tv The Rachel Maddow Show MSNBC March 14, 2019 6:00pm-7:00pm PDT
the line and congressman and thomas, thank you gentlemen both. that is "all in" for this evening. "the rachel maddow show" starts now. good evening, rachel. >> good evening. chris. thanks to you at home for joining us. we start tonight actually with some breaking news out of a federal court case in florida. you will remember that between the 2016 presidential election and the subsequent inauguration of donald trump, in january of 2017 the news organization buzz feed published this document which soon came to be known as the steel dossier, the christopher steele dossier, this is a document at the time some reporters had seen or at least seen parts of it and parts of this document aor perhaps all o it was handed over to the fbi and state department. this document had been briefed at least in part to the incoming president. remember that dramatic scene in the book where he talks about going one on one and briefing
president elect donald trump on the content and the nature and most importantly, the existence of this dossier, which was starting to circulate. so it was around in various circumstances but buzz feed was the first to make it available and published it online in january 2017 and to put it mildly, their publication of that dossier exploded like a freaking fire ball, right? i mean, it had, you will recall, this awkward and still tidiffict to talk about front page presentation that president elect donald trump engaged in very specific extra maritalmari extra particular activity record in a hotel room. that alleged videotaped behavior by the president and russia holding it over him, that of usually got the most attention because of the nature of that
allegation and that specific allegation has never gone anywhere in the interim couple years. but as reporter matthew rosenburg notes at the "new york times" tonight, a lot of the other stuff in the dossier certainly the headline stuff in the dossier did ultimately pan out. quote, parts of the dossier have proved president. it's main assertion that the russian government was working to get mr. trump elected was partly an established fact when i was first laid out by christopher steele in his first memo in june 2016. but that has since been backed up by the united states' own intelligence agencies and robert mueller's investigation. the dossier's talk of russian efforts to cultivate some people in mr. trump's or bit was similarly unknown when first detailed in one of christopher steele's reports but proved accurate, as well. when buzz feed published the steel dossier, there was one russian guy who was mentioned on
the final page of the dossier who went beyond just complaining about the document being published or denying that the claims about him in the dossier were true, there was this one guy who is not known in the united states at all but mentioned in the dossier about having big shot role in this scheme. he went so far as to actually file an american lawsuit, a defamation case in federal court in florida against buzz feed. basically trying to destroy them as an entity as punishment for buzz feed publishing this dossier that contained allegations that were not true. this russian guy files that defamation lawsuit against buzz feed in february of 2017, right after buzz feed publishes the dossier. ultimately, buzz feed prevailed in that case. a judge dismissed the defamation case from this russian guy this past december. the court found that buzz feed's decision to publish the dossier was lawful and not defamatory
and threw the case out. last week on this show you might remember me giving you a heads up that there might be some potentially interesting new information. some potentially interesting new fallout from that lawsuit after its dismissing because even though the case has been dismissed and done in court, there has been some additional legal wrangling about whether the materials produced in that case kept secret and whether the materials produced over the course of a fight. bingo. that's what we got together. because tonight, this report which was created by the guy whose name you see on screen there, he's not a famous person but the former chief of staff of the cyber division, the former director for cyber incident response at the national security counsel at the white
house. he's now the head of a cyber security company hired in the course of this lawsuit to investigate whether the steel dossier was true. not all of it but specifically the part of it that was the basis of this lawsuit. as i mentioned it's on the last page of the steel dossier where this russian guy and his tech firm are described as having an important technical role on the election in 2016 and you sort of have to read through the redactions to get there but what the steel dossier said was over the period from march 2016 to september 2016, his company and its affiliates have been using bot nets and porn trafftraffic e leadership, entities linked to blank were involved and he and
another hacking expert recruited und under duress were significant players in the operation. the guy whose companies were described that way in that part of the deal, he's the one that file filed in the dossier and this guy, this other guy cyber division, the top response guy at the national security counsel, he was hired by buzz feed as part of him fighting this lawsuit. look at the data and produce an expert report basically about that guy and porn traffic and hired that whether those allegations were true. because that's a key of fighting a defamation case. you can't sue someone for saying bad things if the bad things
were true. don't sue somebody for defamation and the thing she was s saying and will ultimately turn up the truth about whether those terrible allegations against you that you didn't want anybody to hear that you're so mad about them and suing about them eventually in this defamation case will come out whether or not the bad things about you are in fact true because if they true, no matter how much. off the top of my head because i basically got that printed out on a rubber stamp in my office which i use as a response for everyone that contacts me when i say something about them on this show. i'm terribly sorry but it's true. stamp. give me the next one. we now know because this expert report has been unsealed tonight after that lawsuit ran its course in florida, we now know
that at least according to this guy from the national security counsel and the top cyber guy at the fbi, we know what it says in the christopher steele dossier about those russian both nets and the porn traffic and viruses and bugs and how those were used to steal data in the russian of ralgs again russians, that stuff in the dossier broadly is true. quote, technical evidence suggestions that russian cyber espionage groups used xbt infrastructure to support spear fishing campaigns against the democratic party leadership that resulted in the theft of e-mails from a senior member of the hillary clinton campaign. evidence suggestions the cyber espionage group linked to the hack used an xbt owned i.t. address and affiliate owned infrastructure was used and
subsequent information related to the clinton campaign. so this is the spear fishing attack on john and the russian intelligence groups conducting the attack and how they did it. what this technical report that we've now had unsealed out of that lawsuit, what it suggests is that at least in this part, christopher steele was right. as "the new york times" sums it up tonight, quote, a report by a former fbi cyber expert unsealed in a federal court in miami finds evidence that suggestions russian agents used networks operated by the guy who sued buzz feed to start their hacking operation during the 2016 presidential campaign. quote, the report suggestions of a link between mr. gubarev and russian hacking is likely to spur new demands for are you kne --
renewed investigations. they focused on christopher steele and the steele dossier as if it is embarrassing and his work might have been a pred kit f -- for the russian investigation. bits and pieces of the dossier keep getting proved. nothing has been disproven at all and i mean, flip through it again sometime. i mean, you know, i don't understand why republicans in the white house keep drawing people's attention back to the dossier, really you want people to read the dossier? it says about the trump campaign and trump himself is not good and bits and pieces of it keep being proven true. now, we think but we are not sure that there may yet be more unsealed documents that derive from this case in florida but this piece of it unsealed tonight verifying the only real technical stuff in the dossier about the russian attack on our
election and the russian attack on the democrats, that is new as of tonight. so very interesting news. "new york times" was first to break it but that report is available to everybody because it's been posted publicly to the court. i should mention when it comes to efforts by congressional republicans and the trump white house to try to fend off the russia investigation, one of the things happening over the past few days is the top republican member of the judiciary committee of the house, remember, republicans are the minority there now, so the chairman is democrat jerry nadler, the top republican is republican congressman from georgia, he personally that top republican from that committee has unilaterally been releasing unredacted transcripts or almost totally unredacted chance scrtr from witnesses that come before that committee for its part of the russia investigation. and the transcripts he's been releasing are from witnesses who the republicans and the trump white house and conservative
media have been trying to vilify as terrible bad guys somehow in the russia investigation. today for example, these republicans released the 300-page long transcript of the testimony of the top, the former top counter intelligence agent peter strzok. this is the testimony they released today. two days ago they released the testimony just as long from a top fbi lawyer named lisa page and couple days before that one of the top experts in the justice department on russian organized time, bruce orr and again, picked those three, peter strzok, lisa page and bruce orr because all of those are people who the republicans and the white house and conservative media have vilified, tried to turn into terrible, terrible bad guys because of their roles in the russia investigation. you know, it's -- you know, knock yourself out. try to turn anybody into a bad guy that you want and when you have access to privileged information that isn't public, that gives you an easy way to
vilify people. take specific allegations, phrases from here and there and if people don't have access to the full record, they only have access to what you're telling them about. it's easy to spin things as negative away as possible and been doing that for months now when it comes to these law enforcement and counter intelligence officials. but now this congressman from georgia doug collins has decided that unilaterally what he's going to do to stick it to the democrats is he's going to release the whole transcripts from these witnesses. to the point according to the democrats of rejecting suggested or requested dedredactions frome justice department because its law enforcement sensitive, collins says now and he's been rejecting them just releasing the whole thing. and i know why he's doing it but i'm not sure he's thought it through. taken an individual line or
phrase and posting it on twitter and giving it to conservative media as if he's turned up these admissions we've seen congressman collins do that with bits and pieces of these c transcripts but we got them to read and the whole transcripts definitely don't help their case when it comes to trying to make people like peter strzok and lisa page and bruce orr look like bad guys. from the lisa page transcript, question, are you aware of any fbi officials leaking information about this investigation before the election? lisa page, not to my knowledge. question, did you make any disclosures about this investigation to the press or public before election day? lisa page, no, ma'am. question, why not? lisa page, it's both inpermissible and would be unfair. thank you. question. how do you think a disclosure to the press or to the public would have impacted donald trump's electoral prospects? lisa page, that's not mine to speculate on, ma'am.
question, on the basis of the information, would it have been damaging? would it have been major? lisa page, i would -- yes. i would suspect so. question, if someone at the fbics wfbthe t fbi was trying to stop donald trump from being president, do you think they would disclose donald trump's campaign was under investigation? lisa page, that's what you would think. question, so you're saying yes? lisa page, yes, ma'am. question, but to your knowledge no one at the fbi did disclose so fact, correct? >> lisa page, no, ma'am. question, would you consider this strong everyday that there was not a deep state conspiracy at the fbi to stop donald trump from being elected? lisa page, yes, ma'am. that and the fact that this is an extraordinary conservative organization the notion that there is an fbi deep state conspiracy about anything is laughable.
questi question, just to be clear you were not personally trying to stop donald trump from being president? answer, oh, no. again, republicans are releasing this transcript from lisa page because they think that will make her look terrible. let's show the whole terrible truth about -- i mean, on the one hand, this is fascinating. and on the other hand, this does not make her look bad. i mean, here she is for example explaining the urgency within the fbi of the russia investigation that they were secretly conducting during the presidential campaign and how that urgency was inflected by wide spread expectations about whether or not trump actually had any prospect of winning the election. she says quote, by which i mean if he is not elected to the extent that the russians were colluding with members of his team, we're still going to investigate that even without him being president because any time the russians do anything with the u.s. person, we care. and it is very serious to us. but if he becomes president,
that totally changes the game because now he is the president of the united states, he's immediately going to start receiving classified briefings. he's going to be exposed to the most sensitive secrets imaginable and if there was somebody on his team who wittingly or inwittingly is working with the russians, that is super serious. thank you, lisa page. seriously. thank you, lisa page. i mean, i am -- it -- the circumstances under which it was released are contested, but i am glad to have this access to this information from your transcript. i don't know why republicans think it makes you look bad. also, in the peter strzok transcript released today, it's long and there is a ton in it but there is for example again, something the republicans think makes them look terrible, which i don't think most people will see it that way. their example is a hilarious back and forth i can't put on television because there is a lot of swearing but a republican
congressman is trying to get peter strzok to spell out why he expressed in a text message that it would be forgive me, f-ing terrifying for trump to actually be elected president. and republicans are questioning him about that and clearly think they have him nailed on something super bad about him expressing it would be terrifying for trump to be elected president. how terrible it is that peter strzok is expressing that while part of the investigation into whether or not the russians successfully infiltrated trump's campaign to install trump in the white house because they had basically flipped people close to him. why would you think that would be bad? they have this whole back and forth about it and at the end of it, you can actually just see in his own words rather than republicans characterizations of it why he would have been so f-ing terrified about the prospect of trump's election. here we go. quote, what did you mean by
f-ing terrifying? peter strzok, i'm sorry? >> question, what did you mean by f-ing terrifying? peter strzok, the prospect candidate trump might be elected president? in november when you said it would be f-ing terrifying you were investigating if he colluded to interfere in the election. peter strzok, the allegations made public, he's being careful not to step on open investigations but he says the al gau allegations that are public are members of trump's campaign may have been doing that. question, why in the world would you be talking about impeachment if you did not think he, trump specifically had done anything wrong. peter strzok, because without getting into details here that are either classified or in the context of an on going investigation, my concern based on the credible allegations that members of his campaign were actively colluding with the government of russia struck me as an extraordinary threat to america and represented ent
interruption, represented the most unbelievable severe and reprehensible behavior that any american could engage in. oh. so even if it wasn't at that point in the investigation, the prospect that trump himself was colluding, it was people in his campaign, the prospect he would get elected while people with his campaign were colluding with the russian government in order to get the russian government to help install trump in the oval office, that would be the most unbelievably severe and reprehensible behavior any american could engage in so would be f-ing terrifying that person could be president of the united states. further questions? no wonder peter strzok had to be demonized and run out of the place, right? but now, thanks to the republicans who think they have really nailed him here, we've got 300 pages of him in his own words. i don't think it's playing the way you guys want it to.
it's a lot of things happening at once right now. obviously, we're getting continuing revelations both from congress and unexpected quarters in congress and unexpected revelations from court cases which we weren't necessarily watching closely where we didn't necessarily expect to get new news developments. today roger stone got a trial date for early november. tomorrow we'll get a status update on rick gates, the president's deputy campaign chair that's a cooperating witness for over a year now. his sentencing in federal court has been delayed four times already. we will find out tomorrow whether they are going to delay his sentencing yet again or whether prosecutors and the special counsel's office are ready to tell us how corporative rick gates has been, what they got from him and therefore what they think he ought to get for a sentence. that deadline is tomorrow. yesterday of course it was the president's campaign chairman
who was sentenced to several years in federal prison within minutes of that sentence being handed down, the same man was also hit with a multi count felony indictment out of new york state which among other things has profound questions or profound impact on the overall question whether president trump might be able to use pardon powers to get him witnesses and defendants basically out of the line of fire when it comes to the russia investigation at large. that's interesting today in the wake of that development with manafort getting charged in new york state, today a bunch of new york stuff exploded. there was a landmark ruling in new york state appeals court that said a sitting president is not immune from lawsuits filed against him in state court. this is a landmark ruling because this is considered to be unsettled law. back in the clinton administration, this supreme court established that a president can be sued in federal court, that was the paula jones
case but that supreme court ruling in 1997 left the question about state courses open. today this new york state appeals court said we think a president can be sued in state court and so therefore this particular state court lawsuit against president trump that is before us today it can go forward. the immediate material consequence of that ruling in new york today is that the lawsuit they were considering when they made this ruling, the lawsuit against the president by a woman named summer, that lawsuit will proceed. this is a woman who says the president sexually and aggressively groped her and crucially, she says that he then defamed her when she made that allegation publicly and he publicly claimed that she was a liar. her case proceeding in state court will ultimately lead to discovery in that case. and discovery can be a very big deal. remember from where we just got this stuff in the christopher steele case, defamation cases really are one way to get courts
to prove one way or another whether nasty sounding allegations are actually true. somebody says you defamed them, they bring you to court for it, right? ultimately the court will be called on, the court process will be used among other things to determine whether or not the supposedly defamatory allegation was true. the court will effectively be used in the case if it goes forward to prove whether or not trump sexually and aggressively groped that woman. so that case at least for now will go forward, although the president e's certainly will appeal. as a secondary consequence of that landmark ruling today about state lawsuits being okay against a sitting president, we also got this late in the day, the new york state attorney general going forward with a case against president trump's foundation, his so-called charity. that may sound surprising to you because you might remember in december the president's charity was shut down after the new york
attorney general filed a lawsuit that alleged persistently illegal conduct at that foundation. well, apparently it being shut down doesn't mean it's out of trouble legally. within hours of that summer appe appeal's court ruling today, attorney general tish james in new york was back in court saying shutting that presidential foundation down is not enough and new york state is going after them for it quoting from the filings today, quote, mr. trump used the foundations assets for his own benefit and the benefit of entities in which he had a financial interest. mr. trump used foundation funds to among other things pay for portraits of himself and make political donations and paid for advertising for trump hotels and settle lawsuits involving his business, the trump organization and he improperly intervened in the 2016 election. in using the foundation's charitable assets, it was
willful and intentionful and was aware they may not use charitable assets and the foundation is prohibited from using assets to intervene in public elections but nevertheless used money donated to the foundation to benefit his campaign. this arrangement not only violated new york state law but ran a federal campaign finance law turning a charity fundraiser into a campaign fundraiser and campaign rallies into opportunities for the candidate to doll out money that the public donated to charity. as a result of this willful and intentional conduct, the court should require mr. trump to pay restitution of $2.8 million plus a penalty in the amount of 2. -- and cause me, excuse my, up to $5.6 million. how was your day today? today the new york attorney general told the president of the united states that he needs to pay $8.4 million to make good on the wrongdoing of his
charitable foundation which he was already forced to shut down by previous action by the new york attorney general. when it rains, it pours. i mean, all of this stuff is happening all at once. honestly, it's not even half of it. more to come. stay with us. of it more to come stay with us but with esurance, just snap some pics and you could get back on the road fast! well, not that fast. this editor made this commercial fit in 15 seconds. when insurance is simple, it's surprisingly painless.
i found a companyeans to who believes in me.rt. they look out for me. and they help me grow my career. at comcast it's my job to constantly monitor our network, prevent problems, and to help provide the most reliable service possible. my name is tanya, i work at the network operations center for comcast. we're working to make things simple, easy and awesome.
. last night the republican controlled senate voted 54-46. seven republican senators voted with the democrats on that. so it passed. that measure is also expected to passover whemi overwhelmingly i house. because it passed the house and senate, that resolution will tee up what could be president trump's attempt to veto something. he hasn't tried to do that yet. even if it's first on the resolution, it won't be the only one. hard on the heels of the vote yesterday, today the republican controlled senate voted to void the decoloration, of an emergency so we can build his southern border wall. this time even more republicans broke ranks and sited against the president, 12 republicans
crossed the isle to vote with the democrats this time and it was an interesting thing to watch this take shape. on this vote on the wall on the emergency decoloration,, the president kept insisting republican senators would stick with him and saying that publicly over and over again but as he kept claiming that, the number of republicans on this issue went from initially two and then through and then four all the way up to the 12 republican senators who sided against him today. this is a historic thing. this is the first time that the u.s. congress has ever blocked a presidential emergency decoloration. even ahead of whatever happens with this veto, they have never done something like this before. joining us is joaquin castro. a member of the house intelligence committee and also authored the bill in the house to overturn the president's decoloration, of an emergency. congressman, thank you for being here tonight. pleasure to have you. >> thank you for having me. >> you have to feel validated by the bipartisan nature of the
support for your resolution in both the house now and in the senate. >> yeah, that's right. we got 245 votes in the house and 59 votes in the senate. so it was a strong bipartisan condemnation of president trump attempting to go around congress to fund his border wall. you know, i was predicting we'd get 54 votes in the senate. we got 59. >> in terms of the expected veto, you need a bunch more senators to flip against the president in order to get it up to a veto over ride. obviously, it would be a heavy lift to get that threshold in the house, as well. to me, just as an observer that doesn't seem like a realistic possibility. i imagine you and your colleagues will try for it nonetheless. >> that's right. when we started this, i said if he tried to use the emergency decoloration, to build his border wall and fund his wall, then we would fight him in the courts. we would fight him in congress and that the american people
would fight him and so you're right, over riding any veto is going to be very tough but we're not going to give up. we'll continue to fight and do everything that we can to terminate this emergency resolution. >> well, is there a connection, actually, between what just happened with these again votes against the president, those votes to block the president in both houses and pretty big votes in both houses to do that? is there a connection between that and the legal strategy if this does get into court, will these votes in the house and senate be material to the way the courts look at this and decide whether the president acted within his constitutional powers here? >> yeah, i think you're absolutely right. they are related. it will be very significant for the courts and perhaps the supreme court if it reviews this to see that both chambers of congress, one re pub can chamber in the senate and one democratic in the house of representatives both voted the terminate president trump's emergency decoloration, because we don't
believe it's legal and because there is no emergency on our southern border. >> to the extent that the congress excuse me that the courts will be considering the sort of plain language understanding of what an emergency is a majority, bipartisan majority of congress looking at that matter and saying no, mr. president, we don't see the emergency, you have to imagine that moves the courts somewhat but we will see. >> no, that was very significant. thank you, i just want to say as a final thought, rachel, a thank you to all the americans who reached out to their members of congress and their senators and put pressure on these folks to do the right thing. i think that's why we saw overwhelming numbers in both the house and the senate. >> congressman joaquin castro of the great state of texas who authored this bill overturning the decoloration, of emergency. appreciate you being here tonight. >> thank you. >> i should always remember, you have to -- if you start stepping on the person you have to reinvite them back into the conversation or you both end
up -- i'll work on it. i'll be right back. up -- i'll work on it. i'll be right back 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. (danny)'s voice) of course you don'te because you didn't!? book at hampton.com for our price match guarantee. your job isn't doing hard work... ...it's making them do hard work... ...and getting paid for it. (vo) snap and sort your expenses to save over $4,600 at tax time.
dearest britain. we love you. maybe it's your big hearts. your sense of style. welcome to ba100. (ba100, you're clear for take-off). how you follow your own path. you've led revolutions... of all kinds. yet you won't shout about it. it's just not in your nature. instead, you'll quietly make history. cake. beds. poetry. trouble. love! hope! and rather a lot of tea. the best of britain, from the moment you step on board.
pressure, if you buy this you, too, can do what this soldier does. forces of opposition bow town. you are single handedly out numbered and at this point just in case it's not clear we're selling military capacity here, there is this quote it's tested and proven reliable in the most brutal conditions on earth the uncompromising choice on earth. the ultimate military combat weapons system. in 2014, the families of the first graders and the educators killed in the sandy hook shooting, they filed a wrongful death lawsuit against the manufacturer of the rifle that was used in that massacre and they used the company's marketing as evidence that this was a product that was not being marketed for a lawful use. the argument and specifically marketing the air 15 rifle to
civilians so that those civilians use it military combat which is not a thing you're legally allowed to do. during the trial, the lawyer said imagine if a car company marketed a vehicle as being perfect for running people over. >> can you imagine ford motor company advertising a car to go run over people? who would hesitate for a second to hold ford accountable for that? >> who would hesitate to hold ford accountable for that and question that and that american law would allow it? there is a very specific reason it's impossible to hold gun mack manufacturers because the gun industry alone has special immunity, i mean, if you make a
pillow that's prone to burst into flames when exposed to heat or a flotation device that sinks, not only are you liable to consumer protection leglations that wileglatio litigatio litigations, not only that if your product injures or kills somebody because of those failures, you'll get nailed for it, right? it's not the case with guns. guns alone are protected from those types of lawsuits. in 2005, congress passed a bill signed into law by george w.b. bush called the protection of lawful commerce in arms. you say the or ray there of the group supporting that. that was right before the democrats swept the house and senate. but the lawyers for the families of the sandy hook victims may with this lawsuit they initially filed in 2014, they may have become the first people in the country to find a way around that gun maker's immunity law and it starts with the marketing
strategy used by gun makers. today huge, hugely, hugely important ruling in connecticut. the supreme court in connecticut today ruled that marketing military style guns to civilians as a way of killing enemies, that could be a violation of state fair trade laws. there is a 4-3 decision overturned a lower court ruling that thrown out that lawsuit and boy, does this open a world of possibilities? this ruling paves the way for families to subpoena internal documents on how the gun companies marketed their a.r. 15s. this rifle that has become the weapon of choice for mass shooters. these are documents, internal documents and communications how they try to sell them and documents the manufacturers fought toot and nail to keep out of the public eye. because they fought so hard, it is expected that these documents may provide a brutal glimpse how the industry operates and strategized how to sell
products. a similar discovery process in court is what pulled back the mask on the tobacco industry and what that industry knew what it was selling to the american people and how. discovery in the tobacco cases forced that industry into a quarter trillion dollar settlement that became the beginning of the end of that industry. here for me, though, is maybe the part of this that will be most important to watch. in their ruling today, these judges in the connecticut supreme court said it will fall to a jury to decide the promotional schemes alleged in the case rise to the level of illegal trade practices and bl fault for the tragedy can be laid at their feet. which means this will no longer be knocking around among judges. this will be a jury, a connecticut jury that will finally get to decide this case as it specifically relates to what happened at sandy hook and they will get to look how this gunm manufacturer marketed this rifle as the ultimate combat
weapon system for civilians. in the context of knowing that that rifle took the lives of 20 first graders and six adults. right? 26 people killed at sandy hook killing all 26 of them took 264 seconds because of the capabilities of that ultimate combat weapon system. for civilians. 264 seconds. gun lobbyists may have immunity thanks to congress and president george h.w. bush and you may be allowed to market this type of weapon but you can't market a car on the basis how good it would be for running people down in a crowd and maybe this jury in connecticut will find you can't market weapons like this to civilians for combat use in civilian life because in civilian life, there is no such thing as legal combat use. combl like you can do it all. but mania, such as unusual changes in your mood,
activity or energy levels, can leave you on shaky ground. help take control by asking your healthcare provider about vraylar. vraylar treats acute mania of bipolar i disorder. vraylar significantly reduces overall manic symptoms,... ...and was proven in adults with mixed episodes who have both mania and depression. vraylar should not be used in elderly patients with dementia, due to increased risk of death or stroke. call your doctor about fever, stiff muscles, or confusion, which may mean a life-threatening reaction or uncontrollable muscle movements, which may be permanent. side effects may not appear for several weeks. high cholesterol; weight gain; high blood sugar and decreased white blood cells, both of which can be serious or fatal;... ...dizziness upon standing; falls; seizures; impaired judgment; heat sensitivity; and trouble swallowing may occur. ask if vraylar can help you get on track.
uh uh, i deliver the news around here.... sources say liberty mutual customizes your car insurance, so you only pay for what you need. over to you, logo. liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ today there was a supreme court ruling in connecticut that may be important for the entire country. it will pave the way for remmington to be held liable for the 2012 mass shooting at sandy hook eloqueementary school in newtown, connecticut. one of the mothers of the victims said about this ruling today, quote, nobody has blanket immunity. there are consequences. we want our day in court to see what they do to see why they do this this way and what needs to change. joining us now here in studio is joshua who is a lawyer for the families and my friend david
wheeler whose son ben was killed during the shooting. i want to thank you both for being here. big win today. >> thank you. >> david, let me ask you about your reaction. it was close. 4-3 but you prevailed. how did it -- what was your reaction? >> it was overwhelming, of course in a lot of ways. when i think back to in the months and weeks when we learned about how this industry works and when we first saw those advertisements you showed earlier tonight, absolutely shocking and overwhelming in that respect, as well. none of us had any idea that this kind of thing was prevalent and i just don't understand as i look at it what kind of society allows manhood to be defined that way and that's what this is about for me, it's about corporate responsibility. >> josh, one of the reasons i wanted you to be here is because i talked to you here when you filed this because i was intrigued by this as a legal strategy. you at the time were also an interesting character in this because you have not been a gun rights advocate.
this is not the space in which you are practicing law. you came from outside this advocacy world to say hey, i think i see a way forward here. is this going the way you expected it to? >> exactly. not 100% but it's going the way, remember, i remember speaking with you and talking about a path that rethought we thought through the gun immunity. that part is going exactly as we thought, and that perspective i think we were able to bring was that of an outsider and i had the same experience that david had when you learned about the gun and we saw the marketing. it just leads you to say to yourself this cannot be legal. >> uh-huh. >> this cannot just be above investigation and that belief and having david come to me and the other clients was more than enough motivation to try to find that path around this thing. >> i was struck by one of josh's arguments in court is this gun
maker didn't know the man who killed your son and who committed that massacre but that gunm manufacturer had been courting him for decades and driving their products in the marketplace toward people who should have been recognized as le likely to misuse these products. is that fair? >> i think that's accurate and it's important for us to be able to take a look at how those decisions were made. it's really important for us to be able to see how that manufacturing and marketing and advertising process is related to what happened to us. it's crucial and this decision allows us to do that. it's really important. >> in terms of newtown and sandy hook and families bonded together because of what you've been through. >> right. >> i remember talking to you very early on after it happened and there was no clear sense the
right way forward. how does it feel with everything you're coping with to be working on fights like this? this is a confrontational thing and up septembers people and gets people mad and calls to question how does it feel? >> well, i can only speak to that personally and i think it's important work and i think it has to be done and i certainly respect and allow anyone else the validity of the way they respond to something like this but this is what i have to do. this is how i have to move through the world. this is how i have to look at myself in the mirror in the morning. and if i don't do this, it has ton done. >> josh, what happens next in the case? >> we're ready to peel back the curtain and find out if i get the stuff they had been hiding. >> to get the internal documents from manufacturers. >> one thing is clear, rachel, is that they have done everything they can so far to prevent us from seeing their documents and their e-mails and their marketing strategy. so it just kind of begs the question what are they afraid of
and so i think we owe it to certainly the families and i think the public ought to see these things and make up their minds whether this is something acceptable for the community or not. >> joshua, lawyer for the sandy hook families, david wheeler, great to see you, my friend. come back. we'll be right back. stay with us. come back. we'll be right back. stay with us (pirate girl) ahoy!!!!! gotcha! (girl) nooooooooooooo! (man) nooooo! (vo) quick, the quicker picker upper! bounty picks up messes quicker,
- [woman] with shark's duo clean, i don't just clean, ♪ i deep clean carpets and floors, so i got this. yep, this too, and this, please. even long hair and pet hair are no problem, but the one thing i won't have to clean is this because the shark's self-cleaning brush roll removes the hair wrap while i clean. ♪ - [announcer] shark, the vacuum that deep cleans now cleans itself.
all of you. how you live, what you love. that's what inspired us to create america's most advanced internet. internet that puts you in charge. that protects what's important. it handles everything, and reaches everywhere. this is beyond wifi, this is xfi. simple. easy. awesome. xfinity, the future of awesome. here is a deep cut, do you remember the one absolutely
inexplicable moment late in the 2016 campaign when trump held a rally in jackson, mississippi? that's weird late in the campaign because mississippi is not a place republicans have to campaign in the general election. what's he doing in mississippi? then while in mississippi, out of nowhere in mississippi he invites up on stage a british guy in a pink tie who starts talking in his british accent about fighting brussels burro cats and how terrible angela miracle is and everybody is like who is this guy and why is this happening in mississippi? then what trump got elected, that guy, trump's favorite british person was like the first person to show up at trump tower after election to congratulations trump on his win. that was also weird. today it all came due and that's our last story tonight. that's next. ame due and that's our last story tonight that's next. i hear it in the background and she's watching too, saying [indistinct conversation]
delay their country leaving. e.u. that exit is otherwise slated to happen catastrophically in two weeks. they voted to delay it but it's not their decision to make. all 27 members of the e.u. have to agree unanimously to let the brits have an extension. only one country peeling off blows the whole thing up. i know this is hard to imagine but the man we know to be president trump's favorite british person of all, his friend, the right wing nigel is actively lobbying countries in europe to get one of them to block the delay. trying to find one company, anybody will do to stop the u.k. from getting this delay it's elected leaders are asking for so that britain is forced to crash out in two weeks with no plan. one british paper said having co campaigned for most of his life