tv The Last Word With Lawrence O Donnell MSNBC February 24, 2020 7:00pm-8:00pm PST
that is going to do it for us torrent. remember one thing to watch for in tomorrow's news is scheduled to be a sealed court hearing in the roger stone trial. you might have seen or heard about the president attacking the jurors from the roger stone trial, which is nice. so the jury that voted unanimously to convict him on seven felonies, we think this hearing tomorrow is on stone's request for a new trial on the basis of a supposedly biased juror who the president has been publicly attacking. a remarkably dark turn for the rule of law. we've had a lot of those lately. we don't know if that court hearing will ultimately be unsealed. we'll be watching that tomorrow afternoon. now it's time for the last word with lawrence o'donnell. good evening, lawrence. >> that will raise the question of what happens to roger stone's sentence. if roger stone does not succeed in this very long-shot attempt
at a new trial, then what? >> when does his sentence start? when does he have to report? exactly. that is a big part of the drama a around roger stone and how the president is personally weighing into it. it's a big mess. >> we will see. thank you, rachel. lieu seal richards will join us tonight to consider the societal impact of the guilty verdicts against harvey weinstein today in a new york city courtroom that sent harvey weinstein out of the building in handcuffs while he remains in custody now awaiting sentencing. we will be joined by a reporter who was in the courtroom every day of the trial. and at the end of the hour, former prosecutor jill wine-banks will join us to discuss her new book and we'll get her view of how rape prosecutions have changed in her four decades as a lawyer. but first that the president of the united states doesn't know what he's doing and doesn't know what he's supposed to be doing in the job of president is of concern every day. but with the coronavirus and the
age of global travel now threatening virtually every country of the world, the documented fact and book after bau book from sources inside the trump white house donald trump has no idea what to do in the face of such a crisis is alarming. so far the only thing we know the president has done about the threat of the coronavirus is to tweet. today he tweeted the coronavirus is very much under control in the usa and not one person in the usa can believe that. even trump supporters know they cannot believe that. because donald trump is president. "the washington post" has reported, quote, trump grew concerned that any stronger action by his administration would hurt the economy and he has told advisors that he does not want the administration to do or say anything that would further spook the markets. he remains worried that any large-scale outbreak could hurt his reelection bid. the markets certainly didn't believe donald trump's tweet today that the coronavirus is
very much under control in the usa. the stock market dropped dramatically today as the number of coronavirus cases outside of china surged and provoked fears of a prolonged global economic slow down because of the spreading virus. we know that this president of the united states does not know how to defend the united states against something like the coronavirus. donald trump attacked president obama and the obama's administration's response to the ebola virus. it turned out to be exactly the right approach to the threat of the ebola virus. donald trump does know how to defend the united states against russia's attack against our election which is happening again after the successful attack on our election in 2016. but donald trump doesn't want to stop raeshds attack on our election. he operates in the white house in perfect sync with vladimir putin's attack on our election. donald trump says everything vladimir putin wants donald trump to say about russia's attack on our election, including that it never happened
in 2016 and that it's not happening now. donald trump is conducting a purge of his administration of people who, among other things, take russia's attack on our election seriously and want to do something about it, including informing congress about it. these are just some of the reasons why almost every democratic candidate for president polls strongly against donald trump in one on one polling. on saturday only three came away with delegates, bernie sanders picked up 22 delegates. joe biden picked up 7. pete buttiegieg picked up 3. if they have any impact at all, it will be to create a distortion in political reality. for example, billionaire tom steyer who hasn't won a single delegate is now polling at 15% in the primary in south carolina. that means he's in third place behind joe biden at 27%, sanders
23, pull tulsi gabbard at 3. if he wins at least 15% of the vote, he might not pick up a single delegate anywhere else on the electoral map. so tom steyer's massive ad spending in south carolina that might win him a few delegates will in the end represent nothing but a distortion in the political reality of the south carolina vote. if tom steyer dropped out of the race, would most of his support go to bernie sanders or to joe biden or would it be split between them or would some of it go to elizabeth warren, would some of it go to pete buttiegieg? push them up over 15%? we don't know. it's distortions like that, temporary dpis torsions like that in the political market
place, they are eager to see them follow andrew yang's example and drop out of the race. bernie sanders is now in the lead nationally 32%, bloomberg 19%, biden 18%, buttigieg at 11, tulsi gabbard at 2. the next candidate debate will be tomorrow night in south carolina. it will be the last debate for most of the democratic presidential candidates because it is not just the last debate before the south carolina primary on saturday. much, much more importantly it is the last debate before super tuesday voting next tuesday in the giant states of california and texas along with 12 other states including massachusetts, colorado, virginia. everything is going to be on the line for the candidates in tomorrow night's debate in every one of those states. and as of now, the only candidate who seems certain of surviving super tuesday is front runner bernie sanders.
for all of the rest there seems to be no way to predict where they will be after super tuesday. so tomorrow night's debate could be the final debate for most of the democratic candidates. leading off our discussion tonight, jennifer palmieri, former white house communications director for president obama and former communications director for hillary clinton's presidential campaign. and annan gierdadas, editor at large of time magazine, author of winners take all, changing the world. he is an msnbc political analyst. on that the stumble came even after you tutored me once again -- >> we figured out the last name has the same number of syllables. >> you have the same number of syllables as pete buttiegieg. >> he does. >> i want to go to the recent piece of your question. if you could get one question in the debate, it would be this question.
you wrote, if i could ask one debate question, it would be this. raise your hand if you would want there to be more billionaires at the end of your presidency than the start. raise your hand if you would want fewer billionaires. then same question applied to millionaires. >> you know, i think we are, as we describe in the piece in the middleful it a billionaire referendum. we are having an election about candidates. it's hard to think about an election that has been so focused in so many different ways on this question of the billionaire in american life on extreme wealth in a democracy. that is partly because you have two billionaires running. then in bernie sanders and elizabeth warren, you have two candidates whose entire focus is bringing billionaires down a peg. you have billionaires as the most important financiers of all the candidates of those four i just described. all the platforms we're discussing this election on is owned by billionaires.
and so this question -- and billionaires, by the way, the way they employ people, avoid taxes and lobby and rig systems have supplied the atmosphere of hostility, mistrust, anger that is very much the main character in this election. so when it comes to this question of do you want more billionaires or less, this is actually a very novel question in american life. i think whether you're on the left or right, bill clinton, barack obama said we want tax rates -- the first time in my lifetime we are having a real conversation, would you want there to be fewer of these people for justice to be done in america? essentially more of that money taken through wealth taxes, income taxes, capital gains taxes, profit trimming, minimum wage, et cetera. and i think what would happen, what might happen if you ask that question, bernie probably i want fewer billionaires. i'm curious what bernie would say about millionaires. >> since he is one. >> right.
but more because, you know, people who own three convenience stores can end up right at that -- it spans a lot of different people in american life. i think with elizabeth warren you might get a different answer, maybe the same. i think it would be important for a lot of people to fundamentally address this question which i try to raise in the piece, which is are billionaires merely people who happen to have drifted up from you and me up into the stratosphere or are they actually up there because they are standing on our collective backs pinning us down through what they lobby for, through the taxes they fail to pay, through the ways in which they organize monopolies to essentially turn the fruits of the future into their personal prerogative? and i think americans are changing their hearts on this question, which is why we're seeing results that are causing a lot of people in the plutocracy in the media to freak out. it's actually worth backing up from the freak out and ask why
is this happening. this is happening because a lot of people are feeling things in this country they haven't felt before. >> jennifer palmieri, is history going to show them a distortion in what could have been the reality of this lineup? if you look at mike bloomberg, he's polling nationally in a tie second place with joe biden. if you were to add up all the kind of biden-like candidates in the race, they add up to over 50% with two billionaires possibly in that mix. >> yeah, the only reason why bloomberg -- the only reason bloomberg is polling as well as he is because of the money he has spent, right? i think his campaign would acknowledge that as well. it's not, he has not proven himself to be -- to have a lot of support. no one has actually cast a vote for him. but he's managed to get on everybody's radar because of what he's been able to purchase. and, you know, i thought that might work, you know?
i thought his strategy might work. and then we saw last week's debate. how well you perform still matters to voters and he's come down a number of points in the last week from the polls because of that. and, you know, we'll see how he does tomorrow night. the fact he canceled his town hall means how they feel. i think it's still the caliber of the candidate and their ability to meet voters where they are and talk about the concerns in their lives still does matter. >> i want to get both your perspectives on this, jennifer, you've been inside the campaigns. you've seen how fund-raising works. my question, annan, is what is the difference between a billionaire spending his own money -- we, the candidates tomorrow night who aren't billionaires are going to call that buying an election. you're going to hear bernie sanders say something about buying an election.
you're going to hear elizabeth warren say something about buying an election. how is that different from using other people's money to -- what do you call that when you use other people's money? is that buying an election? barack obama used a billion dollars of other people's money in 2008. did he buy it? >> let me disclose up front, i don't think there should be billionaire money in any of our elections. >> campaign reform. i think we can all agree on that, yeah. >> so then the question becomes in the subliminary world where barack obama can spend time on the phone, buttigieg or others in the game, bloomberg. michael bloomberg has made the argument that not having to court other billionaires is -- makes him less corrupt. makes him incorruptible. he said i am the only person --
all rich guys start, i am the only person who can't be corrupt in this race. he said that in phoenix. remarkable statement casting aspersion on everybody else, because i don't need to raise money from others. and what is so fraudulent about this statement is if you actually just think for a second, if you are having to raise money from like -- let's say ten different rich people, ten different rich people do not agree on everything. they agree on nothing. a handful of issues about being rich. that's ten different people pulling you in ten different directions which is sort of what madison was getting at in federalist, pulling people in different directions you're prevented from going one way monolithically that's dangerous to the people. one guy accountable to nobody whose whims in his bath robe in the morning decide his ideas, his policies, who he surrounds -- his bath robe whims
become the governing framework of the united states potentially. that to me is way more dangerous than someone who in the fallen world at least has to deal with the shifting moods and taboos and sensibilities and interests of ten different rich guys. to go to what jennifer said, she's absolutely right. every single vote michael bloomberg hopes to get is because of spending money on ads. in other words, the enterprise of the bloomberg campaign, not some side activity of it, the enterprise of it as a whole, is corrupt. his running -- >> buying ads is corrupt? >> no. attempting to pursue the presidency of the united states by spending money, without relating to people, connect to people -- >> it removes you from the rest of the process. >> and buying it with no other basis. he has no support. he had no support until he started spending this money. he knows it, his people know it. the entire enterprise of the
bloomberg campaign is corrupt. and i've said this yesterday, people may disagree with me. it makes something like the ukraine deal which is not something i'm a fan of, it makes it look small because what we're actually talking about is an individual now, but also the next cycle and the next, just thinking this is now a consumer product. the president of the united states becomes a thing people just think they can buy. >> let me get jennifer in. jennifer, as someone who worked inside real presidential campaigns, dealing with the reality of this, which is the courting of billionaire donors, the courting of small dollar donors which has become hugely important thanks to the internet that has helped democratize in a sense campaign financing as bernie sanders has remarkably demonstrated, what is your reaction to all of these questions and the notion of is a candidate who has to, you know, solicit money from a lot of different people including a lot of different rich people to buildup a billion dollars to win the presidency, is that
qualitative from a person who can afford it? >> i think if you have the 12th richest person in the world, right, that there is that much income -- that much gap in equality in america, you come in, use your own money and spend your own dollars as he already has in an attempt to win over voters is not the best way to elect a president. and what -- and i think that when you're having to raise money, it's a time select candidate, someone will have to do it. you're showing you're able to put a coalition together. you put a coalition together of small dollar donors, wealthy donors. it shows you can get a base of support for your candidacy. that proves that you're a strong candidate. what i think that bloomberg is -- i don't, i don't -- i think this is a bad way to elect a president and i would not
describe the entire bloomberg effort as corrupt. i think bloomberg is well intended in what he is trying to do, it's just a bad way of doing it and i have enormous concerns with. but going to iowa and new hampshire and south carolina and nevada, that's where presidents really turn into good leaders. that's what barack obama would talk about all the time. the people that he met on the campaign trail, how much he missed that as president. that's why he got ten letters every night from people. he had a way to stay in touch. bloomberg could hurt his soul as president if he were selected is not having that kind of connection with the people you're going to lead. that's what money -- too much money, you can buy your way out of that, that's really -- a dark way to get into presidency. >> thank you both for starting us off tonight. really appreciate it. and when we come back, harvey weinstein is guilty, guilty of rape.
he was led from the courtroom today in a state of shock in handcuffs. what the manhattan district attorney says will be a maximum of 25 years in prison when the judge sentences weinstein in two weeks. that's next. know how to cover almost anything. even a "gold medal grizzly." (sports announcer) what an unlikely field in this final heat. (burke) not exactly a skinny dipper, but we covered it. at farmers, we know a thing or two because we've seen a thing or two. so call 1-800 farmers to get a quote. ♪ we are farmers. bum-pa-dum, bum-bum-bum-bum ♪ [wood rolling] alexios, add toilet paper to the shopping list. [chiseling on stone]
oh, and camel milk. and a chicken. and moisturizer. alexa: thanks, guys. i'll take it from here. it's either the assucertification process. or it isn't. it's either testing an array of advanced safety systems. or it isn't. it's either the peace of mind of a standard unlimited mileage warranty. or it isn't. for those who never settle, it's either mercedes-benz certified pre-owned. or it isn't. the mercedes-benz certified pre-owned sales event. now through march 2nd. only at your authorized mercedes-benz dealer. ♪ ♪ everything your trip needs, for everyone you love. expedia.
it took two years and 3 1/2 months for harvey weinstein to be found guilty of rape in a courtroom today in new york city. that's two years and three and a half months since "the new york times" revealed harvey weinstein's monstrous decades of behavior as a sexual predator, sexual assaulter and rapist. and pulitzer prize reporting by megan tooey and jodi canter in "the new york times" delivered us that story. ronan farrow followed "the new york times" report with his own pulitzer prize reporting in "the new yorker." the women who came forward to tell their stories in "the new york times" and "the new yorker" are the heroic van guards of a new movement that has now
changed the legal world's understanding of rape and how to prosecute rape charges. harvey weinstein was found guilty of two out of three possible verdicts against him. he was found guilty of the rape of jessica mann and guilty of a criminal sexual act in the first degree against merriam haley. jessica mann broke down on the witness stand during cross-examination by weinstein's lawyer which caused judge james burke to end the trial proceedings early that day. jessica mann spent three days total on the witness stand describing a complex involvement with weinstein which she said was at times consensual, but did include at least two incidents of violent sexual assault. prosecutor joan aluzi told the jury weinstein tried to keep in contact with his victims in order to control them. she told the jurors when you have to trick somebody to be in your control, then you know that you don't have consent.
merriam haley was in tears on the witness stand when she described the first time that harvey weinstein attacked her, saying he pushed me down, he held me down by my arms. no, stay like that. and i said, no, no. at the time i started realizing what was actually happening, and i thought, this is being raped. here is what manhattan district attorney cyrus vance had to say after the jurors' verdict. >> weinstein is a vicious serial sexual predator who used his power to threaten, rape, assault, trick, humiliate and silence his victims. he has been found guilty of criminal sexual act in the first degree and will face on that count a state prison sentence of no less than five years and up to 25 years. >> joining us now molly crane newman who is the manhattan court's reporter for new york daily news. she has been in the courtroom every day covering the weinstein
trial. also cynthia oxney, former federal prosecutor, nbc legal analyst. mollie, today in the courtroom, there is no suspense like a jury verdict. but on friday when the jury sent a note to the juror -- to the judge saying, can we be hung on the two heaviest counts if we are in agreement on the others, it seemed like they had at least reached agreement on the lesser charges, which is what we found today. >> right. so, the jury did give us a hint as to what they were feeling on friday. and they had asked if they were hung on the two counts of predatory sexual assault but unanimous on the other three counts -- pardon me, what would that mean. and so the question was phrased hypothetically, it gave us some indication of where -- >> what was weinstein's reaction when he heard that word guilty in the courtroom today? >> he looked straight ahead. he looked disconnected and stunned is how i would really describe his face when that came down. i don't think he was expecting it.
>> and did you see him put in handcuffs in the courtroom? >> yes. so, from when the verdict -- when the jury foreman read the verdict until he was taken away in handcuffs was about 20 minutes, and then he was separated from his walker. they cuffed him from the front and walked him into the cells in the back of the courtroom. >> the video we see of him walking out of the courtroom is so different from the video we've seen of him walking into the courtroom every day hunched over a walker. he is -- he does have an officer on each side of him, but his leg movement, his walking out of the courtroom today looked like someone who really wasn't having any trouble walking. >> right. well, you know, seven weeks ago today harvey weinstein walked into manhattan criminal court for the first time on a walker. it was the first time anybody had seen him on a walker. his lawyers claim that he needs it after he had back surgery. you know, today donna said to the judge back surgery was not a success and that he's needed it to support himself to walk. that is what we've been told.
and by his defense team. >> cynthia oxney, your reaction to this prosecution, which had a burden unlike any i'm aware of in previous sexual assault and rape cases. >> right. >> which was kind of ongoing interaction with the victims. and in the past, prosecutors, if they saw that, if they saw any kind of friendly email contact or anything like that after the incident, they would kind of give up on the case. >> yeah, i think it was -- i think if you look at it in a traditional way, it was the impossible case. it was not a case where you would put resources in because you would have no confidence that you would ever get a conviction and you would put your victim through a terrible ordeal for nothing. and you would waste resources of the office that were needed for other victims. so this is a complete change in the prosecution of sex crime cases. it's a huge win for victims everywhere. not only these victims, these 80
victims of his, but also victims who are out there and are afraid to come forward. and now they know they can come forward. so i can't tell you how impressed i am with the quality of the lawyering to be able to get a conviction in this case because these women had these ongoing contacts with weinstein. and let me say about weinstein and his walker, let's remember he has been in the entertainment business. this walker, cry me a river. he'll do just fine in jail. i don't want to hear about his walker and his medical problems quite frankly. >> let me tell the control room, we don't have to show the walker any more, but i would by contrast like to show him walking out of the courtroom today. it's say stark contrast. cynthia, let me stay with you on a legal frontier that has been mapped out on this. i wonder if the prosecutors in the case red "the new york times" accounts read ronan farrow's reporting in "the new yorker" and processed the
complexity in this in a way they haven't before because that reporting was so detailed and brought out all of the various shadings and the different kinds of regret and the different kinds of feelings that the women had about these experiences. >> well, i'm sure that when they first spoke with these women they shook their heads and thought, we're never going to be able to get a conviction on this. i mean, that's what people -- what experienced prosecutors would think. fortunately there were enough heroic victims. there were enough women that came forward and the quality of the reporting was so good that they were pressed into action. and we're very lucky, again, not only in our presidential system, but in the legal system here that we've had these reporters that have done this work. i mean, just imagine, these people maintained contact with him. one of them when she changed her phone number, she gave him the new number. that in and of itself, that
little fact would be enough to lose a case over time. that's -- that would have been enough not to bring a case forward. and here they went forward with lots of evidence like that. and it not only shows how brave the prosecutors were and how brave the victims were. one of these victims had three days of cross-examination. it's wrenching to do an hour and a half of cross-examination in a rape case, and she had three days of it. and the quality of the defense was quite good, and so it was very painful. >> mollie, harvey weinstein did not testify in his own defense. we are not, as jurors, can take a negative inference from that. jurors are told not to, but we certainly can. it says to me there wasn't a single thing he could say that could have helped him. those prosecutors did have this unique burden. how did they deal with the challenges of some of the testimony of the witnesses they put on?
because the old model for this is if the defense can raise just one doubt about anything that the witnesses said, you know, you can kind of knockout all of the testimony. these prosecutors must have realized there can be some elements of doubt about some of the things the witnesses are saying, but we somehow have to preserve the total impact of their testimony. how did they do that? >> right. well, you know, jessica mann, for example, she was on cross-examination for a total of nine hours over two days. and she was totally forthcoming about her relationship with harvey weinstein. you know, she told the jurors, i have nothing to hide. i own my behavior and sort of described this on again, off again consensual relationship with him. and merriam blakely was the same. they tried to bring up old emails, friendly text messages after the fact. when the women took the stand, they didn't lie about their relationship with him and they didn't like about the
complexities. i think in the end the jury was able to see the nuances. >> mollie, before you go, i want to ask you as a person and as a woman sitting in the courtroom, you've covered a lot in that courthouse. what was it like for you to be in that courtroom every day with this testimony? >> well, you know, it was important to -- it was a challenging trial in more ways than one, but i just tried to do my job and report it as best i could. you know, this is a huge trial. there were reporters from all over the world covering it. we were there from 5:00 in the morning until 7:00 at night each day, and so i just tried to do my best at reporting it. >> but in terms of the personal weight that you felt, was this different from other trials you've had to cover? >> i've certainly never covered a trial like this, so yeah, it was challenging in ways. but again, i just tried to be in reporter mode and cover it from that angle. >> mollie crane newman, thank you for being in reporter mode.
we relied on your reporting. cynthia oxney, thank you for joining us tonight. when we come back from the break, cecile will join us on this era of me too and the donald trump era and where we go from here. what? parked it right there. male voice: what did i tell you, boys? tonight we eat like kings! (chuckling) you're a genius, gordon! brake! hit the brake! uh, which one's the brake? (crash, bottles smashing) stop! stop! sto-o-op! (brakes squealing) what's happening? what? there's a half of cheesesteak back there. with geico, the savings keep on going. just like this sequel. 15 minutes could save you 15% or more on car insurance. raccoon: i got the cheesesteak! a but i hearsearches fa different calling. the call of a schmear of cream cheese. for i, am a schmelier. i practice my craft at philadelphia. here, we use only the freshest milk...
that one! go! go! and the finest ingredients... what is this? until perfection is achieved. she's ready. schmears! philadelphia. schmear perfection. dad! not cool.o, son. you know what's not uncool? old spice after hours... and jazz. dad, i prefer ultra smooth, it handles sweat without all that...jazz. you're right son. itso chantix can help you quit slow turkey. along with support, chantix is proven to help you quit. with chantix you can keep smoking at first and ease into quitting. chantix reduces the urge so when the day arrives, you'll be more ready to kiss cigarettes goodbye. when you try to quit smoking, with or without chantix, you may have nicotine withdrawal symptoms. stop chantix and get help right away if you have changes in behavior or thinking,
aggression, hostility, depressed mood, suicidal thoughts or actions, seizures, new or worse heart or blood vessel problems, sleepwalking, or life-threatening allergic and skin reactions. decrease alcohol use. use caution driving or operating machinery. tell your doctor if you've had mental health problems. the most common side effect is nausea. quit smoking slow turkey. talk to your doctor about chantix. i learned about myuse grandfather's life. on ancestry and it was a remarkable twentieth-century transformation. he did a lot of living before i knew him. bring your family history to life like never before. get started for free at ancestry.com
struggling to survive. in this moment, we need a fighter. bernie sanders. we know he'll fight for us as president because he always has. i'm bernie sanders and i approve this message. this is the new landscape for survivors of sexual assault in america, i believe, and this is a new day. it's a new day because harvey weinstein has finally been held accountable for crimes he committed. the women who came forward courageously and at great risk made that happen. >> that was manhattan district attorney cyrus vance today after the jury found harvey weinstein guilty of rape. joining us now is cecile richard, co-founder of the women's political group super majority and the former president of planned parenthood. cecile, i want to pull back to a wider vision of where we are at
this point in the 21st century. we have seen so much turmoil, especially if we were to just start the clock at "the new york times" article of harvey weinstein 2 1/2 years ago and include the trump campaign for president where we saw the "access hollywood" video come out, and that did not stop the trump presidential campaign, as so many people assumed it would. what do you sense is changing now, and does this verdict represent the kind of change from where we were when apparently enough voters saw the "access hollywood" video and decided that doesn't bother me, i still want that guy to be president? >> well, i think, first, i think today this conviction does belong to the courageous women as sy vance said not only risk their careers, risked
humiliating days in the courtroom. this could not have happened four or five years ago. this is really a result in this case of more than 80 women coming forward. and in the words of tawana burke saying, me, too, and standing up for each other. it was a spark that was lit and it is not going out. and i do think it's about something -- it's about the courage of these women, courage of jodi, of megan of really pursuing the story. and it's showing women the power, what they can do when we actually stand up and for each other. i think it's obviously catapulting into this election where women are finally realizing that they have the political power to change what's happening in this country on a whole host of issues and not least of which is sexual assault and harassment which is rampant in this country. and, again, of course not just in hollywood, but experienced by women in the work force all across america. >> women's health is now under
assault by some republican policies. reproductive rights under assault by republican policies. and that's one of those areas where you had a right to think that women had achieved certain victories and certain benchmarks that could not be reversed, but we're seeing that attempt continues. >> right, no, absolutely. women are seeing on all of these issues, government right now is not only standing still in some cases, but actually rolling back rights that they had had. and i think that's why you're seeing historic numbers -- not obviously the women's march was sort of the beginning of it all now almost four years ago, but it has continued on in 2018, record numbers of women vote being. we're seeing it in all the primaries, in every primary state and caucuses women outnumbering, being the majority of voters. i feel like women are beginning to realize the power of standing united and actually standing up
on issues. this is an issue, sexual harassment and assault that is experienced by women all across the country regardless of party, regardless of income level, and we're finally saying enough is enough. we want equality and we want these issues that have been swept under the rug come out into the daylight and do something about them. i think this is the president's biggest vulnerability with women. he clearly does not care. he continues to make derogatory comments about women. and i think this is going to cost him votes next november. >> cecile richards, thank you for joining us tonight. i really appreciate t. >> good to see you, lawrence. >> thank you. when we come back, donald trump claims that no one has told him that vladimir putin is interfering in our elections to help donald trump's campaign. in other words, donald trump is operating exactly the way vladimir putin wants him to operate in the face of vladimir putin's attack on our election.
i have moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. now, there's skyrizi. 3 out of 4 people achieved 90% clearer skin at 4 months after just 2 doses. skyrizi may increase your risk of infections and lower your ability to fight them. before treatment your doctor should check you for infections and tuberculosis. tell your doctor if you have an infection or symptoms such as fevers, sweats, chills, muscle aches or coughs, or if you plan to or recently received a vaccine. ♪ nothing is everything ask your dermatologist about skyrizi.
♪ nothing is everything i need all the breaks as athat i can get.or, at liberty butchemel... cut. liberty mu... line? cut. liberty mutual customizes your car insurance so you only pay for what you need. cut. liberty m... am i allowed to riff? what if i come out of the water? liberty biberty... cut. we'll dub it. liberty mutual customizes your car insurance so you only pay for what you need. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪
(dad vo) just a blur when they jumped the median.ye. there was nothing i could do. (daughter) daddy! (dad vo) she's safe because of our first outback. and our new one's even safer. (avo) welcome to the all-new subaru outback. an iihs top safety pick plus. the highest level of safety you can earn. as parents of six, this network is one less thing i have to worry about. (vo) why the aceves family chose verizon. we all use our phones very differently. these two are always gaming and this one is always on facetime. and my oldest is learning to be a pilot. we need a reliable network because i need to know he's safe. as soon as he lands, he knows he better call mama. mama! (vo) the network more people rely on, gives you more. like plans your family can mix and match starting at just $35. and apple music on us. plus, up to $650 off the latest iphone when you switch.
that's verizon. my age-related macular degenso today i made a plan with my doctor, which includes preservision... because he said a multi- vitamin alone may not be enough. and it's my vision, my morning walk, my sunday drive, my grandson's beautiful face. only preservision areds2 contains the exact nutrient formula recommended by the national eye institute to help reduce the risk of moderate to advanced amd progression. it's how i see my life. because it's my vision...
preservision. the trump administration has done nothing to prevent russia's interference in the election, so today democratic leader chuck schumer along with the top democratic leaders in the senate intelligence committee, foreign relations committee and banking committee sent a letter to secretary of state mike pompeo and secretary of treasury steven mnuchin urging them to use their existing authority to sanction russia for its current interference in the election. joining us now, congressman denny heck, member of the house intelligence committee and house financial services committee. congressman heck, i am sure that chuck schumer doesn't expect secretary pompeo or secretary mnuchin to do anything, but that he definitely wanted to underline through these letters that they are doing absolutely nothing and that donald trump is doing nothing to stop russia's attack on the election. >> well, i agree with you, lawrence. the fact of the matter is,
however, i think there are any number of republican senators who are highly skeptical of russia and might be willing to go in this direction, but the administration is not. and the reason we ought to do it and i couldn't be more supportive of senator schumer's proposal, frankly, is we're going to continue to get this behavior on russia's part until it hurts bad enough that they stand down. and we're only going to know it is hurting bad enough when they do stand down. and they clearly haven't been ready or willing to do that thus far. >> donald trump does not do everything vladimir putin wants him to do. for example, vladimir putin would like donald trump to block all aid of all forms to ukraine, but it seems to me -- correct me if i'm wrong about this -- i can't see a single thing that donald trump has ever done about russia's interference in the election that vladimir putin doesn't want him to do. first of all, donald trump denies it. secondly, donald trump fires people who take it seriously within his administration. has donald trump ever done
anything that vladimir putin didn't want him to do about russia's interference in the election? >> not to my recollection, lawrence. but remember, this shouldn't surprise us given that back in helsinki, he told the entire world he believed vladimir putin over his own intelligence community. we shouldn't be surprised by any of this. but what we should do is remind people about why this is so darned important. the fact is our great republic sits atop a three-legged stool, and we all know about the precarious nature of three-legged stools. if they miss one of the legs, the first is we are governed by the rule of law anchored in our constitution. the second is we have guarantees of individual freedoms, also as found in our constitution. and thirdly, we have free, fair and open elections conducted with integrity. and if people lose confidence that they have been conducted with integrity, then they do not confer legitimacy on our government. and at the end of the day, in a democratic society and a democratic republic, it is that
legitimacy, that consent of the governed that enables government to function at all. and president trump, frankly, is waging a war against that very precept. >> congressman denny heck, thank you for joining us appreciate . >> you're welcome, sir. and when we come back, jill wine-banks will get tonight's last word on her new book and on the conviction of harvey weinstein. through the at&t network, edge-to-edge intelligence gives you the power to see every corner of your growing business. from finding out what's selling best...
to managing your fleet... to collaborating remotely with your teams. giving you a nice big edge over your competition. that's the power of edge-to-edge intelligence. if you're living with hiv, and ask your doctor about biktarvy. biktarvy is a complete, one-pill, once-a-day treatment used for hiv in certain adults. it's not a cure, but with one small pill, biktarvy fights hiv to help you get to and stay undetectable. that's when the amount of virus is so low it can't be measured by a lab test. research shows people who take hiv treatment every day
and get to and stay undetectabe can no longer transmit hiv through sex. serious side effects can occur, including kidney problems and kidney failure. rare, life-threatening side effects include a buildup of lactic acid and liver problems. do not take biktarvy if you take dofetilide or rifampin. tell your doctor about all the medicines and supplements you take, if you are pregnant or breastfeeding, or if you have kidney or liver problems, including hepatitis. if you have hepatitis b, do not stop taking biktarvy without talking to your doctor. common side effects were diarrhea, nausea, and headache. if you're living with hiv, keep loving who you are. and ask your doctor if biktarvy is right for you. good morning, mr. sun. good morning, blair. [ chuckles ] whoo. i'm gonna grow big and strong. yes, you are. i'm gonna get this place all clean. i'll give you a hand. and i'm gonna put lisa on crutches! wait, what? said she's gonna need crutches. she fell pretty hard. you might want to clean that up, girl. excuse us.
when owning a small business gets real, progressive helps protect what you built with customizable coverage. -and i'm gonna -- -eh, eh, eh. -donny, no. -oh. -and i'm gonna -- -eh, eh, eh. i am totally blind. and non-24 can make me show up too early... or too late. or make me feel like i'm not really "there." talk to your doctor, and call 844-234-2424. ♪ he's been around the world,
♪ he's seen it all, it's always what you think of, ♪ - [crowd] surprise! ♪ right there, all the time, - with over 40 fully integrated applications, you won't be able to contain your excitement either. from just a dollar a day per employee, run your entire business with zoho one. the operating system for business. after being impeached by the house and put on trial in the senate, donald trump is purging his administration in retribution. according to axios, donald trump and his allies have been assembling lists of disloyal government officials, disloyal to trump that is, and replacing them with trump supporters. quote, since trump's senate acquittal, aides say the president has crossed a psychological line regarding what he calls the deep state. he feills his government from justice to state to defense to homeland security is filled with snakes. he wants them fired and replaced
asap. in a new book out tomorrow, former assistant watergate prosecutor jill wine-banks reflects on her experience taking down a corrupt president. quote, more than four decades after watergate, i see history repeating itself with the presidency of donald trump. like nixon, trump is corrupt, amoral, ruthless, narsistic. there's a sense our democratic snugszs might not survive. today the peril is worse than in the 1970s because trump is more dangerous than nixon. joining our discussion now, jill wine-banks, former assistant watergate special prosecutor and nbc legal analyst. she is the author of the new book "the watergate girl." pretty exciting, jill. on sale tomorrow. so that last line that i read, and this is a question that i've been going -- tossing around in my head throughout the trump presidency.
who's worse? richard nixon or donald trump? >> they're both bad, but there is no question in my mind that donald trump is a much more existential threat to democracy than richard nixon was. and when you talk about vindictive and the purges, i would say that nixon was vindictive, and he retaliated against anyone he saw as not being loyal to him, but he didn't pull out people from the government. he didn't replace them with people who would do his bidding like attorney general barr and so many others. and that's what donald trump is doing, which hurts the institutions of government and really threatens democracy in a way that nixon didn't. and also during watergate, the system worked. he ended up resigning. he was forced out of office. and now we have the republicans in the senate saying not guilty. oh, yes, there's enough evidence to show that he committed all the acts that are charged. but then they said the words "not guilty," and that's terrible.
>> well, now, was it the system that worked in watergate, or was it the people? was it the individuals? was it barry goldwater's sense of decency that made barry goldwater, arch conservative republican, go up to that white house and say, president nixon, you're going to have to resign? now, president nixon had been very helpful to him in his 1964 campaign. this wasn't easy on a personal level. but there was nothing institutionally that forced them to do that. they took that on as human beings and did that. >> i think it was a question of two things. one was morality. and we'd have to look at elliott richardson, who was the attorney general, who refused to fire the special prosecutor because he had promised congress -- >> republican elliott richardson. >> republican appointed by the president. but he said, i told congress i wouldn't fire him except for cause. there is no cause. so nixon fired him. and then the deputy attorney general ruckelshaus, refused to do the same task assigned to
him, and he was fired. and it was bork, who was the third person, the solicitor general, who did the firing and who never became a supreme court justice in large part because he did the dirty deed. but it's also because of the media. back then we had three networks, and they all had the same facts. now you have what are called alternative facts, which are lies basically. they can't be alternative facts. there are facts and there are non-facts. and people actually believe what donald trump says even though it's contradicted by evidence in plain sight. >> i really want to get your reaction to the weinstein verdict tonight because you've been practicing law since the 1970s. a case -- a prosecution like this was inconceivable in the 1970s, inconceivable until very recently when prosecutors always wanted the perfect -- >> yes. >> they wanted what they would call the perfect victim. >> they wanted the perfect victim. they blamed the victim. this is in the days when what the victim wore was part of the
evidence. and if you were dressed provocatively, it was your fault that you got raped. and so people wouldn't -- prosecutors didn't bring cases as a result of that. and the laws had to be changed. for example, if you had a prior sexual relationship with any person, even in a loving, committed relationship, that was used as evidence against you. and those are things that the law has changed, but i think attitudes have finally caught up and that the "me too" movement, which i would have thought started with, for example, donald trump and his -- >> should have. >> it should have. i wouldn't have predicted that harvey weinstein was the cause of the whole movement, but it is him who started it. and he's got his just rewards now by having been convicted. and the jury obviously took it very seriously and did some jury nullification but reached a fair verdict. >> jill wine-banks. the new book is called "the
watergate girl." thank you for joining us. really appreciate it. i want to give a special last word tonight to ashley judd, who was in the first "new york times" article about harvey winstein. she went on the record publicly with her name. a big hollywood star doing that was very, very important to the reporting and to all subsequent reporting and encouraging other women to come forward. ashley judd tweeted today, for the women who testified in this case and walked through traumatic hell, you did a public service to girls and women everywhere. thank you. that is tonight's last word. ashley judd gets tonight's last word. "the 11th hour" with brian williams starts now. tonight with the president in india, the dow has its biggest drop in two years, and it's because of the coronavirus, which the president says is under control here while saying he sees opportunity in the stock market. he's also saying