Skip to main content

tv   All In With Chris Hayes  MSNBC  April 25, 2018 5:00pm-6:00pm PDT

5:00 pm
get around in a swamp. i would say the second. his admission you have to pay someone like him to be heard is the very definition of the swamp. that's "hardball" for now. thanks for being with us. "all in with chris hayes" starts right now. good evening from new york. i'm chris hayes. breaking news on multiple fronts tonight including damaging new allegations really damaging new allegations against white house doctor the president picked to run the va, what happened with the president's muslim ban before the supreme court today and michael cohen says officially for the record, he will plead the fifth in the stormy daniels case. we begin with the big news from the "washington post." with the report just about lawyer old that rudy giuliani, the president's new personal lawyer met yesterday with special counsel robert mueller in order to reopen negotiations for a presidential interview. according to three people familiar with the talks. at one time, at least according
5:01 pm
to this reporting, the president seemed keen to sit down with mueller and his investigators even telling reporters "i would love to do it." but trump reportedly soured on the idea early this month after federal investigators raided the offices and home of his closest associate and attorney mike cohen. according to "post," giuliani conveyed to mueller the ongoing resistance of trump and his advisers to an interview with investigators adding that giuliani pressed mueller for clarity when the probe is expected to end. in response, "the post" says that mueller made it clear to giuliani an interview is essential for investigators to understand trump's intent in making key decisions as they seeking to wrap up the portion of the probe focused on potential obstruction of justice. one of the reporter who's broke the news, carol leonnig of the west joins me now. what were the circumstances of this meeting? >> so remember that rudy giuliani basically joined trump's legal team just last week and not very many days have
5:02 pm
passed and he's already arranged a meeting with bob mueller. the special counsel and the head of a year-long probe into russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election. and the president's own actions and whether or not he obstructed justice by seeking to thwart the criminal probe in its early stages and later after mueller inherited it. so here's rudy guiliani saying let's sit down and talk. and the first couple of things that they speak about according to our sources is whether or not the president should sit for an interview with bob mueller, which would cap off and bring to a conclusion the obstruction part of bob mueller's investigation. >> rudy giuliani, it's a little anomalous to me that jew went to this meeting and went and talked to reporters about it. >> we have not said nor would we say who our sources are on this
5:03 pm
story, chris. >> i don't mean you. i did not mean obviously "the wall street journal" has on the record quotes from giuliani. they're on the record with quotes in "the wall street journal." he says one particular question account president's legal team is seeking to answer is whether the special counsel's team has made any conclusion about credibility. he said do they favor comey over trump in terms of credibility. i'm not saying who your source is or is not. we now know about this meeting. > right, about this meeting because "the washington post" broke it. i don't know what rudy had to say to the "wall street journal." what's really significant about this is that basically after a month of the president's team trying to find a lawyer, a rocky month after his former lead attorney resigned in a disagreement about whether or not the president should agree to this interview, we're now back to square one about basically what the president has wanted all along was closure on
5:04 pm
a review of his own actions. mueller has told both attorneys, the former and the current, this is important for me to learn what the president's intent and motivations were when he took certain actions. and this will help me wrap up this investigation. a month later that's where we are again. the difference of course, this time, chris, is that the president's not keen to do this interview as he was a month ago. and he's quite sour on the idea. >> yeah, it means you sort of wonder about how much of this is law and how much of this is politics as giuliani tries to sort of grease the wheels of this situation. >> i would think any good lawyer and mr. giuliani certainly is one, any good lawyer is going to want to size up the prosecutor in the case. and figure out where do we stand, what do you need, what's the status and when have you those conversations, there's an
5:05 pm
interesting kind of tell i'm sure about whether or not the probe is really going to wrap up as mueller has allegedly told again the previous lawyer and the current one. >> carol leoleoning, great reporting. thank you. >> sure. >> with me now to explain what this means to the investigation, former assistant watergate special prosecutor jill wine-banks, renato mariotti former federal prosecutor. what do you think about this. >> so, you know, frankly what this tells us is that giuliani's proclamations he was going to end the investigation within two weeks are just that, you know, proclamations that have no basis in rate. he got nowhere beyond where john dowd went. mueller is not wrapping up the investigation anytime soon. he wants to wrap up the obstruction piece of the investigation but he wants to interview trump before he does that which makes a lot of sense.
5:06 pm
any prosecutor would want to interview them in this circumstance. and giuliani is not going to be able to work any kind of magic, either trump sits for the interview or ends up taking the fifth after being subpoenaed. those are his choices. >> is that what you think the choices are, jill. >> i agree completely with renato. and except for one thing. he cannot take the fifth amendment. that would be political suicide. michael cohen can take the fifth amendment. but the president of the united states cannot say i can't answer questions because they might incriminate me in another matter. that just is not politically acceptable. >> but you know what, jill, i have heard that and i understand why you say that, but you know, i would have thought not releasing your tax returns was political suicide. there's lots of things he's done. if it comes down you either sit down and talk or plead the fifth, he might plead the fifth. >> i agree that he might do it because i'm predicting what a
5:07 pm
totally sane person would do. and he has gotten away with so much that he doesn't have to act in the way that a predictable person would act. he is the only thing predictable is his unpredictability. and his ability to get away with doing things that no other person let alone no other president could possibly get away with. that would be complete chaos in the congress if the president said i'm not answering questions because they would incriminate me. and even though a judge in a trial would say the jury can't draw a conclusion from that, let's face it, juries do draw conclusions. they know what it means. they know that it means if he answered the questions, the answers would tend to show that he was involved in a crime. >> i should say the president has that view. which he has enunciated many times. here he is talking about his view of people that plead the fifth amendment. >> when you have your staff taking the fifth amendment,
5:08 pm
taking the fifth, so they're not prosecuted. >> fifth amendment, fifth amendment, fifth amendment. horrible. horrible. >> her staffers taking the fifth amendment. how about that? >> five people taking the fifth amendment. like you see on the mob, right? you see the mob takes the fifth. if you are innocent, why are you taking the fifth amendment. >> if you're innocent, why are you taking the fifth amendment which brings us to the other big development today. michael cope says based on advice of counsel in the stormy daniels case, il assert my fifth amendment rights in connection with all proceedings in this case to the ongoing criminal investigation by the fbi for the southern. >> the other thing that happens in the mob is your lawyer gets his home raided. i got to say, you know, that quote doesn't age very well for the president but look, as to michael cohen, of course, he's taking the fifth. that's exactly the right thing
5:09 pm
for him to do. he's the subject of a federal investigation. anything he said in the civil lawsuit would be used against him. he's trying to get the judge to delay the civil case because in a civil case, taking the fifth can be used against you. he's actually in a tough spot. either he would have to testify in the civil case and have the prosecutors use that against him in the criminal investigation or he could potentially have what's called an adverse inference where the judge could assume something negative from his -- from him taking the fifth. he's trying to get the judge to push it off. i predict the judge will give him short stay in that case. >> there's a question, jill, how much of the strategy here is legal and how much is political particularly with rudy guiliani. what do you think? >> it is a combination of both. they have to protect the political side. but there are some legal things. i would say that in the case of the cohen taking the fifth in
5:10 pm
the civil case, it is inevitable that he has to do that. i would say that it's not a fear about stormy daniels. and it's not even possibly a fear about how many stormy daniels payments there are because i would predict that there's more than the two that we know about for hush money. but that it's probably related to business transactions that skirt account line. there were probably payments that might be considered bribes. charges facing cohen are far beyond just hush money payments and that are facing the president as a result of that. it's absurd to think the president will be the one who will decide which documents get to be seen by prosecutors. he can assert or he can waive his attorney/client privilege. if he's innocent, why doesn't he
5:11 pm
wave the privilege and let all the documents go forward. it isn't michael cohen's privilege, it's the client's privilege. the client doesn't get to decide which documents are privileged. the prosecutors or the special master can do that. not the president. not the client. >> there is references to new reporting that says trump and cohen and their attorneys are ready to conduct a review of material seized during a search of cohen's premises. renato, is that going to fly. >> i think they're trying to present to the judge a streamlined of a proposal as they can saying look, it's not going to slow down the prosecution. i suspect you know, what she's trying to weigh right now is can i give them the special master to have an appearance that to take away their arguments there's something unfair here in a way that won't slow things down. she'll probably give him a special master and demand a sfraem lined process.
5:12 pm
>> jill and renato, many thanks to you both. more big news, shocking new allegations continue to come out about the president's pick for va spector. what we're learning about the man that his co-workers talk toxic, abusive and volatile. those are all the quotes in two minutes. last years' ad campaign was a success for choicehotels.com badda book. badda boom. this year, we're taking it up a notch. so in this commercial we see two travelers at a comfort inn with a glow around them, so people watching will be like, "wow, maybe i'll glow too if i book direct at choicehotels.com".
5:13 pm
who glows? just say, badda book. badda boom. nobody glows. he gets it. always the lowest price, guaranteed. book now at choicehotels.com you know what's not awesome? gig-speed internet. when only certain people can get it. let's fix that. let's give this guy gig- really? and these kids, and these guys, him, ah. oh hello. that lady, these houses!
5:14 pm
yes, yes and yes. and don't forget about them. uh huh, sure. still yes! xfinity delivers gig speed to more homes than anyone. now you can get it, too. welcome to the party. major new allegations tonight concerning the conduct confident man donald trump tapped to lead the va and oversee the health care of 9 million veterans. white house physician ronny jackson. democrats on the senate veterans affairs committee released devastating testimony from 23 of his current and former colleagues many of whom are still in the military outlining claims jackson irresponsibly handed out prescription drugs, created a hostile work environment and repeatedly drunk on the job. jackson was known as the candy man for his willingness to send out drugs at will. the report alleges jackson was often drunk, he wrecked a government vehicle, a secret
5:15 pm
service going away party that he once could not be reached because he was passed out drunk in his hotel room while on duty. all testimony from his current and former colleagues. though they are not named, they were released by the committee anonymously. his colleagues describing him as the most unethical person i've worked with, toxic, abusive and volatile, despicable and dishonest. screaming tantrums, vin dicktive, belittling and the worst leader i've ever worked for one person saying. one person saying working at the medical unit was the worst experience of my life. ranking democrat on the veterans committee, senator jon tester stressed the allegations have not been confirmed. >> these aren't my accusations. these are accusations by active and retired military personnel that have come to us. we're trying to follow up to make sure what's true and what's not. >> dr. jackson today told nbc news he "never wrecked a car and that he was still moving ahead with his attempt to be confirmed."
5:16 pm
raj shah was asked where the trump administration now stands. >> we need evidence to be presented to corroborate these allegations. you know, right now you have people who have gone on the record to say one thing, defend him, you have independent assessments defending him. president obama's own statements defending him. and you have uncorroborated allegations. >> has jackson denied all the allegations. >> are you preparing for him to withdraw? >> we're prepared for everything. >> prepared for everything. joining me "wall street journal" reporter shelby holiday, david jolly, former republican congressman. i've never seen something quite like this. >> it's hard to square. it's a fast-moving story. this is not somebody the president plucked out of some civilian job on his own. he served two other administrations. and came highly recommended. all of a sudden we're hearing an the dark side. i think what first of all is most concerning is you have an alleged drunk pill popper candy
5:17 pm
man around the president. nobody bants that no matter who the president is. secondly you have somebody who i don't think he can withstand this nomination process. but the president gave him an off-ramp the other day. he said if i were him, i wouldn't deal with this. is it too much. the president defended him but gave him the opportunity to step aside. so far he's not doing that. it is very hard to wrap your behind around. >> there's two things. one is that barack obama wrote assessments how great he was. people. the obama white house talked highly of him. then david, you've got there damning document put out by the complete which is going to be a hard thing to overcome unless all 23 of these people are lying. >> sure. by 23 peers or people who know him, chris, but we can't overlook the bigger picture which is this is an individual who was largely unqualified arguably to run the va in the first place. somebody who was nominated by tweet based on his own loyalty to the president but with no
5:18 pm
experience and being the administrator of such a large department. he should have been defeated on those grounds alone. at this point frankly to save his dignity, it the nomination he should withdraw. he is not qualified. these questions will follow him even if he have is nominated. he will be a secretary in controversy for as long as he zpibs at the va. the right thing is to withdraw if the president won't make that statement on his behalf. >> to be clear, david, he would not be alone. first of all, those hearings will be a spectacle. some of those people will give on the record testimony. now you've got two other folks in the administration in hot water. mick mulvaney goes before the banker's association to tell them about all the work he is doing deregulating the consumer protection bureau and telling them he needs their help so they can work together on the same team on this agenda. he tells them to give money to members of congress. he said if you were a lobbyist who never gave us money, i
5:19 pm
didn't talk to you. if you were a lobbyist who gave us money, i might talk to you. said this on the record to the bank industry conference. senator sherrod brown called for him to step down, what do you think? >> he should step down. this is a bigger issue than he realizes. there could be criminal exposure here. he confessed to pay to play behavior highway in office. there's something called the honest services fraud used in the case around jake abramoff and a sitting member of congress, used in exxon, jeffrey skilling. if he denied honest representation to people who were not paying him, federal prosecutors could bring charges against nick mulvaney based on an on the record confession he made about pay to play. >> he said earlier in the speech the constituents he always talked to, the lobbyists were in two categories, they gave him money and didn't give him money. meanwhile scott pruitt is facing a ton of fire heading to the hill. >> what's so ironic, i was
5:20 pm
reading up on scott pruitt and his opening statement and realized mick mulvaney pledged to investigate scott pruitt. >> because he's got another job at omb. >> right. i think the opening testimony is very telling. he will not address any of the ethics issues on his own. i guess he's waiting pore members of congress to grill him. according to "the new york times," internal documents show he's prepared to throw other epa administrative staff under the bus blaming all his problems on them. he's not taking responsibility for the controversial raises given to staff members. he says he was told to fly first class because it was safer. >> right. >> i can't figure that up with out. when you fly first class, you get the elbows -- you get all the people walking past you. it seems dangerous. >> my favorite part about the argument about first class, maybe there's a security argument. there are people saying mean things to me but if i fly first class, there aren't people. >> it will make it better. >> who are you serving really?
5:21 pm
the people with a lot of money. >> sound proof phone booth, his apartment, travel. i have to look at this list to remember all of the things that he's under fire for. he's going to blame his staff for all these things. >> you make the point though, david, this is a guy that will go to the hill. the hearing is tomorrow. this is going to be a brutal hearing. i think he's going to be frisked by both republicans and democrats. and then ronny jackson will sit and watch that and be that's easier than what i'm about to go do. >> they both to get destroyed in he's hearings. there's a certain level of entitlement among the trump administration where they don't believe accountability applies to them. we have seen historic level of terminations in this administration already, resignations. i think the entire american people would be surprised if this administration doesn't end with a certain number of people in jail. i don't mean that is an a equip. the reality of the controversies we have seen thus far, there will be criminal culpability among some in the trump administration. >> i also think we have to point
5:22 pm
out, republicans are not happy with this behavior. they are not defending scott pruitt. this is not something either side of the aisle wants to see. >> there was more defense of pruitt that has attenuated considerably as more stories have come out. it is very notable no one's defending robby jackson. he's out there by himself. tester is taking the lead. all the reporting suggests there are very, very big questions that republican members of that committee have, as well. >> even the white house backed away from their defense of him. the news conference with macron gave a five-minute -- >> who needs it. >> five-minute speech how great ronny jackson was. today the white house is backing away from that and saying prepared for everything. >> shelby and david, thank you. fireworks at the supreme court. the president's muslim ban was argued today. we'll talk about what happened after the break.
5:23 pm
with advil liqui-gels, what bad shoulder? what headache? advil is relief that's fast strength that lasts you'll ask... what pain? with advil liqui-gels ♪ most people come to la with big dreams. ♪ we came with big appetites. with expedia, you can book a flight, hotel, car, and activity... ...all in one place. ♪ everything you need to go. expedia
5:24 pm
a hilton getaway means you get more because... you get another day in paradise. get a sunset on a sunday. get more stories to share. get more from your summer getaway with exclusive hilton offers. book yours, only at hilton.com
5:25 pm
5:26 pm
for the third time a judge has ruled against the trump administration on daca. federal judge john d. bates who was nominated by george w. bush ruled the u.s. must keep the daca program in place and accept new applications again. he called the decision to end the program "arbitrary and capricious," and slammed the government's meager legal reasoning. that's a quote. the ruling came one day before the trump administration went to the supreme court to argue for the travel ban this morning now in its third version because of previous legal setbacks. i'm joined by civil rights attorney joseph sellers who won the case yesterday, and for hana
5:27 pm
kara arguing against the travel ban and was at the supreme court for oral arguments today. hana, that travel ban case, the most anticipated case of the entire year on the supreme court docket, what did you think of what you saw today? >> wow, well, chris, today was a historic day. and i think what's at the core of the issue that's before the court is whether the court will allow the president of the united states to discriminate against a group of people based simply on their religion. and it reminds us unfortunately, chris, of a time 75 years ago when the government at that time came before this very same court and said that it had the authority to discripnate against a group of people based on their ethnicity. that led to the internment of japanese americans. in the courtroom today, chris, it was so heartening. not only were there concerned americans and the american
5:28 pm
muslim community but i was inspired to see the widow of the late justice thurgood marshall and karen koramatsu, the daughter of fred who challenged the internment of japanese americans before the supreme court. their presence is sending an important message to the court to be on the right side of history. >> joshua, there's a question here, a statutory question which is complicated. there's a bunch of statutes that see in tension with each other. let's talk about the constitutional question and put that aside. one of the main arguments comes down to, can you hold the president's words against him. beak when the president calls it a muslim ban and his lawyers do the work and throw in north korea and throw in venezuela, is it still a mus lame ban. what do you think of that question. >> i think the answer to that question is yes. i also think it's one of the major issues in the litigation. everyone agrees that just looking at the four corners of the bok proclamation it doesn't single out any kind of discrimination on basis of religion.
5:29 pm
the problem is that clearly and consistently and repeatedly over the past couple of years, the president has advertised to the world that what he wants is a policy to keep muslims out because he doesn't like them and doesn't think they're welcome here. and when the president has traveled the world explaining that he created this policy for that reason, and has repeatedly linked his anti-muslim statements to the existence of this policy in particular, calling for a larger and more politically incorrect ban that would achieve these goals, i think it's incumbent on the court to recognize he has acteded on the basis of a forbidden motive. >> there's a great op-ed in the "new york times" my wife wrote about this issue when you can listen to the words of the president and when you can't. obviously the president's, the president's lawyers, joseph, end up in this position in which they have to be don't listen to the president. and i feel like that's a position he puts his lawyers in a lot.
5:30 pm
in the daca case you've been arguing, there's a world in which they were able to pull this off and not get thrown out of court and not lose as much as they have, but the way they've done it has put them in a tough spot. >> that's absolutely right. the president's words come back to haunt him again in exposing motives behind the role back of the daca program. but the ruling that was issued last -- yesterday in the federal court in washington was even simpler. it didn't rely on the president's words. it held the president accountable and said that if you want to roll back a program that's been in place for years, you'd better give a really good reason to justify changing course and consider the impact it's going to have on the hundreds of thousands of dreamers in this country who would be forced out of the country. i think it's a very important ruling on the check of the power of the president. >> just to be clear, i was looking over the ruling. we've seen this daca thing happen. when you zoom out, the president has a lot of power.
5:31 pm
the daca originated with the white house. is the rulings keep saying you can't just do it. you got to say why you're doing it. beak that's what the judges keep telling the government. you cannot just do this. is that right, more or less? >> absolutely right. not only do they have to give a good reason but importantly, they have to account for its impact on these hundreds of thousands of people who would be forced out of this country disrupting their lives. it pailed to do any of that. >> there's sort of an amazing moment, i want to talk about the travel ban case this morning, the noel francisco, sluster general of the united states closed on there quoting and paraphrasing the president. listen to what he says. a lot of people sort of caught their ear. take a listen. >> he has made crystal clear that muslims in this country are great americans and there are many, many muslim country who's love this country and he has praised islam as one of the great countries of the world. >> now, we all misspeak and noel
5:32 pm
francisco has a difficult job. it struck me as tonally perfect for what's going on here. >> i think that's right. it's the idea of trying to blanketly treat people because of their faith rather than treating people individually and understanding the important role that we as individuals and human beings actually contribute to this country. that was something that came out in the hearing today, chris, was has this ban isn't just a theoretical argument. this is affecting real people being denied access to medical care, families being separated from fiances, grandparents, children. it's denying us innovation and you know, input of academics and scholars in our country. >> those are substantive tub arguments on the merits. the question is, do you have the power to deny them those things. joshua, the reporting coming out of the court today seemed to indicate a lot of supreme court observers thinking that the
5:33 pm
justices were fairly sympathetic to the trump administration's argument. >> i think it was pretty clear that the four more left leaning justices thought the travel ban was likely unconstitutional. the four more conservative justices, the chief justice and justices alito, thomas and gorsuch were openly sympathetic to the administration. here as in so many cases justice kennedy for whom i clerked several years ago is likely to be the decider. he maded very clear at argument he was not buying many of the statutory arguments that were raised against the travel ban. and in the course of doing that, he suggested that he would be wary of second-guessing the government's national security determination. but when it actually comes to the constitutional issue, he just didn't say very much. in fact, his main question was to express skepticism of the idea that the president could completely be let off the hook for his campaign statements. and so i think it's hard to predict these things and i don't mean to give you a copout but i just don't think it was as clear as some may think it was.
5:34 pm
>> that's well said. we should say the solicitor general is basically saying the candidate comments from the president are out of bounds. which seems to me all together sort of too much. but joseph, there's a sort of broader theme which is that this administration has really had a lot of setbacks in court. it's really lost a lot of high profile court battles on some of its most cherished initiatives and priorities. what do you make of that? >> i think there's -- you're right. i think one of the reasons is that they move ahead quickly on bold initiatives without adequately aring either their consequences or the legal foundation for it. then they're forced to be held accountable for actions that if they had proceeded a little more carefully they might have first of all not taken at all and second if they were going to do it, they would have actually done the analysis of the homework instead, they rushed ahead without it. >> the white house is usually one of the most lawyered places
5:35 pm
on the planet. i am struck by how underlawyered everything coming out of that white house seems. >> i think that's right. in some ways it's a lawyer's nightmare because the lawyers come in to clean up after the people, the political people take actions that are indefensible. >> joseph sellers, joshua matz and farhana, thank you. why the republican victory in arizona last night should have the republicans worried. and some new knew chen family photos in tonight's thing 1, thing 2 next. shrimp fans - this one's for you. it's red lobster's new create your own shrimp trios. pick 3 of 9 craveable creations for just $15.99. you can enjoy the classics you love, along with new creations like savory crab-topped shrimp, decadent parmesan truffle shrimp scampi, and creamy shrimp and lobster pasta. your perfect shrimp plate is just waiting to be discovered. but shrimp trios won't last, so get to red lobster today. and get your red lobster fix with our weekday lunch starting at $7.99.
5:36 pm
dinner date...meeting his parents dinner date. why did i want a crest 3d white smile? so i used crest. crest 3d white removes... ...95% of surface stains in just 3 days... ...for a whiter smile... that will win them over. crest. healthy, beautiful smiles for life.
5:37 pm
5:38 pm
you might or joints.hing for your heart... but do you take something for your brain. with an ingredient originally found in jellyfish, prevagen is the number one selling brain-health supplement in drug stores nationwide. prevagen. the name to remember.
5:39 pm
secretary steve mnuchin and his wife luis linton have given us some of the best photos of the trump era. there was this strangely awkward group shot from their june wedding last year. these now infamous pics from their visit to the bureau of engraving and printing where they posed with sheets of new dollar bills bearing mnuchin's signature. there was linton's since deleted instagram post from a trip to fort knox showing her strolling off a government plane decked out in expensive accessories. now that trip caused some controversy because it took place august 21st, the day of the solar eclipse and fort knox just so happens to be near the
5:40 pm
path of totality. prompting some to ask whether the trip was actually a taxpayer funded jaunt for mnuchin and linton to watch the eclipse. but we never had any proof they did watch it. until now. and it's another winner for the new clin linton photo album. that's thing 2 in 60 seconds.
5:41 pm
experience lexus safety system plus standard in the 2018 lexus es and es hybrid. lease the 2018 es 350 for $399/month for 36 months. experience amazing at your lexus dealer. treasury secretary steve mnuchin shot downy suggestion that his trip to fort knox last summer was actually just an eclipse watching excursion for hip and his wife funded by public money. >> when i got there, the staff had actually intended that we watch the eclipse on the roof of fort knox. and you know, people in kentucky took this stuff very seriously. being a new yorker and california, it was like the eclipse, it was like, really, i don't have any interest in watching the eclipse. we never went on the roof. i didn't stay for the optimal time. i watched the roof 15 minutes
5:42 pm
ahead of time. i put on the glasses, they're like paper. i put it on for like two seconds. that was the end of my interest in the eclipse. >> sounds like a lot of fun. i have to say i'm a new yorker and new yorkers were definitely interested in the eclipse. i walked back down flat bush avenue throngs of people looking at the sun. maybe he doesn't like eclipses. the folks at think progress foiaed the treasury department and received had. photographic evidence of secretary mnuchin and his wife luis linton watching the eclipse at fort knox. that's definitely a smile on the secretary's face. despite his skepticism about you the glasses they both wore them unlike someone else in the administration. these birds once affected by oil
5:43 pm
are heading back home. thanks to dawn, rescue workers only trust dawn, because it's tough on grease yet gentle. i am home, i am home, i am home
5:44 pm
looking for a hotel that fits... whoooo. ...your budget? tripadvisor now searches over... ...200 sites to find you the... ...hotel you want at the lowest price. grazi, gino! find a price that fits. tripadvisor.
5:45 pm
handcrafted layers of clean food you can give your kids. tomatoes. even the picky ones. panera. food as it should be. now delivered.
5:46 pm
all right. so the republican candidate won last night's special election in arizona but the results, the republican winning, may be the strongest sign yet of the serious peril facing the president's party this fall. republican debbie lesko beat democrat had i ral tipirneni by 5.2 points in arizona's 8 there congressional district wit president won by 21 points less than two years ago, a swing of almost 16 percentage points in democrats favor. when you look at the district, there are a lot of reasons why that should not have happened in this district. for starters the there is the in
5:47 pm
the suburbs west of phoenix, historically quite conservative. maricopa, seat of the anti-immigrant ex-sheriff and convicted criminal joe arpaio. there are a lot of ryetirement communities in the district where the residents are odor and whiter than the rest of the population. the gop in this case backed a fairly generic candidate, former state legislator, no big skeletons looming in her closet. this was not in other words roy moore. her opponent had never run for office, she's an indian immigrant who ran on a pretty openly progressive platform and still and still national republicans had to spend $1 million to hold onto the seat while democrats didn't spend a dime. a five-point margin in the race does not bode well for gop lawmakers around the country especially districts donald trump lost or barely won in 2016. as dave wasserman put it, there are 147 gop held house sees less
5:48 pm
republican than the arizona eighth. it's time to rethink how many of those are truly safe in november. nevertheless, the president took a victory lap this morning tweeting congratulations to debbie lesko. debbie will do a great job. press is so silent. how the white house spun last night's results and what they actually might mean right after this. hi i'm joan lunden.
5:49 pm
today's senior living communities have never been better, with amazing amenities like movie theaters, exercise rooms and swimming pools, public cafes, bars and bistros even pet care services. and there's never been an easier way to get great advice. a place for mom is a free service that pairs you with a local advisor to help you sort through your options and find a perfect place. a place for mom. you know your family we know senior living. together we'll make the right choice. i'm all about my bed. this mattress is dangerously comfortable. when i get in, i literally say, ahh. introducing the leesa mattress. a better place to sleep. the leesa mattress is designed to provide strong support, relieve pressure and optimize airflow to keep you cool. today is gonna be great. read our reviews, then try the leesa mattress in your own home. order now and get $125 off, plus a free pillow worth $75. and
5:50 pm
free shipping too. go to buyleesa.com today. nothing says spring like fresh flowers, so let's promote our spring travel deal on choicehotels.com like this. earn one free night when you stay just twice this spring. allergies. or, badda book. badda boom. book now at choicehotels.com
5:51 pm
5:52 pm
5:53 pm
5:54 pm
5:55 pm
5:56 pm
double digits. you see it there, too. if you talk to republicans and ask them, what is their best case read on all of this, one thing they will point to right now is virginia and new jersey. they were not special elections. those governor's races were regularly scheduled statewide elections people are used to voting in. republicans didn't win those. trump number was basically the same, new jersey was identical. a bit of a surge there in the suburbs and a little bit around the area of the state but otherwise it matched it. they're hoping there's something there. >> that's interesting. cornell, you're shaking your head. >> it wasn't past the grade. if you look at -- i love our governor candidate in virginia. he got more votes than anyone ever in the history of virginia. that didn't happen by mistake,
5:57 pm
but because of the trump effect. one minority base of voters and women who are break way from the republican house. there was a real dislike of the division that's going on in this country. again, it's not about economics. it's not about the usual measures that we're looking at. women are angry and they're taking it to the polls in a way that we haven't seen it before. and i don't think republicans can -- look, the gender gap grows any more, it's hard to see how they hold on to the house or even the senate. >> let's talk about the senate for a they hold on to the house or even the senate. >> well, let's talk about the senate for a second, right? because the house is, there's a lot of seats in play. the senate is a really bad game board for the democrats. >>. >> so it's really got to be now. of course, that didn't happen in '16.
5:58 pm
and now that we're seeing all of this momentum coming for democratic candidates up and down the ballot, it is tempting to forget that the 2018 senate map is still the 2018 senate map. that is a really tough uphill battle to climb, it has to be perfect across the board. very red states like west virginia, north dakota, mississippi. it's all the holes that. if you look at the marking candidate, former democratic governor. >> yeah, no, a lot of times when you start looking at these races, it's a lot to do, you combine it this way, in midterm elections, and this cuts both ways. the democrats, it happens one way, when it goes against the republicans, like it may this year, it almost always seems to fall. we have a track record of what happened politically, the joe
5:59 pm
donnelly, all these folks on the democratic side, up in trump states, was trump winning. in the hillary clinton midterm, republicans might be looking at getting 60 senate seats because of the nature of midterm elections. but the other way, that opposite party incumbent in the president state, that buyers remorse in midterm elections, in the last, the number is three. three incumbent senators in that position have lost that, with i think in the last generation. it's very -- the odds are on your side when you're running with that situation. >> by the way, claire mccaskill, who is watching at the missouri republican party -- >> yeah. >> immolates over the governor having now two felony charges against him, one accused of tying a woman up and taking a picture against her consent, and then also misusing -- >> yeah, claire mccaskill is a fantastic senator from missouri. that aside, she has worked out like, like missouri republicans being completely dysfunctional in two election cycles now.
6:00 pm
but this is the larger -- the number of republicans on the national level who are dealing with serious assault charges against women is something that shouldn't be dismissed, as part of what cornell was saying about the suburban women being all up in arms. republican party doesn't care. >> another piece of news today is that the republican governor of texas, greg abbott, is going after the now-retired republican congressman blake farenthold, who had an $84,000 sexual harassment settlement paid by public money, right, to not only pay that, but to pay for the cost of a special election, which is coming up. with steve kornacki, jeff mcintosh, that is "all in" for this evening. the rachel maddow show starts right now. good evening, rachel. >> thanks, chris. much appreciated. thanlgs to you at home for joining us this hour. one of those days. we have the news meeting for the show, like early afternoon today. finished the news meeting, planned the whole show and

75 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on