tv All In With Chris Hayes MSNBC August 27, 2019 12:00am-1:00am PDT
some way, fascinating story as well. very well reported by you and your colleagues. appreciate that, nick. dr. john torres. thank you for being with us tonight. that is our broadcast for this monday night. thank you at home for being with us, and good night from our nbc news headquarters here in new york. tonight on "all in." >> it's tremendous wealth. i'm not going to lose that wealth. >> the president skips out on climate as the world's most important resource burns. >> i'm not going to lose it on -- on dreams, on windmills. >> tonight, trump's head-spinning turn on the global stage as it relights to china, russia and a planet in crisis. then as the impeachment count grows again, did the president just announce high crimes and misdemeanors in france? >> dural happens to be within miami.
it's a city. it's a wonderful place. plus, the latest on the longshot effort to primary the president. and the first signs of actual movement on the democratic leaderboard when "all in" starts right now. good evening from new york. i'm chris hayes. if you are lucky enough, as frankly i was, to be enjoying a final pre-labor day summer weekend and were not paying attention to the minute by minute antics of our commander in chief, here's a quick noncomprehensive rundown of donald trump's g7 summit. like so much about this president it was at one level bemusing but at another level horrifying because the stakes of what he's so glibly blowing off are so high. for instance, the amazon, which is still burning at an alarming rate. over the weekend "the new york times" covered the fact there are now devastating fires in bolivia and experts say it could take up to, quote, 2 years years for the forests in bolivia to heal.
the world leaders at the g7 had a meeting about it and all leaders were there except one, guess who. the new white house press secretary said trump scheduled because he had scheduled meetings with germany and india. leaders of both those countries were at the climate meeting, so who knows. we'll have more on the amazon fires and what the world leaders did and didn't do about them in a few minutes. trump also continued his ongoing so-called negotiations with china. earlier in the summit trump sort of said he had second thoughts about his trade war before trying to take it all the way back. the bottom line about the china situation now is that firearm markets, global audiences and the chinese themselves all see that trump is flailing. we all see the same thing. and so as is often the case, the president apparently invented a lie to try to extricate himself, saying the vice chairman of china called and wants to make a deal. but the phone call appears not to have happened, at least the chinese government says it didn't happen, and i leave it to
you, america, who do you believe, donald trump on a whim or the chinese communist party? meanwhile, trump doubled down or tripled down or whatever the count is now on inviting his old buddy vladimir putin back to the global party. trump is advocating for putin's longstanding position, a position that is the origin of this entire era of russian aggression towards the u.s. putin's main complaint is that we punished him for breaking international law when he invaded crimea. the origin is the sanctions putin is trying to get lifted. russia's g8 expulsion all started with that. when putin picked which horse to back in the 2016 election. when they had all those weird associates floating back channel peace deals to the white house that would allow crimea to be forever recognized as part of russia, this is what it was all about, and here's the president of the united states on the world stage in front of all the world leaders again repeatedly spouting russian talking points and toeing the russian line. joining me now for more on the
president's roaring performance at the g7 summit, former cia director john brennan, now an nbc news senior intelligence and national security analyst. what is the significance to you of the president insisting repeatedly that russia should be invited back to the g7 despite no progress made on crimea or the original infractions that led it to being booted out? >> well, chris, it just shows that donald trump still does not grasp the seriousness of what it is that trump -- what putin has done. not only to ukraine, but also the fact that he interfered in our election, he continues to support the genocide of president assad in syria. all of these transgressions that have come from the russians. and for him then to say blightly that he believes that they should get back into what would be the g8. despite the unanimous view of those countries previously that because of the annexation of crimea, because of what they've been doing in eastern ukraine, that russia does not deserve a
seat at the table. so it's still rather puzzling as to why donald trump continues to give putin the benefit of the doubt when, in fact, he should be coming down pretty hard on the russian leader. >> do you think that over the course of this presidency so far that both world leaders and global diplomatic core and intelligence services have changed the way they react to this president's statements, as they have acclimated themselves to the degree of lack of preparation or tossed offedness of what he might say in these sort of events? >> oh, absolutely. i think a lot of the readers have written off what he says publicly. also i'm very concerned given his public dishonesty, what dishonesty is he engaged in in these private meetings with world leaders, with the allies of countries that we have worked with so hard for so long. what is he telling them? but i think they realize he is way, way out of his depth. he is incompetent.
but also he is somewhat delusional as far as how he views the world and his inability to grasp the reality of the geo strategic situation around the globe today. >> what are the stakes of that? i mean, there is some universe, i suppose, in which maybe everyone is better off if they just don't pay attention to the things the president says, this particular president, because he might contradict it. so what are the stakes, i guess, of sort of america's geo strategic position when that is the case with this particular president? >> well, i think they're all just trying to handle trump the best they can. they recognize that although they may not like and respect the person, he still, unfortunately, represents america on the world stage. and they want to maintain and strengthen relations with the
united states because they know that one day trump will no longer be in the oval office. and so i think they're trying to be as respectful as they can, but, you know, some days i really miss being in the intelligence business because i would love to find out what it is that these leaders are saying behind the scenes to themselves about mr. trump. i can just imagine. and, unfortunately, i think it's something that we as americans should be very, very concerned about. >> there was another example. he has done this -- the president has appeared to have fabricated interactions with foreign leaders on multiple occasions. he had the head of pakistan was there and he said that the head of india, modi, had called him and said he wanted to take care of pakistan. the indian government then had to say that's not the case. subsequently there was some intense repression that happened in kashmir. this is a call he said he got from the chinese. i guess does it matter? like, what happens when the president makes up interactions with foreign leaders? >> well, it's bad enough that donald trump is so incompetent in terms of carrying out his responsibilities, but it's the dishonesty that i think really hurts this country most. it's when the american people listen to him and they know that he is lying, but also the
foreign leaders who, again, look to the united states as being the leader of the western world, of the free world, of the entire world. if they cannot put any trust and confidence in what the president of the united states says, they are not going to be able to follow through on what it is that needs to be done in order to strengthen bilateral relationships between their country and ours, but also do what they can on behalf of global stability and prosperity. they recognize that donald trump is just fabricating one story after another. so how can they put any stock in what he says or what he says he's going to do? >> i mean, this gets to the dichotomy that you were talking about before, right? they have a meeting about the amazon forest fires and the president doesn't attend and there is obviously a full plate of things on the g7 menu. there is a dichotomy between the united states as an institution and as a country and then donald trump personally, and what i'm hearing from you is his ability to tell the truth actually affects the degree to which you can have effective diplomacy or peg commitments from the u.s. state as an entity in these
sorts of situations. >> well, there's little logic or continuity to u.s. policies in a lot of these matters. i'm sure there are a lot of professionals, whether they be diplomats or others, who are very concerned and trying to do everything they can about climate change, about all of these international and transnational issues that affect all of our countries, but how can they work effectively with their foreign counterparts when the president of the united states is not, in fact, able to articulate these issues in any sensible way with his counterparts? so it's just very un -- it undermines our ability as a country to be able to affect positive change, and i think these leaders are just waiting for the day that donald trump is going to be part of history. >> you know, the g7 obviously does not include china. the president is in the midst of this trade war with china, which he's more or less launched unilaterally, using authority, national security authority to put tariffs on chinese goods. and i wanted to get your sense of how this plays out. it seems to me there are two sorts of polls here. one is that the previous relationship with china along a bunch of different ways had some
deep dysfunction in it. i think there's pretty good evidence that the trade relationship has had some economic costs for americans. and then in the other poll, there are a lot of people who kind of want a new cold war with china. they want a kind of aggressive posture of confrontation. threading that needle strikes me as a difficult yet necessary role for the president. what do you think is happening now? >> well, you're right, it is an issue that needs to be address. previous administrations have tried to address the imbalance in terms of how both countries conduct trade with one another and with the world. and so it's proper and right for donald trump to be engaging with the chinese as well as with the north koreans and others. it is how he is going about doing it. >> right. >> he doesn't understand the implications of just imposing these large tariffs. and i don't think he really has a strategy, despite what his
advisers say about how he's going to come out of this trade war with china. and so there's a lot of things that are happening that he wants to have the focus of the international media on him, in terms of what he's doing and being a strong man, but trying to understand how what he is doing is going to help the united states in the long run, it's beyond me. >> so final question on this. is there any risk that the trade war, you know, you've got a trade lane, right? so we're dealing with them on this trade stuff then there is a lane of our two militaries, and they have a relationship that can be tense and adversarial. there is also cooperation on some things. is there a risk, i guess, one one leaking over to the other as the rhetoric gets heated up on both sides? >> there is that risk, and fortunately so far it looks like the trade war has stayed within those trade channels. and i'm hoping that the chinese as well as the united states are not going to start to affect other aspects of the
relationship and other issues, such the one china policy or on cyber or on the south china sea, and those tensions could ratchet up very quickly. so we're not just going to have a trade war then. we could have a real bilateral crisis with china and that's not what we want nor need at this point in time. so donald trump has to be mindful that china is a major world player. it has a lot of levers that it can pull. hopefully they're not going to pull them because they're going to be hurt. we're going to be hurt. so it's best to get thee tensions back down so that we come up with some type of reasonable outcome of what really has been this trade problem. >> all right. john brennan, thank you very much for that. >> thanks, chris. probably the most pressing front of mind issue at the gp g7 was the fires raging in the amazon. decided to kick in $20 million. squarely in the middle of all it is the fires are mostly in the sovereign nation of brazil and the country's president seems to be sort of essentially pro-fires.
we call it the world's lungs, but the problem that affects the whole world is in brazil and this is just one of the ways that sovereignty, the very notion of it will be challenged in the climate crisis area. joining me now, franklin ford, staff writer for the atlanta magazine. and frank, i want to read this quote which sort of makes the comparison. if a country obtains chemical or biological weapons, the rest of the world types to react with fury, or at least it did in the not so distant past. what's the analogy you're making about the amazon fires? >> so this is an urgent problem that is not just a problem limited to brazil. that if we're indeed describing the amazon as the world's lungs, that implies the implications of the fires are global and therefore they demand a global response. and i think something actually very important happened at the g7, which is not the $20 million
that the -- that the nations volunteered to give for the sake of fighting fires, but emmanuel macron, the president of france, threatened to cancel european trade deal with brazil. >> yep. >> and that caused the brazilian president to change his tune almost instantly. that the beginning of the weekend, he was saying that the fires in brazil are a matter of brazil's sovereignty, that the rest of the world shouldn't interfere with their fighting of the fires. he was still -- he ran for president on a platform of deforesting the amazon, but after macron applied pressure, after the g7 decided that they were going to make this a significant issue, bolsonaro almost instantly changed his message. he sent his country's military to fight the fires and said the amazon was a national treasure that deserved to be preserved.
so what happened is actually important. it's a harbinger of what can be accomplished when the nations of the world say, you know, what happens in one country is a problem for the entire world and we're going to apply the same sort of diplomatic tools that we would use in the case of dealing with wmd to solve a problem like the destruction of the amazon. >> you know, it's interesting you say that because i've been following some of the news from western china where the muslim uyghur population has been put in these terrible internment camps. for a long time it wasn't really covered. that pressure does seem to be having some effects now on chinese policy-making. you're saying there is something similar with the climate. what does it mean when donald trump does the opposite? when he doesn't show up to the meeting and says it's essentially a hoax and says this america first, we're exporting a ton of fossil fuel and i'm not going to give it up for your pipe dream of windmills.
>> right. well, let's acknowledge at the start that a lot of the g7 nations are totally hypocritical. >> yes. >> on climate. that canada is building this pipeline at the same time that they're chastising brazil. macron is guilty of his own hypocrisy. i think donald trump's absence in these meetings is actually kind of useful for the rest of the world to get on with its business. that trump is -- is just going to be an obstruction -- an obstructionist presence in these meetings. so the fact that he's not there is tremendously sad for us as americans, but maybe it's smoothing the way for decent policies to be enacted by the rest of the international community. >> do you think, i mean, when you talk about this sort of idea of sovereignty and pressure, right, what you're seeing also is the contours of the order now as the climate crisis intensifies are these questions are going to be more and more front and center and there is going to be nationalist backlash in all sorts of places. it's not just that america will have its version of you can't tell us what to do.
lots of countries do. those politics are easy to find all around the world. and to me i wonder if you think this is the case, they're going to be a major political challenge to the kind of coordinated efforts we need. >> we've already seen this. if you think about the refugee crisis in europe as an extension of the climate crisis. >> yep. >> that there is certainly climate refugees fleeing there. you see the way in which the european countries are unable to coordinate across national boundaries in order to deal with this issue, and you see the way in which that issue had already triggered the sort of nationalist backlash that you're describing, what you're seeing are the contours of a global world order that are incapable of dialing with this crisis, which will surely get worse with every year. >> yeah. >> and so what it demands is new levels of cooperation, but also the use of all of these traditional tools in our diplomatic tool kit to try to discipline nations that are acting in an obstructionist sort of way. >> all right. thank you so much.
a handful of progressive groups have taken to call this month impeachment august as their member have been pressuring congressional democrats who are home in their districts for a recess to come out formally in favor of impeachment. though it has not dominated headlines, it does appear to be working. today illinois congressman raja krishnamoorthi came out in favor of an impeachment inquiry. the house judiciary committee issued subpoenas for former white house aide rob port tore testify about the president's efforts to obstruct the russia investigation. porter was forced to leave the
white house last year after it was revealed he had been accused of domestic violence by both of his former wives and various red flags had been waived. as democrats continued a somewhat administration and slow motion internal debate about what to do with the president's flagrant abuse of power, the president continues to give them information like just today when he used his opportunity at the g7 to promote his money-losing golf club in miami. >> with dural, we're have a series of magnificent buildings, we call them bungalows. they each hold from 50 to 70 very luxurious rooms with magnificent views. we have incredible conference rooms, incredible restaurants. it's like -- it's like such a natural. we wouldn't even have to do the work that they've done here. they've done a beautiful job. they've really done a beautiful job. and what we have also is miami. >> talk about the legal implications the president using the international stage as an infomercial for his property, i'm joined by barb mcquade. barbara, i want to start there. we had someone on the program, he said something that stuck with me about impeachment, look,
there are things that aren't crimes but would be impeachable. going on vacation for eight months, not a crime, but if the president did it, you might have a case to impeach him. promoting your golf property, perfectly legal thing to do, but using the g7 to do so, totally emoluments clause that says the president is not supposed to take things of value from a foreign government. it would be a conflict of interest. his loyalty is supposed to be to the united states. we've seen some lawsuits on this theory related to his hotel in washington, d.c. there was a fourth circuit court of appeals opinion that dismissed that lawsuit but only on the basis of standing. it found the attorneys general in maryland and d.c. didn't have standing. it did not address the merits. if the court were to address the
merits by somebody who has standing, we could see a lawsuit there or as you say, grounds for impeachment. he is blatantly violating the constitution. maybe you give him a pass when he doesn't understand what the rules are. he's already been on notice that this is a violation of the law and to use the platform of the g7 to tout his bungalows in the form as you say of an infomercial is absolutely a blatant violation of the constitution. >> so there was a mention today about the subpoenas. for rob porter that were issued by the house judiciary committee. this gets to the crux of one of the issues here. it's a longstanding pattern and theme. house judiciary committee is trying to do oversight. we know what's going to happen. the white house is going to intervene and say you can't talk to him and it's going to play out in the courts. two questions, what are their chances of success? but more importantly, what will that timeline look like? >> well, one of the things that's really interesting is as you say we've seen again and again this invocation of not
just executive privilege, but executive immunity, saying not only might he decline to answer some specific questions designed to promote candor in providing advice to the president, but he is not even going to show up. you know, that alone is problematic, and we saw it in the nixon administration, that refusal to comply with legitimate inquiries from the congress is an impeachable offense. and so even if they don't get relief in the courts, maybe at some point members of congress will say, this refusal to comply is alone an impeachable offense. >> there are many members of congress who have articulated that as a possible standard. although there is this dual track hope, right, to have the article iii courts essentially decide and adjudicate this battle between the two other branches of government. it made me think of this piece from "the washington post," it said it's unlikely the house dems are going to get trump's tax returns before the 2020 election. i saw you shake your head and frown, but this -- in some ways this is a tried and true tactic
by trump to push things to litigation and run out the clock as long as possible. it worked in avoiding a personal interview with robert mueller and now it looks like it may work on the tax returns. >> yeah, and i think it's frustrate on two fronts. one is you're a little bit at the mercy of the courts. we've seen in some instances some judges put this on a fast track and make a decision very quickly. only to see it then stall in the court of appeals. so on the one hand we're a little bit at the mercy of whether judges decide to put this on a fast track. one hopes that they would just to get a resolution. we're also seeing -- i'm a little frustrated with the pace of congress. there are some members of congress who want to push this and see it go quickly, others i think are dragging their feet on the theory that it might be politically damaging to push for an impeachment. you know, i think you have to look at the political consequences of impeachment, but also the duties of members of
congress to hold the president accountable because if president trump is successful in stalling this and running out the clock, it sort of sets a precedent in the future of how future presidents can engage in similar tactics. and so to some extent what is the duty of members of congress to sacrifice their own political self-interest to say presidents cannot do this and we are putting a stop to this now and forever. >> all right. barbara mcquade, thank you so much for joining us. >> thanks, chris. ahead, the field of republicans vying to deny president trump his party's nomination keeps on growing. tonight, one of trump's potential opponents is crashing a big republican event down in south carolina. that's story's next.
barbecue. that's the sort of thing that a republican vice president does, but also attending is the former governor of that state of south carolina, mark sanford. also a former member of congress who is now openly mulling a primary challenge against donald trump. i should tell you that sanford was shouted down and heckled by some folks at the barbecue, by sign waving of supporters of donald trump as he talked to a local reporter. you see him there. if and when sanford were to announce, he would join william weld, former congressman of massachusetts and now joe walsh who launched his own campaign yesterday. it is deeply unclear if any of these men have an actual constituency in the modern trumpist republican party, but i will say this, unlike weld, walsh is sort of a trumpian figure in his own right. he had a reputation for saying wildly offensive things while a member of congress along with promoting birtherism and other stuff. in a term that seems to signify something about the trajectory of republican politics over the last few years, the man who was once the most offensive member of the republican party is now running as the conscience of the party. i'm joined by former congressman carlos corbello and lynn sweet.
lynn, you covered joe walsh a bit. he was a radio host and then a kind of tea party star and then he was booted out. i can't tell what the angle is here. what do you think it is? >> well, the think with joe walsh is sometimes just a figure of the moment that we're in. and he is somebody who for all his past, he's a flawed messenger, he admits it, because he has in his run for president apologized for all the terrible things he has said that he says has contributed in a way to the trump era that we're in now. but why is he in this? i take him for the moment, i
mean, he's a big self-promotor. i know that. he once told me in 2011 his thing is to, you know, shout from the mountain tops. that's symbolically why he's in congress. but he just is -- is one who knows about this kind of rhetoric and knows where it leads. he finally said enough. >> yeah. >> and i don't find that hard to believe in him. yes, does he get enormous publicity out of this and a national platform? but, remember, he's a conservative radio talk show host. he may not keep his job. >> yeah, i mean, the point i would say about walsh, congressman, is that whatever you -- whatever the substantive feelings one has about him or his politics or the things he said in the past, many of which i found very heinous, william
weld is not going anywhere in a gop primary. william weld does not represent any incarnation of a current or former republican party. mark sanford and joe walsh maybe do. what do you think? >> chris, i think all of these candidates and potential republican primary challengers have their obvious strengths and weaknesses. however, it's also clear that none of them represent a serious threat to the president, at least at this time. but here's the thing. let me take you back to 1992, pat buchanan ran against president george h.w. bush that year. he did not win a single state but he was not a relative figure no those elections. he divided the party. president bush was weakened going into the general election, and a lot of people think that's one of the reasons why he lost. so the president doesn't have to worry about any of these candidates -- >> winning. right. >> being a direct threat. but he does have to worry about them weakening him and the perception that republicans are divided going into november of 2020. >> lynn? >> well, there is a difference. pat buchanan was far more organized in 1992 than joe walsh is today. there is no campaign.
he had a great slick video. he's booked on cable shows. it will be interesting to see if fox covers him at all. >> it will be. >> it's really, really hard to get on the ballot in many states, despite the early states it might be easier and delegate states. this might be over sooner than later if weld and sanford and he gets in and walsh can't figure out a way to get on the ballot. >> i will say -- i do agree with that. coming on capable news is a good way if you want to get in the president's head because as far as i can tell he watch it is all day. it the also interesting to me, i agree with you, congressman, there is no threat here as to who will get the nomination. there is a possibility of damage. all the reporting and the actions taken, even having pence down there in south carolina, which is an early primary state and not a swing state, right? let's be clear, south carolina is not going to the democrat. why are you spending time in south carolina? it's an early primary state. they seem to be kind of focused on it. it does seem to playing a role in their heads whether or not
out objectively in the world it matters. >> the president's team understands that any sitting president having a primary challenge is a problem. that doesn't mean it's a big problem. >> right. >> again, it doesn't mean that he is in jeopardy of not winning the nomination, especially now that the rnc has tightened its rules to protect him. >> explicitly, yes. >> but this is not 1992 in the sense that there is social media. there are many more tv outlets. there is cable. there is radio. so these candidates, they may not get on the ballot, but they can make a lot of noise. they -- their criticisms can get amplified. and this is a president that needs a strong unified base to win a november election, and any fissures in that base, any erosion could be very problematic. >> the one thing, lynn, i mean, as the president was talking about china, right, this --
there's this piece in "the new york times" about sort of the gyrating economy and trump's volatile approach to it raise alarms. there's a lot of genuine uneasiness behind closed doors among republicans on this more than anything, right? if the economy tanks, if the trade war gets out of control then we're in a different situation than we are with a president that polls around 40% with an economy with unemployment around 4%. >> i said to joe walsh i know you've been talking to bill kristol and joe conway, what advice did you get? he's the only conservative who wants to run to the right who does have credentials in that conservative wing of the party. he said he's not running on issues, he's running on george -- excuse me, he's running on that donald trump is unfit to be president. >> right. >> so whether or not the economy -- >> right. >> -- goes up or down, that's
not where the assessment is that you can have people listen to you about what the problem is with president trump. and that i think is what walsh when he is totally capable of giving as good as trump might get. so far, by the way, trump hasn't taken his tweet bait. >> that is interesting. although, congressman, i don't think there is any appetite really -- i mean, what is your assessment of the appetite within the republican party and republican primary voters for the determination the president is unfit for the office he holds? >> look, chris, we've seen the statistics. about 90% of republicans support this president. our politics have become extremely tribal. and a lot of republicans are willing to overlook some of the president's obvious flaws. now, that's because things in the country are going relatively well. especially when it comes to the economy. if the economy starts collapsing, if this trade war further disrupts markets and 401(k)s start dropping then you can see that some of these
candidates could get some tracks. are they going to win? probably not. but could they -- >> yeah -- >> cause problems for the president? could they weaken him going into the fall? certainly. and that's why the president's team, i think, is taking this seriously. publicly they're brushing this off, but when you see the moves they're making, they're obviously taking steps to tamp down any traction that either walsh or sanford could get. >> well, to bring it back around to 1992, lynn, to your point, i'll never forget being a kid and watching an "snl" skit early -- i think it was in '91 and the conceit of it was the democrats who was lining up to lose to george w. bush. the gulf war had just concluded. polling at 84%. the whole idea was this guy was unbeatable. before you know it, the economy turned and the political fortunes of that presidency turned very fast. >> and that's -- and we know that bill clinton, then the governor of arkansas, was just standing ready to take advantage of it.
>> right, at the -- >> because everyone else self-proclaimed themselves ineligible to win. >> and that's right. and buchanan was there as well. that's where that damage came from. but it all happened -- the first thing to happen were the underlying economic realities in that moment. former congressman carlos kurbello and lynn sweet, thank you both for joining us. >> thank you, chris. ahead, is there an actual shift in the democratic leashed. there are new signs the democratic field could be narrowing down and tonight's "thing one, thing two" starts next. - in the last year, there were three victims of cybercrime every second. when a criminal has your personal information, they can do all sorts of things in your name. criminals can use ransomware, spyware, or malware to gain access to information like your name, your birthday, and even your social security number. - [announcer] that's why norton and lifelock are now part of one company, providing an all in one membership for your cyber safety that gives you identify theft protection, device security, a vpn for online privacy, and more. and if you have an identity theft problem,
we'll work to fix it with our million dollar protection package. - there are new cyber threats out there everyday, so protecting yourself isn't a one time job, it's an ongoing need. now is the time to make sure that you have the right plan in place. don't wait. - [announcer] norton 360 with lifelock. use promo code get25 to save 25% off your first year and get a free shredder with annual membership. call now to start your membership or visit lifelock.com/tv the first survivor of alzis out there.ase and the alzheimer's association is going to make it happen. but we won't get there without you. join the fight with the alzheimer's association. medicare alone only covers 80% of your cost, leaving you to pay the rest. changes to medicare are no laughing matter. if you don't know the plans available now, you might end up with a doctor you're not so comfortable with, or even worse, being forced to pay thousands in medical expenses due to coverage limitations.
that'll be how much? understanding all the options, let's face it, it can be downright confusing. that's why i love healthmarkets, your insurance marketplace. they search thousands of plans from leading insurance companies to find a plan that's right for you. plans that have prescription drug coverage, dental and vision care, and that offer extra benefits you may not even know were available. some plans may eliminate your out of pocket cost like copays and deductibles, and there's even plans with no monthly premium. they can find you a plan to let you keep your doctors. i know that's important for me. you may also qualify for special subsidies that lower your prescription drug costs. healthmarkets doesn't just work for one insurance company. they work to help you, and they do it all for free. hi, i'm dr. thomas stackhouse. it's a new medicare year and that means more changes and more confusion. many people may worry about the high cost of medical care and prescription drugs. the key to maintaining your health and saving money on your healthcare cost is finding the
right plan for you. don't go it alone. make sure to explore all of your options to find the right plan for your needs. having helped enroll people in millions of policies with an a plus customer satisfaction rating, you can trust healthmarkets. you can enroll today. call healthmarkets now for free help. it's easy to find the medicare plan that saves you money, so you can enjoy more of the things you love. call now to take advantage of this free service. now is the time to update your coverage or enroll for the first time. call healthmarkets now. call the number on your screen call this number now.
thing one tonight, the president has been known to come up with some, to put it kindly, strange proposals that seem to just pop into his brain out of nowhere. sending his staff scrambling to spin whatever the heck it is he's talking about. the space force, for example, and going to mars before he's out of office or the big, beautiful see through border wall. see through because drug dealers might throw big bags of drugs over the wall and then hit innocent passersby, of course. then there was the suggestion we should rake our forest floors better to prevent wildfires because that's how they do it in finland. earlier this month we got wind of the scheme to buy greenland despite the fact that the sovereign territory is not up for sale. just yesterday we learned of a trump idea that's so wild even his staff was floored. quote, you could hear a gnat fart in that meeting. after the meeting we thought what the "f," what do we do with this? and that's thing two in 60 seconds.
according to a new report from axios, president trump has been very interested in a brilliant plan to stop hurricanes. drop a nuclear bomb on them. trump has reportedly made that suggestion multiple times to senior homeland and national security officials, paraphrased by a source in the room for one briefing as saying, quote, i got it, i got it, why don't we nuke them. we drop a bomb in the eye of the hurricane and it disrupts it. why can't we do that? a source added the person briefing the president on hurricanes was knocked back on his heels. people were astonished. after the meeting we thought, what the "f," what do we do with this? this morning the president tweeted from the g7 summit in france calling the story ridiculous. donald trump would not be the first to toy with the idea.
one government scientist reportedly floated it back in the '50s. it was considered a dumb idea back then, too, but then again, their hurricanes weren't as bad. >> this is a tough hurricane. one of the wettest we've ever seen from the standpoint of water. (pirate girl) ahoy!!!!! (excited squeal, giggling/panting) gotcha! (man) ah! (girl) nooooooooooooo! (man) nooooo! (girl) nooooo... (vo) quick, the quicker picker upper! bounty picks up messes quicker, and is two times more absorbent than the leading ordinary brand. (man and pirate girl) ahoy! (laughing) (vo) bounty, the quicker picker upper. - in the last year, of cybercrime every second. when a criminal has your personal information, they can do all sorts of things in your name. criminals can use ransomware, spyware, or malware to gain access to information like your name, your birthday, and even your social security number. - [announcer] that's why norton and lifelock are now part of one company,
providing an all in one membership for your cyber safety that gives you identify theft protection, device security, a vpn for online privacy, and more. and if you have an identity theft problem, we'll work to fix it with our million dollar protection package. - there are new cyber threats out there everyday, so protecting yourself isn't a one time job, it's an ongoing need. now is the time to make sure that you have the right plan in place. don't wait. - [announcer] norton 360 with lifelock. use promo code get25 to save 25% off your first year and get a free shredder with annual membership. call now to start your membership or visit lifelock.com/tv
warren and former vice president joe biden. now, the caution about this poll is that the sample size is really quite small, just under 300 democratic voters, and that means the margin of error is large, plus or minus 5.7 percentage points. a lot. it's important to note points. a lot. it's important to note the real clear politics polling average still has joe biden with substantial lead although en there, biden, sanders and warren have double-dint support. they seem to be at the top tier. the average comport to the idea there are three at the top but if the biden folks are taking comfort in the low sample size of today's monmouth poll, there's another poll out today from the home state of monmout university which is new jersey. shows the same three candidates, biden, sanders and warren clustered together at the top. this poll is a much larger sample size. 6 35 voters. margin of error plus or minus
3.9 percentage points. it's interesting, ew jersey is not a first-round state, not iowa or new hampshire. no one is doing town halls or state fairs in new jersey yet. they are on television or reading up on the internet. right now with the third debate set for september, only ten candidates have qualified for that debate which means it looks like at least for now we might have our first ever one-night debate, everyone on stage, including those top three front-runners. so after labor day, act 2 of the democratic primary begins. we'll talk about that, next.
your business is up and running, but is it going beyond fast? comcast business gives you high speed internet. we also have solutions like powerful wifi that gives your entire business more coverage and automatic internet backup that can keep your business running. and it all starts with our gig-speed network. so give us 10 minutes. if we can't offer you faster speed or better savings than your current internet service, we'll give you 300 dollars for your time. call now to get your comcast business 10 minute advantage. comcast business. beyond fast.
right now, and this is just a snapshot of where things are, there seem to be three candidates in the top tier of the race of the democratic presidential nomination. joe biden, bernie sanders and elizabeth warren. after them, there are, perhaps, five or six candidates with some significant or more than nominal support. as the candidates narrow down, we're now getting to another phase in the race. here with me now, two people with plenty of insight into the current state of the democratic race. spokesperson for justice democrats and karine jean-pierre, spokesperson for
moveon.org and msnbc political analyst. let me start with you. before you get into the first race numbers, you see the sort of race -- to me, we've sort of turned a kind of corner where the field is narrowing. people are announcing they're dropping out. there's going to probably be one debate as far as now and the tiers seem more, less permeable than they might have four or five months ago when who knows who would rise and who would fall. ha do you think? >> i think you're absolutely right, chris. we have a debate coming up right after labor day which we know in past electoral cycle, that's when people start paying a little bit more attention. they're much more focused and we have to understand, though, this race is still fluid. things are still moving around and we have to see, right, you were talking about the monmouth poll and the margin of errors and how we've never seen
anything like that. we don't know yet if that is the norm. >> yeah. >> or if that is just an outlier. so we have to keep an eye on that. yeah, this was pretty shocking. it's a lot of what people have been saying that joe bideson the front-runner but not the runaway front-runner. right? or we've been seeing with these crowds with elizabeth warren, she's been getting the crowds but this poll tells you more about why she's getting this crowd and this poll i think is the best for bernie sanders. this is really good poll for bernie sanders. you get a real sense that he has a solid 15% to 20% support where in 2016, that would not have bork worked with really a two-person race. right now with a multicandidate race, that's impressive for him. that's going to be helpful as we figure out who's going to stay and who's going to be out as you were talking about, chris. >> elizabeth warren, there's literally one story that all of the date datedatea points out. one candidate has made the most gain. elizabeth warren. by all the polling, all the anecdoting -- 1,500 people in seattle. joe biden has been at the top of the polls. bernie sanders has been around
number two through most of this. the most movement it seems is with this campaign. >> yeah, i think the poll, the monmouth poll is showing trends elizabeth warren has been slowly and steadily climbing in the polls and now she's, you know, she's up there always number two or number three with bernie sanders. and i think she's putting together this coalition of hillary clinton voters in 2016 and bernie sanders voters in 2016. that could be a pretty powerful coalition. >> the question of that coalition, this is where i think the question about biden, where does he go from here, right, is, karine, where are the voters that he adds, right? >> yeah. >> and also, this sort of generational question, a lot of us talked about in terms of race. he's been pulling far ahead with african-american voters. there's a big generation gap.
>> yeah. >> i mean, white and black voters above a certain age favor biden quite heavily. under a certain age, that does not appear to be the case. and if you're biden, and you're choosing between those two age demographics, the older ones come out in primaries. that's probably the one you'd bank on. >> yeah, it's incredibly problematic for biden, in the monmouth poll he was at 6% i think with voters 50 and under. that is not where you want to be. >> just to caution, that's a small -- that's a very small -- a cross sample size. i'm not going to take this as gospel. >> margin of error 5% to 7%. absolutely, we need to put that out there. just using that because that's what we have at the moment with the snapshot, that's pretty terrible. here's the thing here. you know, it's like we're going to need a movement to beat donald trump. not just a candidate who could beat donald trump. you're going to need a movement and that includes a coalition that we've seen a barack obama do twice. that includes young people. think that is the problem.
and, yes, older people are more likely to vote. we see that. they're more consistent voters. but you have to put together a coalition and i think that is the problem that biden could foresee. >> that coalition,coalition, one of the things he did, you know, highly educated liberals have always sort of had their primary horse in races and had a hard time winning the nomination largely because along race lines it's been hard to put that coalition together. barack obama broke through that, right? >> yeah. >> that, to me, strikes me as one of the big questions right now in the race for essentially non-biden candidates or particularly warren and sanders, warren whose appeal right now from best we can tell in the polls is quite white. >> yeah, bernie sanders and elizabeth warren have to figure out how to earn the support of a lot of those black voters who are now with joe biden. i think kamala harris also has
that same issue. >> and pete buttigieg if he wants to stay in a tier that's appreciable polling. >> but overall, the point about voters under 50 is true that overall, they are more progressive minded, seem to be centering policy more than older voters and that makes sense because of everything we knew about millennials from the 2016 campaign. >> it's interesting to me, the biden campaign really has -- show the screen shot for one second, the head-to-head polling he has in his first ad. i mine, they're really leaning into this argument, like the biden message right electability, decency and normalcy. that's it. that's the message. much more than it's policy, like, those are the three tonight, president trump comes home after barreling through the g-7, locking horns with u.s. allies on trade, russia, and climate change. will it amount to anything? plus, in a move that could vet millions for trump's business, the president pitches his florida resort as the site of next year's g-7 using his farewell news conference to tout its abundance of parking. good news for the residents of newark, new jersey, whose water contains dangerous levels of lead but more waiting lies ahead as the "the 11th hour" on a monday night starts right now. a monday night starts right now. good evening once again from our