♪ ♪ good evening from new york. i'm ali velshi. there is a lot to get to tonight including a nbc news exclusive report on the russian government's intrusion into american voter registration rolls before the 2016 election. what could be a new strategy for the president as robert mueller's investigation gets closer to him and later my conversation with senator elizabeth warren. we'll begin with a major shake-up for the trump administration. the man who resigned from the white house today held the title of white house staff secretary. make no mistake, there may have been no one with more daily access to the president of the united states than robert porter. he announced his resignation

following allegations of physical abuse by his two former wives, allegations he denies. the white house including chief of staff john kelly is left answering questions about its knowledge of those allegations during his employ and those allegations prevented him from getting a security clearance. porter has held the position since the start of the trump administration. his role was strengthened under john kelly and he was instrumental along with kelly in vetting any information that would reach the president's desk. porter reportedly helped draft president trump's state of the union address last week. he traveled with the president to davos instead of john kelly. according to reports in both the intercept and "the daily mail," both of his former wives told the fbi of their allegations of abuse. his first wife colby holden provided this photo to both "the daily mail" and the interat the present time of a bruised eye she said occurred when porter punched her during a vacation to florence, italy in 2005. porter responded in a statement

which reads in part, "these outrageous allegations are simply false. i took the photos given to the media nearly 15 years ago and the reality behind them is nowhere close to what is being described. i have been transparent and truthful about these vial claims but i will not further engage publicly with a coordinated smear complain." porter's statement did not appear to specifically address allegations made by his second wife jennifer willoughby. in 2010, she filed for a protective order claiming porter was violating a separation agreement by his continued presence at her house. her handwritten request under oath reading in part "when he returned a few minutes later he punched in the glass door. i called the police afraid he would break in." the emergency protective order was granted saying reasonable grounds exist to believe that respondent has committed family abuse and there is probable

danger of a further such offense. two sources familiar with the matter tell nbc news that porter was never given full security clearance though it's unclear why. a former white house official says the chief of staff john kelly was aware of the allegations of abuse against rob porter before the story broke yesterday. kelly was according to multiple outlets against porter resigning in the face of these allegations becoming public and released a fascinating statement reading in part rob porter is a man of true integrity and honor and i can't say enough good things about him. he's a friend, a confidante and a trusted professional. i'm proud to serve alongside him. political analyst jonathan lemire from the "associated press" joins meese now. jonathan, what do we know about this? it's a fast-breaking story. there are lots of developments many of which are starting to sort of ensnare john kelly about what did he know and when did he know it. >> that's right. this is a white house with a remarkable level of urnover. in its first year, it saw more

senior level departures than any white house that came before it for generations. rob port ser not the household name that a steve bannon or reince priebus or certainly an anthony scaramucci was. but he played a vital role inside that building and it grew enormously under john kelly. and the question of kelly's behavior in all this is now central to where their story goes from here. porter was one of kelly's top aides. kelly credited him with helping streamline and better control the flow of information into the president which was a reproblem for months and months in this administration. as you indicated, porter was a frequent presence at the president's side whether it's in the oval office or on trips. he was there for his journey to asia late last year. and kelly knew of these allegations before they became public. and led inside the white house a movement to convince porter to stay. this happened yesterday when the

first stories came out and kelly maintained that today even when second wave of allegations were published. but it must be said, porter lost some internal support inside the building once those photos of abuse emerged. kelly was at a much more isolated position then and porter decided he would resign. >> there was a very strange reaction to that, the quote from porter about how he took those pictures 15 years ago. but there was no end to that sentence. there was no, i took those pictures and here's the explanation that wouldn't be obvious to you. >> yeah, it is right. it's a puzzling part of the statement, one we're all trying to get to the bottom of. it's unclear what rationale he would have for taking the pictures. he disputes part of the allegations here but as you'll note in looking at his statement, it's not a flat out denial. >> it's a very interesting situation. we'll continue to get more information on this. jonathan, thanks very much. is jonathan mag lear, is the "associated press" white house

reporter. michelle goldberg from the "new york times" and josh marshall of talking points memo join me now. i want to start by setting the table about john kelly and hopes and aspirations for kelly when he joined this administration as a man of great discipline and moral rectitude. in october, john kelly said this about the state of women in this country. let's listen. >> whether he i was a kid growing up, a lot of things were sake sacred in our country. women were sacred and looked upon with great honor. that's not the case anymore as we see from recent cases. >> he wasn't prompted to answer that question in that press conference. he had come in, it was a bit of a surprise john kelly was going to address the nation shortly after some events controversial. do you have -- can you make any sense of what has gone on with john kelly putting out a statement in support of john porter and yet maybe knowing what happened. >> that view of women as being

kind of to be worshipped on a pedestal has not been zing from the view of women as you can kind of push them around if they get out of line. so i think that john kelly is maybe more disciplined than trump and more professional than trump but shares his backward views on a whole range of issues from gender to immigration. he is serving this president because he might not like the way this president does things but they are very, very close ideologically. so what we've seen now is that to john kelly as to everyone in this administration are, beating up a woman is not a disqualification. it doesn't stop you from being considered a dishonorable person. this rob porter's far from the first trump associate to have been credibly accused of abusing a woman. trump himself was credibly accused of abusing his first wife ivana. >> let me ask you this, josh. the responses were kind of unusual.

there were very strong responses not just from the kelly but from senator orrin hatch while rob porter's name may not be known to everybody, he was known in washington circles because he's worked for people including hatch who again confirmed to reporters today he had urged porter not to resign in the face of this. let's listen. >> i encouraged him to keep a stiff upper lip and work out his problems. and i would prefer him not to resign just work his way through and do what's right. >> what do you mean by work his way through what? >> he's a talented guy. i don't want to lose him. >> that's strange. >> it is a little strange. look, i think in all sorts of wrongdoing a person can be very talented and in other respects a good generous person and do terrible things. so these things. >> but we didn't have that normal qualification you got with the roy moore.

>> i agree. i -- i don't know what hatch's thing is. i think the thing with kelly she's exactly right. kelly is a traditionalist. much more than we realized when he came in. and there have been this series of instances over the course of his eight months or whatever where -- i think of it as like john kelly is total quality trumpism. he is all of the ideas and all of the -- all of the ideas how society should be structured who should be on top, who should be on the bottom, all this kind of stuff but he's disciplined which trump isn't. it makes him seem very different but in terms of how they see society should work, you see it in his ideas about immigration, lazy immigrants, you see it with that kind of like you know women are on a pedestal. that is not a vision of equality. let's put it that way. so it's very hard to figure. clearly they personally like him a lot. but people like people a lot and

see them do terrible things and at least kind of say that's terrible but i still think he's a good guy. >> i don't think some of these people do realize it's terrible. >> i think you're right. you would expect they would say it pro forma. >> that's a big problem if we don't think that -- >> one of the wives talked about going to somebody in her church. and she talked about going to the clergy and the clergy saying think what it will do to his professional ambitions. it seems that's all anybody thought about as the whole thing unfolded, what is this going to do to this promising young man's professional ambitions. >> what is unusual is not that after hearing the allegation there defending him but it does appear john kelly knew about this beforehand. now. >> right. >> that's strange. >> it's a real scandal not just because it's a moral outrage to have a person who abuses women in such a high position but because he didn't get a security clearance and there's a reason that the fbi wouldn't give a security clearance. >> which may have been this.

>> somebodied with this kind of background. they're blake mailable. it's both moral dereliction and a real security breach. it's real sloppiness. >> what's supposed to happen now? josh, what -- you know, all normal behavior is out the window with this white house. >> yeah. you know, it's strange because this is in some ways it's one of the most conventional trump white house resignations. he did a very bad thing. he resigned as opposed to whatever anthony scaramucci did or steve bannon did or whatever. i get the sense that this is not going to go away. it's really -- it seems very clear. there was actually some background reporting i saw somewhere today that basically suggests the white house knew, they didn't know there was pictures maybe. that's not a good answer. so i think what it really comes down to is, you know, i almost

credit john kelly for his candor. clearly this is something that does not face being a person of being a person of great honor. i don't think he saw it as a problem. at the end of the day, that is it. >> i guess it depends what your definition of honor is these days. michelle, thank you as always. josh good to have you on the show. breaking news tonight on how successful russian efforts were in penetrating u.s. voter systems in 2016. exclusive reporting from nbc news in two minutes.

tillerson is one of a handful of trump administration officials have publicly acknowledged that russia interfered in the 2016 election. last night, he indicated that russian officials are still at it. then he seemed to suggest there's not much the u.s. can do to stop them. >> there's a lot of ways that the russians can meddle in the elections.

a lot of different tools they can use. i think what we see and some of this is through some of our own sharing with countries that are allies of ours and partners of ours. we are seeing certain behaviors. >> is the u.s. better prepared this time around than 2016? >> i don't know that i would say we're better prepared because the russians will adapt, as well. if it -- the point is if it's their intention to interfere, they're going to find ways to do that. and we can take steps we can take. but this is something that once they decide they're going to do it is very difficult to preempt it. >> now, today, following those comments nbc news broke a big story. top u.s. officials saying that russians penetrated u.s. voter systems in 2016 and scanned state voter registration databases. >> we saw targeting of 21 states. and an exceptionally small number of that 21 were actually successfully penetrated. >> where it was coming from was

not just russians but the russian government. >> correct. >> no doubt. >> no doubt. >> president trump seems utterly unconcerned about all of this. he has repeatedly questioned the intelligence community's consensus about russian interference while maintaining without a shred of evidence that he only lost the popular vote because of widespread voter fraud. today, while his schedule said he was meant to be receiving a highly classified intelligence briefing, the president appeared to be watching fox news instead. shortly after that network reported on newly released text messages between two fbi officials which had been at the center of a conservative conspiracy theory to undermine the mueller investigation, the president tweeted "new fbi texts are bombshells! joining me eric swalwell of california, a member of the house intelligence committee, one of the committees looking into the whole idea of russian interference in the election in

2016 and what helped the russians may have had this from americans. good to see you again sir. it must be very frustrating that we are hearing these trickles of acknowledgement from the trump administration on something that people like you have understood since election day. >> ali this has to be a wake-up call that we have a job to do. every second we spend on ridiculous obstructive memos is a second we're not spending working together to protect the ballot box the next election. disunity is russia's shield. unity among america's leaders is our best shield. we need to come together, get serious about this. i don't think the russians have left since they attacked us. >> how do you get serious about it if the president who by the way ultimately has control over certain sanctions that might be imposed against russia as a preemptive way of stopping them from interfering doesn't want to do the simplest thing like rex tillerson did? he won't make that simple

admission. >> well, today we saw in the senate that despite the confusion coming from the president around solving the dreamers' fate, the senate leaders worked together. they worked around the president. i think in congress if he's not going to acknowledge the threat that russia poses we have to be the adults here for the sake of the country and work together. >> congressman, where do you see this going particularly in the events of the last couple weeks with the chairman devin announce announce and t /- /- nunes and the way he conducted himself. is there enough ability on the house intelligence committee to complete its function with respect to the investigating russian interference into the election and possible collusion? >> it's time to bring witnesses back in, do the job of understanding what happened and put reforms in place so it never happens again. no more attacks on process but let's listen to the evidence and i believe that one thing that we should be looking at is what

sort of duty to report exists among citizens if they are contacted by foreign'gs. so many trump team members were contacted and didn't tell a soul in law enforcement. what is the duty of the tech industry if they see an attack before the fbi does to work with the fbi and tell them that this is ongoing. there's refors we can make today to better protect the ballot box in 201 and the best way to do that again is to end the process and understand the evidence. >> i'm a little concerned. i wonder if you are about the number and possibly the growing number of americans who are believing that this is a' conspiracy theory that this whole idea that there was any collusion let alone russian interference in the election is a conspiracy theory set to undermine the president. he's been going on about this for a long time. the number of people who seem to think that don't seem be shaking away. those are people not seeing this as a threat to our democracy. >> it's a real problem. you see that reflected in the

polls out there asking people what their perception of the fbi is. that's why we have a duty i think as americans not just democrats to restore their credibility, show through our memo this was a serious investigation but also to defend the rule of law in our country as it continues to be trampled on. again, every single day americans' lives are being protected by source who's work with the fbi and anti-terrorism cases and the collateral damage as they try and protect the president, they are affecting law enforcement's work and their ability to protect us. if that larger picture is understood, i think we still can come together. our committee is not irredeemable. it just needs leadership right now. >> godspeed in your work. good to talk to you again. >> my pleasure. >> i'm now joined by national security analyst john mclaughlin, a former acting director of the cia. good to see you. >> good evening, ali. >> talk to me about these

concerns that seem to be amplified that you know, when some people say you can't prove that a single vote was changed, i'm not sure that the average american should be waiting for proof that a single vote has been changed. the idea there may have been state voting systems penetrated by russian interference voting lists scanned should be enough to worry all americans. >> very much so. i think secretary tillerson committed an important truth when he said that the russians will be agile here. in fact, the nbc report that notes the penetration of 21 states is an important one but in a way it's the surface of the problem. for example, with all of the controversy about the nunes memo, the interesting thing to me is that russian admitted bots, those cyber creature who's saturate the internet automatically with a particular point of view endorses by the russians were among the real endorsers of the idea of releasing that memo which was,

of course, targeted on tarnishing the investigation of russia's interference. there are so many subtle ways in which they are and i suspect this is what secretary tillerson was referring to, there are so many subtle ways in which they continue to work to influence our politics and sow chaos that it's extremely important that we doll something about it. >> what worries you more, the subtle ways they influence our political systems through chaos or the potential penetration of voting booths? that's a weird question to ask. what should we be thinking about? not at all. your question i illustrates the nature of the problem. the problem requires what i would call an all of government response across the board in a kind of almost manhattan project way. in other words, we have to worry about the most overt signs of penetration, for example, i would recommend certain states

going maybe perhaps a number of states going to paper ballot which is the only way you can be sure that the voting machines haven't been interfered with. that's one level. at the same time, you need a campaign that educates the american public about what's going on here. in contrast to that, i think the president and his allies have muddied this picture to the point where as congressman swalwell was pointing out, the latest surveys show that robert mueller who is the holder of a silver star and purple heart is, his investigation now regarded favorably by only about 30, 35% of the american publicing. > unbelievable. >> so frankly, having worked in the federal government for many years, one thing i always noticed is that this government does not mobilize fully until a president says mobilize. and so the absence of that kind of claire job call from the president of the united states i

think slows all of this down, muddies the picture and leaves us vulnerable. >> you talk about an all of government response. there is no all of government response on something like this if the president isn't in on it. john, thank you. >> thank you, ali. >> all right. coming up next, will the president plead the fifth or will he use the ronald reagan defense in the latest on the trump standoff with mueller after this break. when i received the diagnosis, i knew at that exact moment, whatever it takes, wherever i have to go...i'm beating this. my main focus was to find a team of doctors that work together. when a patient comes to ctca, they're meeting a team of physicians that specialize in the management of cancer. breast cancer treatment is continuing to evolve. and i would say that ctca is definitely on the cusp of those changes. patients can be overwhelmed ... we really focus on taking the time with each individual patient so they can choose the treatment appropriate for them. the care that ctca brings is the kind of care i've wanted for my patients. being able to spend time with them, have a whole team to look after them is fantastic.

i empower women with choices. it's not just picking a surgeon. it's picking the care team, and feeling secure where you are. surround yourself with the team of breast cancer experts at cancer treatment centers of america. visit cancercenter.com/breast >> the president of the united states is leaded for a showdown with special counsel robert mueller. since telling reporters he was looking forwards to being questioned by the special counsel, the president's lawyers have advised him to refuse an interview reportedly. concerned based on his history of false statements that the president could be charged with lying to investigators.

but they don't have a whole lot of options to avoid a face-to-face with mueller's team. as eric holder explained today, the president could plead the fifth invoking his right not to incriminate himself. >> it's entirely possible that you know, he could use his fifth amendment privilege which would be you know almost fatal for any other politician. i don't know you know, i think that's at least a possibility. >> holder will be rachel maddow's guest tonight at p.m. could be politically disastrous for a sitting president to plead the fifth which might imply he's got something to hide. that's how trump saw it when hillary clinton's aides is pleaded the fifth over her e-mail server. >> so there are five people taking the fifth amendment. like you see on the mob, right? you see the mob takes the fifth. if you're innocent, why are you taking the fifth amendment?

>> now according to politico, the president's allies are looking to the example of reagan who during the iran-contra investigation was given several weeks to answer a set of written questions. those responses were not released to the public while he was in office. but the decision ultimately lies with mueller. the president may want to be reagan but he could end up being bill clinton. we all know how that one turned out. that's coming up next. have a c, pain from a headache can make this... ...feel like this. all-in-one cold symptom relief from tylenol®, the #1 doctor recommended pain relief brand. tylenol®.

gets to follow ronald reagan's example and submit written responses to questions from the special counsel but he could end up following in the footsteps of

bill clinton who after putting off independent council ken starr for months eventually became the first sitting president to receive a grand jury subpoena. not long after, he was compelled to testify under oath. his opponents in congress voted to release the tape to the public. >> no sex of any kind in any man ter shape or form, president clinton was oughterly false statement. is that correct? >> it depends upon what the meaning of the word is is" is. >> nick ackerman is a former watergate prosecutor. barbara mcquaid a former u.s. attorney. both msnbc legal analysts. barbara, bill clinton was a lawyer. he was one of the sharpest talkers around and he got himself into a pickle in that testimony. donald trump has a history of giving false statements in testimony.

he's done it before, has a history of giving false stamms when there's no testimony involved. >> they're going to do the best they can to negotiate the terms. their ideal scenario would probably be no questions at all. short of that, written questions where they can assist him in preparing the answers. he's got lots of time to think what he's saying and not on the spot. i do want to point out what the robert mueller would be doing if he's in a grand jury set org interview setting is not trying to trip him up and catch him making slips of the tongue. to commit perjury one has to make a materially false statement. if he should lie about something significant, that could be a basis for perjury or obstruction of justice. it's not little tricks he's going to play. >> nick, how do you see this playing out whether or not the president gets subpoenaed, whether it's a meeting with robert mueller, whether it's written questions and how mueller gets what he wants out of this? >> i think the only way he gets what he wants is to get actual

live testimony under oath. robert mueller's job is to determine whether or not the trump campaign conspired with the russians during the election. that's his job. his job is to get to the truth of that matter whatever that truth may be. and as it turns out, donald trump is a key player here. not only was he the candidate but he's also involved in a number of different incidents beginning with the whole business with the trump tower meeting on june 9th where the russians showed up and his son was there, his son-in-law was there. there are a whole series of things like that it's not like ronald reagan and ire ran contrawhere you had ollie north on national tv spell out what happened. here the question is, did the trump campaign conspire with the russians? did the president who was then the candidate conspire with the

russians? the only way you're going to get to the truth of that is through cross-examination. >> let me ask you this, barbara. a federal prosecutor elizabeth day la vega tweeted and said prosecutors rarely talk to defendants before charging them. and yes, trump would lie but mueller does not need more evidence or charges. the evidence of conspiracy to obstruct justice is overwhelming. i'd love to get your comment on that. >> well, she's right. it is rare actually that you call somebody to testify or the target of an investigation to testify. there's some protections there to protect them so they're just not put in a situation where they're invoking the fifth amendment right and looking guilty. in a case like this where the stakes are so high, it would seem that robert mueller would want to talk to president trump unless he chooses to assert his fifth amendment privilege to understand the full complexion of this, it's such a sensitive case i would think it would be prudent to talk with him to try to understand especially in a case where talking about

obstruction of justice, the key element there is whether someone had a corrupt intent. if president trump can explain away his conduct as an innocent effort, then i think robert mueller would consider that in his quest for the truth. i think understanding what he had in mind when he took those actions is so critically important he will at least fry to get that evidence. >> if he doesn't agree to that, nick, and there has to be a subpoena involved, here's some analysis from the "washington post" about this because the person issuing the subpoena would have to be rod rosenstein, deputy attorney general. if he were suddenly sympathetic to trump he could decline to issue the subpoena or if trump wanted to he could replace rosenstein with someone who is sympathetic to the president's concerns. it's worth noting that anybody who has had senate confirmation can take that spot on a temporary basis. so that's how this could start to unfold.

>> that could happen. there's no question about it, but the political consequences would be pretty grave. i mean, he would be setting himself up just as nixon did with the saturday night massacre. he would be really no different. so but i think if he serves as a subpoena and it's hard to believe that rosenstein wouldn't go along with that if that's what mueller decides to do, it's going to go before first a district court judge who is going to confirm it. it's all under u.s. v nixon where the supreme court ordered nixon to produce tapes. the same principles apply here as they did then. and it will go up to the court of appeals and then the supreme court. and i think it will be heard pretty quickly. this is going to get top priority if trump's lawyers should oppose it. >> nick, always good to talk to you about this. you ma i can me smarter. barbara, thank you for your analysis. >> thanks very much. coming up, one year after inspiring a rallying cry for the resistance, i'll talking with senator elizabeth warren ahead. next, why is the president set on having a military parade? a possibility explanation in

thing 1, thing two next.

president trump wants to see a military parade through the nation's capital and today, defense secretary james mattis confirmed the pentagon is now drawing up options for him. but not everyone thinks a parade of thanks and gun trucks is such a great idea. >> it kind of to me speaks of insecurity. it's what north korea does to show the world how tough they are. >> i think confidence is silent. and insecurity is loud. and for that reason, i would be against flaunting our strength. we don't need to. >> you don't need a big parade to prove your strength or as former british prime minister margaret thatcher once said, being powerful is like being a lady. if you have to tell people you are, you aren't. well, president trump is no

lady. but he is the kind of man who says please clap. that's thing 2 in 60 seconds.

president trump's depend for a military parade has some including members of his own party saying it's more of a sign of insecurity than strength. perhaps it was as a sense of insecurity that led the presidents to complain that democrats didn't sufficiently clap for him during the state of the union. >> you're up there, you've got half the room going totally crazy wild, they loved everything. they want to do something great for our country. and you have the other side even on positive news, really positive news like that, they were like, death. and un-american. un-american. somebody said treasonous. i mean, yeah, i guess why not. you look at that and it's really very, very sad. >> now, the white house says trump was joking about the whole treason thing.

there's no doubt if you watched the state of the union closely, the president cared very much about the clapping.

one year ago today, an extraordinary scene unfolded on the floor of the senate. senator elizabeth warren of massachusetts was speaking against the nomination of then senator jeff sessions as attorney general. as part of that speech, she read from a letter written by coretta scott king decades earlier about sessions and his role in suppressing the black vote in the south. here's what happened. >> there are mothers, daughters, sisters, fathers, sons, and brothers >> mr. president. >> they are. >> mr. president -- >> the majority leader >> the senator has impugned the motives and conduct of our colleague from alabama as warned by the chair. >> i'm surprised the words of coretta scott king are not

suitable for debate in the united states senate. i ask leave of the senate to the continue my remarks. >> the senator will take her seat. >> senator mitch mcconnell later tried to explain his actions but his words backfired in spectacular fashion. >> she was warned. she was given an explanation. nevertheless, she persisted. >> those three sentences and especially those three last words. nevertheless, she persisted resonated with women across the country and became a rallying cry for resistance. now one year later, the woman mitch mcconnell attempted to silence senator elizabeth warren joins me next.

on the house floor today minority leader nancy pelosi set a new record for the longest ever floor speech. opposing a budget deal that doesn't include protection for immigrants known as dreamers. congressman pelosi talked for more than eight hours. against the nomination of then senator jeff sessions as attorney general. a speech that republican leader mitch mcconnell interrupted. his admonishment of the senator, nevertheless she persisted, became a motto for the resistance. she told me what she thinks about the dreamerless budget deal. >> there's some good things for this budget and troubling things for this budget. the good part is we look to double the federal support for

child care, maybe i'm going to get something i'm going to be pushing for on student loans. fundal the security security administration. but we've all known what we need to know in congress. and we've known it ever since the president of the united states broke the promise to dreamers. you know, we had a promise to 800,000 young people that if they would come out of the shadows, if they would get vetted, that they could have jobs, they could go to school, that they could join the military, that they could be part of the great american dream. we made that promise to them, and that's what they did. they did their part. and then when president trump said he was breaking that promise, he put the ball in congress' court and he said fix this. well, time is running out for those dreamers. so for me what this is about is how we negotiate our budget and

we talk about the top lines and we keep pieces together, a very important thing to do. but we have a responsibility to 800,000 young people who counted on us and who are facing deportation. and i think we need to meet that responsibility as a congress. ask i think we need it do it right now. >> senator, you know, the administration, the white house has been saying, look, it's not a problem if this goes beyond the march 5th deadline for the dreamers. john kelly said they're not going to be high on the list for deportation. but the bottom line is we've seen deportation of people gnat wouldn't be on the list of bad hombres. beyond march 5th, if these dreamers are on illegal status i'm were ed what their employers are going to do. >> if these people don't have legal status then how is it

they're going to work in the united states? how are they going to support their families? and this whole notion we're going to put this giant deportation cloud over 800,000 young people and say to them, you know, right this minute it might be okay, but on a whim, the president of the united states, someone in the immigration area can just say done, you are out of here. no rights, we're just pushing you out of the country. we're human beings. we built a country based on the notion that you come, you're here. they've done what we asked them to do and we made a promise to them. we've got to follow through on this promise. this is what the american people want us to do. it's only here in washington we can't this done. >> senator, a year ago today you

were on the senate floor and made a speech that is famous today. ironically, not because of what you said but what somebody else said about you. you were warned and nevertheless she persisted. but you warned about where america might go in the case of the nomination of jeff segs symbolically with the state of problems. and then you went to the "state of the union" address where the president said it was treasonous for members not to clap for him. >> when mitch mcconnell shut me down, when he said that's it, you don't get to speak anymore, you're going to be removed from the floor of the senate, and when i protested, when all the republicans who came in voted for me to have me removed from the senate, i was shocked. and i was genuinely shocked because what i wanted to do was read a letter from coretta scott king that had been in the

congressional records for 30 years. and 30 years earlier when jeff sessions had been nominate today be a federal judge, she had sent this eloquent persuasive letter that had managed to get both republicans and democrats to say no to jeff sessions. they had decided he was too racist to become a federal judge. and in an act of bipartisanship said no to him. i hoped that that night in the united states senate we could have a little bipartisanship, that there would be some republicans who would step up and say no. we cannot put jeff segs in charge of the department of justice. and now here we are a year later and jeff sessions as the attorney general of the united

states, the one who's supposed to represent all of us, what kind of attorney general has he turned out to be? he's turned out to be someone exactly coretta scott king predicted. someone who's trying to turn the criminal justice system even further in two justice systems, one that works for the rich and powerful and then one that is cruel to everyone else and that follows through on his ugly, ugly notions of immigration. jeff sessions has taken that justice department and driven it in exactly the wrong direction. and he and donald trump have played off each other throughout this process. it has not made america stronger. it's something that has really chipped away at the very foun of democracy in thistry.

>> i remember when it was a twinkle in your eye. today it is hobbled by nick mulvaney. and there are some type of objections people have had to that oversight and whatever the case is, but the bottom line is they have decided they're not going to pursue anything against equifax, and i guess my question is okay if you don't like the sfpb, fine, but if not who will protect consumers from the excesses of corporate america? >> and you pick up on exactly the point. the trump administration and nick mulvaney don't want to protect american consumers from excesses of corporate greed. instead, they believe that that agency and all the rest of government should work for the rich, should work for the powerful and should not work for anyone else. i mean think about it with equifax. here is a company that permitted the data of more than half of

all americans in the country, social security numbers and phone numbers and addresses, names, every part of it to be stolen and out there. this is going to bea problem for american consumers for years and years to come. and what's their view? that the consumer agency should not even investigate, and no one else should either. you know, for me this is like the core of what's wrong in washington and particularly what's wrong right now in the trump administration. they believe that government should work for a smaller and smaller group right at the top. the most powerful, the richest, the biggest corporations. and everybody else you're just on your own. and if you get cheated, if you get stepped on, if someone steals from you, the answer is too bad for you. we've got to have a government that doesn't just work for those

at the top. we've got to have a government that works for all of us. that's what i believe democracy is all about. that's what i believe this country is all about. >> senator, it's good to see crow. thank you for being with us. >> it's good to see you. thank you. >> and that is "all in" for the evening. tonight, the very real threat posed to the u.s. election system. new details now on how russia penetrated voter roles in this country in the last reaction. rex tillerson warns we're no better prepared in 2018. president trump touts bombshell next messages from the fbi.