courts, law enforcement, everybody's going to have to work together on this and we can do this without continue -- >> not without money. hospitals actually rely on federal money, medicaid money, part of what they do. in kentucky 17 of the counties in your state tie for the highest rate of overdose deaths. medicaid covers two-fifths of
the population. you have over 2,000 people on medicaid. do you believe that these folks can be treated without funding? if you take the money away how will those people be treated? >> we're not taking the money away. >> you voted for a budget that cuts it. >> it's a very large budget and what the president did today would allow transferring more money. we have a $20 trillion debt in america. we have to tighten our belts. it's unfortunate, but there are other avenues to fight drug abuse. i'm a big behavior in faith-based initiatives to help combat drug abuse. >> quickly, i know we're out of time but doesn't the budget that was just passed increase the debt? my understanding is the debt will go up because of this budget. >> this budget will lead to tax reform. >> how does that help the deficit? that increases the deficit. if you --
>> it increases the deficit if you assume there's not going to be growth. i believe that there's going to be growth. i believe that we're going to allow every american to have more money, more businesses to have more money. in my district 80% of the people do not itemize on their tax returns. we are going to double the standard deduction in my poor district and i believe that's going to lead to more money in the economy, more growth, more jobs created. one of the issues with the drug epidemic is it's a direct correlation to poverty. most people that are on medicaid -- >> are poor and need medicaid funding and if you cut it they'll have less help. we're out of time. we'll debate this another time. thank you very much. i really appreciate your time tonight. thank you. >> thank you very much. coming up, shades of charlottesville as the president frames virginia's race for governor about preserving heritage. we'll discuss that ahead. plus tonight's thing one, thing two starts next.
thing one tonight, this is supposed to be the day, the deadline set 25 years ago by congress to unseal the final documents related to the assassination of president john f. kennedy in 1963. late tonight donald trump delayed the release of thousands of those files. of the 35,000 documents expected to be posted, the president approved just 2800 pages for release. the remainder will undergo a six-month review process after intelligence agencies called for selected redactions. which leads to the burning question that will continue to occupy the minds of historians and conspiracy theorists alike. what will we learn from the last batch of documents and does it relate to this? >> donald trump alleges that my dad was involved in assassinating jfk. >> ted cruz's prediction is thing two in 60 seconds.
>> his father, i don't know his father. i met him once. i think he's a lovely guy. i think he's a lovely guy. all i did is point out the fact that on the cover of the "national enquirer" there's a picture of him and crazy lee harvey oswald having breakfast. >> this is nuts. >> his father was with lee harvey oswald prior to oswald's being, you know, shot. >> donald's source for this is the "national enquirer." >> i've always said why didn't the "national enquirer" get the pulitzer prize for all these things. >> the picture was taken with lee harvey oswald and they didn't deny the picture. >> cruz denied it. >> it's a little hard to do. it looks like him. there was a picture on the front page of the "national enquirer" which does have credibility, and that's the only thing i know. >> yeah. that happened. and then he became president.
well, today senator cruz was asked by nbc if he hopes the new jfk documents might help clear up this matter. >> are you confident that the release of the jfk files will vindicate your father? >> i look forward to seeing what's in the files, and you know, politics is a strange process. there are ludicrous claims and then there are claims that go beyond ludicrous, and this one falls into the latter category. hi. i'm the one clocking in... when you're clocking out. sensing your every move and automatically adjusting to help you stay effortlessly comfortable. there. i can also help with this. does your bed do that? oh. i don't actually talk. though i'm smart enough to. i'm the new sleep number 360 smart bed. let's meet at a sleep number store.
many of those people were there to protest the taking down of the statue of robert e. lee. so, this week it's robert e. lee. i noticed that stone wall jackson is coming down, is it washington the next week or thomas jefferson. you had very bad people in that group but you also had people that were very fine people on both sides.
>> over two months ago donald trump set off a firestorm with those comments, defending and even identifying with the white nationalist marching in charlottesville who clashed with counter-protesters and chanted nazi slogans. [ chanting ] >> trump stood by those demonstrators even after one of their ranks plowed his car into a crowd of people, injuring dozens and killing 32-year-oldst expected his coddling of the nazi curious far-right would become a republican rallying cry, particularly not in the very same state where the violence took place. but that's precisely what's
ralph northam wants to take down virginia's civil war monuments. >> i will do everything that i can to remove the statues at the state level. >> ralph northam will take our statues down. ed glepsy will preserve them. >> i'm for keeping them up and he's for taking them down. and that's a big difference in november. >> there's an important detail
that you might have missed in that ad for republican ed gillespie's virginia gubernatorial campaign. that statue in the ad, the one he's talking about preserving, is almost identical to the statue of robert e. lee that drew all those white nationalist protesters to charlottesville in august, resulting in violent clashes and the death of one young woman. gillespie is now running on the white nationalist's message and he's doing it with the full backing of the white house, with the president of the united states tweeting today, ed gillespie will turn the really bad virginia economy numbers around and fast, strong on crime, he might even save our great statue/heritage. gillespie might not seem like the most obvious advocate for the confederacy, he's an alt-right insider, and a pall who went on to found his own corporate lobbying firm. once the architect of bush's pro-immigration conservative platform, gillespie is now running menacing ad, portraying his opponent as a scary man.
the most recent poll has him up by 8%. jason johnson is politics editor at "the root" and msnbc contributor and sarah rumpf is a republican strategy, opposed to donald trump. so sara, it was a treat by gabe schoenfeld that said, i worked with ed gillespie on the romney campaign, a great guy now covering himself in filth. what does it say about the republican party that one must cover themselves in that alt-right filth, as schoenfeld put it, in order to run for governor of virginia, of all places? >> well, i do want to draw an important distinction, because donald trump is rightfully getting criticized for his "fine people" comment, because what happened in charlottesville was not a bunch of history buffs and confederate war reenactors showing up. it was an alt-right white supremacist rally, it was
organized by those groups, the national policy institute, which is richard spencer's group, the daily stormer, a white supremacist website, and other groups like that. that's what that was. so when trump called them "fine people," that's why everyone got mad and criticized it. now, that does not mean that everyone who is hesitant to take down the statues is a white supremacist. that's -- i don't think that's fair to say. and -- >> go on. >> when i'm looking at this, i honestly -- because we have this same issue in my hometown. my middle school was robert e. lee middle school and our mascot was the rebels. and the local community decided and they renamed the school, it's college park middle, it's the bulldogs now. that's great. this is something i think both the democrats and republicans are wrong. whether you support taking the statues down, the majority of people who want the statues taken down want it done orderly, lawfully. they don't want vandals in the middle of the night blowing them up. and if you're someone who wants to preserve them, you're going
to feel better about it if it's something that is discussed, transparently and openly. if it's local referendums and local initiatives, as much as possible. and having a fair discussion in the local communities. have the colleges where these things are hosted, the local parks, the cities, et cetera. >> all right, we're not going into a whole fight, though. we're talking about this particular thing and i think jason wants in. >> joy, this is the thing. this is what's entertaining to me about this. the ad says ralph northam is going to take down our statues. he's not talking about me! he's not talking about you. he says "our." he's talking about racists and bigots. people who see these things as symbolically important, not history buffs. and what ed gillespie is doing, which is extremely problematic, is he's decided, look, since i can't seem to win this race, since i'm still four to five points behind by focusing on policy, i'm going to throw all of this red meat out there for the racists and the demagogues. i'm going to talk about ms-13, i'm going to talk about sanctuary cities, when there are no sanctuary cities in virginia and use all of these
distractions rather than focusing on the fact that you have two mainstream center-right democrats and republicans running against each other and cloak himself in trumpness. and that, you know, anyone who is running for governor who wants to use a terrorist attack symbolism in order to get elected is not somebody i would want to vote for. >> and to that point, sarah, you do have a situation where this is where charlottesville took place. virginia is, you know, a particularly, you know, sort of fraught place to have this kind of message. the virginia republican party tweeted and then took down a tweet and apologized for tweeting, ralph northam has turned his back on his own family's heritage in demanding monument removal. this is a pointed attack, because of charlottesville. isn't it clear that ed gillespie is trying to ride that charlottesville negative wave into office? >> i mean, i think that it is a bit of a stretch to say that he is trying to ally with these alt-right people -- >> then why's he doing it? he's from new jersey.
>> he lives in virginia. he's lived in virginia for a very long time. he's been active in virginia republican politics. >> has he been active in pro-confederate politics. pro-confederacy, sort of defense of the confederate flag and that kind of thing? i don't remember that in his history. >> you know, i'm not an expert on the intricacies of virginia politics, but i do want to talk about this ms-13 angle. because i do find that very disappointing. ed gillespie on criminal justice reform has an excellent record and his positions are very good. they're very much in line with the conservative criminal justice reform that has been successful in texas and other places. >> right. >> policies that are directing people to -- >> we're running out of time. let me give jason -- >> so we're taking this angry ms-13 ad is the wrong message. >> at the end of the day, if you actually want to get elected governor in a state, it's not going to be about trump, it's going to be about what you can do. you have to run on policy. and when you can't run on policy, you see candidates doing what like ed gillespie is doing. i'm going to use race, i'm going to use dog whistles, i'm going
to use whatever i can because i can't win on substance. and that's a disturbing thing too many republicans are fall ing for. >> sorry we were truncated on time. that is "all in" for this evening. the 11th hour with brian williams starts now. tonight, is this the party of you break it, you buy it? president trump lurches from i alone can fix it to something of a gop civil war. why is the administration delayed in forcing sanctions on russia. it blew past the deadline, now congress has stepped in. documents just released tonight on the jfk assassination, we'll look at the secrets of the '60s that have been revealed just this evening, as the 11th hour gets underway. on a thursday night, good evening, once again from our nbc news headquarters in new york. day 280 of the trump administragi