tv All In With Chris Hayes MSNBC January 13, 2020 5:00pm-6:00pm PST
they're willing to be on the side of countries and leadership of countries who want to kill americans. >> again, that's the spokeswoman for the president of the united states making a scurrilous attack on the leaders of the united states congress. your tax dollars at work. isn't it nice to know how your tax dollars are being spent on this kind of political garbage? that's "hardball" for now. "all in with chris hayes" starts right now. >> tonight on all in. >> this president is impeached for life, regardless of any gamesmanship on the part of mitch mcconnell. >> reports that the white house expects republicans will defect. >> i think the president's afraid. >> tonight why the white house is reportedly preparing for at least four republicans to vote to allow witnesses in the trial of donald trump, as still more evidence comes to light. >> mr. president, sir, what conversations -- what conversations have you had with lev parnas and igor fruman? >> i don't know those gentlemen.
>> you're in pictures with them. >> then senator chris murphy on white house deception about iran. >> he didn't cite a specific piece of evidence. what he said is he probably, he believed could have been. >> are you saying there wasn't one? >> i didn't see one. >> the tpresident's latest lies about preexisting conditions. >> nobody knew health care could be so complicated. >> three weeks from iowa, a crowded leaderboard comes into focus a as another candidate drops out. >> we know beating donald trump is the floor, not the ceiling. >> when all in starts right now. good evening from new york. i'm chris hayes. well, it looks like we are going to have the third presidential impeachment trial in history starting next week. speaker pelosi has remained secretive about the process of turning over the two articles of impeachment to the senate. refusing to make firm commitments on timing. what we do know is she's holding a caucus meeting tomorrow where she says she will consult with house democrats.
she's declined to say when she will name the managers who will act as prosecutors at trump's trial. presumably they're going to discuss that in the meeting tomorrow as well. as the senate prepares for the upcoming impeachment trial, we've been hearing for months how donald trump wants a big acquittal, a showy defense on his behalf. but now he's changed his tune, pushing for senate republicans to just flat-out dismiss the charges of high crimes and misdemeanors against him before an actual trial. that is probably not going to happen because that would -- they would need to make a rules change to do it. but after all the talk from trump about how he's innocent, one would expect him to welcome his day in court. it kind of reminds me back in the day when trump was so eager to talk to special counsel robert mueller, saying it over and over again, then suddenly when the time came he was like, actually, i'm good, no thanks. trump today claimed house democrats wouldn't let us have one witness, no lawyers or even ask questions, all of which is flatly untrue. as speaker pelosi pointed out in response, quote, in the clinton impeachment process, 66
witnesses were allowed to testify including three in the senate trial, and 90,000 pages of documents were turned over. trump was too afraid to let any of his top aides testify and covered up every single document. there is plenty of evidence we should get to see in the senate trial. that includes the four witnesses requested by senate democratic leader chuck schumer last month. one of whom as you remember former national security advisor john bolton who announced very publicly he would talk if subpoenaed. and in this moment it does not seem crazy that some of these witnesses might very well be called. cbs news with this report tonight. quote, the white house is preparing for some republican senators to join democrats in voting to call witnesses in president trump's impeachment trial. the list of possible defections includes senators lisa murkowski of alaska, susan collins of maine, mitt romney of utah, corey gardener of colorado, tennessee. this report comes as a new quinnipiac poll shows the
american public is divided about everything has overwhelming support hearing from witnesses. two-thirds of americans, 66%, would like to see john bolton testify in the impeachment trial. including 39% of republicans. then there is the other source of new information that's still flowing in the house intelligence committee and it's worth remembering why it is so important. remember these two guys? lev parnas and igor fruman, intimately involved in trump's plot to abuse the power of his office against ukraine against his political rival. they said they were part of the president's legal team a few months ago. they were setting up meetings for rudy giuliani in ukraine. part of what they are currently facing indictment for, the reason they've been indicted is furthering the president's scheme by working to get the formatter u.s. ambassador to ukraine removed through illegal campaign donations. they were funneling thousands of dollars of russian money into american campaigns. one of them, lev, was working for a ukrainian oligarch fighting for extradition and vladimir putin.
that guy wants to share, the lawyer for lev parnas tweeted last night, quote, we brought the contents of lev parnas' iphone 11, glad he told us which model it was, to the house intelligence committee including a puck tour from capitol hill. quote, quote, we worked through the night providing a trove of what's app messages, text messages be under protective order. intel detailing vijtz relevant to the impeachment inquiry. this afternoon he posted, quote, early this morning the court granted our request for second modification of protective order. we have conveyed the contents of lev parnas' samsung to intel and will be working to provide the other materials as soon as possible. that's a guy with a lot of phones if the records are correct. with only days until the impeachment trial of the president, a man with connections to donald trump, rudy giuliani, vladimir putin and also, by the way, a man described by federal prosecutors in terms of who lev parnas has connections to, upper echelon associate of russian organized crime, he's turning overall the evidence he can to the committee that just concluded trump should
be impeached and removed from office. joining me now for more on the ongoing flow of evidence against president trump, betsy swan, both are nbc contributors. betsy, let me start with you on the significance of the parnas information flow here. >> that's right. i chatted with bondi who is parnas's lawyer, this afternoon. he said they're doing everything in their power to try to crack open a protective order that a federal judge issued barring parnas from sharing any evidence that the justice department seized from him in their prosecution with anyone else. so thus far they've gone to court multiple times asking the judge to authorize them to make an exception so they can share material with the house intelligence committee. and, of course, they've been successful. they have made several productions to the committee. now very much remains to be seen what the contents of those productions are. remember, they're covered by a court order, so there is certainly going to be something
that has limited access and will be shared, likely to be shared less widely than other materials. but the fact that house intel now has this stuff is potentially significant because, of course, parnas had visibility to the work giuliani was doing that's arguably unparalleled. in fact, he was at the meeting in madrid that giuliani had with ukrainian president volodymyr zelensky. he confirmed to me on the record he recognized parnas on tv when he saw news of him getting indicted. so the possibility he has lots of material is fairly high. >> as parnas's people have been making more and more noise about wanting to cooperate is why they haven't brought parnas in for some kind of deposition or hear testimony in front of the house. >> yeah, it's a great question. i mean, so farther complying with a subpoena, right? i mean, these documents were subpoenaed by the house intel committee. and i think they're trying to
preserve parnas in terms of his, you know, his indictment in the southern district of new york. >> right. >> so that's why they're being a little more cautious with regard to giving any kind of testimony. but house intel is being cautious, too, you know. just speaking to sources on the committee, they are not totally positive that these documents are going to yield the kind of bombshells that the public is expecting, and they're also wary of being duped by, you know, people in the president's orbit, rudy giuliani's orbit who may have, who do have their own motivations. so they are -- >> right. >> -- going into this very cautiously. they're going to sift through this material. but at the same time, the reason why lev parnas's attorney joe biondi has been advocating for him so forcefully is not because he's trying to help his client get a lesser potential sentence out of the southern district by cooperating with the congressional inquiry. but also he tells me he wants to try to up the stakes for a senate trial. he wants to make it even harder for the senate to say no to
calling witnesses who might have more information about what happened in the ukraine scandal. so i think we all have to wait and see what comes out here. it could be weeks even. it could even be after the senate trial that many of this material comes out. >> speaking of the stakes, we have cbs's news tonight about the white house preparing for defections on the question of witnesses. i saw yamiche alcindor, with the same story, i don't know if it's the same out of the white house. i don't know if it's expectation out of the white house, they have reason to believe there would be defections. what's your reaction, betsy? >> they have had relationships particularly with murkowski and collins. they are making noise about parting ways with trump. although on some important votes, most notably collins voting to confirm. justice brett kavanaugh in many cases they ended upcoming back into the trump administration fold. but they also create -- they'll make comments and create narratives that there is
suspense about whether or not they're going to behave like trump loyalists, and this reporting indicates that that tension and that sort of x factor is potentially still there. one person not to overlook, as this reporting has indicated, is corey gardener who is going to have one of the hardest reelection days as far as republican senators in 2020. he's from increasingly progressive colorado. of course, he's sort of classic republican. he's tried to differentiate himself from other members of the republican party by pushing for more sort of generous federal laws regarding marijuana. but at the end of the day, he's a red senator in a state that's very blue. and how he handles this is going to be pivotal. >> polling has him against one of his opponents, down 12, 13 points. his approval rating is quite low. natasha, thing in is i think if it were up to mitch mcconnell, you would pull everyone together, you don't want to drag it out.
you go through and acquit the guy. it seems to me there is some logic that some senators might have that some kind of show of process would make it easier to cast that vote in the end. >> yeah, and there is also the argument democrats have been making as well, particularly chuck schumer that these witnesses might not actually be all that helpful to the democratic cause. so that's why several republicans, that's a way they could potentially cover themselves here by calling for witnesses. saying, look, john bolton, if he testifies, he might fall in line with the white house. he might refuse to testify about conversations that he had with the president that might be deemed privileged, for example. this is not guaranteed to play well for the democrats, and that's a point i think they've been emphasizing as they try to convince republicans not only do they have to have a fair trial here, but also this could actually serve their purposes as well. >> it's a great point. john bolton has been at war with the libs his entire life. the idea he would deliver them some shocking victory in the 11th hour is slightly unlikely.
that's my feeling. thank you both. joining me now, one of the people who will serve as a juror in trump's impeachment trial, democratic senator ed markey of massachusetts. what do you make of that reporting about the possibility of some of your colleagues on the republican side voting to allow witnesses? >> well, you know, thus far i've been hopeful but not optimistic that we can find four republicans who will break with the president so that they join with the 47 democrats so we have a majority to hear the witnesses, to get access to the documents which we need to have a full and fair trial. so this is a new development. perhaps we will have enough republicans who stand up to the president, but i'm going to wait to see if it actually does happen because it is going to require a lot of courage on the part of these senators to break with the president and to ensure that we have the witnesses which can cast direct light on what the president knew and when he knew it about this withholding
of money from the ukraine in return for an investigation of the biden family. >> speaking of an investigation into the biden family, new reporting now from "the new york times" tonight it's both not surprising and shocking at the same time. this is a private forensic digital firm that has determined that russians have already hacked the ukrainian gas company burisma at the center. it's not clear what the hackers found or precisely what they were searching for, but the timing and scale of the attacks suggest russians could be searching for potentially embarrassing material on the bidens, the same kind of information mr. trump wanted from ukraine when he pressed the bidens and burisma na led to his impeachment. a spear fishing attempt like they used to get podesta's emails and hacked the dnc. this is apparently happening right now in front of us all. >> well, again, you know, mark twain used to say history doesn't repeat itself, but it does tend to rhyme.
it rhymes with 2016. it rhymes a lot with the russians trying to hand pick donald trump as their favorite to become the president of the united states. and now we have these additional reports that are just coming in that perhaps there is an attempt to hack into burisma so that they can get more information, that is the russians, in order to help donald trump. so this is all the more reason why the american people need all of the evidence, all of the witnesses that can testify as to what the president was trying to accomplish because ultimately at the bottom of this whole case is that the russians were occupying part of the ukraine and the ukraine government needed $380 million to thwart it. >> right. >> so this always comes back to putin. nancy pelosi is so right. all roads lead to putin with donald trump, and this is just one more piece of evidence that that is still happening, and that the russians are just
obsessed with ensuring donald trump gets reelected. >> in my mind there is something more than a little unnerving, quite unnerving watching essentially the same play be run again. are you confident that the system of american elections is essentially fortified against essentially a repeat of 2016? >> we have to be on high alert. we have to just assume that the russians and others are going to be trying to hack into our elections, influence the outcome, hand pick donald trump as their president. i think there is no issue which is going to be birg than whether or not we can protect our election from outside interference. and this is just one more piece of evidence that it has already begun. that the russians are intent on helping donald trump. and if we're not absolutely
paying attention 100%, then i'm afraid we could see history repeat itself. >> it sure looks like it after this reporting from "the new york times." senator ed markey of massachusetts, thank you, sir. >> thank you. >> next, amidst the changing explanations behind the trump administration's decision to assassinate qassem soleimani, one thing remains the same. there is no evidence of an imminent threat. senator chris murphy on their apparent efforts to reverse engineer one in two minutes. alk♪ ♪ all around the wind blows ♪ we would only hold on to let go ♪ ♪ blow a kiss into the sun ♪ we need someone to lean on ♪ blow a kiss into the sun ♪ we needed somebody to lean on ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ all we need is someone to lean on ♪
wthat's why xfinity hasu made taking your internetself. and tv with you a breeze. really? yup. you can transfer your service online in about a minute. you can do that? yeah. and with two-hour service appointment windows, it's all on your schedule. awesome. so while moving may still come with its share of headaches... no kidding. we're doing all we can to make moving simple, easy, awesome. go to xfinity.com/moving to get started.
we still really do not have a straight answer from the u.s. government about why they assassinated iranian general qassem soleimani by u.s. drone ten days ago. it was an act that risked plunging the us into a hot war with iran, the fallout of which we are still looking at. latest reporting from nbc news is president donald trump authorized the killing of the iranian general seven months ago with conditions. there was also the reporting that at the pentagon briefing in mar-a-lago, donald trump was presented with a list of options
on a powerpoint slide and officials are reportedly shocked when trump chose the assassination of soleimani. last week there were multiple reports the president wanted to appease hawkish republican senators in the lead up to his impeachment trial. mr. trump after the strike told associates he was under pressure to deal with general sole manny's from senators he views as supporters in the coming impeachment. those all seem somewhat mutually contradictory. there's not been a particularly transparent presentation by the administration. one thing that's super clear is the president's sudden assertion that the iranians were looking to, quote, blow up our embassy which then suddenly morphed into four embassies is not true. that is intelligence was not presented to members of congress in a classified briefing and the pentagon chief, secretary of defense mark esper said over the weekend he had not seen any intelligence to that effect. >> well, the president didn't say there was a tangible -- he didn't cite a specific piece of evidence. what he said is he probably shall, he believed, could have been. >> are you saying there was
president one? >> i didn't see one with regard to four embassies. what i say is i share the president's view that probably, my expectation was they were going to go after our embassies. >> i did not see one with regard to four embassies. an expectation they were probably going to? i mean that guy would presumably be briefed on that kind of stuff. for more on the white house deception i'm joined by senator chris murphy of connecticut, member of the senate foreign relations committee. senator, i saw you expressing skepticism. we've been litigating the president's embassy claim. it's almost not a litigatable claim. right? is that how you're seeing it? >> it's not true. it's not true. donald trump made it up. >> right. thank you. >> all of his lies are unforgivable. this one is the most unforgivable because he's lying about the pretext for war. he's lying about the reason why he put our troops in harms way overseas. remember, it was probably a miracle that none of our forces were hit and killed in the missile attack on a base in iraq
and we're all thankful for that today. but the idea that the president is making up intel because he feels some pressure to come up with a better explanation than the one that he had is just unacceptable. >> there is a remarkable scene that's developed over iran the last three or four days. the iranian government admitting under pressure, essentially caught by the facts that in fact iranian military shot down that civilian flight from the ukrainian airline. and then protests erupting, demands for government resignation spread monday from hard liners, "the new york times," they called for officials to step down over the weekend. we've seen people in the streets. what's your reaction to that? >> well, listen, i think it's incredibly positive iranian people are out protesting their government in the streets, holding them accountable for just this string of lies that have been presented to the people, the worst of them being ultimately their attempts to try to cover up the real reason that this plane got shot down. the iranian regime has been very
successful in the past in brutally cracking down on this kind of dissent. but we are all rooting for the iranian people to be able to adequately and successfully speak truth to power and we'll be watching close lid ly to see the protests turn out, the iranian regime doesn't do what it did in the past, slaughter thousands of peaceful iranian protesters. >> in iraq there were protests, there were protests last week against u.s. domination and iranian domination, the slogans often twining the two together. you had a chance to speak to the iraqi ambassador. that country said we want a timetable withdrawal for the u.s. troops. the state department said, no. where do things stand now? >> i don't think the iraqis have changed their position. i believe that they want a timetable for withdrawal. i think they understand this is a complicated endeavor, but the iraqi ambassador said to me
today their goal is to ultimately have the only american troops in iraq being those that are guarding our embassy. that is an extraordinary statement to hear. >> wow. >> from a government that desperately needed our troops there just a month ago. and it shows how quickly the political reality has changed to the detriment of u.s. security in a short period of time. you know, there is a broader worry here in which, as the shi'a radical groups get more and more powerful inside iraq as a result of the attack on their sovereignty, they will further marginal eyes sunni populations which will create the predicate for the rebirth of isis coming right at the moment when u.s. troo troops are leaving. >> right. >> there is a perfect storm happening in iraq that was all a knowable consequence of the administration's decision to take out soleimani. >> what are the big picture ramifications of this? someone said, goldberg on the program talked about 2003. the bush administration sold this bill of goods, but they put
a lot of effort into it and it was a very thought out strategy. they were like leaking things to reporters and they were citing it on "meet the press," yada yada. this seems putterly haphazard. the trump administration is contradictory. they can't make cases as if they don't care. >> i guess in retrospect, you know, people can claim to have had one pulled over on them by the bush administration, that they believed the consistent with erring argument being made about weapons of mass destruction. they ultimately voted based on that intelligence. nobody can make that argument today. there is nobody here that can credibly believe there was actually an imminent threat, is the only way the executive branch can take a military axa broad without coming to congress. >> right. >> if you aren't standing up for the right of congress, the right of the american people to declare war right now, then it just is this big telegraph to the executive branch that they
don't have to put much effort in the future into taking action overseas that might dramatically compromise american security without talking to the american people about it first. so i think the consequence are pretty big. >> are you going to get -- the war powers resolution is my understanding is privileged. meaning under the rules of the senate it has to get a vote. is it your anticipation in the impeachment trial there would be movement on that in the senate as well? >> i don't think anybody knows right now. the impeachment trial takes precedent. so there is some talk about trying to take the first series of steps on the war powers resolution which can be a series of votes. >> right. >> and amendments. at least get that started before impeachment begins. it might be that we aren't able to finish that up until after the trial is done. i would hope that we would demand, at least democrats would demand that we do it before the trial begins. >> all right, senator chris murphy, thank you so much for your time. >> thanks. >> ahead, the president's lie about protecting coverage of people with preexisting conditions.
the republican party playing politics while the lives of millions of americans are on the line. we're going to talk about that next. i got it. alexa. start the coffee. set the temperature to 72. start roomba. we got this... don't look. what? don't look. lets move. ♪ mom. the lexus es, eagerly prepared for the unexpected. lease the 2020 es 350 for $389 a month for 36 months. experience amazing at your lexus dealer. this melting pot of impacted species. everywhere is going to get touched by climate change.
we were paying an arm and a leg for postage. i remember setting up shipstation. one or two clicks and everything was up and running. i was printing out labels and saving money. shipstation saves us so much time. it makes it really easy and seamless. pick an order, print everything you need, slap the label onto the box, and it's ready to go. our costs for shipping were cut in half. just like that. shipstation. the #1 choice of online sellers. go to shipstation.com/try and get 2 months free.
and republicans will always protect americans with preexisting conditions. we protect you, preexisting conditions. right? >> right? did i read that right? we all know the president lies all the time. he lies about big things, he lies about small things. but among the most consequential lies he has told from the beginning, one that he told again today is about health care. the lie is i am protecting your guaranteed access to health care if you have preexisting
conditions. quote, i was the person who saved preexisting conditions in your health care. that was donald trump just today. that is an absolute lie. and millions of people's of lives are at risk. people right now are battling cancer or out of a job. these are very high stakes. and what trump is out there saying is just the opposite the truth because the facts are this. the trump administration's department of justice argued in federal court in an attempt to try to strike down the entirety of the affordable care act. the trump administration right now is on the record wanting to get rid of the aca, the whole thing, root and branch, all 2200 pages, everything. and that includes young people staying on their parents' insurance under the age of 26. stopping health insurance companies from denying care to people with preexisting conditions whether that be cancer or diabetes. lifetime caps on the amount of insurance company has to pay for your care. that used to happen. dudsant under the aca. they want to roll it back. they want to destroy all of it. but the people pushing for that also recognize that it would be
a political disaster for the republican party because all those things are popular, extremely popular. the way they go about it is do one thing in court and in public the president lies about it. now it's gotten even more disingenuous. after a lower court improbably preposterously struck down the entirety of the aca, a bunch of blue states called the republicans' bluff. the legal reasoning on this is incredibly thin. let's ask the supreme court to review it once and for all, hammer it out and decide whether the law has to be struck down and threatlet's do it this year. in a move of bad faith, justice barr said they just filed before the supreme court and said, no rush, no rush. no need to do it in an election year. yes, it's unconstitutional, but let's wait until after the election. they tried to hide the ball as they tried to strike down the aca, do it after the election and lie about what they're
doing. here with me is leon bagley, the one voice i felt the most on this particular case. you'll notice, nick, i didn't get into the details of the case because they're complicated. i want to you walk through what it is. i said they struck it down. obviously that holding is sort of paused right now. why did a lower court -- what he is the lawsuit ultimately about? >> the lawsuit is ultimately about an alleged constitutional defect that congress created when it zeroed out the penalty for going without insurance. so donald trump said we've repealed the individual mandate. but the lawyers for the red states said, wait, hold on, if you look carefully, the language requiring to you buy insurance is technically still on the books. it's not enforceable. there is a $0 penalty for going without insurance. but those attorneys general said, hey, you know what, that language is so coercive, actually it exceeds congress's powers under the constitution. and by the way, not only does it
exceed congress's powers, it's such an important flaw, this meaningless mandate, that the entire rest of the law has to fall. even describing the lawsuit is kind of an exercise in absurdity. >> right. you have the individual mandate that says you have to buy insurance or you're penalized. they get rid of the penalty. now the mandate doesn't exist because the penalty is $0. red states come in, joined by the trump administration, now there is that zero there. the entire thing has to fall, pulling out one block of the agenda tower that's everyone's health insurance. >> that's exactly right. the argument has been derided by folk on the left and the right but it found a sympathetic judges on the 5th circuit and court of appeals where two republican appointed judges wrote a really kind of blistering partisan opinion saying that, yep, the individual mandate is now unconstitutional. but saying that for the moment they won't invalidate the whole
act. they wanted the district court to take another look at just how much of the affordable care act has to fall. there is that decision that the blue states are trying to get reviewed at the supreme court right now. >> right. there's three levels of court, district court, appellate court, supreme court. struck down in the district court. the appellate court, it gets -- that -- striking it down gets upheld. why don't we look more at this? we don't have to rush. it seems to me there is this like unbelievable political calculation that suffuses it -- >> exactly. >> everyone take your time. >> it's hard to read the opinion from the fifth circuit. this was done for strategic reasons. look, this is the broader strategy of the trump administration and the republican party going into the 2020 election, which is our position on health care is deeply unpopular, but we're committed to it and so we're going to lie to you about what we're up to and hope that nobody does anything too drastic before the voters go to the election
booths in 2020. but i have to say if donald trump wins again, this lawsuit, which looks preposterous today, starts to look a little bit more concerning because the president is likely to have an opportunity or could have an opportunity to replace a liberal justice with a hard line conservative right wing judge who might be more sympathetic to this lawsuit than a more sort of centrist judge would be. >> all right. so the status right now is like a bunch of blue states. the red states are trying to strike it down but slow walk at the same time. that's the state of play. >> right, that's exactly right. >> the blue state attorneys generals say let's have it out, do it in the supreme court in an election year. what was that filing last week? my jaw dropped. >> yeah, they said, look, there's no problem here. there's nothing -- the law hasn't been struck down yet. sure, there is an enormous cloud over it, tens of millions of people are worried whether they're going to get kicked off of their insurance plans, whether they're going to be able to afford their health care,
whether their kids are going to be able to get coverage for the care they need. the justice department says it's no big deal, it will all get resolved a couple years, three years, who knows, let's just wait. >> that really seems like the ultimate tell to me. for the d.o.j. to go to court and say that in this circumstance just seems to me like, you have declared essentially intellectual bankruptcy about the entire con you're running. >> what i want to convey is this is not -- the lies the trump administration is telling about health care are not sort of just a reflection of the fact that president trump has a loose connection to the truth. it's the strategy. >> yeah, right. >> this is the game plan for the 2020 election. we are watching it right now. look, health care is really complicated and this lawsuit is really complicated. and so folk at home can be forgiven for scratching their heads when people they trust tell them something that sounds plausible to them. to convey the pants on fire
orwellian night is day, up is down nature of these lies is really hard. >> yeah, nick bagley, you've been doing a great job of it. thank you for coming out tonight. appreciate it. >> thank you for having me. >> coming up, as the top four candidates prepare to battle out polling, another primary stage shows another campaign on the rise. we'll talk about that ahead. thing one, thing two starts next. i don't keep track of regrets.
more than six months since white house press secretary sarah sanders left her job. her replacement has still not worked up the nerve to do a press briefing. stephanie grisham is the current press secretary and she has never held a single briefing in heron tire tenure. in fact, most americans unless they're watching fox news or browsing smoking gun.com wouldn't have any idea what she looks like. the other day a group of seven former white house press secretaries along with six briefers published an op-ed for regular briefings across our government. stephanie grisham fired back telling axios, this is group think at its finest. the group has access to president trump but they continue to complain because they can't grandstand on tv. they're not looking for information, they're looking for a moment. it wasn't the press, those were former press secretaries complaining there, people who held stephanie grisham's job but were less afraid to take questions from fellow americans. they are happy to get their communications from the white house as they are issued in social media.
have you ever noticed how nearly every winter when it gets cold, donald trump tweets about global warming, like that time it snowed january and trump said, wouldn't be bad to have a little of that good old-fashioned global warming right now. on november 2018 when it was cold, trump said, whatever happened to global warming? or when the forecast called for chilly new year's eve december 2017, perhaps we could use a little of that good old global warm being. wow, that's a really worn bit there. we were interested to see what heed have to s'd have to s with record temperatures across the northeast. the white house tweeted this. first snow of the year, snow flake emoji. it's a lovely photo but that's definitely not how the white house looked yesterday, because it was 70 degrees at the white house yesterday. 27 degrees above the normal high temperature for the weekend. there was no snow.
there were people out in shorts and not just shorts, guys. eating ice cream, but no, no snow. just insanely unseasonably unnervingly warm middle of january. there is not yet a good explanation for this official communication. maybe plas' the white house's version of a this is fine moment, or perhaps some other perfectly reasonable explanation like a social media isn't that few and we will be sure to ask about that at the next press briefing. to reconnect and be together. and once we did that, we realized his greatest adventure is just beginning. (vo) welcome to the most adventurous outback ever. the all-new subaru outback. go where love takes you.
♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ wherever we want to go, we just have to start. autosave your way there with chase. chase. make more of what's yours. you get more than yourfree shipping.ir, you get everything you need for your home at a great price, the way it works best for you, i'll take that. wait honey, no. when you want it. you get a delivery experience you can always count on. you get your perfect find at a price to match,
on your own schedule. you get fast and free shipping on the things that make your home feel like you. that's what you get when you've got wayfair. so shop now! the better question would be where do i not listen to it. while i'm eating my breakfast... on the edges of cliffs... on a ski lift... everywhere. for a limited time, go to audible.com to save $50 on your first year of membership. apps except work.rywhere... why is that? is it because people love filling out forms? maybe they like checking with their supervisor to see how much vacation time they have. or sending corporate their expense reports. i'll let you in on a little secret. they don't. by empowering employees to manage their own tasks, paycom frees you to focus on the business of business. to learn more, visit paycom.com
on a friday in new jersey, senator cory booker was here in studio for a very first live show of the year. i interviewed him as a presidential candidate also facing an impeachment trial, despite juggling his schedule, he seemed like a man unburdened. >> so, before we jump in -- [ cheers and applause ] >> this is -- i love friday night u. you have an amazing, very jersey influenced audience here. >> this is someone fresh off the campaign trail. who is just pandering to voters all the time. so it's automatic. >> i'm happy chris hayes got me to sleep on my own bed tonight. this is really awesome. >> now we have a sense of why senator booker seemed so unburdened. today in a video message to his supporters, three weeks before the first ballot, cory booker announced he's dropping out of the 2020 race. >> to the i day i am suspended
campaign with the same spirit which it began. it was my faith in us. faith in us together as a nation. we share common pain and common problems that can only be solved with a common purpose and a sense of common cause. >> cory booker has been talked about as a future presidential candidate ever since he was a 32 road scholar running and campaigning for mayor in new jersey in 2002. like so many other campaigns of people who look like plausible top tier presidential campaign on paper, his campaign never took off. polls suggested there are two things happening in the primary. the top four candidates interest clustered together in iowa and new hampshire, and two billionaires are pumping unbelievable amounts of money into the race. we're going to talk about all that next. (whistling)
(whistling) my skin hurt, i felt gross. but then i started cosentyx and i haven't really had to think about it. real people with psoriasis... look and feel better with cosentyx. don't use if you're allergic to cosentyx. before starting get checked for tuberculosis. an increased risk of infections and lowered ability to fight them may occur. tell your doctor about an infection or symptoms if your inflammatory bowel disease symptoms develop or worsen... or if you've had a vaccine or plan to. serious allergic reactions may occur. ask your dermatologist about cosentyx.
doprevagen is the number oneild mempharmacist-recommendeding? memory support brand. you can find it in the vitamin aisle in stores everywhere. prevagen. healthier brain. better life. i don't make compromises. i want nutrition made just for me. but i also want great taste. so i drink boost for women. new boost women with key nutrients to help support thyroid, bone, hair and skin health. all with great taste. new boost women. this melting pot of impacted species. everywhere is going to get touched by climate change. they have businesses to grow customers to care for lives to get home to they use stamps.com print discounted postage for any letter any package
any time right from your computer all the amazing services of the post office only cheaper get our special tv offer a 4-week trial plus postage and a digital scale go to stamps.com/try and never go to the post office again! there are only three weeks, 21 days left until the iowa caucus where the latest polling shows a four-way scramble
between joe biden, bernie sanders, elizabeth warren, and pete buttigieg. the same largely holds true in new hampshire with buttigieg seeing a drop-off, but still a margin of error cluster at the top. but for the next two start, south carolina and nevada, something interesting is happening, at least in the polling we have. a name that barely registers nationally or in the first two contests, tom steyer is suddenly garnering 15% and 12%, bringing him into the top four in both races. while the democratic primary has been largely characterized by national stability for the top candidates, it's been a rocky few weeks for mayor pete buttigieg. in the latest monmouth poll, he setups at half of his his polling was in november. his current polling back where it was in october. joining me msnbc political analyst cornell belcher in washington and dave weigel, "washington post" political reporter live in des moines, iowa. cornell, there is sort of a few different races happening here. there is the national polling. there is the first two states and the states after them. it seems to me like the national polling has been fairly stable,
and the first two states have been competitive for a while. what's your read on it? >> my read is that, you know, joe biden would want a national primary election. >> right. >> but unfortunately, there is not a national primary election. and what you see is where the campaigns are sort of pitched in the battles the most in the first two states, you've seen a lot of volatility. you have seen mayor pete rise, warren gets momentum, and then they get hit and they fall back. and right now both of those states are sort of toss-ups. so i pay very little attention to the national numbers at all. however, for mayor pete and for elizabeth warren, i think there is this national number from "the washington post" that i think is interesting, because i think when you turn to march, it becomes really problematic for them because you talk about a broader s.w.a.t. of the electorate where in the washington polls they ask which candidate do you think sort of trust mostly to deal with issues dealing for african americans. and elizabeth warren i think was at 7% and mayor pete was at 1%. when you get beyond iowa and new
hampshire, i think these candidates will really struggle. >> okay. so i want to talk about the sort of controversy right now which is between the sanders campaign and the warren campaign. two campaigns where despite some kind of logic that they were fighting over the same voters, although i think that's not particularly necessarily true in the aggregate, they have both been very warm towards each other. they have teamed up on debate stages defending medicare for all. the first time difference between the two in the last few days. today there was a reported story warren and sanders when they met to discuss their plans, people around warren saying that she said that bernie sanders said that a woman couldn't win. the sanders campaign denied this on the record, and then on the record statement from elizabeth warren saying this. among the topics that came up during this meeting, what would happen if democrats nominated a female candidate. i thought a woman could win. he disagreed. i have no interest of discussing this private meeting any further because bernie and have i far more in common than our
differences on punditry. >> what warren put out tonight really an hour ago and what sanders said initially to cnn which broke the story which is sanders statement said sexism came up. racism came up. and the fact that donald trump would exploit any issue came up. you can see in what he said initially that maybe he brought up whether trump would use sexism. you can get from that point whether a woman could win. later in the day, after that statement initially the sanders campaign was going on camera, flat-out denying anything like what was said, what we were discussing from this meet:00. and i think that's probably the next day question, if this lasts to the next day, which this feels like it will, is whether the sanders campaign really denies this topic came up in that meeting. >> it does seem like there is a rashman aspect. cornell, the thing i keep thinking it is striking that sanders and warren, the campaign narratives have overfluctuated
the race. they both have significant chunks of the electorate, and there is some thinking one plus one equals two. if they were combined, if you put together both those candidates' supporters, that would probably be the front-runner at this point. so there has always been this question what is their relationship to each other's candidates, and what are the relationship of the people that like them are to each other as the campaign goes forward. >> two quick things. one i'm guilty because i'm campaign hack. i earn my living from campaigns. i'm not at all surprised that at some point the knives would come out. especially in the pitch of battle. and i think sort of them cutting each other back and forth, they understand that both of them are vying for the same space. i'm surprised it's taken this long for the knives to come out. the broader point on women electability. chris is oh my god, did you see 2018? men got their tails kicked all up and down the ballot these days. so the idea that sexism is playing a role is actually reverse effect for sexism right now going into 2020.
>> although, dave, you have written a lot about this in your fantastic newsletter the trailer which everyone should subscribe to. this kind of punditry aspect of many high information democratic voters in early states who are thinking who can beat trump, and who have taken the kind of analytical frame about the ways in which he has marshaled racism and sexism to his benefit as essentially guide posts for who can win. >> yes. and that's very stark in iowa where in 2016, hillary clinton loses by a gigantic margin for iowa, a swing state. in 2018, democrats flip two house seats with female candidates, with abby finkenauer and cindy axneed. there is an assumption by a lot of democrats that a party that just elected a wave of women to the house might have shaken off some of its panic about whether women were less electable. and that hasn't really happened. there has -- i think maybe one party autopsy wouldn't have done this. but there really wasn't a
concerted, coherent democratic look back at why they lost in 2016, and things metastasize. so people think it was hillary fell during an pneumonia attack. it was that she was a woman, et cetera. the female thing really stuck in a way that has been hurtful to warren, hurtful to harris, hurtful to some extent to amy klobuchar. and if there was any strategy in what the warren campaign responds to tonight, it is to remind iowa women, look, you really want to give up chance to elect a female president. are you that terrified? you want a all male primary after iowa? it is something we hear all the time from voters who say i like this candidate, i like -- i think it's time for one president, but i'm worried. maybe we can elect joe biden, bernie sanders, and some day my daughter or granddaughter will have a female president that is with a warren i think is trying to get at. >> i say this all the time. you should vote for the candidate you want to be president of the united states, because no one really knows. and even the professional pundits don't know. god, they don't know. and no one really knows, and the
future sun predictable. vote for the person you want to be president, whoever it is. that's my -- >> that's crazy. >> that's crazy talk. who do you like? cornell belcher, dave weigel, thank you very much. that is "all in" for this evening. "the rachel maddow show" starts right now. good evening, rachel. >> oh, sure, like it's that simple, chris. >> i totally get people's they're in their head about it. it is a complicated set of questions. you just got to do -- vote for the person you like. >> and it's hard to remember, wait, i'm supposed to wait for the person i like? >> i'm going to mentally model the internal life of a person who works in ohio who has a certain job? >> exactly. >> figure out what they like? i don't know. >> combination of game theory and impersonation is the best way to approach this? thank you, my friend. much appreciated. and thanks to you at home for joining us this hour. very happy to have you with us. we've got a really, really, really big exciting show tonight. senator cory booker of new jersey today announced that he is ending his campaign for the democratic nomination for