tv MSNBC Live With Velshi and Ruhle MSNBC March 1, 2018 8:00am-9:00am PST
cadets perform their jobs. 1976, women were allowed into west point, but they only make up 20% of cadets. she's not top job. symone said, i never saw my race or gender as a roadblock. this photo from the "associated press." that does it for us. i'll see you tonight on "nbc nightly news" with lester holt. in the meantime, i'll turn you over to another extraordinary woman, stephanie ruhle, and her partner, ali velshi. >> symone, for, about, featuring, love it. my hat is off to you. i'd follow that cadet anywhere. >> see you, hallie. we'll talk to you later. i'm ali velshi. >> i'm stephanie ruhle. it is the first day of march. let's get started. >> hope hicks, president trump's long-time aide, announced jerez nati -- her resignation.
>> fifth kmcommunications direcr in 15 months. >> it comes one day after hicks testified before the white house committee. >> the timing of hicks' testimony this week has nothing to do with her resignation. >> with the exception of the trump family, the president's inner circle is now gone. >> the reason morale is terrible is because the rule by fear doesn't work in a civilian environment. >> take the guns first, go through due process second. doesn't make sense that i have to wait until i'm 21 to get a handgun but i can get this weapon at 18. what'd you do in your bill? >> we didn't address it, mr. president. >> you're afraid of the nra, right? >> let's think of how ridiculous that is. i'm the guy that wrote the bill the nra opposed. >> you'll never get this passed if you add concealed carry. >> several ideas that democrats like and that put him at odds with fellow republicans and the nra. >> we're sitting here with our
mouths on the floor. >> skepticism still from democrats. >> if he is a good deal maker, go out and find 10 or 15 republicans who will support it. >> and from republicans. >> i wouldn't confuse what he said with what can actually pass. >> the biggest moves to stop gun violence aren't coming from capitol hill but corporate america. >> this morning, there are new questions about conflicts of interest in the president's inner circle. >> the family company of trump's son-in-law, jared kushner, received big loans after meeting with the lenders executives in the white house. >> it creates this question of whether or not there was any influence trading going on. >> at a minimum, a very awkward appearance, of him having meetings with these people regarding business that could very well be dealt with by his family company and his family members. >> that was all yesterday. so, what's today going to hold in store? >> that was only yesterday. today, there are new questions
over whether the trump family is profiting from the presidency. i'm pretty sure we know the answer to that. >> yeah. >> the "new york times" reports jared kushner's family business, which he's not entirely divested from, get that, got huge loans from big companies after they had meetings, guess where, the white house. kushner, president trump's son-in-law is, of course, a senior adviser and is part owner of kushner companies. he stepped down as the ceo to take the position at the white house. the "times" reports he met several times last year with josh harris, who was advising the administration on infrastructure. harris is a co-founder of a private equity firm, apollo global management. in november, apollo lent $184 million to kushner companies to refinance the mortgage on a chicago skyscraper. apollo spokesman told the "times," harris was not personally involved in the decision. that loan, quote, went through the firm's standard approval process.
kushner companies got a bigger loan from citi group in the spring of 2017. kushner met with them at the white house, where they reportedly talked about financial and trade policies. of course, it was citi group's executive officer. short time after, citi made a loan to kushner companies. a spokesperson says, quote, kushner companies had been a bank client before the election, and the relationship had no connection to kushner's white house role. the spokesman says, citi negotiated the loan with one of kushner's business partners, who, there is a good chance -- i'm no longer quoting -- was one of his family members. this report comes along with concerns about kushner's security clearance at the white house. he was stripped of his top secret clearance because his background investigation has taken so bang long. you were giving me some, like, uh-huh. >> because it is crazy. i'm not an ethics expert. this is crazy. if you can't take a job, where
you can't disconnect your private business interests, don't take the job. >> here's the thing, if jared kushner was going to take a position in the white house, why did he choose to work on things that were so tied to lenders and ceos? >> yeah. get out of the business. >> the ceo business. >> dirty. >> gary cohn didn't want to create the groups. jared did. jared wanted to create those groups. he then wasn't completely divided from his family. now that we look closer at the loans, are they good loans? did they make economic success? the kushner company wants you to believe, we always did business with citi and apollo. what are the terms of the loans? if they stink, it'll seem strange. 666 fifth avenue is sitting on a mountain of debt. it is a nasty deal. who is going to finance it? >> what do the companies get in exchange for it? nobody ever writes in a loan form. >> what do they get? i'm sorry. if we had huge infrastructure programs here, public/private
partnerships, wouldn't the companies benefit? >> yeah. >> don't you think rolling back dodd/frank is a gift of a century to banks? >> yup. >> come on now. >> we have the executive director of crew, citizens for responsibility and ethics in washington. he is a former federal skrup corruption officer. there was a tweet this morning, the white house chief calligrapher has a higher security clearance than jared kushner. we don't know whether there is quid quo pro between kushner and citi group or kushner and apollo. it'd be great for financial services companies -- that already happened from the administration, it just stinks. >> absolutely. we don't know yet whether this specifically includes legal violations or ethical
violations. it'll depend what the terms were. it'll depend what they talked about and when the loans were pending. it is clearly -- it clearly looks terrible. it clearly raises all kinds of ethical red flags. there's all kinds of incentive for these banks and companies to give favorable treatment to jared kushner. there's incentive for jared kushner and, through him, the white house, to give benefits to these companies. we can't have top officials being motivated by what helps them in their business interest, rather than -- >> we can't. here's the thing, the white house could say, you are going after capitalism. you are going after the businesses we're always in. this is filled with unforced errors. ivanka trump sits next to xi ji jinping on the same day she gets licenses in china. melania has on the white house website that she's going to sell product with qvc. jared has his sister flogging his position in the white house when she's on a road show in
china. the kushners and the white house have a very clear option to truly divest themselves and separate. >> absolutely. >> but they don't. >> that's right. nobody is saying that a businessman can't be elected president or businesspeople can't come into these positions and be rewarded for that by the voters, if that's what the voters want. but once they get in, if somebody is going to be president, they should be president, divest themselves of business interests that can cause conflicts. the same with the top advisers. they should divest themselves so they can focus on working for the american people, not having these constant conflicts where you don't know whether they're working for themselves or for the country. >> we also don't know -- let's point out, we don't know whether kushners' investors are. they've gone to extraordinary lengths and tried to switch the court a number of times so they wouldn't have to publicly disclose who they have as co-investors. >> we don't know who they're involved with. the point is, ivanka and jared could not have been in government. they could have stayed out of this, right? there might be some inherent
conflicts anyway, but you can make the same money being a relative of the president than being in the white house. it is an -- stephanie said, it is unforced errors. added layer of scrutiny and possible violation that didn't need to be there. the country wasn't hankering for ivanka and jared to be in the white house. >> there is a reason why we have nepotism laws which, on a very sort of technical basis, don't seem to apply here because they don't apply to the white house necessarily, the way they apply elsewhere, but you have it so you know the people in these key jobs are there because they're the best people for the job. they're going to be judged under the same standards as everybody else. you have relatives of the president that came into the positions. they didn't divest themselves from their businesses. you don't know if they're now getting a pass for things that anybody else would have been kicked out for. jared kushner trying to do a very sensitive job now without maximum security clearance is a huge problem. would anybody else be allowed to
go forward in that way? >> you already know the answer. the answer is no. people within the white house who we speak to on a daily basis have said from the beginning, ivanka and jared get royal family treatment. ivanka doesn't show up and go to the morning meeting. she flits in when she wants. they get absolutely different treatment. we know it, yet, it goes on. you wonder at this point, while his security clearance is nixed or downgraded, they're off sides with john kelly, why do they want to be there? >> it's a good question. the downgrading of his security clearance was really the least the white house could do. he should never have had that level of clearance for as long as he did, when he had omitted significant information from his applications for his clearance. he is under investigation by special counsel mueller. at least we read that in the press. we're now seeing day in and day out these stories about foreign governments actually trying to manipulate jared kushner based on his debts, based on his
experience. >> yup. >> you know, that creates a tremendous risk for somebody who is learning sensitive information and working on really sensitive issues. >> we hear it all the time from within the white house, jared kushner doesn't know what he doesn't know. it's dangerous. >> he's got the calligrapher he can lean on. >> i wonder if that person is doing that calligraphy on ben carson's $31,000 dining room set. >> you had your weenies this morning, didn't you? >> 3 -- $31,000 for a hutch? better be nice. >> noah is the executive director of c.r.e.w. >> thanks so much. please turn up the volume, put your drink down because i don't want you to spit it out. watch this. >> -- no right to be on the stage. i was in the department -- >> you have every right. >> i miss every one of you every day. truly, six months, the last
thing i wanted to do was walk away from one of the great honors of my life, being the secretary of homeland security, but i did something wrong and god punished me, i guess. >> god punished you. you want to say he went on to say they're doing god's work. >> i didn't hear that part. >> pretty stunning. that was white house chief of staff john kelly moments ago in d.c., marking the 15th anniversary of dhs. listen, we know it is a tough job in that white house, but it's a fancy one. shock, stunning and jaws on the floor. those are some of the words used to describe president trump's meetings on guns yesterday. it was something. we'll bring you some of the most surprising moments next. and comedian stephen colbert had a look at trump's turn toward tougher gun control. here he is. >> you see, when vice president pence suggested an early intervention system that allows courts to take away people's guns after a hearing, trump said this. >> more like take the firearms
first and then go to court. i like taking the guns early. take the guns first. go through due process second. >> well, he's finally doing something obama never did. he's coming for your guns. have. and at our factory in boston, more than a thousand workers are starting their day building on over a hundred years of heritage, craftsmanship and innovation. today we're bringing you america's number one shave at lower prices every day. putting money back in the pockets of millions of americans. as one of those workers, i'm proud to bring you gillette quality for less, because nobody can beat the men and women of gillette. gillette - the best a man can get. and sometimes, i don't eat the way i should. so, i drink boost. boost high protein nutritional drink has 15 grams of protein to help maintain muscle and 26 essential vitamins and minerals, including calcium and vitamin d. boost high protein be up for it
control and shut down several republicans during a bipartisan meeting at the white house. >> if you're going to put conceal carry between states into this bill, we're talking about a whole new ball game. you know, i'm with you, but let it be a separate bill. you'll never get this passed. if you add concealed carry to this, you'll never get it passed. if you could add what you have, also, and i think you can, into the bill -- >> show you're ready. >> joe, can you do that? pat, can you add some of the things? you're not going to agree with me. >> if you help. >> i'll help. if you can add domestic violence paragraphs, pages, into this bill, i'm all for it. i think it is terrific, if you can do it. it can be done. that can be done, too. >> paragraphs and pages. >> it was fascinating, listening to this. it happened during my 3:00 show yesterday. it was really fascinating. he was taking on republicans. they have to craft a bill out of
what the president said, and it'd look like a wildwildebeest. head of the house and the hindquarters of a -- >> you just said the hindquarters. >> i could have said another word, but i think i might have gotten in trouble for saying another word for hindquarters. >> the president made some proposals at the meeting. for real, let's get serious and take a look at them. >> talked about universal background checks. talked about raising the age to buy assault rifles to 21. said he supported that. talked about not expanding concealed carry in this bill. he talked about tighter domestic violence rules and more power to take guns away from potentially dangerous people. or, as the president put it, take the guns first and go through due process second. >> i mean, talk, talk, talk. there are a lot of people surprised and excited about that. >> yup. >> here's the problem, we've seen this movie before. just this morning, the president tweeted about, well, he had his
favorite word in there, many. many good ideas, some good and some not so good from yesterday's meeting. here's the thing, he was the person making the majority of said proposals. >> but he was bringing it together. >> he was. >> you said many times, there are a whole bunch of bills flying all over. it was like he was watching you. he said, we don't need 15 bills all over the place. can we get one that makes sense? he was trying to gather from everyone what they thought. >> if i had never seen the president in action before, if i had never watched the daca meeting that he had, i would have thought it was an extraordinary moment. a moment why people voted for president trump. >> cutting through nonsense. >> he was beholden to no one. he had no history to anyone. he said, let's do something that makes sense. here's what happened. >> lawmakers on both sides had a different take on this thing. they wasted no time in sharing it. look. >> i'll have to admit that the
idea of taking a person's property before the due process, that did take my breath away a little bit. >> most remarkable was his statement on due process. anything we have introduced in the congress respects due process. you've got to do that. it was a bit astonishing to hear his language there. people around the -- >> were shaking their heads. >> -- table were shaking their heads. >> yesterday, i saw the president emphatically talking about specific proposals, taking on his own party in front of the nation. >> the ar-15, as a guy who owns one, carried one in iraq, making it 21 makes sense to me. >> he won't take something away. he'll protect the second amendment. we have a unique, unusual opportunity to get meaningful change. >> well, this should not come as a surprise. you know, the nra released a statement. while today's meeting made great tv, the gun-control proposals discussed would make for bad policy. listen, i agree with them on the
great tv front. >> it was great tv. >> as cynical as they are, i'm joining them on it. the nra went on to say, quote, we will continue to support legislative efforts to make our schools and communities safe and oppose gun control schemes that cannot keep us safe and only punish law-abiding americans. >> so that's what's just not true. the nra keeps on saying that more guns keep people more safe. >> no, they don't. >> study after study proves it's just not true. a key point of the nra's plans to make our schools and communities safe is simple, more guns. does that actually hold up? for fact's sake, take a listen. in 2003, a study on research from the 1990s showed a 41% higher chance of homicide in homes with guns versus homes without guns. fact. it found a 244% spike in suicides when compared to gun-free homes.
this data needs to be remembered. most gun deaths in america are suicides. nobody else in the world has numbers like american suicide deaths because of the number of guns we have. we'll come back to that another time. a more recent analysis, in 2015, based on more than a dozen different studies, and there has been a lot of research, while the cdc doesn't do it, lots of people do, it found that people with access to guns at home were almost twice as likely to be murdered compared to those without guns in their home. some states use shall issue rules, meaning, they must grant permits after requirements are completed. other states use a -- the shall issue are the red states. others use discretionary issue. that is the -- well, says they're blue, but it is really only here. they can be selective but grant concealed carry permits. some states like new york and california, for instance, well, some states like arizona don't require a permit to be carried at all. this is a mess, this color
scheming. new york and california, which are not colored on the map, does not have -- they've got restrictive rules to get a permit. the nra argues the states with looser concealed carry laws are safer than those without. again, not true. a new study from the national bureau of economic research looked at states that adopted right to carry concealed gun handlaws, rtc. it found violent crime was 13% to 15% higher ten years after the right to carry laws were adopted than the projections would have been if the laws had not been passed. and a 1998 survey of shootings in three cities found every time a homeowner used a gun for a legally justified shooting, there were four unintentional shootings. more guns do not mean more safety. >> for fact's sake, we left out one thing. >> what's that? >> you talked about the empirical evidence and the
studies done. imagine how many studies that would be done if the government were supporting those studies? >> that's right. >> we've seen virtually no or significantly limited research funded or done by the u.s. government in years. >> certainly discouraged by congress, in particular. joining us now -- >> frowned upon. >> -- is the former director for the national center of injury prevention at the cdc. now a professor. we've been talking about this a lot, but we want to make clear to our viewers, the centers for disease control is not explicitly forbidden for doing research ginto guns, but a lot has happened -- >> that persuaded them against it. >> that's correct. there was a real sense that there would be a threat to the funding at the cdc if the gun control -- if the gun research was done. >> and why? why would the cdc risk losing their funding if they were doing
n nonpartisan research around guns? why would they lose their funding? >> this came as a result of the dickey amendment and the discussions surrounding it that took place in the late '90s in the appropriations bill that congress was putting forward. it would provide the funding for cdc. also, one of the changes that congress made in funding for the injury center at the cdc, where they took the $2.6 million that was going toward gun research and put it into traumatic brain injury research. basically, it said, you know, you can't use this money for gun research. you have to use it for something else. we're going to tell you where you can use it. >> you know, there are others doing gun research, and very specifically, when it comes to the cdc, i think this is really important, the type of work the cdc could do on this is guns as a public health issue. guns as something that results in a lot of people being killed.
is there a way to do this under the current laws, where the cdc can do the research necessary, like the research necessary on car safety? i mean, there was never goal of the cdcs to stop cars from being owned or driven. we realize car accidents were injuring and killing a lot of people, so the cdc researched this and it led to changes in the way we drive and the changes in the way the cars are built. can that model be used with the cdc for guns? >> certainly, the model could be used, but one of the issues is the funding now, as far as being able to actually perform the research or fund people externally to do the research, which is a lot of what cdc did. they, you know, were doing some internal research, but they funded external researchers, academic centers, to do some of the research. right now, they don't have the funding. >> yeah. i mean, just something we have to research. not researching things is not
the answer to anything, regardless of where you stand on it. linda, thank you for joining us and giving us insight. >> i'd like to think research and transparency would help. and i'd like to remind you today, on march 1st, ali velshi said hindquarters of a moose on tv. >> back the topic. we're going to push back on the data points. why the nra has so much power over so many republicans. and which lawmakers are most tied to the group. you're watching "velshi & ruhle" live on msnbc.
handgun, you can't buy one until you're 21, but you can buy the kind of weapon used in the school shooting at 18. i think it is something you have to think about. i was curious as to what you did in your bill. >> we didn't address it, mr. president. look, i think we -- >> because you're afraid of the nra, right? they have great power, i agree, over you people. they have less power over me. i don't need it. what do i need? >> what do i need? they have great power over you people. less so much, me. that was the president talking about the nra. part of an exchange between the
president and republican senator pat tumy. the president stunned lawmakers by accusing them of being afraid of the nra. fear might be the wrong word, unless it is the fear of losing the group's money. let's share a who is who of the biggest republican benefactors of nra cash according to the nonpartisan center for responsive politics. the nra boosted iowa senator's election efforts to the tune of $3.1 million. senator marco rubio, who was at yesterday's meeting, benefitted from $3.3 million of nra money. the nra spent $3.9 million to boost senator cory gardner's campaign and attack his opponents. the group spent more than $7.7 million on john mccain, the most of any congressional lawmaker. focus on this, topping the list -- >> whoa. >> -- the nra spent more than
$21 million supporting candidate trump in the 2016 election in the form of pro-trump and anti-hillary clinton materials. we have to also note, there are democrats who, no doubt, absolutely take money from the nra. >> yup. >> comparing republican dollars and democrat dollars is really an apples and oranges. >> puny, the amount of money democrats get. >> it is not non-existent. >> rick tyler. >> we haven't heard from all the democrats who would say they'll never take nra money again. >> right. >> there is an initiative out there. i want to say every town is leading it, calling on lawmakers on both sides and having them, will you be taking any dollars from the nra? if so, you won't be getting our support. >> rick tyler is joining us, political analyst and a republican strategist. rick, this is a corner that republicans have gotten them into, in exchange for great relations with the nra. you get their support. you do things they like. the problem is, who said this the other day, that the nra --
richard painter said it is a protection racket. >> i disagree. it is a special interest group, not unlike every town, the automobile association, the restaurant association. they represent their members. the nra is not an overlord. the reason they're powerful, and i won't dispute that, they're powerful because they have 3 million members who agree with them. i don't think the members -- >> ali, even if it is not all 3 million, you have single issue voters that care so much about the second amendment in the form that it is in at this moment. they're going to show up and vote. those votes matter even more than the dollars. >> rick? >> yeah, well, and i agree. look, i think in blue states, showing who gets nra money will hurt the candidates but in red states, it'll help. people want the second amendment. let me say this, ali and steph, what the president said yesterday in the meeting was
disturbing. what he said about due process is really, frankly, amazing. it is tantamount to saying you and i could go to jail for saying things the president doesn't like without due process. duterte's philippines is a place without due process. they murder drug addicts there. >> yup. >> putin's russia is without due process. when you couple that with the idea that the president didn't like the fact that a judge of mexican heritage was overlooking his case, that there was a muslim ban, that he sought to remove the -- >> i think we're agreed. i think we're agreed on the due process piece. >> you may not agree with me on the second amendment, but every person who wants to protect civil liberties -- >> most people are for due process. >> you could be a libertarian, independent or democrat. due process is massively important. >> but i'm kecurious how this i going to play into the hands of the nra.
"new york" magazine comments on the gun culture. the specter of the government coming to take your guns is a very powerful one on the right. the national rifle association takes full advantage of its members' often unfounded fears and slowly but steadily morphed into a hard core wing of the republican party. can republicans and their constituents say, no more? i agree with the sentiment that "new york" magazine is putting forward, but when the president goes to due process, i almost wonder whether he's handing a gift over to the nra, who says, see, this is what we've been warning you about all the time. they're going to take your guns. >> i'll be the first to say the nra oversteps its bounds time. george h.w. bush withdrew his lifetime membership. there are a lot of conversations going on because some people say, let's arm all teachers. no one is saying, arm all teachers. it is a ridiculous argument. people with concealed carries
and, look, the president is wrong about this. the legislative process is built on one word, compromise. we can get things done. the background checks is one thing that absolutely has to be fixed. you can't have someone who has 39 911 calls and passes a background check. that is outrageous. that needs to be fixed. the bump stocks, absolutely, we need to get rid of those. continuing -- >> let me ask you -- >> taking law-abiding citizens' rights away because of incidents like this is outrageous. >> stephanie has been giving me the side eye with me saying there was something about the meeting that seemed interesting. the president seemed to know the topic relatively well and soliciting from republicans and democrats, perhaps a bill that would be a weird bill, could come together. do you see any benefit to what happened yesterday afternoon in that meeting or is it all theatrics? >> i'll give you my impression. one, it is all theatrics. with daca, he did the same thing and then backed down.
i think the republicans were horrified. to point out, you know, the nra's power, spent the most money on donald trump. he was not educated by the nra. i can tell you that. he is willing to concede everything the democrats want. i saw the joy on the faces of the democrats there and the fear and horror of the republicans. i don't think the republicans are going to subject themselves to that meeting again. >> you saw her face, looking like she was going to a dance party all night after that. >> i like her, but i disagree with her on this issue. >> good to talk to you. thank you. >> thanks, guys. when we come back, white house communications director hope hicks is leaving town. coming back to new york. what it means for the oval office, and what could be next for the 29-year-old. you know what you're watching, "velshi & ruhle." don't we need that cable box to watch tv? nope.
don't we need to run? nope. it just explodes in a high pitched 'yeahhh.' yeahhh! try directv now for $10 a month for 3 months. no satellite needed. i'm ginnwith chantix.smoking it takes a lot of planning to be a smoker. it's like when am i gonna be able to sneak out of here and go have a cigarette? i just knew i had to quit, and chantix was the method that actually worked for me. along with support, chantix (varenicline) is proven to help people quit smoking. chantix reduced my urge to smoke. when you try to quit smoking, with or without chantix, you may have nicotine withdrawal symptoms. some people had changes in behavior or thinking, aggression, hostility, agitation, depressed mood, or suicidal thoughts or actions with chantix. serious side effects may include seizures, new or worse heart or blood vessel problems, sleepwalking or allergic and skin reactions which can be life-threatening. stop chantix and get help right away if you have any of these. tell your healthcare provider if you've had depression or other mental health problems. decrease alcohol use while taking chantix.
welcome back to "velshi & ruhle." now, to the latest turmoil at the white house. communications director hope hicks, she's resigning. >> she's the fourth trump white house communications director to do so. sean spicer, mike dubke, scaramucci. she came after scaramucci after his ten-day tenure. i said it yesterday, and anthony texted me and said it was 11. >> at least he has a sense of humor. hope hicks has been one of president trump's most loyal, trusted and longest serving aides. when he decided to run for president in 2015, she was one of the first people he brought on board in his campaign. she was already working for the family. he named her press secretary.
as i mentioned, she worked for the trump organization doing pr for ivanka's fashion and accessories line. >> the announcement of her departure came on the last day of what can be described as a turbulent february for president trump. joining us now is former white house chief of staff for president bill clinton, max -- mack. thank you for being with us. >> great to be here. >> let's talk about the white house and how it is running under john kelly. the surprise to all of us is when john kelly came in, either some people breathed a sigh of relief or others expressed a lot of hope that he would bring the necessary order to the trump administration. when you look at it by the numbers, that hasn't really happened. could you, and nobody is inviting you to, but could you go in and bring order to this white house? >> ali, i think general kelly has certainly tried to establish some process and order. it is important. it starts at the top. it starts in the oval office. you have to have the support of
the president. the chief of staff has to have a trust and a rapport and a common view of philosophy in the world with the president. this has been particularly difficult to establish order in this white house. ali, i would also say, it's not just about order and process. as important as that is, it is about getting things done for the american people. this president has not yet really made the pivot from campaigning to governing. that's really, i think, largely at the heart of this particular point or issue or subject. you've got to get a team on the field. it seems that maybe the white house tenures have been measured, as you pointed out, in days and months, instead of months and years, as is usually the case. that's what we're seeing here. >> isn't trust a key factor? from the reporting i've done speaking to people inside the white house, they say john kelly should be a senior person, but he is regularly demeaning others. saying to people in the white house that they're lucky he is there and have his leadership.
hope hicks lost people she trusted. she had, obviously, a relationship with rob porter. jared kushner's person doing communications left. she was the cheese standing alone. in an environment that's as heated as it is, when you don't have trusted allies among your peers in the white house, how can you lead a successful administration? >> you have to have trust. you make the right point. for sure, from what i understand, hope hicks was liked, trusted and respected by her peers. not only -- and certainly by the president, as well. she'd be one of the persons you might think would be a four-year or eight-year, depending on how the trump presidency plays out. mu it's not going to be the case here. any white house is difficult. the chief of staff position, as you noted, is a chief javelin catcher. it is a tough position, but you have to build a team effort. you have to communicate. you have to build trust. it's essential, both upward and
downward. >> mack, what should happen now? you said the president has a problem transitioning from campaign to governing. he announced his campaign manager for his re-election campaign. doesn't seem like he is interested in making the transition. but we are a year and a month into this administration. i know it feels like dog's years, but that's all we are. how does one right this ship, given everything that's going wrong at the moment? >> it seems to me, ali, one of the basic points here is to turn the efforts of the whit house from an inward focused white house, kind of this continuing telenovela. you used the word tumultuous, and i assume you used that before on your program, describing the trump white house. to turn it outward, connecting with the american people and also connecting with the world leaders at a time of great change in the world. we see, obviously, a significant
seat change in china taking place. i could site many other countries, as well. to me, that's the fundamental or a fundamental point that seems to me to be reasonable for the white house to consider. it is far too much kind of internally focused and a saga that may be good for ratings but it is not good for poll numbers. >> not good for the stability of the world. >> exactly. and it is not good for the american people. >> ali, it is an extraordinary point, we're not talking about xi jinping staying in office indefinitely. we're not talking about vladimir putin, his comments this morning, about their nuclear -- >> weaponry that can penetrate things. we're not talking about the issues in the middle east or trade deals we're not part of. that, mack, is the conversation that americans need to have. >> that's the point. that's exactly the point. ali, look, every new administration, i mean, we had our challenging coming in. the republicans had been in the white house for 12 years. you've got to get a team in place. we had all of our cabinet confirmed the day after
inauguration. >> wow. >> team on the field. we made some decisions to not bring people in. it was hard because we thought they wouldn't pass the vetting. once we got settled, that's good policy is good politics. that's my point. that was certainly the case in president clinton's first year. >> mack, good to hear from you, sir. thanks for joining us. >> thank you very much for having me. >> mack mcclarty. next, we'll break down background checks in president trump's new stance on the issue. we'll also speak with ted deutsch of florida. his district includes marjory stoneman douglas high school. stay with us. you're watching "velshi & ruhle" on msnbc. you walked together. you built your home again. my dna showed that i'm native american, and connected me to cousins who taught me about our tribe. my name is joseph reece, and this is my ancestrydna story. now with 10 million new family connections made every day.
it's 6 am. 40 million americans are waking up to a gillette shave. and at our factory in boston, more than a thousand workers are starting their day building on over a hundred years of heritage, craftsmanship and innovation. today we're bringing you america's number one shave at lower prices every day. putting money back in the pockets of millions of americans. as one of those workers, i'm proud to bring you gillette quality for less, because nobody can beat the men and women of gillette.
gillette - the best a man can get. welcome back. president trump says comprehensive background checks will be one of the gun reforms he promotes, tweeting this morning background checks are a big part of the conversation. we thought we would walk you through the current national instant criminal background check system, or nics and how it works. it begins with a potential gun buyer filling out this form, called the financial transaction -- firearm transactions record, ftr. six pages, but a lot of check-off yes or no answers. looks a lot like a tax form. once that's completed t federally licensed gun dealer if
that's who you are buying from, contacts nics by phone or internet. nics, which is operated by the fbi, references three data bases, the nics index, national criminal background check system, interstate identification index and national crime information center, the ncic. if none of these data bases finds anything wrong, the gun sale goes ahead. if the data base finds a problem, federal agents have three business days to determine whether to deny that gun sale. if nothing comes up after three days, they don't hold the sale. the sale continues. what could lead to a denial? if a potential buyer has a criminal history or drug use, mental health problems, is not a u.s. citizen, has a history of domestic violence or has been dishonorably discharged from the military, could hold it up. that should have prevented devin kelly, the gun man who killed 26 church goers in sutherland springs, texas last year from buying a gun. he had been convicted of domestic violence while serving in the air force and was kicked out of the military with a bad conduct discharge but his history was never entered into the ncic data base.
dylann roof, the charleston church shooter, should have been rejected from his attempt to buy a gun because of his criminal history but his background check toox longer than three days and if it takes longer than three days, you get the gun anyway. another current issue is the gun show loophole. the nics process only applies to federally licensed gun dealers, not private dealers who you often find at gun shows. trick is, you could go to a gun show, one stall could be a federally licensed dealer who has to follow the rules. the next stall over may not be. >> joining us, democratic congressman ted deutch of florida, whose district includes marjory stoneman douglas high school in parkland. let's start with senator marco rubio. he just talked about his gun plan on the senate floor. let's take a listen. >> i intend to present a new law, perhaps in coordination with others that are working on it now, that will lead to the
creation of gun violence restraining orders, something that will give law enforcement and close family members the option of obtaining a court order to prevent gun sales or remove guns from individuals who pose a threat, and to be clear, the due process in such a situation would be the front end, not on the back end. >> what do you think? >> sure. yes, gun violence restraining orders are part of this. we have introduced legislation like that in the house and this is a big piece of this, because if a family member or someone knows that someone might do harm to himself or to others, then there should be the opportunity to take action to take the gun out of that person's home, out of that person's possession. that's a piece of it. but what happened yesterday at the white house, what's so important about where we are in this debate is that the president talked about starting this debate by using the
toomey/manchin bill, starting with the background check bill. that gun violence restraining order is one piece but we have to make sure as your intro showed that everyone who buys a gun has a background check, whether you buy it at a gun store, a gun show, online. that's what the legislation would do. the president supported that. we need to now make sure that he sticks with it and pushes to make sure that's where we go. >> that's what everybody is wondering, right, because after the immigration meeting that seemed so productive, all of a sudden that derailed and we didn't get an immigration bill. but that was strange. yesterday's meeting was strange, with the president pushing back on some republicans seeming to embrace some of the concepts that democrats are putting forward and speaking about a larger, more comprehensive bill than the toomey/manchin bill. what do you think happens, representative? you think something can actually come out of that that's positive, the toomey/manchin bill could actually grow into
something that's more comprehensive and supported by democrats and republicans? >> well, look, if we actually do what the president said that he believes in yesterday, which is mandatory background checks plus making sure that the nics system has the data that it's supposed to, plus something like these gun violence restraining orders, banning bump stocks, increasing the age to buy a gun to 21, these are the kinds of steps that would be really significant. look, when the president of the united states looked around that room yesterday, looked around that table and said i know some of you are petrified of the nra but we have to do something and you shouldn't be, that's where presidential leadership makes a difference. i don't know that he's going to stick to this. we are all familiar with what happened at daca. i wasn't there but that meeting looked a lot like the one we had yesterday. the difference this time is on this issue, the president has
now been clear about a particular piece of legislation. we have to now push to make sure that that happened and it's not just members of congress like me, it's the student leaders from stoneman douglas high school, and students around the country who have been so inspired by them who are really starting to make the difference. we have seen it in decisions made by large corporations to walk away from the sale of assault rifles, to stop associating with the nra. the ground is shifting here. we just have to now, with great resolve, push forward until we succeed. >> if we open our mind and hearts and take the president at his word yesterday, the president we saw was the president that so many people voted for. you speak to the people in parkland, i'm guessing many watched that press conference as we did. are they optimistic? did they see it? >> i can tell you the grieving families here in parkland, the
students, the student survivors i'm talking to, they don't want to have to depend upon their confidence in any one elected official, including the president. this is an issue about saving kids' lives. there are now more and every day becoming more one issue voters whose sole issue, particularly as a parent, is if they -- when they send their kids to school in the morning, will their child come home in the afternoon. that's the decision that my colleagues in the house and senate are going to have to make. do they stand with these parents for gun legislation, gun safety legislation, that will help make our communities safer, or do they continue to fall back on the same tired arguments we have heard repeatedly from the gun lobby and those arguments don't, they just don't work, not in my community and in a growing way, not anywhere. >> congressman, thank you for your time. we appreciate you talking to us.
congressman ted deutch. >> it's not just you side with the parents. it's those kids. not all of them are 18 but they will be soon, and they will be voting for years to come. they are energized. thanks for watching. i will see you back at 3:00 p.m. eastern. >> right now, we hand you off to our friend and colleague, andrea mitchell for "andrea mitchell reports." right now on "andrea mitchell reports," the wild, wild west wing. rapid-fire headlines coming out of the white house. hope hicks, one of the president's closest and longest serving aides, out. jared kushner reportedly raising millions for his family business from inside the white house. jeff sessions being called a cartoon character by his boss. all while special counsel robert mueller is digging into what candidate trump knew and when did he know it about the dnc e-mail hack. >> wikileaks. i love wikileaks. i'll tell you, this wikileaks stuff is unbelievable. >> it's been amazing what's coming out on wikileaks. >> this wikileaks is like a treasure trove.