tv MSNBC Live With Stephanie Ruhle MSNBC August 13, 2019 6:00am-7:00am PDT
>> thanks for having me. >> that does it for us. stephanie ruhle picks up the coverage right now. thanks so much. we start with breaking news out of hong kong where thousands of protesters have packed the main airport forcing officials there to cancel all departing flights for a second straight day and adding to the tensions surrounding months of pro democracy demonstrations. we'll go to the airport. what is going on? >> reporter: well, there are no flights going out. there are very few flights being allowed to land. 200 flights were canceled yesterday. this is one of the world's busiest transport hubs and it has come to a standstill because authorities are telling people to just avoid it. there are thousands of protesters here. we are on the departures deck. they are filling the arrival area as well. the crowds are starting to grow more restless. there's been more chanting in the last few minutes.
among all of these thousands of protesters are also a lot of stranded passengers wandering around wondering what they are supposed to do. they have no information on when their flights are going to go. there are no airline staff around. strangely there are few people here who work at the airport to give them any information. the only counter i've seen working is the starbucks counter. so there is this sense of people not knowing what the next move is going to be. in particular, that is the case with beijing's next move. this is the second day that these flights have been canceled. there is the sense that they are not going to tolerate this for much longer. officials are now starting to use words like terrorism, which is a very broad word in china, which is used to justify a lot of policies. and the state media is now also ramping up its propaganda, calling the protesters rioters and showing videos of the
people's liberation army doing drills just across the border so there is this sense that this is not going to last. there's not a good feeling about it. the protesters say that they will stay until their demands are met but there is the sense that the authorities are going to be making the next move. >> thank you so much, joining us from hong kong. that video is extraordinary. second day, all flights canceled. now to the other big headline here in the u.s. the fbi has launched a new raid on jeffrey epstein's private island in the caribbean proving that the government's sex trafficking investigation did not end with epstein's death. instead, investigators are now expanding their focus looking more closely at coconspirators who may have participated in epstein's alleged crimes. new video shows federal agents and members of the new york police department searching properties on the island of little st. james. epstein bought this island for
just under $8 million back in 1998. there he built a massive private home and he used it to host rich and powerful friends as well as an entourage of young women. it was nick named the island of sin. we got to dig into this. joyce vance is a former u.s. attorney and professor at the university of alabama school of law. my friend bill coen special correspondent for "vanity fair" and tom winter covering this for nbc news investigations team. tom, what can you tell us specifically about this search? what are they looking for? >> so, steph, this is a task force from the u.s. attorney's office for the southern district of new york focusing on jeffrey epstein's crimes and this broady conspiracy we've been talking about now for at least several weeks. as far as the search they're going to try to find anything that can help, any sort of ongoing prosecution. we saw from some of the video that you just showed that at least three or four computers, large screen, apple monitors, all bubble wrapped. those will be taken back.
the computer analysis team for the fbi will take a look at that and image those drives so essentially make, not just a copy, kind of a carbon copy of it in that they'll actually contain all of the files, all of the logs, they'll know who accessed that computer. you're looking at it, that is the orange kind of bubble wrap things air looking at in the picture right now. basically, they're going to go through it and see what images are on here, what e-mails are on here, what documents are on here. that is just a small part of the search. they'll look for any sort of physical evidence. is there any sort of physical evidence that matches up maybe with what some alleged victims might have said, some of these underage girls might have said, hey, i remember this about his island and i remember he had this sort of painting or we know from previous searches that sex toys were taken as a result of those searches. so, you know, anything that can help corroborate certain victims' testimony if there was anything that occurred on this island that has a nexus to that new york case, that's what they're looking for. >> but is it too little too late? joyce, let's talk about the timing. this is over a month after epstein's arrest and the raid on
his home in manhattan. we've said it before. this is one of the most well connected guys out there. just think about this. you've got political officials there. there is a super pac that epstein could have contributed to. he had a lot of control down there. julie kay brown of course the reporter who broke the story for "the miami herald" here is what she had to say about the timing. >> it is sort of a mystery and also a mystery to people on the island. i was there a couple weeks ago and everybody was asking why didn't they raid the island? i spoke with a couple people who were on that island in the days before his arrest and he was, or i should say the days right after his arrest, they were taking stuff off that island. they were packing up his computers. so it's a little surprising that it took them that long. >> do you agree? did the feds miss their opportunity? why wait? >> you know, they may have missed an opportunity, stephanie, but they would have needed probable cause. they would have had to obtain a search warrant from a federal
judge, so perhaps they felt like they didn't have sufficient information. i think we just don't know the reason for the delay. as a prosecutor you'd rather go in early before people are aware that you're coming for them so that your search can maximize its value. but tom winter makes a really good point about the seizure of computers. the fbi c.a.r.t. team folks are superb and can get items off those computers even if people believe they've deleted or masked them. at the end of the day it may be the computers that still have value as this investigation continues to look for epstein's coconspirators rather than at epstein himself. >> do they not need probable cause now that he's dead? >> they've still got to get search warrants to go in at this point. i think you, you know, you have this unusual situation where epstein is now deceased. he would normally have the 4th amendment privilege to assert, which would mean evidence taken in violation of his 4th
amendment rights couldn't be used against him but could potentially be used against other people. nonetheless, prosecutors and agents are still bound to follow these rules and these constitutional procedures for searching a private piece of property. >> bill, you have been all over this story. are people going to talk now? i, myself, have reached out to a number of contacts in the virgin islands trying to speak to people who worked on his island or other properties. he had his employees sign massive, long-term, nondisclosure agreements so they couldn't talk. now that he's dead, do those agreements go away? do you think those employees are going to have something to say? >> well, my gut instinct here, stephanie, was that, would be without a subpoena requiring them to open up and talk, they probably are going to keep quiet because anything they can say will be used against them. joyce is the expert here. it seems to me that, you know,
those people, stephanie, who may have been breathing a sigh of relief on saturday morning are now and are rightfully, should be very, very concerned again about how this is not over. a seizure of these computers is going to contain a lot of information even though it may have been delayed by a few weeks. there's going to be a lot of information in there. there always is. and if jeffrey berman and the southern district of new york is serious about pursuing this investigation despite the death of jeffrey epstein, then there is going to be a lot of people quaking in their boots right now. >> but is there, bill? none of these people are going to have to testify now because jeffrey epstein is dead. and if what's found on those videos are the stories that are buried with him, about their partying or sexual exploits, that's not going to matter to the southern district of new york. >> well, i don't know, stephanie. i think there's going to be a lot of e-mail traffic, documentary evidence, you know, as he told jim stewart, i guess a year ago, you know, i've got
leverage over people. there's always the rumors of films. there's rumors of the blackmail. there could be a lot of evidence on these computers of tapes, of blackmail, of documents, of e-mails. i wouldn't give it -- you know, again, if the southern district of new york is serious about pursuing this now that he is dead those people should definitely be worried and lawyered up. even the lawyers are getting lawyers. >> okay. no doubt all of these people were lawyered up, are lawyered up, and always will be. joyce, let's talk more about the southern district of new york. they made it clear that they wanted to confiscate epstein's properties and use the assets to compensate the victims. does any of that change now that epstein is dead? >> well, it does change, because what they were looking for would be the point at sentencing in the criminal case where the judge would have the ability to order compensation to the victims. with epstein deceased there won't be a trial. there won't be a conviction. there won't be that sentencing
procedure. there is still the possibility that victims can pursue other legal routes for getting compensation. >> there won't be a trial because epstein is dead. let's stick with that, tom. in the past 24 hours we learned the guards left epstein alone for several hours on the night he died. if it is found out the prison dropped the ball for whatever reason could the victims seek restitution from the prison? >> it is going to be a little bit of a tricky argument from a civil perspective because you have to say, well, if you guys had done a better job we might have been able to get compensation because he could have been able to speak. it is not the direct nexus is not as strong as you might want it to be from a civil lawsuit perspective. the civil lawsuit is actually probably a better argument or better cause filed by jeffrey epstein's estate, frankly, based on the comments that bill barr made yesterday saying they were,
you know, irregularities and, you know, really saying this prison was not run and this jail was not run correctly. you have him saying, look. we didn't do our jobs. if you're jeffrey epstein's estate, you might be able to sue mcc and say, look. if you guys had followed your policies and done the right thing, and the attorney general has already said that you didn't, the client may still have been alive. jeffrey epstein may still have been alive. >> that is -- though he took his own life they're going to blame the prison. >> well, you know, this is a possibility that's been raised by some in the civil legal community. it's a possibility. one quick thing on the search warrants. i understand julie brown's point and other people questioning why did this just happen yesterday. but sometimes after you make an arrest you want to see what happens. and sometimes you want to maybe let a law enforcement investigation play out a little bit. what things does the defendant do? what things do the things around the defendant do? >> ah. if julie brown knows they took computers off the island, surely the southern district of new
york knows. >> that possibility could certainly exist. so when you look at it you look at a complex law enforcement investigation, there's a task force assigned to this. the fbi, nypd. i think there is a little bit more to it. >> joyce, i have to ask you. bill barr says he is appalled, there's irregularities. ben sass says heads are going to roll. what does that actually look like? what are they doing about it? >> well, bill has been very critical of an entity that he runs as the attorney general he has oversight of the bureau of prisons. mcc is a bureau of prisons -- >> but what are those words -- >> here is the reality. the bureau of prisons takes up an enormous percentage of doj's budget. it is very expensive to run these facilities and these early stories tell us we had people who weren't guards substituting for guards and that's because of budgetary priorities and realities. mcc is light on staff. this is now barr's
responsibility to look at the entity he is running to find out why it wasn't properly staffed and he didn't have qualified and well trained guards available to guard particularly in the shoe the special housing unit which has stepped up supervision of its prisoners. >> specifically one of the highest profile prisoners in the united states. thank you all so much. tom winter, joyce vance, bill cohan. coming up new alarm bells are ringing about a recession. and that takes us to president trump's newest plan, targeting poor immigrants. how it just gave us a clue. his new re-election strategy is not about the economy. it's about culture war. and last longer with fewer pills. so why am i still thinking about this? i'll take aleve. aleve. proven better on pain.
i started a tiny investment business, and over 27 years, grew it successfully to 36 billion dollars. i'm tom steyer and i approve this message. i'm running for president because unlike other candidates, i can go head to head with donald trump on the economy, and expose him fo what he is: a fraud and a failure. i'm and i'm an emt.erer when i get a migraine at work, it's debilitating. if i call out with a migraine, that's one less ambulance to serve a community. i just don't want to let these people down. excedrin migraine. relief that works as hard as you do.
the trump administration has announced a new rule that seems to favor wealthier immigrants and could keep poorer ones from staying in the country. under the new public charge rule immigrants who cross the border legally and apply to become permanent residents will need to prove they can support themselves. those who are likely to use government benefit programs like food stamps will be denied green cards. the rule does not apply to asylum seekers or refugees. this comes as the president's plan to energize his base, heading into 2020, begins to come into focus. as "the washington post" details this morning, dialing up the culture war and focusing on culture flash points is a central part of the president's re-election strategy. quote, the president is following much of the same strategy that he pursued in 2016, inserting himself into the
issues his supporters are already discussing and using blunt us against them language without regard to nuance or political correctness. joining me now phil rucker, white house bureau chief of "the washington post," professor at the university of texas, and matt gorman republican strategist who was an aid to both jeb bush and mitt romney. phil, take us inside the white house. is this public charge move all about setting the tone for the re-election campaign or has it been in the works for a while? because if it's about these low wage workers who we're recruiting to work here on our farms and restaurants, we're the ones choosing to pay them so little that they're asking for government assistance. >> yeah, that's a good point, steph. this rule that was announced yesterday has been in the works for sometime and it's been a priority of the administration. the trump administration has, as we know, taken a lot of steps to try to curb illegal immigration but this is a step to change the
rules for legal immigration and as ken cuccinelli said at the briefing at the white house yesterday it's all about trying to make sure immigrants who come here to live in the united states can stand on their own two feet. those are his words. so they're casting judgment based on who is poor, who's sick, who needs help, who would rely on federal programs. and it does feed into part of the campaign strategy although it is not explicitly a campaign move because of course this has been a policy priority of the president's but talking about immigration is something the president wants to do all the way up until the election because he feels like it motivates his base, his base of white supporters are galvanized by all of this talk about the migrant invasion as the president puts it. >> acting head of citizenship and immigration services, ken cuccinelli, was on npr this morning defending his new policy and i want to play a quick bite of it. >> would you also agree emma lazarus's words etched on the
statue of liberty, give me your tired, your poor are also part of the american ethos? >> they certainly are. give me your tired and your poor who can stand on their own two feet. and who will not become a public charge. >> victoria, many americans on both sides have said they find the president's rhetoric abornt b abhorrent but it is really only his base who have stuck with him recently. does this new policy appeal to more people who say we've got rural hospitals closing every day, we've got americans who aren't making a living wage and schools that aren't good enough. do more americans outside president trump's base actually support this policy that if people come here they need to support themselves? >> stephanie, at first sight it does seem like it can appeal to a wider base of people saying, well, you know, we don't want to have competition. we're going through tough times in certain areas of america. we don't want to have to compete against immigrants.
legal immigrants. but the truth of the matter is we've seen because the minimum wage is kept so low in many areas these are jobs americans will not take or they're in remote areas or just socio logically speaking they have become so identified with immigrants that native born workers won't take them. so there are various reasons why we have these vacancies that low skilled, legal immigrants need to work with. the other piece of this is that we do know some great research has been done by a new american economy which shows that immigrants, legal immigrants have done a lot to revitalize these places that have had a downturn so we see actually low wage, american, native americans being boosted up because of that injection of energy of the economy that legal immigrants are breaking. so it's always cast as a zero sum game but the truth of the matter is when you look at the numbers, you look at the economy, both at the aggregate
level and the local level, legal immigrants help native born workers both at the high end and the low end. >> that's the data, matt, the real data that supports this whole argument. but put that to the right because in the center the president does play the zero sum game and it works for him. i want to read a bit from the e-mail that the trump team sent out announcing the new rule. they write this. it's simple. while president trump is fighting for americans and taking action to fix our broken immigration system, democrats continue to trip over each other to fight for more illegal immigration and make the crisis worse. so let's just say a few things. taking action to fix our broke immigration system the president is not doing that besides funding for his wall. does this argument work for the president? he has been pushing this us versus them for quite sometime. >> yes. i think it does. and, like, taking a step back
here, when president trump was running in 2016 he agreed for the most part not on everything but for the most part with his other candidates running for the republican nomination. >> no. he started his campaign calling mexicans rapists and drug dealers. no one else did. >> for the most part. and the policy issues, just hold on and give me one second. where he defined himself and differentiated himself and eventually won it on tone, right? he appealed to a republican party that was angry. my old boss jeb bush unfortunately didn't appeal because he wasn't an angry candidate. so, look. i think what this is in many ways -- >> maybe because jeb was telling the truth often? >> again, i think it was mostly tone. a lot of respects. so i think this reminds me in many ways of 2010. with immigration, we were actually winning the illegal immigration issue on many parts and i think again we can continue that in 2020 if they continue to talk about decriminalizing the border. however, in the last few weeks, as the focus became on the caravan, a lot of republicans running for re-election who were
running fairly uncomfortably by about ten points or so including will hurd who announced his retirement suddenly dropped overnight. i think there is a little nervousness from republicans i talked to that it is important we keep winning this issue and not seed any ground on it. >> phil, besides immigration your colleagues at the post discussing paper straws as one of these cultural flash points that the trump campaign is capitalizing on. it is stunning. i know a whole lot of grade schools focused on paper straws. i'm pretty sure those kids don't care about politics. and the trump campaign manager tweeting this last month. i'm so over paper straws #liberal progress that is exactly what they would do to the economy as well. squeeze it until it doesn't work. that's -- i'm not going to -- take us inside. okay? why would they focus on something like paper straws and put them into context in terms of a broader divide. >> yeah. steph, this is -- one of what
will probably be many examples over the course of the campaign where the trump campaign is going to try to take a cultural issue, you know, something that people are buzzing about. >> why is this a cultural issue? >> well, and cast the democrats as the party of sort of coastal elites and environmental restrictions and regulations and cast the trump party as more representative of middle america. they feel like this straw debate is a piece of it. it comes across as a pretty frivolous issue especially when some of the democrats are casting this election as really crisis for the country. one of the many ways i think the trump advisers are going to try -- >> while the president could talk about healthcare or talk about the economy or he could
talk about infrastructure, he is not. they're talking paper straws. how did he make the argument democrats are weighing us down on pettiness when it is them talking about this? i haven't heard joe biden mention paper straws. >> paper straws. i'm not a fan. >> here is an idea. you can use a glass. >> or a plastic straw. regardless. i think it is important we not miss the forest for the trees. it is not about paper straws but about drawing a defining issue us versus them. this is not new especially when incumbents are running for re-election. we saw it with president bush in 2004 and president obama in 2012. it is a way of defining yourself. it is about a cultural shift. as i said before president trump in terms of tone and drawing a defining line against his opponents, that is what he is very good at. i think, look. it is about drawing a defining line especially when you are an incumbent running for re-election. >> those who are unable to drink on their own they can use a reusable straw and during the break i'll teach you how to
drink right out of a cup. thank be you so much. phil rucker, victoria, matt, luckily you're here. next block we'll be drinking straight out of these cups no straws. attention fiscal hawks. trickle down economics enthusiasts and those who say the tax cuts are going to pay for themselves. can you explain why our budget is ballooning? presidential hopeful john delaney is going to try to do that after this break. er this b. only a select few of the very safest vehicles are awarded a top safety pick plus. the highest level of safety possible. how many does your brand have? one. three. how about nine? subaru has more 2019 top safety pick plus awards than honda and toyota brands. combined. there's safe, and then there's subaru safe. (avo) get 0% during the subaru a lot to love event.
liberty mutual customizes your car insurance, hmm. exactly. so you only pay for what you need. nice. but, uh... what's up with your... partner? not again. limu that's your reflection. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty, liberty, liberty, liberty ♪ why fingerstick when you can scan? with the freestyle libre 14 day system just scan the sensor with your reader, iphone or android and manage your diabetes. with the freestyle libre 14 day system, a continuous glucose monitor, you can check your glucose levels any time, without fingersticks. ask your doctor to write a prescription for the freestyle libre 14 day system. you can do it without fingersticks.
in the human brain, billions of nefor people with parkinson's, some neurons change their tune, causing uncontrollable tremors. now, abbott technology can target those exact neurons. restoring control and harmony, once thought to belost forever. the most personal technology is technology with the power to change your life. your daily dashboard from fidelity. a visual snapshot of your investments. key portfolio events. all in one place.
because when it's decision time... you need decision tech. only from fidelity. time now for "money, power, politics." markets just opening with investors hoping to recover losses after the dow closed nearly 400 points down yesterday with the growth slowing overall, more attention being paid to the president's economic policy. the budget deficit, don't fall asleep here, stay with me, it is important, is widening. up 27% from over a year ago. now, with just two months left in the fiscal year the treasury department projecting a deficit of over $1 trillion. that is clearly a sharp increase thanks to the two-year budget de with congress earlier this month. big spending increases with
trump's tax cuts still in place. joining us now former maryland congressman and democratic presidential candidate john delaney and my colleague, cnbc anchor andrew ross sorokin. welcome to you both. help us understand. what do you make 27% increase when you were a member of congress i'm going to guess republicans would blow a gasket over something like that. >> listen, when i was in congress, stephanie, that's all they talked about, which really underscores how fraudulent they've been with the economic conditions of this country. we all know why this is happening. we had very significant tax cuts that weren't really targeted toward issues we have to address in the economy. we've had a bunch of spending bills to increase government spending a lot. we haven't seen the uptick in economic growth that was promised and haven't done anything to address the long-term drivers of the deficit which includes things like healthcare. so, you know, it's just -- i mean, it's ridiculous what's going on and the fact the republicans say nothing about
it, i used to listen to them give speeches every single day about obama and his deficits. they've gotten much worse under trump. >> congressman, here is the great conundrum at this very moment which is to say the democratic party wants higher taxes absolutely and we can debate whether the tax cuts were responsible. i would suggest they were irresponsible but at the same time there is no conversation being had in the democratic party about reducing spending and so how do you square those two issues? >> so the only really spending discussion that we have to have in my opinion is healthcare. right? because healthcare by any measure is the biggest driver of our long-term spending issues. that's why we have to actually when we think about healthcare reform, we not only need to talk about universal access. we need to talk about things that will get costs under control. because unless we get long-term healthcare costs under control it is going to be very hard for us to really get the fiscal trajectory of this country in line. obviously those tax cuts didn't do as promised.
they were very targeted. it was effectively just a giant corporate tax cut. that didn't help matters at all. but we're not addressing healthcare costs and that is really the number one driver of the long-term fiscal health in this country. we need more revenues and we need to get healthcare costs under control. >> andrew, i ask you. take me to the business class voter because that is your viewer. when they look at the ballooning budget and the tax cuts, which helped corporate america, but really didn't help anybody else, how do they justify, well, the economy is working for me. i've got to vote for the president. do they just bank on the argument that the president makes, well your option on the other side is a socialist, green new deal agenda? >> look, i think right now when you look at the economy and this is the hardest part to think about, which is in the moment right now it feels good but i would contend to you it's a sugar high and our grandchildren and children are going to pay for it. that is the fundamental disconnect here. but for the voter, who is voting with their wallet in terms of how they feel right this second,
when you see unemployment under 4%, it is a very hard argument to go to the public and say, you know what? this economy is not working. >> why? the president went to the public and said the economy is not working and they said you're damn right it's not working for me and they voted for him. but i mean the business class voter who didn't vote for him last time who you think is going to this time. >> first of all i don't know if they're going to this time but i do think on the corporate tax side, forgetting about the individual tax cuts, the corporate tax cuts, the ceo community says, that was a benefit to the companies and to employment and i don't think they're fundamentally wrong on that. i don't know if i'd have gone to the exact rate where we are. i think it is on the individual side when you talk about equality where you could have made it up on the other end. i think that is the discussion. meanwhile they're looking at some of the democrats and i'm not talking about our current guest but looking at some of the democrats are talking about the green new deal and spending they would say is out of control and say this is no better than where we are today. >> congressman, what do you do about that? next to my house someone flies a
flag that says, vote trump 2020, forget this democratic socialist bs. how do you manage that in your campaign when you're not somebody who supports medcare for all and the green new deal? >> well, i'm not running on socialism, right? i'm running on real solutions not these impossible promises. i think what candidates have to do is we have to explain to people how our proposals are going to work, how we're going to pay for them, and how we're going to get them done. i think if we do that your next door neighbor will listen to what we have to say and say that seems reasonable. because that's what the american people are looking for. they are very concerned about these deficits when they think about them. the problem is they don't think about them enough because it doesn't get nearly as much coverage as it should. but i want to go back to something andrew said. i kind of agree with where he was going with that. clearly, these corporate tax cuts went too far. no one asked for a 21% corporate tax rate. the business community asked for 25%. >> ceo's like jamie dimon said
you didn't have to give us one this big. >> i thought it should be 27% to 28% and we should pay for it. the business community lobbied for 25%. then we cut it to 21%. no one even asked for it. but there's been a lot of stimulus in this economy over the last couple years. we've increased spending a lot. and we've had these very large corporate tax cuts. and they're starting to run out of steam. now we've got this trade war going on which i view as very destablizing to the global economy. and i just think the president's economic approach, which was based on a lot of stimulus, no good fundamental economic policies, are just going to start unraveling right before our eyes in the next year or two. >> the larger question again going back to if people are voting with their wallets unless you think the economy turns into a recession and there are economists who believe that it will, but unless it does, and by the way, whether people will feel that immediately or only see it on the screen because the stock market went down in which case they, so many of them are not invested anyway, you know, can you really run on the economy?
you might be able to run on inequality. you can run on character. there are lots of things to run on. do you think the public is willing to vote on the economic issue given where we are today? >> you know, it all depends on their personal circumstances. if they feel like they're doing a lot better, it is probably hard. a lot of the american people don't feel that way. if you travel around small towns in this country, which are shrinking, you know, their populations are shrinking, they're aging, not a lot of jobs, the president hasn't done anything for those communities. >> andrew, that is what he won on. are you actually saying -- but are you actually saying the economy that the president won on was so bad? >> no. i was actually surprised that the american public was, frankly, in my mind, deceived into believing that under president obama the economy was somehow terrible and yet the president was very persuasive, the current president was very persuasive somehow to articulate this message and to convince the public that it was. now, you tell me whether you think there is a candidate including the one that's your
guest right now who is able to persuade the public that actually the economy is terrible, terrible, which by the way i wouldn't say it is. >> it is not terrible, terrible. >> and that's the hardest part about this. >> okay. congressman -- >> the problem with this economic discussion, there is no average american anymore, right? you got the average of the top half and the bottom half. blend them together and the numbers look pretty good. if you go to a lot of communities in this country, in fact, most communities, you don't see good economic trends. right? because we're not building infrastructure. we're not doing the kind of things that will actually create jobs in those communities. the president promised that, you know, he'll bring back all these jobs. he didn't do any of that stuff. i think we have an opportunity to pound him in these communities which he basically conned. he basically went to them and said i'm going to solve all these problems and actually hasn't solved any of them in many ways. >> all right. >> i think we can go back to those communities and put forth a real agenda where we are building infrastructure, creating incentives for people to invest in those communities, and creating jobs in all these
places in our country that have been left behind. last year 80% of the venture capital went to 50 counties in this country out of 3,000. so, clearly, we don't have a situation where jobs are getting created in a lot of places in our country even though the macro economic data is pretty good. he's a fraud. we got to pound him on it. >> well, good luck pounding. questions about socialism. i don't know. some might say the farm aid package, $18 billion, looks like socialism. former congressman and 2020 presidential candidate john delaney thank you so much. andrew, stay with me. another quick bit of financial news. classics changing hands. the largest money manager in the hand black rock sealed its very first buy out deal. black rock paid $870 million bucks for controlling stake in authentic brands. a celebrity licensing group that owns brands rights to marilyn monroe, elvis presley, and mumd ali among others. according to authentic brands their 50 licenses are bringing
in $9.3 billion in annual retail sales. elvis still sells. ♪ i'm all shook up advice for y and tomorrow. because when you're with fidelity, there's nothing to stop you from moving forward. because when you're with fidelity, a lot of folks ask me why their dishwasher doesn't get everything clean. i tell them, it may be your detergent... that's why more dishwasher brands recommend cascade platinum. it's specially-designed with the soaking, scrubbing and rinsing built right in. cascade platinum's unique actionpacs dissolve quickly... ...to remove stuck-on food. . . for sparkling-clean dishes, the first time. choose the detergent that lets your dishwasher do the dishes! cascade platinum. the number one recommended brand in north america.
of less than 7 and maintained it. oh! under 7? (announcer) and you may lose weight. in the same one-year study, adults lost on average up to 12 pounds. oh! up to 12 pounds? (announcer) a two-year study showed that ozempic® does not increase the risk of major cardiovascular events like heart attack, stroke, or death. oh! no increased risk? (announcer) ozempic® should not be the first medicine for treating diabetes, or for people with type 1 diabetes or diabetic ketoacidosis. do not share needles or pens. don't reuse needles. do not take ozempic® if you have a personal or family history of medullary thyroid cancer, multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, or if you are allergic to ozempic®. stop taking ozempic® and get medical help right away if you get a lump or swelling in your neck, severe stomach pain, itching, rash, or trouble breathing. serious side effects may happen, including pancreatitis. tell your doctor if you have diabetic retinopathy or vision changes. taking ozempic® with a sulfonylurea or insulin may increase the risk for low blood sugar. common side effects are nausea, vomiting, diarrhea,
stomach pain, and constipation. some side effects can lead to dehydration, which may worsen kidney problems. i discovered the potential with ozempic®. ♪ oh! oh! oh! ozempic®! ♪ (announcer) if eligible, you may pay as little as $25 per prescription. ask your health care provider today about once-weekly ozempic®. your daily dashboard from fidelity. a visual snapshot of your investments. key portfolio events. all in one place. because when it's decision time... you need decision tech. only from fidelity. it's the one issue that all 2020 democrats seem to agree on and this morning we are learning more about how the candidates plan to turn their frustration and anger into action. the "new york times" detailing that when it comes to gun control 2020 democrats believe there is no reason to hold back. quote, a contest has emerged
over who can deliver the most effective pitch for new gun control measures with the proper emotional punch. joining me now from san jose, california, the mayor, victoria, andrew, matt also back with me. mayor, to you first your community is obviously still recovering from the mass shooting that took place in gilroy just south of san jose. based on what you're hearing from residents what are they telling you candidates need to focus on? what do they need to feel safe in their communities? >> good morning, stephanie. two families lost young children in that shooting in gilroy. what we are hearing overwhelmingly is simply, do something. they are tired of platitudes, of people waiting for congress to act, and so that's why i've taken action here in the city of san jose and we're going to move forward with an attempt to regulate by essentially requiring gun owners to buy insurance just as any driver would in the state of california. >> victoria, the "new york times" detailing this morning
how democratic candidates are trying to revive this fight on assault ban weapons. is this too bold or is it bold enough? >> it's not bold for a democratic candidate. we know that 9 out of 10 democrats support a ban on assault weapons. the problem is, stephanie, when you go beyond the democratic party, because while 89% of democrats support this, only about 29% of republicans do. so it's great for the primary but it's going to be tough in the general election and then getting to congress is a whole different story. >> matt, take me to congress. mitch mcconnell won't even call congress back into session. we're just talking background checks. so as important as some of us might think it is to ban assault weapons, is it realistic? >> i think you'll see action on this. i think the ground has really shifted on this issue. when i was at the -- barkland was a big flashpoint. >> parkland was a big
flashpoint. we had the biggest drop of polling and i think it emboldened democrats for the first time in a long time to go on offense on gun control. we saw areas like houston, atlanta, bluer suburbs in red states. this issue really popped and became the top three and was very effective with suburban women. people we needed to win. i think with republicans recognizing we can't go to the voters next fall without showing something. showing some action. even mitch mcconnell has said that. we have mike turner who represents dayton calling for an assault weapons ban. rob portman who voted against -- said he is open for something. they have recognized the ground has shifted and something needs to get done. >> andrew, you are saying businesses can do more. it's about safety and everyone wants to be safe. you wrote an open letter to walmart. i want to know, have you heard back from them? you doubled down yesterday calling them out because they're selling a t-shirt that basically celebrates the really negative side of gun culture. they have taken that shirt off.
>> they have. there are other shirts and other things in the same category, however. you know, i think there is an opportunity for walmart and that is really what that letter to the ceo was all about which is he now has an authentic claim on this issue in a way frankly most ceos don't and those that do have historically wanted to shy away from. to me when you have 22 people massacred in your own store there is an opportunity to stand up and say, look. there is either a private market solution, meaning we can use our leverage and leheft in the industry to try to change the way background checks are produced, change the economics of this. or, by the way, he has every authentic claim to go to washington, all that lobbying money they've been spending to lower taxes and everything else they've been working on he can go to washington and say, look. this happened in our store. my employees, my customers were killed. and so i think, by the way, it is a very hard and delicate issue for him because on the other side and i get the tweets like nobody else, there is a
huge community of walmart customers who say, they stand by the second amendment. they want walmart to sell guns. by the way, i'm not saying they shouldn't, not saying walmart should necessarily stop selling guns completely. i'm saying because you sell the guns now use your leverage to actually make the system safer. >> but is it doug mcmillan or do they have something else in walmart, the walton family one of the richest, most storied american families has almost 50% of this company. could they not look i don't know over at the opioid crisis and look at how that family has been treated and accused and say, listen. obviously, guns are far different from opioids but they could say, we don't want to be involved in this. could they take a stand? >> they could but i'm not holding my breath that they will. i think this is such a divisive issue in this country, still, even despite what's happened and the evidence that's clearly there to try to create some kind of sensible rules and i'm hoping that walmart will do so. i will say after i did write that letter doug mcmillan came
out with a letter that did say they want to be part of the solution around gun violence which is something he has never said publicly before. >> every step counts. mayor, i want to go to the divisiveness. your plan to get gun owners to buy liability insurance. what insurance. what kind of resistance are you facing in your community? >> well, we expect the nra will sue us as soon as the plan is actually approved by the council. we know these are the kinds of battles whenever you have new legislation to accomplish anything, whether it's on health insurance or civil rights, you're going to get sued in this country. we recognize that. but this is critically important for us. and we know that insurance industry can help to mitigate risk, can help us reduce harm. we have 4.6 million children in this country living in homes with guns that are unlocked and loaded. there isn't much we can do to make this country safer. we have seen how insurance can incentivize drivers to drive more safely and have passive
restraints in cars. they are the kind of improvements we want to see. >> all right. thank you all. mayor, you're possibly in for a fight, but you're definitely taking a stand. thank you all so much. look at your calendars. it was two years ago this week that our nation was trying to come to grips with the deadly violence in charlottesville, virginia, after a group of white nationalists clashed with counterprotesters at unite the right. the clashes resulted in tkodzs of injuries and the death of this woman on your screen, heather heyer. since then, two dozen terrorist plots, attacks and murders have been linked to white supremacists, including at a pittsburgh synagogue. i want to bring in karen cox, history professor at the university of north carolina at charlotte. professor, you wrote an op-ed for the "new york times" entitled "what changed in charlottesvil
charlottesville." in your opinion, what changed? two years ago we all sat in these seats and said something has to change? >> right. as historians we have long talked about things like confederate monuments as just a historic argument, debates between people who said they want to preserve southern heritage and those who know about its jim crow roots. but in charlottesville, what we saw was white supremacists, white nationalists attaching themselves to a monument. and used that moment of the potential removal of the lee monument in order to issue a siren call to their followers. and in the times since then, it's only increased in violence. >> in the months after charlottesville, a number of polls were done about whether or not to remove confederate memorials.
npr, routers, quinnipiac all shows them wanting to keep them in place. you said defending these means honoring slavery and white supremacy. so why do so many people support them who certainly don't consider themselves white supremacists or racists? >> i think it's because people haven't educated themselves about the history associated with the monuments. also, i think they are ignoring the ways in which white nationalists are using these monuments to their benefit. i think a lot of americans want to feel nostalgic about c confederate memorials and think they just represent heritage. the fact of the matter is there is a long history of white supremacy that underlie these monuments. even the white national i have thes who showed up in charlottesville understood that connection. that is part of the reason i'm here on your show. >> but is there a line between
those who say, well, it's it's just about heritage and history and others who are actually white supremacists who are pushing hate and violence against other races? >> there may be a difference. white nationalists might act out on white supremacy. that doesn't mean americans who aren't acting out on it don't hold some of the same views. so they may, to play it safe, say this is just about heritage. but at the same time i'm sorry to say, they are ignoring the true facts of the matter on the history of this monument and the way it is being used today. . >> what do we do to combat the violence that's happening? >> that's a million dollar question. i don't know how we combat that accept that we educate ourselves as best we can. this is why i go out and give talks about the monuments and their history all the time.
and that is one way we can do that. we don't need to meet violence with violence. coming up, the attorney representing some of jeffrey epstein's alleged victims will be joining us live with where their cases go from here. >> plus, 2020 presidential candidate and some the empty governor steve bullock will be here for an interview on andrea eastern on msnbc. with fidelity wealth management you get straightforward advice,
that wraps up this hour. i'm stephanie ruhle. i will see you at 1:00 p.m. with my honor ali velshi. hey, ayman. an announcement that they will be delaying some of the tariffs during this ongoing dispute with china. >> it is interesting. they say they will delay tariffs on cell phones, laptops, clothing items like shoes. they are citing health, safety and national security as the reason. that part seems questionable. this will clearly be a positive for markets. the markets dropped 400 points yesterday. the president doesn't want that to be the case. we have heard from the ceo of goldman sachs, chief exist at morgan stanley who have said the trade policies, the trade war could tip us into recession. >> right. >> we know the president does
not want that to be the case. and companies, when they're getting a bigger tax, that's what a tariff is, and it gets passed down to the consumer. right now consumers haven't felt it. it is back-to-school season. you might need to get your kids sneakers, clothes, laptops. if you are suddenly feel it when you're going to target, that is a problem. it certainly makes sense for this administration to want to kick the can down the road. a lot of people will be relieved. the question, is it a national security issue. it doesn't seem like a national security issue. >> we will see how the markets respond. >> positive. positive. >> stephanie, thank you very much. appreciate that. hello, there, everyone. i'm in for hallie jackson this morning. investigations are in fact, intensifying. fbi agents swarming jeffrey epstein's private caribbean island on the hunt for any new evidence that could help put charges against their next potential target. those who allegedly helped him recruit and traffic under-aged girls.