tv MSNBC Live With Craig Melvin MSNBC April 6, 2018 10:00am-11:00am PDT
get out there and see them if you're here. craig, come on down. >> i'm missing the cherry blossoms. have a great weekend. >> good afternoon. craig melvin here at msnbc headquarters in new york city. mixed messages. conflicting thoughts inside the administration played out publicly. this time on trade. to some, it seems we're on the verge of a trade war with china but president trump's new top economic adviser says we may not actually implement those tariffs at all. and totally under siege. the president defending his epa secretary for the second day in a row even as reports surface that his chief of staff says it's time for scott pruitt to go. so what message is the president sending about corruption and public service? and breaking his silence. 84 days after the news broke about mr. trump's lawyer paying for porn star silence, the president has weighed in but his comments could complicate his own legal battle. we'll get to those stories in just a moment. let's start with two major
developments out of the white house on this afternoon. president trump raising the stakes of what could become a trade war with china. the white house also imposing some strong new sanctions on russia. president trump looking to impose an additional $100 billion in tariffs against china. this comes just days after china announced $50 billion in tariffs on a number of key u.s. exports. the head of the president's economic counsel tried to tamp down all the talk of a trade r war. >> we're not running a trade war. if you read this thing, you'll see, this is just a proposed idea which will be vetted by ustr and open for public comment. nothing has happened. nothing has been executed. i read about -- there's no there, there yet, but there will be. >> the trump administration also this morning imposing sweeping new sanctions against members of vladimir putin's inner circle.
nbc's geoff is at the white house for us. a lot of news from 1600 pennsylvania avenue. so let's -- we'll get to tariff stuff in just a minute. i want to start with this "wall street journal" report that just dropped a few moments ago. apparently, according to the journal, chief of staff john kelly says it is now time for scott pruitt to go. >> yeah, and we know that john kelly a few weeks ago called together a group of misbehaving cabinet subjects, craig, and urged them to get their act together to be more careful in terms of their spending and management of their respective departments and agencies. scott pruitt is a different case in this way. we know the president, we're told the president likes him personally. scott pruitt is seen as being one of the most effective members of the trump cabinet in terms of executing the trump agenda. he's overseen the rollback of a host of obama-era environmental regulations and policies. he also has the support of lots of key conservatives and
conservative media. that's one reason why it appears scott pruitt has a bit of a longer leash than have other cabinet members who were sent away under similar circumstances. >> let's talk tariffs here for a moment. again, we just heard from larry kudlow insisting none of this has happened. may not happen at all. but do we know what prompted this announcement that there would be perhaps another $100 billion? >> white house officials say the president's actions are a response to years of unfair trade practices by china that they say have gone addressed. that's what accounts for this escalating rhetoric. the president ordering his administration to at least consider tariffs on an additional $100 billion in chinese goods. china, meanwhile, says it will counter any effort they see as u.s. protectionism. they say they'll counter that at any cost. but the president this morning said in a radio interview that tariffs targeting china could cause some pain in the u.s. economy but he says the country
is going to emerge stronger as a result. but to your point and some of the video we saw earlier from larry kudlow, the president and his advisers don't appear to be on the same page, at least in terms of tone. this might be a good cop/bad cop strategy. but administration officials have spent the past two days trying to tamp down fears of a trade war. larry kudlow said this morning that the u.s. could still hammer out a deal with beijing, so it's certainly an effort to calm the marketed roiled by all of this. >> the time with regard to the tariff announcement. what about this announcement regarding sanctions on russia? >> well, senior administration officials tell us the sanctions aren't aimed at punishing russia for any particular event but is instead a broader effort aimed at the totality of russia's destabilizing actions around the world. russia's ongoing occupation of crimea. its support of bashar assad.
its cyberhacking, efforts to interfere in democracies. so to date the trump administration has issued russia related sanctions against nearly 140 russia related individuals and entities. and we should point out that these sanctions, they say, have been carefully coordinated with u.s. allies, particularly those in europe, craig. >> geoff bennett at the white house, thank you. let me bring in ben white. he's the chief economic correspondent for politico. i want to play a snippet of president trump from an interview program just a few hours ago. take a listen. >> we've already lost a trade war. we don't have a trade war. we've lost a trade war. i'm not saying there won't be a little pain but the market has gone up 40%, 42%, so we might lose a little bit of it. but we'll have a much stronger country when we're finished. >> is the president right, ben? >> no. he's not right. we, obviously, have not lost any kind of a trade war with china.
do they abuse certain practices in intelectual property and technology transfers? sure. but we benefit enormously from low-cost products that we import from china and our manufacturers and our agricultural companies and farmers love the export to china. he sees it, if we have a trade deficit with china, we're losing. no serious economist believes that. he's not right about losing the trade war and he's not right about there just being some short-term pain. he's injected enormous amounts of volatility in the stock market for no apparent good reason and no end game here. i hear him talk about we'll wind up much stronger and better. i don't hear anyone saying what they expect them to do. how you win on this. i'm not even aware of any ongoing talks with the chinese. frankly this makes absolutely no sense at all. >> do you get the sense perhaps that this is just perhaps maybe more of what this president does from time to time, bluster, that
at the end of the day, these tariffs won't come to fruition? it's all just talk? >> it might be. that raises the question of why bother with the talk and make everybody nervous and markets freak out and people who sell soybeans and hogs and pork to china worry about what their future is going to be. so i don't know what the purpose of it would be. obviously, trump thinks that by realitying this saber and then having larry kudlow come out and talk things down a little bit, he'll scare the chinese and convince them they need to come through with some kind of concessions. i don't think the chinese are going to do that. they have a zillion ways to fight back against us beyond just tariffs. they can start selling their treasuries. they hold a ton of our debt. they can stop allowing tourism. pull people out of the u.s., out of universities and devalue their own currency. endless number of weapons to hit us with. we lose on consumer prices and then wind up losing on our
export numbers. you find the big win here. i don't know what it is. >> ben white, always good to have your perspective. >> let me bring in natasha bertrand, staff writer for the atlantic. also an msnbc contributor. and here with me in new york city, carol lee, nbc news national political reporter. let's turn back to the sanctions now. the new russian sanctions include seven russian oligarchs, 12 companies they own or control. 17 senior russian officials, estate-owned weapons trading company and the russian financial corporation bank. why these institutions? why these people? >> well, it sends a really strong message to russia. a much stronger one than the expulsion of the 60 diplomats. now it's really actually -- it's interesting to look at who was chosen to be under these sanctions. experts that i've spoken to have said it's really a who's who in terms of high-level russian officials. really prominent olgarks and, of
course, the companies they control. but it's also interesting to look at who wasn't sanctioned. you didn't have prominent figures connected to, for example, alpha group listed on the sanctions list which a number of experts were surprised by and you had dereposkov. and another that attended trump's inauguration. his u.s. associates gave millions to trump's administration fund. in many ways this list was surprising. that doesn't make it any less effective, but it was an interesting look at how the state department or how the treasury is dealing with these new round of sanctions on russia. >> carol, any sense of why the administration chose to act now? >> well, if administration officials say this is -- this has been some time in the making. they've been pulling together this list for weeks if not months, and now they're saying they're doing this because of a number of different things.
it's sort of a cumulative response to whether it's the invasion of ukraine to meddling in the election. but in the phone call that senior administration officials did with reporters in advance of this, they really stressed that it's -- that russia's continued intervention in western democracies was a big reason for taking these steps. and frankly, these are -- the people in here on this list, there are some that are quite notable. oleg dereposkov. alexander torshin, someone who tried to set up -- approach the trump campaign about a meeting between the trump and putin who don junior met with briefly at a national rifle association gathering during the campaign. and there also seem to be trying to target very specifically russian oligarchs and while not necessarily hindering the
econo economy. it's an interesting approach and frankly one of the toughest they've taken since president trump came into office. >> natasha, do we expect any sort of retaliation from russia? >> it's an interesting question. as of right now, the russians are -- they're really angry about this move that the u.s. took. it's not something that they can respond to semitrically like they could with the expulsion of the diplomats. we saw a tit-for-tat in that and now we don't know what they're going to do in response. but it is a very significant move that the trump administration took, and it's one that, you know, of course, experts are always saying that it could be made even stronger if the president himself came out and actually put his own face to the statement. put his own face to the words that he issued this morning when he was -- when he came out and blessed the sanksss essentially by putting his name on the
statement. so this is definitely a positive move. this is a step in the right direction. but whether or not trump actually is willing to be the face of this is another question entirely. >> carol, that goes to an article you wrote a few days ago where you talked about or wrote about the president's desire not to have his aides speak publicly about russia sanctions or any of the consequences that the country might face. oligarchs, company, what have you. do you see that position changing? and what's behind it? >> i don't think we have seen it changing. what's behind it if you talk to people inside the white house, they say the president is conflicted. he wants to still have this better relationship with russia in part as one official told us just to prove that he can. and he also doesn't want to be seen as kind of appeasing his critics who say he needs to talk more tougher on russia. and so he doesn't want his aides sometimes to talk about these things and he certainly doesn't have anything really negative
ever to say about vladimir putin. but there's a complete disconnect. if you look at the actual policies, they are tough and they're getting tougher. yet the rhetoric is not there. particularly from the president. >> a president who has been known to engage in heated rhetoric from time to time. >> correct. >> natasha, any word from russia yet? the sanctions just a few hours ago. have we gotten any response from the kremlin? any response from some of the institutions or individuals who were sanctioned? >> we have gotten response from certain officials who say this is all an attempt by the united states to hinder competition between the two countries. but, of course, this is not something that should have come as a total surprise to them. the treasury issued a list in january, late january, of 200 russian -- of 96 russian oligarchs. 96 of them were on the list of forbes billionaires, world
billionaires. this is something they should have been preparing for. whether they actually thought that the trump administration would follow through on it is another question but it certainly did not fall out of the blue. >> carol lee, good to have you here in new york. thank you. reports about epa secretary scott pruitt. those reports keep adding up asking for sirens for -- reassigning people who told him no. but the president just offered a new defense of pruitt. also that new reporting about the chief of staff wanting him gone. plus parting thoughts. republican congress trey gowdy leaving office. says he never really liked it in the first place. >> no, i don't like the job. to the extent men judge themselves based on what they do for a living, i don't have a lot to show for the last seven years. >> wow. >> also had some tough love for the republican party as it stands in 2018. and breaking his silence. president trump weighs in on stormy daniels for the first time. and now her lawyer says his
♪ if you have moderate to severe plaque psoriasis, little things can be a big deal. that's why there's otezla. otezla is not an injection or a cream. it's a pill that treats psoriasis differently. with otezla, 75% clearer skin is achievable after just 4 months, ... with reduced redness, thickness, and scaliness of plaques. and the otezla prescribing information has no requirement for routine lab monitoring. don't use if you're allergic to otezla. otezla may cause severe diarrhea, nausea, or vomiting. tell your doctor if these occur. otezla is associated with an increased risk of depression. tell your doctor if you have a history of depression or suicidal thoughts, or if these feelings develop. some people taking otezla reported weight loss. your doctor should monitor your weight and may stop treatment. other side effects include upper respiratory tract infection and headache. tell your doctor about all the medicines you take and if you're pregnant or planning to be. ♪ otezla. show more of you.
you know what's not awesome? gig-speed internet. when only certain people can get it. let's fix that. let's give this guy gig- really? and these kids, and these guys, him, ah. oh hello. that lady, these houses! yes, yes and yes. and don't forget about them. uh huh, sure. still yes! xfinity delivers gig speed to more homes than anyone. now you can get it, too. welcome to the party.
environmental protection agency chief scott pruitt is facing a slew of ethics violations but still has his boss' support. do you believe the fake news media is pushing hard on a story that i'm going to replace ag jeff sessions with epa chief scott
pru whoit is doing a great job but is totally under siege. do people really believe this
much of the media is dishonest and corrupt. all this coming a day after the president sang his praises on air force one. >> i think that scott has done a fantastic job. i think he's a fantastic person. i just left -- i just left coal and energy country. they love scott pruitt. they feel very strongly about scott pruitt, and they love scott pruitt. >> can also tell based on that interview that the president was taking in the first day of the masters. just a short time ago, "the wall street journal" came out with this report. john kelly urged the president just last week to remove pruitt from his post. a few moments ago, before we came on the air here this afternoon, house minority leader nancy pelosi adding her voice to the chorus of folks calling for pruitt's resignation saying in part, quote, epa administrator scott pruitt's tenure has been a part of the trump administration's culture of
corruption, cronyism and incompetence. pruitt must resign. let's bring in rick tyler and political analyst and jason johnson, politics editor at the root. also an msnbc contributor. rick, let us remind our viewers and our sirius satellite listeners of just a few of the issues plaguing scott pruitt. $50 a night condo lease. his use of taxpayer dollars for private travel. his use of a special hiring authority. spending on a soundproof phone booth. we just heard the president double down on his support for pruitt. but at this point, do we think that scott pruitt can actually stay on, even now especially considering john kelly seems to want him gone? >> i think john kelly's job is more in danger than scott pruitt. this is one of the cases where donald trump likes what pruitt is doing at the epa. i like a lot of the things that pruitt is doing at the epa, but the optics of these things really are inexcusable. but it looks like the president
is going to weather this one out. >> 23 ethics issues, jason. huffington post reporting that scott pruitt right now facing at least 23 ethics issues. does this send a message in washington that anyone is safe as long as they carry out the president's agenda? >> no, craig. it delivers even more important message which is anyone that's safe in washington, d.c., if donald trump likes you. seriously, that's how his personal doctor can run the veterans association. if donald trump has a personal relationship with you, not just a tweet, i like michael flynn, but if he has a personal relationship with you, you are generally not going to get fired no matter what you do unless perhaps there's a domestic violence charge. and i also say this because this notion that he's going to keep pruitt on because pruitt is pursuing trump's agenda with the epa. trump doesn't really have an agenda with the epa. he's not concerned about environmental protection issues or pushing back regulation.
scott pruitt is doing what many base line republicans want. he's going to weather this storm. i don't think the president is going to do anything about it and jeff sessions for now is probably safe because pruitt is going to keep his job. >> trey gowdy. good south carolina guy. south carolina congressman trey gowdy gives this interview to vice and he's highly critical of washington partisanship and offers up a bit of a view of your party as well. take a listen. >> what do you make of the republican party in 2018? >> the goal is to win. >> that's all the republican party cares about? >> the goal is to win. >> is that it? is that the goal, just to win? >> yeah, i agree with trey gowdy. i'm laughing a little bit because trey gowdy is like oil and vinegar. but he gave the interview. but he's right. it's all about winning. i don't know what the overarching ideological motive of the underlying governing
principles of the agenda. it's about winning at all costs, and i think that has a very adverse effect on the party going forward because the party doesn't stand for anything, then it's hard to get people to stand with the party. >> jason, he also goes on this speel about how he feels like the last seven years of his professional life have been a bit of a waste and rails against congress and partisanship. here's the thing. it seems as if a lot of these lawmakers when they decide it's time to retire, they decide to bash the partisanship and the bickering that they were a part of. >> right. >> their entire political career. all of a sudden they leave and say it was so awful. can you believe what these people do all day? >> i was fascinated by the interview. number one, this notion that it's surprising that people want to just win is strange. one of the things you learn early on in political science, all elected officials are single minded seekers.
you can't do anything else unless you win. the republican party has been about that. the democrats haven't been able to figure it out. if i were a constituent of trey gowdy, i'd want my money back. he spent the last seven years hanging out on golf courses raising money and causing the kind of ranker that i'm now going to turn around and say i didn't really like it. i wasn't really happy with it. you are the individual who wasted hundreds of thousands, possibly millions of dollars indirectly on benghazi. you are the individual who was on the house intelligence committee that kept slipping out information and refusing to work with your democratic colleagues. you can't turn around now and say i cannot believe all the terrible things that were happening that i was directly responsible for. so again, i don't think this is surprising. i think you hear this from a lot of different republicans. i wish some of these people would take spent for what they did or say, i'm happy for what i did and i'm out, drop the mike. >> president trump said something yesterday that caught a lot of folks' attention,
reiterating this controversial claim that he has made before about immigrant rape. here it is. >> remember my opening remarks at trump tower when i opened. everybody said oh, he was so tough and i used the word rape. and, yes, they came out where this journey coming up, women are raped at levels that nobody has ever seen before. they don't want to mention that. >> we haven't mentioned it because it is patently false. there's absolutely no truth to it according to reporters travel with that caravan coming up from honduras. why does the president insist on whistling because we know what that is. we know when he says things like that what he's doing. why continue that? >> i think the president, rightly or wrongly is going back to what he thinks worked in the campaign. and it seems to me that the whole report of this caravan which seemed to have stemmed
from a fox news interview that he happened to watch, triggered him to send the national guard to the border which they will have -- they could provide support for sure but they have no enforcement activity. this has been done by barack obama and george w. bush. it's nothing new. it's not a way to run policy to up end the national guard and send them to the border because you saw something on the news. doesn't seem to be particularly well thought out. >> we'll leave it there. rick tyler, jason johnson, thanks. enjoy your weekend. president trump weighing in on stormy daniels for the first time. but did his comments just make his legal team's job harder? aushlgs defelso, defending . why a company leader says if you want to keep your information private from advertisers, you'd have to pay for that. we just hit a milestone in american politics. as of thursday's official filings, more women from both parties are running for congress than ever before in the history
and sometimes, i don't eat the way i should. so, i drink boost. boost high protein nutritional drink has 15 grams of protein to help maintain muscle and 26 essential vitamins and minerals, including calcium and vitamin d. look for savings on boost in your sunday paper. including calcium and vitamin d. and i am a senior public safety my namspecialist for pg&e. my job is to help educate our first responders on how to deal with natural gas and electric emergencies.
everyday when we go to work we want everyone to work safely and come home safely. i live right here in auburn, i absolutely love this community. once i moved here i didn't want to live anywhere else. i love that people in this community are willing to come together to make a difference for other people's lives. together, we're building a better california. president trump is finally broken his silence on the
$130,000 payment his attorney made to stephanie clifford. that's the adult film star who is better known as stormy daniels. speaking to reporters aboard air force one, the president said he had no idea that his attorney, michael cohen, paid clifford to silence her about their alleged affair. >> did you know about the $130,000 payment to stormy daniels? >> no. >> then why did michael cohen make it, if there was no truth to the allegations? >> you have to ask michael cohen. michael is my attorney, and you'll have to ask michael. >> do you know where he got the money to make that payment? >> no, i don't know. >> cohen's attorney says the president's statements were factual. this is an accurate assessment of the facts michael cohen made the payment to protect reputation, family and business. it had nothing to do with the election. msnbc legal analyst danny savalas is with me on this friday. before we get to precisely what the president said there and what that might mean, nbc news
has just learned that president trump's attorneys filed a motion last night asking for more time to respond to stephanie clifford's lawsuit. how significant is that? >> it's significant only because the way the parties are bickering already at this early stage. typically when a complaint is filed, a defendant has a certain number of days in which to answer. normally if you need more time you ask the other side for more time, and in most cases, the parties agree. this is not that kind of case. and what makes this interesting, at least to me, is seeing that the defendants, which are cohen and trump, and ec consultants, i should say more specifically ec and trump are asking the judge to give them more time. and avanadi's filing says, judge, i know that you take deadlines very seriously and the reason we didn't give them an extension is because your honor
said earlier in an order that this was the day they had to respond to the complaint. so it's beyond my power to give an extension to them, and they shouldn't be asking you for one either because, your honor, you already set the date to respond. and the reason he's on to something is if you look at an earlier footnote by the judge, an earlier opinion in this case, the judge says and i'm paraphrasing, hey, you people are not the most important case on my docket. don't bother me with shenanigans. don't bother me with nonsense. i won't respond to it. i'm paraphrasing but you can look at that footnote. it sent a clear call that this judge is not in the mood for hijinx. >> he's not having it. let's talk about what the president said aboard air force one. stephanie clifford's attorney appeared on "the beat" last night with ari melber. here's what happened. >> christmas has arrived. the president's comments on air
force one are serious for him. serious for michael cohen. how can you have an agreement when one party claims that they don't know anything about the agreement? our case just got a whole lot better. >> is that true? did his case get better? >> here's what i love about contract law. either side can take a fact and spin it into something favorable to their position. now avanati's position, this does fit in with his theory of the case because if trump never knew about that payment, then how could he be a party to that agreement? especially an agreement that only provides for dd, aka donald trump, as the only person who could enforce the arbitration clause, the only person who could enforce the penalty provisions and many other parts of the agreement. if you are on the ec/cohen/trump side, this was consistent with their defense, too, because their position is that trump is a mere third party beneficiary.
he doesn't need to be a party to the contract because he's barely involved in it. sure, there's a signature line for me on there but ignore that. the real point of this contract is we paid her $130,000. she accepted it. and the contract is between ec and stormy daniels. ec can force stormy daniels into arbitration. i suppose i could, too, as trump, but i don't need to. i don't need to be a party to this agreement and it's still a valid agreement. >> how long is it going to take for this to play out legally? >> go back to what the judge said. he's indicated he's not going to give this case any special treatment but what the court has to eventually decide is whether or not it will keep this case or whether it will send it back to arbitration. now a timeline once it gets to arbitration, who knows. probably faster than it would be if open court but we'll never know because arbitration will be private. if it remains in federal court, there aren't many issues of fact. the judge can decide all the
issues of law. so it may not take more than a few months. but it really depends on the way this court operates. >> danny sevallos and his quote for friday. here's the thing i love about contract law. things you'll only hear from danny. facebook on defense. the c.o.o., the number two at facebook telling savannah guthrie, if people want a facebook without ads targeted to their information, they'd have to pay for it. plus, "the washington post" reports that i.c.e. is moving to deport a veteran after defense secretary james mattis assured that the veteran would not be deported. we're going to talk to the author about the legal fight that this particular veteran is facing. david. what's going on? oh hey! ♪ that's it? yeah. ♪ everybody two seconds! ♪ "dear sebastian, after careful consideration of your application, it is with great pleasure that we offer our congratulations
then, use the ultimate power handshake, the upper hander with a double palm grab. who has the upper hand now? start winning today. book now at lq.com. facebook chief operating officer sheryl sandberg says the company failed to properly handle data in the cambridge analytica scandal. she told savannah guthrie that she was short on options for users who don't want their information shared with advertisers. >> could you come up with a tool that said i do not want facebook to use my personal profile data to target me for advertising? do you have an opt-out button? please don't use my profile for advertising? >> we have different opt out. not at the highest level. that would be a paid product.
>> that does not exist yet, by the way. derek thompson, senior editor for the atlantic is with me. what is -- and this is perhaps a bigger question than we usually ask on an afternoon. what's facebook's responsibility for its users' privacy? >> look, it's a huge question but it is the question. it's important to talk about the news here and the story behind the news. the news is that facebook is essentially saying we knew the cambridge analytica crisis was breaking in december 2015. we didn't do an investigation and didn't do an audit. and that's on us. we're going to have to fix that right now. but the bigger story alluded to is that facebook became a $500 billion behemoth not by being a world leader in data privacy but by being the world leader in data promiscuity. that is why developers used it. that is why advertisers love it and that's why a lot of users liked it, too, because it was free. and what she's essentially saying is this social contract that facebook thought it had
with its developers, with its users is suddenly coming undone. not just because of the cambridge analytica crisis but also because of this gathering storm of crises that is greeting facebook with fake news and data promiscuity that makes it look like this tacit agreement we had with this social media behemoth is finally unraveling. >> data promiscuity. this is sandberg talking about facebook's relationship with its advertisers. i want to play this and talk about this on the other side as well. here it is. >> what's facebook selling? >> we're selling the opportunity to connect with people, but it's not for sale. this is what's important. >> but it's free. >> we have an ad-based business model. and that is something that i know people have a lot of questions about. so i'm really glad to have the chance to answer those questions. we feel very strongly that an ad-based product, which is free for people, the same way tv is, the same way radio is. it's really important. >> that was telling. the same way tv is.
the same way radio is. two industries that are largely regulated. do you get the sense that facebook has accepted the fact that the regulation is coming? >> the paradox of facebook is right there in what she said. what facebook is selling is the ability to connect with people, but it's not for sale. what's that mean? and the thing is that what facebook is, is itself kind of difficult to figure out. jeremy bentham in the 1800s thought about a prison in which one guard could watch all of the prisoners all at once. a surveillance state essentially. what facebook has built is a surveillance state in which the inmates want to be in the prison. that was the genius of facebook all this time. and all of these news stories, particularly because they are tied to donald trump, to this crisis that we're having about veracity in news and democracy in the western world, it's making us wonder whether this is a prison we want to be willing
inmates in. >> zuck erberg testifying next week. what are you listening for? >> how regulators, government officials, are going to pose possible legislation for facebook. are they going to say you need to be more like google, keep all this data in house? make certain proposals regarding political advertising on facebook saying when they try to sell you an ad it's one standard but when it's political, it's another standard? and i'm interested in maybe some people from the far left or maybe even some people from the right asking the big question on the table which is, is it time to break facebook up? is it time for there to be a facebook and instagram and whatsapp and disaggregate that which has become an aggregator of social media power. >> derek thompson, thank you. are you on facebook? >> i am on facebook, indeed. tune in tonight to see the town hall that started the war of words between tim cook and mark zuckerberg.
chris haynes and kara swisher sat down with tim cook. >> we do carefully review each app and police now and we don't subscribe to the view that you have to let everybody in that wants to, or if you don't, you don't believe in free speech. >> you can watch revolution. "apple changing the world" tonight at 8:00 eastern only on msnbc. and you can learn more at msnbc.com/revolution. a chinese immigrant who is also a u.s. army veteran facing deportation and the decision appears to ignore a broad directive from the secretary of defense to protect noncitizen troops and veterans. but first, here's something we had to share. a bald eagle landing right on seattle mariners' pitcher james paxton yesterday. the eagle was supposed to fly over the field before the national anthem. but the eagle decided to land
there. also worth noting that paxton, for what it's worth, paxton is canadian. 0-year marriage... ...my 3-month old business... plus...what if this happened again? i was given warfarin in the hospital, but wondered, was this the best treatment for me? so i made a point to talk to my doctor. he told me about eliquis. eliquis treats dvt and pe blood clots and reduces the risk of them happening again. not only does eliquis treat dvt and pe blood clots. eliquis also had significantly less major bleeding than the standard treatment. eliquis had both... ...and that turned around my thinking. don't stop eliquis unless your doctor tells you to. eliquis can cause serious and in rare cases fatal bleeding. don't take eliquis if you have an artificial heart valve or abnormal bleeding. if you had a spinal injection while on eliquis call your doctor right away if you have tingling, numbness, or muscle weakness. while taking eliquis, you may bruise more easily... and it may take longer than usual for bleeding to stop.
seek immediate medical care for sudden signs of bleeding, like unusual bruising. eliquis may increase your bleeding risk if you take certain medicines. tell your doctor about all planned medical or dental procedures. eliquis treats dvt and pe blood clots. plus had less major bleeding. both made eliquis right for me. ask your doctor if switching to eliquis is right for you.
thisat red lobsterest. with exciting new dishes like dueling lobster tails and lobster truffle mac & cheese. classics like lobster lover's dream are here too. so enjoy these 10 lobsterlicious dishes while you can because lobsterfest won't last. - there's a common thread i see every time i'm in the field. while this was burning, you were saving other homes. neighbors helping neighbors and strangers alike. - this is what america's about. - sometimes it's nice to see all the good that's out there. bringing folks out, we have seen it in community after community. president trump doubled down with harsh words about border
security last night in west virginia. >> remember my opening remarks at trump tower when i opened. everybody said, oh, he was so tough and i used the word rape. and yes they had came out where this journey coming up, women are raped at levels that nobody's ever seen before. they don't want to mention that. >> we don't mention it because, again, it's not true, but many of you probably do remember those 2015 remarks from then candidate donald trump. >> when mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. they're bringing drugs. they're bringing crime. they're rapists and some, i assume, are good people. >> the president's remarks and his plan to use the national guard has brought new focus to the border area. nbc's gabe gutierrez is on the ground by the u.s./mexican border in hidalgo, texas. >> reporter: good afternoon. we're along the u.s./mexico border. there's the fence right there. and while many republican-led
states such as texas and arizona and new mexico are supporting the president's plan, there is some skepticism on the ground on what this will actually do. now, the president, of course, now saying he wants to send between 2,000 to 4,000 national guard troops here to the u.s./mexico border. there's still no exact timetable for when those troops will arrive and the pentagon at this point can't say whether any of them will be armed. the president causing controversy that women were being raped, that that so-called caravan of nimigrants that he's been warning of for days. still, the president offering no proof of that rape claim. the department of homeland security says there's been more than a 200% spike in illegal border crossings over the past year and a 37% jump from last month to this month. and we spoke with sister norma, she's here at sacred heart church in nearby mcallen, texas, and she and her group of volunteers help hundreds of undocumented immigrants every
day, many of them wearing ankle monitors as they await harithei immigration hearings and she strongly disagrees with the president. >> i believe there must be another way other than enforcement way to respond to the needs of these people that are reaching out to us for protection, for safety, and for us to respond in an enforcement way is -- i don't know that that is humane. >> reporter: of course, presidents bush and obama also sent national guard troops here to the border and back in 2014, so did then governor and now current energy secretary are rick perry. he also sent troops here. again, there is no exact timetable for when those troops will arrive at this point. back to you, craig. >> all right, gabe, that you know. meanwhile, i.c.e. is moving forward to deport a chinese immigrant who is a u.s. army veteran. this news comes despite defense secretary james mattis directions. he has issued a directive to
protect noncitizen troops from d deportation. he came to attend college in the united states and enlisted in the u.s. army, graduated from basic training in 2016. alex horton is reporting on the story for the "washington post." he is also an army veteran himself, and he joins me now. alex, walk us through why this young man, in particular, is now facing deportation. >> well, it's quite complicated. so, he came to the u.s. and he graduated from college in 2013 and he wanted to become a u.s. citizen, and one way for that to happen was for him to join the army and get expedited citizenship through a program that uses the skills of immigrants, like chinese, which he speaks, and he's also a college graduate. and the army is not full of people who speak chinese and who are -- have a college education when they enter as an enlisted soldier. so he waited for that program to open by going to a school that was approved by the department
of homeland security. he got his work study program, took some college credits, so he could wait to enlist. dhs approved all of this. they had a school website. they had a seal. they had a president, and they even had school administrators who picked up the phone. it turns out this was a sting school operated by dhs to catch people who are trafficking in fraudulent student visas but he thought it was real. so he goes to basic training, he is told that he is alleged to have committed fraud by enlisting. he finishes training, but he spend about seven months waiting, so he graduates from basic training and then i.c.e. takes him into custody in 2016, hours before veterans day when he is an honorably discharged veteran. so now he's in deportation proceedings in seattle, waiting to hear about his case. >> and you know, we don't have time to get into whether the school itself is entrapment but to a lot of folks watching and listening, it would sound like it was entrapment.
but we do know that general mattis has talked before about protecting immigrants in the military. is there a disconnect between general mattis and the white house? >> well, it might be a disconnect between secretary mattis and the department of homeland security. you know, he said, in february, that he made an agreement with the secretary nielsen of dhs to broadly protect people who enlisted in the military who are not citizens yet. and this came after there was about 1,000 folks who were waiting to join the military, but the security checks were taking so long that they fell out of legal status, waiting to enlist. so, there has been a lot of controversy since last year when that happened. and when he spoke in february, he said he reached an agreement to say anyone who's waiting to train, anyone who's an honorably discharged veteran who did not commit a serious felony and is not already authorized for deportation, he would protect them. in an agreement with secretary nielsen. now, cabinet secretaries have
broad authority to enforce or to drop policies if they see fit in a special circumstance, which he was saying. but i.c.e. is saying, in court, they're telling an immigration judge, that he only met daca recipients. but his lawyer is saying that doesn't make any sense because there's only about 900 folks who do daca and there's more than 10,000 people who have used the program that he used. >> alex -- >> they're saying it's a specious argument. >> alex, keep us posted. it's a fascinating story, sir. we will be right back.
you might take something for your heart... or joints. but do you take something for your brain. with an ingredient originally found in jellyfish, prevagen is the number one selling brain-health supplement in drug stores nationwide. prevagen. the name to remember. parts a and b and want more coverage, guess what? you could apply for a medicare supplement insurance plan whenever you want. no enrollment window. no waiting to apply. that means now may be a great time to shop for an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan,
insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company. medicare doesn't cover everything. and like all standardized medicare supplement insurance plans, these help cover some of what medicare doesn't pay. so don't wait. call now to request your free decision guide. it could help you find the aarp medicare supplement plan that works for you. these types of plans have no networks, so you get to choose any doctor who accepts medicare patients. rates are competitive, and they're the only plans of their kind endorsed by aarp. remember - these plans let you apply all year round. so call today. because now's the perfect time to learn more. go long.
before we go, a look at where the markets are right now. 550. down 550 on this friday. katie's going to pick things up right now. see you tomorrow morning. >> thank you very much. it's 11:00 p.m. out west and 2:00 p.m. in the white house where if you say it enough, it has to be true, right? >> this is not a trade war. there's no war here. >> it's like it's not a trade war. >> it is not a trade war. >> we're not running a trade war. >> we don't have a trade war. we've lost a trade war. i'm not saying there won't be a little pain. >> i don't want to talk pain. i want to talk progress. >> no trade war with china, nothing to see here, at least according to the president and his newly minted chief economic adviser. and yet in the last 24 hours, president trump threatened yet another $100 billion in retaliatory tariffs against china. china's response, the result of this action will do harm to the