tv All In With Chris Hayes MSNBC May 17, 2019 5:00pm-6:00pm PDT
finally, don't look down your noses at us. it was a conversation of debate and one that the democratic candidates and donald trump should watch. what the voters talked about is important to all americans, democrat, republicans and other people. you can catch the deciders determine night at 7:00 p.m. eastern saturday night right here on msnbc. you will hear the people, not just the politicians. that's "hardball." all in with chris hayes starts now. tonight on all in -- >> my understanding is that chairman nadler is talking this over with bob mueller. >> democrats wait for bob mueller. >> the mueller report was great. >> exploring the mountd ains of evidence of presidential mall thesance. >> al green on his call for impeachment and how 2020 democrats are messages pitches to hold trump accountable. >> the real way is by winning in
2020. >> as another state votes to eliminate abortion rights -- >> most of my rains were not the gentlemen jumping out of the bushes. >> the men taking those rights away. >> most were date or consensual rapes. >> hacked by the russians. all in starts right now. good evening from new york new york i'm chris hayes. it has been a month since the mueller report came out and the full weight of what is inside it still has not sunk in. that is partly due to a very successful spin effort by the president, his allies and loyal hand picked attorney general. you can tell the white house has some sense of just how damaging the content of that report is for them because now they want everyone to just stop paying any attention to it whatsoever. the white house's ridiculous claim of executive privilege is
stalling negotiations from robert mueller himself to testify before congress. the privileged claim could prevent mueller from getting into details about the president beyond what is in the un redacted report. in an interview earlier today, attorney general bill barr reiterated he wouldn't have any problem if mueller testified. >> you are okay with him testifying? >> absolutely. >> he works under you or did. what is the hold up? jerry nadler said it will happen soon. perhaps in june or not. do you have information? >> my understanding is that chairman nadler is talking this over with bob mueller and his staff and trying to schedule it. >> you expect it to happen? >> i have no reason to think it won't. >> whether or not mueller does testify, there is a good argument that there is more than enough incriminating damning
information available right now for the democrats to move forward with impeachment proceedings against the president. they don't need the un redacted mueller report or mueller to testify. what happened yesterday was a perfect example. former national security adviser michael flynn talked about multiple incidence where is they received communications from persons connected to the administration that could have affected both willingness to cooperate and the completeness of that cooperation. in other words, a federal judge said they had been tampering with a witness, michael flynn. most was already in the mueller report. it's an extremely damning piece of information about minions acting like mobsters. let me read it to you again from the mueller report because it's literally a transcript of the president's own lawyer calling flynn's lawyer in an attempt to interfere with the cooperating witness. i understand your situation, but let me see if i can't state it
in starker terms. it wouldn't surprise me if you went on to make a deal with the government if there is information that implicates the president and we have a national security issue. we need a heads up for the sake of protecting the interests. remember what we said about the president and his feelings towards flynn. that still remains. if you think that sounds bad or not the way the president's lawyer should be speaking, he does sound like a mob boss. that behavior is all over the mueller report. it's a dozen instances of possible obstruction by the president. it's not just that. all the no collusion talk about the white house obscures the fact of the way they acted was completely morally and ethically indefensib indefensible. they encouraged an adversary to help them. they sought means of help through back channels and that foreign adversary understand and helped them. that's not right and it's not okay and all of that information is in the publicly available
mueller report. the president of the united states violated his oath of office. the question is, what do you do with the facts? now, as a public service, two people with a deep knowledge of the actual report, marcie wheeler and writing about national security and civil liberties and quinta is a managing editor of law fare and published this chart used by senate democrats when they questioned attorney general bill barr. let me start with you. you were tweeting and writing about this. the microcosm of this moment in which this new information comes to light that had already been in the report. when everyone's attention is focused on it, they think wow, that doesn't look good. >> exactly. i think it really drove home exactly how difficult it is to look at the contents of the report. it is stuffed chock full of information like the flynn voice mail.
all 450 pages of it, it was difficult for people to process, in part because the president and his allies were spinning it, but then when you pull out individual pieces of information like that voice mail, they look incredibly damning. >> there is a bunch of stuff that we talked about certain moments that you felt had not been given enough attention. marcie, you had called attention to this moment in the report which has not gotten a lot of attention. according to him, trump asked him to bring a note telling jeff sessions to give a speech that would say the following. this is while they are investigating what they know is a breech. this hack by a foreign adversary. now a group of people want to subvert the constitution of the united states. i am going to meet with a special prosecutor that explain this is very unfair and let them move forward with election meddling for future elections so it can't help in future elections. this is an attempt to shut down the whole thing.
>> not just to shut down the investigation into trump, but also an attempt to shut down the investigation into the russian hacking. no one gets this. in the summer of 2017 at the same time that trump had just met for the first time with vladimir putin in this crazy meeting in the g-20, he went to lewandowski and dictated to him in the report and made him write it down and he said he never dictated anything to me before. he makes him write it down and in that paper, he said go tell sessions to shut down the investigation into the russians who hacked us in 2016. he can investigate what's going to happen, but not in 2016. that's crazy. no one knows that trump tried to shut down the entire investigation, not just his side, but the russian side as well. >> this speaks to the broader theme, quinta. many ultimately unsuccessful
efforts to blow up the investigation, ordering don mcgahn to fire mueller and telling him to bring this note to jeff sessions and trying to get him to unrecuse. he is saved from the outright commission by people not following his orders. >> that's absolutely right. i do think it's important to remember legally speaking, attempt at obstruction of justice is the same thing as obstruction of justice. just because people like lewandowski and don mcgahn didn't go through with it, that doesn't mean legally speaking he is in the clear at all. i think it's incredibly damning that as you say, you see him attempt this pattern again and again and again, pushing sessions to unrecuse and pushing sessions to investigate even hillary clinton. >> the pushing sessions to investigate hillary clinton is
where we are now. you have bill barr who is basically looking ready to play ball and use the justice department in the way the president wants it used. part of the consequence of no accountability for repeated efforts to obstruct justice or use the differently justice as a tool without that punished. it's now a live possibility. >> right. and what's interesting is where barr has gone. today he was on fox and talking to "wall street journal" and saying you know, nancy pelosi better be careful or she might get investigated. i looked back to may 1st which is when he was supposedly testifying about the mueller report and he had an exchange with mike lee. in that exchange and the exchange was 20 days after he said trump had been spied on, mike lee said tell me about the spying and he was trying to set him up. barr was like well, all i know
about is the figsa warrant on carter page and that seems anemic for an investigation as serious as this. that can't be true so there must be spying. at the core of barr's public attempts to justify what he is doing which we know trump ordered him to do. that's askally not that there is any smoke or fire there or evidence of wrong-doing, but the absence of it. the fact that peter strzok said hey, this is crazy. we need to investigate aggressively and he lost that battle. peter strzok is the villain of trump's narrative. as a result, we didn't have phone records from george papadopoulos until after the fbi interviewed him twice. that's crazy, but it's a testament to how slow this investigation was, not how aggressive it was. >> quinta, what do you think? one of the things and you were writing about this and people
who read the actual report and the letter signed by former federal prosecutors come away white faced. the behavior there is so obviously indefensible, if you did it in any other investigation if you were the mayor and they were investigating real estate deals or someone who was around a mother and going around telling witnesses don't talk to the cops, you would get knicked for it. what is the distance between that and the public's understanding of what is contained? >> it's a good question. there are a couple of things going on. one is frankly that the president and his allies including attorney general barr have been really successful in spring the narrative. as the president side, no collusion, no obstruction, which is not what the report said. the other part of it is to be fair to the press, it's a 450 page document. it is really dense. there is a lot of stuff in
there. most people are not going to have the time to sit down and read it through carefully. i would argue that it's really at this point the responsibility of the democrats in congress to start thinking more carefully about how they can really communicate what is on the page so that we have more moments like we did yesterday where information already in the report is put on the table and people can really take a step back and say oh, my god, i didn't realize the president was doing this terrible thing. >> your thoughts? >> i will add another example. trump is trying to distance himself from mike flynn and said i wasn't warned about the investigations into him. another detail in the report that people don't know is that both hope hicks and steve bannon
testified that in december of 2016 when flynn was calling up the ambassador to russia and doing all these crazy things that violated the stated policy of the united states, trump was already pissed at flynn. he was angry at flynn because obama warned him about the investigation on november 10th, 2016. trump spent the day saying i didn't know about the investigation and that effectively according to the mueller report is him calling steve bannon and hope hicks liars because that's what they told the fbi. trump not only knew about it, but he was stew being it through december 2016. >> thank you both. really spresht it. a legislator who has been calling for the president to be impeached for over a year now. the duty to go through impeachment and public trial of president trump. you are someone that a lot of people have taken the position
to wait and see what the mueller report says and we need all the information. you believed the president had committed impeachable offenses for over a year now. what are they? >> thank you for having me on. i greatly appreciate the opportunity to share some thoughts. let me start with this. this has been a two-year journey and it's not one that i came to congress to embrace. but i'm doing it because i love my country. when the president decided that he would fire mr. comey and go on national television at prime time and confess that he was thinking about this russia thing, that was the genesis of this. we had many other opportunities to see him thwart this investigation to see him interfere with it. we have reached a point now where it's really not about the president as much as it is about the congress.
what you and your colleagues just presented to the public will be seen by future historians as almost a turning point as clearly as it can be explained. it's about the congress. it's about whether we in congress are going to stand up to a reckless ruthless, lawless president who continues to thwart the investigations and interferes and whether we will be a coequal branch of government. if we don't do this, future presidents and secretaries of the commerce and other areas of government will simply ignore us. they will clonclude that we area toothless paper tiger. we have to impeach. let me explain. impeachment means simply this. the house can take this book that you have so eloquently discussed. they can take this book and we
can take it. we can find reason here. there is more than enough evidence to impeach the president. then there will be a trial in the senate. that trial in the senate will allow all of what we have been talking about as evidence to be presented. the witnesses will be called. the chief justice of the supreme court presides. there is no need to try to meander through inferior courts now to try to get a ruling on subpoenas, whether we will have the opportunity to get certain evidence. take it straight to the chief justice. he will be the ultimate decider as it were. and we will all see, there will be transparency. we want to have the trial in the house. great to have a stril in ttrial house. the constitution doesn't require it. then the trial will take place in the senate. if we fail to do so, sir, here's what will happen. no guardrails. we will allow the president to have power concentrated in his
hands to the extent that he is a monarch. we are the check to maintain the balance. if we don't do our duty and don't do our job, future historians are going to look upon us with disdain and wonder what was wrong with us? >> congressman green, you said something that was interesting that i haven't heard articulated. people think of impeachments as a means to an end. the end is the removal of the president. you view impeachment as an end in and of itself. it's a constitutional duty and what comes after that whether he is removed or not, let the chips fall where they may. to you, the impeachment is the point. that's the goal. >> the impeachment is the gin sis of this process that will lead to the trial. as has been intricated, 800 lawyers and former prosecutors have intricated that anyone
other than the president would be prosecuted. the president as i speak to you now, sir, is above the law. he is above the law. he will continue to be above the law until congress acts. we in this country cannot allow it to be said that the president is above the law. these prosecutors intricated in the letter that we prosecute people for obstruction because if you don't, the entire system itself can find itself weaken and may collapse. they didn't use those exact words, but you will say to people, you can interfere with an investigation with immunity. this is really now about congress. will congress have the will to follow the way that the framers of the constitution have put in place for us and impeachment is the genesis of it. the trial is in the senate. we are a grand jury. we will indict. the senate will take up the
trial. we will send managers over. they will be the equivalent of prosecutors and present this case on national tv. everyone will see. the witness will testify. let the chips fall where they may. i do agree with you there. this should be about political expediency. wait until the next election to take control of the senate. let's control the house. this is about the moral imperative to maintain the system of checks and balances so we don't allow the president to have power concentrated to the extent that he will have no guardrails and nothing to prevent him from doing what he will and only god knows what his will is. >> al green who has been outspoken on this for over a year. thank you for taking time tonight. >> thank you and i honor you for what you are doing. >> thank you, congressman. meet the men voting to eliminate abortion rights including lawmaker who said most of the
rains he encountered as a police officer were date rapes or consensual rapes. actual russian hacking of voter systems in a state where donald trump narrowly won. don't go anywhere. p narrowly won don't go anywhere. nothing says summer like a beach trip, so let's promote our summer travel deal on choicehotels.com like this: surf's up. earn a fifty-dollar gift card when you stay just twice this summer. or.. badda book. badda boom. book now at choicehotels.com
ohone day you'll tell yourse grandkids about it. and they'll say, "grandpa just tell us about humpty dumpty". and you'll say, "he broke his pelvis or whatever, now back to my creamy heinz mayonnaise". heinz mayonnaise, unforgettably creamy. most of us don't know how much data we use... ♪ ...but we all know we're paying too much for it. enter xfinity mobile. america's best lte with the most wifi hotspots. combined for the first time. when you're near an xfinity hotspot, you're connected to wifi, saving on data.
>> "the washington post" reports that florida lawmakers were frustrated that the fbi and department of homeland security officials who briefed them were not able to guarantee the breeches had not resulted in election information being compromi compromised. they said they found no evidence that it was altered or affected. they assures them that vote counts and processes were not affected. his latest piece is about the washington county breech. mark, i guess let's start there. to say this comes out and said the federal government said two counties were breached and doesn't say which ones. that's as much as we know right now? >> yeah and it's difficult at getting answers out of the fbi. i spent 30 minutes on the phone with a spokes woman to get her to answer the yes or no question. is the identity of the counties classified. it was an exercise in alice in
wonderland. it was bizarre. we determined that the counties are allowed to disclose the information that they had been hacked, but the governor whose office oversees the counties is not allowed to disclose the information that they had been hacked because the fbi made him sign an nda. >> i have never heard of ndas in this context. i covered politics and they signed a nondisclosure agreement? that's weird. >> that's my reaction as well. the fbi said said this does happen when they have sensitive information to share. how many times have you made a governor sign an nda? we didn't get an answer to that. there is a victim here and the victim is the two county election offices that had been hacked. it's up to the victim to disclose. we said well, the victim that is lawmakers as well, the voters and the public who work for whom
the election offices work. the fbi views that they are not really the victims. meanwhile as a result of this battening down public information in this vacuum, all of these experience theories are starring to pour and it looks like a cover up. no one can complain why they are not being forth coming. >> washington county that donald trump won by huge members. a conservative red county, they said and we don't know the other county. that's the information. do we know the level of access and what it means and has someone walked the public through like just could they go in and erase people's informs or change their addresses? do we know? >> we don't know and they gained access. the governor said something interesting that this was a spear fishing attack and there was an e-mail sent to some counties and two counties.
people opened up the e-mail and it downloaded the mal wear and the russians got in. it was sophisticate and it looks like a vote in the security firm and didn't look like a banker scam. what's interesting there is desantis is disclosing this was a spear fishing attack. this is what happened. disclosing the names of the counties is not going to disclose the sensitive investigative techniques of the fbi. we are once again back at square one of the fbi saying look. they say look, the counties are the victims. the second can disclose and the county works for the victim and the state overseeing the counties is not allowed to disclose because we made the governor sign an nda and they can't disclose because of their clearances. we are back to square one, wondering what the hell is going
on. >> the counties themselves seemed important. we should know which two. that is actually a public briefing on what happened. given the fact that these are the voter files, it's not quite enough to say to people don't worry. they didn't do anything too crazy. what could they have done? >> you referenced the mueller report before. if you read in section one, the russians tunnelled into the dnc's e-mail network and set up a vpn, a virtual private network and the russians were able to explore and look around and have free reign according to the mueller report. it doesn't look like that happened here in florida, but i don't understand how the mueller report can disclose that in the case of the dnc and not here in the case of the two counties where voter data had been hacked. >> mark caputo has been doing great reporting on this. thanks for making time. >> thank you. >> showing plenty of candidates
beating trump in head to head matchups right now, some democrats are playing cautiously with a full 18 months to go. that's next. a full 18 months t. that's next. woman 1: this... woman 2: ...this... man 1: ...this is my body of proof. man 2: proof of less joint pain... woman 3: ...and clearer skin. man 3: proof that i can fight psoriatic arthritis... woman 4: ...with humira. woman 5: humira targets and blocks a specific source of inflammation that contributes to both joint and skin symptoms. it's proven to help relieve pain, stop further irreversible joint damage, and clear skin in many adults. humira is the number one prescribed biologic
for psoriatic arthritis. (avo): humira can lower your ability to fight infections. serious and sometimes fatal infections, including tuberculosis, and cancers, including lymphoma, have happened, as have blood, liver, and nervous system problems, serious allergic reactions, and new or worsening heart failure. tell your doctor if you've been to areas where certain fungal infections are common and if you've had tb, hepatitis b, are prone to infections, or have flu-like symptoms or sores. don't start humira if you have an infection. woman 6: ask your rheumatologist about humira. woman 7: go to mypsaproof.com to see proof in action. woman 7: go to mypsaproof.com sarah's last tuition payment, sent off. feeling good? oh yeah. now i'm ready to focus on my project. ♪ ♪ this is why we plan. ♪ ♪ you never cease to amaze me, maya.
. >> it was thomas payne who said in the united states of america, the king is not the law. the law is king. these guys seem to have forgotten that and think they can do whatever they want. the answer is to hold them accountable and continue to push the subpoenas and go to court and get the information. the second thing is the real way we get these guys is by winning in 2020. >> presidential candidate amy
klobuchar was asking about them ignoring oversight. the sentiment is pretty widespread that impeachment would be a dead end because the president is not popular. the democrats won big. polling intricates polling indicates to basically run out the clock. i feel like it would be the political equivalent of the stalling that comes out to bite the team that is using it. to talk more about the strategy, danielle moody mills from owoke af. communications director for justice democrats. the part of that statement to me that jumped out was ultimately the way to hold them accountable is to win in 2020. do you agree that that is a
widespread belief? >> absolutely. i like what she said about accountability. a lot of voters who said if we are to be fair to presidents past and future, we have to hold the president accountable. all very fair and important. there are going to be folks that want tell us there, too. i think it's important that democrats show that we are slowly but surely pushing out the really good policy. >> what do you think? >> i think that's a disaster strategy. i knowledge that the house is on fire. we are in a state of emergency and should probably act like we can walk and shoe gum at the same time. the president is a criminal. we read the 448 page report. there is a book club doing it on a week to week basis. we know all of the ways he ab instructed justice. this idea of doing a little bit of oversight and we will hope
and pray or have process fights and the direction should never go to win. i want to see the president have to fight a war on multiple fights from the southern district of new york to the federal government and have all of these lawsuits and all of these proceedings coming at him and have that cloud over his head as we go into the election. not like oh, they are too scared to do their job so i will continue to push hard. >> one of the most embarrassing things was watching congressional democrats read the mueller report on the house floor or press conference and it was not the kind of aggressive -- i don't know, by reading the mueller report, what do you think is going to happen? my dad is from pakistan. they recently impeached the president. my dad probably identifies as a moderate. the prime minister was impeached for far less than what trump has been held accountable for. he said why aren't the people taking to the streets? >> there are a lot of folks who say why don't we abandon this
because it's just going to end if we don't get to impeachment. it is important that we are holding him accountable, but if democrats are looking and if the party's leadership is looking at the strategy in 2018 in getting the house back, a lot of the candidates campaigned by not talking about trump and focusing on running in the districts and talking about policy. there is a little bit of that. >> that's the tension. they feel like the recipe was talk about health care more than anything. trump is priced in and no one cares about the stuff. i think there is an interesting switch that happened. the left part of the party was like no one cares about this russia stuff. people want kitchen table issues. the left part of the party is you should be impeaching him. >> also because you had the election of those members of congress like ta lib from the left of the party and pro impeachment. >> that's what i'm saying.
that does something interesting to where the conversation had been. there was debate in the years about how much is it about trump and how much is it about russia and policy. all of those have gotten mixed up in an interesting way. >> this is where the democrats always lose. they do a terrible job of explaining to the people why it matters. it's not for impeachment's sake, but to restore integrity to the office of the presidency. these are tied into your kitchen table issues. this is about health care. it's about abortion. it's about child care. you have a president that has appointed more federal judges than any other president at this point. there are over 100 judges he appointed. i think about it like this. i'm a law and order type of lawyer or play on tv. if you make him illegitimate and talk about the fact that he is
illegitimate, you have to look into the people he has chosen for judges and the people he has been appointing and start to put scrutiny on them as well. there is a bigger thing at play and democrats look through everything in a pinhole. >> part of the fear is the basic fear which is that it would be a big bloody fight that would hurt people. >> like impeachment. >> you are going to get punched and bloodied and if you look at impeachments past, it was bad for the congress with bill clinton. we never got to it with nixon, but that's the fear that they give up the capital they have. >> there are a lot of democrats that say and i'm from the bronx and i believe this fully. if you bully goes after you, you punch the bully in the face.
i think that's important. i think democrats and a lot of voters feel this way. we never have been good at getting down and dirty in the way republicans do and they want to see us do that more. i don't know if the leadership wants to go ahead of where they think the voters are. >> the thinking of the house members who wanted health care and they don't want to send them back to the district, that's what they are thinking. thanks for joining us. just two of the men leading the charge to end abortion rights for women across america, an introduction ahead. you want to see that. donald trump propping up his portrait in thing one, thing two. portrait in thing one, thing two. when you shop for your home at wayfair, you'll find just
what you need and so much more. you get to spend less time searching and more time loving every room, even the ones you never thought could look good. you get great deals on the things you need and actually want. you get fast and free shipping on thousands of items and finds for every home, and every style, at every price. that's what you get when you've got wayfair. so shop now!
what do you look for i want free access to research. yep, td ameritrade's got that. free access to every platform. yeah, that too. i don't want any trade minimums. yeah, i totally agree, they don't have any of those. i want to know what i'm paying upfront. yes, absolutely. do you just say yes to everything? hm. well i say no to kale. mm. yeah, they say if you blanch it it's better, but that seems like a lot of work. no hidden fees. no platform fees. no trade minimums. and yes, it's all at one low price. td ameritrade. ♪ [spanish recording] so again, using "para", you're talking about something that is for someone. ♪
pretty good. could listening to audible inspire you to start something new? download audible and listen for a change. onmillionth order.r. ♪ there goes our first big order. ♪ 44, 45, 46... how many of these did they order? ooh, that's hot. ♪ you know, we could sell these. nah. ♪ we don't bake. ♪ opportunity. what we deliver by delivering. a special final art edition of thing one, thing two. remember the time there was an auction of celebrity portraits and the that went for the highest price was a painting of donald trump. not that one, no, not that one
either. this is the one. that one, yes. someone spent $60,000 on this portrait. who would do such a crazy thing? donald trump of course. >> mr. trump directed me to find a person to purchase a portrait of him objection auctioned off at an art event. the objective was to ensure this portrait going to be auctioned last would go for the highest price of any portrait that afternoon. the portrait was purchased by the fake bidder for $60,000. mr. trump directed the trump foundation, which is supposed to be a charitable organization, to repay the fake bidder, despite keeping the art for himself. >> so donald trump scammed the donors of his charity by scamming the auction and kept the participating of himself which sounds about right. this rabbit balloon animal that
went on auction this week and sold for an enormous amount of money to this rich guy who just so happens to be the father of this guy. that's thing two in 60 second says. places in america. and home to three bp wind fa. in the off-chance the wis.tops . the lights can keep on shining. thanks to our natural gas. a smart partner to renewable energy. it's always ready when needed. or... not. at bp, we see possibilities everywhere. which sounds about right. which sounds about right
. right across the street from where we do this show is kristi's auction house where they sell the most famous art newscast world to the most famous people. robert mnuchin, father of steve mnuchin. this is what it looked like when daddy bought that rabbit. >> the beautiful jeff coops and we will open at $42 million. 42 million, 45 is bit. $45 million. $45 million. $48 million. $50 million. $50 million. $55 million is bid. $57 million. $58 million. 60 million is bid. 70 is the bid.
would earth of you like to give me 72. 70 million. 72 million, a no and a yes. 72 million. 73 million. 74 million. 75 million. 77 million. sir? 78 million. 80. here it is. $80 million. 80 million. you have it, sir. $80 million. i don't want to hear about insurance. 'cause let's be honest... nobody likes dealing with insurance. right? see, esurance knows it's expensive. i feel like i'm giving my money away. so they're making it affordable. thank you, dennis quaid. you're welcome, guy in kitchen. i named my character walter. that's great. i'd tell you more but i only have thirty seconds so here's a dramatic shot of their tagline so you'll remember it. when insurance is affordable, it's surprisingly painless.
ohone day you'll tell yourse grandkids about it. and they'll say, "grandpa just tell us about humpty dumpty". and you'll say, "he broke his pelvis or whatever, now back to my creamy heinz mayonnaise". heinz mayonnaise, unforgettably creamy. at a comfort inn with a glow taround them, so people watching will be like, "wow, maybe i'll glow too if i book direct at choicehotels.com." who glows? just say, badda book. badda boom. book now at choicehotels.com. or psoriatic arthritis, little things can be a big deal. that's why there's otezla. otezla is not an injection or a cream. it's a pill that treats differently. for psoriasis, 75% clearer skin is achievable, with reduced redness, thickness, and scaliness of plaques. for psoriatic arthritis, otezla is proven to reduce joint swelling, tenderness, and pain. and the otezla prescribing information has no requirement for routine lab monitoring.
don't use if you're allergic to otezla. it may cause severe diarrhea, nausea, or vomiting. otezla is associated with an increased risk of depression. tell your doctor if you have a history of depression or suicidal thoughts or if these feelings develop. some people taking otezla reported weight loss. your doctor should monitor your weight and may stop treatment. upper respiratory tract infection and headache may occur. tell your doctor about your medicines and if you're pregnant or planning to be. ready to treat differently with a pill? otezla. show more of you. ready to treat differently with a pill? you wouldn't accept from any one else. why accept it from your allergy pills? flonase relieves your worst symptoms including nasal congestion, which most pills don't. flonase helps block 6 key inflammatory substances. most pills only block one. flonase.
on the heels of alabama and georgia, today missouri passed an extreme abortion ban. beginning at weeks with no exceptions for rain or incest. in the missouri house, barry hovis spoke in favor of the legislation and drew on his past as a police officer
to explain really a lot of what we call rape is in his words consensual
rape. >> let's just say someone goes out and they have or they are raped or sexually assaulted after a college party. most of my rains were not people jumping out of bushes. that was one or two times. most were date rapes or consensual rapes. >> that raised more than a few eyebrows. according to one who was present, missouri is the same state that gave us todd ache in with distinctions between rape and legitimate rape and women's reproductive faculties. barry hovis walked back his statement about consensual rape. the legislation is still the legislation. with no exception for rain, meaning a woman who is
the victim of rain will have to carry her pregnancy to term under the force of law. at a certain point, it doesn't look like a weird coincidence, when you scratch the surface,
you find men like this pushing for them. in al bam a one proponent is an ob-g ob-gyn. he has an interesting history. in the 1990s, was released from ma interpretty ward after giving birth and then died a few days later. that led to a good piece of legislation in alabama that guaranteed minimum standards of coverage and care after women gave birth. after he was elected to the state senate in 2014, he tried to repeal the legislation named off his patient who died, after she gave birth under his care. that earned him the distinction of being named the 2015 scum bag of the year, beating out roy moore. that same year, he was sued for negligence by a former patient who suffered complications from childbirth and he was dismissed from the suit.
he dismissed her complaints of pain and bleeding along with other signs of preterm labor. she gave birth to 24-week old twins who didn't survive. these are just a couple of the people backing this kind of legislation, and you could forgive women across the country who support abortion rights from thinking this is not some weird accident. one thing the missouri and alabama laws have in common is a criminal penalty and prison time for doctors, but none for women who get abortions, which is weird when you think about it. my next guest just wrote a piece called "arrest me, you alabama cowards" and she joins us right after this. joins us right after this
earn miles. we'll match 'em at the end of your first year. your control. like bedhead. yeah, no, i'm good. hmmmm. ♪ rub-a-dub ducky... and then...there's national car rental. at national, i'm in total control. i can just skip the counter and choose any car in the aisle i like. so i can rent fast without getting a hair out of place. heeeeey. hey! ah, control. (vo) go national. go like a pro.
. both of the state abortion bans that were passed this week mandate prison sentences for doctors who perform the procedure, up to 15 years in prison in missouri's case, up to 99 years in alabama. however, neither law includes penalties for women, which is truly weird. if aborting a fetus is murder,
then they are morally culpable. they will not follow that logic. emily atkins says they knew that throwing them in jail for doing what they please with their own bodies would have been seen as too cruel, so they targeted doctors instead. cowards emily atkin joins me now. why did you write this piece? >> normal i write about climate change. it's not something i normally write about. it's not like i walked into the office that day thinking i was going to disclose my abortion to the world. but i was just so angry when i was reading the news that day that we had just -- it seemed that everything that had been told to me that was going to happen that we were going to backwards on this issue was happening. and i was seeing the anger of all these women around me, on the internet, and i couldn't concentrate on my general reporting. one of the reasons that i don't talk about this in the piece, but one of the reasons i made the choice to get an abortion at
age 19 is because i was in college. i was pursuing a journalism degree, and that was my passion, that was what i wanted to do. that's one of the many reasons i made that choice. so that day i was going to still do journalism that day, but there was no way i could focus on climate change, so this is what happened. >> you disclosed having a medical abortion in the piece. one of the points you make, and i think gets to something profound about the moral theory that undergirds these bills is that you were the agent. like, it was your choice. you were not the victim of a doctor. it was an expression of your agency. >> yeah. one of the reasons i lead the piece with i don't remember the name of the doctor who performed my abortion is because i don't. i value her so much and i remember what she said to me. but she wasn't there. and the idea, you know, 25% of
all women who get abortions get a medical abortion, and a medical abortion is performed in the comfort of your own home. you are handling everything. you take the pill, you're the one who experiences the pain, you handle the blood and you are the one who holds the end result in your hand, which is about the size of a dime and is not a baby. i don't think it's comparable to me. but, you know, the reason i did that, i said that to illustrate that i'm the one you want, i guess? you know? >> if they want to put someone in jail and say this is a criminal act, that you're the criminal women are the criminals. >> how dare you say it wasn't me. you want to punish somebody for this, i think that's ridiculous. but okay, that's what you want to do. you take my autonomy away from
me again saying you can't do this and it wasn't you who did it? i did it. you know what? a quarter of all women do it. one of the reasons i wrote about this again and thought it was important for me to disclose it was just because i'm not special you know? there's so many women have gone through the same thing i have and it's not weird. it's health care. don't punish our health care providers because we would gladly throw ourselves in jail before we let them go? there's this moment i wanted to play, this infamous moment on the campaign trail where donald trump basically stumbles into this moral logic with my colleague chris matthews. it blew up where shouldn't the women be punished here if that's what you think about it? take a listen. >> do you believe in punishment for abortion, yes or no, as a principle? >> the answer is that there has to be some form of punishment. >> for the woman? >> yes. >> ten years?
>> that i don't know. >> why not? >> i don't know. >> do you remember the anti-abortion forces freaked out about that? why do you think that is? why don't the bills punish women? >> because they don't want us to know the cruelty is the point. the cruelty has always been the point. as soon as we know that being cruel to us has been the point of this all along, we've exposed their game. but, i mean, to act like when you hurt our health care providers you aren't hurting us, no, we're going to leave the women alone. >> in fact, people said what he said that, of course not, we region that. b -- rereject that. >> it treats the health care providers as of they're some evil godless people. >> selling women on this, pushing them into it. >> yeah, as of they're not just
there to literally hold your hand and say whatever you choose, which is how it's supposed to be. and really how -- we shouldn't be talking about this right now. i would like to come on here next time and talk about climate change. >> thank you for coming in. that's "all in." ali very well chica thank you at home for joining us this hour. rachel has the night off. she will be back on monday. we have lots to get to tonight including the latest fight over abortion at the state level. today, two days after alabama's governor signed the most restrictive anti-abortion bill in the nation into law, today the republican-led legislature in missouri passed a