tv All In With Chris Hayes MSNBC June 7, 2018 12:00am-1:01am PDT
nothing to see for those perhaps wanting a tactile or visual connection to the day 50 years ago to this day that changed the course of our country and of course politics in america. and with that that's our broadcast on a wednesday night. thank you so very much for being here with us. good night from nbc news headquarters here in new york. >> tonight on "all in." >> people are really impressed with the job being done at the epa. thank you very much, scott. >> the president defends scott pruitt as his ethics scandal explodes. >> tonight, resignations, recriminations and an epa administrator who isn't denying potentially breaking the law. >> my wife is an entrepreneur herself. i love -- she loves, we love, chick-fil-a. >> then these text messages are very, very disturbing.
> the new stormy daniels lawsuit alleging her first lawyer was a you. ette for donald trump. >> plus, is the president's latest grand of the clemency more practice for obstruction in plain sight. >> i don't want to talk about pardons for michael flynn yet. we'll see what happens. >> and about last night -- >> the historic wave of women candidates fueling the backlash to trump. >> tonight we made history. >> when "all in" starts right now. >> good evening from new york. i'm chris hayes. the environmental protection agency appears to be imploding tonight under the astoundingly corrupt leadership of scott pruitt. is he now facing a truly remarkable 15 ongoing federal investigations and the government accountability office has already found he broke the law by installing a $43,000 phone booth in his office which for the record is one of his
relatively minor france greggss. today, pruitt seemed to admit to an entirely different potential crime that he ordered a top epa aide to contact the ceo of chick-fil-a about a franchise for pruitt's wife, a move that could leave him open to prosecution for trying to exploit the power of his office to benefit his family financially. here's what he said today. >> i think with great change comes you know, i think opposition. there's significant change that's happening across not only at the epa but across this administration. it's needed. and look, my wife is an entrepreneur herself. i love -- she loves, we love, chick-fil-a is a franchise of faith and it's one of the best in the country. so that's something we were very excited about. so we need more of them in tulsa and across the country. it's an exciting time. >> sure is. i love, she loves, we love.
look, it's a godly chicken sandwich. it's an exciting time. the aide pruitt asked to get the franchise for his wife left the epa last year and today her sister followed suit. a top epa official telling it the atlantic hupp was tired of being thrown under the bus by pruitt. when the atlantic's elian nan plot who the broke the story and joins me shortly contacted can spokesperson juhan wilcox he declined comment and added you have a great day. you're a piece of trash. that's nice. it's a person that works for us all of us, citizens. and pruitt had a close relationship with hupp serving as gatekeeper and e-mails revealed pru sit inappropriately tacked her with performing all sorts of personal tasks even though she was drawing a government searle including booking personal flights, finding him housing and most weirdly trying to purchase a
used mattress from a trump hotel. that today prompted greenpeace toes deliver what they camed was as actual used trump hotel mattress who pruitt's epa office. of course, it's long been clear that shame does not really work on scott pruitt. lord knows we've tried on this program or on his boss, the president of the united states. despite pruitt's cartoonishly long list of transgressions which include a sweetheart deal on a condo belonging to i an lobbyist who had business before his agency and excessive spending on security and first class travel, president drain the swamp today lauded had his epa chief for a job well done. >> and administrator scott pruitt, thank you very much. epa is doing really, really well. and you know, somebody has to say that about you a little bit. you know that, scott. people are really impressed with the job being done at the epa. thank you very much, scott. >> hupp was not today's only resignation.
alsoing shin was another aide. senior counsel sarah greenwald. both hupp and green wald came with pruitt from oklahoma where he had been attorney general. earlier this year we learned pruitt tried to circumvent the white house and give both individuals massive raises. >> if you're committed to the trump agenda, why did you go around the president and white house and give pay raises to two staffers. >> i did not. my staff did. i found out yesterday and changed it. >> should somebody be fired for that. >> it should not be done. there will be accountable. >> a career person or political person. >> i don't know. >> you don't know who did it. >> i found out about this yesterday and i corrected the action. >> important to note subsequent e-mails make it pretty clear he was lying there. but it's also important to realize that it's not long-time epa staffer who may not agree with pruitt politically who are fleeing the agency. at least four political appointees people hired by president trump have left in the
past three months. earlier this year, former epa deputy chief of staff kevin chimelweski and playereds on stage with trump turned whistleblower on pruitt because he was so astounded by his behavior going before congress to detail wasteful spending and unethical behavior by his former boss. joining me to break down the implosion of the epa, "new york times" investigative reporter eric lipman and elaine nap plot. elainena, what happened in this phone call in which you were told you were garbage. >> as one does when you're a reporter, you get a tip. you confirm it and then you call a spokesperson asking for comment and instead of getting a comment, i was told i was a piece of trash. and so there you have it. i know i haven't been doing this very long but i have to believe that relations between the press corps and throughout an administration haven't been this acrimonious.
>> you were just calling to confirm the facts. i want to be clear. >> correct. >> you heard someone resigned and called to say did this person resign and you were told you were a piece of trash. >> exactly. >> eric, what is going on over there? >> it's been a series of embarrassing slip-ups by scott pruitt. in the last five days, we've done five different stories. it turns out the lobbyist was lobbying that rented the condo to him even more than we thought. there's a coal executive who gave him seats that you had to make a million dollar donation to get access to. the bed, to get the used bed, and now the resignation of his people and the chick-fil-a. that's five days worth of stories. it's just no wonder the press office there feels under siege. but we aren't making these stories up. we're just reporting them. there has been a bit of tension between the reporters and the press shop. we're trying to do our jobs. i would rather be writing about environmental policy. but pruitt keeps his focused on his management. >> alain na, let me ask you
this. there is a sense in we keep having more and more stories. i'm going to read a partial list. there's a sweetheart condo deal, $3 million spent on a massive security detail unprecedented, use of security detail for personal trips, first class travel on the public dime, circumventing the white house to give hughes raises to aides which were tens of thousands of dollars a year, the chick-fil-a franchise request, making an aide who is drawing a government searle do personal tavls the phone booth, the 1500 set of fountain pens, a b side scandal, biometric locks on office doors, the lobbyist aided trip to morocco, seats at a college football game from a coal lobbyist. is this penetrating in the epa or are they like nothing is going to happen to him. >> aides have learned they can do quite well, the cover-up is almost always worse than the
crime in these cases. i broke the story about the two raises given to both sarah green walt and millen hup. what investigators ended up asking about was not about the raises but whether pruitt lied about it. a lot of these are kind of b side scandals, things that in past administrations had they happened, i have to wonder if the administrator or secretary in whatever department would have apologized and we would have forgotten about it the next day. >> is there a significance to the two individuals that came with him from oklahoma that were close to him and received the searle increases and the two vids that resigned or quit today? >> i'm hearing directly from some of his closest people that he brought with him from oklahoma there's a lot of disappointment and a feeling that they have been, their own careers are partially skrized as a result of their commitment to him and that they have been hurt by their working with him. there's a lot of disappointment among the top political people,
not only among the career people that worked for decades to try to defend the quality and environment in the united states but even his political people, which is the most surprise surprising part of it. >> elena, you want to say something? >> we have to understand with sarah and melon gone, that circle of aides closest to him is shrinking smaller and smaller by the day. you have to wonder what deluge of stories comes out or at what point pruitt decides i don't have anyone to lean on other than the president which at this point may be might it be enough. >> that's the way it looks, eric. the president going out of his way to praise pruitt today and republican members of congress sort of making noises a little bit about getting frustrated with this, but nothing major enough to threaten the guy's job as far as i can tell. >> my colleague lisa was on the hill today and spoke with approximately ten senators. i was surprised that the republicans continued for the most part be reserved in
criticism. there were a few cite critical but not surprising who they were. the only person that matters is pret trump and so far at least, he continues to have the president's support. but it's obviously very unpredictable. none of us really know what's going to happen. >> eric lipton and elena plott thank you for making time tonight. >> for more on the legal issues pruitt is facing i'm joined by legal analyst paul butler who worked in the plig integrity section and former deputy assistant general harry litman. paul, it is not unprecedented for the department of justice or fbi to investigate a cabinet member. mike espy was investigated and ultimately prosecuted under clinton. however, these days it's very hard to make public corruption cases. what do you assess of the facts we've gotten here? >> i'm usually talking about the russian investigation which is about whether there was this
grandscopy of the president and his men top conspire to steal the election. in my experience as a public corruption prosecutor, this petty little stuff that pruitt is involved in, that's far more common. usually the thing is how low the price is low, hook me up with a mattress. can you bless my wife with some business. that's how it usually works. >> i would say to someone as a former reporter in chicago which is where i came up as a reporter, this is like classic chicago alderman stuff. maybe we could hook up my wife with a franchise. it's like, that's common stuff out there in the world of public corruption. >> that's why the supreme court made it more difficult to bring criminal charges in these cases. they say that the kind of you scratch my back, i scratch yours, there's a thin line between that as just regular politics and criminality. >> you also, they also set the standard we have to get something. just the chick-fil-a franchise,
am i crazy it's just wildly inappropriate? wildly inappropriate to send, to the official government employee scheduler accepted a message to the ceo of chick-fil-a about an exciting business opportunity in which you then pitch a franchise for your wife when are you a cabinet secretary? >> don't you just love his response by the way, sure, we love chick-fil-a. we need more of that in this country. it's all about the chain. >> not just in this country, back in oklahoma. >> there's no doubt it's wildly inappropriate and everything you've mentioned, he's got an ethics an avalanche of ethics problems. as paul is suggesting, you know, does it cross over into criminality? we're looking at the mcdonald case which is kind of similar. you may remember, governor mcdonald was under financial pressure brought by his wife to kind of generate business opportunities. what he's going to, had, there been a straightout you give me
or my wife a chick-fil-a franchise and i'll do something for you. >> some regulatory forbearance. >> we would have crossed the line. one, they didn't go forward with the franchise and it's not clear if he did anything. so the whole thing is tawdry and tragic. not clearly criminal. >> i will say this also, impeachment is -- impeachment is a remedy in the constitution for congress to check officials including cabinet secretaries. there was a department of defense pentagon under grant was impeached. there that is a remedy in the tool kit. >> in high crimes and misdemeanors is the standard. where there is exposure is one with this sweetheart deal where he's getting an amazing rate on a d.c. apartment $50 a night from someone who does business, a lobbyist with the epa. someone who represents oil and gas companies. and in this realm of its always the cover-up, so these two aides
of his they got these big raises. the white house didn't approve them. what pruitt says is that he knew they were get accounting raises but he didn't know they were circumventing the regulations. he told that to congress. if that's a lie, then that's a federal crime. >> it did happen with grant as you say. that might be the only time fur a treasury secretary. i can't see there being the stomach for going forward with actual impeachment. at most there would be extraordinary pressure on trump to let him go if he continues at this kind of comic pace. >> 1500 federal employees a year get suspended for conduct that's way less an green jus. >> is that true? >> yes. ethical violations. yeah, but again, people get in big trouble for that. this is also about whether the president's men are above the law. >> that's part of the thing, harry. anyone who has been around the federal government, they taketh cal compliance seriously. the way you interact with
developed doers, the way the contractors work. everyone takes it seriously. they take the public trust seriously. they take it seriously you don't call up the ceo of chick-fil-a to say can my wife have a franchise. tell me i'm not crazy here that this is aberrant behavior. >> you're not crazy. this is aberrant behavior. especially the new political cadre comes into town and they are extraordinarily so lis to us of what the career folks will say about these things every little issue will be run by them. whereas clearly pruitt and his crowd came, got to the epa and it was like, what can we get here? how about some you know, good 24/7 security in first class. completely opposite and aberrant point of view. and an avalanche of ethics problems, no doubt. >> it used to mean something to work for the united states of america.
it still does for most employees but what we're seeing is erosion of standards. big standards like the rule of law and then little standards like hook me up with a mattress. >> and medium standards like enforce the environmental law. that's part of it, too. >> that's the key part. >> substantive agenda of basically undoing the epa work. >> there's a substantive issue which is what he's doing on the regulatory front which is inoculating prim fromcriticism from the conservative movement and the fact he goes on there trip to morocco with this sort of like weird conservative donor shepherding him through on behalf of like a natural gas exporter who is linked to the company that's linked to the lobbyist trying to get him the condo. there are tangible results here today. paul and harry, thanks for being with me. >> up next, the new lawsuit from stormy daniels alleging her first lawyer was secretly working as a member of donald trump's fixer team.
in a brand new lawsuit today, stormy daniels is suing her former lawyer, keith davidson alleging he was a you. ette for donald trump. daniels claims that davidson breached his fishery duty to her as the client. and that trump's personal lawyer michael cohen aided and abetted that breach. the lawsuit features exhibit a full of potentially damning text messages between cohen and davidson. on january 17th of this year, the very day that intouch weekly published its 2011 interview with daniels michael cohen appears to have texted davidson i have her scheduled for han at this time tonight. call me after your trial. davidson replies she cannot do it today. she is flying to l.a. tomorrow. the lawsuit ales cohen wanted daniels to go on hannity to falsely deny her affair with trump.
it alleges that trump would have known. >> and if anybody believes that michael cohen is putting or attempting to put my client on sean hannity without the president's knowledge, i have a bridge or perhaps other things to sell them. >> the lawsuit claims trump is one of the wise men that be cohen refers to when later the same day cohen texted davidson keith, the wise men all believe the story is dying. that turned out not to be true. and don't think it's smart for her to do any interviews. let her do her thing but no interviews at all with anyone. davidson replays 100%. cohen responds thanks, pal. in a statement, a davidson spokesman calls the lawsuit outrageously frivolous. another one of davidson's former clients, karen mcdougal who also allege add affair with trump is also suing davidson on roughly the same grounds. let's bring in legal analyst mimi rocah. what do you think of the complaint filed today?
>> looking at it from a former prosecutor's point of view, i think it's most interesting the text messages and what they tell us about the money that was paid to stormy daniels. if you remember back when we first learned about that payment, everyone was debating you know, we talked more lots about whether that was an inkind contribution, was it a payment to influence the election. these tests are pretty much smoking gun evidence that those, that was an inkind contribution because the defense was going to be, no, no, this was just to keep the story so you know, trump's wife wouldn't hear about it. didn't want the embarrassment. >> nothing to do with the election in a few weeks. >> exactly. you don't pay someone to go on fox news and deny it if all you're doing all you care about is keeping it from melania. you do that if you want it out into the public and into the story and into the election debate. >> right. >> discussion. >> although this would be after -- that specifically was after
the actual campaign after the election happened. you're saying in a broad sense if you're saying you want to keep someone off fox news, this is a story in the ether that's fundamentally about the president as a political figure. >> right, it just shows that the purpose of the paint was not just personal, right? that was the john edwards defense. this shows this is really about keeping the story out of the public or denying the story in public. so i think it's good intent evidence in that regard. >> there's also -- i am curious about davidson. i mean, it's really weird. here's this guy who shows up on the other side of michael cohen in three different cases in which women are alleging fairs, three different ndas. he's already being sued by another person who an willings an affair with the president and in all cases it seemed like davidson and cohen find each other. is that a strange thing to happen? >> yes, i've said this before on your show. prosecutors don't believe in coincidences. this is way too coincidental to be a coincidence.
it certainly seems and avenatti is smart filing lawsuit to try to get more information but these texts look like davidson was double dealing basically. he was not representing the interests of his client like he was -- the discussions he was having with cohen over texts were behind her back and she didn't know about them, she didn't know, right, then you know, done. >> that's the thing i keep thinking. if i hire a lawyer to represent me and my lawyer is talking with the opposing counsel, the person on the other side of the deal and scheming about whether i'm going to go on a show or not and not telling me they're having those deliberations, that is obviously a violation of your duty. >> absolutely. his duty, doesn't mean he can never talk to the other lawyer. >> course. >> right. and that's what i've seen some statements from davidson's lawyer saying well, you know, they just had a really civil relationship, cohen and davidson. but this clearly goes beyond
that. it's them plotting, planning, agreeing to getler to do something. now, if she was fully on board with all of that, and fully in the know, you know, that would be a different story. but it doesn't seem it from those texts. that's certainly not what they're alleging. > particularly the wise men text which feels like an order. that sounds like i collected with the boss and the boss said no. so you tell her not to do it. >> right. avenatti alleges in the in his complaint that you know, one of the wise men is trump. many might arguing with whether he actually is a wise man. but you know, he's going to having to prove that, but it certainly seems like again a logical inference that they're not going to get her to go on national television to talk about this without trump knowing about it. it also goes to that issue, did trump know. you know, about cohen and his dealings with daniels because he's denied knowing it for a long time. >> one last element is that
right after david sopdsson greece, cohen says nos interviews or statements unless through you. keith davidson, got it. that sounds like a command. mimi roekka, thank you very much. coming up, will president trump use his pardon power to derail robert mueller's investigation? what to make of the reporting the president is preparing pardons for 30 people. next. ahh... summer is coming. and it's time to get outside. pack in even more adventure with audible. with the largest selection of audiobooks. audible lets you follow plot twists off the beaten track. or discover magic when you hit the open road. with the free audible app, your stories go wherever you do. and for just $14.95 a month you get a credit, good for any audiobook. if you don't like it exchange it any time. no questions asked. you can also roll your credits to the next month if you don't use them. so take audible with you this summer... on the road... on the trail...
a 63-year-old woman convicted of a first time nonviolent drug offense two decades ago. it's fantastic news for johnson and her family. and for kim kardashian hop personally lobbed for her release. good job, kim. the move stands in contrast to the trump administration's da crohnian policies for other drug offenders whom the president has suggested should get the death penalty. >> if you shoot one person, they give you life, they give you the death penalty. these people can kill 2,000, 3,000 people. and nothing happens to them. and we need strength with respect to the pushers and to the drug dealers. some countries have a very, very tough penalty. the ultimate penalty. and by the way, they have much less of a drug problem than we do. >> the president's acts of clemency and pardons freer fall into two broad ca goers, celebrity causes and boxer jack johnson whose case was brought to the president's attention by
stallone and right wing agendas like former sheriff joe arpaio. the white house keeps hinting more are on the way. the administration has prepared the paperwork for at least 30 people. it doesn't seem to be a kynecy dense the press is exercising this power just as his legal team is claiming he has unlimited constitutional authority over federal criminal prosecutions and investigations. in a memo to mueller that leak to the "new york times" last weekend, the president's attorneys argue he cannot obstruct justice because he could if he wished terminate the inquiry or even exercise his power to pardon if he so desired. the president tweeting i have the absolute right to pardon myself. today in interviews during a trip to zrashlgs rudy giuliani reearth issed the president's authority to pardon himself and though he denied the president's plans to use the authority, he made what sure sounds like a threat to the special counsel. >> does he have the power?
yes, is he going to do it, no. >> he's innocent. i think in mueller's case, it's more he's not taking control of these people thankful work for him. he's got to have the discipline to put a stop to it or we're going to have to do everything we can including some things that i don't think we'd want to talk about right now to try to appeal to have it stopped. >> for more on the probe and the president's power, i'm joined by contributor clint watts, former fbi special agent author of the new book "messing with the enemy," and bob bauer, professor at the n xwr u school of law. as a former white house counsel, i know the pardon decisions came through that office after it went to the pardon attorney. what do you assess is going on with the president's pardons right now? >> this is an area he believes mistakenly he has absolute discretion to act as he wishes. that's what he thinks.
now there play it be other things going on, sending messages to people caught up in the russia investigation he's a pardon happy president and he can make them happy. there's also the possibility that he's just having a good old time because this is something that he can do and his lawyers told him he's unrestricted in doing it. i want to emphasize he's mistaken. >> why? >> there is absolutely no support for his position that it is clear absolutely clear and everybody agrees that he can self-pardon, for example. moreover, there's no support for the position and i'll cite one of his counselors if you will, one of his lawyers for this proposition. there's no support for the position that he can pardon anybody without legal consequences, even alan dershowitz has taken positions sympathetic to the president's legal position has acknowledged you can't parred in return for a bribe. so there are limits clearly. the question is what are those limits? the president doesn't seem to think there are any limits. he's gravely mistake. >> and that's an interesting
point. what do you think of this parredton happiness from the president, clint? >> it bes two purposes. the first one is he's sending an indirect message to everybody involved with the mueller investigation that hey, if something goes wrong and you work for me, maybe, maybe there's a pardon out there for you. i think the real question as americans we should ask is not whether the president will pardon himself but what will congress, what will the judicial branch and americans do if the president pardons every single person indicted and convicted as part of the mueller probe. i think the second part of it is really what we call, in the book i call it clickbait populism which is the president likes to reward celebrities and social media stars that curry his favor. so what we're seeing here, literally is duplicity in his own government. he's try to hard through his justice department, attorney general sessions has gone around and advocated for enforcement and pushing on drug crimes. pushing on gun crimes. and at the same point, you're
seeing cleptcy granted. this sort we saw today, the obama administration did this routinely and tried to advocate decriminalization. so what we've set up is a monarchy based on retweets, likes and shares when policy should be established and should be pushed through the policy process. i would love to see decriminalization but i don't think the best way to do it is on instagram, facebook and twitter. >> there's an interesting question here because a lot of people, i thought to myself, including me why did barack obama not pardon this woman? why did you guys not pardon more people? >> let me be clear. there was a process in the white house under president obama, these matters were first reviewed by professionals in the department of justice and carefully revuds again in the white house when those recommendations were received. the issue here isn't quantity teet of pardons. there's no metric by which we judge a president's successful exercise of the pardon power. that's not like the number of home runs you have toward the triple crown. it's a question of the quality, thoughtfulness and appropriate
exercise of the pardon power. having to do not just with presidential power but the appropriate exercise, restraint in the exercise of presidential power. i will mention president trump's position is one that though he doesn't seem to believe it is really running very much up against fundamental intuitions that people have about his authority. i know the it was not a sunny day for him up on capitol hill where paul ryan among others said the president in fact he doesn't think has the power to parred be himself. chuck grassley, who chairs the senate judiciary committee said the same thing repeating what trey gowdy said. there is within the culture real resistance to this of claim. >> it gets to something sheldon whitehouse said where he said he thinks these very broad claims being made by the president and his legal team are out of weakness as opposed to strength. i wonder what you think, glen. >> it's definitely a position of weakness. what the president is trying to do is muddy the waters what is
right and wrong but also win in the public so that you don't have to really win in the could yours. he's trying to win the public's perception of what the investigation is and what its results are by essentially tarnishing is throughout the process. the longer he delays this entire process, the longer he evades sitting down for an interview, the more time he has to go after the sources, the witnesses, you know, the claims that are being made there, and go individually to each one and try and create a conspiracy. i think it's a public management strategy. i don't think it's a good legal strategy. it might work in the sense he has won a lot of support to his favor by going to the public by speaking to the public and mostly through his social media feeds. >> at least sport amongst the people that support him which remains a sort of unshakeable but small numerically in percentage terms of the country. thanks for joining me. the historic number of women seeking election after a cleaning up in primary after primary. following the wave into the
the first survivor of alzheimer's disease is out there. and the alzheimer's association is going to make it happen. but we won't get there without you. visit alz.org to join the fight. i'm alex trebek, here to tell you about the colonial penn program. if you're age 50 to 85, and looking to buy life insurance on a fixed budget, remember the three p's. what are the three p's? the three p's of life insurance on a fixed budget are price, price, and price. a price you can afford, a price that can't increase, and a price that fits your budget. i'm 54.
alex, what's my price? you can get coverage for $9.95 a month. i'm 65 and take medications. what's my price? also $9.95 a month. i just turned 80. what's my price? $9.95 a month for you too. if you're age 50 to 85, call now about the #1 most popular whole life insurance plan, available through the colonial penn program. it has an affordable rate starting at $9.95 a month. no medical exam, no health questions. your acceptance is guaranteed. and this plan has a guaranteed lifetime rate lock, so your rate can never go up for any reason. so call now for free information. and you'll also get this free beneficiary planner. and it's yours just for calling. so call now.
recognized more and more i notice. >> did you ever hear of andrew jackson of tennessee. >> andrew jackson who they say was the most like my campaign because his was a vicious campaign. i mean, had andrew jackson been a little bit later, you wouldn't have had the civil war. people don't ask that question. why was there the civil war? why could that not have been worked out? people don't realize if you go back to the civil war, it was the republicans that did the thing. lincoln was a republican. >> most people don't even know he was a republican, right? does anyone know? a lot of people don't know that. history and culture so important. >> yes, history and culture so important. especially whether he you have to apply it to your current job. trump history in action is thing 2 in 60 seconds.
according to the cbc president trump recently had a testy phone call with justin trudeau about tariff. he asked him how it would be imposed on canada on national security grounds to which trump respond didn't you guys burn down the white house. great point, canada did burn down the white house that one time no, flow, they didn't down actually. british troops burned down the white house during the war of 1812 awhile ago and canadian units fought for the british rulers but the consensus among historians is it was the british army who attacked washington in the summer of 1814 and set the home of the president to torch. it's pretty much in all the books. >> well, you know, i love to read. actually, i'm looking at a book, i'm reading a book, i'm trying to get started. every time i do about half a page, i get a phone call there's some emergency this or that. i love to read.
a major victory in court tonight for people fighting against this is administration's inhumane policy of ripping children from their families at the border. a federal judge is allowing the aclu's lawsuit against the trump administration over this practice to continue. finding that "at a minimum, the facts alleged are sufficient to show the government conduct at
issue shocks the conscience and vi lays plaintiff's constitutional right to family integrity." the case is over family separation, the trump administration's policy of taking undocumented immigrant children in some cases as young as 1-year-old from their parents at the border. families can go days, weeks sometimes months with little or no contact. yesterday, a u.n. human rights spokesperson said the united states should immediately stop straighting families saying "there is nothing normal about detaining children." she's right. it's a horrific practice. it is dehumanizing to the men and women and the children trying to make better lives for their families and it degrades us as a nation to treat people like this. i urge you to learn more about this important issue which we've been covering the last two weeks. the subject of our latest podcast where he speak with one of the chief aclu attorneys on that case that just got that decision tonight. we talk how it is we got here.
u.s. house editor for the cook political report tweeted some striking numbers today. he wrote, so far in 2018 deem primaries with at least one woman, one man and no cumpton ballot, women have won the most votes 59 out of 84 times, or 70%. meanwhile, so far in 2018 gop primaries with at least one woman, one man and no incumbent on the ballot, women have won the most votes 8 out of 21 times or 38%. that is just a small snapshot of how democratic primary voters are choosing women. last night, for example, two women won democratic house primaries in iowa and will now challenge potentially vulnerable republicans this fall. in new mexico, deb holland got one step closer to becoming the first ever female native american congresswoman and a missouri democrat lauren arthur won a special election by nearly 20 points flipping the seat for democrats since trump's inauguration.
here to help me understand, michelle goldberg, op-ed columnist from "the new york times" and adrian elrod, a spokesperson for the clinton campaign. so there are two parts of this. there is like the kind of activist core to find these campaigns and then the candidates. i want to start with the activist core, the people knocking on doors, signing up for volunteer shifts. you have been reporting on them. >> it's such an interesting phenomenon, and i think relatively undercovered compared to the tea party because it's big and it's happening everywhere. it's happening far from the coasts where you have these middle aged women who were maybe, you know, politically aware before they voted. maybe they voted in most primaries. didn't necessarily know what congressional district they lived in, and who were so horrified and scare and traumatized and humiliated by the victory of donald trump that they became political obsessives. i met these women in arizona who all of the sudden can tell me extremely precise precinct demographic data for kind of every precinct in the
congressional district. and they're everywhere. and they are so determined to change politics in this country. >> there has also been this rush of women running for office. and we're seeing a real preference among democratic primary voters for women candidates. >> we are. i think you just highlighted some of the women who were very successful on tuesday night who were challenging male candidates and who prevailed. i actually have a very good friend who ran in virginia too, won her primary. she was outraised by her male opponent, but she beat him 3-1. women are fired up. they are angry. they are supporting other women because nay know number one, women are going to get the job done, right? on both sides of the aisle. number two, they are angry at the trump administration's assault on women, from everything from trying to defund planned parenthood to, you know, everything under the umbrella. there is always a consistent assault on women when it comes to donald trump. and they're angry. and i think we're going to see a
huge, huge repercussion, and it's going to be a very good thing for women in the midterms. >> it's not just that women i think are voting for women. it's that a lot of these candidates are extraordinary, right? >> absolutely. >> there are all of these first-time candidates. >> yes. >> people with really intriguing life stories, really interesting life experiences. >> veterans, teacher. >> right. >> and i feel like the one through line the s that they're people who kind of have a lot of confidence, right? people who have sort of had to -- who have worked in institutions and respect how they work and maybe also particularly in the case of teachers, have networks in their community. >> yep. >> that have not maybe traditionally been political networks, but can easily be mobilized for that purpose. but you have all of these kind of extraordinary people who are new to the political system, but who are really eminently qualified to be representatives, who, you know, right now on the ballot -- >> flooding the system. >> right. were flooding the system. in some cases to a fault.
the one scary thing that we happily averted was in california, where we almost got locked out because there were too many democratic candidates. >> and this is by the way why recruitment is so important, that you are recruiting women who are running in the districts who fit the profile of their districts. you're seeing teachers. you're seeing nurses. you're seeing so many women who are rung who are actually activist citizens and have real jobs in their communities. >> it's also one more reason why parties have to -- if a party functions as essentially an incumbent protection machine -- >> correct. >> -- it will mean men stay in power longer because there is a gender imbalance who the incumbents are. in that statistic we gave, the statistic with no incumbent on the ballot. >> open seats. >> of course. when there are incumbents on the ballot, it favors incumbents, and that of course favors men. there is also to me, this brownstein tweet is fascinating to me. this is where voters are at. trump approval in the latest gallop average was only 48% among men and only 36% among women.
in the quinnipiac r arizona's plus two among men and negative 17 among women. >> you know, and i find this even with -- you know, even with progressives, right, men who they hate trump, they abhor everything that they're doing, but the women i know, they just find it intolerable, right? it's like this poison gas in the air that kind of this putrid that mars every single moment. i used to think maybe i was kind of unique. i'm a politically political person. i live on the coast. but i meet women all over the country. they cannot stand what is happening. >> i thought about that. i thought about your reporting on this and some of rebecca tracer's reporting on this and the great political scientist and historian at harvard who wrote this really interesting piece in democracy with the co-author about this. there is this piece in buzzfeed
about how donald trump's superpower is exhausting people. >> yeah. >> and one of the things you're seeing is those grassroots level women are the kind of response to that. they're the nuclear react they're keeps going. >> no, they are. that is one of the issues that we not only as women, but as society and voting have to be careful about, because he does have a tendency, and we saw it during the 2016 election. we're still seeing it now. he has a tendency to create so much chaos and discord and disarray that it's hard to really figure out where you want to keep your focus. >> focus. >> right. >> the thing that keeps these women going is they're forming these new communities. i've talked to these women. they have whole new sets of friends. they have completely transformed social lives. so they're not just atomized people angry looking at their computer. these are now social worlds, and that keeps people going. >> we've also seen that's the building block, particularly when you talk about state races. that's the building block for what is essentially a base. >> it's so important. emerge america is one of the organizations that is doing incredible work for years on the ground and the state and local races recruiting women.
they're seeing more funding, more women who want to run for office than they've ever seen now. so we're starting to see a lot of these organizations that have been focusing on this at the grassroots level really be buoyed and lift uppedful. >> michelle goldberg and adrienne elrod, thank you for being here. that is "all in" for this evening. on our broadcast tonight, rudy giuliani says robert mueller and team are trying to frame the president of the united states, while the president today commuted a sentence and freed a grandmother from federal prison because he was asked to do so by kim kardashian. plus, stormy daniels accuses her former lawyer of colluding with michael cohen, and michael avenatti releases text messages he says prove it. and there are new and bad headlines for epa chief scott pruitt. melania trump back in public, and what the president thinks canada had to do with the war of 1812. the 11th hour on a wednesday night begins now. good evening once again from