Skip to main content

tv   The 11th Hour With Brian Williams  MSNBC  July 17, 2019 1:00am-2:00am PDT

1:00 am
williams" starts now. the democrats vote to condemn racist remarks by the president, and yet the president who claimed today that he didn't have a racist bone in his body, continues to go after four women of color, all duly noted members of congress. and mark sanford was considering challenging the president in his own party on the economy. the reporter who broke this story is standing by for us. and a towering figure of american law is gone nine months from his 100th birthday. tonight how the story of justice john paul stevens would be simply impossible in the america of 2019. all of it as "the 11th hour" gets underway on a tuesday night. well, good evening once again from our nbc news headquarters in new york. this was day 908 of the trump
1:01 am
administration, and while there is no joy in it, one way of summing up today is this. our government's broken, our politics are broken, washington is no longer functional, and the cracks in our society are deepening. much of this day was taken up by the discussion of racist statements by the president. then tonight came the news that had so many people thinking back to when we were different, the death just tonight of retired supreme court justice john paul stevens at the age of 99. we'll have more on his extraordinary life and legacy later on in this broadcast. but first, to the news of this day. and tonight that includes a rebuke of the president of the united states, a vote of congress to condemn him for telling four members of congress, all u.s. citizens, to go back to their home countries. the "washington post" described the scene on the house floor earlier this evening. quote, the imagery of the 240 to 187 vote was stark. a diverse democratic caucus cast
1:02 am
the president's words as an affront to millions of americans, while republican lawmakers, a majority of them white men, projected his racist comments that have legitimized hatred of new americans. will hurd of texas, brian fitzpatrick of pennsylvania, susan brooks, indiana, justin amash, maryland. amash, a republican, also voted with the democrats. steve scalise, a republican and john had some words to say. >> the american people expect us to be spending our time up here
1:03 am
fighting for the issues they care about. >> i know racism when i see it. i know racism when i feel it. and at the highest level of government, there is no room for racism. as a nation and as a people, we need to go forward and not backward. >> we should probably add the obvious, john lewis is an icon of the civil rights movement. this afternoon's vote was precede bid a raucous floor session which erupted after speaker pelosi openly called trump's remarks racist. republicans immediately removed to have they are words stricken from the record. along a party line vote, her words remained. hours earlier at the white house, trump continued his attacks on the four members of congress for a third day, repeating his grievances during
1:04 am
a morning cabinet meeting. >> it's up to them. go wherever they want or they can stay. but they should love our country. they shouldn't hate our country. it's terrible when people speak so badly about our country, when people speak so horribly. i have a list of things here. i'm not going to bore you with it because you would be bored. you wouldn't write it, anyway. but i have a list of things said by the congresswomen that is so bad, so horrible that i almost don't want to read it, it's so bad. >> the president also defended his attacks on social media, writing this. those tweets were not racist. i don't have a racist bone in my body. the so-called vote to be taken is a democrat con game. republicans should not show weakness and fall into their trap. republican leaders seem to have taken that last line to heart. today they lined up to swear
1:05 am
their unfailing loyalty and devotion to donald trump, even when the questions were a tad close to home. >> when you say to her she should go back to her home country, wouldn't you consider that a racist attack? >> well, the democrat came here at the age of eight. i think the tone of all of this is not good for the country. >> were the president's tweets that said go back racist? >> this is about socialism versus freedom. >> the administration's defense of the president's words started this morning with white house counselor kellyanne conway on fox news. >> they represent a dark underbelly in this country. stop being so afraid of and adoring of four people who got
1:06 am
here legally. >> later she got in an exchange with a reporter on the white house driveway. >> the president was telling these four women to return to their countries of origin, to which countries was he referring? i'm asking you a question. my ancestors are from ireland and italy. >> my original home does not matter to this question. >> a lot of us are sick and tired of this country, of america coming last, to people who swore an oath of office. >> that's about how that went. and here for a lead-off discussion, mike acosta. donna edwards from the great state of maryland, now a
1:07 am
"washington post" columnist. and tim o'brien back with us as well. he happens to be the author of "trump nation: the art of being donald." robert, i'd like to begin with you. everybody at the white house okay with this? this is now a third straight day's news cycle taken up by this, or do they see this as an effective weapon of some sort? >> an effective weapon, perhaps. they argue about the 2020 presidential race dividing the country. they know they have inflamed the nation's civil fabric with the president's racist tweets and comments that began on sunday. at the same time, brian, talking to my top sources tonight, republicans in congress, and some even in the white house, acknowledge that the president may have played a reelection strategy here, but he has jeopardized his congressional agenda. he still has to try to get the u.s. trade deal through, still has to extend the debt limit. all of that up in the air as democrats move forward with this legislation, including with a few republicans. >> donna edwards, i need an honest answer. you're the only former member of congress we have to ask this
1:08 am
question of. are you surprised only four republicans crossed over? >> i am sad. history books of the united states is going to record that the president of the united states was condemned by the congress as a racist. and, you know, he may say he doesn't have racist bones in his body, but everything about what he's done, from the birtherism to the charlotteville on both sides, these current statements really speak to his racism, and it's unfortunate that republicans in congress, more just for them and one independent, couldn't find a way to condemn his statements. >> and you gentlemen are so good together here in the studio.
1:09 am
i want to show you eugene's reaction on this network earlier today. >> "go back to africa" was a chant from the segregationists who tried to keep students from integrating what had been previously all-white schools, who tried to keep public accommodations segregated for whites only. and that's essentially what the president has said. not just essentially, that's literally what the president said to four congressmen, women of color. i'm not quite ready to go all the way to the political ramifications of this or that, it just has to be called out as unacceptable racism. >> tim, as the trump expert here, so much can be done with a wink and a nod when you're a civilian. you can even question whether or not a president of the united states was born in kenya.
1:10 am
when you're president, the stakes get higher. to eugene's point, is this bigger than we've played it, but just because life is like the frog-boiling experiment -- i'm sitting here watching kellyanne conway on a sweltering hot day in washington thinking, you know, they have an air-conditioned briefing room just inside that building, but we stopped using that. >> and kellyanne conway, who i think is usually fairly deft on her feet in terms of pursuing her agenda and turning these questions on her own interlocutors started going down this slippery slope of questioning a reporter about his ethnicity. i think she was trying to say we all have inherent biases, we all come from somewhere else. but on a day like this, it was almost tone-deaf. i call it how hateful this white house can be around this specific issue, which is the issue of race. they are tone-deaf and hateful because i think it's coming from the top.
1:11 am
donald trump didn't start being a racist when he got inaugerated as president trump. they were tenants of color in the 1970s. trump inserted himself in the late 1980s into the central park jogger case. he continually said latinos accused of assaulting that woman were guilty. he speaks now about having good genes. there are a whole series of boxes you can tick off about what we define racism by, and he ticks off every one of those boxes. when he did that as a private individual, i don't think people winked at it. he became -- he was exiled in a lot of ways from new york life,
1:12 am
from business circles and social circles. but as you correctly point out, as a private serviceman and a businessman, the radius of his damage was much tighter. he is now the leader of the most powerful western democracy. and he's failing to overcome his past, and instead what he's doing is wallowing in the worst parts of himself, and racism is clearly one of those parts. >> the aforementioned leader of the most powerful western democracy has just employed his cell phone inside the residency of the modern air-conditioned white house. so great to see this is -- let's see here -- 11:05, just as we were underway. so great to see how unified the republican party was on today's vote concerning statements i made about four democratic congresswomen. if you really want to see statements, look at the horrible things they said about our country, israel and much more. they are now the top most visible members of the house democrats who are now whetted to
1:13 am
this bitterness and hate. the republican vote was 187-4. wow! also this was the first time since 1948 that the speaker of the house was ruled out of order and broke the rules of the house. quite a day. robert acosta, it's an enormous list of things not done. in a city like this, new yorkers watch the lights go out on a saturday night, plunging the city into darkness, say nothing of the fact the mayor is out running for president in iowa. that's for a conversation at another time. it puts things like -- i'll say it -- infrastructure into the public mind and the public consciousness front and center. >> and let's not, as a reporter here, put aside these republican votes who supported the legislation. two of them, one will hurd from texas, african-american, a veteran.
1:14 am
he said, enough. he broke with his party. brian fitzpatrick, the key swing district, the philadelphia suburbs of pennsylvania, bucks county. he said, i'm going with the democrats and he's a former fbi agent, a retired fbi agent, one of the most competitive seats in the country. there are cracks in this party. most of them, when i talk to them privately, they say, as senator sanders told me today at the post, that he lives in fear of the president because they need his political capital in 2020. but they also know they have to face history. history will look back at these moments. but they say they've already swept along in are riptide since 2016, but from 2012 when mitt romney and other top republicans accepted the support of a birther, then donald trump a businessman, who questioned whether president obama was from this country. this kind of attack has been central to president trump's political career for at least the last decade, making others, opponents, feel like they're not
1:15 am
american and casting them in that way. >> and, bob, how do they pass something that used to be just one of the things they did like the debt ceiling, which is looming? >> it's going to be very difficult. the treasury secretary and steve mnuchin essentially pleading with congress to extend the debt limit. now he thinks it's going to come up by september, not later in the year. you have the full faith and credit of the united states on the line. the markets, which have been spiked up would be rattled by any kind of failure to extend the debt limit. but how, in a congress that is so on edge, that you have them fighting about racism and the president, how can they get anything done? speaker pelosi, her top allies
1:16 am
tell me she wants to get something done. she thinks she can get a budget deal, perhaps even before the recess, but it's a challenge for her because she has so many democrats now, because of the president's conduct, enough. we don't want to deal with him on the debt limit or immigration or anything. we need to impeach him now. that's what speaker pelosi is facing, those tremors in the ground. >> so as a former member of congress, could you make an argument that trump has diluted the power of congress to get things done, or is that too oxymoronic to withstand scrutiny? >> no, i don't think so, but i think there is a reckoning coming for the republican party. they're not going to be successful, and the president drivers in baiting narrative because he sees it as a way to gin up his base so he can hold onto that 30 or 40% going into the election. but it's simply not going to work, and i think for the president, if he wants to get anything done at all that he can tout as an accomplishment, he's not going to do it like this. i'm with the rest of the democrats. i'm ready to wash my hands of this president because he's just too slimy and he's just too dirty. and you know what? i wouldn't put it past him to throw up another distraction
1:17 am
next week because he knows that robert mueller is going to be on capitol hill. and that, i think, is going to be a turning point in terms of the way that democrats, and perhaps some republicans, maybe a handful of them, are going to be willing to deal with this president of the united states. >> tim o'brien, i say this guardedly, but this is a related topic, and that is of jeffrey epstein and what they've recovered from his new york mansion. the passport was for personal protection in the event of travel to dangerous areas, only to be presented to potential
1:18 am
kidnappers, hijackers or terrorists should violent episodes occur, his lawyer, reed weingarten wrote. in addition to the passport, federal agents found piles of cash and dozens of diamonds inside a safe in his townhouse. in court papers filed tuesday, the prosecutors detailed the discovery. $70,000 in cash, as people do, and 48 loose diamonds ranging from 1 to 2.38 carats. i don't mean to laugh. none of this is funny. question to you, having reported on guys like epstein in this circle, how far does this go? >> well, the court obviously has reason to worry about jeffrey epstein being a flight risk. >> two jets. >> two jets. >> a couple of diamonds. >> if you want to get across
1:19 am
borders, you have a lot of cash and diamonds. they can tell whatever story they want about the passport, but everything else in that safe speaks of someone who wanted to get out of town quickly and not be traced. i think there is still two big shoes to drop in this case. the first one is what is the southern district of new york going to find in his files? videotapes or photographs. he had cameras all over his houses. i think there's got to be a certain number of men who are
1:20 am
worried about what that evidence might show. i think the other interesting thing in all this is, how did jeffrey epstein make his money? how was he able to stick $70,000 in cash and diamonds into a safe for safekeeping? it's not clear to me that he would have done that only through bribing people about dirty secrets he might have on videotapes. i think there is a possibility that he ran illicit financial transactions for clients. he might have parked stock. he could have laundered money. this is entirely speculative. but the feds say he made about $10 million a year and he did that consistently for a number of years. and he had about $500 million in assets. that kind of money just wouldn't be popping in and out of his accounts if all he was doing was opportunistically bribing people. there could be a whole other range of relationships tied to that that could be embarrassing for a lot of powerful and wealthy people. >> exactly. that's the world we're living in in july of 2019. with a great thanks to our leadoff guests tonight, robert acosta, donna edwards and tim o'brien. thank you for starting our discussion. coming up, the surprise possible opponent who could end up taking on donald trump in the republican primary. later, the voters will get to decide whether or not it's offensive to tell an american to go back where they came from. more on the issue of race in this 2020 campaign. and as we go to break on this 50th anniversary of the launch of apollo 11, look at that. pictures of the projection of the great saturn 5 rocket onto the side of the washington monument tonight on behalf of a grateful nation as "the 11th hour" is just getting started on a tuesday night.
1:21 am
do you want me to go first or do you want to go first, brea?
1:22 am
1:23 am
you can go first. audible reintroduced this whole world to me. so many great stories from amazing people. it makes me want to be better. to be able to connect with the people's stories that i'm listening to. that's inspiration. it's on during my commute, it's on all the time. doing the dishes. working out. while i'm in the car. at bed time. an audible listener is someone that wants to broaden their mind. people who are tired of listening to the radio, or music. to hear her speak those words. it was incredible. it was unbelievable. with audible originals, there's something for almost every taste in there. everything you ever wanted to hear. i signed up for getting a credit every month, and i started exploring books that i normally wouldn't read. our ability to empathize through these stories, with these stories, can be transformational.
1:24 am
it's my own thing that i can do for me. see what listening to audible can do for you. just text listen5 to 500500. you may know the face, former california governor and republican congressman mark sanford says he's mulling over a primary challenge to fellow republican president trump. to the post and courier, sanford said he'll take the next month to think about a potential run. he says he wants to push the debate on the deficit and government spending, quote, sometimes in life you've got to say what you've got to say, whether there's an audience or not for that message. i feel convicted. the post and courier points out
1:25 am
that sanford would face huge odds against getting any traction with his own party. the south carolina republican party chairman issued a statement that reads, quote, the last time mark sanford had an idea this dumb, it killed his governorship. this makes about as much sense as that trip up the appalachian trail. that, of course, a reference to sanford's '09 extramarital affair and the cover story for when he was visiting his mistress in argentina. sanford has been a frequent critic of president trump. he lost his house seat after trump endorsed his primary opponent in 2018, but then the seat ultimately fell to the democrats. with us for more, the aforementioned kaitlyn berg and anita kumar, white house correspondent and editor for "politico." kaitlyn, just an aside here, that quote didn't read right. is it "are reading" or is there something i'm missing.
1:26 am
why does he feel convicted? >> the quote is correct. he did say, i feel convicted. what he meant is he feels a strong pull to do this, to find out in the next 30 days whether or not what he's selling in this political season, to use a phrase he likes to use down here, whether or not voters are interested in buying what he's selling, whether that's in the form of a 2020 presidential primary to president donald trump, or whether that's pushing forward with the think tank or some sort of advocacy group to really push this debate surrounding debt spending, the
1:27 am
deficit and government spending. >> and, kaitlyn, you and i have both met politicians who just don't seem right if they're out of office, if they're not in office or running for office. and i won't ask you to make a judgment, but is anyone making a case that this is just ego and it may be something of a suicide mission? >> well, congressman sanford and governor sanford and i actually talked about this today when we had coffee and he shared his plans to really explore this seriously in the coming month. and it's not about ego for him. that's what he tells me. for him, this really is not so much about going down with the ship, it's about fighting for what he's always fought for in the last 25 years that he's held political office.
1:28 am
and to your point, politicians who do seem out of place when they try to return to the private sector, we saw mark sanford go to chicago and try to take that 25 years of experience and politics with him, but still this drumbeat that just stuck in his mind, as he put it to me, it just lingered. and he's someone that if he can't shake it, he's going to pursue it in some form or fashion, and that's what these next 30-something days are going to be about, and i'm sure all of us are going to be counting down
1:29 am
those days on the calendar to see when he makes a decision and whether it actually is going to be a serious 2020 republican presidential run. >> anita, i noticed sanford had an interesting media outing tonight with two chrises, one named hayes, the other cuomo. chris hayes was trying to get him to acknowledge that deficits matter the most to republicans when democrats are in control of the government. chris hayes was trying to get him to speak out against racism vis-a-vis donald trump. both did not go smoothly or well. we do know about sanford, anita, that he is one of the button pushers for donald trump. i'm going to play this clip from trump and talk about it on the other side. >> i never liked him too much. i wasn't a big fan. the tallahassee trail. it must be a beautiful place. unfortunately, he didn't go there. >> no, he didn't. a lot of people were wondering where the tallahassee trail was.
1:30 am
we checked with tallahassee. they have trails but no one specific trail is a thing there. that was the appalachian trail. what is it about sanford and trump, anita, do you think? >> well, i mean, you know, president trump doesn't like any criticism, and we can name some of those big critics on one hand, right? jeff flake, bob corker, justin amash right now. mark sanford did not shy away from talking about him, talking about not just the issues they disagreed on, which obviously republicans are going to disagree with him on tariffs and other things, but it was personality. personality. here, it all starts with a simple...
1:31 am
1:32 am
hello! -hi! how can i help? a data plan for everyone. everyone? everyone. let's send to everyone! [ camera clicking ]
1:33 am
wifi up there? -ahhh. sure, why not? how'd he get out?! a camera might figure it out. that was easy! glad i could help. at xfinity, we're here to make life simple. easy. awesome. so come ask, shop, discover at your xfinity store today. as you might imagine, the democrats in the 2020 race have had more to say about president
1:34 am
trump's weekend tweets attacking the four democratic members of congress. during a campaign event in iowa early today, senator kamala harris called the comments vile, ignorant and hateful. she addressed it again on cnn. >> he wants to distract by starting a whole -- lighting fires around race and ethnicity. it's disgusting. >> is this a turn? there is so much rage about this, is this a turn for you? >> there is so much that is disgusting about this. i think it is a turn for this president. it couldn't get any worse? apparently, yes, it just did. how low can he go? >> can he get lower? >> i don't know, but he needs to go back where he came from and leave that office. so that's why i'm running.
1:35 am
>> kamala harris with correspondent kim law on cnn. still with us, kaitlyn berg and anita kumar. anita, i want to read this from the "new york times." aides to mr. trump's campaign conceded that the president's tweets about the four women on sunday were not helpful, were difficult to defend and caught them off guard. they would have preferred he had not tweeted that the four women should go back to their ethnic countries, but they said that his instincts were what guided his campaign in 2016, when his attacks on immigrants resonated with alienated white voters in key states. they believe there is political value in having "the squad" as the new face of their political opponents when mr. trump is tracing a path to reelection when it runs through pennsylvania, michigan and wisconsin, where the four women are unpopular. anita, your reaction. >> they were slow to respond buzz they didn't know what to say. republicans, too, and now we're a couple days into it and you
1:36 am
can see where it's going, that these four women are the foil of the president and they want to talk about their policies and call them socialists and communists. i think they figured out now what that message is going to be. there is a new reuters poll out tonight showing that donald trump has gone up with republicans five percentage points in the last couple days. maybe his instinct was right that it might appeal to people he's trying to appeal to. it's certainly not going to appeal to independents or democrats. he's obviously gone down with them. but as you know, brian, very well, the president is banking on his base, his base coming out to vote. it's all going to be about the turnout for him. he's not really reaching across the aisle. >> good thing poll numbers have never mattered to donald trump. kaitlyn, i have one for you, and this is south carolina democratic primary. this is a fox news poll
1:37 am
conducted july 7-10. biden a really very healthy lead for where we are in the race and the state we're talking about. 35% falls off a cliff until you get to bernie sanders, kamala harris at 12, and then way down, warren at 5, booker at 3 and so on. what do you make of the race thus far in south carolina, and we kept hearing anecdotally stories about voters in south carolina who thought the biden dust-up, the comments he made about the segregationists he had to bump up against in the senate, was overblown by the national and coastal media. >> that's what i heard when vice president joe biden came to charleston just a few weeks ago, and it's good to point out, too, brian, that while he was here in south carolina, specifically in sumter, south carolina, he apologized for working with those segregationist senators. he apologized for the words he used to describe working with those segregationist senators. and he told the press afterward in charleston that he
1:38 am
intentionally apologized in south carolina because of the racial makeup in south carolina. he know, as well as you and i do, that black voters are the heart and soul of the democratic party in south carolina, and they are going to turn out in numbers when that primary comes around. joe biden has a lot of ties here in south carolina, so, so far, in my conversations with voters, yes, biden seems to be the frontrunner, but we can't forget that this is an historically large field of candidates that we're dealing with. so even when i'm talking with voters and they're telling me, yes, i know joe biden, i know what he's about, that familiarity is comfortable to me, they're also pulling me aside and saying, but i kind of want to see what these other candidates have to say. heck, i'm still learning some of their names. there's so many of them we can't get them all on one wide angle lens on a debate stage. it's insane how many candidates we're seeing. from a voter's perspective which we have to keep in mind as we analyze this race, there are so many people that have to learn and distinguish from each other. it's a giant cast of democrats and they still need to stand out
1:39 am
in this race. >> anita kumar, kaitlyn berg, thank you. the discussion about race continues when we return.
1:40 am
1:41 am
1:42 am
this is the latest example of harassment and embarrassment, trying to harass and embarrass people close to the president. the chairman knows and everyone knows there is a longstanding bipartisan precedent. both parties have invoked it, that you claim immunity for the president's advisers. this is about me going on tv and stating facts. don't try to silence me on my
1:43 am
first amendment rights. i'll be happy to testify. i have nothing to hide. i've done nothing wrong. >> kellyanne conway remains defiant there, refusing to comply with a subpoena before the house oversight committee. last month she was cited by the office of special counsel, not the one related to mueller, for violating the hatch act. that's the law that in part forbids federal employees from using their official authority or influence for the purpose of interfering with or affecting the result of an election. more on that later. the investigative body cited at least 15 times kellyanne candidates on twitter. she talked about campaign matters during television interviews. per white house instruction, she skipped monday's hearing where she was scheduled to testify about these allegations. in a letter to the committee, the white house counsel claimed, quote, ms. conway cannot be
1:44 am
compelled to testify before congress with with respect to matters related to her service as a senior adviser to the president. the house oversight committee promised to hold her in contempt with congress if she refused to testify. with us, former u.s. attorney for the eastern district of michigan, barbara mcquade, and barb, as you listen to kellyanne, can she hide behind what that thing is she was talking about legally? >> not at all. we heard of the white house invoking this doctrine of executive immunity which doesn't exist. there is only one court that has ever addressed it. it came up when harriet meyers was subpoenaed to testify during the bush administration, and the court said it doesn't exist. if an aide to the president is subpoenaed to testify, they must
1:45 am
appear. they may invoke executive privilege, that is a legitimate doctrine, but it has to be invoked on a question-by-question basis when it gets into details between the president and his aide. the idea she doesn't have to show up whatsoever is legally insufficient, and the house should really push on this because i think they'll prevail in court if they do. >> just the phrase "contempt of congress" does focus the attention.
1:46 am
what are the consequences? >> well, i think what they would have to do -- ordinarily you can get the justice department to come in and bring a case. in this instance because they're aligned with the executive branch and they've given an office of legal counsel opinion consistent to what kellyanne conway is doing, i don't think we can rely on them. i think what they would have to do is file a lawsuit and get a court order to get her to comply
1:47 am
with a request of congress. if she were to then be in contempt of court, the court could use its contempt powers to jail her. >> barbara, i have to say, i was a white house intern when i was a very young man a long, long time ago, and they drilled into us the hatch act, how serious it was. you know, among us, we have never heard of it, but we sure knew about it when we were there. >> the same is true of any federal employee. i worked in an attorney's office in detroit for 19 years, and we had training on the hatch act and reminders all the time. we all knew what we could and could not do. the idea that she is not only flouting the law, but when she's called on it, she continues to blatantly disregard the law. i think from time to time, people make mistakes when they're in public office and they cross the line, but once it has been brought to her attention, now she continues to violate that law? the office of special counsel has recommended that she be fired for her blatant disregard for the law, and instead she is the purpose is so the american public understands that governing is different from politicking. >> absolutely right. barbara mcquade has agreed to stay with us as we fit in a break. when we come back, the conversation gets really interesting because the conversation turns to that man.
1:48 am
1:49 am
1:50 am
you can help me in my epic struggle for vindication and survival by ordering your very own personally signed "roger stone did nothing wrong" t-shirt. >> as you reach for the phone let me just tell you that may be the last instagram post we see from roger stone for a good long while. a federal judge today ruled that
1:51 am
president trump's friend of 30 years give or take, the long-time political dirty trick artist, may no longer post on social media until after his trial. according to the "new york times," judge amy berman jackson told roger stone, "i am wrestling with behavior that has more to do with middle school than a court of law." her new order expands a previous gag order from back in february which you may recall barred stone from talking to the media about the case. stone appeared to ignore that order when he then posted a photo of judge jackson next to what certainly looked like crosshairs from a gun sight. a month later he shared this on instagram, suggesting he'd been framed by the special counsel. and then two hours after the
1:52 am
hearing today this appears. it's posted on roger stone's wife's instagram account, apparently because the federal judge didn't say anything about mrs. roger stone, just her husband roger stone who is facing charges of obstruction of justice, witness tampering, lying to congressional investigators in an indictment secured by one robert mueller. and again, thankfully, still with us is barbara mcquade. barbara, do you think the judge was liberal in not throwing him in jail, or is that the next step we're looking at here? >> she is being incredibly patient with him, and it may be because she wants to make a very sound record for inevitable appeals in this case. but i do think that her order has some sense to it. i think that for people who see him violating her orders they wonder why she doesn't just lock him up. but detention is reserved for people who are either a risk of flight or a danger to the community, and he really hasn't demonstrated that. what he's demonstrated instead is his inability or refusal to comply with her orders. now, sometimes a refusal to comply with an order is seen as an indication that we can't count on you to show up when you're asked to show up for trial either if you can't follow other orders of the court. but i think what she tried to do today was to impose a remedy that directly addresses the harm. and that is the inability to seat an impartial jury. if he is out there telling the world that this is all a witch hunt, that he's innocent, then stevens lived long enough to watch his cubs win their goto roke his on the suhe's t pog onngat hife is avoicircus-like sphe hat whenhe t tima comes aroun can beed othe factand and t on this exal t buger e sedeteined to tis cin tedia >>b, t youalwaor cleaexplng taw to we aciatn the thoadctonick wus on co un,american sto couever be plic just tod whe comck last thie tonit, a mened eer in troad, red premurt ice paul ens diedancause words er s he w thoroughly nt m thorly dt prident.whil wask niw stev accishmentsn th all cret ff have appointimhe whe trd longe-r stevs warn iicagsty.
1:53 am
he wmmediate reczed illiant kid immeely wen to bece g ma ailed througe unsityofcago, scoh gpa in t his of northwtern s as a code br returng as nd s ina a coranaeran with a bron sta was confirmthe u. na 98-0 backn id consvative cous a it will be difficult to seat an impartial jury. and so she has tried to take away his megaphone by telling n a lil by mt by time him he can't post on social media. and so she has tried to take away his megaphone by telling him he can't post on social media. what she can't do is restrict his wife and family members from posting on social media. and so now they appear to be doing that. >> that isn't going to help roger stone's argument, however. and it could further enrage a federal judge. never a good thing. >> no. but i do think judges are careful not to let their rage or their anger get the best of their decision-making. i'm sure she's not happy about it, but i don't think she's going to revoke his bond on the basis of things that his wife is posting online.
1:54 am
i think her goal is to just avoid a circus-like atmosphere so that when the trial ultimately comes around it can be based on the facts and the law that is seen in the court and not on things external to the court. but roger stone seems determined to try his case in the media. >> barb, thank you as always for clearly explaining the law to all the rest of us in the audience. we appreciate it. barbara mcquade back with us on the broadcast tonight. coming un, an american story that could never be duplicated as we remember a man who greatly impacted the life we all lived just today when we come back. last thing before we go tonight, as we mentioned earlier in the broadcast, retired supreme court justice john paul stevens has died.
1:55 am
1:56 am
1:57 am
and because words matter so greatly these days, this should be said at the outset and it should be clear. he was a thoroughly decent man who was appointed by a thoroughly decent president. while it was dick nixon who first made stevens a federal judge, all the credit for all of stevens' accomplishments on the court goes to president gerald r. ford, who was so proud to
1:58 am
have appointed him. he was the third longest-serving justice in our nation's history. stevens was born in chicago just after world war i. he was immediately recognized as a brilliant kid and immediately went on to become a brilliant young man. he sailed through the university of chicago, scored the highest gpa in the history of northwestern law school. along the way he found time to go off and serve in world war ii as a code breaker, returning as a decorated navy veteran with a
1:59 am
bronze star. he was confirmed by the u.s. senate 98-0 back when they did that kind of thing. he came onto the court as a conservative and was considered a liberal by most people by the time of his retirement. pro abortion rights, pro affirmative action, pro gay rights, anti-death penalty. he insisted he never changed but the court changed around him. he served on that court from 1975 to 2010. considered a prolific dissenter powered by a blazing intellect. he thought bush versus gore and citizens united were the court's biggest mistakes of the modern era. he was a-long cubs fan proud of his role in baseball history for having attended the 1932 world series game where babe ruth so famously called out his home run shot. stevens lived long enough to watch his cubs win their first world series of his lifetime back in 2016. justice stevens just wrote his autobiography. told his story and then promptly left the scene. the very telling last line in the "new york times" book review is this -- "the chances are slim, very slim, that we'll see
2:00 am
another republican appointee like him any time soon." john paul stevens of chicago, illinois was 99 years old. and that is our broadcast on this tuesday night. thank you so much for being here with us. good night from our nbc news headquarters here in new york. ♪ after backlash over a series of tweets widely criticized as racist, house lawmakers vote to formally condemn president trump's remarks. plus while defending president trump, white house counselor kellyanne conway asks a reporter about an exchange. and remembering john paul stevens. he sat on the bench for nearly 35 years and has passed away at the age of 99. good morning, everybody. it is wednesday, july 17th. i'


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on