tv All In With Chris Hayes MSNBC April 4, 2018 12:00am-1:00am PDT
tonight on man. >> a bombshell from robert mueller confirming he is investigating trump's campaign chair for collusion crimes. >> that's what he said. that's what i said -- that's obviously what our position is. >> as the first person heads to jail in the russia probe, we'll look at who could be next. >> only time will tell. >> plus, the latest on a shooting at youtube's head quarters and the slew of stories engulfing trump's epa chief in scandal. >> scott pruitt, do you support pruitt? >> the tonight democrats and republicans calling for pruitt to be fired. >> there's a change coming. there's a change coming. > when "all in" starts right now.
>> good evening from new york. i'm chris hayes. one of the most infamous members of donald trump's cabinet, the one living in a lobbyist's house in washington, d.c., epa head scott pruitt now appears to be hanging on to his job by his finger nails after a swirl of negative stories increasing the perception the trump administration as a whole is an ethical mess. according to politico, the white house has been actively considering firing pruitt behind the scenes possibly following the release of an inspector general's investigation noose pruitt's lavish travel which we've covered here but which for the record is not even the scandal of the moment. because this morning, the white house claimed that pruitt is still in the president's good graces. an administration official telling the news trump called pruitt to keep fighting and that the administration has his back. of course, a supportive call from trump isn't worth much. last week trump called now fired
va head david shulkin for a friendly chat on the very day that he got the ax. >> he was very inquisitive about the things that we were working on making sure that we were focused on the job at hand. >> wait, that's before you were fired? >> that's correct. >> you spoke to him. he made no mention of the fact he was about to terminate you? >> that's correct. >> at a photo op today trump was noncommittal whether he asked about pruitt's status. >> is scott pruitt staying. > thank you. >> scott pruitt. >> do you support scott pru night thank you all very much. thank you. >> scott pruitt, do you support scott pruitt? >> i hope he's going to be great. >> i hope he's going to be great. meanwhile, the calls for pru toyota go are growing. today two republican members of congress ileana ros-lehtinen said he needed to be remove as the stench of the scandal around the administrator keeps getting
worse. last week we learned he got a sweetheart deal to live in this washington condo with his adult daughter for 50 bucks a night and crucially he only had to pay that when he actually slept there. who would give him such a ridiculous deal? well, the condo just happens to be co-owned by the wife of a top energy lobbyist, someone very interested in the goings on at pruitt's epa. now, the epa rushed out a defense of the arrangement as perfectly ethical which was already an absurd position even before an avalanche of new revelations that makes the whole thing look even more corrupt. for instance, we know pruitt's lobbyist landlord also funded his oklahoma attorney general campaign, even hosted a fund-raiser for pruitt and that the condo served as a hub for republican lawmakers hoping to raise money for their congressional campaigns while pruitt was living there. you've got the head of the epa, right? the largest environmental watchdog in the whole government getting a sweetheart deal with a lobbyist with whom he has a long relationship to live in a condo that doubles as a hub for republican fund raisers?
it doesn't get much swampyer than that. there's more the no, o "new york times" reporting last year they oo the epa signed off on an expansion plan everyone enbridge even though the obama administration move to fine that same company $61 million in connection with the 2010 pipeline episode that sent hundreds of thousands of crude oil into the kalamazoo river in michigan and other water awayways. can you guess who enbridge was paying to lobby the government? none other that be the same energy lobbyist whose wife co-owned the condo. i'm joined by investigative reporter eric lipton along with political analyst sam tine from "the daily beast" who broke the news about the gop fund raisers at the condo. what you find are places that were being represented by this lobbyist in question had business before the epa during
this very time. >> we found nearly half a dozen cases where there were companies that were represented by williams and jenson, oklahoma gas and electric another oil and gas company from texas, colonial pipeline and enbridge that had matters pending before the epa, exxonmobil another company represented by them that the epa was considering matters at the same time that pruitt was living in a condo owned by the wife of the chairman that have firm. highway we don't know that pruitt was asked explicitly to do anything or the agency did anything on those clients' behalf it, creates a question as to was the process compromised in any of those decisions. even even if we don't know if there was a quid pro quo, him living in that unit at the same time his agency had matters before them on the clients undermines the process in a way not helpful for the agency.
>> if had he gone through a ethics review before he took the lease, no one would have signed off on it. whether you get market rate or whatever, just avoid that. go live somewhere else, don't live in the condo of an energy lobbyist and not just any condo, right? you guys had great reporting what exactly was going on there. >> where else can you get a $50 a night rental? some deals are too good to pass up. it's almost refreshing this is such a classic corruption scandal not unlike the usual trump scandals which aren't the traditional washington scandals. this one we have the guy who was the chief environmental watch dog staying at a condo dubbed by people on capitol hill as the williams and jenson condo, the firm of steven hart and vickie hart is the wife who owned the place. basically, this is not a place where people traditionally live. it's a hangout, it's a hub close
to capitol hill and members of congress and senators would go down the street a few blocks and host fund-raisers there. what we discovered at "the daily beast" yesterday was at least four members of congress held fund-raisers at this exactly address during the exactly time that pruitt was living thering. > what's key is having covered d.c. for a while and there at the same time you were, access is so much. you've got a five-minute pitch about some pet amendment in the mom omnibus and you want five minutes of the administrator's time and lo and behold he comes home from work to the building where you're there for a fund-raiser like that matters. >> it's funny. people look at lobbying registration and rightfully so because lobbyists are chiefly responsible for pitching legislation or political agendas. but truly, what it comes down to is access. that's why a lot of what we think of as lobbying is done by people who aren't registered as
lobbying. they don't put most of their time into theal act of lobbying. having the guy who runs the epa as you're raising money for a member of congress is effectively the same thing as lobbying the guy. >> there was a memo put out by the deputy counsel of epa who is a career attorney saying this is fine, it passes muster although it was dated essentially on the day the story broke. what's your reaction to that? >> it was the day after the story broke. so i mean, retroactive ethics is sort of like what does that mean? you don't retroactively deem that a lease from 2017 in march of 2018 was kosher when it isn't an apparent that they actually had done such a review at the time that the lease was considered and that he was actually living there. he has not live there for quite awhile. he's no longer a tenant that
have condo. so that is inexcusable to think there was not such a document that existed at the time that the lease was entered into that evaluated. to do it after the abc breaks the story undermines any suggestion that this was an arp's length kind of evaluation of the appropriateness of him being there and that the market rate. it looks like something they threw together in a day to try to defend what he had already done. >> the author of that is kevin minoli, a career person there 1 years. it was striking he you the his name to the memo. he owns that as a kind of independent career judgment about the ethical probity there and one wonders under what circumstances that was written. given the way that the arrangement obviously flies in the face of sort of common sense. you've also got a story, sam, in the daily beast that the pruitt lied to congress about using private e-mail. have i heard of that before? to talk to big oil as oklahoma attorney general. what's up there? >> yeah, this is -- it all comes
back to e-mails i suppose. in this case, they're looking into whether he actually lied to lawmakers about his use of private e-mail. this adds to what is a litany of corruption and ethic little dubious behavior plaguing scott pruitt. we expenditures on things like a soundproof phone booth, revelations that he traveled first class in that his own staff entertained the idea of leasing a private jet which in any prior administration would have been a firing offense. i'm struck by this. you referenced david shulkin and your interview with him last night. david shulkin was axed ostensibly for far less. why is scott pruitt sticking on. the only real los angeles is he's doing a more effective job of carrying forth the trump agenda. while this is all happening, we are now talking about what was a major epa announcement that happened today, the ending of the fuel emissions standards for
cars put in place under the obama's epa. that is being done as pruitt is being dogged by all these revelations. >> we'll talking about that issue with our next guest and a good point these ethical lapses are orders of magnitude greater than david shulkin. i have a funny feeling we'll hear more things coming out. eric and sam, thank you. with me now ted lieu, in a letter today requesting congress investigate pruitt's condo deal. what you do you make of this news. >> what scott pruitt did is part of a pattern of corruption in the trump cabinet. we've seen ben carson order a $31,000 dining table. ryan zinke spent $13,000 on office doors. and treasury secretary mnuchin spent over a million dollars of taxpayers money to fly military jets he did not need. what pruitt did the goes to another level. he received a personal monetary benefit from the lobbyists. that's the reason we wrote in ig
investigation letter. now it affects the credibility of epa decisions over any issues from williams and jenson lobbies on. >> both people have political reasons do you think we'll see more calls from republicans for him tore fired or resign? >> i do. his conduct is indefensible. we're learning in addition to getting this below market rate lease on his condo, he also used one of his staff members to go look for housing and then by the way, gave that person a massive raise by using the safe drinking water act which i think is probably the only environmental law scott pruitt might actually like to bypass the white house which was not going to give that person a raise. this is just not acceptable conduct by the epa administrator. >> this is the person that went to go find him housing.
when he succeeded in doing that, he then got a raise using a provision in the clean water act that allowed the bonus to go through without the white house signing off, right. >> correct. so here's my question though substantively. you heard sam say he's still there because he's doing the president's agenda. huge announcement having to do with your state. they are -- they are wanting to yank back fuel efficiency standards and want to go after california which sets a higher standard and other states. the sort of state's right argument out the window. they want to yank california from its current fuel emission standards. what do you think of that. >> >> it is a decision that is going to take us backwards. states like california and others have shown us the future and that's where the world is heading. when oil prices start to rise again as they will, foreign automakers are going to eat our lunch if our domestic automakers cannot deal with these new standards.
>> we have been there before. everyone remembers 2008 when the gas prices spiked that summer absolutely decimated big auto here in the u.s. which then got crunched by the financial crisis. it strikes me that fuel efficiencies are a win-win. consumers pay less money for gas. the hair is cleaner and healthier. bigger carbon reductions in terms of climate change. what's not to like? >> it also creates additional jobs. and you have lots of people working in the clean energy industry. this is where the world is heading. coal is not coming back.
really fuel inefficient cars are not coming back. when consumers are not even demanding it is taking us a step backwards. that's something it the trump administration should not do. by the way, republican who's oppose climate change and want to get rid of efficiency standards, they're a dime a dozen. the president doesn't need scott pru toyota do there. he can stick any republican in there to do the same thing. >> please find a less corrupt climate denier says congressman ted lieu to the president. many thanks. breaking news in the russia investigation. robert mueller has reportedly told trump's lawyer the president remains under investigation. more on that new story in two minutes. you know what's awesome? gig-speed internet.
still yes! xfinity delivers gig speed to more homes than anyone. now you can get it, too. welcome to the party. breaking news tonight in the mueller investigation. the west reporting the special counsel told the president's attorney last month that trump is still under investigation but is not currently a criminal target. this comes as mueller sheds new light on his case against the president's former campaign chairman paul manafort. documents filed late last night revealing that rod rosenstein specifically signed off on two areas of investigation, the payments manafort received for his work in ukraine, already the subject of a 32-count indictment and crucially potential collusion with russian government officials to interfere in the 2016 election. jennifer rogers and renato marriotty are both former u.s. attorneys. we also have robert costa from the west on the phone.
bob, are you there? >> i'm here, chris. >> fill me in on the story you just broke. >> so carol and i at "the washington post" just broke a big story we've been working on for a week which is an update on the mueller investigation. we know based on our reporting that bob mueller has personally informed president trump's attorneys that he remains under investigation, he is not a criminal target at this point. he's the subject of the investigation. and that means he still wants to have an interview with the president. there's negotiations on going whether the president will sit down and he's by no means in the clear but he's not about to get charges either according to mueller. >> that's according to your sources who have learned about this communication from mueller to the president's attorneys. is that correct? >> correct. that is correct. >> and this is in the context of negotiating the terms under
which the president gives testimony to robert mueller's investigator. they're saying he is the subjects of a criminal investigation but not a criminal targeting. > that's right. that could change if the president stumbled in an interview. it is clear in our reporting that bob mueller based on our reporting and our sourcing is working on a report about potential obstruction of justice by president trump looking at president trump's conduct in office, looking at things like the firing of former fbi director james comey. he's going to prepare a report in the coming weeks perhaps likely by june or july that's going to look at what did the president do while he was in office, was it obstruction of justice or not and he wants to understand the president's intent. what was the president's intent? was it criminal or not. he says for now, the president's not under criminal investigation at all but he wants to figure out the intent. that's why there's a big disagreement in the president's circles whether to do the interview or not. >> the disagreement is whether
to agree to a specific set of terms or whether to do it at all? >> there's a real disagreement because you had president trump's top attorney john dowd decide to quit the legal team. he's someone pushing the president not to do the interview. there are other people in the white house who are urging the president to do the interview to try to close up the investigation. >> so i'm a little unclear because it doesn't seem like they have resources to get out of it, right? >> at this point, the president because he's just a subject of the investigation, he is not compelled, it's not a subpoena to come sit down. but mueller is trying to signal come talk to us, but he's not saying at the same time you're totally in the clear. it's a complicated legal challenge for the president. mueller is saying you can't just walk away from us right now. you have to sit down. he's trying to do it in a cooperative way. >> robert costa of the west with that story breaking news about the president's attorneys being informed by robert mueller that the president of the united
states is subject of his investigation but currently not a criminal target about the president giving an interview to his investigators. robert, thank you for breaking that story. i want to bring in jennifer rogers and renato mariotti, both former federal investigators. break it down, jennifer, what's the differences? >> a subject is someone who is of interest and you want to speak to but isn't someone who you have criminal evidence against who you're about to charge basically. so i'm not surprised to hear that the president isn't a target on the collusion side of the house. i am a little bit surprised if the special counsel was so clear as to say he's not a target of my obstruction investigation. i feel liking. > who could obstruct. >> exactly. he is really the only target of that investigation. and even if the special counsel doesn't feel like he has enough
evidence yet, it seems to me that's the direction that they're heading into the extent they continue to investigate this. that surprises me a little bit and makes me wonder whether he was more careful about which investigation he was talking about. but you know, i don't know. as you pointed out earlier, they were just talking about an interview at this point. so technically they're answering the question about a subpoena issued. mueller is not going to try to mislead them where he's going here. >> what's your reaction, renato? >> i have a slightly different view. a target under the u.s. attorney's manual, the guidelines that federal prosecutors use is somebody who the prosecutor views as what's called a punitive defendant. in other words, someone the prosecutor currently intends to charge, somebody who is a subject is somebody whose conduct is within the investigation. a lot of the criminal defense attorneys say on the federal side that a nontarget letter isn't worth the paper it's printed on because the prosecutor can just decide two days after he writes the letter that he wants to -- now he made up his mind to charge you. i think what this means you
know. >> stop right there. i want to make sure i understand this. you also did defense work in federal courts and other places. you're saying getting a letter saying you're subject but not a criminal target. you should talk to us, that from a defense attorney standpoint that's not -- no one's writing that in stone. >> that doesn't mean anything really. very little to me. now that i'm on the other side and representing people who are subjects of criminal investigations that would not give me much comfort at all. all it means is that the investigation hasn't wrapped up yet. a prosecutor is not going to make the final decisions whether to indict or not till they've collected all the evidence and interviewed everyone. so what this tells me, what this would tell me as a criminal, the federal he criminal defense attorney and former federal prosecutor is my client his conduct is under investigation but they haven't made up their minds yet about an indictment. that doesn't mean he's out of
the woods yet at all. >> i want to read from the west piece. other advisers noted the subject's investigations could easy by become indicted targets and suggest the special prosecutor was baiting the prez. it seems like there's twos dynamics i don't have a grasp of. one is what the subject of the negotiation is and then the kind of psychodrama on the trump team side whether we do it or not. with that latter question, this feels like an emanation of that.
>> they're all trying to decide what he should do and if he goes in, there's a likelihood he'll get into the legal trouble. we know he's the kind of witness who will hide things or what have you. mueller would be hard pressed to try to charge him on obstruction based on anything that doesn't include that interview. i understand renato's point. >> i see what you're saying that should he interview the president and not get information in that interview it would be hard to then go back and charge him with something or issue a report recommending that. >> that's my view. look, i think they want some assurances. they're not going to get the assurances they want. if he gives them anything in the interview, you know, the game is up. he switches over to a target. obviously, they're just trying to get what they can now and get assurances before he walks in there. >> also, renato, what's the timeline here? i feel like we've been covering the story now for weeks and weeks. maybe six weeks or so, muller obviously wants to talk to the president. his lawyers going back and forth. at a certain point, something's going to happen, right? >> well, certainly, this decision as to whether to sit for interviews is an important one. i will tell you as a lawyer in this area, knowing what i --
knowing even as little as i know about what's happening, i'm sure the president's team knows more, i would never let president trump sit for this interview. they would be crazy to do it. the only reason would be political reasons. and i think they're weighing the political costs. what mueller is probably trying to do is send him a signal that hey, the risk is manageable here. it's worth taking the risk so that this way they'll sit for the interview. that's in his interests. prosecutors always want to interview everyone as a subject of an investigation. if they're willing to sit for an interview. usually there's a dance. the person on the other side wants to take the fifth. that's the question trump needs to decide here, is he going to take the fifth or not. >> that's clarifying. there's no other way. either take the fifth or you go to court to fight it because you have some sort of presidential superpower that says you can't be brought before a subpoena. there's no other option other than that. thank you both. we have much more on this breaking story.
dutch lawyer alex van zer zaun was sentenced today to 30 days in prison and a $20,000 fine, the first person to receive jail time as a result of the special counsel's russia probe. he plead the guilty to a single count of lying to investigators about his contacts with rick gates a former trump campaign official and business partner to paul manafort and a ukrainian associate identified only as person a who the fbi believes to be a russian investigation operative. van der zwaan is one of the
characters who looks more important as time goes by. barbara mcquaid, a former federal prosecutor and justice analyst, frank figliuzzi, an msnbc national security analyst and benjamin wittes editor-in-chief of the law fair blog and an msnbc analyst. frank, on the vander zune sentencing and i want to move to the manafort file. what do you interpret as the reason to hammer this guy? in the way that mueller did? >> so an even bigger story than the 30-day prison sentence which to most people would seem like small potatoes for lying to mueller's team is what van der zwaan lied about. that's the message that mueller is sending. if you're lying about pertinent information and what's the information here? van der zwaan lied about conversations between rick gates, the deputy campaign manager, and this person a, believed to be a russian intelligence operative with connections right up to the campaign to the russian intelligence services. that's a big deal. you can't lie about that because that's what mueller's investigating is russian
van der zwaan lied about conversations between rick gates, the deputy campaign manager, and this person a, believed to be a russian intelligence operative with connections right up to the campaign to the russian intelligence services. that's a big deal. you can't lie about that because that's what mueller's investigating is russian intelligence, russian government connections to the campaign. and that's what the message is tonight. it you lie to me about my investigation of russian collusion, you go to prison. >> yeah, and we should say that that person who we believe is konstantin kilimnik who is trained in the gru and was manafort's kind of deputy in ukraine, the person who received that infamous e-mail saying has oleg deripaska seen the news i'm on the trump campaign? can we use this to get made whole? let's talk now about paul manafort and about the person who sent that e-mail.
there was this part of the filing yesterday that was fascinating me. it was unredacted and it was the mueller team saying here's why it's okay for us to bring this prosecution in the scope of our what we're allowed to do as a special counsel. basically saying look, we are investigating him because people have made allegations that he was involved in the collusion. what do you make of that? >> it's very interesting. i think to date, certainly because of the public filing and charges we were all aware that paul manafort was charged with financial crimes with acting as an agent of ukraine without register. but there was a specific mission from rod ozen stein to investigate collusion with russia. i think that's something new. i suppose many of us could speculate that that investigation has gone on but it makes me wonder the status of that investigation, has there been some indictment filed under seal. the other fascinating piece of that memo that sets out in greater detail what rod rosenstein tacked mueller to do
is there's almost an entire page of the document redacted. so he listed a number of things that he was tasking robert muler with investigating we don't know yet. as much as what we know in the document is fascinating, what we don't know the is even more fascinating. > ben, what was your reaction to that document? >> i agree very much that it's interesting any shedding light on the collusion component of the manafort probe which has not been what we've focused on to date. i also think, frankly, it was a clever bit of a lawyering by mueller to get that specific letter from rosenstein early on. >> right. >> that lays it out in much more detail than was in his general public appointment letter. and that really inoculates him now from the suggestion that manafort has made in this motion that he is straying beyond the mandate that he was given. and he gets to turn around and say no, no, back at the beginning, here's the letter that rod rosenstein gave me and here's what it says i'm entitled to do.
so i think it's actually an important document in publicly clarifying his authority. >> it's a great point. it's sort of the showing of receipts which was a real james comey special during the entire time that he and the president were going back and forth. no, i have the document from last summer that says yes, go look into this. frank, can we talk about what the news that just broke. to sort of come back around obviously. because the president sits at the top of this. it was his campaign being investigated. paul manafort worked for him, rick gays worked for him.
he is the one who sat atop the enterprise that is the subject of a criminal investigation. the news that mueller communicated that he is subject to that investigation but not a criminal target in the context of discussions about getting him to talk to them what do you make of it? >> so here's how to read this. it's not that oh, thank goodness if you're in the white house the president's not a criminal target. it's oh, my. the president is a subject of
this investigation. that's how i look at this. everything else is lawyering with regard to trying to give some comfort level to the white house that hey, hey, we're negotiating with you for an interview. no problems. we want to sit down with you. you're not a criminal target yet, mr. president. as been said previously on your show, you're a day away from that. it's only as good as the paper it's been written on. he's the subject of an investigation. he's not yet a criminal target. he could be tonight, tomorrow or whenever mueller chooses to say he's got the evidence. >> you're nodding. >> the most important element of that story is not the distinction between subject and target. the most important element of that story is the disclosure that the special counsel is preparing a report on the president's conduct and wants an interview so as to assess his state of mind at the time that he did certain things. and that's a reflection of the fact that the primary vulnerability on the part of the president is not a vulnerability to criminal charges right now. it's a vulnerability to impeachment. and so the relevant, the most relevant issue is not the distinction between being a target and being a subject.
it's between being the subject of a report that is presumably either going to be made public or sent to congress or sent to somewhere. and not, right? and i think that's the stunning it fact in that "washington post" story. >> barbara, it occurs to me, this is somewhat uncharted territory. there was archibald cox and nixon. if you had a normal noun presidential person you're dealing with you might charge them, you might not. it's unclear whether you can charge the president of the united states. whether that can be contested. how do you navigate this if you're mueller? >> one of the things mueller was directed to do at the beginning was to comply with all policies at the department justice as if he were any other u.s. attorney. because of that, it is likely he'll comply with the olc. we don't know how the supreme court would decide this. he is likely to comply with that memo that gives the opinion that a sitting president cannot be indicted and instead the only remedy is impeachment. what might likely happen is a report that goes to congress for them to decide whether they think impeachment is appropriate. >> it's a fascinating thing to contemplate now that we know a report is being written according to reporting that ben
was referencing earlier, account idea the output of it all that says we believe you did this. take it away congress. the question where that would go is going to be a fascinating one if that's how it turns out. barbara, frank and ben, thank you all. the president continues to use his position to settle personal vendettas. escalating his attacks against amazon. plus tonight's thing 1, thing 2 starts next. you've tried moisturizer after moisturizer but there's one... that blows them all out of the water. hydro boost water gel from neutrogena®. with hyaluronic acid it goes beneath the surface to plump skin cells from within and lock in hydration leaving skin so supple, it actually bounces back. the results will blow you away! hydro boost and our gentle exfoliating cleanser from neutrogena®
thinks the retailer is hurting the u.s. post office. his latest tweet on the subject from just this morning, i am right about amazon costing the united states post office massive amounts of money for being their capital d deliver capital b boy. amazon should pay these costs plus and not have them born by the american taxpayer. the united states post office is amazon's delivery boy is literally their job to deliver items to people. it's not because they're like new on the job and low on the totem pole. it's what they do. secondly, amazon is getting a deal on shipping costs from the post office but the postal service makes money on the deal badly needed money for an agency losing billions a year for the last decade. if amazon gets their drone delivery service off the ground, then president trump could start worrying about the post office. amazon has been working on prime air since 2016 which would
deliver packages to customers in 30 minutes or less, and unfortunately the postal service drone race with the russians has already begun. that's thing 2 in 60 seconds. kilimnik. millions of you are online right now, searching one topic. that will generate over 600 million results. and if you've been diagnosed with cancer, searching for answers like where to treat, can feel even more overwhelming. so start your search with a specialist at cancer treatment centers of america. start with teams of cancer treatment experts under one roof. start where specialists use advanced genomic testing to guide precision cancer treatment... ...that may lead to targeted therapies and more treatment options. start where there's a commitment to analyzing the latest research and conducting clinical trials-to help each patient get the personalized cancer care they deserve. start at one of the cancer treatment centers of america hospitals near you. the evolution of cancer care is here. learn more at cancercenter.com/experts
russia debuted its first delivery drone today, a $20,000 hex i copter. that looks pretty dope emblazoned with the rush na post lodo. officials marked the maiden voyage, the crowd gazing up at the future of russian package delivery. >> oh, man. well, i hope that package wasn't fragile. the drone made it several seconds before crashing into a residential building with speed falling to the ground in pieces. no one was injured. the building wasn't damaged. officials said more than 100 wi-fi connections in the area
could have disrupted the flight or it could have been russian meddling. once again, we are (sound of drilling) jimmy (shouting): james! brand vo: the world's largest workforce works for themselves. we work for them. quickbooks. backing you. racing isn't the only and with godaddy, i'm making my ideas real. with godaddy you can get a website to sell online. and it will look good.
once again, we are confronted with the specter of mass casualty situation here in the city and county of san francisco where with we've now had three victim who have come in that we've taken care of. this is unfortunate. and it continues. you think that after we've seen las vegas, parkland, the pulse nightclub shooting that we would see an end to there but we have not.
>> less than seven weeks ago, the horrific shooting in parkland, florida focuses the nation on the tens of thousands of gun deaths in this country something for which there is no corollary for any other nation as rich of ours. this time san bruno campus of youtube. employees evacuated with their hands up. people tweeted about being barricaded inside with coworkers and seeing blood on the floor which we have seen time and time again. a woman in her 30s is dead. police think she killed herself. senior law enforcement officials do not believe there was terrorism. they believe it was a domestic dispute. this was thankfully, not another park land but is what is a daily occurrence day after day leading
to 10,000 firearms homicides every year. this is not another parkland but what the students from park land are talking about, the daily bloodshed that has no counter part and it wasn't just parkland students but thousands upon thousands upon thousands of people that filled the streets a week and a half ago marching to put a stop to gun violence. that's american exceptionalism that cannot end soon enough. migraine with botox®.
and are covered by most insurance. effects of botox® may spread... hours to weeks after injection... causing serious symptoms. alert your doctor right away, as difficulty swallowing, speaking, breathing,... eye problems, or muscle weakness... can be signs of a life-threatening condition. side effects may include allergic reactions, neck and injection site pain, fatigue, and headache. don't receive botox® if there's a skin infection. tell your doctor your medical history, muscle or nerve conditions,... and medications, including botulinum toxins, as, these may increase the risk of serious side effects. with the botox® savings program, most people with commercial insurance pay nothing out of pocket. talk to your doctor and visit botoxchronicmigraine.com to enroll. you take a look at the post office and the post office is losing balls of dollars and the taxpayers are paying for that money because it delivers packages for amazon at a very below cost and that's not fair for the united states. it's not fair to taxpayers.
>> basically, all of that is untrue, like just every little detail. president trump is factually wrong. as we told you earlier, the postal service says it makes money on the deal. in fact, in 2006 postal accountability enhancement about which by the way is a bad piece of legislation made it illegal to price below cost. trump can repeat the false claim over and over again he calls the quote amazon washington post. it draws from a playbook we've seen around the world. it's common from auto cats. msnbc nick is a reporter for the new york times and maxwell, senior director of progressive programming for sirus xm.
what great reporting in politics for years and i think about your average rich donor in any other context this would be a nightmare. they would be screaming about how hugo chavez in venezuela with the president attacking a private citizen whose got a successful business because he doesn't like the fact they own a newspaper. >> i spent six years hearing about how he can't pick the winners and losers. we have to have a neutral government policy and there is a president taking their money that talks down stocks of companies he doesn't like in a very specific way and often makes up things about them. this thing with amazon is classic. he says we're being screwed by this party. we're being -- it's a bad deal and it's not true. >> right. and then, you know, again, everyone has to go around saying here is the actual context of the deal but it's one thing when
he goes after private companies, which again, i feel mixed about that like i think it's okay sometimes for a president to do that but this is specific an attack on the free press. the guy owns a newspaper and reports things he doesn't like. >> using the bully popet to bully a citizen. he's attacking the company when he's really mad at an individual person. beyond that, though, it's actually a dangerous president to set. the president of the united states to attack a person in this particular way just because he doesn't like what the newspaper is reporting. >> yeah. >> i also think that the president, you know, he's lying in that clip, of course, but also, i think it's important for us to understand the president, you know, when he's attacking people in this particular way and lying about it, that has a dangerous president in that the consequences of the lies are what can actually be real in real life, right? >> there are millions of people that think that's true. >> he loses money because he's lying about what the company is doing and how they have a relationship with the us many ps. >> he's like jeff sessions --
>> flailing about. >> he's like the guy at the bar. the talk is the act. had a good point of this. now hangs upon a billionaire's willingness to sustain financial loses. no offense to bazos but a branch upon which to fasten something as the freedom of the press. >> john is right and "the washington post" is a great paper and doing great work but there is no substitute for readers supporting a publication. >> uh-huh. >> i think it's really important and helpful to the cause of a free press. the president is talking down opponents behind the scenes about preventing amazon from getting a cloud computing aspect. this is personal peak expressed. >> what do you think of the idea, i've seen this, there are a lot of problems with amazon, all kinds of things they are
doing to the economy that is problematic and significant, seen some people on the left and liberals being like they have a point about amazon. >> the agencies that regulate those issues will be independent and not be led by the president off to investigate or over regulate this industry. the other piece of this, too, i've been thinking about this all day. he's mentioning the taxpayer issue because of the corruption in his own cabinet. often he uses the same language that is in pieces that are negative. >> yeah. >> about him in attacking his opponents. so i think it's interesting he's using the idea that it's a waste of taxpayer money in attacking amazon because his cabinet is buying expensive dining room tables and private phone booths and taking first class flights. >> the president comes from a culture the owners in newspapers use them as political instruments. he thinks bazos uses "the washington post" the way his
friend david pecker used the national inquirer to buy stories and shut tome down. he sees the media and a paper do what it's supposed to do. >> if i donald trump own a newspaper i would use it entirely as a vessel to attack enemies and he's projecting that out ward. that was great. thank you. that is "all in" for this evening. the breaking news we're covering tonight comes from the "washington post." mueller's people have told trump's people the president is the subject of a criminal investigation, though not currently a target. mueller is preparing a report about donald trump's actions in office and there's more. two of the reporters on this