that's tonight's reedout. join msnbc tomorrow morning for special coverage of the sentencing of donald trump beginning on "morning joe." it's scheduled to begin at 9:30 a.m. eastern. all in with chris hayes starts now. tonight, on all in. >> it finalized the conviction and it makes donald trump officially the one thing that he has not yet been, a convicted

felon. >> the supreme court denies donald trump tonight, the breaking news that president-elect of the united states will face criminal sentencing hours from now. >> then -- >> at what point did you realize, i'm not going to save the house? >> when my son-in-law grabbed me and said wi gotta go. >> with the largest wildfire still uncontained, the devastation of property and lives grows. >> the winds continue to be of a historic nature and a key factor of this fire storm. >> tonight, the latest from los angeles and the difficult task of finding facts in an information environment filled with lies. >> the elon musk response to my report laying out just some of the evidence was true. >> and the uniquely american scene inside the national cathedral at the state funeral for president jimmy carter. >> stand up is what may dad used

to say is the greatest sin of all, the abuse of power. >> "all in" starts right now. >> good evening from new york. i'm chris hayes. a lot happening today. in just over 13 hours' time, donald trump will be sentenced for his 34 fillany convictions in new york. that is after the supreme court within the last hour or so denide his request for a delay. now, barely. the 5-4 decision just came down in the last hour. chief justice roberts and amy coney barrett sided with the three liberals on the court. deciding that first the alleged evidentiary olations can be addressed in the ordinary course of appeal. second, the burden that sentencing will impose on the president- president-elect's responsibilities is relatively insubstantial after a brief virtual hearing.

justices thomas, gorsuch, kavanaugh, and alito say they would have granted the stay, go figure. but with the 5-4 decision, donald trump will be the first convicted felon to become president of the united states. we're just breaking barriers right and left these days. and he will have to appear virtually in a new york courtroom at 9:30 a.m. tomorrow morning for sentencing. lisa rubin is an msnbc correspondent, kristy greenberg was deputy chief of the criminal division. they both join me now. first of all, let me start with you on the law here. you and i talked, and i'll cop to it, i thought there was no way in heck this was going to happen. he was going to pull some rabbit out of a hat. i may have said the words i bet $ton,000 it never happens. i was wrong. he exhausted his appeals in new york court, so merchan order, and then there's one intermediate appellate level,

they said no, then emergency filing in the supreme court, guys, help me out. you have been there for me all along. help me out. what was the argument his lawyers were making? >> sort of two arguments. one is that at the trial, there was evidence introduced at the trial on which the jury relied for which he was entitled to immunity so his argument goes under the immunity ruling. >> per john roberts scotus opinion last year. >> not only does the president have immunity from prosecution for his acts but he also has immunity from having official acts evidence introduced in trials having to do with this personal conduct. the second argument is i am a president-elect and the same constitutional concerns that the department of justice recognizes with respect to sitting presidents and prosecuting them for any reason whatsoever, those should apply to me too because i'm very busy with very important things under the presidential transition act and you should therefore stretch your july ruling to cover this period too.

>> right. i might run for president some day. i think i get immunity personally. that's my new constitutional interpretation. let's keep going with this. you were surprised. you walked in, you were surprised. >> i got this wrong. i really thought they were going to bail him out once again because that's what we have seen. some cynicism was warranted. this was 5-4. there were four of these justices who were prepared to help him out here. i didn't count on the fact that justices roberts and amy coney barrett would do the right thing here. but even then, the order itself is interesting. they say that the reason they're okay with this is because the trial court stated intent is to impose the sentence of unconditional discharge, which means nothing. no jail, no probation, no conditions, nothing, nada. >> stop right there, because that is a tip to that argument. they're saying, like, the equities you're bringing forth, which is i am president-elect and i have many busy things to do, meetings and calls, down at

mar-a-lago. they're saying we hear you. but it's not going to be that bad a burden. it's conceding there's something there. >> yes. and they're saying, and this sentencing is going to be a brief virtual hearing. those are not typically words that are associated with sentencing of criminal defendants. sentencings are not brief. that's not how it works for any other criminal defendant. you're usually looking at at least an hour even in a minor case. they're not virtual for any other criminal defendant. they're always in person. should we take the win, the fact the sentencing is happening at all? yeah. but this is not business as usual. this is not how it works for anybody else. essentially the american presidency is officially a get out of jail free card. that's what this is. >> i have to say that i had gotten so cynical about this court that i thought, well, they'll find -- i thought they were going to issue some temporary order, we'll consider it, but again, shadow docket

here and the emergency docket is so complicated, i was like, do they need three or four votes? whatever. point being, though, to your point, it does also feel like there are four votes for whatever. like, on the record, first time, this is the first supreme court ruling of the new trump era, this is the first, the last time he had a 5-4 court in his favor with kennedy as a swing voter. he now has a 6-3 vote in his favor with roberts and amy coney barrett as the likely defectors to make a majority of liberals and this really feels like our first look at this court where there's four votes for, like, do whatever you want to do. >> it's a pretty dire -- >> do you feel that way? >> i'm a pollyanna, so i will always see the upside of this. the upside to me is that they tried to stretch the meaning of the july presidential immunity decision far beyond that which john roberts who was its author intended for it to go. therefore, i think it backfired

on them. in that respect, i was gratified to see that. >> we have breaking legal news. >> yes. >> do you know this? >> yes. >> the 11th circuit, which is the circuit that was reviewing an application by donald trump to stop the report from jack smith's office from coming out, has denied the request by trump's co-defendants to block the release of special counsel jack smith's report, but left the three-day delay to allow for further appeals. so at the circuit court level on the docks case, they're saying you don't get to stop jack smith from releasing this. we're going to leave it in place this three-day delay that cannon put in that no one can find -- >> they're saying it's sort of procedurally, if you wanted to appeal her order, you should have appealed it directly, therefore, that three-day period is going to stay in place. sort of as a default. but it also gives trump time, obviously, to now run to the

supreme court because there's going to be a three-day wait. >> amazing. there's going to be a scotus writ petition and they're going to get -- he's not even in office yet and there's going to be another swing here. >> this one, i mean, again, judge cannon's order was so absurd. first, the case wasn't even before her. she had already dismissed it and she issues this order to say the whole report can't be released, even the january 6th part, which wasn't even before her. again, this one, i feel fairly confident in regard to the january 6th report, that that will be released and this supreme court won't block it. >> we should make the point, i'm not sure in terms of the docs case, we all read the indictment. it's not like we're going to learn something shockingly new in the report. it seems more -- you're shaking your head. >> yeah. >> go ahead. >> so, one of the things that jack smith said is he had

unclassified evidence that he intended to prove at trial that would say why donald trump had these classified documents in the first place, what he intended to do with them. that to me has always been the $64,000 question, was he just holding them as trophies or did he intend to sell them? what was he doing? why was it so important for him to keep these? and the fact, like, if we could get answers to those questions from jack smith in this report, that would have real value there. so there is a reason i would think why donald trump's team is trying so hard to keep this from being released, and unfortunately, merrick garland has agreed with respect to the classified documents case that we're not going to see it. they don't intend to release it because there are these two co-defendants where they're pursuing an appeal. honestly, donald trump's doj is going to dismiss the charges against him. if you're weighing the public interest, drop the case against them and let us see the report. >> i would say i want to see the classified documents report for

a slightly different reason. there's a cast of characters here who witnessed the behavior or participated it in with him. many of these people are scheduled to take important roles in the next administration. including susie wiles who is pac representative in the indictment, including kash patel who at one point in time was the designated liaison between the trump administration and the national archives. >> that's a great point. >> i would be really interested in seeing it because think about how much we learned from the mueller report with respect to all the witnesses and the documentation and the back and forth between people. that's what i really want to see here. >> that's a really good point. now let's go back to -- sorry, i'm keeping a lot of balls in the air today. let's go back to the sentencing. just walk me through what happens tomorrow at 9:30. >> tomorrow at 9:30 when we walk in, we'll see a screen in all likelihood where todd blanche is with his client, donald trump, at mar-a-lago. >> maybe they choose a cool zoom background. >> maybe.

>> the american flag. >> yeah. rudy giuliani was instructed by a judge the other day to get rid of his american flag background. what we'll hear from first is hear from the prosecution. then the defense will have an opportunity to speak. and then he will give trump himself an opportunity to speak. what's crazy about that is, chris, i have been at two trials already where donald trump has had an opportunity to speak. one as a witness, the other, he wanted to make a statement. in both cases, he ended up getting into skirmishes with the judges about talking too long and talking about things he had been precluded from talking about. what happens when he's virtual? what does the judge do, just cut the feed? that's an open question about how this unfolds tomorrow. ultimately, this is the part christy knows best, he will deliver a recitation of his reasons for imposing the sentence he's going to impose and sentence him officially to this discharge as we're all expecting. >> we have gotten a preview already of some of what judge merchan will say.

in his opinion, he says that this crime from donald trump, these 34 felonies, represents the premeditated and continuous deception by the leader of the free world. like, those are pretty strong statements about how he views the gravity of this offense. and you know, again, that's not normally something you would think is going to be met with no consequences whatsoever in terms of punishment. remember, again, to be kind of the debbie downer. yes, it's good we're having a sentencing, but this is not the sentencing he should be getting. michael cohen was sentenced to three years in prison for making this payment at the direction and for the benefit of donald trump. and he's somebody who pled guilty. donald trump went to trial. michael cohen accepted responsibility. donald trump has been in contempt of the gag order several times. so like, this is something that you would expect if he were not going to be president in 17 days, he would have gone to jail for. so i expect also donald trump --

if it's not donald trump, certainly his lawyers are going to go after judge merchan. their filings have been replete with statements about how he's acting unlawfully, acting unconstitutionally. you don't normally see that. you can say to the judge you got it wrong and we're going to appeal, but you don't usually hear, hey, you're breaking the law. >> fireworks over zoom. >> 100%. >> maybe he'll just start saying things about the judge's daughter like e has been. he may do that. or read out her address. i don't know. >> as much as he complains about the gag order and he mischaracterizes it constantly, the one part he has generally abided by is the part where he's not allowed to talk about the family members of the judge, the district attorney, or anybody else involved in the case. he has abided by that because i think he understands the consequences for not doing so are severe. that having been said, guess when the gag order ends.

tomorrow when he's sentenced. >> in terms of the technical thing we said in the intro, there's a long thing in our internal slack channels about whether he's a convicted felon or not. walk me through why he isn't yet until sentencing. >> sentencing is the final act of conviction. therefore, at the sentencing, one becomes a convicted felon. it sound lawyerly, and i'm sure to people at home, they're like, i considered him a convicted felon a long time ago. >> you can say he's been convicted of a felony. >> 34 counts of a felony, but tomorrow at the sentencing or after the sentencing, that is when donald trump for people like kristi and me, we're comfortable calling him a convicted felon. >> the one thing i will say, though, i don't think he's going to feel very restricted by the gag order or his lawyers will. again, the rhetoric from them has been escalating in its frequency and its content. and what are the consequences for violating it? maximum of a $1 thoin fine or

putting him in jail. he's not putting him in jail. the supreme court just said you're not going to put him in jail. so again, i expect as you said, fireworks. >> all right. i guess we'll be watching that on zoom. what a weird world we live in. lisa rubin, kristy greenberg, thank you. that was excellent, and so clarifying. so great to have both of you here. >> donald trump is now responding to the supreme court order declining to kick the can on his sensing tomorrow morning. >> just a few minutes ago, the supreme court ruled they are not going to slow down the sentencing. it's on for tomorrow. now what? >> they called for an appeal. as you know, they acknowledged what the judge said about no penalty, and there is really no penalty. we're going to appeal anyway, psychologically, because frankly it's a disgrace. i'm the first president and probably one of the first candidates in history that's under attack with a gag order, where i'm not allowed to speak

about something. and they ought to find out what that's all about. and this is a long way from finished. i respect the court's opinion. >> despite president-elect's protestations he will be sentenced for his crimes. he'll enter the highest office in the land as a convicted felon. joining me now is congressman eric swalwell, democrat of california, who serves on the judiciary committee and is a former state prosecutor. congressman, good to have you here. first, your reaction to the news from the supreme court. >> it's the right call. it's a shocking call that the court that gave him absolute immunity and would plant in his head that he can do whatever he wants and have no accountability would do this, and the are separate questions now about will they have the muscle in the future as he continues to test them, but it's the right call. what's the alternative? that this guy would be treated differently than anyone else who suffered a criminal conviction? that just doesn't feel right. i also want to say, credit to judge merchan. in the last couple months, you

have seen all these billionaire bros going down to mar-a-lago, hat in hand, contributing to the inaugural campaign, and just completely capitulating, and this guy is standing tall and saying no, you know, rule of law still matters. >> i feel like judge merchan has conducted himself with tremendous integrity and one of the few people who basically seems to genuinely leave and conduct himself as if the rule of law is truly equal for all before it. >> hopefully setting an example to these other judges where cases are going to be coming before it. because we will be back in the courts so many times. if kash patel and pam bondi are prosecuting and investigating trump's enemies, that requires court supervision from search warrants that will have to be signed off on, to early filings and motions in those cases. and what those district court judges do is so important.

and i think he sets an example of courage. >> i hadn't thought of that. that's a great point. the 5-4 is a little worrisome to me. it's better than 5-4 the other direction. it's certainly better than 6-3 in the other direction or 9-0 even. but you know, the difference between the last time that he was president with a 5-4 court that kennedy was the swing voter on, at least in the beginning, and the 6-3 court that he will have now, that has shown itself through the community decision and others to be sort of untethered from constitutional reasoning, from textual analysis, from precedent. it's sort of like, you know, when you thing about what this term is going to be like with that court. >> and traditional ethics and a code of conduct. on the judiciary committee, we're in the minority, a thin minority. we can see the majority, you know, is within reach. and what we're thinking about is, like, what can we do

legislatively to rein these folks in. i'll be honest. for the longest time, i was a traditionalist on this and i thought the court has to be independent. they're going to police themselves. they have shown at every turn, with alito and his family, alito and his phone call, clarence thomas and all the gifts, that they're incapable of doing that. so it's going to take congressional supervision. but to justice coney barrett i would say this, there's a phrase in football when the quarterback throws the ball across the field and the receiver drops it and then gets drilled by the linebacker. you might as well catch it because they're going to hit you anyway. going forward, you have now shown yourself as having the courage to stand up to him. you have done it. they're going to continue to hit you on this, so we're going to need that type of courage going forward, and for her to not be bullied by trump. he's now on her list, and that's going to be evident in the days ahead. >> that's interesting. i was slightly surprised she joined that immunity decision

because i found the immunity decision so lawless. and sort of ad hoc. and her questions and oral arguments were quite sharp and showed genuine concern with the gravity of what had been committed, unlike a lot of her peers. i want to just play a little bit of a colleague of yours -- sorry, read a letter of a colleague jamie raskin calling on alito to recuse in this case, which he didn't. he said justice alito's decision to have a personal phone call with president trump yesterday who has an active and deeply personal matter before the court makes clear he fundamentally misunderstands the basic requirements of judicial ethics or believes himself to be above them all together. >> this phone call happens yesterday. trump called alito. it's ostensibly about a former clerk of alitos trying to get a job, who is the subject of a tug-of-war because he worked for

barr, whether he's a true loyalist. alito could have said, sure, i'll talk to you on saturday. >> this guy worked for alito 14 years ago. it wasn't like his last job was for alito. what do we know about trump phone calls? we know from james comey when trump was trying to make the flynn case go away, he would apply maximum pressure. we know with president zelenskyy, can you do me a favor? trump knows how to make a phone call and do it under the auspices of something legit and make his case in another manner. >> how are you preparing yourself -- are you thinking differently, you were there for the first administration. you had several years in the majority where you passed a lot of legislation. a lot of it is very good legislation. i'm not sure how much it helped all of y'all politically. how are you thinking about this congress? >> be purposeful. don't chase every ball that he throws. i was a junior member during the

first term. having lived through exhausting ourselves going after everything, i think we need to be more purposeful and not waste the energy as well of our supporters. for example, with greenland, if you want to go try and buy greenland, well, i can tell you how many people told us on the campaign trail and in polling and research groups that they wanted you to focus on that. zero. if you want to do that, we should say great, but what about the cost of groceries? that's what we were promised. if you want to send our kids to die in canada, why don't you tell us first what you're going to do to reduce the cost of gas and make housing more affordable. not to get so worked up but to bring it back to what the voters told us their priorities were and make a clear contrast in who is fighting for those priorities and who is just creating distractions and nonsense. >> i think that's fair. i know you're just riffing here. i think if he does want to send our kids to canada to die, i'm going to get strenuous about my

objection to it. >> don't think we can take him as seriously as last time. the serious issue is the cost of eggs, the cost of housing. if he's just going to put this nonsense out here because he has his own insecurity about whether he can actually address those issues which i think is what he's doing. he has his own insecurity about whether he can really deliver so he's going to distract us with these other shiny objects. we don't have to chase them. we can keep going back to the mean that was sent to us from the voters. >> let me ask you about two more topics. one, there's sort of a test happening now with this piece of legislation that would essentially make larger the category of immigrants who are here undocumented without status, who can be put into the deportation queue if arrested. not convicted for a set of category of crimes. it also in a more -- well, a part that a lot of democrats are very focused on, it gives state a.g.s unprecedented power to

intervene in immigration court proceedings. 40-something democrats voted for this piece of legislation sponsored by republicans. it just passed over cloture, 83-9. you voted against it. why, and do you thing it's an ominous sign this is getting democratic votes? >> people are going to be targeted because they're brown. that's what's going to happen in america because we're not saying you have to go through the court process and be convicted of a violent crime. and i don't want any undocumented individual who commits a violent crime to bheer. they should be removed after they serve their sentence but this says if the officer says that person looks like they're undocumented, i'm going to pull them over, now in the officer's mind, whether it was a lawful detention or not, he has the person pulled over. if they are undocumented, not having committed any crime, working in an agriculture field, working in hospitality, they're gone. it's the predicate now to deport. i think that's wrong.

by the way, we have a workforce crisis in america. so if we can get rid of the most violent folks in america, secure the border, we don't want to disrupt the people, you know, who are out in the fields doing these jobs that no one else will take. the people working in our restaurants, in our hotels, because the cost for everyone else will go up. >> final question for you. obviously, your district is not in the fire zone right now, but you're a californian. how do you think -- how are you thinking about what legislation might be necessary, what the federal response might be? >> i have legislation called preventing the next natural disaster act. it goes at what the issue is here, which is we're going to continue to have unseasonable winds, unpredictable weather. these power lines thereat are above ground where the brush and branches hit them, those are causing fires. how do we underground those lines or put plastic coating on them as we have been doing in the bay area, and anyplace that is affected by climate chaos.

there's a lot we have to do. right now, you and i, our hearts beat for the people in los angeles and the first responders, but we do have a responsibility to look at how do we make sure california is still livable and affordable. >> the thing i learned today after the 1906 earthquake in which 80% of the damage was done by fire and not earthquake, the city put in a special dedicated high pressure hydrant system. there's two systems precisely because of the issue they're facing in los angeles. congressman eric swalwell, thank you. coming up, the latest on the devastating wildfires in los angeles and the dangerous misinformation plaguing the city's residents, next. misinfor city's residents, next e only tol with 4 powerful pain fighting ingredients that start working on contact and lasts up to 8 hours.

let's say you're deep in a show or a game or the game. that start working on contact on a train, at home, at work. okay, maybe not at work. point is at xfinity. we're constantly engineering new ways to get the entertainment you love to you faster and easier than ever. that's what i do. is that love island?

nearly 30,000 acres have now burned across five active fires in the area of greater los angeles. the worst of them, the palisades fire, and the eaton fire, have not bun contained at all, according to officials in california. at least six people have died although authorities caution the actual death toll is unknown at this time. when the palisades fire is already the most destructive in l.a.'s history. this hour, authorities are warning of a new blaze in the northwest woodland hills near the calabasas neighborhood. winds that have been driving the fires are expected to pick up again overnight. katy tur is an nbc news correspondent, host of katy tur reports on msnbc and she joins me from pacific palisades. how is it looking? >> reporter: it's not looking good, chris. as you mentioned, the zero

percent containment for the two big fires. there's also the eaton fire as well. there's also the fire that's threatening woodland hills in calabasas, the kenneth fire. mayor karen bas was just giving a news conference where she said that has the potential to flare up in the next hour and threaten quite a few homes and acreage. the winds today have been pretty cooperative, which has been really good news. it means the super scoopers have been able to get out into the pacific ocean, scoop up the water and douse the hillside homes, try to get things wet enough to where the fire has nothing to consume or doesn't want to consume it. but we haven't seen those flights in the past hour and a half, maybe two hours. i was talking to a source of mine and they said they're down for maintenance. hopefully they come back up. the lafd has the pucast to make a lot of these flights at night. and the winds are also supposed to pick up here. the wind advisory was extended

to tomorrow, and they do expect there's going to be pretty strong gusts into this evening, maybe 60 miles per hour. you can see just right above my shoulder here in the palisades, there are a few more hot spots on the hillside. another one just erupted in just the past couple minutes. there's at least five that i can see right now. and there's a home out in the distance, well, just behind those fires that has not burned. if the winds picks up any of those flames it could be precarious for the homes just above that ridge which have managed to escape the flames. everything beneath that is completely gone. everything all around here is completely gone. i used to live in a house right below those flames. it's gone. down here, on the flats of the palisades, the abc straits gone, the mayor just said 5,316 homes in this area, in the palisades fire, done. i mean, the acreage alone, 19,000. more than 19,000 acres.

it's wild. it's not just here in the palisades, though. if you look at altadena which is about an hour east, that's how big l.a. is, it's so big, i read you could fit delaware and rhode island into it. so if you drive all the way out there, you'll find altadena looks like this. the cliches are cliches for a reas d is is where they fit. it looks like a bomb was dropped, a very powerful bomb was dropped. cataclysmic even. just looking at the sun over the -- not even the sun, the fires on the ridge line as we were coming in on the plane, late last night, it looked like the sun crashed into the mountain. and started bleeding all over the mountains. it truly looked apocalyptic. the really amazing news right now, and we're going to hope this holds is that only six people have lost their lives. they just updated that number. a sixth person, they found somebody here in the palisades. another from the palisades fire that was in malibu. the four others are from the

eaton fire. six people in blazes like this that were burning so hot and moving so fast, would be absolutely unbelievable, chris. so unbelievable that officials don't think they are believable. they're worried they'll find more. usually in situations like this and you'll remember from the hawaii fires, really any natural disaster, you have missing person reports, and we haven't gotten a lot of reporting about missing families or missing friends. which does suggest that maybe, maybe people were able to get out in time. i mean, it was a quick evacuation. it was frenetic, chaotic. people left with nothing. but they were able to get out. and they were able to save their own lives. i'm staying at a hotel in santa monica, just over, the next town over, and the hotel is filled with family. every hotel is filled with families looking to find out what they're going to do next. i have to say, i have never seen

anything like this. once people are going to be able to get back in here, i mean, it's going to be -- the scale of the emotional turmoil, you're going to see the bomb of turmoil amongst all the people, it's -- this is something that's going to last for months, years. it's really bad. >> you know, i am remembering a piece i think "the new york times" did about folks that were living in basically kind of like tent tarp city in a parking lot. i think it might even be in texas. a bunch of them were refugees from the camp fire back in 2018 who had been, you know, working class folks who just sort of been knocked down and couldn't get back up. and obviously, that neighborhood is different socioeconomically, but this is a turning point in people's lives. >> can i add something on that? i know palisades, people are going to talk about what a wealthy place this is, all the celebrities that lost their homes. people who do have means. a lot of people have second homes. but not everybody. this is a town of 20 something

thousand people. i grew up in many parts of this area. we moved around a lot, but the alphabet streets, those are families that have been here for decades and generations. these aren't super rich folks. and what you worry about is that are they going to have fire insurance? if they do have fire insurance, is insurance going to pay? are they going to have money to rebuild or be forced to sell their lot to some big developer or some wealthy individual. and will the landscape of this town turn into something completely different? are you just going to have little mini mansions all along this area instead of the small single family homes that made up the identity. i want to add one more thing. rick caruso who ran for mayor against karen bass, lost, he redeveloped the village, changed it a lot. put in some really nice shops. there's an ehrwon down there. that's one of the only places that is still left. he fired, i believe, a private fire crew to keep it intact.

he says that they also helped keep some of the surrounding homes. but it is a weird thing to see, chris, that this entire community is gone, the historic buildings even across the street gone. but the new shopping center is fine. >> strange. katy tur, thank you very much. i really appreciate it. stay safe. >> thanks. rumors, lies, and hoaxes have always spread during times of disaster. it's a phenomenon probably as old as humanity itself. even the best of circumstances, a crisis like this unprecedented los angeles wildfire would be a vector for a lot of bad information. our polluted information environment is creating an absolute blow torch of lies, being spread by the richest man in the world on the platform he owns to spread them, and the incoming president of the united states. for example, there's the false claim that the city of los angeles is out of water. donald trump himself posted a number of attacks against

california's democratic governor, gavin newsom because this is what he does when there's a disaster. he looks to blame with lies, including saying he refused to sign the water restoration program before him. as newsom's office notes, there is no such document as the water restoration declaration. it's pure fiction. one local outlet also pointed out since newsom has been in office, there has not been legislation that would do what trump is describing. trump made it up. elon musk and others boosted the similar claim that l.a. is out of water to fight fires. you see this everywhere, that karen bass is to blame with musk attacking bad governance at the state and local level that resulted in a shortage of water. it's false. so what is true is that firefighters have been having trouble accessing water from hydrants, pulling it. there's a simple explanation for that. as the head of the city's water department told nbc, we're fighting a wildfire with urban water systems which is really

challenging. los angeles has an urban water system designed first and foremost to get water to homes and businesses. it is not designed to fight massive wildfires in a whole bunch of places at once. bbc also clarified firefighting crews were not kwout water but rather faced issues with water fresh. there's water, there's not water pressure. the true -- that's true for a number of reasons including high altitude, droughts exacerbated by climate change, unprecedented demand for water to put out the blazes, the fact that supply lines that feed fire hydrants are being disructed by the wildfires themself. none of that is the false necessarily the mayor or the governor. but the whole point here is to like create a story in which they're the bad guys which is not to say they're doing everything perfectly. there's not a real fact here this is based on. and the misinformation doesn't end there. musk also claimed without any basis the lafd prioritized dei

over saving lives and homes which is a gross statement, frankly. the core of the gross attack appears to be that los angeles' fire chief is both the first female and first lgbtq fire chief in l.a.'s history. and because of that, to people like elon musk, she must therefore be unqualified and therefore responsible for the fire. now to be clear, crowley has served in the lafd for decades, she worked her way up from firefighter to fire chief. she received special commendation in 2020 for saving nine homes in the woolsey fire, along with her wife, who also spent decades in the los angeles fire department. it should go without saying, her personal identity has nothing to do with department preparedness to combat wildfires. musk wasn't done with the gross attacks though. he also signed off on this post from conspiracy theorist alex jones claiming the los angeles fires are part of a larger globalist plot to wage economic warfare and deindustrialize the

united states before triggering a total collapse, to which musk replied true. how do i say this? the los angeles fires are not part of an intentional plot to deindustrialize the united states. this is the exact same level of nonsense as marjorie taylor greene saying that some rothchild space laser started the camp fire in 2018. remember? now, this particular alex jones theory may have proven too much for musk who deleted his response, but alex jones, who lied about sandy hook being staged, got the message loud and clear. >> elon musk responded to a post from the first half hour of my show today, where i laid out the basic evidence that the democratic party with their policies are 100% responsible, consciously, for the historic fire destroyed much of los angeles in the last 48 hours.

>> consciously. consciously. the absolute barrage of garbage, of filth, of sewage just being just pumped into the brains of people is unbelievable. it starts to feel like a kind of collective informational suicide we're all committing. it does not help when the guy who owns the so-called digital town square is tweeting about globalist plots and blaming wokeness for fire. matt is a previous reporter for the los angeles times. he's been writing about misinformation including wildlife misinformation, and he joins me now. matt, you know los angeles well. you're a local reporter there. you basically wrote this piece and said, look, this is the first time i have experienced an emergency as a civilian. i can't tap my colleague on the shoulder, i can't go into the office. you're like, it's a disaster. tell me. >> that's right, chris. i spent many years as a reporter at the los angeles times.

many of them on the national desk writing about disasters across the country. you know, we all know that the information environment out there is awful. it's increasingly filled with conspiracy theories, but you know, the kind of work that traditional legacy journalists are doing, you know, a lot of times you're talking to people in a community that's directly affected by a disaster. these are people who need to know whether they have to evacuate or not. and so in these situations, providing accurate information to people is absolutely vital. but this time and this disaster, i'm thankfully safe. i live in a more urban part of the city away from the hills where the fires are, but i needed information about where the fires were, what the risk was, you know, what kind of planning i should be doing just as a regular civilian about whether to get out. and i had a realization surveying the landscape of trying to consume information through my phone. i don't have a tv or a radio in my house. i'm just trying to do it via

devices which is our media future. and it was a disaster. our social platforms don't prioritize accurate information. a lot of our local news, local newsrooms have been depleted by layoffs because they haven't been able to survive into the internet era. it was extremely hard to just get a basic understanding of what was going on. i would pop over to tiktok hoping to see something and seeing a bunch of joke videos. i did not get the sense that tiktok the app cared whether i as an angelino lived or died. to me it points to this broader crisis we have in our ecosystem where on one end the local news outlets that people use to rely upon critically for coverage of these types of events which is still being done by many excellent journalists at the local newspapers and local broadcast stations, but there's just a lot fewer of them now, and more and more of our information consumption on the consumer side is coming through these platforms where some of the owners are conspiracy

theorists. their dedication is not to the facts. their dedication is to scoring political points and finding some other advantage to themselves. and it's just an unholy alchemy of factors that is going to prevent people from getting information about what they need to know. and even just an hour ago, a lot of people in los angeles, we got misinformation from our own leaders in los angeles. they sent out an erroneous evacuation warning to a vast area of the city that wasn't going to evacuate. and so that's the sort -- like mistakes happen, officials make mistakes in disasters but that's why you need vibrant local news outlets to counteract situations like that. >> i saw a sort of darkly comedic post by someone today who was like, i'm trying to find out if my family and i need to evacuate. and i go to twitter and it's like, here's 12 charlie kirk videos. you say in the old days, and again, to be clear, i think local journalists in l.a. are doing an amazing job.

local television, reporters in print. in the old days the news about a big fire was going to be handed to you. if it was on a handful of channels or the front page of the paper, today, whether you get fire news is something you have to proactively seek and weed out for. it's a you problem that tiktok will happily serve out joke videos until the moment of your death. i was struck by also how quickly what the platforms incentivize, which is jokes and dunking and conspiracy theories and frankly like flagrantly racist trash about what the race of the leadership team of the l.a. fire department is. it selects for that because that's what gets clicks. and engagement and attention. it doesn't select for like here are the zones, here's what you can do. here's the reality of the fire budget. >> yeah, and you need to have

existing local reporting capacity to be able to deliver that kind of information to people on a timely basis. you know, the los angeles times, which is owned by patrick, who himself has been wading into quite questionable political waters on this, is now probably at its smallest size under his ownership of any owner over the last century probably in los angeles. and that's the dominant newspaper here. you need to have journalists in place who are prepared to cover events like this and to cover the stories as they unfold very unpredict aeblt. we don't have that anymore. to me, this is part of a broader phenomenon with information, including life-saving information, a shifting of the risk and a shifting of responsibilities in many ways which is that it's really going to be your fault if you don't know that the fire is coming, whereas in the old days when we were all on the same tv stations, reading the same newspapers, it was unavoidable. matt pierce, stay safe there. thank you for your work. appreciate it. >> thanks, chris.

still to come, jimmy carter is laid to rest with all five living presidents in attend bs at his state funeral. that's next. that's next. erything more fun. and you can never have enough! toodaloo. if you're frustrated with occasional bloating or gas, your body's giving you signs. it's time to try align. align probiotic was specifically designed by gastroenterologists to help relieve your occasional bloating and gas. when you feel the signs, it's time to try align.

feeling backed up and bloated? good thing metamucil fiber plus probiotics gummies work harder for your digestive system. with fiber to help promote gut health. and probiotics to help relieve occasional bloating. so you can feel your best. metamucil fiber plus probiotics gummies.

total beets, america's best selling beets brand, is available at walmart. total beets blood pressure support soft chews contain a key ingredient clinically shown to deliver two times better blood pressure support. take control of your health. head to walmart and get total beets blood pressure support soft chews today. (fisher investments) at fisher investments head to walmart and get we may look like other money managers, but we're different. (other money manager) how so? (fisher investments) we're a fiduciary, obligated to act in our client'' best interest. (fisher investments) so we don't sell any commission-based products. (other money manager) then how do you make money? (fisher investments) we have a simple management fee, structured so we do better when our clients do better.

(other money manager) your clients really come first then, huh? fisher investments: yes. we make them a top priority, by getting to know their finances, family, health, lifestyle and more. (other money manager) wow, maybe we are different. (fisher investments) at fisher investments, we're clearly different. it ain't my dad's razor, dad. ay watch it! it's from gillettelabs. this green bar releases trapped hairs from my face... gamechanga! ...while the flexdisc contours to it. so the five blades can get virtually every hair in one stroke. for the ultimate gillette shaving experience. the best a man can get is gillettelabs. >> essentially, he eradicated a disease with love and respect. he waged peace with love and respect. he led this nation with love and respect. to me, this life was a love

story from the moment that he woke up until he laid his head. >> today, former president jimmy carter was laid to rest. plains, georgia, following the state funeral at the national cathedral in washington. all five living presidents attended the service. president biden delivers the eulogy. bill clinton, george w. bush, barack obama, and of course, donald trump all in attendance. i'm joined by jonathan alter, award winning documentarian, beth selling author of the documentary, his very best life, jimmy carter. that was his grandson, jason carter, who gave that eulogy, which i thought was just incredible and transfixing and a beautiful remembrance of his grandfather. >> yeah, jason carter is the chair of the board of the carter center. he will, i think, will be governor of georgia some day. he lost narrowly in 2014.

and what his success and his drive and his ability to carry on his grandfather's mission indicates is that there is hope with this younger generation. and i felt this when i went to the rotunda last night and people were waiting for five hours to see jimmy carter lying in state. many of them young, born after his presidency. but inspired by his example. and so we can do better and we can be better. and that was the message out of his very moving and evocative funeral, and i think an inspiring message as we try to deal with this very rocky road ahead. >> yeah, it is always strange and sometimes awkward and kind of interesting in a weird way when you have all the presidents together. you know, donald trump was sitting next to barack obama.

there's a moment where he said something obama cracked up at, whether genuiny or out of politeness, we don't know. it is hard to hear the tributes to the fundamental character traits of jimmy carter. >> yeah. >> in the room with donald trump, who genuinely, i think, in many respects has lived his life in the opposite fashion. i mean, truly. i don't even think that would be controversial to him, in fact. it was just hard not -- for that context not to suffuse the viewing of it, i found. >> carter was the untrump. and trump was the -- is the uncarter. and i think president biden went right at that. he used that word character three times. then he also talked about abuse of power. that was what trump was impeached over. something else that joe biden said though really stuck with me, that carter doesn't have to be part of what he called a

bygone era. we can be inspired by his example to light our way back to a better politics. we're obviously not going to get there in the short term, but when you have these sorts of moments, these rituals in our civic religion, you get the sense that democracy is dented but it's not dead yet. >> i -- when you talk about people coming to the rotunda and reading remembrances and learning more about his life and his presidency and his work after the presidency, it's just so striking to me, you know, the minute-by-minute news cycle can be all consuming and someone who is up at the moment is up forever and someone who is down at the moment is down forever. just the sort of ups and downs of this man's life and the fact that like when he left office in '81, it was like, what a loser. what a failure.

just this sort of consensus view that this guy had botched the job and who cares about this dude, and the legacy he leaves this many years later and how long and productive of a life he lives and how fleeting those judgments are from day to day and moment to moment. >> i mean, what's happening with jimmy carter is what happened with harry truman. he was very, very unpopular when he left office in 1953. but over time, about 40 years later, historians came around and they started to understand that there was much more to truman than people in his time thought. and so we also have to distinguish between the way we as journalists look at these presidents which is how are they doing politically? are they up or down, as you say? how good a communicator are they? obviously, on that score, carter was a failure. and reagan was the great

communicator. historians have a different mission. we need to look at presidents by how they touched and changed the country and the world. and in that sense, jimmy carter was a visionary leader for a lot of the reasons on the environment and foreign policy that are getting a lot of good discussion this week. and then he continued his work because he believed that public service was way beyond serving in government. he was only in government for 12 years out of 100. he believed you could make a big contribution in your own community. n your own community. >> jonathan alter, thank you for making time for us on a very busy day for you. appreciate it. that is "all pron" on this thursday night. alex wagner starts now. good evening, alex. i have to say this, in the spirit of thmy deceased father, part of the reason there was so asmuch consternation around carr is because his