tv The 11th Hour With Brian Williams MSNBC April 1, 2019 11:00pm-12:00am PDT
"the 11th hour" starts right now.tonight. >> sounds good. tonight subpoena fight. and the a.g. saying he won't hand it over until late april. both sides appear dug in and bracing for a standoff. and speaking of subpoenas a whistleblower reveals two dozen white house officials were granted a security clearance after being denied access by career professionals and the president wants an immigration czar after he threatens to shut down the border. "the 11th hour" on a monday night starts right now.
good evening once again from our nbc news headquarters. here in new york. ooirm i'm nicolle wallace in for bryan williams. day 802 and we are now less than one hour away from the april 2nd deadline set by top house democrats for the release of the unredacted mueller report. it's highly unlikely the justice department will meet the deadline. today house judiciary chairman jerry nadler escalated the confrontation over the release of the special counsel's findings. nadler says his committee will vote on wednesday to authorize a subpoena to get the report and tonight the chairman was asked how that vote might go. >> i assume he will be issuing subpoenas soon. >> do you think that any republicans will join you in your effort? to get the -- to get the mueller report? >> hopefully. >> but you don't know? >> i don't know. >> in today's "new york times" nadler slammed barr's four-page
summation of mueller's findings, write "by offering us his version of events in lieu of the report, the attorney general a recent political appointee, undermines the work and integrity of his department. a senior administration official calls nadler's move political theater. on friday the attorney general pledged to release a redacted version of the mueller report he says is nearly 400 pages long by mid-april, if not sooner. donald trump is now warning that may not be enough for his critics write "no matter what information is given to the crazed democrats from the no-collusion mueller report it will never be good enough. behind closed doors, the dems are laughing. when asked publicly of the release of the report trump's been all for it. >> does the american public have a right to see the mueller report? >> i don't mind. frankly i told the house if you
want let them see it. >> the attorney general, but it wouldn't bother me at all. >> the attorney general said he intends to release the mueller report in full to congress or the public. >> if that's what he'd like to do. i have nothing to hide. >> the latest polling shows the vast majority of americans agree the report needs to be released. and in new nbc news poll shows only 29% of americans believe the mueller report clears trump of wrongdoing. 40% say it does not. on another front the house judiciary committee also targeting five former west wing staffers who may be witnesses in the obstruction investigation. the committee will also vote wednesday on whether to authorize subpoenas for documents from former white house counsel don mcgahn. don mcgahn spent least 30 hours ft with the special counsel's investigators and witnessed the
firing of james comey, in ran effort to get jeff sessions recused. amy donaldson, according to "the new york times" "turned over exhaustive notes which detailed in realtime mr. trump's bhair in the west wing," hope hicks who testified she sometimes tells white lies for the president. reince preibus in the job when comey attempted to fire mueller and force sessions to resign. and steve bannon, he is in the west wing doing things, now known to be under scrutiny. let's bring in jonathan la mere, barrettberger, former assistant u.s. attorney with both the eastern and southern district of new york, tim o'brien, executive editor of bloomberg opinion, and paul butler, a georgetown law school professor. it's harder to talk at 11:00
than at 4:00. you're all very accomplished. jonathan la mere, take me through the president's -- when he's asked questions about the mueller report it's as though you've said you okay with grilled cheese? yeah, i'm fine with that. this has been that it would is end is foreseeable. and a response is good or bad feels like a moving target. >> i was in that rather or nate room at mar-a-lago. he did say publicly he would be okay with it all coming out. the white house is sending mixed signals, taking to twitter suggesting democrats would never be satisfied with whatever we'd give them. and suggesting a perhaps fight over this. and barr laid out a few things that would be cause for
redactions, including embarrassment of third parties seems like a place democrats want to fight, especially if the third party is jared kushner or donald trump jr. it's clear with nadler and the threat of subpoenas democrats are not taking this lying down. they're not going to be satisfied with whatever timeline barr wants to give them, whatever redactions he's willing to settle, there's going to be a fight. trying to get ahead of the story. the summary tried to jump the news cycle and fray it as a win. it's clear that seems to have been premature. other shoes may drop. >> one of the shoes that may drop it looks like donald trump didn't actually read -- i know he doesn't read a lot. but it was 3 1/2 pages, 3 1/2 pages informs in which the most newsworthy line was that mueller does not exonerate the president in half of what they spent 22 months investigating, whether or
not the president sought to obstruct the investigation into him. as it sets in and as it becomes abundantly clear -- detailed in narrative if i recall. we don't know, there isn't a single complete sentence in the barr summary may look pretty incriminating. >> barr was criticized for jumping in and giving his conclusion on the obstruction piece in this summary that's now not really a summary. but to some extent it doesn't really matter whether the obstructive conduct was actually a crime. i mean, what matters is the actions themselves. and to the extent that those actions are detailed in the report and that that report makes its way to congress and ultimately to the people, the people in congress are going to be the one to get to decide what to do with that conduct. whether or not it reaches the very precise criminal standards that you have to have to commit the crime of obstruction of justice, it could still be very relevant for people and congress to hear about. >> but mueller didn't decide whether it did or did not.
barr did. >> exactly. and mueller certainly didn't reach that decision. in fact, that's the one thing that was clear in this barr summary is that there was no decision on that. whether that's because mueller intended that to go to congress or because he wanted this to be reserved for the attorney general and rod rosenstein, we don't know, but i think the more important thing is there will certainly be evidence in this report, some that we know about, some that we don't know about but there's certainly going to be pieces in there that look bad for the president. mueller said as much, and barr said as much in the summary and that that does does not exonerate the president. whether or not it reach it is level of crime doesn't matter. >> butler, there's a terrible -- what mueller wanted. we don't know what mueller wanted. we know what he did. it's like my colleague rachel maddow says watch what they do,
not what they say. what mueller did on the obstruction investigation is he walked in three plus weeks ago and said here it is. i neither make a determination to prosecute, nor do i make a determination not to. what scenarios could have led him to that conclusion? >> so, not the one that bill barr suggests, which is that mueller basically said to him, oh man, this is too hard, can you please do my homework for me and make a decision in this case? so, look, mueller has some of the country's best prosecutors, and agents. he ran the criminal division and the fbi. he knows how to make difficult decisions in close cases. so most likely what he was doing is saying that there is evidence that the president obstructed justice, which is why he couldn't exonerate trump. and he was sending it, not to bill barr, but to the congress for it to make the decision about whether the level of evidence reaches the high crimes
and misdemeanors that's required for impeachment. >> let me show you what former acting solicitor general neil cattial, one of our -- >> he's improvising on his own. mueller says he can't decide whether or not there's obstruction. barr takes it on himself and says, oh no, i'm going to clear the president. and that's one of the many reasons congress is absolutely right to say by april 2nd, that's tomorrow, turn over the full report. >> this is when it starts to get interesting. >> you know, bill barr auditioned for this job. and part of his audition was saying i've got a very public and well thought out view of obstruction, and i don't believe the president of the united states can commit obstruction. donald trump doesn't pay attention to details. he doesn't read.
but he's got reptilian survival instincts. after having made jeff sessions -- or watched jeff sessions recuse himself and not be happy with that he's going to let another attorney general come in who wasn't playing ball the way he wanted to play ball. i don't think it's an accident then that when we come to this moment of bill barr having to make a decision how to interpret obstruction of justice, when bob mueller hasn't, that he steps into that vacuum and says, fine, you're done with this. i think the other side of this now, with what's going on with nadler and the congress is i think they would be wise not to try to relitigate all of the conspiracy issues. but they clearly have a door they can push open around obstruction. when you see them subpoenaing don mcgahn, for example, you know, mcgahn, sally yates walked over from the justice department we have tapes of michael flynn, we think this matters, and they didn't do anything with it until
they were forced because of press accounts of what flynn said and how he lied about it, to do something. there's more digging nadler and his crew can do around obstruction and make hay out of that if they're methodic and patient with this. if they get seen as bullying barr to turn over a document prematurely before barr's been able to vet it, they give barr capital he needs. >> tim makes a good point about barr adugsing for this job. he wrote in that 18-page memo that a president can't be interrogated on obstruction. with him in charge of the justice department there was no chance mueller was ever going to be able to ask the president any questions about the obstruction investigation. he refused to do so anyway. donald trump made clear what he wanted in an a.g., he wanted roy cohn. >> not quite roy cohn, a rather
infamous character in new york. but he has someone who has the president's back. we know from our reporting, reporting here at nbc as well, that the president wanted his roy cohn, somebody to be loyal to him like he perceived eric holder was to president obama and like bobby kennedy was to his brother jack and he did not feel jeff sessions did that, in the president's jeff sessions kmieted the ultimate betrayal by choosing country over the president himself, which is not how that job is supposed to work but we know how the president views the idea of loyalty. it's a one-way street, he demands it and didn't get it from jeff sessions in that decision to recuse himself. barr wrote out that 18-page letter. wrote out his thoughts clearly of what he thought of the mueller probe, did not think the president could be interrogated or indicted. and mueller clearly was following justice department guidelines thinking about the indictment and in this case seemed to defer, perhaps, or at least knew he'd be overruled by barr if he pushed for that last round of questioning. instead he settled for written
answers which i think to some is why we still have so many questions now. >> could anyone have proven an intent to obstruct without interviewing a subject? >> it's much harder because that intent element is really the tricky thing that takes it from obstructive acts to actually the crime of obstruction of justice. we have to do that as prosecutors all the time. it's not always an option to go out there and interview your subjects. either because your investigation is covert still or because the person, you know, asserts their fifth amendment privilege and doesn't want to come in to talk to you. i will say yes, it's absolutely possible. prosecutors do it all the time. it definitely makes it easier. and one would hope if you have somebody in a position of leadership they would want to be as cooperative with the investigation as they can. but clearly not what happened here. >> paul butler, could there have been anyone more hostile to obstruction of justice as a category of crimes than the man who is now the country's attorney general? >> the answer is no, which is
why he got the job. so donald trump famously fired sessions, or ran him out of office because sessions wouldn't protect him in the russian investigation. donald trump did not make that mistake when he chose his new attorney general, out of the 1.3 million lawyers in the country he chose a man who decided to write an unsolicited letter saying that the mueller's theory of obstruction was unsupportable. and now this is the person who will decide how much of that investigation the american people get to see. even the word that's used, scrub, well that's a technical term for removing privileged material from the mueller report. do we really trust this man, bill barr, who's acting more like a partisan lawyer for the president than a representative of the united states of america, do we trust him to scrub a
document that very likely contains very damaging information about the president? >> someone who may be scrubbed from it was on fox news tonight, jared kushner. let's watch. >> talking about this nonsense further, especially after two years and being wronged so many times, it's just really not productive and quite frankly it's kind of an embarrassment for our democracy. >> so this guy talking about embarrassments for our country, i need 47 more minutes. this is the guy who couldn't get a national security clearance, but his father-in-law weighed in. this is the guy who uses whats app to text with world leaders. this is the guy bho -- please, an embarrassment to the nation is nowhere near, robert, as mueller and his investigation. >> this is also the same guy who was busily courting chinese investors to bail his family out of a say scraper that they overpaid for on fifth avenue and the circumstances around that have never gotten fully resolved. they only backed away from dealing with chinese investors during the transition because it
became public through reporting. he then held meetings with russians when he was asked in the congress, did you ask for money or did you talk about finance for the building in those meetings he said no. i'm not convinced necessarily that he was truthful. that's never been tested publicly. i think there's a lot to look at in jared kushner using the powers of his office and his proximity to the president to feather his own nest, whether it's through business relationships in the middle east, with asia or russia. that hasn't played out in a very rich and robust way and i think the country has a right to know whether or not he's been an honest broker in all of this stuff. >> they sure do. do you think they will? >> i don't know. >> me neither. >> thank you so much. coming up, a whistle blower warns the trump administration's handling of security clearances has put the nation at risk. we'll assess those risks with two people who know. and later, new surprising numbers in tonight from a big blue state candidate and an
industrial city mayor, "the 11th hour" just getting started on a monday night. make its own insulin. and i take trulicity once a week to activate my body to release it, like it's supposed to. trulicity is not insulin. it starts acting in my body from the first dose and continues to work when i need it, 24/7. trulicity is an injection to improve blood sugar in adults with type 2 diabetes when used with diet and exercise. don't use it as the first medicine to treat diabetes, or if you have type 1 diabetes or diabetic ketoacidosis. don't take trulicity if you or your family have medullary thyroid cancer, you're allergic to trulicity, or have multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2. stop trulicity and call your doctor right away if you have symptoms of a serious allergic reaction, a lump or swelling in your neck, or severe stomach pain. serious side effects may include pancreatitis. taking trulicity with a sulfonylurea or insulin
increases your low blood sugar risk. common side effects include nausea, diarrhea, vomiting, abdominal pain, and decreased appetite. these can lead to dehydration, which may worsen kidney problems. i choose once-weekly trulicity to activate my within. if you need help lowering your a1c, ask your doctor about once-weekly trulicity. (danny)'s voice) of course you don'te because you didn't!? 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. quickbooks. backing you.
a whistle blower is accusing the trump white house of overruling 25 security clearance denials, including clearances for two current senior white house officials, tricia new bold is a security specialist who's worked for democratic and republican presidents and she raised her concerns last month in a private interview with the house oversight committee. she told them, coming forward
was her last hope to bring integrity back to her office. a committee memo says newbold told lawmakers these 25 individuals had a wide range of disqualifying factors, including "foreign influence, conflicts of interest concerning personal conduct, financial problems, drug use, and criminal conduct," chairman elijah cummings is asking the white house for security clearance adjudication summaries from nine employees, including jared kushner, ivanka trump, john bolton and former national security adviser michael flynn. today in an interview with fox news jared kushner was asked about newbold coming forward. >> i can't comment for the white house's process. what i can say is over the last two years i've been here i've been accused of all different types of things and all those things have turned out to be false. we've had a lot of crazy
backizations like we colluded with russia, i've sat for nearly 20 hours of interviews with them. >> clint watts is here, a former fbi special agent, and former member of the joint terrorism task force and nelson cunningham who works as general counsel under bill clinton where he oversaw security clearances in that role and former assistant u.s. attorney for the stoouther district of new york. is it more than troubling conduct among a handful of individuals when this is 25 applications denied and then overruled, does that suggest that the entire system is broken or perhaps corrupted? >> i've never seen anything like this. i came into the clinton white house, about this time, about two years into the administration. and honestly in the first year or two of an administration you often find slowdowns in security
clearances. you've got a whole white house full of new staff, many of them coming from campaign backgrounds, other backgrounds. it can take a while to process those people and get them through. bill clinton had backlogs. donald trump certainly had big backlogs in his first two years. but by the time i got there it had all been resolved. now, it had been reported that in the first two years of the clinton white house there were two employees who had drug use issues in their past. and political appointees there had said, no, no, we know these people, we don't believe they pose a security risk. we'd like to give them security clearances. that's two people. what we're hearing today is that there were 25 people in the first two years of the trump administration where political decision makers overruled the career security professionals who make these decisions.
i've never heard of anything like that. >> clinton, nelson's talking about the kind of things -- i've been vetted twice, once during president bush's first term, a second time after his reelection, one time i was a candidate for a job at the fbi, it was a higher degree of scrutiny, that should make everybody feel better about the fbi. but we're talking about how many times did you smoke pot in college? what she's talking about, with the "new york times" has reported on, is the cia flagged jared kushner's application, what do you have to do for the cia to raise concerns about your clearance? >> this is the big e stuff, the four categories, drug use, okay, that can vary, criminal conduct, that's usually an immediate deal breaker, foreign influence, holy cow, financial problems which makes you vulnerable to foreign influence or compromise, always a big deal. aldridge ames, back in the cia days, part of it there.
these are all huge red flag issues and i think the sheer volume, the number we're talking about, isn't just highly unusual. it's way out of bounds. this is usually resolved before those people ever go into the process. most people that go in for these jobs have already been cleared before, or they have been pre-screened by the team that's going to bring them in to make sure they can quickly get through the process. this is every vulnerability in the book from this menu and one of them, it was interesting, even from the republican note, it said except for a few who were denied for very serious reasons, which is even more alarming that we only needed to deny them if it's so bad you just wouldn't believe it. it's beyond what we want to be thinking about right now when we just went through a two-year investigation that was focused on foreign influence and here we're talking about clearances going to people with foreign influence. could you imagine being a foreign intel agency wanting to share with us right now, we've seen the president cough up secrets in the oval office, you've seen this messy investigation is going on and you don't know if your intelligence is going to people
that maybe didn't divest from their business. there's a lot of things to be concerned about. if we're just overruling it as an intel professional you see this, do you go into the white house and divulge everything or are you nervous instead of giving that information up in the white house? >> explain this further. i feel like what you're saying is this could have a chilling effect on what is shared with the u.s. government from our intelligence partners. is that what you're saying? >> both in terms of quantity and quality i would like to know that the house intel committee, the senate intel committee are doing a review with the dni to say what is the effect of our breaking of our alliances, chastising nato in the eu, having people come in with a security clearance, the net effect of foreign intelligence sharing over the last couple years and what is that quality? are we just getting info from authoritarians whose backs we scratch? >> we know we're getting it from them. the president after khashoggi was slaughtered came out and
trotted out the saudi talking points. nelson, let me ask you what power congress has? do they have the ability to get to the bottom of this and try to protect classified information? >> well, they do. when i worked at the clinton white house the republicans had just taken the house and the senate in 1994. so we were democrats dealing with a republican house and senate that were eager to investigate what we were doing. the exact opposite of today. i can tell you those republican committees were not stopped by anything in pressing forward for information, seeking it, looking for accountability. they held our feet to the fire. and i see absolutely no reason why it would be improper for the house democrats now to hold trump's feet to the fire, especially given, as clint said, the range of the issues raised
by the security clearances here by professionals. we have a process in place that's been built over many, many years where you have career fbi officials who do these security checks. you have career employees in the executive office of the president who are used to reviewing high-level clearances for employees who come in administration after administration. we have processes. we have standards. we have precedence. 25 people in two years is beyond anything i could ever imagine in my time in the clinton white house. >> just let me give you the last word on this. is this more than another sort of example of incompetent? does this feel to you like a national security scandal? >> i think it's -- speaks to the whole idea of death of the administrative state. you'll here steve bannon say that. donald trump, the president will overrule on all these things. all standards and proeszs is have been broken. it's the death of institutions and it cripples their ability to do their job, smearing the fbi on twitter or going after these
security clearances and really weakening the process of securing our intelligence and information. how can they do their jobs? they're working against all sorts of currents. already a tough job as it is. they're putting their life on the line why are they doing it when the circumstances, the deck is stacked against them? >> terrifying times, clint watts and nelson cunningham, thank you for that. i'll be up all night worrying. 19 months before election day 2020 a couple of democrats are generating big money and big crowds. new details out tonight when "the 11th hour" continues. this is not a bed...
how smart is that? smarter sleep. so you can come out swinging, maintain your inner focus, and wake up rested and ready for anything. sleep number is ranked #1 in customer satisfaction with mattresses by j. d. power. save $400 on select sleep number 360 smart beds. only for a limited time. we're on the move. hey rick, all good? oh yeah, we're good. we're good. terminix. defenders of home. they have businesses to grow customers to care for lives to get home to they use stamps.com print discounted postage for any letter any package any time right from your computer all the amazing services of the post office only cheaper get our special tv offer a 4-week trial plus postage and a digital scale go to stamps.com/tv and never go to the post office again!
i am who i am, as everybody coming into this process is, and i'm certainly passionately committed to making sure that the top leadership in this country, and in our party as i've worked hard to make sure it is in my administration reflects the full diversity of the people we serve. diversity takes many shapes. if a my lebial son who's a gay veteran isn't part of the diversity of our party, i don't know what else i can say. >> that was south bend, indiana major pete buttagieg. kamala harris released her $12
million total late tonight. we haven't seen the fund raising figures from another candidate, beto o'rourke who formally kicked off his campaign this weekend. he drew massive crowds in texas and among seven other candidates to address the liberal we the people summit to break through the crowded field. with us to talk about it all, amy stoddard, and kimberly atkins, senior washington correspondent for wbur boston's npr news station. let's start with you, mayor pete has not made a single misstep, if anything he keeps getting better. he matches the moment. he knows how to take a news cycle, and put his message, which seems to be his story at this point in time into that news cycle, really effortlessly and it's paying off, literally. >> it really is. remember, too, we are really early in the primary season, a launch number of democrats have
not even begun paying attention. so for not just one, but for multip multiple candidates at this point to be pulling in these very, very large fund raising numbers says something, it's good news for the party in general, and certainly good news for these candidates, someone like mayor buttagieg who is still trying to get name recognition. folks still trying to say his name right. inspiring people to the point he's pulling in these kind of numbers. there's been questions whether he has enough operations in place in early primary states and whether he can really play in the big leagues, but i think one thing we learned from 2016 is that convention has been thrown out of the window. we can talk about iowa. we can talk about new hampshire. at the end of the day this is a very small percentage of all the democrats who will have a say in who will be the next candidate. think about four years ago
nobody would have even -- you know, donald trump wasn't even in it yet. when he did get in it people didn't take it seriously. he certainly didn't have strong operation in the early primary states. look what happened. we have to let this play out and see what happens. also, senator harris's pull of $12 million as well is a big impressive number. again this early in the season. >> she, too, really exceeding, i think, not just expectations because that's a media game. but raising a sizable amount of money at a point when the field still feels very crowded. >> she has played this very shrewdly. she has a very focused operation that intends to get out of the right groups in the right places and really penetrate with those people and excite them. while she's not giving a lot of media interviews and sort of making the charm offensive splash that mayor pete is, she's doing this solid work in south
carolina and other places to really generate enough support to make her coalition very durable. she is, also, i mean just someone who covers washington sort of didn't smile her first several years in the senate and turns out to be really quite compelling. she giggles and she laughs and she sticks around for pictures and people just -- she's really packing rooms. it is the right approach. and i just think working the street sort of quietly metaphorically, the street, is really smart early op and she doesn't have to be as magnetic as buttigieg to get attention. her candidacy is exciting in a lot of ways and she's doing the hard work of the early map for the primary candidates. you can tell that's breaking through. >> i think she may have posted the largest crowd size, which we know gets under donald trump's skin. amy and kim are not going
before he's even announced his plans for the future, former vice president joe biden is having to defend his past. a second woman has now come forward accusing biden of inappropriate contact, comes just days after a former nevada assembly woman came forward to detail an interaction with biden that made her feel "uneasy, gross and confused," our own andrea mitchell has the details. >> tonight a second woman, a former democratic campaign volunteer, posting on facebook that joe biden touched her inappropriately at a connecticut fundraiser. amy lapos saying he rubbed noses with her in 2009. unwanted contact she described as not sexual. in a statement saying uninvited affection is not okay. objectifying women is not okay.
her account not verified by nbc news. she said she came forward after former nevada candidate lucy flores said biden made her uncomfortable in 2014. >> he leans down, smells my hair and then plants this big long kiss on the top of my head. i'm not in any way suggesting that i felt sexually assaulted or sexually harassed. i felt invaded. >> biden issued a statement that i have offered countless handshakes, hugs, expressions of affection, support and comfort, and not once, never, did i believe i acted inappropriately. defending him former defense secretary ash carter's wife stephanie for this much criticized shoulder rub in 2015. she writes he was just a close friend offering support. biden's spokesman today blasting a cottage industry of lies about the former vice president, including this cropped image with a boy, in fact, it was biden comforting his grandson at bo biden's funeral. all of it a 2020 campaign issue.
>> have you ever seen him being too huggy? >> i personally haven't seen that. >> i believe lucy flores. and joe biden needs to give an answer. >> i have no reason not to believe lucy. >> biden is being hit with all this before he's even announced he's running. his allies believe it's because he's polling way ahead of the field and is a likely front runner. >> amy and kim are still here, and i've never needed them more. let me figure out how to say this diplomatically. are we at a moment where you could not -- i mean, is this a black and white issue, kim, for the democrats? is this one and done, or are the democrats going to thrash through this with an open mind? i was stunned to see -- of course we believe the woman, that's the moment in which we live. i like to think no woman lies and sets out to destroy someone's life with a lie. but is this a black and white issue for democrats, is he done? >> i think the decision as to
whether this is disqualifying or not is going to lie with voters. that's what a primary season is about. this is an issue that he had to have seen coming and the people around him had to have seen coming. beyond the stories these women are telling. these are stories of women telling how they felt about someone touching them. i think, as an aside, i think on twitter and in statements i've seen a lot of folks in joe biden's corner who are saying that much too much is being made out of this and it's being blown up. i'm not sure that statements themming women they don't have a right to say how someone touching them made them feel is going to age very well. but i think that joe biden gets through this, the only way he can get through this is to address that. he's talking about his intentions. he didn't mean it, didn't think it was inappropriate. i think for women, a lot of women do understand what it is like when you're in a professional setting, not a social setting, a professional setting when someone who is not their significant other or family member puts their hands
on them for too long, or puts their lips on them. i think it's up to them to decide how that makes them feel. i think joe biden needs to acknowledge that he understands that. i think if he does that in a meaningful way he probably will get through it because people will make the decision that this behavior isn't as bad as other behavior. but that's a step he needs to make. >> well, he has agonized so much and so long about getting in the race i'm not entirely sure he will enter the race even though the reporting this is not going to push him out. he seems so conflicted all along, that this, no question if it looks like the voters are going to come after him and this sort of also ran contenders who might not make it in the long run into next year, sort of seeming excited to jump on this, i don't know if this is going to dissuade him because it's not just going to be about this, they're going to pile on about his, you know, votes on the iraq war and anita hill and on and
on. i do think that this is an incredibly strange moment for the democratic party in which there was a backlash to forcing senator al franken out of the senate. there was a backlash against senator gill brand among female donors, big female leaders in the party. this is actually still being debated within the party. and it's not just the opinion of lucy flores and this other woman that this might be disqualifying. it's actually a real live debate. and i think that, you know, we're having another conversation about -- i don't know that the primary electorate has resolved itself on a lot of issues and i think it's really unknown at this point just what the voters are going to say and where his poll numbers are going to go. i'll be interested to see how far senator warren and senator gill brand. i'm not sure the voters will turn on joe biden. >> the irony. we haven't said the name donald
trump in this segment. but a man who an access hollywood tape bragged about grabbing women in the bleep -- >> this is not a general election issue for joe biden should he become the nominee. it can't be. it won't be. it's only a primary campaign issue. >> i'm not sure. remember donald trump brought juanita broaddrick and paula jones to a debate. i'm not sure it won't be an issue. >> predicting donald trump is a dangerous game. you're a brave woman to do it, thank you both. coming up, help wanted in the trump administration, must be on board with building that wall. "the 11th hour" back after this. customers to care for lives to get home to they use stamps.com print discounted postage for any letter any package any time right from your computer all the amazing services of the post office only cheaper
>> just look at the math how many folks are coming across. this is a crisis. we need to fix it. >> now they want us to do math. president trump continues to threaten to shut down the southern border. as soon as this week. this comes as border crossings reached an 11-year high in february and are expected to increase in the coming months. but the u.s. chamber of commerce warns closing the border could inflict severe economic harm on american families and that the u.s. would close the door to over $1.7 billion a day in trade. meanwhile the associated press reported today trump is also looking to hire an immigration czar to coordinate his policies across agencies. those under consideration, the ap reports "trump is weighing two potential candidates for the post, former kansas secretary of state kris kobach and former virginia attorney general ken cuccinelli, strong view on immigration. i never thought that two names
could make me miss john kelly and kirsten nielsen's far right views on immigration. they have put children in cages. on friday they announced a plan to deport unaccompanied asylum seeking minors by themselves, essentially on unaccompanied minor trains and flights. what isn't going harshly enough for him in the category of immigration? >> the idea of going tougher seems hard to believe. that's the message the white house is telegraphing. great work from my colleagues at the ap for this story. not a done deal, but it shows you the renewed emphasis on this issue of immigration from this white house. coming off what they perceive as a victory in the mueller report, they want to shift back to their core agenda, enforcing that southern border. the wall has not been built. although the president is going on friday to the border in california to inspect a piece of it under construction. so we expect to hear a lot about
this then. and now this new plan, first of all that we're cutting off -- the u.s. has cut off aid to three central american nations, those the president feels are responsible for crete creating these caravans, experts feel that will make things worse. if you want people to stay in the country, you should give that country money to improve conditions there. and this threat to shut down border. no one thinks it can be done. people aren't sure it will happen at all. he's threatened twice before and hasn't followed through. the people in the white house say this time feels more real than others. there's a chance he does try to do this. >> the idea of anything feeling real has my mind spinning. he's on a tirade on twitter. talk about it. >> the republicans are very nervous about the plan to shut the border. also republicans very nervous about the president's renewed interest in health care. he's gone on a three-tweet spread this evening suggesting that though he does want to repeal and replace obamacare and
create a new gop plan he's punting it, pushing it beyond the 2020 elections. he says, after the republicans win back both the house and senate. so we have optimistic electoral prediction as well. >> never mind. >> he doesn't want to do that now. in the short term that's a relief for republicans who did not want to be saddled with this. there's no plan. come 2020 this is an issue again. it's a major defining point for that election. >> and maybe somebody reminded him that it was health care that helped democrats sweep -- >> no question. the republicans are nervous they can take more blows again if they're forced to teal with this day after day. >> a quick break for us. back right after this. termites, feasting on homes 24/7.
we're on the move. roger. hey rick, all good? oh yeah, we're good. we're good. termites never stop trying to get in, we never stop working to keep them out. terminix. defenders of home. that's all the time we have for tonight. i'll be back here tomorrow at 4:00 p.m. eastern. i'll sit down with preet bharara, at 4:00 p.m. eastern right here in this very studio on msnbc. that's our broadcast for tonight. thank you so much for staying up with us and good night from nbc news headquarters in new york. ♪
tonight on "all in" -- >> the trump administration is a walking, talking, living, breathing threat to national security. >> a white house whistle-blower says the trump administration is a threat to national security. >> there were anonymous leaks about there being issues. >> tonight the growing scandal surrounding security clearances inside the white house. at democrats start the process to subpoena the mueller report. then, is the president about to name an anti-immigration zealot as his new immigration czar? plus -- >> i love the saudis, many are in this building. >> why jeff bezos now says the