tv All In With Chris Hayes MSNBC January 8, 2019 5:00pm-6:00pm PST
why? is it to protect those who insist on cheap labor you can get from those whose main job is protecting people or is it more personal on his part? "all in with chris hayes" starts right now. >> tonight on "all in". >> who's going to pay for the wall? >> a president trapped by his own wall speaks to the nation. >> who? >> and the democrats will respond. >> a wall is an immorality. >> rachel maddow on the president's self-imposed crisis. steve schmidt, nicole wallace and brian williams. plus what we know about what's actually happening at the border and today's bomb shell accidental revelation suggesting trump collusion with the russians.
"all in" starts right now. good evening from new york. in just one hour the president will address the nation, giving you rare grant of primetime air time from all the networks and then there will be a response from the democratic national committee leaders, nancy pelosi and chuck schumer. this as the president looks for any possible way out of the impasse he's painted his way am to. you'll remember he made promise of a big buteautiful and a prome that was ridiculous on its face that mexico would pay for the wall. it was immediately apparent mexico was not going to pay for it. two years of unified republican governance and the republicpartt prioritize giving him money to do it or building the wall.
and here we are on the 18th day of a shutdown. he's cornered between a promise, rush limbaugh, anne coulter and supporters on the other. and he is losing. an escape president trump has trapped himself in. national security and justice reporter who has been relentlessly fact checking on the dire claims about the border. what are you looking for tonight? they have been throwing a lot of dodgy and false statistics around. >> reporter: weal a'll be fact checking relentlessly. i'm interested to see how he's going to try to build himself as credible in any means as a source who can tell us why he needs this border wall and willing to continue a government shutdown or call for a national emergency to funtd this. as you know the numbers have been fact checked when it comes
to terrorists. only six in early 2018 -- only six immigrants known or suspected terrorists caught coming across the border in early 2018. that's far below the 4,000 number that had been thrown out by this administration and i wonder if he's going to pivot away from the terrorism angle. we've heard it's needed the humanitarian reasons. ha that's hard to buy as it would force people into more desolate journeys that have led to child deaths. and is he going to make the argument drugs. more come through legal ports of entree and the mail. so if he tries to make the uj estion this will stop the opioid epidem, that's also a hard argument to make.
unless we get jaw dropping news, we'll see the president trying to explain to the american people why the wall is so important it's worth dragging out the shutdown. >> thank you so much. joining me is chuck todd, host of mtv daily. i understand you had an off-the-record lunch at the white house. >> i would say it the best way to put it without violating the off-the-record mindset and this is their way of trying to preview the argument they're going to make tonight, see if they can have influence in how we frame tonight. i like to get that transparent. number one is that they had -- they have to do tonight in order to calm congressional republicans down. they do seem to be concerned about that. there was an acknowledge they
hadn't made itter -- given the air cover, if you twiel republicans taking a beating on the congressional side of the aisle. i went 32 assuming assuming we o get a hint in how we're getting out of this and i came away with oh, they're not interested in getting out of it. there's not going to be an announcement of i'm declaring a national emergency. he seems to be more about making a case to keep republicans on his side. i mean the congressional republicans. because they're about to all leave him and i think they know that. >> that's interesting and important insight. there's two ways of looking at this and one is they're leaning to this tactically because they want to talk about this and not other things. they're picking this fight affirmatively. the other thing is they've ad
hawk stumbled their way out. which of those dwo do you think it is? >> it's more of the latter. look, the president believes immigration is always a winner for him, period. if you bring him a poll, he'll say yeah, they told me the wall was unpopular and i won anyway. he believes there's a silent majority with him on the wall. he believes it's democrats who don't understand the importance of the immigration issue and he really does believe if he can make his case that it will be the democrats who get punished for the shutdown, not the republicans. but he hasn't really been able to -- i will be curious to see if he any better at it tonight is why you have to shut down the government to have this debate. that is the part of this that -- they say they need it, they lose leverage if they don't. but to me if you're threatening a national emergency, you
created more lever frj yourself. play negotiator. at the end of the day, then why are you keeping the government shut? >> good question. appreciate it. >> good to see you, sir. joining me now is former presidential candidate, tim kane. you're precoff the floor where they successfully blocked on what would have been the first bill for consideration in this new senate. you had this to say earlier. the enist should vote on nothing else until we vote to reopen the government, period. it's squeezing the finances of so many americans. as leaders we can't just whistle past the graveyard of this crisis. >> in fact it is still going on, chris. there's about 14 of us speaking up until the president's speech and the point we're making is exactly the point chris just made. why shut down the entire government, punishing more than
800,000 federal employees who are all going to miss a paycheck friday, punishing citizens, hurting our country's reputation to have a border and security debate. you want to keep government open and we can have that debate and democrats have shown repeatedly as recently as last february that we're willing to deal and put significant border security moneys on the table. but what we don't want to do is pay for the president's broken promise of a wall that mexico was going to pay for. we just want border security to be done right. the biggest group of folks without document cans are those who come in on legal visas and over stay. you can build a million foot wall and it's not going to stop that. and apprehensions are at a 45-year low. this is a manufactured crisis about the wall but the president shouldn't be punishing everybody
else because of his idiotic promise that he's broken to get mexico to build a wall for him. >> the first two years of the trump administration which had republican majorities in both houses. can was there any motion by mitch mcconnell to pass a wall bill? he evaded the filibuster. it's a funding question i think they could have got in under reconciliation? >> that's a great question. they used reconciliation to try to destroy obamacare, that was their priority. i learned something valuable. i was part of a bipartisan team that really presented to the president a bipartisan proposal last february. border security done right and in the amount the president asked dung right to protect dreamers and the president blew up the deal. well, he asked for both halves of it. what i concluded is he's not
interested in the wall, border security. he's interested in a talking point to rally his base. so he has shown no interest in like sitting down and actually doing a negotiation and finding a path forward, even when we offered him $25 billion inboarder security over 10 years, he blew up the deal. and here's a talking point about the policy to punish all the employees. >> can you good faith negotiate -- >> the answer is it's very hard to. it's been very difficult to do
any kind of negotiation because it's unclear whether the president will stick. we thought he was going to accept the deal in february and he blew it up. we ehad a deal in december or so we thought. it and president trump blew it up. and all we're asking our senate colleagues oo do is vote for exactly what you voted for three weeks ago and it shows how afraid they are of the president that they're hiding under the desk. >> thank you very much. joining me is former republican straltgist, steve schmidt. >> aing is issal person to tell you what the heck the thing is that government is now shut down over. do you understand what that is? >> of course not. it's an absurdity. and the entire premise that trump is going to address the nation to persuade the country
of something is an absurdity in and of itself. he's persuaded nobody about anything from the moment he became president of the united states. he's trying to insight intensity among his base, trying to hold republicans together. now we saw republican party in this last election that lashed itself to the mast of the s.s. trump, went down to the bottom of the sea floor, speaker pelosi now runs the house. when you look at the map for 2020, that map is not anned a ven tajs map for senate republicans and it seems they now are lashing them selves to the mast of the s.s. trump. real pain is about to be felt in the economy by these wurksers who many of them are working hard, protecting the american people. at a danger level, we have a
president who will go on tv tonight and lie and lie and lie some more. this is a manufactured crisis. he's setting up a precedence. claim powers that have never been exercised by a president and all the while doing it with the scapegoating of minority populations. it's a dangerous moment. as dangerous as it is stupid. >> national emergency talk which is being floated. some argue a border crisis to free up the border wall will allow republicans to open the government without looking like they cave. and i saw other reporting indicating house republicans want him to do that because it would take that off them and allow everybody to save face. >> well, again people that have
embraced the illiberalism of the trump era. this is a small "r" republican form of government. we're a madisonian democracy. the president is not the maximum leader. he's not a king, he's not an emperor and when we look around the world, where are the places that we see leaders declaring national emergencies to u surp power from other institutions? turkey with erdogan, russia with putin, saudi arabia. you don't see this in healthy liberal democracies and so the entire premise of this national emergency is dubious to say the least. it will almost certainly be hammered into the grounds of federal court. but the idea that the president of the united states would
manufacture out this crisis. we saw in the election that this division that was invading america through the southern border, the so-called caravan which he deployed active duty elements to the border and his pr stunt all the sudden the republicans lose and the danger of the caravan dissipates. we never hear about it again. this is about his ability to go to his rallies, like the wizard in the wiz rbd of oz and say look, my faithful friends, i have given you the magical trump wall. nobody has seen it. try to solve a problem that does not exist. illegal immigration comes from visa over stays and people arriving at airports. and so what he needs to be able to do is politically save face. in the entire premise of this
argument, this shutdown is this should never have been a debate if you take trump at his word about american taxpayer dollars in the first place because he promised the american people to my ears that mexicans would pay for the wall. this is about the paceos not the dollars. trump said no dollars would be used for the construction of the wall. the mexicans would pay for it. they would pay for it in paceo the reality is there are no pesos because from the first moment he mention trksd it was nothing other than a con. it's a con just like trump university, it's a con just like his business career. it's a con just like everything else having to do with this man is a con. >> and we will get the con from the oval offices tonight. thank you very much. we have a lot to talk about before the president's oval office address, including the
when i say, "drivers who switched from geico to esurance saved an average of $412," you probably won't believe me. but you can believe this, real esurance employee nancy abraham. look her up online. esurance, it's surprisingly painless. 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, with unlimited 1.5% cash back on every purchase. chase for business. make more of what's yours. means they won't hike your rates over one mistake. see, liberty mutual doesn't hold grudges. for drivers with accident forgiveness, liberty mutual won't raise their rates because of their first accident. switch and you could save $782 on home and auto insurance. call for a free quote today. liberty mutual insurance. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ hey, batter, batter, [ crowd cheers ] like everyone, i lead a busy life. but i know the importance of having time to do what you love. at comcast we know our customers' time is valuable.
that's why we have 2-hour appointment windows, including nights and weekends. so you can do more of what you love. my name is tito, and i'm a tech-house manager at comcast. we're working to make things simple, easy and awesome. an accidental but explosive disclosure courtesy of paul manafort's lawyers showing a possible straight line between a campaign manager and -- in other words collusion.
you'll remember the special counsel filed a court document in december alleging that manafort had violated his cooperation agreement, that he had instead of cooperating repeatedly lied to mueller 's team. that was heavily redacted. and today manafort's defense team responded with their own document and while much of that was redacted, they missed a few parts. they failed to effectively redact a few key points. manafort shared polling data with -- related to the campaign. kilimnik who's believed to be a russian intelligence asset who's been indicted and fled to russia. to help figure out what's going on, i'm joined by political enterprise and investigations reporter for the "washington post." crazy the way we got this information today.
have you ever had something like this happen? >> a few months ago when they told us julian asauchg had been indicted in an unrelated court daulkument. but this is an odd way to learn this type of information. and because it came from paul manafort's lawyers, it was prevented in the least objectionable way poslk and yet still stunning. >> what we're learning from this is the mueller team says manafort lied about two discrete things and one is polling data. he gives kilimnik polling data while he's campaign manager of trump? >> a little unclear definitely during the presidential campaign. we don't know whether it was during the time period when he was chairman. we edo know he was in contact with kilminik throughout that
time period, including an in-person meeting in august. >> we also know they corresponded about the russian oligarch seeing paul manafort's new job and maybe getting a private briefing on the election. but why would paul manafort be giving polling to kilminik? >> i don't know. is it connected to this idea of giving a private briefings? the spokeswoman has said those briefings never occurred. they never said they received nothing. a big question is what is he do with that data? and we just don't know yet. >> and another thing is the meeting in madrid. we don't know when the madrid meeting happened. is that correct? >> well, paul manafort's spokesman told me just this
evening that one piece of information he could give about this filing is that meeting happened in january or february of 2017. so apparently after the ewlekz. nevertheless it was clearly a topic they're asking about. sglrsz well, it appears it has something to do with a quote ukrainian peace deal. the idea that michael cohen pass to michael flynn or his office, some plan to lift sanctions on the russians. if he's meeting in madrid to do that, that's interesting? >> and we don't know if it's connected to the madrid. he lied about madrid, peace and polling data. what we have been told today is a huge new piece of information. >> yeah. also again why is he lying even after he's cooperating with them and we should note the
contention from manafort's team is not that those things didn't happen. they're just saying he forgot, basically. >> that's exactly right. they're definitely saying yes, yes all those things did happen. he just forgot about them. his memory was fuzzy and after being shown documents he was immediately forthcoming about them. >> i've been to madrid once. back to tonight's oval office address, donald trump may be inventing a national security crisis but there is a humanitarian crisis one being exacerbate as women and children come to seek asylum. the "daily beast" canceled a trip because of the government shutdown. they were supposed to use that tripe figure out how to better deal with it. and people applying for asylum
has mostly served to create demand for illegal human smugglers. here with me is two people who actually understand what's happening at the border. founder of the group border angels and newly eelected to represent el paso. you live in the largest binational community, right on the border. what do you see from your perspective? >> thanks for having me. i appreciate it. you know el paso is one of the safest communities in the nation. we have been for about 15 years. we have a wall. we were safe before a wall was constructed. and you're right. the challenge that we are facing and there is a challenge right now on our southern border, it is chaos that has been created by this administration.
this administration has decided to use cruelty as a public policy as a way to deter immigrants from seeking asylum in the united states and it's that cruelty that we are having to deal with, cruelty that means agents are preventing asylum seekers from coming across. so many are making more treacherous journeys to look for place wheres they can go around the wall or find other ways into the united states. it is chaos created by the president. >> you've worked with folks on the border for years. where are things over the course of your career looking at folks coming across t the dangers they faced, the degree to which the area is secure or not. >> well, as i've mentioned before i was born and raised in san diego. i've been in the border region all my life and the border has never been safer.
you have undocumented migration at all-time lows in my lifetime. there is an international cries and that is at 1600 pennsylvania avenue. because you have a man that has dehumanized children, taken them from their parents, put the children in cages, tear gassed the children and last month two died. that is because of donald trump's hate rhetoric. he's unqualified for being where he is and his words of hate are now causing the deaths of children. there is no crisis. undocumented midragz is at lows. yes, you see the caravan people who have every right to flee violence and they're try doing it the right way and apply for asylum. but the border patrol is blocking that under the orders. and walking them back into mexico. that's against the law. it's something the whole world is watching.
it's shameful. san diego is the biggest border region along the entire u.s. mexican border. 11,000 people have died because of that wall. and it's horrific what donald trump is spreading with his hate words and actions. there's a real change in the competition of folks being apprehended. many more families and children. we saw the deaths of two children ill equipped to deal with what they're facing. respond to an argument the president may make tonight that a wall would be humanitarian because it would deter these families from even making the journey. >> that's what he's saying and just like in san diego, el paso has a wall.
in fact where felipe was apprehended, there is a wall. i think what folks don't understand and you don't really quite get it unless you see it and thankfully there have been congressional delegations that have come to el paso, three in the last month and so they've been able to see for themselves that border wall doesn't go straight through the u.s./mexico border line. it's actually further away from the rio grand and it is on u.s. soil. so you have folks south of that who are walking up and stepping foot on u.s. soil, essentially running into the arms of federal law enforcement in order to ask for asylum protekdss. so a wall doesn't prevent migration. a wall doesn't prevent drugs. what a wall does do, however, is it distracts us and takes our eyes off of the real solution. during the congressional
delegation visits we had in december and just a couple days ago what members of congress were able to see was that we have a federal agency that has known for four years that it american families coming to seek asylum, something very different than what we saw five, six, a decade ago, which was mexican males looking for work and trying to avoid capture. we have had for the last four years, central american families looking for border patrol in order to seek refuge in america. but the agency, dhs, has essentially. their strategy has been to ignore this reality. we are not equipped. our agents are not trained. the infrastructure is not available to deal with this change in migration. >> just to follow up on this.
your point here is that an old model in which folks were ati t tempting to evade so they could get in, in an unauthorized fashion, that's not the issue. these folks are not trying evade security. they're seeking out american custom and border patrol, seek out american officials specifically to ask them to petition for asylum and no amount of security answers that problem. >> that's exactly right. a wall doesn't doctor's that. a wall doesn't give our border patrol agents the training they need, whether it be insuring they are certified emts or access to personnel or access to more humane temporary holdings. >> thank you both for your time. >> thank you. in about half an hour every major tvr network, including
this one will show donald trump's first oval office address as president. he plans to talk about immigration at the southern border, something he can't talk about without lying. >> which former presidents told president trump they want to build a wall. they've said that's not the case. >> i know the president has said that was his impression from previous presidents. i know i've seen clips of previous presidents talking about the importance of border security, the importance of addressing the issue of illegal imgragsz. >> that's different from telling the president though, right? >> honestly the american people want us to address this issue. >> and president obama asked it the major tv networks on his speech in imgragsz in 2014 and they said no.
president trump has asked for less than 10 minutes of air time and democratic lieders have been given the same time. msnbc and nbc news will air their response. >> the oval office addresses a very specific genre and it's different usually than what it's being marshalled for tonight. >> have home field advantage and we're sitting next to a former communications director in the white house is not inkaungs kwengsal. within the home field advantage your choice of venus is critical. there's a briefing room at the old executive office building. there's the treaty room. there's the east room, the press briefing room but then there's the oval office. can anyone remember the last time the opposing party asked for response time following an
oval office address which we usually associate with president kennedy, president johnson. i will not seek and shall not accept another term for president. nixon's resignation. on and on. >> when he came back to the white house. >> massive sort of crisis of the imagination that happen as a means of addressing it as opposed to i've got a policy agenda i would like to pursue. >> and listen, i think we put the obama 2014 speech in the category of addresses where time was requested but not granted. george w. bush gave an address about imgragsz and did a whole lot of haggling with this network to get it on the air. it interfere would all sorts of programming and that was a speech which had, that time
bipartisan support from -- make me sound 100 years old. from the late senator kennedy and mccain. he wasn't the it only one to be rebuffed. donald trump has never said anything about imgragmigration wasn't overtly partisan, completely false or illegal. everything he says is false and it's all political. >> as someone who works in the white house. you've only got a few bullets in the chamber. you can't come back next week and say it. if something hugely momentous happens -- i can't tell how desperate they are. what's your read on why they're doing this now? >> i think they live in a constant state of desperation and exacperation. and there's that inlot of people
around to spread the president's desperation. it's laid bear. if someone loved him, they'd get him a pet. they don't get a better version behind closed doors for the most part. so there's lot of desperate need to have this issue go their way because i don't know how the shutdown ends. >> and the it constant reporting from last night. the gist of it was they knew an oval office address was a thing. >> saw it on "west wing." >> but they decided to roll it out on this. >> the last big shutdown we're bumping up against one of the shutdowns between clinton and gring rch. >> this made you older than me. i love you. >> as 1994 gave way to 1995.
>> it's a historical fact for thericered. >> i remember the invention of fire. it was clinton verses gingric gingrich it was a classic battle. it was an argument over funding and priorities. the talks, the spes fisty of what clinton wanted, what the republicans gave him, how he settled in the end, that was interesting. >> what the government is being shut down over is wholly unclear. 5.7 billion but no one knows what the is. >> if he make as case about national security tonight, the d democrats who run the committee of national security will be within their rights to pull up the heads of the fbi and cia and say are there any terrorists on the southern border and ounder oath they will have to say no.
and there were some that came from the northern border. hubs offer, not terrorists. but there were jihadist activity that they monitored in canada. they do not and did not monitor the southern border for terrorists. you know why? there aren't any. >> if you're surprised they're going to go out and do this with a straight face, yhaven't been paying attention. >> and presidents of different parties tend to move public opinion on big issues and make a case. obamacare. there's no expectation that he's going to be talking to the median voter and persuade the unpersuadable. >> and someone told me after the mattis debacle, still being felt
from turkey to washington d.c., that he's terrified of his base. he lives in fear of two men -- one embodying the base, rush limbaugh, and the other robert mueller. 23rrs >> and right now for this hour lord knows how the world will change when i come on. >> there's like six news stories. >> this is existing as it the car sinks into the lake. there's a gap here right now. the first major mueller story, beyond what we learned today allegedly about mr. manafort, that's when it becomes interesting. >> thank you both. as we await the president's first ever major address, we have things you should keep in mind while you listen to the speech. she joins me next. she joins me next. (baby crying)
♪ ♪hold on, i'm comin' ♪hold on, i'm comin' ♪hold on don't you worry,♪ ♪i'm comin' ♪here we come, hold on♪ ♪we're about to save you i'm comin', yeah♪ ♪hold on don't you worry,♪ ♪i'm comin' billions of problems. morning breath? garlic breath? stinky breath? there's a therabreath for you. therabreath fresh breath oral rinse instantly fights all types of bad breath and works for 24 hours. so you can... breathe easy.
there's therabreath at walmart. do you want the same tools and seamless experience across web and tablet? yes? great! then you're ready for power e*trade. the platform, price and service that gives you the edge you need. sweet! e*trade. the original place to invest online. when it comes to managing your type 2 diabetes, what matters to you? step up to the stage here. feeling good about that? let's see- most of you say lower a1c.
but only a few of you are thinking about your heart. fact is, even though it helps to manage a1c, type 2 diabetes still increases your risk of a fatal heart attack or stroke. jardiance is the first type 2 diabetes pill with a lifesaving cardiovascular benefit for adults who have type 2 diabetes and heart disease. jardiance significantly reduces the risk of dying from a cardiovascular event... ...and lowers a1c, with diet and exercise. let's give it another try. jardiance can cause serious side effects including dehydration. this may cause you to feel dizzy, faint, or lightheaded, or weak upon standing. ketoacidosis is a serious side effect that may be fatal. symptoms include nausea, vomiting, stomach pain, tiredness, and trouble breathing. stop taking jardiance and call your doctor right away if you have symptoms of ketoacidosis or an allergic reaction. symptoms of an allergic reaction include rash, swelling, and difficulty breathing or swallowing. do not take jardiance if you are on dialysis or have severe kidney problems. other side effects are sudden kidney problems, genital yeast infections, increased bad cholesterol, and urinary tract infections, which may be serious.
taking jardiance with a sulfonylurea or insulin may cause low blood sugar. tell your doctor about all the medicines you take and if you have any medical conditions. so-what do you think? well i'm definitely thinking differently than i was yesterday. ask your doctor about jardiance- and get to the heart of what matters. we are back just 15 minutes away from the president's first address from the oval office. joining me rachel maddow. i was just talking to brian williams. it's a strange night because it's a familiar genre. >> this is one of the things presidents do, give primetime addresses from oval office. and in this case we've gone two years without the president doing this this far.
he doesn't have much of a history of formal speeches of any kind, even though he's been president for two years. and i don't know what to -- i don't know if this is going to be a normal speech. there is such thing as a normal oval office address. i don't know if that's this or a shock and awe political move. >> we've seen him move between donald trump rally and off the cuff and occasionally a normal speech. like someone wrote that and it got run through the prompter and it means nothing. >> and often after he does that, he will rebut it himself. they told me to say that but. >> to me the crucial thing and most important thing to understand about this debate, about the wall, is it is not a real policy. it's not like cutting the corporate tax rate or a pointing conservative judges. it was never part of any republican agenda before donald trump.
the wall was just a thing he said on the campaign trail over and over again and the reason why he started saying it is he used it as a kind of memory trick. one of the president's early aids telling the "new york times" that trump's quote political advisors landed on the idea of a border wall as a new monic device of sorts a way someone who didn't like the read -- and sure enough it was right there on day one >> i would build a great wall and nobody builds walls better than me, believe me and i'll build them very inexpensively. i will build a great, great wall on our southern border and i will have mexico pay for that wall. >> there it is. day one. an america under threat of
invaders. his pledge to hold the invaders at pay. again it was not an actual policy to build a real physical barrier and get mexico to pay for it. it morph under morphed into an applause line. listen to what he told the "new york times" editorial wall. if my speeches ever get a little off, i just go we will build a wall. you know if it gets boring and people are living i say let's build a wall. and he's right it worked every single time. >> build the wall, build the wall. build the wall, build the wall. we will. oh, we'll build it. we'll build it.
who's going to pay for it? >> the president understood how important the wall was as a totem for his campaign and immediately understood the trouble he faced once that symbolism ran up against the reality of governing. a transcript was leaked to the "washington post." the fact is we're both in a little bit of a political bind because i have to have mexico pay for the wall. i have to. i've been talking about it for a two year period. talking to the mexican president that he's screwed. of course mexico was never going to pay for the wall. because none of it was ever real. the president's own party who controlled congress didn't want to pay for the wall either. they could have passed the funding but they didn't because you cannot fund an applause line.
now with house democrats standing in his way, he's holding the government hostage as a way to force his wall into being. >> i think that leads to what the actual drama ois tonight from the president from the oval office. if that's a what this comes from, this was birthed as an effort to get the president to remember to talk about immigration without writing on his hands, is tonight just a new stage for him to do what he's been doing as an applause line for years or are they going big like this because they're signifying something new is going to happen? they're about to change this whole idea into something they actually want to pursue as real policy, rather than beating it for effect? i think you'll be able to tell and fairly quickly whether he tries to make persuasive arguments to some sort of real
plan associate would all the rhetoric or does he keep saying the same untrue and fantastical reality things he's been saying all along. i watching for. does he keep lying about this thing? and if so, how? because the lies that he's been telling about it show that it's never intended to be a real thing. if he stops lying about it and actually starts trying to persuade people about it with truthful, rational arguments to the point at hand, that will be something new and so therefore, i think it's important to watch the kinds of lies he usually tells there is two categories, the first ones are ones totally ration rational, things that would appear to make sense if they were based in truth, which they are not. the first type of lies he tends to tell about the border and the wall are lies that are at least rationally related to the wall,
things that might make sense if based in truth, but they are not. the first category of lies he likes to tell, i call them rational but false threat inflation. so these are lies like there is terrorists streaming across the southern border. that's one assertion administration tripled down on. terrorists are streaming into the country by the thousands in the southern border. nbc news said the number of suspected terrorists caught at the southern border from fall 2017 to fall 2018 is just six. that said, this is the kind of thing if you're a member of the trump administration and you say this thing about mass numbers of terrorists coming over the border, you say it over and over again, it might sound convincing enough to persuade somebody that didn't know better that yes, a huge border wall would make
sense but the assertion itself is false. another rational but false threat inflation lies is their assertion drugs are pouring into the country and a border wall once built would stop drugs from continuing to pour into the country. if you ask the dea, they will tell you the vast majority of drugs come through routes other than illegal crossings, they come through other forms of smuggling including through the mail from china. a big border wall stretching the length to the u.s. mexico border wouldn't change that. the same thing with trump's assertions immigrants bring crime and disease with them across the southern border. that would be a rational argue the maybe if it weren't false. crime rates among native born americans are higher than immigrants. mexico has higher rates of vaccination than the united states does now. again, falsely inflating that threat as they have done on all
those points, that's a rational way to sc arkascare people into. these are the ones that i think are going to make tonight almost a surreal experience if he keeps going there because these are the falsehoods, these aren't the ones that might be rationally persuasive if true. the thing that really sets the wall stuff apart is what i call his magical non-sense. it's the stuff that betrays the fact that this really was all just invented to make people laugh and applaud at his rallies and now as chris says, they are trying to reverse engineer it into something that makes sense and doesn't. these are the assertions you have to make when you're trying to convince your neighbor that not only do unicorns exist but you have one and they do, too, and the unicorns are best
friends that play games all day long, can't you see them. the lies like the wall has already been built. is he going to say that tonight? this is perhaps one of trump's favorite lies in pursuit of building the wall and arguing the need for a government shutdown over it because the wall being built, construction is underway. last month he repeated this lie eight times in one single day. it's completely nonsensical, right? we need to build a wall, the wall is already built. but he tells this lie because it makes the idea of a border wall a live issue. it gives people the sense you still need to be engaged in the drama and fighting over the border wall because it's real. how real? it's already being built. that's how you know that this fight over funding for the wall, this government shutdown is not actually for a real thing. you can't have an end to the world fight about needing money to build the wall while also arguing the wall is already built. it's magical non-sense. and in fact, how does it make
sense to have an end of the world fight about needing american taxpayer money to build the wall when mexico is paying for the wall? even know, during the shut down overboarder wall funding, the president is claiming mexico is paying for the wall so u.s. taxpayers must pay for the wall. or the government gets it? we need to fund this wall that mexico is funding? i mean, this is the magical non-sense part that will be interesting to see if he goes to tonight. all right? there are these continued varied assertions about what this phantom wall that may or may not have already been built, what it looks like. is the wall concrete? steel? see through steel as the president asserted this past month. the magical non-sense part of this is we have to shut down the government because the democrats refuse to pay for the concrete wall or see through steel that
is built and mexico paid for so we don't have to pay for it. that non-sense stuff is how he tried to conduct the argument, which i think gives lie to chris' thesis this was never intended to be a real policy in the first place. will we get more magical non-sense, fictional applause line stuff or more of the made up threat inflation that isn't magic and isn't true? or might he change tactic? if he gives up all of those lies, then he may actually be trying to get a wall built. maybe. we'll see. if he sticks with this fiction, though, i think we know this is the same campaign stunt this time in a nice room in the white house instead of an airplane hanger in front of people in red hats. >> the contradictory nature makes this a bizarre and frustrating news event to cover because when you say to people why is the government shut down, there is no clear answer because the president keeps changing with the object at the core of the wall mythology is.
>> we need a wall. i heard the president argue the wall is built. >> i don't need -- mexico will pay for it and i don't need congress and i can built it myself and i can have the d.o.d., department of defense build it. there is a real actual government shutdown over this that again, there is ani c issu that has to be reached that the government shutdown has to end. he ended up in this position tonight giving this oval office address out of sort of desperation while the people that work for the federal government aren't getting paid. >> the president asserted casually he would be happy if the shutdown went for years and that sounds like crazy talk, again, that's nonsensical talk, like the u.s. government being shut down for years is something inconceivable both in terms of the negative impact on the country but a reality that congress would allow that to happen, but does he know that's
nonsensical? does he know steel isn't see through? does he know mexico isn't paying for the wall and paying for the wall? >> i've been wrestling with this question so why the second producer that worked on that brought to me "the new york times" interview i found fascinating, the transcript of him calling up the mexican president saying buddy, i'm screwed here. significa suggests he isn't in on the con. we never should have seen that. crazy and rare that kind of call gets leaked. >> a call between foreign leaders, the transcript gets leaked to the press. >> nuts and no expectation nobody is listening to that than the person on the line and staffers. the fact he says that he realizes day one wow, i've written a check i cannot possibly cash. >> i read that transcript again today, too, and the mexican president is saying mr. president, you know mexico will never pay for the wall that is never going to happen and the initial response from trump is
you cannot tell the press that. you cannot tell the press that. like help me maintain this. >> keep the non-sense going. >> the question, i mean, maybe the way out of this is that democrats can come up with away or makes more sense, republicans allow trump to declare that he won and he got the money and the wall is being built. just let him have his unicorn. just say it's true when it's not. he can campaign on it all he wants. i'm not sure it matters. >> i think if there is an out he basically uses d.o.d. money to instruct them to build fencing on the very small sliver of the border that is d.o.d. property. >> they never do it. >> right. >> they have to start doing it, that they will -- that is the most natural out here. the most natural out is emperor's new clothes where the wall gets built and the government has to reopen because it was never really a wall to begin with. >> non-of that is true but we agree to say it so the issue
goes away and the government can reopen. >> rachel, it's been great to have you here on "all in" come by any time. >> it's a strange news day but nice to be here with you, my friend. >> we're less than two minutes from this president's prime time address and so "the rachel maddow show" starts now. >> i want to thank all of you at home for joining us. happy to have you with us. let me give you a sense how the next hour will go. president trump's first prime time address from the oval office will start momentarily. we expect it to be short, under ten minutes and nancy pelosi and the senate democratic leader chuck schumer will give a rebuttal on behalf of the democratic party. that should follow quickly after the president's speech. after that, we'll have expert help sorting out the claims made in the various speeches and hear from freshman congresswoman alexandria cortez who will join us and we also tonight will be talking about the tons of news