that's wrap of this hour. i'm alex. i'm see you an noon eastern. right now time for am joy with my friend, joy reid. and another great friend of mine, somebody respected by everybody, a great friend of phil too, mr. and mrs. steve wynn. stand up, steve. stand up. steve is always calling. always got advice, right steve.
donald, i think you ought to do this and that. his advice i like to listen to. i'll be honest with you. >> good morning. welcome to am joy. last weekend when the government shutdown forced donald trump to miss the fancy party he threw for himself at mar-la-go, he also missed the chance to hang out with one of the party's host, his great friend. rnc finance chair and billionaire steve wynn. not like any good friend. they have a lot of similarities. both graduates of the university of pennsylvania. both built casino empires in atlantic city and las vegas. the wynn succeeded where trump's crumbled amid multiple bankruptcy. now these great friends have something else in common. both are accused of repeated instances of sexually assaulting women. according to friday report in wall street journal, steve wynn has been accused by a dozen women in a decade of pattern of sexual misconduct. including employees to perform sex acts. wynn responded in a statement saying the idea i ever assaulted
any woman is preposterous. wynn resorts tells nbc news they've never received any complaint about wynn on independent hot line to report harassment. one accuser is a manicurist at the casino. said he forced her to have sex with him when she went for a an appointment in his private office in 2005. after she reported the incident, wynn personally paid her a $7.5 million settlement. in the last two years, wynn has also reached into his deep pocket to help bankroll the campaign of several republicans, and raised millions for donald trump. who rewarded wynn with a spot as vice chair on his inaugural committee. later, the rnc showed appreciation by naming wynn as the party's finance chair. we reached out to rnc and still awaiting comment.
jason, i'll start with you. after tv harvey weinstein scandals broke out, republicans were very vehement in calling out democrats and saying they should return any money that harvey weinstein donated to democrats. harvey weinstein donated a fraction of the money steve wynn raised for republicans. should republicans give back that money. >> rnc put themself in a difficult position. they did speak out and put pressure on the democrat national committee. now allegations about steve wynn. i've read the "wall street journal" story. it's very long and detailed. i don't think they should return the money, but politically speaking it's a very difficult position. it's one if they do not after calling on the democrat party to do so, it's very fair, very fair for people to say it's hypocrisy. >> we say democratic party here.
real name for the party. >> very goods. >> are you surprised no republicans have said anything about steve wynn. he's the finance chair of rnc. >> no, not really. i'm not. >> why not. >> because the allegations were just revealed yesterday. and look, i get that it's very popular to immediately jump to conclusions from both sides. look, this is an issue as you pointed out in your lead that we've seen on both sides. we need to give it a little bit of time. that's what a lot of people would say. he's denied the allegation sgls are you surpri . >> are you surprised you haven't heard any republicans speaking out. they're aware that the power in las vegas combined with the knowledge the jobs they held were among the best paying available there, added to feeling of dependence and intimidation when he made requests of them. some said the feeling was heightened at times by the
presence in a confined office space of one or more of his german she padres trained to respond to commands in german. are you surprised no republicans have spoken out other leaders of the republican national committee? >> no. i'm not surprised. i think if it comes to money and politics, both partieshypocrite what this is about is the dependence on both parties on people who have a lot of money. that's why donald trump likes mr. wynn because he has a lot of money. he brings money into the party and into the political campaign. that's why the democrats liked harvey weinstein. we need to get both parties to return all the money from all these may gentlemega donors. i don't care if they're perverts like these two men or want to destroy the planet like the coke
brothers or want to bankroll like the mercer family. they have no right to dominate the system. should not remain silent when they engage in this type of behavior. all the money needs to go back. this is about money and politics. corruption caused by money and politics and we can talk about all the issues, whether it's sexual assault and perverts or destroy the environment or whatever they're doing, and they want our government to help do for them, but we need them out of our political system or we're going to lose or democracy and both parties are at fault. they can point fingers all they want. voters are fed up. >> is this a both parties the same situation? senator al franken was run out of town by the democrats, really pushed eed to leave office. here's steve wynn has given
money to greg forte. karen handle of georgia. dean heller. jeff flake leaving in arizona. on and on. raised money for the national republican senate committee and rnc. he's also donated in the past to hillary clinton. he donated to her in 2015. more recently to tred cruz, jeb bush, marco rubio, ryan zinke. do you suspect if the only name of those lists i just read was hillary clinton, jason and other republicans would have a different point of view on what should be done with the money. >> i think that's a really good point. wynn post obama, wynn became a lot more republican. a lot more conservative republican and has played a much bigger roll in the republican party in the last ten years than he ever did clearly on the democratic side, but here's the
thing, joy, i think that in this past year, there are two things that republicans have proven themselves to be, which is final lists on one side and just hypocrites. you can't at one point say call on all the democratic who received money from weinstein. wynn with very comprehensive story by the "wall street journal." 150 people sourced to the story and now say -- not say a thing. just be quiet. not even mention it the a all by anybody. it's just pure hypocrisy. also, they have lost the ground on every level this past year with republicans. i would argue the last two years. certainly under donald trump's administration. at the end of the day, it's not surprising that republicans, they have a sexual predator who is in the white house who also want a sexual predator as
finance chair too. >> the meeting, the rnc is going to meet next week. steve wynn is supposed to be there, he is finance chair: this is a guy whose company dumped tom ford cosmetics and sunglasses after tom ford made a dis. said something they didn't like to hear about melania trump. michael cohen, recent statement about him. steve is a really great man. this is donald trump's lawyer been the driving force behind the rnc finance committee. to the point you just made, the dnc said the republican party is the party of roy moore, donald trump, franks. democrats refuse to standby while the republican party denigrates. women will continue to march side by side with women across the country. are you concerned that your party is becoming the party of donald trump, roy moore, and now steve wynn. >> so first of all, with regard to the rnc meeting next week and steve wynn's role, one thing if
you step back from the politics a moment that may cause it to play out differently, what leadership role steve win plays with the rnc or with his own company for that matter. it's a publically traded company. i believe it was the wall street journal story that pointed out recently fcc filing from wynn casinos the company stating that if there were a change in mr. wynn's leadership capacity ability to be involved with the company, it would be a serious hit to the company. all that is to say that my guess is that the actual market on the business side will end up dictating what happens with mr. win. >> i'm sorry. what do you mean by that, his business is tanking. >> that stock was down significantly. >> what does that have to do with whether he remains finance chair of the rnc and shows up at their meeting. >> a lot. what i'm saying to you is
ultimately if the goal here is not just to point fingers and try to take some moral high ground and say republicans are all sexists and democrats are angels. if ultimately the goal is to get rid of steve wynn, my point is that will likely dictate what his future is with the rnc. my guess is if he has to step down from a company that has his signature at the top of his building, it's very unlikely he'll continue to be chairman of rnc. >> is a faux moral high ground when they back roy moore, accused of child plusation. continued to have a member who said he was a soul mate of a very young staffer. when donald trump has 19 aaccusers of alleged sexual misconduct and republicans back him to the hilt. is it at faux high ground when they refuse to throw any. democrats dumped al franken
because they demanded he leave office. >> do you want me to take them one at a time. roy moore, to state that every republican across the board supported roy moore. >> the leadership stayed with him. the president of the united states was backing him. let's go there all that didn't. the rfc did not i don't recall any individual who had endorsed him, particularly the senators, before the allegations came out not rescinding. in other words, they all rescinded their endorsements, you're right, with the exception of the president and the rnc. so look, there is an interesting situation right now. there's no doubt about that, but to state that the rnc represents every republican in the country, the voters, the elected officials. >> it's the official party.
you're saying put them aside and find republicans who found moral clarity on roy moore and they count more than the organ that represents the republican party of the united states. >> it may come as a surprise to you, but for many of us out here in the country who don't live in washington, d.c. who are conservatives, it's not exactly breaking news that the republican national committee has not been our prime representative as voters. >> two-thirds of republicans in alabama voted for roy moore. individuals. forget the rnc. >> and he lost. >> only because for the most part, african-american women voted for doug jones. your party, the actual rank and file republicans in alabama, overwhelmingly voted for roy moore.
>> what does this say. >> that's a good question. >> it's easy to say all republicans are literally okay if these allegations are true in every instance. another way to look at it, whether they're true or not, the allegations are serious and out there. there's no question they're in the voters minds, both republicans, democrats and independence. in the instance of alabama, you offered up a candidate that to a majority of voters who were motivated to turn out, was a better alternativalternative, r whether the allegations were true or not. that didn't happen last year in the presidential race. >> i'm going give richard the last word. he's a life long republican. your thoughts, richard. >> i've been a republican for 30 years. i don't want to be part of a party that has people who are high up in the hierarchy who are perverts and who throw their money around. and we've had too much of this.
whether it's wynn or the coke brothers, the mercer family that bankrolls racism in this country, we've got a lot of people we need to throw out of the republican party. now as for the democrats, they need to clean their house. a lot of people in minnesota are quite upset. we felt the evidence against franken was really quite thin and from easier senator menendez still in the senate even though he was indicted for taking bribes. i know that ended in hung jury. they're going to go back on some of those charges. the idea the senate and committee wouldn't investigate that, democratic leadership wouldn't pressure him out, it's because of the money. both parties are addicted to money and campaign contributors. we need to clean up campaign finance system where people like steve wynn, these people are going to be dominating our system and voters are fed up. >> joy. >> quickly, we're out of time. >> just really quickly here. we're talking about sexual predators.
we're not talking about bribery. sexual predators. to be clear, roy moore was accused of being a pedophile. and republicans still backed him. the laddeader of the republican party backed him and that is donald trump. >> and the overwhelming majority of voters in the state. thank you very much. up next, republicans are doing they best to protect trump from obstruction of justice charges. stay with us.
and that's why small business owners need more. like internet that's up to the challenge. the gig-speed network from comcast business gives you more. with speeds up to 20 times faster than the average. that means powering more devices, more video conferencing, and more downloads in seconds, not minutes. get fast internet and add phone and tv for only $34.90 more per month. comcast is building america's largest gig-speed network to give small businesses more. call 1-800-501-6000 today.
good day, everyone. we learn add short time ago president trump has fired fbi director james comey. >> in fact when i decided to just do it, i said to myself, you know, this russia thing with trump and russia is a made up story. >> i get the sense my job would be contingent upon how he felt -- excuse me. how he felt i conducted myself and whether i demonstrated loyalty. >> well, let me give you a little bit of insight from inside the west wing right now, one of my sources reached out to me before we went on air and said there's mass hysteria in the west wing. >> breaking news tonight first reported by the "new york times," later confirmed here by own kristen welker and it involves the president and
special counsel robert mueller. the times broke the story that donald trump ordered robert mueller fired, but backed off. >> why do you want to fire robert mueller. >> fake news, folks. fake news. >> we now know that donald trump tried and failed to fire special counsel robert mueller last june. only backing down when don mcgahn threatened to quit rather than carry out the order. maybe more to the point, whether trump or his aides had broken the law by trying to derail that investigation. joining me now former justice department spokesperson, matt miller. sara. matthew, i'll start with you. donald trump reportedly attempting to fire the special counsel and failing to do so. what does that -- how does that advance a story in your mind. >> it's kind of funny. the only reason we have a special counsel is because after
donald trump fired james comey, these reports emerge from comey's memos that made it appear that his actions, both in trying to ask comey for a loyalty pledge, asking him to back off mike flynn and then fired him in his own words because of the russia investigation, appeared to be obstruction of justice. we now know that one month in to the president's -- bob mueller's ten your t president found out. then took actions to further obstruct justice by firing bob mueller. the report in the "new york times" story was significant in one important way. it's one thing for trump to privately blow off steam and complain about mueller. complain about the justice department. i can tell you from my own private work that people who are under investigation by the government tend to complain about it quite a bit and have very negative thoughts about the government. it's another thing for him to take an actual step as he did in
ordering bob mueller's firing. the order wasn't cared through. to obstruct justice you don't have to be siszful. you only have to attempt to shutdown, curtail an investigation. it reads whoever corruptly or by threat of force or any threatening letter or communication influences, obstructs, impedes or endeavors to obstruct or impede the administration of justice is guilty of obstruction of justice. we're talking a lot about watergate lately. in the case of the special prosecutor at that time, nixon knew he had done it. he attempted to get person after person to fire the special prosecutor. that was in an evidence of corrupt intent that got him impeached. in this case, do you see in donald trump seeming determination to get rid of not just mueller, but to malign the
fbi. attack the justice department. do you see in that a consciousness of guilt. >> i'm not sure that he actually had the capacity to fill guilt. he certainly is aware of what he's doing. he brags about what he's doing. he wished he had more power to let the fbi operate under his guidance. to have no independence between him and all the different branches of government that are supposed to keep him in check. when you look at neixon as a comparison. his farewell speech. where he expressed remorse. he resigned. realized it wasn't going to work out for him. he was ultimately going to be impeached. for the good of the country, ultimately for the good of himself, he departed. i can't picture trump ever having the level of self awareness to do that. i think his main goal is not to protect the country. not to protect national security or sovereignty. to protect himself.
he will break the law to do that. rewrite the law to do that. get the pool of lackeys to do that. refusal among that pool of lackeys to carry out the orders. >> let me play you august 10, 2017. couple of months after donald trump expressed desire to fire robert mueller and chief white house counsel refused. this is donald trump talking to reporter about whether he's even considered trying to fire the special prosecutor. >> mr. president, you thought about, considered dismissal of special counsel. anything bob mueller would do to send you in that direction. >> i haven't given it any thought. reading about it from you people. saying i'm going to dismiss him. i'm not dismissing anyone. i want the senate and the house to come out with findings. >> now, we now know malcolm just two months before that, he had actually attempted to fire bob mueller. that's a lie. you've been at this a long time looking at what donald trump could theoretically be afraid to
come out kwhachlt . what do you think he's more afraid of? exposure of ties and effort to hack the dnc and effort to the interfere in election. or is he more concerned that the mueller investigation will expose his business dealings with russian oligarchs and others. >> yes, all of the above. and you can add a couple of more to that. you know, this is a unique situation. even in watergate, you know, the underlying obstruction of justice was to hide the fact that the president of the united states had ordered the break in of the dnc. in this case, we have a foreign intelligence agency that cared o carried out that act to the bicep fit of a candidate for the president of the united states. it's an underlying motivation for donald trump to continue his lying. pathological lying about this subject. it's not about just his you know belief that the democratic party
is going after, you know, the validity of his presidency. that's not it at all. he's hiding something. when you're hiding something, you make an effort to do that. in donald trump's case, you know, he spent an enormous amount of time in late 2016 and early 2017 attacking the u.s. intelligence community because he thought that is where the evidence lies. as i said many times on this show, once the intelligence leaves the hands of the intelligence community and joins the department of justice, it becomes evidence. he is very aware that evidence and evidentiary based campaign is going against him through the mueller investigation and now he in his allies are trying to completely destroy the credibility of the fbi. and that right there tells you that there is a consciousness of guilt. i know ted has been on the program before. he said any time that you make
the effort, you know, any time that you make the effort, you're essentially committing the crime. there are multiple crimes being committed here. goes back to the beginning. what is the underlying crime or circumstances that donald trump is terrified of the special counsel finding out about. believe me, it could be money. it could be espionage. it could be all sorts of things. >> during the clint when republicans impeached bill clinton over the monica lewinsky affair. one of the things you heard frequently republicans say is that bill clinton also sent aides out to lie for him. and cover up his misdeeds. here are a serious of trump aides denying that donald trump had any intention of firing bob mueller. now we're going to listen to this with the context being we now know he attempted to order his aides to fire bob mueller. take a listen. >> does the president commit to
not firing robert mueller. >> the president has not discussed that. the president is not discussing bob mueller. >> for the 1,000 time, we have no intentions of firing bob mueller. >> is he setting the stage for firing bob mueller. >> no, there's no conversation. >> is there any way for us to know whether or not those guys were conscious of the truth when they were saying those things? >> i don't think there's a way for us to know. there's a way for bob mueller to know because he's interviewed a good number of them. i don't know if he's interviewed sarah sanders, but a bunch of other aides. he'll ask directly lly that question. how dangerous is it for staffers to work for donald trump. lying to the press is not a crime. obviously, but if you're out lying to the press or in donald trump's instance, writing a statement that lies to the press about donald trump jr. meeting with russian officials, it shows
consciousness of guilt. it shows you're trying to hide something because potentially the thing you're hiding is so damaging that there's an underlying crime there. it's a dangerous position there all in. one of the things we hear about obstruction of justice we don't often think of it's not just a problem for donald trump. it's promotionally a problem for a number of aides that work for him and around him. >> you study these things. do you see in this group of people around donald trump the kind of personalities that would be will be to lie to the fbi or lie to special counsel for donald trump, which is a crime. >> yes. absolutely. trump has bragged about the cold heartedness of the people he chooses for these kind of positions. we see the many members of his staff have own history of illegal financial transactions or compulsive lying or working at the head of propaganda outlet. picks these people on purpose. the most important people that trump surrounds himself at any point in his life are his lawyers. always surrounded himself with
ruthless lawyers that actually give him good advice to keep himself immune from prosecution and carry out criminal illicit behavior. when he was working in the private sector as a businessman. this was one thing. now that he's president he has to deal with an entirely new terrain of problems. he doesn't seem to understand the lawyers that are present are not there to work for him, but to work for the american people. >> by the way, i think the quality of his lawyers versus the quality of bob mueller's lawyers, not even close. >> no. >> yes. he's got a serious problem. >> not even close. matthew miller, sara, thank you all. appreciate it. coming up why donald trump should be afraid to go under oath. that's next. who are these people?
the energy conscious people among us say small actions can add up to something... humongous. a little thing here. a little thing there. starts to feel like a badge maybe millions can wear. who are all these caretakers, advocates too? turns out, it's californians it's me and it's you. don't stop now, it's easy to add to the routine. join energy upgrade california and do your thing.
there are 7 continents. 7 seas. but at celebrity cruises we'd argue, more than 7 wonders. for a limited time, enjoy two free perks like complimentary wifi and drinks, plus savings for everyone in your stateroom, when you book now. during the celebrity cruises sail beyond event. special prosecutor robert mueller under oath. that's next. stay with us. ce like this? (roaring of truck) yes and it was like the worst experience of my life. seven lanes of traffic and i was in the second lane. when i get into my car, i want to know that it's going to get me from point a to point b. well, then i have some good news. chevy is the only brand to receive j.d. power dependability awards for cars, trucks and suvs
your but as you get older,hing. it naturally begins to change, causing a lack of sharpness, or even trouble with recall. thankfully, the breakthrough in prevagen helps your brain and actually improves memory. the secret is an ingredient originally discovered... in jellyfish. in clinical trials, prevagen has been shown to improve short-term memory. prevagen. the name to remember.
respect to the speech you made and specifically the focus on mexicans and immigrants, did you write the statement in advance? was it written? >> no. >> did you give any thoughts to the effect that your statement relative to mexicans and immigrants would have on tenants in your current or future projects. >> no. no, i didn't. . i didn't at all. >> then presidential candidate donald trump showed a much more restrained side when testifying under oath in 2016. testimony he gave as part of a lawsuit that he filed after two prominent chefs canceled plans
to open restaurants at trump's new d.c. hotel in protest about remarks sending rapists to the united states. that subdued side of trump could be on display once again for the special prosecutor. this week trump declared he would be willing to talk under oath to robert mueller. leaving his lawyers to back pedal and say they didn't decided how or when trump will speak. joining me now. i want to play one more clip from this lawsuit and this was a lawsuit, there were two, jose andres and the other chef, also pulled out of a project at the hotel because of the comments. this is a little more of the second one's deposition. >> what did you do to prepare for the case today, for deposition. >> i would say virtually nothing. i spoke with my counsel for a short period of time. i just arrived here and we've proceeded to the deposition. >> thank you.
so you didn't look at any documents. >> no, i didn't. >> would you advise a guy who says he did virtually nothing to prepare for a deposition and just walked in and didn't look at any documents to take that same attitude into a meeting with robert mueller. >> no way. completely different scenario. we're not talking about a civil deposition. >> right. >> where he's basically had a history of buying people off when he gets caught in a corner. no way you're going to buy off robert mueller. we're talking about serious exposure to prison time. >> and not only history of buying off. history of lying. tim o'brien we have on the show frequently said via bluemberg back in june, 2017. oh, trump was trying to dismiss mueller. my lawyers got trump to admit to 30 lies under oath. trump sued me. then had to acknowledge 30 times during a deposition that he lied over the years about a wide range of issues.
lied about ownership stake in large manhattan real estate. cost of membership to a golf club. size of trump organization. wealth. the debt he owned. whether he borrowed money. on and on and on. all of those things could come up in the deposition and if he lies about them, aren't those crimes. >> any kind of lie -- this is not a deposition for starters. this is ancillary. even if they do it in the white house in a conference room, this is all going be ancillary to a grand jury proceeding. now, if they wind up doing it before the grand jury, the lawyers cannot be present. you're not entitled to have a lawyer with you in the grand jury. it's all on the record under oath. if you lie, perjury is basically defined at lying under oath. that in itself is a federal felony. >> paul, let me play you donald trump's defenders saying what
they believe donald trump would be walking into if they met. >> the president is convinced he's done nothing wrong, but the president couldn't possibly know what bob mueller knows about the case. this is what we call a perjury trap. >> under no circumstances should he grant mr. mueller an interview. it's a suicide mission. it's a very clear perjury trap. >> even if mueller is not setting it up as a perjury trap, it still is one. >> is this a perjury trap if donald trump is being called to talk to robert mueller? >> absolutely not, joy. a perjury trap is a technical, legal defense that means the prosecutors tried to set you up to force you to lie and the way to avoid a perjury trap is to tell the truth, but here's the concern about donald trump. here's the question from robert mueller that could bring down donald trump.
mr. president, did you try to fire me. if trump says, no. he's guilty of perjury or false states. if he says yes, he's guilty of obstruction. he's just corroborated all this evidence he had a corrupt intent to influence the investigation. >> and that is the point. right. either way, he's in trouble. i want to play you a piece of video might find interesting, nick. go ahead. let's play it. >> the tonight show will not be seen tonight so when they bring you the following nbc news special report. >> i read in one of the newspapers this morning the headline of cobs defiant. i do want to say i don't feel defiant. >> good evening, the country tonight is in the midst of what may be the most serious constitutional crisis in it's history. the president fired the man you just saw, the special watergate prosecutor because of the
president's action the attorney general has resigned. >> you worked for him. you were sitting in front row. is this situation analogous to the one we saw in watergate. >> it's getting pretty close. you've got a situation where if trump was actually going to have his lawyer fire mueller, it wouldn't have just been mueller. it would have had to have been rosenstein. and the attorney general. it would have had to have been all the upper department of justice. at least in the watergate situation, elliot richardson who was then the attorney general, deputy attorney general, they both had told congress or senate during their confirmation hearings they would not fire the special prosecutor unless it was for cause. they felt they could not do the firing. they actually got together with robert roark, who is the solicitor general, and purposely
came up with a plan. so the nixon administration could not put people into the department of justice who would be a bunch of political hacks and take over that department. this is a fact that isn't well know. robert has gotten a bad wrap for this over the years. it was a concerted effort by these three gentlemen to keep the rule of law intact in the department of justice. >> paul butler, how concerned are you that even if donald trump does not succeed in pushing out robert mueller, the alternative nick just hinted at is they could fire -- he could fire rosenstein and put a hack in his place or somebody who would essentially handcuff robert mueller because essentially he's his boss. he's his supervisor. >> if the president continues pattern of trying to get rid of law enforcement agents who are investigating him and done that with everyone from james comey to sally yates, the fbi
director, the fbi current director. yes, there could be a constitutional crisis, only if the republicans don't step up. there hasn't been the level of outrage to this recent breaking news about mueller possibly being fired by trump that we would expect. the concern t constitutional crisis happens in trump fires mueller and republicans let him get away with it. >> yes, that is the big concern. appreciate it. coming up, lawrence o'donnell and chelsea handler stop by. you do not want to miss that. laura can clean up a retriever that rolled in foxtails, but she's not much on "articles of organization." articles of what? so, she turned to legalzoom. they helped me out. she means we helped with her llc, trademark, and a lot of other legal stuff that's a part of running a business. so laura can get back to the dogs. would you sit still? this is laura's mobile dog grooming palace and this is where life meets legal.
i've always had a really good press and it wasn't until i became a poll on tesch shiticia realized how nasty, mean and fake the press can be. as the cameras start going off in the back. >> donald trump was booed at the world economic forum in davos after one of his few unscripted remarks. trump declared america open for business and defended his america first philosophy. sdwro joining me now to discuss, bobby
gosh. so let's talk about the bit of booing, but the overwhelming press account of donald trump's trip to davos was that he was treated warmly. explain to the audience whogree >> >> the greatest constellation of business leaders on the planet. this is capitalist central. these are his people. these are also -- this is also an audience that will greet almost anybody favorably. the year i was there, rohani the president of iran was there and he was greeted warmly. everyone is greeted warmly. and to be fair, a lot of what donald trump was saying was exactly the kind of music these people like to hear. lower taxes, less regulation, nothing wrong with that. the economy is doing well. the stock market is doing well. these people who are benefitting from that stock market and the economy doing well. so they were bound to be inclined towards donald trump.
these are his people. he had a message they wanted to matter. this was love-in. >> this is donald trump without steve bannon who sort of saw miss job as keeping donald trump from becoming this. to keep him from being anti-trade and being anti-globalism, right. and so here is donald trump now separated from that guy talking about trade and this is an interview with cnbc at davos. take a listen. >> i'm a free trader. totally. i'm a fair trader. i'm all kinds of trader. but i want reciprocal. when you use the word recipro l reciprocal, everybody understands that. if they do to you, you do to them and everybody understands it. and you'll see a lot of that in my administration. >> all kind of trader, which everybody had some fun with. is that -- it's hard for people to tell which is the real donald trump because he was also the guy who would end nafta and now he is a real free trader. >> he is also the guy who pulled the u.s. out of the tpp but now
is saying let's renegotiate and we might come back in. business leaders at a place like davos will cling to the positives. so the fact that he is now talking about reopening the door to tpp is something people will take away from this. what american president would go to any global forum and not say that i'm a free trader? >> this kind of president trump usually because he pulled out of tpp. canada jumped right in, announcing that they have their own trade deal with the asian pacific countries. countries are negotiating without us. we're being doubt out while china is on the march. >> countries are trying to do the best they can without american leadership, but they can't really make a good tpp deal without the united states. and they know this. and therefore they are going to feel like now that donald trump has opened that door again, they will feel ifs americans come in, it will be a much better deal. yes, they will make a deal without, but they need to have america in it.
>> and the whole idea of him being this nationalist was what endeared him to so many american voters. i don't think they pay attention to what he says. but this is donald trump really sort of rolling that back a bit and we should note this is a speech that gary cohn wrote, not steven mill are oer oig which i important point. >> as president of the united states, i will always put america first just like the leaders of other countries should put their country first also. but america first does not mean america alone. when the united states grows, so does the world. >> i mean that is sort of self-evident. but does this mean that the whole donald trump nationalism, economic nationalism thing is dead? >> he's giving different speeches to different audiences. this is six months away from the
next election, this is not the speech he gives. he can give this year and get away with it. a lot of his fan base as you said they are just happy that he is in office right now, they are not really particularly paying close tension to what he says. what does donald trump really stand for on? who knows. >> and really quickly, the polling shows that the american image is tainted under donald trump. does that really matter to the people who are at davos, do those people care what the world thinks of the u.s.? >> no, it didn't affect that business on a day to day basis. >> they just care about the bottom line. thank you very much. and up next, lawrence o'donnell and i will discuss who won the shutdown stand off and why. we can't stay here!
i'm disillusioned. i think they are caving. democrat s are pretty good at articulating values. but a little weak on defending them. >> i think it definitely hurt us, no question about it. i think we went in as a party without a real plan, without a real strategy on how we were going to get out or what the end game was. >> good morning and welcome back to a.m. joy. democrats spent much of the last week hammering the brief government shutdown. agonizing over whether senate democrats gave away the store
and gave up their leverage. namely their ability to hold up funding for the government in exchange for nothing more than mitch mcconnell's word that he intends to hold a vote on protection for d.r.e.a.m.ers. yes, that mitch mcconnell, the one who held the supreme court seat hostage. but some including my next guest disagree with dems dispirited take. joining me now is lawrence o'donnell. author of playing with fire. but lawrence, are democrats right to say that their party caved and got nothing in the shutdown? >> that video is really extraordinary because it calls into question what does it mean to be a member of a party especially an elected member of a party in a legislature. because what we just saw were critics, so are you a party member or are you a party critic? when is the last time you saw a republican doing any of what you
just saw? >> never. they don't do it. >> they don't do it. the people we just saw are smart, intelligent people. if you ask them a question, they will answer it. and when you get into the so-called messaging game in politics, message is a worried that i december spispise and ro reasons is that i appreciate the complexities of government and the icomb pl complexities of po. but however, dumbing it down to a bumper sticker is what works. and so what you just saw were people who are atrocious at messaging. that is the worst possible messaging, to get out there and message against your party. >> right. >> i mean, they delivered a very simple message. the democrats caved. i completely get what they were saying. it was incredibly clear what they were saying.
the democrats caved. they also delivered a message that was in complete agreement with donald trump's message about what happened. i actually don't think it is true. but it was very clear and effective messaging. what they do not do, those very same people, is deliver a very clear message in one sentence with no complex claws about what they want. if you ask that same person in those interviews tell me exactly what you wanted to achieve in the run-up to the budget vote, thought one of them can give you a one certain tense responsente. and republicans never know more than one sentence. their lives are simple because their talking points are literally one sentence and they they have never have to learn anything beyond that and they actually revel in kind of living in that tiny intellectual space. and the democrats are much more
interested in all these complexities and they always talk about the complexities, which means that they are not delivering the message. >> and there are a couple things. first of all, is there any evidence that had dems head out as long as the ted cruz shut down, that that would have caused mitch mcconnell to put a clean daca bill on the table? >> frauirst of all, daca was no part of the legislative strategy going into this which is why another aspect of the democrats' message failure. there was never a possibility of getting daca as this budget vote approached. what the republicans were doing was trying to delay as long as possible a confrontation over daca, so that is why what mitch mcconnell wanted going into this thing was a spending bill that would go out to february 16th. so there were a couple things the democrats were trying to do. the number one thing they were trying to do is shorten that time period because they were saying february 16 will not give us enough time before march 5 to
deal with daca. >> and they got that. >> and they got that. they pulled it up a week. and they got that from minority status. so what everyone out there wants to be is an expert on senate strategy in the minority. senate strategy, period, is something very few people have a real understanding of. i've never met anyone outside of the people who have actually been in the room in the majority leader's office working on senate strategy who understand it. and so then when you get in to minority senate strategy, that is the hardest version of it because there is only one power that the minority has. only one in the senate. and that is the power to say no, it is not the power to then say another sentence after no. so if you want to look at the very best so-called message that the democrats have had in the first year of trump, it was the affordable care act message. and the republicans wanted to
repeal the affordable care act. what was the democratic party message in the senate and house? >> no. >> one word. two let'sers. no. that was the entire message. that is the greatest message you can have in legislative strategy. and it always works. and it is always clear. and you usually win if you are the minority party and your position is no, you will win is everything except reconciliation bills. and that was true for mitch mcconnell when they were the minority. the power to say no when you have more than 40 votes in the senate is a very strong power. but no one cares what you say after the no because you cannot wedge legislation on top of your no. look, the republicans do not actually want to do daca. that is their lie. mitch mcconnell is very, very happy to deport all of those people. as is paul ryan.
their public position because they recognize the poll you just showed which is a vast majority want to take care of these people, so they will say publicly we want to take care of them. and they will only include that in a bill in which they get all sorts of other things that they want. and the reason they are doing that is that they don't want daca. they actively do not want it. >> let me give you the one area in which i thought chuck schumer did a good job protecting his members. one thing that they did that i found odd and it is interesting that the criminali tic critics that they would do this also. this is chuck schumer saying he offered to give in on the wall. take a listen. >> i sat down with president trump on friday and offered him quite a bit. he made an offer for a wall. i said if we do full d.r.e.a.m.ers, we'll give you
the deal and he basically agreed. so we were close. and then he pulled out and backed off so now i've taken the wall off the table because they backed out of that deal. and then he shut the government down. >> but the critics of chuck schumer's strategy are saying they, too -- representative guttierez said he'd be willing to build a wall with police own two hands. why are they willing to give in so something that they agreed was immoral? >> because he actually understands the truth of what is behind the whole wall thing. two things about the wall. number one, i believe that the democrats' message should have always been on everything related to immigration and daca, everything, mexico will pay for the wall. that should be your message. when you say we want daca and the president says i want $18 billion on the wall, and then when he changes it as he has and pushed it up to $25 billion on the wall, your response to that
must always be mexico will pay for the wall and you must say it directly to the president. when the president mentions the wall, you say don't worry, mexico will pay for the wall. and make trump say back to you on tv, no, they won't pay for the wall so taxpayer has to pay for the wall. no, no, i'm sure mexico will pay for the wall. >> you're a great negotiator, make it happen. >> but here is the truth of the wall. the truth of the wall is you can give them anything they want on the wall because the administration -- schumer said i gave him everything he wanted on thewall. by which he -- as did durbin by the way. they meant i gave him $2 billion on the walled because h because administration says that is the most they can spend in the coming reayear. and trump has pushed the number. that is just a negotiating
stwraenl strategy. but you can give him any number he wants because it will not be spent. and the next congress can simply remove that. they will have to continue to proe appropriate it. so that is the big joke in negotiations. last thing i would do is just hand over basically whatever i needed to the wall and then i as congress will not spend it. and this wall proper on jekt is a ten year project minimum. there is all sorts of problems that will on come with it. congress can end this wall project whenever they want to. >> and last question. this is the thing i think that is giving a lot of democrats -- how can senate democrats compel mitch mcconnell to follow through on doing a vote on immigration bill? >> they can't. and that wasn't a very important part of it. what was important was dems were getting c.h.i.p.
republicans don't want it. they are lying to you when they say -- >> because they could have done it last year. >> they do not want it. it doesn't interest them. they do not care about those children. they are incapable of caring about them. so they are happy to live without it. it is not a corporate tax break. republicans would fight for a corporate tax break, not for those kids. so they don't care about it. so if you democrats want c.h.i.p., you will have to get it the way they got it which is in a hostage taking and you pull that one hostage out of the building which they successfully -- >> or 9 million hostages actually. >> which they successfully did. and that was an important move. so what happens from this point forward is a very, very difficult strategic situation because the republicans in fact the leadership do not want daca. so you are trying to get through an ongoing spending bill a new legislation that they don't want.
we've actually never seen that happen. so the promise that matters to them within the institution is mcconnell was forced to promise to above ten republicans that he would have a vote on this nap is the promise that matters. and so they believe that that raises the likelihood of mcconnell actually doing this to somewhere almost close to 50%. you know, that is will of- >> best you can get. >> none of them believe that it will happen. but that is something. it is better than him saying absolutely nothing. >> and better to have those 9 million free. my good friend lawrence o'donnell, thank you. and don't miss the last word week nights at 10:00 p.m. and this is a great gift, playing with fire, read it, give it to a friend. >> at least read the joy reid
and that plan is a campaign to make america white again. >> democrats have already rejected trump's new immigration proposal. a plan which would create a path to citizenship for d.r.e.a.m.ers while curtailing legal immigration and making it difficult for immigrants to live in america with their families. but the deadline to fund the government -- with the deadline to funds the government less than two weeks away and the expiration of daca about a month after that, how should democrats respond? joining me now, senior adviser for moveon.org, msnbc contributor, and also howard dean. thank you for being here. this is one of the rare occasions that i can remember where you and i have disagreed on anything. so let's start off with you. you were very critical of the democrats negotiating strategy and the way that they ended the shutdown. i don't know if you got a chance to hear what lawrence o'donnell had to say, but to summarize, democrats shot at each other and the democrats freed 9 million
hostages which is actually a pretty good outcome. your response. >> and i agree with you. the republicans held these 9 million poor kids, sick kids hostage for four months, they did not reauthorize c.h.i.p. at all which is horrendous. and so yes, one of the good things that did come out of that is the c.h.i.p., reauthorization of c.h.i.p. but i do believe that democrats did have a bit of a miss. poll after poll showed the people being blamed for the shutdown was trump and the republicans and i felt like they could have held on a little longer, fought a little bit harder to see where in was going to take them. but look, you know, we are in the second round as i've heard you call this, and you're right. and we have to continue to fight. it is getting really serious now. we saw the outline coming out of the donald trump administration and it is horrific, and so we have to continue holding the line.
at the end of the day, republicans are going to need democrats on february 8. they still need 60 votes. they don't have the leverage which is right because they don't have c.h.i.p. so now we have to continue to fight. and it is not just daca on the table. we have $81 billion for hurricane relief funds. we have other things on the table that are incredibly important. and here is another thing, too. in the 2019 budget proposal, it is supposed to come out in february from the administration. and they still -- republicans who own the house and the senate and clearly the white house still don't have the 2018 budget done. so they will need democrats and so democrats have to continue to fight tooth and nail for daca recipients, d.r.e.a.m.ers and their family. >> and i'll show you the polling that you're talking about. according to quinnipiac at the time of the shutdown, who is to blame. 18% of americans said republicans, 32% is said democr,
30% said trump. but here is my question to you. do you see any evidence that over the koirs of more and more days that polling wasn't just going to slide, not only against democrats, but against the d.r.e.a.m.ers themselves as more people saw the shutdown happening, their own inconvenience, social security checks were late, wouldn't people eventually just started to blame the d.r.e.a.m.ers and bring down their approval ratings and to what end? because republicans were never going to do daca. >> that is another good question. we don't know all i can tell you is that we know that the base and not even the base, independents, republicans and democrats are for having a clean d.r.e.a.m. act, wanting to make sure that the d.r.e.a.m.ers were taken care of. almost 80%. so that is what we knew and that's what we were going for. and that was where the energy was. and the energy is still there. and so that is a really good question. i know people ask that, what would have happened, would it have turned against democratics. all we know poll after poll was
showing that the energy was behind democrats, but they were blaming republicans for the shutdown. and that people were really want took make sure that the d.r.e.a.m.ers were taken care of. >> howard dean, you have the job of running the dnc, being head of the party. why do democrats have such a hard time explaining what they are doing when this first started, they were winning in terms of the polling. but their message at the beginning was we can't kick the can down the road. i don't even know what that means, but that was the democrats' message. it wasn't anything on daca. you i think agreed with me more that the strategy was good, they got c.h.i.p. off the table, they freed the hostages. but do you think the democrats did a good job of explaining what was happening? >> i think they did the best they can. this is the problem when you are the party that doesn't have the presidency particularly if you don't have the senate and house either, is the way we succeeded in freeing the 9 million hostages, children that
republicans were holding hostage, is to exploit arcane ledggislative procedure. the american people don't care about arcane legislative procedure. the one thing i. >> he is that the daca kids have the right to be upset. but the truth is in politics you get what you can and then you go back and get the rest. and we'll have an opportunity to get the rest, and it will be in the next couple weeks. so this very complicated to explain arcane legislative procedure i am not the least bit worried about us getting blamed for the shutdown because in the long run, that didn't seem to hurt mcconnell when he deep sixed barack obama's supreme court nominee for eight months. what is important is that we win on this issue and submit our coalition and that is what i think schumer is doing and i give him credit for it. >> and i'll play chuck schumer saying that the coverage of the d.r.e.a.m.ers is will push
mcconnell to keep his word. >> if the senate passes the bill and it is bipartisan, there may be enough moderate and mainstream republicans in the house, many of whom are vulnerable for re-election, who will feel they have to come across particularly if these sons of guns wait until after march 5 and i think god forbid, but the pictures of people being deported will rally the nation. >> so february 8, you have government funding running out again. mitch mcconnell says he will bring an immigration bill to the floor for debate if no deal is reached before mand. and then on march 5, the daca program expires. if we get to march 5 and there is no deal, and you start seeing deportations of d.r.e.a.m.ers, do you think that or even just the threat of those images will be successful in pushing mitch mcconnell to cut a deal? >> so sadly we already are seeing the deportion tags porp d.r.e.a.m.ers. i actually think because schumer
came down and they actually voted and stopped the government shutdown and then literally the next day the president came up with some -- with his outline of immigration that is not palatable not even to the republicans, he has now allowed -- the president has allowed for schumer and the republicans to negotiate a clean d.r.e.a.m. act which is what we wanted in the first place. and what you are seeing from flake and graham on but also some republicans behind closed door, more of the independent ones saying this allows us to negotiate this. clearly the president has no intention of giving us anything. this lets us negotiate something that is palatable in the short term and we don't have to talk about the wall or the family reunification. we'll just focus on the d.r.e.a.m.ers. the reason mitch mcconnell wants to get this passed is that -- yet the images are heartbreaking, but the only way we'll move the republicans do the right thing, we need allies to come in it on town halls, to fill the phone line, we need to make sure that there is a unified voice of americans
saying we won't let this happen on our watch. and the reason being is that everybody recognizes sadly that these d.r.e.a.m.ers do not have a vote. so unless we have voters ti actually carrying their water, that will be a challenge. >> this is a point that i think republicans are trying to do which is trying to pit the d.r.e.a.m.ers against all other immigrants. because when you say just doing a clean daca bill, what then happens to tps recipients and the visa lottery some republicans are coming after all immigrants, all 11 million undocumented immigrants. do you think democrats are making a that is by isolating the d.r.e.a.m.ers to special status and essentially pitting their interests against the interests of every other immigrant? >> so this is a broader conversation, but from the very beginning when donald trump declared that he was going to put an end to daca, it was the opinion of the work that i do that we should have gone full head and basically demanded reconciliation of all 11 million. and start from there. we recognize that the way this president negotiates, he
negotiates hard, but he negotiates with things that are unfathomable. so you are right that we are in a different position. but this idea of getting -- what the president has put together and what has been floated, the idea of ending chain migration, their words, family reunification, ending tps, the democrats feel that that is all they have to work with. so if there is a clean d.r.e.a.m. act, then you can revisited rest of it in a way that even more artful. i. >> he with lawrence when he claims that the american people should pay for the wall, democrats should stand firm and is no, where are the mexicans. but it is this nuance that really makes it difficult. >> and same question to you then, are you concerned? your background is haitian american. i'm caribbean and african background. are you concerned that what the white house has done at this point, and we can put back up his deal that he is trying to put on the table, path to citizenship for d.r.e.a.m.ers, but ending visa lottery, ending the ability of immigrants to
sponsor their families. this is how my family got here. ending family being able to apply for u.s. citizen ship for their family. essentially making a second class status out of all immigrants because they can't do what most of the americans here, unless you are native american, that is how people got here was family reunification. so do you think there is a concern that they will try to pit the d.r.e.a.m.ers as a special class against he haever other immigrant? >> what the white house put worth is horrific. it will set us back like 100 years. and not only that, it really -- it attacks legal immigrants by brings that down by 50%. so it is a horrible compromise, a horrible -- not even a compromise, just a horrible outline. we'll see what it looks like on monday because there is also the question of the merit based component that they are talking about that we don't know what that looks like. but this goes back to two weeks
ago when in the oval office, when donald trump -- dick durbin actually said -- asked about tps, bringing back tps, that is how he went into the racist rhetoric about african nations and haiti. so we are in this weird place where we have to work with what we have. but i know that democrats on the senate like dick durbin were still trying to fight for tps. so it is not like they were not. just that they are dealing with a maniac. >> and last word to you, howard dean. should democrats even be negotiating with donald trump given what he said about african nations and haiti, given hisis face, why don't democrats just gosh yates with senate republicans, come up with a deal and make him sign it or don't? put it on the floor or don't? >> well, you can't negotiate with donald trump because his word is no good. you never know what he is thinking. whether he's thinking at all.
so that is what we should do.reason that didn't happen, republicans are scared of him. republicans have supported donald trump's agenda which is a racist agenda. and for years ever since the southern strategy in 1968 racism has been a part of the republican platform, that gets them votes. not the majority, but it gets them votes. so the republicans have no spine whatsoever. they don't dare stand up and when they do stand up, what happens is what happened to flake and corker. which is they get run out of their own party by donald trump. so that is -- the problem in this country is not trump. he's a horrible president and all that. but the problem is we don't have a majority party willing to stand up to him. that's why the democrats have to do it. >> and they have to get their messaging together while they are doing it. thank you all for the lively discussion. coming up, the canadian born senator from texas is against
giving the d.r.e.a.m.ers to citizen ship. that is next. my experience with usaa has been excellent. they always refer to me as master sergeant. they really appreciate the military family, and it really shows. we've got auto insurance, homeowners insurance. had an accident with a vehicle, i actually called usaa before we called the police. usaa was there hands-on very quick very prompt. i feel like we're being handled as people that actually have a genuine need. we're the webber family and we are usaa members for life. usaa, get your insurance quote today.
for a limited time, enjoy two free perks like complimentary wifi and drinks, plus savings for everyone in your stateroom, when you book now. during the celebrity cruises sail beyond event. wisconsin state legislature redrew districts back if 2010 and the state has been a hot bed for voter suppression.
now the nation reports that governor scott walker is literally preventing wiscons wisconsinites from voting by refusing to call special elections. walker's violation of state law could mean he is afraid of the political climate his party faces. especially after a wisconsin democrat won a special election for a state senate seat in a heavily republican district last week. coming up, more on the 2018 midterm elections and the potential political impact of the government shutdown. i accept i don't conquer the mountain like i used to. i even accept i have a higher risk of stroke due to afib, a type of irregular heartbeat not caused by a heart valve problem. but whatever trail i take, i go for my best. so if there's something better than warfarin, i'll go for that too. eliquis. eliquis reduced the risk of stroke better than warfarin, plus had less major bleeding than warfarin. eliquis had both. don't stop taking eliquis unless your doctor tells you to, as stopping increases your risk of having a stroke. eliquis can cause serious and in rare cases fatal bleeding.
don't take eliquis if you have an artificial heart valve or abnormal bleeding. while taking eliquis, you may bruise more easily... ...and it may take longer than usual for any bleeding to stop. seek immediate medical care for sudden signs of bleeding, like unusual bruising. eliquis may increase your bleeding risk if you take certain medicines. tell your doctor about all planned medical or dental procedures. i'm still going for my best. and for eliquis ask your doctor about eliquis. ♪
i have consistently opposed shutdowns. in 2013, i said we shouldn't shut the government down, repeatedly asking unanimous consent to reopen the government. >> you stood in the way of that. >> that is factually incorrect. >> it is not though. >> you heard it right, the man many see as the mascot of the 2013 shutdown said not it when casey hunt asked him about his role in that last shutdown. ted cruz says the government did not shut down because of his attempt to defund obamacare or his rendition of green eggs and ham but because of the democrats. there is always a blame game. last timing fingers including many angry republican ones were pointed it the cruz. but it was the democrats who lost big in the 2014 midterm elections. this november we'll see which
party loses or gains steam due to this shutdown. the republicans holding hands with their conservative immigration hard liners or the democrats who are supposed to stand up for daca. joining me now are two jason johnsons. the msnbc political contributor from d.c., and former chief strategist for ted cruz who is joining us from austin. so texas jason johnson, i'll start with you. ted cruz, it is so odd, it captured the attention of the country when he tried to deny that he was behind the shutdown. why do you suppose he is moving away from something that he really championed in 2013? >> so i haven't heard that entire clip. i heard what you played when you led in. i'm going to make a guess here that what he was talking about was the effort by himself and other republicans to offer up rifle shot continuing resolutions to basically fund everything except for obamacare
in 2013. but i'm not sure what point he was making. the bigger issue of whether or not the party at least based upon perception gets blamed for a shutdown suffers in november, i don't think there is a whole lot of evidence that they do. >> i think that is a good point. jason johnson in d.c., in 2014, the republicans were blamed all the polls showed and a lot of republicans were mad at ted cruz for doing this because they felt he had pushed it, but republicans gained in the midterms. so it didn't hurt they were. so do you think democrats are short sighted in worrying that they would get blamed for the current shutdown? >> well, yeah, i think there were a lot of mistakes that the democrats actually made. and let's be fair, this is not -- no insult to my counterpart, but there this is not the first time attitude krooeks has usted cruz has used the shaggy defense. but the republican base was happy and they voted republicans in because they were proud of them for standing up to
president obama. what you have happening this fall could be a very different situation. look, democrats are enraged, excited, motivated, winning local state races that usually nobody cares about, they are flipping seats that trump carried 18 months ago. so it looks to me like it didn't matter if the shutdown is blamed on republicans or democrats. democrats are looking at a good year. look, it is not like people were enthusiastic about northham, they just wanted to vote against trump. this is a referendum on him. democrats win regardless of shutdo shutdown. >> and ted cruz is one of the seats, an unlikely seat the democrats are targeting. but you also have one of those states that has always been on the cusp per the pundits of the hispanic voter wave that could come in and could make democrats competitive in a state like that. with daca just infuriating latino voters and maybe finally getting a lot of them to wake up to the fact that republicans really don't want not just daca, but family migration,
immigration at all, do you think that republicans are right to be nervous that even a seat that seems safe like your former boss' seat, this shutdown could amplify those differences in a way that makes democrats competitive in texas or arizona? >> so i think the issue with regard to a shutdown is what is the underlying policy position or policy issue that again the perception whether true or not is what caused the shutdown. but what we can agree upon is here it being daca and in 2013 being obamacare. and the polls are pretty clear that the public across the board does not support the tactic if you will of shutting down the government because of daca. and it doesn't for many issues i believe the only issue i've seen where the public would support using that as a tactic is increasing spending on defense. but direct response to your question, i don't believe texas is going to go blue, but i do believe that what jason said a moment ago is true, the republican -- the democrat base
is very motivated. >> democratic. >> i'll do that for you. the democratic base is very motivated. no question about that. and there is an enthusiasm gap. at the same time, recent polls are showing on the generic ballot that independents and republican leaners are moving more to the republican party. >> well, let's go through some of those polling numbers. so you have this poll, the other jason january soohnson, 75% ove support for legal status for d.r.e.a.m.ers, but when you ask among those who support that status, do you think it is worth shutting down the government over, a majority say no. but to your point, the base of each party seems to reward the party for saying no because it is a symbol of fight. joours willing to fight. and that that is what you get rewarded for. i wonder if in your view this winds up helping -- this is cut five. here have the vulnerable senate seats. most are democrats. heidi heitkamp, joe manchin,
bill nelson. does ending the shutdown but having made a mark for daca help democrats or does being a part of the party that is anti-immigration wind up hurting people like whoever is running for jeff flake's seat on the republican side or dean heller in nevada? >> here is the thing. i think it plays out differently depending on which place. i think the democrats will be in trouble. i think heidi heitkamp is in trouble. they are in red states, in states where trump still remains popular despite what is going on. but i think the overall picture though, we have to look at it differently. one thing that happens with a wave is you don't know where it will crash. you don't know where it will run up to. ankd t and the most important number, we have the polls, but the most important number of all heading into the midterms is 25 to 26. that is the number of republican members of congress in the senate who have retired. people who are said i'm not
going to spend the next ten months trying to wraz monraise when i'm going to lose. so those guys are walking into their grocery stores and hearing you guys are going out of here. so i think democrats are in danger, but republicans are looking at decimation. >> we'll have to end this. jason johnson and jason johnson, hopefully you will come back again. really appreciate it. coming up at the top of the hour, new reaction to reports donald trump tried to fire robert hullemilele mueller. but first, chelsea handler. all day long... and sometimes, i don't eat the way i should. so, i drink boost to get the nutrition i'm missing. boost high protein nutritional drink has 15 grams of protein to help maintain muscle and 26 essential vitamins and minerals, including calcium and vitamin d. all with a great taste. boost gives me everything i need...
for lasanyeah! kraft. family greatly. . we thought we had a movement happening before the election i felt like there was something happening with women and really getting behind each other and turning out for each other. and supporting each other. and there are so many people to fight for that i'm so motivated i've never been this motivated about anything except happy hour. >> my next guest was so repulsed by the election of donald trump that she decided to focus on activism and making sure more women are elected to political office. now nfrd of hosting a talk show, you can find her hosting town halls. and joining me now is the one
and only chelsea handler. thank you for being here. >> thank you for everything you do. you are a pleasure to watch. >> thank you very much. we were exchanging tweets because you were saying it's timing >> oh, thank you. we were exchanging tweets yesterday, you were saying it's time to stop watching news and do something. tell us what you're doing. >> i partner with emily's list, a female candidacy organization. they helped cam kamal mcakamala elected. if you go to emilyslist.org or my facebook page, there is a list of pro-choice candidates. we need more females in office, period. >> give us a sense of why. some people are saying, women,
it took forever to get the right to vote, it didn't happen until 1920. why this long lag in women feeling the urgency? you have anita hill, all these instances of men being accused of predation. what is it about donald trump that makes it different? >> i think it's him. it's the contrast, having a president like barack obama for eight years. whether you're a fan or not of barack obama, there is a different style and sensibility. and this feels really, really -- for women this feels very oppressive. this feels like we're about to turn back the clock. we fought for way too long, and way too hard, and there are too many women who fought before us, for us not to take a stand. whatever that means for you in your personal life, it is your responsibility to the next generation of women to stand up and fight for women. >> and when you just think about the women that you know or women -- i mean, a lot of women you know may be progressive, but
women of color and women who are white just don't vote together, don't work together in politics. do you see that changing because of trump? >> i think so. i think the reaction, the "me too" movement, the "times up" movement, is a direct reaction to trump being elected. over 50% of white women voted for trump, which made me sick, because we're voting against our best interests. the majority of black women voted against donald trump because they knew it would be voting against their interests. i think this election proved, with both marches and several in between, and globally, women are ready to stand together and stick together. you don't have to be a best friend to every woman. but you have to be a sister. and we have to act like that. and we have to support each other. and promote each other. and we didn't turn out for hillary clinton. so we've got to figure out who the woman is that we are going to show up for. >> you've got women in legislative office, the count by the center for american women in
politics is that in federal executive office we've not got a lot, seven. we have three on the supreme court. 106 out of 535 seats are held by women. only 22 out of a hundred senators are women. there's a lot of push to change that. statewide office is not that much better. we've got 74, 312 statewide seats are held by women. mayors, 286 are women out of 1,362 seats. changing that is going to require some men, obviously, to vote different as well. what is the message, why it would be different to have women leading? >> men got us here, didn't they? so we have them to thank. why not try something different? i think as far as gender equality goes and women having as much of a voice in government as men too, is a natural place for us to move. we haven't gone there yet. so we have to experiment with that and see how things can change and how different they can be.
and, you know, just in the last few elections, the special elections, whether it was virginia or the first trans people that have been elected, there was the first latino-american woman, the first latino women. we cannot look the other way, the momentum is getting so strong. i'm going to spend the year campaigning, i'm going to do town halls. i'm starting in wisconsin, appleton, obviously a very important state, where there's a lot of voter suppression. we need to overturn citizens united and make elections publicly funded. that's something anybody would vote for except for somebody like the koch brothers or the mercer brothers. nobody wants to pay for candidates and have them spend half their time fundraising. they want them working for the country. and any constituent would want that, unless you're a
multibillionaire. >> is there another argument that maybe what democrats and progressives need is to find billionaires of their own? >> i don't think so. i think money is corrosive and corrupt. the reason we have the problem with the nra is they're so powerful. why on earth is it okay, when columbine happened, that was like earth-shattering. and it's happened how many times since then? i mean, we live in a country where we let little kids get shot by guilt or innocence. something has to change. there's no way any woman would be sponsored by the nra that would be somebody i support. i just don't want to support any candidate that's sponsored by the nra. >> absolutely. there are a lot of women running, something like 340 something women running for congress, which is more than there have ever been in congress. >> 68% more women are running this year for the senate alone than in the last midterms. >> that's amazing. chelsea handler, thank you very much. giving up your show to do this is a big deal.
>> oh, i'm committed. >> we'll see you in wisconsin. thank you. >> thank you. >> and chelsea is going to be doing town hall-like events on february 1st, as she mentioned, in appleton, wisconsin. on february 2nd, columbus, ohio. all will be centered around social activism. more "a.m. joy" after the break.
at 10:00 a.m. eastern. up next, alex witt. alex, i have to tell you, this tweet just happened. chuck woolery tweeted, what do we have here, a.m. joy, lawrence o'donnell, constantly trending on twitter, and o'donnell called himself a socialist, what is twitter pushing, b.s. alex, i will respond to that tweet in two and two. right now it's time for you. >> i'm turning down the volume on that phone because it's going to get loud. how cool is chelsea handler? what a neat lady. she said she's committed, that is so impressive, all she's giving up to do this. >> using her fame for good, wonderful. >> so do you. we appreciate that. a good day to all of you. i'm alex witt at msnbc headquarters. it's high noon at east, not yet out west. the plot thickens. new reaction to the report that president trump wanted to fire robert mueller with the white house how