tv All In With Chris Hayes MSNBC January 10, 2020 12:00am-1:00am PST
unromantic business school types call premium content. and that's their highest praise in this business. bottom line, the number of shows has doubled in six years. and when you include reality shows, that number doubles again. it's a lot. oh, and "homeland" starts back february 9. that you can for your time that. is our broadcast. thank you for being here with us. good night from our nbc news headquarters here in new york. tonight -- >> they said it was a mistake for the senate even to have a debate about the president's war powers. read the constitution! >> congress moves to check the president. >> this is a statement of the congress of the united states. >> as the house votes on a war powers resolution.
>> to protect american lives and values, we are passing today a war powers resolution. >> tonight how the president has lost public opinion on his escalation of the iran crisis, unpacking the wild attacks from the people defending him. and the unbelievable revelation that scores of innocent civilians were mistakingly killed during iran's retaliation. plus -- >> we need to see the arena in which we are sending our managers. >> republicans lash out as speaker pelosi continues to hold the impeachment articles. >> i'll send them over when i'm ready. >> the growing outcry over trump's plan to weaken environmental law. >> we're like a third world country. it is really sad. >> "all in" starts now. good eving from new york. i'm chris hayes. >> we have a fuller picture today of the fallout from the military escalation between the u.s. and iran and the horrifying cost of it all.
on the night that iran fired over a dozen missiles, the first word was phew, no american casualties and then no iraqi casualties, and that was true. that same night a ukraine international airlines plane crashed killing all 176 people onboard. at the time it appeared a weird and coincidental incident that this plane crashed in the midst of iran launching missile attacks in iraq. now it appears that the plane was actually shot down by mistake by an iranian surface to air missile. "the new york times" has obtained multiple videos of the plane being hit over iran. i want to show you two of them. nbc news has not independently verified either of these missiles. the first video shows a missile hitting the plane shortly after takeoff. the video you can see the bright flash of the impact because a camera is so far away. it takes about ten seconds to hear the explosion.
"the times" reports that plane did not crash immediately. it reportedly turned back to the airport and flew for several more minutes. in the next video, you can see the burning plane enter the scene from the right before exploding and crashing. >> this all appears to be a horrible, horrible mistake. one explanation for it being that iran's anti-aircraft systems were likely active following the missile strikes in iraq and they locked on to the commercial plane. iranians are denying it, but there is open source
intelligence indicating this is what happened. today the canadian prime minister says it was indeed downed by an iranian missile. 63 canadians were killed in the crash, bringing the death toll from the iranian response from zero iraqis and american casualties to 176 people killed in the plane crash, most of whom were iranian. that does not include those trampled to death at a funeral for qassem soleimani, the iranian general killed in the u.s. drone strike. this accident, this horrible mistake by the iranians highlights how dangerous military escalation can be. this is exactly the fear that's animated criticism on capitol hill. some of the criticism hasn't necessarily been about the specifics on the strike that took out the iranian general, though, there is lots of criticism on that. the biggest concern has been what comes after and how escalation may play out in unexpected and unintended ways. today the house took steps to
rein in president trump's power to pass the war powers resolution. it was largely a party line vote, though not completely. three republicans did vote in favor of the resolution. eight democrats voted against the resolution. we'll talk to one of them in just a bit. it is not just members of congress that want to limit war with iran. a new poll shows americans are not onboard with trump's escalation. americans by more than a two to one margin said it has made the united states less safe. this reaction is more than just faceless numbers. tonight there are protests against a war with iran across the united states. from new york, chicago to charlotte to places like sodona, arizona. parent of the reason for the opposition is the trump administration continues to lie about everything. ever since the iranian general was killed a week ago, members of the administration keep telling contradictory stories. mike pence was on the today show saying they could not warn congress of the strike because
of the risk of exposing sources and methods. hours later, the president uncorked a new rational we have not heard at all in the last seven days. >> we caught a total monster, and we took him out, and that should have happened a long time ago. we did it because they were looking to blow up our embassy. we also did it for other reasons that were very obvious. >> do you think it was likely that iran was planning on blowing up the u.s. embassy and the trump administration just kept it to themselves for seven days? do you think it is likely they didn't tell congress in the classified briefing yesterday? if you are answering no, you are not alone. joining me now a democratic congresswoman barbara lee from california. the only member of the congress in both houses to vote against the use of military force back in twun, and has been working to repeal that and the subsequent one from 2002 ever since.
congresswoman, what was the import of today's passage of the house of the war powers resolution limiting the president on iran? >> this vote tonight on the war powers legislation is extremely important because what it did was send a very strong message to the president that congress intends to rein him in and to make sure that congress regains its authority and it moves forward in the areas and matters of war and peace. it is congress's constitutional responsibility to debate and to determine the cost and consequences of the use of force and going to war. what we're talking about now is making sure that congress does its job. >> what does that mean, though? the war powers resolution exists in a hazy constitutional space. executives throughout the years have said it is not constitutional, was passed in the wake of richard nixon over executive disapproval to sort of re-assert congress's article and abilities to declare war. what actually does it mean tangibly in terms of how it can
constrain this president? >> first the american people are war weary. they're tired of sending our brave troops into harm's way. so this sends the message to the president, first of all, that congress, let's do its job. we also, chris, have three more bills, i know, that are coming forward. one is my 2002 repeal of the authorization to use force against iraq. so we have to look at this in totality because, remember now, the iraq war unfortunately was authorized because of the lies that the bush administration told about weapons of mass destruction being in iraq. well, we knew there were none, but still the congress passed that authorization. had nothing to do, though, even with iran. so we have to repeal that. so that's what we hope will happen very soon. also we have to work to make sure that we pass congress's
bill that would say no funds will be appropriated unless the president comes to congress to debate the use of force as it relates to iran. so you have to see this in a comprehensive way in terms of our over all constitutional responsibilities in the areas of the congress exerting what it should have done many, many years ago. mike lee, senator mike lee of utah, republican, came out from that briefing yesterday. he was pretty hot. he said it was a terrible briefing. he seemed particularly angry at the notion that the briefers from the administration would imply that debate on capitol hill about this is somehow unpatriotic or shows division, that advantages the enemy. i'm curious what your response is. >> that was outrageous what this administration put forward. but this is the way donald trump has been operating. it appears he does not understand that this is a democracy and instead operates as a dictator.
naturally, his administration is going to try to stifle different points of views, try to stifle offering to do our job when our constitutional prerogative and duty and right. it is sad. it is a disgrace. in fact, that is why it is so important that we pass these bills because we have got to repeal these authorizations that are on the books that are allowing them carte blanche and giving them a blank check to use force. >> final question on that. 2002, which was about the iraq war and the saddam hussein regime as being pointed to by the administration of legal justification for a strike on an iranian general on iraqi soil. was passed and then stripped out at the end of the year, the defense authorization act. do you think that will be passed again in the house? >> we're working to make sure it is passed again in the house, as well the bill that was passed
that would deny funding for any military action against iran unless they come to congress. now we know why they stripped it. it was crazy. it was outrageous. we had a good bipartisan vote. i believe it was 241, 242 members, and there was no way that mitch mcconnell and the republicans and the white house should have stripped that out of the ndaa, the national defense authorization act. but they did and now we know why. this has set off a cycle unfortunately of violence. and really put us in -- put us in a position where we are now less safe than we were before. we pulled out of the -- the nuclear arrangement, the nuclear deal with iran. we have seen this tit for tat now and here we are on the brink of another war. so we have to rein in this president and insist that congress do its job and we have to make this president come to debate any issues as it relates to the use of force or going to war.
>> all right. congresswoman barbara lee, you took one of the most politically courageous votes in my lifetime. >> good to with you, chris. even though the war resolution passed congress with bipartisan support, there were eight democrats that voted against it. they all voted no. and they're mostly from districts that trump won in 2016. several of them are also former members of the military. congressman max rose of new york an army veteran released a statement saying in part, quote, i appreciate the president's efforts to de-escalate the conflict in the face of iranian retaliation and support his diplomatic efforts and economic sanctions to advance our goals to ensure iran does not gain nuclear weapons. others released statements.
chlt some of the most conservative members in the entire house on the republican side, including feign mousily matt gaetz joined the democrats in a rare bipartisan vote to vote that across today in a bipartisan fashion. matt gaetz of course, probably one of the president's most intense defenders. he voted with the democrats today on the war powers resolution. joining me now democratic congresswoman of new jersey. she's a u.s. navy veteran who voted for the war powers resolution today. explain to me your vote today, congresswoman. >> as you mentioned, i'm a navy veteran. i was a helicopter pilot and i flew throughout the middle east. and i just feel very strongly that if our soldiers and sailors will be brave enough to go overseas to fight for this country, we in congress have to be brave enough to engage in these debates. i was on active duty when we passed the 2001 and 2002 aums and i don't think anybody at the
time would have thought we would still be fighting under the 2001 aumf now in 2020. >> what do you say to those who say this shows division externally to iran or that it was playing politics in the words of your fellow freshman max rose to bring up a war powers resolution? >> you know, a lot of us have fought for this country over the years. i don't think we play politics when it comes to issues of war. that is something i would never do. i know many of the national security democrats i serve with would do that. i don't think anybody in the democratic caucus would do that, quite frankly. >> do you support -- barbara lee was talking about when you refer to the 2001 and 2002 aumf. that's when you were on active duty. do you support repealing it with the administration is currently using as justification for the strike against soleimani? >> so we have not been fighting under the 2002 aumf. in fact, most people would say that is tied to regime change for saddam hussein's regime.
that is why i voted to repeal the 2002 aumf. we have had troops fighting under the 2001 aumf. however, i suggested that that needs to be updated. >> where do you understand this going from here? i mean, the word powers resolution has always existed in a somewhat constitutionally nebulous space. administrations sort of like to say both say it shouldn't exist and they're actually listening to it. it seems to me there is a lot of work, a lot of ways to go to rein in back the power of a single president to engage in war in the era of the war on terror. >> certainly. and i think that's why this vote is so important. congress needs to engage in these debates. congress needs to have all of the intelligence information, understand the strategy going forward. we should certainly not accidentally or without thought get into another war in the middle east, specifically with iran. that needs to be something that is discussed in government,
taken very seriously and done in a cool, considered way. >> what are you talking to your constituents about at this moment? i think for a long time, and this has been true in the presidential primary that foreign policy was somewhat remote for a lot of voters concerns. there was more pressing concerns from those on things like health care and the economy. and i wonder what your conversations with folks back in your district on this issue have been like. >> so there are many people in my district concerned about this. we have soldiers and sailors that deploy overseas routinely. so we are watching this very closely in the district. however, as you pointed out, people in my district are incredibly concerned about the state and local tax deduction cap. i'm very proud that one of the final bills we voted for was to repeal the state and local tax deduction tax. we're worried at health care and bringing costs down to consumers. so there are an abundance of things in new jersey that we're
talking about. >> all right. all right, congresswoman, thank you very much. >> thanks so much for having me. next, could the impeachment trial start as soon as next week? what we know about nancy pelosi's plans and what mitch mcconnell is reportedly saying behind closed doors. all that in two minutes. for a cold sore,
herpecín l. it does more for a cold sore. as we first reported last night, senate democrats say the time has come for the speaker of the house to send the two articles of impeachment against donald trump over to the senate, the trial. at her press conference today, the house speaker stated in no uncertain terms that her stance has not changed. >> in terms of impeachment, you all keep asking me the same question, and i keep giving you the same answer as i said right from the start. we need to see that the arena in which we are sending our managers.
is that too much to ask? they don't want documents, the documentation. they don't want witnesses. they may want a dismissal, which is proof that they cannot, cannot clear the president of the wrongdoing that he has put forth. [ inaudible ] >> no. i'm not holding them indefinitely. i'll send them over when i'm ready, and that will probably be soon. you know, you said if you don't send them over, i'm going to pass the u.s.-mexico-canada trade agreement. okay. well, we want to see what they're willing to do. and the manner in which they will do it. >> as for the man who vowed to run trump's impeachment trial in total coordination with the white house, mitch mcconnell, is trying to escalate the pressure on mess pelosi saying he backsa resolution that would dismiss the articles of impeachment many
she does not send them by sunday. that will not pass. it needs 67 votes. the move is a clear signal mcconnell is antsy. he wants the week to end. "politico" reporting that mcconnell even told republican senators he expecting pelosi to transmit the articles of impeachment as soon as friday, setting up an impeachment trial that begins early next week. joining me now are my two guests. the president and ceo of the center for american progress, and chief spokesperson for harry reid. i want to start on a strange and technical question, but it occurred to me today. does the house speaker and the senate majority leader of another party talk? do they have open and regular channels of communication? would they be having them now? >> not necessarily. not necessarily, especially when the two leaders are from two different parties. i got to tell you based on years of experience, this speaker even when she was dealing with harry reid really didn't care much about what the senate thought and probably vice versa to a
lesser degree. both consider themselves, you know, the heads of their parties. they both operate in bodies with different rules. and as speaker pelosi would like to tell harry reid time and time again, you know, i can't worry about the senate. i just run the house. >> so what is your read of this moment right now? yesterday it felt to me like mcconnell announces -- or earlier this week mcconnell announces he could start under the clinton rules with no commitments for witnesses or documents, and so you see some democrats in the senate being like, all right, we tried. let's start it. and pelosi today being like, no, i'm not going to. what do you make of this? >> i think the truth is that the person who wants a trial more than anyone else at this point, a trial that would be a farce, is donald trump. i think mitch mcconnell signalled in december that he wanted to move to this trial very quickly. he wanted it to go quickly.
he wanted to move off of it so that trump could say quote, unquote he was exonerated and the thread they have always tried to have or the needle they're always trying to thread here is essentially they want to have a trial and not have a trial. they want to exonerate the president without a trial. if we actually have a real trial -- the truth is the american people understand a trial has witnesses and evidence and what they wanted to do is not have that trial but still get to the verdict. and i think the speaker's objective has been to air the process and basically prove the cover-up. and at this point, it seems pretty abundantly clear that the republicans are trying to cover up the president's misdeeds. and i think we are in the middle of this process, and, you know, she has all the time in the world. >> jim, from a technical standpoint because the senate calendar can be weird and senate
rules are so weird. i barely understand them. >> you do a good job. >> well, no. i mean, you know. but there are levels. it is like you can devote your whole life to learning on senate procedure. but my question to you is in a technical sense, say they were sent over soon. how quickly could a trial come together? >> relatively quickly. you know, it's the highest privileged motion, so if and when it is sent over, it will be immediately presented to the senate. there is a whole process that has been laid out from previous impeachments where, you know, it says that, you know, once the articles are received, you know, on one day, you know, the body convenes. the next day they start the process. >> oh, okay. >> i assume the leaders will want to negotiate a process to allow probably, you know, a couple days for everyone to get
up and ready. but under the rules, once they're set over, they can move immediately. >> yeah, go ahead. >> yeah. i just think that the trick here for mcconnell has always been to make this seem like a done deal. >> right. >> he always tries to make this seem predetermined because it limits interest in the issue from the press and it basically denies people a reason to get involved or to become active in the issue. he did with taxes and health care, even though it wasn't true. >> yeah. >> and his whole mantra here is it will be a quick trial. it will be done quickly. i think the truth is that i think it's skillful to hold the issue up until this point. maybe longer. to really focus on the fact that republicans day after day, even after additional facts, even after are willing to say we don't need to hear anything about the facts. >> yeah. the bolton question hangs over all of us. we may see some house movement
on it. there's going to be privilege motions that force votes on this. there is also -- i also saw this story in "the washington post," jim, that their gop leaders are sparring over adding house members to trump's impeachment defense team. they want to sort of throw in some of the people that we adoringly call the basement boys who, you know, you will see gathered around the microphones, your jim jordans, doug collins. and i just think it is very funny from the culture of that place because i remember covering the senate and the house. people in the senate are such snobs about house members. and i imagine mitch mcconnell being like, i don't want jim jordan in my chamber. i don't want jim jordan here. >> i got to tell you i realize the senate has changed an awful lot in recent years, but i can't manage very few, if any, senators, senate republicans, rather would like to see some of those yahoos standing in the well of the senate making their case. not going to happen, folks.
>> it will be interesting to see who ends up in the well of that senate. >> thank you both for being with me tonight. coming up, trump loyalists reach a pretty shocking new low. i guess not shocking, but still low. in their defense, the president's escalation with iran, we'll show you what they're saying and why it matters next.
we see that. they mourn soleimani more than they mourn our gold star families who are the ones that suffered under soleimani. >> the only ones that are mourning the loss of soleimani are our democrat leadership and our democrat presidential candidates. >> the house democrats would rather stand with the socialist base than stand against iran. i never thought there would be a moment in time that the speaker of the house of representatives would actually be defending soleimani. >> to be clear, none of those accusations are actually true. speaker pelosi did not defend or mourn soleimani, nor did any democratic candidates. but before this strike, an increasingly dangerous part of trump around his allies' rhetoric is the idea that their domestic political opponents are akin to foreign enemies. jeremy, i'll start with you
first. what is your reaction to seeing those sorts of accusations being lobbed? >> i think two big reactions. it is frustration and it is deja vu. i think i speak on behalf of all of the membership. we continue to, as a country, kind of ignore the bigger picture about what we're doing in the middle east until we have these issues that bring them to the forefront. they're there for the little bit and then they fade away again. we don't as a country say what we're doing there, why are we sending military members there, why have they been there for so many years and what is your end stage, our goal, our strategy? >> that's the kind of conversation i saw in many ways shut down in the run-up to the iraq war particularly, this rhetoric, you are pro-saddam hussein. you hate the troops. you hate america. you are disloyal and unpatriotic. it is striking to see it again. although, it does seem like the
situation has changed in the context politically. >> yeah. i think that's right. i think there are two differences. of course, i was just an army officer during the debate in the run-up to the iraq war. i served in iraq in 2003. but i think one of the differences you see now is that you now have a lot of iraq and afghanistan veterans that are now serving in the congress and are part of this debate. you know, a lot of veterans of the iraq and afghanistan wars are quite hawkish on this issue, but some are not. and some who sponsored the resolution today, she herself served in iraq three times. her husband was a squadron commander in iraq. you see somebody like that, that has deep experience that is pumping the brakes, say thing requires more debate than we had leading up to the 2003 invasion of iraq and that we should at least debate what is the proper role for the congress
here. >> you know, you mentioned, andrew, that hawkishness. i read a fantastic article today talking about his mixed feelings, his opposition to escalation, but there are a lot of folks that served in iraq during the period of insurgency in 2006, 2007, peak violence when there were these efp devices being sent out and killing american soldiers, people that lost loved ones and friends and people in their unit to those devices that ultimate intelligence suggests traced back to soleimani. i wonder what you think about that from almost a first-person perspective. >> that's absolutely right. not a lot of good has come out of the wars in iraq or afghanistan. but phil clay's things is one of those things. i think you're absolutely right. a lot of veterans who remember the war in iraq, who remember the way in which the iranians sponsored militias in the ground, the way in which efps
killed so many soldiers, even if they have great weariness about this next phase in the conflict they're not mourning the departure of qassem soleimani from this earth. so i think it is with a lot of those same mixed feelings that soldiers see this. there is a degree of mourning that is taking place. you see veterans who can't believe we're still there after two decades, but on the other hand, they're not shedding any tears for qassem soleimani. >> they can't believe we're still there. one of the points that phil clay made earlier today was talking about i was there the first time we talk fallujah, not the second or the third. the idea of this internal recurrence. and what's so crazy to me is to watch the celebratory nature after like a, quote, bad guy is taken out or a victory is achieved when we have just walked through so many of those moments from mission accomplished on. >> exactly. >> you know, chris, sorry, stepping on andrew there.
that's exactly kind of what it is. we continue to find ourselves in these situations where we're talking about what really are tactical victories if you will or tactical situations and not tieing that to the bigger picture. to andrew's point there are a variety of veterans. we're not a monolithic group. some people are celebrating what happened. other people, as andrew said, no one is sad about qassem soleimani's death. but the debate needs to be about something higher than that. that's what they're trying to get at. why are we there? let's not easily walk into another situation where we're going to get mired. >> andrew? >> yeah. you know, i had this terrible moment in december of 2015 when i was serving in the pentagon as the senior middle east guy there. and we were -- the iraqi forces were retaking the city of ramadi at the time. and i was looking at the map and my intelligence briefer was showing me these places. i was like, yeah, i got it. i know exactly where that is. i spent quite a lot of time
there in 2003, 2004. i remember looking at that and thinking with some despair, goodness gracious, that was 15 years ago and we're still there. and i think that there is a -- you see that same despair and frustration. but ultimately, you know, what you also see is that quite frankly aside from the veterans and aside from the families of the fallen and the families who have watched their sons and daughters go off to war, these conflicts have not been borne by a large portion of the american population. i think you see that. i think the last time we really had an election in which national security was a real issue was probably 2006 when there was frustration over the iraq war. we haven't seen that since and now our politicians haven't really been held accountable for the ways in which the wars have been conducted. >> final question, jeremy, about this nature of american political discourse on this question when this sort of conflation increasingly of domestic political opponents, the other party with literal foreign enemies upon whom
violence is being visited. >> yeah. it's -- you know, it is a confusing thing, and that's where, again, when andrew is saying, it is good we have more members of the veteran community that are in congress because they understand this and they can bring to these debates that understanding of what it means and what is important in these discussions. >> andrew, final thought on that? >> no. i think that's exactly right. i think that you're going to see a more informed debate, but ultimately it has to go beyond elites. what we have seen unfortunately within some demagogues is we have seen a lot of charge to language that gives permission for others to have views of the domestic political opponents that are unhelpful in a democracy to say the least. those same representatives don't say that to my face when i'm briefing them on capitol hill. that's not the way they treat you in person. but that type of language is especially unfortunate because it turbo charges the debate in a way that is unnecessary.
foreign policy or anything that came up since he's become president. one thing we do know is he's good at is marketing. oh, he's a marketing genius. no one does branding like donald trump. he's brilliant. today we were all treated to a special master class. >> i actually had a name. nato, right, and then you have m.e., middle east. you call it natome. i said what a beautiful name. i'm good at names, right? usmca. like the song ymca. think of the song, now everybody says it. they don't remember the previous name. it was a bad deal, commonly known as nafta. >> everyone is so right about him. he is a genius. but it's not just branding. he's a brilliant businessman, too, a genius at finance. we got education on that from him, too. that from him, too
where donald trump went to college? of course you can. it was the prestigeous wharton school of finance. how could anyone forget? he told us this constantly on the campaign trail. that's how he knew he was a business genius. of course we came to find out he was not such a great student that needed help from his daddy and brother to get in the school. then he went on to squander his inheritance and lost a billion dollars over the course of ten years. but he did develop a keen understanding of the subject matter. stock market at all-time high. your 409 ks doing? only 50% up? what are you doing wrong? i don't even have a 401(k). which is definitely up. that was the trending term on the twitter saying my 409 k is the trending term of the day on
is where things stand. half of the island's utility customers are still at this moment without power. more than 2,000 people are in shelters. part of the one of the island's busiest highways was closed today because of serious structural failures. classes on the island have been suspended pending inspections to make sure those schools are safe for children to go outside. many are sleeping outside worried their homes and buildings will collapse if another strong quake hits. making it worse is that the president of the united states bears them a grudge for having t experienced a hurricane in 2017. there was reporting that the president personally intervened in the budget deal with the sole purpose to cut medicaid funding for puerto rico.
today, nancy pelosi called for the president to release funding for the 2017 hurricane. >> we call on the president to stop the withholding of funds appropriated by congress to puerto rico is illegal. >> as the island attempts to deal with the latest disaster, this would be a good time for the federal go. to implement relacommendations. except such a comprehensive review does not exist. and that is an absolute outrage. .
detailed environmental reviews, and that federal agencies don't have to consider climate change in their assessments. donald trump made the announcement surrounded by people like trade unions who have long pushed for such a change. it comes at the tail end for an extremely aggressive agenda to slash environmental regulation from the first day of this administration including rules on climate, clean water, and clean air. at least 95 rules and regulations are being rolled back. joining me now, the former administrator of the environmental protection agency under president barack obama, current president and ceo of the natural resources defense council, gina mccarthy. let's start with the meaning of what was done today. how important is it, what the president announced? >> well, chris, it's pretty important, because nepa has been a law that's been around for 50 years. it's all designed to make sure we understand the implications of big projects that the federal government is
involved in and that we do the best to minimize the pollution associated with that. and that we give people a voice. people understand what's happening in the communities, what threats they're going to be exposed to. they get to participate in the process. what this is all about is excluding more projects from that process, minimizing the ability for people to understand what's going on and being able to comment and get engaged, and really it's all about making sure that you have to have blinders on and only look at the immediate environmental impacts, say, a highway construction project, not look at that pesky air pollution that it's going to cause for the communities that are impacted. don't bother looking at all of the extraction projects, mining projects in a particular area, just pick that one that's going to be constructed and let's not worry about the cumulative impacts. so it's all about getting people out of the way. it's all about doing service to polluting industries. and it's all about acting like a
dictator instead of we're a democracy where we get to protect ourselves and understand what's going on. >> one part i found striking was excising the requirement about how it affects climate change. if you think about big infrastructure projects, i don't know, if you're going to build something in downtown miami or south florida, that's right near the water, or when there's king tides, it seems to me you probably should be think about the what's going to happen to that 12 years from now if the sea level rises six inches. >> especially when you have a lot of military bases that have been destroyed along the coast and need to rebuild. are we really going to rebuild those in ways that are underwater any time soon? >> that's a great point. >> are we not going to look at these implications? it's really ridiculous. chris, this is all about the fact that they've had a number of decisions thrown back at them by the federal courts saying you must look at the implications of
climate change for projects like pipelines. you have to do it. this administration doesn't want to so it's going to say it doesn't have to. but in the end, the law is the law. the courts will prevail. and we will have to do the job we have to do to speak out and make sure that the law is being implemented and that our ability to speak and know what's going on is protected. >> you just mentioned a moment ago air pollution. and it's been striking to me, there has been more and more evidence coming out, the science seems to be sort of converging about just the level of damage that air pollution does, the amount of deaths associated every year. there was a report recently about how air filters can increase student test scores that was recently published. like, what are people not seeing? we talk about climate a lot, we talk about clean water. what does air pollution -- what are we not seeing or understanding about just what an acute public health threat it is? >> well, air pollution is just
like carbon pollution. that's also an air pollutant. it impacts our health and well being. it especially impacts the communities that are left behind, the ones that are already vulnerable, the poor and minority communities. it is not an equal opportunity killer. it goes after the little kids and elderly. we know that air pollution kills people. we know in fact that 93 million people across the world die prematurely every year as a result of exposure to pollution. and 70% of those are air pollution. we just need to understand it, we need to get it, we need to deal with it. we have been doing that. but this administration seems hell bent on serving the pollution, the people who want to pollute, rather than the public that it's supposed to serve. the kids it's supposed to protect. their future. our climate future is what's at stake. and that's what's at stake with this rollback of nepa.
they're just trying to not give the public an opportunity to know how they're going to be impacted, have an ability to push back, and have an ability for the law to protect people and give them their right to clean air and their right to a and give them their right to clean air and their right to a healthy future. >> all right. gina mccarthy, thank you so much. that's all "all in" this evening. "the 11th hour " starts right now. tonight, a campaign rally during a tense time with a major military power. the crowd hears trump make new claims about why he ordered the air strike that killed the top iranian general. he also unleashes new and personal attacks on congress while making his case about why he should be able to go it alone. plus, iran lashing out again as some there are calling for further retaliation against trump while their government tries to explain away what appears to be a horrible and brutal truth -- iranian missiles shot down that commercial