tv All In With Chris Hayes MSNBC February 16, 2019 5:00pm-6:00pm PST
that? there are reasons to doubt it, but i'll bet they do. 116 people just voted in a midterm election, after all. shameless plug here, if you're one of those ones who wants to see the debate, the first one is going to be on nbc and msnbc, both nights of it. that's "hardball" for now. thanks for being with us. "all in" with chris hayes starts right now. tonight on "all in" -- >> we're going to be signing today and registering, national emergency. and it's a great thing to do. >> president undercuts his own emergency. >> i didn't need to do this, but i'd rather do it much faster. >> as the backlash grows -- >> the only national emergency is that our president is an idiot. >> and the lawsuits begin. >> i shouldn't be sued. >> tonight as the president leaves for golf, california takes him to court. >> fortunately donald trump is not the last word. >> govern gavin newsom and maxine waters will join me live. plus, inside the new filings
for roger stone and paul manafort. >> that's what he said. >> why was sarah sanders meeting with robert mueller? >> i'll get back to you on that. >> and making sense of amazon's decision to pull its headquarters from new york. >> i think it's incredible. >> "all in" starts right now. good evening from los angeles. i'm chris hayes. after failing to persuade congress to fund his border wall, the one he promised mexico would pay for, the president did an end-run around the legislative branch, declaring a national emergency to repurpose federal funds for the wall. and in yet another unsettling and unstable performance in the rose garden, he admitted that the declaration was his answer to a political problem that has nothing to do whatsoever with security. >> i could do the wall over a longer period of time. i didn't need to do this. but i'd rather do it much faster. and i don't have to do it for the election. i've already done a lot of wall
for the election. 2020. and the only reason we're up here talking about this is because of the election. because they want to try to win an election which it looks like they're not going to be able to do. and this is one of the ways they think they can possibly win, is by obstruction, and a lot of other nonsense. and i think that i just want to get it done faster. that's all. >> in a sign of just how seriously the president takes the so-called emergency at the border, he hopped an afternoon flight to florida to spend the weekend at mar-a-lago. white house says it will divert $6.7 billion from other government programs to fund the president's wall, which he has build inaccurately as a way to stop the flow of illegal drugs in the country. including $2.5 billion for a pentagon program to combat drug trafficking. democratic leaders in congress vow to fight the president's power grab, as they called it, with every means available. which could include forcing a vote in both chambers, house and
senate, on a measure to overrule the president. the party's already divided over the president's unilateral move. some like senators rick scott, lindsey graham and mitch mcconnell now voicing support for the emergency declaration that's to take power away from their own branch of government. tom tillis, rand paul and lamar alexander announced their strong opposition. still others dismissed it altogether as an empty gesture by a fundamentally weak president. one house republican telling cnbc john harwood, republicans and me are good. he undoubtedly will be enjoined from carrying it out -- ann coulter who wants a wall and the president whose advice has took took a similar attitude. the goal of a national emergency is for trump to scam the stupidest people in his base for two more years. already the president's emergency declaration is facing a barrage of legal challenges. the aclu announced plans to sue. and california governor gavin
newsom responded to the president, california will see you in court. governor gavin newsom joins me now from sacramento for an "all in" exclusive. governor, what is your state going to do about the declaration today? >> well, first, i'm just trying to process the fact that i'm agreeing with ann coulter for the first time in perhaps my lifetime, but california's prepared to file a lawsuit. california's prepared to call this what this is, which is a theater of the absurd. california is prepared to continue to remind the american people this is a manufactured crisis. border crossings up to 2017 were at the lowest level since 1971. the reality is at ports of entry, most of these drugs are seized and california's prepared to work with the administration, but not on a monumental stupidity of a wall. >> you polled the california national guard troops that have been deployed to their mission down at the border. why did you do that? >> because it was the right thing to do. we don't want to participate in
this show any longer. the fact is the president of the united states announced that he wanted to put 3,750 additional military personnel on the border. rather makes our 360 national guard troops look pretty trivial and insignificant. we don't want to be a part of this theater. we don't want to be a part of this political, you know, misdirection. california is better than that. the american people i think deserve better, and so california wants to stand tall. >> i want to ask you a question i asked beto o'rourke last night when i was in el paso. there is fencing in el paso that separates el paso from juarez. it didn't exist for a very long time. there is fencing on your border, 140 total miles border, much of that is fenced in the state of california. i want to play you what i asked him and ask you the same question. this is what i asked o'rourke last night.
>> if you could, would you take the wall downer. >> >> translato >>. >> absolutely. >> do you think if there was a referendum in this city it would pass? >> i do. >> would you take wall town that is currently up in the california border? >> i'm not prepared to say that. i think in many respects it's appropriate in certain areas, it's inappropriate in other areas. that's my opposition to 2,000 milds in the wilderers, but at these major points of entry, i think appropriate. i believe in border security and i believe there are appropriate places for barriers. but i do not believe that we should even be playing in to the current discussion, particularly with a president that couldn't even spend the money that congress appropriated him last year. he spent less than 10% of the $1.7 billion congress gave him over a year ago. he can't even get that money invested. why are we even having a conversation about additional investment or even this notion of an emergency?
>> zoom out for a second. a question about the state that you now govern, fifth or sixth largest economy in the world. there was a long time in which republicans were very powerful in your state. it was a conservative state for a long time. a lot of people think the propositions put on the ballot viewed widely as an anti-immigrant proposition turned the corner in that state. made the republican party there increasingly toxic. has led to democratic governance to the fact that it's now unified. many people see that as a warning signal to national republicans. as the governor of the state of california, is that your thesis as well sk? >> look, america in 2019 reminds me of california in the 1980s, 1990s, xenophobia, nativism. we had a governor at the time proposing proposition 187, which would make donald trump blush. proposition 227. advancing aggressive crime measures like three strikes and you're out. we were fearful of other people.
fast track to your point, chris, not only are we the most diverse state, but 27% of us are foreign born. a majority minority state where we're living together and avancing together quite well across every conceivable and imaginable difference. the only people that are not advancing together right now is the republican party, which is quite literally third-party status in california. if that's not a cautionary tale for the national republican party, i think it should be. donald trump is walking them off the same cliff our former governor of california walk the republican party off in the 1990s. >> i want to ask you a question about the presidential campaign of 2020. obviously presidential leadership key here. there are many candidates. kamala harris, who represents your state in the u.s. senate, has received some prominent endorsements, barbara lee in the congressional caucus. the legendary labor organizer today announcing. do you have someone that you're endorsing in this presidential campaign? >> yeah, i'm very enthusiastic about kamala harris. and you asked me first, so i'll
let you know. i'll be endorsing her candidacy for president. i know her well. i've known her for decades, not only as district attorney where she did an extraordinary job but i watched her up close as lieutenant governor when she served as attorney general. >> that is news, am i correct? you have not said that yet. >> i haven't said that publicly. no. >> thanks for coming on. come on any time you want to make news. thank you very much. >> thank you, chris. for more on the congressional response to the president's emergency declaration, i'm joined by democratic congresswoman maxine waters of california. what are the discussions happening right now among democratic leadership in response to what the president announced today? >> well, let me just tell you there are discussions going on about a resolution of disapproval. that resolution of disapproval can be taken up by either house and voted on, even if it's not
sent to committee, and we can really let this president know what we think about this fake emergency that he's creating. >> the resolution of disapproval, which my understanding on this is because of the national emergencies act, right? it gives congress a check. both houses would end up taking it up. there is a opportunity for the democratic-controlled house to force the senate's hand, is that right? >> oh, absolutely. if we take it up, they must take it up. >> what do you think the politics of this are on -- in the country and on capitol hill? the president many people thought today looked rather weak, like he was trying to explain a failure. what do you think? >> well, i think that this president is literally being pushed by the right-wing conservatives that he listens to every day when he's taken this so-called executive time, and they're saying to him, if you don't get this wall, you're not going to be re-elected.
and so he's up against the wall by trying to make sure that he does everything that he can to make it look as if he's fighting really hard to get this wall because he believes, as they are advising him, that if he doesn't get it, he's not going to be re-elected. he's lied so much about this so-called wall. first of all, don't forget, he told us that he was going to build a wall, a big beautiful wall and he was going to make mexico pay for it. have the american citizens forgotten what he said? and now he's trying to make the american citizens pay for this wall. well, we've done a good job in negotiating this bipartisan legislation by saying you're not getting any $5.7 billion. we'll give you 1.375 billion. that's all you're gonna get. so now he's going to try and go to other agencies where money is appropriated and take that money from them to make up for this
5.7 that he did not get. so, yeah, he probably looked uncomfortable because he is uncomfortable. he can only lie for so much and for so long. >> what do you think the precedent is here being set? i see some conservative, both politicians and writers, concerned about a democratic president using some similar gambit for things like climate change or something else. as someone who has served in congress for a long time, both in the majority and the minority, what do you think the precedent is? >> i think that's what some of them are frightened of and that's why i really expect we're going to have a growing number of republicans that are going to join with us in this disapproval. yes, they're concerned that if a democratic president gets elected then they could use emergency powers to do a lot of the things that they don't like, and as you know, they don't believe in climate change. as you know, they don't want us to talk about medicare for all or any of those subjects that they think will spend too much
government money, even though they have created the largest debt that we have seen in government for many, many years. >> congresswoman, one of your colleagues, gwen moore of wisconsin, said something last night. i thought it was interesting. she said, if trump circumvents congress to declare a national emergency to would be grounds for impeachment. this is a lawless president who is threatening the constitutional authority of congress and making a mockery of the separation of powers upon which our democracy is built. do you agree? >> oh, i absolutely agree. as a matter of fact, you know that i've been talking about impeachment for a long time. >> i to. >> i am absolutely stunned and amazed that the american people are taking so much off of this president. this president has lied, and i think it has been documented over 8,000 times in the last two years. this president has committed obstruction of justice right before our very eyes. if we can ever get manafort to tell the truth, then we will find that they conspired to get
trump elected so that sanctions could be lifted off of russia. president obama created these sanctions, placed them on russia because of their invasion, basically, in crimea. and they can't drill into the arctic and do some of the things they want to do. they don't have the equipment. our allies are working with us to honor these sanctions. this is what this is all about. the americans have taken too much off of this president. he is dishonorable. he does not deserve to be president of the united states. as a matter of fact, he loves putin, he loves dictators, he loves kim jong-un, talking about they're in love now. so it's time for everybody to stand up. all hands on deck to refuse this president, these fake emergency powers that he'd like to have. and so i'm urging everybody, get together, rally in every community across this country, all this weekend. send a message to washington,
d.c. no, mr. president, we are not going to allow you to do this. >> all right. congresswoman maxine waters, thank you very much. >> you're so welcome. coming up, the president admits there is no need for a national emergency while declaring said national emergency, which will likely be a big problem for him in court. the many lawsuits that are starting to pile up in front of the white house right after this. in front of the white house right after this symptoms caused by over 200 indoor and outdoor allergens. like those from buddy. because stuffed animals are clearly no substitute for real ones. feel the clarity. and live claritin clear. [cell phone rings] where are you? well the squirrels are back in the attic. mom? your dad won't call an exterminator... can i call you back, mom? he says it's personal this time... if you're a mom, you call at the worst time. it's what you do. if you want to save fifteen percent or more on car insurance, you switch to geico.
declaration keeps growing and grows. i believe we actually have one lawsuit that's already been filed. one of those groups, the aclu and their deputy legal director cecilia wong, and chris warner join me now. all right. a lot of criticism for this legally. let me start with you, cecilia. what is your contention? what is the aclu's contention about the legality of the national emergency declaration? >> president trump's declaration today is a bogus emergency and therefore is patently illegal. it flies in the face of the rule of law, the checks and balances that canning has imposed on the president, and that's why we'll be in court next week to challenge it. he's invoking his powers under a law that congress passed, saying in the case of an emergency the president can use emergency funds for military construction in support of the emergency use of the armed forces. he, as you said earlier before the break, actually said at the
very moment that he's declaring this bogus emergency, i didn't need to do this. by definition that's not an emergency and what he's doing is illegal. >> vince, we've seen before in cases, lawsuits against presidential actions, the president's own words being cited in court, particularly with regard to the travel ban, which began -- that's his muslim ban. and courts which are usually not that inclined to sort of point to that have used presidential speech to say, look, this is the -- goes to the nature of the intent here. did he hurt himself legally today with his admission that cecilia just cited? >> oh, he totally did. what you don't want as a lawyer is a client who will give a press conference and add three separate paragraphs to the complaint that is going to be filed against them. number one, i didn't need to do it. number two, i wanted to do it fast. primarily because in determining whether this is an emergency or
not, context is important. we've been hearing from this president for weeks that at some point he's going to declare an emergency. that's not an emergency. you declare an emergency when there is one. this is a fake emergency. this is a violation as cecilia said as, quite frankly, the rule of law. we see states, we see cities, we would likely see private property land owners, because even if the courts were to find that he had this power, he's essentially saying that eminent toe ma don't main is going to be used on the border. 1/3 of the border is owned by the federal government. the rest, private property, states and native american lands. and you just can't take this kind of property on a whim for some fake wall because of a fake emergency. you just can't do it. >> you know, he -- the president did this very weird riff where he did a little federal procedure 101 in a kind of
sing-song today about how this case will do to the district court and then is the appellate court and up to the supreme court, where he had some confidence. what is your -- i mean, there seems to be a sense among this administration that they've got the votes on the supreme court. how are you gaming this out, ceccelia? >> well, i think president trump in his sing-song refrain is really recognizing that what he is doing is illegal. he is on thin ice or no ice at all and falling into the abyss. we've got people, members of congress from right to left, you've got the national review joining maxine waters in saying that this is possibly an impeachable action. and we're not going to comment on that. but it's certainly true that the president has repeatedly said that the supreme court is going to come to his rescue. he claimed it during his government shutdown when he claimed that the court was going to intervene on daca, and they did not do so. >> right. >> so i think the president's
really counting his chickens before they're hatched and he's wrong on the law and he's wrong on the facts and hurting americans ins process. >> from a constitutional perspective, vince, here what are the constitutional issues at stake? it does seem quite different from other national emergencies that other presidents have declared. >> oh, it definitely does. one of the key pieces is that congress, of course, has the power of the purse. and one of the things that is impermissible constitutionally is for the president to circumvent that, to get funding from other sources when congress has expressly not given that -- that authority. another piece of it is also with respect to private property and eminent domain. and i think the third piece is that there are states that will argue that they are being harmed by these particular actions. so you have sort of a panoply of these types of constitutional claims that we think that are going to be raised in a variety of different cases. and i think, you know, with respect to the supreme court question, the supreme court got
it wrong on japanese internment, which was done, although not under this statute, national emergencies, wiretapping. >> that's a good point. >> essentially trump has the criminal proclivity of president nixon and he also has the power grab mentality of dick cheney. and whether or not the supreme court gets it right, this is going to be a problem. >> cecellia wage and vince warner, thank you both very much. next, the disastrous rambling in the rose garden is exactly what happens when the president spends too much time watching his stories. i'll show you what i mean next. t to make you everybody else... ♪ ♪ means to fight the hardest battle, which any human being can fight and never stop. does this sound dismal? it isn't. ♪ ♪ it's the most wonderful life on earth. ♪ ♪
i but i can tell you i liberty mutual customized my car insurance so i only pay for what i need. oh no, no, no, no, no, no, no... only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ half of small businesses fail within 5 years.ne. and more people than ever struggle with debt. intuit is here to change this story... with giant solutions like turbotax, quickbooks and mint that give everyone the power to prosper. intuit. proud makers of turbotax, quickbooks and mint.
itreat them all as if, they are hot and energized. stay away from any downed wire, call 911 and call pg&e right after so we can both respond out and keep the public safe. pg&e wants you to plan ahead by mapping out escape routes and preparing a go kit, in case you need to get out quickly. for more information on how to be prepared and keep your family safe, visit pge.com/safety.
tell us to what degree some of the outside conservative voices help to shape your views on this national emergency? >> i will talk about it. look, sean hannity has been a terrific, terrific supporter of what i do. rush limbaugh, i think he's a great guy. he's a guy who can speak for three hours without a phone call. try doing that some time. laura's been great. laura ingraham. tucker carlson's been great. >> it's true what he said about rush. it's hard to talk for three hours without taking calls. several notable moments during trump's meandering speech today. >> i'll sign the final papers as soon as i get into the oval office, and we will have a national emergency and we will then be sued, and they will sue us in the ninth circuit.
even though it shouldn't be there. and we will possibly get a bad ruling. and then we'll get another bad ruling. and then we'll end up in the supreme court. and hopefully we'll get a fair shake. and we'll win in the supreme court. >> did his brain break there? what -- what was going on? that was weird. but if you are an avid viewer of a certain cable news program, the president's words probably sounded very familiar. >> i'll sign the final papers as soon as i get into the oval office and we will have a national emergency. >> the national emergency would be challenged, as we always see with the democrats. >> and we will then be sued. >> they'll get to the ninth circuit. >> and they'll sue us in the ninth circuit. >> the president will lose the first round. >> and we will we possibly get a bad ruling and then we'll get another bad ruling. >> he'll lose the second round. >> we'll end up in the supreme court and hopefully we'll get a fair shake. >> in front of the supreme court, the president is on solid legal ground. >> and we'll win in the supreme court.
>> i believe when it gets to the supreme court, he's going to win. >> look, sean hannity has been a terrific, terrific supporter of what i do. >> for more on the nexus of trump and trump tv, i'm joined by michelle goldberg, op-ed columnist for "the new york times." and angelo corrasone. this is our area of study. who is listening to whom? i can't figure it out. does the president take the marching orders from sean hannity on the arguments? does hannity run the interference for him? >> i get this a lot. here is one way to think about it. fox news in particular, but hannity and some talk radio, it's the lens through which he sees the world. imagine if i had the power to make you think a baseball was coming at your face, right, there is a reflex. you will react to that.
i think a lot of it is less direct instruction and more shaping the world that trump sees. so the reactions are much more instinctual and consistent with what he's seeing. so that's, to me, the biggest part about it, is that it's not so much that they're the grand puppeteers, but in fact it's even deeper than that, in some ways scarier, they're actually shaping his entire world view because that's the lens through which he sees it all. >> you know, michelle, i was in an airport today during this press conference or whatever it was, and it was on and some people were watching. most people ignoring it. strolling through twitter. it's one of these things at the end of the day i guess we play the little clips and say, oh, the president said this and made news on this. the entire performance was jaw-dropping and worrisome. if a friend or loved one talked like that, you would be really concerned. >> i mean, it just shows how enured we are to the catastrophic horror of this presidency. if you had kind of said, you know, in the days after trump was inaugurated when there was mass protests that within two
years he would be standing on the lawn of the -- you know, he would be out there declaring a national emergency and also going on a bizarre rant about the advisability of summary execution for drug dealers. which was a part of this speech that didn't even make headlines -- >> great point. >> because we are so used to fascist rants from this man and in our numbness we can no longer really react appropriately. >> you also saw i thought, angelo today, people always say people need to confront the president and call him on his lies. people do that. people did it today at the press conference. you know, what he -- there is no -- there is no shame and there is no him saying i'm caught. he just says i have better statistics than you when for instance he's called out on making statistics. >> that's right. the other part about it. the other side of that coin or the other foundation for it is that he has a really deep propaganda operation. >> right. >> an entire infrastructure around him that will reinforce that for the people that matter most to him, right? if you're a politician, the
people that have the most power over you are your supporters. that's why he always talks about his base. if he thinks his base is shored up and with him, he can get away with anything. that's why you're going to see rush limbaugh on the sunday shows this sunday, right? because he's going to get out there and make sure that the base is seeing it the same way that trump is. >> michelle, i think that the president overestimates -- i think he underestimates his own hold on people independent of trump tv and is part of what has backed him into this corner. what do you think? >> you know, it's hard to say. i mean, he was back in the -- he was back to this language that i actually haven't heard him use for awhile about real americans, right? real americans support this. so i think in some sense he's incapable of really conceptualizing the broad part of the country that has rejected him, right? and because, you know, and so it's why he sort of hasn't taken on board at all the rebuke that he suffered in the 2018 midterms because even though most
americans reject this president, reject what he's doing, to him once they reject him, they stop being real americans at all. >> there was also a kind of funny coulter moment today. again, giving ann coulter attention, but she figures prominently in the president's thinking and he cited her for much of the basis of his immigration policy including her "adios america book." here's what she had to say about the president digging his own grave. take a listen. >> more than any other presidential mandate in the history of the nation, trump's mandate was to build the wall. no one thought, look, he was governor of the biggest state in the union. he used to run the cia. he was reagan's vice president. you know, he was fdr's. no, it was one thing, the promise he made every single day at every -- >> on his campaign trail. >> every single speech. >> yeah. >> so forget the fact that he's digging his own grave.
this is just -- look, the only national emergency is that our president is an idiot. >> i can't help note, angelo, she omitted the fact that the promise was also mexico would pay for it, but -- >> well, i mean, look, in some ways, you know, they -- the word pay for it can mean multiple things to trump supporters, right? initially it meant they were going to pay for it with money. now it's that he's going to make them pay for it, right, revenge. as long as they feel he's sticking it to them in some way, they'll be satisfied with that. it will have a marginal effect, but not really. unlike hannity and limbaugh, she doesn't have a platform. >> exactly. which is part of the reason that she also is liberated to go against him. >> bingo. >> thank you both. next, breaking news tonight. the special counsel's team is recommending up to 24 years in prison for trump's former campaign manager paul manafort. the details right after this. (vo) parents have a way of imagining the worst...
fisher investments tailors portfolios to your goals and needs. some only call when they have something to sell. fisher calls regularly so you stay informed. and while some advisors are happy to earn commissions whether you do well or not. fisher investments fees are structured so we do better when you do better. maybe that's why most of our clients come from other money managers. fisher investments. clearly better money management. because they let me to customize my insurance, and as a fitness junkie, i customize everything. like my bike and my calves. liberty mutual customizes your car insurance so you only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪
breaking news tonight in the ongoing criminal cases, plural, against trump's former campaign manager tonight. just an hour ago the special counsel's office submitted its sentencing recommendation for paul manafort's conviction on firearm crimes in the eastern district of virginia last year. prosecutors are asking the judge for a jail sentence of approximately 19 to 24 years and a fine ranging from $50,000 to $14 million. that could easily amount to a life sentence. the sentence request came as william barr started his first day as trump's attorney general. joining me now, carol lamb, former district attorney for the southern district of california and msnbc legal analyst paul butler. a former federal prosecutor. carol, let me start with you. this is not technically a recommendation. the government saying essentially these are the guidelines and we agree with those guidelines. what do you think about the special counsel's filing of the mueller case today -- in the
manafort case today? >> well, it's really not a surprise, chris, that they're going for a very high sentence here. what's shocking to me is that paul manafort has done pretty much the worst job one can do in terms of defending one's self against very serious criminal charges. he put the government to its test in taking him to trial. they prevailed in that trial on eight counts. he then said he would cooperate. he broke that plea agreement. he lied to the special prosecutor. the judge has now found -- the judge in that case has now found that he lied. and his attorneys made the special prosecution -- prosecutor's team very angry while he was cooperating with the special counsel. so it's very clear that the special counsel feels they owe paul manafort nothing at this point and they are going for a very heavy sentence and a lot of money. >> we got some transcripts from the hearing on wednesday, paul,
and this is what the judge found in that, which i thought was interesting because it goes to the crucial issue of this meeting or contacts with konstantin kilimnik. i find by a preponderance of the evidence that mr. manafort made intentional false statements to the fbi and the grand jury with respect to the material information of his interactions with kilimnik, in particularly to the -- redacted. >> so, chris, the stakes are really high here. so the judge -- the -- manafort is getting the -- not the book thrown at him. mueller is throwing the whole library at him, and the question is whether mueller is really that mad at manafort's failure to cooperate that he wants to lock him up for the rest of his life, or on the other hand is mueller still hoping that manafort will come clean about this crucial aspect of the investigation. so we know that the judge found that manafort lied about his contacts with kilimnik.
we also know that there is this mysterious meeting, kilimnik comes all the way from russia to meet with manafort at the time that manafort is the campaign chairman. so why is the chairman of trump's campaign giving private polling data to a person with ties to russian intelligence and then why he is lying about that when that lie is likely to send him to prison for the rest of his life? >> you know, there's also, carol, there was an interesting ruling today -- or a government response for a motion in roger stone's case. roger stone basically saying, look, i have the same judge as the judge who ha the case of the indicted russians who committed the hack or allegedly committed the hack. we want a different judge. and then the government, the special counsel's office responded by being like, no, these are linked. the defendants through organization one, the defendants meaning the russians, organization one being wikileaks. documents they stole from the democratic national committee.
through a fictitious online persona they created, goose befo -- guccifer 2.0. they have already issued for search warrants coming out of that case. what does that tell us? >> well, first of all, it would be very, very unlikely that a judge would send a case somewhere else for reasons such as those. we're getting little breadcrumbs here. unfortunately that's all we're getting are some breadcrumbs that indicate the special counsel's office is not looking at all of this and saying, gee, we don't know what to make of all of this. >> right. >> they are actually putting a story together. >> paul, the stone got also -- he got a gag order that he has to stop making statements to the media. what is the -- what is the normal sort of protocol here? stone has been a very -- he's fund-raising, out doing stuff like that.
what are the sort of legal issues and whether or not there is a gag order? >> you know, there are obvious first amendment concerns about people both having the right to freely express themselves and to defend themselves in the best way that they know how. the judge is saying, well, really, mr. stone, i'm doing this on your behalf. in part because everything that you say on tv can be used against you if you take the stand in a court of law. you're also possibly trying to tamper with the jury pool. so you're putting your own right to a fair trial at risk. you know, the other thing that stone has in common with paul manafort is neither one of them really has a defense. >> right. >> and they're both looking at possibly dying in prison but they seem to be willing to do this on behalf of trump. >> yeah. >> so the question, is do they have some kind of pardon for -- some kind of promise of a pardon from trump? is that what they're banking on? or, again, is it that they're so afraid of ticking off donald
trump that they're willing to die in prison on his behalf? >> all right. carol lam and paul butler, thank you both. still to come, what to make of amazon's surprising decision to abandon plans for a new york headquarters. how it happened ahead. rs how it happened ahead. that have made the rx the, crleading luxury suvhnology of all time. lease the 2019 rx 350 for $449 a month for 36 months. experience amazing at your lexus dealer. because they let me to customize my insurance, and as a fitness junkie, i customize everything. like my bike and my calves. liberty mutual customizes your car insurance so you only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ with expedia, i saved when i added a hotel to our flight. so even when she grows up, she'll never outgrow the memory of our adventure. unlock savings when you add select hotels to your existing trip. only with expedia.
so the -- the order is signed. and i'll sign the final papers as soon as i get into the oval office. and we will have a national emergency. and we will then be sued. and they will sue us in the ninth circuit. even though it shouldn't be there. and we will possibly get a bad ruling. and then we'll get another bad ruling. and then we'll end up in the supreme court. and hopefully we'll get a fair shake. and we'll win in the supreme court. >> aside from being bizarre and somewhat disturb, that riff from the president today was actually a tell about his
administration's strategy with the courts. they want their cases to go straight to the supreme court because they believe they have five conservative votes to win on everything. legal observers have actually noticed this for awhile, the administration keeps appealing rulings they don't like from district courts, that's the lowest level, straight to the supreme court, bypassing the usual appellate process in between, the appellate courts. it's highly irregular. they're already done it several times. daca, the travel ban, a lawsuit over climate change, just to name a few. today the supreme court gave the trump administration what they want, agreeing to leapfrog the appeals courts and adds a case about citizen to the next census next year. the doj argued they needed this ex- expedited review. the census bureau said they can actually push that back to september. now, opponents of this decision say the citizenship question could make both undocumented and legal immigrants less likely to
respond to the census, which could reduce democratic representation and affect the distribution of hundreds of billions of dollars in federal spending. and the plaintiffs in this case won in district court last month. the judge blocked the administration from adding the question. blocked the administration from adding the question saying wilbur ross cherry picked facts and deceived congress in his efforts to change the census. now, the administration will get a chance to reverse that humiliating defeat in front of the supreme court, where thanks to the two new justices appointed by president trump they have a conservative majority. it's a fascinating and enraging case. we've done two episodes with one of the aclu lawyers working on it. check them out wherever you get your pod casts. staying at hampton for a work trip.
when your flight gets in late, it's never too early for coffee. oh no no no. your new boss seems cool, but she might not be sweatpants cool. who is that ready this early? it's only 7 am. somebody help me. close call. not quite ready to face the day? that's why we're here with free hot breakfast and a warm welcome. book at hampton.com for our price match guarantee. hampton by hilton. it's a revolution in sleep. the sleep number 360 smart bed is on sale now, from $899, during the ultimate sleep number event. it senses your movement, and automatically adjusts to keep you both comfortable. it even helps with this. so you wake up ready to hit the ground running. only at a sleep number store. during our presidents day weekend special, save 50% on the sleep number 360 limited edition smart bed. plus, 36-month financing. ends monday. sleep number... proven quality sleep
saved an average of $412," syou probably won't believe me. but you can believe this, real esurance employee nancy abraham. look her up online. esurance, it's surprisingly painless. i was thinking...d clot could there be another around the corner? or could it turn out differently? i wanted to help protect myself. my doctor recommended eliquis. eliquis is proven to treat and help prevent another dvt or pe blood clot... almost 98 percent of patients on eliquis didn't experience another. ...and eliquis has significantly less major bleeding than the standard treatment. eliquis is fda approved and has both. don't stop eliquis unless your doctor tells you to. eliquis can cause serious and in rare cases fatal bleeding.
don't take eliquis if you have an artificial heart valve or abnormal bleeding. if you had a spinal injection while on eliquis call your doctor right away if you have tingling, numbness, or muscle weakness. while taking eliquis, you may bruise more easily... and it may take longer than usual for bleeding to stop. seek immediate medical care for sudden signs of bleeding, like unusual bruising. eliquis may increase your bleeding risk if you take certain medicines. tell your doctor about all planned medical or dental procedures. what's around the corner could be surprising. ask your doctor about eliquis. amazon is a powerful company and also one of the post popular companies in america. possibly the world. it's one of the most popular companies in america. a survey from december showed for the second year running, amazon is america's most-loved brand but the popularity didn't carry over to everyone in new york. after a significant concerted organized backlash for headquarters in queens with a
price tag of $3 billion in tax incentives, amazon announced somewhat suddenly and abruptly they will not move forward with the new york hq. >> we wanted to get your reaction to the amazon decision. >> i think it's incredible. i mean, it shows that everyday americans still have the power to organize and fight for their communities and they can have more say in this country than the richest man in the world. >> joining me, stacy mitchell codirector of the institute for local self-reliance and josh barros of the new york magazine. you've been a long-time critic of amazon, particularly the h.q. process. were you surprised? do you think happened? >> it really backfired for amazon in new york. they expected to come in and use the same strong arm tactics they have been using in business and to get government subsides and really ran into opposition and as it became increasingly clear,
those subsidies were in jeopardy, the company decided to pull out rather than having to face that negotiation. >> you know, josh, what i found interesting here is building stuff in new york is a hassle and pain, whatever you're doing it's a haase emand a pain. you got to fight with people, just the way things go and it was interesting to me they didn't seem to have the heart for it. if they wanted to, they could have kept going and had their meetings but they were just like no, we're out. >> if they really needed to be in new york, they would have done that but the thing was amazon have gotten so big that the talent they want to attract, they basically can't be all in seattle, they want to spread out their campuses and settled on new york and washington and when there was a generous incentive package and thought the mayor and governor cleared the way and it wouldn't be a pain for them as it is a lot of people, they were excited about that. when it became clear the incentive package wouldn't manifest, they don't need a
campus with 25,000 employees in queens. new york didn't owe amazon $3 billion. amazon did not owe new york. it made sense the deal fell apart. i think it's weird people are acting like amazon had an obligation to come back to the disable. they can go elsewhere. >> i totally agree with that. here is one thing i did find interesting, stacy, this is a reporter who says one factor that concerned amazon executives was how activists in new york city broadened their attacks from the specifics of the deal of the company's practices far beyond the five boroughs on working with i.c.e. with two people familiar with the decision. what do you think of that, stacy? >> what i found really striking in looking what the people on the ground were saying and what elected officials were saying in new york was that they consistently talked about the
notion of who sets the rules. you know, this idea that amazon was going to come into this city and set the terms, they were going to set the rules and there was going to be no public process. i thought that message really resonated and began to tie into broader concerns shared across the country about amazon's growing structural power in the economy is increasing influence over government, i mean, this is unfolding not just in new york but we're seeing growing opposition to amazon's expansion in virginia and nashville. i think amazon really started to feel as though this spotlight in new york and what this conversation was kicking off was a deeper conversation about the nature of amazon's role. >> although, i should note this is something i've seen you note in your writing about this, we have polling on this. all new yorkers supported it 56% but there is an interesting racial breakdown here of sort of 50/50, white new yorkers. 81% latino and today there was a letter at the housing projects near this would have happened expressing frustration and dismay. if there was not unified public
opinion on this. >> no, this was not an unpopular proposal. there were two polls that i'm aware of. one that had it about tied a little more. one that had support more than 20 points ahead of opposition for the $3 billion package for amazon. there were a lot of people that wanted this and divides constituencies on the left. the mayor is a nationally known progressive and an architect of this deal. you also have a number of unions here in new york city, some critical of amazon and others that were going to get a piece of this in construction. building workers really wanted this deal to get done. so i think, you know, this are definitely strong criticisms of the deal. i think new york was going to be over paying for amazon but there were a lot of people who had reasons to feel good about this deal and i think when you're sort of celebrating the defeat of it as congresswoman cortez said, there are a lot of people saying hey, i would have liked to see that happen.
maybe don't dance for joy we'll have 25,000 jobs not come here with amazon. >> i think it will be interesting to see what the next chapter of that conversation is for the political representatives. thanks for joining us. >> thank you. >> that is "all in" for this evening. "the rachel maddow show" starts now. good evening. >> good evening, chris. i'm filing at my desk. there is lots of paper. i got exhibits. i've got some other filings. i've got -- >> well, i'm confused. so i'm going to say, i decided i'm going to watch the rachel maddow show. something really important happened in the roger stone case of all things today. had nothing to do with that dumb gag order. >> with what we learned about the warrant. >> and the thing that happened