tv Deadline White House MSNBC January 11, 2018 1:00pm-2:00pm PST
starts right now. i do want to go back to this because the dow is -- particularly on high volume days for the numbers to shake out. that's remarkable. a 200-point gain. yesterday we saw a flat market. we've been seeing these gains. we're off to the strongest start for the beginning of the year for these markets in a long time. look at that second one. a 19-point gain on the s&p 500 which i like better than the dow because it's 500 stocks as opposed to the 30 in the dow and probably is a little more reflective of your investment portfolio. that's a very strong gain there.
and the nasdaq, which is home largely to tech stocks that we've been talking about a lot these days. but also to some of the biggest companies in america, including google and apple is experiencing very, very strong gains. once again, the tax cuts have been influential in these gains on the market. and the prospects of lower unemployment which we've been seeing are playing out in these stock markets. so we are seeing yet another record day. the other thing, though, that i've been talking about a little bit here and there is the price of oil. we have hit records on the price of oil as well which you're probably starting to see in your gasoline prices. demand for oil continues to go up. supply is not as high as it's been in the past. so we're starting to see bigger gains on that front. whether or not the deals we're talking about today, including immigration, are having any impact on the markets, it doesn't seem to be. this seems to be all about taxes. so much fun to be able to talk
for a minute or two about markets. they're not going to let me talk about markets for another week or so. i think i can hand over to nicolle wallace and "deadline white house" right now. thanks for tharkt, ali. it's just after 4:00 in new york. after a week designed to combat the image of donald trump as depicted in a new book as an incomp tent television addict out of his depth on policy, donald trump today suffered a staggering setback. tweeting opposition to one of the most significant counterterrorism tools, one that allows the government to conduct foreign surveillance on u.s. soil. the president tweeting in opposition to the white house's stated position that, quote, house votes on controversial fisa act today. this is the act that may have been used with the help of the discredited and phony dossier to so badly surveil and abuse the trump campaign by the previous administration and others. a quick fact check.
no, this is not the act that's been used to abuse the trump campaign. this is the act that's been used to save countless american lives. in conversations with three former national security officials who served at the highest levels of the last two administrations, that tweet was described as having rattled national security and counterterrorism officials. one, describing it as amazing in its absolute ignorance. another suggesting that the most alarming thing about the president's tweet is that it proves he's influenced by the last person he talks to on any topic. in this case, rand paul or fox news. and the third individual confirming that the amount of actionable intelligence gathered on the very intelligence program donald trump disparaged on twitter was, quote, a ton. lawfare writing, when the history of president donald trump's use of twitter is written, there will be a stiff competition for his most destructive, most irresponsible tweet. a strong contender for that less than august honor came thursday
morning. the weekly standard writing up the scramble that took place after the president contradicted his own white house's position. top trump national security officials, including cia director mike pompeo and white house national security adviser tom bossert scrambled to clarify the white house position in calls to capitol hill shortly after the president's thursday morning tweet. mark warner, top democrat on the senate intel committee tweeted, quote, this is irresponsible, untrue and, frankly, it endangers our national security. fisa is something the president should have known about long before he turned on fox this morning. so what's a president to do once his twitter feed has endangered national security? tweet a backpedal, of course. the president following that initial tweet with this one almost two hours later. quote, with that being says, i have personally directed the fix to the unmasking process since taking office and today's vote is about foreign surveillance of foreign bad guys on foreign
land. we need it. get smart. okay. the house of representatives passed the reauthorization of the fisa act on a vote of 256-164. and now it goes to the senate for its consideration. we have assembled the best of our reporters and friends. with us from washington, nbc news chief foreign affairs correspondent andrea mitchell, nbc news intelligence and national security reporter ken dilanian, white house bureau chief philip rucker and barbara mcquaid, former u.s. attorney for the eastern district of michigan. she prosecuted the so-called underwear bomber case and chaired a national security subcommittee for the justice department. she's now a law professor at the university of michigan. and let me start with you, barbara. let me ask you, one, about the program and about senator mark warner's observation that the fisa law is something the president should be very well versed in by now. >> absolutely. fisa is a critical tool that's used by the intelligence community and law enforcement to
intercept communications of terrorists and spies on a daily basis. it gets used sometimes in criminal cases, and the president's tweets demonstrate a lack of knowledge of the different parts of fisa that are at work. traditional fisa is the one that is alleged to have been used by carter page to intercept carter page and paul manafort. what congress is looking at right now is section 702 which is a different provision of fisa altogether. >> i don't have access to any classified information anymore, but when i worked in the white house, part of what we did after 9/11, when people were terrified, not about whether or not there would be another terror attack but about where it would come next, part of the effort that we undertook in conjunction with the cia and the fbi was declassifying foiled plots to show people that we had, in fact, broken down the walls between intelligence and the fbi, which was diagnosed as one of the failures that led to 9/11. can you describe the importance of surveilling of this kind of
surveillance tool and program in being able to foil terror attacks in the planning? >> section 702 is this part of the fisa law that allows the intercept of foreign nationals on foreign soil and to be able to use that if that person is communicating with american citizens in a criminal case. one example of where the section 02 collection was used was in the case of muhammad muhammad. this was the man who attempted to blow up the christmas tree lighting ceremony in portland, oregon. so that intelligence information, collection of those communications, was used to bring that case. so just one example. but on a daily basis, plots are thwarted and the picture of intelligence is put together through that collection. >> and andrea mitchell, i'm sure you heard even more of what i heard from national security officials who really do make up the least partisan kind of group of alum, of former administrations. democrats and republicans who had similar roles in similar
administrations tend to be of the same mind on counterterrorism policies. and i heard universal alarm, dismay and in some instances, disgust at that first tweet sent by president trump this morning. i wonder what you picked up from your sources. >> well, there was outrage. and increduality. that tweet came 30 minutes after a segment on "fox & friends" so it was in response to that, clearly. also rand paul had been talking to him about this and was on "morning joe" today saying that -- acknowledging he'd been trying to persuade the president on this. so the president ignored a statement that had come out from the white house last night endorsing something that intelligence officials had been working on with bipartisan leaders on the hill for months. it was supposed to be done before the christmas break. and now was belatedly being worked on. had finally reached the house floor. there was the call from the speaker to the president today.
john kelly rushing to the hill. tom bossert and others in the white house trying to reassure key votes not to go off and abandon the white house on this. nancy pelosi asking to pull the bill down, asking the speaker because they were so afraid of it being jeopardized. this bill, yes it was controversial, but it's been worked on. it's been amended and it is, according to all the intelligence officials, responsible this enactment or this authority is responsible for 25% of the counterterror collection, according to studies they've done. i introduced john mclaclaughlin today and he was stunned by this. he said he had been tasked to find out how the failure of the bomber, the christmas bomber back in the early years of the obama administration. he was tasked to do an after-action report. and his report was basically that it was an overtendency by
the intelligence community to defer and to not impede upon american nationals that prevented them from picking up key intercepts involving that american citizen who was, of course, the key bomber -- the bombmaker in yemen. >> and phil rucker, bring us inside this west wing today. a very hostile sarah huckabee sanders really took a nasty tone with our white house correspondent hallie jackson who simply tried to get her to acknowledge the two tweets could have the consequence, could have the effect of confusing readers without trying to get sarah to acknowledge the president was confused, which he obviously was. i want to ask you to respond to something i heard from a former top intelligence official in democratic and republican administrations who remarked that this morning, this morning's activity from the president on twitter shows that he's learned next to nothing in a year in office. couple that with what the white
house is very obviously trying to do this week which is to disprove the image of donald trump as an incompetent president out of his depth on policy allowing the pool in for the 55-minute conversations/negotiation on immigration. yesterday's cabinet meeting. they are trying to show him as something very different than what was depicted in michael wolff's book. but i think what he did this morning was exhibit a in that characterization ringing quite true. >> yeah, so nicolle, the tone we saw today from sarah sand ers is what we were used to seeing from sean spicer, that personal hostility with the press we've not seen from sarah over the many months. but it's an attempt by the white house to create this alternate reality where, of course, the president wasn't confused. he knew exactly what he was saying and there was no discrepancy between his two tweets. of course, the two tweets were very different positions and he clearly was confused. it's alarming because he's a
year into office. if he's been paying attention in his intelligence briefings, which are supposed to be every day and in the information he's consuming with his national security team, he'd know a lot about this fisa issue and would understand the differences and the nuance of this law. but he clearly got confused watching judge na papalatano's commentary on fox. >> it's interesting to see you put the trajectory of sarah sanders in the sean spice r era. this was the day that she stood up there and tried to claim as sean spicer did that the size of the crowd for the president was bigger than obama's. this was the day, very much like kellyanne conway's morning where she talked about alternate facts. this was that moment for sarah
huckabee sanders. >> to the extent she's had a moment it was. i don't know it's going to get nearly the amount of attention the inaugural cloud proclamation got. it was a hostile exchange with hallie. there were a number of questions earlier where sarah just insisted that the president wasn't confused and he was delivering the same message, had the same position on both of those tweets. anybody reading those tweets can see that the meaning is different. and, clearly there was a cleanup effort in the white house and it wasn't just journalists who were alarmed by this. you saw members of congress expressing genuine alarm at what the president was doing. >> ken dilanian, let me play one of the president's favorite national security advisers, his cia director mike pompeo, on this very topic, and we'll talk about it on the other side. >> the incredible importance of section 702. we think about in the ct environment because that's what it was created for. but it's very important.
we talked about stopping north korean coal shipments. our capacity to interdict ships at sea is fundamentally timed to section 702's capacity to take this information, this foreign intelligence that's collected and share it across the various agencies involved in that type of undertaking. so i'm very hopeful that congress will renew it. >> well, he didn't have to hope for congress to renew it. he had to hope the president wouldn't tweet out opposition to it. can you speak to and just sort of settle this for us? the white house's official position before, after and during the president's errant tweet is and was support for 702? is that right? >> absolutely. and that's why this is such a watershed. there had been this theory that some of these zany off-the-wall erroneous donald trump tweets were intentional. his way of up ending the political apple cart and throwing a monkey wrench into things for a strategic reason.
there's no way to take that view with this tweet. all this tweet did it was wrong on so many levels. misinformed. went against the president's own policy on the morning of the vote. all it did was put the vote in jeopardy. a crucial vote. if this program goes away, as andrea was alluding to it hurts counterterrorism. as mike pompeo said, it's about counterproliferation. 75% of the presidential daily brief, his daily intelligence brief, comes from this program, by some accounts. so this is a crucial program. there's a debate going on about whether the fbi should have warrants on u.s. person information that's collected here. but so people understand, this is surveillance of foreigns are and it's over seen by a secret court on a general warrant because most of the world uses american internet pipes. a lot of this information courses through the united states. but it's mostly about foreigners. and donald trump allowed himself to be confused by the same guy, andrew napolitano who sparked
the fake tweet about trump tower being wiretapped. was completely wrong and that's where we are today. >> he's confused but he's also obsessed. the tweet also, and we shouldn't skim over this. the tweet also had language in there about the dossier which continues to be an obsession for donald trump. and the continued use and insertion of the dossier to smear the fbi. now it seems that his personal obsession with the dossier is clouding his judgment or his capacity to understand what position the white house has taken on a key counterterror policy. can you speak to the mood or the sentiment or any of the reaction inside the intelligence community today? >> well, they are mortified. this is so important to them. as andrea knows, intelligence officials have been pulling reporters aside and talking about how important this vote is and offering examples and trying as you said to declassify examples. it's difficult because this is sensitive stuff to explain why
this program is so important and for the president to do this based on, as you said, his personal obsession and based on wrong information because the part of fisa that would apply to any kind of surveillance of his campaign aides is not this part that we're talking about. so absolutely, people were just mortified over this today. you're right. it does speak to -- i assume he must have been briefed on the importance of this vote. and it raises the question, either he didn't understand the briefing or perhaps he wasn't directly briefed this morning. but it's hugely troubling development. >> barbara, i'm told he was briefed by tom bossert. that bossert, quote, had him in the right place on this bill. he was not in the building this morning but as soon as he caught wind of the president's tweets, in opposition to this legislation, he scrambled the jets if you will to get the president back in line. can you talk about just string together the president's world
view on intelligence? he came into office. before he was inaugurated, he was in a hot war with the intelligence community. he's spent many of his days as president tweeting public smears of the justice department, of the fbi and of current and former justice department and fbi officials. what is the impact? same question i asked ken about the intel community. what's the same impact when this is what the president's public comments about their body of work, about their level of commitment to justice and to protecting this country. >> on some level, it's demoralizing the president doesn't understand what you do and number two, deliberately undermining what you do in an apparent attempt to protect himself. but a bigger problem i think, you know, people who work in this field have thick skins. they care about the mission, put their head down and work hard. a bigger concern is the impact this undermining has on the public. if the public comes to distrust the justice department, those who work in the intelligence
community, those who work in law enforcement, then i think it damages the outcome in public safety and in every trial across the country. when you have a juror who is a trump supporter and is trying to assess the credibility of an fbi agent who is testifying. if they're thinking that the president of the united states has told him that the fbi is a disgrace, that it's in tatters, what does that do as that juror tries to decide whether the fbi agent is telling the truth in a bank robbery case or kidnapping case. it's incredibly harmful when we have the president of the united states undermining the institutions that protect our public safety. >> andrea mitchell, ken dilanian, phil rucker and barbara mcquaid, thank you for starting us off today. when we come back -- today wasn't the first time donald trump came out swinging against himself. a new piece chronicles the different occasions that donald trump has been against donald trump. also, a new poll shows that 69% of americans do not believe donald trump to be level-headed. 63% say he isn't honest. we'll go inside that poll,
portions of which the president himself tweeted out to his followers. and dark obsession. donald trump's hillary fixation. who is he without her? obviously, the president hasn't figured that out just yet. does waiting around trying to protect your house from a lighting strike give me the same rush as being golfball-sized hail? of course not. but if you can stick to your new year's resolution, then i can stick to mine and be the best road flare i can... what? you couldn't even last two weeks? in that case, consider mayhem officially back. so get allstate. and be better protected in 2018 from mayhem. like me. you're smart.eat you already knew that. but it's also great for finding the perfect used car. you'll see what a fair price is, and you can connect with a truecar certified dealer. now you're even smarter. this is truecar. i own my own company.
i had some severe fatigue, some funny rashes. finally, listening to my wife, went to a doctor. and i became diagnosed with hodgkin's lymphoma... that diagnosis was tough. i had to put my trust in somebody. when i first met steve, we recommended chemotherapy, and then we did high dose therapy and then autologous stem cell transplant. unfortunately, he went on to have progressive disease. i thought that he would be a good candidate for immune therapy. it's an intravenous medicine that can affect the patient's immune system and unleash it against the cancer. with chemotherapy, i felt rough, fatigue, nauseous. and with immune therapy we've had such a positive result. i'm back to working hard. i've honestly never felt this great. i believe the future of immunotherapy at ctca is very bright. the evolution of cancer care is here. learn more at cancercenter.com appointments available now.
your question is completely ridiculous and shows the lack of knowledge that you have on this process. >> can you explain -- >> i've tried several times. i'll do it a tenth time here. look, the president supports the 702 but he has some very strong concerns about the fisa program more generally. again, this is why he put out a memo last week outlining such and why the dni director put out a new policy this morning. i'm not sure what the confusion is there. >> i just -- >> you definitively are saying the president's tweet this morning was in your view not at all confusing and not at all contra -- you think that's an accurate statement. i want to be very clear about this. >> it wasn't confusing for me. i'm sorry if it was for you. >> not confused at all. this morning's tweets from the president marked the second time in three days the president has contradicted his own position on a major policy issue. in fact, trump has said something to undermine almost every single piece of legislation he's gotten his hands on.
describing the health care bill as mean, promising his tax cuts would upset the rich and hurt him financially. promising to support a clean daca bill. and that was just this week. of course today, opposing fisa renewal when his own administration backs it. as philip bump writes, the problem is that having the most powerful person in the world only vaguely aware of how he's wielding that power is for lack of a better word embarrassing. it's also confusing. joining our panel nbc news and msnbc national affairs analyst john heilemann. eddie galaud and rick stengel, former under secretary of state for public diplomacy and former "time" magazine managing editor. and from washington, sarah fagan. let me put you on the spot, sarah, and ask you as two women who have worked in republican politics for most of our
careers, what do you think when you see the most visible republican woman in the world speaking so harshly to a journalist from the podium about the president's tweets? >> that tone wasn't at all appropriate. hallie is a great journalist. i've worked with sarah before. i like her a lot. i think she's a sharp lady but this was not a good moment for her. >> what advice do you have. >> i think sometimes in -- you know from the coms work in the white house, it can get very testy in there. you have to keep repeating what you're saying and you don't have to insult people by implications she did. i don't think she meant that. but you just have to stand there and repeat it. if they ask you the same question 50 times then 50 times you stand there and repeat it. sometimes it feels like you are dealing with toddlers when you're standing up there because
she has answered the question, but the journalists have a right to ask the question any way they want to. it's the way our democracy works. >> do you think that sarah huckabee sanders entered the land of alternate facts today in that exchange? >> well, i don't actually. i think the president's tweet was very confusing, obviously. he did not say he didn't support it. he asked the question and was almost -- the word that i would use more than confusing is dumb. it was dumb to put that tweet out because you can't cast doubt on a very important piece of legislation that was already controversial. >> let me just make sure -- >> so the president -- you're saying the president's quote was dumb and sarah huckabee sanders might have served herself better by simply acknowledging that in that room? >> i think she could have said if he confused people, that wasn't the intention. he was simply asking a question. you know, it's very difficult to walk that line, as you know.
that would cause all kind of questions and probably create its own article. there was a better way to handle it than the way she handled it. standing up there saying it wasn't confusing. it was confusing to a lot of people. very credible foreign leaders and foreign analysts on television all day saying it was confusing to them. members of congress said it was confusing. it was, in fact, confusing. he didn't say not to support it, which is important for us to note. but for many people it was confusing. >> john heilemann, it was, as sarah said, dumb. >> yeah, it was dumb. look, i have been through a lot of white house press secretaries in my -- >> oh, i know. >> i am now -- i have seen some really good ones and some not so good ones. some have not lasted very long and have had to be cycled out. others, gold standard. i didn't think it would be possible to be -- not every day, but i didn't think it would be possible to be worse than sean
spicer but she's worse some days because with all due respect to sarah, she did enter the realm of alternative facts today. there was a panic in washington, d.c., among republican congressman who were precisely what she was asked. the reporter hallie did not say the president is an idiot. it was confusing. it was manifestly confusing to republicans who were lighting up the white house switchboard by every published report today. so to get up there and say it's not confusing is a lie. and then to do it in a way -- >> it was worse than that. she said -- >> and then to do it in a condescending and sarcastic and nasty tone is just, you know, you're not serving yourself well there. you're not serving your boss there well and you're not serving the cause of some vague tenuous connection to the truth and reality in a given situation. it's just a disgraceful performance. >> the only way her day can get worse is if donald trump tweets
an atta girl at her. >> they're all euphemisms. this was an extraordinary admission of ignorance about the single most important job the president of the united states has to protect the security of every american. even donald trump has recognized that as the number one job of the president. you cannot protect the security of americans without understanding the foreign intelligence surveillance act and the 702 amendment to that act. he has been in office a year. i was absolutely dumbfounded that he had no idea what fisa was and 702 was. as various people have pointed out. the president's daily brief every day is filled with information from 702 and fisa. the fact he didn't know what that is questions the very core of his ability to do the job. >> so you know what i thought? stay here with me, all of you. so again, i don't have access to classified information anymore. but when i did, and sarah was in the white house at the time as well, the shoe bomber. remember richard reid? now i don't remember if it was
just an intercept, if it was just information that was collected through this program, but when we had to tell the country that they had to start taking their shoes off every time they got on an airplane, we declassified the intelligence about the plot and we explained and i remember when there were lobbying efforts under way to defend and protect these counterterrorism tools. they became very controversial during the bush presidency. we were all able to sort of help articulate some of that messaging. not only does it strike me that the people around the president, save for maybe bossert and kelly who we haven't heard from today, don't understand where intelligence comes from, they clearly don't know if president trump understands where intelligence comes from. >> president trump thinks that intelligence comes from fox & friends. he obviously trusts that more than what he gets from the intelligence officers. the other thing that's tragic is there was a reform bill which
was voted on before the main bill which would have reformed 702 which i would have said would have been a useful thing where the intelligence community would need to get warrants to get information about phone conversations between foreigners and american citizens. i think that's a good idea. >> i think that was in there. they have 24 hours to go to court to get -- i think that was -- >> that was not passed. the main bill was passed and didn't have that. but because of trump's confusion or whatever you want to call it, that put the kabosh on that note and people were afraid of not even passing the bill. >> what i want to go back to, the nature of sarah huckabee sanders' response to hallie jackson's question. so we can all stipulate to the truth that it was dumb, that it reflects profound ignorance and risks the security of the country. lets us know a whole bunch of people don't know anything about fisa. one thing that's really striking is who is -- who are these people speaking to and for? so if she was actually moderate in her response, if she was
actually reasonable in her response, would donald trump understand sarah huckabee sanders to be vigorously defending him? and i think that person who stands in the white house who is watching television is the one that's driving all of this, right? he's the one that's actually leading these people to be snarky, mean-spirited, in their defense. and it's actually demeaning -- diminishing our country. >> we know that if the fbi is being smeared by donald trump, he described them as in tatters, where is sarah huckabee sanders going to get the space to do anything other than what she did today? >> look, i mean, these -- for all these people who are playing to the constituency of one, we've soon it now. steve miller. >> lindsey graham does it. >> every time they go on television they do it. for each of them, they are facing, every day, they get to wake up and face the moral choice about what they're willing to tolerate and whether they will emerge from this experience with their soul
intact. i am -- i'm think -- >> you're going to stop right there? >> i'm going to stop right there. >> the answer is not looking great for a lot of them. >> sarah? >> the other thing that we should point out here is that his obsession with this russian investigation, which he should never comment on, which we've talked about at length, is the reason he caused this hubbub. if he could let it go, not comment on it, he probably wouldn't have tweeted, we probably wouldn't be having this conversation right now. >> perfect place to hit pause. sara fagan thank you for joining us and for being with us today. blue wave on the horizon. if you believe the latest poll, that certainly seems like a possibility. we'll ask a top democrat about managing expectations. if you're 65 or older, you may be at increased risk for pneumococcal pneumonia that can take you out of the game for weeks, even if you're healthy. pneumococcal pneumonia is a potentially serious
bacterial lung disease that in severe cases can lead to hospitalization. it may hit quickly, without warning, causing you to miss out on the things you enjoy most. prevnar 13® is not a treatment for pneumococcal pneumonia... it's a vaccine you can get to help protect against it. prevnar 13® is approved for adults to help prevent infections from 13 strains of the bacteria that cause pneumococcal pneumonia. you should not receive prevnar 13® if you have had a severe allergic reaction to the vaccine or its ingredients. if you have a weakened immune system, you may have a lower response to the vaccine. the most common side effects were pain, redness and swelling at the injection site, limited arm movement, fatigue, headache, muscle pain, joint pain, less appetite, vomiting, fever, chills, and rash. help protect yourself against pneumococcal pneumonia. ask your doctor or pharmacist about prevnar 13®.
66% of people feel the economy is excellent or good. that's the highest number ever recorded by this poll. that statement is technically true. throw in some context, more of the story and things change a little bit. from that same poll, 49% of respondents say president obama is more responsible for the state of the economy compared to 40% who say it's trump. and it's not just the economy. that poll found 69% say trump is not level headed. 65% say he doesn't share their values. 63% say trump is not honest. and 57% of respondents say trump is not fit to serve. joining us, former democratic senator barbara boxer. thank you for being with us. i wonder if i could get your thoughts on how promising those poll numbers are for democrats and if that in and of itself creates an expectations challenge for the democratic party in managing the
expectations of your base and continuing to try to raise enough money to fund new and inexperienced candidates. what is the state of play right now for your party? >> for my perspective, i think the people who were appalled by donald trump are in our corner. they're in the democrats corner. and the poll numbers you say today, who knows where they'll be on election day. because this guy is unpredictable. we never know. look what happened today. a horrible error, a horrible mistake. and not owning up to it. and it only sinks his numbers further down. so i think really we have to look somewhere else. and that's where i learned a very important lesson from tip o'neil when i served in the house a long time ago, five terms. and that is all politics is local. and, you know, when we're looking at house seats, yes, i think there can be an overriding
message like let's get the congress in control of people who care about the middle class and not the top 1%. that's all fine. but what's happening in these various districts. for example, in some swing districts in california as tip o'neil told us to concentrate on, we have 48, 49%, 50% of the people will pay higher taxes because they can no longer deduct state and local. so i think we need to focus on the congress. you know what their rating is today? 14% approval. so i think the donald trump saga will continue, and we will get those voters. but if that's all we do, we're in big trouble. we need to focus on substance, get the great candidates and we can take nothing for granted, nothing. >> you are the second democrat in two days to say the same thing. jennifer palmieri was here yesterday and said hillary
clinton made the competence argument. she and all her great surrogates, president obama, they made the case donald trump was not fit for office and he succeeded in achieving an electoral victory. i wonder how you break through, though. if that is the constant din in this media environment, how do you break through as a party with a message about other topics? >> well, again, it's local. if you are going to look at a specific district that has about 600,000 people in it and i can tell you we've got 7, 8, 9, 10 districts in our great state of california, where you will have, again, people paying more taxes because of the tax bill. people paying 10% more or 20% or 30% more for their health care because of what trump and the republicans have done. the fact that that tax cut is going to cause a huge, huge debt problem out into the future and 85% of it goes to the top 1%.
these have to be translated into local issues. can you afford to send your kid to college? what is this republican congress doing about that? so again, i think you have -- trump is the backdrop and many people, that will be enough to get them to the polls. they'll be moetivated. but if we want to win, we have to do more than that. district by district. it's hard work and important work. >> senator, it's john heilemann. >> hi, john. >> i want to ask you a quick news of the day question. a new interview with president trump up in "the wall street journal" in which he talks about kim jong-un. if i remember correctly, you were a member of the senate foreign relations committee for a long time. i'm curious what your reaction is to president trump saying i probably have a very good relationship with kim jong-un. i have relationships with people i think you people are surprised. he is saying he has a pretty good relationship with kim jong-un. what do you think about that? >> i can just roll my eyes, but
i'll try to say something. >> thank you. >> the last i heard, he was bragging he had a bigger button than kim jong-un. so maybe he feels good about that. i don't know what else to say. i mean kim jong-un is a deep, deep threat to this nation. and to south korea and our allies in the region. and to our troops who are stationed there. i've gbeen to the demilitarized zone. i know how dangerous this is. people looking at each other ready to just pop. and so i don't know what to say about it. i really, honestly, i'm so sorry. i usually am not at a loss for words. but first calling him, you know, the worst threat in the world and then saying he has a good relationship with him? let's hear more about the relationship. and while we're at it, the relationship with putin. i mean, let's lay it all out on the table. >> senator, it's a perfect
parallel. he often finds himself on two sides of his own positions on policies and people. thank you so much for joining us. i hope you'll be back. >> thanks, nicolle. >> i like that senator boxer says, i just don't know what to say. at the time you're like, speaking for millions. giving voice to a great nation. >> i don't think it's such a bad thing about what he said about kim jong-un. >> why not have a conversation with kim jong-un. >> do we have some breaking news? we have to sneak in a quick break. on the other side of that, breaking news.
it takes a lot of work but i really love it. i'm on the move all day long... and sometimes, i don't eat the way i should. so, i drink boost to get the nutrition i'm missing. boost high protein nutritional drink has 15 grams of protein to help maintain muscle and 26 essential vitamins and minerals, including calcium and vitamin d. all with a great taste. boost gives me everything i need... to be up for doing what i love. boost high protein be up for it the center of the how canneighborhood?r house first, mix liquid gold velveeta with the one-two kick of ro*tel's diced tomatoes and spicy green chilies. then, find space for extra parking. lots and lots of parking. today's senior living communities have never been better, with amazing amenities like movie theaters, exercise rooms and swimming pools, public cafes, bars and bistros even pet care services. and there's never been an easier way to get great advice.
we're back. a new "washington post" story that broke since we've been on the air. we had to sneak in that break to make it family friendly. the title trump attacks protections for immigrants from bleep whole countries in oval office meetings. president trump grew frustrated by the piece writing in "the
washington post." president trump grew frustrafted with lawmakers thursday in the oval office when they floated restoring protections for immigrants from haiti, el salvador and african countries as part of a bipartisan immigration deal according to two people briefed on the meeting. why are we having all these people from bleep countries come here. trump said according to these people referring to african countries and haiti. he then suggested the united states should bring more people from countries like norway whose prime minister -- i can't get through this. some reporting over the holidays actually about the president making similarly derogatory comments. i forget what group he was maligning in those accounts. they may have been lost on the broader public over the holidays. can you speak to -- if this is accurate, what this report -- >> if it's accurate, it confirms what i've said on this show before. donald trump is a bigot. but it also exposes something about the immigration debate in this country.
there's always this underlying, this underlying kind of claim or worry that -- what's driving immigration in this country or the worry about immigration is not that the system is broken but that the country is browning. that folks are concerned about all of these people of color in the country and they're trying to figure out how do we stem the tide of the demographic shift in the country. that immigration is really just another way of talking about race. and here we have a moment. >> what hasn't always been -- and i alluded to this. let me give you what i was talking about. over the holidays it was reported by "the new york times" that donald trump reportedly says all haitians have aids when he was talking about the numbers there. so there is a pretty vast body of evidence that he speaks loosely and paints certain minority groups with -- >> that he's a racist? >> i am trying to say -- >> it's not about speaking loosely. it's about -- >> i mean, yes, he speaks in a
racist way about haitians and if we believe "the washington post" reporting about people from bleep hole countries who come here. how does he confuse extreme poverty with neglect and with, some sort of a threat to this country? what is -- you've covered him for a long time. >> you know, i don't think he -- again, he doesn't like brown people. and he does, i think look -- if you wanted -- starting at that point. just say that, right? he has exhibited some direct, some indirect, some elliptical, signs of racist are and racist tendencies throughout his whole public life. that's the first place. the next thing is he looks at, i think, a lot of these countries underdeveloped, afflicted by poverty. he's never been to those countries because he's a germaphobe. he wants to go to norway where he thinks he won't catch
anything. i say this second. start with racist and note he has all of these other particular neuroses. doesn't like poor people, i don't think, generally, even though he claims to be a champion of the working place and doesn't like places that are "dirty" to him. >> "doesn't accept a premise i believe in devoutly, as a small l liberal, we're a country where we take in refugees, we give asylum to people. that has been part of our history. his own mother was an immigrant. the statue of liberty -- >> that's an american value. and calling for immigration reform. i mean, i understand what you're saying. let's not pretend -- this is so abnormal. this is a freak show. sarah huckabee sanders, you disgraced the white house today by what you did to hallie
jackson, but donald trump disgraced the country if what we he reported today was true. trump attacks protections for immigrants from bleep hol countries in oval office meeting. president trump frustrated with lawmakers thursday in the oval office when they floated restoring protections for immigrants from haiti, el salvador and african countries as part of bipartisan immigration deal. let's just talk a little, go a little deeper on what a freakin' scam the 55-minute televised immigration association was. he has that meeting to smear people from -- >> the irony is and the two, three stories we've talked about today give the lie to that kind of village that actually, when he had -- has to show knowledge about things that are actually, that have to do with governing, he doesn't have that knowledge at all and betrays, as you say, an incred about bias he's not even aware of. >> be mindful of the history of
the country. immigration, naturalization, has always been tethered to an idea this is a white nation. the very first naturalization act in this country involved, right? nationalizing only white people. so we, through our immigration policy, through our naturalization policy, we have grappled, struggled with as nation this idea of america. who are we? right? part of what trump has done and continued to do since the campaign up to now is to appeal to this very insidious understanding of who we take ourselves to be, as if he's trying to wipe off the historical record, any progress we've made. i honestly believe this man doesn't believe that i belong here. no less the folks of haiti and africa and there's a reason he contrasts those countries with norway. there's a reason. not just a germaphobe. >> be clear one thing rick said. i think he obviously has a lot of unconscious racism that
manifests itself but i also think there's a lot of purpose to the things he says. he understands there are large segments of the american public, not majority, not plurality, decent sized chunks and many are trump voter who look at haiti, el salvador and would use exactly that word over their kitchen table and say sink hole. >> it's not sink. >> you know what i'm saying. it's unconscious and also a political strategy. he is speaking a language that appeals to people he knows are in his base. >> let me tell you something else coming. kasi hunt confirmed from a democratic aid who -- another source confirming that this is what went down in that meeting, and i want to ask you about the -- we talk a lot about the legal exposure. what is the political exposure? a strategy to combat the book is show donald trump be presidential. >> "fire and fury"? >> just -- the meetings this week what they did this week were designed to show him capable, more capable than the
detikz in the bo depiction in the book. if that when did proved to be a rasist and -- how did that strategy work out? >> it will never work out's you can have an attempted village 45 minutes on camera, the truth will out always. >> right, right! it took two days, but here it is. >> this is true of all of it. david axelrod's thing, it's an mri of the soul. if you were the president of the united states, cameras are on you all the time. you can behave in a different way. you can modify your behavior, be someone you're not for short bursts of time, but the level of scrutiny you have, the amount of attention focused on you, you are going to, whoever you are, you're going to revert to being who you really are, whether you're barack obama, donald trump or george w. bush. a strategy might make it through an afternoon but would always go back to being donald trump. >> explain to me what's happened to lindsey graham? he used to stand with the -- >> i'm barbara boxer on this and have no idea. >> let me tell you why -- i now
have two tent poles that really seem to hold up, which you describe. this really, ugly underbelly of american politics. lindsey graham is holding two of the poles. one a very political personal attempt to smear the fbi and unless he wants to be the attorney general and wants donald trump to go ahead and go with his -- fire jeff sessions. make him the attorney general, something that seems unlikely after losing a senate race in the deep south, but unless that's what he wants, i want to understand why lindsey graham is standing with donald trump as he smears the fbi and why didn't lindsey graham sound the alarm bells? used to stand with john mccain, put everything on the line for comprehensive immigration? >> i have no idea. and all the people behaving most radically against type. donald trump is doing basically what a year ago i thought he'd do a year later and many of these congresspeople being craven and subservient to him. >> nunes and -- right.
>> and paul ryan, mitch mcconnell. i never had high hopes they would suddenly become paragons of virtue or principle, but look at lindsey graham, things he said during the campaign and even six months ago. something happened where he became, or underwent a transformation. call your old boss, john mccain, ask him. he might be the only one who knows. >> i late to go into psychology, the fact he's ill. on immigration, all of these things, pulley lindsey graham. see it the way i see it. >> be brave. >> now, you know -- he's not around. >> a lot of folks enters the bargain. jumped in bed with the devil. >> to what end, though? >> tax cuts. tax reform. quote/unquote. welfare reform. >> and a giant wave election. the ballot has republicans -- democrats have a 17-point advantage. all going to be unemployed.
>> one thing in the quinnipiac poll we didn't have here. 59% of people think donald trump is strong. think he's dumb, embarrassing, but in frightening times, if you think he's strong, you vote for him. that number leapt out at me and should give people pause. >> and interested in disapproval numbers and what independents and suburban republicans, how they moved. that number jumped up not because of the left has somehow become even more vee innoceheme distrust, it's independents and moderate republicans that helped put him in office. >> i check in with a regular group of republicans with whom i served 12 years in the republican party. >> a happy group, i'm sure. >> well, i check in to make sure i haven't caught the derangement syndrome that i'm covering this
guy, not under friday night light benders but clear eyes. i'll say it. covering him -- covering him with clarity. i check in and talk to half a dozen of my former colleagues about this tweet and fisa. not only did they remind me of all of the good uses fisa went to and remind me of how tough politics were even at the time. a big civil liberties debate rand paul on the other side of it, but they all said, and four traditional republicans. like tax cuts. they are also vehemently opposed to the normalization of racism. i get it. i hear you. 60%, strong. might win again. i hear you, but why is it a fait accompli just being strong and having a good economy means that this is the guy we're stuck with for eight years? why do you get away with all this? >> i don't think it's fait accompli. you mentioned it. we have a mid-term election, a giant wave election and -- i'm
to the point. i thought a long time at the beginning it was a math problem. if you looked at his number, trump's numbers went down particularly among republicans, eventually republicans on capitol hill would do the math. say he's more of a cost to us now than a benefit. we're going to turn on him. i don't think that's going to happen. take a eprepatiation. see what happens if democrats take over in the house. >> my time is up. that does it for our hour. i'm nicolle wallace. "mtp daily" starts right now. hi, chuck. >> hi. give us your tired your poor poor. yeah. that's -- >> caputh. >> that's it. put the bleep machine on lady liberty. anyway, if it's thursday, 2018 republicans just went from bad to worse. tonight, into the blue. map out the midterm landscape as a democratic wave appears to be headed for congress. plus
IN COLLECTIONSMSNBC West Television Archive Television Archive News Search Service
Uploaded by TV Archive on