tv All In With Chris Hayes MSNBC November 15, 2019 5:00pm-6:00pm PST
week with eight more witnesses appearing before the house intel committee. and on wednesday the democrats will hold their fifth presidential debate. that's "hardball" for now. thanks for being with us. "all in" with chris hayes starts right now. tonight on a special edition of "all in." >> the beginning of the story is an effort to get you out of the way. >> impeachment hearings day two. >> sounded like a threat. >> donald trump cannot help himself. >> and we sit here testifying the president is attacking you on twitter. >> tonight the president commits what looks like witness tampering during his impeachment hearing. >> well, it's very intimidating. >> as his former political advisor is found guilty of witness tampering. plus new reporting on what the president's lawyer was up in ukraine and congresswoman alexandria ocasio-cortez on all the president's mess. and the white house official she
says needs to resign now. live from studio 6a in rockefeller plaza, "all in" starts right now. hello, everybody. hello. good evening. good evening. thanks to everybody for being here. it's great to be back here at 3 rock with all of you here. good god, today has been ten days and this week has been ten weeks. and there are a million things happening at once. just in the past couple of hours, for instance, we just got this incredibly incriminating and damning behind closed doors testimony from a u.s. foreign service officer that was still supposed to be kind of like the b story today, the sideshow. it's a guy who works in the u.s. embassy in ukraine, a guy named david holmes. he testified behind closed doors that he could hear president trump talking on the phone to
the u.s. ambassador to the european union who was an inaugural donor, and they were in a restaurant in kiev and the president was shouting so loudly on the phone that sondland had to hold the phone away from his ear because it was hurting his eardrum, so then everyone could hear. and after he hung up with the president, sondland told this guy who testified, david holmes, that the president does not give -- and i'm quoting now so i can say it, does not give a shit about ukraine, he only cares about the big stuff and by big stuff he means investigations into the bidens. yeah, that's the right reaction. in a restaurant in kiev, shouting through the phone. so that just happened. we're going to have more on that very crazy testimony later. but this was just week one, keep in mind, in the public televised
impeachment hearings of the president of the united states. it's just the fourth time ipamerican history we're all going through this process. i think it's fair to say and maybe i'm a bit biased but i think it's fair to say it's not gone really well for the president the first week. today even before that breaking news it was an especially busy day in the criminal chronicles of one president donald j. trump. so the president's long time advisor and associate roger stone today was convicted on seven counts in a federal courthouse. that's -- he was -- that's it. unanimous jury of his peers. if you're keeping track and it's probably worthwhile to do so, the list of people surrounding the president who have been convicted of, pleaded guilty to a felony now includes the president's former personal lawyer, his campaign manager, his deputy campaign manager,
another trump campaign staffer, his first national security advisor, and now the man who has been trump's political advisor since the reagan administration. so that's the sixth person in the president's close orbit convicted of crimes committed while in the service we should mention of donald trump. and i want to be transparent here. i am not including the president's current lawyer, rudy giuliani, because to be clear he's just under investigation for a number of federal crimes. he's not been indicted. i'm also not including giuliani's associates, our good friends lev and igor who were arrested last month while trying to flee the country. they've just been indicted, innocent until proven guilty in america. so this morning trump's advisor roger stone was convicted. he was convicted of one count of obstruction, five counts of making false statements, and this is an important one, one count of witness tampering. it's a federal crime. it's in the federal statute. he was tried for it and
convicted then. the crazy thing about the world in which we live is the very moment we learned about that verdict the former u.s. ambassador to ukraine was testifying publicly in the impeachment inquiry of donald j. trump, and maybe you saw this today, her name was marie yovanovitch. an ovation for marie yovanovitch. goes by masha to her friends. speaks different languages, spent over three decades in the foreign service. most recently she was bullied out of her job by the president and his henchman for lack of a better word. she had assignments all over the world. most recently and relevantly she was in ukraine where she focused especially intently on a kind of anti-corruption program. in fact, she was doing so well there aiding a young dem ocres, trying to root out endemic corruption she was asked to stay on for another year until one day out of the blue to her, out
of the blue she gets a call. >> ambassador yovanovitch, on april 24th of this year at approximately 10:00 p.m., you received a telephone call while you were at the embassy in kiev from the director general of the state department. at the time this urgent call came in, what were you in the middle of doing? >> i was hosting an event in honor of an anti-corruption activist -- was an anti-corruption activist in ukraine. she very tragically died because she was attacked by acid and several months later died a very, very painful death. >> after you stepped away from this anti-corruption event to take this call, what did the director general tell you? >> she said that there was great concern on the seventh floor of the state department, that's where the leadership of the
state department sits. >> what happened next? >> around 1:00 in the morning she called me again and she said that there were great concerns, there were concerns up the street, and she said i needed to come home immediately. get on the next plane to the u.s., and i asked her why. and she said she wasn't sure but there were concerns about my security. i asked her my physical security because sometimes washington knows more than we do about these things, and she said, no, she hadn't gotten that impression that it was a physical security issue but they were concerned about my security and i needed to come home right away. you know, i argued. this is extremely irregular and no reason given. but in the end i did get on the next plane home. >> you said there were concerns up the street. what did you understand that to
mean? >> the white house. >> she was at an event highlighting a ukraine anti-corruption activist who was murdered for her work. she was attacked with acid, and she died. and marie yovanovitch gets a call and told come home immediately, literally gets on the next plane because there were concerns up the street about her. and what became exceedingly clear is marie yovanovitch got in trump's way. as the deputy cyst secretary of state george kent said -- there was ongoing active smear campaign waged against marie yovanovitch including the president's personal lawyer, rudy giuliani, his two indicted associates lev and igor whose indictment includes a section in the indictment about trying to get you von v
get y get you yovanovitch fired. >> now you testified in your opening statement that you had left ukraine by the time of the july 25th call between president trump and president zelensky. when was the first time that you saw the call record for this phone call? >> when it was released publicly at the end of september i believe. >> and prior to reading that call record were you aware that president trump had specifically made reference to you in that call? >> no. >> what was your reaction to learning that? >> i was shocked. absolutely shocked and devastated, frankly. >> what do you mean by devastated? >> i was shocked and devastated
that i would feature in a phone call between two heads of state in such a manner, where president trump said that i was bad news to another world leader and that i would be going through some things. so i was -- it was a terrible moment, a person who saw me actually reading the transcript said that the color drained from my face. i think i even had a physical reaction. i think, you know, even now -- >> what do you think when you read you were going to go through some things? >> i didn't know what to think, but i was very concerned. >> what were you concerned about? >> she's going to go through some things. it didn't sound good. it sounded like a threat.
>> did you feel threatened? >> i did. >> so the ousted former u.s. ambassador to ukraine she goes to congress today to testify in the context of course on impeachment inquiry to the president's high crimes and misdemeansers and talking about this really bizarre campaign to smear her and threaten carried out by a bunch of people but ultimately at the correction direction of the president of the united states himself and while this is playing out two huge things happen, okay? one, in the middle of her testimony the president's long time advisor gets convicted by a jury in a federal courthouse on several counts including witness tampering. that's one thing that happens. and number two, in realtime the president himself attempts to tamper with the witness.
he attacks marie yovanovitch while she's in the middle of testifying. i mean, you cannot make this up. >> as we sit here testifying the president is attacking you on twitter, and i'd like to give you a chance to respond. i'll read part of one of his tweets. everywhere yovanovitch went turned bad. she started off in somalia, how did that go inambassador, you showed the courage to come forward today and testify. notwithstanding the fact you were urged by the white house or state department not to, notwithstanding the fact that as you testified earlier, the president implicitly threatened you in that call record. and now the president in realtime is attacking you. what affect do you think that has on other witness' and
expose wrongdoing? >> well, it's very intimidating. >> it's designed to intimidate, is it not? >> i mean, i can't speak to what the president is trying to do but i think the effect is to be intimidating. >> so the president of the united states attacks a 33-year vet on of the foreign service, a former ambassador to ukraine on twitter. he's insulting and intimidating a witness during his impeachment inquiry, and he does this while his political advisor is about to be found guilty of witness tampering. now, if you cover as a reporter political corruption outside of this context, if you cover mayors or complaint governors, there's kind of a similar pattern that happens, right? you learn the way they go down is first their lower level associates get indicted and it's front page news.
and those associates start cooperating and it's front page news and their associates start cooperating and it's a big deal. and before you know it a lot of people are going to jail. and ultimately like the last thwack in a large tree, down comes the person in the middle, the corrupt person at the top, right? that is what happened. i watched this happen as a young reporter in chicago. it's what happened to george ryan, the former gufblnovernor. one a republican, one a democrat. obviously corruption is not confined to one party. you see this around the country in local settles all the time. people around the corruption politician, they start falling and usually the politician in turn ends up in trouble and falling himself. and the reason they fall in the end in each context is because if you were our governor or you were our mayor, you could actually be indicted by a
federal prosecutor. that's like a badge of honor for a federal prosecutor. that's not happening in this case. day after day the guys around the president are being convicted of crimes including today with roger stone. crimes done seemingly the behalf of the president and his campaign. but not the president. because the department of justice has concluded and i think they're probably right about this that a sitting president cannot be indictsed while in office. so this is all we get, impeachment literally. that is the way to stop a corrupt president. that's the remedy, the only way to rein in his criminality is through this process we're watching play out, impeachment. joining me now one of the members of congress who will be considered whether to recommend impeachment charges against the president democratic congresswoman sheila jackson lee of texas and also a member of the house judiciary committee where those articles will likely be drafted.
congresswoman, i want to ask you about the president tweeting about the witness today. i saw some people defending him saying, oh, come on, he's just letting off steam, it wasn't so bad. you're crazy if you think that's witness tampering. what do you say to people who say that? >> chris, it's good to be with you today in your audience. let me say what we witnessed today was an abuse of power, a mountain of abuse of power. contributing to that, of course, was the most devastating and seemingly senseless tweet attacking the witness as she was testifying. that happens to be a federal crime. i was reading the statute that says that any attempt to stop a witness from testifying in a corrupt and intimidating manner is illegal if they are testifying in a legal proceeding or a proceeding that is official. this was an official proceeding. and so whatever argument our friends on the other side of the
aisle -- and let me very clear, democrats want this to be a process where they put their nation and the people of the united states over themselves and the party. we're hoping that a light will turn on that they will look at the faktd -- i don't know how anyone could not see that a witness that has been sworn to testify and is in the midst of her testimony, and a tweet or a statement comes out that smears her and suggests that she is in quotes, no good, obviously could in that moment intimidate the witness. so i don't think that it is in any way a question. i do think that that adds to the facts of this whole umbrella of abuse of power and all the elements that i heard you discuss really play into what the founding fathers established as the one barrier or the one law if i might use that
terminology that protects the american people against a abusive leader who is using the power of the office not for himself -- excuse me, not for the american people but for himself. >> there's more tonight on testimony -- of course we got the testimony, the opening statement acquired by cnn we have looked at of the political officer of the embassy in ukraine who gave the opening statement in which he describes the phone call he was present for the day after the president presses ukrainian president zelensky to open investigations of the bidens in which he can hear him talking to the president, on the phone saying he's going to start the investigation. what do you think the significance of that is? >> enormously significant. there are building blocks going on right now with what is the investigatory process. what people are seeing now is instead of an independent
prosecutor, we don't have that. so the intelligence community is doing an excellent job in laying the building blocks. here we have an innocent professional foreign service staff person who took an oath to defend the nation and defend the constitution coming forward and saying the president said i don't give a blank about the american people, ukraine, the jeopardy of russia invading ukraine, the war that is going on, which by the way ambassador yovanovitch went to the front lines more than ten times subjecting herself to violence. i don't care about that, in fact i don't give a blank about it. i only care about dirt on my opponent from a foreign entity absolutely against the law. here is someone totally out of the stream of witnesses coming forward because of their commitment to the american people, the oath they take. and they're saying outright that the president's own words loudly
in a restaurant in a non-secured phone, stunning, speaks about i don't give a blank. it is all about me. that is clearly bribery as well. it adds to that because it is rendering something to yourself that is not really yours for something that you have to give or expect to give to someone else. so it is just another brick in the pathway for the committee on the judiciary to move if the decision is made, to move forward in that process of articles of impeachment all based upon a report that is not yet given. but that report has to be given. and once it's given, it'll have all these elements in it to be given to the judiciary committee. >> one other clarification was
gord gordon sondland's clarification. congresswoman thank you so much for giving us some time on this friday night. >> thank you. good to be with you. >> so again we've got breaking news tonight, damning new closed door testimony against president trump. remember earlier in this week in public testimony the acting ambassador to ukraine bill taylor, he told of an incident he'd heard from one of his staffers that hadn't been previously introduced to it record and that staffer was sitting at a table in a restaurant in ukraine with gordon sondland, inaugural donor, probably how he got the job. and this was one day after the infamous phone call we have the notes of, of the president saying i'd like you to do us a favor, though. and sondland is talking to the president on his cellphone and the staffer overheard both sides of that conversation. today that staffer david holmes gave sworn testimony behind closed doors about what he heard. i'm quoting here, while
ambassador sondland's phone was not on speakerphone i could hear the president's voice through the earpiece of the phone. the president's voice was very loud and recognizable, and ambassador sondland held the phone away from his ear for a period of time presumably because of the loud volume. i heard ambassador sondland greet the president and explain he was calling from kiev. i heard president trump then clarify ambassador sondland was in ukraine? and he went onto state president zelensky loves your ass. i then heard president trump ask, so he's going to do the investigation? ambassador sondland replied he's going to do it, adding president zelensky will do anything you ask him to. i continue with the statement here. even now -- this is holmes talking -- even though i did not take notes of these statements i have a clear recollection these statements were made and i believe my colleagues also knew
ambassador sondland was speaking to the president. maybe more witnesses. ambassador sondland stated the president only cares about, quote, big stuff. i noted there was big stuff going on in ukraine. like a war with russia. and ambassador sondland replied that he meant big stuff that benefits the president like the biden investigation that mr. giuliani was pushing. i want to bring in nbc news correspondent who covers congress and also been going through this. wh will you first just setup who is david holmes, the individual who gave his testimony today? >> david holmes is someone who has a career at the state department and has come out as being someone outspoken within different administrations as
well. he actually won an award for speaking out for something disagreed with in the obama administration. so he's nonpartisan, a straight shooter, and he does what he thinks is right according to what our sources are telling us. now, what he said today really substantiated this new bombshell detail that ambassador taylor said on his public testimony on wednesday, i think the most important thing out of this is what holmes said that the president is interested in the big stuff. and that is not investigations into corruption in ukraine, but that's investigations that impact him. and the reason that's important is because we've heard testimony over testimony and read trimts fr transcripts from all of these people with this same theme. that people were concerned the president put aside national security and america's foreign policy for the president's own benefit, chris. >> there's also some details in there i thought were interesting in terms of how they fit with
other themes as you said. at one point he talks about trying to go to a meeting and he gets there and he's supposed to take notes, and he's told he can't go in because sondland and yermac don't want a note taker, they only want the two of them in there. how does that fit with what we've gotten about what bill taylor called the irregular channel of policy? >> the actual official channel the state department had no idea what was happening in the irregular channel. bill taylor was kind of the connection between the two, but obviously he wasn't involved in every single conversation that was had. so the fact there was this meeting with sondland and yermac with no note taker, who knows what they discussed, but we do know that sondland who was going to come before the committee on wednesday, his testimony is going to take on a whole new
level of importance. he has become this very critical player in this entire inquiry. >> thank you so much for joining us. appreciate it. i want to bring in neal katyal, he teaches constitution law at georgetown university and author of the new book "impeach the case against donald trump." thank you very much. let's start with the incremental news and work our way up to the big picture. this testimony we just got our hands on, in the testimony it's very interesting. mr. holmes said the reason he came forkwrd is because he saw people saying no one actually heard from the president, it was all hearsay. and that prompted like i heard from the president, you should probably go talk to the committee. how important do you think this testimony we just got is? >> i think it's significant. i don't think it's the hugest bombshell ever and the reason
for that is we already for the president's transcript on july 25th with the phone call with the president where he's essentially extorting ukraine. this is further confirmation of what we already know. and yes the president's defenders have been saying this it is hearsay. but the reason it's second and thirdhand is one simple thing. the president has issued a gag order that prevents anyone in the executive branch from going and testifying on the hill. when we heard ambassador yovanovitch today testify and before that we heard ambassador taylor and mr. kent, they were onlythral because they defied the president and said we took an oath to the truth and constitution and we're going to tell the truth to congress. he did something horrible in ukraine but he's now doing something horrible and trying to cover it up. >> expand on that. because i think there's some sense people have of oh, it's trump being trump or this is the normer thrust and perry and push and pull of two different
branches and you're saying there's something aberrant here, that's not the case? >> like fundamentally, this is worse than nixon. nixon tried -- >> take me to school, neal. >> march 1973 nixon says i'm not going to let the executive branch witnesses testify in this fake impeachment proceeding. and congress then says we're going to start jailing those witnesses if they don't testify. what does nixon do? he backs down and lets them testify. >> so you think this sort of full bar that they have issued, that no witnesses can go forward, where they've tried to stop everyone, all these people are appearing under subpoena and defying a white house order, you think that's even more severe and egregious and buabusive of s office than the cover-up of nixon? >> i think what's going on right now is a fundamental betrayal of what the constitution is about. what the president has been saying i can't be indicted, i
can't even be investigated, and now he's saying i can't even be impeached because that's a coup and all hearsay and blah, blah, blah. maybe he's trying to rival king george iii, but in this country we don't have anything like that. >> there are these arguments that prove too much. they say impeachment undoes the elections. that's true in a certain sense, although it doesn't make hillary clinton president. it makes mike pence president. but that's also true of any impeachment. >> i use a very simple thing called the yardstick rule. which is just flip the parties and ask yourself if this were president obama who had done this stuff, who had stone walled to congress, or if this were president obama who tried to do a secret deal with a foreign government to get information on his rival, would you be clamoring for impeachment?
i don't know how they can look in the mirror and say anything else. >> the final question is what is the evidence here, they're standing over the body and the rest is told in blash back of how did we get here? the evidentiary worlden has been met at a certain level. how do you understand the case in that context? >> at this point trump has tried so many different defenses. all of them have completely fallen apart. i think really the only question is okay i did it, is it enough to remove me from office, and that's where i go back to founders. they were sure about putting impeachment in the constitution, but what ben franklin said in response was imagine a circumstance in which a president, a sitting president goes and gets help from a
foreign government to win his re-election, that's their example. >> that's a franklin example in the constitutional convention. >> and then they changed the constitution's draft and put it in. >> imagine there's a guy named zelensky and there's a thing called a telephone and -- >> it is remarkable, both the wisdom of our founders but also just the corrupt lawlessness of this president who's done something so fundamentally that betrays everything our founders thought the president was about. that's what this is about restoring dignity and respect for our constitution. up next, so this was not going to be what we called the c block in the show. this is going to be higher on the show, but here we are on this day. so we're going to talk about what just happened with roger stone. and also alexandria ocasio-cortez is here. don't go anywhere. ocasio-cortez is here. don't go anywhere. ♪
hi honey, we got in early. yeah, and we brought steve and mark. ♪ experience the power of sanctuary at the lincoln wish list sales event. sign and drive off in a new lincoln with zero down, zero due at signing, and a complimentary first month's payment. can't imagine doing it any other way. this is caitlin dickerson from the new york times. this isn't the only case. very little documentation. lo que yo quiero estar con mi hijo. i know that's not true. and the shelters really don't know what to do with them. i just got another person at d.h.s. to confirm this. i have this number. we're going to publish the story.
roger stone, one of the legendary political dirt men of our time. nixon's tattooed on his back, he's guilty. today the president's long time confidant was convicted by a federal jury on all seven counts including lying to congress, obstruction in a congressional investigation and witness tampering all tied to his lying about communications with the
trump campaign in his unofficial role in that campaign with as intermediary with wicky leash. and of course the outlet that published the e-mails russian intelligence illegally hacked. now he's the sixth associate of the president either pleaded guilty or been convicted just since trump took office. here for more what happened is mimi rocah and glenn kirschner. glenn, let me start with you because you were in that room. what was it like when that jury came back? >> you know, first of all, chris, i think it was fully expected given the strength of the evidence. roger stone, he really seemed deflated and defeated throughout the trial, and that was especially so when the jury started announcing its guilty verdicts. but i'll tell you it really does
seem like today is witness tampering day in trump world. we -- as you mentioned, the jury convicted stone of five counts of lying to congress, one count of obstructing an official proceeding and one count of witness tampering for basically trying to convince congress that randy credico, a long time friend of his, was his go-between to wikileaks and julian assange when roger stone's own e-mail and text messages proved randy credico wasn't the go-between. it was an uphill battle for the defense attorneys to prove roger stone was telling the truth to congress. mind you the way he tampered with randy credico was pretty serious because he said things like prepare to die, go in and lie to congress and forget you know everything and if ayou don't i'm going to take your dog away from you. and i thought the really cutest
line of closing arguments was he said to the jury, ladies and gentlemen, roger stone and randy credico have been tampering with each other for 20 years. that was acute lying but it didn't seem to resonate with the jury because pretty promptly the jury banged him out for seven felo felony convictions. so roger stone will be sen tnlsed in february and we'll see what judge jackson is going to do. >> all these guys, everyone around the president they really think they're tough guys. they talk like mobsters and talk like the godfather and good fellas, and this is the first time they're actually being treated like it. all of a sudden it's like, whoa, now we're actually in a federal court, now we're actually being tried and i'm not even clear what the stakes were here. it's almost like there's something compulsive about being lawless, now look here you are. >> that's what's so satisfying
frankly, about this. >> i will say i don't wish prison on really anyone just to be clear. >> no, but it's not just about roger stone. to me when i saw that i wasn't yay, roger stone is going to jail. it was exactly what the prosecutor said in his rebuttal to roger stone at the trial to the jury. he said why should you care, why should you convict? because truth still matters. facts matter. and the jury's verdict on coming back the way they did with the conviction on every count so quickly was their way of saying, yeah, it does. and that's an impartial, non-political jury that represents us, america. so it was a good day. >> glenn, how much time is he looking at now? >> well, statutorily the max is 50 years. however, the sentencing guidelines, there will be some
complex calculations that will have to go into what his final range is. if i had the hazard to guess, chris, i would say he's looking at somewhere between maybe 5 and 6 on the butm, maybe 10 and 11 years on the top. so he is facing a number of years in prison. >> there's one bit of testimony that happened. glenn and i talked about it in this very chair about the deputy campaign manager rick gates he saw stone talk about the wikileaks release and its imminence before it happened, which defies the sworn testimony of robert mueller which he says he doesn't recall it. do you feel based on that and based on this trial that we got to the bottom of everything with mueller? >> the fact trump talking about it on the phone and gates hearing and basically trump and other people on the campaign knowing about the release of the e-mails ahead of time and planning their campaign strategy
in part around it, that was in the mueller report, right? every time we hear something we're like that's great, it was in the mueller report. but it gets lost. i think having it highlighted here it brings it home is the short answer. i think there'll be some parts of that report that will be unredacted, i think we know now though the fuller picture. how they were getting this information knowing it had been hacked, stolen by the russians, and they weren't part of the hack necessarily but they were using it as part of their campaign. and it just shows just like now, trump will do anything to help his political campaign. >> mimi rocah and glenn kirschner, thank you so much. when we come back congresswoman alexandria ocasio-cortez of the bronx is here. don't go away. the
his haircut is "nice." this is the most-awarded minivan three years in a row. the van just talked. sales guy, give 'em the employee price, then gimme your foot. hands-free sliding doors, stow 'n go® seats. can your car do this? man, y'all getting a hook up and you don't even work here. don't act like i'm not doing y'all a favor. y'all should be singing my praises. pacificaaaaa! purchase and get $5,361 below msrp plus 0% financing for 60 months on the 2019 pacifica limited. with moderate to severe ulcerative colitis or crohn's, your plans can change in minutes. your head wants to do one thing, but your gut says, "not today." if your current treatment isn't working, ask your doctor about entyvio. entyvio acts specifically in the gi tract to prevent an excess of white blood cells from entering and causing damaging inflammation. entyvio has helped many patients achieve long-term relief and remission. infusion and serious allergic reactions can happen during or after treatment.
entyvio may increase risk of infection, which can be serious. pml, a rare, serious, potentially fatal brain infection caused by a virus may be possible. tell your doctor if you have an infection, experience frequent infections or have flu-like symptoms or sores. liver problems can occur with entyvio. ask your doctor about the only gi-focused biologic just for ulcerative colitis and crohn's. entyvio. relief and remission within reach.
alexandria ocasio-cortez. quote, trump himself is clearly not satisfied with only one article of impeachment his choice to broadcast his own personally authored witness intimidation means he wants to sign-up for witness tampering, too. how are you? have a seat. i guess, it's not surprising the president did that. >> no, not surprising at all. i'm sure and it certainly seemed my republican colleagues were scrambling after he sent out those tweets trying to provide some kind of cover. i mean, it's -- they're really beclowning themselves at this point trying to find a way to somehow preserve their careers and futures while protecting this president, and they're going with the latter. >> you're someone who i think
came to congress with a very strong vision and agenda. you were clear about that with your primary and you won. and there's interesting debate about this impeachment and president that has to do with is this the best use of legislative time? you've seen some republicans saying it's not. as someone who has an agenda you want to pass, you happen to see happen, how do you view impeachment in that context? >> i'm not very concerned about it because we're able to legislate while this is happening. just yesterday i introduced our first piece of green new deal legislation, which was around public housing and decarbonizing our entire public housing stock in the united states. and so it's not coming across -- some may say mass media is covering our proposals really --
but they don't do a great job anyways -- i love you but i don't think i'm going to get a decarbonization 8:00 p.m. time slot, so it's okay. i think we're legislating and working for people and holding the president accountable and it's all possible. >> do you -- what do you view the stakes as here? i think that some people think he's bad in a normal way. some people think he's bad in an abnormal way and some think he represents an actual real existential threat to the normal order, where are you on that scale? >> it's bad. it's not normal bad. it's threat to the republic and normal society bad. and if we don't hold this accountable we really erode rule of law in the united states of america. and really what makes america different, when people say i want to do business here, i want
to write books here, i want to take my family here, i want to raise and be around american ideals, a lot 06 it has to do with the reliability that the right people will be held to account, that there are consequences for doing wrong, for hurting people and also this is a fair country where everyone is treated equally. >> one of the things that i think helps him is there's so much cynicism about that exact thing. >> that's exactly right, isn't it because there is a lot of corruption. big money and big pharma and big oil and big gas have taken over our entire political system, and there are a lot of systemic threats. but that doesn't mean just because some things are broken you throw out our entire country and set it on fire. and at its core, the most sacred document in our society is the
constitution of the united states. everything else is very easily amenable, but this is not. and once we erode the general respect for the constitution, then we essentially erode respect for the united states of america, and that's what this president has done. >> you -- there's a report this week about stephen miller who is the president's point person on immigration. in fact, to the extent he is -- he's kind of run russia out of dhs as an independent agency or agency that functions. there's about 700 e-mails of his leaked in which he's cultivating a breitbart reporting and pushing themes. you've called for him to resign and started a petition why? >> if we have a white nationalist at the helm of u.s. immigration policy, it means that u.s. immigration policy will become increasingly more
fascistic and we cannot allow us to be us. hundreds of thousands of peoples lives are going to be in danger. over 70 or around 7,000 migrant children have been detained and including child separation, including horrific conditions, including young children who have died in u.s. custody. this is not normal. and when we have -- i mean, it's nuts because earlier this year when i echoed the consensus of experts of historians, of experts and political scientists in saying the conditions on our border, the mass expansion of detention camps qualifies as a concentration camp, everybody thought it was nuts, right? until we realized this week stephen miller is no joke die hard white nationalist. this is what our policy has become. and in order for us to rectify and begin to heal as a country, he has got to go.
>> i feel duty bound to note that miller's defenders, i think mill miller himself would say i'm jewish myself, i come from a jewish family it's and offensive for you to invoke that word particularly in regard to someone who is jewish. >> i'm sure that's also the way he's weaponized his identity. they say -- and you're -- the color of your skin and the identity you are born with does not absolve you of moral wrong. you know, it doesn't. and the perfect person -- the perfect looking person to advance horrifically inhumane immigration policy would be someone that looks like me or someone that looks like someone in this audience, right? because that's what provides the
cover for these incredibly damaging and dangerous policies. so i'm not here to weaponize my identity, and i don't think any public servant should weaponize their identity in order to advance white nationalist ideas. >> you recently endorsed senator bernie sanders. >> it was a clash of cultures in a beautiful way. >> here's my question and i don't -- there you go. you know, this is not a question about your choice to endorse sanders. it's more a broader question in these two ways people are talking about the primary. one is like you've got to be realistic, this is crazy we can't do medicare for all, we can't do a green new deal. we've got to make these marginal improvements and the other is go
big or go home, you stake out your position and fight for it. i'm sympathetic to that latter one but i do feel there's some overcorrection sometimes. and it seems to me the debate sometimes has a little bit 06 angels dancing on the head of a pin quality, well, which medicare for all are we going to do? do we have the votes in the house right now? how do you square the politically possible and bold vision? >> for me and my personal political strategy and this is what i've practiced is to come in with the boldest vision possible. because the political reality hits the fan on the floor of the house. so let that happen down the road. we need to come in strong. >> don't do it ahead of time is what you're saying. >> don't bargain and negotiate with yourself ahead of time. and don't kind of be overly cynical about this political moment. because what we have right now,
frankly, with donald trump in the white house is a moment to create -- a unique moment to push a mass movement for everything that we have and everything we deserve. >> you said this thing when you were endorsing sanders that has really stuck with me. and i feel you've been very honest about this, about the pressure to conform, that you show up in congress and there's just pressure to conform. what does that pressure feel like? how does it manifest itself? >> well, that pressure is like a vice. and there's so many different mechanisms in congress that create that pressure. one, for example, is the fact that any bill and legislation that is being voted on is not really debuted to members until about 48 hours before the vote. and so sometimes these bills they go through markup, go
through individual committees, and we all sit on different committees so there's no way we can all be at every markup at the same time. but they move through markup but we vaurch don't know until a vote is coming and according to house rules 48 hours ahead of time. which is an improvement. we're talking about sometimes pieces of legislation that are thousands of pages long. and then you say, wait, wait, this is really big problem, that's a really big problem. and they say, well, are you on our side or not? and there's all this, like, lobbyist, you know, authored provisions slipped inside. sometimes we're able to catch them and take them out. we did that a few times in appropriations where we found a couple fossil fuel amendments. >> do you feel that intense pressure to conform -- how due
you balance i've entered this unsitution i've viewed as corrupt from the outside. now i'm inside it and i don't want to sellout, and i don't want to be sanded down to conform, but also i want to learn how the place works. and those to me can be impulses that are intentioned. do you feel that way? >> they are naturally intentioned but that's where an individual's personality comes through. so if you just think that a person's politics defines who they are and you see every person that is on the other side of you as almost a personal enemy, that creates a huge amount of problems for you. but when you see the result of our political process and the things that come out of our congress is the natural result of pressures on our system, then you can treat the individuals inside that system as human. but also -- it also almost -- i don't like using the word
civility in politics because i think it's a term to police how people talk -- >> you're going to get dragged on twitter now. >> yeah, exactly. but i do think there's an element where if ierment you -- people know my political positions when i walk in there. and what's great is they know exactly how i feel and who i am, and so they know not to come to me with certain things. >> it probably saves you some conversation. >> it saves me a ton of time, a ton of time. but they also -- you know, they also are willing to reach out to mai on unusual things, but they feel like would fit in the consistency of my values. >> do you like being a member of congress? >> i do. i do like being a member of congress. i think being a public servant is the greatest honor of my life. >> congresswoman, the bronx's own congresswoman alexandria ocasio-cortez. thank you so much.
thank you all for joining us tonight. we will be back here next friday following another week of public impeachment hearings. also a debate hosted on this network wednesday night. if it's anything like this week, there'll be a lot to talk about. plus we have big news about the final stop of our fall tour. we can now announce the second guest. jeremy harris currently and it's going to be a phenomenal night. you do not want to miss that. get those tickets now available on ticketmaster.com. and that does it for "all in" tonight. i think the rachel maddow starts right now. you're there. >> oftentimes not here at this moment, but i am here. >> we had plans to take everybody behind the fourth wall here. we had to decide whether we were
going along or killing a break or not and i went with the kill break because i wanted to keep the conversation going, and then i came to you early and thought i screwed it up, but you're there. >> thank you. much appreciated. that was excellent. and thanks to you at home for joining us this hour on this friday night. there are a bunch of moving parts right now, and we're going to take it one piece at a time, one step at a time with the full and full hearted expectation that more news will break over the course of this hour. you know it will, right? i mean, that has generally been our experience on friday nights over the course of the trump administration. but today and tonight already it has just been relentless. so let's just jump in. we've got a whole show prepared. i'm sure it's all about to go out the window. obviously today was the second public hearing of the impeachment proceedings against president trump. we're going to talk about that in detail tonight. in terms of the latest news, though,