Skip to main content

tv   Hardball With Chris Matthews  MSNBC  February 9, 2017 11:30pm-12:01am PST

11:30 pm
letter and we're reviewing that internally. i'm just really happy that i spend an awful lot of time with the president of the united states this afternoon and that he supports me 100%. >> so, you spoke about that matter and he is not -- doesn't have any intention to suspend you? >> we spoke about the matters and he supports me 100%. it was a very heartening moment. all i can say to america's women is at some point in your life you ought to have a boss who treated me the way that the president of the united states treated me today. >> wow, okay. we're adding robert costa to the conversation. jeremy and ali are still with me. i need counseling after listening to that. bob costa, take it away. >> take it away. well, this is an interesting episode for the trump white house. you have a lot of loyalty, emphasis on that, around president trump and you have -- >> but does loyalty include the permission to not just violate -- i mean, i have that ethic, you have to go to ethics
11:31 pm
briefings as white house staffers twice a year. i've been there six years. i think i went 12 times. she was just sworn in. she had to have just been briefed on the ethics, it is a clear violation. do you think loyalty includes, go ahead, break the law, kellyanne? >> not at all. i'm more based on my reporting explaining the culture that i think enables this kind of thing to happen. you have, for example, the sons who have been running the most of the trump organization. they're still participating in white house events like you had the nomination ceremony for judge gorsuch, his sons were there. and you have kellyanne conway, a counsel to the president, a confidant to the president talking about ivanka trump's brand. there are questions being raised right now on capitol hill where i am about what is the white house counsel's office doing to make sure these senior officials at the white house, even if they're warmly received by trump for these kind of comments, are doing the right thing by the law, by the ethics code, and that's why you have jason
11:32 pm
chaffetz, the oversight chairman of the house and others raising serious questions about this kind of conduct. >> jeremy, back to you. you spent a lot of time on the hill. do you think there will be some sort of buy part san demand for an ethics investigation? >> i don't know if it will come up with this thing honestly, nicole. just to defend her for one moment, she didn't do this in a way that i think was -- had knowledge and a forethought that she was trying to do something unethical. she blurted out something. but it points to a -- >> jeremy, let me stop you right there. when a woman tells another woman to go out and buy clothes, she is spreading the word. that's how -- >> kind of how business is done. >> that's kind of -- >> i don't think she was trying to violate the ethics rules. >> you don't think she was trying to get people to go out and buy ivanka trump's clothes for a family that doesn't ingratiate itself with ethics? >> there is a broader problem, there is not a lot of trust built up on ethics around this
11:33 pm
team. that is going to trigger a lot of congressional scrutiny. this one instant isn't going to cause a fire storm, but i think it could be a small spark that could ignite a bigger problem. >> eugene, if this is the small spark, what is the straw, to mix metaphors here, it's after 11:00, that's what happens to me. what is the straw that breaks the camel's back on this? >> you can break your pit fall. there is the hotel down the street from the white house where donald trump is currently both tenant and landlord. and you know, there is a clause in the lease that says public official can't be the lessor. there are a million of these things. i think it's face nating, though, that jason chaffetz signed onto that letter. >> yeah. >> and i think, and maybe i'm reading too much to into it, but i think he saw this as a good opportunity to sort of put down a marker and say, we actually
11:34 pm
are going to have to pay attention to this stuff. and he starts with kellyanne conway, not with a -- not specifically with a member of the family. not with jared kushner, not with ivanka herself. >> lawrence, you just mentioned congressman chaffetz. i think we have some sound from the town hall he had tonight and this came up. [ "do your job" ] >> hold on, when kellyanne conway said what she said about buying that particular product, that was wrong, wrong, wrong. i called it out. they need to investigate it, what kellyanne conway was wrong, it should never happen again and there should be some accountability there. >> eugene, i just called you my first tv husband by the wrong name. i am deeply sorry. but, eugene, what is the cross pressure with republicans on the hill on the ethics front? republicans -- we suffered so many losses as a party for
11:35 pm
getting branded with all the scandals and all the resignations and all the lobbying, abramoff. is there a fear of this sort of ethics problem hanging over the party's brand? >> yeah, there's a fear of that and there is also a fear of crossing president trump, you know. and also angering constituents. so, it's fascinating because republican congressmen these days have had two sets of anger constituents at home. the trump supporters, but also tons of progressives and others who have been coming to their town halls to sort of call them out and ask them where they're standing on these sorts of issues. and, so, there are a lot of conflicting pressures on them. and i think this is pretty easy call, right? >> right. >> there is a rule. you don't do this, and she clearly did it and i think they can just kind of draw a bright line here and then sort of take it from here.
11:36 pm
>> i have to agree with that. that's where i took issue with jeremy, and i'm very careful to do that because of his connections. this is one of those things where this administration has danced around this line. sean spicer has repeated that donald trump is not subject to any sort of rules when it comes to conflict of interest. we know that's not exactly true. >> a lot of people think they have danced on the line. >> and sean said today this was an attack by nordstrom on ivanka trump. it was no such thing. nordstrom has never attacked anybody in its 117-year history. this is now something someone can point to that we can all agree and the ethics counselors can agree and the white house can agree, this is actually wrong. when jason chaffetz and others are on the same side of this, you know that something has to be done. and that's why i think no one should let that opportunity go because this is, as eugene says, a bright line. let's draw the line somewhere. swe haven't been able to find it. >> it's a bright line the president doesn't seem to mind.
11:37 pm
stick with me, everybody. up next amid all the other news president trump is making, he also took a -- oh, i'm sorry, he also took on a u.s. senator. imagine that. we'll explain when the 11th hour returns. when you're close to the people you love, does psoriasis ever get in the way of a touching moment? if you have moderate to severe psoriasis, you can embrace the chance of completely clear skin with taltz. taltz is proven to give you a chance at completely clear skin. with taltz, up to 90% of patients had a significant improvement of their psoriasis plaques. in fact, 4 out of 10 even achieved completely clear skin. do not use if you are allergic to taltz. before starting you should be checked for tuberculosis. taltz may increase your risk of infections and lower your ability to fight them. tell your doctor if you are being treated for an infection or have symptoms. or if you have received a vaccine or plan to.
11:38 pm
inflammatory bowel disease can happen with taltz. including worsening of symptoms. serious allergic reactions can occur. now's your chance at completely clear skin. just ask your doctor about taltz.
11:39 pm
11:40 pm
his comments were misrepresented and what you should do is ask senator blumenthal about his vietnam record that didn't exist after years of saying it did. so, ask senator blumenthal about his vietnam record. he misrepresented that just like he misrepresented judge gorsuch. thank you all very much. >> there is a leader of the free world going nuclear on senator blumenthal for making comments about his supreme court nominee neil gorsuch. blumenthal apologized seven years ago. our panel is still with us. bob costa is all over the
11:41 pm
gorsuch nomination effort. tell us what you're hearing on the hill. >> i spoke at length today, nicole, to senator blumenthal and he said he was surprised by president trump's comments because the white house counsel don mcgann was in the room with judge gorsuch during the meeting with the senator. a former senator out of new hampshire. gorsuch's spokesperson confirmed the comments and blumenthal said he just finds it odd that the president, in his words, is not communicating perhaps with his staff. you real have i a war of words between the capital and pennsylvania avenue. the one thing that i picked up today in my reporting is that gorsuch may have helped himself with some of these comments. whether it was a strategy or not from the white house, democrats were interested in his flash of judicial independence, but chuck schumer, the minority leader and others are still going to press for more questions and more examples of him showcasing that independence. >> so, bob, to your point, let
11:42 pm
me put up on the screen real quick all the people that can corroborate what gorsuch did say about those comments. it is as you said, senator blumenthal, republican senator ben sas se, chuck schumer, kelly ayotte shepherding the communication, and the only person who said that he didn't say that is the leader of the free world. what kind of -- you know, wink and a nod do senators think that they're getting from the white house? do they think they're being played or do they think this is just trump being trump? >> the thinking in actuality is gorsuch being gorsuch. he is not entirely cozy with trump, even though he is the supreme court nominee and he has his own views about the role of the judiciary and he's not trying to play to trump at all. in fact, they were not real sure -- the white house privately is telling me, in essence, that gorsuch said what he said in these meetings and they're not going to counter what gorsuch
11:43 pm
said because he's so firm in his views, even if the president thinks that these views are being misrepresented, it is what gorsuch said. >> eugene, i want to play something for you. you and i lived some of these moments. i want to travel down memory lane with you. watch. >> i have a judge who is a hater of donald trump, a hater. he's a hater. his name is gonzalo curiel. and he is not doing the right thing. he knows he's unfair. this judge is of mexican heritage. i'm building a wall. >> in you are saying he can't do his job because of his race, is that not the definition of racism? >> i don't think so at all. >> sometimes you pick a judge. doesn't workout. that's happened. numerous of them over the last 25 years, that's happened. the last thing you want are judges put on the united states supreme court that are going to destroy our nation.
11:44 pm
if you are a good student in high school or a bad student in high school, you can understand this. >> eugene, donald trump and judges, complicated history there. that was a compilation of all of the things he said about judges. and i think his sister is a sitting judge, or retired judge. >> yeah. >> so, one in the family. what do you think is going on? >> i have no idea except that if you hit donald trump, he hits you back. and he perceives any sort of adverse decision or opinion or dirty look as an assault on him personally and that's the way he is. and i just -- you know, are there people still out there -- i hope not, but are there people out there who think think that at some point president trump is going to begin acting presidential? >> let's talk to jeremy bash who for the sake of america's intelligence agency hopes so. jeremy, what do you think? >> look, i thought one very interesting aspect of the 9th circuit's opinion tonight,
11:45 pm
nicole, they went out of their wear to cite these cases that say that the president's authority in national security affairs is not limitless, and that judges, the judiciary, can review what the president does. now, ordinarily in a case involving a temporary restraining order, you don't have to get into knees grand issues of executive power. but i think this was a warning shot from three federal judges tonight that said that if the president tries to do this over and over again, invoking national security to do what he wants, they're going to call him on it and they reasserted the power of the judiciary over the executive. and that's relevant for the coming nomination of judge gorsuch. >> all right. we're going to fit in another break. the 11th hour will be right back after this.
11:46 pm
11:47 pm
11:48 pm
[ speaking in spanish ] >> reporter: she says that it's kind of bitter sweet because she's able to be here with her
11:49 pm
stopping a deportation van from leaving an i.c.e. facility in phoenix and inside of that van was guadalupe garcia de reyes. here you are, you have now been deport today mexico. we saw your kid by your side yesterday. they were talking to you through the window. can you tell us a little bit about what it was like seeing your kids there? >> reporter: she says it was very sad, it was difficult to see her kids there standing next to her and she was thinking
11:50 pm
about how she wasn't going to be able to be there for them when she was going to say good-bye, and they would be going to school and she wouldn't be able to hug them. how are you guys holding up? how is everybody holding up now that you're together in mexico for now? [ speaking in spanish ] >> reporter: she says that it's kind of bitter sweet because she's able to be here with her kids, but she knows that they're going to have to go back in a few days because of school. and you guys, how are you holding up? >> i'm staying pretty strong. it's hard, but we're sticking together. >> reporter: there has been a lot of people that have been talking about this.
11:51 pm
some people call your mom a criminal. when you hear that, what goes through your mind? >> it makes me, like, pretty mad and sad at the same time because they don't know her. they don't know anything about her and they're accusing her of doing -- of committing a crime. but working isn't a crime. the only thing that she did was work to support me and my brother, and i don't think that's a crime and i don't think that they should consider her a criminal because she hasn't done anything wrong. >> reporter: got it. and i guess what's your message to everybody in the united states that's seeing this right now? [ translating ] [ speaking in spanish ]
11:52 pm
>> reporter: she says that she was just trying to work for her children. she was just trying to provide for her children. this is just one of the immigration stories, the millions of deported people that are affected every year, whether it be president barack obama or president donald trump. this is the face of deportation. back to you. >> thank you very much. we'll be right back after this break. welcome back.
11:53 pm
11:54 pm
11:55 pm
11:56 pm
welcome back. ali, that was such an emotional interview. fill in a little more information. >> this woman was arrested in a raid in 2009. several months later they found discrepancies with her documentation. upped p turns out she was pretending to work in the united states as a documented worker. she was ordered deported, but wasn't deported because under the obama administration they were targeted dangerous criminals for deportation. >> they prioritized them. >> she didn't hit the priority. unusually she report ed in routinely to immigration yesterday and they decided to deport her. we do not know whether that was something to do with donald trump or whether it was due -- >> we're all going to stay on this. in the category to help you sleep tonight, we're going to bring you one last store i. we're going to ask jeremy bash to weigh in on reports from reuters about donald trump's first phone call with russian president vladimir putin. he didn't seem aware of what the start treaty is. that's all right with me. if you're the president of the united states, you should
11:57 pm
probably know what that is. jeremy, explain that to our viewers. >> it's actually the new start treaty, see -- >> see. >> signed by president obama in 2010. we have many more nuclear weapons than we need to for any possible military objectives. the reason why we don't just reduce our nuclear weapons is because we want to maintain parity with the russians. if our stockpile gets out of whack with theirs, they could have leverage over us. so, it's in our interest to jointly reduce our stockpiles together with the russians. almost every president has done it. ronald reagan did it with his soviet -- then soviet counterparts. of course president obama did it with medvedev, it's worked quite well. we reduced our stockpiles. now apparently the trump administration is signalling it may want to abrogate that treaty under, as best as i can tell, only the shallow logic that, hey, this was an obama deal and all obama deals are bad. >> i have another theory. when you have donald trump and vladimir putin talking about
11:58 pm
something, it's going to take awhile to work that out. >> i'm with jeremy on this. >> you're not with me on size? >> i think it's an interesting point. >> he says with a straight face. >> i think he knew what the start treat i was and took this as a gift from god. he wants it abrogate it. that's a bad deal and a lot of people in the capitol hill and white house will look to donald trump and say you can do all sorts of crazy stuff. this is this isn't one you should go down the road of. >> jeremy, you have 15 sektsds, is this going to keep you up tonight the president doesn't know what it was? >> i'm not as worried about his checking with his advisors. if he truly doesn't know what the treaty is, that's a problem. >> ali? >> yeah. it sounds like he truly didn't know what the treaty was. i'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt. there are people in the white house who do even in this white house and they will guide him down a road in which he will realize that you can't make flipping comments about nuclear reduction treaties, particularly
11:59 pm
with with russia. it's going to have to be to be taken seriously. this is where the secretary of state has to come into play. >> you think it's to have him briefed by people like you. obviously a lot of first-time politicians especially outsiders which is what this country selected don't know what the new start treaty is. you hopeful that he'll address this and fix this by getting briefed by more professionals? >> yeah, and look, i think the other story that i noted this week was the story about how many of his conversations with foreign leaders have sort of veered off topic. and that's kind of his m.o. i mean, he doesn't stick to his script. and i think when you're campaigning for president, that may or may not work for some peach it will clearly did. when you're president of the united states and you're negotiating with foreign leaders, you're trying to protect the national security of the country, it can go horribly, horribly wrong. they can misinterpret what you say, what you say gets broadcast to the world. the message is outs what america stand for is not defended and that's it. it's bad news. >> yep. >> so, jeremy bash, and ali, thank you so much for being with me here tonight.
12:00 am
our thanks also to eugene robinson and bob costa of. that does it for this edition of "the 11th hour." brian will be back thankfully next week. have a good night. lots going on tonight, the u.s. circuit court of appeals. bottom line by now, you have good evening from chicago, i'm chris hayes. we were, of course, meant to air a town hall tonight exploring the challenges facing this city, we taped that town hall earlier today. it will now air tomorrow in this hour. the reason is that because tonight we have big, big breaking news. a unanimous ruling by a federal appeals court against president donald trump's travel ban. the trump administration asked the ninth circuit court of appeals to overturn a temporary restraining order on the ban put in place by a lower court last friday. instead, this decision keeps that restraining order in place. in other words, it blocks president trump's executive order nationwide and continues to block it as a lower court fund. we've already gotten response from the president himself posted on twitter in all caps "see you in court, the security of o