tv The 11th Hour With Brian Williams MSNBC February 26, 2018 11:00pm-12:00am PST
plan to arm teachers. he has called it the height of lunacy. "the 11th hour with brian williams" starts now. tonight on the russia front, hope hicks just hours away from testimony before house intel, as former trump campaign chairman paul manafort faces two arraignments this week. and as robert mueller plows ahead. plus what's the status of jared kushner's security clearance and did he lose access to classified intel? the white house isn't saying and he was out of public view today. and the president says he would have summoned the courage to run into gunfire at that florida high school, as he calls out the cops who did not. "the 11th hour" on a monday night begins now. as we begin a new week together, good evening once again from our nbc news headquarters here in
new york. day 403 of the trump administration and we're just hours away now from one of this president's closest aids testifying in the russia investigation. a source tells nbc news that hope hicks, the former ralph lauren model, who is now the white house communications director, is slated to appear before the house intelligence hope hicks was, to coin a phrase, present at the creation. she traveled with donald trump from the very start of the campaign. she has seen and heard and participated in a lot, including that air force i flight home from europe, the meeting on board that resulted in the drafting of a cover story for the meeting don jr. had with the russians in trump tower. she plays a critical role for this president on a daily basis still. the "new york times" reporting that's her handwriting on those so-called empathy cards the president brought into the room with him to the listening session on gun violence last
week. it's unknown if the white house has put any kind of restrictions on the questions hope hicks can or cannot be asked. tonight on this network, democratic congressman adam schiff, top democrat on house intel gave this warning. >> it should be made abundantly clear if anyone comes in and improperly enforce executive privilege, that we'll go to court and insist on getting answers. >> there is also news about another key trump associate, the president's former campaign manager, paul manafort. the 64-year-old lobbyist facing several charges that he laundered tens of millions of dollars, committed fraud and tax evasion and made false statements, all filed by special
counsel robert mueller. he will be arraigned on wednesday in washington and then notably will go through the same arraignment process on friday in the commonwealth of virginia. before he worked for trump's campaign, manafort managed political conventions for republican presidential candidates as far back as gerald ford. he took on political clients around the globe, including some of vladimir putin's allies in ukraine. a profile of manafort in the current "atlantic" refers to his work as "over the decades, manafort has cut a trail of foreign money and influence into washington and then built that trail into a super highway." that led him to donald trump and the trump campaign. >> we have great people, paul manafort. and paul's had great success with reagan and with bush and with ford and, you know, great success. he doesn't have to do this. he didn't need to do this, but he wanted to because he saw something. he called me.
he said paul saw something special. one of the biggest people in the country called me. they said paul saw something special. >> paul manafort stage managed the gop convention and then helped secure the republicans presidential nomination for donald trump but left the campaign shortly after that. as mueller's team expanded its investigation and began focusing on manafort, trump's remarks changed. and he is describing manafort as, quote, with the campaign for a very short period of time. last week reform secured a guilty plea from rick gates and they both face charges with their work with pro-kremlin political figures in ukraine. gates is expected to provide valuable information in the case against paul manafort, who we know was in that 2016 trump tower meeting and who my be able to offer details about possible collusion between campaign associates and moscow. former fbi assistant director
for counterintelligence frank figliuzzi said this about paul manafort. >> when you look at the profile of manafort and how far back mueller is going in these charges, we've seen reference to 2006. this is somebody in manafort who has been joined at the hip with russian and ukrain and a pro-russian and ukrainian interests for years and years and you don't lie down with these people without getting bitten and without being guilty of association with thugs. it could be that trump is the last of his worries and the folks he's been joined at the hip with, thug-type people, intelligence-type people back in
russia and ukraine are actually a greater threat to him and he's afraid of giving them up and giving up their relationship with the president. >> that's saying something. with that and without delay let's bring in our leadoff panel on a monday night. ashley parker, white house reporter for "the washington post," chuck rosensberg, former u.s. attorney and veteran of the fbi and david voreacos, reporter. i'd like to go up to you, ashley. let's assume that house intel has so thoroughly screwed up this effort and so badly colored everything that comes out of house intel, is it house intel that she has to worry about or robert mueller? >> i think you have to be worried about any moment where you're testifying under oath but do i think robert mueller is probably a bigger concern for her. so far house intel in some ways has sort of been functioning as precursor to the same sorts of questions but in a less
obviously partisan way, that these same people then fate from reform. so i think that's probably her main area of concern but i will say she has prepped very tho thoroughly for tomorrow's testimony and it's certainly not something she's taking lightly. >> chuck, we know there's prep and there's prepping to sit down with mueller and any member of his team. talk about the potential legal peril or exposure for her before house intel and again with mueller. >> first of all, i think ashley's right. there's some peril in both places but if i were hope hicks
or her attorneys, i would be more keenly focussed on bob mueller and his team. regardless of where you testify under oath, you can be sure that the mueller folks are going to be hanging on every word. watching, listening, picking up cues for their own investigation. i don't know if they've interviewed her. if they have, they may interview her again. she needs to be careful and cognizant that a whole bunch of people are interested in what she has to say. >> paul manafort, you've done a lot of reporting on him. talk about his personal financial situation and how that is already jermaine to what we're seeing. >> he made tens of millions of dollars as an international
political consultant. in the last couple of years, particularly right before he started in the trump campaign, he grew increasingly desperate for cash. and so in the latest indictment in virginia, mueller describes a pattern of bank fraud where manafort repeatedly lied to get loans and it was clearly manafort really needed cash badly and he took the job for free so this raises some interesting questions about what he was doing when he was, you know, in apparently desperate financial straits and working for free in the trump campaign. >> some of these indictment documents i don't feel smart enough to read. they're so complex, especially the obligations surrounding manafort's operation. could you make a case that absent donald trump entering his life paul manafort would just be off somewhere running his international business and lobbying, registered or unregistered in washington for various entities? >> i think you can absolutely make that case. and this is something that applies to a number of president trump's associates.
you can almost sort of think of it as at anti-midas touch. there are people who have come into contact with this president and his campaign and they've emerged the worse for, it battered and bruised. for some of the people, they had to compromise their conservative principles or they didn't have the principles we thought they did or they have to be endure being publicly humiliated by it president. in paul manafort's case, according to these allegations, he had been running a quite complex criminal enterprise for years if not decades and what brought that security any on to him was joining president trump's campaign for free, which again is sort of a central irony that someone who is desperate pore cash and engaged in alleged bank fraud then offers to work for free in this final move that attracts the attention of ultimately bob mueller. >> all this video shows manafort walking. you'd think he walked several miles with camera every day because we run the same video of him all the time. this scene is going to be repeated twice this week with kind of a scrum of photographers of him walking into a federal
courthouse and out again. is this mandatory for a superseding indictment or is there prosecutorial work at work here? that's question one. yes, it would -- two, is it all a part to make him flip? >> you are arraigned on those charges, you go in front of a federal judge. she asks you if you understand that you have been charged, makes the formal presentation of the charges to you, sets a trial date. there are some other sort of perfunctory, you know, stuff that goes on but has to happen. question number two, is this an effort to get him to flip? well, let me take a step back. virtually all defendants who are charged in federal district court end up being convicted. the overwhelming percentage of those by guilty plea. so it's very rational, very
sensible for a defendant, particularly one like manafort to end up pleading guilty and the case against him, just based on my reading of the indictments, is overwhelming. i imagine one way or another he's going to end up with as a convicted felon. with gates pleading and flipping, it puts more pressure on manafort. will manafort plead? i don't know. he may be stubborn, may insist on his trial. one way or another he's going to end up a convicted felon. >> cluck is a warm person but that has the ability to chill the blood on your bones.
the expression indicted and convicted in federal court is something you want to keep off your resumé. >> aside from the fact that a vast majority of federal defendants end up being convicted is he's facing a great deal of time in prison if he is convicted because of the amount of money at stake here. and he's 68 years old. he has to make the decision whether he wants to go to trial. he has a very good trial lawyer and they believe they have a defense, but a rational call could be that he would want to plead guilty, which raises the question of whether president trump would consider pardoning him and whether that might figure into the defense. >> ashley, before we go, update us on security clearances, please,in side the west wing, which for all i know is this titanic struggle, a staredown
between monoliths with jared kushner at the center of it. i do know there was a seat for him at an event today that went unfilled. we haven't seen him for a while. do you know if there has been a decision or resolution on his temporary clearance? did he see the presidential daily brief and deal with our government secrets today for example? >> so my understanding is that nothing has been finalized but the white house is sort of working for a carve out or some
sort of grace period that would allow them this friday deadline where everyone either had to have real clearance or not see any of that material at all came and went and there was no sort of at least public decision reached for jared. there was a sense that the white house is trying to find a way to punt this down the road. you saw president trump last week sort of punt it to general kelly saying it's not my call, it's his call. the interesting thing about the security clearance issue is that it's the key issue right now but it's really a proxy issue for a broader tension between jared and general kelly in general, which is one over general kelly sort of recent the fact that scared and ivanka to some extent, his attitude is you are family or staff, you can choose one or the other but you can't be both. >> wow, a lot to think about tonight. ♪ i made my own way, now it's time to make yours.
you know what's not awesome? gig-speed internet. when only certain people can get it. let's fix that. let's give this guy gig- really? and these kids, and these guys, him, ah. oh hello. that lady, these houses! yes, yes and yes. and don't forget about them. uh huh, sure. still yes! xfinity delivers gig speed to more homes than anyone. now you can get it, too. welcome to the party.
this past weekend we finally got a look at the democratic rebuttal to that memo from republicans on the house intelligence committee that accused law enforcement officials of abusing their powers in surveilling former trump campaign aide carter page. that was easy. the ten-page, partially redacted memo was approved for release by the white house on saturday, over three weeks after the gop memo was made public, if you recall. among the major arguments "fbi and d.o.j. officials did not abuse the foreign intelligence surveillance act process, the fisa court, omit material information or subvert this vital tool to spy on the trump campaign." the original nunes memo alleged the misled the court on the
infamous steele dossier and without that dossier, the warrant would never have been approved. our national political reporters point out that the rebuttal from democrats, quote, offers insight into one of the most secretive processes in government, directly quoting from the text of a secret surveillance warrant application to show that the justice department had disclosed that some evidence sprang from political opposition research intended to discredit a political campaign contradicting a key gop claim. the democrats write federal officials told the fisa court that the fbi suspected steele was hired by an american, looking for information that could be used to discredit candidate number one's campaign. that's where they left it in print. earlier tonight carter page sat down with sean hannity at fox news and was asked about his
contacts with russians. >> in all your time in the campaign or not on the campaign did anybody in russia ever suggest to you they had negative information on hillary? >> not one word. nothing whatsoever. not even a glimpse of an offer. >> anyone ever suggest to you in any way that there was a hacking that they were aware of? >> absolutely not. i heard about it in the news eventually. >> we american to the national political reporter mike memoli
and reporter for the los angeles times who is exclusively covering russia, chris megerian. we apologize to the non-russian special counsel. mike, start us off. for folks who perhaps looked away from the news for this two-day period we're just coming off of called the weekend, which exists for some people apparently, what have we just learned in the release of this second memo? >> well, brian, one of the few areas where both the republicans and democrats on the house intelligence committee agree as we see in these two memos are the fact that the counterintelligence investigation that was launched by the fbi on russia and potential interference in the 2016 election began in july of
2016. that's three months before this carter page surveillance warren application process went under way. the republicans only refer to that sort of in passing when making a different point about one of the agents involved in that investigation, but the democrats spend a lot of time, they refer to it early and often -- >> and why is that important, mike? >> it's part of an effort to really take what the nunes memo and put it into a much fuller context. you addressed that democrats were most easily able to refute, and that was the work of steele. the work was being paid for through the clinton campaign through fusion gps. the republicans said the court was not informed there was a political motive here. the democrats quote verbatim from the application itself, which is certainly we rarely see, to show not that the clinton or dnc was mentioned but at that a political campaign was mentioned in is all having to do with so-called masking
procedures, which devin nunes has complained of in the past but in this case he hangs his hat on it wasn't mentioned specifically. >> chris, in the real world does it do anything to help the white house/republican case? >> i think you're going to see the president will use whatever he can find whether or not it's grounded in fact to try to undermine the russian investigation. in this case he's used the republican memo to say the investigation had been biased against him from the start, that it's based on phony information. but the democratic memo is trying to make the point that the investigation is much broader than just one dossier, that it has multiple sources of information and it didn't start with partisan opposition research from the clinton campaign. >> chris, a follow-up. why should anything that comes out of this committee be followed this closely? some people just look at this gang and see it as a partisan circus, which affects the credibility of their work product on both sides? >> well, there is very intense partisanship on the committee. i think that's one of the reasons why to pay such close attention to it, to see kind of what the russia investigation is doing to congress, what is it doing to washington and how it's kind of, you know, tearing these two sides apart so deeply. so i think that's one reason to pay attention to it. the other is it's one of three committees that's really
responsible for doing this. we have to keep caps on them and see if they're doing as good of a job as they say they are. >> as people saying, mueller's not the only game in town, he just feels like the only game in town. mike, one last question. what's left unsettled to you now that this whole memo chapter is for now over? >> as far as the memo itself, while the democrats were very thorough in citing cases that undergirded their work, there are some cases where we have to take each side for its word. one had to do with what andrew mccabe told the committee when he testified last december. republicans said that without the steele dossier, there would have been no committee. a lot of people think there
should not be a political debate involving classified material. not only can't the american people see the original source materials, these were based on but the committee members themselves haven't seen them. adam schiff and trey gowdy, the on two people. the democrats are saying now that this memo episode is over, we want to go back to our work. they're going to be doing some of that tomorrow when hope hick goes before the committee. >> as we say on every highway construction project, your tax dollars at work. thank you both, gentlemen, for coming on with us. we'll have you back when we need something explained. coming up, how do you think the president reacted when he was criticized face to face by a visiting democratic governor in the white house today? that photo kind of sums it up but there's more you'll want to see when we come right back. ♪
i had lunch with dwayne lapierre, chris cox and david leeman of the nra. they want to do something. don't worry about the nra. they're on our side. half of you are so afraid of the nra. there's nothing to be afraid of. we have to confront the issue and discuss mental health and do something about it. in the old days we had mental institutions. you don't know until you test it, i believe i'd run in there even if i didn't have a weapon. >> president trump hosted a meeting on gun safety with
governors across the country at the white house today. he repeated his support for stricter background checks, banning bump stocks and arming teachers into school. that prompted this challenge from one of the visiting democratic governors, jay inslee of the state of washington. please note while you watch this split screen you don't have to be a dues paying member of the american college of psychologists to read the president's body language and face while he's being criticized. >> i've listened to the first
grade teachers who don't want to be pistol packing teachers. i think this is a circumstance where we need to listen, that educators should educate and they should not be foisted upon this responsibility of packing heat in first grade classes. i just suggest we need a little less tweeting, a little more listening and let's just take that off the table and move forward. >> the white house hasn't yet sent a proposal to congress. with us to talk about it, anita kumar and jeremy peters. anita, interesting to learn that the president had lunch with those three gentlemen from the nra, who he finds to be very nice people. we are all of us distracted by the notion of an english teacher with a glock or a sig sauer concealed while most people agree that is never going to happen and is a giant distraction. >> right.
what was interesting about what he said, president trump said two things. he said the nra are patriots, they're great people, they're trying to do the right thing but he also said it's okay to fight with them. he said two different things. but what was striking was all the things he's talked about so far, the things he talked about today, having educators have guns are things that the nra does support. he didn't talk about one particular thing he talked about last week pretty strongly, which is raising the age for when you can get a rifle from 18 to 21. didn't mention that today and that's something the nra does not support. so later on during the day when sarah huckabee sanders was asked was this because he had lunch with the nra, she pushed back and said "we're still considering it." it seemed like a step back from where he was last week. >> i'm glad you mentioned that. we have a videotape review of the changing position here. we'll play that and talk to you, jeremy, on the other side of it. >> we're going to do strong
background checks, we're going to work on getting the age up to 21 instead of 18. >> are you going to go up against the nra? >> thank you very much. i don't think i'll be going up against them. i really think the nra wants to do what's right. they're very close to me, i'm very close to them. they're very, very great people. they love this country. >> the president did not mention whether he actually wants the age limit still lifted to 21 as he had previously spoken about. can you clarify if that's still his position? >> in terms of i think the last question you had was the age limit, something is still being discussed but a final determination and legislative piece has not been determined on that front yet. >> reporter: is that why he didn't mention it today but he mentioned it in the past, is he reconsidering how it should be implemented? >> in terms of the concept, there's still support for that but how it might be implemented and what it might look like is still very much part of the discussion.
>> if we are to believe press accounts, the age limit 18 to 21 was initially proffered by none other than geraldo rivera at mar-a-lago. and if the president is migrating, changing his position on this, doesn't it fit that pattern of speaking off the cuff, then learning the position of his party and then it just ends up going away? >> i've always had a hard time believing, brian, the president would do anything that breaks with the nra in a substantial way. the nra came out bigger and earlier for president trump than it did for any presidential candidate, i believe, in its history. it is responsible for a significant part of his victory. i think that without the backing of communities like evangelical christians, social conservatives, gun owners, donald trump would not have been able to carry states like michigan, pennsylvania and wisconsin.
so president trump we know values loyalty above almost everything else. the nra was loyal to him, it stood by him in a time when many others were walking away from him and he's not going to forget that. >> well, anita, the other problem of course are the millions of americans who are not going to watch this happen again, watch an opportunity go by. do you view the window as closing at all on this debate and the time to get a vote going? >> well, i mean, you know, we've been there so many times before. i went and looked back at all these stories i wrote after sandy hook. >> i know. >> you could run the same stories now four years later. it does feel they're different this time in part because the kids, the students from the high school are being so vocal and you're hearing about republicans talk about doing something. we haven't heard much from the speaker of the house and the senate majority leader. they say it's awful what happened. they're not talking too much
about a lot of proposals. i just don't even know if it's there right now. they're talking about moderate measures, the one the president supports on background checks that most people support but it's very narrow. it's a very modest proposal. so i just don't know. >> jeremy, with background checks polling at 97%, which given the margin of haerror is 100% in the united states, is there no appetite for this? is this going to take profiles in courage from the 535 members of the house and senate? >> i think that anita is exactly right. you could run a lot of the same stories that we both wrote in 2013 after sandy hook. the background check bill, brian, is running into trouble tonight as we speak.
there was supposed to be unanimous consent to allow this to go forward but republican senator mike lee is holding this up. believe it or not, there is criticism from the right that fixing the background check system is the way congress is contemplating it is unfair to certain gun owners. you are always going to hit these national. perpetually it is a problem. congress has screwed up far easier things than this. i don't know that they will ever be able to agree on something as complicated as gun legislation. >> well, i've never seen people, i'll put this this way, pay attention quite this closely. there is an energized public out there right now for all the wrong reasons, those 17 souls. anita kumar, jeremy peters, we'll have you both back of course. thank you very much for being with us tonight. and coming up, the president says he would have summoned more courage, he thinks, than the armed deputies and he calls them out for cowardice.
cleaning floors with a mop and bucket is a hassle, meaning you probably don't clean as often as you'd like. for a quick and convenient clean, try swiffer wetjet. there's no heavy bucket, or mop to wring out, because the absorb and lock technology traps dirt and liquid inside the pad. it's safe to use on all finished surfaces tile, laminate and hardwood. and it prevents streaks and hazing better than a micro fiber strip mop, giving you a thorough clean the first time. for a convenient clean, try swiffer wetjet with a money back guarantee. brand power. helping you buy better.
i knew at that exact moment, whatever it takes, wherever i have to go...i'm beating this. my main focus was to find a team of doctors that work together. when
a patient comes to ctca, they're meeting a team of physicians that specialize in the management of cancer. breast cancer treatment is continuing to evolve. and i would say that ctca is definitely on the cusp of those changes. patients can be overwhelmed ... we really focus on taking the time with each individual patient so they can choose the treatment appropriate for them. the care that ctca brings is the kind of care i've wanted for my patients. being able to spend time with them, have a whole team to look after them is fantastic. i empower women with choices. it's not just picking a surgeon. it's picking the care team, and feeling secure where you are. surround yourself with the team of breast cancer experts at cancer treatment centers of america. visit cancercenter.com/breast
a big, big school. you'd have to have 150 real guards. look, they had one guard. he didn't turn out to be
too good, i'll tell you that. he turned out to be not too good. he was not a credit to law enforcement. he trained his whole life but when it came time to do something, he didn't have the courage or something happened, but he certainly did a poor job. >> i got to watch some deputy sheriffs performing this weekend. they weren't exactly medal of honor winners. all right. the way they perform was frankly disgusting. >> president trump has been vocally critical of a sheriff deputy who stayed outside the building while a gunman shot and killed 17 people inside marjory
stoneman douglas building. the lawyer for that officer defended his client saying peterson believed the gunfire was coming from outside the school when responding. this weekend nbc reported three more deputies from broward county sheriff's office also stayed outside during the shooting. i want to bring in bill bratton, he is these days an msnbc senior law enforcement analyst and we're lucky to have him. when you hear the president speaking that way, how do you balance it out against the stories we're hearing from the crime scene? what comes to mind? >> there's an old adage in the police profession, the first story is never the last story.
we're seeing how the multiple story lines coming out of this incident are changing day to day. we now have a lawyer defending the actions of the police officer, who has been very significantly castigated from the president on down. i think all of us need to take a deep breath, take a step back and let the investigations go forward and try to determine exactly what happened. in terms of the issue of who's going to do what what confronted with a horrific situation like this, nobody really knows until they have to confront it. in my profession that i'm so proud to be part of, on a number of occasions i had to confront situations that fortunately i acquitted myself well, as the vast majority of police officers and firefighters do, they run toward the dangers. that's what we expect. but until we're tested, until all of us are tested, you never really know. >> so can you follow a young recruit all the way through the nypd academy and until they get to the business end of a weapon on the job for a couple of years in new york city, there's really no way to know. and what about the imbalance of power? you know someone is there with
an a.r. shooting a 223 round, which is designed to rip human life apart, and you have your service weapon, a 9 millimeter and your kevlar vest. >> since columbine, we have trained officers to go toward the danger, usually equipped on their own with a semiautomatic handgun. in new york during my time, 2014-'15, fortunately we had the funds and mayoral support to buy for every police officer tactical gear they kept in their cars. the average officer responding to an active shooter situation has the ability to put on the extra armor, helmet and with the handgun to move toward the danger. >> what do you think that every teacher would have a nine mill
millimeter behind their sweater? >> my colleagues and i personally don't approve. but it's going to be an individual state decision. some communities they're carrying weapons. by and large i think police leaders understand how difficult it is even for a trained officer who is continually being trained to actually hit something that they're shooting at. and the confusion of going into a situation with additional people with firearms, not knowing who's who, it just raises the tension level for responding officers and basically raises also the potential for unfortunate crossfire between basically the good guys. >> yeah. from 200 yards to a first responder, an english teacher with a nine millimeter could look like a gunman inside a school. always a pleasure. thank you.
bill bratton here with us in the studio tonight. >> coming up, just how bad, how consequential is this russia investigation just over a year into this new presidency? but i'm not standing still... and with godaddy, i've made my ideas real. ♪ i made my own way, now it's time to make yours. ♪ everything is working, just like it should ♪
to keep our community safe. before you do any project big or small, pg&e will come out and mark your gas and electric lines so you don't hit them when you dig. call 811 before you dig, and make sure that you and your neighbors are safe. many of our presidents have dealt with scandal at some point in their presidencies and after a first year overshadowed by the mueller investigation, donald trump is now on that list. so far 19 people have been charged, five have pleaded guilty, including former national security adviser michael flynn, former deputy campaign manager rick gates and campaign adviser george papadopoulos. without knowing what other charges might still come, the folks who compile our morning political summary around here first read at nbc news wrote this today "whether or not mueller ever finds a smoking gun that trump and his campaign
colluded with russia, this is already the biggest political scandal in decades and we are just more than a year into trump's presidency and nine months into mueller's probe. they reference comments by jonathan bernstein who said, quote, it's clearly the worst presidential scandal since at least iran-contra, but probably since watergate. jonathan bernstein is here with us tonight. he's a long-time political science professor, now a columnist for "bloomberg view." well, jonathan, let me have you put it in the way you'd like. how far is this thus far based on what we know and why? >> you've got what we begin with, russia trying to influence the election. you've got the trump campaign at the very least welcoming that interference. we don't know if there was what counts as collusion but they
welcomed it publicly. the now president on the stump invited russia to interfere in the campaign essentially and we know covertly that was also going on, there was a meeting at trump tower, et cetera, et cetera. and then we've got a coverup, we've got obstruction of justice from the president, we he admitted to and bragged about on television, that he fired of director of the fbi because of the russian investigation. if you put all that together, you just went through the list of how many indictments, guilty pleas already. it's a major, major story. >> as he was coming down the aisle to deliver the state of the union, i remember remarking i couldn't remember another president at the end of his first year with his presidency as imperilled as donald trump. as you go through the reasoning, you started with of course russia interfered in our
election. we're so divided, we can't get agreement on that one. >> well, you know, that's the intelligence agencies agree on it, the investigations agree on it. there really isn't very much question about that. it's not trump's 400-pound guy sitting in his basement. we may not know everything that happened but just from what we know so far, it's enough to say, yeah, this imperils the presidency. >> where is the usual american urgency? this is a war unlike any other. this one of course is electronic, an enemy we can't see but we can imagine. where's the urgency to fight it? >> well, as you said, there's partisan polarization these days. you know, it's not the kind of tangible kind of damage that you might see, you know, from previous -- from, you know, fighting with bullets war. but you can also go back to previous scandals.
if you take watergate, for example, over several months of watergate it was, you know, the president successfully spun the thing as a third-rate burglary, right, and people didn't take it seriously for a long time until indictments started coming out and evidence started coming out of what nixon's men had done and what richard nixon himself had done. so it's a continuing story. it's a story that has legs journalism-wise. if there's urgency, it's hard to judge what counts as urgency. >> how about we agree to have you back the next stop down the road. jonathan bernstein, it's good to you have here again.
both mayor moscone and supervisor harvey milk have been shot and killed. >> jesus christ! last thing before we go tonight, that right there was the moment that dianne feinstein entered the consciousness of americans outside the bay area, after announcing the assassination of the san francisco mayor and city supervisor, she later assumed the office of mayor. now senator dianne feinstein does not like to talk about those awful murders and does not like to be asked about it. her history with gun violence did lead her to champion the assault weapons ban back in the 1990s. now here we are 40 years after that incident. senator dianne feinstein, democrat of california, is set to run for her sixth term. only seven senators have more
seniority than feinstein. she's the lead democrat on the judiciary committee and she's a big voice on intelligence and national security and more recently daca. but this weekend back home in california, she was drowned out by louder voice, one in particular. senator feinstein failed to receive the necessary vote against kevin deleon. he is a liberal who has criticiz criticiz criticized feinstein on her views. there's a primary in june and feinstein, who is a political institution, who has a whole lot of money and a big lead in the polls but as the senator herself would admit, nothing about the politics of 2018 is predictable, including the fact she could hear loud footsteps from
california all the way to washington. that is our broadcast for monday evening. as we start a new week, thank you so much for being here with us. good night from nbc news headquarters in new york. "all in with chris hayes" starts right now. tonight on "all in" -- >> this crew is indicted four people already for lying to them. >> as the president's lawyers try to keep trump away from a mueller interview -- >> for a person that doesn't use an economy of words like the president, it could be a disaster. >> tonight congressman adam schiff on more guilty pleas. the release of his memo and the collapse of trump's plot to stop mueller. then -- >> we need a little less tweeting here, a little more listening. >> the governor who confronted the president about arming teachers joins me live. >> you don't know until you test it. but i think -- i really believe i would run in there, even if i didn't have a weapon. plus, understanding today's supreme court move on daca. and ivanka trump's defense of the president. >> i think i have that right as a daughter to believe my father.