when you started this did you get how big this was? >> we certainly had no idea what the impact would be. at "the new york times" all we know in 2017 is that we were committed to reporting on sexual harassment across a variety of industries from the restaurant industry to silicon valley to hollywood to auto plants, and our hope, obviously, was they would help bring about change, but we couldn't be sure what was going to have what impact. >> the tip of the spear. thank you for not only your remarkable reporting, but for this book that tells us about how it all went down. megan twohey, jodi kantor. and that's it for all in this weekend. "the rachel maddow show" starts right now. >> good evening. and thanks to you at home for joining us this hour on this the 18th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks in 2001. it has been sort of an unsettling day in the news. not necessarily in terms of the anniversary, but just in terms of our own current national

security and u.s. politics news. it is unsettling that it is on this anniversary that we're reporting on the consequences of there being no national security advisor again. no president has ever had to fi hire four different national security advisors in less than three years. but after president trump fired his third one yesterday, or he resigned, or something, today what i guess has been the john bolton wing of the trump white house started emptying out in the wake of bolton's departure himself. bolton's assist at the national security council was fired or left today. the two senior directors for strategic communication at the national security council were also fired or left today. we are also following some emerging reports that some other national security staff may be out, either fired or just leaving now that president trump has shed his third national security advisor. there is certainly no sign yet of who else might come in as

trump's next national security advisor. amid speculation that maybe president trump will decide he doesn't want anyone in that job. i mean, the national security advisor's job is to coordinate the whole policy process in the white house when it comes to national security and foreign policy. they coordinate the whole policy process in the various parts of the white house and the security council among various government agencies. the whole idea is that somebody is running that deliberative process to give the president the best most comprehensive information, right, to make sure that the deliberative process about policy in any presidential administration is very well informed and very responsible and is full of, you know, subject matter expertiser getting from the most -- that is not exactly the tune this presidency has danced to thus far. that's not exactly how they work. and if you think about it, i mean, honestly, if you don't

have a policy process anymore, if the policy process is president want, president get, i mean, if that's it why bother having someone nominally in charge of the policy process? why bother? also, it's the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. meanwhile, today the trump administration tried to push through one of the most controversial judicial nominee's of trump's time in office. they literally nominated him to the job two days ago and then, boom, held his confirmation hearing today. bet it done quick before people know it's happening. that strategy may not be working. >> after having a dispute with the partners -- [ crowd chanting ] >> as evidenced by the fact that it was actually hard to hear some of that nominee's opening statement today because people found out that hearing was happening and there were loud protesters against him just outside the hearing room door. when the white house first

signaled they were going to nominate steven menashe to a lifetime appointment to a court just one level below the supreme court everybody knew it was going to be controversial. this is somebody who is reportedly part of the immigration working group in the trump white house led by stephen miller. he has been coming up with their immigration policies. people started immediately turning up his lifetime of writing about, you know, the inferiority of islam and how offensive it was to him that matthew -- the matthew shepherd murder got so much attention, and the disgusting gyneowe centrists. these offensive women who advocate for sexual assault victims, and how there is nothing racist about white people holding a ghetto party and showing up in afro wigs and carrying fake guns. he is a peach. we reported on this law review article which is entitled

ethnonationalism and liberal democracy. the reason we put that on the show when it became apparent that the white house was trying to nominate him to a judgeship, to be clear, this isn't an argument about ethnonationalism and liberal democracy. it's for ethnonationalism and espousing the benefits. it rests in large part on ethnic identification. ethnic ties provide the groundwork for sexual trust and political solidarity, greater ethnic heterogeneity is associated with lower social trust. ethnically heterogenous societies exhibit less political civic engagement and less effective governing institutions. solidarity underlying democratic policies rests in large part on ethnic identification. surely, it does not serve the cause of liberal democracy to ignore this reality.

that's me quoting him directly. to put it in other words, what this means is president trump is trying to put somebody on a federal appeals court for life to argue it's a downside for democracy if you have too much ethnohet genesy. surely, it does no good to ignore th ignore reality. so ethnonationalism. it is hard to imagine somethibo like that being a federal appeals court judge lit 'loan a judge who is being appointed hold the seat once held by thurgood marshall. they are trying to give that guy thurgood marshall's seat. the ethnonationalism guy. don't worry. the judiciary committee chairman gave that nominee a hard time on this issue today. this is how republican chairman lindsey graham asked this nominee about that controversy today from this nominee's background.

>> yotell me about this ethnonationalism stuff. what does that mean? >> what does that mean? tell me about your whole ethnonationalism thing. what's that like? probing question from the judiciary committee chairman today. that's what he said. what's that mean? this ethnonationalism stuff. go! we'll have more on that coming up later on this hour. for all that's going on in today's weird day of news, you should know that part of why things are a little bit weird today is that tomorrow is the day when impeachment starts. tomorrow is the day when the judiciary committee and the house is going to vote on these rules and procedures they are setting up to govern their formal impeachment inquiry into president trump. the committee's chairman says if they are going to draw up impeachment articles against

president, they intend to do so by the end of this year. the process that will lead to that point is going to start tomorrow morning when they vote on the rules for that impeachment investigation and the hearings that will go along with it. as i said, there is a lot going on. some of it unsettling, particularly given today's anniversary. but here is something you should definitely see that happened in washington today. this happened in a hearing today in congress. this is not the usual reaction that any member of congress has to a witness' congressional testimony. >> i will at this point call for five minutes on representative debbie wasserman shultz. >> thank you, mr. chairman. before i ask my questions, since it has not yet been done, i think it's important to really make sure that the jing owe stk bigoted testimony of mr. holman is called out as nearly completely untrue as being an

outrage and as a former official directing the immigration and customs enforcement agency, he should know before. so -- >> mr. chairman -- mr. chairman -- >> no, this is my five minutes. >> what did i say was inaccurate? >> excuse me. i am not asking a question. >> the general lady is recognized for five minutes. she made her point. i will try to resolve any other issues at the end of her questio questioning. >> i think it's important it's not accepted as accurate testimony. >> because it is jingoist i can and bigoted in her words. florida democratic debbie wasserman shultz on an unannounced but controversial new trump administration policy change that we have been covering quite a bit. a policy that targets people with serious medical conditions for deportation, including specifically in instances where it is known to the government that the medical care that is keeping that person alive is not

available in the country to which the trump administration wants to deport that person, which means this new policy from the trump administration in some cases will deliberately and knowingly kill individual identifiable people one by one. people whose lives are only continuing because of medical treatment they are getting here. the trump administration ordered them to sees thcease that medic treatment. we have been covering this the past few weeks. it started last month when the administration sent letters to the families of critically ill patients, many kids, who are receiving life-saving medical center in this country. they offered no way to appeal. nobody to call to try to sort this out. there was no indication that there was any -- this was anything other than a bottom line. but what those letters said was that those patients and their families had 33 days to stop their treatment in this country and get out.

now, in the hearing on this policy change today from the trump administration what got debbie wasserman shultz so fired up was that the republican members of the committee chose, as their witness on this subject, a fox news regular and a former i.c.e. official who said at the start of this hearing today as far as he was concerned the real problem, not this fake problem with these sick kids that the democrats were talking about. according to him the real problem was the illegal aliens raping and murdering all the people and where is the hearing on that instead of this fake news about these supposed sick kids. that was his testimony today. now, the problem with having a witness like that, saying today's hearing was conjured out of thin air and this isn't a real issue and where is the hearings on the real issue, the problem with that is that the people actually affected by what the trump administration is doing here were sitting right there at that same table at that same hearing also ready to testify.

and it turns out they are very real. this former i.c.e. official apparently thought the title of the hearing, the administration's apparent revocation of medical deferred action for critically ill children, he called that title inaccurate and misleading. wouldn't you know it turned out that there were there in person at that hearing critically ill children sworn in and describing under oath exactly how the administration apparently revoked their medical deferred action. >> my name is maria. at 24 years old i came to the u.s. from guatemala when i was only 7 to participate in a clinical trial to save my life. i came here legally and have been a legal resident in this country for over 16 years. august 13th, the u.s. in a letter given to me and my family just 33 days to leave the country. this is a humanitarian issue and

our life depends on it. >> my name is jonathan eduardo sanchez-sanchez, and i'm a 16 years boy that has cystic fibrosis, a disease that affects primarily the lungs. it's incredibly unfair to kick kids in hospitals or at home getting treatments to save their lives. the day our lawyers told us that the medical deferred action program was canceled, i started crying telling my mom, i don't want to die. i don't want to die. if i go back to honduras, i will die. after this i feel so tired both emotionally and mentally. i could not even sleep properly. i feel disappointed with the u.s. state government that they canceled this program.

sorry for that. on my point of view thinking that deporting sick kids like me it will be a legal homicide because in our country doesn't exist any type of treatment. thank you tofor your time. >> despite that granular detailed personal testimony from these young patients about personally getting letters from the government telling them they would have to leave this country, stop their medical treatment and go to a place where they would die, republicans today, their argument, their approach to the hearing was don't worry, this isn't really happening. >> this is a show trial. this is a show hearing. none of this is real. kids like isabelle and jonathan don't have anything to worry about. republicans argued whatever the government did in sending the kids and families letters, it was a mistake. of course it will be dealt with promptly. the u.s. would never deport critically ill people, especially not to places where

they couldn't continue to get the treatment keeping them alive. you are just trying to make the trump administration look bad. that might have been comforting had it not been for the testimony from a current official from u.s. cis, u.s. citizen and immigration services, which is the agency that really did send these patients and their families real letters saying they had to give up their medical care and leave the country in 33 days. >> what is the motivation behind the new policy? what's the rationale for the new policy? why did all of this happen? can either of you answer that? >> unfortunately, we are not going to be able to answer that because of the ongoing litigation. >> you can't tell me why there is a new policy. you can't tell me what motivated the new policy. you can't tell me what the new poli that a correct assessment of the situation? >> that is my testimony, sir, yes. >> what office or internal department did this policy change directive come from?

where did it come from? >> i am not sure i can answer that question on the advice of counsel. >> what role did the acting -- >> again, that is the same question that i'm not able to answer. >> for the questions you have not answered based on pending litigation, do you actually know the answers to those questions? do you know the answers and you are not sharing them? or you don't know? do you know the answers to the questions that i have asked that you declined to answer? >> i understand your question. >> okay. >> i was trying to decide if i knew -- i do not know the answers to all of your questions, no. >> to any of them? >> sorry? >> to any of them? to any of the questions that i asked regarding the genesis of this policy, was it ordered by a political appointee? what office did this come from?

how many cases have been processed? do you know the answers to any of those questions? >> i certainly think that without a pending lawsuit, i would be able to provide additional information. >> so that trump administration official could not, would not, might not, maybe can't, doesn't -- won't answer any questions about where this policy came from, whether it was ordered by a political appointee, how many cases have been processed, whether the process -- whether the policy has been rescinded now that they have tried it and had this blowback and said it would be rescinded. i mean, people whose lives depend on what the trump administration is doing here, people have been sent letters saying you need to stop your medical treatment and go to a place where you will die without it. i mean, whether that's you or your kid and you just got this letter, you are just supposed to trust like that guy is going to get it straightened out and you

will be fine. in isabelle's case, the deadline that trump administration gave her for her and her family, that she needed to get out of this country, is saturday. she and her family, as far as we understand it, have not been told definitively whether or not that deadline still stands. her doctors say she has serious surgery scheduled next month. and yet, according to the trump administration, which will not explain itself whatsoever, they will not explain what the policy is, where the policy change came from, how they have handled it, how many it applies -- i mean, she faces the risk of being deported to her home country where stheel have he will have the treatment that keeps her alive. >> what scares you the most about the idea of returning to guatemala? >> well, first of all, the treatment because i need the treatment. and then although my medical care that i need that has been, you know, with me in california

for so long, so it's really terrifying to think about it, you know. but i'm in pain a lot. so i'm hoping that something can come of this. it's overwhelming, devastating, and just thinking about you are going to die when you have still so many dreams and hopes for your life. it's really devastating. >> that was the hearing today on this issue on capitol hill. isabelle joins us live next. stay with us. l hill isabelle joins us live next. stay with us great riches will find you when liberty mutual

customizes your car insurance, so you only pay for what you need. wow. thanks, zoltar. how can i ever repay you? maybe you could free zoltar? thanks, lady. taxi! only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪

my body is truly powerful. i have the power to lower my blood sugar and a1c. because i can still make my own insulin. and trulicity activates my body to release it like it's supposed to. trulicity is for people with type 2 diabetes. it's not insulin. i take it once a week. it starts acting in my body from the first dose. trulicity isn't for people with type 1 diabetes or diabetic ketoacidosis. don't take trulicity if you're allergic to it, you or your family have medullary thyroid cancer, or have multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2. stop trulicity and call your doctor right away if you have an allergic reaction, a lump or swelling in your neck, or severe stomach pain. serious side effects may include pancreatitis. taking trulicity with a sulfonylurea or insulin increases low blood sugar risk. side effects include nausea, diarrhea, vomiting, belly pain and decreased appetite, which lead to dehydration and may worsen kidney problems. i have it within me to lower my a1c. ask your doctor about trulicity.

he you must be steven's phone. now you can know who's on your network and control who shouldn't be, only with xfinity xfi. simple. easy. awesome.

isabel bueso went to washington today for testimony on capitol hill. she came to this country legally. she came to this at the age of 7 when she was recruited to come here. she was invited to come here by american medical researchers who needed her help in their efforts to try to develop a life-saving treatment for the rare illness that she was born with. isabelle came here when she was 7, a clinical trial to treat the disease that she has was able to go forward. the treatment ended up becoming

fda approved on part on the basis of that clinical trial that she made possible. what she did made it possible for patients everywhere with her disease to have a shot at treatment, too. in isabel's case, it's keeping her alive. she needs to receive treatment intravenously once a week. her life expectancy had been maybe 10 years old. she is now 24 years because of that treatment. she graduated sum couple lady recently. the trump administration began sending patients and her a letter giving her 33 days to stop whatever treatment they are getting in this country. never mind the medical care keeping you alive. in isabel's case, that you helped create. so testified today before the house oversight committee trying to help them get to the bottom of this decision by the trump administration that has overtly threatened her life after her long day in washington, isabel

bueso joins us live. we have been following your case for a couple of weeks here on the show. it's great to meet you and have you here. thank you. >> hi, rachel. nice to meet you. thank you so much for all your support that has been given to this very difficult timing. >> thank you for saying so. we have been trying to keep up with the news and we know about it in part because you have been willing to talk about your case. i am struck by seeing you with all of those congressional leaders today from both parties, from both houses. it sounds like in addition to that testimony today, you were able to talk about your case to a lot of people on both sides of the aisle. it must have been a long and stressful day? >> yeah. so, as you mentioned, today was the hearing, and it was a great opportunity to hear my story of the situation that was going on. and i hope that after today, you know, both parties can really take action on this nightmare.

i don't think any community should go through this because it has been overwhelming, just z devastating news. >> one thing that surprised me at the hearing and i watched the testimony and the argument from some, obviously not all, that this isn't a real threat, that there isn't any real danger for you or for the young man, mr. sanchez, who testified today that this is somehow being magnified and this isn't a real problem. as far as i understand from your case, you still don't necessarily have clarity about what that letter meant that you received that advised you that you needed to be out of the country by this weekend. is it clear to you that you are out of the woods and you are going to be safely staying here? >> still fei still feel there a many questions that have not been answered. i feel like i am still in limbo with not really clear.

the origin this has been really you know, i'm stable. but i hope that soon we can get a solution because i, as you mentione mentioned before, i depend on the medical treatment that i have been receiving for 16 years, and has helped me keep alive, and also do the clinical trials for years much i have been helping other people, which i feel really honored and privileged to do so. but at this point with that letter it is uncertain what the situation really is. >> when you had those conversations with members of congress, i saw you talking with kevin mccarthy, the top republican in the house. i was very glad you were able to see him. i saw you talking with senators of both parties. i was so happy to see those

pictures today. it made me feel like apart from the hearing, in those individual conversations, when you were able to look people in the eye and tell them what was going on, if you felt like they got it. if you felt like you made any progress in terms of them understanding the gravity of what happened here and your need to have some clarity? >> yeah. i feel today was a really big step just to share my story with all of them, with house speaker nancy pelosi. leader mccarthy and senator graham. because this is not about, you know, this is coming together to really say this is a serious situation because we are talking about a life-or-death situation for someone. and i do hope that it actually will come. i really think they are concerned about the issue and they are going to try to figure out this thing because, like i

said, you know, with the letter of 33 days, without notification or not any explanation, it's kind of like it's a dire situation. >> isabel bueso, 24 years old, one of the witnesses at today's hearing on the medical deferred action program where we do not know either why the trump administration tried to do this, what exactly they are trying to do, or how much they have rescinded it. to the extent that we will get that clarity and get answers for what's happening here, it will be in large part because of the way you have been willing to talk to the american people about your situation. isabel, thanks for being with us tonight. please stay in tup. we will have you back any time you want to come back. >> thank you. back any time you want to come back. >> thank you sy for you to get your windshield fixed. >> teacher: let's turn in your science papers. >> tech vo: this teacher always puts her students first. >> student: i did mine on volcanoes. >> teacher: you did?! oh, i can't wait to read it. >> tech vo: so when she had auto glass damage... she chose safelite. with safelite, she could see exactly when we'd be there. >> teacher: you must be pascal. >> tech: yes ma'am.

>> tech vo: saving her time... [honk, honk] >> kids: bye! >> tech vo: ...so she can save the science project. >> kids: whoa! >> kids vo: ♪ safelite repair, safelite replace ♪ -[ scoffs ] if you say so. ♪ -i'm sorry? -what teach here isn't telling you is that snapshot rewards safe drivers with discounts on car insurance. -what? ♪ -or maybe he didn't know. ♪ [ chuckles ] i'm done with this class. -you're not even enrolled in this class. -i know. i'm supposed to be in ceramics. do you know -- -room 303. -oh. thank you. -yeah. -good luck, everybody. (classical music playing throughout)

(vo) vfundraising. giving back. subaru and our retailers have given over one hundred and sixty-five million dollars to charity.

to own a subarut even have to love a subaru retailer. subaru. more than a car company.

as you know, as of today it has been 18 years since the 9/11 attacks. off the top of your head, without looking it up, do you know how many members of al qaeda have been convicted in the u.s. in connection with 9/11? how many? the answer is one. one guy. he is in prison in colorado and he will be there until the end of his life. but he is the one guy who they ever convicted in this country for 9/11. and it's not that the u.s. doesn't know who committed the attack or even that they didn't catch the suspects. i mean, the actual physical perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks, the 19 hijackers who boarded the four planes that crashed into two manhattan skyscrapers and the pentagon and

a field in pennsylvania, those hijackers are all, obviously, dead and in hell, if you believe in that, but there were other members of al qaeda who allegedly helped orchestrate and plan those attacks, and some of those suspects were arrested. and to this someday 18 years after the attacks other than that one guy who was convicted and is in prison in colorado, other than him all of the rest of them are still in u.s. detention now. still awaiting their day in court. only last week did they even try to set a military court date for five of these guys, including ka legion shake mohammed who is described as the principal architect. the military trial of these five defendants might start in 2021, which would be 20 years after the 9/11 attacks, and nearly 20 years after most of them were first arrested. and the idea of a 2021 trial

date for them is still only a maybe. even if that happens, best case scenario, that's two decades without a trial, and two decades for the families of 9/11 victims who will have waited 20 years to see if justice might be served for those suspects, even after the u.s. says they got the guy who they think orchestrated the whole thing. i mean, it didn't have to go this way, right? they didn't have to do all of this on a 20-year delay. in normal civilian courts in the u.s., hundreds of terrorism suspects have been tried and convicted without incident. they go into the prison system and they disappear into the federal prison system and they stop being famous. the obama administration tried to take that course with these five 9/11 defendants. they tried to actually put these guys on trial for terrorism when obama first took office in 2009, but you may remember congress freaked out and decided that no way would the obama administration be allowed to do

that. that would be terrible. and so instead we are heading into the 19th year since 9/11 with none of those five 9/11 defendants being tried let alone convict, including the guy who is accused of setting up the whole thing. but there is that one other guy though in colorado who is now like the counter factual example of how it might have been. how it might have gone. his name is zachariah mo uss aoui. he is referred as the 20th hijacker. he was charged in part for his connection to the attack. to this day he is the only member of al qaeda charged and convicted in the united states in connection with 9/11. the reason he is the only one is that they dealt with his case like a normal terrorism case. he was charged in civilian court, convicted, sent to prison for the rest of his life. this was an extraordinarily

complex terrorism case, but he was convicted in 2006 over 13 years ago now. mu sow which is multiple lives sentences into his stay at our supermax prison in florence, colorado, while all the other 9/11 defendants languish still today, still untried, still not convicted, still not sentenced with no closure for their cases, no closure for the victims all because of this political fantasy that the u.s. shouldn't possibly use real courts to try these crimes. it shouldn't use real courts to get accountability of the perpetrators of that terrorist act. instead the bright idea we had as a country was toin vent a whole new tribunal system for defendants like this and that would magically be more effective somehow than real courts. well, that system has now proved itself over 18 years to not work at the basic job of putting these guys on trial. and it has cost billions of

dollars in the meantime while none of them have gone on trial. the prosecutor who was the u.s. attorney in the appropriate jurisdiction at the time of the mo uss aw a hi conviction, chuck rosenberg. he discusses that 9/11 prosecution of an al qaeda member on his msnbc podcast which is excellent called "the tonight. >> wonderful to see you. >> first of all, tell me if i got any of that wrong. >> you got it right. >> he was pibld up before 9/11. 9/11 happened while he was in custody. he was charged in part for his connection to those attacks. >> that's right. >> and it took years to convict him? >> it did. the eastern district of virginia, known as the rocket docket, things move quickly. his moved relatively slowly. he was indicted in december of

2001 and ultimately sentenced to life in prison in may of 2006. still 13 years ago. >> yes. and that's the thing. that's described for the eastern district of virginia as an incredibly slow, complex trial. i mean, you compare that to what happened to the other 9/11 defendants and he is the only -- i mean, if you consider that to be a success, he is the only person whose case came to any sort of completion. >> it was a success. we proved a couple of things. not just his guilt, but that terrorists, serious terrorists in complicated criminal trials with classified information can be tried successfully in federal dri criminal court. you said that these terrorists have been tried without incident. i will add another word. they have been tried without fail. whatever the worry is about the five in guantanamo bay should be put aside. >> do you believe that the

perception of this has changed in the 18 years that we've been looking at this in terms of how our country should deal with it? i remember the congressional freak-out in 2009. it was a bipartisan congressional freak-out. i felt like the arguments against the idea of a real trial for those defendants didn't make sense to me then. they still don't make sense to me now. do you feel if that was proposed again you would have so the same bipartisan opposition to it? >> huge maybe. it's hard to know how the politicians react to this stuff. i can tell you how agents and lawyers and prosecutors react to this stuff. we grew up in the article 3 system, article 3 of the constitution which created our federal courts. we trust them. we know them. we have experience in them. and so we've seen that they work even with the most difficult cases. you know, this didn't just happen. we had extraordinary fbi agents and extraordinary federal prosecutors. i just happened to be the u.s. attorney for the tail end of it.

but folks who worked really hard on this for many years and brought it successfully to justice. and by the way, justice is not just for the u.p.s. and its citizens, but for the victims and the defendant. that may sound crazy, but everyone is entitled to a fair and efficient of what is likelyo happen to those remaining 9/11 defendants who have been waiting two decades, apparently, for their trial and still wait, when i look at the proceedings, which have been chronicled by carol rosenberg, a reporter from "the miami times," she has been able to follow it all the way through. >> no relations, but a great job. >> incredible. she is a national institution and national treasure because nobody has been able to follow that process from the beginning because it's so long and weird and certaintine. do you think there will be a trial of those guys? 2021? >> i'm skeptical.

the military does a lot of things reallyhi is sort of outside of their grasp. and i don't think there is any fault in saying we can't do it. we're not built this way. it's not designed this way and moving it back to a federal civilian court. i think that's where it belongs. again i'm biased. that's the system i know and trust, but it's also, and i think this is important, rachel, a system that offers transparency. it's not easy for anybody to go down to guantanamo bay, in fact, it's prohibited, and watch the trial. whereas, you can walk into any federal courthouse in the united states, sit down and stay as long as you want. >> and it will come to an end. >> and it will be finite. but that has to count for something when you can watch the process. >> chuck rosenberg, former u.s. attorney in the eastern district of virginia along with other impressive things on his resume.

"the oath," he talks to the lead prosecutor in the trial. it's like a visit to another world in which this really is the way it could have dgone. thanks, chuck. >> thank you, rachel. >> we'll be right back. stay with us. >> we'll be right back stay with us ♪ ♪ applebee's handcrafted burgers now starting at $7.99. process. >> thank you, rachel. process. >> thank you, rachel. orhood you wouldn't accept an incomplete job from anyone else.

why accept it from your allergy pills? orhood flonase sensimist. nothing stronger. nothing gentler. nothing lasts longer. flonase sensimist. 24 hour non-drowsy allergy relief for a restless night's sleep. pain settle there's a better choice. aleve pm. the only one to combine a safe sleep aid and the 12-hour pain-relieving strength of aleve that dares to last into the morning. so you feel refreshed. aleve pm. there's a better choice.

hey, who are you? oh, hey jeff, i'm a car thief... what?! i'm here to steal your car because, well, that's my job. what? what?? what?! (laughing) what?? what?! what?! [crash]

what?! haha, it happens. and if you've got cut-rate car insurance, paying for this could feel like getting robbed twice. so get allstate... and be better protected from mayhem... like me. ♪ he. i understand that there has been a media coverage about a law review article, mr. men ach s ach shi entitled ethnonationalism and liberal democracy. it also claims ethnicky homogenous societies perform better on a number of measures, including political and civic engagement in social trust than do more diverse societies. that is somewhat controversial. >> yes. yes, it is. that was how today's hearing on donald trump's exi latest feder

judicial nominee kicked off with the top democrat bringing up this writing by steven menashi. the sol daredy underlying democratic politics rests in large part on ethnic identification. surely it does not serve the cause of liberal democracy to ignore this reality. the ethnonationallism thing is the most hair raising things from mr. menashi about muslims, gays and lesbians or as he likes to call them when he is mad at them, gynocentrists. also an article told about how the way he used to get rid of terrorism is that we dip the bullets in pigs blood or pig fat and wrap the muslim dead bodies in pigskins and that's what really worked. now we're just too woosey to do that. if that sounds family it's because candidate donald trump liked to tell that totally

untrue story on the campaign trail in 2016 before winning the presidency and hiring steven menashi to work in the trump white house, including specifically on the trump administration's immigration policies. >> did general john pershing execute muslim prisoners in the philippines with dubullets dipp in pigs' fat? >> i would like to clarify that particular writing. >> could you start by answering the question i asked? >> i think it's important to provide context. >> ask the question. did it or did it not happen? >> at the time i wrote that essay i read that anecdote in a number of sources and believed it to have been substantiated. after 20 years -- >> you learned it's not true? >> i regret having repeated it. >> i would like to provide some context -- no. it wasn't. it actually got worse from there. stay with us. that's next. ay with us that's next. oh! oh! oh!

♪ ozempic®! ♪ (announcer) people with type 2 diabetes are excited about the potential of once-weekly ozempic®. in a study with ozempic®, a majority of adults lowered their blood sugar and reached an a1c of less than 7 and maintained it. oh! under 7? (announcer) and you may lose weight. in the same one-year study, adults lost on average up to 12 pounds. oh! up to 12 pounds? (announcer) a two-year study showed that ozempic® does not increase the risk of major cardiovascular events like heart attack, stroke, or death. oh! no increased risk? (announcer) ozempic® should not be the first medicine for treating diabetes, or for people with type 1 diabetes or diabetic ketoacidosis.

do not share needles or pens. don't reuse needles. do not take ozempic® if you have a personal or family history of medullary thyroid cancer, multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, or if you are allergic to ozempic®. stop taking ozempic® and get medical help right away if you get a lump or swelling in your neck, severe stomach pain, itching, rash, or trouble breathing. serious side effects may happen, including pancreatitis. tell your doctor if you have diabetic retinopathy or vision changes. taking ozempic® with a sulfonylurea or insulin may increase the risk for low blood sugar. common side effects are nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, stomach pain, and constipation. some side effects can lead to dehydration, which may worsen kidney problems. i discovered the potential with ozempic®. ♪ oh! oh! oh! ozempic®! ♪ (announcer) if eligible, you may pay as little as $25 per prescription. ask your health care provider today about once-weekly ozempic®.

the amount of student loan debt i have i'm embarrassed to even say i felt like i was going to spend my whole adult life paying this off thanks to sofi, i can see the light at the end of the tunnel as of 12pm today, i am debt free ♪ not owing anyone anything is the best feeling in the world, i cannot stop smiling about it ♪

everybody thought today's hearing for trump's latest. reportedly works on stephen mill ir's policy group. a lot of people thought the focus for this nominee would be about his lifetime of writings on subjects including the inferiority of islam and gays and women and how democracy works best with, with, ethnic ha

moj nayty. but it went bad fast on a bunch of different levels. first, there were protests in the hallway outside his hearing that resulted in five arrests. they were so loud at one point it was hard to hear menashi's opening statement. senators of both parties seemed unhappy with the nominee for not answering their questions, period. >> counselor, you're a really smart guy. i wish you'd be more forthcoming. this isn't supposed to be a game. you're supposed to try to understand not how you're going to rule but how you're going to think. >> well, senator, i had been more forthcoming if you had a follow up. >> i'm out of time. you took a lot of it but not answering my questions. >> did you work on the administration's decision to end defer deportation for undocumented migrants receiving

treatment for life threatening illnesses? >> senator, again, consistent with my duties of confidentiality to the client, if the -- >> i'm not asking for what advice you gave. i'm not asking you to disclose any confidence. i'm asking if you worked on the issue to denying daca -- >> senator, again, i want to be as transparent as possible. for this hearing -- >> if i could, that's not an unfair question. that you work on the subject matter? >> senator, i worked on immigration -- >> no. a specific question. did you give legal advice on the subject matter? >> um. >> um. is there a lifeline provision here? is there a thing when i can call a person? you can see there that while president trump's judicial nominee came prepared to deflect questions from democratic senators, he really doesn't know

what to do when the republican members of the committee, including the reason chairman starts agreeing with them. very occasionally donald trump and mitch mcconnell in their mad dash to pack the federal courts with as many right wing ie dee logs as possible, they put someone unfit and nutty for even this republican senate to confirm that person. there had been a hand full of trump judicial picks that have had to withdraw because they couldn't get enough votes from the republican-led senate because they were too out there. this is steven menashi. he is on the second circuit court of appeals. watching today's hearing, i would say it does not seem like he has this locked up yet, but watch this space. award winning interface. ♪ ♪ award winning design.

♪ ♪ award winning engine. ♪ ♪ the volvo xc90. our most awarded luxury suv. ♪ ♪ liberty mutual customizes your car insurance, hmm. exactly. so you only pay for what you need. nice. but, uh... what's up with your... partner? not again. limu that's your reflection. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty, liberty, liberty, liberty ♪ bill's back needed a afvacation from his vacation. an amusement park... so he stepped on the dr. scholl's kiosk. it recommends our best custom fit orthotic to relieve foot, knee, or lower back pain. so you can move more. dr. scholl's. born to move.

we really pride ourselves on making it easy for you >> tech: at safelite autoglass, to get your windshield fixed. with safelite, you can see exactly when we'll be there. saving you time for what you love most. >> kids: whoa! >> kids vo: ♪ safelite repair, safelite replace ♪ (classical music playing throughout)

the next democratic presidential debate kicks off tomorrow night in houston, and it's only one night. weird. right? on the eve of that next democratic debate, it's reported the national republican party is doing something new that can't be new for their party's candidates around the country sharing the ballot with donald trump next year. the rnc is refusing to provide republican candidates with data about how voters feel about president trump. they have always collected and sent out that data about whatever president is in office. it helps people put together good local campaigns. but with president trump for

some reason, they're withholding that data and not sending it out. quote, critical voter scores, sophisticating polling based analytics the rnc provides are now omitting an essential detail for any down ballot race, how voters in specific states and congressional districts feel about president trump. republican insiders believe these analytics are being withheld to try to prevent republican candidates from publicly distancing themselves from the president, or leaking unfavorable results that embarrass trump. soed so in the midst of everything else going on, the democratic candidates are going on stage convincing people why they're the best to run against trump. on the other side, the republican party is cancelling their own presidential primaries all over the country so no one can run against trump or if they do, no republican primary voters will have a chance to vote for anyone other than trump.

and the national party is overtly hiding the data, keeping secret the data that they have that would let any of their own candidates around the country decide rationally whether they, too, might want to run a little bit against trump in order to save their own skin because voters don't like trump. the republican party would rather discredit their own candidates than risk any republican taking any kind of stand against trump, or risking anybody leaking that information in a way that might embarrass the president. that, of course, is a capital offense in the republican party right now. that's going to do it for us tonight. we'll see you again tomorrow. it's time for accou"the last wo. >> good evening. your interview was