to fear but fear itself. but this time with this president, don't take fear off the table. fear itself may come in handy. that's "hardball" for now. thanks for being with us. "all in" with chris hayes starts right now. good evening from chicago. i'm chris hayes. 24 hours after former national security adviser michael flynn offered to testify in exchange for immunity, the white house is in damage control on multiple fronts. the ongoing investigations into potential ties between russia and the trump campaign and the month-long wild goose chase inish dwrated by president trump's entirely unsupported climb that president obama had had him wiretapped, which is now raising questions about whether this white house is using classified information for political reasons. first following the claim by michael flynn's lawyer that flynn has a, quote, story to tell, it was the president himself who tweeted this morning, mike flynn should ask

for immunity in that this is a witch hunt, excuse for big election loss, by media and dems of historic proportion. but at the end of an oval office event today in which the president was ostensibly signing an executive order on trade, he walked out of his own office, leaving behind the executive order he had failed to actually sign and avoided answering a question about flynn. >> you're going to see some very, very strong results very, very quickly. thank you very much. >> mr. president, today with your tweet were you trying to tell the justice department to grant immunity to michael flynn? were you trying to do that, mr. president? was that your intention, mr. president, sir? mr. president, was that your intention, mr. president? was that your intention, sir? >> thank you, guys. >> more on the flynn story in a moment.

but today signs we could be nearing the end of the ongoing saga of trump's claim he was wiretapped by president obama in what appears to be an information laundering operation involving house intel chair devin nunes who made two trips to the white house last week -- first to review certain classified information and then, the following day, to deliver that information, the same information, to the president himself. there are now three white house officials reportedly involved in getting nunes that information. ezra cohen-watnick, the senior director for intelligence at the national securi security council michael ellis, a lawyer. the third, as reported by "the washington post," is a top lawyer for the national security council, john eisenberg. today white house press secretary sean spicer refused to answer any specifics on what he dismissively called process questions while insisting nothing was awry. >> yes, it's appropriate for a member of congress to contact someone who has contacted him according to some of these

reports. i don't know the answer to that, but if you're asking me is it appropriate for a member of congress to come over here, as chairman nunes has said himself, he wasn't hiding or roerming. he was asked to go somewhere. he went there. he was cleared, and nothing that is inappropriate. exactly the opposite. what he did, what he saw, and who he met with was 100% proper. he actually briefed the press before he told anyone. we all found out, you, me, everyone else, that he was coming down here after he held a press conference with your colleagues to say he was coming down here based on stuff that he had found that didn't have to do with russia, that a whistle-blower source had given him. >> bear in mind that just eight days ago, sean spicer said the very scenario that has subsequently been revealed did not pass the smell test. >> i don't know what he actually briefed the president on, but i don't know why he would come up to brief the president on something that we gave him. >> that's why it was confusing to many of us.

>> i don't know. i did not sit on that briefing. it just doesn't -- so i don't know why he would travel -- brief the speaker and then come down here to brief us on something that we would have briefed him on. it doesn't really seem to make a ton of sense. so i'm not aware of it, but it doesn't really pass the smell test. >> today was a day in which the documents that chairman nunes refused were made available to other members. the ranking members of the committee, adam schiff, went to the white house grounds, presumably to the same location nunes went to a week ago. while schiff said he could not discuss the content of the documents he reviewed today, he released a statement which reads in part, nothing i could see today warranted a departure from the normal review procedures and these materials should be provided to the full membership of both committees. the white house has yet to explain why senior staff shared these materials only for their

contents to be briefed back to the white house. joining me now, congressman denny heck, a member of the white house intelligence committee. congressman, the ranking member, adam schiff, basically said nothing i saw today changes the protocol. did the developments of this day change your opinion on how anything has gone down? >> so, chris, i'm reminded of one of my favorite lines from english language literature from alice through the looking glass. things keep getting curiouser and curiouser. i'm also getting whiplash at the revelation by day then by hour. i guess i have two reactions, the first to president trump vis-a-vis his tweet encouraging general flynn to be granted immunity is mama's wisdom. careful what you wish for, mr. president. careful what you wish for. and secondly with respect to chairman nunes' behavior, frankly i think there's a good part of this that is just a giant distraction from the issue at hand.

i'm going to remind everybody what we should be focusing on. the charge of our investigation is to get at the truth behind the degree to which if there were trump operatives coordinating and colluding with agents on behalf of the russian government in the interference of the 2016 election. that's what we should stay focused on, chris. >> you know, there has been a fairly explicit attempt by the white house and their allies -- and i would even count the chair of your committee among them -- to shift attention away from what you just said towards the way that we know what we know. that is to say leaks. that is to say improper unmasking within the raw intelligence product itself. are you concerned about that, or do you consider that to be a distraction as well? >> so my advice to chairman nunes, if he were ever to ask me, is crack open a history book and turn to the page entitled

"watergate." and remember that it's the underlying crime that often doesn't get you. it's the cover-up. in all of these efforts to distract or to divert people's attention aren't going to work because as we sit here today, we have the federal bureau of investigation. we have the senate. we have the house. frankly here's one nobody talks about that i think very well may have been undertaken of late, and that's some local prosecutors. for example, in new york where some of this activity took place. there are a lot of people after the truth here. so they can attempt to distract all they like, but it's not going to work. >> i want to read you this letter from congressman elijah cummins to the white house council and to lieutenant general h.r. mcmaster. over the past two days, press accounts have reported that staff who work directly for you contacted representative devin nunes, secured his entry into the white house complex on march 21st, 2017, and provided him with access to classified information which then conveyed to the president the following day.

i'm writing to request information on whether you both were aware of these actions. do the reports about these individuals accessing this information prompt concern in you about how the white house is using their access to classified info? >> well, that's at the end of a very long line of my concerns about how the president's dealing with the national security apparatus altogether. and it starts with this installment of a completely unqualified gentleman named steve bannon on the nsc. he has no foreign policy experience, no national defense security experience whatsoever. so this doesn't surprise me at all. it permeates from his general approach, and frankly his lack of regard for the intelligence community. >> all right. congressman denny heck, thank you for your time tonight. >> you're welcome. joining me now, karen demurgeian and barton gelman. latest piece, is the trump white house spying on the fbi. bart, let me start with that on you.

i think the operating principle or the operating assumption a lot of us have had is there was a fishing expedition into the raw intelligence by the white house as a means of reverse-engineering some plausible kernel of a basis for this wildly unsupported claim by the president. it was then given to nunes. you sort of floated an alternate theory about what these individuals might have been doing inside that intelligence. what is that theory? >> well, it's really a question. i don't have a basis to say it is happening, but it fits the known facts as well as anything else. the idea is that if they are seeking information in the intelligence collection world, they have this concept called reverse-targeting. you want to actually spy on an american, so you pick some foreigners that that american might be talking to and spy on them. they might have been looking for finished reports that have to do

with espionage on foreign targets whom the trump transition might have plausibly been talking to. why is it that they found -- if they're just looking randomly, how is it they found trump campaign officials or the president himself in there? and the theory is that they're looking to see what sort of stuff is turning up in these intercepts that might be of use to the fbi. by the way, that wouldn't work very well if you actually want to get inside the fbi investigation, but in their shoes, if you were willing to bend the rules a little, it might be the thing to do. >> karen, it strikes me that if the desire of the white house is to put this fire out or to minimize it or to starve it of oxygen, it's precisely the opposite that's happening right now. it seems to be in terms of the amount of attention it's demanding on capitol hill, the amount of headlines it's

generating, it just gets bigger and bigger. >> and it's this drip, drip, drip of information that they're first denying, then acknowledging, then adding to and we find out other people that were involved that is adding to this tension. of course each time there's some sort of obfuscation of what really happened that reporters then expose. the distrust builds within the house intelligence committee, and you saw that get to such a fever pitch this week that basically all of their -- at least their russia focused operations ground to a halt effectively. so, yeah, i mean at first it was no comment about the source and that we didn't know where he'd gone. then we find out it's the white house grounds. now it seems to be involving fairly senior members of the white house national security apparatus and that keeps raising questions about who else may have been involved. where else may this go because it seems like with each step, there's something else they're not necessarily being very forthcoming about. >> you know, bart, you're a veteran reporter on issues in this space, and i remember

reading your incredible cheney biography, which is incredibly well sourced. but it strikes me part of what makes this so strange is it seems like we learn everything. you know, everything leaks eventually. so eventually it leaks that nunes was at the white house, and then eventually it leaks the actual names of individuals at play. is this normal that we learn everything or seemingly learn everything so quickly? >> it's not normal. i'm not doing the front-line reporting that karen and greg miller and our colleagues at the post are doing, but i'm astounded to read these stories that say, you know, 14 white house sources and people close to the president said yesterday. you just didn't get that kind of thing in previous administrations, and it's not because the president is fine with leaks or eager to have his inner deliberations portrayed. it's because people are worried about him.

>> karen, can you tell me how you think this will resonate on capitol hill in the following way. it's largely gone along partisan lines at least in the house. the senate has sort of given a more bipartisan posture. but you do wonder at a certain point if we'll see republicans start to get uneasy the more this dominates. >> i mean you've already seen that to a slight extent. when this all started last week, when chairman nunes came out and did brief the press and then the president and then the press about this trip that we didn't know at that point was to the white house grounds, you did hear john mccain come out and say, look, this is getting past the point of what's reasonable. congress can't do this by itself anymore. it doesn't have credibility. we need to pass this off to a select committee or an independent commission, something that's outside that won't get wrapped up in this political firestorm anymore. then this past week you heard charlie dent, a fairly moderate republican from pennsylvania, he says he think the senate at

least has to take the lead on this because the house is losing its credibility. it's just such a mess. so you see the first cracks, i suppose, in the gop. >> yeah. >> of course you've got the leadership in the house especially rallying around nunes saying they think he's doing 100% great job. you hear that from his republican members of the intelligence committee too, and most of the gop senators i've tried to talk to in the last week are just not wanting to talk about this at all or touch it with a ten-foot pole. i don't know if that leads you to the point where the republicans say it's going to go to a select or independent sort of body because that would take it out of the hands of the senate intelligence committee too, but there's definitely unease. >> thank you both. >> thank you. still to come, reports that rm toer national security adviser michael flynn is shopping around his testimony about alleged ties between the trump campaign and russia all in exchange for immunity. about so far no one seems interested. are there any takers after this

two-minute break? ♪ let your reign begin. evony, the mobile game. download now.

since you've talked to the president about this, he was not trying to suggest to the fbi or the justice department that it grant immunity. >> i think he was asking -- i'm not entirely sure of the process of whether the congress does it or doj or both in this case. but the point that -- i get it, but the point. the bottom line is -- >> he's not instructing his justice department -- >> what he's instructing is mike flynn to do everything to cooperate the committees. >> sean spicer tried to explain today why the president of the united states was tweeting this morning about michael flynn requesting immunity from the justice department and congressional committees to testify about his contacts with russia. quote, mike flynn should ask for immunity in that this is a witch hunt, excuse for big election loss by media and dems of historic proportion. spicer also struggled to explain why the president referred to

the three ongoing russia investigations being carried out by the senate, the house, and the fbi under his own justice department as a, quote, witch hunt. two congressional sources told nbc news the senate intelligence committee has rejected flynn's immunity request. one official saying it was wildly preliminary and immunity was not on the table at the moment. a top democrat on the house intelligence committee, congressman adam schiff, said in a statement it's too early in the process to consider flynn's request, adding, quote, we should first acknowledge what a grave and momentous step it is for a former national security adviser to the president of the united states to ask for immunity from prosecution. i'm joined now by paul butler, law professor at georgetown university and a former federal prosecutor. let me start with that, paul. it does seem like a big deal, and it also seems really anomalous the way that this is being floated. am i right that this isn't usually how it goes down? >> not at all. so let's remember the facts here. michael flynn lied to the vice president of the united states. if he told the same lie to the fbi, he's guilty of a federal

crime. it wouldn't be that hard to prove. so he's now saying, i want to snitch so that i can save my own butt, and he's made this suggestion to apparently these three committees that are investigating him, the house, the senate, and also the fbi. so it is kind of preliminary. the only way this works out for him is if he can deliver up a bigger fish. but that's very difficult because he was the national security adviser of the united states. there's not a whole lot of bigger fish he can deliver unless we're talking the vice president or the president of the united states. >> and just to be clear, i mean normally the way this works, right, in a sort of prosecutorial setting, if we put aside the committees, is there's something called a proffer, right? no one just gives blind immunity to someone until they hear what they actually have to say, that it's good enough to justify the immunity, correct? >> that's right. you want to make sure the information is reliable and that it's useful.

useful means it helps make a case against somebody who is an even more attractive target than the person who is immunized. you want to make sure it's reliable, that is, the person is trustworthy. again, this is a guy who has lots of baggage. i'm not sure even if he turns state's evidence and offered information about someone else, that a jury would credit it all that much because, again, he's got a lot of explaining to do himself. but the way it works is we used to call it queen for a day because the subject comes in. even before he's immunized, he's subject to this intense interrogation by the fbi and prosecutors, again, trying to make sure he's actually got the goods. if he does, he comes in. queen for the day. whatever he says can't be used against him. so they spill their guts. it doesn't mean you can't eventually prosecute them, but you have to prove that nothing they said when they were immunized you use in your prosecution. so that's a tough standard. so if he gets this immunity, and

we're a long way away from that. but if he gets that, that means that he could never be prosecuted. >> there's there was a piece written i thought was interesting and it was talking -- sort of speculating in an informed manner about what he may or may not have. he's got exposure on a bunch of difl levels because there's the retroactive registration as a foreign agent. there's possible some questions about his sf-86. if he had something good, flynn and his lawyers would approach the prosecutors quietly, go through the proffer process in confidence and reach a deal. why? because prosecutors have an interest in keeping their investigations cret and flynn's lawyers know that. the last things flynn's lawyers would do if they thought he had the goods would be to go public. the idea here is they're trying to essentially trick one of the committees into offering immunity to give him some sort of protection later down the road. >> and here's why that's not going to work. because these committees, these congressional committees coordinate with the fbi, and the

fbi has first bite because that's a criminal investigation. you know, one of the weird things today about president trump's tweet was when he suggested that the fbi was part of this witch hunt. it's hard to think that the fbi, especially director comey, is a democratic operative. i think hillary clinton would have a thing or two to say about that. >> all right. paul butler, thank you for your time. >> great to be here. coming up, the cloud of suspicion only continues to grow over the white house. but will any of this have any impact on president trump himself or only the people around him? david cay johnston on the shades of watergate and iran-contra in the trump white house ahead.

despite my very strong desire to provide congress with my recollection of the facts pertaining to this matter, counsel has advised me that i should avail myself of the protections provided by that same constitution that i have fought to support and defend. i intend to follow that advice exactly. >> during president ronald reagan's second term, it was revealed his administration sold arms to iran in order to fund a right-wing militant group in nicaragua. it was a scandal that transfixed washington and the nation and damaged reagan's credibility or as "the washington post" pointed out at the time, it was a grand scheme that violated american law and policy all around. after three investigations and a televised congressional hearing, prosecutors brought charges against several members of reagan's administration, including reagan's national security adviser admiral john

poindexter and his deputy, lieutenant colonel oliver north. north was the pivotal figure in all of this. he lied under oath and destroyed evidence related to the illegal sale of arms to iran. these were and still are crimes, but north didn't go to prison. as vox points out, in all likelihood that's because a joint senate committee, deeming north's information vital to the public interest granted him immunity before the fbi could fully build its case. it appears that michael flynn may be looking to accomplish something similar. as we said earlier, the senate intelligence committee has turned down that request for immunity in exchange for testimony. political observers have been quick to equate the trump campaign's potential ties to rush with watergate, but it seems possible the more comparable -- we'll talk about that next.

i sincerely believe that i did everything within the law. i made serious judgment errors, and i have admitted those, but i tried, and i don't regret having done it. >> that was lieutenant colonel oliver north during his public hearings on the iran-contra scandal, where he was granted immunity in exchange for that testimony. joining me now, david cay johnston, pulitzer prize winning reporter, columnist for "the daily beast." now, david, you said something the other day when there was initial reporting about the possibility of immunity being extended that serious investigators would of course never rule out immunity because that's how you roll people over and get them to talk. but of course the oliver north

precedent shows the tricks and traps that may come with that in the case of congressional committees, right? >> that's right. you can't contaminate a subsequent prosecution. and my point was that if someone wants immunity, you want to hear what they and their attorney want to tell you, even to the point of what's called a proffer as you mentioned earlier in the show. but you don't want to do it early. you don't want to do it when you don't know all the facts. basically you want the person granting immunity to either confirm something you already know but couldn't otherwise prove, or they're going to tell you something in the proffer that, you know, you wouldn't have known but for them. >> right. >> it's early for this to happen, but it's really revealing that general flynn of all people is doing this. on the other hand, he's subject to a lot of leverage. he was in the pay of the turkish government. he was in the pay of vladimir putin's government, and he lied about what he did. so the fbi has plenty of leverage over him to find out what happened. >> now, flynn, just to be

specific there, you mean the payment from rt, which is of course a state-backed broadcaster that we know he's on the record -- >> sure. >> yeah. so in terms of the iran-contra parallel, it's sort of an interesting one to consider for a number of reasons. but the two that come to mind are, one, you have sort of collusion with a foreign government. in this case it was two different sort of foreign entities in a remarkably complex scheme, and it's amazing they pulled it off. and, two, you know, there's always a degree to which how far this got up to the president. in the case of what's happening here, we were talking about principals sort of swirling around donald trump and nothing obviously has been established yet. but those sort of characteristics seem to be in place at least initially. >> well, flynn was part of a very small, closely knit group of people who were with trump very early on. remember, trump announced on june 16th of 2015, almost two years ago. and flynn was right in there close with him in the beginning.

donald's connections with russian oligarchs go back many years, and lots and lots of business deals, failed deals, deals that looks like payoffs or bank scams that raised questions about his involvement at a think a much more substantial level than we had about whether ronald reagan sort of said, well, do what you need to do, or i don't want to hear about things as opposed to what's going on here with donald trump. >> and in that case also, i mean it's noteworthy that part of what, in terms of the trajectory of iran-contra, you actually did get to one of these special committees eventually, the sort of famous testimony we all remember wasn't just the normal standing intelligence committees in the house and senate but actually one convened particularly to investigate this. >> right. and the same thing applies here. you know, watergate took two years to play out. iran-contra took, as i recall, more than a year. we need to have here several different investigations.

we need the fbi, criminal and counterintelligence investigations, and i can't believe i'm saying we have a president of the united states who is the focus of a criminal and counterintelligence investigation. but we also need to have a select committee, and i believe that that select committee should have subpoena power for both the committee chairman and the ranking member. >> right. >> as well as whatever size staff of investigators they need. the taxpayers can afford the cost because we need to know the answers here, and we need seasoned people who know how to negotiate things like immunity deals so that we get the truth and we get the right people who are responsible for what happened. >> all right. david cay johnston, thanks. >> thank you. ahead, the white house put chicago in the crosshairs again. we'll show you how coming up. plus trump university returns to the headlines in tonight's thing one, thing 2 right after this break.

thing 1 tonight, a federal judge gave final approval today for a $25 million settlement payment from president donald trump to class action fraud lawsuits brought against the now defunct trump university, which was owned by donald trump. the lawsuit claimed the for profit seminar program made false promises and used high-pressure sales techniques to swindle thousands of dollars out of its students. the settlement means the nearly 4,000 students who joined the lawsuit will recoup about 90% of what they spent, but trump will not have to admit wrongdoing or apologize. trump first agreed to the $25 million settlement in november shortly after the election. we went back and watched the promotional videos for trump university and noticed that trump's promises and sales pitch might now sound familiar to americans at large. that's thing 2 in 60 seconds.

donald trump is paying $25 million to settle a lawsuit over trump university in which students claimed they were cheated out of thousands of dollars. but trump's sales pitch failed

this failed endeavor sounds like a sales pitch he'd use later. ♪ ♪ >> at trump university, we teach success. that's what it's all about -- success. it's going to happen to you. >> you're going to have wins and wins and wins. you're going to get sick of winning. >> we're going to teach you about business. we're going to teach you better than the business schools are going to teach you. >> everybody is going to be taken care of much better than they are taken care of now. >> it's going to be less expensive, and i think it's going to be a better education. >> it will be great health care for much less money. >> we're going to have professors and adjunct professors that are absolutely terrific. >> i have the best people. i have the best people. >> terrific people, terrific brains. we are going to have the best of the best. >> we had an amazing team of talent. by the way, general flynn is right over here. put up your hand, mike. what a good guy. >> above all, it's about how to become successful. >> and you'll say, please,

please, it's too much winning. we can't take it anymore. >> as i said before, you're going to love it because if you don't love it, it's never, ever going to work.

it's been a busy few weeks out on the road for my new book, a colony in a nation. i'm back in new york next week. tomorrow i'm in skokie, illinois. tonight i'm in chicago. full details on our facebook page. the last time i was here in chicago, we'd just finished taping our town hall special on this city, a city that the president of the united states has turned into a retd or cal punching bag. today his press secretary went even further, conflating the gun violence in the city with chicago's status as a, quote, sanctuary city. >> i think it would be interesting to send more money to a city who is louing people to come into the country who are breaking the law, members of gangs.

so you can't be a sanctuary city and at the same time seem to portend or express concern about law enforcement or ask for more money when probably a number of the funds you're using in the first place are going to law enforcement to handle the situation that you've created for yourself. >> you've created for yourself. statements like that aside, there is a real surge of violence in chicago, and thousands of residents suffering from the effects of living with that trauma. our reporter, trymaine lee, reported on this during our town hall. tonight he goes back to chicago to stay on this story for us. his special report next.

take a look at this map compiled by "the chicago tribune." this is just a few blocks of a neighborhood on the west side of chicago, and those blue dots represent the people who have been shot in that neighborhood in just the first three months of this year. 12 people shot in those couple of blocks alone. when you start to widen out the map, the sheer cope of the violence in chicago becomes apparent. you begin to get an idea for what it means to live in these neighborhoods. 731 people shot just since the beginning of this year alone. most shootings in the west and south side of chicago intensely concentrated in a massive city. it's a city with thousands of people who are surrounded by shootings, who know someone who has been shot, who have lost loved ones, friends and family and who live every single day with the trauma of that as well as the trauma of the constant threat of violence. last month we came here for a town hall to hear from the

people about what they are going through. it of course barely scratched the surface of this complicated city, but there were remarkable moments from ordinary citizens living in extraordinary conditions. >> people just being helpless right now. like no other opportunities for them. no jobs. no mental health. i know i have ptsd. it's just off the -- off the charts. there's just no help for us in this city. >> ptsd. she's not alone. so many people at that town hall are suffering the effects of trauma, like rachel williams, who had just lost two loved ones to gun violence. >> you're sitting up here looking at a neighborhood and saying, like, why is the crime rate high, why is this happening, but then you see no jobs, no education but barely holding on. and then you see no -- when we talk about it, we talk about food justice as well. all of those are major components that come into the violence that happens here.

>> we taped that interview in our town hall on a thursday. it aired the next day on friday. on saturday, rachel williams lost another one to gun violence. this time it was her 11-year-old cousin, killed by a stray bullet right in front of her 3-year-old brother and her mother, leaving yet another chicago family traumatized. our trymaine lee visited that family and others for this report on chicago, a city in trauma. >> we heard gunshots that sounded like you know how light a pack of firecrackers and somebody dropped them by your feet. that's how close they sounded. on the very last shot, the window satters. when the bullet hit, she didn't make a sound, a whimper, a cry. that's why i didn't know she was hit. it's a split second. i wake up every day thinking, hoping it's a dream, but it's not. it's one month. i have not heard my daughter's voice. been able to touch her, see her

dance across my floor, it's just so many things. >> she lost her 11-year-old daughter a month ing a outside the dry cleaners when she was struck and killed by a stray bullet. her son still searches for his sister. >> have you seen change in him. >> a dramatic change. difference. his attitude, his behavior, everything is different. i put him in counseling. i have no choice because i don't know what's going on in his head. i don't know what he's thinking. >> are we doing enough to address trauma in this city? >> no. >> dr. stow back in the university of chicago spent 30 years treating trauma in kids. >> there's a great need for all

of us to say they're so young that it didn't really affect them. it does affect them, and even very, very young children who don't have a conscious memory that they can put into words of something they've been through, it's in there and it does affect them. they oftentimes feel like they're going crazy because they're having these reactions in their bodies that are like they're back in that situation. and they don't necessarily put that together that that's what's happening [ siren ] much of the vinyls is really driven by untreated trauma. two of the ways that people often deal with that are to use substances, to manage their emotions and to wear weapons in order to feel safe. both of those things are going to increase the risk for them

being harmed again or for them doing harm to somebody else. >> we're home. >> there's an organization trying to help families in chicago. but the sheer number of people needing help is staggering. >> i've been with chicago survivors since november of 2015. since then i've been able to serve 153 families. >> 153 families. >> yes, sir, >> that number seems enormous. >> it's a reflection of what's happening in our city. >> her brother husband murdered in 2008. now she helps others heal. >> it's not like every time i do an assessment with someone that they don't express to me that they've experienced some level of trauchlt may not have been directly in the immediate family. they know a friend or neighbor of.

ptsd is through the fabric of the urban community. >> there have been more than 700 shootings in chicago this year alone, closer to chicago's south and west sides it feels like everyone here has lost someone. >> do you get tomtized. >> it takes a toll on a person when things like that happen, especially when your kids wasn't bad kids, you know. and something like that happened, it tears a whole in your heart. >> the campbell's have lived in this neighborhood for 23 years. they have a daughter and two sons. they've lost both sons to gun violence. >> are there moments that are harder than other times? >> a whole a lot of them, yeah. i see a lot of boys on the street resemble my children. that tears me up. when i see people doing things with their sons, that kind of

gets me too. >> i feel like you have your good days and you have your bad days. you have some days where you wake up and it's like this is all you can think about. >> the campbell's worry constantly about raising a new generation of black men. >> my son was sitting in the front room last night and i told him -- he was sitting by the window. and i was just like sit on the couch over there by the wall. it's just really small things. >> do you feel restricted that you can't move the way you want to move? >> i feel enclosed and there's bad memorandums in the how it is. i feel i worked go outside and play but i can't because it's violence outside. >> the feeling i have to be scared to walk to the store or go play basketball. >> is it hard? >> yes. >> what's the hardest part?

>> well, like i got to take care of my little sister and protect her. and i know it's going to be hard because in the streets it's dangerous. we just got to be safe. >> i'm scared of everything, any little noise makes me nervous. that's how bad it's gotten, anything makes me nervous. and i didn't even used to be like that. i ain't scared of nothing. but now scared of everything. >> look at all the chairs. >> you always falling out the chair. >> one month after her daughter was killed, she fears for her young son. >> i feel like i got to get away. i feel like i have to raise my son still. i have to get away. none of this is right. this can't be life.

it's not normal. >> extraordinary report from, theremane lee. chicago gets talked about as this sort of national sound bite. you've spent a lot of times for a book you're working on and with us reporting on this. what is one of the biggest misconceptions about gun violence in chicago. >> i think there are a number of things. it's easy to zmis these communities as bad neighbors. oftentimes we're saying these are bad people and bad things are supposed to happen to bad people in bad neighbors. we tend to think of raw numbers and we do it in chicago and across the country how many have been shot, how many have been killed. but when you spend time in a community that is gun weary, a family who has lost a member to

gun violence you realize our calculation is way off. speaking to the mother and the campbell family, there's a deep hole in them, a piece that will never be filled. those outside who think that they're gang bangers and thugs and all these epithets we use to describe folks in these neighbors, there's still something missing. deshawn hill who works with chicago survivors, she framed it up perfectly. >> these are everyday people who are waking up just like me and you every morning trying to survive, going to work, taking care of their families, you know. they're concerned about their safety for their children just like anybody else would. but they have different layers of trauma that they have to deal with to just even experience everyday life. so when we think of them as

thugs and gang bangers doing all kinds of wild activity, that is not the people who i'm seeing every day. the folks i see when i go in, everyday people who want access to a good life just like anybody else. >> you add to that, chris, the great weight of the trauma, how it manifests itself, in anxiety, anger, dprerks especially in young people whose brains are still forming. psychologists say repeated exposure to violence makes you in a constant state of the fight or flight. this daughter was killed in the laundromat where her mother worked. she's lost her daughter, she's trying to raise her three-year-old son, her employment is precarious now. how do we begin to first

acknowledge then address these issues of ptsd in so many people that are left untreated? let alone these are already resource starved communities, depleted communities. so where do we go? i had the opportunity to speak with so many folks, it's clear we have a long way to go in treating their trauma and need. >> one of the things that struck me thoroughly, violence is the cause and the trauma is the effect, but it's also the other way around. it's producing effects in people which increases the violence, that fight or flight mode because you've been the victim of violence aspect seems crucial. phenomenal reporting. appreciate it. that is all in for this evening.

good evening, rachel. >> have ra great weekend. thanks to you at home for joining us this hour. happy friday. god decided to give me an ice storm for my buried this year, so we're broadcasting from western massachusetts tonight. super happy to be here with a very nice group of people. sort of my home studio but it's been a long time since i've been here. i'm grateful to all the people who made this possible. there's a lot going on tonight. elizabeth warren and bernie sanders are in the other half of the state. they are headlining a big rally in boston. this is an event that has attracted thousands of people here in deep blue massachusetts. bernie sanders and elizabeth warren probably still are the highest profile democratic or in bernie sanders' case democraticish people in the party.