Skip to main content

tv   MSNBC Live  MSNBC  August 18, 2015 2:00pm-3:01pm PDT

2:00 pm
cubans love americans not least because we spend more. and so yes, they are wholeheartedly in favor. >> christopher baker. thank you very much for that update. great news for those travel. that's it for us this hour. michael eric dyson picks up live coverage next. stay tuned. i'm michael eric dyson. tonight the clinton campaign tells supporters no bedwetting as her e-mail controversy threatens to spiral out of control. and plus republican presidential candidates play follow the leader with donald trump on immigration. and the question that raised a lot of hair on the trail. but first, hillary clinton's e-mail controversy isn't going away. intelligence officials assigned to review hillary clinton's private e-mail server have flagged 305 e-mails that could potentially contain classified information. it is not clear the if these documents actually contain classified information. the state department said they have seen no indication of intelligence, negligence or wrong doing at this point.
2:01 pm
hillary clinton has repeatedly said no e-mails were marked classified on her private server. hillary clinton just wrapped up a town hall in las vegas and did not address the e-mail controversy. a majority of americans simply do not trust hillary. there is no doubt this is wearing on her campaign. a the recent quinnipiac poll found 57% of voters say hillary clinton is not honest and trustwort trustworthy. the clinton campaign is trying to calm fears of her collapse. an e-mail is sent out to supporters saying quote, no bedwetting. the line borrowed from the obama's campaign. and chuck grassley sent a letter to clinton's attorney asking if he had the proper clearance to handle hillary clinton's e-mail thumb drive. >> is there something specific in the way counsel received the information that concerns you? >> the main question is, is he cleared to have access to those
2:02 pm
documentations? and we want to make sure that the law is followed. >> there is also movement in a different story regarding state department e-mail today. back in 20132 website gawker filed a freedom of information act request to obtain e-mails between former deputy assistant secretary of state reigns. the state department told gawker no records could be located. last week the state department said they had located 17,000 e-mails relative to the request. the state department plans to release the first batch of e-mails on september 30th. over three years after gawker's initial request. meanwhile the associated press reports the fbi examination of clinton's e-mail server could reveal more than just e-mails. it could show who had access to
2:03 pm
the server and who if anyone broke into the server. about half of clinton's 50,000 e-mails were deleted because they were personal. the analysis of the e-mail server is now under way. the sources say an effort was made to wipe the hard drive but the fbi is optimistic it can recover at least some of the data. for more let me bring in darren hay hayes. thanks for joining us in the summer time professor. i know this is your usual off time. so we appreciate you coming in today. 30,000 e-mails have been deleted. how in the world could the fbi retrieve them and get them back? >> well first of all the computer analysis and response team, or car, to the fbi are some of the best in the business in terms of recovering deleted information and examining hard drives. one of the longest professional
2:04 pm
groups involved in computer forensics. for an individual to try and systematically delete certain files on a hard drive is actually very difficult because the operating system controls which files remain on a hard drive and which are deleted. so recovering deleted files is not that difficult. and especially if we're talking about hard drives that date back a number of years. >> for the layperson out here, including myself, we're confused. when you delete stuff you mean it is not gone. there is a retrieval aspect always available that allows people to bring that information and data back? >> absolutely. absolutely. i've been involved with recovering files that were so called deleted a number of years ago. you could actually try to even use certain programs out there that claim they delete files off a hard drive but actually don't. so it is very difficult for a use tore delete certain files. and it recovering deleted files is one of the things we do.
2:05 pm
>> wow. even on one's individual server, the regular person on gmail or whatever else they use, verizon, those are difficult to delete permanently. >> thinking you click delete it is simply marked for deletion on the hard drive and can be recovered months even years later. >> how good -- you say the fbi recovery team is pretty good. does that mean then that whatever was going on with hillary clinton with those files will ultimately be discovered? how long do you think it will take for that to occur? >> well i think what's important is that when you don't just have the files and you actually have the computer that those files were stored on, you can you will actually see and recreate events that occurred. so if someone for example tried to install a program that would delete certain files you could see when that program was installed on that computer and if somebody was perhaps trying to tamper with evidence. >> so even though they were unsuccessful in the deletion of those files we can see what
2:06 pm
their efforts were. >> absolutely. >> wow. so can they tell how secure the server was? that is one of the big claims going on here that hey, i didn't expose us, we weren't vulnerable. but now claims have been at least suggested. so can we determine that? >> sure. with every e-mail server there are certain default settings and there are certain things that can be changed by the administrator. for example the e-mails could have been stored in encrypted or in plain text. and we can see just how reliable and how good those network administrators or those maintaining the server actually were in their work. >> right. so how can they tell if anybody tried to break into the server? is that there will be marks left on the server itself? or are there certain kind of indices they have that we can't talk about that allow them to determine that? >> it is difficult to say. buzz certain logs may be there. certain logs may not be there. but very often we can tell
2:07 pm
what -- where ip addresses came from that attach to that server so that we can see if somebody, for example, from china accessed that e-mail server or if somebody locally accessed that e-mail server. so the ip address that somebody contacts a server from is often found in a log on that server. >> you are scaring millions of people out there. they're thinking geez, i thought i destroyed it and it's not destroyed at all. for more let's bring in our panel. david, is the e-mail controversy starting to really drag on this campaign? and first of all are you afraid that all the stuff you think you've deleted is not really deleted. >> i knew when you delete something on your file on your computer you're basically just deleting the link if are for your desk top to that file. it is still there. so that's why, you know, when
2:08 pm
mitt romney left the governors office in massachusetts he took his hard drives and they destroyed them. that is the only way to really get rid of information. throw it in a river or do something like that. but that aside, back to hillary clinton. i think, you know, one problem she faces in listening to your expert there makes me wonder how profound this might, is how long it will take to review this server. now, there are 60,000 e-mails that were once upon a time on the server they claim are wiped. and half she said were personal and half she gave to the state department in a printed form. now, if you have to go back and if you have access to recreate and recover some of that data it is going to take a long time to look at 60,000, pull out 60,000 e-mails and determine if she was correct in what she considered personal, if she got everything right in terms of handing things over. 60,000 documents is a lot to
2:09 pm
process. you can make honest mistakes. so i'm wondering if this could drag out if not for months but for a whole other year as they try to figure out what they try to figure out what to look at on the server. >> given the scenario just laid out from dr. hayes before that, what should hillary clinton most be concerned about. we know people are concerned about the story. but what should she be really concerned about here in terms of the process by which those servers are being examined? >> well, i think she has to worry about exactly what david said, which is that this drags out and it keeps being brought up by the media and by others. but just look at the language that you used in your intro, michael and in your interview. wiped, deleted, fbi. most people are layman. so they are hearing this and there is just a scent of suspicion around all of this. which is a problem for hillary clinton. she's going to try to push
2:10 pm
through that by talking to friendly crowds, by trying to get her base energized and by running hard against the republicans on immigration and on other things that she thinks can activate demographic groups. but think about what might happen to all of those thousands of e-mails, some of which may not be judged personal once they are e revealed. but certainly if there is any questions people will seize on that. so the length of time daiftd spoke about and just these words, these highly charged words, you don't want to bei talking about the fbi having your server on which you deleted e-mails in the middle of a presidential campaign. >> the greatest harm or potential injury to be done the fact of the perception of what's going on here? as jon just indicated? or do you think there are substantive issues that may in their subsequent exposure make hillary clinton more vulnerable here? >> well there is the possibility
2:11 pm
of real substance coming out of this. right? she says she didn't handle classified information. their investigation, maybe she did. maybe she didn't know it was classified. didn't say classified. but that whole issue could come out and at least raises the question of her staffing and whether they set up a system that was secure or not. then you go back to the 60,000 e-mails that may be recreated. there is a possibility that any one of them may say something embarrassing or she may have not turned over to the state department she should have. again it could have been an honest mistake but of course her political foes will jump on that. so there is a lot of possible material for people to comb through. am some point in time that may be politically embarrassing for reasons of substance and meanwhile you have the head lines. don't call it perception. call it kind of what jon said.
2:12 pm
the impression. the impressionistic impact of things. on a scale of 1-10 i don't think this is much above a 7 or 8 but this is an issue now and she is right to talk about other things and it may not be the determining issue but something most candidates would rather not have to deal with. >>less van gogh and more normal rockwell here. bernie sanders was in re know last night. >> bernie sanders, from what i gather from looking at the tweets about hiss speech, he captivated the crowd in the words of one union leader there. he does do that to those kind of audiences. the democrat iic base loves to hear what bernie sanders has to say. the question about bernie sanders is whether that cob sustained as you get closer to
2:13 pm
the actual voting in these primaries and caucuses and whether electability and questions about his electability, vis-a-vis hillary clinton come into play. and that is going to dove tail with what we've been talking about because the hillary clinton e-mail issue, does it rise all the way up to a scandal or criminal wrong doing or just something that everybody just absorbs about hillary clinton who supports her, figures there is going to be some drama i think. but he does captivate the democratic base here and elsewhere. >> you know what's going to be really interesting is when we sit down and have debates and we see bernie sanders and hillary clinton and of course others there too like martin o'malley. to see how they engage the issues will tell us a lot. >> thank you for your time tonight. >> up next, donald trump's funniest tweets get fine tuning.
2:14 pm
doers. they don't worry if something's possible. they just do it. at sears optical, we're committed to bringing them eyewear that works as hard as they do. right now, buy one pair and get another free. quality eyewear for doers. sears optical
2:15 pm
2:16 pm
if becoming president doesn't work out, donald trump should give song writing a chance. last night on jimmy kimmel josh grogan put trump's tweets to music and proved there is a melody to the madness. >> ♪ i've never seen a thin person drinking diet coke ♪ ♪ at barack obama's birth certificate is a fraud ♪ ♪ a fraud >> we'll have more after the break. &t? yeah, give me a problem and i've got the solution. well, we have 30 years of customer records. our cloud can keep them safe and accessible anywhere. my drivers don't have time to fill out forms. tablets. keep it all digital. we're looking to double our deliveries. our fleet apps will find the fastest route. oh, and your boysenberry apple scones smell about done. ahh, you're good. i like to bake. add new business services with at&t
2:17 pm
and get up to $500 in total savings. a new sea chance to tryew look. something different. this summer, challenge your preconceptions and experience a cadillac for yourself. ♪ the 2015 cadillac srx. lease this from around $339 per month, or purchase with 0% apr financing.
2:18 pm
scott walker, whose struggling in the polls embraced trump's birthright completely. >> we should end it. >> yeah. to me it is about enforcing the laws in the country. >> suppose he believed that until he didn't. now he's appearing to walk that back. >> i pointed out -- i understand
2:19 pm
why people are concerned about that. what i've said about anything of these issues is until we secure the border and start enforcing the laws americans aren't going expect politicians in washington to go do anything else. trump has a strong confidence with voters on immigration reform. it seems counterintuitive. it is pushing his national polling over the top. do you think this issue will decide the election? >> i don't think this issue is going to be the decidic factor of the election but it is going to be the deciding factor of the general election with the hispanic voters. 60 to 80% nationwide dislike trump. no president has ever made it to the white house without at least 40% of the hispanic vote. so maybe he can get out of the republican primary but he's never going to win the general. >> so candidates have called for an end to the birthright
2:20 pm
citizenship in the past but it's never representatives received this much attention before. do you think trump is setting the agenda for the 2016 race that his come compatriots feel they have to match his vigorous dispute with it? >> yes. i think in the republican primary they are all following his lead. they see how popular his stances are. with the republican party. now we have to remember though that 25% of the republican -- that is 25% of the 25% that is actually following him. so it is a small fraction of the general voting population. but it is going to make a difference in the primary for the republican party. only because there are so many other candidates running. trump takes 25%. there is, what, 10, 12, 14 others splitting up the other 75%. so trump may just take it. >> wow. so do you think jeb bush -- well put it this way. why do you think your former
2:21 pm
governor there jeb bush is dropping so low in the polls? >> well as we can see it is very popular among the primary voters in a republican primary, you know, immigration and some of these other issues that he's taking a stance on. and i think more importantly the voters are looking for something different. they are tired of the same old same old same old. but we see that generally across the board. they don't trust politicians. trump is obviously not a politician. obviously not politically correct. voters are looking for somebody new, different, someone they can trust and i'm not sure trump is trut worth but they seem to think so. >> trump say he's willing to spend a billion dollars in his campaign. he also says he doesn't want money from special interest groups which seems to be quite appealing. is trump his own special interest group? he sure is. he definitely bankrolled a lot of politicians in this country. he does have a lot of special interests at stake here. if not why would he bankroll so
2:22 pm
many politicians in the past? >> no doubt. thank you for joining us here tonight. next to scott walker's plan to repeal obamacare an effort to revive his failing poll numbers. and black lives matter activists get their one oun one with hillary clinton. what she said ahead. it's so shiny. i know, mommy, but it's time to let the new kitchen get some sleep. if you want beautiful results, you know where to go - angie's list. now everyone can get highly rated service even without a membership. you can shop special offers or just tell us what you need, and we'll help you find a local company to take care of it. angie's list is there for all your projects, big and small. pretty. come see what the new angie's list can do for you. the the lincoln summerre. invitation is on. get exceptional offers on the luxury small utility mkc mkz sedan...
2:23 pm
...the iconic navigator. and get a first look at the entirely new 2016 mid-size utility lincoln mkx. your choice of mkc, mkz gas or hybrid for $369 a month with zero due at signing.
2:24 pm
2:25 pm
a. on my very first day at president of the united states i will send legislation to the congress to once and for all repeal obamacare entirely. >> scott walker trying to gain a foothold by unveiling a new plan for healthcare. he laid out his plan today that says will put patients and families back in charge of hair healthca their healthcare decisions. walker's plan would still provide tax credits for people
2:26 pm
who aren't insured by their employers. but those credits would be determined by age, not income. the plan would also restructure medicaid into smaller programs foern focused on needy families and short and long-term care for seniors and the disabled. his plan comes as his campaign takes a turn for the worst in the polls. walker is losing ground in the republican field. he's down to single digit support in the latest poll. following carson and rubio and well behind trump. brother nichols, what do you make of walker's healthcare plan? are people tired of hearing about rehashes of the obama healthcare plan and therefore would be interested in him proposing a new plan himself? >> i think within the republican primary fight, in that narrow sector, there are people who are looking for the candidate who is
2:27 pm
the most anti obamacare. and walker is trying to position, trying to use this as a pivot out of his very difficult spot he's in. but truthfully when you start to look at this plan it is obviously -- it is the sort of thing you did the night before you had a big paper due and you hadn't worked on it. 's got every bad proposal from the last couple of years that republicans have floated out put together in a way that doesn't work. even bobby jindal is criticizing walker for this plan. >> professor nichols gives him an f then. >> i'm afraid it is a pretty low grade. yeah. >> wisconsin's uninsured raid is 5.6% according to a gallop surface. the unsured percentage has dropped 6% since 2013. how much of that is due to walker's administration or due
2:28 pm
to obamacare. >> actually due to a number of things. wisconsin has historically had a low unensured rate. partly because republicans and democrats worked together in the 90s under tommy thompson. so walker inherited a good situation. but instead of working with the obama administration to really take it to the top to get wisconsin in the lead of the country, in many cases he's resident fused to cooperate with the administration. he's been in the forefront of these lawsuits trying to overturn obamacare. he's refused money in certain circumstances. so i can't give scott walker credit for any decent numbers out of wisconsin. i would have to say i'll give it to a republican. i'll give the credit to tommy thompson, who set up quite a few good things in the 90s and then i will give to it a democrat. i think barack obama's plan has had a tremendous amount of good in wisconsin and a lot of other states. >> so far from professor nickels
2:29 pm
two failing grades. so healthcare hasn't been much of a talking point for republicans in the election cycle. it gives walker an opening to make gains. but how significant do you think those gains will be? >> well, this is a very important moment for scott walker. he is going heavy duty on being the anti obamacare candidate. he's trying to adopt a lot of the harsh language on immigration. he's going on glen beck show to try and buff his conservative credentials. he knows he's in trouble. and so i think he's really throwing a little bit of everything at the wall to see if anything will stick. and it is possible -- it is possible some of this will come together. but if he does not get traction on some of this in the next week or so, he runs the real risk of falling behind, say, carly fiorina in some of these polls. particularly in new hampshire. >> how can walker make up ground on donald trump then given your
2:30 pm
prognosis? >> you know, look, he's not -- i honestly don't think scott walker is worried about donald trump at this point. he's worried about marco rubio, ben carson, scott walker has to get out of the middle of the field and back to where he was on debate day. remember on debate day you had trump in the middle, bush on one side. walker on the other side. since that debate walker has fallen down, down, down. if this continues, i mean, he runs the risk of getting into that second tier debate. >> john nichols, please stay with us. still to come, the tense exchange between black lives matter activists and hillary clinton. stocks end with modest losses today. the dow off 33 points. the s&p off 5 and the nasdaq down 32. sharsz of walmart sank more than 3%. reporting earnings that missied estimates and also cut guidance.
2:31 pm
home depot gaining 2% after company posted profits that met estimates and raised its yearly outlook.
2:32 pm
♪ i built my business with passion. but i keep it growing by making every dollar count. that's why i have the spark cash card from capital one. i earn unlimited 2% cash back on everything i buy for my studio. ♪ and that unlimited 2% cash back from spark means thousands
2:33 pm
of dollars each year going back into my business... that's huge for my bottom line. what's in your wallet?
2:34 pm
we're finally getting a look inside hillary clinton's closed door meeting with black lives matter. members asked clinton how she would address racial disparities in the policy. she immediately put the onus back on the activists themselves. >> part of you need to keep the pressure on and part of you need to figure what are we going to do now, how are we going to do it? just like the civil rights movement or the gay rights or a lot of other movements reached a point in time, the people behind that consciousness raising and advocacy, they had a plan ready
2:35 pm
to go. you are going to have to come together as the movement and say, here is what we want done about it. >> one of the group members thought clinton offered a criticism instead of a dialogue. >> this is and has always been a white problem of violence. it is not -- there is not -- there is not much that we can do to stop the violence against us. what you just said whauz was a form of victim blaming. what you are saying is that what the black lives matters movement needs to do to change white hearts. >> i don't believe you change hearts. you change laws and the change allocation of resources and change the way systems operate. you are not going to change every heart. you are not. but at the end of the day we can do a whole lot to change some hearts and change some systems and create more opportunity for people who deserve to have them. >> clinton agree with their
2:36 pm
concerns but offer nod concrete policy plans. but she says she's ready to go to work. >> we need a whole comprehensive plan that i am more than happy to work with you guys on to try to figure out okay, we know black lives matter. we need to keep saying it so that people accept it. >> joining me now is my panel. angela, do you agree hillary clinton was victim blaming a it is activist in the video said? or was she asking him to do what traditional organizations not like black lives matters have done in responding to giving an agenda to a particular politician to follow. >> so doc, first i just have to tell this sister on your show right now that i am just so proud of the work you all are doing. it is so very important. historically we have seen that agitation is what moves the needle on so much of this. now to answer the question, thank you for allowing me to do
2:37 pm
that. i really think that the conversation was one that was one so emotional on both sides. it is just hard to have that kind of dialogue and that short, you know, time frame. and what i think i heard hillary clinton saying is, it is so important for you to hold us accountable by telling us what exactly you need. so sure you can have the philosophical discussion about white supremacy and its role in historically oppressing our folks, or you can have the discussion about a, we need you to develop this particular executive order if you are sworn in to become the next president of the united states to end mass incarceration. we want the clinton foundation to response aeroprogram that says, you know, we recognize our role from the nineties and we want to ensure that there is a prisoner reentry program. that you will promise to aid felons who can be
2:38 pm
reenfranchised. whatever it is. but developing a clear set of agenda so that people can move the buck forward. you can say black lives matter. and she actually said this to her credit. you can say that but what will you do to show it? and i think that is the next step in the movement and i hope that you all will be receptive. >> clinton emphasized legislative dipogoals in black s matters demands. you do agree with that approach and the priority and do you agree with the criticism that's been offered here by hillary clinton herself implicitly and the suggestion by miss rye as well? >> first we really appreciate the support we've received. and i think it is important to understand that black lives matter has had a set of demands since 2013. and those aren't difficult to find. and what's important to understand here is that i do think that there is a level of condescension when we place the responsibility on people who
2:39 pm
are -- who have boots on their neck to then figure out how to solve the problem. what we're looking for here are candidates who can really be activists. folks who are going to say we know there are a million organizations and organizers on the ground doing great work. let's do the leg work to figure out what are the best, boldest and most innovative policy solutions that we can start to advance? of course we're happy to share with her and with others what we think needs to be done. but at the end of the day there can't be reconciliation without truth. and what i saw in that video were folks from blm boston asking hillary clinton what changed her mind. she was active in the mass incarceration of black folks. she was active in welfare reform. she was active in many of the issues that are facing black people. and that is not just a criminal justice issue. we've had five black trans women
2:40 pm
who were murdered this week. we want to hear from her, what would you do as president to make sure that black trans women stop being killed? what would you do as president to make sure there is parity, not just 77 cents to every dollar that a white man makes but black women are making 64 cents to every mdollar a white man makes. and i think it's important to be clear that it's important not just for activists to be giving policy solutions but we want too seed leadership from candidates. we want to see your plan, your proposal, what do you think needs to be done in order for black lives to matter in this country. >> your response? >> i think all of that is a 100% fair. but given the fact i am a strategist and this is the space i operate, i would just push back and say most often it is not the role of the a politician to serve as an activist.
2:41 pm
but thank god, many of them, i used to work for the professional black caucus to have activists in their cabinet telling them what they should do. if you are able to get in a room where you can give them the precipitation for solving these issues, i would go for it. that means our folks are better off that. means freedom becomes real for us. so the way in which we do that is if we have ideas we've got to share them. and i appreciate you sister saying the idea are out there. i have not seen. some of the ideas online or broader precipitations but they're not clear about who does what. they are not clear about hue legislator would move this or how a president would move this. i this i some of those precipitations are very important and i think would be supportive in the movement. hopefully again you can appreciate that. but i think the conversation was excellent. it just was not enough time and it is not reallyic to think that black lives matter whatever the chapter can solve white supremacy in one conversation. the as huge conversation that
2:42 pm
needs to take place throughout kitchens across the country. throughout rallies and debates and everywhere else. we need to make sure this is on the agenda and also that we're ready to present solutions. >> do you think that in light of that argument that it might be strategically wise for black lives matter movements, as they are decentralized, of course, but around the country with coordination to articulate those demands to candidates to then hold them accountable to measurable goals and gains that have been expressed by your movement? >> sure. and again i want to reemphasize that those demands have been present since 2013. we've called for their to be tracking and accountability at the federal level for police killings and murders, for example. these things are not difficult to find. and where i think we share common ground that we both believe that it is important for folks to be working together to bring the best solutions to the table. but in the same way that folks
2:43 pm
are saying politicians aren't activists, activists aren't politicians. and what we want to do in this moment is actually transform the way our democracy works. why shouldn't we have a president who is going to go out there and do the leg work necessary to make sure that they have the best platform and not depend on the folks who are saying to you, hey we have ideas about what we want to see happen -- >> let me ask you though, would it be helpful for those who met with hillary clinton with the precious time they had. to not depend on her to find it but hey this is what we want. it is out there but let me while i'm in this opportunity face-to-face with you push you hard, which the black lives matter movement has done brilliantly but also now the articulation of a particular set of legislative demands while they are in her face, don't let her off the book and say one two
2:44 pm
three a, b, c this is what we want. >> here is what i heard in the video. what i heard were people who are vetting a candidate. and they were asking her a very direct question. and that direct question was what has changed? because in the past you have supported policies that have killed and jailed black people. and the fact that that question could not be answered directly is something that people should pay attention to. >> all right. >> we have five months left till the primaries. we have a year left to the election. and of course there will be several conversations where we are sitting down and saying this is what we want to see. but also we want to know are you for real. and to be honest this question about mass incarceration, this question about welfare reform, this question about economic inequality, she has participated in many of the ways in which black people are subjugated today. and so black people do have a right to ask her what has
2:45 pm
changed? why has she changed her mind. >> absolutely. we got to go now because of the hillary clinton press availability. we're going to that right now she's speaking to the media. >> every person in america understands what the import of this rhetoric on the other side actually is. because it is inflammatory and something that every sensible american should reject. >> [ inaudible >> first of all my position on comprehensive immigration reform hasn't changed one bit. i voted for, sponsored, fought for comprehensive immigration reform and whatever other piece
2:46 pm
of it like the dreamers that appeared before the senate when i was in the senate. and that is a position that pre dates my being in the senate. and i continue to hold the same position. specifically with respect to children on the border. if you remember we had an emergency. and it was very important to send a message to families in central america, do not let your children take this very dangerous journey. because a lot of children did not make it. they were robbed. they were raped. they were kidnapped. they were held for ransom by smugglers. so i think it was the responsible message that i and many others, including the white house, was trying to say to families. do not let your children, your young children, do this. now i think we have a different problem. because the emergency is over. we need to be moving to try to get people out of these detention centers. particularly the women and children. i think we need more resources to process them, to listen to their stories, to find out if
2:47 pm
they have family in this country. if they have a legitimate reason for staying. so i would be putting a lot of resources into doing that. but my position has been and remains the same. >> [ inaudible ]. >> no they are not. they are very different issues. first of all the arctic drilling issue is not one that i have had any involvement in. i had no official involvement in it. i had no responsibility for it. i am expressing my personal view based on my review of the information that we have available. i think the very grave difficulties that shell encountered the last time they tried to do that should be a red flag for anybody.
2:48 pm
i have been to the arctic. i have been to barro, our most northern most outpost in the united states. and i think we should not risk the potential catastrophes that could come about from accidents in looking for more oil in a pristine, one of the few remaining fris pristine region of the world. rather we should be focusing on clean renewable energy and moving heaven and earth to provide the tax incentives, the financing, setting the goals as i'm doing in my climate and energy policy. and on your -- on the other issue i've said repeatedly. i would really -- i would really hope that there would be a decision. and i have been waiting for it. because i did -- i do feel a sense of responsibility having
2:49 pm
been involved in the process early on. but i am getting impatient because i do feel like at some point a decision needs to be made. because i'm not comfortable saying, you know, i have to keep my -- you know, my opinion to myself given the fact that i was involved in it. so at some point i may change my view on that. but hopefully someone will write this and somebody in the state department or white house will say hey maybe we better hurry up and get that decision made. >> [ inaudible ]. >> thank you jeff. >> [ inaudible ]. >> well i do now. in retrospect what was supposed to be convenient has turned out to be anything but convenient. but i have to say, jeff, that the position that i've taken from the very beginning is the same today as it was, you know,
2:50 pm
months ago. and i've been thinking about the fact that, you know, i get a lot of attention because i had a personal e-mail account, as did other high ranking officials i the state department and elsewhere in the government. and i had not sent classified material nor received anything mark classified. if i had had a separate government account so i had a totally designated government account and totally designated personal account and i started running for president and i said, i want the american people to see everything that was part of my time in the state department because i think it's educational and i want the state department to release all of my e-mails, which they already had, by the way, you know, in the government computer system, we
2:51 pm
would be going through this same process. that's what i want americans to understand. when something is released, whether it's in response to a freedom of information request, or in my case where i said there's 55,000 pages out there, please put them out, there is a process that has to be gone through. you want to make sure nobody's personal e-mail is on there and other personnel issues, those kinds of things. so we would be going through the same because other agencies get to make the same claims like, you know, this may not have been an issue in 2009, but now it is. or in 2011 this should have been handled differently than it was. it has nothing to do with me and it has nothing to do with the fact that my account was personal. it's the process by which the government and sometimes in disagreement between various agencies of the government make decisions about what can and cannot be disclosed. so i'm very comfortable that, you know, this will eventually get resolved and, you know, the
2:52 pm
american people will have plenty of time to figure it out. >> so senator clinton -- suggested -- and how you're reacting and eugene robinson said at the very least -- stonewalled, tell people i'm sorry i was wrong. but instead in recent days you've been statalking about th snapshot and -- taking responsibility -- >> look, i take responsibility. look, i just told jeff in retrospect, this didn't turn ot to be veept at all. i regret that this has become such a cause celebre. but this does not change the facts and no matter what anybody tries to say, the facts are stubborn. what i did was legally permitted, number one, first and
2:53 pm
foremost, okay? number two, i turned over, out of an abundance of an attempt to be helpful over anything that i even thought was vaguely related. they've already concluded more than 1200 of the e-mails i gave them have nothing to do with the work and i said make them public. and that's the process that one goes through to make them public. i know there's a certain level of, you know, sort of anxiety or interest in this, but the facts are the facts. >> inspector generals saying that there are hundreds -- >> but ed, you're not listening to me -- ed, if it were -- well, if it were a government account, they would be saying the same thing. no, no, no. well, look -- first of all, that is not in any way agreed upon. state department disagrees.
2:54 pm
that happens all the time in these efforts to say what can go out and what can't go out. that is a part of the ordinary process. everybody is acting like this is the first time it's ever happened. it happens all the time. and i can only tell you that the state department has said over and over again, we disagree. so that's what they're sorting out. and that's what happens a lot of the times. but whether it was a personal account or a government account, i did not send classified material and i did not receive any material that was marked or designated classified, which is the way you know whether something is. what you're seeing now is a disagreement between agencies saying, you know what? they should have. and the other saying no, they shouldn't. that has nothing to do with me. if it had been a government account and i said release it, we'd be having the same
2:55 pm
arguments. well, my personal e-mails are my personal business, right? we went through a pain staking process and turned over 50,000 pages of anything we thought could be work related. under the law that decision is made by the official. i was the official. i made those decisions. and as i just said, over 1200 of the e-mails have already been deemed not work related. all i can tell in retrospect if i used a government account and i had said, you know, let's release everything, let's let everybody in america see what i did for four years, we would have the same arguments. so that's all i can say. i'm -- i have no idea. that's why we turned it over -- >> you were the official in
2:56 pm
charge of it. you were the one in charge. >> like with a cloth or something? well, no. i don't know how it works digitally at all. i do not have any -- ed, i know you want to make a point and i can just repeat what i have said. >> it's a simple question. >> in order to be as cooperative as possible, we have turned over the server. they can do whatever they want to with the server to figure out what's there, what's not there. that's for the people investigating it to figure it out. we turned over everything that was work related. every single thing. personal stuff, we did not. i had no obligation to do so and did not. thank you all, thank you all very much. >> all right, that was hillary clinton speaking to the media. taking questions from the press in nevada. let's bring in john nichols washington correspondent for "the nation" magazine and angela rye, a political strategist. what do you hear there? angela, what did you gain from
2:57 pm
that, the testy exchange between mr. henry and secretary clinton? >> i wish that she didn't have that exchange with him. i think the reality of this is hillary clinton is dead-set on her position here. and the reality of it is with the press is it's just a juicy issue and it's not going anywhere. there are real questions as it relates to classification of e-mails, whether they were misclassified or overclassified which is an issue when i was homeland committee staffer. this is not going away. the biggest issue she had is she had the ability as the official, as the secretary of state to decide what she would and wouldn't disclose and i think that's the rub for the american people. the unfortunate part about this is she doesn't have enough time to really get into the nuances of it and the press will pick it up because they only care about the juicy salacious details. frustrating to watch. >> hillary clinton kept
2:58 pm
insisting that she did not break the law, that what she did comported well with the restrictions and rules that prevailed is at the time. that being the case, why are we so flummoxed by everything that's going on here? >> well, look, it's a presidential race, and you're going to see some of this. i have to say i agree a great deal with my colleague here tonight. except on one thing. while it was frustrating to see that back and forth in some senses, i think it's important that hillary clinton do this. and she's probably going to have to do it a few more times. the american people need to see her explaining this, taking questions on it. doing so actually, i think, quite calmly. >> yeah. >> patiently. even when they're unpleasant questions. because at the end of the day, my sense is that this is going to go away or at least it's going to be a lesser issue. but it can only get there if people are satisfied that
2:59 pm
hillary clinton has been strongly, aggressively questioned on it and she's provided answers. so i think what we saw here was kind of important. my sense is that this is a good thing ultimately for the clinton campaign to do and to keep on doing. >> angela, we've got about 30 seconds left. should hillary clinton do a definitive interview that is exhaustive and, therefore, we done with this? >> and that's exactly what she needs to do. a one on one interview, i couldn't agree more. where she calmly gets to answer those questions. i would be frustrated answering those in the back and forth with the reporter. the best thing she can do is say my server wasn't hacked but some of the federal government's were. that deadens the issue. >> so in the end, do a definitive interview, tell what's going on, then leave it be from there? >> that's the goal, hopefully. >> you can hope that you can leave it be from there. >> exactly. >> john nichols and angela rye, thanks for your time tonight.
3:00 pm
i'm michael eric dyson. "politics nation" with the reverend al sharpton, starts right now. tonight on "politics nation," the trump rules on immigration. gop candidates are flipping and flopping all over his extreme plan to deport millions of people. also a new push from the president on pollution and climate change. dramatic testimony from the accuser in the prep school rape case. and a powerful statement on gun violence from stevie wonder. welcome to "politics nation." how to talk about something, anything besides donald trump. today these candidates wanted to focus on health care and national securit