tv All In With Chris Hayes MSNBC February 19, 2019 12:00am-1:00am PST
tonight on all in. >> intelligence officials in the briefing responded that that was not consistent with any of the intelligence our government possesses to which the president replied i don't care. i believe putin. >> a man who launched the investigations into donald trump speaks out for the first time. >> a crime may have been committed. the president may have been engaged in obstruction of justice. >> tonight, what we're learning from andrew mccabe and how the fbi viewed donald trump as a national security threat. >> the deputy attorney general offered to wear a wire into the white house. >> then nationwide protests as democrats in congress begin the process to undo the president's emergency declaration.
plus as 2020 candidates hit the primary states -- >> let's start by changing the rules in washington. >> a look at what is working on the ground. >> american values are under attack and it is time to change course. >> and today's stunning hearing on north carolina election fraud. >> we believe the evident we will provide today will show a coordinated unlawful and substantially resource scheme operated in the 2018 general election. >> all in starts right now. good evening from los angeles. i'm chris hayes. the man who first opened investigations of the president which would later become the mueller probe is now speaking out for the first time revealing just how alarmed senior justice department officials have been by the president's disturbing and potentially criminal conduct. former acting fbi director andrew mccabe, the president's abrupt firing of james comey
after having pressured him over the russia probe set off a week long crisis inside the justice department. mccabe telling 60 minutes senior officials were so concerned about the president's basic fitness for office that deputy attorney general rosenstein a long time republican personally appointed by president trump raised the possibility of trying to remove the president under the 25th amendment. >> the deputy attorney general was definitely very concerned about the president, about his capacity and about his intent at that point in time. he was discussing other cabinet members and whether or not people would support such an idea, whether or not other cabinet members shared his belief that the president was really concerning. >> rosenstein was actually openly talking about whether
there was a majority of the cabinet who would vote to remove the president. >> that's correct. counting votes or possible votes. >> mccabe confirmed previous reports that rosenstein had offered to wear a wire into the oval office to collect evidence on the president telling 60 minutes the idea was never pursued. mccabe tells a previously undisclosed story about the president's trust in vladimir putin. >> essentially, the president said he did not believe that the north koreans had the capability to hit us here with ballistic missiles. he did not believe that because president putin told him they did not. >> and u.s. intelligence was telling the president what? >> intelligence officials in the briefing responded that that was not consistent with any of the intelligence our government possesses to which the president replied i don't care.
i believe putin. >> according to mccabe that comment which echoes many others was part of a pattern of dubious behavior which prompted the fbi to start investigating the sitting president of the united states. >> all those same sorts of facts cause us to wonder, is there an inappropriate relationship, a connection between this president and our most fearsome enemy, the government of russia. >> in almost two years since that time the president and his allies in congress and the media have done all they can to discredit mccabe and any other official. mccabe is promoting a new book and was fired after the justice department's internal watch dog criticized his lack of candor under oath. but the things we don't have to just take mccabe's word for it. mccabe's account of the president's behavior and the alarm bells it set off looks a lot like the one james comey gave in sworn testimony and a
lot like the account of the senior official who wrote an anonymous op-ed basically warning the country that man the person worked for was unfit for the office and looks a lot like reports we read every day. two years since the events mccabe describe, the president is still in office and if anything he has only gotten more volatile. i am joined by ted lu of california, member of the house judiciary committee. >> what is your reaction to what the remarkable account mccabe gives of the way in which the president's firing of comey triggered this kind of crisis at the department of justice? >> andrew mccabe gave a number of disturbing statements about the behavior of donald trump. to me one of the most alarming was that donald trump believed putin over our intelligence officials.
no president of the united states should ever believe a former kgb operative over u.s. intelligence officials. it makes you wonder what does putin have on trump that would make him behave this way. >> the president has reacted to all of this. he and his allies on trump tv have had a narrative that these are rogue elements of the deep state who didn't like the results of the election and are plotting a coup. what is your reaction to that framework for understanding these events? >> i'm a former prosecutor. these are law enforcement personnel. they are looking at facts trying to determine if crimes are committed. rosenstein is a republican. he is looking at the same thing we all saw which is the president fired the fbi director and then went on national tv a couple of days later and said i did it because of the russia investigation. that looks like textbook obstruction of justice. it macks you wonder what is this president doing. >> what does it say about the status to your mind
constitutionally of justice department which seems to be kind of the core question here? it is part of the executive. it's under the articles of power of the president. in some level we want it to be independent. here you see the mccabe account is people wrestling in real time with where their responsibilities and loyalties lie? >> this president raises all sorts of different constitutional issues we have never encountered because no one has ever broken this many norms from the fake national emergency to the actions he has taken to really attack the justice department, attack law enforcement. when you look at the constitution, nothing in there says you can't indict a sitting president. and the lesson of water gate is that the american people said no one is above the law and the d.o.j. is charged with enforcing the law. >> so you think that you have made it clear before, you think that one of the ways to resolve this contradiction is just to say to the d.o.j., you do have
the power to indict a sitting president? >> absolutely. if you say you don't, essentially the president is above the law because you are saying none of the laws in america can be enforced against the president and there is no way the american people would accept that. it is not in our constitution. i am proud of what the fbi and d.o.j. have done so far as well as prosecutors in new york as well as state attorney generals. >> there is something interesting about mccabe saying the thing that precipitated this is the firing of comey. they sort of thought what they might be seeing is a cover up in plain sight. you have the man who is now the attorney general of the united states william barr saying the president firing comey because it was exercising constitutional duties almost by definition cannot be obstruction of justice. what do you think about that? >> it is interesting what barr said later which is basically he
didn't have all the facts when he wrote the memo. it is also very interesting to hook at his testimony. he does concede there are lots of different cases where the president can obstruct justice. just because trump does this in public in full view doesn't mean it's not a crime and that's something the house judiciary committee is going to investigate. we are going to hold hearings and look at obstruction of justice, abuse of power as well as witness tampering. >> finally, where do you see how confident are you right now in the independents and protection inside that building department of justice with barr at the top and rosenstein moving out, widely reported, that they will continue to do the work that they need to do. >> none of this is okay that you have career fbi officials struggling with what do you do with a president who looks like he is violating the law. i have more hope than i think some of my colleagues because even before the mid term elections last november we still
had a republican-led investigation of a republican president from the department of justice. that's very impressive and that investigation is still going on. the fact that robert mueller still has his job i think is a testament. >> you think they are holding so far. you don't think william barr changes that? >> i hope he doesn't. american people voted to give democrats subpoena power. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. >> for more on andrew mccabe and what to do i'm joined by staffer at the atlantic and msnbc legal analyst, a former water gate prosecutor. the stories that mccabe tells largely lineup with some previous reporting we had about the air of crisis, but it is somewhat remarkable to hear this
individual say what he is saying about the reaction inside that building to the president firing comey. >> it is. and when i was speaking to him last week and we have an interview being published with him tomorrow morning, when i was speaking with him last week about all of this it struck me that we actually have not heard an fbi official let alone the official who had actually launched the investigation into the president confirm that this investigation had indeed been launched. so he was kind of talking about the process that the officials went through in order to determine whether or not this unprecedented decision was going to be made. he emphasized that this was not something that was precipitated only because the president decided to fire jim comey. he told me that concern about the president had been building for months and that is consistent with what we've heard from other people who were having those discussions at the time. so obviously i don't want to give away too much about the interview before tomorrow, but i
will say that that is one of the biggest take aways from this is that this is not something that was perceived by people at the fbi as something that occurred in a vacuum. that is why it is kind of disingenuous for people to say the president had the constitutional authority to fire jim comey. it is why did he fire him? it is obstruction being equivalent to a national security threat. >> is this completely unchartered territory? >> it is somewhat unchartered territory. i don't think this has happened before. i have been involved in a situation when the first water gate special prosecutor was fired by the president, president nixon. and i remember having long torturous meetings among the staff about what to do. i mean, people would say all kinds of crazy things just like you heard about the 25th amendment and about wearing a wire, things that people really couldn't act on. at the end of the day, we decided to tough it out,
continue the investigation. i spent a lot of time talking to washington columnists, giving them the pitch that it was extremely important to have an independent special prosecutor investigating the president. so you go through a lot of turmoil. what mccabe described the other night on 60 minutes, i pretty much identify with and i can see where people would have different reactions. yet at the end of the day, we toughed it out. i called my senator at the time and explained to him what was going on, the importance of having an independent special prosecutor. and by simply staying there, the investigation continued just as the investigation here is continued and things worked out. i think the same has happened here. >> you know, part of what is striking about mccabe's account to me and this syncs up with what you were saying, in some
ways there is the narrative of the anti-trump forces who are trying to get the president and rather the sort of opposite of that which is to say a bunch of people who don't want to think the unthinkable, the president has conspired with a foreign adversary very slowly being dragged against their will to a conclusion that looks a lot like that. >> let's remember that this was not revealed during the election. the thing that was revealed during the election was the fact that there was a reopening of hillary clinton's e-mail investigation. the idea that there was a deep state out to get the president while he was running for during the election and trying to make him not become president is just absolutely ridiculous on its face when you think about how hard they were trying to keep this investigation is secret from the broader public because they didn't know what they had. when you start to see things like perhaps the classified intelligence about what they were receiving, about the conversations between the campaign and russians, when you see how the president was
cozying up to putin during the election and saying things out loud, it just became really untenable for them to just sit there and say is there really nothing going on here? and that i think is one of the biggest take aways also from my conversation with andy is that they did not feel like they had a choice here. if he is telling his own federal law enforcement officials that he believes putin over them, then what is putin filling his ear with when he is in meetings with him over the last two years? it's a really serious question that needs to be answered. >> it is clear from mccabe's account of just how decisively the firing of comey back fired. that is the inflection point for all of this because that is what precipitates the concern and elevates the special counsel employment.
>> that's exactly right. in the context of everything else that was going on, before comey was fired and before obama left office, the "new york times" was reporting in march of 2017 that members of the obama administration were trying to maintain all of this evidence, all of this information so that it could be kept and looked at later on by congressional committees or investigators. and it also has to be viewed in the context just as natasha said, you are dealing with the number two man in the fbi who has access to the most sensitive intelligence information that this country had on what happened during that election. so whatever he is saying, whatever facts he is giving, you know this is just the tip of the iceberg. >> yeah. you can't shake this feeling when you watch him. i understand why people have attacked his credibility and he was fired for lack of candor.
the sense that you get from him and others of alarm bells going off and blinking more and more urgently as time goes on. thank you both. we have breaking news coming up, 16 states tonight just in the last few minutes have joined together to file a lawsuit against donald trump's emergency declaration. that breaking news just ahead. next andrew mccabe's indictment of the trump administration extends beyond criticism of the president. ♪
check in from afar with remote access, and have professional monitoring backing you up with xfinity home. demo in an xfinity store. call, or go online today. former fbi deputy director mccabe kpfs book is making headlines but it may be even more brutal on jeff sessions. then attorney general sessions comes off as a racist who has trouble keeping more than one thought iphis head at a time, someone who didn't read intelligence reports and mixed up classified material for what he had seen in newspaper clips and blamed immigrants for nearly
every societal problem. sessions believed islam advocated extremism and sought to draw connections between crime and immigration. where was he from was his first question and the next where are his parents from. sessions said the bureau was better off you only hire irish men, they were drunks but could be trusted. joining me now msnbc legal analyst. the bullet that was dodged in sessions having to recuse himself early on given the account mccabe gives of sessions behind the scenes. >> yeah except that since sessions appears to hate foreigners and russians are not domestic and he seems to be an encourageable racist, maybe he would have been fine as head of the russia investigation. >> yes.
out of sheer sortof -- you wrote something about the investigation about the sort of nexus between obstruction and collusion and the moment that comey is fired. one of the things i think has come into view with mccabe's recounting is just what that connection is. what is it to your mind? >> right. i think one of the things that interested me about mccabe's interview is the extent to which it validated that analysis that i did back when that "new york times" story about the obstruction and collusion investigations came out. you know, what mccabe describes is that when they looked at the fact patterns surrounding the firing, and the constuilation of activities around it, they look at it and they say on the one hand this may be an obstruction crime, they also look at it and they say the obstruction crime itself may be a form of
collusion. that is, why would somebody want -- why would the president want to shutdown this investigation designed to protect the national security of the united states unless there were some untoward relationship between him and the russians. so we have this idea that has really permeated a lot of the way we talk about the russia investigation that there is an obstruction side of the investigation and a collusion side. and i think the point i was trying to make in that article and i think that mccabe's interview really bears out is that from the fbi's point of view, those questions were not distinct from one another. >> what is your take away on rosenstein? the d.o.j. has pushed back a bit on the account although they haven't explicitly denied any of the particulars. what conclusions are you drawing about rosenstein and what role he has played throughout here? >> look, if rosenstein could
deny the essential allegations that mccabe is making or the claims, they are not even really allegations, if he could deny them, he would. but it seems like mccabe is telling the truth that the deputy attorney general offered to wear a wire in conversations with the president and that it was actually the general counsel of the fbi who said that's a bridge too far. we're not there yet. and secondly, that it was the deputy attorney general who floated the idea and mentally started counting votes about whether they could get the cabinet to invoke the 25th amendment. now, i want to say in rosenstein's defense, neither of these ideas is completely crazy. i mean, given the way trump was behaving at the time, they are ideas that, you know, are i
would say tend to think is probably wise not to pursue either of them, but i'm not sure they should have been utterly beyond the realm of conversation. that said, rosenstein when these stories floated in the "new york times" a few months ago, rosenstein really tried to pretend one was just an issue of arcamp and the other he kind of threw shade at. i think he has some candor questions to answer for at this point. >> i think the facts as established by mccabe and i think you are right especially undisputed by rosenstein on the particulars lead to two possible interpretations with not a lot of space between them one is that there is this deranged fifth column, this coup of folks that have it out for the president and are attempting to subvert the will of the voters and take down the president and
the other is the behavior of the president was so screamingly alarming that these people are running around saying what if this man is compromised? >> and in rod rosenstein's defense and my enthusiasm for him is all together under control, i assure you, but in his defense, the president had just done something quite awful to him which was to sort of use him as a set piece for something that he meant to do anyway and he kind of used him as a pretext for this. rosenstein had fallen into this trap and had let himself be used this way. and i think quite understandably in looking back on it within this terrible week that followed is trying to figure out what have i done and what have i done to myself. so he's trying to figure out how to put things right.
he thinks he may have destroyed his reputation forever and he is panicked. so i think these are things that happened in the context of this chaotic environment that emerges when this thoroughly evil person and you know manipulates the people around him somewhat wittingly and somewhat unwittingly in their parts. they kind of discovered what a hole they are in. >> thank you so much for making some time. >> pleasure. next, there is a new lawsuit to block donald trump's emergency declaration, that breaking news and the fight in congress to stop trump. next. (client's voice) oww, it hurts... (danny) ...that you're not using smarter tools to manage your business. you work too hard to work this hard! collecting receipts? is it the 80s? does anybody have a mixtape i can borrow? you should be chasing people's pets... ...not chasing payments! quickbooks gives you a sweet set of business tools...
breaking news tonight, a coalition of 16 states have filed suit in federal court calling donald trump's emergency seeking a preliminary injunction. that is for the court to put it on pause. the attorney general of california announced the lawsuit in the last hour saying president trump knows there is no border crisis and knows his emergency declaration is unwarranted. joining the state of california are attorney generals of colorado, maine, maryland, michigan, minnesota, nevada, new jersey, new mexico, new york, oregon and virginia. this as protesters were out in the streets today as a show of force in opposition to the so-called emergency. the president's decision will also face a challenge head on from congress. under the national emergencies
act from 1976, lawmakers can introduce a resolution to plauk the order. house democrats said they plan to introduce such a measure soon. here to talk about what can happen from here democratic congresswoman of california. >> thank you for having me. >> your state one of those suing the president. what do you think happens now? >> well, there are two ways to stop the president and one of those is lawsuits from california, other states and organizations. so i fully support that effort by california to do that. the second way is for congress to act. that is what we are going to do. there is a joint resolution that has been drafted by congressman castro who is the chair of the hispanic caucus. he is asking members of congress to sign on to that. we have seen other members through social media indicate they will sign on. that will be introduced. it will go to a committee of jurisdiction and to the house floor for a vote t. has to get a simple majority. it will go to the senate side and the senate will be forced to
take a vote on this. >> this is key because we know there are any number of pieces of legislation that has to do with voting rights that mitch mcconnell can just kill. in this case he has to take it up? >> yes, he does. that's the way that the law is written and the way the joint resolution is he has to take it up. that will put a lot of pressure on republicans and democrats to make a decision on what they are going to do. are they going to side with the president and giving away the power that congress has? and a lot of these projects are in districts that are very red, military projects where he plans on taking money from. >> 538 was doing whip counting on the republican side. you have lamar alexander, susan collins, rand paul and pat toomey said they oppose the national emergency declaration. we'll see if they vote against it.
he is starting out without the votes in the senate to stop it from passing it looks like. >> even if it gets to the house and the senate, the president can veto it. this is where it gets complicated. >> do you see -- it is interesting to have these parallel tracks. one thing people have been critical of is the ways in which we have seen more and more power move from congress to the executive. if you have a choice between having congress sort of rebuke the president or having the courts strike it down, which would you like to see? >> i would like to see congress do it. it's a co-equal branch of government. it's a balance but we have had the court to be a saving grace in recent times so it needs to be there. >> it also seems like it is likely that you will get one of these courts to issue a preliminary injunction. do you worry about that? it seems to me that it is important that you called to question will democrats still go forward no matter what the
courts do in. >> i think that the democrats should go forward. we need to have people on record. this is a critical defining moment in time for congress and lawmakers to step up and put what is right and the constitution above party. and i think that is critical in this situation. >> there is also public opinion which plays a big role in all of this. polling from before this was announced was about 66% against. we may see some movement because people who like the president tend to like whatever he does, but you're out of protests today. >> i thought it was important for people to come out and speak out and protest. a lot of them are out there saying we have to make sure to protect democracy and stop this power grab from happening. so i want to be supportive. we saw a good number of people in los angeles. we saw protests happening in washington and across the country. i think it is a sign that people will stand up and hold this president accountable and they want members of congress to do that, too. >> the president is forcing a
kind of back lash against issues on immigration where he sees support for increasing umgration and undocumented immigrants rising in polling, but i saw a piece last week that made the argument based on immigration rights that the president was winning the debate in how it was being framed that by putting border and security at the center of things he is moving the conversation in his direction. which do you think it is? >> you know, the congress just passed compromise bill. in that bill a lot of money was put into border security. democrats and republicans alike are for border security. there is a humanitarian crisis happening at the border. i saw it first-hand when i went down there investigating the death of the kids down there. we passed a bill that will put money into that. >> meaning the humanitarian aspect in terms of undoing some of the blockage that happened there because they are over capacity. >> it is to make sure there is medical equipment in place and to address that children have
food. before, they were getting noodles that were not warm. >> it is in the bill text. >> that was a huge win that we got in to have humanitarian money going to the border. so there are lots of things in the compromise bill that are going to help the border security aspect. i represent a port of entry and have more technology and more opportunity to catch more drugs coming in. the irony is under the emergency declaration the president is going to take money away from drug interdrikz. the very thing he says he is trying to stop is taking away in funding because he wants to build this wall that we know is not the most effective way to stop what he says he is trying to stop. >> thank you for joining me. >> thank you for having me. as the campaigns start taking shape, a look at how the candidates working to defeat trump are honing appeals to the voters.
how president trump was maybe nominated for the nobel prize? that's tonight's say one thing. audible members know listening has the power to change us make us better parents, better leaders, better people. and there's no better place to listen than audible. with audible you get a credit good for any audiobook and exclusive fitness and wellness programs. and now, you'll also get two audible originals: titles exclusively produced for audible. automatically roll your credits over to the next month if you don't use them, and if you don't like a book just swap it for free. enjoy 100% ad free listening in the car, on your phone or any connected device. and when you switch a device pick up right where you left off. with our commitment free guarantee, there's never been a better time to start listening to audible. the most inspiring minds, the most compelling stories, the best place to listen.
running. you can see the president in his very beige outfit and bright red cap making what we must assume is his first and only trip to the omelet bar that day. it is well stocked with a squeeze bottle of ketchup and a backup squeeze bottle of ketchup. you can see the framed walgreens ad that trump once did which is a good reminder of what you can see hanging on the walls if you are fortunate enough to be a member of one of trump's clubs including a portrait of himself. or most famously the fake "time" magazine covers that the washington post says trump apparently had photo shopped and framed and hung in at least five clubs. makes you wonder, where will he hang his pretend nobel peace prize? that's thing two in 60 seconds.
during his bizarre rose garden performance last week, donald trump made this surprising claim -- >> prime minister abe of japan gave me the most beautiful copy of a letter that he sent to the people who give out a thing called the nobel peace prize. he said i have nominated you. i am asking them to give you the nobel peace prize. >> a little thing called the nobel peace prize. that would be special. everyone immediately wondered what is he talking about? is that really true or was it something he pulled out of thin air? nbc news has the answer. we can report japan did nominate donald trump for a nobel peace prize after he asked them to. prime minister shinzo abe seen falling down into a sand trab last year.
it turns out that two norwegian lawmakers have nominated trump according to reuters. we are not sure if trump asked them to, as well. >> he said i have nominated you i am asking them to give you the nobel peace prize. i said thank you. many other people feel that way, too. i will probably never give it. they gave it to obama. he doesn't know what he got it for. he was there for about 15 seconds and got the nobel prize. with me, i probably will never get it. so prime minister abe the most beautiful five page letter nobez prize. he sent it to them. prize.
for the very first time we finally have official factual findings in the crazy case of potential election fraud in north carolina's ninth congressional district. you might remember more than three months after election day they began the hearing today and it is extremely damning for the campaign of republican mark harris. here is how the executive director of the north carolina state board of elections laid it all out. >> we believe the evidence that we will provide will show a coordinated, unlawful and substantially resource ballot scheme operated during the general election. >> state investigators found at least 1,000 ballots were illegally requested by a man
named mcray dallas. dallas's step daughter, a convicted felon on probation admitted to illegally voting in the 2018 election testified she was among the people who collected unsealed ballots for voters. >> it was unsealed and the ballot was not kmeetly voted. and who would have directed you to do that? >> i was directed by mr. dallas. what we would do or what i would do is whoever was a republican. >> they were collecting ballots and filling them in for people for whoever was the republican. investigators say after republican mark harris's campaign hired red doane for one congressional raise. harris admitted to hire dallas
but denies wrongdoing. the north carolina gop is still saying that their guy mark harris should be seated as a u.s. congressman. in a tweet today in the best light is still pretty damming, they wrote i think you got one innocent person in this and he's the one getting the bad end of the deal here and that's mr. mark harris. that statement the gop picked to convince the country of their candidates innocence was set at today's hearing but none other than lisa brit, the convicted felon that admitted to illegally collecting and filling in stranger's ballots. a firm paid someone engaged in the most egregious fraud of the cycle and the party that likes to scare monger thinks their guy should be seated in congress. the hearing continues and the state board elections will decide whether or not this qualifies the state of north
uh, well, this will be the kitchen. and we'd like to put a fire pit out there, and a dock with a boat, maybe. why haven't you started building? well, tyler's off to college... and mom's getting older... and eventually we would like to retire. yeah, it's a lot. but td ameritrade can help you build a plan for today and tomorrow. great. can you help us pour the foundation too? i think you want a house near the lake, not in it. come with a goal. leave with a plan. td ameritrade. ♪
we're less than a year from the iowa caucuses and the ballot is fully underway. many candidates are on the campaign trail in the key early states of iowa, new hampshire and south carolina and meeting voters and honing stump speeches testing out what works and what doesn't like a standup comedian that tries out material in a club before embarking on a national tour. this sharpens their message and establishes what makes them different. as presidents' day weekend was the most active in the 2020 race before they garner big crowds and voters and local reporters started to form opinions what each of the candidates have to offer. joining me now are a pair of reporters on the ground with candidates. pat runs a political news site and caitlyn bird. pat, let me start with you in iowa, which is obviously the place, the first contest you're a true iowa caucus nerd and
worked on it in the past and been documenting it carefully. what does it look like from the crowd stand point with enthusiasm so far? >> that's one of the most fascinating things so far, chris. kamala harris, booker, warren are getting crowds of 500 to 800 people out already. >> wow. >> those are turnouts that you would be happy to have a month out from the iowa caucus, much less than a year out. and what is fascinating to me personally, i've worked in this state a lot. i know who these activists are. who is turning out to these events? you have a lot of different candidates from ideological backgrounds but the people coming out don't necessarily fit those. i've seen core bernie sanders activists out to see john even though they won't caucus for him. i've seen county party folks out and elizabeth warren's events but they think she's too far to the left. the interesting thing is they are finding something they like
about these candidates early on because right now it's all still pretty nice out there. >> you know, yeah, so far it's been very positive. there are no one attacking it. the video is kamala harris making her first official campaign stop and this enormous line from this church there and caitlyn, cam senator harris was there in charleston and had an enormous turnout, right? >> it was huge. we saw numbers more than 1,000 was the crowd estimate we got. they had to open up the second floor of the life center where we were, which was located inside of a very well attended black church in north charleston. they had to open the second part and people were sitting on closed up bleachers to make sure they had a good line of sight. everyone was curious i talked to about hearing more from her directly.
>> so that's one thing i think that seeps clear in the early states from the sort of voter standpoint enthusiasm, huge turnout, very big crowds, pat, you made this point, people are talking in living rooms of 20 folks. you're getting 500, 800,000 people. what are you hearing from the crowds and question and answer periods of these, pat? how focused on different issues, electability, trump are the questioners in these events? >> so there hasn't been too many questions about trump. i mean, the folks turning out to these places are riled up about him. they don't need to hear more about him. they are asking the candidates about their own personal background and domestic policy that type of thing. you know, most interesting, a lot of folks are coming out that i'm starting to notice are people new to the process. >> interesting. >> cory booker, i saw a lot of younger people who told me they knew about him through snapchat, a lot of younger public schoolteachers, elizabeth
warren's events. >> caitlyn, have you noticed differences in the ways the candidates coming through south carolina have been distinguishing themselves or focussing their pitch? >> absolutely. we're already starting to see some candidates making it clear to voters that they are doing their homework and going to mother emanuel church here in charleston we know is the site of the very tragic hate shooting where nine black african americans were gunned down. we're also hearing pitches that should sound very familiar to voters in the first congressional district where i am in charleston hearing lines about offshore drilling, haven't heard kamala harris talk about offshore drilling but she made that a very clear point and talked a lot about yeah, she also talked a lot about the idea that we have more in common than we do that separates us and echoes joe cunningham talking about lowcountry over party. that was his selling pitch to voters here.
it's been very interesting to hear how especially senator harris has been on the trail and echoing talking points that did test and prove effective. >> pat, to that point about this sort of over simply dynamics of populism versus uplift, what have you been seeing in terms of the messages from candidates there? >> they are really varying, which is fascinating. it's a lot more enjoyable to be covering this this year as opposed to the bernie sanders versus clinton establishment versus outsider fight, which the democratic party is way more complex than that. and so they are coming at it from different angles. cory booker, his stump speech is like a big pep talk and inspiration-type rally. there are other candidates who talk much more heavy lee about policy and artificial intelligence. they are all highlighting, every candidate is highlighting different parts of the progressive message.
>> pat and caitlyn who are in those early states where the folks are coming through. thank you for being with me and sharing. appreciate it. that is "all in" for this evening. tonight the president on the losing end of an explosive new book. the stories he has to tell include an account of the president choosing believe putin of russia over u.s. intelligence. and just today a big hint that trump may make a move to hire his national director of intelligence. also tonight, two things you seldom see. both are from roger stone who first publicly attacked a federal judge and then took it back when some took it as a threat. and protests over the president's wall emergency as 16 states now line up to take him to court. all of it as "the 11th hour" gets under way on a monday night.