Skip to main content

tv   All In With Chris Hayes  MSNBC  November 20, 2018 5:00pm-6:00pm PST

5:00 pm
can out of it? or can that joyride keep up for two more years? we do know, trump doesn't have much of a more than for error. 77,000 votes across three states was all it took to make him president in 2016. that may be all it takes to deny him reelection. still, if the democratic celebration has been a little sub subdued after these midterms, there's a good reason for it. you don't have to look far in the rearview mirror to find presidents who have recovered from worse. "all in" with chris hayes starts right now. tonight on "all in". >> it's just awfully good that someone with the temperament of donald trump is not in charge of the law in our country. >> because you'd be in jail. >> breaking news from the "new york times," donald trump wanted to order the prosecutions of james comey and hillary clinton. >> lock her up is right. >> what we know about why the president was stopped, the new implications for the mueller probe, as the president submits
5:01 pm
answers to the special counsel. and what it means for a new acting attorney general who says he would indict hillary clinton. then -- >> we put out a statement on saudi arabia. we'll see how that all works out. >> tonight, global shock waves from the president's decision to side with saudi arabia over american intelligence. >> it's a shame, but it's -- it is what it is. >> when "all in" starts right now. good evening from new york. i'm chris hayes. a major development in the mueller investigation arrives today, the president completing his written answers to the special counsel. almost simultaneously with a stunning report from the "new york times" which details yet another atented abuse of power by the president. this spring president trump told his white house counsel to order the justice department to prosecute former fbi director james comey, and hillary clinton
5:02 pm
according to two people familiar with the conversation. according to a times quote, the lawyer donald f. mcgahn ii rebuffed the president saying he had no authority to order a prosecution. and to underscore his point, mr. mcgahn had white house lawyers write memos for mr. trump warning if he asked them to investigate rivals, he could face consequences, including possible impeachment. it's not clear if the president read the memo or pursued the idea, but he continued to privately discuss it, including a special counsel appointment. he's also repeatedly expressed disappointment in the fbi director christopher wray for failing to more aggressively investigate mrs. clinton, calling him weak one of the people said. mcgahn's own lawyer, in a carefully parsed statement in the times said that to his knowledge the president never ordered those prosecutions. but again, according to the times, "the president asked what
5:03 pm
stopped him from ordering the justice department from prosecuting mrs. clinton -- mr. mcgahn explained the president could ask the justice department to investigate, that, too, could be seen as abuse of power. the multiple page legal memo prepared for trump outlined a range of possible consequences, justice department lawyers could refute to follow mr. trump's orders. if charges were brought, judges could dismiss them. congress could investigate the president's role in the prosecution and begin impeachment proceedings. this news, as cnn is reporting that on multiple occasions president trump raised the issue of investigating hillary clinton with rod rosenstein and matthew whitaker. whitaker has since been installed, of course, as the acting attorney general after auditioning for the part on cable news and writing editorials like this one for usa today in the summer ticket, the headline, i would indict hillary clinton.
5:04 pm
all this as the president today answered written questions submitted by the special counsel's office, according to his lawyers, rue ddy giuliani d said -- raised serious constitutional issues and was beyond the scope of a legitimate inquiry. the president has nonetheless provided unprecedented cooperation. let's bring in former deputy assistant attorney general in the obama administration, elliott williams, msnbc legal analyst, jill wine-banks, and msnbc legal analyst, maya wiley. jill, let me start with you. the obvious parallel here, and there's been a lot of writing about this is nixon, what is the import of a president attempting to order his department of justice to prosecute a political rival? >> it opens him up to impeachment, no question about it. one of the things that -- >> wait, the order itself, you're saying, just even attempting to do it? >> i think just the attempt -- first of all, it shows all
5:05 pm
americans that this is a president not qualified to be president. this is a president who does not understand how an independent department of justice must operate. he does not understand what it means in a democracy to have an independent investigation. and he cannot just pick his political enemies and say investigate. that's what richard nixon did. he had an enemies list. he told the irs to go after them. >> right. >> that is not appropriate in a democracy. any person in america can say you should investigate something, i saw somebody breaking into someone's apartment. that's a burglary. you should investigate it. but you can't just say i don't like that person, go and prosecute them. and he used the word prosecute, not investigate. so i think it's a very serious breach of his authority. and is a clear abuse of power. >> elliott, you worked at the department of justice, what's your reaction to this? >> well, okay, so we already knew from the stories about --
5:06 pm
around the time don mcgahn was leaving that the president misunderstood what the role of the white house counsel was. >> that's charitable. >> right. >> i mean, maybe intentionally misunderstood, but stipulated. >> the president believed the white house counsel was his personal lawyer, right? and now we have more evidence that he believed that the justice department were his personal goons that he could send the justice department -- no, i'm serious here, sent the justice department out to prosecute his rival. jill said, this is not who we are as a free and fair nation that believes in the rule of law. it calls attention to, if you remember talk about what matt whitaker might have discussed in private meetings with the president. what was the substance of those conversations? and certainly i would think the special counsel should try to get to the bottom of that because it's clear that -- and it also stretches logic that the president didn't know what whitaker's views were before he game into the position. so certainly the special counsel
5:07 pm
or the american people or the congress? january needs to get to the bottom of this question of what mr. whitaker knew before he took the job. >> all this, to elliott's point, heightened import. >> absolutely. this is -- so i completely agree with everything that's been said. i think this is -- especially when you take it in totality, with all of the incidents of abuse of power that we've seen this president try to assert in many ways, including, by the way, publicly saying that he fired comey with the mueller investigation in mind. i mean, we could go down a very long list of this preponderate actually trying to use the department of justice as his own personal tool, including protecting himself and his family potentially from crimes. but at this point what we have is congress absolutely needs to get right on top of hearings with mr. whitaker to say what
5:08 pm
conversations -- >> yes. >> -- did the president have with you? truthfully he should not be in that job. >> i want to pause, michael schmidt of the "new york times" has an update. he joins me by phone. michael, you have some new information? >> caller: yeah, trump had repeatedly pressed jus it department officials as well about the status of clinton-related investigations. so you have trump talking, you know, our story from mcgahn about the need for justice to prosecute clinton and prosecute comey. but you have him talking, trying to get updates on the clinton investigation from justice department officials. and one of those officials was the acting -- current acting attorney general whitaker when he was the chief of staff for jeff sessions. whitaker was sent over by the white house as someone to sort of keep an eye on sessions and
5:09 pm
someone that whitaker developed a very strong relationship with, built a good rapport with the president during his time as sessions' chief of staff. the president became very comfortable with him. you have the president asking whitaker about this. the president did grouse a lot about why the justice department was not doing more to prosecute clinton and comey. it's more evidence about this, sort of bigger issue of him really wanting the justice department to go after his political enemies. >> let me make sure i understand this, and then i'm going to come back to the panel here. what you're saying is that whitaker is an individual who the president had face to face conversations, asking about the status of department of justice investigations into hillary clinton and james comey? >> into -- all we know is it was about hillary clinton. >> gotcha. >> he was talking to him about the status of the clinton investigations and, you know,
5:10 pm
the justice department is looking at questions around uranium one. >> right. >> you know, so this is specific to hillary clinton. >> got you, okay. michael schmidt broke that story earlier by "the new york times" by phone, thank you for that update. so, jill, that's -- so they -- i mean, look, the most obvious view, is that all of this is exactly what it looks like which is that croney and stooge, woe fully unqualified, looking into an inquiry. >> if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is a duck. this looks like obstruction to me. and his relationship between trump and whitaker is quite troubling. back during watergate we had el patrick gray, the head of the fbi, feeding information back to
5:11 pm
john dean so they could coordinate the coverup. you cannot have the department of justice sharing information with the target of an investigation or the subject or witnesses. that is what destroys an investigation and its credibility. and this just sounds exactly like the kind of thing that led to articles of impeachment against richard nixon. >> elliott, there's also the issue of the responses, and i want to get your take on this as well, maya. the responses have been submitted, interestingly enough, have nothing to do -- they're essentially asserting privilege over everything from the day he wins the election to anything in the presidency. nothing on the transition, nothing on the presidency, they're going to answer some questions, very lawyered questions about the campaign. what do you make of that? elliott? i think his sound might have gone out, maya. >> well, quite frankly, i think we saw this coming. because the trump camp has been
5:12 pm
asserting really aggressive broad constitutional authority, essentially for the executive branch and the president that doesn't make a whole lot of sense in the democratic order and is bemused in a self-serving way, simply to protect this particular president. but this whole notion even of executive privilege, like i can do things that are obstructing justice, but veil them -- >> right. >> -- in an argument i have the executive privilege to make these decisions like fire james comey for whatever reason i so choose. we've even seen actual conservative lawyers making these arguments in the press. and i think it's a real problem for our democracy that we're arguing that a president is somehow above the law and can assert these privileges where there's really evidence and serious question about his conduct. >> there's two questions there, elliott, one is the assertions being made about the breadth of the executive privilege, presidential actions during both
5:13 pm
the administration and -- as far as i understand it, somewhat novel, the transition part. the second, the degree to which the department of justice and mueller actually empowered enough to pursue a subpoena, if that were what it takes, which we don't know. >> look, this -- regardless of the question here is the poor judgment that they're exercising. even if the law might have allowed the president to have taken some actions in the case, frankly during the transition, or during the early presidency, or even when he was in the presidency with mcgahn, the question is whether it would have been the exercise of sound judgment to have done so. and what we've seen time and again is the president is stretching the bounds and the limits of what's permissible and what's lawful. this is -- if i were advising a client i would tell them this is ultimately how you end up getting into jail. how you end up getting yourself into trouble when you push the limits this far. we've seen it time and time again.
5:14 pm
certainly, ideally the special counsel will uncover and get to the bottom of all of this. we're seeing a recklessness with respect to the boundaries of the law that should trouble all americans. >> i think that's right in terms of the boundaries of the law. but i think what we're also seeing is, donald trump is going to have a very hard time answering these questions without asserting privilege. if he didn't want to say some things, i think, that could potentially get him in trouble. we have to acknowledge that this president wasn't going to have an easy time with these questions. >> jill, i mean, the question -- he's been shaking the cage. what's sort of -- what we have learned when you put all the pieces together is this president who was attempted to obstruct justice, he's attempted to manipulate the department of justice for his own ends, various entities and interests have blocked him in various ways, but we don't know when he has been successful or if he's been successful or if he's on the threshold of being successful, jill. >> first of all, even if he is not successful, the attempt is a crime. >> good point. >> attempting to do a crime is a
5:15 pm
crime. and the executive privilege does not allow him to have a criminal conversation. even if he was president. so the question of whether he can assert kind of privilege while he is in the transition phase is a separate question. i don't know whether privilege applies to the transition period. but it certainly doesn't apply to the transition period if those conversations were criminal in nature because if he was president it wouldn't apply. >> right. the other thing is, every day that whitaker's in this role is remarkable. i mean, there is essentially the olc itself, the only precedent they could come up with is 186 of and exigent circumstances for six days, if i'm quoting that correctly, whitaker is involved in sort of a scam operation shut down by the fcc that returned $27 million in money and is criminally being investigated by the fbi. today we got his ethics disclosures of his financial disclosure which crew is now saying were edited five times in the last two weeks after they
5:16 pm
withheld it. >> i want to separate out the constitutionality of a president making an interim appointment that is a rational judgment versus this particular president making this particular interim appointment under all the circumstances we have with mr. whitaker, including the fact that he clearly was told by someone who is a witness in the mueller investigation, hey, become a pundit to get the president's attention in order to get a job in the administration who then becomes one of the people who is the endorser of this is a great person for the job, even publicly he becomes a validater, which is bizarre. >> chris, an important note about the olc opinion, it is an opinion, it is not law. >> right. >> now, attorneys at the justice department, you know, can't go to jail if they rely on that, but it's certainly not binding in a court or anything like that. now, courts will be the arbiter of whether whitaker should have
5:17 pm
been appointed or whether the appointment was lawful. we shouldn't give too much stock to sort of the significance of that olc opinion, the office of legal counsel opinion that said, you know, that it was the justice department's opinion that he was properly appointed. >> and maya? >> i think the thing that concerns me so much about this is i think there is an argument that is a credible legal argument that the appointment power itself, and not going in succession, was not contrary to the constitution. i think the problem here is we're conflating a problem of congress not doing its job of oversight. >> right. >> and particular ly now in this case it's going to be the senate and that that's our constitutional problem and that the president does not feel any accountability to the normal checks and balances, including his own party saying we think you maybe should make a better choice. >> we're going to see -- i remain astonished in some ways that matt whitaker is the acting
5:18 pm
attorney general in the united states and continues to be. but i also think that is not a tenable situation for that long. elliott williams, jill wine-banks and maya wiley, thank you all. the president stating that he sides with saudi arabia, the stunning statement from the president, reaction from khashoggi's friend and "washington post" editor next f of. and you won't want to stop for anything else. [ barks ] ho! lease the c 300 sport sedan for $399 a month at your local mercedes-benz dealer. mercedes-benz. the best or nothing.
5:19 pm
5:20 pm
for each job exxonmobil creates, many more are created in the community. because energy touches so many industries, it supports 10 million u.s. jobs. this is moving day with the best in-home wifi experience and millions of wifi hotspots to help you stay connected. and this is moving day with reliable service appointments
5:21 pm
in a two-hour window so you're up and running in no time. show me decorating shows. this is staying connected with xfinity to make moving... simple. easy. awesome. stay connected while you move with the best wifi experience and two-hour appointment windows. click, call or visit a store today. even by the debased moral standards of the trump era, today was a new low. from the moment saudi arabia murdered and reportedly dismembered a u.s. resident and "washington post" columnist in their consulate in istanbul last
5:22 pm
month, donald trump and his administration have done everything they could to collude in a coverup and obfuscate any investigation into what actually happened. even after the cia itself reportedly concluded that saudi crown prince mohammad bin salman ordered the assassination, donald trump alternated between talking abo talking about countries like iran, lying about how much business saudi arabia and the u.s. do together. it prompted reaction from former secretary of state john kerry during think podcast recording today. >> well, i've never seen the statement that seemed to be drafted and uncorrected from the president directly. >> what did you think of the statement? >> i thought it was strange. i mean, what strikes me more than anything else is we have a president of the united states from day one, when he came in,
5:23 pm
has been at war with the intelligence community of the united states of america, let alone other people. >> the current secretary of state mike pompeo was dispatched to the microphones this afternoon to back up his boss, which he did looking incredibly uncomfortable the whole time. >> so it's a mean, nasty world out there. the middle east in particular, there are important american interests to keep the american people safe, to protect americans. >> it's a mean, nasty world out there. that's the position of the american secretary of state, after the president shrugged off the brutal murder of a journalist. other branches were called on to do what the president will not, quote it is time for congress to impose consequences from yemen to its bloody repression of peaceful critics.
5:24 pm
it will be a bloodstain or moral conscience. karen attiah joins me now. what was your reaction when you first saw the statement from the president? >> by all measures, i was stunned and disgusted and sickened. we all deserve better. jamal deserved better. i think it was just -- for all of the statements about the u.s./saudi relationship being some sort of special relationship, so special that we need to sacrifice human life in order to save it, there is no mention of concessions or pushing saudi arabia to change its ways. it made us -- trump look like we're servants to this regime
5:25 pm
that butcher "washington post" journalists. chris, it puts all of us, journalists, saudi critics, anybody who dares to have an opinion against an authoritarian government around the world, it puts us in more danger. it gives people like mohammad bin salman a green light to erase and silence anybody that they want, wherever they might be, for whatever reason. and it's -- i still -- i'm just really disgusted, to be honest. >> on that -- the latter point, you think this -- that statement will be read by regimes around the world as essentially a green light from the president of the united states that you can do whatever you want to do to dissidents, to american residents, perhaps american citizens, lord knows, and get away with it if there's some strategic interest the president feels is in play? >> absolutely.
5:26 pm
and this comes down to his feelings, not facts. again, we know that he's exaggerated the numbers when it comes to jobs created by saudi deals. we know that the war in yemen has been an absolute humanitarian catastrophe. we know that saudi arabia's not been able to contain its rivals in yemen. they have been able to bomb school buses full of children. it's just, again, a complete abdication of any sort of moral leadership on the part of the united states, the idea that turkey's erdogan, president erdogan has been stronger on calling for justice of a u.s. resident than our own president, it's beyond imagination for me. >> what do you want to see happen now? >> well, now as i said, it's time for congress to step up. it's time for congress already bob corker has tweeted that
5:27 pm
they've already sent a second letter to trump, requiring that he present an inquiry into whether or not formally mohammad bin salman was responsible for jamal's murder. i think again, you know, this is an opportunity for us, congress also to raise the profiles of other saudi reformers and critics who are languishing in prison, women reformers who campaigned for the right to drive, reportedly women like her who are being tortured, even potentially, you know, harassed. it's time for them to be let go. it's time for the war in yemen to end. it's full-time ftime for sanctie for mohammad bin salman who has been praised as some reformer to be -- g-20 summit, inviting him to argentina, he needs to be
5:28 pm
shunned. >> karen attiah, thank you for your time. >> thank you, chris. i want to bring in michelle goldberg, and a msnbc political analyst. start with you michelle. the standards are very low for the trump era. the statement itself managed to come in under them. >> right. i mean, for many different reasons. both because of its utter, proud immorality. it's full of lies and it's real flippantness. he can't pretend to see this murder of a u.s. resident, a columnist for a great american newspaper he can't even pretend to see this as a matter of great import. maybe he did it, maybe he didn't. you know -- >> it is what it is. >> right, it is what it is. he can't even pretend to take the issue seriously. and so, you know, which is why it is such a signal to despots all over the world.
5:29 pm
it's not as if the united states has not behaved hypocritically in the past. the united states has often continued its relationship with countries like saudi arabia despite all sorts of human rights abuses. but there is still a difference when there is some sort of standard, some sort of sense -- >> yes. >> -- that if you go too far you will damage your relationship with your most important patron. >> what do you think -- that idea sprung to me today, too, of u.s. foreign policy has long been extremely hypocritical, particularly of the saudis, but that hypocrisy is preferable to what we saw from the president today. >> well said, chris, we would much rather prefer the united states pretends to care about human rights, rather than openly say it's a mean, dangerous world, it's a dangerous world, and pompeo said it's a nasty police oplace out there. it's dangerous and nasty because you're turning a blind eye to an al lie killing a u.s. resident
5:30 pm
on foreign soil. you're turning a blind eye to it. you're not a passive observer, you're an active participant. the thing that stood out to me, chris, in the statement, revealing about this bizarre rambling statement was the iran stuff at the top. it's very revealing. we know it's not about oil and arms sales, about trump's bottom line, he's make ago lot of money from the saudis permly, even though he denies it, it's not about all that. it's about iran and israel and about the fact that mbs, netanyahu and donald trump have formed this evil justice league to start a pointless war in the middle east again, this time with tehran. that's why they can't throw mbs under the bus. the last time i checked iran wasn't bombing yemen and didn't murder jamal khashoggi. >> it's a great point.
5:31 pm
that is -- the geopolitics behind this are exactly that, there's this sort of tacit, explicit alliship between the u.s., israel, confront the rarians and roll them back. kushner is said to be in mbs's pocket, the saudi prince boasted j jared kushner was in his pocket. i want to play the president today denying it, compared to what he has said in the past. take a listen. >> i don't make deals with saudi arabia. i don't have money from saudi arabia. i have nothing to do with saudi arabia. i couldn't care less. >> saudi arabia, and i get along great with all of them, they buy apartments from me, they spend $40 million, $50 million, am i supposed to dislike them, i like them very much. >> well, it goes to the point that for among everything else, the statement is weak. right? >> yes. >> donald trump is enthralled to them.
5:32 pm
>> he's subservient. >> he's a supply cant. so this isn't kind of america first, this is him basically saying, you know, don't worry, i'm not going to do anything to you. don't do anything back to me. >> the weakness there is striking. >> and it's weird, michelle's right to point out the direction of travel, who is the supplycant. the stuff he bases supplication on is nonsense. they're not investing $40 million in the u.s. economy, he made that number up. the saudis are not helping national security. he says in the statement chris that saudi arabia can't be abandoned because it's agreed to lead the fight against radical terrorism, absurd, asking saudi arabia to lead the fight is like asking the gotti family to lead against organized crime. they spread the stuff. the whole thing is nonsensical from start to finish. >> thank you both. i want to bring in
5:33 pm
congressman mark poecan, co-sponsor of a -- i wanted to have you on to talk about the aspect of the conflict specifically because the president in that rambling statement begins by blaming the iranians for the war in yemen, which seems a rebuke to sort of -- or a justification for a war that's currently causing the worth humanitarian crisis in the world. what do you think about that? >> this is something that for about a year the congressional caucus has been working on. we have bipartisan sponsors, thomas massie and walter jones on the republican side, just this week leader pelosi signed onto this as well. we tried to force a vote, because congress according to article 1, section 8 of the constitution says we have to have a vote if we're involved in a war. we have logistic and targeting and we had refueling support going on. we need to have congress
5:34 pm
involved in yet paul ryan, in some arcane procedural motion, you know, rule and a bill on wolves, deprivileged the resolution and took away congress's ability to have the vote. next week in the senate bernie sanders and mike lee have a bipartisan resolution they're bringing forward. if they can get it passed we'll bring it back up in the house. congress has to have a say on what right now 14 million people are facing starvation and we are partially involved because we are working with the saudi-led coalition. >> why should americans -- you spoke to it. tell americans who are watching this and may be skeptical why america has a role to play and what americans can do to stop this mass starvation that seems incipient? >> this is the worst humanitarian crisis currently on the planet. the port city that's been one of
5:35 pm
the main points of the conflict, 77% of the medicine, fuel and food comes through there. that's what's causing the starvation. but we see this on a regular basis, the pictures coming from there, of what's going on. and because of this we need to have a vote if we're going to be involved. and the president's comments were over the top today. i really, truly believe he couldn't find yemen on a map. but he does know the dollars that are involved, not for the u.s., but maybe for himself when it comes to saudi arabia. so we've had a very difficult time in dealing with this mfgs. that's why congress as a co-equal branch of government needs to have its say. paul ryan has given up two years of doing that. we'll do our best in the next few weeks. if not, when democrats take the majority in january we will do something about this and make sure that we stop this starvation. >> one thing i'd say to people, if you think mohammad bin salman thinks he can get away with killing and dismembering a "washington post" journalist, imagine what he can get away
5:36 pm
with yemen children. ahead the blue wave continues to grow with more surprise wins for democrats day after day. there could be more wins even ahead. that's next.
5:37 pm
5:38 pm
5:39 pm
democrats have now added 38, 38 house seats in the midterm elections with two undecided races left, they could end up with a plus 40 gain, a popular margin for democrats is 7.8 points, bigger than the 7 point gop -- when newt gingrich said, if this is not a mandate to move in a particular direction, i would somebody to explain what a mandate would look like. the runoff between republican cindy hyde smith and democrat mike espy in mississippi, moohy smith may be in trouble. her lead narrowed to just five
5:40 pm
points. joining me now, democratic political strategist ckaren finney. every day goes by and the house numbers look better and better. it's not just the number of seats. dave weigel was tweeting out the margins in orange county which i had not been looking at. in all these races these are healthy margins, narrowest plus 2 in 39, katy porter by 3.4. rauda over warbocker, that was a whooping. >> that's why accounting actually matters. >> yes. >> that's a big lesson out of this midterm election that we have to make sure that every vote is count, always and that when people show up to the polls they have the opportunity to vote and know that that vote is going to be counted. i think that has made a huge difference as we've seen in the number of places across the
5:41 pm
country. you know, but again, the other thing you see in orange county is people are winning by impressive margins. but we also need to pay attention to how they campaign, the fact that people stayed very close to the ground, ran good ground games, stayed close to voters, close to issues voters carried about and were talking about things like health care, which people really care about. >> there's a bigger takeaway, i think, which i thought was nailed well with the piece, trump's base isn't enough. basically the idea is yes we've all heard about his base for two years, it's a remarkable thing, how attached his base is to him, it's amazing what they'll forgive. it's not a majority of the country. that's the brute fact of the matter. >> right. and democrats need to remember that. his base is very strong in the primaries, so that's where you have republicans running scared and republicans who used to be moderate and somewhat sensible sort of saying and doing things
5:42 pm
that leave the majority of americans scratching their heads. but i do think also the base isn't enough, but the democratic institution needs to make sure they're supporting particular candidates in their own primaries, and sort of before some of these competitive districts come up. so the role of tom perez is not to support democrats, but also to help identify talent. and there are ways in which this blue wave that's come in and all these women of color who are amazing, many weren't supported by their party. that's something the democratic party needs to look at and look at themselves. >> karen? >> here's the thing, though, and i partially agree with christina. the dnc, you know i was there under chairman dean whose whole mantra was show up and ask for votes. never concede a seat anywhere. before tom perez, we're trying to get back to the strategy. you know i worked on this race, what stacey abrams was able to accomplish in georgia, the really important lesson there is
5:43 pm
the fact that she said i'm going to go to all 159 counties in this state, i'm going to talk to everybody, i'm going to unabashedly talk about who i am and what i care about and i think she also sent a message that you can do that and win, and we have to get away from these labels about, you know, expanding medicaid as a liberal issue or a conservative issue, it's a human issue. it's an issue that people care about. but i think what the party has to pay attention to is, if you look at what beto accomplished, what stacey accomplished all across this country where you have now new volunteers, new grassroots donors, new voters. her campaign identified 1.4 million democrats, potential democrats, and went out and set out a year and a half before the election to register those people, motivate those people, stay in contact with those people and turn people out. that's what the party has to do all across the country over the next two years. >> so you're talking about showing up in places, mississippi is a place people
5:44 pm
don't expect democrats to win. there's a contested race. debate between cindy hyde smith and mike espy. context, she negotiated, she only wanted it sponsored by the mississippi farm bureau, she didn't want any journalists or audience members and she insisted on being able to have a pad that she got an hour before the debate so she could take in, meaning she and her staff could write things on it. i want to -- >> as a professor i'm like slow down. slow down. >> that was a lot to process. i've been reading about the negotiations all day. you just gave me a look like, excuse me? >> right, okay, sorry. >> i want to play the clip. she got in trouble because she talked about someone that they're so close she would go to a public hanging if he invited her, the heart of mississippi, her apology just now being read off said note pad in the debate. take a listen. >> for anyone that was offended for my -- by my comments, i
5:45 pm
certainly apologize. there was no ill will, no intent whatsoever in my statement. >> got to read the apology. >> she needs to read the apology because she's not apologetic. we have to understand this as a nation, and unfortunately we're ahistoric in this country, when it comes to lynching and the work that so many -- especially black women put their lives on the line, fanny lou hammer registering women to vote in mississippi, lynched for trying to vote, for her to make that comment, not apologize for days on end and then need to read it. >> need to read it. >> it's a double bind. but i do want to go back to something karen said briefly, i think that stacey abrams ran -- she did the work, right? i think the democrats really do need to figure out how they want to utilize all of these new voters moving forward as well. >> and new political talent.
5:46 pm
thank you both for being with me. the latest on the crisis unfolding in california, the thousands of residents who have nowhere to go. plus, another loss in the trump administration in federal courts after a judge blocked the president's attempt to block migrants, next. lease the 2019 es 350 for $399 a month for 36 months. experience amazing at your lexus dealer. i'm all about my bed. this mattress is dangerously comfortable. when i get in, i literally say ahh. meet the leesa mattress. a better place to sleep. this bed hugs my body. i'm now a morning person. the leesa mattress is designed to provide strong support, relieve pressure and optimize airflow to keep you cool. hello bed of my dreams. order online. we'll build it, box it and ship it to your door for you to enjoy. sleep on it for up to 100 nights
5:47 pm
and love it, or you'll get a full refund. returns are free and easy. i love my leesa. today is going to be great. read our reviews, then try the leesa mattress in your own home. order during our black friday preview sale to get our $225 offer. that's $150 off the mattress, plus a free pillow - and free shipping too. go to buyleesa.com today. you need this bed.
5:48 pm
5:49 pm
another day, another federal judge telling the trump administration they're completely out of line. this summer you'll remember a federal judge overturned part of an executive order that made it easier to fire federal workers. last night, another federal judge ordered the administration to start accepting asylum claims from people coming into the country no matter where they enter. just days after the election the president claimed his administration would stop accepting asylum claims from migrants if they did not come through a port of entry. the ninth circuit pointed out, whatever the scope of the president's authority, he may not rewrite the immigration laws to impose a condition congress
5:50 pm
has expressly forbidden. trump called the ruling a disgrace and vowed to put in a major complaint with whom, remains unclear. with the chase ink business unlimited card, i get unlimited 1.5% cash back. it's so simple, i don't even have to think about it. so i think about mouthfeel. i don't think about the ink card. i think about nitrogen ice cream in supermarkets all over the world. i think about the details. fine, i obsess over the details. think about every part of your business except the one part that works without a thought. your ink card. chase ink business unlimited. chase ink business unlimited,
5:51 pm
with unlimited 1.5% cash back on every purchase. chase for business. make more of what's yours.
5:52 pm
5:53 pm
there is a humanitarian crisis unfolding in the state of california in front of our eyes. at least 79 people have is been killed in the camp fire in northern california, now by far the most deadly and destructive fire in state history. nearly 700 people are still missing. in total, nearly 13,000 homes have been burned down, which
5:54 pm
means tens of thousands of people have nowhere to go. some of them have ended up at a walmart in chico. hundreds of people displaced by the fire are now sheltering in a tent city with rain on the way. it's a wake-up call not only for california, but for the entire country. we are now in the era of permanent climate disaster, and we better start getting prepared. joining me now is the co-founder and executive director of 350.org, an organization that pushes for action to fight climate change and the director of nyu's institute for public policy and author of "palaces for the people." you've done a lot of work on emergency preparedness. i look at california and i think to myself, this is a big rich country, and we should be able to figure this out. >> we're the best protected people in the world. we have the best resources for dealing with these kinds of situations, and we act as if we have the will not to know of the danger all around us. if it was any other security threat of this magnitude, we would be doing everything
5:55 pm
possible to prevent it. and the fact that we're not doing it around the climate threat tells us something that is very meaningful about who we are right now. >> mae, a lot of people have been talking about this as a before and after moment for the state of california and consciousness of what the real, tangible consequences of the era we have entered into are now. >> well, i'm speaking to you from california. this is the first day i haven't worn my gas mask because the air quality is one of the worst places in the world right now. and california is a state that has done a tremendous amount to lead on this issue, but we're seeing what we have done about climate change so far has been insufficient. these fires are scary, and the wide ranging impact of these fires is scary, be we're not without knowledge about the solutions to this problem. and we have to do everything we can to support the people most impacted, particularly the most vulnerable among us, but we have to look at the long-term. and for that, we know who is responsible for climate change and we know the solutions are
5:56 pm
going to be good for all of us. >> may made that point about the gas mask, and i've got say it's straight sci-fi distopic in the future. you the wealthiest people in silicon valley with people wearing masks. because no matter how much money you're making, as an engineer or a venture capitalist, it doesn't help if the air quality is terrible. >> that's right. we know that climate change is going to affect the most vulnerable people and places, but it's like the titanic. we're all in that boat. some people are going to go down first, but everyone is in it. look, we're sitting in manhattan. i think once upon a time people in manhattan thought they were safe and protected and sandy eviscerated that fantasy. the fantasy is eviscerated in miami, and city after city is going to experience this kind of situation. the real issue is when we will finally muster the political will to do what we all know is inevitable. we're going have to shift away
5:57 pm
from fossil fuels and start to find renewable sources of energy before it's too late. >> may, there is this remarkable map there are some people on the east coast who had woken up yesterday and said to themselves, man, am i imagining things because i'm watching the news too much or am i crazy or is the air quality bad? that is a smoke plume that has blown across the continental u.s. and was in the midatlantic yesterday, which i think speaks to the point about how inescapable this is going to be for everyone. >> yes. and this does, as we were discussing, affect everyone. but it doesn't affect everyone equally. we're not just talking about the united states. climate disasters are striking in every single country, and the efforts to respond to them are similarly global in nature. but there is good news. this week, actually, there has been tremendous pressure from young people, part of the sunrise movement, pushing members of congress on a green new deal. this is incredibly exciting. it's the kind of ambitious policy making we need, and we have to be able to turn to the solutions, because we cannot
5:58 pm
fight climate change one disaster at a time. >> there is also this collective action problem, right? this is the thing that i think people break up on, which is california's probably doing more than any other state in the union on this, right? they've cut emissions while they've lowered unemployment rate and increased economic growth. they're doing it. but that's just california doing it is not enough. >> right. and it feels bad if you're in new york and you're doing it or not doing it in new jersey or pennsylvania, let alone china or russia. but, look, i think what we're hearing now is right there. there is a rising generation of people in this country and around the world that recognizes we can't do business as usual anymore. we need some flufl change. and what i see teaching on a college campus, when i talk to younger people in general is a real passion for dealing with. this it's an emerging emergency social issue. >> that's true. >> and the problem is we can't leave them a problem that is insurmountable.
5:59 pm
so we have this window for action. and i think you're right. we're seeing a younger rising generation inspiring us to do the right thing. >> as i look at those images of destruction, may, people talk about a carbon tax or cap and trade or a variety of ways in which we would deal with carbon pollution, and they say well, it's expensive. there are 13,000 structures in california that have burned to the ground. people are going to be paying out hundreds of millions of dollars if not in insurance claims. >> well, and let's not forget who the enemy is here, right. we're dealing with the richest industry on earth who knew they were causing this problem and lied about it, and we're not facing a shortage of resources in dealing with this problem, if we look at that industry. and there is an increasing suite of lawsuits that are actually holding big oil accountable in cities across the world. so we have to look at that piece of the picture as well. >> all right, may boeve and eric kleinenberg, thanks for joining us. eric was a best on our podcast.
6:00 pm
the most recent edition to the with pod hall of fame is rachel madd maddow. you can find both of our podcasts on tune in or wherever you get rain shower podcasts that is "all in" for this evening. "the rachel maddow show" starts right now. >> have you mentioned to people that podcasts are fun to listen in the car on long drives? >> i haven't. or when you're walking the dog or doing chores or cooking. >> sure. for example, we should think of those things if we think of it. thanks, my friend. much appreciated. and thanks to all at home for joining us this hour. there has been a lot of fairly heavy news that has broken today and into tonight. i want to tell you at the outset tonight that we have two guests on the show here this hour, both of whom are former very senior fbi officials. now one of these guests who we're going have tonight is someone who you have met before. he has been on the show a number of

36 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on