tv All In With Chris Hayes MSNBC February 7, 2019 5:00pm-6:00pm PST
we would be siting with the victim and going after the killer. instead we're with a president more comfy with dictators than what was done to truth-telling journalists. walter chronkite used to say "and that's the way it is." and that's "hardball" for now. "all in" with chris hayes. tonight on "all in". >> when the president says the mueller investigation is going on too long, you say back to him, not as long as your tax audit. >> the president keeps threatening and democrats keep investigating. i think overwhelmingly the public wants to see the president's taxes returns. >> reporter: they start the process of obtaining donald trump's taxes. >> no one is above the law. >> if he did testify, he do very well. >> why he's suddenly threatening not to show up.
plus what we're learning from the explosive new manafort filing. >> that's obviously what our position is. >> plus inside the green new deal democrats unveiled today. >> this is such a water shed moment. >> and trump finally answers questions about the child policies. "all in" starts right now. good evening from new york. i'm joy reed in for chris hayes. and we have breaking news tonight regarding to tabloid newspaper aligned with donald trump. tonight the ceo of amazon and owner of the "washington post," jeff bezos has very publicly accused the parent company of "the national enquirer" of extortion and blackmail. the national enquirer had already published intimate text
messages between bezos and a woman not his wife. but now he says they threatened to publish compromising photos of him if he did not stop an investigation into how they got those texts. he posted the information himself, emails he says are from a and,executives that can scribe photo that enquirer was going to post, including a below the belt selfie. and we've reached out to both ami and amazon. he ebegan personally investigating after it published its intimate text messages. since then he says quote numerous people have contacted our investigation team about their similar experiences with ami and how they needed to capitulate because for example their livelihoods were at stake.
he asds quote in the ami letters i'm making public, you will see the precise details of their extortiont proposal. they will publish the photos unless gavin picker and i make the explicit message that we have no knowledge or basis 23r suggesting that the coverage was politically motivated or influenced by political forces. last year the department of justice agreed to -- which admitted a catch and kill service for donald trump and his presidential campaign. if someone raised a possibly damaging storeoo about trump, ami and its ceo would buy the story and make sure it was never published. bezos writes if in my position i can't stand up to this kind of extortion, how many people can? joining me now is "washington
post" reporter wlho has been covering the bezos national enquirer story. can you walk us back through the sort of start of the bezos investigation into the text messages that he says were obtained by the national enquirer? >> sure. the national enquirer but ahold of some photographs and text messages involving jeff bezos and a woman that hoowas roam antically linked with named lauren sanchez, a former television reporter in los angeles and those were published in the national enquirer and when that happened these very intimate text messages being published, jeff baize oesz went to a private security consultant who he has worked with for a long time, named -- and they startand investigation to figure
out where these were gathered and how the whole thing happened. >> and so the idea being that the national enquirer took offence into the fact they were looking into these? they published the text messages. i guess bezos believes the enquirer obtained them how? what was the naich or nature of investigation? >> where things get sticky some of the public statements made by jeff bezos' security consultant. he's suggested a possible political motivation and the reason is the national enquirer has had a history of doing things that there help fool president donald trump and theory that potentially those text messages could have been
published by the national enquirer as some way of getting back at jeff bezos for his ownership of the "washington post" were floated by his security consultant and also not as floated privately but discussed publicly and that is clearly bothered the national enquirer in their responses to us when with we began doing our reporting, they vehementally denied that and they seem to continue to dethat in their correspondence directly with bezos. >> and the implication that the enquirer wanted to intimidate baize oesz into influencing the reporting in donald trump's favor or they just wanted him to stop looking into his acusition of texts? >> there are a lot of murky details when you start digging in deeper. behind the scenes when we were reporting this piece for -- reporting about all of this for
a piece that ran wednesday, one of the theories was that foreign governmen governments have been involved. other theories maybe even the british intelligence agency with the motivation of damaging jeff bezos because he is perceived as a person who is in conflict with donald trump. if you look at donald trump's twitter feed, you see a lot of negativity about jeff bezos and you have somebody running a tabloid who is seemingly very close to the president. >> are you suggesting that one of the potential theories as to how those text message and photoeos were obtained was a foreign government acting in concert with donald trump or on behalf donald trump might have been the one to hand them over to the national enquirer? >> yes. in the investigation conducted by the jeff bezos security team,
one of the theories discussed between the security consultant andic mooal sanchez who is the brother of lauren sanchez who is roam antically linked with jeff bezos was they could have been acquired by musaud or british intelligence, mi 6. that is their theory. we're not saying that's true and we're not even saying they're certain that happened that way. but they discussed it and we have reviewed electronic communications between parties in which that is discussed. i would add one other important thing. gavin debecker has said he's reached the conclusion that jeff bezos' phone was not hacked and that's why he think as government entity could possibly have been the one to acquire thetects messages.
>> and are there direct links between david picker the ami company that owns the national enquirer and foreign government? >> we havant uncovered that and haven't reported that. what we reported is that theory has beenxplored by jeff bezos' security consultant. and that one of the reasons he's looking at potential political motivation is lauren sanchez's brugt sr a well known supporter of donald trump. he's considered a conservative and who's consulted during the course of this scandal with people who are or have been close to donald trump. people like roger stone, the famous political dirty trickster and carter page who was mixed up in the investigation in the 2016 election when questions were being asked in congress about trips he had to moscow.
>> be clear the brother of the woman who is with bezos is a supporter of donald trump? >> he is a supporter of donald trump, that has been evident in his social media posts. and for that reason it's possible that jeff bezos' security team looked at that as a possible motevation for involvement here. i should say michael sanchez has spoken to us for our reporting on this story and he has suggested that in fact it is the security consultant who can might have been involved in these leaks. as some sort of an effort to disrupt the relationship between jeff bezos and lauren sanchez and somehow perhaps save the marriage of jeff bezos to mckenzie. >> wow. thank you so much for can coming
on with us and helping us unfold all of this. thank you. now i want to bring in corporate communications strategist, a former spokesperson for ami, parent company of "the national enquirer. "this is a lot. the idea of "the national enquirer" putting in writing -- emails where they appear to be spelling out if you don't back off of your investigation, here are the detailed photos and describing them that we will publish about you. is that something that went on when you were involved with ami? >> i am usually the one called in to mop up those messes as a pr purseen but it doesn't surprise me because they are bullies. a tabloid by nature is not your home grown paper. it's salacious.
they sell copies. they base their whole reputation on and they do pay for tips. no idea how they got the photos or text messages but photos can be submitted and they can buy them. that seemed to be a procedure when hot photos are out there. >> and kwun of the things that bezos' representatives were saying is if these are my private photos, my copyrighted material and they're saying this is a story in public interest, tlo therefore we have the right to use them. >> yeah. they would vet it but yes, if they got stuff, they feel entitled to use it. >> one of the things most disturbing is this ongoing obedience.
that if jeff bezos had said fine, publicly indemnifying ami from any fault and we're going to submit openly that you're not in fault. but if you deviate at any time in the future, the enquirer is saying we'll blackmail you forever. it almost sounds like the mafia. >> they kind of operate as thugs. tab loids, once again are really agriszi agri aggressive publics. the history are sensational. that's what they want to read and they're excited about that. what i really can't believe is threatening jeff bezos, the richest manner in the world is going to be concerned that ami is going to embarrass him? the first story is -- at this point -- >> he owns the amazon -- >> the hubris that they have in
going after him that way just blew me away. >> let's talk a little bit about mr. picker. there's this deal they've cut because everyone is turning states evidence on donald trump at this point. what kind of things were happening that we don't know about yet? are we going to find more that has to do with public figures and politicians? i i would say it's pretty much standard operatinging proseenler. sieger and the fact bezos went to him was smart, for 1, because he gets someone who knows the world better than anyone else and the information is not that unusual. >> are you surprised they put it in writing? >> yes. because in this day there's no private communication. with this kind of language is --
reinforces the negative image of what the national enchoir does. >> and there were women who could embarrass donald trump while running for president. these deals are being made to pay them off. you talk about the culture because it sounds less like a journalistic operation and more of a political consultancy. this is our friend and if he's in trouble, we'll help them. >> i worked there 12 years ago when he and picker were friends, not political partners, as they ended up being. i handled all of ami. so i wasn't in bed with the "engchoirer." but you're stntly daunling bullets. >> and the edwards story, for instance.
just give us dirt and we're almost like a tmz -- >> tmz probably models a lot of what the enquirer did. >> how public are they? >> until now i don't think they were political. they were about selling mag zoons. he has been very successful in his career and that's what drives him. >> we're going to bring in -- well with, a couple of people. former watergate prosecutor and form pulitzer prize winner. one of them is this relationship between david picker and donald trump, the idea they were paying for stories to catch and for him. talk about that relationship. because now he is turning states evidence and one wonders what else he's talking about.
>> let's praise jeff bezos because stories about this kind of stuff have been around a long time. this is not unlike people who wouldn't step forward over the #me too movement, all sorts of things. and the business model is exactly as your previous guest says, what matters. he's promoted not guy itiology but by money. and jeff bezos recognized the only possible winning game for him was to step out in the light and try to put a stop to this. and i suspect if we get a full investigation, we're going to find out it's far worse and gonemany more years than we realize. >> and are you surprised to hear the idea of potential foreign involvement in obtaining the materials and handing that
material over for use as blackmail material to a supermarket tabloid? >> not in the least. and one of the things i hope is going to come out as a result of all sorts of things including the intelligence interception on the murder of jamal khashoggi where the crown prince, some time ago wad intercepted saying he put a bullet in him and how much background influence is being pedalled to promote interest and to make money above all? we have very weak international laws on criminality j money and that's why we have these massive illicit flows of cash i've spoken with you about many times. >> it sounds like the mob more than anything else. >> it's the white collar mob. >> that's what it sounds like. if you're robert mueller
absorbing this information about someone whose rar cooperating witness with what are you thinking? >> if i'm robert mueller i actually already know about this blauzer because the cooperating witness has already told me everything that's come up. it is surprising to the average reader, shock even when you read what bezos revealed how ama and "the national enquirer" operated and thank you to him for being the first person who could stand up to this kind of blackmail. en the we have to look at is this just how they operate? what could they be thinking that would have had enough leverage by someone who they havallred a
ruined his life? what more harm could they him? if they come to him initialae maybe more leverage. but where they've already revealed the affair, there seems to me no reason why they would have thought they'd get away this. and then why would more than a record for bezos to go ahead and publish? >> as astounounding as roger st putting in yieting things he put in writing. threats to witness withes. >> we've been having a lot of debatsz about billionaires. what leverage could you have on him? jeff bezos in publishing this and putting this throughout said other people have come to him and said they couldn't afford
not to capitulate and not to capitulate but oobey in purp tew taet because if you ever deviate from the story we agreed to, we'll steel the photograph in perpetuity. does that stie you that mueller should go and interview bezos? >> i certainly would bp could be interrsing to find out who they are. they may not want to coop freight. they don't want that information public. but maybe a it's time put a stop to that kind of journalism. it's lewd and unfortunate that that's part of what our free press protects. it shouldn't be. >> if somebody took money to be quiet and obey and do what they were told by ami, if it became a criminal matter, would that mean they can do what stormy daniels
did and simp laignore it? >> probably so and fin this case it's more not that someone was paid to do it but that thaw did not allow them to go forward with the publication of something that thaw had and that more likely they paid for the nonpublication. this is an unusual one where they're saying you have to stop your investigation and you can't go ahead and say that we did this for political reasons and i'm still curious because we don't know what the political mote swlarksz it was to help donald trump, who hates the "washington post" that's jeff bezos owns and feels they say bad things about him. maybe they were curing favor with donald trump. maybe he was involved, maybe ea he wasn't. maybe it was because lauren san can chez's brother is a loyal trump supporter and he leaked
the text messages and it's not directly involving president trump. >> is there anything about this that surprises you at all, given your experience with ami? >> no. nothing surprises me. sounds like a opera. >> or an episode of "the sopranos." coming up breaking news. yes, there's more. incredible new detail of paul manafort's while he was supposed to be cooperating with mueller. and the president melts down as they ramp up and the target was donald trump's tax returns. s
what's a gig of data? well, it's a whole day's worth of love songs. [ baby crying ] or 300 minutes of baby videos. a gig goes a long way. that's why xfinity mobile lets you ...pay for data one gig at a time. and with millions of wifi hotspots included, you'll pay even less for data. or if you need a lot, we have unlimited, too. you could save hundreds of dollars when you switch to xfinity mobile. it's simple, easy, awesome. click, call or visit a store today.
breaking news from the mueller investigation, they just released a parlgtsy redacted transcript from the sealed hearing on monday. and it reveals manafort continued working for at least one client in ukrain into 2018. that would be after, after he had been indicted by the special counsel. i'm joined by nbc news national security reporter and former district attorn ea general at the department of justice and former u.s. attorney for the western district of pennsylvania. >> we're talking about 143-page transcript of a hearing between kugsz, defense and judge, all had access to thousands of pages of evidence and it was partial a redacted.
you miss every 10th word. and one of the ones you mngzed was paul manafort was working with a ukrainian client after he was indicted into 2018. i think the most significant ak aspect is his dealings with culimnic -- who is a right-hand man and translator. he, according to mueller lied and a meeting that prosecutor said goes to the heart of what we're investigating. and it was fascinating and tantalizing mention of sanctions. manafort's lawyer -- we didn't see the actual email but he talked about the communication between kilminic and an unnamed third party and manafort's
lawyer said no matter who won the election, nobody was going to release sanctions. in fact the trump administration was moving unilaterally to removing sanctions until it was blocked. >> there's talk off a back door, that manafort and kiliminc are discussing something about a back door. >> we have no idea real a what it refers to. it's another tantalizing aspect of this and the bottom line is manafort is due to be sentenced on march 14th. the judge will make a ruling. it seems obvious that manafort did lie sufficient to lose his cooperation and he's facing a decade or more in prison. >> let's talk a little bit about the lying. according to the prosecutor
quote mr. manafortent with out of his way to not provide evidence that could be useful with respect to the man and then there's a second piece that there could have been a motive to lie in hops of getting to increase his arguments for getting a pardon. does that sound like at least that explains why you would lie to a prosecutor of this mag nusnud >> i guess but the brazenness and the affrontry -- a prosecutor's never -- i've never heard of anything trying to get away with it and at the same time we've been eseeing him in court and he looks broken, when he can comes, his pay is gone. at the same time he's dealing behind the scenes with especially constantine kilminic. that seems to have been the
third rail he would never have come clean about and he's now looking at tenx tru iaries. so he was really willing to roll the dice. the to be bigging stuff and going for a pardon. >> and a pardon is not gaurnted. it doesn't sound like these are things to help donald trump. is it odd to you it seems like the lie husband to do with maybe protecting this person he's still dealing with, this russian person named mr. kilimnik? >> at this point he is really completely losing everything he could have hoped to gain. rifrl it's been a mystery. what is he doing and what is he thinking? hopes for a pardon. good luck with that. and who knows come a year or two from whether it bill be politically feasible.
>> this just a night of what are they thinking? i think that's the theme of the show tonight. and as this news broke, donald trump is staring down the barrel of real oversight and accountability for the first time in his presidency, maybe for the first time in his entire life and by all appearances, it it's shaking him to core. he seemed unnvred that the new chair, adam schiff, is expanding that committee's russia investigation. trump rage tweeting this morning. quote so now congressman adam schiff anounszs after having found zero russian collusion he's going to look at every aspect of my life, even though never happened before, unlimited harassment. the house ways and means committee is chasing down the one secret that donald trump has guarded most fierce la, since before he ran for office. namely his tax returns.
ahead of a preliminary hearing today, the top republicans on the committee wrote a letter begging him not to pursue the tax data. they vow to use all their powers to hold donald trump accountable. >> i think overwhelmingly this pub llk wants to see the president's tax returns. thaw want to know the truth, the facts. >> from tax return to dealing with foreign entities and individuals, the american people deserve to know whether their executive stoonds personally benefit or be undually influenced. >> when we have cause for concern over tax violations, we have every reason to use the authority given to this committee. the law is on our side. >> any taxpayer shall furnish the tax returns to the committee, correct? >> it says the treasury secretary shall furnish the
requested information to the committee. >> so that's not a should ear could offer or would have, it's a shall, it must if we ask for that, is that correct? >> that's correct. >> he has been very patiently waiting through all of our breaking news tonight. thank you for being with us and booing so patient. >> thank you. >> i want to first play for you, the speaker talking about how careful democrats plan to be visa vee these tax rebelodging to donald trump? >> you have to be very, very careful. year in our first month and they have organized, been appointed. they're prioritizing their work and in terms off taxes, you have to do it in a very careful way the chairman of the committee will be doing that. >> interpret that for us. what does that mean?
the committee has a right to the returns. what does that mean be careful of how you get them. >> the law was written because it expected a moment may occur where there's a public interest in having a tax return gained by the can committee in order to evaluate it, acquired for this kind of evaluation. what we need do and what the speaker said and chairman neal is doing is lay the record, lay the groundwork. make the justification to use this rarely used authoriin orde make sure we have a solid basis. today pfrt hearing was focussed on having a legal foundation to understand that complete la. to make sure we're doing this in a methodical way. it's clear that the president does not want some information that is included in his tax return to be revealed.
otherwise would not have boeken with 50 years of norms that republicans and democrats haved a hered to. there's a reason he doesn't want them there. so he will fight this and probably fight it as far as he can. because we expect that and the reasons we already stated, it's very important we're methodical and we lay the foundation for the public purpose to acquire access to these returns and that's the process we're going through now. >> there are two veins of inquiry i can see being of interest when it comes to donald trump's tax returns. he's called the king debt. and then he started spending hundreds of millions in cash. and then there's investment. where his money came from. his son reportedly bragged that a substantial portion of our income comes from money
inivistments from russia, sorry. which of those two is off greatest interest to you? where he was getting his money? or the actual state of his financial affairs and whether that made him vulnerable to influence? >> sijs we don't know what's in them, it's unclear. his personal interest -- he skonts to maintain personal financial interests. anytime they may impact public decision making. for example the president was a prime driver in the tax reform bill pushed through by republicans and signed by the president. the aquestions whether the president benefitted from the policy he himself pushed through. the public has a right to know whether or not their effected officials are benefitting from
the decisions they make using the public responsibilities that the public has vested in them. so whether it's his personal entanglement, debt or decisions on policy going forward, this is the reason disclosure is so important. this is the reason that past candidates and pazes have released their returns, so the public will know whether or not the individual has entanglements that could imp act their public decision making and that's really the purpose behind this entire line of inquiry to us. >> thank you very much. appreciate your time tonight. meanwhile in one of the most an tus pated hearings from the new democraticly controlled congress, matthew whitaker will testify tomorrow. this after he threatened to be a no show earlier today. after democrats on the house judiciary committee voted to subpoena whitaker if he fails to
show or answer questions. whitaker responded with a letter from the justice department saying he won't testify unless he has written assurance that he won't pea subpoenaed on or before february 8th. nadler responding if you appear before the committed ay tomorrow morning and respond to questions, i assure you there will be no need to issue a subpoena on or before february 8th. and nadler tweeted confirmed. acting attorney general whitaker will appear tomorrow morning joining me democratic congressman of maryland. and thank you so much for being here. >> delighted to be with you, joy. >> what dayou want to ask, mr. whitaker? >> we want to make sure we're protecting the neweler investigation and there's no interference to doctor results or shield the results. look, we over see not just the justice department, but justice.
and we want to make sure there's some forward motion in terms of justice in the country. the president keeps threatening to declare an emergency. the emergency being that he was unable to convince either the mexican government or the u.s. congress to pay for his wall which would end up costing 35 or $40 billion. so weeds rr be intersed to know what are the legal arguments for the president having powers that resemble, at least, and sound more like something you'd find in a banana republic than a democracy? where does he get the will to circumvent congress to go around congress when it has said no about something and to pluck money from other places and reprogram it for the building of a wall? i'm curious about the shutdown which was absolutely devastating and demoralizing for the
department of justice for the fbi. how did he is the managerer of the department of justice experience that. what is he doing to prevent another shutdown from taking place and what were the costs financially? what were the costs in terms of policy? we glaut of substantive questions from the guy about basically the complete demobilization of civil rights enforcement. what is the voting rights section doing? what are they not enforcing, people's voting rights against all of these scandals efforts to throw them off the rolls, obstruct their ublts to go and partus pate in elections. so we've got a lot to ask him about. >> are you concerned with interfering in the mueller probe? >> there were tell tale signs the wheel reason he was implanlted was to control the
probe and rain it in. of course the president had been doing everything in his power to get rid of people he thought were engaged on this objective law enforcement work and to get people to do his political will. if you read fbi director comey's book, a higher loyalty, he said it was as if he was having an interview with a mafia chieften because of the president's determination to extract complete 100% undivided loyalty from comey to the president in terms of doing his will at the doj. certainly whitaker was not put there because of his distinguish would legal pet gree and before he got put on there, he was working for a shady not-for-profit corporation that had a single deaner that put up more than a million dollars and whitaker went from making something like 70,$000 a year or getting paid half a million from
some right wing mystery donor. so we'd be curious to know who was actually paying for this foundation which had completely ideological commitments but didn't appear to be doing anything. so it looks as if maybe he a sweet heart contract with someone getting him ready to be the acting attorney general. >> if i may suggest the question, one person may be to mr. whitaker if he gave donald trump a loyalty pledge. >> i thiit's an excellent quest. i think we know the answer. it's pretty clear that's why he was placed over at doj. it would be interesting to go to where all the money came from that set him up in the so-called fact foundation, that got renamed several times as the money flowed in from this mysterious source. >> we'll be paying attention to
those hearings. and for the first time since taking power, house democrats grilled over the separation of migrant children of their parents. a crisis in their quest to slash immigration. the hearing just weeks after we learned thousands more children may have been separated than we previously determined. >> would you have devised dhs to implement the policy of zero otoleran otolerance if they had ask snd. >> neither would accept such a policy proposal. >> one of the witnesses who testified today, the deputy director of the aclu immigrant rights project. the question most people i know want to know is when the administration says they're not sure they can ever reunite all
of these children with their families, a lot of people are wondering kwhie. why. we're told by the gentleman rupping the camp that everyone had an a number and that they could put them back together. why can't they? >> because first of all when they took the children away after april, they didn't take the numbers. they might have numbers now but they didn't then. now the new information that's come out from the inspector general is that they were taking children away from their parents a long time, even before the april ordinarier. and so they have no way to track howmany children were taken, where they were taken and what's happened to them. we believe though the same is with the kids after the april order, we believe that it can be done with a lot of work. the court in san diego ordered thatd to be done. and it was done for many of those kids.
but fl now inspector general is there are thousands more potentially that may have been taken from their parents and we need the answers. >> and one of them -- there are so many alarming headlines in this regard over the last several months. one of the most alarming is this story in which the administration apparently is making an argument in court that it would be too traumat took reunite thousands of these children with their parents. too traumat took take them from their care giver whose are not their parents. >> we had expert testimony at the hearing today. we had testimony from pediatricians and psychologists and a researcher at harvard that says probably the most traumatic thing you can do is remove a child from their parent. it has lasting, life-long implications. not just social, but physical effects and really the testimony came out, maybe in some cases
you wouldn't want to march in there and take the kids from where they are, but fl are thousands, you know the answer. and how you can get them back reunited. >> i know you've been involved in some of these cases. in the situation where you are, there a way that groups outside of the government sphere can finds these children somehow find their parents and put them back together? >> we'll try. but without the information from the government, it's going to be very, very difficult. one of the things out of the hearing today is that the reason hhs is saying besides they don't want to do all the work, that they think it's not good for the child, not because they don't think it should be with the parent. so what they fell back on today at the hearing was we don't want i.c.e. showing up at all these
kids' homes. but that's not the way it would have 2350 be done. we would call the parent, call the child's lawyer or social worker and figure out what's ber best for this family. just as we've been doing the last six months for other parents. it's a false choice that you leave the kid stranded or you sends i.c.e. in. it's ridiculous they're going to leave these thousands of kids and they're saying we'll do it if there's a court order. the aclu will be back in court february 21st, asking for that court order. >> i want to say for you a moment. i willtle you what a lot of people are saying and worried about, that intention was takeep the kids intention was to adopt them out to people not their families. they've essentially been kidnapped to place them in
adoption? >> i don't know. we're obviously going to look into that. i don't know whether that was the intent or to deter families from coming in the first place. don't know that was the intent or the kids are being adopted. but i think we have to be careful because if the paurrents not around, you never know what will happen. i think the real reason was immigration enforcement and avr within knows it's not going to deter peoplegen withinly in fear and it's just something in the united states we don't do. >> let me add that hhs has said that they warned the administration that this was a bad idea. and there -- and the edict came down there was no flan how they would be able to track the kids wungs thaw were taken from their parents. and so i agree with lee. i think that we dont know what
the motivation was but i think it to try to somehow deter people from can coming in. that's not american and we're going to continue the investigation until we get to the bottom of it. investigation >> nice to have the secretary come before you, as well. we shall see. dianna, thank you both very much. appreciate your time. democrats drop a plan to e image anyone tine the national d climate change and income inequality. ed markey on the green new deal is next. y on the green new deal is next.
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. need a change of scenery? kayak searches hundreds of travel sites - even our competitors - so you can be confident you're getting the right flight at the best price. kayak. search one and done.
i had a few good tricks to help hide my bladder leak pad. like the old "tunic tug". but always discreet is less bulky. and it really protects. 'cause it turns liquid to gel. so i have nothing to hide. always discreet. ♪ did you know you can save money by using dish soap to clean grease on more than dishes? using multiple cleaners on grease can be expensive, and sometimes ineffective. for better value, tackle grease with dawn ultra. dawn is for more than just dishes. it provides 3x more grease cleaning power per drop, which cuts through tough kitchen messes, pre-treats laundry stains, and even tackles grease build-up on car rims. tackle tough greasy messes around your home, and save money with dawn ultra. brand power. helping you better.
climate change and our environmental challenges are one of the biggest threats to our way of life. not just as a nation but as a world. and in order for us to combat that threat, we must be as am wish shows and innovative in our solution as possible. >> a massive transformation of our society is necessary if we want to save our planet. that is the big message being offered by the architect of the green new deal. ed markey and cortez calls for drastic actions to clean a renewable energy in just ten years. republicans are dismissing the resolution as a quote socialist
manifesto. they say a moon shot is necessary to prevent the catastrop catastrophe. joining me is ed march key of massachusetts. sir, let's get into the policy of it. the green new deal as i understand it, the bullet points i got in front of me. 100% clean renewable energy by 2030 and net zero global gas emissions by 2050. overhaul transportation systems to reduce emission and create millions of jobs with families sustaining wage. how do you do that and how much does it cost? >> well, and create millions of jobs in the green economy. that's what is going to happen. we've created 350,000 wind and solar jobs, just in the last ten years there are only 50,000 coal miners. we're just beginning. this is going to be a mission to save all of creation by engaging in massive job creation. >> but how --
>> the reason we have to do it is that the united nations scientists last year said that it's much worse than anyone ever thought and then, all of the key scientists inside of the trump administration federal agencies all said the same thing. so the only person who forgot to mention climate change was donald trump in his 1:20 state of the union address on tuesday night. the threat to the planet not a comment. so we need to mobilize all across the country, we need to put together a plan that will put people to work deploying these technologies and inventing them and i think the challenge is out there and i think the green generation is ready to politically fight for it. >> i want you to quantity fie how much it cost. it sounds like federal out lays to spur the jobs the way the new deal is. how much spending are we talking
about? give me a ballpark figure. >> well, we don't have any specific prescriptions in the legislation. we layout the principles but i will say this, that by the year 2 2100, we're going to have lost tens of tra s os of trillions o damage to our country and a stitch in time will save nine. if we invest now, we'll be able to avoid the most catastrophic consequences, otherwise the price that will be paid is going to be in the tens of trillions in our country and that will just be a footnote compared to the rest of the world. so we will have to invest in green technologies in the federal government will have a role but most of the role will be played by the private sector. that's where the 350,000 wind and solar jobs are. there are electricians, roofers, the greatest single blue collar
job creation revolution in two generations in our country. >> let me ask you about what the impediments are. the big fossil fuel guys like the koch brothers invested in growing their money and who have a lot of influence over politicians in the other party. how do you overcome the opposition of people like them? >> you're right. back in 2009 and '10 when congressman henry waxman and i were able to pass out of the house of representatives a piece of legislation that would have reduced greenhouse gases by 80% by 2050, the cokoch brothers, t oil interest they spent a fortune to discredit the whole science of climate change and did a good job. they drove down the favorability by 20 points. the difference now is that the polling is back up in the mid 0s but now we have an army, we have
the money. we're ready to fight so bring it on, koch brothers because we have an activated sunrise revolution that's taking place across this country and we'll either win on the house and floor of the senate in the issues or take this into the election at 20 at the presidential and house and senate level across our country. >> very quickly, what is the timeline for getting a piece of legislation to the floor and you think it will pass the house and senate. >> well, now, it goes to each one of the individual committees to produce the legislation in each one of those areas that they will have jurisdiction for and i know that's going to happen over in the house of representatives because nancy pelosi is a leader to her core on this issue. >> yeah. >> and the pressure will be on in the senate. mitch mcconnell blocked in
2009 -- >> yeah. >> any real votes on the floor -- >> yeah. >> on these issue, we're ready to have a political showdown on climate change. >> we'll see. thank you for your time tonight. really appreciate it. that is "all in" this evening." now. i need a nap. >> this is one of those days, what we train for kind of days. >> why you watch. >> thanks, my friend. >> thanks to you at home for joining us this hour. joy is right. this is one of those days. sometimes, some nights everything just happens all at once and when that happens, it's impossible to absorb it and in circumstances like these, the only way to understand the importance of what happened in today's news is not get overwhelmed by it and get it all at once