tv All In With Chris Hayes MSNBC June 9, 2018 3:00pm-4:00pm PDT
tonight on all in. >> why are we having a meeting without russia being in the meeting? >> the president stump force the kremlin. >> russia should be in this meeting. >> as the man who ran his campaign is indicted for conspiring with a subjected russian agent. >> that's what he said. and that's what i said. >> tonight what we know about the new charges from the special counsel. >> will you pardon paul manafort? >> and senator chris murphy on the president's attack on western alliances. plus, how trump world is using the arrest of a senate intel staffer to undermine robert mutualer. >> happened last night. it cop a terrific thing.
and how the latest trump sneak attack on obamacare doubles as a brazen attack on the rule of law. >> obamacare is finished. it's dead. >> when all in starts right now. good evening from new york i'm chris haze. the president today gave russian president vladimir putin a major return on his investment in the 2016. calling for russia to be reinstated in the group of leading industrialized nations currently known as the g7. >> whether you like it or not, and it may not be politically correct, but we have a world to run. and in the g7, which used to be the g 8, they threw russia out, they should let russia come back in. because we should have russia at the negotiating table. >> russia was expelled from the group in 2014 after invieding ukraine and annexing crimea in violation of international law. since then, russia of course has been waging an information war against europe and the u.s., which included its unprecedented
aid tack on the 2016 election. we know the president was the beneficiary of the attack. but we don't know whether he made any kind of explicit quid pro quo deal with russia in exchange for their help. if he did conspiracy with russia in to 16 those comments today pushing russian interests on the world stage are the exact kinds of policy reversal that one imagines putin has long dreamed of. whether or not they had a formal arrangement the president is effectively clueding in plain sight with the foreign government that helped elect him. kinds like that time he asked russia to hack his political opponent. >> russia, if you are listening, i hope you are able to find the 30,000 e-mails that are missing. i think you will probably be rewarded mighty leighly by our press. >> the president is clueding with russia out in the open. his former campaign chairman according to robert mueller has been clueding in secret with a suspected russian agent today
the special counsel surprising everyone filing a third superseding indictment against paul manafort adding new charges for allegedly conspiracying with a an social tied to russian intelligence to obstruct justice in the mueller probe. that associate, russian citizen konstantin kilimnik was also indicted today. now the 20th person to be charged by the special counsel. in a court filing earlier this week mueller alleged that many of the and kilimnik attempt attempted to tacher with witness in an attempt to cover up for their work in a pro-russian party in ukraine. the intended cover-up continued thou to this past april according to mueller. manafort, who is now under house arrest could end up spending the rest of the summer in jail before going to jail. kilimnik has disappeared, fleeing where else, but to russia. for more on the significance of these new charges by the special counsel i'm joined by harry san
deck and ken. describe the two men's relationship for us. >> kilimnik, he goes by kk with friend started with manafort back in 2005. he was recruited from the international republican institute's moscow office, where he had been fired, actually, depending on who you listen to because of suspected ties to russian intelligence even back then. but when he started with manafort, he actually started as a translator and gradually worked his way up becoming sbe gratd to manafort integrated into many of the's kiev operati operation. kk was very much involved in this effort that manafort helped fund and implement to
essentially buff the reputation of vick forrian kovic on the world stage at a time when he was under mounting criticism from the u.s. and from our allies for both his pivot towards russia, his corruption, and his prosecution of his former rival timeshenko. kk was pivotal in executing that strategy. >> this is the first time that we have an indictment by mueller of a russian associate of an american associated with the trump campaign, right. >> yeah. >> this is the closest it seems to me that we have come to the two parts touching. >> up. that's right. i think it's significant in part because of that. people are going to wonder why is somebody like this a close business partner of someone who president trump would pick to run his campaign? and to the extent that people are looking for, you know, collusion, to use the buzz word, not a legal term -- >> right. >> -- this looks like collusion,
although it is collusion after the election in 2018. but here we have someone who is now in russia who probably isn't going to come any time soon to face these charges, having conspiracied with donald trump's campaign manager. >> ken, it's remarkable to me to consider that given the legal peril paul manafort is facing, he is wearing two ankle bracelets, staring a the possibility of dying in jail that's, according to what's alleged in the indictment in the complaint document, running around taling to sub on perjury and cover up and collaborating with a possible russian intelligence agent. >> check czech my sources teal me that manafort's close allies are trying to convince him to stop doing this. this is not the first time that prosecutors have called him out for working with konstantin
kilimnik since his indictment. in fact they monitored nukes between them that tried to place an op ed under a ukrainian's name in the kiev post, a newspaper in ukraine essentially trying to spin manafort's work on behalf offian cove itch as somehow pro european or pro western as opposed to pro run. special counsel called him out on that and said hey this is a violation of the judge's order that you not try to try this case in the press. after that, which occurred last year, there were people around manafort saying knock it off, you don't want to be working with kk anymore. he on the radar of u.s. intelligence. and here you are giving the special counsel ammunition for his case against you. obviously, manafort ignored the advice. >> have you ever had -- as a prosecutor, have you ever had a situation where you have a person out on supervised release engaging in this kind of activity? >> absolutely. it does.that.
it seems crazy. it may be crazy. >> you have got to imagine, ri if you are him, you have got to imagine like they are monitoring me, surveillingly, obvious has i'm not going to got away with it. >> the stakes are very high. they tell you at the moment you are released of the a judge or someone in the clerk's office looks new the eye and says if you commit another crime while on release your bail is subject to revocation and you will winds up in custody. i have seen it.that. i can think of one case where someone was arrested driving 180 miles an hour on the george wash bridge. he went right into jail. you are not allowed to do this. you said people are telling him to stop. one of then is probable we list lawyer. >> two things mueller has done, filed the complaint and the superseding indictment. two ways to interpret that. they are ratcheting up the pressure and the other is they
are exas per rated with this guy who won't stop breaking the law. which do you think it is. both, actually. they clearly want him in. this is done on the same day that manafort has to file his papers and opposition to the bail request. if you thought the government wasn't taking this seriously. they are. i think the lead story is that they need to convict him in order to cooperate. he's clearly not interested in doing it now. they have signed up his son-in-law. they signed up his business partner and it's not working: they need to convict him. >> it seems clear he is not going to cooperate. what about kk, who has very interesting circumstances, fled from ukraine two russia. there is an allegation that essentially the ukrainians let him go as a tacit quid pro quo because they were trying to land an arms deal with the u.s. government. >> that's right. i mean the ukrainian government was really in a cross hairs of the trump administration partly
because of manafort. manafort was telling trump even during the campaign before he was sort of forced off in august of 2016, hey, the ukrainians are out to get you and they are using me in this evident to drum up this case against me to come after you. when trump was first elected there was thought there would be bad blood between the ukrainian government and the trump administration and this evident to essentially call off the dogs, to end investigations in ukraine of paul manafort. >> right. >> was seen as sort of an olive branch by the ukrainian government. and as part of that, konstantin kilimnik was essentially released -- told that he could go his own way. he went right back to moscow where he lives with his family in a house not far from one of the key airports there in moscow. and my sources the me, he is so unworried, i guess is one way to look at it, by these charges he doesn't even have a lawyer who he is working with right now.
>> i don't think he is going to find himself in american court any time soon. ken, harry thank you for joining us. the president's campaign chairman was indicted today for conspiring with a suspected russian agent. the president himself was pleading russia's case. he attended the g7 summit meeting with allies furious with the president over tariffs and other trade disputes. before leaving he added fuel to the fire. >> russia should be in this meeting. why are we having a meeting without russia being in the meeting? and i would recommend and it's up the them, but russia should be in the meeting. should be a part of it. you know, whether you like it or not, and it may not be politically correct, but we have world to run. and in the g7, which used to be the g 8. they threw russia out, they should let russia come back in. because we should have russia at the negotiating table.
>> joining me now, senator chris murphy a democrat from connecticut and member of the senate foreign relations committee. letting russia back into the -- what would be g 8, do you think that's a good idea? >> well, this is a pretty high roi for russian interference in the 2016 american election. they are getting a big return on their investment in that they have done absolutely nothing to deserve to come back into the g 8, in particular they have particular they have not moved one inch inside ukraine they got kick out because the g7 thought it was probably a pretty important principle to tell countries inside our club that you can't invade other countries. and that having been unchanged, they don't deserve to be back inside. but they paid a lot of money to try to get president trump in to office, and they are getting their return on their investment today. >> do you think -- i mean, what is your mental model or theory
of that kind of thing? do you think this is quid pro quo right in front of everybody's eyes? >> you know, who knows? i guess we are all going to wait to see what's in the mueller report. we will have a better idea of it at that point. listen, he has gone both ways on russia. there are things that he has done that has been incredibly soft. there are a couple of moments where you thought he might be getting his act together in particular when he decided to transfer some weapons to the ukrainians. by and large, russia has gotten everything they wanted. of course what they want in addition to being back inside the clubs is for the u.s./european club to break up. this is a particularly great 24 hours for russia because not only is trump saying that we should just ignore what they are doing in ukraine and let them back in, but also this division between the united states and europe that continues to grow bigger and bigger, you know, that essentially predicts that our set of sanctions against russia aren't going to be able to hold together either. and that's good news for the kremlin, too. >> what is your assessment about
where things are with respect to the other g7 countries right now as we enter this summit? >> so it's interesting. as i was talking the our european allies and traveling through europe in 2017, you know, they were freaking out. their partner was literally walking away from the table. they didn't know how the deal with him. 2018 is different. the european partners are just moving on. they have decided to make different plans. they set up a defense initiative inside europe where her going to start planning and procurement outside of nato because they are not confident trump is going to stay inside nato. may krone made it clear that if the president of the united states doesn't want to stay in, they will make it the g 6, they will make economic plans and long term strategic plans without us. that's what i think is happening inside europe today is that they are just making decisions to do things without the united states. that's bad for our economy.
bad for our national security. it's great for countries like russia. >> do you think this is temporary? i mean the big question is me, is this a techer tantrum or even if you give him the benefit of the doubt a sort of clever negotiating tactic, he is going to blow things up and then they will come to some tariff agreement on dairy in canada and pose for a smiling photoon. what is your sense of how real the rift is. >> i think it's real. for the duration of the trump administration it's permanent. >> really? >> i think that's why i spoke to what the europeans are actually doing. they are not just launching tweets. they are actually setting up new entities that are designed to go around the united states. they are doing trade deals with other countries besides the united states to hedge their bets. so they are betting that this disruption will last the entirety of the trump administration. and i think they are probably making a smart bet. >> what's the -- to someone that says well fine let them do it, i
think it's sometimes hard to -- when you talk about the post world war ii order and all of these international institutions and the u.s. being at the center of it, yadda yadda, it can feel airy and abstract and remote. what do you say to someone who says let them do whatever they wanted. he is standing up tough forus even the they think the president is acting parly what does it matter either way? >> let's think about it in two wears. first vis-a-vis russia. as our unified resistance to russia's invasion of ukraine atrophies it's going to be hard to keep those together if we are at war like this. it sends a message to autocrats that they can start to erase borders without consequence. second let's think about the, et cetera there to the united states. that continues to be a terrorist threat that frankly is not likely to come straight from syria. it's likely to come through europe. so our counter-terrorism operation and our communication
with european countries is probably the most important set of relationships to actually get safe.information to keep us so as european law enforcement agencies are taking readouts from their governments that the united states isn't interested in cooperating any longer that actually makes us less safe in terms of that threat. so there are real practical consequences for the world and for us as this relationship starts to fall apart at the seams. >> senator chris murphy of connecticut thanks for making time tonight. next, the president walks into the g7 summit feuding with allies and stumping for the kremlin. we will talk about what happened in quebec and what happens next, in two minutes. ign up online ign up online and we'll alert you if we find your social security number on any one of thousands of risky sites. that sounds super helpful. how much is it? well, if you have a discover card, it's free. no way! yes way! we just think it's important for you to be in the know. all right! hey... ewww! everything ok? being in the know is very good. yeah, it is. ooo don't shake! don't shake!
he has apparently grown tired with theresa may's school mistress tone. the president will leave quebec tomorrow morning before scheduled sessions on climate change. a fact that may not mind tbothe french president. joining me, evelyn park as who over saw russia as secretary of defense. and carolyn corn flu. karen, let me start with you. two ways of viewing this. i asked senator murphy. one of those tell per tantrums or negotiating tactics or are we seeing a genuine structural shift in alliances, which is it? >> i think it is the latter. i disagree with the senator a
little bit because i'm not sure that the europeans can go it alone without us. i think macron is bluffing a little bit. the u.s. is really the leader of this club. we built this club. and it's really an own goal that we are sitting here blowing it up. and i think it takes a lot of nurturing to keep these together. the president seems to have this idea that we are supposed to make money in all of these clubs, to, the g7. that's like thinking that you are going to make money in your neighbor. we are the biggest house in the neighborhood. we have an interest in a strong fire deputy. if somebody else's house catches fire it is bad for everybody and especially bad for us. >> that's a good metaphor for these kinds of strategic alliances. it can be hard to communicate the value of them. can i ask you a silly and human trivial question which is how much does all the trash talking and acting out matter?
i wonder how much fits of peak personal relationships, being insulted play in these kinds of settings. >> i think it probably depend on the foreign leader in question. some have thicker skin than others. i actually ind fine that the democratic lead remembers more able to slug off the criticism than the autocrats. i'm not worried about any of our allies feeling personally offended but i do worry about alliances. i like karen's metaphor. i was thinking on my run today about the fdic. we have guarantees for americans if they put their money in the bank that, if there is a run on the bank or some kind of collapse that they can get their money back up to $250,000. that's the fbic. alliances are like that. you know, they are sort of a guarantee that we make the other countries and they give to us. if it goes to held in a handbasket, if you will, you know, if we go to war that we will come to one another's
assistance. these are our allies. so i think it's really worrying that the president is throwing a lot of -- he is throwing into question the trust that they should have in the united states. so it's not a personal thing. but it is a country to country, and a, you know, organization to organization issue. >> right. does the -- karen, the situation with canada seems particularly bizarre to me. seriously. has there ever been -- u.s./canadian relations seem very poor and we are contemplating possibly entering into a trade war with our biggest trading partner. it doesn't seem like a great move. >> there is economic anxiety this the country and there are things that we could do to respond to that. we do get canada to relax some of their protections on their dairy. >> yep. >> we could get japan to consume more, germany to consume more. we could do thing at home to
help struggling families. but instead, we are blowing up the trading system, which we have built is he hard -- we have worked so hard to build and protect. you know, after the financial crisis, we put in place a process to monitor all the countries to make sure that nobody was cheating and putting in place protectionist measures. now merkel offered to do something like that up in canada with the g7. let's negotiate, let's work on this so we don't all resort to tit for tat. and trump blue blew it out of the water and said absolutely not. you know, we are entering into the tit for tat that works against our own countries. we are the ones who benefit the most from all of this. it's really sad. >> evelyn, there is something ironic. america did build the post world war ii system, all of the international institution asks the critique of it has been abroad and domestically from a left perspective that it is is i thinkly kind of an imperial
project that benefits the u.s. at the expense of others. it's ironic watching the president who sits at the center of the massive vortex of power complaining that the u.s. is the one getting the raw deal on this system that's been built to project you american influence the world over it's like so many things this president says and does. it's upside down. yes, we created this system because we were coming out of, you know, well, part of the system has to do with economic depression. you know, world war ii got us out of the depression. >> right. >> also we came out of world war ii. we wanted to prevent both of those things were happening again of the we set up a structure that would provide certain guarantees built on trust. again, that word trust is really important. our president doesn't understand that that's what gives the united states strength. and these are all voluntary thing. countries actually fight to get into u.s.-led clubs like nato. >> right. >> like -- you name it. but basically, the problem is
now that we are almost attacking our own children. and the europeans are trying to defend them because they benefitted from the system as well. you know, iran is the other context. with the iran deal. the europeans, they same to have caved because they sent a letter this weeking and for an exemption, asking for exemptions from u.s. secondary sanctions. so they are kind of admitting, i guess that the u.s. is going to get its way on the iran deal. they don't seem to be fighting. but i wonder whether in the aftermath of this meeting they might take a harder line against us also. >> that will be interesting. thank you very much. after the break, the fbi seizes a reporter's contacts as part of a leak investigation. in what may be part of a strategy to stop robert mueller. that story next. everything for his well-being. but meningitis b progresses quickly and can be fatal, sometimes within 24 hours. while meningitis b is uncommon, about 1 in 10 infected will die.
like millions of others, your teen may not be vaccinated against meningitis b. meningitis b strikes quickly. be quick to talk to your teen's doctor about a meningitis b vaccine. you're smart,eat you already knew that. but it's also great for finding the perfect used car. you'll see what a fair price is and you can connect with a truecar certified dealer. now you're even smarter. this is truecar. who's already won three cars, two motorcycles, a boat, and an r.v. i would not want to pay that insurance bill. [ ding ] -oh, i have progressive, so i just bundled everything with my home insurance. saved me a ton of money. -love you, gary! -you don't have to buzz in. it's not a question, gary. on march 1, 1810 -- [ ding ] -frédéric chopin. -collapsing in 226 -- [ ding ] -the colossus of rhodes. -[ sighs ] louise dustmann -- [ ding ] -brahms' "lullaby," or "wiegenlied." -when will it end? [ ding ] -not today, ron. -when will it end? [ ding ] ♪
in the first indictment since the trump administration announced a renewed evident against anyone who leaks classified information a long time senate staffer appeared in court today but not crucially, and this is important for leaking classified information. james wolfe former director for security of the senate intel committee was indicted for lying to the fbi about his contacts with reporters. prosecutors secretly seized a reporter phone and e-mail records. the reporter says the fbi toll her of the seizer after the fact in february. to help make sense of this, let's bring in the former assistant director of counter-intelligence at the fbi who is an msnbc news national security contributor. frank, people that work this the media like myself, reporters,
hate this kind of thing. they find it an offense to the first amendment. there are d.o.j. guidelines about when you go offer reporters. what do you think about it? >> there is a couple of noteworthy things here, chris. i used to head up the counter-intelligence division at the bureau. and leak investigations of this nature were assigned to my division. but here are some disstangss that i see already in this case. first, the focus was always on the leaker. look, catching leakers derek leakers who leak classified information, that's bad. our nation's security needs to remain intact. so we would go aggressively at that. but the distinction is there was tremendous respect for premeditate freedom of the press and for the media and for the journalist involved. so there are policies in place at the bureau and the deputy of justice so that when you are seeking records, phone records, e-mail, electronic communications of a reporter, it requires such a high level of
authority and review, to include by the way, the attorney general himself when you are seeking those records on a reporter, that it's often not even done out of respect for journalism and because the case can be worked through err parallel construction. you can get the phone records of the alleged leaker. you can see the reporter contacting various times. and you don't need to infringe on the rights of the reporter. >> right. >> we are not seeing that here, chris. we are seeing a twist here. i think now we've got a line in the sand being drawn by this justice department and this white house that they are going aggressively at journalists. >> i want to be clear here on two thing. one there is precedent here. the obama administration did do a corrupt tishs collection of reporters, particularly on leak investigations. there are four instances. although the methodology here seems more aggressive than what was established by the obama
administration. here's my question. when i step back and look at this and you think about the ig report coming out about comey's behavior it seems there is a pivot with trump and his allies to recognize they can't get rid of mueller and the investigation but what they can do is sort of kick up other investigations surrounding the investigators, leak investigations, ig reports, investigations of the investigators, to produce an fact in which everyone is being investigated and people are leaking and people are getting indicted to try to muddy theers with a. is that a fear of yours. >> i think the fear that i have in any is we see an abuse of the process. what i'm looking at is that the white house my been directing the department of justice how to handle this case. >> right. >> and how to handled it, contravening their own policies perhaps. typically in these cases we know the facts, the attorney general before this one, and efl is of the predecessors would not have sign off on this. simply wouldn't. look what they charged the
leaker with. they stand charge the leaker with leaking classified. they charged him with false statements to the fbi about his relationship and contacts with the reporter. they tells me theyon't want to go there. they don't want the scrutiny and they don't have enough and they are charging him simply with lying. >> that's a great point. the president today when he comes out there and he says -- here's the president talking about it this morning. take a listen. >> it's very interesting that they caught a leaker. and a very important -- it is a very important leaker. so it's very interesting. i'm getting information on it now. happened last night. it could be a terrific thing. i know -- i believe strongly in freedom of the press. i am a big, big believer in freedom of the press. but i'm also a believer in classified information. has to remain classified. and that includes comey and his band of thieves who leaked
classified information all over the place. >> two things there. as you said, they surveilled this guy, and they couldn't get him leaking classified information. do you think if they found that shelled have charged him with that? >> i think they would have. they come come in with a superseding diamond here. but you know, remember comey explaining that when he was in the oval office trump said that he would like to see some reporters taken out and that they needed to do that. >> right. >> that's what's being done. let's not forget what he may have leaked. it's alleged he may have talked to a reporter about the carter page investigation and wiretap. that's what has got trump wound up and that's what has them targeting this particular leaker. >> not only that, the piece at issue, if i'm not mistaken is a piece in custom page confirmed the basic details of it. you have got that aspect of it to. thanks for your time. still to come, the trump administration's latest brazen attack on the rule of law.
and the quest to get scott pruitt some lotion is tonight's thing one thing two. next. (woman) so beautiful. (man) beautiful just like you. (woman) oh, why thank you. [both scream] (burke) coupe soup. and we covered it. we know a thing or two because we've seen a thing or two. ♪ we are farmers. bum-pa-dum, bum-bum-bum-bum ♪
♪ ♪ legendary jockey víctor espinoza is insatiable when it comes to competing. ♪ ♪ so is his horse. ♪ ♪ when it comes to snacking. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ that's why he uses the chase mobile app, to pay practically anyone, at any bank. life, lived victor's way. chase. make more of what's yours. ♪ ♪ ♪ raindrops on roses and whiskers on kittens ♪ ♪ bright copper kettles and warm woolen mittens ♪ ♪ brown paper packages tied up with strings ♪ ♪ these are a few of my favorite things ♪ ♪ ♪
♪ these are a few of my favorite things ♪ theverything's changed. we're not on an island anymore. genetic power has now been unleashed. we've entered a new era. welcome to jurassic world. [ scream ] rated pg-13. thing one, scott pruitt is still employed. the epa administrators has survived yet another day. some of his weirder scandal right side taking on a life of
their own. yesterday we told but the lotion. the "washington post" reporting that pruitt directed agents of his security detail to drive him to multiple locations in search of a particular lotion on offer at ritz-carlton hotels. that must be some special lotion. lucky for scott pruitt someone who heard about his struggle showed up with a bottle of the stuff at the faith and freedom conference where he was speaking today. of course she was thrown out because obviously that was knots ritz-carlton lotion. why is it so hard to get some lotion around here? and also free speech, i guess. >> it's interesting about this time of discussion is here we are talking about free speech, religious liberty. and folks won't let you engage in it at times. >> she's the one that got dragged out of the room, scott. you are still at the microphone. that's what you get for trying to bring a guy om lotion. the wrong kind. apparently. she wasn't the only one trolling pruitt. there was lotion on the floor of the house today, too. that's thing two, in 60 seconds.
♪ no matter when you retire, your income doesn't have to. see how lincoln can help ensure you still have income every month of your retirement, guaranteed, at lincolnfinancial.com. you're smart,eat you already knew that. but it's also great for finding the perfect used car. you'll see what a fair price is and you can connect with a truecar certified dealer. now you're even smarter. this is truecar. when this guy got a flat tire in the middle of the night, so he got home safe. yeah, my dad says our insurance doesn't have that. what?! you can leave worry behind when liberty stands with you™. liberty mutual insurance.
scott pruitt is setting records for far and away the most ethical violations and corruption scandals in the entire trump swamp. finally today the president gave pruitt something less than a full defense. >> scott pruitt is doing a great job within the walls of the epa. we are setting records. outside he is being attacked very viciously by the he is were. i'm not saying he is blameless but we'll see what happens. >> that's usually the last thing you hear before trump gives you a nickname. it probably doesn't help mattress lotion scott that democrats are using props on the floor of the house. two congressmen were highlighting his list of scandals including lotiongate and signing a letter with four other house democrats formally requesting the dodge investigate the epa secretary for potential misconduct. it may be weird some of them may
be illegal and scott pruitt is not exactly dying it. >> my wife is an entrepreneurers had. 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. it took guts to start my business. but as it grew bigger and bigger, it took a whole lot more. that's why i switched to the spark cash card from capital one. with it, i earn unlimited 2% cash back on everything i buy. everything. what's in your wallet?
so i'm not happyhanic in the corps, unless my hands are dirty. between running a business and four kids, we're busy. knowing that usaa will always have my back... that's just one less thing you have to worry about. we are the cochran family, and we'll be usaa members for life. in the movies, a lot of times, i tend to play the tough guy. but i wasn't tough enough to quit on my own. not until i tried chantix. chantix, along with support, helps you quit smoking. it reduced my urge to smoke to the point that i could stop. when you try to quit smoking, with or without chantix, you may have nicotine withdrawal symptoms. some people had changes in behavior or thinking, aggression, hostility, agitation, depressed mood, or suicidal thoughts or actions with chantix. serious side effects may include seizures, new or worse heart or blood vessel problems, sleepwalking or allergic and skin reactions which can be life-threatening. stop chantix and get help right away if you have any of these. tell your healthcare provider if you've had depression or other mental health problems.
decrease alcohol use while taking chantix. use caution when driving or operating machinery. the most common side effect is nausea. my favorite role so far? being a non-smoker. no question about it. talkur doctor about chantix. the trump administration is tearing immigrant children away from their parents daily. we still don't know how many families have been ripped apart.
the numbers we do have are startling. the intercept tallying nearly 1400 children so far that we know of from october to mid april, plus two weeks in may. that doesn't include stretches of several weeks when this new policy has been put into effect meaning the true figure could be higher. in fact the trump administration has been so aggressive they have now caused another crisis. they are running out of beds. now they are sending hundreds of immigrants to federal prisons, thousands of miles away to wait for their hearings. including apparently parents who have had their children ripped away. some mothers have reportedly been take tony federal prison in washington state where officials are demanding to know when those immigrants see their children again. it is unhumane. apparently even donald trump thinks so, too. he consistently refuses to
acknowledge it is his policy. >> i don't like the children being straighted from the parents. i don't like it. i hate it. but that's a democrat bill we are enforcing. we can change it in one day. all they have to do is come and see us. >> that's a lie. an absolute lie. it is a lie the president repeatedly told. what do you mean it is a democrat bill you? control all the branches of the government. today he is in luck. diane feinstein dropped new piece of legislation. the keep families together, designed to do exactly that, keep families together and halt this family separation practice. so donald trump and republicans can solve this in one day, pass this bill, sign it into law, and stop this barbaric practice that has become a national shame.
three career justice lawyers whose job it is to defend the government and litigation withdrew their names from a government brief. the move set out a massive freakout on twitter and that is a thing. guys, i have a bad thing about this tweeted professor nick bagley who spotted what was going on and that was borne out in a truly shocking move. the department of justice whose job it is to be clear to defend the nation's laws in court decided instead to attack them. siding with a group of republican states who are suing the government to completely abolish the obama care legislation, and overturn it, specifically, the doj said that it is no longer going to defend the requirement of the people with health insurance or, or provisions that guarantee access to health insurance regardless of any pre-existing medical conditions. and now to join me to help explain what and how big this is the professor nick bagley, and julia fernandez who was dep si assistant attorney at the doj
and maya who is a civil rights attorney in new york state. so you noticed the brief, and then you had a tweet story of how crazy they were taking this story, and why a big deal? >> well, it is hard to overstate how unusual this is. the justice department, one of the most important jobs is to defend acts of congress, and there is a longstanding, durable bipartisan commitment to defending any and all laws so long as a nonfrivolous argument can be made in the defense. there were lots of arguments that trump administration could have made to brush back this really very silly lawsuit that is attempting to undermine the affordable health care act again, and yet, instead of making the arguments the trump administration decides to throw the statute under the bus. >> and julia, you are nodding the head, and the conservatives say, that look, the defense of marriage act famously led the
department of justice to refuse to defend it. and you are shaking your head already. >> well, it is a different situation, because in the doma case, there was a constitutional question where the country was moving in a direction that was inconsistent with the statute, and a huge constitutional values question prevent epresented the nick said the catch phrase, the department has the duty to defend as long as the nonfrivolous argument, buter the arguments are thin, and their duty is clear to enforce the law, defend the law, and doma was a very different type of case. >> you know, maya, it is striking me that one of the things that is happening is that there is all of the focus on the tension between rosenstein and the white house and him pressuring jeff session, and you have jeff sessions over at the doj and sessions is going to work on the doj, and even if he is so far maintaining the integrity of the mueller investigation as far as he can. >> and yes, jeff sessions is on
the home team. >> yes. >> and the home team is really about a policy position which is a policy disagreement with the affordable care act. and this is a -- >> right. we don't like it. >> and we don't like uit, and both nick and julie are saying that what we are supposed to be is protected as a people by the department of justice is because there is a change of administration, and simply making a policy decision not to defend the laws of the united states, and you are not supposed to do that, and you are not supposed to -- >> you are destroying the basic idea of continue ity. >> and remember, that this is a congress-tried, depending upon how you count 50-70 times to dismantle the affordable health care act and has succeeded in small measures, but generally failed to undermine the entire statute and now we have thin legal arguments of a policy fight by the nation's lawyer in chief rather than protecting our
laws, he is attacking us on the policy grounds. >> and nick it is the manner in which they did it in that i find it fascinating, because if you are taking doma, the analog of the big public debate, and congressional notice and defended it in the lower courts and then stopped at the appellant level, and so you were noticing this, like they were going to try to sneak it past everyone, nick. >> this came out nofwhere. the three line attorneys who withdrew their name from the case, these are civil servant, and serving across administrations, and defended the programs they have disagreed with, and made arguments that they personally agree with, and it is going to show how outlandish this argument truly is, and the aggressiveness with which the trump administration is pressing it. there sis a temptation on the from the critics and the people who invoked doma to normalize this, and say this is something that we have seen before, but
that is just not the case. this is new. it is different. >> go ahead. >> and the other point that i'd like to make here is that it is part of the pattern and it is not a one-off by the trump administration or the sessions justice department, and the most egregious example is the the joe arpaio pardon and the trump folks see themselves as above the law, and not sort of confined by law precedent or the w ways in which the justice department is supposed to operate. remember that joe arpaio was the sheriff of maricopa county and he was not complying with a judge's order, and so trump par dond him for contempt. >> and he had a case that was brought by the federal government, right? the department of justice against him for violating the civil right, and he criminally violated the contempt of court, and the president pardoned him.
>> so that means that the rule of law and the role of the justice partmentand the texas r.i.d. is another example and the department of justice was a arguing and winning on the set of facts about the intentional discrimination in the set of texas, and they reverse the fact that they have facts where there were no facts, and so this is policy disguised as law, and i get to do what i want, because i have the got the power, and that is what it is. >> absolutely. and it is also bad policy. one of the reasons that congress has not been able to completely dismantle the affordable care act is because it is popular and it is actually has support, and it is popular because the people need to see a doctor when they are sick, and they couldn't get all of their own party to agree, because of the concerns about the low income people being charged pre-existing conditions, either losing the health care or being charged more money because they are sick. >> and nick, that is the policy
implication here, because the government of the united states is now on the record saying that the court should gut the entirety of the pre-existing conditions protections and insurance market reforms that constitute some of the most popular parts of the affordable care act, and today, bunch of the insurers were freaking out late bit. >> of course they r because this is the business model to sell insurance to the people who are paying into the kitty that we all contribute to in order to cover our health insurance. there are 130 million people in the country who have pre-existing condition, and if they don't get insurance through the jobs, and not through medicare or medicaid, and if the affordable care act goes away, they are out of luck. this is a very high-stakes debate. >> right. right. >> and so, nick, let me follow up on that quickly, because i remember when there was a statutory question interpretation around the subsidies and everything, and this is crazy and then went to the supreme court, so is this going anywhere? >> i would have said yesterday no way, because i believe it is untreexly unlikely, but we have seen the arguments move from off of the wall to on the wall.
>> that is right. >> so this is so crazy that is unlikely to move to on the wall, but i will say that the trump administration is doing everything that it can to dismantle that affordable health care act hammer and tong. >> okay. have a great weekend, and the "rachel maddow show" starts right now. >> thank you, chris and have a good weekend. thank you for joining us. happy friday. ronald reagan was first electedt president in the election over1980 and sworn in the at the start of 1981, and in the the first year in office in 1981, he took a little trips to other countries, and he visited canada, and mexico and he went to the caribbean. but he did not take his first major extended overseas trip until the second year in office in june of 1982 when ronald reagan took a