tv The 11th Hour With Brian Williams MSNBCW March 20, 2018 11:00pm-12:00am PDT
also i want to tell you steve kornacki and that guest will join brian williams with a lot of news. kornacki on the 11:00 news tonight. brian williams starts right now. tonight's lead story from "the washington post," the president told not to congratulate vladimir putin on his victory in a regged election but he did it anyway. and even to those around trump, it's another measurement of how far we are from normal. a big-name d.c. attorney 39s to join the trump legal team while a republican senator says if the president gets rid of mueller, it's time to talk impeachment. three women going after donald trump in the courts, a porn star, a former playmate, a contestant on "the apprentice" as "the 11th hour" gets under way on a tuesday night. good evening.
once again from our nbc news headquarters in new york, day 425 of the trump administration. the president's telephone call with realization president vladimir putin, who was just elected to another six-year term, though no one believes the election was an actual contest. "the washington post" reports president trump's national security advisers warned him not to congratulate putin but he did so despite the warning. >> i had a call with president putin and congratulated him on the victory, his electoral victory. and i suspect that we'll probably be meeting in the not too distant future to discuss the arms race, which is getting out of control, but we will never allow anybody to have anything even close to what we have. >> "washington post" says the president's briefing materials
included a section that had all capital letters stating "do not congratulate" according to officials familiar with the call. the piece goes on to say trump chose not to heed talking points from aides instructing him to condemn putin about the recent poisoning of a former russian spy in the united kingdom with a powerful nerve agent, a case that both the british and u.s. governments have blamed on moscow. the white house press office declined to comment on the briefing materials given to trump. it was not clear whether trump read the notes, administration officials said. the trump congrats to putin comes five days after the white house imposed sanctions on russia for its meddling in the 2016 election and other malicious cyber attacks. let's not forget the russians are accused of murdering a man in the uk and attempting to kill another. the trump phone call prompted this sharply worded statement from senate armed services chairman john mccain of arizona.
and we quote, "an american president does not lead the free world by congratulating dictators on winning sham elections. and by doing so with vladimir putin, president trump insulted every russian citizen who was denied the right to vote in a free and fair election to determine their country's future, including the countless russian patriots who have risked so much to protest and resist pu putin's regime." here's how the white house tried to handle repeated questions about the phone call in today's briefing. >> did the president not raise the issue of russian election meddling in that phone call? >> i don't believe it came up on this specific call. >> i'm curious about the doesn't poisoning in the united kingdom come up in the call? >> i don't believe that was discussed in today's call. >> i want to follow up on the accusations of fraud in the russian election. why does the president and the white house believe that's something they should be discussing with the russian leader? >> i didn't say we couldn't
discuss it, i said it didn't come up on today's call. >> does the white house believe the election in russia was free and fair? >> in terms of the election we're focused on our leaks. we don't dictate how other countries operate. what we do know is that putin has been elected in their country, and that's not something that we can dictate to them how they operate. we can only focus on the freeness and the fairness of our elections, something we want to 100% fully support, something we're going to continue to do everything we can to protect to make sure bad actors don't have the opportunity to impact them in any way. >> so many interesting points just in that last answer alone, which somehow brings us to our leadoff panel. michael mcfaul, former u.s. ambassador to russia during the obama administration. ashley parker, white house reporter for "the washington post." clint watts, former fbi special agent. and rick stengel, former
managing editor of "time" magazine. good evening and welcome to you all. ashley, i'd like to begin with you. but by doing so, let's listen to something your colleague, carolynic said, on this network earlier tonight, about what happened in the white house after the phone call, we'll talk about it. >> after the president's call with vladimir putin, there was quite a ckerfuffle in the white house about what had gone down, a sort of omg moment of, what are we going to say about this call? are we going to say that the president congratulated putin? the russians kind of took that choice out of the hands of the white house by announcing that trump had congratulated their leader. >> ashley, with that as the background, stories like this one in the "washington post" show that there are people at the core of the presidency, perhaps career people, perhaps
military people, who still care enough to make it known that in their view a wrong has happened, correct? >> that is correct. and this is not the first sort of phone call with foreign leaders that has leaked out. you'll remember "washington post" broke last year, for instance, that the president had a very contentious call with the prime minister of australia, one of our strongest allies, that basically ended with the president refusing to accept refugees from australia that had already been agreed to and hanging up on the prime minister. so there are times when stuff happens that is very outside of the norm, outside of what you would expect, and it does find its way into the media. and again, without getting november sourcing, someone could reasonably think it is coming from perhaps a concerned whistle-blower. >> ambassador, you've been in on these calls. you've arranged them. you have briefed for them. talk to me about the process. are they usually done in the residence where the president took today's call? are they done in the oval? are people present in the room?
how many people are listening in on the call? and have you ever had trouble getting a president to study their background briefing prior to a call? >> well, just let me specify, i only worked for one president. barack obama. for three years at the white house before i moved out to moscow. but i prepared many of these calls, you're right, both with president medvedev and putin. you prepare a call package, it's cleared through the national security council, goes through the national security adviser. in that package there's lots of talking points with the sole purpose of advancing american national interests. these calls are very precious amounts of time for heads of state to interact. so that's what they're all about. in terms of the modalities and the specifics, then there's a time before the call where you do call prep. very valuable time for me. that was my shot with the president to talk through the talking points and to get ready
for what we're trying to get done in that call. and then in terms of who's in the room, again, just in the years that i worked with president obama, one or two, sometimes three people are in the oval office with the president. i would be on the line sitting on the couch listening to the call, because i spoke russian as well as english. and we would be there as he walked through the points to try to advance america's national interests. so two things here are missing. one, it doesn't sound like president trump was in the oval office, so that means mcmaster or his russia adviser, fiona hill is her name, probably wasn't in the room with him. and two, there's just no evidence that he was trying to get any business done in this call. >> clint watts, the ambassador describes such a rigorous, proper process. and we don't know that rigor wasn't employed in various steps leading up to this. tell me, however, if you're an investigator looking into russian meddling and/or collusion, how do you view press
accounts of what happened today? >> you have to ask why, over the last two years, he takes putin's side before, when he's a candidate, and now, when it comes to bringing up u.s. national interests, prepared remarks -- i don't doubt at all general mcmaster probably scoped this extremely well, prepped him for the call. he didn't follow any of it, whatever discussions went on beforehand. he did not bring up the british -- the attack on british soil with a chemical weapon, a nerve agent. we've gone to war for chemical weapons. he did not bring up -- instead, he congratulated putin for an election victory, after we just had our election messed with. he owns the president. putin does. whether it's witting or unwitting, he opens him. he's doing everything that vladimir putin -- he has push the a red line in the united kingdom with his attack on their
soil, not only did it target a former russian spy, it hit 20 other british citizens. so the question, if you're looking at this investigatively, what evidence to the contrary is it that he's pursuing the interests and staying in it? how would an agent of russia act any differently? it's pretty hard to distinguish between the two. >> back up just a second, because we've never had anyone with your formidable resume say, he owns the president. how do you think he owns donald trump? >> the president will not challenge him. president trump actually seeks out, and we've seen this in 2013, whether it was a miss universe pageant or now as president, to come to terms with putin, to congratulate him, to laud him with attention. he never challenges him personally. that the president did not come out last week whenever we had this attack in britain with the nerve agent and say, this is our longest-standing ally, a member of nato, and we have a chemical
weapons attack on the united kingdom soil. the uk fought with us in iraq based on the presumption there were chemical weapons there. that he did not step forward and put a challenge to putin, it came from who? rex tillerson. rex tillerson the next day no longer the secretary of state. >> do you think it's flattery-based, financial-based, a combination thereof? >> i think it's a combination of those. i have no reason to believe that it is a directed agent. but whether he realizes it or not, he is acting unwittingly as an agent for russian interests around the world right now. he has gone after nato. he's gone after the european union. he has pulled us back across the world internationally. in every place that he's pulled us back, russia has moved forward. >> rick stengel, you've covered government as a journalist, you have been in government. do you take any solace from what i talked about with ashley that this means patriots on the inside are still patriots on the inside?
>> well, i take a little solace in that, that they're trying to do the kind of preparation that mike talked about, and i think that's fair enough. i mean, clint made a very, very strong statement. and i'll join the hallelujah chorus in terms of the criticism. i take it one step further. because let's say for the sake of argument there was a strategic reason that trump is reluctant to criticize putin and criticize russia and it would benefit u.s./russia relations. but if you look at what's happening with russia around the world, they're taking advantage of us everywhere, in syria. he made that statement in the room with mohammad bin salman, the saudi crown prince. they were talking critically about reign. who is iran's ally? russia. so i agree with clint's very strong point about him not criticizing russia. if there was some possible benefit that we were getting out of it, i would say maybe there's a good reason for it. but in fact, the russians are saying, who's your daddy? we are. and they're taking advantage of
us everywhere around the world. >> ashley, how do they pursue a communications strategy that is anywhere connected to a straight face? trying to be serious about things like sanctions and indictments for that matter, while now reports are out that this happened, congratulations on your terrific election victory? >> i think you saw a little bit of that from sarah sanders at the podium today. but you're right, when you played that clip, what was interesting was that there was a scramble sort of in how do we message this kerfuffle? then obviously russia came out and said that the president had congratulated putin, then president trump said that himself. but aides were sort of frantic messaging and talking points. in terms of the fact of what the president had said, no one was particularly surprised. this has been his stance on russia. basically since before he was elected. if anything, the sanctions last
week were more of an unusual blip that were counter to all his past behavior. and it's also been his behavior, not on russia generally, but just sort of flouting the advice of his aides and his advisers. let's keep in mind he was handed note cards that said "did not congratulate" in all capital letters, and the first thing he did was open that phone call by congratulating. and at this point his aides and advisers have become accustomed to a president who sort of does what he wants. he's increasingly feeling emboldened and confident. we saw that with the tariffs he did. we saw that with him unilaterally agreeing to take a meeting with kim jong-un in north korea. so this russia, this latest phone call and this latest news, is squarely in line with everything else the president has done, both on russia and just sort of on acting on his own whims and impulses. >> ambassador, provided you concur with clint's assessment, perhaps not the exact wording, that our president is owned by putin, what do you think -- >> i'm a little too diplomatic
for that. >> exactly. what do you think the ownership or whatever your favorite term is, is based on? what do you think's at the heart of this? >> brian, i honestly don't know. i can hype thits. we can talk about what it means. i think we all agree in the diagnostics, and i want to underscore one other thing, to rick's point. candidate trump promised us that we were going to be respected in the world that putin was going to respect him. we were going to be strong. when you have this kind of disconnect between the president and the rest of the administration, nobody's respecting that. nobody's seeing that as a sign of strength. so if he could point to tangible outcomes of how these statements of appeasement are advancing america's national interest, it might be easier to take. but it's exactly the opposite. back to your question that i'm dodging, it could be that he just has this very simplistic theory about, if we could just get along with these dictators
it will be an accomplishment. of course there might be alternative hypotheses about exactly why he's so reluctant to criticize this particular person. but i don't honestly know the answer to that question yet. >> i'm proud of having found a 20th way to ask you the same question. with the same result, i might add. clint, i know you've spent so much of your life in the cyber end of things. i'm looking at this "washington post" headline tonight, bannon oversaw cambridge analytica's collection of facebook data, according to a former employee. in the body of the article it says, bannon tested and identified the power of anti-establishment messages that would later be central themes in the trump campaign, like drain the swamp, and deep state. where does this end up? where are we headed here? >> yeah, we're going to have to dissect where the lines are ultimately between russian influence and what we saw from
political essentially campaign propaganda that was coming out. what's going to be really interesting is this mostly seemed to have started with cambridge analytica and with bannon and cruz. if you remember ted cruz, that was more the angle, the mercers initially backing, that goes back to the primaries. what we're going to find out is this sort of data harvesting, i think this is where the social media companies are going to come into conflict. has been going on widespread. we look at this and we say, oh my gosh, can we believe that all this information was taken? but if you go back through almost every political campaign, somebody was hiring these firms to do micro-targeting, to get in, because it's the most effective way to get your message moving. the social media companies are going to have basically an earthquake that goes on in silicon valley, which is, how is data being harvested about their users? that's part of their business model, which is, we can help you reach anybody at the right time, at the right place, to put the message right in there so that it soaks in.
whether advertising or votes. so it's going to be really scary i think for the american people as this sort of peels back in terms of the onion. also what do we want to do? as a nation. we haven't pushed any legislation forward. i think they're going to point to these social media companies and say, how did you let this happen? and the social media companies are going to come back and go, you paid me to do it. and it's going to be a weird twist thatlies out. >> might be like the banks after the banking crisis. rick, final question to you about your beloved state department. do you think things will be any better? return of rigor under mr. pompeo? >> i think the one difference that is he will not be trying to disassemble the state department the way rex tillerson was. he's not a manager the way tillerson is, he's not going to look at it and say, let's try to do this in a different way. the difference is that he's politicized. he has a political point of view. he is trying to sometimes direct the president in a direction the way tillerson was not. i think they'll be happy not to
be kind of tossed out on their heels. but they'll be nervous by the fact that he will be tilting in a certain direction, probably away from the direction of the foreign service officers there. >> our sincere thanks to our leadoff panel this tuesday night. ambassador mike mcfaul, ashley parker, clint watts, rick stengal, and a special notice about rick, who happens to be nelson mandela's biographer. his book "mandela's way" has just today been reissued to coincide with what would have been nelson mandela's 100th birthday. congratulations on that, rick. next up for us when we come back, after our first break, a day after one republican attorney joins the trump legal team, another big name declines. the reporter who broke that story will join us next. later, if it's tuesday, it must be a primary night somewhere. in fact, steve kornacki is with us tonight at the big board, and that would be the illinois results from this evening. "the 11th hour" just getting
started on a tuesday night. olay regenerist shatters the competition. hydrating skin better than prestige 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. but i'm not standing still... and with godaddy, i've made my ideas real. ♪ i made my own way, now it's time to make yours. ♪ everything is working, just like it should ♪
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.
steve kornacki, i keep wondering if you're looking for my attention. >> yes, let's go to math class here and figure this out together. we are back. new warnings today to the president from two republican senators about what could happen if trump were to try to fire mueller. robert costa of "the washington post," standing by to talk to us, reporting arizona republican senator jeff flake says he would support impeachment proceedings if trump tries to end the special counsel investigation. flake told "the post," we are begging him, don't go down this road, don't create a constitutional crisis, don't force the congress to take the only remedy the congress can take. he continued, "if trump fires
mueller without cause, how different is that from what nixon did with the saturday night massacre? he left before impeachment came but that was the remedy then and that would be the remedy now." republican senator lindsey graham of south carolina voiced a similar sentiment earlier today. >> if the president fired robert mueller, do you think that would be an impeachable offense? >> probably so. if he did it without cause, yeah. to stop the investigation. without cause i think it would be a constitutional crisis. >> senator graham talking to hugh hewitt earlier today. the president has escalated his attacks on the special counsel. he even mentioned the mueller investigation by name over the weekend. that was a first. some are saying congress needs to act to insulate and wall off and protect mueller, something that republican congressional leaders have been reluctant to do. the president's attacks on this investigation come as he appears to be trying to shake up his
legal team. the president currently has ty cobb, john dowd, jay sec ewe low, joseph digenova advising in the russia case. robert costa reported they'd reached out to high-powered defense lawyer ted olson to join them but olsen declined. i am joined by the aforementioned robert costa, "washington post." moderator of "washington week" on pbs. and jeremy peters is back with us, political reporter for "the new york times." both msnbc analysts. robert, we'll start with you. mr. olsen is a fairly well-known attorney in this country, he was part of the legal dream team along with david boies that argued the landmark gay marriage case. he lost his wife barbara olsen, a frequent guest on this network work, during the 9/11 attacks. he is a man of repute in the legal community. why ted olson, then why did ted olson say no? >> such a revealing moment for this president, brian.
he is reaching for the hard-charging personalities. some of them he sees on television to join his legal team. but he knows he also needs gravitas. he had his legal team reach out to mr. olsen and say, could you maybe come on? could you be the heavyweight here to help us go after the russia investigation, to counter this flurry of news and legal developments that seem to happen by the hour? you have a president struggling with all these different challenges, trying to reach for outside people. but because of conflicts, because of lot of different reasons, i'm told olson sided to say, no thanks. >> jeremy, i'm reminded by the president that you work for a failing organization. he said on march 11th, the failing "new york times" purposely wrote a false story stating that i am unhappy with my legal team on the russia case and i'm going to add another lawyer to help out, wrong. i am very happy with my lawyers, john dowd, ty cobb, jay seculo,
they are doing a great job, and dot dot dot, there was a second frame to that tweet, but you get the gist. jeremy, it did strike a lot of us that digenova was very unlike cobb and dowd. what are you hearing is going on to motivate these personnel decisions? >> what you have is a president who is increasingly emboldened and trusting his own instincts rather than the advice of the people around him. it's no coincidence that this is occurring when you have the departures of a number of staffmembers who felt that they could keep the president more reckless impulses in check. and the addition of more advisers, both formal and informal, around the president who will enable some of his more reckless impulses. i mean, it's coinciding with people like corey lewandowski and dave bossy, some of the
people from the campaign, having more and more access to the president. and it's coming at a time when the president is feeling increasingly under siege. he was told by his lawyers, and this is part of the reason why he's so unhappy with them, that this would be all wrapped up by now. this mueller probe would be done. now in hindsight, that was a pretty foolish promise for them to make to him. because they had no idea of knowing where this investigation would go and under what stones mueller might look. so right now the president is lashing out because he is sick of this still going on. so as long as he is getting more and more agitated, i think you're going to see more and more decisions like the decision to hire digenova, who is a conspiracy theorist. this is a guy who has accused the fbi of fabricating information in order to frame president trump. you really can't make this up. >> sounds like he'll be a
perfect member of the team. hey robert, i do note more and more people are comfortable tossing around the "i" word, impeachment. so far, they are mostly a group of republicans who have announced they're not running again, but there are some exceptions. tonight in a speech in washington, by way of taking a swing at maxine waters, accusing her of having a low iq, the president used the word impeachment when quoting waters saying he ought to be impeached and then he defends himself saying there's no evidence. do you see any more republicans getting courage? >> what happened today on capitol hill was that senate republicans met for their lunch, most of them left that room tight-lipped. some of them are running for re-election, they don't want to have a public war with the president. i said to myself as a reporter, what's senator flake saying, he's retiring, he's out there against president trump, sitting down with him tonight, talking with him for an interview.
he said, now it's the time to talk about impeachment, to warn the president about impeachment if he moves on the mueller investigation without cause. and flake in some ways is a mirror to these anxious discussions inside of the senate gop. how are they going to handle if the president does move forward and ends this investigation, regardless of the excuse he may use if that decision is ever made? it's a delicate time for these senate republicans because they know the president's there tonight raising money at the national building museum, he owns the party. but they know that the party's future could also be on the line if this thing unravels. that's why flake's out there tonight along with senator graham saying, if you do that without cause, you could be impeached. >> jeremy, how about the house? how about republicans in the house? it appears to be the opposite of whatever profile in courage is. >> i don't know many republicans, brian, these days who feel like there isn't at least a 60%, 70% chance they
lose the house. that's just the reality. if they lose the house, the impeachment of donald trump is almost certain. not removal from office, of course, but impeachment as we saw happen with bill clinton. so i don't really see much coming together really on either side. the parties are such -- at such odds, at such logger heads right now, the antipathy for president trump running so high on the left that it has been a motivating factor for these voters in special election after special election across the country right now. republicans are looking at november right now and they are terrified. >> gentlemen, it's one of the discussions that we have from time to time, reminds you of exactly the stakes of what we talk about here for an hour each night. robert costa, jeremy peters, our thanks to both of you as always. coming up for us, this other front. the results of stormy daniels' polygraph test on her alleged interest mat relationship with
and i am a senior public safety specialist for pg&e. my job is to help educate our first responders on how to deal with natural gas and electric emergencies. everyday when we go to work we want everyone to work safely and come home safely. i live right here in auburn, i absolutely love this community. once i moved here i didn't want to live anywhere else. i love that people in this community are willing to come together to make a difference for other people's lives. together, we're building a better california. president trump's legal troubles are mounting and in this matter, at least, having nothing to do with the russia investigation, "the new york times" broke the news today that
former playboy model and playmate of the year care macdougal is suing to break her silence about an alleged '06 affair she had with trump. that agreement was with the company that owns "the national enquirer," to whom she sold her story for $150,000. they reportedly buried it. the judge also ruled a defamation lawsuit filed by a former contestant on "the apprentice" can move forward. summer zervos says trump sexually assaulted her in '07. here is a reminder of some of the language he used. >> these people are horrible people. they're horrible, horrible liars. i have no idea who these women are. have no idea. all of these liars will be sued after the election is over. >> all of that comes as the attorney for stormy daniels is releasing results, along with
this photograph, of a 2011 polygraph test that appear to show the porn star was telling the truth to the satisfaction of the examiner about a sexual encounter she says she had with trump. michael avinoti spoke with us in the last hour. >> this is another piece of evidence. it's another document that's being presented to the american people. they can go online, download it, read it for themselves, they don't have to take your word for it or anyone else's word for it. there's going to be other pieces of evidence. there's going to be this interview that's going to be broadcast on sunday where the american people are going to be able to observe my client's demeanor and hear her answers and judge for themselves as to whether she's telling the truth or not. this has always been what we've said for weeks now. don't take my word for it or someone else's word for it. >> a reminder, the white house has denied all of these allegations. with us tonight to talk about this, we were able to talk ashley parker into hanging
around, the white house reporter for "the washington post." barbara mcquaid is with us. our former u.s. attorney for the eastern district of michigan. barbara, is this just an example of kind of crafty lawyering by ms. daniels' lawyer? all i know is what i see on the cop shows, and the cop shows, they say polygraph evidence is not admissible. but what he's done with this is, it's out now, we all know about it. >> yeah, and you know, of course there's the court of law, then there's the court of public opini opinion. ordinarily polygraph exams are not admissible in court because they're believed of questionable reliability, although they are used by investigators, they're used by the fbi all the time. so depending on the quality of the examiner, there can be some real value in a polygraph. but nonetheless, in the court of public opinion, now it's out there. i think some people see some credence in polygraph exams. i think it is likely to influence public opinion. >> ashley, i know you've been covering this man for a long time. but it is bracing to go back and
hear the language he just used to talk about these women as a group. and all of this, of course, adds to the din. the white house that didn't need to be fighting a battle on a second front other than russia, and this one doesn't get any more personal. >> that's exactly right. and what's so striking about this is for those of us who covered him on the campaign and the rest of america remembers as well, female accusers coming forward happened during the campaign. there was the "access hollywood" video, there was more than a dozen women accusing then-candidate trump of sexual misconduct and sexual harassment. so it's been interesting to watch how this is finally starting to break through now that he's in the white house. at first you had, it was just stormy daniels, it wasn't quite breaking through, it was coming, as you said, on weeks when the president was facing sort of a lot of other crises and scandals on a number of other fronts. it first started doubling up
during the rob porter crisis. but this has been the one thing that won't go away. you saw sarah sanders has been asked about it in the briefings and it seems as though some other women sort of watching what's happening with stormy daniels have now been emboldened to come forward themselves, which was the open question. how many other women signed ndas, were paid money to stay silent, or didn't come forward because they didn't want to be attacked but now feel emboldened? it does feel like something the white house is increasingly going to be forced to answer and address from the podium and maybe the president might weigh in in a tweet at some point. >> what's the chance of these three cases we just talked about, is there one that appears to you to be the breakout? and what's the chance to you that in one of these cases the president can be deposed? >> well, i think the case involving summer zervos, "the
apprentice" case, looks like it's the closest on the brink of litigation. it has been filed and today we had that ruling that said the judge denied a motion to dismiss and said this case is going to be allowed to proceed. i think this is the one where it's quite likely we'll see a deposition of donald trump by the plaintiff's counsel. we could see depositions of other women. it could be admissible to show common scheme or plan if he engages in the same kind of behavior with other women. so i think that's the one that has the potential to be the most explosive and the soonest. >> as i said, it's all rather bracing. two terrific guests, ashley parker, barbara mcquaid, thank you both very much for joining our conversation. it is primary day, as we said, in the state of illinois where all eyes are on yet another fight for yet another congressional seat. steve kornacki at the big board when we come back.
we are getting primary election results tonight from the great state of illinois where the race for the third congressional district is being closely watched as just the latest gauge on the future, especially of the democratic ho hopes. steve kornacki, national political correspondent, working nights with us tonight. >> interesting story here in the third district in illinois. a lot of people don't know the name but there's a very particular type of democrat who came into tonight, talking about the issue of abortion. perspective before we get to what happened. go back to when the abortion issue came on the national scene in the '70s. 43% of democrats in congress said they were anti-abortion back then. forward to the 1990s, it fell to 34%. fast forward to today, it's all the way down at 1.6%.
that means there are three, a grand total of three democrats in congress who call themselves anti-abortion, and one of them is dan lipinski from the third district in illinois, challenged in a democratic primary tonight. a woman by the name of newman, she said she was inspired by the women's marches when trump was elected, she challenged him, there was a lot of energy behind her campaign. and we can show you what happened tonight, if we can get that screen up -- i was doing pretty good with this -- this looks almost 100% of the vote is in, lipinski it looks like is going to survive. this is a bit of a surprise. lipinski is son of a former congressman. it looks like an anti-abortion democrat is going to survive a well-energized primary challenge in the era of trump. a bit of a surprise result in the third district of illinois. if you look over here, there was a near major surprise on the republican side in the race for governor of illinois. the incumbent, first-term, running for re-election, he's
now going to win this primary tonight, but barely. look at that, 48% for jeannie ives, state representative, outsider candidate, who ran saying rounder was not conservative enough. he is pro-choice. saying he was too ashamed of president trump, too ashamed to say president trump's name in public. she campaigned at a trump international hotel. she nearly won this primary tonight. as it is rounder will advance to the general election. he is in big danger there. the polls have him unpopular statewide. looks like his opponent is going to be j.b. prizker, businessman on the democratic side, big race to watch in the fall. >> i note the night mr. lamb won, when we last did this, the pennsylvania race, i was sent to double-secret probation by some on twitter for calling him a democrat in title only, which was perhaps too harsh. i was referring mostly to the campaign spot he did with an ar-15, you don't see that very
often. i think we're going to see, correct me if i'm wrong, a nonliberal, nonprogressive democrat on the conservative side of that party, as we get on into the midterms. i think it's going to take all types in this race. >> it's a really interesting result in that congressional race with dan lipinski. it's a little different situation, he was already the incumbent. but boy, there was so much energy. national groups coming in, pro-choice groups, members of congress. dan lipinski's colleagues say, no, we're with marie newman. the voters tonight sided with dan lipinski. a bit of a surprise. some people say, hey, look, is there a lesson that you can take from this to other districts nationally about democratic voters being a little bit more pragmatic? like you're talking about in pennsylvania. >> the only reason we're willing to go into combat this midterm season is the assurance of having steve kornacki at the big board for all of it, thank you so much. coming up for us here, an update on the serial bombings in
we want to do our very best for each and every animal, and we want to operate a sustainable facility. and pg&e has been a partner helping us to achieve that. we've helped the marine mammal center go solar, install electric vehicle charging stations, and become more energy efficient. pg&e has allowed us to be the most sustainable organization we can be. any time you help a customer, it's a really good feeling. it's especially so when it's a customer that's doing such good and important work for the environment. together, we're building a better california.
first responders in austin, texas, are on the scene of yet another incident tonight, the sixth in 19 days. however, law enforcement officials say this latest incident was not a package bomb per se, and police said tonight it is not related to the previous explosions that left two people dead and several others injured. nbc news is reporting an employee at a suburban goodwill store received minor injuries too his hand when he was looking through a bag of donations after what's being described as an incendiary device went off. now this comes after a package exploded at a fed ex facility late last night after we got off the air, injuring one worker there. then officials at fed ex scrambled and were able to find
a second suspicious package which they removed from a sorting facility without incident. law enforcement does confirm the two fed ex parcels are connected to the previous four explosions this month, and that's where they got a rare break. now they have an unexploded device to examine for clues, since everyone agrees we're looking for a serial bomber. earlier on this network, former atf special agent in charge jim cavanaugh, who is a foremost expert on explosives broke down the evidence that today's events may have revealed. >> big break today. who's he addressing the package to? is there video stale lance? fingerprints, handwriting on the form? they know a lot already. they know how he fuses it and fires it, they now how he charges it what mixture he uses and how he contains it, they know his design, they know his materials -- >> so earlier today, in a sign
of our times, campus police at the university of texas sent out via social media a specific warning to college students. and this speaks to the state of alert in the austin area right now. it says, "right now it's so important that you put your phone down while walking. watch where you step. take your ear buds out. listen to what is happening around you. remind your friends to do it too." another break, and coming up, marking a six-month anniversary that has become sin synonymous with resiliency for all the wrong reasons when "the 11th hour" continues.
"i have antivirus, but my computer's still slow..." "that's not right..." "maybe if i reboot..." "what's with all the popups?" "why does it keep on crashing?" "this is taking forever." "i think it's time for the fixmestick." fixmestick is a plug-in virus removal device. it's the smart, simple, safe way to clean your computer yourself. with fixmestick you don't have to replace your computer. it helps you keep your files, and your privacy. fixmestick reboots your computer from a system on the stick, so that it can remove the malware that got past your antivirus software. it's the smart, simple way to clean an infected computer, with a whole lot going on inside the stick... [computers sound] "alright, this computer's powered down. " "let's reboot from the stick, and start scanning..." fixmestick contains 3 independent scanners,
and connects to more in the cloud, for fast and effective detection of the latest threats. "i thought so - this one got around the antivirus software!" "not a problem." "we're on it." today's viruses sabotage the computers they infect, like a burglar who gets into your house, and deactivates your security system. once your computer is infected, it's far easier to clean it with an external device... that's what makes fixmestick so effective. "ok, i see spyware, trojans, keyloggers, and here it is, the rootkit!" the fixmestick is like having your own it department in the palm of your hand. and because it connects to the internet, it's always up to date. "coffee" we're going to need some more coffee down here... " "anyone," "coffee?" advanced technology in an external device has enabled people all over the world to get the upper hand against viruses and malware. try it for 30 days, and see for yourself why more than a million people trust fixmestick
to keep their computer fast, clean, and safe." call us today or visit us online. last thing before we go tonight, a reminder to all americans to remember our fellow americans in puerto rico. we don't hear this from the president. we barely hear it from the puerto rican people who have shown a near-endless ability to put up with suffering and go without. hurricane maria, a category 4, first made landfall six months ago today. while many places in puerto rico have returned to something approaching normal, and have power and water now restored, there are still towns without power and water. and it certainly doesn't help that the army corps of engineers recently decided to scale back its resources devoted to puerto rico. it is also very clear that
recovery efforts from this past mean season of hurricanes have been faster in the lower 48 than they have been in puerto rico. a number of americans with money to spend who have the ability and the means, in other words, to vacation somewhere warm this time of year have chosen to visit puerto rico and make no mistake, puerto rico counts on that and will only get better with time. it's just that it could be so much better with a little more help from the government here on the mainland. and that is our broadcast for this tuesday evening. thank you so very much for being here with us. good night from nbc news headquarters here in new york. tonight on "all in" -- the president of the united states under legal siege. >> the president's new attorney, joe digenova, he says there is this brazen plot by the fbi and
the doj to frame the president. does the white house share that view? >> tonight, as the mueller investigation bears down, a playboy playmate sues to tell her then -- >> have you met mr. trump? >> many times. >> part two of the undercover investigation of the trump campaign's data firm. >> the real question is how did the russians know how to target their messages so precisely? plus, the uproar over the president's call to vladimir putin. >> i had a call with president putin. and congratulated him on the victory. >> another cringe-worthy performance from betsy devos, and senator bernie sanders joins me live, when "all in" starts right now. good evening from new york, i'm chris hayes. tonight the president of the united states finds himself under near total legal siege.