reliable conservative publications like the washington times weren t buying it. look at this. this made be laugh out loud. look at their headline. can we put it up? do we have it? come on. their headline today, there it is. trump calls grassley about ethanol ahead of son s meeting with the judiciary committee. even the washington times gets the importance of that call today. all right. watch this space. watch this space right here literally? watch me? by which i mean that does it for us tonight. we ll see you again tomorrow. now it s time for the last word with lawrence o donnell. good evening, lawrence. sorry to be coming to you a little bit early. good evening, rachel. it s 9:59 and 29 seconds, and so i m shocked to be talking to you so soon. i m very sorry. i didn t know it was coming either. but ready for it. i don t have all of the white house logs for all presidents in
referenced, about the news he broke in politico tonight, that eric schneiderman and bob mueller is working together. there s also news from the financial times that the mysterious russian fixer who turned up at that trump tower meeting last june, that has such an intriguing background in hacking attacks where documents are stolen from people s computer servers and then used for good political reasons, he apparently has been called before robert mueller s grand jury to give several hours worth of testimony. that happened on august 11th. we re just learning about it today from ft. so lots going on. but there s something else that i want to stick a flag in regarding the money part of this, the banks. the bank that was purportedly going to finance trump tower moscow is vtb, 60.9% owned by
honest, i was surprised as you were that they didn t provide it. what do they have to lose at this point. they don t look good already because of the situation that they have. and it s scary to be thinking about waiting on this thing to explode. putting aside the damage that may or may not occur because of a fire or explosion, what s your sense about how damaging it may be just to have this plant be so damaged by what s about to happen? how toxic is this stuff? what type of other facilities are around it? are we looking at something that s going to be an environmental, or sort of pollution crisis even after whatever happens with the initial fire or explosion? right. actually, just a bit more than two miles down the road from the arkema facility, there s another chemical plant called kmco, they re also on our high potential for harmless. that s all based off of analysis we did with texas a&m
university. it s based off of the chemicals that they had, how much of it they had, and the number of people that were located within a two-mile radius of the facility. so that s why we determined that plant that arkema and this other plant, kmco, why they re considered a high potential for harm facility. i am kind of worried. their worst case scenario that they listed with the epa involved two other chemicals. if i remember correctly, sorry, i m blanking right now essentially, two other chemicals that weren t organic peroxides. i assume if a fire/explosion happens, the tanks might rupture. they listed with the epa, literally, it lists out the worst case scenario was considering perfect meteorological conditions. we re far past the perfect meteorological conditions at this point.
with the arkema ceo about whether or not he would release the inventory essentially of what chemicals were kept on site now, since it s no longer what people have public access to. i found it remarkable he saw no need to do that. did you ask that, because you believe there might be information in that inventory which would help make decision that is would preserve human health and life here, that would help make decisions about the appropriate radius for the evacuation, that it might help prepare for the type of explosion or chemical reaction we would be expecting here? honestly, what i was doing when i was asking that question was trying to figure out if we could get an updated form. i have a tier two for 2015 for them when we did the chemical breakdown project. but when we sent out letters to that facility, because that facility was listed as one of the potential for harm areas in houston at the time, they said they reduced the organic