Skip to main content

tv   The 11th Hour With Brian Williams  MSNBC  September 15, 2017 1:00am-2:00am PDT

1:00 am
>> thank you. that is "all in" for this evening. tonight, the art of the deal. tons of confusion on what just was agreed upon at dinner with chuck and nancy as the president fends off criticism from the very people who put him into office. plus, new details on the humiliation suffered by attorney general jeff sessions. when trump dressed him down in the oval office after robert mueller was appointed. and the president doubles down on his both side comments in the wake of charlottesville then signs a resolution tonight condemning hatred, bigotry and racism in all forms as "the 11th hour" gets under way. and good evening, once again, from our nbc news headquarters here in new york. day 238 of the trump administration. and the president is dealing with another missile test from north korea, the aftermath of a category 5 hurricane, and the prospect of brokering a big deal on immigration. first, military officials say
1:01 am
north korea fired a ballistic missile this evening that flew over japanese airspace and crashed into the pacific ocean. after mr. trump returned from florida where he handed out sandwiches in a food line in naples. when air force one took off for florida today, it left behind hope, anger, all-out confusion, all of it on the topic of daca and the 800,000 or so so-called d.r.e.a.m.ers who were brought to this country illegally by their parents and through no fault of their own. last night we were here talking about democrats. schumer and pelosi. touting a deal with trump after dinner, chinese food, at the white house. they saw the deal as excluding the wall on the southern border, their view. well, today's view was not so clear. it started when trump wrote on twitter this morning, " no deal was made last night on daca. massive border security would have to be agreed to in exchange for consent. would be subject to vote." that was the message to the president sent to his 38 million-plus followers on twitter.
1:02 am
then in front of cameras today, he said this. >> well, we're working on a plan, getting massive border control. we're working on a plan for daca. people want to see that happen. you have 800,000 young people brought here, no fault of their own, so we're working on a plan. we'll see how it works out. the wall will come later. we're right now renovating large sections of wall. massive sections. making it brand new. we're doing a lot of renovation. we're building four different samples of the wall to see which one we're going to choose and the wall is going to be built. it will be funded a little bit later. i just spoke with paul ryan. he's onboard. everybody's onboard. they want to do something. we're not talking about amnesty. we're talking about -- we're talking about taking care of people. >> well, within an hour of those comments, speaker paul ryan laid
1:03 am
things out pretty plainly to reporters on capitol hill. >> there's no agreement. the president and the chief of staff called me from air force one today to discuss what was discussed. and it was a discussion, not an agreement or a negotiation. >> the confusion quickly spread to much of the rest of congress. >> one of our most productive discussions was about the daca program in which we all agreed on a framework. >> i don't think they came to any final agreement, but i think it's good they're talking. >> we have the makings of a deal. there's a deal on the table. i think it's unfair to say that there's a done deal. >> from what i've heard, it sounds like a deal to make a deal. there is no deal currently made. >> if the president did make a deal, we still got to do what we do on capitol hill. >> all i can say is there's a deal to be made. >> i assume there's a space for a deal. >> i have noticed one thing around here, i know there's a
1:04 am
lot of discussion on this, people around here talk a lot. i kind of learned to wait and see what they do. >> there you go. so what's the deal on the deal to be made or the deal to make a deal? tonight, "the new york times" explains how this deal went down. apparently over dinner, the president asked some version of what's in it for me? schumer respondsed with a litany as what we saw as mr. trump's presidential sins according to two people with direct knowledge of the interaction. those included pulling out of the paris climate accord and failing to unequivocally denounce anti-semitism and racism in the wake of the charlottesville violence. the time had come, mr. schumer declared as nancy pelosi the top house democrat nodded in agreement for the president to prove himself to democrats if he wanted to do any big deals. all of this served to ignite forces in the normally fiercely loyal trump base. ann coulter wrote on twitter, "at this point, who doesn't want trump impeached?" "the daily caller" home page tonight reads, "don's juans: amnesty could be trump's first
1:05 am
major legislative accomplishment." then the radiowaves lit up. >> what would you call a republican who sounds like jeb bush now when it comes to immigration and daca? you could call them a republican in name only, right? rino. the president of the united states is apparently a rino. >> imagine if he called out to the crowd, we're going to build samples of the wall, samples of the wall, and we're going to make the american taxpayers pay for it. >> is trump, i'm asking you, who voted for him, is he this tone deaf? is he this ignorant no does he not know what got him elected? >> from there, let's turn to our leadoff panel tonight. national political reporter for the "washington post" also host of "washington week" on pbs, robert costa. shannon petty-peese, white house correspondent for bloomberg. jonathan lamier for the associated press, we're happy to welcome onboard as an msnbc political analyst.
1:06 am
welcome to you all. jonathan, you get to go first. laura ingraham was particularly sharp right there in her sarcasm but what are way talking -- what just happened? is this a transactional, as people like to call him, moving-target president? >> first of all, it's a president, with saw this in the congress today, scattershod approach, approach of telling people what they want to hear allows other folks potentially with very different varying viewpoints to hear what they want, that he's not going to get pinned down, he is ideologically flexible to be kind. this is a president who, yes, he's eager for some sort of win, he's eager for that word, again, deal. he is frustrated, deeply frustrated with mcconnell and ryan. he has no personal connection with them, he feels like. he feels like they let him down over health care.
1:07 am
feels like they let him down by not shielding him from the russia probe. when chuck and nancy come to dinner, he finds people who speak his language in terms of senator schumer, a fellow new yorker, and feels like this is people, perhaps, i can work with. now, it certainly risks alienating some of the base. certainly some of the bold-faced names were very critical of him today. the issue will be, do the rank and file trump voters, those people who filled rally halls across the country last year, chanting "build the wall," those who get their news from breitbart which has a headline today that says "don amnesty." will they also break from the president? these are the very people he said he could go out into 5th avenue and shoot someone and they'd stay with him. >> robert costa, i want to read a few things to you that have come out tonight. first of all, maggie haberman on twitter, kind of summed it up by saying, and elements of this, you have all written. "trump who has no chemistry with mitch and likes chuck is happy
1:08 am
making a deal." this is politico's version of trump's works with the democrats. "in recent weeks, trump has complained in private that it's difficult to have any sort of relationship or even make small talk with senate majority leader mitch mcconnell. he's told staff that he finds speaker paul rryan, whom he's dubbed a boy scout, dry as well but the two have some rapport." i'm also reminded barack obama, didn't he has one point, robert, say you have a drink with mitch mcconnell? so it's not easy being mitch mcconnell i guess these days.
1:09 am
sum up what you think we just witnessed, robert. >> negotiations between congressional leaders and presidents can often go in one direction. we saw that as you mentioned with president obama then house speaker john boehner when they were talking about fiscal negotiations. it becomes a new challenge once that deal heads to capitol hill. . with this new daca agreement, it's really only a framework. house speaker ryan's comments were revealing of the state of play in the house gop, remains more hardline in some respects to the house freedom caucus than president trump's current position. it will be interesting to see how speaker ryan handles this moment, does he try to bring the schumer/trump agreement to the house floor? >> shannon petty-peese, there are three ways to be heard on the house floor. number one, in is a wearable microphone. number two, there is kind of a regional microphone that can hear you. number three, there's to talk in front of an open version of numbers one and two, and we had a little bit of hubbub today because chuck schumer was talking to someone, barely audible to a microphone. let's listen to that. we'll read to help the viewers out, read what he says here. talk about it on the other side. >> he likes us. he likes me, anyway.
1:10 am
look, what we said was exactly accurate. here's what i told him. i said, mr. president, you're much better off if you can sometimes step right and sometimes step left. if you have to step just in one direction, you're boxed. he gets that. oh, it's going to work out and it'll make us feel productive, too. >> well, shannon, that's a little civics lesson right there. what's going on here? >> i know we've all sort of been giving our psychoranalysis trying to figure out what's going on with these relationships with where chuck schumer is and where trump is. i guess my take on this, and what i've gotten from talking to people close to the president, people who know him well, is that this is a president trying to find his way around washington. who came in, as we all know, no experience in politics, no experience in washington, other than going to a few fund raisers. he had no previous existing relationships. he's trying to figure them out.
1:11 am
ryan mcconnell didn't work. let's try chuck and nancy. has this previous relationship with schumer. i remember talking to people in the r early days, maybe two, three days after the really fiery inauguration speech and the early press conference saying, well, there go -- people saying there goes any hope of him working with chuck schumer, working with the democrats because a lot of people in washington saw that as a really natural alliance. and he went the other direction and now he's being, you know -- that didn't work out, so let's try this, let's see if this works out. as one person, a supporter of his, ally said, he's sort of been like someone lost in the woods trying to find their way in washington. i guess lost in the swamp would be the other analogy. feeling his way and he's feeling in this direction and seeing how it works out and seeing what happens. >> so, jonathan, there's no rulebook and no one's being graded here, but how do you veteran trump watchers figure out if this is a weekly thing, a monthly thing, or a quarterly thing or for the rest of his
1:12 am
administration? >> your guess is as good as ours. >> you're not supposed to say that. >> it changes by the hour. it changes by the minute. it changes by the tweet. this is a president who has not that many political core convictions. he's willing to compromise, he's willing to make a deal. he is now with some democrats who, you know, have been reluctant, you know, with an angry base, to give him any sort of win. so i think there's a little danger here for schumer and pelosi, too. social certainly daca is something their base supports. if suddenly they start giving trump victories, give him momentum, perhaps that could be an issue for them as well. the president is delighted with this turn of events. the staff, aides have been telling us this is the happiest he's been in weeks if not months. he likes the good headlines he's getting. he likes the cable coverage that says he's been brokering bipartisan deals, he's being a leader. combined with the positive response he's gotten for the most part for his coverage -- his response to the hurricanes. the presidency, the president feels like he has a little bit of momentum and that he is, at least for now, wants to make across the aisle, reach across the aisle, make these deals.
1:13 am
i don't think any democrat necessarily thinks this is going to be a long-term proposition. >> robert, i was just going to say that schumer is, according to a lot of people in his life, what lbj used to call one of those good government types. he does have a side to him that looks like he just got elected student council president in high school. he does believe in the process. cagy, partisan, inside player, yes, but i think you just heard chuck schumer in chuck schumer's own words. that's what he sounds right. >> that's exactly who senator schumer is. whenever i'm at the capitol, i almost always see him with his phone pressed to his face. it's an old-school phone. not an iphone that you can go on the internet on or send text messages. it's a flip phone. it reminds me he's the same generation as president trump. he has the same new york negotiating style. there has been a gap between the president and leader mcconnell
1:14 am
and speaker ryan, even though they share a party, they don't share a temperament. the president will probably pay a political cost with his base. i've been on the phone with congressman king of iowa, the hardliner on immigration, as he was about to board his plane my flying home toiowa. so angry with the president's turn, angry, confused what about this meant. was the president truly walking away from the base? could it be worked out in the coming weeks? breitbart was enraged today in numerous articles. that's the site now run by steve bannon, the former chief strategist. and the president loves the press he's getting now, but remember, there's a lot of things coming up. new deadlines. there will be more fights to come from the right if they feel angry about this move on immigration. >> so shannon, this anger in the base, anger on the right, is really? >> oh, absolutely. and there's been a concern that this was going to happen, that he would get alienated from his base with steve bannon out of the white house and with general kelly, the new chief of staff, cutting off access to a lot of these old trump allies who, yes,
1:15 am
were a distraction and would feed him false information sometimes but kept him tied and connected to the base. whether this is a political calculation of saying let's just put the base aside, let's focus on getting deals done, it will come around, i don't know the answer to that yet. but the base is furious and anybody who -- the comment i could go to 5th avenue and shoot someone, yeah, you could but you still had to build that, you know, expletive wall. that's what the base would say. they want that wall. that was a deal breaker to them. and i don't know yet if he understands how important that was without some of these allies around him keeping him in touch with the base. >> witnessed laura ingraham's cutting comment about we're going to build samples of the wall. finally, jonathan lamier, a quote that came to our attention tonight, the president had the white house historical society over, and i'd like to give this a dramatic reading because it blends what people have said tonight, a president learning on the job, an anti- -- a noninstitutionalist, with a
1:16 am
president who also feels the need as you may know for superlatives from time to time. here i what he said about the storm damage. "you know we had very well, some of you are from texas, some from florida. you both got hit. in texas you got hit with the largest amount of water anybody has ever seen. i guess the largest ever recorded. and in florida, you got hit with the strongest winds ever recorded. it actually hit the keys with a -- it was a category 5. i never even knew a category 5 existed and they suffered greatly." learning on the job. >> the president's cable package certainly carries fox news, perhaps it doesn't have the weather channel. this is not someone who has studied presidents of the past. there was a fascination early in the term about andrew jackson. that was really a steve bannon push. >> that's over. >> the president has expressed no interest in andrew jackson, in fact, i don't believe he ever mentioned him on the campaign. only after he was elected when
1:17 am
bannon said, hey, let's draw populist similarities. this is a president who's feeling his way, does not have much political experience, does not have sense of sort of the history of the office and only recently has shown some willingness to express the gravity of the office. he did when he made the decision to send some additional troops to afghanistan. he did perhaps not elegantly with the hurricane response. >> we're compelled to say we have jose in the atlantic and two more disturbances behind it, even though we have all made it through the height of hurricane season. our great thanks to our leadoff panel tonight. we learned a lot. robert costa, shannon pettypiece, jonathan lamier, thank you all. coming up, donald trump has taken his fair share of public shots at his attorney general jeff sessions, but we now know the extent of the humiliation behind closed doors. that and more when we continue. slept...
1:18 am
1:19 am
you're not you. tylenol® pm relieves pain and helps you fall fast asleep and stay asleep. we give you a better night. you're a better you all day. tylenol®.
1:20 am
1:21 am
but i am disappointed in the attorney general. but i am disappointed in the attorney general. he should not have recused himself almost immediately after he took office, and if he was going to recuse himself, he should have told me prior to taking office and i would have quite simply picked somebody else. i want the attorney general to be much tougher on the leaks from intelligence agencies, which are leaking like rarely have they ever leaked before. i told you before, i'm very disappointed with the attorney general, but we will see what happens. time will tell.
1:22 am
time will tell. >> that's what he said about his guy in public. donald trump publicly ridiculing his attorney general, jeff sessions, this summer. tonight, "the new york times" paints a vivid picture of just how trump treated jeff sessions in private. it was back in march when sessions recused himself because he had his own contact with russians during the campaign. in may, trump fired james comey from the fbi post, leading to the appointment of robert mueller, forgive me, as special counsel. according to "the new york times," the white house received word about mueller's appointment while sessions was in the room, prompting president trump to
1:23 am
berate the attorney general for recusing himself in the first place, calling him an idiot, according to the "times" and asking for his resignation. the "times" reports here, "ashen and emotional mr. sessions told the president he would quit and sent a resignation letter to the whousz according to four people who were tol details of the meet lg. mr. sessions would later tell associates the demeaning way the president expressed him was the most humiliating experience in decades of public life." let's talk about this, joining me now, michael crowley, politico senior southern affairs correspondent and national security editor, and our friend and former federal prosecutor, paul butler. gentlemen, thank you both for coming on. michael, what stands out to you? this was obviously volcanic and diminishes and emasculating. what stands out to you? >> well, the human drama, of course, brian, and the sort of maybe from a certain perspective, tragedy or depending on where you stand, the tragic comedy of jeff sessions who went way out on a limb to support donald trump. first member of the u.s. senate backed trump at a time when a
1:24 am
lot of republicans didn't want to touch trump with a ten-foot pole and thought he had no chance of winning and sessions, you know, kind of hit the jackpot when trump wound up vaulting to the white house. looked like something of a political genius and in a way his dreams were coming true. he got this job that he'd aspired for for decades and then he's completely humiliated. made a fool of in the oval office in front of political colleagues and now essentially in front of the entire country. so, you know, take your pick, is it tragedy or tragic comedy, brian? but the one other thing i would say here that strikes me is the total lack of self-awareness demonstrated by president trump in this outburst where he, you know, the special counsel has been appointed, trump understands this is a disaster. robert mueller is obviously going to have a broad mandate to look at all kinds of things. the russia scandal is met taft metastasizing for his eyes.
1:25 am
this is because he fired james comey as fbi director which we all heard steve bannon say a few days ago even steve bannon said was the greatest mistake in modern political history. that's what this is about, not jeff sessions. drup donald trump continues to show no self-awareness about that. >> hey, paul, a short question and long one. the short one, do you know of any sensible washington lawyers who don't agree with the decision by sessions to recuse himself? >> sessions has to recuse himself because sessions, himself, misled congress about his own dealings with the rushes so there's no way that sessions could objectively lead an investigation about whether the trump campaign colluded with the russians. but it's become obvious that the president does not want an objective investigation about collusion. >> all right. now, let's pick up where michael left off. if you're mueller, what's your reaction to reading this kind of play-by-play, kind of pathetic as it is, in "the new york
1:26 am
times"? >> so, again, trump opened the door to the appointment of mueller when he fired director comey. and so now he's been running scared and prosecutors like puzzles. so mueller and his ace team of some of the country's best prosecutors and investigators are wondering why is it that the president is running scared? or what is it that he fears about an investigation? typically, the political line is, i welcome an investigation because that will exonerate me. and so when we see the kind of increasing tentacles of the special counsel, first looking at collusion, then obstruction of justice, real estate, tax, and so forth, again, it's trump who's telegraphing that there's a there, there, and this ace team of prosecutors aims to find out what it is. >> michael l, the "times" piece is a hell of a yarn, it tells of other aids coming in and saying to the president, not a good move to lose your attorney general and start again. so ultimately sessions' resignation is not accepted.
1:27 am
sessions stays and hangs in there to see, what, to the finish? immigration. just this week, look at what's happened to daca. again, i keep saying, michael, it makes the article read even more pathetic than it's intended. >> again, brian, tragedy, tragic comedy, it could either. it's just -- you couldn't make it up. as with so many things in this administration. and, you know, sessions is not the only person who has endured this kind of, frankly, humiliation. reince priebus was basically ridiculed by the president privately and publicly. there have been moments where paul ryan, i think, looked, let's say, at a minimum, had to be questioning why he has gone as far as he has to defend this president in the eyes of many people, looks like he's gotten thrown under the bus and maybe looked foolish on more than one occasion. on a more serious note, brian, again on this question of trump's world view or self-awareness, the "times" article describes him berating jeff sessions for a lack of loyalty. humiliation. reince priebus was basically ridiculed by the president privately and publicly. there have been moments where paul ryan, i think, looked, let's say, at a minimum, had to be questioning why he has gone
1:28 am
as far as he has to defend this president in the eyes of many people, looks like he's gotten thrown under the bus and maybe looked foolish on more than one occasion. on a more serious note, brian, again on this question of trump's world view or self-awareness, the "times" article describes him berating jeff sessions for a lack of loyalty. showing no understanding that the attorney general's highest loyalty should be to the law, should be to the united states constitution, not to be a lickspittle to the president who protects him at all costs. and that is a very substantive, i think, misapprehension that is really troubling. >> paul, you get our last word tonight. it was reported tonight that paul manafort's spokesman has been called before a grand jury for testimony. i know you don't love engaging in speculation. what kinds of things would paul manafort's spokesman be asked about?
1:29 am
>> well, what did paul manafort say? you know, the thing with attorney -- the thing with the special counsel is he's got this tool called a grand jury which can subpoena anybody and make them answer questions. so paul manafort we know has exposure with regard to real estate transactions. he was at this infamous meeting with donald trump. he probably talked to other people about it including his spokesperson. so special counsel mueller gets to find out everything he said. all of the e-mail, any notes, and not just with manafort, but with everybody else who was at this meeting. so, again, this is going to be a long process, but special counsel mueller really seems to be heavy on the case. he's acting very differently, we have to note, from how sessions would have run this
1:30 am
investigation which is probably why trump wanted sessions to stay. >> and this man with manafort relatively minor player in all of this, this is a small chapter but it speaks to the awesome power of a special counsel. michael l crowley, paul butler, gentlemen, thank you both as always. >> thanks, brian. thank you. another break for us. coming up, hillary clinton responding to donald trump's latest attacks on her. also appearing in this very studio earlier tonight. more on that after this. 60% of women are wearing the wrong size pad and can experience leaks discover always my fit. find the number that's right for your flow and panty size on the top of any always pack. the better the fit, the better it protects. always.
1:31 am
1:32 am
1:33 am
i believe that trump admires
1:34 am
authoritarians. he doesn't just like putin, he wants to be like putin. he wants to have that kind of power that is largely unaccountable, unchecked. >> hillary clinton on rachel l maddow's show just this evening and to talk about it with us tonight, "new york times" national political correspondent amy chozik who was the paper's lead recorder covering hillary clinton. and her campaign. and rick stengel is back with us as well, former undersecretary for public diplomacy and public affairs at the state department, also formerly managing editor at "time" magazine. welcome to you both. amy, was anything there for more strident than "a," you're used to, "b," her tone in the book and other subsequent interviews? >> i thought it was consistent with the book. one thing, during the campaign i used to joke with some of hillary's friends, we want to start a free hillary movement. why doesn't she say what she really thinks? >> right.
1:35 am
>> the seems so guarded. the book, the voice it's written in, is very conversational and very candid. for hillary. we're still within the bounds of hillary, cautious hillary. i think you saw even more of that in rachel. obviously she feels very
1:36 am
comfortable with rachel. they're kind of kindred spirits in the russia front, on the frump showing his taxes front. they seem to have a rapport that allowed her to unleash about how she feels unexternal forces she thinks impacted her law. >> yet anyone who has seen her said where was this candidate? >> exactly, exactly. >> rick, at the end of rachel's broadcast when lawrence came on
1:37 am
we're still within the bounds of hillary, cautious hillary. i think you saw even more of that in rachel. obviously she feels very comfortable with rachel. they're kind of kindred spirits in the russia front, on the frump showing his taxes front. they seem to have a rapport that allowed her to unleash about how she feels unexternal forces she thinks impacted her law. >> yet anyone who has seen her said where was this candidate? >> exactly, exactly. >> rick, at the end of rachel's broadcast when lawrence came on the air and asked rachel what stood out to you, rachel answered, this next answer by hillary, we'll look at it together and talk about it on the other side. >> we now know that they were sowing discord during the election with phony groups on facebook. they were running anti-immigrant, anti-me, anti-hillary clinton, demonstrations. mean, i think we're in a new day now, when a media organization, even though has not called facebook a media organization, of course, it is. when a media organization is involved in the suborning of our democracy, you can't hide things and i know you know there are certain legal protections about protecting ads, but we need to see that stuff and i think we need to get to the bottom of it and she was very strong in what
1:38 am
she said about that. >> amy, is the alternative here that we are, indeed, doomed to repeat it? because none of these bots are going away. look at the results they are had on a minimal investmentment. they got right into us. >> we learned a lot more about this after the election. democrats saying why is she doing this book tour, why is she talking about this? frankly, her talking about this is giving it attention especially with very active group of her support who are feel like it should get more attention. in my social media feed, a lot of nostalgia, as you mentioned, how knowledgeable she is about russia, longing for that kind of discussion. i think we're learning more. this is the tip of the iceberg. is she the perfect messenger since she obviously feels line they impacted her loss? maybe not. she's an important voice and we'll continue to hear more. >> rick, one sentences, last word, will we be wider in 2020 or, in fact, worry about the same forces? >> i think we're already older
1:39 am
and wiser. we're more aware of it and will be more skeptical i hope. >> okay. that's fair. amy chozik, rick stengel, thank you both very much. interesting conversation tonight. coming up, the president, again, going there on his both sides comment post-charlottesville. that discussion when we come right back.
1:40 am
1:41 am
1:42 am
1:43 am
don't know how many people have been injured. there are confirmed reports of injuries because of this incident. according to the uk government, skberj terrorism is severe. second highest level. bbc correspondent said there was panic, hearing what sounded like an explosion again in regards to possible injuries. no confirmation of how many people were affected so far yet. i want to bring in our foreign correspondent. what kind of update do you have at this station. give us what you know.
1:44 am
>> reporter: well it happened around about 20 past 8:00 according to reports in the morning. this subway car would have been packed with commuters heading in to central london, this relatively upscale area of west london. now what people are saying is that they saw some kind of a fire and that they panicked. there clearly was a lot of panic and large numbers of people rushed from the car, the subway car. that picture you see circulated on twitter does show a construction worker's bucket that caught fire. whether that is some kind of device that has been left on the train or whether, in fact, this is an accident involving chemicals perhaps carried by a construction worker, we don't know. we do know there are multiple injuries there and there are reports of at least one person
1:45 am
with burns to her body being taken away on a stretcher. >> let's talk about the person's green station. give me a sense how many people are coming in and out of the parsons green station. this is also rush hour right now being friday morning 8:20 in the morning. >> yeah. parsons green is a wealthy upscale area of west london. lots of people would be working in the center of the city and using that subway to get into the city, so i would imagine that there would have been a lot of people on board that train and much like new york and other major cities in the u.s. with the metro you get a situation where there are people not just sitting but standing and crammed in trying to get to work. so whatever it was, was at the feet of people standing around it. then you can imagine that
1:46 am
despite the fact that picture does not appear to show that there is extensive damage to the car and, therefore, it does not appear this was a substantial explosion, if you like, still could have caused a good deal of harm to the people who were around it. and that's the fact that there is apparently damage to the insides of that train, that might be a testament a lot of people were standing around and any kind of flames prevented from reaching the sides of the car. we don't know. but it's clear the situation is under control, the station is closed by police, and ambulance and fire brigade vehicles that are there now. so this is a situation that's under control. the question for police is to establish what happened. >> you can only imagine the fear
1:47 am
that hit someone sitting in that car and an explosion takes place whether small or big. watching people exiting this tri -- is this the train where the incident took place or not. but do we know if this train was inside the station when the explosion took place or if it was en route to somewhere? >> i'm not aware of exactly where it was. so it doesn't seem a bit. people were quite easily to exit. so perhaps it was at the station. yeah. look, the thing about an incident like this, of course anybody, anyone in london, their thoughts immediately are going to go to the fear of a terrorist attack because we've seen attacks on the london underground, the london metro over a number of years, and stretching back decades. so that's what people will have been frightened of and you can imagine the panic that would have ensued immediately if
1:48 am
you're on a subway car and suddenly see flames. again, we don't know that's what it is. it could be. there are multiple possible explanations for something like this. it isn't implausible somebody trying to carry out an attack on their own. may have created a crude devie that frankly appears may not have been very effective. it could be that. or again simply a construction worker carrying some chemicals that have ignited. we simply don't know. what we do know, again, is the level of panic that it caused and that's a testament to how on edge many europeans are, including london because of the number of terrorist attacks that have been seen over reason years. >> you make such an important point we don't know if this is related terror. could be some sort of chemical thing because it looks like a construction workers bucket.
1:49 am
it's important that everyone watching and hearing this incident right now understand we don't have any confirmation to what exactly it is. we'll bring to it people as authorities figure it out. again looking at images of what looks to be a bucket and one twitter user calling it some sort of fireball that exploded inside of a train there. i got confirmation from the control room those images we were showing of the train where people were exiting we don't know if that was the train in which that explosion took place on or if that was just another train and then wanting to evacuate the area. keir, do we know if there was an evacuation of the station now. have they cleared everybody out of this parsons green station? >> the area is cleared. surrounded by first responders and police. scotland yard will treat it as a crime scene and looking for evidence to establish what has happened here and whether
1:50 am
there's any nefarious intent involved. so those pictures you saw people evacuating from trains, at a time -- at that time of day at the 8:00 hour in the morning there would be multiple trains on one line head emergency to central london. so one is stopped and has to stay where it is they need to evacuate others from other trains along that line. this will affect thousands of commuters, i suspect and of course the line will be closed. again, that will have a big effect on the morning rush hour in that part of london. that's the least of people's concerns because one of the questions for police in a situation like this will be to try to establish whether there is some kind of dark intent here because if somebody was involved and had that kind of intention then they need to find them and prevent something else from occurring. quite often this kind of thing
1:51 am
can lead to clues and lines of inquiry that help the police to prevent further attacks in europe. again, as you mentioned, you know we don't know that yet. again could simply be a construction worker that left a bag by accident and that an accident occurred. we do know there are injuries. we don't know the extent of injuries. looking at those pictures it doesn't seem as if this was an explosion of a substantial type. certainly it doesn't appear as if there was any metal in that bag. looks like a plastic bucket, so none of that goes towards the idea that this is some kind of an intentional device. it does, you know, kind of -- the evidence on the surface does suggest to me that we're talking about some sort of an accident. we just don't know. for now the police will have that area closed off for a substantial per until they know. >> from what i'm hearing of
1:52 am
reports there were injuries to, is it one passenger, two passengers? do we know that? also, keir, the current threat level in london is severe due to terror attacks we've been covering in the last couple of months in that city. what does that mean with regard to security in these metro stations. what does that look like to people entering these metro stations to use these trains? >> reporter: it doesn't look very threatening in london. there are parts of europe where the security is more evident. the british tend to rely more on intelligence and slightly less physical security approach. certainly the threat level is high and there have been and seems to be deep concerns in europe about the numbers of potential terrorist cells that might still be operating or individuals that might be inspired. the kind of thing we talked about many times.
1:53 am
so, yes, there's a lie threat level. i think the response to this incident you're seeing indicates that. when something like this happens there's an immediate response with multiple first responders from across the emergency services arriving on the scene very, very quickly and i think that gives you and indication of the level of alert that british citizens, police, ambulance and fire are on. but you don't see that day-to-day. it's impossible really for the police to be able to police every area and this is one of the issues, ongoing issues. as much as they are able to protect particular sites, house of parliamentary, buckingham palace, those kind of places people are familiar with if they ever traveled to london, it's possible for armed officers to protect those areas. impossible, of course, for them to be able to keep a watchful
1:54 am
eye over every single area. we do know simple people, simple commuters just trying to do a day's work have been a targeted in the past. so intelligence is on infiltrating cells, watching kind of online chatter and communications between people who are known to be extremists. that kind of thing has helped the british security services detect and prevent attacks over quite a number of years. not always successfully but with many successes. >> as we've seen in the past are these soft targets whether commuter trains, restaurant, sidewalk cafes, these soft targets which are the hardest to protect in regards to any sort of attacks and we saw that in paris and we saw it in london as well. for those people that don't know, have not traveled to
1:55 am
london, are there camera systems? we've seen that in the basket london bombings that took place in the past, we've seen images where they have been able to use intelligence to track down the people that were responsible for it through cameras that were strategically placed throughout these stations. >> reporter: there's a lot of security cameras. there's a lot of security footage across london, particularly on the subways that stretch across london. all of those will have cameras, the police will be, i am assuming will be getting ahold of that footage as we speak as to establish the chain of events that led to whatever it is that happened on this subway car. that said, if we don't know -- when these things happen and you and i have, unfortunately, may have some experience of dealing with an aftermath of an incident
1:56 am
like this, the hours afterwards, the minutes afterwards, whether large or small, we know that much of what emerges even on social media, much of what's reported turns out to be not always highly kind of aligned with the facts. it's a bit of a situation in the hours afterwards. so they will be taking security camera footage but may also have somebody in custody who they think is related to this. it's very possible. but they haven't announced that yet. again that person may simply be a relatively innocent construction worker who has been involved in an accident. we don't know. there aren't any reports, as far as i've seen at this point from witnesses of anyone shouting any slogans, any extremist slogans.
1:57 am
as far as i've seen witness reports of a description of somebody around this thing that caught fire, this bucket. >> we don't have any report of anybody seeing, carrying a bucket into a train or anything like that so far from what we understand. >> reporter: right. so far don't appear to have that kind of evidence or that done seem to appearing. the it does happen quite quickly with social media in this day and age. it may suggest again that this is an accident or it may suggest that this thing was left on the train and then that was a deliberate act. again a lot of this is suggestion until we get some more of what happened. >> you bring up a good point. it's very difficult for authorities to have to sift
1:58 am
through all the social media that comes from incidents like this whether it be witnesses or people that have, you know, ideas of what may have taken place on the train and now we're seeing images of the train actually where this incident took place, you see things scattered within that train car there. it is pulled into the station whether or not we have confirmation as to whether this explosion took place while the train was en route somewhere or in station. we don't necessarily know. we're seeing people outside of the train as well. they are sort of in these, in these, i guess bomb squad type outfits so if there are any chemicals involved those things wouldn't necessary harm those investigators there. that's kind of proforma when it comes to dating incidents in london like this, isn't it? >> reporter: yeah. they will respond immediately.
1:59 am
this will respond as if this is a terrorist attack. that the way they would view it. they will be there. they will close down the area, the crime scene, looking for evidence immediately. just the train at the station, the guys who drive these trains, struck workers taking these trains because plainly you evacuate people out on to a platform to where there are electrified rails. that's the standard procedure. whether that means this happened outside of the station and the train continued to the station we don't know that yet. in terms of the pictures, you've seen in those pictures not what caught fire but also people's belongings around which gives you a picture of how frightened people were, how eager they were to get off that subway car as anyone would be.
2:00 am
that combined with the reporting that people are making of sort of a panic and kind of mass stampede, that gives you and idea of how frightening this was and, again, anyone would want to get off that train. it's a point at which they've seen something. some people said they were involved in the stampede, if you like, without having known what happened and hearing people -- >> if you smell smoke, if you hear an explosion, if you see people running i think a lot of times your natural instinct is to do the same. we heard reports of a fireball and people screaming as well but not necessarily having confirmation of what took place. keir, stand by. i want to bring everybody up to date as we get in the 5:00 a.m. hour. it's the top of the hour. we continue to follow breaking news. there's been an explosion of


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on