tv The 11th Hour With Brian Williams MSNBC January 31, 2018 11:00pm-12:00am PST
"the 11th hour with brian williams" starts now. a breaking story from "the new york times" tonight. robert mueller now digging into the cover story about that trump tower meeting and the role white house aide hope hicks might have played. also washington counting down to the release of that controversial memo even after the fbi warns of grave concerns about its content. plus donald trump believes the memo will show the fbi and doj are conspiring against him. the reporter on the story here tonight with details. and reports the president asked rod rosenstein, the man overseeing the mueller investigation, if he was on the trump team. "the 11th hour" begins now. good evening from our nbc news headquarters in new york. this was day 377 of the trump administration, and we have breaking news on the russia case tonight. we learned today robert mueller
plans to speak to the former spokesman for the trump legal team, mark corallo, who resigned earlier this summer. the significance is big given this story breaking in the "new york times" just tonight which reports mueller plans to ask corallo about the statement president trump and his advisers drafted, turns out, as a cover story to explain the trump tower meeting that don junior accepted with several russian nationals. the "times" says "mr. corallo is planning to tell mr. mueller about a previously undisclosed conference call with mr. trump and hope hicks, white house communications director, according to the three people cited earlier in the article. mr. coralla planned to tell investigators
ms. hicks said during the call that e-mails written by donald trump jr. before the trump tower meeting in which the younger mr. trump said he was eager to receive political dirt about mrs. clinton from the russians "will never get out."
that left political correspondent that left mr. corallo concerns that ms. hicks could be contemplating obstructing justice. hope hicks' attorney notably denies she ever said this. you remember the cover story about that meeting was that it was mostly about russian adoptions. now we turn to the other big news developing tonight. senior administration officials are telling nbc news that it is likely that highly controversial secret memo about the russia inquiry which has pitted the white house against the fbi will indeed be released tomorrow. that memo is the work of house republicans and it alleges anti-trump bias at the fbi and the department of justice and that
investigators improperly obtained warrants to surveil a member of the trump presidential campaign. the house intelligence committee, led by republican california congressman devin nunes, voted monday to release that memo to the public. the memo has been at the white
house, which has final say on its release. last night, after delivering his state of the union address, the president on the way out was overheard all but assuring a house member it would be done. >> release the memo? >> oh, yeah, don't worry. 100%. >> the fbi has argued against the memo's release and made an unprecedented move with this statement. quote, the fbi was provided a limited opportunity to review this memo the day before the committee voted to release it. we have grave concerns about material omissions of fact that fundamentally impact the memo's accuracy." even though the bureau director, christopher wray's name is not on that statement, it will still be seen as a direct challenge to president trump and the white house. it's not the first time this week that wray has weighed in on the memo. sources tell nbc news that monday, wray and deputy attorney general rod rosenstein went to the white house and asked the
chief of staff, john kelly, not to make that memo public. late this afternoon, devin nunes released his own response to the fbi's objections, having stonewalled congress' demands for information for nearly a year, it is no surprise to see the fbi and doj issue spurious objections to allowing the american people to see information related to surveillance abuses at these agencies. regardless, it's clear the top officials used unverified information in a court document to fuel a counterintelligence investigation during an american political campaign. close quote. the top democrat on that committee, house intel, adam schiff of california, has new complaints on this memo tonight. we'll get to those in just a moment. and there is also reporting from "the new york times" that points to the latest effort by president trump to put pressure on an official involved in the russia investigation.
this time, it's that name again, rod rosenstein, deputy attorney general. the paper says, quote, mr. rosenstein was also askedpy the president last month whether he was, quote, on my team, according to an official briefed on the exchange. you may remember donald trump told former fbi director james comey, i need loyalty, i expect loyalty. that was according to comey's sworn testimony. "washington post" reported during their first face-to-face meeting in the oval office last may, the president asked the fbi deputy director andrew mccabe who he voted for in the 2016 election. earlier tonight, democratic senator chris murphy of connecticut had this reaction to the new report that the president wanted to know if deputy attorney general rosenstein was, quote, on his team. >> this feels like a really dangerous day. news of the president once again asking for loyalty from a law enforcement officer whose loyalty is only supposed to be
to the country he serves and the rule of law. >> a member of the u.s. senate having called this a dangerous day. let's bring in our lead off panel for what is also a busy wednesday night. jennifer rogers, former assistant u.s. attorney for the southern district of new york, now the executive director for columbia law school, center for the advancement of public integrity. clint watts, former fbi special agent is back with us. ashley parker, white house reporter for "the washington post". much obliged to all three of you. thank you for joining us. jennifer, let's go back up to the top of our reporting which is "the new york times" reporting tonight and hope hicks, the white house communications director. she again is denying those comments through an attorney. but what if it turns out she said something like, no one will ever see those e-mails, as a matter of law? >> well, it depends, right? it depends what she meant. if she said it in a way that's kind of speculative, like i don't think they'll ever get out because so few people know about them, then that's not
necessarily signaling that she plans to actually engage in obstruction of justice. but what's key to me and we'll of course see what the mueller team makes of it. but corallo, his take was that she may be talking about obstructing justice, and that's so important to him and troubling to him he ends up quitting. so clearly that's kind of going to be his take on it to the mueller team. and he was there. something that's really important, of course, when you're evaluating what somebody says, how it sounds, what is the tone? that is something that corallo can give that none of the rest of us are going to be able to weigh in on. so that to me is very important. >> clint, as an fbi man, how easy is it to put your hands on the very e-mail that she's talking about? isn't that kind of step one of a modern investigation? >> for sure, step one is always go to the search warrants, the subpoenas, the investigative materials, you're going to look at financial records, any sort
of communication between any of these people. that's the baseline. that's all going to be pulled in right away before you ever go to interviews. what's fascinating about this is you're really just seeing hope hicks -- you're looking at three people in this conversation. one of them has no experience. and so any of these statements are not only ridiculous but very damning for this team later on down the road. >> ashley, yet again, the story we're talking about tonight has at its core, really, chaos on the inside and infighting on the inside. since the birth of this administration. >> i mean, that's certainly true. and if you even look at some of the clips you played earlier, one of the things that has gotten this president in such trouble is that amid all of this chaos, infighting, backstabbing, the one thing he cares deeply about is loyalty. and it's also the one thing he fundamentally misunderstands. to the president, loyalty is loyalty personally to him. and he's always asking these people who serve in his
administration, from mccabe to rosenstein to comey, to basically pledge their loyalty to him personally. and not understanding that their loyalty is to the constitution or to the agencies they have served. that has again become one of the key buckets mueller is looking at in his probe. >> ashley, let's turn the corner into this memo, which is likely to be the lead story tomorrow, though predicting that kind of thing these days is fraught. especially with the fbi director now kind of on the record saying, please don't do this. using words like, grave. which gets your attention. why the zeal, why the urgency to put this memo out, knowing the damage it could cause to our institutions as a precedent? >> the urgency is that president trump had been telling his team as early's last week, before he had even read the memo, that he believed it would vindicate him in the mueller probe.
and he had also last week been complaining about rod rosenstein again, saying maybe he should fire him. and he believes this memo, if it becomes public, would give him the pretext or the grounds to potentially fire rosenstein, to make changes in the department of justice generally that he thinks could help him with the mueller probe. and at the very least, even if he's not able to sort of ward it off, he is laying the groundwork for whenever these conclusions are reached, whatever they are, that trust is now so eroded by the president attacking his own department of justice, his own fbi, in moves that are quite unprecedented, that it will likely land with a lot less of a punch because the public has sort of been conditioned not to trust these institutions. >> jennifer, mr. schiff of california said on twitter tonight, kind of adding to the argument over this memo, discovered late tonight that chairman nunes made material changes to the memo that he sent over to the white house, changes not approved by the committee. white house therefore is
reviewing a document the committee has not approved for release. i guess it's all relative. the democrats are arguing this document has been highly edited and compiled by the republicans. but now schiff is saying, don't you dare put that out because this is not what we agreed to at all. >> well, that's right. there is a process for the release of this information. even if it's misleading information you're supposed to go through steps in order to put it out into the public domain. what he's saying is it's no good anyway, the information is misleading, but by the way, they haven't approved the release. you have to go through the steps to do this. stra teej strategically is the democrats have written a rebuttal document that the republicans are saying doesn't have time to go through the process to be released at the same time, so if the first memo has to go back and start from square one, the second memo will likely catch up, so they could be released at the same time, which i think schiff
thinks would benefit everyone because it would be a more full review of the facts. >> clint, when an fbi director uses the word "grave," especially after what the fbi has been through, what do you take from that? >> this will literally slow down so many investigations. it will create -- a fisa application is the most reviewed packet that you would have done at the fbi. it goes through rigorous reviews before it even gets to the court. can you imagine being an fbi agent who's going forward with evidence, maybe multiple sources, particularly in a public corruption case, knowing that maybe three, four years down the road, some politician is going to look into that application, pick out something they want for political purposes, and throw it out into the open public without any sort of context around it. it will really harm investigations around this country. people won't trust fisa as a tool. we've already been going through this debate with the 702 provisions, fisa and all these
additional clauses. it will do great damage both to the fbi as an institution and to the tools that they use. >> what happens to christopher wray? what does he do if the president disregards his advice, his plea? >> it will be fascinating to watch this play out between deputy attorney general rosenstein and christopher wray. they may have to actually make a decision that they will defy their leadership in order to defend their institutions. they're going to be caught in a hard place. it will really become, am i loyal to trump, or am i loyal to my country? if they want to protect the american people, i would think they would have to devise some way to justify why that fisa renewal application, by the way, not the actual fisa application from the beginning, was signed off again by rosenstein, who is the republican that came in to replace sally yates. i think they will have to defend themselves, their institution, and for the people that work for them. they want to know, does my leadership have my back? because otherwise this will have just a corrosive effect on our law enforcement operations around the entire country.
>> ashley, your last point bears repeating. we talked about it here last night. what if they really need the fbi and the department of justice, what if god forbid the president's job changes on a dime and we're chasing down a domestic terrorist threat where the work of the fbi, no more important than it is right now tonight, but has to seem important to justify an action, perhaps, the president wants to take? >> that's exactly right. and one of the risks with all of this is the president is sort of thinking in a very short term and doing what he has always done, which is eroded trust in the media when he doesn't like stories, eroded trust in the judicial system when he doesn't like verdicts, and he has now eroded trust in the fbi and his justice department to serve his short-term political interests. but this is his fbi. this is his justice department. and you are right, these are the
agencies that in another moment, if the president needs to focus on a law enforcement issue or even potentially credibility on reforms he's making to the immigration system, these will be the people he is turning to and citing to carry out those orders, but he may have a lot of trouble with that because he personally is responsible for helping eroding the public's trust in them. >> jennifer, let's say you're number two at justice. let's say that in that job, robert mueller reports to you and you're visiting the white house and the president asks you if you're on his team. how do you answer? and what does that mean to you? >> well, it's highly inappropriate, right? this has been the pattern for trump. of course rod rosenstein, like any dag, his responsibility is to the constitution and the country. you can do one of two things. what jim comey apparently did and pushback and say, mr. president, my loyalty is to the country and the constitution. or you could just kind of pretend not to really understand
him to be meaning personal loyalty and you can say, of course, sir, we're all on the same team, or something like that. you know, what would i do? i don't know, i'd like to think i would do the former, but maybe if you're in the job for the right reasons, you want to do the right thing, maybe you just try to smooth it over and get out of there knowing that he says this to everyone. and hopefully you can kind of get out without pledging him personal loyalty, but also not ruffling his feathers. >> clint, if you're mueller and you hear that rosenstein was asked if he's on team trump, is it an anecdote that you brush off and find amusing, or is it furtherance of an evidence point? >> you know, it happens once, no big deal. happens twice, you start to think about it. three times, you got a pattern. and this is more than three. this is consistent for everybody who he's not comfortable with. when he's not comfortable with something or someone, he will push that loyalty test, the loyalty pledge, to see what side
they're on. it's always about sides. so it's fascinating. i think for mueller he must be going through these interviews or he must be getting evidence every day and he sees this pattern keep coming up over and over again. that loyalty to him rather than country, job or constitution, that's really at the heart of an obstruction case when you get down to it. >> ashley, from at least this distance, washington looks like a place where two races are under way. down one track there is the mueller investigation. down another is an effort to block it wherever it can. it's kind of a race to either fog up the field or see where this is headed. what is the mood, what do you sense among west wing employees, what do you sense among republicans there? >> well, west wing employees are of two minds. on the one hand, they understand that the mueller probe is problematic for them.
and they sort of hope naturally that it will just go away. on the other hand, they also recognize that the president's actions to try to make it go away, ironically, have the exact opposite effect and exacerbate it. so, you know, there's a general sort of frustration and, frankly, if they are not directly involved in it, if they are not one of the staffers who has had to hire a personal lawyer, they want nothing to do with it. you know, anything where you even mention russia, they will just say "not my portfolio" and kick it to the lawyer. so they're trying to steer clear while feeling sort of a constant state of being under siege. >> we are much obliged to our leadoff guests on this night after the state of the union for joining us and helping us understand the lead stories at this hour. jennifer rogers, clint watts, ashley parker, thank you all three very much. coming up, as we head to our first break, more on the trump administration's attacks on fbi and on the justice department,
including these suggestions that there's kind of an institutional plot against the president. plus a key republican in congress says he's done and heading home. why it's raising new questions about republican prospects to hold the house in the midterms. we're just getting under way on a wednesday night, please stay with us. building a website in under an hour is easy with gocentral...
turmoil. less than a year ago. it hasn't recovered from that. it's a shame what's happened with the fbi. but we're going to rebuild the fbi. it will be bigger and better than ever. everybody, not me, when everybody, the level of anger at what they've been witnessing with respect to the fbi is certainly very sad. >> part of the president's campaign of criticism against the fbi and the broader department of justice, this is something we have not seen in generations, a president at war with elements of his own government. today concerns over the release of that house intel memo come as reports suggest republicans are in search of more ways to discredit the special counsel's russia investigation. the associated press reporting it this way tonight, "trump has been telling confidants in recent days that he believes the memo will validate his concerns that the fbi and justice department had conspired against him."
a piece in politico puts it this way, let's be clear about what's happening here this memo is the latest escalation in an eight-month effort to tarnish the russia investigation that might be the most significant smear campaign against the executive branch since joe mccarthy. only here the effort is being led by the head of that branch himself. here to talk about it with us tonight, two of our favorites, jonathan lemire, white house reporter for the associated press, msnbc political analyst who coauthored that ap report. eli stokols, msnbc political analyst as well. gentlemen, good evening to you. jonathan, i looked up at the tv, saw you on the white house lawn today, that means you were inside. what is the mood and what are you hearing about the mood of the commander in chief these days? >> the president first of all feels very happy about the state of the union even though we've all forgotten that even happened. there's been so much news today. the state of the union, the bump has been gone. he also has decided not to
pursue the usual caravan, the publicity tour that usually follows state of the union where he goes across the country and promotes those ideas. he didn't do any sort of major white house events today to promote them. in terms of this, they feel like the president has told people around him he feels like this memo is the latest sign that the fbi and the justice department, agents there, had been working against him. that he feels like it's another reason, as was mentioned last segment, that rosenstein, the deputy attorney general, could be someone that -- he could use this to discredit him. the memo is something the white house has. they've had it a couple of days now, it's in the care of the special counsel's office. they're weighing what to do with it. we heard chief of staff john kelly say today that he has read it and that the national security council legal team is now reviewing it to figure out what the next step would be. the president has told people around him that he wants this out. we heard him say last night after the state of the union that he wanted it out. the white house has not
confirmed, however, whether the president has actually read the memo or whether he is just picking up on it from what he has heard in the media and those around him. until tonight, the plan was to release the memo soon, potentially as early as tomorrow. the news from congressman schiff, however, and the accusations he's made that the memo may have been altered, could delay those plans. we've asked the white house, they have not yet responded. >> we just got a statement from the spokesman for nunes. apparently saying these material changes that schiff has accused are minor edits to the memo, including grammatical fixes, two edits requested by the fbi and the democrats themselves. so he's saying to suggest otherwise is a bizarre distraction. there's also a middle ground and that is the white house redacts things they want to take out. this is already an edited document. so it's not like they're taking on anything foundational.
eli, you have a theory of reverse engineering. tell the good folks what you mean by that. >> let's just set the nunes/schiff thing aside. let's say they release the same memo that they presented to the committee. that is still a stunning thing given what the department of justice and fbi director are saying here. >> huge. >> in terms of reverse engineering, that is something we've seen throughout this presidency. where the president decides on a version of reality that works for him, something that may not be true but he's going to repeat it, he's going to say it, he's going to make it true. the entire staff has to stand that up. discrediting the mueller probe, that is the end goal. and so, the end justifies any means here by which nunes, allies of the president in congress, and the white house, are now trying to put forward any sort of semblance of evidence, anything they can do to confuse the public, to muddy the situation, and to basically say, look, there might be people at the fbi who acted improperly about something, they're out to get me. the cognitive dissonance required by some of this.
you played the clip with lester holt. where he's saying that this fbi -- bashing the fbi and the e-mail investigation. i mean, that -- what comey did arguably helped donald trump as much as anything that putin and the russians did, the way that played out at the end of the campaign. it really hurt hillary clinton. yet that is forgotten and it's all about the deep state and the sort of conspiracy theories and loyalty tests we see where it's right out of the 1950s. if you're not 100% loyal to the president, maybe you're suspect. maybe you don't like him. it's this very sinister sort of smoke and mirrors of accusations, even though there's not much concrete. and it's stunning to see and to watch play out, given the stakes. this is different than just the president saying something about his crowd size and somebody saying it was the biggest crowd. this is a matter of national security. and really fundamental to the moorings of this democracy. >> jonathan, in the intro i wrote for this segment, i said
it's been generations since we've seen an american president at war with elements of his own government. i guess i was going back to nixon. but he wasn't this overt. he wasn't this public. >> right. president trump is not hiding this war. this is not a covert action. this is right up front. he has done it time and time again. whether it be on twitter, whether it be in comments to reporters, privately behind the scenes to aides, sort of getting them to carry the fight against the fbi. we have seen -- we know the chief of staff john kelly in recent days has made a number of phone calls to justice department officials to say to them, you need to perform better, you need to -- he was very critical of their decision to object to the release of this memo. saying, this is what the white house wants, you need to do this. and then it was reported he would end those conversations with the disclaimer, but hey, don't break any laws while you're at it. we're seeing this president set a tone. eli's right, set a tone that is unprecedented, that is something that demands a personal loyalty.
he tells people around him, he refers to justice department as "his" justice department, he's referred to it as "the trump department of justice" and that is what he sees. he's asking for loyalty to him, the president, as opposed to the country or the constitution. >> eli, among republicans, does anyone have any limits? is there a tipping point out there, do you think? >> the only people with limits so far are those not running for re-election. i mean, that is what we have seen. we have seen the politics of personal survival inside a republican party that is fluid and right now controlled by donald trump and his assumed base of voters. that is what is above perhaps speaking out, talking about the separation of powers, the basic tenets of american democracy. there is no concern for history. the fact that this is all playing out in public, in plain view, and that this will be written and people will be judged and their legacies may be tarnished by this, there's no
concern for any of that. it's just short-term political gain, go into 2018 and sell tax cuts. and the ability of republicans on the hill to sort of not see some of these things, to look the other way or squint and see things in a way where they don't really see a problem with these things. i mean, for paul ryan yesterday to say the mueller probe shouldn't be messed with and yet to green light devin nunes sending this memo to the white house for release, knowing like any logical observer of this knows, that this is all a pretext to mess with that investigation. it's stunning. it's stunning to see playing out in plain sight. a lot of people never thought they'd see this from a lot of republicans, including paul ryan. >> hardly a pleasurable conversation. always a pleasure to have you gentlemen on. we appreciate it. thanks very much. much obliged to jonathan lemire and eli stokols. the continuing insistence by the white house that americans don't care about the russia investigation. we heard it again today. but is that the truth? that and more when we come right back. i think we've addresse
every single day we've been here. it's one of the questions you guys ask over and over and over again. in fact we spend more time on that than we do any other topic despite the fact that time and time again, poll after poll, says frankly no one cares about this issue and it's certainly not the thing that keeps people up at night. >> press secretary sara
huckabee sanders on monday responding to questions on this russia investigation suggesting the investigation just doesn't matter to most people, but according to a recent "washington post"/abc news poll, nearly half of americans believe trump did in fact try to interfere with the russia investigation in a way that amounts to obstruction of justice. 49% there to be exact. here with us to talk about the reach of this investigation, cornell belcher, democratic pollster who worked on both president obama's campaigns and with a number of house and senate democrats. back with us colleen mccain nelson, pulitzer prize winner, editorial page editor for "the kansas city star" formerly with "the wall street journal." charlie sykess, long-time conservative radio host, author of "how the right lost its mind" and msnbc contributor. welcome to all of you. colleen, i'd like to start with you. proud as i am at having lived in missouri and worked in kansas for a good deal of time, there you are in america, our link for
the purposes of this conversation to america. what is the level of interest and the level of granularity, detail, in a place like kansas city? >> thank you for letting me speak for all of america. no pressure. but sarah huckabee-sanders is not exactly correct when she says no one cares, that people aren't interested in the russia investigation. people are interested in the russia investigation in america. but a year into that investigation, a lot of minds have been made up. so some people here are viewing the investigation through the lens of crimes may have been committed, perhaps the trump campaign worked with a foreign power and we should get to the bottom of that. but others are viewing this through the lens of this is a pa partisan witch hunt. and the memo only serves to reinforce the idea that everything in washington is partisan, everything has been politicized, even intelligence
at this point, and we can't even agree on the same set of facts and we can't even work off the same set of memos. >> charlie sykes, you are also proud to live in america, in the great state of wisconsin, home of, i note, the speaker of the house paul ryan. so whether i'm asking about ryan or anyone else in the party, the question i posed in the previous segment, is there a limit for republicans in congress? is there a tipping point for anybody in this thing? >> not so far. i think you saw that. shift the focus from the state of the union from the podium to the audience. what you saw was a republican party that has completely basically pledged its loyalty to donald trump, including going so far as to joining his attacks on this investigation. to your other question, do people care about this? look, there are two americas out there. two realities. and if you are -- listen to the conservative media and are part of the pro-trump grassroots, you don't think this is a very big deal. in fact, this memo which has been this elaborate charade, building up as the great reveal, there are a lot of americans right now who think that the
reveal of this memo is going to be the greatest thing since geraldo rivera opened up al capone's safe. but in general, though, i think that what you've seen has been the success in confusing people. i talked to a very, very well-informed political activist from wisconsin over the last couple of days, and he said something very interesting. he said, you know what, this is not somebody who's pro-trump. he said, i don't know who to believe anymore. and if the strategy has been misdirection, if it has been distraction, it has been successful to a certain degree. which doesn't mean it will succeed in the end. but it has been somewhat successful in muddying the waters. >> cornell that old phrase, elections have consequences, has reared its head again. look at the struggles of mr. schiff and his democrats on that committee. they can argue and fuss and fight and at the end of the day the republicans ship that memo across town to the republican white house and they get to
decide if we all start reading it tomorrow afternoon. >> no, that's right. and brian, look, you've been around long enough to cover washington and congress. and look, what you're seeing is unprecedented. and we play our partisan games on a lot of the committees. but, you know, when the ethics committee and the intelligence committee -- there's been a long-running idea that these are where you leave partisanship at the door because the integrity of the country and our democracy was too important. you know, it was governor kasich i think on this network yesterday, republican from ohio, who said, speaker ryan should tell nunes to cut it out. right? i think we got to go further. i think it's time for speaker ryan to tell nunes, he's got to stop this and cut it out, because this is fundamentally dangerous and we're going into territory that is really not normal or safe or safe for the country. and the other thing i want to
underline is you have 49% -- you have near a majority of americans who think the president has, in fact, interfered here. and that is just staggering. and it does have consequences because when you look at sort of the built-in number of people who are strongly disapproving of trump, he leaves off his first year with the highest disapproval in history, that is built in and it's problematic. the question is will republicans in congress now carry some of that weight with the actions that you see coming out of the intelligence committee? >> cornell, another one for you, that is the word today from trey gowdy of south carolina. he is not going to seek re-election as we all know. he kind of came to fame -- first of all came in with the tea party wave of 2010, came to fame chairing the benghazi committee where he led the now-famous marathon questioning of his nemesis, hillary clinton. he said today he's leaving congress to return to the justice system. but importantly, remember the number 34. his departure brings the total
number of republican house retirements to 34. cornell, no one needs to remind you, that doesn't equal permission to flip the house. that's just republicans leaving congress. the latter is a big challenge. >> well, here's the thing. look, in 2006 i worked for government at the dnc. i think then, when we had a wave election, you had i think 18 or 19 republican incumbents stepping down. this is a big deal in campaign terms, brian. >> yeah. >> because knocking off incumbents is really, really hard, right? it's darn near impossible to knock off an incumbent. you're seeing more incumbents knocked off in primaries. open seats are real opportunities, they're really toss-ups. i'm not saying south carolina's seat is something that's going to be put automatically in play. but the sheer number of open opportunities for democrats along with a president with historical disapproval, a
congress with historical disapproval, and majority of americans thinking the country's heading the wrong direction, that is getting right in line with what we saw in 2006 before we had the wave election. and then, in 2006, brian, what we didn't have is what we see today, you have college-educated white women breaking democrat in a way we hadn't seen in 2006. >> when i said the number 34, 34 vacancies, you would shaking your head. >> extraordinary number. it's not just the fact that it's 34. it's who is retiring. these are chairmen of major committees. >> yeah. including one from new jersey this week. >> exactly. the chairman of the appropriations committee. this is one of the most important members of the house of representatives. so it would certainly signal that some of them might think that they will not be in the majority next year. but i would caution people, it's been a lot of talk about a wave. there have been polls lately, most notably monmouth, which may be an outlier, showing the republicans have closed this gap. and i do think that sometimes democrats i think are perhaps
underestimating the way in which the republicans are winning, at least for the time being, the messaging war on the tax cuts. that as people begin to get some relief. plus the economy looks strong on paper. the stock market has continued to be strong. so i think that before we invest too much money in the wave, although we are seeing all of these retirements, i do think that the democrats need to become more serious about providing a more coherent response to what you heard last night from the president. >> i agree with that. >> colleen of america, you know i'm coming back to you, because the question for you becomes, in the kind of adi, the area of dominant influence, that is the kansas city, missouri metro area, republican members of congress, do you see voters taking out their anti-trump frustrations against a republican incumbent? >> that's a distinct possibility.
and a person to -- a race to look at is kevin yoder, he represents the third district in kansas, the suburbs of kansas city. hillary clinton won his district by 1 point. and so he's certainly someone who could be in peril. he's told people privately he's seen concerning signs in his internal polling and has kind of raised the question of whether donald trump could drag him down. and there's a line of democrats waiting to take him on. even though kansas and missouri are very red states, it's possible you could see a republican or two fall in the house. but you still have a really tough senate race in missouri where claire mccaskill, a democrat, is going to be fighting for her life. it's important to remember where democrats have some opportunities in the house. it's still a really tough slog for them on the senate side. >> our thanks to charlie sykes, colleen mckay nelson, cornell belcher, for the record all proud americans. thank you all very much. coming up for us, how a push
for regime change could be a new u.s. weapon in these efforts to stop the north korean nuclear program. there's been a development, as they say. we'll have that coming up. you got this, jimmy! you know what's easy? building your website with godaddy. pick a domain name. choose a design. you can build a website in under an hour. now that's a strike! get your domain today and get a free trial of gocentral. build a better website in under an hour. i love you.
but no regime has oppressed its own citizens more totally or brutally than the cruel dictatorship in north korea. north korea's reckless pursuit of nuclear missiles could very soon threaten our homeland. we are waging a campaign of maximum pressure to prevent that from ever happening. >> in his first state of the union last night, president trump spoke at length about two people who suffered at the hands of the north korean government. gordon chang writes in "the daily beast" that rather than focus on north korea's quest for nuclear weapons the president "undermined the kim family by
launching an assault on its abuse of human rights and indirectly made the case for regime change." "washington post" also reported tuesday that the administration's first choice for ambassador to south korea, viktor chr viktor cha is now out of contention for the job. he raised his concerns with the national security council aimed at sending a message without sparking a war. with us tonight is governrdon change, author of "nuclear showdown" why do you think it was better that the president went in the direction of human rights and not in the direction
of nuclear weapons last night? >> because the kim regime is so much more concerned about its human rights records. you have two koreas, side by side, one is free and one is enslaved. the people in the enslaved korea, north korea, are not going to accept that indefinitely. so he went to the heart of the regime, hit their weakness. and there's one only thing people don't talk about, by president trump talking about human rights, he's constraining south korea's president, what trump dy d by talking about human rights is boxed in the south korean leader. >> wasn't there something from the north about getting together as one korea, and as a subset of that question, won't it be good when the olympic games get under way? >> this was north korea talking about unification of the two
koreas. it's been consistent policy since the beginning of north korea in 1948 to unify the two koreas, that's what the korean war was about. >> i recall. >> but they've never given that goal up. they need to continue to do that. the thing about the olympics is it's good when you have the two koreas competing as one, you don't have them fighting each other. so at least temporarily that's fine. but after the end of the olympics, brian, then the north koreans are going to be demanding things of south korea that south korea can't give and that's when things get testy between the two koreas. >> south korea is about to be in the news because of the games. we're about to send our very best athletes to south korea, a country where we don't have an ambassador. is that an embarrassment? >> it certainly is, because this is at the top of the trump administration foreign policy
agenda. no issue is more important to the president and we haven't had an ambassador in a year. this is important for the president to do, is get an ambassador through the senate. they're executing poorly on the simple things. at the same time, the hard stuff i think they're doing pretty well. easy things done poorly, hard things done well. >> in closing seconds, sit tough to find a candidate for the jobs. >> now it is. not everyone may agree with viktor, but he is well thought of. considering what happened to him, i think a lot of people are going to have second thoughts about putting their name in the ring. >> it's always a pleasure to have you on the show. coming up, something that didn't sound right during last night's speech. we'll take it apart and look at it when we continue. jimmy's gotten used to his whole room smelling like sweaty odors.
he thinks it smells fine, but his mom smells this... luckily for all your hard-to-wash fabrics... ...there's febreze fabric refresher. febreze doesn't just mask, it eliminates odors you've... ...gone noseblind to. and try febreze unstopables for fabric. with up to twice the fresh scent power, you'll want to try it... ...again and again and maybe just one more time. indulge in irresistible freshness. febreze unstopables. breathe happy.
in the gallery, something just didn't sound right. >> here tonight is one leader in the effort to defend our country. homeland security investigation special agent celeste tee know cj martinez. >> it seems highly unlikely that someone would go by cj and/or dj, especially when a glance at the president's prepared text clearly shows he goes by cj. i have a friend named cj, i talk to him every day, he has never said or you can call me dj. it's more likely what the president did there was what he does often when he's making a teleprompter speech and makes a mistake. he then employees the word and followed by the correction to
make it sound like the mistake was a plausible answer. >> authority and authoritarian powers. through their lives and though their lives were cut short. our hope is a word and world of proud, independent nations. and is instead given unelected regulators. >> we will arrive at a peace and a place far greater in understanding and cooperation. >> they sacrifice every day for the furniture and future of their children. he goes by dj and cj, he said call me either one. >> without further comment that is our broadcast for tonight. thank you for being with us from
all of us here at nbc headquarters here in new york. tonight on all-in." >> we could use some more loyalty, i will tell that you. >> another day, another loyalty test. >> an oath to the president of the united states rather than the constitution would be inappropriate. >> reports that the president asked the man in charge of the mueller probe for his loyalty. plus. >> the president needs to know these intelligence reports are out there. >> the fbi's extraordinary plea to stop the president from releasing the nunes memo. >> don't worry. 100%. >> congressman luis gutierrez responds to the state of the union and the incredible reason that the head of the cdc just resigned when all in starts right now.
IN COLLECTIONSMSNBC West Television Archive Television Archive News Search Service
Uploaded by TV Archive on