tv Hardball With Chris Matthews MSNBC November 28, 2018 4:00pm-5:00pm PST
her attorney. avenatti says he's always been an open book with daniels and it was designed to defray some of her expenses. an interesting exchange between client and attorney. "hardball with chris matthews" is up next. a pardon. let's play "hardball." good evening. i'm chris matthews in washington. tonight president donald trump is saying publicly that a pardon is on the table for paul manafort. for the first time, the president himself is talking about protecting the former star witness and convicted felon who now stands accused of lying to federal investigators. in a move that's raising new questions about obstruction of justice, trump today told the new york post he won't rule out a pardon saying it was never
discussed with manafort but i wouldn't take it off the table. why would i take it off the table? this comes after "the new york times" revealed the explosive news that the president has been getting information from manafort, the same witness he may now pardon. quote, a lawyer for paul manafort repeatedly briefed president trump's lawyers on his client's discussions with federal investigators after mr. manafort agreed to cooperate with the special counsel. that means that manafort's lawyers were actively helping trump whom paul manafort had supposedly flipped on. most significant is that by funneling inside information to the president's lawyers, quote, his updates helped pressure mr. trump's legal team that manafort had not implicated the president in any possible wrong doing. so all the time time he's telling trump, don't worry. mueller discovered the arrangement before he called off the cooperation deal having concluded manafort was lying to, rather than cooperating with his
prosecutors. well, the communication between manafort and trump's respective legal teams could represent obstruction of justice. witness tampering itself, especially in light of the fact that president trump is now publicly dangling a pardon to manafort. i'm joined now by democratic congressman eric swell and michael commitment to broke that story for "the new york times" last week. pardon, it's in the president's arsenal, it's one of the weapons he's got. is he going to use it. he's talking about using it here? >> he's dangling it, which is useful to him right now. whether he follows up, who knows. >> explain why would dangle it? >> manafort has backed off. corsi also -- >> why is he saying in public for manafort who is basically in chains -- >> this guy is so exposed.
it's so obvious that they were eager to collude with russia. now we're seeing the evidence that there was a conspiracy to cover up, and he's playing the last hands that he has out of desperation. >> michael, he doesn't hide his technique. here's out there saying i want to shut this guy up and protect myself by giving him his freedom, at least from federal law. >> it's also not new. in the fall of 2017 when mike flynn was going to flip and cooperate with mueller, john dowd, the president's lawyer at the time said why is he going to the that, the president will pardon him. >> it's new for manafort. >> he was talking to manafort's lawyers at the time as well back in 2017. and then when mueller wanted to tell trump's lawyers the questions he wanted to ask, that was in there, what did you know about pardon offers that john dowd was making? so when you look at the broader obstruction question, this is not a new thing. this has been going on and has been on mueller's radar.
>> let's bring in joe will banks, former prosecutor from chicago tonight here's a guy saying to the new york post, not by esteem of "the new york times" in any way, they're going to give the big story, pardon. why is he doing this? >> he just doesn't understand what is right and wrong. he's apparently not a very good lawyer because he's made a big mistake in saying this. the pardon dangling could definitely be obstruction of justice. the cooperation between manafort and the president's trial team is really not an appropriate thing. it could be one of the other executions that could lead to impeachment and/or an indictment
because i still think legally he could be indicted, the president. >> let's get back to that question. will manafort talk, give up the president to save his rear end and keep himself from spending the rest of his life in prison. we get the report from your paper basically he's not going to live up to the deal, and we're also getting the word from your paper that he's talking to trump's lawyers all this time saying don't worry i'm not giving your guy up. he's telling mueller i'm going to give the guy up, get me out of here and he said to the president, don't worry, we're not going to give you up. how long can he play that game? apparently not longer than this week. >> he can play it a long time. >> not this week. >> hold on. what mueller has done is he tore up the plea agreement with manafort. so there's only one person left that can stop paul manafort from spending the rest of his life in prison, and that's donald trump who has the power of pardon. mueller said he will not do that
for him anymore. no one else has that power except for trump. >> there is a break in case of emergency option and you have to believe that mueller is talking to the new york attorney general's office, talking to other local prosecutors who have jurisdiction to make sure there's a backstop against any trump pardon. >> the federal government plays ball. i don't think trump is worried about the new york -- that's right. there's also news concerning the trump tower meeting. remember the russians in june of 2016? and what the president may have known as a candidate. according to "the new york times," trump's lawyer rudy giuliani said mr. manafort's lawyer told him prosecutors hammered away at whether the president knew about that june 2016 trump tower meeting. nbc news today reports that in his written answers to mueller's questions, the president specifically denied being told about the meeting. michael, who's leaking the president's answers? >> who's leaking the president's
answers? i don't know. but i guess this is the narrative they want out there that he didn't know about the meeting. >> this is what the president's lawyers want out? so they're leaking their own answers? >> this they think is a good message. he didn't know anything, trying to put arm's distance between himself, stone, who's under scrutiny, and the trump tower meeting. >> did he think that's exactly what manafort said so they were matching up in their testimony? >> i don't know that. >> was manafort lying when he said the president didn't know? >> i don't know that. >> it's like the menendez brothers with the same phones giving the testimony. they had their phones taped to get so they could give the same story. >> i don't have answers to your questions, but the problem is by having the arrangement they did, it created the appearance of an
impropriety. >> he's had these questions for months. when does he turn them in? after matt whitaker is placed as acting attorney general. he has a new window into the mueller investigation, and after manafort starts feeding back information to trump. i think he turned in those answers to couch them to what he knew other witnesses were saying. that seemed to make more sense than anything else. >> joe, i don't think we go with guidelines or precedent or whatever the way things are done when you go to donald trump. he doesn't want to hear any of that. he decides what he can get away with. everybody said he had to go with rosenstein, the deputy, he said, no, i'm going to bring this guy, this ringer in, this guy matt whitaker and make him acting attorney general as long as i want him to be there. so he doesn't listen to precedent or guidelines. he doesn't care. what's to stop this guy from just coming out with a whole bunch of pardons?
i keep asking myself that and testing with the supreme court which he basically put together, his supreme court. why not? who's he got to lose? >> well, the only thing he has to lose is the support of even the most loyal trump supporters. >> really? >> and hopefully even in congress. and i want to just point out another thing about what the evidence is. manafort is accused of lying. that means that mueller has really direct, hardcore evidence that is opposite of whatever he said. to the extent there was coordination in the answers and what manafort said, it means that the prosecution can prove that both are lies. he can prove it without any testimony. >> our people i work with here thinks that's what's going on here. it may be explanation, but seems solid that the president was confident in saying i knew
nothing about the trump tower meeting in june of 2016 is that i know manafort's always given that same testimony, therefore, i'm going to be matched up with my buddy who's going to get pardoned at some point, right? you're smiling? >> i never used feminine intuition before, but from the day i heard about that meeting, there is no way that his son who sought his approval did not tell his father about that meeting. he would have gone bragging to him saying i've just got something really good to help you. i know that's true. i believe it. >> that's human intuition, by the way. guess what, i got dirt on hillary, you might win this after all. another point of conclusion, trump associates having advanced knowledge of the hacked e-mails. in a new story that jerome corsi rejected this deal, "the new york times" again reported mr. corsi's dealings have caused alarm among the president's
legal team, specifically trump's lawyers were troubled bay same time that said corsi said roger stone who was in regular contact with senior members of the trump campaign including with the then-candidate donald trump asked corsi to get in touch with wikileaks. the reference suggests mueller has potential evidence that could draw a line from trump through corsi and stone to julian assange of wikileaks. nbc news is also reporting today that in his written testimony to mueller, the president did not ever receive or discuss wikileaks with roger stone. i have to go to "the new york times" with this one, michael. i always thought what he said it's podesta's time in the barrel, his gross way of describing bad news for podesta, that he isn't one of these guys 40 years ago that could predict the future, what's in your pocket and all that nonsense. how else did he know except he
knew? it's presumed possible, in fact, probable that you knew you were part of the break-in to come. >> two weeks ago they were preparing to send in his answers, his lawyers saw the draft deal and they didn't like the language. they thought the language made the president look like an unindicted o coconspira-- cocon >> what made it look like that? >> corsi's plea deal had a thing in it that discussed whether stone had told corsi he was in touch with the president. the president's lawyers didn't like the pressure that was being put on manafort at the time and they did not like the fantastic that these documents were unsealed that showed assange was charged. is there something afoot, are they laying a trap for the president. they met with mueller's team and then provided the answers. >> what do you make of that,
congressman? we're getting into the really deep possibility of collusion here, not just obstruction. >> they colluded and they conspired to try and cover it up. roger stone is a dirty trickster. there's no reason to believe he would change his ways when his best pal is running for president and he has information that he wouldn't have told donald trump. the same intuition that jill wine-banks had and i and others had. >> who could believe not long ago that this whole thing about this president and how he got to be president and how the russians helped him had to do with old nixon trickster, roger stone? thank you u.s. congressman eric swalwell and jill wine-banks. you are amazing. thank you for coming on. coming up, as the president lobs attacks on special counsel robert mueller, senate republicans have blocked a vote on a bill to protect mueller. what will this mean for the
russia probe? by the way, talk about a protection racket being run by mitch mcconnell. plus, democrats in the house voted on the future of their party, and nancy pelosi won the first round. she's the nominee for speaker. we'll see if she gets the job on january 3rd. how much deal making went into that? we'll get to that with the progressives and what steps is trump willing to take for the russia probe. how many pardons can put his re-election bid in serious jeopardy. let me finish with trump watch. this is "hardball" where the action is. we're voya! we stay with you to and through retirement. i get that voya is with me through retirement, i'm just surprised it means in my kitchen. so, that means no breakfast? voya. helping you to and through retirement. shaquem get in here. take your razor, yup. alright, up and down, never side to side, shaquem. you got it? come on, get back. quem, you a second behind your brother, stay focused.
can't nobody beat you, can't nobody beat you. hard work baby, it gonna pay off. you got this. with the one hundred and forty-first pick, the seattle seahawks select. alright, you got it, shaquem. alright, let me see. tailored recommendations, tax-efficient investing strategies, and a dedicated advisor to help you grow and protect your wealth. fidelity wealth management.
unstopand it's strengthenedting place, the by xfi pods,gateway. which plug in to extend the wifi even farther, past anything that stands in its way. ...well almost anything. leave no room behind with xfi pods. simple. easy. awesome. click or visit a retail store today. welcome back to "hardball." as robert mueller's investigation seems to be picking up momentum right now and moving closer to the president, there's a new urgency to protect the work of the special counsel, to protect mueller himself. however, the republican-controlled senate, a coequal branch, remember, meant to serve as a check on the
presidency once again has failed to act. a single republican senator, mike lee of utah, blocked a vote on a bill that would have protected the special counsel. jeff flake who is retiring worked with two democrats to force the vote. >> with the president tweeting on a regular basis, a daily basis, that the special counsel is conflicted, that he is leading so-called 12 angry democrats and demeaning and rid ridiculing him in every way, to be so sanguine about the chances of him being fired is folly for us, i believe. >> senate majority mitch mcconnell knew it wouldn't be him and has shown little will to protect mueller. >> this is a solution in search of a problem. the president's not going to fire robert mueller. we have a lot of things to do to
try to finish up this year without taking votes on things that are completely irrelevant to outcomes. >> i'm joined by richard bloomfield. senator, why does heavy to have the crest scene behind him and the two sheep standing behind him? why are they always stand behind him? >> do i have a right to remain silent? >> here's my big question. if mitch mcconnell's refusing to do anything to statutorily protect the role of the special counsel, so he doesn't get thrown out like nixon through cox out the door, do you have any confidence? do you think mitch mcconnell lrj will do anything? >> i think i would because i think it would take his
membership, compelling him to act. you don't wait to buy a fire truck until the fire department has to put out a fire. >> that's what you're saying he's going to do, he's waiting for the fire. >> i think what we have in store is a saturday night massacre in slow motion, strangle and ing a suffocating the attorney general. matt whitaker who's been hired for that purpose and effect, and i think it will take the kind of outrage that we saw today on the floor of the senate about the failure to produce gina haas kill. >> amica, this whole question of three branches of government? >> yeah. >> one of them is the u.s. congress. it's supposed to put a check on executive power. they're not doing it. >> that's right. >> mike lee, by the way, who is
breaking with the president on the saudi thing, is not breaking with them on this one. >> and he's claiming that scalia said this -- he's failing to recognize the unique threat this president poses to the constitution itself, to undermining the rule of law, to so many of the things he's doing where he's trying to really take onto himself powers he should not have. >> isn't that one of the prized principles of the party? >> the republican party principles like fighting a deficit and states' rights, like basic integrity in government. what we need is republicans to stand up. >> meanwhile, two key trump administration officials were on capitol hill today where they defended saudi leaders. what is going on?
secretaries mike pompeo and jim mattis briefed all 100 senators and were asked about the murder of jamal khashoggi. >> you've seen all the intelligence. do you believe that the crown prince ordered the killing. >> i read every piece of intelligence. i think i read it all. there is no direct reporting connecting the crown prince to the order to murder jamal khashoggi. >> also trying to convince senators america should continue to support the saudi war in yemen. the briefing comes after president trump continued his vocal defense of the saudi crown prince. trump told "the washington post," quote, take everything into consideration and, again, he totally denies it. and he denied it to me on three different occasions, on three different calls, and a lot of other people deny it too. did he do it? as i said, maybe he did and maybe he didn't, but in the meantime, saudi arabia's spending billions and billions
of dollars in the united states and i want them to spend it here. after the briefing 63 senators voted to advance a resolution that would end u.s. support for the saudi-led war in yemen which is starving all those people down there. senator, again, what is the motive for this president and his obviously impressive cabinet members. there's nothing wrong with pompeo or mattis. they are solid, sober minded, smart patriotic guys who are defending the indefensible. the prince did this. why are they saying it didn't happen that way? why are they refusing to listen to the tape. pompeo says i don't speak arabic. why doesn't he want to listen to the tapes of what happened? he didn't know what was going on in arabic? come on. >> it implies the combination of
skepticism and outrage. 19 of my colleagues switched their votes from the last time that this resolution was before us. i co-sponsored this resolution back in march. we got only 44 votes. today we got 63. those 19 switches where the result of any lack of credible or persuasive explanation for the administration's position. in fact, it was a deeply costly briefing for this administration. the failure to produce gina haas kill the lack of credibility given by the secretary of defense and the secretary of state, the two highest ranking administrative officials was directly responsible for that stunning rebuke. >> amica, do you think the united states has a tribal connection with saudi arabia? the sunnis were against the
shiites in iran? they will defend anything now. why? >> you saw this administration go all in on saudi arabia early despite all the terrible, erratic things they've done under the leadership of the crown prince and they keep doubling down on it. >> is this the son-in-law? >> the president's son-in-law? >> jared? >> i think that's a good question. the american people don't know whether it's about saudi financing of the trfrp real estate empire. >> thank you so much. up next, nancy pelosi wins at least the first round in her fight for the speaker's gavel. if she pulls it off in january, what kind of house will she be leading? will we see a fully functioning body? this is "hardball" where the action is. ozempic®! ♪ (vo) people with type 2 diabetes
are excited about the potential of once-weekly ozempic®. in a study with ozempic®, a majority of adults lowered their blood sugar and reached an a1c of less than seven and maintained it. oh! under seven? (vo) and you may lose weight. in the same one-year study, adults lost on average up to 12 pounds. oh! up to 12 pounds? (vo) a two-year study showed that ozempic® does not increase the risk of major cardiovascular events like heart attack, stroke, or death. oh! no increased risk? ♪ ozempic®! ♪ ozempic® should not be the first medicine for treating diabetes, or for people with type 1 diabetes or diabetic ketoacidosis. do not share needles or pens. don't reuse needles. do not take ozempic® if you have a personal or family history of medullary thyroid cancer, multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, or if you are allergic to ozempic®. stop taking ozempic® and get medical help right away if you get a lump or swelling in your neck, severe stomach pain, itching, rash, or trouble breathing. serious side effects may happen, including pancreatitis.
tell your doctor if you have diabetic retinopathy or vision changes. taking ozempic® with a sulfonylurea or insulin may increase the risk for low blood sugar. common side effects are nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, stomach pain, and constipation. some side effects can lead to dehydration, which may worsen kidney problems. i discovered the potential with ozempic®. ♪ oh! oh! oh! ozempic®! ♪ (vo) ask your healthcare provider if ozempic® is right for you. but prevagen helps your brain with an ingredient originally discovered... in jellyfish. in clinical trials, prevagen has been shown to improve short-term memory. prevagen. healthier brain. better life. -we're in a small room. what?! -welcome. -[ gasps ] a bigger room?! -how many of you use car insurance? -oh. -well, what if i showed you this? -[ laughing ] ho-ho-ho! -wow. -it's a computer. -we compare rates to help you get
. welcome back to "hardball." the final midterm battle of the senate played out in mississippi last night where the win for republican cindy hyde-smith. she got 54% of the vote. on the house side, the democratic leadership is holding votes today, the top three positions remain unchanged with nancy pelosi, all winning a majority of the votes in the democratic caucus.
pelosi we see 203 votes in favor, 32 votes against. there was no opponent. three members left their ballot blank and one member was absence for the vote. that is far fewer votes against pelosi. back in 2016, 63 house democrats voted against her in caucus, but, of course, back then she had an opponent, tim ryan. in order to reclaim her title as speaker, she will have to get 218 votes on the house floor coming in january. pelosi spent the past few weeks making deals and wrangling those in the party, including progressive freshmen. congressmen-electable, elan omar. congratulations, congresswoman for your seat in the u.s. house. now your first request from me is what was it like in the democratic caucus today when you renominated nancy pelosi? >> thank you so much for having me, chris. there was a lot of really exciting energy.
there was an overwhelming support for the speaker to get her back her gavel and to lead our caucus. >> did you hear from the people who voted against her or voted nothing? did they have anything to say? >> no. actually on the contrary, we heard from folks who were eager, who understood that we got elected to make a decision about the direction of our nation, that it was going to be important for us to build a consensus and be a deliberative body to decide who's going to get at us progressive wins that we need to have going forward so that we could have prosperity for all americans. >> you control the house now, a good portion of the democratic caucus is progressive now with
90 members. how do you get those members to project their power through the whole house, past the republican-controlled senate, and past the republican president? how do you get what you just said done, a progressive agenda? >> as you probably know, leader pelosi is a strong progressive. we have full confidence in knowing that she is going to push for the agenda that we all got elected on, making sure that we have health care be affordable and accessible for folks, that we are tackling the issue of student debt, that we're working to make sure that we reform our immigration system, and that we put americans back to work and fix our infrastructure. today we heard from people from all walks of life who represent americans come to speak on her
behalf, folks within the progressive caucus and with other caucuses who have clear trust in knowing that she is an expert, that she is a thought of leader a consensus builder, and someone who has the best interest of all of us to make sure that our voices are at the table and ultimately we move an agenda that is inclusive and progressive and one that leads to prosperity for all of us. >> thank you, congresswoman. let me get another voice, michael, you worked for the republican leadership. you had all kinds of deals inside your caucus. you had the freedom caucus, the tea party people that had a veto. we heard about how boehner would come to the white house, next thing you know, his chief of staff says, excuse me, that's not going to sell. the democrats in had a similar position, riled all kinds of excitement and optimism, yet with a group of them that have
very progressive goals they want to see achieved. >> i would tell them enjoy the honeymoon. >> what would be positively besides sarcasm? >> speaker pelosi is doing a great job getting the votes to become the next speaker of the house. the argument that democrats couldn't win with her as leader got blown up by a 40-seat victory in the midterms and he's going to have a period of time when she's going to be able to wield her caucus effectively. but i think it's going to be short. there is a frustration that comes with controlling one half of one-third of the federal government and you can't enact a progressive agenda. >> congresswoman, thank you. she said something i completely believe in. comprehensive immigration reform. let's be americans and put a good immigration plan together and put it into law. but my question is the republicans when they had a chance to vote on a bipartisan
measure coming out of the senate five years ago, they wouldn't let it come to a vote because the tea partiers wouldn't let the speaker bring it up. as progressives, will you push for votes, even when you disagree if they have majority support? >> i mean, i think the difference is that we have a leader that has been really effective in governing, and so we're exciting to know that we have someone who knows how things are supposed to work, who knows the hard work that goes into building a consensus within your caucus, and someone who understand the kind of mandate we have to get real change instituted for all of us. so i think the difference between the tea party coming in in 2010 to kind of be the obstructionists and those of us coming in to bring about hope, to bring about change, to work
on behalf of americans is a really big difference, and i think we're going to see that going forward in this new class. >> i hope you're right, and i hope when we the democratic will, lower case "d" as well as upper case "d." thank you so much, minnesota congresswoman-elect omar. and michael stewart who's here all the time. up next, how far is trump willing to go to protect himself from the mueller investigation? how many pardons, how much obstruction? you're watching "hardball." p thr and rejected donald trump. more unhinged by that than ever, this president declared war on the rule of law. but you gave democrats the power to hold him in check. a majority vote in the house can impeach him and expose his lawless behavior for all to see. they just need the will. please join over six million americans and together we can give congress the courage to act. then, we can begin building a more just and prosperous future.
well, not because it was easy. i mean, the game is all i know. you think back to your draft. it felt like a fantasy. but the second you know you can't compete anymore, you owe it to yourself, to your team, to find a fresh start. so, yeah, that's why i did it. that's why i walked away... from my fantasy league. (announcer) redeem your season on fanduel. play free until you win. fanduel. more ways to win.
table, jerome corsi and roger stone. his interview with the "new york post" today argued the three were being asked to lie by the special counsel saying you know, this flipping stuff is terrible. you flip and you lie and you get the prosecutors will tell you you got 99 of the time you get people to flip. it's rare they can't flip. i had three people, manafort, corsi, i don't know corsi, but he refuses to say what they demanded. manafort, corsi and roger stone. he said his brave, and i'm telling you this is mccarthyism. i'm joined by the round stable, ginger gibson, corey lewandowski, we know him, the former chief political adviser of the 2016 campaign for trump, and author of "trump's enemies," and jason johnson, politics editor for the root.com. all of you, i mean, what do we make of this? >> i think it's important to remember that donald trump has very keen political instincts
that that he is going to be figuring out what's best looking at the election coming in 2020. >> we like flynn a lot and he's doing it now with, of course, manafort. he's doing it with roger stone. there's a sweetheart. >> he's a real prize. look, let me say this. we talked to president trump in our book and we interviewed him saying what did you think of the mueller investigation. he said it makes my base stronger, which i think is true. he understands that many people who voted for donald trump think this is a witch-hunt. and so him continuing -- >> roger stone knew before the wikileaks that russian hacks came out and they knew exactly by name who was going to be hit by it. >> they've been partners for 30 years. paul's inside, roger maybe joined him. >> why did roger stone the russian hacking was going to happen? >> it's a great question. >> i'm asking you.
you were on the inside. >> i never talked to roger stone. luckily for me i haven't had to talk to him. >> you don't have a nixon tattoo on your back? >> no. >> let me go to jason. a lot of this stuff gets murky. when you know ahead of time, who's going to have their desk ransacked, and you find out in modern cyber terms, you knew it was going to be a hacking of john podesta e-mail, and you knew it weeks before. that tells you you're in on it? >> >> not only are you in on it but you promote conspiracy theories that lead to violence and an undermining of our overall system of elections. i think this is all disgusting and all treasonous. whether or not we're going to eventually find out this is legally and this goes up to the presidency is what's most important to most voters. where would he know there's a bunch of guys circling around the president. >> cory, you said something. jill wine-banks is a real believer in the law.
she's not a political person. she said the minute people find out there's inclusion with russia, they'll turn on him. >> is this the one that has women intuition? >> honestly will the trump voter will "b" turned off with factual evidence? >> i was there. there was no collusion. >> speculate with me? >> i think trump supporters are with trump because they know there was no collusion. >> you're walking around my question. >> it's very important. roger stone says one thing and does something different. when i call him out, he says what i said, i really never did. the guy is a serial liar. you can't believe a word that comes out of his word. him and paul have been lying to each other for 30 years. manafort, stone, and black. >> anyone who turns against the president is a liar? >> not all of them. those two are clearly in that bucket. >> the president took a time-out to retweet a trump fan account this morning. the tweet came from the trump
train suggesting a number of democrats and current and former law enforcement and intelligence officials should be tried for treason. among those pictured behind those bars, president obama, both clintons, robert mueller, james comey, and deputy attorney general rod rosenstein. cory, why would the president put out a picture that shows all these people of various walks of life but all prominent americans as treasonous? >> i don't know. >> you know trump. you have a book called "trump's enemies." and you won't tell me why he would do that? >> in that picture there are some enemies of trump. the guys who use their badges to spy on americans on domestic soil because they don't like their political parties, mccabe, those guys are enemies and there has to be accountability. >> why are they enemies of trump? >> what made them enemies were they used their badges as fbi agents. they had an insurance policy to make sure donald trump was never elected. >> the democrats? >> no, no. they didn't want donald trump.
>> basically you're saying these are the most idiotic conspiracy theorists because if they're goal was to stop the president from getting elected, they failed tremendously. the issue is the terminology and the visuals this president puts out endangers people. that leads to crazy people in this country committing violence. that's why this is dangerous. it's not just cute or people lying. it endangers the sanctity of this country and our elections and our integrity. >> did obama know about the fbi's plan to spy on american citizens on domestic soil? he did. we know that now. we know the highest levels of government knew that and that should give pause to any american. on carter page, who was an american citizen, never been charged but had a fisa application served on him, first fisa application was denied by the fisa court. he's never been charged with a
crime. >> shouldn't we be concerned with that. >> donald trump is winning if we're arguing about whether or not hillary clinton created treason. this is about distraction, this is about undermining the investigation, this is about preempt preemptively undermining anything they found so no one is paying attention. >> i think he takes his children. >> he'll pardon them if he has to? >> i don't think they're accused of any crimes, but if it were me i would do anything to protect my children. >> we agree. next, ivanka trump is defending her use of private e-mail saying lock her up doesn't apply to ivanka trump. anyway, will congressional oversight committees agree with that? you're watching "hardball." to most, he's phil mickelson, pro golfer.
joint pain could mean joint damage. enbrel helps relieve joint pain, helps stop irreversible joint damage and helps skin get clearer. enbrel may lower your ability to fight infections. serious sometimes fatal events including infections, tuberculosis, lymphoma, other cancers, nervous system and blood disorders and allergic reactions have occurred. tell your doctor if you've been some place where fungal infections are common, or if you're prone to infections, have cuts or sores, have had hepatitis b, have been treated for heart failure, or if you have persistent fever, bruising, bleeding, or paleness. don't start enbrel if you have an infection like the flu. since enbrel, dad's back to being dad. visit enbrel.com and use the joint damage simulator to see how your joint damage could be progressing. ask about enbrel. enbrel. fda approved for over 16 years.
t . we know hillary can't be trusted. we've learned that. with america's security. you take a look at her e-mail situation, can we trust her with our security? we are a nation of laws, and that we are all equal under those laws. hillary's corruption shreds the principle of which our nation was founded. if that were a republican that did what she did with the e-mails, they would have been in
jail 12 months ago. >> well, you heard it all there, equal justice, we all should be treated the same. well, donald trump made hillary clinton's uncru trustworthiness central theme of her 2016 campaign. criticizing her personal e-mail account when she was secretary of state. as the "washington post" reported last week his daughter, trump's daughter ivanka trump is now facing similar criticism for using a personal account, to send e-mails about government business. in an abc interview today ivanka was asked about the similarities between her e-mail use and hillary clinton's. let's watch. >> your father had taken hillary clinton to task for this. how did you wind up in a similar situation? >> well, there really is know gi -- no ekwquivalency. >> your father hammered hillary clinton on this. >> my e-mails have not been deleted, nor was there anything of substance, nothing
confidential that was within them. so there's no connection between the two things. >> so the idea of lock her up doesn't apply to you? >> no. >> well, we're back with ginger corey and jason. do you see a parallel here, jason, in the lock her up world if you use outside e-mails you are not a law-abiding citizen. all people should be treated the same. >> this is nonsense. it's a corrupt swamp of perpetual liars. lots of people use e-mails in ways they shouldn't. bannon was doing this. questions about whether or not the president's phone is secure. ivanka is not secretary of state, but does she know everything she's communicating over e-mails isn't secure? we don't know that. the laziness and dishonesty. >> what do people do this?
why do they break the rules for their veer convenience when they know -- >> ivanka trump came into the government, unlike hillary clinton who had been a cree which you have of the government for 30 plus years, she came from the private sector and i'm sure she was briefed on -- >> she lived through this whole thing with hillary. >> there's a fine difference between having worked three months government and 30 years in the government. >> she lived in the united states the whole time we talked about the e-mail. >> your own server set up in someone's bathroom -- >> are you allowed to speak against the trumps? >> i do all the time. >> give me an example. >> i have said so many times the mistakes of this administration made were hiring the wrong people, they continue to hire the wrong people. >> what's the worst thing about donald trump? >> he works too hard. >> oh, my goodness, gracious. >> i'm talking like joe biden. >> on the golf course, maybe. >> your thoughts about e-mail comparison, e-mail used by hillary clinton and that by ivanka trump.
>> it's not the same, for starters because she didn't set up a server, like hillary clinton did. but what is amazing is especially with a president who's politically astute and careful about public perception that they didn't think that any use of public e-mail in this situation -- >> caesar's wife, be careful. >> even if you sent a thank you e-mail accidentally on your g mail, you're at risk. it's surprising it's an own goal, gave it up for no good reason. >> i thought hillary had a good reason for keeping that separate e-mail and having a server. i know why, she's raising a keeping a happy apolitical army. she was going to run for president when she was secretary of state. she had to keep everybody's promises and requests, and keeping in touch with people. can you get my daughter into stanford? all that stuff. you know how this stuff -- cory,
you know this too. it wasn't easy. >> the issue is just the security part. also, it's not just an issue of the own goal, but it's the fact this administration doesn't care. when they spend two years screaming about this, they don't care that they're lying, that they could be endangering people. >> thank you, equal, equal, good for the goose, good for the gander. thank you, ginger -- corey liun douse key, thank you, and jason johnson. when we return, i'll finish tonight with trump watch. all about him, you won't like it. you're watching "hardball." ♪
-morning. -morning. -what do we got? -keep an eye on that branch. might get windy. have a good shift. fire pit. last use -- 0600. i'd stay close. morning. ♪ get ready to switch. protected by flo. should say, "protected by alan and jamie." -right? -should it? when you bundle home and auto... run, alan! ...you get more than just savings. you get 'round-the-clock protection. ...you get more than just savings. ♪ ♪
we were talking about the model t. now here we are talking about winning the most jd power iqs and appeal awards. talking about driver-assist technology talking about cars that talk and listen. talking about the highest customer loyalty in the country. but that's enough talking. seriously. that was a lot of talking. back to building
trump watch, november 28th, 2018. the picture of russian collusion is coming into focus now. we are seeing how trump's people, starting with roger stone, knew all about the russian hacking in the 2016 election ahead of time. they knew it completely and they knew it before it got released. it's as if the nixon people weren't caught chatting about the watergate break-inlong before the break-in. if it comes out that the trump people were working hand in glove with moscow to flip the election, would that constitute evidence capable of winning republican support for conviction? we talked about that tonight, would it move the gop of the 21st century the way the smoking gun tape moved the republican fore bears to join -- for nixon's removal. would today's republicans even pay serious attention to evidence of trump's people working with moscow, would they stretch their imaginations to
picture what their verdict might be had it not been donald trump but hillary clinton who had been caught working with the russians. food for thought. there will be a time when the whole country will learn whether we are, in fact, one country or a battling pair of tribes, etch honoring its own truth, ignoring all else. that's what i fear. that's "hardball" for now, "all in" with chris hayes starts right now. tonight on "all in". >> i'm not concerned about anything -- investigation because it's a hoax. >> donald trump's answers to robert mueller are leaked. >> we want to find the collusion. >> the trump lawyers now admit paul manafort and jerome corsi were informants inside the mueller probe. >> that's what the opposition is. >> what donald trump is claiming in his answers and the next moves for mueller as an ongoing conspiracy to undermine the special couns c