tv Deadline White House MSNBC November 17, 2018 3:00pm-4:00pm PST
mistak mistakes. and they go unaccounted for. that does it for me. thanks for watching. see you here tomorrow at 5:00 p.m. eastern. up next, dead lip white house, with my friend, nicole wallace. , with my friend, nicole wallace hi, everyone. it's 4:00 in new york. donald trump has finished his homework and he did it all by himself. the president announcing today that he has completed his written responses to robert mueller and he did it without stance. >> i write answers. i was asked a series of questions. i'm sure they're tricked up because ta like to catch people, was the weather sunny or rainy. he said it might have been a good day. hfs rainy. therefore he told a lie. he purgered himself. so you have to be careful when your answer questions with people that probably have bad
intentions, but the questions were very routinely answered by me. by me. >> and you submitted that the answer -- >> i haven't submitted them. i just finished them. >> but if they were easy, and if they're done, why hasn't he turned them over to robert mueller yet? the president's lawyer offers this clue in an interview with "the washington post" saying about the questions, quote, there are some that create more issues for us legally than others and adding some were unnecessary, some were b possible traps and we might consider some irrelevant. we don't know what questions the president and his lawyers chose to answer, but news accounts suggest the president answered some about russia related items and likely nothing relating to the obstruction of justice inquiry. we know from "new york times" reporting earlier in the year that some of the questions robert mueller wants to ask the president involved his interactions with former aides who now work for robert mueller as cooperating witnesses.
for example, from a list of questions reported by the times and shared with the president's lawyers, mueller wants to ask the president what tid you know about phone calls that mr. flynn made with russian ambassador in 2016 and this one about whether trump was aware of his lawyers to dangle pardons in front of flynn after he was charged. quote, after the resignations, what efforts were made to reach out to mr. flynn about seeking immunity? the challenge for donald trump should he be tempted to lie as his lawyers seem to worry he will about his knowledge of flynn's calls with the russian ambassador or if his lawyer's conversations about pardon is that flynn now works for robert mueller. here's another example. mueller wants to ask the president what knowledge did you have of any outreach by your campaign including by paul manafort, to russia about potential assistance to the campaign. now, manafort is also a cooperating witness in the
mueller probe as is his deputy, rick gates. finally, this one, about an interaction with his former fixer, michael cohen. from his list of questions, what do you know about a ukrainian peace proposal provided to cohen in 2017? you guessed it, special counsel mueller is asking donald trump to detail an interaction with another cooperating witness. now there's an easy way out of this for mr. trump. tell the truth. but the man who has wailed no collusion from the top of his lungs for many months now can't even tell the truth about being clearly agitated. >> i'm not agitated. the whole thing was a hoax. so here now from "the washington post," white house bureau chief, phil walker. joyce vance is a former u.s. attorney and john, an executive producer of the circus.
phil, let me start with you. that appearance before the press pool today was stunning and for everyone who thinks that donald trump shows his hand every time, he certainly did so once again today. >> first of all, he said he's not agitated, but wrote in all caps on twitter yesterday. about the, the probe. and sort of an outburst on twitter. that's clearly a sign of agitation. we know from reporting he's been spending all week with his lawyers preparing those answers. i thought it was interesting that the press availability earlier today, he said three separate times, i wrote my own answers, my lawyers did not write them. i don't lead lawyers to write my answers, but we know that's not true. the lawyers have been helping them draft those. they're being very careful so he does not perjure himself in the answers or create other legal
problems for himself. it's one of the reasons why they haven't submitted those back to the special counsel yet because they're still under review and still putting them together. >> joyce, you think the may have created additional exposure for himself? explain. >> one of the reasons that you submit written answers to questions instead of showing up in person to talk to bob mueller is to create a little distance between yourself and the answers so if one of your answers turns out to be contradictory with evidence that mueller has managed to compile, you can say well that was the lawyer's doing, not what i said, but trump has adopted these answers now and said they're his own and if mueller can show they're deceitful then the president may have new trouble to deal with. >> matt miller, speak to this idea that robert mueller has such a complete picture of all these interactions that weapon first learned he wanted to ask the president about when "the new york times" reported on the
list of 49 questions they were sharing with the president's lawyers. we understand they took down the questions and went back to the president. we assume that some version of those were among the questions they sought to answer this week with the president. took about the k exposure that the president has, not just on the substance, but the pe ill in offers interactions to individuals who are now cooperating witnesses for mr. mueller. >> it's a good point and it's beyond the list you mentioned of people who have pled guilty. his campaign manager. his deputy campaign manager. it's not just those people. it's all the other people who have either been grand jury to testify about interactions with the president. >> let me put those up. here's a list of the known mueller witnesses. >> sure and in addition to those, the people you're putting on the screen now, who worked in the white house, reince priebus,
his white house counsel who sat like like 30 hours of interviews. so when the president answers these questions, he's answering them against a deep backdrop that mueller and his prosecutors have put together. so in many cases, they already know the answers to the questions they're asking. but you've seen and heard others, where they've sat across from the prosecutors and they'll answer a question. they'll mueller's team will supply a document or a piece of information that well, when you were in this meeting on x date, isn't it true you said this and they'll find out mueller knew, already knew the answer. i assume that's very much the case with the questions they've asked the president and that's why you see him answering them in writing where they can just avoid answering some rather than put the president in the room where he could commit false statements. >> we know from reporting that the president's own comments, he's tweeted about jeff sessions. he should stop this rigged witch
hunt. we know his treatment is under scruti scrutiny. he's tweeted, he lied to the vice president, he's tweeted about fighting back, trying to redefine b obstruction of justice as a trumpian approach to defending himself. what do you make of the stand off if you will between the president and his questions. i would strike over time listening to our friend from "the new york times" talk about this being known for many months and this negotiation has dragged on for so long that the hold up here is clearly, not like the goal posts are moving. got a new fax all the time. but the basic things have been these things he's been interested in for a long time. and suggest that the president to your point, he has an easy way out, which is tell the truth. it's true that's the easy way out if all you're trying to
avoid perjury, but he's clearly not. if the facts are incriminating, he has no easy way out. he can lie or risk perjury charges or tell the truth and incriminate himself if the facts are incriminating. i think part of the reason why this negotiation has taken so long is there's been a lot of political games manship here. the president wanted to drag it out. would republicans control the house or senate. he's had a lot of interest to try to drag it out. sorting dominance is the one place where the upper hand on mueller is the timing of this, the method of this, the scope of this, he has some leverage, right? so the president wants to push back. in every other way, mueller has him over a barrel for the reasons he said again. but it seems to me the reason is this is taking so long and the reason the president behaves this way is because he has caught in a bind. he places a terrible choice of other copping to bad facts or lying and therefore putting
himself, making himself vulnerable to other kinds of charges. >> phil, i spoke to a source today who said the president is irate by the proseccess. your paper reported last week the very selection of matt whitaker to be the act aing attorney general had its roots and the president wanting someone there who was antisubpoena. who if mueller came and said i have tried everything, i gave his lawyers the question. questions 11 months ago. i met with him on mull princiti occasions. i've done everything a reasonable investigator would do. what the president did in matt whitaker was and this is your reporting, two people close to whitaker said he does not plan to take himself off the russia case. they said he's deeply skeptical of any effort to force the president's testimony through a subpoena. do you think the door is shut in the white house's view that by putting whitaker there, it's my
understandi ining he's not takee reigns yet. that the subpoena is off the table? does the white house have that comfort and confidence? >> you know, i don't think they have the confidence that it's completely off the table, they have more confidence than they did a couple of weeks ago and they feel like in whitaker, they have something of a safety blanket or at least a way to control the process more. and to make president trump feel like he's in more control of what's going on. but they know that the investigation's going to keep going. there's no plan as far as i know for whitaker to stop the investigation. if it comes to an issue of a subpoena, it's not clear that whitaker would oppose that despite the past statements he's made and despite what we've been reporting. simply because he would be making that decision in a different context as the aktsing attorney general with much more visibility and so could potentially arrive at a different decision. but he, whitaker being in that job is giving the president and
the people around him a lot more confidence about where this investigation is headed. >> i want both of you on this, too, it's just a theory from my imagination, but this seems to me to be the fundamental test for matt whitaker. if hem wants to have a future i public life, he looks like a young man. if he come through the justice department after giving him a test 11 months ago, offering to accept written answers, if robert mueller asks for a subpoena, do you think it's 100% certain that whitaker won't approve it? >> i don't think it is 100% certain and you're right. whitaker has to consider his age and the fup of hture of his card whether he for all time wants to be tied to trump as the attorney general who failed to uphold the rule of law. you know, trump rosenberg likes to talk about the gravitational
force that pulls on people understand they're inside of the justice department. it's a strong force. there's a history of institutional practice. of cases where you have a conflict of interest. we saw that play out with jeff sessions. i think it's likely that matt whitaker, a u.s. attorney and served in the bush administration, was carried over and served for several months as an obama attorney. he will find it increasingly difficult to violate the guidance from ethics officials. he may well recuse. what's the worst thing that can happen? trump can fire him and that may be much better ultimately than tarnishing his career for all time. >> it's hard to explain this outside of the wonky right wing, who really cares any way, but inside the circles, there's a hot war going on. you've got prominent
conservatives like george conway and others really banging the drum and donald trump's assault on the rule of law, his year's long war with his justice department. letting nunes run over the appointees at the fbi. i think the test for matt whitaker, it's not just a test, as to whether or not he has nika rear in public life after this is whether or not if asked he does so. >> i think that's right. you just heard the optimistic view from joyce. i hope that's right. let me give you the view, more on the side i land on. whitaker is in this job for one reason. to prevent this investigation from getting too close to donald trump. i don't think that means he's going to reach in and fire bob mueller an dismiss indictments, but u on the close calls and subpoenaing the president can be a close call, he's going to side the president. maybe we'll get lucky and he'll do right thing, but i don't have any confidence in that.
i don't think it's a koicoincide that the president stalled on answering these questions for 11 months. he dragged the process out and now finally, the week after he put someone in place who's only real known qualification for the job is a publicly stated hostility to the investigation, who it's been reported is skeptical of a subpoena is that now is when the president has decided to answer these questions. you'll see the questions on the ones where he has the most legal jeopardy. where he can't answer the question without incriminating himself. he'll decline to answer those knowing or expegting and hoping the leverage that mueller has has probably been lifted. >> i will offer both joyce and matt a chance to call me and tell me if i'm wrong b about the thing i'm about to say. i believe it is the case, this is not a matter of whether matt whittaker wants to have a career in public life or a future in the republican party or anything else. he wants to stay out of jail and the reality is that again, we've all been schooled on what
obstruction of justice is about. we don't know what promises have been made about he and donald trump to gelt this appointment, but the reality is that if matt whitaker is faced with a subpoena request on a variety of other fronts, if he acts with corrupt intent to try to protect donald trump, he becomes part of the obstruction of justice. and the statutes have i believe this is what i'll ask my lawyer friends, have a five-year statute of limitations, which means if donald trump loses in 2020, a democratic attorney general under the next democratic president could walk in and indict matt whitaker if he b obstructs justice. forget about all the other krss. the thing that makes me do the right thing is if you have nothing else, i could end up being charged with obstruction of justice and end up in jail. >> it's as good a place as many to sneak in our first break. thank you so much.
after the break, has kellyanne conway's husband, george conway k become the loudest never trump republican in the room or just the most surprising one? also, a big defeat for the president where it hurts him the most, with jim acosta and in court. also, the clap back heard around the world. my favorite political comeback of the year. all those stories are next. litik of the year. all those stories are next ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ comfort. what we deliver by delivering. discover.o. i like your card, but i'm absolutely not paying an annual fee. discover has no annual fees. really? yeah. we just don't believe in them. oh nice. you would not believe how long i've been
rehearsing that. no annual fee on any card. only from discover. means they won't hike your rates over one mistake. see, liberty mutual doesn't hold grudges. for drivers with accident forgiveness, liberty mutual won't raise their rates because of their first accident. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ new aveeno® cracked skintell you cica ointment. what to wear. with shea butter and triple oat complex. for fast relief and a protective barrier for lasting relief. wear what you love, aveeno®. that's where i feel normal. having an annuity tells me my retirement is protected. learn more at retire your risk dot org. (music throughout)
conservative lawyer george conway has not been shy about disagree with the president even though his wife kellyanne conway spends her days defending donald trump as one of the most senior advisers and one of the only people from the campaign other than the president's children to still be working in the white house. george conway himself had a brush with working in this administration. yahoo! news reports a star litigator for a new york law firm conway in the early days of trump's president was offered a top job at the justice department as chief of the civil division. a post that would have put nim charge of defending the administration in lawsuits throughout the country. but he pulled out of the running and explained why on yahoo! news' skullduggery podcast. >> man, i'm thinking, i'm watching this thing, and you know, it's like the administration is like a [ bleep ] show in a dumpster fire. and i'm like, i don't want to do
that. i don't know. and then it's like, then you got the comey firing. and then you've got him going on tv saying, i had russia on my mind. and it's like, oh, no. and then it's like, then, you know, i'm driving home one day from new york and it's like, robert mueller appointed special counsel. and i realized this guy is going to be at war with the justice department. and i'm going to go on the hill and, you know, and do this and i'm the husband of the counselor of the president and got him elected basically. and he's going to be a -- and if i get this door prize, i'm going to be in the middle of a department he's at war with. like, why would anybody want to do this? >> joining us at the table, karine jean-pierre, michelle goldberg, for "the new york times," the rev al sharpton, host of "politics nation," heilemann and matt miller are still with us. you were giggling. here's the thing --
>> very good question. why would anybody want to do this? he's very wise. >> the significance of this, and it's worth stating, this is an uncomfortable -- anybody that's worked in politics and has a family member or spouse that disagrees with the person they work for, it's auk ward. i worked for george bush. plenty of people in my family weren't fans. george conway is giving voice to a critique that's existed for two, going on three years now about donald trump. and he -- it's just stunning that he's so bothered that he's using his voice to make this argument. >> and he is whispering as he's talking, right? >> like the tapes are rolling. >> he's taking us through his thought process during that time. look, george conway is as conservative as they come. the two of us wouldn't even agree that today is friday. i mean, that's how far we are apart from each other. but he's 100% right. you know, he's not wrong.
and it is bizarre that the reason we're talking about it is because he is the husband to the counselor to the president. so i, you know, kudos to him for bringing voice to this. for using his platform to do this. i would not want to be at the dinner table in their house. >> i would. >> maybe a fly on the wall. >> here's the other reason that, to me, it matters is a political story. these are not small things. this was, i mean, what he just ticked through was the firing of comey with russia on his mind. to a lawyer that sounds like obstruction of justice. the appointment of mueller which to prosecutors they describe him, one former u.s. attorney described him as a prosecutorial assassin. these are people that get brought in when the potential crimes are dire. >> and you see now that the white house is scrambling to bring in new people, new lawyers in because they are about to be flooded with subpoenas. and who would possibly want to go into this, you know, sort of -- i don't know if snake pit
is the right word. >> it's a good word. titanic? >> snake pin assumes a level of competence, like a bumbling snake pit if that was a thing. but who wants to go into this disaster and try to fend off the best lawyers in the world who are both working on -- working for the justice -- working for robert mueller and also who are going to be scrambling to get on to all of these congressional committees. >> it's a good point, rev. >> when you look at conway, you look at who i believe is a true conservative. and who is embarrassed by what is happened to what he's believed in all of his life. and i think when you look at the fact that he's married to kellyanne, who he kind of jokingly whispers into the podcast, who had a lot to do with getting him elected. it shows the conflict in the
right wing on the republican party. those that will go along with trump and those that are saying, wait a minute. i stand for something and this guy is making mockery of everything i believed in. i think you see in the conway marriage where the whole house of the right wing is in conflict. >> it's such a good point. and to explain to our friends on the left how painful this divide. it's the annihilation of the republican party because if it stands for trump, it never stood for anything. i wonder if you're skeptical. >> it's interesting in this sense. like you, having -- well, i have -- every administration i've covered except the obama administration had a major independent counsel or special prosecutor who investigated them. it wasn't like you were always able to find lawyers. that was a great job. going to defend bill clinton against ken starr, he had a line of great democratic lawyers who wanted to be in that fight. just as scooter libby had a line of great republican lawyers who wanted to defend him. normally what you see, this is a high-profile case. you believe in the person, the
member of your party so you want to be in that fight. and the fact there's a lot of subpoenas coming in doesn't scare you away. what's interesting about this, george conway and now this group of lawyers that he's summoned together earlier this week, there's especially in the legal community, it's true a lot of republican politicos have thrown aside their principles and have just become trumpists. but there is, in the world of both legal theory, legal scholars and also in the high end of white shoe lawyering in washington, d.c., the lawyers on the republican side who normally would love this kind of case are like, no, no, no because -- not just because they think trump may have done something wrong but they know he'll be at war with the justice department, the fbi and they're institutionalists. they don't want to be on the side of a president who is going to fight by attacking those institutions.
>> left me bring matt milner. there is a thing about the way men and women who have worked in the justice department talk about -- they refer to it as the department and talk about it with love. and it's just a thing. i've known enough people who served the department to have heard it, and there is a -- and maybe it's different from the war with the intelligence community because they're morpublic facing jobs. the president is more aware of them. attacks them more frequently. there's some reporting he's not that interested in foreign policy but the justice department they're investigating him is in his mind, in his sights every day. >> yeah, it's true. there is a culture at the justice department of independence that really gets kind of -- i think they put it in the water in the fountains because it gets built into everyone that works there. even for a short period of time, everyone at that department knows that the worst thing you can do is to bow to political will either from the president or anyone else who is trying to influence the administration of justice. and so i do think you see people that go into this department, you know, from the conservative side. and there have been a lot of respectable lawyers. conservative lawyers. members of the conservative bar who have joined this justice
department who find themselves struggling how to do their jobs at the same time the president has put enormous pressure on the department. and it's always trying to push them to do the right thing. rod rosenstein who is most in the middle of that. all the time getting pressed to do things and sometimes bending and getting into the present things he shouldn't absolutely give. one of the questions we face, it was a hard enough place to work with pressure from the white house. what happens now that congress has flipped and there are -- i should say the house has flipped and the justice department is going to be the subject of deep, intense investigations from the house. are there a lot of respectable lawyers who say, you know, it just isn't worth it to work here anymore. i'm getting attacked from the president, from the left, often for legitimate reasons, sometimes illegitimate ones. it's time for me to leave. what happens if trump can back fill it with complete and utter cronies. >> the very cynical part of me wonders if kellyanne conway and her husband are just hedging their bets as a power couple
because everybody who goes in, works in this administration, comes out disgraced and comes out, you know, with their reputation in tatters and their future prospects pretty bleak. one way to have your cake and eat it, too, to have one foot in the administration but also one foot among the never trump republicans is to kind of do this sort of, oh, well, we were really working against him the whole time when its goes down in flames. >> let me -- it's interesting because he doesn't just question the president's sort of treatment of the justice department. he questions his very stability. let's listen. >> do you think president trump is fully stable? >> no comment on that. >> really? well, i mean certainly your tweets would certainly suggest you have some questions about the stability of this president. and the truthfulness of this president. by the way -- >> yes, sir.
>> yes, sir. the question is stability. question is truthfulness. that sort of makes if that's the case, makes it pretty cynical. >> it does. george conway is a very smart man. he knew exactly what he was doing when doing this podcast. he knew we were going to talk about it and have discussions about it. i was talking about the timeline. he talks about james comey how it all first started. that's one book end. i was thinking about the next book end. look what happened last week, the day after election. donald trump fires jeff sessions and put in -- puts in matt whitaker. i can't imagine for someone like george conway, the way that -- how he sees the department of justice and he was going to potentially work for the department of justice, that he's thinking about it. how that must sit with him. >> this is a hard thing to sort of talk about publicly, but there is -- it's not an ego but there's a pecking order at the justice department. i'm guessing a lot of people of the caliber of rod rosenstein and others, there may be a little bit of a fence having to work with someone who is clearly sort of a political patron of
donald trump. >> yeah, you can say that. look, this has been going on really since that story broke of, i think about a month, six weeks ago about rod rosenstein offering to wear a wire, either in jest or not in jest. on that same day, the -- matt whitaker had a conversation with the president's chief of staff about replacing rod rosenstein as the acting deputy attorney general. of course, he got a better job than that at the end. that from what i'm told provoked extreme controversy inside the department. people see him not just as a hack but disloyal to other people in the department and i suspect the knives are out for him not just from the career people but among political appointees as well. >> matt miller, thank you. after the break, hitting trump where it hurts in a battle with cnn in court.
but some give their clients cookie cutter portfolios. fisher investments tailors portfolios to your goals and needs. some only call when they have something to sell. fisher calls regularly so you stay informed. and while some advisors are happy to earn commissions whether you do well or not. fisher investments fees are structured so we do better when you do better. maybe that's why most of our clients
come from other money managers. fisher investments. clearly better money management. after a scratch so small rocket you could fix it with a pen. how about using that pen to sign up for new insurance instead? for drivers with accident forgiveness, liberty mutual won't raise their rates because of their first accident. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ opportunlike here.rywhere. and here. see? opportunity. ev-er-y-where. about to be parents. meeting the parents. and this driver, logging out to watch his kid hit one out of the... (bat hits ball) opportunity is everywhere. all you have to do to find it is get out...here. ♪
as far as political and legal dramas go, this one is almost shakespearean. today cnn, backed by a coalition of media companies, including fox news, defeated the white house in court. that was thanks to a ruling from a federal judge, wait for it, appointed by donald trump. the administration was ordered to immediately return jim acosta of cnn's press pass after they revoked it last week without due process. that was following a contentious press conference. the white house tried to spin the decision by moving the goal post. this is sarah huckabee sanders. today the court made clear that there is no absolute first amendment right to access the white house. in response to the court, we will temporarily reinstate the reporter's hard pass. we will also develop -- further develop rules and processes to ensure fair and orderly process conferences in the future. there must be decorum at the white house. decorum at the white house. really? >> because if you were looking for one word to describe the trump white house, decorum would be it.
>> let's show you. >> on the other hand you had some that decided to -- let's stay away -- mike kaufman. too bad, mike. mia love gave me no love. and she lost. too bad. >> are you worried -- >> that's enough. that's enough. that's enough. >> i was going to ask -- you are a rude, terrible person. >> in jim's defense i've traveled with him. he's -- >> i'm not a fan of yours either. when you report fake news like cnn does. you are the enemy of the people. >> you call yourself a nationalist. some see that as emboldening white nationalists -- >> that's such a racist question. >> did someone say something about decorum? >> who is going to define decorum, him? >> well, they are. that was -- sarah huckabee sanders is. >> donald trump knows anything about decorum.
and those in his administration that would work for someone like that is -- on his face, absurd. but that's also why, as we were talking in the last segment about why people don't want to be his lawyer because he wants to be his lawyer. you can't control him. he's his pr spokesperson, he's his lawyer. his fund-raiser, he's everything. and that is why anyone that has any kind of real skills and self-pride doesn't want to work for him. he's not going to let you work. it's just that simple. he didn't have -- kellyanne was not out there, nor was the spokeswoman out there doing this to reporters. he was. so when we talk about setting decorum, he's the one that broke decorum and did it himself. that was not a press secretary taking the mike from acosta. he commanded it to be done. >> and of all the things that people that love trump can say about him, not one of them can say he has decorum. >> right. none of them. if anything, they like that, right? this is his whole thing. he discredits the messenger so
that his small group of people don't believe the message. this is his thing and he'll destroy, he will break norms. he'll destroy democratic institutions to do it. and it's very selfish. it's all about him and what he wants. >> the one thing that's frightening is this isn't a total victory for the first amendment. this was decided on fifth amendment first round grounds. there wasn't a process in place to take away jim acosta's pass. now they'll put a process in place and it will be really important to see whether that process is allowed to stand, right? if they are allowed to define the rules for how reporters address them. that's actually pretty dangerous. >> very. >> i worked in a white house, in the press shop. there were people that were -- the majority of people in the press room, the coverage was incredibly negative. i never participated in a conversation or was asked to examine the removal of anyone from the white house press office.
>> look, there had been -- we've had various fakers, hoaxters who have gotten in -- >> because they're not actual journalists. >> there are obviously things that could happen in the white house press office where we'd all agree that a reporter was behaving badly enough they should have their hard pass taken away. they could commit an act of violence. we can imagine things that a reporter could do that would merit them taking away their hard pass. obviously, asking a question in a way that annoys the president is clearly not one of them. and i agree with michelle the question is going to be how broad are these guidelines that they establish the process. and then what's the opportunity to challenge it? i presume if they define it too broadly or define it in a way and then try to apply it in a way that seems out of bounds, they'll just be back in court again. it's obviously something to keep an eye on. >> what did we think was going to happen? you listen to the way the president talks about the press. this is the obvious next step to start stripping access to the white house.
>> when you talk about rules and regulations, what do you mean? >> decorum. you can't take three questions and four questions and just stand up and not sit down. you have to practice decorum. you were there. you understood and you understand. we want total freedom of the press. it's very important to me. it's more important to me than anybody would believe. but you have to act with respect. you are in the white house. >> and decorum. i like the way he says it like he's learned a new word. someone taught him a new word. >> doesn't know the definition of the word. >> decorum. >> the definition of the word because right away, he comes with three or four questions at a time. yamiche asked him one question about nationalism. white nationalism. so this whole thing with the -- >> i think what he meant was deference. >> don't ask me anything that i don't want raised. that's what he meant. decorum to him is you defer to me and do not act like a journalist and ask any question that is uncomfortable. >> this is where this story is more than ironic that a trump appointed judge ruled for cnn
and against him. this is where the story feels deadly serious. that is what an autocrat relies upon to destroy -- >> exactly right. >> that what you just described. that's what putin requires of the press. so to me, this becomes sort of a, a friday story about a trump appointed judge ruling for cnn who trump hates more than life. it's a tool and a pathway toward aughtocracy. >> and that is autocracy. what he's really saying, you're in the white house. you're in my house. and in my house, you act like i want you to act. he doesn't see this as the people's house. you're in my house. i'm king. you bow or you don't have proper decorum. you're out of here. get him out of here. take the mike. and i think that is dangerous for all of us on whatever side of the political aisle we may relate to. >> and it is clear, the
insidious irony of it is that donald trump got elected by being the anti-decorum candidate. we're making jokes about this. his point was i'm not politically correct so i'm going to talk about grabbing women by the whatsies and talk about megyn kelly bleeding from whatever. that's going to make people love me because i'm anti-decorum and that makes me strong. then when it's to his interest, you all need to practice decorum. which begin is -- >> i still bet he doesn't know what the word means. the political comeback of the day. the day. ♪
♪ the new capital one savor card. earn 4% cash back on dining and 4% on entertainment. now when you go out, you cash in. what's in your wallet? now when you go out, you cash in. new listerine® ready! tabs™ aren't gum, mints, or marbles. seriously, what is this? if you guessed they're tabs that turn into liquid as you chew, so you can swish and clean your whole mouth instantly, then you were correct. and that was a really good guess. nice job. ♪ ♪ (volunteer) hey. (old man) come on in. (volunteer) you taught me the rules.
(vo) you do more than feed seniors when you share the love. you feed souls. get a new subaru, like the all new forester, and charities like meals on wheels can receive two hundred and fifty dollars from subaru. (avo) get zero percent during the subaru share the love event. with lower expense ratios than comparable vanguard funds. and we're now offering zero expense ratio index funds. that's value you'll only find at fidelity. ♪ one thing leads another
that's value you'll only find at fidelity. the roasted core wrap. ways to lose stubborn belly fat. 2, 1... not cool. freezing away fat cells with coolsculpting? now that's cool! coolsculpting safely freezes and removes fat cells with little or no downtime. and no surgery. results and patient experience may vary. some common side effects include temporary numbness, discomfort, and swelling. ask your doctor if coolsculpting is right for you. and visit coolsculpting.com today for your chance to win a free treatment. a reporter for the washington examiner tweeted this yesterday. and it wasn't the welcome to washington greeting newly elected congresswoman alexandria ocasio-cortez was expecting. it was a picture of her from behind and a caption that read, hill staffer sent me a pic of ocasio-cortez they took just now. that jacket and coat don't look like a girl who struggles.
to which she responded, quote, if i walked into congress wearing a sack, they would laugh and take a picture of my back side. if i walk in with my best sale rack clothes, they laugh and take a picture of my backside. dark hates light. that's why you tune it out. shine light and keep it pushing. a good metto for the record-breaking number of women that will walk the halls of congress next year. a good motto for every woman. and you don't have to be in public life. every woman has felt that double standard that what we wear gets a lot more attention than what any guy wears. >> right. there's something so crazy about this idea that she calls herself working class. and yet she has a coat. >> have you been to h&m? there's a fashion story, a sexism story and a stupidity story. >> and it's also true that having to manage your appearance and people's expectations of your appearance is one of the taxes that falls on women who are in any sort of public role.
then there's also this weird fixation that the right has on alexandria ocasio-cortez. there is something about her that they find, i think, profoundly threatening because she is such a charismatic kind of messenger for progressivism. and there is really no analogue on the right. who, charlie kirk? like -- >> why is she such a target? >> she's powerful. has a following. she's created this movement for herself. in her instagram, social media. she tweets something and it goes viral. like wildfire. you know, there was after president obama was elected in 2008, there was this idea we were post-racial america. and it was totally not true. it was completely opposite. and i think now we have elected
over 100 amazing women, very diverse. there's a sense we may be in this post-sexist america. sadly, i fear that is not true. it's just not true. this is what you'll start seeing especially now that you have so many diverse voices that's going to be going into the house. >> i want to ask you about the stupidity part of this story, no offense. but there is -- >> expert -- i have a ph.d. in my own stupidity. please go ahead. >> i saw this last night and a female political reporter tweeted it. there was something visceral about a woman seeing a male reporter from the right tweeting about her clothes and how much they cost. >> staffers are taking pictures of you like -- >> and sending them -- >> it's creepy. it's stalkerish. but let me ask you about whether the political press and the men in the political press specifically, are going to have to re-educate themselves about covering women without commenting on their clothes. without commenting on their looks or commenting on their connections with other women.
i can almost see the traps that without even intending to, male reporters could fall into if they cover a gaggle of newly elected congresswomen and want to say something about how they're huddled like girlfriends. that's a red line. who is warning them not to cross it? >> i don't know who is going to warn them. it's a question of education. we're in a new world in which the composition of congress is now going to be much more diverse in a variety of ways. o its the case that the whole body because its all happening on the democratic side, more diverse body on a body of fronts both racial and gender. male reporters got a lot to learn. that's the first thing. i do think the challenge is something that's much more profound in a way than not saying stupid sexist stuff. obviously they shouldn't do that, but the challenges you want to be able to talk about this phenomenon of how is capitol hill going to change? are these newly elected women, are they going to act as a block? what are the different stripes
of femmism and how is that going to affect the discussion? there are a whole bunch of interesting things to talk about if you can find a way to talk about that respectfully, not objectionation alley. you'll have to be smart, respectful and get some advice from women about how to do it. >> i think also you've got to look at the fact that there's not a mon owe lith with women. you have a record number of women in congress, but let's not act like they were all cut out of the same cloth. you have some that disagree even in the democratic caucus and i think the height of sexism is to act like they're a block. no, they're not. they're elected by two very different constituencies and they have different things to bring to the table.
your brain changes as you get older. but prevagen helps your brain with an ingredient originally discovered... in jellyfish. in clinical trials, prevagen has been shown to improve short-term memory. prevagen. healthier brain. better life. whenshe was pregnant,ter failed, in-laws were coming, a little bit of water, it really- it rocked our world. i had no idea the amount of damage that water could do. we called usaa. and they greeted me as they always do. sergeant baker, how are you? they were on it. it was unbelievable. having insurance is something everyone needs, but having usaa- now that's a privilege. we're the baker's and we're usaa members for life.
usaa. get your insurance quote today. ♪ ♪ the united states postal service makes more holiday deliveries to homes than anyone else in the country. ♪ with one notable exception. ♪ ...from far away. but they harryonly see his wrinkles. if only harry used some... ...bounce, to dry. he would be a less wrinkly, winning guy. ♪
california, the purpose of your trip tomorrow? >> just to see the firefighters. nobody's ever seen what's going on over there. i was watching the firemen the other day and they were raking areas. they were raking areas where the fire was over there, little trees that are like this, little bushes that you could see are totally dry, weeds and they're raking them, they're on fire. that should have been all raked out -- >> what about the argument -- >> you wouldn't have the fires -- >> what about the argument that its climate change, that its
dryer and hotter -- >> maybe it contributes a little bit. >> president trump in an interview airing on "fox news," they're appearing to once again blame management for the deadly wildfires burning in california repeating what was his initial reaction to this tragedy, one he first expressed in a tweet last weekend. the president will be traveling to the state tomorrow. the number of people killed now stands at 66 but overnight, the number of people unaccounted for skyrocketed to over 600. the largest of the fires which is still burning is now the deadliest wildfire in california's history. this drone footage captures the charred remains of paradise. just about all of the town was destroyed. an estimated 52,000 people have been displaced. my thoughts and prayers go out to my home state. this is horrific and the president once again tone deaf. >> yeah. a lot of these fires burned right up to the edges of where the house that i grew up in the
san fernando valley and i know tons of people who have either been in a state of terror or driven out of their homes or in mandatory evacuation areas. i don't know right now that -- i say that -- i try to say this in a nonpartisan way. i don't know many people in southern california that want people out there. >> the air is so horrific. air alert warnings -- but to not have any compassion for the people that are suffering. >> you got to watch him. he is the president. he's not talking about briefings, he got. he says i saw on television people raking. this is the intelligence report the president of the united states has. you're watching television and blaming management? >> the presidency is structured so that you never have to turn on a television. you have access to the very best information -- the information that tv reporters chase all day comes from the government he runs. >> he shouldn't -- he shouldn't go out there, particularly when he hasn't visited any of the
troops, including the troops that he has sent to the border on this completely foolish p.r. stunt that is now is ruining a lot of people's thanksgiving. he's both, you know, kind of not particularly wanted in california, but also he just poured salt on the wounds because he can't acknowledge this as a national tragedy. he can't acknowledge this as an unprecedented disaster. he can only find ways to score like the pettiest of partisan points. >> the departure from normal is striking. if he saw something on television that seemed related to forest management, he could have picked up the phone and called somebody and asked. >> he's the president. >> he's giving chris wallace, another television reporter, an analysis based on tv coverage. >> its infuriating. he lacks that gene, the empathy gene, he just continues to prove how unfit he is for the most important office in the country, this the world arguably. >> the look on chris wallace's
face. they're raking, they're raking. chris wallace is going, what are you talking about? >> he brings up climate change and he says that may have something to do with it, the rake and the bush. i call it a tree, but its a bush. are we serious? the whole pettiness of this man is don't blame me on anything. you got to always find some where to put the blame because he knows he should not be sitting in the oval office. >> there's such an uneven record for this president. he went to puerto rico and he threw paper towels. he's been to some hurricanes and he's done better. >> i think the one from puerto rico is going to show up. he told us who he's going to be for tomorrow. he should not really not be going. a town is now gone. he's just unfit. he just needs to stay home and go play golf. >> let that be the last word today. my thanks to all of you. be sure to catch him on politics
nati "politics nation" this weekend at 35 p.5:00 p.m. that does it for this hour. just answer the questions, let's play "hardball." good evening, i'm chris matthews in washington. this is the week when donald trump began to worry. he knows that the mueller probe on which all else rides is closing in. he said as much this afternoon. that the investigation is quote, ending now. >> the witch hunt as i call it should never have taken place, it continues to go on, i imagine its ending now from what i hear its ending and i'm sure it'll be just fine. you know why its going to be just fine because there's no collusion. >> from what i hear its ending.