tv All In With Chris Hayes MSNBC March 7, 2018 5:00pm-6:00pm PST
determination to end i a war that was destroying his country. always do what you're afraid to do, it was his motto and he honored it to the end. bobby kennedy a raging spirit. please get on am zan or barnes and nobody and read this book that tells so much that we believe especially now. that's "hardball" for now. "all in with chris hayes" starts right now. good evening from new york. i'm chris hayes. if it's a day ending in "y," we have big breaking news tonight. there's news on the stormy daniels front. kamala harris and elizabeth warren both joining us in the show. we begin with the breaking news from the "new york times"". this is that the president evident united states donald trump has been talking to witnesses in the mueller investigation. joyce vance and barbara mcquaid are both former federal prosecutors. the story is he's talks with
reince priebus and also don mcgahn been things they talked to mueller about. that strikes me as a bad idea. i'm not a lawyer. what do you say? >> it's a terrible idea. and if i was the president's lawyer i would have firmly advised him to have no contact with any witnesses particularly about the topic of their conversations with mueller and his team. so the signals to us that the president likely is a very uncontrollable client. it doesn't really rise at least the reporting that we've seen about these limited conversations to any sort of new evidence of obstruction per se. it is still just not something you want to see your client doing when he's the subject of an investigation like this. >> and barbara, it raises the question we have reporting about tooing about if the president's making a habit of this. >> yeah, and i think that one concern is number one what are they talking about? is he gathering information so
he can coordinate the testimony of other witnesses or himself and it also raises this appearance of consciousness of guilt. if you're not guilty of anything, then have you no interest in talking with any of these folks. if you're talking to them, it suggests a level of interest that could indicate a consciousness of guilt. as joyce said, it's a bad idea. any lawyer would counsel his client not to talk about it because if even if there's nothing bad going on, there is a perception there is. >> one of the people he spoke to was priebus. according to investigators he asked if they were nice. you don't think that in and of itself rises to obstruction? it seems like there's a million different ways you can interpret that. that's precisely the reason you don't walk to witnesses in the first place it interpretationing. > sure. both priebus and mcgahn won have likely advised their lawyers immediately about this contact and their lawyers would have turned around and told mueller. the question is --
>> stop right there. that's interesting to me. why. >> well, they would have done it out of an abundance of caution. they would not have wanted mueller down the road to learn about these conversations. >> so that they look guilty. >> and conclude, right, exactly. so the issue here is, did the president have similar conversations with less experienced people on his staff. for instance, with hope hicks who might not have the reported to her lawyer and did he in fact go further in those other conversations if he had them. this sort -- this is an opening for further investigation as barb says. >> now, barbara, the don mcgahn conversation is something if the times account is correct. basically, we know from times reporting that the president ordered instructed don mcgahn to fire the special counsel. he refused and told senior officials he would resign if that were to happen or if he was forced to. when that "new york times" story came out, the president then
apparently confronted his own white house council don mcgahn and said i never told you to fire mueller. you need to put a statement out rejecting that and mcgahn said sir you did tell me to fire mueller. what do you make of that? >> again, i don't know whether trump just believes these things, the fantasy world that he lives in or if he says it enough times it makes it seem true. it is nice to see don mcgahn does push back when trump is making these statements. that's the kind of wade that bullying tactic that i think could be interpreted as obstruction of justice, causing people to put out false statements or intimidating people into saying things that aren't true seems to be a tactic and way of doing business for trump. i'm pleased to see don mcgahn is pushing back. >> my first thought about this was either the president has taken leave of his facts, he doesn't remember a very important and memorable thing which is when you tell your white house counsel to fire the special counsel currently eth
having you and your campaign for possible krm infractions or it's almost got kind of a mafia movie thing of like you know, i didn't tell you to do that, right, right? it's hard not to interpret that a little bit that way. >> the way it's portrayed in the reporting is that mcgahn had to go back and remind him that he had asked him to fire. >> which seems polite and diplomatic. >> doesn't seem like you wouldn't forget it. i would remember if i said please fire my fbi director. i might remember that one down the road. at least as it's portrayed here without more and obviously mueller will engage in a lot more digging on actually happened here, it becomes a very interesting situation. >> we've got even more breaking news on the mueller investigation tonight. i want to add that into the mix. the west reporting just moments ago the new witness we reported on last night, george nader a new character introduced to the
plot, but this new witness has told investigators the january 2017 meeting he attended with erik prince formerly of blackwater and a russian official was "set up in advance so that a representative of the trump transition could meet with an emissary with moscow to discuss future reeses between countries according to the people familiar with the matter who spoke on condition of intoity to the discuss sensitive matters." we've got this meeting. erik prince has reportedly given testimony in which he says it was a happenstance meeting. i happened to be there. we happened to run into this rush kraian guy and we talked about some stuff. now you've got the guy who engineered the meeting being subpoenaed and apparently giving testimony, no, that's not true. the meeting was set up between erik prince and this ep sear of the kremlin who runs a russian fund specifically for this conversation. does that put erik prince in legal peril, barbara?
>> yeah, i think it potentially does. you would want additional evidence so you don't just have two contradictory statements. if someone made a false statement before congress, that is absolutely a crime if it comes out that way. if this turns out not to have been a chance encounter but instead a scheduled meeting, that could put him in danger of prosecution. >> there's also, joyce, the fact we've now got a series of contacts and a series of lies about those contacts or deceptions about those contacts or alleged lies. during this transition period, you've got of course, the sort of original sin, michael flynn calls canner guy kislyak numerous times and tells investigators he didn't discuss sanctions. we know he did. jared kushner meeting with the head of a sanctioned bank and sergey kislyak who he smuggled in the trump tower leaving it off his form. erik prince going to the seychelles to meet someone for a meeting and not being
forthcoming it appears about the meaning of that? it looks -- what do you make of that pattern? >> the big red flag here is the loss. some of these meetings would be okay. incidental contact with an ambassador at a meeting probably not a meeting if you disclose it. some of these other meetings really not a big deal unless you're lying about it. what is it they feel they have to conceal and cover-up? this is bait for prosecutors, the kind of thing that prosecutors dig down on hard because the laws are such an important marker that something here isn't right in the minds of folks like prince as they're conducting these meetings. >> do you agree with that, barbara? >> absolutely. there is now the second time we've heard reporting about efforts to set up a back channel to talk with russians. and this is -- now into the transition and into the administration time period. so we're getting away from campaign activity. and now into the presidency. why is it that the trump
administration wants to have a back channel of communication that the u.s. intelligence community can't listen to? if you're robert mueller, this also raises a red flag that is there some sort of illegal activity going on here? is there some sort of quid pro quo going on. he'll be curious to learn more about that. >> that's my question. listening to all this. what are they hiding? joyce and barbara, that was fantastic. thank you both. >> thanks, chris. turning now to breaking news on stormy daniels where efforts again to cover up an alleged affair between the actress and the president of the united states are falling apart before our eyes. stephanie clifford known professionally as stormy daniels is now suing the president and his personal lawyer michael cohen alleging a nondisclosure agreement she signed before the election is invalid because the president himself never signed. according to a civil complaint filed yesterday any election, not long after the access hollywood video was released she was preparing to go public with the story of her alleged affair
with trump. cohn the president's lawyer maintained the president denies there was affair but according to the complaint, stormy daniels began an intimate relationship with will trump in lake tahoe and copied her relationship well into the year of 2007. her lawyer says the president then just a candidate found out about her plans to come forward in the home stretch of the campaign and "mr. trump with the assistance of mr. cohn aggressively sought to silence miss clifford as part of an effort to avoid her telling the truth thus helping to ensure he won the presidential election." sometime around october 28th, 2016, less than two weeks before election day, stormy daniels signed what her lawyer calls a hush agreement, a copy of which was included with the court filing. cohn confirmed it directed $130,000 payment be made to stormy daniels in exchange for her silence. cohn said he used his own personal funds to "facilitate
the appointment," and said neither the trump organization nor the campaign were involved in any way. he has not said whether the president was involved. the white house says it's not aware of whether the president himself knew about the payment but in an interview this morning on the "today" show, stormy daniels' lawyer claimed cohn could not have acted alone. >> we think it's highly questionable whether it came from his personal funds. >> you think the president knew about it. >> there's no question the president knew about it at the time. the idea that an attorney would go off on his own without his client's knowledge and engage in this type of negotiation and enter into this type of agreement quite honestly i think is ludicrous. >> also required her to turn over tangible evidence of the alleged affair including information, certain still images or text messages relating to the relationship. this morning her lawyer declined to answer whether she still has copies of that documentation. interesting. but he argues that daniels should now be able to share her
story because the president he says never signed the agreement where he was supposed to. asked about the lawsuit today, the white house issued a blanket denial without getting specific what the president knew or may have done. >> the president has addressed these directly and made very well clear none of these allegations are true. this case has already been won in arbitration and anything beyond that, i would refer to you the president's outside counsel. into when did the president address specifically the cash payment that was made in october of 2016? >> the president denied the allegations against him. >> did he know about the payment at the time? >> not that i'm aware of. anything beyond what i've already given you, i would refer you to outside counsel. >> you said there's arbitration that's already been won by whom and when? >> by the president's personal attorneys. i would refer to you them. >> you're aware of them. what more can you share with us? >> i can share that the
arbitration was won in the president's favor. >> there was arbitration decided in the president's favor. it almost confirms he was party to the contract. the new lawsuit ales last week michael cohen surreptitiously initiated a bogus arbitration proceeding without providing her notice of the proceeding. tonight nbc reports as part of that proceeding, cohn took new steps to silence her obtaining a temporary restraining order to keep her from saying anything covered by the hush agreement, the president's lawyer. according to her lawyer, cohn has continued to try to enforce the order. earlier today, mr. cohen through his attorney further threatened my client in an effort to prevent her from telling it the truth about what really happened. we don't take kindly to the threats nor will we be intimidated. everjennifer rube been a slummist for the "washington post," janet johnson a west political reporter. jennifer ruben, let me start with you. what do you make of all this?
>> i have to put on my recovering lawyer hat for a moment and go back. stormy daniels claims that this agreement was void so therefore, nothing in it is going to prevent her from talking to the press and moreover, any agreement that was contained in in to arbitrator go to a private arbitration to discuss disputes arising from the agreement or arising from the relationship she would claim is also invalid. i think that's what her lawyer is saying that we're not recognizing this at all. how you could have an arbitration provision without notice to the other side i don't know. and unless you have a court order to enforce the order from the arbitrator it's not going to enforceable anyway. be that as it may, this is remarkable for several reasons. not to mention of course, that the president was paying hush money to someone to shut up before the election. first, there are allegations that the president in some way
was coercive, threatening to stormy daniels. what's all that about is that something that's actionable. secondly, this was not disclosed by the president in june of 2017 when he made his financial disclosure. according to at least some lawyer, the folks at crew, the committee for -- or citizens for responsibility and ethics in washington, that was improper because that was an asset. if it was a payment from mr. cohen and the purpose was to shut her up in advance of the election, that was a campaign donation and it was way in excess of the limits that are permitted under federal election law. so common cause has brought a claim in front of the federal election commission challenging that. so you've got a bunch of things, aside from the fact we should take a breath and step back and say, this is outrageous. >> well, jenna, part of what
strikes me here, this is a well oiled machine for trump and michael cohen of dealing with this, ndas, sort of using the law to keep people quiet. donald trump has gone through probably the most litigated person in the world. that doesn't quite work as we when you're president of the united states. >> exactly. i mean, this is a man who has long valued his privacy. he likes to present himself as he wants to be seen. and anyone who contradicts that or says things that he doesn't like he will go after them. i mean, it's long been practiced at trump tower that employees even low level people on the campaign weren't signing nondisclosure agreements. saying that they wouldn't talk about what they saw or the trump that they saw behind the scenes. but again, that's at trump tower. he's now at the white house. you know, and headed into the white house, you know, this is -- it doesn't work like this.
>> jennifer, that's the issue is that stormy daniels and her lawyer recognized they have all the leverage. law doesn't matter at this point. at this point, the whole idea was to keep her quiet. they've given her money. she's now talking. is the president of the united states going to sue the woman for the $130,000 back like go ahead and try it. >> apparently. and by following the lawsuit and putting all of these allegations in it, she's essentially spelled out what she knows. >> right. >> she is laying enough bread crumbs to get us to the nearest bakery. yes, she has won already. and i'm a little bit puzzled under these circumstances why michael cohen is still harassing this woman. it looks bad. >> that's my question for you, jenna. michael cohen is doing stuff recently. the idea of initiating arbitration and getting a restraining order to get her 0 to not talk about it which it seems like the lawsuit is sort of in response to that, like what is his relationship to the
president of the united states at this point? how do we characterize that? >> well, that's a very, very good question. and the white house has been dodging those sorts of questions and not explaining them. but there's one thing that's really on trump's side in this situation is that this isn't the biggest story of the day. there's so much going on. there's so much chaos in the white house. staff leaving, there's the mueller investigation. you know, that this stormy daniels is kind of almost getting lost in the wind. last night -- last month i was in the kansas city suburbs talking with republican women who will be voting in the senate race later this year. and talking about women's issues and things that the president had done and said and things like that. and in dozens of interviews not a single woman brought up stormy dans. >> fascinating. > on the list of things they're upset about with this president. that one's not registering. is that going to change as this is now in the news more and we
have these lawsuits flying around and things like that? i know that this is great frustration to democrats who look at this san say, how is this happening and how is this not sticking to him. >> the one thing i will say what unifies a lot of stories right now is the question of what we know and don't know. every time we think i now have the full set of facts in front of me, we learn there's new stuff. there's lots of stuff locked up behind ndas, meeting in in the say shell islands. the question is how much more new is there to learn which will ultimately determine the answer to your question. jennifer and jenna johnson, thank you both. >> the trump administration is basically going to war with california according to governor of that state. up next, senator kamala harris on today's jeff sessions tirade and his lawsuit targeting california in two minutes. stay with me, mr. parker. when a critical patient is far from the hospital, the hospital must come to the patient. stay with me, mr. parker. the at&t network is helping first responders
you know what's not awesome? gig-speed internet. when only certain people can get it. let's fix that. let's give this guy gig- really? and these kids, and these guys, him, ah. oh hello. that lady, these houses! yes, yes and yes. and don't forget about them. uh huh, sure. still yes! xfinity delivers gig speed to more homes than anyone. now you can get it, too. welcome to the party. i understand that we have a wide variety of political opinions out there on
immigration. but the law is in the books. and its purposes are clear and just. there is no nullification. there is no secession. federal law is the supreme law of the land. i would invite any doubters to go to gettysburg or to the tombstones of john c. calhoun and abraham lincoln. >> jeff sessions went to california today and announced he's suing it. the justice department is claiming a three separate state laws make it harder for i.c.e.'gs to detain undocumented immigrants, perhaps the boldest move yet against so-called sanctuary laws. he also called out california officials who acteded to protect undocumented residents. jerry brown was not at all pleased. >> there is basically going to war against the state of california. the engine of the american economy. it's not wise, it's not right. and it will not stand.
>> with me now senator kamala harris formerly that state's attorney general. attorney general sessions compared california's actions quite intentionally i think to the actions of the slave states in nullification and secession during the civil war. what do you say to that? >> indeed, indeed he did. listen, as far as i'm concerned, jeff sessions should be advised and i'll advise him right now that it's a bad idea for him to start talking about anything to do with the history of slavery or reconstruction or the civil war in the united states. his credibility is pretty much shot on those issues. but on the topic at hand, chris, i think jerry brown is absolutely right. this administration and jeff sessions in particular have clearly put a target on the back of california and california's going to fight. and i think that these folks are
really mired in rolling back the clock in time and that's not going to happen. california represents the future. and they don't like it, but there you go. >> but here's the point of law they're making, i'd like to you respond to this, is basically they're citing the obama administration's lawsuit against arizona's sb1070. >> right. >> and the sort of formal nature of that from a sort of legal perspective was supremacy of the federal government over regulating immigration, the constitution gives the federal government that power and that you in california are abrogating that to yourself and the same standard should apply to california. why are they wrong? >> first of all they're hypocritical. you can look at members of this administration whether it is the head epa when he was attorney general of oklahoma said that federal emission standards and other standards as it relates to greenhouse gas emissions should not apply to the states. you can look at this attorney
general who has said that imposing the terms of the voting rights act on the states creates an undue burden and is meddling with the air affairs of each state. it's hypocrisy at its height. again, i think there's a distraction in that they're trying to suggest that this is about the constitution when in fact, what they're doing is playing politics. they're playing politics. and they're playing politics with california. this attorney general is doing that and he's going to lose. >> one of the items that jeff sessions attacked specifically was the actions of oakland mayor live by shaf who recently warned the city's residents about an impending i.c.e. raid. he basically said how dare you. do you think those actions the mayor took were appropriate? >> i think every mayor has to make a decision and i've convened the various mayors in california and each one is making a decision based on his and her estimation of what's in
the best interest of their constituents. i support their ability and their capability to make those decisions. i'm not going to second-guess it. >> should i.c.e. exist? >> should i.c.e. exist? well, certainly when we're talking about people who have committed serious and violent crimes, chris, you know my background. i'm a prosecutor. i believe there needs to be serious severe and swift consequence when people commit serious and violent crimes. one human being kills another, a woman is raped a child molested there needs to be serious consequence. if they're undocumented they should be deported if they commit serious and violent offenses. i.c.e. has a role. it should exist. but let's not abuse the power. it's not extend to to areas that are not posing a threat to the safety and the public safety of these communities especially when we know that these federal agencies have limited resources to do their core job when you look at the united states department of justice, i know local law enforcement in california and around the country wants assistance dealing
with things like human trafficking, trafficking.guns and drugs, transnational criminal organizations. put your resources there where the states need you to help with the public safety of those communities instead of playing politics. it's unnecessary and frankly this administration has decided they're going to scapegoat communities. they're throwing red nooet out to their base while at the same time picking pockets of the taxpayers of the united states with a $1 trillion tax bill that is benefiting big corporations. it's a lot of the distraction from the job they really need to be doing. >> you know, march 5th just a few days ago was the deadline for the end of daca. an that has been extended because of court injunctions. but there's still no permanent statutory solution. president has been taunting democrats saying basically democrats don't care about that. i'm waiting for you to come to the table. what's your response to that in. >> well, this administration and this president arbitrary made a decision september 5th of last
year to rescind daca arbitrary and set in place this is arbitrary deadline of march 5th which passed a couple days ago. my strong feeling and the work i've been doing and the fight i will continue to wage is to give protection for dreamers and give them a permanent sense of protection and again, let's stop playing popp politics and fear mongering around this population of young people who have only known one home which is our home. they are serving in our military. they're in our colleges and universities. we made a promise to them we would protect them and need to keep our promise. >> i want to ask you a legal question about the president of the united states. there's a "new york times" report that just came out. i'm not sure if you've seen it, but the basic top line is the president has been talking to people that have been investigated by robert mueller or at least interviewed by robert mueller, talking to witnesses, reince priebus, he asked him if the questions where is nice, talking to don mcgahn
about the order he gave don mcgahn about firing mueller. as a united states senator, as a lawyer, what do you think about the president doing that? >> well, as you know, i'm proud to say i am not the president's attorney. so i would not pretend to give him advice. >> junior senior from california is a hard job but that one is harder. >> well, i like my job and i don't envy those who have the other one. i'll say this. what we know is that we have an investigation in place, i serve on the senate intelligence committee. and also senate judiciary and ho land security. but as it relates to the investigation and the interviews, there should be no tampering whatsoever. and we already have a history of knowing that this president fired the person who was in charge of conducting an investigation. he already has a bad history on this issue. and so i am sure his attorney is advising him to step back and to
stay away from discussions with witnesses. >> senator kamala harris of california, come back anytime. >> thank you. >> coming up, yet another of these so-called adults exit the white house. we'll explore some of the colorful characters attempting to fill the void. on gym memberships. get money back hilarious. with claim-free rewards. switching to allstate is worth it.
there's so much goodness it makes us feel alive. it illuminates our world and connects us to each other. with transitions® adaptive lenses® you'll live the good light. they block uv rays. plus they help protect from harmful blue light. both indoors... and out. enjoy life more comfortably. enjoy life more richly. live the good light. find an eyecare professional at transitions.com
so it turns out the measure people are not really psyched about the trade wart president trump is trying to start in his own words. quinnipiac university finding 64% of respondents disagree with him a trade war would be grood for the country and easy to win. gary cohn, of course, tried to put the brakes on the idea. now he's out at the president's
chief economic adviser. among the top contenders is peter navarro they discovered through a amazon search who produced a documentary with images of chinese steel spilling is american blood and who became a key figure in urging the president to go ahead with the steel and aluminum tariffs and start his trade war. michelle goldberg is a columnist in the "new york times," ali velshi co-host of "velshi and ruhle," adam davidson from the new yorker. cohn was this sort of ultraestablishment person who had the politics of wall street very much so. he was in there to kind of do the wall street stuff and now he's gone and there's a question of what is the vacuum going to be filled with. >> it is hard to convey how extremely outside of any economic mainstream someone like peter na rare row and some of the other people around trump are. there is no conversation happening. these are not people who.
from agriculture or from manufacturing as opposed to ball street. >> or people who are critics of the kind of current global world trade order from within the profession engaged in those debates. peter navarro, literally with his help i tried to find one other economist who agrees with him on any of his trade theories. i couldn't finds a single one if you can even articulate what his theories are. it's very trouble smooth criticism of the world trade order is real. for decades, economists said if you have unfettered trade, it will increase gdp growth which it did. it will increase corporate profitability, which it did and it will be good for jobs and wanings. which it's not. certainly certainly not in the richer country. there's a real problem to fix here. steel would be a good example how to fix it. coal is in the same category of things we have to understand didn't work in the new world order.
but what the president's doing doesn't go any distance toward repairing this problem. it makes a few steelworkers feel like you're on my side. >> there's the broader issue which is the way this all went down which is understanding, what happened with tariffs and i think they're bad policy, but that's sort of low stakes. what happens if peter navarro got to the president who was in a bad mood and wanted to lash out and convinced him to take this policy position and the mind reels at other versions of that. >> to me, in a certain way, it's unnerving but also, certainly better a trade war than a war war. right? and i feel like there's something sal lewtory about the fact all of these people who have been willing to look the other way at trump's unfitness who have beentology suck up any amount of dysfunction because it meant they were going to get tax cuts or thought they could manipulate him into passing paul ryan's economic agenda now have to reckon with what they have
enabled to happen in this country. better the reckoning comes now. >> than north korea. >> like whoever the peter navarro of north korea is, bolton, you know, gets into the white house and manages to talk to him. people talking about who is going to replace cohn, there's this idea of what is trumpism? is it any kind of ideology. >> navarro who is this is crazy fringe character and larry kudlow and steven moore who are the ons supply side in the universe embodied the pro pos terrous vacuum at center of this. >> obviously to argue that donald trump does not have a sophisticated understanding of various views ob trade is sound. however, of all of his sort of weird policy flips and flops, this is the one for 40 years he's been talking about. we should have tariffs on china. >> no, the japanese, in the '80s he was on oprah saying the
japanese. you have like kudlow and moore to me, ali, that is what we have seen from domestic policy from trump largely. >> basically normal doctrine. >> the wall street editorial page being yeah, dude, cut corporate taxes. >> kudlow who may or may not be auditioning was on today talking about the fact this is going to be canada and mexico working together to shut things down with bad china trade and then you saw a tweet from the president earlier today saying we're going to going after china on intellectual property. all over the map. the problem is, working americans could do with a president who decides to take on their agenda. right? there's a strain here that's interesting. let me look after you who has been messed around by these trade agreements for decades. but he's not doing it. he's saying it and it's not really going to help. >> he's interested in you know, being able to say i saved these
side effect 500 steel jobs or this one factory in indiana. and i mean, he's interested in basically you know, kind of commercials. he's interested in things that he can put on television and point to. that's why i think there's not that much of a contradiction. why on the one hand he wants this kind of nutjob china hawk or larry kudlow. they're both figures i guess more larry and steven, they're figures from television. >> that's why i think navarro doesn't get the job. he's a loose cannon. we have not seen a lot of the him on tv. i've spent a lot of time on the phone with him. he's very trumpian. he screams at you. he accuses you of lying. he lies about things you've said. >> nice. >> he's a tough tough guy to talk to. i talked to some of his colleagues, i'm forgetting where he teaches. they were thinking of posting on the economics department website we do not agree with peter navarro on any of these economic
issues. >> he does put forward unusual theories because he knows he'll get the only coverage because no one else is on that side. >> he believes in them and seems to be a true believer. >> he may be. he was a failed politician and also a failed trying to get a bunch of books sold who landed on this and it worked for hip. >> someone was just telling me "the washington post" reporting trump is going to have this announcement tomorrow possibly exemptions for canada and mexico which goes to like this terrifying weather vane thing. >> we'll have a north american free trade agreement. >> as a -- >> congratulations, you've reinvented. >> as a canadian, i've never heard such tough talk from canadians about america in my life. pierre trudeau. >> fascinating how often we're having rows with canada. >> who does that. we should say the largest exporter of steel to the u.s. is
canada. >> and aluminum and energy. that's the important part. by the way, electricity. if you're in the northeast america you're on the same grid and water. this is a bad fight. picking a fight with south korea on trade is a bad fight. we need south korea. there is a correlation between those you trade with and those you don't fight with. the president doesn't seem to have any regard for that. >> there's also this question ef congressional republicans are making nos if they're going to stand up to him on this. >> they could. this is something that congress has statutory authority. >> which they gave to the president and could take back. >> but they could take it back. it kind of shows how completely, i'm trying to think of a better word than gelded they've become in dealing with him that even on issues where they have strong disdegrees they and he kind of has no political capital on his side, they still won't stand up to him. >> mark meadows the other day in the freedom caucus sort of a
spokesperson saying we don't think there's much of an appetite with the president on this tariff issue. i was interested to see the polling numbers. a lot of americans feel like the sort of global trade hasn't been great for a lot of the workers but when you say a trade war. >> that's not good. they're not good there's no expectation even friendly countries will not retaliate. they may retaliate in a small way. maybe tomato faerps or almond farmers in california. it's going to hurt someone. >> they're going to retaliate in ways that specifically target trump country. >> thanks for joining me. that was fun. senator elizabeth warren on the state of the resistance. why tonight she's calling on her own party for working with republicans and following the money in tonight's thing 1, thing 2. next.
prestige creams not living up to the hype? olay regenerist shatters the competition. big hype. big price. big deal. olay regenerist hydrates skin better than creams costing over $100, $200, and even $400. for skin that looks younger than it should. fact check this ad in good housekeeping. olay regenerist. ageless. now try olay hydrating eye. hydrates better than the #1 prestige eye cream. if yor crohn's symptoms are holding you back, and your current treatment hasn't worked well enough, it may be time for a change. ask your doctor about entyvio, the only biologic developed
and approved just for uc and crohn's. entyvio works at the site of inflammation in the gi tract and is clinically proven to help many patients achieve both symptom relief and remission. infusion and serious allergic reactions can happen during or after treatment. entyvio may increase risk of infection, which can be serious. pml, a rare, serious, potentially fatal brain infection caused by a virus may be possible. this condition has not been reported with entyvio. tell your doctor if you have an infection, experience frequent infections or have flu-like symptoms or sores. liver problems can occur with entyvio. if your uc or crohn's treatment isn't working for you, ask your gastroenterologist about entyvio. entyvio. relief and remission within reach.
yes, that actually happened. it's for our vets and you're going to like it because we raised over $5 million in one day. over $5 million. so that's not so bad. we actually raised close to six to be totally honest. donald trump gave $1 million. okay? >> that was a complete total lie. donald trump did not give that money to charity till he got caught. four months later in may, four months, "the washington post" reporter david farenthold started looking for all that money and especially trump's personal pledge january 28th donald trump gave $1 million. on may 21st is, corey lewandowski responds mr. trump's money is fully spent. also a lie because it wasn't till may 23rd after they were caught that trump called the marine corps law enforcement foundation saying he would write them a check. trump lied for four months straight about donating money to
vets. now david farenthold has a new project, the mystery money the trump hotels say they donated to the treasure department is thing 2 in 60 seconds. you wouldn't accept an incomplete job from any one else. why accept it from your allergy pills? flonase relieves your worst symptoms including nasal congestion, which most pills don't. flonase helps block 6 key inflammatory substances. most pills only block one. flonase. and when you switch to esurance, in the modern world, it pays to switch things up. you can save time, worry, hassle, and yup, money. in fact, drivers who switched from geico to esurance saved hundreds. that's auto and home insurance for the modern world.
esurance. an allstate company. click or call. during the transition, president-elect donald trump promised he would donate all hotel profits from governor governments to u.s. treasury. as we told you last week, trump org claims it donated to the treasury but they refused to give details which is odd. west reporter david farenthold is back on the money trail and has filed a foi request for the treasury department. he has a contest @farenthold. you can guess how much trump org donated. i'm placing my bet on $27,000. we'll see what it shows how much money if any was donated and whether promise holds up. >> the president-elect trump has decided and we are announcing today he is going to trol o voluntarily donate all profits from foreign government payments made to his hotels to the united states treasury. proof.
proof of less joint pain. and clearer skin. this is my body of proof that i can fight psoriatic arthritis with humira. humira works by targeting and helping to block a specific source of inflammation that contributes to both joint and skin symptoms. it's proven to help relieve pain, stop further joint damage, and clear skin in many adults. humira is the number #1 prescribed biologic for psoriatic arthritis. humira can lower your ability to fight infections, including tuberculosis. serious, sometimes fatal infections and cancers, including lymphoma, have happened, as have blood, liver, and nervous system problems, serious allergic reactions, and new or worsening heart failure. before treatment, get tested for tb. tell your doctor if you've been to areas where certain fungal infections are common, and if you've had tb, hepatitis b, are prone to infections, or have flu-like symptoms or sores. don't start humira if you have an infection. want more proof? ask your rheumatologist about humira. humira. what's your body of proof?
since the onset of the drought, more than 129 million trees have died in california. pg&e prunes and removes over a million trees every year to ensure that hazardous trees can't impact power lines. and since the onset of the drought we've doubled our efforts. i grew up in the forests out in this area and honestly it's heartbreaking to see all these trees dying. what guides me is ensuring that the public is going to be safer and that these forests can be sustained and enjoyed by the community in the future.
these more dangerous banks are more likely to crumble and more likely to bring the rest of the economy with them. this is madness. >> senator elizabeth warren took to the floor today to express outrage over a bill republicans are expected to pass with the help of some senate democrats. it would roll back some of the reforms passed a decade ago and senator warren joins me now. why, how does this get 67 votes? you haven't voted on it it so f. >> i'm sorry, let me stop you right there, how does this get any votes. next week will be the tenth year anniversary of when hlayman
brothers crashed and signaled that the collapse of 2008 had started. and how it could be that after we got some dodd frank protections in place. after we got ten years, nearly, of trying to rebuild, after the banks are more profitable than they have ever been in history, how could it be that this congress is saying, i know what let's do. let's make it easier for big banks to cheat american families. let's make it easier for them to load up on risks. let's take 25 of the 40 largest banks in america, banks that sucked down $50 billion in bailout money, and nobody went to jail. let's take them off the watch list and treat them like itty, tiny, little community banks out somewhere nowhere where they can't hurt the economy. >> so i want to bear down on this a little bit.
the idea, right is that the criticism of dodd frank is it was partly responsible for creating consolidation in the banking sector. that smaller banks were having a hard time dealing with it. and the origin of the legislation was to make some adjustment so it would be easier for small banks. is that right, first? >> so, look, we started in three years ago. and all the democrats got together on the banks committee and said what can we do to reduce regulations for small banks? and we set down, a lot of people put things on the table and agreed as a group. we could do all of these, and the republicans said not until you agree to reduce the regulations on the giant banks. >> right. >> and we said no, we're not going to do that. we're only going to do it for the community banks, and the
community banks haven abo been as the human shields. finally, what happened is the republicans got their way, and they are amoving forward on a bill that has some help for community banks and a lot of help for really big banks. >> there are people i imagine you feel like you agree with, tim kaine who voted for this in the first procedural vote. is that the understanding of the judgment they're making here, that in the general mix here, at least we're getting some of this. >> look, it is the only talking point i have heard from the other side, because nobody can explain why they're saying that banks that are up to a quarter of a trillion dollars should be regulated as if they're community banks. also, nobody can explain why this bill has provisions in it to hurt consumers. and let me mention just one.
>> sure. >> you know, we collect data now. we learned some lessons from the crash. and one of the lessons we learned is that there are a fair number of financial institutions that just outright discriminate. they charge african-americans more than they charge whites. they charge latinos more than they charge whites. there's a question about women being able to get access to credit. so we said we're going to have to collect some data and get some data about what's going on. by the way, much of this data the banks already collect. it's that we want reported so you can keep track of what's happening. and one of the things that's in this bill says you know, a whole bunch of banks, about 85% of banks are actually not going to have to report that data. now i want to be fair here. the amount of day that that it will be reduced, because these are mostly small banks, will only be maybe 10% or a little more, but here's the problem. there will be whole areas where
there will be no data at all. >> right. >> no data at all. and if there's no data, there's no way to know if these financial institutions are discriminating against people. we need that data to keep the banks honest. and why do we need the data to keep the banks honest? because time after time over the past ten years when we did have the data, we uncovered the fact that there were banks that were discriminating, and we were able to bring charges against those banks and get them to change those practices, and to make it all public. you know, there's no way to do that. that's the kind of thing that's just buried in here. there's another piece buried in here. after the crash in 2008, we decided, okay, look, when we built dodd frank and built consumer agency, there are certain ways you're not going to be able to cheat people on home mortgages anymore.
crazy teaser rates and so on and so forth, stuff hidden in the fine print. and that applies to people who buy bricks and mortar homes, people who buy condos and people who buy manufactured housing, trailers. what this bill says is, okay, we'll still apply it to bricks and mortar houses and condos, but, you know, people who are living in manufactured housing, let's just make it open season on them. >> wait, really in. >> really. >> there's a carve out for manufactured homes in mortgage prices? >> yeah. think about this. this was a bill written by the lobbyists to help their clients, not to help the american people. not to help community bankers. this is a bill that was written, that's why it's called the lobbyists bill, the bank lobbyists bill. because the bank lobbyists said when dodd-frank passed, a lot of people said we beat back the bank lobbyists, the chief bank
h lobbyist, on the day dodd-frank passed said it's only halftime. and what he meant is we're combing back and we're coming back and we're coming back until we roll back these regulations. >> you just donated $5,000 to every state democratic party. people interpret that as a big move to running for president, is that a correct interpretation? >> no, i'm not running for president, i'm running for senate in massachusetts, 2018. let me tell you what it is a move toward. i believe that we need to build the infrastructure in the democratic party in every single state in this country. and that means they need resources right now. to be able to reach out, to be able to get voters registered, to be able to do their grassroots organizing. and i want to help them in any way i can. you know, the other part i talked about at this same speech
you're talking about is the importance of having a democratic party that stands for something. a democratic party that isn't just willing to take on a fight when it comes to it, a democratic party that picks fights. a democratic party that makes people across this country say, i want to get out there and vote. that's what i want to see. >> senator elizabeth warren, thank you for join being us tonight. >> thank you. >> the rachel maddow show begins with ari melber. i saw you went down to the bar between your shows. you were just hanging out. >> we're just floating. thank you, chris, and thanks to you at home for joining us. rachel does have the night off. we have a big show because several breaking stories tonight. actual change on gun control, thanks to that new student