tv All In With Chris Hayes MSNBC April 14, 2017 12:00am-1:01am PDT
thursday night. thank you so much for being here with us. and good night from new york. tonight on "all in." >> we have given them total authorization. >> america just used the largest bomb yet in afghanistan, but who gave the order? trump's cabinet of generals and the expanding military footprint. >> i would bomb the [ bleep ] out of them. then the fight for health care. republicans hear from their voters. >> i want this repeal crap to stop. >> as the president threatens to sabotage obamacare. plus, leaked plans for the trump deportation force. >> we have to do it. >> and about that cake. >> we had the most beautiful piece of chocolate cake that you've ever seen. >> what mar-a-lago doesn't want you to know about its kitchen. >> president xi was enjoying it. >> when "all in" starts right
now. good evening from new york. i'm joy reed in for chris hayes. today the u.s. dropped the largest non-nuclear bomb it has ever used in combat, the gbu-43b massive ordnance air blast or moab, informally known as the mother of all bombs, onto an islamic state tunnel complex in eastern afghanistan near the border with pakistan. now, this is the file footage of the 22,000-pound moab being tested in florida back in 2003. until today, it had never actually been used against an enemy. despite that, this afternoon donald trump appeared to indicate he was not involved in the decision to deploy the bomb. and even at this hour, it's not clear whether he knew about the strike before it took place. >> we are so proud of our military, and it was another successful event. >> did you authorize it, sir?
>> everybody knows exactly what happened, so -- and what i do, is i authorize my military. we have the greatest military in the world, and they've done a job as usual. so we have given them total authorization, and that's what they're doing. >> at the white house briefing today, press secretary sean spicer refused to say whether the president authorized the strike and ignored questions over whether trump had known about it. >> i hate to cut this short, but we literally have ten minutes before the president is going to speak. >> did the president not know about the moab strike? >> sean, can we get any clarity on this? >> during the campaign, then-candidate trump said he had a, quote, secret plan to totally obliterate isis, and he maintained that america's generals, quote, don't know much because they're not winning. >> i know more about isis than the generals do, believe me. isis is making a tremendous amount of money because they have certain oil caps, right? they have certain areas of oil
that they took away. they have some in syria, some in iraq. i would bomb the [ bleep ] out of them. [ applause ] >> despite promising to set those generals straight once in office, as president, trump has shifted more authority over military operations to the pentagon. and he installed generals in multiple top cabinet positions including defense secretary james mattis, who needed a waiver to take the job since the law mandates civilian control of the military. trump isn't just deferring to the generals. the record so far suggests that the commander in chief is essentially outsourcing his military policy to them while spending nearly every weekend at mar-a-lago, including this one. trump flew down to his private club this afternoon, and it sounds like he's planning to relax on his own. bloomberg reports that no senior trump staff were on air force one, and none are meeting him in florida this easter weekend. despite being something of an app sentee landlord lately, trump's use of the military in his first 84 days has been aggressive.
the first raid was in yemen in january leading to the death of a navy s.e.a.l. and an 8-year-old american girl. one official described the operation this way, saying, quote, almost everything went wrong. trump, for his part, blamed the generals. >> they came to see me. they explained what they wanted to do -- the generals, who are very respected. my generals are the most respected that we've had in many decades, i believe. and they lost ryan. >> despite what trump cast as the generals' failure, he continued to empower them. last month, the trump administration moved ahead with plans to make it easier for the cia and the military to target suspected terrorists with drone strikes, even if it means tolerating more civilian casualties. there has, in fact, been a surge in reported civilian casualties in the u.s. air campaign against the so-called islamic state. and under trump, a massive increase in u.s. drone strikes, more broadly, almost one every two days according to the council on u.s. foreign
relations. today, tragically, marked the third time this month a u.s.-led air strike may have killed civilians or even our allies, with 18 syrian fighters alied with the u.s. killed in a coalition air strike in syria. the pentagon blamed partner forces. that news comes on the heels of last week's air strike in syria and now today the decision to launch the mother of all bombs. and we are just 84 days into the trump administration. i'm joined by steve schmidt larry corb. larry, i'm going to go to you first because there is a very strange donald trump relationship to the military. he claed durinthe mpaign that you knew more about the generals, that he was smarter about isis, now he's in office he's outsourced everything to them. what do you make of that contact. >> president trump is going to have it both ways. he's outsourcing to them and if something goes wrong, he will
blame them. and he's also making a very tragic mistake as you pointed out here with the number of civilian casualties. that's why you need a civilian to oversee what the military wants. i don't blame the military. i remember when i used to fly for the navy, you'd want to, you know, go after the enemy. you've got to have somebody who looks at the civilian casualties. for him to say he did not know about dropping this so-called mother of all bombs, basically if i can paraphrase general mcmaster's book, that's a dereliction of duty. the first time you drop that bomb, the president's got to be involved. >> steve, i'm not sure which would be worse, if he didn't know about it at all and just outsourced and let them do it, or if he knew about it and won't tell us. there's always this weird way he talks about the military, when he talked about how this was planned. this is him talking about "my military." >> what i do is i authority my military. we have the greatest military in
the world, and they've done a job as usual. so we have given them total authorization, and that's what they're doing. >> this is weird paternalistic attitude toward the military. it's his military. >> no. it's our military, america's. >> exactly. >> do you think that the voters -- you know, people who selected trump for president, is this what they wanted, a president who would essentially take the gloves off but say to the military, do whatever you want. let me know. i'll be at mar-a-lago. >> i think we're looking at a couple issues and we shouldn't conflate them. i think first the strike in syria re-established a very important red line, that the use of chemical weapons by any country will provoke a military strike by the united states. i think it was targeted. it was proportional. it was appropriate. i think in the campaign, he was very clear that he was going to step up militarily the pressure against isis, and isis is a deadly foe, dangerous. there's no room for negotiation
here. they need to be destroyed, and i think you see an increasing tempo of strikes in order to do that. >> it's interesting you mentioned a red line because it seems that the administration was trying to establish two red lines at once. we have the one to steve's point, larry, against isis. but then you have this second one against north korea, which we know is going to apparently do some sort of demonstration against themselves. this is leon panetta on "hardball," talking about the seeming other kind of threat that donald trump is sort of vaguely making that if china can't handle north korea, we would somehow do it. this is leon panetta earlier tonight. >> the fact is we're dealing with a nuclear-powered nation. if we were to try to attack them, they would virtually wipe out seoul and 20 million people who live in seoul. and if it became a nuclear war, which is likely, millions of lives would be lost. and that's the reason we haven't pulled the trigger.
the fact is we've used both containment and deterrence as a principal policy here. i think frankly in the end, that's what we're left with whether we like it or not. and frankly it was containment and deterrence that ultimately resulted in the soviet union self-destructing. >> larry, you worked in the reagan administration. that was reagan's doctrine, containment. can donald trump successfully maintain this hyperaggressive posture against north korea and this red line against isis at the same time? >> you hope so because they are totally different. north korea as secretary panetta said, they have artillery 20 to 30 miles from seoul, and they could literally, you know, with these thousands of artillery strikes wipe out 20 million people. that's without even using their nuclear weapons, which they have. and if we attack them, we wouldn't get all of the nuclear weapons. so i mean to me, i hope that he differentiates between the two, but i also hope that when we do
these significant things like dropping this mother of all bombs, that he gets involved. general mattis is a great person, but you've got all these military people here. they do not have the civilian perspective that our founders established by having civilian control of the military. so it really behooves him, of all presidents, to get more involved. his national security adviser is also a military person. >> yep. >> so really he needs to get some civilians in there. that's got to be him. >> and he's surrounded himself with all of these generals. donald trump seems to get an emotional charge out of being connected to the military. he didn't serve himself obviously during vietnam. he got deferments. but i mean is there a concern? i'll just put it that way, that some of what trump is doing is trying to get the approval that he gets from using the military, the sort of love from the media he gets, the sort of respite from the ridicule and attacks on his other aspects of his agenda by using the military sort of as a way to boost himself?
>> so i think we saw during the campaign is that donald trump has this remarkable intuition, this native intelligence almost on how to please the crowd, how to get the applause. i think it's innate to who he is as a marketer, as a communicator. we live in an era where trust in public institutions in this country has completely collapsed across the board. i think it's one of the defining crises in america of our time with one exception, and that's the united states military, which has risen in the eyes of the american people. and i think from my perspective, you look at someone who has the radical world view of a steve bannon, the antagonism to the u.s.-led liberal, global order that presidents from truman through obama, whether they were republicans or democrats all bought ininto. i think people like mcmaster, mattis, extremely well read, prepared.
as douglas macarthur pointed out in his farewell address, it's the soldier who hates war more than others because he's seen the terrible cost of it. i'm reassured by the presence of these mainstream figures around donald trump. mcmaster, mattis, and donald trump is right. the united states military is one of the most remarkable institutions in the world. it's hyper-competent. it's efficient, and i think that he likes the glow being associated with it that it gives him. >> yeah. i think the concern that a lot of people have, though, of course is that we have a civilian-led government, and donald trump has put together almost an aware of military leaders and has essentially said they're running things. and you should be reassured by them, not by the president of the united states. i think that's disturbing to a lot of people. thank you both. >> thank you. coming up, having rekindled
over the last 84 days, we've watched donald trump go through three different stages of repealing and replacing obamacare. stage one, urgency. stage two, indifference. and, three, threats. the president told "the wall street journal" he may try and force democrats to the negotiating table by threatening to withhold government payments to insure easy. these payments fund the subsidies that make coverage more affordable. without them, the market would likely collapse. the president told the journal, quite, obamacare is dead next month if it doesn't get that money. i haven't made my viewpoint clear yet. i don't want people to get hurt. what i think should happen and what will happen is the democrats will start calling me and negotiating. democrats are countering, however, with some threats of their own.
accords to "the washington post," democratic leaders determined to use their leverage in the upcoming fight to force the trump administration to make the payments. the president's handling of the first health care bill has been the only thing so far to have a real impact on his approval rating and not in a good way. now he's going back for more and he's threatening to drag the rest of his party down with him. with congress on recess, town halls are back in full swing. just like last time, health care is at the top of the agenda. >> i talked to health insurance companies, which, by the way, we only have one in the state that will write these policies. one. if you live in eastern tennessee, you don't have anybody. most states right now have one. >> i'm a registered republican in your house district. i'm sorry to say i was shocked that you declared your intention to vote for the american health care reform act, the so-called
trumcare bill and to replace the affordable care act or obama care. that's not the way we do things here in colorado. >> it's sad to see these premium increases that are going up. we're living rite now under obamacare. it's the law of the land. it's the law of the land, and you can thank obamacare -- you can ank obamacare for ese huge -- [ audience shouting ] that's why we need to repeal and replace obamacare. >> -- sit down with the democrats and fix the affordable care act. [ cheers and applause ] i want this repeal crap to stop. [ cheers and applause ]
>> i'm joined now by senator brian schatz, democrat from hawaii. senator, you know it's been interesting. you look at the town halls and you see that people are showing up clearly angry and terrified frankly that they're going to lose their health care. on the other hand, you have people like congressman dave bratt. i believe he's from washington state, who is positively giddy about the idea of repealing the affordable care act, saying it's a conservative principle. 50 laboratories, 50 experiments going on simultaneously. you can see what works and what doesn't work. he's talking about ending community rating, ending the requirement that states that insurance companies have to not charge older people more than they charge younger people, ending those requirements in the packages. i don't understand what republicans think people want, but do you detect any desire out there to go back to that old system? >> well, i think that they spent so much time using obamacare as a foil, that they forgot to formulate a policy. so here they are in charge of
both chambers, in charge of the executive branch, and it all fell apart really quickly. actually without our intervention as democrats. we didn't have the votes to intervene. they didn't approach us to intervene, and yet it all collapsed within because they were lying for the last seven years. the truth is that what donal trump and many other republicans said for many, many election cycles is you could get rid of the bad stuff and keep all the good stuff. but the truth is that to the extent that the bad stuff is revenue, you need that revenue for taking care of people with pre-existing conditions, for community rating, for people being able to stay on their parents' plans until they're 26 years old. so all of the things -- all of the protections in the affordable care act had to be arranged by virtue of revenue and by virtue of regulations. and now that they don't have president obama as a foil, this thing fell apart, and it fell apart quickly. so you still have 20 or 30 members of the house who are so ideological that they're willing to inflict pain on their
constituents, but the rest of them are just running scared, trying how to figure out how to fulfill a campaign promise that nobody wants them to fulfill anymore. >> you know, you've had now senator ron widen come out and say we're not going to negotiate with hostage takers. that was the quote in "the washington post." ron wyden saying not going to negotiate with trump if he's trying to take hostages. but behind the scenes, would democrats cut a deal with the white house if trump dropped repeal and said, okay, let's do an obamacare fix instead and call that trumpcare? you think democrats would go for that? >> it's a good question. i think there's two things. first of all, to the extent that donald trump is threatening to withhold money from insurance companies which will harm individuals across the country, which will make hospitals and hospital systems fall apart, if his threat is essentially, i'm going to inflict pain on people and destroy the american health care system, or i'll do it with you, we're not going to negotiate under any
circumstances like that. now, what we have said all along is if they officially drop their proposals to destroy the affordable care act and we talk about iterating legislation and working on a bipartisan basis, everybody knows aca doesn't work perfectly. but everybody also knows that for any major social legislation, that you iterate it over years, whether it's the social security act, the medicare act, whatever it may be, the clean air, the clean water act. you have updates to that law. this is one of the very few major social changes that had no updates into the statute, which is why it's a little clunky. if they want to get back to legislating in good faith, we are more than open to that. but they have to drop repeal from their vocabulary. >> and how far are democrats willing to go? if donald trump withdraws from -- this was essentially a lawsuit that the house republicans brought, saying that the subsidies to these insurance companies were unconstitutional. at the moment, it's on appeal.
trump could just say, we're not going to fight it anymore. we're just going to stop paying. how far would democrats go? would they allow those subsidies to go away in order to stand to this position of not participating in repeal? >> look, this is donald trump's decision. i think he's threatening the american people. i think he's also threatening the legislative branch. one thing that he hasn't figured out is that legislators don't like to be bullied. you know, he's not in real estate anymore. he's sort of trying to treat members of the united states senate, who are former governors and admirals and astronauts and, you know, tv stars, and people with substantial egos and substantial support in their home states. they cannot be bullied. they will not be bullied, and this idea that you can sort of treat members of congress, a co-equal branch of government, as though we're sort of a subcontractor in a real estate deal that he wants to stiff, it's one of the reasons that he's been such a failure so far as a president, is he doesn't understand that we have three co-equal branches of government and that the legislature -- the legislative branch is not going
to be shoved around. so especially on this, we're not going to allow him to hold the american people, the american health care system hostage and negotiate under those terms. now, if he wants to improve the affordable care act, we're all in. >> yep. it is a co-equal branch of government. i think donald trump might be learning some civics 101 in his 84 days as president. thank you very much. appreciate it. >> thank you. >> let's bring in jonathan cohn who covers health care for "the huffington post." jonathan, i think that last point is very important. you have senators who have their own egos. they have their own power bases. it's not as if they're going to respond to bullying. but more than that, they couldn't get blamed according to the new polling if health care goes awry. it's not democrats who would take the blame. it would be donald trump and republicans. kaiser health did a poll. 61% say the president and republicans in congress are now in control of the government. they're responsible for any problems with it moving forward. i don't understand the politics of threatening to take away subsidies for millions and
millions of people when they would get blamed for the, you know, pain that results. do you understand the politics on the republican side? >> no. this is one of the most baffling political moves i have seen in a long time. i mean you said -- you cited that kaiser poll. there have been other polls. it is very clear that, you know, if the health insurance system suddenly unravels for millions of people, they're going to blame the people in charge. they're going to blame the trump administration. now, if you listen to trump, who has this weird tick where he likes to tell you what his maneuvers are, like in realtime. like here's what i'm trying to do. so his theory is basically, look, i'm going to threaten to withhold this money and cause all these problems for millions of people, and democrats will be so upset about that. you know, chuck schumer is going to be on the phone with me saying, please, president trump, let's make a deal. that makes no sense because the alternative that trump is offering is basically to take insurance away from even more people. so, you know, he's basically saying, look, if you don't agree to take -- i'm going to take
away insurance from several million people unless you agree to work with me on taking insurance away from even more people. it just doesn't -- i'm honestly baffled why he thinks this is going to work. >> and do you think that the fact that it's democrats that he's threatening and not his own party is sort of a tacit admission that he can't get a bill through his own party, and so he's essentially admitting that he needs nancy pelosi and chuck schumer to put together the whip count for him? >> yeah. i mean there's no question at this point. there's a lot of -- we keep hearing republicans were this close to a repeal bill. they have some really fundamental disagreements within the republican party about what to do. if you try to imagine sort of a way forward on health care to make some changes in the law, it's pretty obvious that the governing majority here is some combination of republicans and democrats. and senator schatz, as he said, democrats would be more than happy to work on a set of bipartisan fixes, you know,
modest changes to the law that would make a real difference for people. and, you know, there would be give and take. republicans would get some things they wanted. democrats would get some things they wanted. but the sort of pre-condition for that, the ticket into that conversation is republicans saying, all right. we don't have the votes to repeal the law, so we're going to work with you democrats on making some changes. you know, we'll give and take. you do some things we want. we'll do some things you want, and we'll move forward. it's so easy to imagine what this deal looks like. but, you know, first the republicans -- some of them, trump, you know, some leaders will have to say, all right. we can't do repeal. let's work on actually, you know, improving this law, fixing its weak spots, which are very real. there's a lot of people who are unhappy. there are a lot of problems with this law. but these are not hard problems to fix if republicans would be willing to work with democrats. >> very quick prediction. the freedom caucus is predicting they will get something passed through the house of representatives. do you think that will happen? >> you know, i have no idea. i don't see how they get that coalition right now.
but, you know, who the heck knows? you never know in congress. >> yeah, absolutely. thank you very much. appreciate it. coming up, donald trump's campaign promise of a nationwide deportation force. new reports say the administration is so eager to get started, they're looking at cutting corners to get there. that story just ahead. ♪ choose your civilization. china. ♪ america. ♪ korea. ♪ japan. ♪ europe. ♪ world war evony. evony: the king's return. download now.
post," who interviewed 21 of trump's aides, confident aunts and allies, the president's comments were described as a dressing down and a warning shot. the one bannon friend reflecting on them wednesday likened bannon to a terminally ill family member who had been moved into hospice care. exactly how this turf war in the white house will affect the course of the trump presidency is ahead. looking sharp len. who's the lucky lady? i'm going to the bank, to discuss a mortgage. ugh, see, you need a loan, you put on a suit, you go crawling to the bank. this is how i dress to get a mortgage. i just go to lendingtree. i calculate how much home i can afford. i get multiple offers to compare side by side. and the best part is... the banks come crawling to me. everything you need to get a better mortgage. clothing optional. lendingtree, when banks compete, you win. okay!
authorize those that continue to seek improper and illegal entry into this country, be forewarned. this is a new era. this is the trump era. the lawlessness, the abdication of duty to enforce our laws, and the catch-and-release policies of the past are over. >> about 24 hours after attorney general jefferson sessions announced the dawning of the trump era on the u.s.-mexico borer in arizona came this headline. trump administration moving quickly to build up nationwide deportation force. "the washington post" published an internal memo from the department of homeland security detailing exactly what the trump era may look like. according to the post, dhs has already found 33,000 more detention beds to house undocumented immigrants and is considering ways to speed up the hiring of hundreds of new customs and border patrol officers, including ending polygraph and physical fitness
tests in some cases. which directly contradicts homeland security secretary's john kelly quote that we will not lower stads and we will not lower training. however, he also said that there would be, quote, no mass deportations. but the new memo and the president's own campaign promise suggest otherwise. >> are you going to have a massive deportation force? >> you're going to have a deportation force, and you're going to do it humanely. they're going back where they came. if they came from a certain country, they're going to be brought back to that country. that's the way it's supposed to be. >> joining me now is david nakamura, author of that washington post article on the deportation force. david, beforwe get to the specifics of the deportation force, i want to reaone excerpt from the jeff sessions speech that actually didn't make it into his spoken remarks, but it was written into his remarks. he deviated from it. but he also planned to say that
criminal organizations that turn cities and suburbs into war zones, that rape and kill innocent citizens, it is here on this sliver of sand where we will first take our stand against this filth, against this filth. do we know who wrote this speech? >> we don't know who wrote the speech, but it's interesting that it was left out and yet it was included in the prepared marks delivered to reporters and it got a lot of attention on social media even though he didn't say it. jeff sessions as a senator in alabama was one of the hardest-line senators on immigration that there was in the senate, and he helped really take down president obama's effort at comprehensive immigration reform even though the senate approved that in 2013, in the house and through his pressure and working with conservative house members and ultimately the republican house dropped out. but now he's in a position of power. you see the justice department now becoming more activist on immigration enforcement in a sharp departure from the obama administration, which the justice department sued arizona over their hard-line laws on immigration back in 2011.
and now you see this memo that i reported on yesterday from dhs talking about behind the scenes planning to try to fulfill donald trump's executive orders. >> yeah, and going back to 2014, sessions was called amnesty's worst enemy, "the new york times" magazine talked about the fact he essentially is kind of the last gasp of bannonism. he, bannon and miller, for them, immigration is a galvanizing issue at the center of their parent vision for reshaping the united states. according to what you were able to find in that memo, how is he playing that out as attorney general? what is the plan? >> there's two different things. the memo i reported on is from the department of home lewandowsky security. that's general john kelly. this was focused on border patrol. you sort of laid out some of the details. also in there was something you didn't mention, which was that dhs would work with local police departments, deputizing them in many cases and giving them immigration enforcement authority, which has traditionally been the reserve of the federal government.
this alarms advocates because they believe local police would not have as much oversight or training. these are the big issues. separately, jeff sessions is trying to make his department have more prosecutions of undocumented immigrants over crimes they commit, which would then put them into the pool of -- so you have the administration trying to work in concert together to fulfill the president's goals. you mentioned if something happened to steve bannon in the white house, who has been sort of on the rocks lately politically, that, you know, sessions would be the last gasp. but sessions is credited as the architect for a lot of this and his action as pre-date as far back as steve bannon's world view. >> they're pred cating this a lot of this on attempting to characterize immigrants a violent criminals. how do they plan to whip up -- the criminality doesn't exist in the real world.
are they looking to charge people with felonies or higher level crimes? >> the president talked on the campaign about going after immigrants first of all who have a criminal history. you know, and those who already have prior outstanding deportation orders. some of those go back a long time. some of them are for more minor offenses, even traffic offenses. those could be in a pool considered people who have violated legal statutes in the country, and they'd be eligible for removal. but session koz attempt to prosecute many more immigrants. right now the justice department focuses on sort of drug cartels and those who commit more violent crimes, prosecuting them and moving toward removals from dhs. he could also prosecute for misrepresenting themselves. a lot of people drive wiout a driver's license to try to get to jobs in the country. look, the supporters of donald trump might say that's fair game. these people are in the country illegally to begin with and they're committing other violations.
what really is the bottom line here is that you see, as i mentioned, different agencies moving to sort of reinvent how they do business on immigration enforcement and trying to, you know, sort of build the apparatus to deport more people. a lot of this also does depend on funding and right now congress is split on this. it does not seem likely it would be easy for them to get a lot of this funding. >> and it just so happens there's a nice private prison industry that is eager to provide those tens of thousands of spots. >> yes, people are lining up for the contracts if those were to happen. >> thank you very much for joining us. still to come, learning on the job when you're the president of the united states. we'll talk about donald trump's constantly shifting policy points ahead. plus a troubling report card for mar-a-lago in tonight's thing 1, thing 2 starting just after this break. hey allergy muddlers
his companies and his properties every chance he gets from trump hotels to trump states to trump government courses. most leently, trump took the opportunity to tout the dessert options offered at his $200,000 membership mar-a-lago club in palm beach, florida. as he described what he was doing at the very moment he received confirmation of the missile launch on syria last week. >> i was sitting at the table. we had finished dinner. we're now having dessert, and we had the most beautiful piece of chocolate cake that you've ever seen. and president xi was enjoying it. >> look at that chocolate cake. it does look delicious. it even has his name on it. but it could be pretty risky ordering a slice if you should ever have the chance and the cash to visit mar-a-lago yourself. why? well, that's thing 2 in 60 seconds.
it even comes with ice cream, two sauces, and a trump logo right on the top. but we've learned some information about the kitchen where it's made that may turn your stomach. according to "the miami herald," florida restaurant inspectors found 13 health code violations at mar-a-lago's kitchen in january. three of which were, quote, high-priority, meaning they could allow the presence of illness-causing bacteria on plates served in the dining room. a spokesperson for mar-a-lago responded to the report saying, quote, we take food safety very seriously, and all the minor adjustments were made immediately. additionally, the report by the health inspector was updated the very same day to reflect that the mar-a-lago club was in full compliance. the communications director for the florida department of business and professional regulations also released a statement, saying, quote, these infraxzs were part of a routine inspection and were not complaint-based. the infraxzs were corrected on side and the establishment was immediately brought into compliance. see, that's good news. but maybe now we know why trump always orders his steak well done.
wheni broke almost everyent bone in both my legs. when i came home from the hospital i needed to be able to recover. tempur-pedic allowed me to do just that. because i don't have the average body type anymore i feel like my tempur-pedic really conforms to my body shape. power is not giving up, it's choosing to thrive. tempur-pedic sleep is power. find your exclusive retailer at tempurpedic.com
after listening for ten minutes, i realized it's not that easy. he literally had to become a world leader to be forced to sit with another world leader in order to learn a thing. and that man is president. so, yes, i'm glad that he will occasionally bend to reality, but he's in charge of the missiles. >> former clinton senior adviser jess macintosh last night on the remarkable admission by donald trump on the subject of north korea. according to "the wall street journal," mr. trump said he told his chinese counterpart he believed beijing could easily take care of the north korea threat. mr. xi then explained the history of china and korea. mr. trump said after listening for ten minutes, i realid it's not so easy, mr. trump recounted. i felt pretty strongly they had tremendous power over north korea, he said, but it's not what you would think. that was just one of the trump evolutions or full flip-flops that we learned about in the
past 24 hours. for instance, after months and months of railing against china and its currency manipulation, the president in that same "wall street journal" interview said that his administration won't label china a currency manipulator in a report due this week. and after a presidential campaign in which he said nato, obsolete, the president at a joint news conference with the nato secretary general said, quote, it is no longer obsolete. but while some of those 180s toward a rational conclusion may be heartening to some, a leader who flips and flops in just ten minutes might just as easily flop back, and his decisions may be at the whim of the last person who got in his ear. right now, that struggle is playing out in the white house between breitbart's steve bannon and the president's family, son-in-law jared kushner and daughter ivanka trump. that is next.
today senate majority leader mitch mcconnell had this to say about president trump. some things he said simple tartan way things ought to be. he's learning the job. he was very critical of nato during the campaign, even suggested nato was obsolete. they said other day that that's no longer how i feel. joining me is ben how. thank you both. ben, american people be disturbed that donald trump appears to be learning to be president? >> i think in some ways it can be good, but it really depends who is surrounding him and who's giving him advice.
you were talking a minute ago. left foot is going to be depending on the last thing that was said to him. as long as bannon is there, there's a lot of reasons to be concerned. for republicans and conservatives and their agenda, i don't think jared and ivanka who i think aren't taking a lot of control, i don't know that's great for their agenda, but i think it might be better for the american people. as long as it's moving towards bannon getting out, then, yeah, it can be a good thing, at least better than being stuck with just bannon. >> shannon, do you have in your report whether or not bannon is skating on thin ice and on his way out? there is all of that mercier money and we know rebecca mercier who give money towards the campaign wants bannon to stay. what's the status of steve bannon. >> when i was with you guys a week ago, i said i really didn't know and i could get 12 different answers. thiseek, espially in t
later half of this week, the wagons are really circling. there's an increasing choir of people saying not necessarily that he'll go but he'll be margin lies and had losing his proximity to the president. >> finally you're starting to see fraying among the trump base who have been loyal no matter what happens but some supporters are upset of bannon being margin liesed. one guy said donald trump dropped an emotional anchor. we expect him to keep his word right now. meaning there's a large chunk of his base that wants the bannon agenda specifically. >> well, yes. but i do think in some ways for trump he's been concerned for a long time making sure the base is with him. there was sort of a band-aid ripping moment with syria where his most ardent supporters were not happy he did this.
i know bannon wasn't happy he was doing this. the moment his base started to turn, you've seen how trump s. once somebody turns on him, he's willing to throw them under the bus. and i think he's willing to throw the base under the bus because they already dislike him anyway. >> he's known bannon since 2011. there's documented evidence of him being on bannon's radio show. this sort of weird does she think -- disowning. what might a desperate donald trump do if you would venture to hazard a guess to get approval which is what he wants? >> well, i think he's going to shift focus to the economy where he feels he is stronger, where he feels he can take stock market to use as a gage of his success there.
i think that's a place he feels comfortable. increasingly i tnk while maybe he didn't get a bump in the poll numbers, he did feel like he got positive feedback from a lot of members in congress and critics about his actions from sea. i wouldn't be surprised to see him taking more of a hawkish approach on foreign policy even if that does alienate some people because there was a lot of positive feedback. >> including feedback from the media which he doesn't want to admit he craves. do base trump voters -- let's talk about the working class. do they care whether he opens the plants that are shipping jobs to mexico? >> i think definitely in terms of blue-collar voters, they're going to care about the same things when obama and bush was p. they're hoping that trump was going to deliver on those promises.
whether it's the wall, his positions on how he deals with foreign policy, and he's not coming through on left foot. i think the more they doesn't come through, the louder those voices, are going to continue to be louder and louder in their option to what he's doing which is going to make his life harder. he loves popularity. it's going to be difficult for him. >> we know donald trump loves to hear the applause, but it's clear he wants to applause of elites, not just that base that showed up at his rallies. can he make the rally calm down by dmorgt people which is a horrific way to get your numbers up. >> i guess i would just kind of say we're really far away from 2020 and a lot can happen then. right now this administration for the most part controls the agenda.
wait until something happens outside of their control, north korea, russia, china, a recession, a natural disaster. there's going to be a lot that's going to happen in these four years. we're 80 something days in, but i do feel there's a lot of shifting that can happen in american mind sets in this country in the national agenda that we're going to be dealing with. >> quick last word, ben. >> there's so many ways for him to fail over the next four years as far as i'm concerned. i don't think there's any question he's going to find ways to disappoint me, personally. >> we're going to get tired of the failing. i think that's what you're trying to say. thank you both. that is all in for this evening. the rachel maddow show starts now. good evening, joy. happy thursdays. >> have a great show and let's pray for piece. >> indeed, as always. even when it's not holy thursday.
thank you, my friend. thanks to you at home for joining us this hour. there is a lot going on tonight. we have a story out of arkansas that you may think you have heard about but you really haven't. it'll curl your hair. we have the attorney general of the united states making news for all the wrong reasons, making news that he is not intending to make. we have knows stories and more coming up tonight. we're going to start with british spy stuff. if you are into british spy stuff, even spy novels and bbc cereals and that kind of stuff, you will know there is a convenient knew monic device for us americans about british spy stuff, a convenient device to help us remember what the different british spy agencies are. they have one domestic intelligence agency that's mi 5. that's the rough equivalent of fbi.
IN COLLECTIONSMSNBC West Television Archive Television Archive News Search Service The Chin Grimes TV News Archive
Uploaded by TV Archive on