we begin tonight with breaking news and a president who's author taritarian impulsee on full display. he ripped into supreme court justice john roberts. those attacks were rooted in the president's frustration with a federal judge's decision to temporarily block the president's efforts to deny asylum to migrants who crossed the border illegally. yesterday the president was clear with reporters. he saw that judge's decision as a political hit job.
>> you go to the ninth circuit and it's a disgrace. i'm going to put in a major complaint, because you cannot win if you're us a case in the ninth circuit. this was an obama judge. i'll tell you what. it's not going to happen like this anymore. >> chief justice john roberts has seen the president badger the judiciary and he has been silent, but he wasn't silent this time. he responded with this statement, we do not have obama judges or trump judges, bush judges or clinton judges. what we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do an equal right to those appearing before them. that independent judiciary is something we should all be thankful for. moments ago the president put the finishing touches on his response back to roberts saying, sorry chief justice john roberts, but you do indeed have obama judges and they have much
a different point of view than the people who are charged with the safety of our country. it would be great if the ninth circuit was indeed an independent judiciary. these rulings are making our country unsafe, very dangerous and unwise. this is not good, guys. the president is painting federal judges as political operatives and he's going after the integrity of the country's chief justice for speaking out about it. neil, i want to get to you straight away on this. what do you make of this fight between the president of the united states and the chief justice of the supreme court? >> it's really quite extraordinary. i'm not aware of anything really like it in our lifetime. the chief justice, i've appeared before him 37 times to argue cases. and i think it's fair to say
that the adjectives you think about when you think about the chief justice are restrained, brilliant, dignified. that's everything that donald trump isn't. >> trump is saying things that are just statistically wrong about the court. it's a corrosive attitude about courts and the rule of law. >> this attitude about courts and the rule of what, what's the consequence. >> i think the bigger agenda is to attack the courts and attack the chief justice. i think it's very similar to how he treats any other check and balance, my other institution against him, whether it's the
media, which you know well, or the justice department and fbi, from firing his attorney general, firing comey, the fbi director. you know, basically his m.o. is to attack any institution, any check and balance that stands in his way. that's why the word you said at the outset of the program are right. these are the actions of authoritarian governments. >> would this mean anything for an actual fight in the supreme court between donald trump and robert mueller's team for subpoena power for the president and that goes to the supreme court, would this affect a ruling? >> i think that nine justices are wise enough to do the thing that they're going to do and make the decisions they're going to make. i don't think this episode -- you can say, oh it's going to
mean mueller will win or trump will lose or anything like that. but i think it does demonstrate the president's insouciance to the rule of law. remember, the chief justice has one other really important role in our constitution, which is to preside over the impeachment proceedings of a president. the way things are looking, that may very well happen and the chief justice may be presiding over this man that he's now in this twitter fight with. >> let me ask you this. if he loses the subpoena battle at the supreme court, and that's obviously an if, will he now try to say that justice roberts was not a fan of donald trump's and use this political attack that he's launching on the judiciary as a way to inoculate himself in the future by saying, well, i
attacked them, so they must hate me, which means that's why they ruled against me. >> exactly. 100% that is president trump's goal here, to delegitimize the institution of the court so any ruling against him, he can chalk up to, oh, they were biassed against me. that's what the chief justice today was so rebelling against, this idea that there's a trump judge or an obama judge or nick like that. no. there are just judges in this country. when i think of the judiciary, i think of people like justice the justice put on by president obama, but she voted against president obama's health care program and voted to strike some of it down. that's the kind of independence that our founders envisioned when it comes to the supreme court, not this kind of president lackey thing which the
president is trying to do with the attorney general and i'm sure he's going to try it with the courts too. >> our friend chuck rosenberg was pointing out that with mix on and clinton, judges appointed by both men ruled against them when there were subpoena fights. so in that way those judges were not protectors of the president of the united states. my other question is slightly different. are we as a site more to blame for this than we're willing to let on given the way we talk about justices? >> does some of the blame lie
with us? >> i that's a wise point you're making and we all share something about that. at the same time, it's the president's job to rise above that and to talk about what the courts have always been about, both from our founding design on and not to give into those impulses. that's why you have anything like the remarks by this president, any time he loses a case, that judge is bias because they're hispanic or things like that. this is deeply deeply corrosive. it takes a lot, i'm sure, to get the chief justice upset and have him make any sort of remarks, but donald trump managed to do that. that to me is an incredibly telling thing. >> a president should be better than us all.
there's nobody that he will not pick a fight with either a war veteran, a gold star family, a political opponent, a journalist, a regular american, a fire marshal, supreme court justice. >> indeed, i think we see a president who deals in sides. you are either on his side or you're not. and if you are even in his party or even of his political leanings, but disagree with him on one single thing, you are at jeopardy of having him attack you and attack you publicly. no matter whether he's actually right or wrong, and he does that
because he knows that he has so many americans who will vouch for him. the base, very often congress, and quite frankly in this situation, some more conservative members of the legal community. the question you asked earlier i thought was spot on. the reality is many people backed trump because they thought he would appoint trump-type judges. that's what you have when you have people saying, i was going to hold my nose and vote for him because i approve of the people on that short list on the federalist society. so whether he's right or wrong, it's one conversation. but another conversation is there are many people who have processed the judicial branch the same way that he does, and that's how they now vote. >> ruth, what do you think of that? >> well, i think that there is a larger conversation to be had about the politicization of the judiciary and the kind of ideological severing of the judiciary along party lines. for the first time we have a supreme court where i think it's safe to say votes can safely be
predicted by knowing the party of the president who appointed the justice. >> are you sure of that? >> i am pretty confident of that. and that is an unusual state for the supreme court to be in. justice kavanaugh could surprise us all, but he has 12 years on the bench. >> let me push back on that because neal katyal just gave an example where he talked about kagan ruling against the health care laws. >> there are cases in which judges might -- justices and judges of a party of the president who appointed them would rule against this president or any other president. but as a general matter, where justices come down in cases is much more predictable now than it has been in the history of the court. we don't have swing justices any more who move around. so i just think we are in an unusual state. and i really applaud the chief justice for what he said, but
there is a certain bit of naivete to thinking that judges these days are just calling balls and strikes. >> michael? >> i couldn't disagree with ruth more on that. i think it's yet to be seen exactly what this iteration of the roberts' court is going to be like. i think judge kavanaugh will surprise a lot of folks and upset his appointor, one donald trump, in a number of cases potentially down the pike. i think chief justice roberts in saying what he said today, stepping out from behind that bench to pretty much square up against the president on this, katy, goes to the point that the justice has always been concerned about and that is to the point that ruth did make about politicizing the federal bench. not just the supreme court, but all benches across the country. chief justice roberts wants to make sure that the sanctity and
security of the bench, free from the politics that the politicians should be engaged in does not taint their ability to make decisions. i still hold out a great deal of hope for that because knowing the chief justice as i do and his background, i know he's going to be very, very careful about that, that part of the process. and the idea that we know where any of these judges are going to line up on any issue regardless of the political affiliation or relationships i think is not very clear and it won't be very clear in future cases. >> i do think that there is a question on where this court will decide if a subpoena comes to the supreme court. >> right. >> if there is a subpoena fight between donald trump and robert mueller, i do think it's important to bring up nixon's subpoena fight and clinton's subpoena fight. nixon had a number of appointed judges on his own court, and he still lost that case. clinton the same thing. >> katy, if i can jump in there,
i totally agree with you. i am not predicting that republican nominated justices would automatically support president trump in a subpoena fight and vice versa. i think some law is just clear and some precedents are clear. and, by the way, i slightly disagreed with neal's question on the implications of that. justices are people, too. they're not going to say, i tangled with this guy now i'm really going to rule against him now that i have the chance. the atmospherics of the president's behavior, we saw this in the early travel ban cases in the beginning of the administration. the atmospherics of the president's behavior annoy justices, insult justices, concern justices the same way they consult not just justices, the federal judges who ruled on the travel ban. you could see that in some of the early rulings against the president. so i think the atmospherics of the president getting into the fight with the chief justice are
probably not good for him in litigation that's ensuing either with the mueller probe or other litigation that the administration has in the federal courts. >> what we have seen when we looked at the guardrails of this presidency, the people checking donald trump against his worst impulses, there have been some within the administration, we had don mcgahn just from the news yesterday when donald trump wanted to try to prosecute hillary clinton and james comey, that's the most recent example. but what we've seen consistently, that the biggest check on donald trump's presidency has been the courts and has been rulings on the travel ban, rulings on immigration which is what donald trump was set off by today, saying that asylum seekers couldn't come into this country and seek asylum. the courts rejected that. so that has been the case, regardless of how you feel about the courts, that's just been the facts. but i think we, we don't want to get too narrow on this, guys. i mean, this is coming in at a time where donald trump is doing all sorts of things that are --
that were once unimaginable by a president of the united states. he's talking about prosecuting his political enemies. he's siding with dictators over his intelligence community. he did that with russia. he's doing that again with saudi arabia. he's putting troops down on the border for arguably a political stunt, to win in the midterms for no real reason. he's stripping critics of their security clearance. he's fighting with the free press. i mean, this just goes on and on and on and on, eugene. >> absolutely. and that checks on the presidency coming from the court is exactly what the american people wanted. i was in arizona yesterday talking to voters about 10 to 12% of republican voters in arizona actually voted for the democrats sending kyrsten sinema to the senate. they had more confidence in sinema checking donald trump than they did the republican candidate because when they look at congress as a whole, they
don't see a group of republicans willing to put a check consistently on the president. they can see that when they look towards the judges. and so whether or not you find this disagreement petty or uncomfortable, many voters are looking at it with some degree of relief because they don't know that they can trust that this presidency will go in a direction that's in their best interests if no one is checking him. >> that's a good point that you brought up. michael, i'll throw that to you. this past election, last week, the midterms, it's looking wavier and wavier, democrats keep picking up house seats. it's the largest midterm margin in the popular vote for the house since watergate. does that show that more and more of this country is becoming deeply uncomfortable with what president trump is doing? >> i think that's exactly right. and i couldn't appreciate more the point just made because that at the core of it is what this is about. what was not talked about and what has not been talked about certainly not by the rnc or by others is the number of republicans across the country who voted for the democrat in this election.
as a check, as a rebuke, as a response to the administration. there are no less republicans so y'all just put the fire out on your pants. all the republicans out there screaming at them, there are no less republicans. there are concerned republicans because they do believe in the checks and balances of this country. and the way the president, certainly in the last 24 to 36 hours has behaved on both the foreign policy front as well as now the domestic front with the court, continues to exacerbate the concerns that many republicans like myself and others have, not just about the party and the direction it's going, but how the president's undermined some fundamental ideas and principles that define the united states of america. and, you know, don't give me this one off. this is asymmetrical presidency and all that. there is a point you trip the wire on crazy, and we need to check that. and i think we are more than tripping that wire right now in this country.
>> you know, i've got to say, i'm so happy you guys were here to talk about this today. i'm so happy we booked you in advance. it's smart booking because you three and neal katyal, four of the smartest voices and brightest minds i can think about to talk about this issue. eugene, ruth and michael, you're not done yet. stay with us. we will be right back. stay with us we will be right back. (speaking in italian) prenderro dieci biscotti... eeee twelvé bomboloni... i just got my ancestrydna results: 74% italian.
and i found out that i'm from the big toe of that sexy italian boot! calabria. it even shows the migration path from south italia all the way to exotico new jersey! so this holiday season it's ancestrydna per tutti! order your kit now at ancestry.com welcome back. president trump says he submitted written answers to special counsel robert mueller's questions, but his attorney says his client only answered questions on matters that happened before his presidency. i.e., during the campaign. rudy giuliani told axios president trump would not cooperate if mueller asks additional questions about his behavior as president, including questions on potential obstruction of justice, even if he was presented with a subpoena. giuliani also told axios that if mueller wants president trump's answers on obstruction, they're already out there. quote, any question he has on
obstruction, the president has given the interviews in tweets. other witnesses have given it to him. joining me now is daniel goldman, nbc news legal analyst and former assistant u.s. attorney, also the 5th brightest mind that we've had on today. daniel, thanks for being here. rudy giuliani says he can find all of the obstruction answers, they're already out there. are they? >> that is complete garbage. first of all -- >> he did talk to -- he sat down with lester holt and he said i was thinking about russia when i fired comey. he tweets about this stuff all the time. >> but he's also said other things contrary to that because he's trying to walk back. and so the whole point of interviewing the president, even if you're going to do it by questions, is to get him on record under oath with whatever the answer is. not allow him to go back and forth and pick and choose which answer is convenient for him at that time. >> does he need the president on record under oath in order to end this investigation?
>> well, because he's unlikely to get indicted, because he's a sitting president and that is the policy of the department of justice, it would be an incomplete report if it were to go to the attorney general or to congress without the president being interviewed, at least even by written questions on obstruction of justice. this is a very unusual case where he can't be indicted. many times you do not interview a potential target of an investigation and you build a case and you charge it. in theory that could happen here with donald trump. he has statements out there in the ether sphere and other witnesses, et cetera. that can be used to build a case but it is an unusual circumstance. >> does that mean you believe there will be a subpoena? >> i don't know whether there is going to be a subpoena. to me, i don't think so. if you really press me, because i don't think robert mueller would have submitted these written questions. >> are you sure robert mueller did submit the written questions? i mean, we're just hearing it from donald trump and rudy giuliani.
>> you can't be sure of anything. it does feel a little bit more like this is moving in that direction. and the other thing that's interesting about this is i think a lot of us who watch robert mueller thought that given the request to adjourn paul manafort's joint status report to the court last week for ten days, so that they could be of greater assistance to the judge, that ten-day period ends monday, a lot of us thought that means there is an indictment coming. as you look at what is going on now, it may be a situation where robert mueller wanted to get donald trump's answers on collusion submitted under oath before he released an indictment which would, on collusion, it's probably not going to be trump but maybe roger stone, for example. and in that indictment he's likely to set forth and lay out the factual narrative of how the collusion happened. he didn't want trump to see that and be able to tailor his answers to the indictment, so maybe that's one reason.
we're all reading tea leaves. maybe that's one reason we haven't seen anything yet. >> that's why we have prosecutors on because they think in a way most of us do not. there is that sealed filing in the d.c. circuit that everyone is talking about, the latest one was more than 3,000 words. that's pretty big for a filing. any tea leaves reading for what that might be? >> the only thing that jumps off the page that we know about is that judge katsis on the d.c. circuit who was recently appointed and was part of the white house council's office under trump has recused himself from that litigation. there has to be some reason why he's recusing. we can guess it has to do with his time in the white house counsel's office, but we really don't know much more than that. i personally think that it may be related to some of the witnesses or materials that robert mueller has requested from the white house counsel's office and that's why he may be recusing.
>> when will we hear from robert mueller next? >> look, i'm on record saying i thought it was going to be last friday. but now that we have these questions in and maybe that's cleared the way for a roger stone indictment because it was just on the collusion aspect, there's still a lot to be investigated. the transition period and obviously obstruction of justice. and there is a report that will likely come out at the end. but i would expect that we would hear from robert mueller pretty soon on the collusion. >> there are certain names that keep coming into the conversation. roger stone is one of them. corsi another. you hear don junior, although you see no evidence of don junior being involved in any of this. are we looking at it too narrowly? could there be a lot more that we haven't heard about? could there be witnesses that have never told the press that they were interviewed by the special counsel? i mean, is it possible that we could be getting a dump of documentation in the coming weeks pertaining to things that we have no clue about? >> i think that is a very real possibility.
and part of the reason for that is that as bits and pieces trickle out from media reports about various russians who were approached at airports or george nader, this lebanese american sort of fixer who negotiated meetings in the seychelles, we forget about this in the crazy eight-hour news cycle we're on now that there's a lot out there. and so we absolutely could see some stuff we just have no expectation. the key to all of this right now is paul manafort. his cooperation has really opened the door to bob mueller getting to the bottom of whatever happened during the campaign. we don't know what it is. we don't know whether there was collusion. we don't know whether there is going to be a conspiracy charged against any members of the campaign. but if anybody knows, it is likely paul manafort and, therefore, it is likely robert mueller. >> what planet are you living on where there is an eight-hour news cycle? >> four. >> 24-hour news cycle. >> i mean it changes every four to eight hours.
>> every four to eight minutes sometimes. daniel goldman. daniel, thank you so much. happy thanksgiving. >> you, too. >> and ahead, what those wildfires in california are telling us. behind the lost lives and burnt forest is the growing threat affecting us all, climate change. affecting us all, climate change t it? (boy) got it. (dad) it's slippery. (boy) nooooooo... (grandma) nooooooo... (dad) nooooooo... (dog) yessssss.... (vo) quick, the quicker picker upper! bounty picks up messes quicker and is two times more absorbent than the leading ordinary brand. (boy) hey look, i got it. bounty, the quicker picker upper. - [narrator] meet shark's newest robot vacuum. it powerfully cleans from floors to carpets, even pet hair, with ease, and now for cleaning surfaces above the floor, it comes with a built in shark handheld. one dock, two sharks.
the shark ion robot cleaning system. nothing's more important than a good bedside manner. i don't know how to say this. it's okay, doc. give it to me straight. no, you don't understand, i don't know how to say this. i'm just a tv doctor. they also know you should get your annual check-up. it could save your life. schedule a check-up with your doctor, know your four health numbers, and start taking control of your health today. cigna. together, all the way. mauntil i held her.diabetes wasn't my top priority. i found my tresiba® reason. now i'm doing more to lower my a1c. once daily tresiba® controls blood sugar for 24 hours for powerful a1c reduction. tresiba® is a long-acting insulin used to control high blood sugar in adults with diabetes. don't use tresiba® to treat diabetic ketoacidosis, during episodes of low blood sugar, or if you are allergic to any of its ingredients. don't share needles or insulin pens. don't reuse needles.
the most common side effect is low blood sugar, which may cause dizziness, sweating, confusion, and headache. check your blood sugar. low blood sugar can be serious and may be life-threatening. injection site reactions may occur. tell your prescriber about all medicines you take and all your medical conditions. taking tzds with insulins like tresiba® may cause serious side effects like heart failure. your insulin dose shouldn't be changed without asking your prescriber. get medical help right away if you have trouble breathing, fast heartbeat, extreme drowsiness, swelling of your face, tongue or throat, dizziness or confusion. i found my tresiba® reason. find yours. ask your diabetes care specialist about tresiba®. with my bladder leakage, the products i've tried just didn't fit right. they were too loose. it's getting in the way of our camping trips. but with a range of sizes, depend fit-flex is made for me. with a range of sizes for all body types, depend fit-flex underwear is guaranteed to be your best fit. ♪ ♪
don't you love that music? the mississippi runoff, the two candidates squared off in their only head to head debate in jackson. reading off notes, incumbent cindy hyde-smith responded to criticism she received about a comment about attending a public hanging. >> for anyone that was offended for my -- by my comments, i certainly apologize. there was no ill will, no intent whatsoever in my statement. this comment was twisted and it was turned into a weapon to be used against me, a political weapon used for nothing but personal and political gain by my opponent. >> her democratic opponent mike espy fired back. >> well, no one twisted your comments because the comments were live. it came out of your mouth.
and i don't know what's in your heart, but we all know what came out of your mouth. it caused our state harm. it's given our state another black eye that we don't need. >> president trump will headline two rallies for hyde-smith this upcoming monday. while espy has had several democratic heavyweights campaign on his behalf. democratic heavyweights campaign on his behalf. ♪ ♪ ♪ the united states postal service makes more holiday deliveries to homes than anyone else in the country. ♪ with one notable exception. ♪
when you're not strong ♪ ♪ and i'll be your friend. ♪ i'll help you carry on. ♪ lean on me. with my bladder leakage, the products i've tried just didn't fit right. they were too loose. it's getting in the way of our camping trips. but with a range of sizes, depend fit-flex is made for me. with a range of sizes for all body types, depend fit-flex underwear is guaranteed to be your best fit. unpredictable crohn's symptoms following you? for adults with moderately to severely active crohn's disease, stelara® works differently. studies showed relief and remission, with dosing every 8 weeks. stelara® may lower your ability to fight infections and may increase your risk of infections and cancer. some serious infections require hospitalization. before treatment, get tested for tb. tell your doctor if you have an infection or flu-like symptoms or sores,
have had cancer, or develop new skin growths, or if anyone in your house needs or recently had a vaccine. alert your doctor of new or worsening problems, including headaches, seizures, confusion and vision problems. these may be signs of a rare, potentially fatal brain condition. some serious allergic reactions and lung inflammation can occur. talk to your doctor today, and learn how janssen can help you explore cost support options. remission can start with i am a techie dad.n. i believe the best technology should feel effortless.
like magic. at comcast, it's my job to develop, apps and tools that simplify your experience. my name is mike, i'm in product development at comcast. we're working to make things simple, easy and awesome. welcome back. firefighters in california are now close to containing the deadliest wildfire in the state's history. heavy rains are helping extinguish the fire, which is now 80% contained. the concern now, though, is that mudslides might happen in the areas torched by the flames. the fire has already killed at least 81 people and destroyed more than 13,000 homes. and while we fear the death toll may climb, we also fear that it's only a matter of time before another powerful wildfire threatens even more lives and property. a wildfire fuelled by climate
that's creating a world increasingly inhospitable to humans. it has been a little more than a month since a u.n. report warned that the world must take unprecedented steps to avert the worst effects of global warming, but those effects may already be apparent. two days after that report was released, hurricane michael slammed into the florida panhandle killing 35 people in the state, 45 people nationwide. and so in the last two months we've seen the deadliest wildfire ever in california, and the third-most intense hurricane ever to hit the continental united states. the new yorker sums it up best in an alarming report. extreme weather is shrinking the planet by making less land hospitable to human life. bill mckibben wrote a new yorker story about what we then called the greenhouse gas effect. he is also an environmental activist and founder of 350.org,
an online network of climate change activists. bill, thank you very much for joining us. we've been trying to get you on, i know, all week. we appreciate you -- >> it's good to be with you, katy. >> i read your article and it made me drop everything that i was doing and wonder why we aren't screaming about this from the top of a hillside. the world is shrinking, in your estimation, and not actually in size. it's not as if the world is getting smaller, but the places that americans or humans are able to inhabit are getting smaller and smaller. explain. >> well, look, 30 years ago when i wrote the first book about climate change, it was still an abstraction, a theoretical threat. now it's a fierce reality for people all over the world. the u.s. is getting by no means the worst of it, but that's what we tend to notice. people are having to start leaving coastal areas now in the wake of hurricane florence in north carolina earlier this
year. just this week they were condemning one apartment building after another in wilmington because they're washed away or they're filled with mold. that's going to happen more and more and more as the century wears on. it's abundantly clear that sea levels are rising and make ing it more difficult for life along the coast. but it's not as if fleeing to the continental interiors is an obvious choice either. in much of the world, the temperature is simply getting too hot. in california where the temperature got up about 3 degrees in the last century, clearly it's contributing to really dangerous wildfires. california has come through the worst drought it's ever had. in much of the rest of the world, in a huge belt stretching the north china plain through india and pakistan, the experts now are saying it's going to be too hot to live before too many more decades are out. the oppressive heat waves we are beginning to see will become the
new norm. that's why there is this sense of just gathering urgency. >> when you write this article, you don't just talk about floods displacing people or fires displacing people. you make it -- you bring it home to a lot of regular folks. you say even in the most affluent areas, many of us hesitate to walk across a grassy meadow because of the proliferation of ticks bearing lyme disease which have come with the hot water. we have found ourselves unable to swim off beaches because jelly fish which thrive as warming seas kill off other marine life have taken over the water. >> yeah, this is the biggest thing that's happening every day of our lives. on no day is it the single most striking piece of news. which is why you and i have had a hard time connecting to talk about it because every day there is something that seems more dramatic going on, something that's breaking.
but what's really breaking is the planet and the story of that breakage over the next decades is clearly the most important crisis that humans have ever wandered into. >> the president just appointed or nominated an epa chief that has denied climate change and is an advocate for the coal industry. we don't live or we're not under the paris climate accord any longer. the president pulled out of that. what happens next? >> so, the president is, from my point of view on the issues i know about, a buffoon. and the people he's putting in office, not much better. it must be said that this problem predates president trump. one of the points of this article of mine in the new yorker is that for 30 years, the fossil fuel industry, the big oil companies, have known about and lied about climate change over and over and over again. and that lie has had enormous consequence.
we were stuck for 25 years, we still are really, in a completely pointless debate about whether or not global warming was real. a debate that both sides knew the answer to at the beginning. it's just one of them was willing to not tell the truth. and that wasted 25 or 30 years may turn out to be the critical 25 or 30 years. >> let me jump in, you talk about exxon knowing about this as early as 1977. and exxon doing what it could in order to fortify its own business, raising oil platforms where they knew the sea levels would rise and knowing they'd have more time to drill in the arctic as the arctic slowly melts. and exxon deciding if the public accepted all of this information, this scientific information that scientists agreed on, that they would have a problem. so what they needed to do was go out and muddy the waters and confuse people about the science and say the science wasn't agreed upon. it was the same tactics that big tobacco used. >> absolutely. in many cases it was some of the
same people that they hired to get the job done. and you can tell how effective the strategy was. we have a president who is apparently convinced that climate change is a hoax manufactured by the chinese, which is, you know, something that if you heard somebody muttering it while they were sitting next to you on a public bus, you'd get up and change your seat. you know, it's been diabolically effective. the result is what you see in california now, and it's going to get worse. that's clear. the only thing we can do now is try to limit how much worse it gets, and that's why it's good news, that people like alexandra ocasio-cortez is pushing a green deal in congress. it's good the kids from the sunrise movement are sitting in the halls of congress. we are beginning to see some action. the question is whether we can ever catch up with the lead now that we've given physics in this existential fight.
>> i think we're going to have to rush. and just like what happened with big tobacco, the people who were getting duped and the people affected were you and me. big mckibben, we appreciate it. we'll be right back. (chime) - [narrator] meet shark's newest robot vacuum. it powerfully cleans from floors to carpets, even pet hair, with ease, and now for cleaning surfaces above the floor, it comes with a built in shark handheld. one dock, two sharks. the shark ion robot cleaning system.
to-do list, and he's checking it twice. >> we're this country that believes in this sense of shared sacrifice. >> first, introduce a signature piece of legislation to fire up the party base. check. co-sponsor major bipartisan legislation. check. campaign for party candidates up and down the ballot. check. check. here's booker in mississippi with mike espy. >> so, what i love about mike is he is this pragmatist. >> what about a big reveal party in a crucial primary state? senator booker is set to speak at the new hampshire democratic victory party on december 8. >> thank you, new hampshire. >> back in 2006, a certain senator used that same victory party as a spring board for his successful presidential bid. >> all of us have a stake in this government. all of us have responsibilities. all of us have to step up to the plate. >> all that is left on senator
the next thing i know, she swam off with the camera. it's like, hey, thats mine! i want to keep doing what i love. that's the retirement plan. with my annuity i know there's a guarantee. annuities can provide protected income for life. learn more at retireyourrisk.org annuities can provide protected income for life. but mania, such as unusualrder can rchanges in your mood, activity or energy levels, can leave you on shaky ground. help take control by asking your healthcare provider about vraylar. vraylar treats acute mania of bipolar i disorder. vraylar significantly reduces overall manic symptoms,... and was proven in adults with mixed episodes who have both mania and depression. vraylar should not be used in elderly patients with dementia, due to increased risk of death or stroke. call your doctor about fever, stiff muscles, or confusion, which may mean a life-threatening reaction or uncontrollable muscle movements, which may be permanent.
side effects may not appear for several weeks. high cholesterol and weight gain; high blood sugar, which can lead to coma or death decreased white blood cells, which can be fatal; dizziness upon standing; falls; seizures; impaired judgement; heat sensitivity; and trouble swallowing may occur. you're more than just your bipolar i. ask about vraylar. welcome back. what better way to ride out your thanksgiving tryptophan haze than by sitting back and relaxing at the movies. a new film about gary hart's epic fall from grace in the 1988 presidential race might be the perfect political fix. chuck todd caught up with the two people behind "the front runner." >> joining me now are matt bai jason reitman. author of the book, all the truth is out, the week it went tabloid, the story of jason
hart. the director of "the front runner" based on the book of mr. bai. welcome to both of you. all right. mat b ai, gary hart, it's funny to go back to 1987 he drops out, that is now 31 years ago. i think about when you and i began covering campaign politics in the clinton era. this would be the equivalent of trying to tell somebody about barry goldwater's rise. >> sure. >> yeah. >> right? >> right. >> they're probably too young -- >> they don't remember it. >> they remember or remember it wrongly. there are misperceptions about the story that, you know, are sort of seared into our collective memory that aren't right. i think even for people who remember the story, the film will be surprising and compelling. >> should i sacrifice my privacy, bill myself-respect? it won't be me that gets dragged down, working on a campaign or some candidate who doesn't have to account who comes and goes from their bedroom.
that is just the beginning. >> what are the biggest myths people think they know about gary hart, jason the, in this story that it will be, oh, wait, i thought it was that? >> when i tell people -- when i start telling people i'm making a make a movie about the carrie hart scandal, they would generally say one of three things. oh, monkey business. >> i was going to say, play family feud. what are the words you think of. >> then they would say follow me. and i think there was this understanding that somehow gary hart challenged the press to follow him and they did when, in fact, the follow me quote came out the same day the article from the miami herald came out. it wasn't causality. third, they bring up done na rice and they bring up her name as though she was not a human being, but more as an object, the blond on the boat.
and the more i got to know her, i found a woman who was smart and who aspired a lot and whose life was just kind of taken from her hands. i was 10 years old when this happened. it was through matt's book that i found out about this story and watched it. >> when you're watching this film, people are inevitably going to be thinking about bill clinton and donald trump. when you think about people that became presidents with high profile extra marital affairs. >> why? i don't understand. if you're saying the movie is timely, we agree. >> do you worry people will look at it too much through that lens? >> no. i think this is the question that is on our minds. we're at a point where politics are entertainment. we don't.stand by the water cooler and talk about last night's sopranos episode.
we talk about politics. >> are you are finding people talk about politics more than they did five years ago.? >> absolutely. there were people deeply involved in politics and warren beatty and gary hart. .i think we had a president who was an actor. but, no, not like today. i wasn't alive in the late 60s. right now, this is the first conversation that i have with every single person i talk to. >> we were in a mode of teardown in the mid to late 80s. >> did that stop? >> no. but maybe the bar of tearing people down got higher. >> the film is really about asking questions. it's not a message movie. and the questions are how do you determine moral fitness and character? what do you need to know and, you know, how much context is required for it and how far
should we go to bring that to you? and we don't -- the film isn't making judgments about that. it's following a lot of different perspectives, reporters and operatives, candidate, obviously, and people caught up in the scandal and constantly sort of asking you evaluate the different perspectives and arguments so that hopefully you come out of the theater having an argument about it. >> we always cover sex scandals through the prism of the man and the woman is a character, a supporting cast, never -- always treated as sort of -- not necessarily as a victim, but as maybe part of the -- maybe helped -- you know, sometimes blamed for this had. how do you -- how will today's millennial woman think of how you treated donna rice in this movie? >> well, i can tell you what donna rice thinks in the film. she thought there was a lot of empathy for her. the kind of empathy she hasn't
received. >> her obituary is going to have that in her lead. >> yeah. and it's not only her obituary. it's her life. >> it's her life. i say that about monica lewinski all the tile. >> and, you know, donna was a smart, educated young woman who aspired to a lot and has had to kind of live with this. and also, live through this scandal at a time when there was no playbook. she didn't know what lawyer to call. >> she was sort of the first -- what was there, before her, the most famous affair was fannie fox and the tidal basin. >> but that was by wilbur mills. he wasn't presidential. >> not bad, right? >> well done. >> just showing off. >> i'm very impressed and i cannot do this with either of you. >> back to donna. >> i had a tremendous amount of empathy for her and i wanted to get her story right. there's a way where we structure this movie.
i know how people see donna in their heads. they think of her as a blond on a boat. as we go into the film, there's this anticipation of the moment we're going to get to this boat and meet this woman. what we did in the film, we don't meet her in the boat. this is a movie that is phrenetic and you knmeet all the people. the first time you meet donna, she's a woman who is broken whose life has been stole from her and she's crying and you have to take your own presumptions and put them in check and look at her as a human being. >> gary hart, if this doesn't happen to gary hart, is bill clinton ever president of the united states and is donald trump ever president of the united states? >> it's impossible to know and they're two separate questions. i certainly think bill clinton learned from what happened to gary hart. i certainly think bill clinton
was better equipped to deal with that environment. had clinton been the first, i think he had the skill set and the willingness to do things that were different from where heart was. the president trump question is very interesting because one of the things that happened in 198 that i think is depicted well in the film is the collision of entertainment and politics. it's the way we cover celebrities. when you create a process where you treat politicians as celebrities, i think it is probably inevitable that you will draw your celebrities into your politics. >> no person you really have to will blame, it all started with walter winchell. we'll drop that in the punch bowl and let people room nate on that. congratulations on the movie. >> thank you very much. >> hopefully that punch has something good in it. we will be right back. h has something good in it we will be right back. (speaking in italian) prenderro dieci biscotti...
eeee twelvé bomboloni... i just got my ancestrydna results: 74% italian. and i found out that i'm from the big toe of that sexy italian boot! calabria. it even shows the migration path from south italia all the way to exotico new jersey! so this holiday season it's ancestrydna per tutti! order your kit now at ancestry.com the pressure cooker that crisps. it's the best of pressure cooking and air frying all in one. with tendercrisp technology, food will be juicy on the inside, crispy on the outside. (upbeat drumming) the ninja foodi, the pressure cooker that crisps. they have businesses to grow
customers to care for lives to get home to they use stamps.com print discounted postage for any letter any package any time right from your computer all the amazing services of the post office only cheaper get our special tv offer a 4-week trial plus postage and a digital scale go to stamps.com/tv and never go to the post office again! and everyone i've ever opioloved away from me.thing everything. i blew my ankle out and i got prescribed pain pills by my doctor. if making my detox public is gonna help somebody i'm all for it. i just wish i would've had a warning. makeup now optional. new aveeno® maxglow™ infusion drops
that's all tonight. we will be back with more. tonight, a rare and stunning statement from the chief justice of the united states supreme court contradicting the president. john roberts comes out in defense of federal judges in the wake of trump's criticism and the president answers back. tonight, we'll ask a man who appeared before the roberts court 37 times where he thinks the chief justice took this extraordinary step. and rudy giuliani is talking again tonight sharing details about trump's written answers to mueller as we await a big deadline with the special counsel and paul manafort. all of it as the 11th