Transcripts For MSNBCW Deadline White House 20171101 : vimar

MSNBCW Deadline White House November 1, 2017

Possible. We need quick justice, and we need strong justice. Much quicker and much stronger than we have right now because what we have right now is a joke, and its a laughing stock. Never one to allow a National Tragedy to trim his sails, the president started his day by issuing insults on twitter wrighting, the terrorists came into our country through whats called the diversity visa lottery program. I want merit based. The new york senator who represents the state in which eight people lost their lives and 12 more were injured just a little over 24 hours ago responded from the senate floor this morning. Now, mr. President , ive seen the tweets from president trump. After september 11th, the first thing that president bush did was invite senator clinton and me to the white house. He pledged to do whatever was in his power to help our city. President trump, where is your leadership . The contrast between president bushs actions after 9 11 and president trumps actions this morning could not be starker. Before we dig into all of this with our reporters and guests, lets get the latest on the terror investigation from Pete Williams. What are we learning at this hour about the driver of that car and the terror investigation thats under way . Number one, last night, they were not responsive to questions from authorities. He seemed smug about the fact he carried out the attack. Today authorities have gone back to the hospital to question him and were told he is being more responsive to their questions and is starting to answer questions. We dont know the substance of what hes saying, and we probably wont know that for a while, but there is some progress, were told, being made by interrogating him which is obviously one of the lines of inquiry that theyre engaged in. Secondly, in addition to the note 24 hours ago, we were looking at the mere fact he had carried out an attack or was accused of carrying out an attack that seemed right out of the isis playbook and came out of the car yelling allahu akbar. So the assumption was it must be a terror attack. Now we have Additional Information about it. There was a note found, the truck that said isis will live forever and authorities have told us that he was looking in recent weeks at isis online propaganda, and some of his friends, as many as two or three years ago, he was starting to express some sympathy for some people who are arrested for terror related offenses saying maybe theyre not guilty, showing some sympathy for terrorist goals and aspirations. So it does seem like he is someone who is a homegrown terrorist, someone who was selfradicalized. No indication, they say, that he was in touch with terrorists overseas and no indication so far, they say, and this is obviously always a big question in these things, that he had any help or encouragement or any foreknowledge from friends he was going to do this. And one of the things ive seen conflicting reports about are whether or not he was on the radar of Law Enforcement. Can you explain some of the discrepancies in some of the reports that were seeing today . So what does on the radar mean . In fbi speak it means youre in the fbi Guardian Computer system as someone suspected of terror aspirations or terror connections. He was not in that system. So as far as the fbi is concerned and the new york intelligence folks are concerned, he was not on the radar. However, he was investigated. He was questioned, i should say, two years ago by a federal agent but not because he was suspected of terrorism. Its because he knew somebody who had connections to two people who were suspected of terrorism connections. So they simply wanted to know what he knew about those other people. There was never a suggestion at the time that he was a potential terrorist. They just wanted to talk to him in essence as a witness. What do you know about these guys were interested in . Pete, i wonder, as a Longtime Justice Department correspondent, what do you make of the president the morning after, less than 24 hours after an attack calling the Justice System a laughing stock and a joke. I wonder if you heard any reaction from any of your sources in the Justice Department or in Law Enforcement circles to that description of the american Justice System that he oversees. The people ive been talking to basically are sort of awfully busy with this case and havent kind of gone on offline if you will, to step back and respond. In terms of the president s and i gather this was something that came up in the briefing as well, the suggestion that saipov could be treated as an enemy combatant and taken out of the civilian Justice System, that seems to be a nonstarter. I can tell you the authorities in new york and the federal and local authorities are moving smartly ahead to file criminal charges. They could come this evening. They could come at the latest tomorrow. So theyre moving ahead with it. Theres a legal question about whether the president has the authority under the authorization for the use of military force after the 9 11 attacks to declare someone in the u. S. Who says im with isis enemy combatant. But finally, in terms of the record of the civilian courts, id simply say that there is a much better record in the civilian courts of convicting people and sentencing them to severe punishments or even death than there is in the military Justice System in Guantanamo Bay which has yet to reach that conclusion for anybody. The Southern District of new york is where the First World Trade Center bomber was prosecuted, and they have a long record of experience in prosecuting terror cases in the Southern District which i assume would be where they would prosecute this case. Is that right . Would have to be. Federal law says you could prosecute it in the district where the offense occurred. In terms of other civilian courts, the Boston Marathon bomb with the courts there. The underwear bomber, faisal shahzad, the New York Times would be times square bomber times square, not New York Times bomber. Pete williams, thank you so much. We appreciate starting our show off with you on what is a tragic, obviously, event here in new york city. Thank you. Joining us now, peter baker, chief white house correspondent, jeremy bash and juan zarate who was Deputy National security adviser for combating terrorism under president george w. Bush. Juan, let me start with you. And let me ask you the same question i just asked Pete Williams. Its a long way from standing on the rubble at ground zero and saying, i hear you and pretty soon the world will hear you and take to twitter and attack the home state senator, to call the american Justice System a laughing stock and a joke. And to announce really less than, i think, 18 hours after the attack that all democrats are obstructists. What say you . Yeah, i think its problematic. I think its pretty obvious you want the commander in chief at a time of crisis like this when a terror attack has happened on our soil to be a voice of unity. Its a voice of unity thats important not just for the National Psyche and for political harmony but also to demonstrate to terrorists who might want to use these kind of attacks to tear our country apart, to drive wedges among social divisions or political divisions to demonstrate, we cannot be manipulated by you. Were going to have a National Unified front in response. And so you dont want to see that. It also clouds some of the serious questions and issues you have to look at in the wake of a serious case like this. Obviously, deal with the victims and families and having to end to whats happened in new york itself, questions about the intelligence around this case, the way Law Enforcement handled it. We dont know yet all the details. Whether or not there are networks attached to this individual. I think were perhaps jumping to too many conclusions about this being a lone wolf. And also the question of immigration which is a serious question. And so all of that gets muddled because we have some sloppy messaging and a message thats not about National Unity and protecting the country long term. How dangerous for a president to use the hours after a terror attack to go after the home state senator, to call the american Justice System a laughing stock and a joke instead of using those hours to maybe, i dont know, take the motorcade to the embassy and sign a book offering condolences to the country that lost five of its citizens in a terror attack or maybe convene a National Security Council Meeting and talk about how to combat the spread of terrorist content on the internet or, i dont know, pick up the phone and call the governor. We understand this afternoon, the 3 00 hour that he had done that but hadnt done that this morning. I dont know how to differentiate the obliteration of norms that are simply a disgrace and the obliteration of norms that make us less safe. How would you put this today, his response to a terror attack . Its vitally important that the president of the United States, our commander in chief comport himself in a manner that can bring the country together, make sure our government has effective responses to terrorism and that can be an example for the world so when other World Leaders and other citizens look at us and say, how does america respond to crisis, how does america respond when its under attack, we can be an example for the world. Here i think instead we have partisan comments, factually inaccurate comments about senator schumer coming out of the white house. I think youre right. The tone should be a lot more somber, a lot more about the heartbreak of the event and also the bravery of the First Response and the resolve to ensure that events like this cannot and will not happen again. I also think, like juan does, that the immigration issues are very significant, very serious and if we want to have a sober debate about it, we ought to. But lets let the victims of the attack be reunited with their loved ones. Lets let the First Responders on the scene get a little bit of a break. Lets take a National Deep breath and figure out the right response going forward. Peter baker, lets listen to how Sarah Huckabee sanders responded from the podium after a National Tragedy. Look, this is an unspeakable tragedy. Today is a day for consoling of survivors and mourning those we lost. Our thoughts and prayers are certainly with all of those individuals. This is theres a time and place for a political debate. But now is the time to unite as a country. Theres currently an open and ongoing Law Enforcement investigation. A motive is yet to be determined, and it would be premature for us to discuss policy when we dont fully know all the facts or what took place last night. Peter baker, this is a twopart question. Lets watch the other Sarah Huckabee sanders responding the day after a grave National Tragedy. Whats the difference now . I said it wasnt appropriate to politicize the conversation, which i dont believe we are. Were talking about protecting american lives, and there are things that this president has consistently and repeatedly talked about, advocated for, pushed for, introduced executive orders for, supported legislation for time and time again since long before he was even president of the United States. That support this position. Its not a new position. Peter baker, so when the president wants to exploit a National Tragedy to push his immigration policies, then, less than 24 hours later, is certainly time enough to have consoled the victims. But when its a policy debate, the white house doesnt want to have, as we saw in the Sarah Huckabee sanders clip we played first, the time should be spent consoling the victims. Can you just speak to the blatant, flagrant, hypocrisy of the white house . She struggled to reconcile those two very different approaches and they are just a month apart. This is not something said months and months and months ago. This was literally four weeks ago after another terrible National Tragedy. She didnt say they shouldnt politicize it. She says we couldnt even have a policy debate. Certainly a discussion about immigration policy is, in fact, a policy debate. That may be perfectly appropriate. Thats what people a month ago were saying. Its appropriate to have a policy debate. She said it wasnt. Today shes saying it is because the president has had these positions on policies for a long time. Fair enough. But i am pretty sure the people for gun control and wanted to talk about that a month ago have had those positions for an awful long time. It wasnt just that he was advocating changes in policy. He was attacking democratic opponents in a visceral way. And in a way that basically made him out to be soft on immigration, soft on National Security. If thats not a political debate, its hard to imagine what is. Juan, let me bring you back into this and just ask you to speak to this white house and how as they get ready to embark on another foreign trip. Hes had fixed forrays. He now has another debate at home about his comportment in office. About what bob corker has questioned his stability and competency for the office he holds. Others about how he debases the office. Is he heading off on another foreign trip on another weak spot two days after the indictments of three former Campaign Aides and after a response that invited rebukes from democrats and republicans all day today . And we just saw his White House Press secretary engaged in, i dont know how to describe it other than flagrant, blatant hypocrisy. Yeah, its a fair assessment. The frustration i have is the lost opportunities, right . Theres a lost opportunity here to unify the country. A lost opportunity to reach out to those affected. The argentine government, belgian government. Theres a lost opportunity to take in the sympathy and wellwishes from our allies around the world given this event and then to embark on a serious trip to asia with respect to north korea. What gets lost on all of this is the substance. And this is what i worry about. There is so much important substance in terms of policy that we have to worry about, and we get caught in these debates about style and about politics and formulas as to how the president is communicating. Hes losing these opportunities to actually drive the debate. What comes next with respect to isis . Weve taken away raqqah and mosul, but the threat is still present. What happens next . Weve got the threat of north korea. And our relationship with china and our posture in asia. Thats critical to our future. Where are we were not talking about any of that. How do we deal with the homegrown radicalization problem . The new Information Warfare campaigns were having to deal with on facebook and twitter and russia and groups like isis and al qaeda. None of that gets discussed because we get caught in this political rigamarole around tonality and the way the president addresses these issues. And its really a lost opportunity. Not just for the president but for the country. And how frustrated must his National Security team be that last week was lost to an eightday debate with a gold star widow. This week, as you said, the opportunity that you have in the face of a tragedy. Is it much . Its pretty much simply a horrific tragedy. Eight families lost everything yesterday. 12 others are badly injured. So its not just at its befrkbest, its an opportunity. But that he fails to console or doesnt try to comfort the country or have a serious policy discussion. How sort of demoralizing is that for National Security team trying to get some momentum behind this trip or as you said serious issues like being on the brink of war with north korea are at stake. I think its really frustrating for the National Security team in part because they want the president to show empathy. They want him to be the unifier. They need him to have that strength both internally and externally. The power of the presidency is very real and so the ability to effect yut policy on hard issues relies on the president s credibility and viability, especially abroad. And then they worry about the fact that the policy issues that theyre working on very hard, some of which, and nicole, you and i have talked about, are going the right direction. The afghan policy review was well done, i think. How we dealt with the syrian use of chemical weapons was important. All of that gets lost, and i think the professionals really do get a bit demoralized by the fact those issues arent the subject of discussion and, instoed stead, we get ought in the debates were having now. Well stated. Juan zarate, thank you for starting us off. As the president lashes out at Chuck Schumer over the manhattan terror attack, lawmakers on both sides of the aisle are slamming his response. But is it making matters worse . Also ahead bashing mueller. Why steve bannon is still bending Donald Trumps ear about the wisd

© 2025 Vimarsana