tv The Rachel Maddow Show MSNBC August 30, 2018 9:00pm-10:00pm PDT
good night from nbc news pop quiz. ready? american history pop quiz. who was the head of the republican party at the height of the watergate crisis? who was the head of the republican party when nixon resigned? poppy bush. george h.w. bush was the chairman of the republican national committee from early 1973 until just after nixon resigned in the fall of 1974. and when he was head of the republican party in the summer of '73 right after white house counsel john dean started testifying about nixon before the senate watergate committee, right after dean had started
basically spilling the beans on not only the crime but the cover-up and the nixon enemies list and all the rest of it. that summer, july 1973, republican national committee chairman george bush set out on a listening tour. he traveled to four states to assess the mood of the republican party when it came to watergate. how were the party faithful feeling about watergate? how was the party coping? how was this playing outside washington? we know that did he this and we know what the results of the listening tour were because george bush wrote this memo about it. date, july 2, 1973. memorandum to general alexander haig, white house chief of staff. from george bush. you see the initials there next to it, gb. dear al, i prepared the attached
mood of the party memo for the president. and then he gives the bottom line. quote, we're in fair shape. i expect when we get by those witnesses dragged in by dean, we'll be doing okay. all best. and indeed there's this two-page memo that's attached. and the two-page memo is addressed to both general haig the chief of staff and to president nixon himself. it's listed as confidential, but no action required. here's what poppy bush says. "i have just returned from a four-state visit. see attached schedule, to show types of events. with the exception of the students at the university of washington, the other meetings were party and press meetings. the press questions he said were 85% about watergate." and it wasn't just the press with that fixation. quote, he says, the party people asked me almost exclusively about watergate. he then goes on to describe the
overall findings and his listening tour. "i would summarize the mood as follows -- a, the press." he describes them as skeptical. and keep in mind he's talking about the press that he has encountered on this four-state listening tour outside the beltway. these four states to which he has traveled. he says the pret out there in the country is "more civil than washington, d.c. and new york press conferences. for the most part, willing to entertain the thesis that party is not the loser out of the scandal," meaning that the republican party as a whole is not being tarnished too much by the watergate scandal. b. george bush then assesses the mood of the students with whom he met. quote, unwilling to accept at all my conviction that president is uninvolved in watergate. quote, reasonable acceptance of the thesis that party should not suffer because of watergate. civil in attitude. good questions. and then he gives his assessment of the mood of the party people.
so this is the chairman of the republican party at the time, 1973, talking about the base. talking about how the republican party faithful out there in the country, how they're feeling about this washington scandal. this watergate scandal. as john dean is testifying and as the scandal is really starting to consume official washington. according to george bush, summer of '73, in his assessment, the party people have a, quote, almost unanimous desire to believe that the president is telling the truth. abhorence of enemies list, the enemies list that john dean had testified about, immense frustration about crp, that's the committee to re-elect the president beater known as creep. all that money sitting there and its continued existence. remember, this memo was written in the summer of 1973 after the election. so nixon had already been reelected. he is saying the party faithful
are frustrated that the committee to the re-elect the president still exists with all that money sitting in it, especially if it will turn out to be a slush fund related to the watergate scandal. according to poppy bush, the white house feels the press is playing up watergate too much. he says the party people have "unanimous distrust of john dean but some uncertainty as to his testimony." the party people generally want the president to hold a press conference or speak out. they generally do not feel the president should appear before the senate committee. and then he gives his summary. quote -- so this is george bush, then head of the republican party explaining he's got this personal conviction that the president was uninvolved in watergate even if people don't believe him about that. here was his conclusion for the white house chief of staff. quote, the party people need shoring up. they want to believe in the president. they are hurt and embarrassed by watergate.
they feel betrayed by watergate. but when told we will overcome based on the president's record and party's principles, they react enthusiastically. the party people need shoring up. tonight after another difficult day in his own summer of escalating scandal, the current president of the united states definitely set out to shore up the party people. tonight the president is in indiana holding what the white house described as a make america great again rally promoting support for a republican candidate who is trying to unseat democratic senator joe donnelly in indiana. much like president nixon in the summer of 1973, the whole country knows and the republican party itself knows that a crucial factor in how this is all going to work out for the president and for the party is the level of support and enthusiasm and trust that the president continues to inspire from the republican base.
from the party people, right? who george bush set out to survey in the summer 45 years ago. and both with nixon 45 years ago and with president trump tonight, everybody looking at this presidential scandal in a clear-eyed way knows there's a connection between the amount of support the president can continue to count on from the party faithful. there's a connection between that and the extent of his own legal jeopardy. yes, the president appears proverbially bullet proof in terms of whether or not this scandal will dent his standing with the members of the republican base who love him the most. but everybody knows, from american history, even from the history of this president, that you can only take so much before even the party faithful start to wither a little bit in their support of and confidence and trust in the president. and that may be crucial as to his fate and the fate of the president and his party together. right? and the president's legal
jeopardy, the extent of the president's legal troubles, the extent to which he was drawn into the scandal personally, 1973, that was not yet clear for nixon either, right? john dean was just starting his testimony. the republican party chairman was still telling everybody he was absolutely convinced that nixon had no personal involvement in the crime or the cover-up, which he absolutely did. there's that level of uncertainty today, as well about how much the president is going to be personally implicated in the scandals that continue to surround him. today "the new york times" broke out another story about this. it started ensnaring his campaign aides and his business associates, including those now flipping against him, a la john dean. the president's personal lawyer, michael cohen, pled guilty last week to eight felony federal charges and in so doing in court under oath, the president's personal lawyer implicated
the president with two of the felonies to which mr. cohen pled guilty both of which were campaign finance charges. both involved a tabloid immediate company and its flagship publication, "national enquirer." "times" reports that cohen and trump also made an effort to buy up all of the dirt and information that the "national enquirer" and its parent company had stockpiled on donald trump as a public figure dating all the way back to the 1980s. you might remember last week the associated press reported the american media kept a physical safe, a vault in which everybody knew they safeguarded all their sensitive information about celebrities and public figures that they had obtained but not yet published including information about donald trump. well, today's revelation from "the new york times" is essentially that the president at least tried during the campaign to buy the contents of
that safe. again, two hush money payments related to that company and paid out during the campaign have already resulted in felony charges for the president's personal lawyer. felony charges in which the president has been named as a co-conspirator. the president's lawyer has said under oath that the person who directed the commission of those felonies was the president. the president's business is apparently implicated in the commission of those felonies according to the information filed in court alongside michael cohen's guilty plea. if that part of this alleged criminal enterprise turns out to you involve a greatly expanded universe of derogatory information about the president, that the campaign may have been tracking or trying to buy for purpose of influencing the election, well, who knows where that's going to go. >> when things came to an end in
the watergate scandal, it was because of a supreme court ruling. a unanimous ruing from the united states supreme court which ordered the president to comply with a court ordered subpoena to turn over the whitehouse white house tapes. that's what resulted in the public release of those white house tapes. it was the public release of those tapes which broke the dam in terms of republican support for nixon. realizing that he would likely be impeached and removed from office including by many votes from members of his own party in congress, he then resigned. that case at the supreme court that led to that outcome to legendary because it had such profound consequences. as a matter of law that, ruling is not seen as controversial. it was a unanimous ruling for one including for judges appointed by president nixon. since waet gate that ruling has been seen as a bedrock of modern jurisprudence that problems in america, even u.s. presidents can't break the law or key phi the law with impunity. there's a lot of rulings very
well-known because they're the source of controversy. u.s. v nixon is very well-known but not because it's the source of a controversy. it's not a controversial ruling. that said, president trump's supreme court nominee bret kavanaugh has very unusually suggested publicly that "maybe u.s. v nixon was wrongly decided." >> and now today democrats in the senate have announced one of the witnesses they will call to testify next week at the confirmation hearing for brett kavanaugh will be john dean who came clean with the senate watergate committee and told them all about the crime is that ball the cover up and that ultimately resulted in the dominos starting to fall which resulted in the end of the presidency. john dean is going to testify against brett cab anyhow. specifically we expect on the issue of deriding the result of
u.s. v nixon. if this white house is at all trying to swim its way out of the comparisons between this scandal and watergate, and the unfavorable comparison of this white house to the nixon white house in the watergate era, it turns out they're swimming against very, very strong, very fast his, toal currents here. we'll have more coverage on that tonight including an interview tonight with the reporter who first broke the news about the "national enquirer" and its safe full of compromising informat, n includesing on the president. i want to give you an update on a story that was strange when we talked about it on last night's show for the first time. it is a story that has since gotten a good deal stranger today. as you know, one of the main determinants of what's going to happen next in political history and with this presidency is the fate of the u.s. congress. what will happen with the mid-term elections now just a couple months away. 68 days away, to be exact. it will be a seriously uphill
for them to do so. the democratic party is putting absolutely everything it has got in an effort to take back control of the house of representatives. in order to do that, they'll need to take a couple of dozen seats that are currently held by republicans and they'll need to flip those seats democratic. and every competitive district is different all around the country. every state, every locality has its own issues, dynamics to contend with. so there's all sorts of different approaches as many as there are different congressional districts at stake this fall in terms of how democrats are approaching trying to win individual seats and there be contribute to flipping the house. but there is a theme that you can see, even from a distance in the democratic effort. and whether it is a deliberate effort on the democratic party's part or not, it so happens that there are a ton of democrats running this year trying to flip competitive seats who are democrats with military backgrounds, intelligence
backgrounds, law enforcement background. there's a ton of democratic candidates this year in lots of crucial districts where the democratic candidate has national security qualifications on his or her resume. we know that in part because the democratic party is keeping a list of those types of candidates. scrolling by, this is the names and by the state and congressional district in which they're running. that formed the distribution list to which the democratic party sent a letter this week warning all these democratic candidates that because of their national security background, because they may have qualified for security clearances, either currently or in the past, they should be on the lookout for potentially beingdoxed by the republican party or by the trump administration. this is that letter from the democratic party to these candidates which i referenced the existence of last night. we've now obtained the letter. quote, dear friends and future colleague, it has come to our attention that the congressional
leadership fund, a super pac with connections to speaker paul ryan, has somehow obtained and is distributing an unredacted questionnaire for national security positions. an sf-86 form from one of our candidates, and i gail span berger, a former cia officer and law enforcement agent. we are unaware of any way that this unredacted form could have been obtained legally. as an individual who has served our federal government either in the military or in a national security capacity, you well know, it is the most thorough document anyone seeking a security clearance with the federal government mus complete. in this case the one circulated was not redacted is that contained sense i have the private information including the candidate's social security number and full medical history. i write you in the likelihood that you also filled out an sf 86 in your service to our country and to warn you of this super pac's disturbing behavior in this case. the letter concludes with a
warning to these democratic candidates hon have national security backgrounds that they need to be particularly vigilant about their security, reminds these candidates that they can avail themselves of a senior team specifically dedicated to cyber security from the democratic party if they feel like they have need of it. so here's the democratic party. a couple months out from the election saying to all the candidates with a national security background, watch out. new threat that applies specifically to you. it is a remarkable story. we first learned this candidate abigail span berger's security application had been obtained by a republican opposition research group and by paul ryan's pac thanks to this is "new york times" article which broke late tuesday night. abigail was a cia case officer working on counter-terrorism issues. before that career, she worked as a federal agent on the law enforcement side of the u.s. postal service. what has been clear from the beginning of this scandal, cynic it first broke is that abigail's security application really has
been circulated by this paul ryan super pac and they have been using it against her in her congressional campaign despite the fact it's not legal for them to have it. what has not been clear till today is how they got it in the first place. candidate abigail spanberger wrote to the group a couple of days ago and put it in blunt terms. quote, it has come to my leadership that the congressional leadership fund this pac has somehow retained a full unredacted copy and has disseminated it for unknown purposes. i'm not aware of any legal way that your group could have this document. that concern was echoed in a new letter signed by over 200 national security personnel. people with experience at the cia and military and national security council and elsewhere. they released this letter to the director of office of personnel management and director of
national intelligence. it says "neither we nor national security law experts we've consulted are familiar with any previous case of an sf 86 being released in full to include this history. we have yet to hear why her personal information was released and subsequently made public by paul ryan's political action committee. each year thousands of aspiring public servants file the same document hoping to be their country just as we did. they must be confident that their information will be handled securely and never released pursuant to a political agenda. her security application is being used now for a political agenda against her. we still don't know why this incredibly sensitive document was released to a republican opo research firm. as noted as far as we can tell, it is a totally unprecedented breach. as of today we do know how that firm and paul ryan's pac did obtain it.
the u.s. postal service put out a statement today admitting they did it. they said it was an accident. they're apologizing for it. quote, the postal service deeply regrets our mistake inappropriately releasing her official personnel file to a third party which occurred because of human error. we take full responsibility for this unfortunate error and we have taken steps to make sure it doesn't happen again. the postal service intends to provide further protection against its inadvertent release and to ensure such requests are properly handled in the future. "we are continuing our review, get this, but we believe the issue began in june 2018 and that only a small number of additional requests for information from personnel files were improperly processed." oh, there is more? so security clearance applications are among the most
sensitive personal documents that the government safeguards about federal officials. they are not subject to freedom of information act requests particularly against firm who's want to use them against people running for office. in this case, the u.s. postal service for some reason handed over this candidate's full unredacted file in response to a foia request to this research group. the postal service says they're very sorry. but oh, by the way, wasn't just her. a small number of additional requests for information from personnel files were improperly processed. beyond this one, others were improperly processed. paul ryan's super pac is not just active in the field against this one congressional candidate, abigail spanberger who is trying to replace dave brat in virginia. paul ryan is all over the country to pose a threat totes
those seeking it seats. how many more requests like the did they make against how much other candidates with national security back grounds? the agency that did this thus far is not saying how many others they did it to. it definitely happened to span berger but who else, as well. >> "the daily beast" said the agency is not answering questions about how many federal officials had their files processed and whether the postal service released the files and to whom. we don't know who else this happened to. in this uninstance we know about, we're confronted with the fact that the super pac controlled by the house speaker paul ryan, they obtained this had document they never should have obtained, let alone circulated. they're apparently completely unrepentant about that. their justification is that it was maybe sent to them mistakenly but it was sent to them so too bad. this is like if you popped in your atm card and with drew 20 bucks from your account and
after you got your 20 bucks, the atm spit you out 20,000 bucks all from somebody else's account. do you just expect to be able to put that in your pocket and walk off? score. i asked for it fair and square. i didn't -- well, it's mine now. in this case we're not talking about money. we're talking about sensitive national security information. it does seem astonishing is that apparently the plan is that they'll keep using it. why not? who will stop them? joining us now is abigail spanberger, nominee for the 7th congressional district running to try to unseat bratt. thank you very much for being here tonight. i appreciate your time. >> thank you for having me on. >> so we've seen this story unfold over just a quick few days. what do you think of the current explanation we've got the release of this very sensitive document from your time applying
as a federal law enforcement officer and a cia officer, it was always released just as an accident? >> that's the explanation that they've given. frankly, it doesn't remove or change the fact that my document was released in violation of the privacy act and that it was given to this research firm and that it was later then circulated and provided to journalists. so i'm incredibly disappointed that this human error, which was resulted in a violation of law so profoundly impacted me but i am really glad it came to light because i want to ensure this doesn't happen to other people in the future. >> as far as you know in terms of the response from the administration thus far, have they notified any of the other people who may have been subject to the same kind of breach? they made reference today in their formal statement about this matter that there may be others whose personnel files with who knows what's in them,
may have also been breached. do we know if they've made further contact with those who may have suffered as you did? >> i do not know that, no. >> i want to ask you about a matter of timing here. the conservative pac, the republican groups that obtain the information, they apparently got this paperwork by accident. it should not have been responded to the way it was. as far as i understand it from the "new york times" reporting, a firm hired by you to help essentially prepare for your own campaign also filed a freedom of information act request for your own records months and months ago at the end of last year, and as far as i'm told, the firm working for you that filed that same request for your information still hasn't gotten anything but this republican group appears to have had a zip zip very quick less than a month turn around in terms of how quickly they got their information. >> that's correct. it is typical for campaigns to file research requests for.
themselves. we hire a firm to research me. and they did submit freedom of information requests back in september of 2017 and as of now, we have not received any information from cia or from the u.s. postal service related to my time as a federal agent or a case officer with the cia. >> so you asked for this information on yourself. you waited nine months and still haven't gotten anything. we know from the timing that the republicans got a response including your security clearance application, they had it in hand within three weeks of them first making a request. that timing seems nuts. i don't know if you have any explanation or any suspicions about that. >> i don't have an explanation for it. i would echo your sentiments. as you noted in the opening, a foia request wouldn't typically or wouldn't result in receiving an sf86 which is the national security questionnaire and certainly not an unredacted one which as you mentioned included
my full medical history, social security number, every place i've lived, every roommate it, all the information you entrust to the federal government when you ask in exchange they provide with you a security clearance and trust with you state secrets. >> last question for you here, you are part of a what appears to be a real wave of democratic candidates running this year, first time candidates who do have a national security background. diplomatic, foreign service background. i wonder if you think that's a coincidence or if there is something about our politics in this moment this year at this time with democrats opportunities that effort to take back the house which would really change washington fundamentally i think right now. is it a coincidence? there are so many with the background you have that are all running right now. do you think it's a moment for the democratic party right now we should see as a national trend? >> i think it is a national trend. when you look at the fact that we did have a super pac that was
pushing out my peschell information, my social security number, my medical information, attempts to have a personal gain, it speaks to how broken our system is, it speaks to what is wrong with our political system and i think there are so many of us served in the community, in law enforcement, who are sworn to uphold the constitution and this situation emblematic of how bad things are in politics. you expect to be hit with a couple of attack ads here or there i suppose, but this is just beyond the pale and what it does and signals to anyone who might currently be in federal service who has filled out at a national security questionnaire, i think there's probably people around the country taking pause of what might happen with the information they thought was safe. and so so many of us who are running are running because we want to stand up for
country on track and be part of changing not just the tone in washington but also the principles of right and wrong. the fact this was put out in violation of law either by human error or otherwise, you know, that was the first mistake. then the second mistake is that an organization would know that they received this in error in violation of the law and would continue to push it out. so for those of us who are running, we're running because we want to stand up for what's right and bring our voices to congress and i'm excited to be part of this wave. i think this is one more example of the fact that people want to focus on service to country and mission of upholding the constitution, that's exactly what we need in washington at this time. >> abigail spanberger, democrat running for congress in virginia, 7th district. thanks very much for joining us tonight. i'm sorry this happened to you. thank you for allowing it to come to light so we can put out the radar it may happen to others, as well. we'll be right back. stay with us. others, as well. we'll be right back. stay with us
so, i needed legal advice, and i heard that my cousin's wife's sister's husband was a lawyer, so i called him. but he never called me back! if your cousin's wife's sister's husband isn't a lawyer, call legalzoom and we'll connect you with an attorney. legalzoom. where life meets legal. grandma, why were you not ready for thei was.re? you look like you're frowning. no, i'm not. see my jheri curl? ancestry now has over 300,000 yearbooks from all across the country. start searching for your family, free, at ancestry.com. let someone else do the heavy lifting.
tripadvisor compares prices from over 200 booking sites to find the right hotel for you at the lowest price. so you barely have to lift a finger. or a wing. tripadvisor. ♪ as moms, we send our kids out into the world, full of hope. and we don't want something like meningitis b getting in their way. meningococcal group b disease, or meningitis b, is real. bexsero is a vaccine to help prevent meningitis b in 10-25 year olds. even if meningitis b is uncommon, that's not a chance we're willing to take. meningitis b is different from the meningitis most teens were probably vaccinated against when younger. we're getting the word out against meningitis b. our teens are getting bexsero. bexsero should not be given
if you had a severe allergic reaction after a previous dose. most common side effects are pain, redness or hardness at the injection site; muscle pain; fatigue; headache; nausea; and joint pain. bexsero may not protect all individuals. tell your healthcare professional if you're pregnant or if you have received any other meningitis b vaccines. ask your healthcare professional about the risks and benefits of bexsero and if vaccination with bexsero is right for your teen. moms, we can't wait. ♪ what if you had fewer headaches and migraines a month? botox® prevents headaches and migraines before they even start. botox® is for adults with chronic migraine, 15 or more headache days a month, each lasting 4 hours or more. botox® injections take about 15 mins. in your doctor's office and are covered by most insurance. effects of botox® may spread hours to weeks after injection causing serious symptoms. alert your doctor right away, as difficulty swallowing, speaking, breathing, eye problems,
or muscle weakness can be signs of a life-threatening condition. side effects may include allergic reactions, neck and injection site pain, fatigue, and headache. don't receive botox® if there's a skin infection. tell your doctor your medical history, muscle or nerve conditions, and medications, including botulinum toxins, as these may increase the risk of serious side effects. with the botox® savings program, most people with commercial insurance pay nothing out of pocket. talk to your doctor and visit botoxchronicmigraine.com to enroll. one more thing about that congressional candidate we just hosted on the show, abigail spanberger, the ex-cia officer,
whose security clearance information mysteriously sent out by the trump administration to a republican opposition research firm and since then it has been circulated by paul ryan's pac. as i mentioned in that interview, she is running in virginia in a race where she is trying to unseat tea party republican dave brat. you might remember dave brat as a national figure because dave brat unseated eric cantor. house majority leader eric cantor used to be the congressman there. dave brat beat him in a primary there. that seat has been seen as a safe republican seat for a long time. that district has been held by a republican since 1971. but times are changing. the cook political report for this year lists that race as a toss-up. in part because abigail spanberger is a strong candidate for the demes but also because dave brat isn't that possible as an incumbent republican member of congress. virginia republicans in general are not having the easiest time of it in the trump era of the republican party.
elections last year in virginia, the state elected a democratic governor, a democratic lieutenant governor, democratic attorney general, and a huge swing toward the democrats in the state legislature, as well. now today, more help for the democrats' hopes of flipping red congressional seats in virginia. more help for democrats today, courtesy of the president of the united states. much to everybody's surprise today, the president announced without warning that he is canceling an otherwise automatic across the board pay increase for almost 2 million federal workers. where do a lot of federal workers live? it's a cost of living allowance. a 2.1 raise due to go into effect for civilian employees in january including lots and lots of them all over the country but lots of them in particular in places like virginia. the president just stabbed the pocket book of something close to 150,000 voters in virginia who also happen to be federal
employees. virginia republican congresswoman barbara comstock is probably the most endangered incumbent republican member of congress in the whole country fighting for her life trying to hang on to her seat against a strong challenger jennifer wexton is her challenger. that race is currently listed by the cook political report as lean democratic despite the fact it has an incumbent republican serving there now. in reaction to the president's announcement about this pay rise, the congresswoman put out this statement saying she strongly opposes eliminating the pay raise for civilian federal employees and will work with my colleagues to have the pay raise included in our appropriations. the same sound coming from scott taylor. another virginia republican who has some scandals of his own and he is facing a tough re-election fight against a democratic business woman. former navy vet named elaine
luria. he came out immediately against the president's proposal. the administration's announcement to freeze cost of living adjustment for federal and locality pay areas is completely unnecessary and a disappointment for the 30,000 federal employees in the area, meaning in my district, who are way overdue for a pay increase. taylor says, i oppose this decision and will lead an effort to reverse its effect. this president's fate probably depends on who holds congress after the november elections. this president has said he intends to do everything he can to help get republicans elected to the house all over the country. now he has at least these house republicans in virginia, having to started running against him on this thing he inexplicably did today. as for abigail spanberger, her opponent, so far he hasn't said anything about this at all. crickets so far. we'll see how long that lasts. much more ahead. stay with us.
ely clip a passing car. minor accident - no big deal, right? wrong. your insurance company is gonna raise your rate after the other car got a scratch so small you coulda fixed it with a pen. maybe you should take that pen and use it to sign up with a different insurance company. for drivers with accident forgiveness liberty mutual won't raise their rates because of their first accident. liberty mutual insurance. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty ♪ that's confident. but it's not kayak confident. kayak searches hundreds of travel and airline sites to find the best flight for me. so i'm more than confident. how's your family? kayak. search one and done.
"the new york times" reports shortly before the 2016 election, donald trump and his personal lawyer, michael cohen, had a plan to not just have the "national enquirer" buy the silence of a woman who claimed to have had an affair with mr. trump. a transaction for which mr. cohen has now pleaded guilty to felony campaign finance violations but according to the "times" they also had a plan to buy all the damaging stories
that publication had buried on donald trump's behalf going back several decades. the trump files were described at the time, mostly older "national enquirer" stories about mr. trump's marital woes, lawsuits, related story notes and lists of sensitive sources, some of the tips about alleged affairs and minutia like allegations of unscrupulous golfing. what is scrupulous golfing when you think about it? i kid, i kid. don't be mad. we learned last week the "inquirer"'s parent company ami kept all those materials on trump and other material in a safe. according to the ap, an executive from the company removed the essential items in the weeks before the election and the inauguration. the current whereabouts of those documents and materials are unknown. that executive supposedly moved the stuff, he's now been given immunity by federal prosecutors, as has chairman and friend david
pecker. when the reporter who broke that story about the safe jeff horowitz of the "associated press" came on our show last week, he kind of intimated to us that there might be another important component to the story that hadn't yet been told. now that hint of more to come has paid off in reporting and that's next. stay with us. -i've seen lots of homes helping new customers bundle and save big, but now it's time to find my dream abode. -right away, i could tell his priorities were a little unorthodox. -keep going. stop.
a little bit down. stop. back up again. is this adequate sunlight for a komodo dragon? -yeah. -sure, i want that discount on car insurance just for owning a home, but i'm not compromising. -you're taking a shower? -water pressure's crucial, scott! it's like they say -- location, location, koi pond. -they don't say that.
it's like they say -- location, location, koi pond. on your wild west vacation... guarantee you'll find gold but we can guarantee the best price on that thar rental cabin or any hotel, home, boat, yurt, whatever. ♪ just don't get carried away with the wild west thing. hey guys. get the best price on homes, hotels
and so much more. booking.com, booking.yeah this is new from the "associated press" "the national enquire ker" has long explained its support for donald trump as a business decision based on the president's popularity among its readers. but private financial documents show that the tabloid's business was declining even as it published stories attacking trump's political feenz prosecutors claim helping suppress stories about his alleged sixule affairs." according to the ap today, the enquirer's parent company lost $72 million last year and the enquirer's average weekly
circulation fell by 18%. and yeah, times are tough in the publishing business but that drop is apparently bigger than anything tells american media owns. and as further explained by the ap, before the "national enquirer" lost 18% circulation this year, it lost 15% circulation the year before that which was during the election. so their finances aren't what they seem and the supposed business decisions they were making about their coverage of donald trump appeared to have not made much sense as business decisions. now two of their top executives have been granted immunity by prosecutors. what's going on? joining us now is jeff horowitz, reporter at the associated press who first broke the news about the ami safe containing the buried and salacious information that it had not published. and now broken the news about ami's finances. mr. horowitz, thanks very much for being here.
>> glad to be back. >> when we spoke a few days ago about your last scoop about the safe, you suggested it might be interesting or it might help us fill in our understanding of what's going on here to have a better understanding about ami's financial situation. how it is running as a business. now that you've obtained this information saying that things appear to be sort of dire there, how does that help you understand what's going on with that company and how it relates to the president? >> unfortunately, it leaves me with a pretty big mystery still which is why ami would be spending its fairly tight money, $150,000 on karen mcdougal allegedly, to beak do something that is not going to boost its circulation and even didn't sell all that well to readers. i will have to say that congress attacking hillary clinton may have added some value to the "national enquirer" but it doesn't look like going whole who hog on donald trump did much
more for the publication at all. so you have to ask a question, why david pecker and dylan howard, the top figures there, why they did that, but two, why the owner would have allowed them to do it. >> in terms of david pecker and dylan howard, the executives that you mentioned, it has been reported that they are cooperating, at least to some extent with prosecutors. obviously ami was implicated in the criminal information that was described by prosecutors when michael cohen pled guilty to two felonies related to some of these hush money payments and ami seems to have been involved as an entity in those payments. do we have any clearer sense of why these executives might have been offered immunity, the extent of the cooperation, or whether or not the company itself might potentially have some legal jeopardy here beyond just these executives themselves? >> yeah. so companies can't be granted immunity and we are unaware of any reason to think that ami would be out of the woods here. but with the executives themselves, these were the two guys that were directly interacting with trump and the
campaign. i'm sorry. with michael cohen and the campaign from everything from sort of clearing pictures and discussing stories, the content they would like to see run in the "national enquirer" to obviously the stories of stormy daniels and karen mcdougal. those guys would have known a great deal about the both the "national enquireenquirer enqu historical relationship with the president which goes way back and happenings in the 2016 campaign. >> jeff horowitz reporter at the a.p., a scoop machine on the story which is still continuing to evolve with very high stakes. thank you for being here. congratulations on your latest. we'll be right back. stay with us. on your latest we'll be right back. stay with us which is why esurance hired me, dennis quaid, as their spokesperson because apparently, i'm highly likable. see, they know it's confusing. i literally have no idea what i'm getting, dennis quaid. that's why they're making it simple, man in cafe.
and more affordable. thank you, dennis quaid. you're welcome. that's a prop apple. i'd tell you more, but i only have 30 seconds. so here's a dramatic shot of their tagline so you'll remember it. esurance. it's surprisingly painless. it's a revolution in sleep. the new sleep number 360 smart bed is on sale now, from $899, during sleep number's 'biggest sale of the year'. it senses your movement, and automatically adjusts to keep you both comfortable. it even helps with this. so you wake up ready to put your pedal to the metal. and now, all beds are on sale. it's the last chance to save 50% on the new sleep number 360 limited edition smart bed. plus, 36-month financing. ends labor day. sleep number. proven, quality sleep.
in the days immediately following hurricane katrina, then president george w. bush took one of many, many, many public missteps to come. >> right now the immediate concern is to save lives and get food and medicine to people so we can stabilize the situation. again, i want to thank you all -- and brownie, you are doing a heck of a job. the fema director. [ applause ] >> they're working 24 hours a day. >> hurricane katrina was a total disaster. and not just a natural one, but a man made one, too, thanks in
part to a sluggish, incompetent, inadequate poorly planned, poorly managed response by the george w. bush administration and the federal government more broadly. the botched handling of hurricane katrina cost over 1,800 americans their lives. heck of a job fema director michael brown was soon out. and president george w. bush was haunted till the end of his presidency by that line, brownie, you're doing a heck of a job. really? was he? one lesson to be gained from this is don't be so quick to pat yourself on the back. what about when you start patting yourself on the back way, way after the fact, after it's crystal clear how badly you did. this week, puerto rico announced it has had to raise the death toll associated with hurricane maria from 64 deaths which had been the previous death toll to
now 2,975 lives lost, almost the exact same number of americans who were killed in the 9/11 attacks. over 1,000 more americans killed in puerto rico in hurricane maria than were killed in the gulf in katrina. for some reason, these facts about what went wrong and the response to hurricane maria and how wrong it went have not made their way to the oval office or maybe they took a wrong turn on their way to the president's head. >> do you still believe that the federal government had a good response to the hurricane? >> yeah, i think we did a fantastic job in puerto rico. >> fantastic job. fantastic job on the day after puerto rico had to up its death toll from the storm to 2,975 americans killed. fantastic job. that has to go down in the annals of michael brown, heck of a job, doesn't it? doesn't it? ♪
like new crabfest combo. your one chance to have new jumbo snow crab with tender dungeness crab. or try crab lover's dream. but hurry in. 'cause crabfest ends september 2nd. is the fact that it's very, very tough on bacteria, yet it's very gentle on the denture itself. polident consists of 4 powerful ingredients that work together to deep clean your denture in hard to reach places.
that work together that's confident. but it's not kayak confident. kayak searches hundreds of travel and airline sites to find the best flight for me. so i'm more than confident. how's your family? kayak. search one and done. last year in early november, they said it would definitely be over by thanksgiving. then on thanksgiving when it became clear that it wasn't over, the president's lawyers amended their deadline and said, we were wrong about thanksgiving. it will be over by the end of the year. then at the end of the year when it wasn't over, they said, oh, missed it by that much. we were close. actually, we now understand it will all be over at the end of january.
end of january arrives. it arrives and leaves. it is still not over. then by may of this year, six months after the trump lawyers original deadline by which they said the whole thing would be done, it turned out the special counsel's investigation of the so rudy giuliani, the president's new lawyer decided it was time to lay down the law, to end this thing once and for all. he proclaimed that september 1st would be the actual end. september 1st would be the end of the robert mueller investigation of the president. as you may have noticed, september 1st is quickly approaching. day after tomorrow quickly. and while, sure, the mueller investigation could end then, the president's lawyers track record on these things is quite literally a complete failure on every front. do these blown deadlines eventually annoy the president, though? find out on saturday. see you tomorrow.