tv The Rachel Maddow Show MSNBC June 15, 2019 6:00pm-7:00pm PDT
rachel's got the night off. but fear not she'll be back monday, and in the meantime i'll try not to break anything. it is friday night, which these days means that keeping tabs on the news is like juggling and spinning eight plates all at once on stilts. today we got the lineups for the first democratic debate later this month. 20 candidates over two nights. the great steve kornacki will be here this hour to break down with us who will be debating whom on each night and what we can expect from those match-ups which are not as you might think they are. also been another day of worrying and bewildering developments in the white house's narrative around iran with the trump administration continuing to insist that iran has suddenly become much more
belligerent and aggressive and that iran is responsible for a spate of recent attacks. we'll have expert advice on that situation in just a moment. we're going to start tonight with stuff the president says. he says a lot of stuff. you may be familiar with his twitter account. he says a lot of things that we choose as a country to ignore because this is our life now. in order for government to continue running, for the rule of law to remain intact and even for us as citizens to maintain our sanity, we have to just ignore some of the stuff the president says. for instance, did you know that today our president told his friends at the fox news channel that when he visited the u.k. last week queen elizabeth enjoyed his company, the company of donald trump, more than she has enjoyed the company of anyone in decades, in decades. this is actually the second time in a week that he has told this
to fox news. the first time he said he had heard from people that the queen had never had a better time than she did with him, donald trump. never. queen elizabeth is 93 years old. she has been the queen for nearly seven decades but this, this was the pinnacle, this was the highlight of her rein. might as well abdicate the throne and hand it over to charles. nothing will top her time with donald trump. if you think about that claim from our president too long and too hard, you start to kind of twitch a little. i mean, it would be embarrassing for any american to make that claim. so it's the kind of stuff we ignore. it's background noise. it's trump being trump but sometimes our president says things that demand a response. sometimes he says things that are so offensive or so repellant that we feel like we have to respond to it just so that we're not implicated in it. we have to speak out against it so no one thinks we think it is acceptable.
sometimes he says something that implicates a specific particular person, which feels like it demands some kind of response, either legally or just reputationally like in the case of the former white house counsel don mcgahn. >> excuse me, they had no evidence of crime. >> he lays out a lot of evidence, including the episode where you ask your white house counsel, don mcgahn, you call him twice, you say, mueller has to go, call me when it's done. >> the story on that, i was never going to fire mueller. i never suggested firing mueller. >> that's not what he says. >> i don't care. doesn't matter what he says. that was to show what a good counsel he was. >> why would he lie under oath? >> because he wanted to make himself look like a good lawyer or -- or he believed it because i would constantly tell anybody that would listen, including
you, including the media, that robert mueller was conflicted. robert mueller had a total interest. >> i never said that. >> that right there, the interview portion released today by abc news, that is the president of the united states accusing his former white house counsel of a crime. he's accusing don mcgahn of lying under oath, but at the same time the president is blocking don mcgahn from testifying to congress about what mcgahn told mueller. he's telling mcgahn, you've got to keep quiet while i tell everyone you're a liar, purgerer, how do you not respond to this? here's the thing that's new to our era, to this era of governance. sometimes the president says something out loud that endorses or encourages behavior that is so wildly unethnical or even blatantly legal, someone
else from the government has to step in and remind people that, no, actually, you cannot do that thing even though the president just told you so. a couple of months ago near the mexican border the president quote, told border agents to not let migrants in. tell them we don't have the capacity, he says. if the judges give you trouble, say, sorry, judge, i can't do it. we don't have the room. after the president left the room agents sought further advice from their leaders who told them they were not giving them that direction and if they did what the president said, they would take on personal liability. you have to follow the law, they were told. you have to follow the law. not what the president told to you do, which would be violating
the law. there was also the time the president met with tribal leaders and told them to ignore federal laws preventing them from drilling on their land. quote, president trump hosted a group of native american tribal leaders at the white house and urged them to just do it and extract whatever they want from the land they control. the chiefs explained to trump that there were regulatory barriers preventing them from getting at their energy. trump replied, but now it's me. the government's different now. obama's gone. we're doing things differently here. there was a pause in the room and the tribal leaders looked at each other. chief, chief, trump continued, addressing one of the tribal leaders, what are they going to do? once you get it out of the ground, are they going to make you put it back in there? i mean, once it's out of the ground, it can't go back in there. you've just got to do it. i'm telling you, chief, you've just got to do it. the tribal leader looked back at one of the white house officials in the room. perhaps somebody from the white house counsel's office and said, can we just do that?
the official equivocated and said the administration is making progress and has a plan to roll back various regulations. spare a thought from that official from the white house counsel's office when someone ands so are we allowed to break federal law like the president of the united states just told us to? but even that official with the president sitting right there reportedly could not bring himself to endorse the president's instruction to break the law. no, you cannot really do that. then there was this, a president asking a roomful of police officers to please be more violent with suspects. >> when you see these towns and you see these thugs being thrown into a back of a paddy wagon, you just see them being thrown in, rough, i said please don't be too nice. like when you guys put somebody in the car and you're protecting their head, you put your hand over -- like don't hit their head and they've just killed somebody, don't hit their head.
i say you can take the hand away. >> after those comments the head of a major u.s. law enforcement agency sent an email to his entire work force reminding them that in fact they could not and should not do what the president was encouraging. the acting chief of the drug enforcement agency, the d.e.a., wrote to his organization, quote, the president in remarks delivered yesterday in new york condoned police misconduct regarding the treatment of individuals placed under arrest by law enforcement. i write to offer a strong reaffirmation of the operating principles to which we as law enforcement professionals adhere. i write because we have an obligation to speak out when something is wrong. our core values are clear and applicable. rule of law, respect and compassion, service, devotion, integrity, accountability, leadership and courage, diversity. this is how we conduct ourselves.
this is how we treat those whom we encounter in our work. victims, witnesses, subjects and defendants. this is who we are. that acting dea chief chuck rosenberg resigned a few weeks later. now we are in the latest iteration of this pattern, this brand-new pattern that we are all having to come to grips with as americans, of the president publicly endorsing or advocating lawless behavior. after the president earlier this week said he would absolutely accept campaign help from a foreign government in the next election and of course he would not report that to the fbi. what are you crazy? the chair of the federal election commission put out a statement which she prefaced by saying, i would not have thought that i needed to say this, quote, statement regarding illegal contributions from foreign governments. let me make something 100% clear to the american public and anyone running for public office. it is illegal for any person to
solicit, accept, or receive anything of value from a foreign national in connection with a u.s. election. any political campaign that receives an offer of a prohibited donation from a foreign source should report that to the fbi. that is the head of the u.s. agency that enforces campaign finance law. she says, yes, i know the president said you can do it but you cannot do that. just last month the hand picked fbi director said the same thing. >> my view is that if any public official or any member of the campaign is contacted by any nation state or anybody acting on behalf of a nation state about influencing or interfering with our election, that's something the fbi would want to know about. >> so we're all in agreement here, right?
>> says that's what should happen. >> the fbi director is wrong. >> so now what? i mean, the president's breaking the law. that's a situation we are now familiar with in this country. we are currently discovering our ability to address that situation but it is not a brand-new experience for us. we have some experience with presidents directing people around them to break the law. but if a president gleefully publicly tells americans to break the law, you break the law, and you break the law, let's all break the law together, i don't think this is something we've dealt with before. and every government official who's not president has to decide every day how to navigate this new terrain. >> joining me now chuck rosenberg and former fbi official and as we mentioned formerly the acting head of the dea. he's also an msnbc contributor.
good to have you with us here tonight. >> thanks for having me, ali. zb we used you in the setup and the position you took. you had to take it upon yourself to write an email to your staff to say, this isn't the way we do business after donald trump made his comments about accepting foreign campaign help. they said this had undone months of work essentially hiding with foreign spies and demoralizing the agents trying to stop them. tell us what the effect of what the press says have on our on the people who are charged with keeping our election safe? >> sure. i think that politico article was both somewhat hyperbolic, ali, and somewhat accurate. let me explain that. sure the president's criticisms will demoralize the agents but don't think for a minute they're
going to stop the work they're doing because the president says something irresponsible or odious. look, if you read volume one of the mueller report he made it very clear the russians started this effort in 2014 long before the president became president. we also know the rugs wanted to help donald trump become president. now we see why. but the work of the men and women of the fbi went on long before he became president, will go on long after he's president. this is current ongoing serious threat. the president's words do not help. they are irresponsible. they are odious. they do not help, but they will not stop the men and women of the fbi and intelligence community from doing their work to protect us. that's just a simple fact. do they help, absolutely not. but they will not stop working to protect us. >> chuck, those of us who believe that the institutions of this country work independently, they work under a set of rules like the fbi did when you were there, like the dea does, what
are we meant to think, though, when the president says this, what does the system allow for in term of people to push back? you as the head of the dea at the time sent a letter out. i assumed that asaged some unease at the fbi. but the fbi is something the president targets all the time. >> look, that was a hard letter to write and a hard letter to send. i did it internally. i didn't intend for it to be disseminated publicly but i knew there was a risk of that. and the thing you want to avoid is directing your agency into some public debate. the men and women of the dea do some important and difficult work, and they do it well. and you don't want to drag them into a debate and political debate. i think that's a calculation any leader has to make. and it's certainly a calculation chris wray has to make as director of the fbi.
so you cannot respond every time the president says something irresponsible. because, ali, you'd be responding nine times a day and chris wray has more important things to do than to address each and every utterance of this president. please believe what i tell you, there are 37,000 men and women of the fbi. 36,999 are apolitical career civil servants and they will to do their work. >> chuck rosenberg, always good to see you. chuck rosenberg, former attorney, former acting director of the dea. michael, give us a sense of the history of this. i said earlier that a thing like this, a president saying publicly to various constituencies it's okay to break the law, is that -- we have some examples of this from watergate, but is this sort of messaging new? >> yeah, it really is.
the idea of the constitution was that the president would be a chief of state. one of the things a chief of state does is essentially suggest to americans in the united states that you should obey the law. it's not exactly a big demand on a president, but donald trump doesn't want to do it because he does not want things that will constrain him from grabbing power. that's why he calls the press the enemy of the people. that's why he intimidates republicans in congress so they're not willing to stand up to women. we've seen a big example of that in the last 4 hours. how many republicans in congress have you seen standing up and saying i may agree with president trump on taxes, but this is disgraceful that he's urging people not to follow the law. and most consequentially he has spent the last 2 1/2 years essentially trying to break down the rule of law so that he could get away in some cases with almost murder. >> we are at a point where we have legislation being introduced in the house, if you
work for a campaign and you are offered information by an adversary or foreign government at all, that you are compelled to report that to the fbi. this seems strange, right? for all the things the president doesn't want to be constrained by, the idea he says i'd take it if somebody gave me dirt on the opposition. >> he's trying to prepare the way so if he does it, he can essentially say i told you that i'd do it so americans would not be surprised. the more ominous thing is he's opening the tent. he's essentially tellic every foreign government on earth please bring me all the dirt you possibly can. >> because i'm ready to take it. >> i want to win. he's feeling scared. there's evidence he's nervous about the possibility he'll be defeated by a democrat next year and he'll then be vulnerable to all sorts of prosecution, and he's essentially grasping at straws. and once you have americans and congress and the legal system accepting the idea that, you
know, people in china who deutnot wish us well and the same thing as russia, other hostile powers are branding this president all sorts of things that can help him win an an election. and the second thing, an election becomes something in which we would have lost our sovereignty. >> this other thing he said when george stephanopoulos asked him about chris wray he actually said to stephanopoulos, wray is wrong. you just heard my conversation with chuck when the president said something about roughing up suspects he said that's wrong. where do you go with that then? you've got the head of an agency versus the president providing two different interpretations of the law. you've got someone not rrpting the fbi and was urging not to
respect it also, and perhaps get him to resign so that the president can then have an fbi director as subserveiant to him as attorney general barr has proven to be, which would be a very dangerous thing for this country. >> michael, thank you for being with us. still ahead, the trump administration says it has evidence of a foreign adversary doing wrong. when have we heard that before? much more on that. stay with us. t before much more on that. stay with us honey have you seen my glasses? i've always had a knack for finding things... colon cancer, to be exact. and i find it noninvasively... no need for time off or special prep. it all starts here... you collect your sample, and cologuard uses the dna in your stool to find 92% of colon cancers. you can always count on me to know where to look. oh, i found them! i can do this test now! ask your doctor if cologuard is right for you. covered by medicare and most major insurers. [ text notification now that you have]
be go[ laughing ] gone. woo hoo. ♪ welcome to my house mmm, mmm, mmmmm. ball. ball. ball. awww, who's a good boy? it's me. me, me, me. yuck, that's gross. you got to get that under control. [ dogs howling ] seriously? embrace the mischief. say "get pets tickets" into your x1 voice remote to see it in theaters.
on wednesday, february 5th of 2003 then secretary of state colin powell went to the united nations to make the case for war in iraq. >> my colleagues, every statement i make today is backed up by sources, solid sources. these are not assertions. what we're giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence. >> he delivered a presentation called failing to disarm that included some of that intelligence, satellite photos, intelligence intercept, intercepted phone calls. sitting behind secretary powell was cia director george tenant. he was there because the cia had
vouched for all of that intel being cited as proof. secretary powell said the evidence was, quote, irrefutable and undeniable that iraq was concealing weapons of mass destruction. it turned out that evidence was actually refutable and deniable. the images were old, translations embellished, the evidence did not hold up. there were no weapons of mass destruction. colin powell later said it was a, quote, great intelligence failure on our part. that speech was a lasting blot on his report. that faulty intelligence, that case for going to war got us into a 16 some year war in iraq, a war that we are still fighting. yesterday morning just hours after two oil tankers were attacked in the gulf of oman anonymous u.s. officials started pointing the finger at iran.
by afternoon secretary of state mike pompeo called a presser at the state department where he said conclusively that iran was behind the attack. he did not present any evidence, he just rattled off a list of attacks that iran was responsible for, including some that we had never heard of, like an attack in afghanistan which the taliban has taken responsibility for. secretary pompeo said it was iran. he said he sent the acting u.s. ambassador to brief the security council and then he didn't take questions. late last night centcom showed a grainy video. they cited the video that iran was involved. for its part, iran denies being behind the attack. today one of the japanese owners behind the attack contradicted the account saying it was not a mine but rather a flying object the crew saw coming towards the vessel. the reality is both of these
things could be true but at this early juncture this early on there is still much we do not know. today germany came out and said there was not enough evidence to pin the itack on iran. but the u.k. came out agreeing that iran is behind the attack. if this is starting to feel like you've already seen this movie it's because you have but maybe this movie will end differently. right now it's unclear exactly what happens next. will the administration release more evidence out in the public for americans to see? will the administration make the case to the united nations? will they share the intelligence with our allies, and what is the end game? joining us now former spokesperson for the u.s. mission to the united nations, former treasury spokesperson for terrorism and financial intelligence during the iran negotiations. good to see you. i want to start with that last question, what's the end game? the president has recently said he would like to talk to iran one-on-one to settle these
matters. but that deal, the one you spent a lot of time working on created that framework for the conversation. so what is our end game with iran? >> the end game is not war. that's been made pretty clear, and to me it's pretty obvious because this administration is focused on targeted financial measures as their choice but that being said their critical point here is that president trump's number one goal, i don't believe is to get to another deal. his number one goal is to undermine iran's influence in the region and their support for terrorism. it was the first thing he said when he abdicated from the deal last may, something he's reiterated and something my sources in government have told me as well. and if that's the case sanctions are working. >> he has sort of said that nat last few days a few times that things are getting worse which economically they are, but his national security adviseb has been very hawkish about iran. there's even some talk of the
president trying to bush bolten away from talk with iran. do you think it's dangerous for this administration that conflict in iran and how bad that can actually be? >> they absolutely know the danger. there is no interest in war for the united states or for iran, and both sides are aware of that. that's why the attacks that happened weren't on u.s. vessels or on u.s. property. it was meant as a warning that if there are more sanctions, this is the type of stuff we're going to do. the iranians behave like mafia. it it was pay back, pay back for the u.s. sanctions. >> so the iranians, there are iranian forces, there are the revolutionary guard, the ones we hear about. and then there are iranian proxies. they exist all through the middle east. the united states has said after imposing these sanctions that any attack by any of these proxies will be an attack, they will consider it as an attack
for iran. it sounds like a justification for retaliating. is there a danger of miscalculation on both sides? >> when it comes first to the proxies they don't move unless iran allows them to. right, they're armed by iran. they have intelligence and technical assistance from iran. >> these are groups operating in syria, lebanon -- >> certainly syria. right, they are funded and supported by iran, and they know that. so when iran says jump, their answer is how high. so it's unlikely they would pursue something on their own or could even pursue something on their own without iran directing it. so that's the first. that's why it would be considered a direct maneuver from iran. >> good to see you. thank you for joining us. a former spokesperson for the u.s. mission to the united nations and former treasury spokesperson for terrorism and financial intelligence during the iran negotiations. up next, new movement in the case of the united states versus
michael flynn. that's just ahead. e united stats michael flynn. that's just ahead. ♪ play it cool and escape heartburn fast with new tums chewy bites cooling sensation. ♪ tum tum tum tums with new tums chewy bites cooling sensation. and i don't add trup the years.s. but what i do count on... is boost® delicious boost® high protein nutritional drink has 20 grams of protein, along with 26 essential vitamins and minerals. boost® high protein.
be up for life. ♪ applebee's new loaded chicken fajitas. now only $10.99. so chantix can help you quit slow turkey.rkey. along with support, chantix is proven to help you quit. with chantix you can keep smoking at first and ease into quitting. chantix reduces the urge so when the day arrives, you'll be more ready to kiss cigarettes goodbye. when you try to quit smoking, with or without chantix, you may have nicotine withdrawal symptoms.
stop chantix and get help right away if you have changes in behavior or thinking, aggression, hostility, depressed mood, suicidal thoughts or actions, seizures, new or worse heart or blood vessel problems, sleepwalking, or life-threatening allergic and skin reactions. decrease alcohol use. use caution driving or operating machinery. tell your doctor if you've had mental health problems. the most common side effect is nausea. quit smoking slow turkey. talk to your doctor about chantix.
the end is nigh one way or another for former trump national security advisor and now convicted felon michael flynn. today as expected the prosecution and defense filed a status update with the judge overseeing flynn's case in washington, d.c. and they think they will be ready to start talking sentencing again in another 60 days. remember now, back in december
judge emmitt sullivan held a hearing in which he was supposed to hands down michael flynn's sentencing for lying to the fbi about his contacts with a russian ambassador between election day and trump's inauguration. but that hearing took a turn. the judge had a much harsher view of flynn's crime than the special prosecutors did and strongly recommended that flynn reconsider how much cooperating would be enough to earn him the kind of light sentence prosecutors were asking for. flynn consulted with his attorneys and then took the judge's advice. since then flynn has fired those attorneys and hired new counsel straight off the fox news line-up, one of whom has spent a lot of airtime criticizing the investigation as a deep state conspiracy. so that new lawyer now says she needs 60 days to get up to speed. and she has a voluminous amount of material to read, which makes sense given how the last
sentencing hearing went. but it also makes sense if flynn has jettisoned his original legal team in order to pursue a new legal strategy like, i don't know, maybe a presidential pardon. time will tell. and time is what flynn's new lawyer is seeking. watch this space. is what flynnw lawyer is seeking. watch this space ok everyone! our mission is to provide complete, balanced nutrition for strength and energy! whoo-hoo! great-tasting ensure. with nine grams of protein and twenty-six vitamins and minerals. ensure, for strength and energy.
-[ scoffs ] if you say so. ♪ -i'm sorry? -what teach here isn't telling you is that snapshot rewards safe drivers with discounts on car insurance. -what? ♪ -or maybe he didn't know. ♪ [ chuckles ] i'm done with this class. -you're not even enrolled in this class. -i know. i'm supposed to be in ceramics. do you know -- -room 303. -oh. thank you. -yeah. -good luck, everybody.
how many 2019 top safety pick plus-winning vehicles does your brand have? one. two. how about eight? subaru has more 2019 top safety pick plus awards than honda and toyota brands combined. there's safe, and then there's subaru safe. the first candidate to get into the race was john delaney. it was july of 2017. the maryland congressman announced his intention to challenge president trump. the field doubled later that year when this guy andrew yang unveiled his plan to fend off the coming robot apocalypse. finally at the start of 2019 we began to see a slew of huge campaign announcements as big name candidates joined the ranks. the field soon mushroomed to more than 20 candidates, the largest field ever in the history of presidential
politics. since then the candidates have been spreading out across the early states speaking to voters unveiling policy plans and honing their campaign messages. all the time directing most of their fire against the one candidate who unites them all, donald trump. >> i'm running for president because we can't take four more years of donald trump. >> help me defeat donald trump, the most dangerous president in the history of this country. >> donald trump as president delayed, deflected, moved, fired and did everything he could to obstruct justice. >> we've got a president of the united states, a man who took an oath to defend the constitution who violates that sworn promise, and we must hold him accountable. >> donald trump is the worst president in the history of america. >> i have complete power.
no, you don't, donald trump. vote for donald trump, i have absolute power. no, you don't, donald trump. or only i can fix it. fix yourself first, donald trump. >> now, for months president trump has been the singular focus of criticism on the trail, but that is starting to change. washington governor jay insle recently ripped joe biden's plan to fight climate change saying it lacked teeth and ambition. this week former colorado governor bernie sanders cake out swinging on the socialist views. as "the washington post" reports today the democratic contest is entering a new phase as candidates shed -- pardon me. i'm allergic to the news. candidates shed their reluctance
for joe biden who's jumped to an early lead in the polls. that new phase is going to can come to a head in two weeks time. today nbc news announced the official line-ups for the first presidential debate, which will take place over two nights in miami later this month. night one we'll see massachusetts senator elizabeth warren as the undisputed star alongside fellow senators cory booker and camy klobuchar. night two will see plenty of star power. joe biden, kamala harris, and pete buttigieg all set to square off against one another. joini joining us now steve kornacki. i need you on a night like tonight to explain when you look at these two line-ups, ten and ten, what stands out to you? >> the dnc really did not want to have the look the republicans had in 2016 with their primary debates. varsity, jv, whatever you want
to call it and they came up with a pretty complicated system here where they thought they would mix and match. and the bottom line there are five candidates who are really popping in the polls and four of them is going to be in one debate and elizabeth warren in the other. you're kind of the undisputed star of that first debate that comes with opportunities and you can shine more, but comes with some drawbacks. are folks going to be as plugged in for that one as they are for the other one, and is your stature going to be diminished at all by not having the opportunity to engage with a sanders, a biden, a buttigieg? >> there are candidates in this race running on various things, others running solely on policy perspective. some of whom have written books about it. elizabeth warren falls into that category. who do these debates benefit?
the better debater, the more policy rich candidates? >> keep in mind think of it as like a baseball game. you've got ten candidates on stage, two hours. you're going to get three or four at bats. and for a lot of these candidates less than 1%, they face a particular challenge. and that is the criteria to stay in these debates. the threshold goes up towards the end of this summer. noifb got to hit a home run. they've got to do something like that to move up in the polls and get more donations so when these thresholds raise in a couple of months here they don't get knocked out of the debates. the immediate future of these lesser known candidates are on the line. >> and ult amtally with everyone aligned around the idea they want to defeat donald trump that's not going to make for an interesting debate. what are the things they're going to have to do. >> and who has the potential to stand out like that? we talked about that first
debate with elizabeth warren. one i'm interested in seeing there is cory booker. if you go back ten, 20 years he's been talked about. he's somebody in terms of his communication skills, always very strong. he really has been lost in the shuffle so far. is there an opportunity for him? that's a type of candidate who i think really needs to have a big moment. i have seen notice past i think he has the capability in a setting like that of delivering it. so let's see if he does. >> seth moulton, steve bullock, wayne messam they're not on the campaign stage, the debate stage. any chance of them coming back from that? >> if you looking's position in the qualifying rolls it's not impossible to see bulk qualifying. he has a path to do it. it's harder to see moulton doing it because of how he's been polling so far, and much much harder to see messam prevail.
by missing the debate ironically he's getting some media attention. if there are a couple of polls next month that get him at even 1% or 2% he might be still able to compete but he might be able to get into that cnn debate or otherwise that same issue would reel start to affect him. >> we're going to be spending a lot of time together in the next year and a half. steve dor nacky, national political correspondent. an appeals court deals a big setback to the trump administration and its plans for young women who come to this country seeking asylum. that's next. stay with us. g asylum that's next. stay with us tion, every feeling... ...a product of mastery. lease the 2019 es 350 for $379/month for 36 months. experience amazing at your lexus dealer. but allstate actually helps you drive safely... with drivewise. it lets you know when you go too fast... ...and brake too hard.
with feedback to help you drive safer. giving you the power to actually lower your cost. unfortunately, it can't do anything about that. now that you know the truth... are you in good hands? new shell v-power nitro+ premium gasoline is engineered with four levels of defense against gunk, wear, corrosion and friction.
that helps keep your engine running like new. so, maybe it's time to unthink what you think you think about premium fuel. shell v-power nitro+ premium gasoline... it's fuel for thought. intand ux f sport,rst of its kind lexus ux also available in hybrid all-wheel drive. lease the 2019 ux 200 for $329/month for 36 months. experience amazing at your lexus dealer.
mno kidding.rd. but moving your internet and tv? that's easy. easy?! easy? easy. because now xfinity lets you transfer your service online in just about a minute with a few simple steps. really? really. that was easy. yup. plus, with two-hour appointment windows, it's all on your schedule. awesome. now all you have to do is move...that thing. [ sigh ] introducing an easier way to move with xfinity. it's just another way we're working to make your life simple, easy, awesome. go to xfinity.com/moving to get started.
this one is an update. in 2017 in the early days of the trump administration a 17-year-old girl came to the united states seeking asylum. she had traveled to this country alone. she was sent to a shelter for unaccompanied minors that was overseen by the u.s. government. she was pregnant as a result of being raped and wanted to get an abortion. but since she was in this shelter, she was in u.s. custody and the policy of the u.s. government at that point under donald trump was that underaged pregnant migrants in their care were not allowed to get abortions. the u.s. government at the time was trying to literally force pregnant teens to give birth against their will. they would not allow them to leave the shelters to go to a doctors appointment for an abortion. so when this 17-year-old said she wanted an abortion, the trump administration said no. it said as far as the u.s.
government was concerned it was not in the best interest for this teenage rape victim to end her pregnancy. so she joined a lawsuit against the trump administration with the help of the aclu, and a federal judge eventually ordere government to let her get an abortion. she was 1 of 4 specific teens named plaintiffs in that lawsuit but they represented all pregnant teens seeking refuge in the united states. because it was the blanket policy of the trump administration to block all undocumented minors in their custody from accessing abortion. the administration was using a spread sheet to track which of the young women were pregnant and which ones requested abortions. they were even tracking their menstrual cycles so they could tell how far along each girl was in her pregnancy. the idea was to shut down the possibility that any of these young women could get an abortion as long as they were in u.s. custody. as rachel has reported the aclu
has been largely successful in challenging the policy in court so far. back in march a federal judge ordered the trump administration to allow abortion access to detained teens while the case works its way through the courts but the trump administration appealed that ruling and we've been waiting for months to find out what the appeals court was going to decide. today it decided. ruling that the trump administration is not allowed to block these young women and girls from getting an abortion if they want one. which is a right enshrined by supreme court precedent for any woman in this country, whether or not she is a u.s. citizen. in its ruling the three judges assigned to the case write that the trump administration's policy of blocking asylum seeking teenagers from obtaining an abortion runs in direct conflict with roe v. wade, quote, the supreme court has determined and then redetermined that the constitution offers basic protection to the woman's
right to choose. we are not free to dilute a constitutional right recognized by controlling supreme court precedent so that others will be dissuaded from seeking a better life in this country. this is a huge win for the aclu and for young girls that the trump administration was blocking from accessing their constitutional right to abortion but is this decision permanent? joining us now deputy director at the aclu's reproductive freedom project and the lawyer who has been fighting this case in court. good to have you here. >> good to be here. >> the argument, there were some unusual arguments that the government made in trying to represent its case none of which ultimately seemed to have legal merit. that said, does this ruling stick for a while? what happens next? >> this win is incredibly important for the young people in government custody right now who may seek access to abortion
information or abortion itself and so our victory remains that those minors are able to access the information and care they need. this is not the end of the road. this case right now is just about the preliminary injunction that initial victory that we got in the lower court and this is affirmation of that. but the case continues and the government could appeal this to the u.s. supreme court. we also have to go back to district court and get the policy struck down once and for all. >> this is a policy that makes reference to the constitution and its protections for all women in the united states. the administration has tried when it comes to asylum seekers or migrants from other countries to suggest that certain laws don't apply to them the same way. this ruling aframed the idea that roe v. wade and the constitutional protections afforded to women in this country do cover them. >> absolutely. actually, the government didn't even make the argument that the constitutional right to abortion
for these unaccompanied minors was somehow diluted because of their immigration status. instead they tried to make a whole host of other arguments to get around the very clear command of the supreme court that says that anyone who is seeking access to abortion cannot be prohibited by the government from doing so. >> they made the argument if they can't get the abortion here they can go back where they came from and get one there. >> right. and the court of appeals said that is absolutely wrong. you don't say when the government is violating your constitutional rights you can go back to the country you came from or go to a different state if the state had banned abortion. that is just not how the constitution works. >> is there anything about this case that has an impact on the current discussions with all these other states that are trying to get their cases before the supreme court in a challenge to roe v. wade? >> absolutely. this was a court of appeals victory saying it is likely un-constitutional for the government to ban abortion. seven states have tried to ban abortion and those are blatantly un-constitutional decisions or
attempts to do so as well. >> good to see you. thank you for joining us and congratulations on your win. >> thank you. >> the deputy director at the aclu's reproductive freedom project. liberty mutual customizes your car insurance, so you only pay for what you need. nice! but uh, what's up with your partner? oh! we just spend all day telling everyone how we customize car insurance because no two people are alike, so... limu gets a little confused when he sees another bird that looks exactly like him. ya... he'll figure it out. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪
for people 50 and older colat average risk.ing honey have you seen my glasses? i've always had a knack for finding things... colon cancer, to be exact. and i find it noninvasively... no need for time off or special prep. it all starts here... you collect your sample, and cologuard uses the dna in your stool to find 92% of colon cancers. you can always count on me to know where to look. oh, i found them! i can do this test now! ask your doctor if cologuard is right for you. covered by medicare and most major insurers.
state of the international financial system. but what made the biggest headline from that hearing was the treasury secretary telling lawmakers that a re-design of the $20 bill featuring harriet tubman was being delayed. mnuchin said the reason for the delay was he had to prioritize redesigning other denominations that were having problems with counterfeiting and so the new 20 would not start rolling out until at least 2028. now, this was a departure from the obama administration timeline. it had announced the new 20 would be unveiled in 2020. it was supposed to coincide with the hundredth anniversary of the 19th amendment which gave women the right to vote. harriet tubman was not only an abolition activist she was also an advocate for women's rights. today we learned from the "new york times" that before mnuchin put on the brakes, the work on the new tubman $20 bill was actually already well under way. a former treasury department
official leaked an image of the tubman 20 to the "new york times" that was reportedly completed in 2016. and "the times" also spoke to an anonymous current employee of the bureau of printing and engraving reporting that as recently as may of last year the employee had seen a metal engraving plate and a digital image of the bill and, quote, said the design appeared to be far along in the process. so why the change? according to "the times" quote, current and former department officials say mr. mnuchin chose the delay to avoid the possibility that mr. trump would cancel the plan outright and create even more controversy. the "new york times" reports also -- the "new york times" report also quotes secretary mnuchin who says the speculation his department has slowed down the process isn't true. but when you think about the fact that the president has said he thinks the plan to put tubman on the bill is political
correctness, you do the math. that does it for us tonight. i'll be back on my show monday at 1:00 p.m. don't miss it. rachel will be back right here on monday at 9:00. "all in" is up next. >> tonight on "all in" -- >> the president of the united states of america is prepared to commit a felony to get re-elected. >> the president tries and fails to launder his call for collusion through trump tv. >> of course you have to look at it because if you don't look at it you're not going to know if it's bad. how are you going to know if it's bad? >> tonight the head of the federal elections commission on her stinging rebuke of the president. plus donald trump finally faces the questions he avoided from robert mueller. >> we had a business -- >> why would he lie under oath? >> because he wanted to make himself look like a good lawyer. >> then what today's announcement of the debate stage lineup means for the democratic candidates.