tv MSNBC Live With Stephanie Ruhle MSNBC March 8, 2019 6:00am-7:00am PST
burden of unpaid work. >> still such a long, long way to go. the economists, roxanne willis and kerry brown and silvia nellsons, thank you. later today, sofia is talking to the ninth annual microsoft women's conference in new york city. i know they're going to really enjoy that. and also mika is tackling all of these issues with her know your value movement. and speaking today in detroit. go to know your value.com and get much more information. that does it for us this morning. stephanie ruhle picks up our coverage right now. >> thank you, so much, joe. i'm stephanie ruhle. this morning we start with 47 months, a federal judge sentences paul manafort to less than four years in jail. despite eight felony convictions
on tax and bank fraud. the court declaring president trump's former campaign chairman, quote, lived an otherwise blameless life. >> it's a sentence far too short for a list of crimes. i think i spent more days in detention in high school than judge ellis thinks that paul manafort should spend in jail. >> a lot of attention. and a democratic divide. house democrats overwhelmingly pass a resolution to reject racism and hatred. all of this after congresswoman ilhan omar's comments on israel, exposing a rift among the party already having an effect on the 2020 election. and we have breaking news. the february jobs report just released, employers adding just 20,000 jobs even though 180,000 were estimated and wages -- this is a huge positive -- are ticking up. you know what we'll begin with this morning. paul manafort's sentencing. officially 47 months. but even less when you consider
time served. the judge credited manafort's quote otherwise blameless life as reason for giving him far less than the sentencing guidelines prescribed. i have a wonderful, wonderful -- i'm going to call it my all-time favorite panel to break it down. but first i want to explain what we're talking about here. paul manafort, you know who he is, the man who once served as the president's campaign chairman. he has been spared what could have been a life sentence, and he ended up getting a teeny fraction of the 19 years on the low end of the guidelines for the crimes he's committed and add in the fact he's already jailed nine months and he has a little more than three years to go. before finding out his fate, manafort appealed to the judge for mercy telling him, quote, the last two years have been the most difficult years for my family and to say i feel humiliated and ashamed would be a gross understatement. here is what he didn't do. he didn't apologize for his conduct. nevertheless the judge said he
wouldn't throw the book at paul manafort arguing similar crimes received light punishment and saying that paul manafort had lived an otherwise blameless life. odd to say considering all we know about the 69-year-old man. in addition to his convictions on tax and bank fraud, manafort is awaiting sentencing after pleadi pleading guilty -- did you hear me guilty to multiple conspiracy charges in d.c. and he made a fortune working with countries like the ukraine and philippines and angola and laundered money, more than $30 million through corporations and bank accounts to hide it from the irs. then you know what he did? he lied about it to federal investigators. manafort has been at the heart of the mueller investigation for many months andent erd into a cooperation agreement with the special counsel last year but on thursday federal prosecutors said he lied to them over and over and provided nothing of
substantial use and now all eyes turn to judge amy berman jackson. leave it to a woman. paul manafort will appear before her next week to get sentences for the conspiracy-related crimes which could get him another ten years behind bars. however, the really big question is if judge jackson allows manafort to serve his time concurrently or the new sentence is added to the old one. i will bring in justice reporter julia ainsley at the justice department and kristen welker at the white house. julia, what could you tell us about the sentencing from judge ellis and will manafort get a similar reception from amy berman jackson. >> reporter: what we heard last night from judge ellis is the realization of the posturing and things we ajumed from judge ellis, watching him in the courtroom in august and he had to remind the jury before they went back, don't listen to my opinions, anything you might have construed as opinions about what i think of the special counsel, leave that aside when you go back. he often interrupted the
prosecution and would roll his eyes when they would call another witness and this incredibly short sentence, when you look at guidelines, it looked at 19 to 24 years, to go down to less than four, that does say something i think about what judge ellis thinks about the special counsel and why they are involved in this overall. next week we should see something different. he'll go across the street from where i am in federal court in d.c. where judge amy berman jackson is different from judge ellis. she's only able to sentence up to ten years. so the 19 to 24 year, the biggest sentence was something in judge ellis's hands. the question judge jackson could decide is whether or not he will serve the sentences together and overlap and serve both of them at the same time or stack those on top of them looking at perhaps a 14-year sentence for paul manafort. >> kristen, we have to get a reaction from the white house. i'm guessing it is a dance party all night long but you know what they've actually >> rorter: and
question looming over the white house as they try to turn the page on all of this is, is president trump considering a pardon for paul manafort? he was asked in november and he said he is not ruling one out. i spoke to his attorney rudy giuliani overnight who said he is not ruling one in or out but he's also not considering one at this time. president trump staff, as you know, up and tweeting about all of this. this is what he said today. both the judge and the lawyer in the paul manafort case stated loudly and for the world to hear that there was no collusion with russia. but the witch hunt hoax continues as you now add these statements to house and senate intelligence and senator barr, so bad for our country. a fact check, the judge did not say there was no collusion. the judge did, however, say that was not a part of the crimes that paul manafort was facing and was convicted of. now for his part, president trump set to take off for alabama. he's going to be touring storm damage. that is within the hour, steph
and our reporters including hans ni nichols will ask him so we may get his first on-camera response if he responds but the white house trying to turn the page as everyone waiting for the mueller report and also that next sentencing date for manafort, steph. >> i'm going to bring in my panel. savannah guthrie and midwin charles, an attorney, as well as a contributor to "essence" magazine and yamiche alcindor and in her room, which means she has legs and i've never seen them. and barb mcquade. no better day to have you here. on a takeaway, the way people feel about this decision, was the judge within his rights? >> yes, is the short answer. but i have to say i was stunned because generally speaking judges do stay somewhat within the guidelines that are
recommended. this is a massive departure. i mean you're talking about getting a fraction of what the sentencing guidelines recommended. now the sentencing guidelines don't have the teeth they used. to when i was a young lawyer when for the 20 minutes i was a lawyer, the judges hated them because they took away the discretion and the reason for the sentencing guidelines was there was disparity because white-collar criminals would get off easy and other people wouldn't and they were trying to bring uniformity into sentencing because of the supreme court decisions the guidelines are largely discretionary and now you see a situation like this where you look at what the judge had before him, yes, he's within his rights and allowed to use his discretion, but this is a passive departure from someone who, a., did not show any remorse, he showed a lot of sympathy for himself in the courtroom and the judge noted that. and someone who this judge knows broke a plea deal and another judge found had lied in the --
post indictment, mo post-conviction. so no matter where your commit dal leanings are or how you feel about the evidence in the case, when the judge decides this is a case where i'm going to do a massive downward departure from the guidelines, i have to say i'm scratching my head and i'm trying -- i want to understand. i get it. he said an other wise blameless life and you could tell this judge is not a fan of the special counsel by some of the statements that he said. he feels like the special counsel is over his skis, far outside of the scope. i think it is a stunner. no matter how you slice it. >> barbara, you called the sentence atrociously low. does it report poorly on the robert mueller team going forward and the investigation and what they face? >> i don't think it will derail them. i do worry that it does send a message to other would-be cooperators that just stay the course and go to trial and if even you are convicted you won't get a lot of prison time. i don't think that is a likely
scenario for most defendants but you can't counts on every judge to be as lenient as judge ellis was here. judge ellis is exactly the kind of judge for which the sentencing guidelines were created, to protect against those kind of unwarranted disparities and outlier cases but it's an outlier and most judges assigned a case are mfar more likely to comply with the guidelines and i'm hoping it won't derail anyone interested in cooperating. and then of course there is also the backstop of the sentence from judge jackson next week in washington, d.c. she can sentence paul manafort to up to an additional ten years consecutive to these four years. so he could still be looking at 14 years. and also with regard to the idea that the statement that manafort's lawyer said with there is no evidence of collusion with government officials from russia. it is a very specific thing to state.
and it doesn't that there is not collusion with other individuals who are not government officials from russia. such as constantine kilimnik who was accused of being an intelligence officer from russia. so i think there are more redaction from the documents suggest robert mueller and his team continue to investigate russia and the cigar bar meeting are still out there and so i don't think we've reached the end of the road with regards to conspiracy with russia. >> could be oleg deripaska who paul manafort was in the hole to to the tune of $19 million when he joined the campaign and oleg's business was strangled due to russian sanctions. midwin, they looked at average prison term in the virginia eastern district so the average sentence for fraud, 3 years. gun-related charges 5 1/2 year and drug trafficking seven years. is the issue that manafort got
an usually low sentence because it is manafort or that white-collar criminals get hooked up. >> white-collar criminals get hooked up. and this is important for america to see. i've been seeing since the mueller investigation this is shining a spotlight on how the justice system treats some people and others. and defense attorneys such as myself have always said the justice system in many ways is unjust to certain people. who you look at khalif prouder, a young black man who spend years in jail for an alleged stealing of a backpack and never convicted when you look at crystal mason in texas, who is sentenced to five years in jail for voting while on probation. and when you look at wesley snipes, also a wealthy man and also an actor but also black, was sentenced to three years in jail for three merchandises for failing to file a tax return. so this disparity is something that we've been seeing for a long time in the criminal
justice system. and it is not surprising, but it is unfortunate because when you look at the number of crimes that manafort has committed and you went through a lengthy explanation of just how flagrant and repeated -- >> for years. >> for years. and the idea that someone like this would get such a downward departure is really unjust. >> yamiche, rudy giuliani keeps attacking prosecutors and despite the best possible out com. what is the rudy giuliani plan. >> it is to vilify the special counsel investigation and to argue in a the president is someone who is blameless and everybody around him are being picked on because it comes down to people are mad that president trump got elected. i've been texting with rudy giuliani this morning and he wrote to me just this morning, the sentence was a lot less than the angry democrats wanted. they should be ashamed their horrendous treatment of paul manafort who she pressured relentlessly because unlike michael cohen he wouldn't lie for them.
this is rudy giuliani saying that the prosecutors were looking for a specific sentence. we know they weren't but as savannah laid out, one-fifth of the lowest sentence and that means prosecutors would be angry and you described in the courtroom they looked gaunt and angry once the sentence was read. we have this trump machine going and getting around paul manafort saying he's a good guy and that is being picked on because of his relationship with trump. and it is important to note that paul manafort might not have been in the trouble had he never gotten involved in the trump campaign, that is very true if that he was just one of the other people in d.c. that might be doing the same thing he might have been able to get away with this for another 20 years. >> the white-collar criminals we don't go after them. savannah, at the beginning of the hearing the judge said this has nothing to do with russian collusion and then afterward paul manafort's lawyer said the same thing. take a listen.
>> mr. manafort finally got to speak for himself. he made clear he accepts responsibility for his conduct. and i think most importantly what you saw today is the same thing that we had said from day one. there is absolutely n evidence that paul manafort was with any collusion with any government official from russia. >> we got you. he wasn't on trial for that. why do they keep going back to this. >> i'll give you two interpretations and you decide which one you like. maybe the lawyer and judge who made the same kind of remark, collusion was not at issue, maybe they're trying to say, look, robert mueller, and these cases against paul manafort, they are so far outside of the scope of what mueller's initial commission was to search for collusion which is the catch-all term we use now but as we know it is actually conspiracy. so maybe that is what they are saying. that is a generous interpretation.
maybe that lawyer is out there on the courthouse steps auditioning for a pardon from president trump who when he hears no collusion it must be like the tingling of a little bell and he loves to say it and rudy and everybody is saying it all of the time so there is two different ways to look at it. but, yes, so far, robert mueller hasn't brought a case that has to do with conspiracy, that goes to the heart of what he -- he was commissioned to do when assigned to special counsel. on the other hand, if the special counsel in the course of investigating that very collusion runs across crimes, he isn't supposed to give a pass to them. he's supposed to prosecute them. or farm them out to other jurisdictions or hold them for himself and take them to prosecution or to trial. so that is what he's supposed to do. he's not supposed to be like that is not on my list of to-do so we'll let that slide and i like to go back to your business background, that is how they ran into the martha stewart case. they were investigating something else and ran across her situation. >> i had a source -- a legal
source as soon as the special counsel was announced said the thing -- the reason why people hate special counsel investigations is because they could go through all different other sorts of avenues, even if it is not the original intent and when it comes to someone like president trump and the people around him, money is a key thing that gets these people in trouble. that is a year and a half ago and that source has been completely dead on because that is exactly what is happening. >> i asked bill clinton how he felt about special counsel investigators and once they start, who knows what will turn up when they start digging into things. >> what is glaring here also is that manafort has committed crimes over decades. what was the southern district of new york doing all of this time and the prosecutors doing all of this time. one of the takeaways from the statement that attorney made from the steps outside of the courthouse -- >> rich people don't have to worry about the law. >> exactly. leave us alone, buddy. this is -- this is par for the course. this is what we do. and the idea that mueller was busy poking around, he didn't find what he was specifically
tasked with looking at which is russia collusion but all of this other stuff, listen, boys will be boys. this is what we do. >> what did you think about the judge saying he lived an otherwise blameless life when you are talking about charges that go back a decade. >> martha stewet led an otherwise blameless life and paul manafort didn't. >> i found astonishing what the judge was saying is he had -- manafort had never been caught. in other words, he had done all of these things but never caught and so therefore we lived an other wise blameless life which is interesting to look at it. >> which goes back to the disparities in the courthouse they say even the idea of how race and gender and class play into the court system, when you walk into that courtroom, does a judge look at you and say well this young man who got caught stealing $100 worth of quarters at the laundry department or the laundry mat, do they live a blameless life or do i say he's part of a problem and i've seen other people that look like him
or he deserves to have 72 months which is what a lawyer tweeted just yesterday. >> and can we throw one fact on to the table because you just showed the statistics in the eastern district of virginia what the -- the different kinds of cases and what they get. it did show a fraud case, the average is three years. manafort gets four. one of the judge's rational was these kind of cases, the sentence he gave to manafort was in line with what those kinds of cases in his jurisdiction get,so that is what his rational was. it seems to be bourne out by the facts you spent all night researchers. >> it is what it is. it is a winning day for paul manafort. ladies, thank you so much. massively important conversation this morning. up next, the house takes on hate, democrats overwhelming push through a broad resolution opposing hate speech. but the vote exposes deep fault lines among the democratic party and already having an impact on 2020. an impact on 2020
so we improved everything.g. we used 50% fewer ingredients. added one-handed pumps. and beat the top safety standards. johnson's® choose gentle. ♪ limu emu hmm. exactly. liberty mutual customizes your car insurance, so you only pay for what you need. nice. but, uh... what's up with your... partner? oh. well, we just spend all day telling everyone how we customize car insurance, because no two people are alike, so... limu gets a little confused when he sees another bird
that looks exactly like him. [ loud crash ] yeah. he'll figure it out. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty, liberty, liberty, liberty ♪ guys do whatever it takes to deal with shave irritation. so, we re-imagined the razor with the new gillette skinguard. it has a unique guard between the blades. that's designed to reduce irritation during the shave. because we believe all men deserve a razor just for them. the best a man can get. gillette.
i can customize each line for each family member? yup. and since it comes with your internet, you can switch wireless carriers and save hundreds of dollars a year. are you pullin' my leg? nope. you sure you're not pullin' my leg? i think it's your dog. oh it's him. good call. get the data options you need and still save hundreds of dollars. do you guys sell, other dogs? now that's simple, easy, awesome. customize each line by paying for data by the gig or get unlimited. get $250 back when you pre-order a new samsung galaxy. click, call, or visit a store today.
welcome back. i'm stephanie ruhle. after days of in-fighting and twitter spats, statements from 2020 hopefuls, and meetings, house democrats pushed through a resolution condemning hate. the resolution was crafted to condemn anti-semitism, came after controversial comments made by ilhan omar suggesting those who supported israel had allegiance to a foreign country. for the final resolution, which passed the house overwhelmingly,
condemned atef -- hateful expressions of intolerance and including african-americans and latinos and others -- and jonathan allen said the episode exposed the ideological and religious and generational and racial divide within the democrat caucus and at a time they are desperate to demonstrate to the country they are using their new-found majority to govern. here to weigh in, political analysis claire mccaskill. walk you through what has happened in the last week. did democrats specifically leadership handle this correctly? >> well i think this is hard stuff. let's be real. this congresswoman omar, she said some terrible things. she's a freshman. she needs to get used to the fact that her choice of words matters. so i'm angry at her, first and foremost for what she said but she apologized. so then you get to what do you
do about it? how everyone reacted to her also makes me angry. death threats. her picture being posted in public buildings in the country linking her to 9/11. it is not as if the jewish-american community and the muslim-american community don't have a lot in common in terms of suffering from religious bigotry. so i think what they finally came upon was the right way to look at it. let's do a resolution against hatred. and what i wish everyone was talking about this morning is the 23 republicans that voted against it. let's talk about who they are. let's talk about what it is in that resolution that they were against. >> that is a great point. truly. why would they -- put yourself in their seat for a moment. what on earth would the rational be to stay, no, thanks, we're going with hate. >> and which party is most comfortable with the idea that
you would stigmatize someone based on their faith or their gender or their sexual orientation or what the color of their skin is. if you have 23 members of one party, voting against something that said we're against hate, i think it is time for an entire segment on these 23 guys. i think they are all guys. >> they're making the argument the resolution didn't go far enough and call out this freshman congress woman enough. do you buy that? >> believe me, what you vote on is what you vote on. trust me, you don't get to say well i voted no on it because i agreed with it but i wish it had something else. if you agree with it, you vote on it. and i think it is really, frankly, phony for these 23 guys to say we think it is okay to vote against a resolution that says we condemn hate against all. so i don't think, honestly, stephanie, i don't think we're as divided as the narrative is out there. >> i would agree with you on
that. it did expose, though, there is somewhat of a division within the party. how big of a deal could this division be heading into 2020 or do you think it is being exaggerated? >> i think it is being exaggerated. it could be a big deal if we're not careful. i think this with socialism is kryptonite in many ways. maybe not fairly, but politics isn't always fair. >> to that exact point, if you actually went through the definition of what the policies of democratic socialism are, maybe they're not so bad to a lot of people but we know just that word is kryptonite to millions of americans. knowing that -- knowing that it is a gift, a conservative media at 9:00 p.m. every night, why wouldn't a portion of the democratic party rethink and say, this is a branding issue, not a policy issue. >> exactly. talk about the policy. but use of that word, when i listen to the president's state of the union speech, the hairs
on the back of my neck stood up when he started talking about socialism. that is where they are going. make no mistake about it. they are going to make our party -- and this president is about scaring americans, they are going to try to scare americans that we'll turn into some country where your initiative is not rewarded and we're not going to do that. that is not america. you're initiatives is rewarded in america if you work hard. >> but do democrats not need to absorb this and kind of get a new plan? right, again, if they are not talking about socialism or the war on men and from your own home state, i'm sure when you go home there are men who watch this who feel this and say, this isn't good for me. i've got to go back to the republican party because this one isn't going to help me out. why not change the narrative if you are a democrat? >> i think the candidate that will win the presidency is someone that will do that. someone who speaks and inspires
frankly americans to get back to thinking of the president as a person of character and has integrity and telling the truth and a person who believes in the values that of american and including initiative and freedom and frankly a free market. so i believe that we will get there. because this guy in the white house will unite us. it would be different if we didn't have donald trump. but we have donald trump. he is going to be the -- the binary choice for our nominee that is frankly probably maybe going to save us from their irresponsible blasting americans with somehow the democrats are going to make america a socialist country. >> well as well as we're talking politics. the february jobs report came out this morning, just 20,000 jobs were added in february of 2019. that is far below projections of 180,000 jobs but here is the good thing. the unemployment rate ticked down to 3.8% we knew we were at
full employment but the wage growth is ticking up by 3.4% over the last year. i'm going to take that as a big win. meanwhile, u.s. households are now seeing the biggest decline in their net worth since the financial crisis. in the fourth quarter of 2018, net worth fell by $3.7 trillion. that is huge. that is the money we have to run our lives. it is the biggest net worth drop since the crisis. i want you to think about that and what that means for the average american. joining me now financial times managing editor julian jet and contributor maria teresa kumar and my dear friend peggy noonan and former senator claire mccaskill is still with me. gillian, we've seen steady jobs growth. the jobs number came in low. but that is okay.
we know the good employment picture and the fact that wage growth is ticking up is a positive but this net worth drop is a wow to me. how about you? >> it depends on your p perspective whether you are looking back or forward. we knew the stock market crash and the sharp declines had caused damage in terms of household net worth but since then the stock market has picked up quite a bit. the big question right now is looking forward to the rest of 2019 and saying what does this job number mean for where the economy is going because on one level the label was badly distorted by the government shutdown and so add january and february together and split it into two and it looks like the figures are sort of okay but the fact that waves are ticking up so sharply is going to put a lot of pressure on federal reserve to think about whether it could afford to sit on its hands at the same time and a lot of economists, a lot of investors are on red alert or what i call canary alert, looking for canaries in the coal mine
suggesting the economy will slow down and the job numbers today may not be a debt canary, but certainly a canary that is ailing a little bit. >> but as the economy slows down and you look back to the financial crisis, remember then we were worried about leverage that banks had, banks don't face that leverage but if you look at the debt out there and in corporate america, it is a big deal, gillian. and you mentioned the stock market ticking up, less than half of america even owns stock. so for the rest of the country who have less disposable income, how did that change the way we're living our life? >> well the issue is a big issue and it is not just america. here is one of my favorite facts, in 2018 the gdp, how much debt relative to the economy, was about 180%. today it is 220%. so after a debt fueled price is there is more debt and in america the good news is the bank leverage, the amount of debt the banks have on their
balance sheet, that has fallen quite a bit. so the banking system is healthier but the country as a whole has a lot of public sector debt and households still have debt. and many companies as well. so they are not well placed to cope with a sudden rise in interest rates. that is one reason the fed is sitting on its hands. but there again, as we go forward, if the economy slows, if that debt amount keeps rising, it is a challenge because global growth is also slowing down. >> it is a lot healthier. but we also know the banking sector is a lot less regulated already. maria, from a political standpoint, there is a general consensus and no fault of this administration, that we are facing an economic slowdown. where we are in the cycle, that would make sense. so for the average voter out there, who we know care a lot about hot-button issues but at the end of the day they vote with their pocket books, how do you feel? >> i think now they feel frustrated. there were so many individuals that we saw physically in bread
lines during the government shutdown and these were federal employees by any other era they could be considered middle class and the fact they had to go into bread line speaks to the frustration of voters and what they are looking for whether from the republican or democratic party is to talk about the economy. how do they raise themselves and their family of where they are today. they are living pay day to paycheck is less and less con schennable. "boston globe" did a study and found the average african-american had $11 in their bank account. >> $11? >> $11 in their bank account. when we talk about inequity, that is where it is searing. >> and the president's daughter ivanka and his daughter-in-law on television they are touting the booming economy. the issue, peggy, it is the same economy obama gave us and it is the one that led to the rise of the trump voter. the haves and the have-nots.
can the president continue on this narrative when he knows his base is suffering. >> there is an area here that i think we're not putting quite the right emphasis on and it is the word jury tri-- the word "j we get to the point where we sort of kind of almost have full employment, where people who were making $10 an hour 18 months ago are now working as welders for $18 an hour, the "wall street journal" had a front page piece that was really kind of a blockbuster in a way about the jobs situation in america, everybody in america is kind of seeing their cousin louie who has been on a couch for three years get up and actually get a job and it is kind a good job and louie is working his way up. to me the word jobs means a lot. to work is to pray. this is international women's
day. women are in the work force and such a powerful way. it seems to me, i understand all of the other data you are speaking of. i don't even understand -- i must say myself, that part about the smi seems to be doing okay, jobs are good, but your household worth is less. i don't even get that. and there must be a story there i want you to explain it to me. but i come back to jobs. there is something to that that trump support leers will find v satisfying. >> trump said to voters in ohio, don't sell your house, there is no plants closing, but guess what? they are. we were in lawrencetown, hohio and people were working on a line and now i'll get a part-time job with no benefits at a pizzeria. >> and there is no trickle down
and it has incredibly given a incentive to companies to make capital expenditures and they are making is on technology. and technology means fewer jobs. they are automating -- >> which is the right thing to do for a ceo. >> of course it is. i'm not saying that they are doing something evil. i'm saying our prominent america is the wage growth, is not keeping up because the growth is primarily in the service sector and these are not jobs like a uaw automaker job and we're losing 14,000 of those jobs just in general motors this year. and those plants are not closing in canada and mexico. but they are closing in the united states of america. so there is this push-pull going on between those people who are getting great tax benefits out of the tax bill, a lot of americans who are now realizing that their refund is not what they've always gotten and
they're not really seeing the benefit, and really with technology a loss of jobs -- i saw an articles, they have robots picking strawberries now. we'll have -- the cab drivers, our truck drivers, you'll have robots cleaning hotel rooms. there are going to be so many jobs lost. speaking of jobs, peggy -- >> but i think the great question is -- >> this is a big problem. >> and i think the future of work is here. and that is the conversation that neither party is having and that is irresponsible. when we are talking about this idea that americans are angry and immigrants, poll after poll shows they are not. they are very concerned that the robots are coming and they are here and that is -- that is an opportunity for either party to really grab hold of the american imagine ag imagination and say this is how we're going to do it together. >> but who should own that? a ceo or a government leader? >> i had really interesting conversation with mark cuban and
he is like, it has to be something that is a joint effort and can't be left in a vacuum. it has to bring in civil society and government and has to bring in the ceo. and until we are mature enough to have this conversation, because it is -- if we do not, that is where we are at the brink of extinction. >> and the president had tim apple at the white house -- >> exactly that. [ laughter ] >> tim with an apple. >> that is out standing. >> tim has a great sense of humor. >> he does. we'll leave it there. 2020 candidates focusing on breaking up big tech. we'll dig into that live with south by southwest. guess who is with us? kara swisher. kara swisher and it really shows. with all that usaa offers why go with anybody else? we know their rates are good, we know that they're always going to take care of us. it was an instant savings and i should have changed a long time ago. it was funny because when we would call another insurance company, hey would say "oh we can't beat usaa"
we're the webber family. we're the tenney's we're the hayles, and we're usaa members for life. ♪ get your usaa auto insurance quote today. ♪ with tough food, your dentures may slip and fall. fixodent ultra-max hold gives you the strongest hold ever to lock your dentures. so now you can eat tough food without worry. fixodent and forget it. when did you see the sign? when i needed to create a better visitor experience. improve our workflow. attract new customers. that's when fastsigns recommended fleet graphics. yeah! now business is rolling in. get started at fastsigns.com.
yeah! now business is rolling in. so let's promote our spring ftravel deals, on choicehotels.com like this: (sneezes) earn one free night when you stay just twice this spring. allergies. or.. badda book. badda boom. book now at choicehotels.com. this is decision tech. it's screening technology that helps you find a stock based on what's trending or an investing goal. it's real-time insights and information, in your own customized view of the market. it's smarter trading technology,
for smarter trading decisions. and it's only from fidelity. open an account with no minimums today. . after a divisive week in the democratic party, 2020 hopefuls are headed to the lone star state to make their case to voters in south by southwest which kicks off in texas and among them amy klobuchar and with me kara fisher who is sitting down with the senator tomorrow at the big event. your interview comes as a time when klobuchar is facing scathing criticism surrounding how she treats her staff. and the atlanta put out the anger of amy color char and said the senator has not disputed the specifics seeking to frame the behavior as part of the high expectations she has of herself and her staff.
what do you make of the explanation. until now i've said would we be asking the same questions if it was a strong, smart, tough man? >> i think women vo who are tough bosses or in this case some of the stories are pretty bad, do get a harder time than men do. but the fact of the matter is it is still not a good boss. it is still at the very bottom. so i do want to talk about that, and what it means and we could talk about the sexism and i think there is criticism and no matter the gender people should face those questions, especially if she is running for frpreside. he don't want to dwell on it and the comb and salad eating thing and but i think that means i'm interesting in policy and tech and she opened when she announced about issues around tech and she's been very outfront compared to other politicians on the idea of regulating big tech and i want to ask her about the dropouts in
the campaign like sherrod brown and i'll ask her about trump and how she'll face him and the way to do that. she's running for president so she should face tough questions. >> stay on the big tech thing with me for a moment. she said in that announcement speech, when it comes to digital privacy, we've got your back. what does she mean by that? and is it a big priority for voter? we know it should be but if you look at facebook, we looked at all of the wrongdoing on facebook over the last year and still they haven't taken a big hit in user growth. >> well not yet. look at what mark zuckerberg announced yesterday. he has a money-making money and he wouldn't pivot into becoming snapchat if he thought things were going well. i have a column in "the new york times" talking about why i think he did that. but, no, i think regulatory issues are important no matter when voters want to deal with them or not. it is obviously not the sexiest campaign issue but at the same time it is critically important to think about how you want to
regulate big tech and keep up innovation and start-up growth and the jobs that create in this country and i'm here at south by southwest and besides eating barbecue, there are start-ups that we talk about and the innovation growth is very slow in this country. start-up growth is very slow in this country over the past few years so how do we keep that going and at the same time deal with these massive companies that have untold power and untold money and are really dampening innovation. >> because they control it all. the new york times is reporting that another 2020 hopeful elizabeth warren will propose a new plan to take on tech. and they said the proposal calls for the poixt of regulators who will unwind tech mergers that stifle competition and force the rollback of some acquisitions by tech giants like facebook and what's app and instagram and amazon's acquisition of whole foods. we know elizabeth warren hasn't
met a regulation she doesn't like but will this one make sense. >> they won't roll back anything. that is not going to happen. it is a question of what they could buy in the future. and i think she is shooting -- that is her first play here. is to be very aggressive and i think that is smart for her. and other people like -- many, many politicians going for the harder stance. and then we'll see what we should do. i think the question is how much should these companies be regulated and at the very bottom they have to have significant privacy regulation with teeth in it. that is the very first step. and then the question of data they are allowed to buy and data to trade and how they should be behaving as corporate citizens. microsoft was -- underwent anti-trust scrutiny and other companies will the same going forward. many anti-trust is the way a lot of this will work out rather than legislation but it is critically important. >> kara, thank you so much. kara down in austin, texas for
south by southwest. maria teresa and peggy with me. and we have amy klobuchar and howard shults is giving his speech and what is the most important unifying message and do they have a unifying message. >> right now it is a scrum of people and 12 or 13 and how many are waiting to tee up. i think what each of the kaendss at south by southwest trying to do is distinguish herself and himself. i'm different from the pack. i stand for things that you believe are needed right now. and distinguishing yourself is what do you 18 months out. >> but in terms of distinguishing yourself, is one of the issues that the democratic party is so divided. we hear them say our priority is to defeat president trump but you have very different ideology and that is why howard schultz is saying he can't fit there. >> and it is interesting.
the democrats, it is for them to lose in many ways. you have the majority of the american people very much aligned with what they're seeing coming out of the administration and it is not sitting well with them. the trump -- >> the trump approval rating is up. >> in certain sectors, yes. absolutely. but the interesting part is that you have at the same time -- you have the individuals battling out the ideas for the democratic party within the tent. people are concerned with howard schultz is that he -- in order for him to win and increase his approval ratings is to dis the democratic party and that makes donald trump stronger. so as -- as an analyst, the more the democrats battle upon ideas and the best person that comes one that litany of ideas that wins the hearts and minds, that is what will make them stronger. what has not happened in either party in a long time is a battle of ideas of what we'll do to move the country forward and most of the american people, they are seeking big audacious plans and the person who can come up with big audacious plans wins. the fact that elizabeth warren
is at south by southwest, which is more than anything a -- a technology conference and saying, looking you need to be regulated by facebook and google and google, that says i'm not afraid of you and i'm going to have the backs of the american people. it's curious. >> who is donald trump most afraid of running against? >> i don't know. who has he been tweeting about most? >> i would say beto o'roarke. the reason is because that's the -- there are different ports of entry across the border. why did he choose to go to beto o'roarke? >> el paso. >> exactly right. >> we're going to move on. closing the gender gap could add $12 trillion to the global gdp by 2025. that's according to mackenzy. we have a long way to go to close that gap. women owned enterprises across the world are facing a $300 billion credit gap. we don't have the ability to get the money.
and more than 1.7 billion women don't own a mobile phone. you don't want to hear about the lack of access to education. that's why there was a partnering to mobilize more than 1 billion bucks of investments toward women, women led companies in developing countries. katherine coughman joins me now. this is not a women's issue. this is an economic issue. if you can economically empower these women, you can help their communities, you can help their countries and help lift the next generation. what's the ultimate goal here? >> hi. thank you so much for having me on. you've done so much to empower women throughout your career. it's a delight to be here on women's day. yeah. let's start with what opec is doing. last year we launched 2x. as you mentioned, there's a unique multiplier affect to
investing in women. when a woman earns a competitive income, she invests 90 % of it into her family, her child's education, her aging parent's health care. by contrast, a man reinvests 30%. we know that we want to change communities and make them for stable and more peaceful, the most efficient thing we can do is invest in women. we're investing over $1 billion in women owned, supported, and women-led businesses. we're on our way to achieving that goal. >> how do you motivate businesses to invest in women owned business. more than it's the right thing to do, you should care about it. why does it make sense? i mean, they could clearly make the argument, there are safer and more obvious investments in the u.s. >> well, we only invest in emerging markets to support private sector growth. the private sector creates 9 out of 10 jobs. we know when women are empowered, they can change their family's lives and they really are a better investment. for example, when an investor
invests in a women-owned business, that revenue generated by women-owned business is $0.98 on the dollar. by contrast, a male owned business is 40 cents on the dollar. this is not just about doing the right thing, gender equality. this is about better investment decisions. once we launched 2 x, we knew we could deploy a billion dollars. we went to the world's most important economies, the g7, and we asked them to join us in joining the 2x challenge. that's an additional $3 billion to support women-owned, women-led, and women supporting enterprises. the important thing about this is it's not just about that capital infusion. it's about defining for the market, for capital markets what it means to invest in women. when we can define for the market and warm neharmonize tha create new facilities like
gender bonds. we're taking this beyond the united states. we're taking it to our g7 allies and to the world. and we're hoping the private sector will come in and match the 3 billion at the next g7 in france. >> when we think about all the women not in the work force here, and even though peggy mentioned it here, we're seeing more and more women in the work force in the 80s. we don't have affordable child care in the country. it's an initiative many people want to talk about. we know at the president's last state of the union you saw both republicans and democrats stand up and applaud when they talked about paid parental leave. it's just the beginning. if you're looking to get women in a low and middle income sectors back in the work force, you have to help them get back to work. the president is on his way to alabama right now to tour the devastation from sunday, and he spoke to reporters just moments ago. let's take a listen. >> going up the first time for many years. i talked about it during the
campaign for over 20 years. i'm happy about that. the economy is very, very strong. if you look at the stock market over the last few months, it's great. since my i election it's audiotape getting close to 50 percent, the stock market. we're happy with that. we will -- i think as soon as the trade deals are done, if they get done, and we're working with china, we'll see what happens. i think you're going to see a big spike. a lot of people are waiting to see what happens with the china deal. mexico/canada is done. we'll be submitting to congress shortly. and that's a great deal for the united states. we're very happy about that. and i am now as you know going to alabama. some of you are joining me. i look forward to it. i'll be meeting with governor ivy, the people of alabama. they got hit very hard by the tornadoes. we're stopping there. then we're going to florida. and we're going to do a lot of work. we'll be working very hard.
>> i feel very badly for paul manafort. i think it's been a very, very tough time for him, but if you notice, both his lawyer, a highly respected man and a very highly respected judge. the judge said there was no collusion with russia. this had nothing to do with collusion. there was no collusion. it's a collusion hoax. it's a collusion witch hoax. i don't collude with russia. i just want to tell you that this lawyer went out of his way, actually, to make a statement last night. no collusion with russia. there was absolutely none. the judge, i mean, for whatever reason, i was very honored by it, also made the statement that this had nothing to do with collusion with russia. so you know, keep it going. let's go. keep the hoax going. just a hoax. senator bur said there's no
collusion. look at devin nunez and the house committee, they said there's no collusion. and guess what, there is none. well, it's a step. i think they'll probably find out it averages out. the unemployment rate just went lower. we're down now to 3.8%. we have very good news on that. i think the big news really was that wages went up. and that's great for the american worker. that's something people -- i don't know if they ever expected to see it. >> i haven't heard that. i think they're doing well. if it happened that way, we'll do even bet. we'll do well either way. with or without a deal. >> i'm confident.
but if we don't make a very good deal for our country, i wouldn't make a deal. if this isn't a great deal, i won't make a deal. i don't even discuss it. the only one discussing it is you. i haven't discussed it. i know that in watching and seeing you folks at night that michael cohen lied about the cards. stone cold lie, and he's lied about a lot of things, but when he lied about the pardon, that was really a lie. he knew all about pardons. his lawyers said they went to my lawyers and asked for pardons. i could go a step above that, but i won't do it now. why what? it's the most ridiculous suit i've ever seen. i had a bad lawyer. go ahead. that happens.
we'll make a comment. >> talk. you're competing with a helicopt helicopter. well, i think that it's going very well. the border we're doing a great job. we're apprehending record numbers of people, 75,000 over the last short period of time. that's a lot of work. and with a wall, we wouldn't have to do it. i think we're doing fine in congress. they understand it's an emergency. [ inaudible question ] . >> time will tell. i have a feeling that our relationship with north korea, kim jong-un and myself, chairman kim, i think it's a very good one. i think it remains good.
i would be surprised in a negative way if he did anything that was not per our understanding. but we'll see what happens. look, when i came in under the obama administration, north korea was a disaster. you were going to war, folks, whether you know it or not. you were going to war. there was no talking. there was testing. we didn't have our people back. we didn't have our great hostages back. now we're getting the remains. we're doing a lot of things now. this was a disaster. i inherited a mess. in many ways. the middle east i inherited a mess. and it's straightening out a lot. we're doing very well there. i inherited a mess -- wait. wait. i inherited a mess with north korea. right now you have no testing, no nothing. let's see what happens, but i would be very disappointed if i saw testing.