tv MSNBC Live MSNBC October 30, 2016 2:00pm-3:01pm PDT
happened but now that it had, mr. comey needs to explain why he took this unprecedented step. >> good afternoon. i'm joy reid. jim comey has come under fire for what the clinton campaign said is an unprecedented and inappropriate foray into the election days before the vofina votes are cast. he sent a letter to congress friday saying he found more e-mails that may or may not pertain to the investigation into hillary clinton's private server. richard painter, the former chief white house ethics adviser for george w. bush says comey may have violated federal law. he joins me by phone. mr. painter, thank you for being here. you wrote an op-ed in "the new york times" i have in front of me in which you asked the question, did the fbi director abuse his power, and you go on to e describe what you seem to be alleging are potential violations of the hatch act. could you please explain? >> the hatch act prohibits
government officialings from using their official position to influence a partisan political campaign. we have no legitimate reason for writing this letter to members of congress whose only interest at this juncture is political knowing that it would be leaked within seconds of arrival on capitol hill. there's nus just no reason to have written this letter in this context. members of the house oversight committee do not have the right to be updated constantly by the fbi on investigations of their political opponents. that's a misuse of the fbi and the members of the committee thinks that's what the fbi director ought to be doing. they are very much misled, and that's not the way our country works. >> you describe in your op-ed the fact that it wouldn't necessarily be required for jim comey himself, for james comey
to himself want to influence the election. it would only require that he essentially sake actions that do want to influence the election would do so. could you explain why his own intent would not be required? >> because it's quite clear what congress wants to do in the hatch act is address the situation with the political people tt the top of the executive branch agencies or members of congress, put pressure on people in the federal government to use their official position to influence elections. that's not appropriate use of official position and that was the whole point of the hatch act. we can't have a situation where an underlyngos and does something at the behest of a superior and is able to say, well, no hatch act violation because i didn't give a hoot about the election. that makes absolutely no sense. >> and jim comey in his letter to the fellow members of the fbi to his staff, sent to the fbi
staff, seemed to express a concern that if he didn't update congress on this new finding it would render his previous testimony on the matter of hb hk'seh hillary clinton's e-mail server inaccurate because he testified they'd gone through all the e-mails. any validity to the idea that comey felt he had to do the update because he had testified that he already reviewed all of the e-mail? >> well, what he testified is that he reviewed all the e-mail, his testimony was true. they have discovered another computer which is not hillary clinton's computer, which is a computer of someone who worked for hillary clinton and i believe they may not eve haven't a search warrant yet to go through it. i don't know how that's relevant to this. but the key point here is that we get testimony, you don't have an obligation to constantly update the committee, particularly if what the subject matter is an investigation of
political opponents. no committee of congress has the right to use the fbi in that way, and if that's the understanding that the members of that committee have, they are in serious breach of their duty to the american people to not use the fbi for political purposes. >> and you start your op-ed piece in "the new york times" by citing the fact that it is highly likely and very probable that the fbi is also looking into the ties to russia of top aides or former -- current or former top aides to the republican candidate for president. you're saying essentially the reverse were to happen, the fbi were to go forward and publicly announce that they were investigating donald trump's ties to russia or his aides' ties to russia would be the same thing. do you think that in and of itself is proof that it is political? the fbi is investigating something to do with both candidates but only is updating
the mick on one. >> i don't know for sure what the fbi is investigating with respect to trump and russia, but given the facts we do know and what trump has said and his business dealings in russia and the fact that these e-mails are are being hacked almost certainly by the russians and being leaked selectively to help his campaign, i would certainly expect that the fbi would be investigating. they certainly should. we have had this problem before. franklin roosevelt had to get rid of his vice president henry wallace. his ties were too close to russia and the kgb. this is serious business. that should be done privately and only stated to congress. >> lastly to those who would suggest that you are writing this op-ed and making these claims about potential hatch act
violations by the fbi director because you are a supporter of hillary clinton, what would you say to them, sir? >> well, i've chosen hillary clinton to support because the first three candidates i supported in the republican primaries were not chosen. bush, rubio, kasich, we had some very good people, some excellent people who did not run. donald trump is unacceptable for obvious reasons. i've got three children and i don't want him anywhere near the nuclear button. that's just the beginning. as an american, i have to support clinton. i do not have a choice in this election. >> richard painter, thank you so much for joining us by phone. appreciate your time. thank you, sir. >> thank vow very much. >> i want to bring in my panel.
nick, i'll come to you first. you heard richard painter, an ethics attorney in the george w. bush white house saying in his view he sees potential hatch act violations. we know a democratic leaning group that is opposed to donald trump also attempted to file an ethics complaint. he, too, has filed an ethics complaint. where in theory could this go? >> the problem here is comey has raised questions he probably can't answer before election day, which is what's so strange about this. if there are thousands of e-mails that had to be reviewed, it's hard to imagine they can get that done in the next nine days which means it puts both candidates in a bad position between now and election day because we can't get any firm answer on anything that was wrong with this. >> "the wall street journal" has a piece out today by devlin barrett that suggests that there are 650,000 e-mails that are on
the laptop belonging to anthony weiner. these are e-mails that go back years of correspondence between anthony wiener and whoever, whatever he was talking to even going back between when he was in congress, between he and his wife. there's no way of knowing if ten of them have to do with hillary clinton or if 100,000. there's no way of knowing. >> that's why this was irresponsible of the fbi director in my view because he didn't know whether any of this was per innocent, the word he used. how is it pertinent if you don't know what any of e-mails are? you can't know if it's pertinent let alone significant, the other word he mentioned. you don't know that. what is the obligation to throw this to the election 11 days before e ex-day when you know nothing about what those e-mails will be? the fact reportedly they have no warrant yet suggests to me they didn't think this was so important except now as a political football and that's bad. >> maiya, there's suggestion in "the wall street journal" piece
that's a lot of internal wrangling taking place in the fbi, inside of the fbi, that jim comey has thrown a wrench into it, really did so last july when he chose to make editorial statements about hillary clinton and that now he seems to be doing almost a reality show update as one person has described it. as a legal matter in your view, was comey somehow obligated to go public with updates about this case? >> no, i think the professor laid that squarely to rest pretty clearly. if anything, it looks like, who knows, but it looks like the best-case scenario for mr. comey is that he caved to a lot of political pressure and just felt that he couldn't take the heat that he took over the summer and if, if anything were to emerge from these e-mails and no reason to believe yet that anything would, that he didn't want to take any heat for that. i think what's particularly unusual here is that he also ignored the long-standing policy of the department. so this isn't -- no matter what
you think about any of this, the fact that it has a long-standing policy here, it is actually fundamental to protecting the integrity of investigations that it appear to the public as a neutral entity, not as one that's weighing in on elections. even if you thought that he had an obligation to update the committee, which i agree that he did not, why would he update in the absence of any information that was pertinent to any of the questions that the committee was asking? he didn't have answers to any of the questions relevant. we don't even know if the e-mails were duplicative of what he testified. >> you end up with vagaries that sort of throw more mud into the atmosphere. let's talk more about that pressure that's coming from capitol hill. you have jason chaffits and other republicans on these committees investigating hillary clinton who are also up for re-election. you can imagine the pressure that's being placed from capitol hill on the fbi was enormous.
but just gives us a little bit of what's going on there in d.c. both between the capitol hill and the fbi and also this question of it wasn't just long-standing precedent. comey actually defied the instructions of the attorney general. >> right. i think that's like your interview with mr. painter. he was a senior official for president bush. we also had larry thompson who was the deputy attorney general under president bush as well sharply criticize comey. this is not just hillary clinton criticizing comey's behavior. we've sean mclaughlin yor officials and lawyers who are republicans who are strong republicans saying this behavior was inappropriate as well. what you see on capitol hill is you're already seeing the first signs of we're going to continue to have the benghazi investigation may last until 2024 it seems.
darrell issa, a lot of republicans are pushing more. they want to continue this clinton investigation as long as they can. you can tell comey responded to them. i assume they leaked the letter because that's their incentive. they've been leaking things of the investigation throughout the investigation. a little bit of a split on the republican side and you've seen some members i think chuck grassley of iowa, for example, who actually said -- who also criticized and said this letter was too vague as well. so you saw paul ryan, jason cha chaffits kind of jump on hillary clinton but some republicans saying this letter seems vague, we want to know more. off lot of people on the republican and democratic side against mr. comey right now. >> nick, at the same time, you have republicans with no incentive at all for introspection on this. if this was even unethical on the part of people on capitol hill, to try to push the fbi to update them and immediately leak it for the purposes of an election, there isn't really a consequence that seems to be immediate for that.
>> we saw these communities have enormous power to put pressure on the irs, doj, budgeting for the impeachment threat, the commissioner of the irs. i think we've seen suggestions in the letter comey wrote to his own staff that he is dealing with internal pressure and problems with his own agents and own senior executives. so you can imagine he is maybe acting in part as he sees to protect the integrity of the institution. unfortunately, he is risking a lot by doing so. >> having worked in this governmental sphere, that balance of trying to be a law enforcement official, which is what the fbi director, he's the police, not prosecutor, how much does that political pressure wind up weighing in and do the ethics rules constrain somebody in his position no matter how much pressure is on you, you have to abide by rules i'm assuming. >> you have to stand up for both the rule of law, the process, the justice system's process, as
well as ethics rules. and that makes it very clear. you have to take the heat. and what that means -- most americans think that the beltway is broken. it is actually critical that they not think our justice system is too. and what really one of -- i think just such devastating things about this whole debacle is actually what the fbi director did is actually make it much more difficult for americans to believe the neut l neutrality of the department of justice and that's something this nation can't afford pip think that's also something that republicans and democrats both have to be concerned with. >> absolutely. we've seen that happen with the supreme court where it's just another part of our politics. now the fbi, which has been here before. we all remember j. edgar hoover existed. they've been here before. we'll bring all of these great guests back. up next, a bombshell new report showing that donald trump has exaggerated his charitable giving for decades. ng mns making tochoices.m! yo're in!
i was going to tell you, i was beginning to think nothing about donald trump would surprise me anymore. but yesterday "the washington post" published a report that was truly stunning. a months-long investigation by "the washington post" found that trump had sought credit for charity he had not given or claimed other people's giving as his own. >> a new report breaking on the front page of "the washington post" today talking about donald trump's charitable giving or lack thereof. some telling anecdotes. in 1996, trump showed up at the ribbon cutting of a nursery school for children with aids. many of the school's donors were there, but donald trump wasn't one of them. according to the post he old never give an dollar to the school or the organization that built it but he still finagled his way into a seat on the dais, posed for pictures and generally
made himself out to be one of the school's benefactors and then he left without offering an explanation or a donation. for as long as he's been rich and famous, he has always wan d wanted people to believe he's generalous. the reporter for this story. give us a summary of the things you were able to find. what are a couple of other instances you found seeming to be charitable but not following through? >> one of more amazing ones was in 1997, visits principal for the day at an impoverished area in the bronx. he shows up at the school and the chess team is having a bake sale, selling danishings and croissants, they're raising money to go on a trip for a
tournament. trump hears the story, offers a million dollar bill, which is fake. the parents get the million dollar bill, realize it's fake and he's disappointed. he offers $200 real in money and he leaves. the only way the chess team was able to raise enough money was somebody heard about the story and somebody called up and said if you need $5,000, i'll give it to you. i'm embarrassed to be part of the same species as this man. >> trump responded to your reporting. you've been investigating this for months. have you found evidence of actual charitable giving by donald trump meaning giving to a charity not for purchase of things like portraits but actual giving to charity. >> yes, he's given money to charity out of his own pocket. you go back to the '80s, that's
the total. tull become went to the donald j. trump foundation, this that has a history of buying things for donald trump. over his lifetime e's given about $8 million to charity out of his own pocket. he's claimed much more than that. i've looked for months to find evidence that was true and i haven't. >> it would seem the incentive of the trump campaign would be to show you the charitable giving. do you get the sense they are not showing it to you, because, a, donald trump does not like your reporting because he's been known to dis reporters, b, he isn't as generous as he claims to be or that maybe some of the giving was mixed in with the foundation? we have found recently he gave money, you did, i believe, to project veritas, which is not a charity. it is this sort of filmmaking jaunt to try ferret out voter fraud. one, two, or three? >> hard to know.
we look back between 2008 and this may. we found one gift, less than $10,000 in 2009. so if there was anything more than that. i can't explain why they're not releasing it pip just know they're not. >> at the same time we know donald trump has allowed mar-a-lago, what is now a private club, to be used for charities. but he charges those charities, right? it's not for free. >> right. some nights he can make $275,000 on one night that the fees the charities rent out to pay mar-a-la mar-a-lago. it's a significant amount of money, not the bulk but a huge money maker for him there. the palm beach social scene is built around these kind of gala fund-raisers and a lot of them happen in mar-a-lago. >> i think what trump supporters would want to ask you, david, would be whether or not you have similarly probed whether hillary clinton has been as charitable
as she claims to be. have you done that? >> i haven't done it but other people have and i know a little bit about it. clinton has released her personal income taxes so it is actually possible to know what she's give on the charity in the last few years. she's given millions of dollars. you can argue about whether she's given enough, but she's given multiple millions of dollars. many go to the clinton family foundation, which then doe doh nates it to a variety of causes including the more clinton foundation, an operating charity that actually goes out and does things in the world. you can argue whether she gives enough, but she certainly gives something and we've known that because we've seen her tax returns. >> those tax returns, thanks for your exceptional reporting. appreciate it. >> thank you. >> joining me now republican strategist giancarlo persutti. why does it matter if politicians give money to charities or not? they all seem to want to prove they're charitable. if donald trump isn't, why say
schnurr why does it matter? >> in the good old days -- >> you mean a year ago? >> farther back. americans like to think of their political leaders as people to emulate, people they could look um to and their children could look up to as good human beings. part of that is giving back. i used to work for george herbert walker bush. he said every successful life must include service to others. that's a poor dime that's been with us far long time. i happen to believe it's an ideal we should hold true. ask he if i'm surprised that donald trump hasn't lived up to that, i'm not. >> have we just left, maiya, left behind in the good old dais as jean carlo mentioned even the idea that a president should be somebody that we respect and look up to? >> we have not. >> with barack obama, that is one of the features of barack obama being president of which a lot of americans, not even just african-americans are proud.
is that not important anymore? >> it's important and how people give and what charities they give to tells us about what kind of leaders they beal. the role models and also what kinds of sh shoes do they care about and are they going to pay attention to when they're in office? i think we know hillary clinton has always cared about children and families. we can track their charitable giving. a very big part of that is frankly trump has not demonstrated him to be that kind of leader people want their children to be looking at in the white house. >> we learn he has far from
funded the campaign. probably too little too late. or his believe united nations about the wall and mexico and when he had an opportunity to speak truth to power and stand next to the president at the press conference, he was his lap dog for 90 minutes. donald trump has a history on the campaign trail of writing checks with his mouth. >> i have to ask you, giancarlo, because i feel like i have had friends of mine in florida who are republicans say if george herbert walker bush was still running the party, none of this nonsense would be going on. he was a man of character. the rest of the family will come out in a more definitive way. >> the rule that the bushes, the romneys, the doles, any of the republican elder statesmen can play comes out november 9th when my ti has to come together and
figure out where we can go from here. what valuable lessons we have taken away from this miserable experience, how do we build our party and lead into the 21st century. that's the role i would advised any interested republican to play. what do you make of the traditional religious right is four scare behind donald trump? we just heard david reporting he is not charitable, not putting himself forward as a man of character, doesn't seem interested to be even pretending he is. why is the religious right still behind him? >> you want to take that one? >> i don't know if i want to.
>> there are issues they feel donald trump will support. not the same thing as saying they agree with all the things. i think it's ban tremendous example of a lack of frankly moral fortd today for some members of the religious right not to stand up to some of the things donald trump has said and done. >> are you surprised that there haven't been more leaders of the christian right that have said -- >> i am, and i think it's explained partly by what maiya said. for issues like supreme court, the issue of life, these are seminal issues for that branch of many my party and they don't have a great hois chois but in donald trump they know that's better in their mind than alternative of hillary clinton. i also know the notion of the americans who feel disaffected, who feel that their government has not served them, feel that liberalization, global trade, income and equality, those are issues as well that conflate with beliefs of a lot of evangelicals and that pushed in into trump's corner as well. >> interesting. you would think this charitable thing would be more powerful on that side but we shall see. nine more days to go.
once again, vice president joe sbiden is every sung l one of us. >> i'd be remuss if i didn't note if she had released all the e-mails from the get-go, we wouldn't be having this conversation. >> that's true, but i don't know where these e-mails came from. >> want anthony wiener? >> i shouldn't comment on anthony wiener. i'm not a big fan. >> so real. >> up next, will comeygate have an fekt on the polls? stay with us. ouroptions untiy-f. now is a good timeo get the ball rolling. consider an rpedicar supplement insurance pn like any of ese typesre oflans,ompy. it could help you with out-of-pocket
call now and requestour free cision guide and exthe rae ofarp medicareplement ans. start thering the informatione.. cision guide rl into sixty-fe confiden. start thering the informatione.. cision guide the strikingly-desigdimpos. xus nx tur a hybri geupo $5,0 custor cash on select 2016 mels. see your lexusealer.
they've never voted before or haven't voted for 20 years and they're all voting for trump. >> two days after fbi director james comey released his letter to congress about newly discovered e-mails that might be pertinent to the clinton server case, hillary clinton still up in the national polling average but her lead is narrow. in the key state of florida, a new nbc/"wall street journal"/marist poll, they are virtually tried. that was before the fbi's october surprise. back with our panel. patrick murray of the monmouth university polling institute. patrick, do you have any numbers that can tell us whether or not whether the fbi's announcement, october surprise, is having an impact on voters? >> in the field are a series of polls we'll start releasing tomorrow. will it actually change your
vote or whether you show up to vote? those numbers are small, less than 5%. >> less than 5% would change their vote or not show up? >> either. combine that together. the issue we have there is it doesn't seem to be impacting hillary clinton in terms of the electoral college. it looks like he's still ahead in the electoral college. the down ballot is where where we're paying attention. particularly in the close reddish state where is the trump supporters are now even more galvanized than they were before, the more enthusiastic. places like indiana, missouri, north carolina, nevada, seeing seeing close senate races. there are a significant number of reporters there, more that might come up. one or two change their votes from trump to clinton doesn't change who wins that state or the seat. >> makes more people want to come out for the race.
>> that's right. >> perry bacon jr., are you seeing the reporting of any use of this four down ballot races specifically? we know donald trump is on the campaign trail trying to make hay of it. are republican senate candidates starting to try to use this fbi situation to their advantage? >> yes . you saw in missouri, roy blunt, the incumbent senator there, in a close race, asked his opponent to give back money, hillary clinton to give into the campaign. you're seeing a few republicans highlight the fact their opponent is for hillary clinton. the same way there are democrats throughout the year saying linking their opponents to donald trump, you know have some republicans, particularly in missouri, north carolina, reddish states, indiana, linking their opponent to hillary clinton in terms of the fbi controversy and also in terms of the obamacare premiums. >> if a democrat were to get an
ad say willing you give back the money hillary clinton gave you? the answer will be no, would you give back the money donald trump gave you? >> it would be the hell, no. i think what would happen with this and i don't know if it's in your poll but in another poll taken by another network, a snap poll showed very little effect on anybody's decision of who to vote for. there were a number of democrats whose decision was strengthened by what the fbi did. they told the pollsters we're more determined now because we don't like what happened. we don't like what the fbi did. >> a sense of she's being attacked. harry reid is releasing an e-mail to jim comey he is essentially advising comey, says your actions in recent months have demonstrated a disturbing
double standard for the treatment of sensitive information with what appears to be a clear intent to aid one political party over another. i am writing to inform you my office has determined that these actions may violate the hatch act, which bars fbi officials from using their official authority to influence an election. he says through your partisan actions you may have broken the law. this is a pretty serious development. >> well, listen, harry reid has always been the point of the spear for democrats on these kinds of issues for better or worse. i think if you're a lukewarm clinton supporter, you've probably baked in the e-mail stuff already. if it troubles you, you probably have decided anyway. down ballot is very important. for those races around the country, for weeks and weeks the conversation has been i've disavowed donald trump or do you agree with donald trump. now they have something else to talk about for the first time in weeks and weeks, they can say do you stand by hillary clinton? it's not going to be a great
thing purple voters or blue voters in these states but in a red state i think it helps a lot. >> states that are a must-win for donald trump. florida, north carolina, pennsylvania, and ohio. patrick, i want to come to you on this because those down ballot races particular eli important in ohio and florida. he's ticked up in florida, very close in ohio. you have senate races there where at least in the case of florida, mark rubio has been very hard to find, seems not to want to come out of his home and talk because then he has to talk about donald trump. >> nick was right on the money. they get out from under that cloud that they were under. plus they have these excited trump votersing particularly the red ter red state the better because now they feel there's a reason to go out and vote and
they'll just tick problem republicans down the ballot. that's what the clinton campaign is worried about. they think they have decent chances in new hampshire, down ballot, the red state where is that might be what determines which party controls the that is of concern to them. >> at the same time, joe, co-author of "the hunting of the president," those democrats of a certain age, you remember the impeachment era, i'm wondering if democrats will start to use that same logic to say if you return republicans to control both houses of congress and hillary clinton is the president, impeachment hearings begin january 21st. >> we've seen this movie before. people on the extreme right are saying we're going to impeach her as soon as she takes her handle off the biblian 20th. so, yes, if you were a democrat, noticing what might happen in
the first months of a new clinton presidency, it would occur to you we'd like to guard against that threat, the threat of a pra mature impeachment. it's a serious thing. people who didn't take is seriously in 1997, people like bob barr were saying we're going to impeach bill clinton before monica lewinsky. people were saying, that's crazy talk. it didn't turn out to be. >> bob barr of georgia. i think he was saying that in the first year of president clinton's presidency. i'm wondering whether or not jim comey becomes part of this campaign. it doesn't seem barack obama is in an advantageous position. comey seems to be fixed in place because who wants to touch that at this moment.
does this become an issue? >> he's already done that. i think it would be very dangerous for hillary clinton to suggest she's going to remove fbi director during the campaign of afterward. that's probably more trouble than it's swort my suspicion. i would be surprised if she said something like that. hillary clinton is going to arizona, a state republicans always win. that's what i'm looking for as a result of this fbi discussion. hillary looking at winning maybe georgia, arizona, north carolina, probably still a win. can she get the big victory that looked like she was going to get that drags in senators and maybe some house members too. i they's the big question now. she was at a high point a week ago. i wonder if she can get back by election day.
the alaska roll, is it a reuters poll? it's a snaul entity. we probably don't know much about them. the other is utah. evan mcmullin at 29. >> it probably won't happen that there's a poll. i'll poll it again for that very reason. that arizona is a great example. why is she going there? more than half the votes in arizona were already cast before
the news came out on friday. >> there you go. and she was ahead in those votes. >> ah. nevada is interesting because it's being contested at presidential level and there's an interesting senate race there. you have harry reid, the dean of the democratic party, a well-run democratic party there. he closed his letter to james comey, harry-seed, "the clear double standard established by your actions strongly suggests that your highly selective approach to publicizing information along with your timing was intended for the success or failure of a partisan candidate or political group." please keep in mind i have been a supporter of yours in the past. when republicans filibustered your nomination and delayed your confirmation longer than any previous nominee to your position, i led the fight to get you confirmed because i believed you to be a principled public service. he closed it, with deepest
regret, i now see that i was wrong. sincerely, harry reid. >> there's truth in what he's saying. a lot of have looked at him over years and said this is the ampbt kind of guy. the wiretapping excesses, refusing to follow orders. now we see him refusing to follow orders in a different situation and people are unhappy about it. i think there's a reason why harry reid is mad. >> very quickly. >> i was going to say, look, harry reid will be gone next year from senate. hillary clinton if president, jim comey will not be. a ten-year term. he is not going away. there is a real risk in antagonizing this guy and making him feel like he's the target for the current witch-hunt.
>> he also has a penchant for the press conference, one of the reasons we're here right now. thank you. come back for more polling geekery. coming up, candidate trump's image is hurting his family's business. we'll tell you about an ivanka trump boycott next. the ery ssue left her ore and red. dad slayed the problemwith puf. puffs haveilwy softness for d. with lotion to comfo and sohe wn she blows. don't ga nose in edina dedervesuffs, indeed. now get puffs plus lotn in e squeezable softpack. mother in-law wi akeense. gladagfu otrash. what hapnothing.t? lyd has febreze to neutralize odo for 5ays. guarante. even the mosperctive noses nen't notihe trash.5ays.
the beauty of america is people can do what they like, but i prefer to talk to the millions, tens of millions of american women who are inspired by the brand. >> a new deep dive from new york magazine on the final days of donald trump's campaign reveals an ivanka trump thinking long-term consequences to the trump brand.
the report says ivanka is especially worried the campaign caused lasting damage to the family business, quoting one adviser who says she thinks this is not good for the brand and she would like to distance herself from it. that brand includes ivanka's own business empire and accessories and clothing line whose revenues have increased $30 million since last year as her father's campaign raised her public profile. a website who grew by 50% during that same time. it seems ivanka's concerns are well placed. shop runner shoes sharp decline in the popularity of ivanka trump products right around the time we first heard her father's now infamous words about women on the "access hollywood" recording. the brand backlash amplified by the launch of grab your wallet, anti-trump movement calling for a boycott against ivanka trump's empire. grab your wallet founder shannon
coulter. thank you so much. i appreciate you being here. >> thank you for having me, joy. >> i first heard about you on twitter where your #gained quite a bit of popularity. why target ivanka trump's brand rather than, for instance, donald trump's hotels. >> that's a good question. actually our boycott is not a boycott of ivanka trump's brand or the products but a boycott of the stores that carry them. for lot of women we were sort of silently boycotting ivanica's products prior to the trump tape and silently not buying them. after the campaign tapes and she returned to the campaign trail in wake of the tapes, many of us had to do more so we're boycotting stores like nordstrom, lord and taylor, bloomingdale's, macy's, saks, all these stores that carry donald and ivanka trump. amazon carries 279 donald trump
products so they are very much on the boycott. >> have you heard from any of these retail outlets in response to your boycott of them. >> when i first called them, i was calling as a customer. since the boycott took off and has been seen by 79 million people on twitter the last time i looked, the ensemble store on the list that's shown us the courtesy of a formal spoken is nordstrom. we've been documenting their responses to customers very carefully. people have been sending me e-mails they are severing in response to their complaints. what i'm encouraged to see with nordstrom, their mentaling has been evolving quickly. the first message we received said they had no plans to drop ivanka trump products. the word currently stood out in that messaging. as of yesterday we're seeing new e-mails to u.s. cans that don't mention that. they have stopped saying they don't have current plans to drop ivanica's products. they are talking about customer needs and how trust is fragile
with customers and has to be earned again and again and i'm sfwd to see this. >> very interesting. "fortune" magazine has a morning consult, breaks down support of ivanka's clothes by political affiliation and asked whether you would consider purchasing clothing from ivanka trump's clothing line. you can see a pretty complicated chart. essentially the more likely you are to be a democratic leaning voter, the less likely you are to purchase ivanka trump's line. data in forbes from new york-based agency brand keys shows millennial women are walking away from ivanka trump brand. here is a quote, a brand survey of ivanka's market of millennial women with disposable income found 51% of respondents are extremely or very willing to keep her clothes and shoes on their shopping list. what do you make of that. >> without a baseline to measure from, i don't think that particular poll says very much. it wasn't transparent or political affiliation.
the fortune poll that found fewer than one in four women would buy an ivanka trump product was the one to look at. >> what would you say a shopper at nordstrom or one of these outlets should do if they had written to retail outlet and asked they not carry the outlets and they are carrying them. what would you suggest someone part of the grab your wallet movement should do. >> at this point i think it's about contacting them and make sure they know women, loyal, core customers feel about it. there's a lot of amplification about this. we've had celebrities like don cheadle retweeted and laura silverman, co-founder of ben & jerry's. there's a lot of pentup emotion about this. it's especially important that nordstrom and other department stores like them understand we're not okay with them
benefiting from donald trump. when ivanka goes out for him, she models them and sells them. they are profiting directly from a campaign we consider to be hateful, we consider to be on the backs of people of color of women, lgtbq people. it's not okay. for me, the brand names of the department stores themselves are starting to become more and more synonymous with the trump family brands. >> ivanka trump was on "good morning america" and essentially said her advocacy of women preceded the presidential campaign. there's nothing she can do about those politicizing it. what would you say if you could talk to ivanka right now, very briefly. >> i think it's too late. i don't think there's anything she can do at this point. we were all watching her carefully after release of trump takes, if she had chosen to distance herself at that point, that would have meant something.
>> we will definitely keep an eye on what you're doing, we appreciate you being here. >> thank you so much. in the next hour donald trump will be live in colorado and our panel is here to fact check him. you don't want to miss that. ♪ using 60,000 points from my cse ink cd ught all the frawork... wi... d plantsts need to give my shop... a ce... d plantsts need tno oneill rget... learn more at che.coink d plantsts june applicationivesves. yosurior hold thers a dee adhesive tha neholds stng until evening.