the timing is perfect. >> you know why? >> we need it. >> i think trump doesn't understand unity. >> we need to think there's another bobby kennedy out there. i need to think it. >> you can't build every argument how we're going to divide islamic people and christian people. >> we're out of time. chris matthews, thank you so much. "bobby kennedy: a raging spirit." that's for everyone here at our broadcast. we'll be back. from all of us in new york, good night. it's been a busy news night. investigative reporter mark hosenball has reported he's discovered the price tag for the trump-russia dossier. commissioned by fusion gps research firm. trump administration and republicans in congress have been trying to turn the existence of that dossier into its own giant scandal, what we've learned in last couple of

weeks, initially a conservative website, free beacon which paid for research. after trump got the republican nomination, law firm connected to hillary clinton campaign and dnc which paid fusion to continue its work, including hiring ex-british intelligence officer christopher steele to produce memos about the trump campaign and russian government. forgive me for saying, nothing in the steele memos have thus far been conclusively disproven and every campaign worth its salt does research. but tried to turn this into its own scandal, the real collusion story, is in part by claiming

that dossier was a massive financial undertaking. might remember president trump tweeted that the cost of the dossier was $12 million. president has never said where he got that figure from. we've been searching "fox and friends" transcripts to see where he's gotten that number. but amount of money that firm paid to fusion gps for the work done by christopher steele was not $12 million but $168,000. i don't know why the dollar amount makes it more or less scandalous for those that believe that opa research is scandalous. this is the first report though about what it costs. and learned that top official

that oversaw the initial stages of the russia inquiry at helm of the justice department, she just testified behind closed doors to the committee. mary mccord. we had not had advance word she was going to be testifying in the russian investigation. but nbc news confirms she gave testimony in secure room where the intelligence committee hears classified matters this morning on capitol hill. her successor was a prosecutor named dana boente, one of the few u.s. attorneys not fired by president trump. in fact he was invited to keep concurrently serving both as u.s. attorney for eastern district of virginia and also he took over for mary mccord, the

national security division within maine justice. we reported that dana boente was leaving both jobs. we know now he was fired unexpectedly from both jobs a day before grand jury signed and sealed criminal indictments against paul manafort and his associate rick gates. we still don't know why dana boente was all of a sudden fired the day before the indictments were sworn but nbc news confirms it was not voluntary, he was pushed out by the trump administration. we're working right this second, trying to figure out why dana boente was suddenly fired. still don't know. possible it's just a coincidence but trying to figure it out. as soon as we do, i'll rush to a

camera and tell you. also learned that president's long-time staffer and communications director hope hicks is scheduled to be interviewed by mueller's team later this month and president's long-term bodyguard, chief of oval office operations in white house, keith schiller, is scheduled to testify for the russia investigation. tomorrow the committee will heard from ike kaveladze, russian who turned up at meeting where they were promised dirt on hillary clinton. and also told that house intelligence committee will hear tomorrow as well from carter page. god bless him. carter page is the trump campaign foreign policy adviser who visited moscow in the campaign and turned up in indictment of a russian spy ring run out of bank branch in new york city a few years ago and he frequently turns up on

chris hayes's show without assistance of counsel talking about all sorts of stuff you wouldn't expect to be talking about if he's on the radar of this investigation and he appears to be. hearing from them tomorrow. as i said, there's a lot going on. executives from google, facebook and twitter testified for a second day. it's my impression that they enraged the members of congress in front of whom they appeared yesterday and today but we did get a new trough of material, examples of the social media content created and circulated by russian government to try to affect the outcome of the election. needless to say the preferences in the election. this is some of the stuff. russia's preferences were not subtle. so we've got some news on all

that. congressman adam schiff is going to join us and former prosecutor from u.s. attorneys office southern district of new york joining us to help me through one big part of the indictment of the trump campaign chairman. part that makes no sense to me. after a couple of days of looking at it and talking to people, think it's important part of the indictment that's being broadly if not misreported, at least mischaracterized. so i'm really looking forward to those conversations. expert advice, lot coming up. before we get to those other stories, i have to tell you, there's something nuts going on that you should know about.

in part just because it's nuts and you won't believe it. also because it may end up pertaining to the terror attack that happened yesterday in lower manhattan. we know the names of the victims. include a man from new jersey who worked downtown and rode his bike every day on that bike path and local guy who lived a couple blocks from scene of the attack. and five friends from argentina all in new york together as part of a trip for school reunion. also a young mother from belgium visiting new york city with her mom and sisters. we know the eight victims. 11 people were also seriously injured. new york police department identified the officer who shot the suspect and appears to have stopped the attack. ryan nash, been with the

nypd for five years, since he was 24 years old. he and three other officers called out to unrelated matter at the high school where the attacker crashed truck and exited the vehicle. got the call, ran to the scene. officer nash was first to arrive to confront the man after he got out of vehicle. fired service weapon nine times, hit suspect reportedly in the abdomen, and that action by officer ryan nash is apparently how the suspect was taken down and attack ended. but let me bring into this story somebody else who you should know about. his name is marine -- he's a marine corps general, brigadier general in united states marine corps named john baker. served for 29 years, distinguished lawyer. served as defense attorney and prosecutor in many, many military court martials.

brigadier general, second highest ranking lawyer in u.s. marine corps. i told you there was something nuts that you needed to know that may pertain to the terror attack. what is nuts here tonight, that marine corps brigadier general, second highest ranking lawyer in the united states marine corps tonight is locked up at guantanamo. he's not in the prison cell blocks with the orange jump suit guys but he's locked up, confined in quarters at guantanamo. this is about as insane as it sounds. starts in october of 2000, less than a year before the 9/11 attacks when ship pulled in to yemen to get refuelled. on that morning,

two suicide bombers zipped up and detonated explosives they had packed onboard. blew themselves up and a huge hole in the side of the "uss cole." 17 american sailors were killed. number of people associated with the bombing have been named, captured and killed in the years since it happened but guy they describe as mastermind is this guy. bombing of "uss cole" in october 2000. they captured al-nashiri two years later in dubai. for the next four years, he was held in cia facilities. one of the prisoners that the bush administration admitted to waterboarding for years. 2006 sent him to guantanamo,

2008 announced would bring charges against him for "uss cole" bombing. 2011 finally arraigned him. long haul but case has been plodding along through the not quite a court system in guantanamo. and in that case things have gone slightly bananas and resulted in imprisonment of number two lawyer in u.s. marine corps, brigadier general, locked up as of today. here's how it went crazy. nashiri, charged with a capital crime. they want the death penalty. when charged with capital crime you need a lawyer with experience in dealing with capital cases. you need a lawyer of learned counsel in legalese, or a lawyer

who is death qualified. worked capital cases before. nashiri has one of those, a death qualified defense lawyer who has represented him for nine years. and two other defense lawyers as well. three weeks ago today on october 11th, those three lawyers all quit nashiri's case, i can vaguely describe why they quit but not specifically because i don't know because it's classified. carol rosenberg is a national treasure of reporter reporting every major story out of guantanamo in miami for years. describes the reason she quit, ethical conflict. essentially describes it as quote a lack of confidence in the confidentiality of their privileges conversations with their client. that's how she puts it in "miami herald."

we don't know exactly what that means. we don't know why the defense lawyers thought communications with their client had been compromised somehow. whatever the details, not only classified and doesn't make the paper, it's so classified, lawyers aren't allowed to talk about it with their own client. so all their client knows is that his lawyers won't talk to them anymore about anything and he's not allowed to know why and nobody will talk about what's going on and why lawyers raised objections. nobody will talk about it to him or near him. it's a serious ethical concern by experiences attorneys who have been through thick and thin dealing with military commissions at guantanamo. whatever has come up as ethical problem, they see it as no-go, they can't participate under these circumstances. important part, that decision by defense lawyers they can no

longer participate in the trial, that decision to back out of the case has been signed off on, okayed by the military commission's defense organization which is run by the number two lawyer in the united states marine corps, general john baker. he has classified information. he know what's the worry of the lawyers is about communicating with the client. knowing that and supervising criminal defense at guantanamo, he said yes, this is a good call. i support your decision to walk out of here. i sign off on it. you have good cause to do this officially. that was three weeks ago. october 11th. five days later, october 16th, judge in the case issued an order saying nope, that's wrong. the chief defense counsel who runs the military commission's defense organization, number two lawyer in the marine corps may have purported to find good

cause for the lawyers to back out and go home, but judge disagreed, this there wasn't good cause and ordered defense lawyers to come back to the court. so, who gets to decide? who gets to decide whether or not these civilian defense lawyers are allowed to quit the case on matter of principle? who has authority over whether or not they're allowed to quit? nobody has any idea because this is a made-up court. judge looks at trial judiciary rules of court and says anything the defense lawyers want to do, judge has to approve that. i get to decide whether or not they can quit. but chief defense counsel says no no no, look at manual for military commissions and that says whoever appointed these lawyers, me, i get to decide what happens to those lawyers, i get to say if they want to quit they should be allowed to go home. so it's a dispute. judge says it's my call, not

yours. chief defense counsel says it's my call, not your call. if this was a real court operated under normal constitutional guidelines would be case law and precedent and ways to figure it out. would have been settled in the past and we would refer to precedent. but this is that guantanamo mish-mash of a made-up court system. it's the judge saying i'm going to order these lawyers back here and chief of the defense counsel saying no you don't, you can't do that. so, the judge in the case is an air force colonel. chief defense counsel is brigadier general in the marine corps and they've been oh, no you don'ting over this the last three weeks. what's going to happen? yesterday the judge ordered this marine brigadier general to

swear an oath in court at guantanamo and to answer the judge's questions about what is going on in the case. the general said no, he refused to do that. then the judge ordered the general to rescind his earlier decision which allowed the defense lawyers to leave, and the general stood up in court and said to the judge quote, i'm definitely not doing that. but oh, wait there's more. turns out nashiri has another lawyer left here. three civilian defense counsels including the death qualified guy who left to the united states. but in addition a lawyer in uniform, a navy lieutenant, ex-navy s.e.a.l. with law degree. part of the defense case but not a death case before. he is part of a civilian team that have left gau town mow and went back to the united states.

but he is not a death-qualified lawyer. so judge yesterday orders the marine corps general to take an oath and rescind his orders. general tells him judge i'm definitely not doing that. then the judge turned to the uniform lawyer, navy s.e.a.l. lawyer and orders that navy lieutenant to file legal proceedings to proceed with defending nashiri even though it's death penalty case and he's not death qualified, never worked on capital case before. nevertheless the judge orders him to file legal proceedings and the navy seal stands up in court and says no. he says to the judge, what i'm not going to do is make any more pleadings. end quote. so now what? today the judge put the general in jail. the judge ordered the marine general, brigadier general, second ranking lawyer in entire united states marine corps, ordered him to serve 29 days in

custody for contempt of court. he's serving it right now at guantanamo. raises a particularly difficult question which the general pointed out as judge was sentencing him to confinement, the general is a u.s. citizen and general in the marine corps and this not quite a court system at guantanamo doesn't have jurisdiction to tell any american what to do, let alone lock one up. this is a military tribunal system set up for foreign terrorists. doesn't have jurisdiction over american citizens, let alone marine general. he's confined as we speak. in addition the judge declared the general's order about the defense lawyers allowing them to go home, declared that order null and void, even though the general wouldn't rescind it.

the judge declaring that order null and void, i think that literally means that judge is going to send armed u.s. marshals to the u.s. mainland to hunt down civilian defense lawyers and force them against their will to participate in the case. according to the late report in "the miami herald" the judge is going to try to force the lawyers to do it. physically confine them by jailing or threatening to jail them and then he's planning think to force them into a video link environment at military base somewhere in the united states to participate in this case against their will. theoretically i suppose he could have tried to kidnap them, fly

them out of the country and force them to guantanamo and courtroom, but again you can't really do that with americans right? no jurisdiction over americans. it has been 17 years since the bombing of the "uss cole," 15 years since the suspect was arrested. six years since he was first arraigned. now starting seventh year of pretrial proceedings in this guy's case. so far the pretrial proceedings appear to include hunting down and forcing civilian lawyers to defense defend him who have quit the case to the point where may be jailed tonight and number two ranking lawyer in marine corps is jailed. and defendant has no idea any of this is going on, what any of it means and what it's about and lawyers won't speak to him because they believe they can't without violating their ethics. case is going great. today the president called the u.s. federal judicial system quote a joke. said it was laughing stock. instead would like to send the suspect from the attack in new york yesterday to guantanamo.

today said send him to guantanamo, i would certainly consider that, yes. suspect in yesterday's attack was charged by federal prosecutors today. terms of the time frame, attack was yesterday afternoon. he was charged today. that's the kind of speed that the normal u.s. federal judicial system can operate at in terrorism cases and why they bat basically 1,000 in terms of charging, confining and occasionally executing terrorism suspects. the president said today it's all stupid, that's a stupid laughingstock of a system and rather do it at guantanamo, that way instead because it sounds tougher to him. who is going to break it to him how things are going right now? maybe somebody could arrange prison visiting hours for the president with general john baker tonight.

this job that they created to do online grocery and to have that one-on-one experience with the customers, he's meant for it. i'm joey gabe, personal shopper for walmart and i love to see a smile on my customer's face.

first, it's worth taking stock of where we are in the investigation. during our march hearing i posed the question of whether the trump campaign colluded with russia in any aspect of its influence operations. did the russians offer to help the campaign and did the campaign accept. >> did the russians offer to help the campaign and did the campaign accept? congress spent a good chunk of its kinko's budget for the year today. staffers carrying in giant

posterbirds with russian ads printed on them. made public a bunch of the anti-hillary clinton and divisive ads that russia paid for in rubles, subtle, as part of the russian hack on our election last year. released a representative sampling of the ads, giving a granular sense of what the russians did to target u.s. voters in the election online. yesterday, started talking to the senate judiciary committee. today back for round two, answering questions about the russian attack, how many clicks certain ads got, tens of thousands of russian-operated twitter accounts were targeting the election and how many not just bots but real-life russian operatives, that quantitative stuff is good and useful for helping us figure out what russia did and how they did it and u.s. tech companies didn't care a whit while it was

happening and in some ways still don't seem to. but it's one thing to nail down what russia did and if they could have been stopped while doing it. but adam schiff took this occasion to nail down the other most important part of this. >> whether the trump campaign colluded with russia in any aspect of its influence operations. >> that's still often described as open question right? but it's really not anymore. congressman adam schiff took the occasion to nail that point to the wall, just off and went there, laid it out in opening statement for the record in open session, boom, boom, boom. watch this. >> we know now as result of the guilty plea by trump campaign foreign policy adviser george papadopoulos, the russians

approached the trump campaign as early as april 2016 to inform them in possession of dirt about hillary clinton in stolen e-mails. trump campaign was informed of the russian involvement in the hack before we were aware of it. offered to the campaign and described as part of the putin government's effort to help mr. trump. president's son said he would love the assistance and suggested best timing would be in late summer. what is clear is this, kremlin repeatedly told the campaign it had dirt on clinton and offered to help it and at least one trump official, president's own son, accepted. >> kremlin offered dirt to the trump campaign. the president's campaign said yes to that offer. that's no longer an open question.

all that stuff has now been proven and admitted to. adam schiff, top democrat on the committee using opening statement to walk through point by point what we've learned in black and white, written correspondence, public statements and freaking court filings, all the times the trump campaign was offered help by russia to influence our election and all the times the trump campaign said yes, please. congressman schiff using this hearing to make very public case this is no longer an open question. congressman schiff joins us congressman schiff joins us next. nacho? [ train whistle blows ] what?! -stop it! -mm-hmm. we've been saving a lot of money ever since we switched to progressive. this bar is legit. and now we get an even bigger discount from bundling home and auto. i can get used to this. it might take a minute. -swing and a miss! -slam dunk! touchdown!

together: sports!

whstuff happens. old shut down cold symptoms fast

with maximum strength alka seltzer plus liquid gels.

today congress released some of the online ads that russia paid for in rubles to try to help elect donald trump last year. follows the arrest of the trump campaign chairman and assignment of electronic monitoring device to him because court believes he might be flight risk because of the millions paid to by russian oligarchs. following the guilty plea of trump foreign policy adviser who said he lied to the fbi. meeting with russians who said they had knowledge of dirt on hillary clinton in e-mails before the public was aware of those responsibility. today the congressman in charge of the committee laid out what he says are proven elements of russia contacting the trump side to help them out during the campaign and trump side

accepting those overtures. idea that trump campaign and russia might have been in contact about what doing to influence the campaign, today made the point some of the questions have been answered. appreciate your time. thanks for being here. >> good to be with you rachel. >> i didn't know to expect today at this hearing with executives from google, facebook and twitter, that you would lay out the known case about collusion. can i ask about your decision to do that today in that setting and the way that you did? >> i thought it was important, rachel, that during this follow-up open hearing to the first one we had in march we take stock of where we are and what we had found.

as developments have become more and more public, there's a tendency to look at it incremental way and sometimes ignore or miss the big picture. it's like not seeing your child grow up because you see them every day. if i had told you nine months ago i believed we would find evidence that russian government through intermediaries would offer assistance in the form of derogatory information about hillary clinton to top levels of the trump campaign, including son, son-in-law and campaign manager as what they describe as part of the russian effort to help donald trump and reaction from the campaign is we would love that help, you would say you're crazy. no one would be stupid enough to put that in writing. so we have to step back to say what we now know. it's damning. >> that boiling frog process, as you learn incrementally, you cease to be shocked by each

marginal new development. i wonder if, stepping back as you are right now, what we have learned meets literal definition of collusion. i know that's not a legal term but does it ring the bell as to whether or not the trump campaign helped russia in its attack? >> collusion, criminal would be conspiracy. conspiring to do what? did the campaign conspire with the russians to violate election laws. to make out case for conspiracy, you have to have agreement, offer, acceptance and usually an act in furtherance of that conspiracy. what is the act in furtherance? looks like dumping of the e-mails or social media campaign. but looks like dumping of the

e-mails is the gravaman of the offense here. what bob mueller is going to look at and us too but matters more to mueller as it goes to potential prosecution, was there understanding that the way the russian government would provide these materials is not by giving them directly to the campaign but rather publishing through other sources like wikileaks to give the campaign deniability and distance. if so, you have close to prosecutable case. still things to find. but we've seen enough to know that campaign agreed to accept the help of the russian government, to in papadopoulos's case to seek further information even knowing they were in possession of stolen e-mails of hillary clinton, that ought to be enough to say this conduct was unethical, repugnant and something we all ought to

condemn. >> on the matter of criminal liability here. now the court filings in papadopoulos case, is there a criminal charge -- liability around the trump campaign being notified that russia had stolen documents, hacked and stolen from the democratic side and didn't go to fbi, notify authorities. not sure what they did with that information, whether they sought to obtain it themselves or arrange for it to be distributed by the russians in way that would be advantageous to their campaign with some deniability as you just suggested, but just that they knew of crime and didn't report it to anybody, is that some sort of liability? >> generally only if you have a

duty to disclose, if you have reportable obligation. not sure there is one here by trump campaign if all they know is russians had or stole these e-mails. very unpatriotic at minimum not to report to the fbi, report an approach by foreign government, but i'm not sure that knowledge alone would be enough. >> congressman adam schiff, top democrat on the house intelligence committee, i appreciate your time. >> thank you rachel. >> we have much more ahead. stay with us. sometimes a cough gets in the way of a good night's sleep.

that's when he needs vicks vaporub. proven cough medicine. with 8 hours of vapors. so he can sleep. vicks vaporub. goodnight coughs. so i have two questions about the paul manafort indictment i have not seen answered anywhere. seem simple to me but it's been a couple of days and i really can't figure them out. number one, why are all the headlines describing it as indicted for tax fraud? when i look at charges doesn't look like tax evasion or tax

fraud. methods they allege he participated in -- methods they allege he used to evade taxes, described and mentioned in indictment, but he's not charged with tax crimes. why is that? why would you go through all the rigmarole of making it the narrative but not charging him with it. one question. other question, how is paul manafort charged with money laundering? i'm not lawyer but as i understand it, in order to arrive at money laundering charge there is an underlying crime, you have to do something criminal, you obtained the money you laundered, has to be money from illegal source. in the indictment i don't think the special counsel describes underlying crime that explains where the millions come from that paul manafort supposedly laundered. they say that he

engaged in advocacy in united states without declaring himself foreign agent. but they don't say that's how he got all his money. can't be the fara allegation. i don't get why tax evasion doesn't show up in charges and what underlying crime is he committed allegedly for money laundering. i would like to understand it. jamie is former u.s. attorney in southern district of new york, expertise in fraud and money laundering cases. thanks for joining me. >> thank you. >> i have impatient layman's understanding of these issues. talk about tax evasion, lot of people read about the accounts of this indictment, described it as him being indicted for tax fraud. certainly methods he used to avoid paying taxes are described in the indictment.

but he's not charged with tax evasion. why is that? >> rachel, first of all, in case like this, first indictment is rarely the last. it's entirely possible and probably likely that the government will bring additional charges in the future. other reason i think -- first off may see tax evasion in the future. one reason we may not be seeing it now is simple, time pressure and bureaucratic reasons. i think mueller was under pressure to bring something quickly here, simple, relatively easy to prove charges. tax evasion requires approvals and takes a why. charging tax evasion will slow that process down. >> what special approvals? >> special memos and approvals from irs. and that can add possibly months to the timing of an indictment.

>> on the statement that was unsealed last night that explains the government's case for why manafort and gates were seen as flight risks and why they have the terms that they had. government seems to have gone out of their way to describe they're using tax filings in the case. is that something you have to cross "ts" and dot "is" to get the permissions? >> i don't think they had to notify them specifically about the tax filings, i think the defendants would expect government would use tax filings in a case especially where there is issue about failure to disclose foreign bank accounts. the common evidence for that is going to be in tax filings. but when the government argues concerning conditions of release for a defendant, the government will typically lay out the strength of its case. that's one of the factors that the court considers in setting conditions.

>> they laid that out. reading it as nonlawyer it's striking. one of the risks of flight here is likelihood of git, which seemed brutal but i guess it's technical term in this case. on the issue that this might be -- sticking with taxes issue. prospect there might be superseding indictment. if they're not charging tax evasion now, is it a typical way to approach it with first indictment, expecting a second, you might lay out narrative of what kind of -- what those charges might be, describe something that sounds like tax evasion without charging it, basically to let the defense know, the defendant know that they're going to be on the hook for that, sort of intimidation factor? >> i'm going to say it's common to do it this way. >> it does raise some questions.

there is a reason to do that, in terms of timing. i think it's more of a head-scratcher, frankly, with respect to the bank fraud that we're not seeing the bank fraud charged here. >> i have another question for you about the question of the underlying charge and the money laundering. the money laundering charges k. you stick with me? >> sure. >> great. we'll be right back. there's a denture adhesive that holds strong until evening. fixodent plus adhesives. just one application gives you superior hold even at the end of the day fixodent. strong more like natural teeth.

that's why feeling safe is priceless. with adt, you can feel safe with an adt starter kit professionally installed for only $49.00. call today, and install an adt starter kit that includes security panel, keypad, key fob, entry and motion sensors and for a limited time, get a camera included and installed at no additional cost. that's a $449.00 value, installed, for just $49.00.

anif you've got a lifee. you gotta swiffer

joining us once again is jamie nawaday, a u.s. attorney that specializes in fraud cases in southern district of new

york. thank you for sticking with us. >> sure. >> money laundering, one of the things that paul manafort and rick gates has been charged with. my understanding is there's an underlying crime that explains the initial origin of the money that's eventually laundered. and in this case, i don't -- in the manafort and gates indictment, i don't understand what the underlying crime is for the money laundering charge. >> right. so, rachel, there are two -- that's the kip call way money laundering is thought of. you have crime proceeds and engage in financial transactions typically to conceal the source or nature of those proceeds. >> yeah. >> here's what's charged is a bit different or charging at separate theory in addition to concealment money laundering of

promotional money laundering. if that you don't have to show an underlying crime at the out set or crime proceeds. moving money in or out of the u.s. in order to promote certain types of crimes, and here the lobbying as an unregistered agent is a crime is money laundering. >> promoting that crime? >> promoting that crime. for instance, promoting the lobbying activities that the defendants engaged in. >> okay. >> that would be the funds that are used to promote that activity that is laundering the money under a theory of promotional money laundering. >> a-ha. okay. do they have to spell out that's the theory they're using to do in or do we intuit? >> they do spell it out in the and wage of the indictment because they lay out the specific intent for the financial transactions and there to promote a certain type of crime. >> you are the first person who's made sense of that part of it for me. i have been driving my staff batty with this all week. from talking to lots of other people. jamie nawaday, former u.s. attorney in the southern district of new york. appreciate it. >> thank you. >> finally! we'll be right back.

liberty mutual stood with me when this guy got a flat tire in the middle of the night. hold on dad... liberty did what? yeah, liberty mutual 24-hour roadside assistance helped him to fix his flat so he could get home safely. my dad says our insurance doesn't have that. don't worry - i know what a lug wrench is, dad. is this a lug wrench? maybe? you can leave worry behind when liberty stands with you™. liberty stands with you™. liberty mutual insurance.

...has grown into an enterprise. that's why i switched to the spark cash card

from capital one. now, i'm earning unlimited 2% cash back on every purchase i make. everything. what's in your wallet? behold the u.s. senate comfort, the state of the art navy ship that federal officials deployed to puerto rico to help with the recovery effort there after hurricane maria, eventually "the comfort" is an impressive resource and its care is top notch and still it's symbol of the botched federal recovery effort in puerto rico. the "comfort" didn't set sail for the island until nine days after of the storm hit. as people were unable to get dialysis and surgeons doing surgery by cell phone flashlight and intensive care units losing power and then patients because of it, the "uss comfort" sat offshore for weeks almost

unused. from the day it got there after the storm hit, through last week, the "uss comfort" with hundreds of hospital beds and staff and capacity for treating every manner of need and emergency, i kid you not, from when it got there until friday the "usns comfort" was seeing an africa of nine people per day. nine a day while hundreds of the beds sat empty. well, this weekend, seven weeks after the hurricane hit, it finally occurred to the federal response effort that maybe they should move the "usns comfort" from the offshore position into port in san juan where people might be able to physically get to it. wouldn't you know, when it finally arrived in port this weekend, it was greeted by long lines of people who had waited for hours and now the beds are more than 60% occupied. staff attended the 700 people over the weekend. 371 patients on the first day alone. after seeing nine people per day

for weeks, when they finally brought it to port so people could get on it, they saw 700 people in one weekend. this weekend. no rush. no rush. just incredible. that does it for us tonight. we'll see you again tomorrow. now it's time for "the last word now it's time for "the last word with lawrence o'donnell." good evening. >> good evening, rachel. at this hour last night i was predicting -- it doesn't feel like a prediction, that same clovis' nomination probably withdrawn and probably when the president's plane is somewhere around the pacific. and one of the reasons is that now that we know he's part of the special prosecutor's investigation, now the e-mails are ve vealed in the documents and cooperating with the special prosecutor, one of the things i said is, of course, senator stabnow, the top democrat on the agriculture committee, the staff would be writing questions