tv All In With Chris Hayes MSNBC June 26, 2018 12:00am-1:00am PDT
judges. >> tonight, the president's latest call to eviscerate the rule of law and force asylum seekers to choose between their children or deportation. then civil society responds to the trump administration. >> do you consider it a civil policy to separate more than 2,000 children from their parents? plus, the classic american company that is now a victim of donald trump's trade war. >> you can't lose a trade war. >> and why the top senate intel democrat said buckle up for a wild summer with robert mueller. >> a phony witch-hunt. >> "all in" starts right now. >> good evening from new york. i'm chris hayes. every day it seems the president of the united states sounds more and more like an authoritarian strang man from a country we no longer recognize as our own. today's latest demonstration
came as it so often does, in a tweet. quote we cannot allow all of these people.vade our country. when somebody comes in, we must immediately with no judges or court cases bring them back from where they came. our system is a mockery to good immigration policy and law and order. now you could write off donald trump's constant tweet storming as nothing more than sound and fury if not for what is actually happening this very moment in our country. the 2300 immigrant children taken from their families, some of them toddler, even babies. the building of tent cities on military bases, camps to hold children inside which we only have government-provided images because media are not allowed to independently record what goes on inside there. the turning away of asylum seekers, well documented by now, at ports of entry against our own laws. and now according to the texas tribune, our government effectively holding many of these immigrant children we've taken from their parents, children our government ripped away from them, holding them as hostages to then force people to
give up their legal asylum claims and agree to be deported. this is the backdrop for the president's explicit call to deport people at will without any recourse to a legal system or any acknowledgment of the rule of law. but for anyone tempted to shrug off the president's tweet this morning, he revisited the topic later in the day. >> and we have to change our laws. we have to make them sensible. they came in to see me last week. they said we'd like to hire 5,000 more judges, 5,000. you ever hear of a thing like that? judges. well, we're appointing 145 judges here, and everyone goes through this extreme vetting process. you talk about 5,000. where do you find 5,000 people to be judges? and you know what? it leads to graft. it leads to a lot of other things. >> the president is a little confused about immigration judges who are very different than the appellate and district court judges he is appointing. but that's for another time.
now, it has ban through line of this president's rhetoric that he doesn't really even bother to pretend to care about the constitution. makes no pretense of it. but we are currently getting a very bleak picture of what that world view looks like when it is put into practice on vulnerable populations at the border. senator richard blumenthal, democratic of connect visited a tent city for immigrant children last week. let me start by asking you what, does it look like up close when you saw it? >> as you have been reporting so well for the last weeks, chris, it is a heartbreaking, deepening humanitarian crisis. and again, the through line here is in every one of these policies, the president is using children as pawns and hostages. first to try to pressure congress into changing the law. he is now defying it. then to persuade some of these asylum seekers to leave the country if they are reunited. there is no plan for reunionification.
and there is deepening chaos and confusion, even among the border agents, the border patrol agents and the u.s. customs and board eprotection agents who say we need more judges. we need more resources to effectively and fairly enforce the law. so abandoning and abrogating due process has consequences not only financially but also morally. >> but let me ask you this. you're a united states senator, and we have consistent reporting that cbp is turning people away at ports of entry when asking for asylum. that they even in some cases have moved their checkpoint to the median of the bridge so that no toe can touch american soil that is a violation on its face of american law. what is congress doing about that? >> the congress very sadly and unconsbly is doing nothing. and i believe, and i'm calling for it right now and in the next few days that congress must have hearings.
we have an oversight responsibility. the judiciary committee where i sit should be having hearings this week to hold accountable the officials for turning away those asylum seekers, in effect denying them the credible fear hearing that they're entitled to receive if they're in this country. and abrogating due process. remember, due process is not only about fundamental fairness and the rule of law, it's also about making sure that determinations are accurate. because in many instances, if we unfairly and inaccurately deny asylum, we are in effect very likely condemning these people to death, torture, and other forms of violence. >> let's be clear, not just them. correct me if i am wrong, what the president is calling for is an extra legal and nonreviewable deportation force that can patriotic people out of the country with no judicial review. there any reason to believe such a thing is constitutional or b, would not result in american citizens being deported? >> it will be challenged. it will be found illegal and
unconstitutional. when and if it's challenged. but more broadly and fundamentally, this country is for a train wreck at the border because beyond those due process issues arising with respect to the asylum seekers at the ports of entry and the due process hearings, we're also threatening, i say we, the president is threatening to imprison tens of thousands of these individuals as he continues to prosecute them in camps that are very reminisce sent of the internment facilities for the japanese during world war ii on military bases at tremendous financial costs. in fact, i visited a facility very much like the one that the president is contemplating, the cost per person there, $2,000 per day. think of it. $2,000 per day. >> $2,000 per day per person? >> at the ill torneo facility in el paso.
we're talking about financial costs but also moral and humanitarian cost. >> senator richard blumenthal, thank you for joining me. >> thank you. >> attorney natalia cornelio is of the texas civil rights project. they've been representing a lot of the folks who have been detained by i.c.e. and prosecuted. let's start with an update what is happening on the ground? there is lots of confusion. let me start with this. is separation still happening, or has that stopped to your knowledge? >> to my knowledge, separation has stopped. as of friday and monday, we met no parents who had been separated from their children. so the last time we met with parents who had been separated where their children was last thursday, the day after the executive order was signed. >> there is confusion between cbp saying we're not recommending people for prosecution. doj wants to keep saying we're prugt everything every everyone. but what you hearing about this idea that was reported in the texas tribune of parents essentially being offer you'd
can get your kid back if you sign this and agreed to be deported immediately and waive your right to asylum? have you heard that? >> we have heard from the relative of one of our clients that he was told that he would be reunited with his child if he signed a voluntary departure. we also heard from the majority of the people that we interviewed that they would do anything to be reunited with their child. so the concern is regardless of whether they're told explicitly by cbp that choice or not, any decision that they would have to make regarding their immigration situation under the circumstances of not having their child with them by force is concerning. it's a coerced decision, essentially. so we're concerned about that. >> is there progress being made in notifying clients about where their children are and how they can go about reunifying with them? >> the process is very slow. it's essentially in department of homeland security's hands.
of course, this all could have been avoided if parents had never been separated from their children. what we are doing now is scrambling as quickly as possible, essentially racing the clock to try to assure that parents are unified with their children before something as serious as a deportation, separate from one another. and we do know of at least one case where the children were deported while the parents remained in custody in the united states. >> the children were deported? >> that's a concern. >> the children were deported. this is important. we have tracked numerous cases of parents being deported while children remain in custody. you're saying the op opposite. children being sent back without their parents into a country they have fled because of danger? >> that's right. in at least one case, that's right. >> what does it say to you, or what do you hear when you hear the president of the united states while building -- going ahead with plans to build koompbs military bases, keeping their children away from their parents saying it's ridiculous, we need to grab people and
deport them. what do you say to that? >> i think that this problem of parents being separated from children, this humanitarian human rights crisis, if there were due process, if people were entitled to attorneys and were able to see judges, this would have never happened. so i actually think this traumatic experience that america just went through could have been avoided if the opposite of what the president is saying had happened. so it's not only a violation of international human rights law and our laws, but what just happened is proof of what could continue to happen if no due process is provided. >> explain that. what do you mean? >> the lack of due process, the lack of access to courts or hearing officers, the lack of access to attorneys is what allows the government to have a nontransparnlt system. >> right. >> making a sweeping administrative decision to separate parents from their children.
and it's only until civil rights lawyers find out about it and scramble to talk to the parents that the information starts being tracked by anybody but the government. and so this type of behavior of a sweeping policy that's really concerning on a human rights level could happen if there is no due process, if there no access to courts or hearing or attorneys. those things protect human rights violations, civil rights violations, law violations from happening. so those are an important check on that. and i think that everyone should agree that there's got to be space to agree that civil rights and human rights have to be included in any dialogue about policy. >> we should note the only reason we know about this isn't because of the government. it's because of lawyers who are in courtrooms. suing over it and telling and talking to reporters about it. they were the point of contact while this policy was happening behind closed doors in a black box and children were being ripped from their parents. natalia cornelio, thank you for what you're doing. >> that's exactly right.
>> have i with me legendary newsman dan rather, the author of "what utes us: reflections on patriotism." there is oh, it's never been this bad, it's knotts normal. i always like to check in with you and you have witnessed a long arc of american history. what do you make about the president of the united states publicly stating we don't need laws and we don't need judges and we don't need due process? >> well, thanks for having me here, chris. first of all, we need to see clearly and not have what i call outrage fatigue there have been so many outrages one on top of the other. the tendency is to get so fatigued. we need to see clearly that president trump, both his rhetoric and his policies, they're reckless, they're divisive, and they're doing serious damage to our core national values, what hold us together. now, there is this, that it's already been demonstrated that a
political response centering on the ballot box saying don't forget we have the ballot box, and that will be decisive in the end. beyond that is the idea of the president in effect, what he is saying, not in effect what he is saying is i am the law. something we said earlier with the senator who said there is no pretense. he is not even pretending that the constitution matters. he is not even pretending that law and precedent matters. this is something new. yes, we've had presidents before who have tried to go beyond the constitution. president roosevelt was stacking the supreme court there are any number of examples. but we've never had a president who openly and without apology, and as a matter of fact with some arrogance says i don't care about the constitution. i don't care about the laws. that is exactly what strikes me. let's be clear. eric holder basically said you could kill a u.s. citizen without judicial review. that's an incredibly epansive claim made by the obama
administration. but in all cases you had a rhetoric. reagan, that was about why this worked within the constitutional boundary. it does seem to me a new way of talking from this president to just sweep it aside and say this is ridiculous. >> it's not only a new way of talking, it's a new way of acting. and that's a critical thing. if we ever accept this, that not just a president says it, but that he acts on the belief that the constitution doesn't matter and he is above the law, this is a clear hallmark of an advance of authoritarianism. we have known that the trump administration represents an authoritarian-leaning regime. >> impulse, at least. >> now it's moving into having all the hallmarks of an outright authoritarian regime with all that we know from history that leads with that. at the same time that is
happening he is conducting a trade war, raising tariffs, isolating not only from our friends and allies, but undercutting the economy. and we know from history what happened, that trade wars in the 1920s led to the great depression of 1930s which in turn led to nazism. this is -- i'm not saying we're near nazism. i'm saying we have to learn from history. history's judgment tends to be slow, but once it settles, in we know what happens when you combine authoritarianism, i am above the law kind of leaders with a trade war, high tariffs and isolationism. the history that of is very clear and we forget it at our peril. >> one thing that strikes me is the question of what will restrain these impulses. the courts knocked down two versions of the travel ban, they enjoined the daca provision. congress has provided a bit of a check, the acap repeal. what is your understanding of what we have seen now in people
organizing in resistance to this policy outside of the channels of the court or congress? >> well, very important that people resist. the resistance has taken a somewhat broader meaning. but resistance to specific policies and people organizing in the interim between the ballot box is very important. the press, and not to be self-serving, but my profession and yourself, and emheavy responsibility not to get fatigue and move on to the next story, to keep the pressure on. the idea that we still at this late date have no pictures, no really pictures from inside one facility after another is absolutely outrageous. >> i want to make this point. this is tom at buzzfeed. he showed this. from torneo, the tent city. you can clearly see no call is being made. there is no actual call. the photo was shot on the 21st. it's clearly staged.
but it gets to your point, this is a black box. we cannot see in independently as the fourth estate. and shah should be really woyin everyone. dan rather, thank you very much for your time. >> thank you, chris. coming up, maxine waters on her calls for condemnation of trump officials crowds to push back in public, and then the president's attack on her. congresswoman waters joins me exclusively ahead. after the break, the president's trade war starts claiming its victims. how it went to production overseas in two minutes.
it was a few short months ago that donald trump tweeted, quote, trade wars are good and easy to win. and he is not the first world leader to believe this and then be disabused of that very idea. tonight in the middle of an actual trade war that is now unfolding that he launched, the president is finding out winning is not as easy as he perhaps thought. harley-davidson is an iconic american brand, a company trump
brought to the white house last february to prop up as a beneficiary of his policies. today harley-davidson announced it will be shifting production of its motorcycles sold in europe from the u.s. to factories overseas. the company says the move is to avoid higher costs from the tariff imposed last week by the eu, costs that would add about $2200 on average to every motorcycle exported from the u.s. to the european union. why would you do such a thing? that tariff comes as a response the president ordered on steel imports against america's core allies, including the eu and canada. and the retaliation doesn't end with motorcycles. all kinds of manufacturers and farmers are feeling the pain of retaliatory tariffs. according to one wisconsin cheese maker, if export markets get cut off, i could see us getting to the point where we're dumping our milk in the fields. i'm joined by dan dicker, licensed commodity trader, markets expert who has been writing to me about this.
we had you on to talk about the steel tariffs when they were first announced whamplt is happening right now? >> when i was on with you in march we talked about this first round of tariffs, and trump backed away from that notion. he saw the stock market dive on those announcements and backed away from it both from the chinese and both from our allies. but since then he has doubled back down on this whole process. and since then, the market has been standing around calling bs on the whole process saying we don't believe that he can actually do this unilaterally and start a trade war for absolutely no good reason whatsoever and spiral the global economy into a recession. remember, the economy is one of the few truly assets, true assets that the trump administration has to bring to the midterms. and he is about to throw that all away for what reasons no one can really fathom. >> i find this dynamic so fascinating. i think you're totally right there. is a line of sort of trump sympathetic journalists said you should take him not literally. wall street was taking him
literally. they were saying come on, he is not going to start a trade war shirks not going to actually go through with it. the markets have been doing well. unemployment has been at a low. the economy has been rumbling along. as we get closer to july when these first tariffs are supposed to go into effect, and as the white house continues to threaten more tariffs on top of the ones they already have as the eu and china starts to call out retaliatory methods -- measures that they're going to take, finally we've gotten some wall street analysts, particularly today from morgan stanley and jp stanley saying hey, maybe he is actually going to go through on that thinking isn't just people pricing the future, it's happening now. the filing from harley-davidson today said the eu tariffs have increased from 6% to 31%. but that's not a fictional future thing. >> our tariffs are week and a half away. july 7th will be the first time they will be imposeded, the
chinese tariffs on computer and electronics goods. $4 billion from mexico, $4 billion from the eu. $17 billion from canada, and the chinese are threatening somewhere in the 20 billion area. trump thinks he can win the war with the silly idea that since we import so much from china than they import from us, that he can ramp up more tariffs and therefore the end number will be larger, and that to him will be winning. but unfortunately, it doesn't quite work that way. handy is going to find this to -- like a game of chicken with the only truck that is moving is the one towards him. that's how this is going to work. >> the question has been all along that is a negotiating posture, it's a negotiating posture, it's a negotiating post khmer. >> right. >> i should say there is a school of thought that taking a tougher line with china was not a crazy idea. it's something that rational people have urged. >> we have to be fair. there has been a 30-year problem
of the chinese stealing intellectual property from the united states. unfortunately, this is so trumpian in that it's a very complex problem that he is trying to fix in a very simple way. just like immigration. i have a problem with immigration, i'm going build a wall. it's a simple solution. tariffs are a simple and in fact a wrong solution for what is a very nuanced and complex problem. >> part of it too, is they are able in retaliating to target populations they want to target. farmers in iowa export a tremendous amount of their agricultural product to china. china could cut that off. >> yes. there are specific companies that almost rely completely on china in order to support them. for example, general motors. they would be lost. they would go immediately bankrupt if china decided to target general motors. apple phones, their best market is in china. if they decided to target the apple, if the chinese decided to do that as a retaliation that. >> could literally send apple stocks spinning downwards to nothing.
>> this dynamic we've seen before in world history, trade wars happen for a reason. the question is who hits the eject button and how do you get out of it. that remains extremely unclear at the moment. dan dicker, thanks for joining us. >> thanks, chris. maxine waters after her call for protests of trump administration persons while they're out in public. maxine waters is standing by ready to respond right after this.
mcdonald's new fresh beef quarter pounder has left jimmy speechless. so here is charles barkley to speak for him. how'd they make a burger this terrific four words: cooked. when. you. order. that's right. they don't cook it until little jimmy tells 'em to. little jimmy doesn't see cheese that melty on a burger every day. and boy is it juicy. shhhh.... little jimmy, don't talk with your mouth full, it sounds terrible. the new hotter, juicier fresh beef quarter pounder burgers. so good, they'll leave you speechless.
kerstin nielsen while she appeared to be home both were confronted while trying to eat in mexican restaurants. bam biondi left a movie theater as citizens heckled her and yelled shame on you and asked if mr. rogers would children away from their parents. sarah sanders was asked to leave a virginia restaurant over the weekend when the owner objected to her role in pushing defending trump administration policy, prompting a debate over whether members of the administration should be able to lead a public life without facing public consequences. my next guest, representative maxine waters, made her feelings clear. >> if you see anybody from that cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd and you push back on them and you tell them
they're not welcome anymore anywhere. >> those comments precipitated a significant backlash from members of both parties and from the president who lied what waters said and then appeared to threaten her with violence. congresswoman maxine waters, an extremely low iq person has become together with nancy pelosi the face of the democratic party. she has just called for harm to supporters of which there are many of the make bank of america great again move. be careful what you wish, max. to be clear, maxine waters did not call for harm as the president replied. congresswoman, let me start with this. you did not call for physical harm or attacks on people, but you did say create a crowd and push back on them. i wonder, do you worry the people therapy as a call to essentially mob intimidation, to use a sort of mass of people to physically threaten people in public space. that what you're calling for and
what do you think of that? >> absolutely. no as a matter of fact, you're absolutely correct. i did not call for harm for anybody. the president lied again. as a matter of fact, i believe in peaceful protests. i believe that protest is at the centerpiece of our democracy. they believe the constitution guarantees us freedom of speech. and i think that protest is civil protest. and so i don't know why the president chose to stretch that out and try to imply that i was causing harm. as a matter of fact, the president calls for more violence than anybody else. but let's not talk about that. let's focus on the children. that's what this is all about. it is about the fact that children have been snatched from their parents' arms. they're in cages. they're in jails. they're in prisons. you name it. the parents don't know where they are.
and this administration can't tell us where they are. these parents want to know where their children are. any parent would want to know where their children are. most parents in this country seeing what is going on where children have been separated from their mothers and their fathers would feel absolutely outraged about the fact that that is happening. that's what we've got to focus on. this administration had better come up with a plan by which to connect these children and their parents. that's what i'm talking about. >> so i hear you on that, and i want to sort of follow up the question that was posed by "the washington post" editorial board. but first, i also want you to respond to your democratic colleagues who have sort of distanced themselves from your comments. these are people i think that agree with you fundamentally on the policy. they're against the family separation policy. they think it's outrageous and morally abominable. but we had nancy pelosi who said strive to make america beautiful again and calling for unity. chuck schumer who has not been
particularly vocal but says i strongly disagree with folks who advocate harassing folks if they disagree with you. what is your response to your democratic colleagues who say you are out of line and why are they telling you that? >> they don't really say what i'm out of line. what they do is try to find a way talk that about civility without attacking me or anybody else as the leader of the democratic party, i expect that she would do everything that she could to make sure nobody believes that democrats are out here harassing anybody or causing any violence. and i think that she was very responsible in the way she said that they're not attacking me. they're trying to make sure that people understand that we're focused on the children and that we're not focused on this diversion, particularly the way the president would have it sound and make it out to be. and again, let me just tell you this. i am focused on the children. i've had sleepless nights about the fact that these children do
not -- we do not know where they are. the parents don't know where they are. why can't the administration come up with a plan to connect them and make it public so that we can all get more comfortable with the fact that they are going to be reconnected. they should not have been separated in the way that it was done in the first place. this president will try to do everything to divert attention. he calls me names. he calls everybody names. as a matter of fact we expect that from him. but we expect -- we have come too close to normalizing this president. listen to some of his statements during his campaign and since he has been president. his violence statements are, i quote, i'd like to punch him in the face. another violent statement, knock the crap out of them. another one, maybe he should have been roughed up. and then he goes on to say, try not to hurt him, but if you do, i'll defend you in court. don't worry about it. now, if that's not creating violence and supporting violence, what is?
i've said nothing about that. i've talked about peaceful protests. >> you don't think that's a good idea. you don't approve the president's language there. you wouldn't call for people t physically threaten or to intimidate or attack anyone? i want to be crystal clear on that. >> absolutely not. i would not in any way support any violence, anybody being hit or beaten or then say to them i'll have to get you out of jail. this president is guilty of all of that. don't forget that they created some of the most violent protests that we've ever seen led by a president of the united states of america. i'm for the children. i'm for the parents. i want those children connected back to their parents. i want this president to come up with a plan where he can make us all comfortable that this is going to be done. now on the entire question of immigration, he is coming off even in another place. he has confused people. but he has not guaranteed us
that he is going to get these children back to their parent. >> all right. representative maxine waters, the president addressing a crowd tonight apparently talking about you. he seems to talk about you a tremendous amount. i thank you for take timing to with me tonight. >> i expect don the con man to say anything. he cannot be trusted. the american people should be accustomed to that now and know who we have for president, one someone who does not deserve to be president of the united states. thank you so very much. >> thank you, congresswoman. >> you're welcome. ahead, is robert mueller preparing to wind down his latest investigation? hopefully you already had dinner, because tonight's thing 1, thing 2 is next.
thing 1 tonight. of all the abuses of power committed by the president, using anger to give negative reviews to a local restaurant in virginia might not seem like something to get too worked up about. but he is most powerful person in the world using his power to criticize a citizen. the red hen restaurant should focus more on cleaning its filthy canopies, doors and windows. i have a rule, if a restaurant is dirty on the outside, it's dirty on inside the. that's a pretty bad review. sorry unof those unaffiliated restaurants with similar names. it reminds me of an old saying.
so when restaurant owner and current president of the united states donald trump bashed the little red hen restaurant on twitter today for being dirty, journalists started looking into the obvious question, and the answer was 15. 15 health code violations in 2017 for trump's famous mar-a-lago resort in florida, including sushi that wasn't treated for parasites, hot dogs placed on the ground in the walk-in freezer, faultily refrigerator. during a three-year span mar-a-lago received 78 health violations. vice news compiled list of the hundreds of other violations at trump properties nationwide including health code violations, but also building code violations from live roaches and filth flies, eeks, to environmental damage. so the dirty on the outside, dirty on the inside test that trump proposes, well, not looking so good for him.
as for the food, "vanity fair" once reviewed the trump grill which featured flaccid dumplings with their flaccid gray innards. slumped to the side of the potatoes like dead body inside a t-boned minivan. as soon as i got home, i brush mid teeth twice and curled up in the bed until the nausea passed. it's all subjective, of course. but facts are important. the red hen restaurant in lexington which trump attacked as dirty just passed its recent health independence with, you guessed it. >> zero violations. 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 youon't use them. so take audible with you this summer... on the road... on the trail... or to the beach. start a 30-day trial and your first audiobook is free. cancel anytime, and your books are yours to keep forever. no matter where you go this summer make it better with audible. text summer17 to 500500 to start listening today.
very importantly, i'm hereby directing the department of defense and pentagon to immediately begin the process necessary to establish a space force as the sixth branch of the armed forces. that's a big statement. we are going to have the air force, and we are going to have the space force, separate but equal. >> i will admit, i'm tempted sometimes to say that was a big statemenr i get rough a big prompter sentence. that public -- the public and the press were apparently not the only one surprised by the announcement from the president last week, that big statement. according to the report from abc news, it was also news to the person who runs the military. defense secretary james mattis. he has been characterized by
some as one of the few so-called adults in the room able to constrain some of the president's worst instincts. but nbc reports that in recent months the president has cooled in mattis, in part because he has come to believe the defense secretary looks down on him and slow walks some of his policies. the president may have cared more about the reaction from a different audience. >> we're reopening nasa. we're going to be going to space. >> space force, space force! >> space force. space force. >> space force, space force. in point of fact, nasa was never closed. they're not reopening. mattis is not just being left out of the loop on the president's big plans for space travel, the according to reporting the defense secretary was excluded from the nuclear standoff with north korea.
>> we will be stopping the war games which will save us a tremendous amount of money. i think it's inappropriate to be having war games. so number one, we save money, a lot. and number two, it really is something that i think they very much appreciated. >> that's been a point of contention for 60 years. and the president reportedly decided to suspend the joint military exercises with south korea, a major concession to kim jong-un without even informing his secretary of defense, much less skulgt him. with that, james mattis becomes the latest figure, widely respected before joining the administration to lose his dignity to donald j. trump. next, house republicans now requesting information on every person to ever work on the mueller probe. the latest on the plot to stop mueller, after the break. olay ultra moisture body wash
gives skin the moisture it needs and keeps it there longer with lock-in moisture technology skin is petal smooth after all, a cleanser's just a cleanser unless it's olay. (a voby daft punk is heard bettethroughout.) (sound of typing) (sound of exhaling) (sound of drilling) jimmy (shouting): james! brand vo: the world's largest workforce works for themselves. we work for them. quickbooks. backing you.
if you think you've seen wild stuff so far, buckle up. it's going to be a wild couple of months." it's unclear how serious that comment was. warner later described it as "a bad joke." and for the record no, word on whether anyone actually got him that glass of wine. what we do know is mueller's investigation appears to be on a kind of precipice. paul manafort sitting in jail. michael cohen having been raided by the fbi openly flirting with cooperating with investigators. and the president's allies making what appears to be a last-ditch effort to discredit the investigation before the hammer potentially drops. nine house republicans today demanded that deputy attorney general rod rosenstein give them a list of names of everyone who has worked on the mueller investigation, presumably in an effort to attack their credibility one by one. for some analysis of where things now stand i'm joined by msnbc contributor natasha bertrand, staff writer for "the atlantic," covering national security and the mueller investigation. and msnbc legal analyst nick ackerman, a former assistant special watergate prosecutor. and let me start with you. >> sure. >> i was listening to a new podcast about rfk called "the
rfk files." you're transported back to 1968 and the nixon enemies list. we talk a lot about the saturday night massacre. but were there other things? when you read about congressional republicans trying get the name of everyone on that team, you were on the team. >> correct. >> was there pressure brought to bear in other ways by nixon's people or his allies on you guys when you were doing your work, or is this a new tack? >> there was some of the similar kind of tact. i mean, we were all labeled as kennedy democrats. >> really? the very same thing. >> exact same thing. absolutely. but not with the same, you know, viciousness and the same sort of persistence that you have here. i mean, this is really an effort to undermine the entire investigation. look at what happened last week. mueller had to file a special jury questionnaire with the court in virginia in order to have a voir dire, questions of
the jury, in order to determine who has been prejudiced against the prosecution by what trump and giuliani have been doing the last few weeks. >> there's a woe if true question i have for you, natasha. i saw you tweet this article and i saw it and i read it and i've read it a few times, and it's paul wooding writing in "the spectator." he's broken a few stories, and i can't tell what to do with the sourcing. here's what he said, and i want to get your feedback on this story. he says, "an american lawyer i know told me he was approached by a cambridge analytica employee after the election. they had had the clinton e-mails more than a month before they were published by wikileaks. what should i do? take this to mueller i replied." i have no idea what to make of that item. what do you make of it? >> so paul wood is a very good reporter. the only issue is few people if anyone are usually able to corroborate the explosive things that he does report. but it makes sense if you think about it. because if you'll recall, the ceo of cambridge analytica,
alexander nix, he did reach out to julian assange in the summer of 2016 and offer to catalog the hillary clinton e-mails that julian assange and wikileaks had. and that seemed -- decontextualized that seemed very, very random because how did alexander nix know that julian assange had clinton e-mails if this was before the dnc document dump and was this referring to the dnc hack and subsequent leak or was this referring to separate clinton e-mails? was it referring to the podesta e-mails? this has always been kind of fuzzy. and that e-mail from nix to julian assange seemed just very, very random and we've never really gotten a good explanation for it. so if a cambridge analytica employee did approach a lawyer in the united states and asked him, hey, am i facing any potential criminal liability here because i knew at the time that cambridge analytica did have these e-mails and did give them to wikileaks, what shou i do, and to that the reporter paul wood allegedly says he replied, well, you should take this information to bob mueller. >> and that's a great point. i'd forgotten.
the alexander nix part of that, kret of cambridge analytica reaching out to julian assange and saying can we help you with this, that's confirmed. that is a thing we know. that is an established fact. so you're saying if this were to bear out it would make some sense of that aspect of it. so that's one part of this, right? we keep looking for the sort of nexus, roger stone, cambridge analytica, wikileaks. there's also been a crazy eric prince-related side plot to this. and i'm curious about this piece of news today which just, again, keeps showing how wide a net and how many documents and things mueller has access to. prince says the special counsel has obtained his phones and computers, that he's cooperated and handed over all sorts of files and information to mueller's team. >> yeah, but i think there are things they're looking at are really kind of what he said to the house committee and the other evidence that proves he was lying. >> which is almost an open and shut case just in terms of what is known publicly. >> right. this is a guy who claims he was in the seychelles and just happened to run into this russian oligarch who happens to be -- >> yeah, but i think there are things they're looking at are really kind of what he said to the house committee and the other evidence that proves he was lying. >> which is almost an open and shut case just in terms of what is known publicly. >> right. this is a guy who claims he was in the seychelles and just happened to run into this russian oligarch who happens to be --
>> the fund manager. >> yeah. if you look at where the sashlds seychelles are, take a map, it's in the middle of nowhere. you don't just go into a bar in the seychelles and run into a friend of vladimir putin's without planning that. it's just totally nonsense. >> so you think they may be trying to like in the same way they've gotten other people on sort of false claims and hung them up on that, you think that might be a line of inquiry from mueller on erik prince? >> oh, i think they're moving in on all sides here. you're looking at a situation where i think by labor day you're going to see a major indictment drop down. mueller wants to get this done in time so he's not accused of interfering with the midterm elections. he's got now the cohen documents which he's going to be able to look at, go through, catalog. he's got a possibility of turning cohen. he's got two major witnesses. he's got flynn. he's got gates. he is in the process of building a case that he can prove beyond a reasonable doubt. >> we should also say people
other than the senator mark warner have said that they expect things to happen july and august. finally, manafort being in jail really does present an obstacle for his defense and also in terms of the timing of this whatever mueller does there's going to be a trial of the president's former campaign manager like in the fall. >> right. exactly. paul manafort's trial is scheduled for july. you have papadopoulos's trial scheduled for september. we still don't know what's going to happen with michael cohen. there are just so many different factors at play here that are all going to take place before the mid-terms. any kind of idea that this is going to wrap up before then kind of fantasy. we also have everyone except roger stone being interviewed about roger stone. so he's obviously going to be a very big part of this. >> that's -- the roger stone shoe is a shoe that a lot of people are waiting to drop as well, including possibly roger stone. natasha bertrand and nick akerman, thank you both for your time. some fun news before we go, i will be on "late night with seth myers" tonight. be sure to check it out, 12:30 on nbc. it was a blast. that is "all in" for this evening.
tonight in a free-wheeling red meat rally, the president tells the south carolina crowd, sometimes you have to toot your own horn because nobody else is going to do it. plus our very public politics. sarah huckabee sanders kicked out of a restaurant because she works for trump. congresswoman maxine waters tells people to keep it up, and the president warns her to be careful what you wish for. and is donald trump icing out jim mattis? an nbc news exclusive on the apparently deteriorating relationship between the president and his defense secretary. "the 11th hour" on a monday night begins now. as we start a new week, good evening once again from our nbc news headquarters here in new york. day 522 of the trump administration, and while we have an update tonight on the mueller investigation and on the issue of immigration, tonight