tv MSNBC Live With Ali Velshi MSNBC May 4, 2018 12:00pm-1:00pm PDT
form of death for the maniac terrorists. right? they take a truck and they run over eight people and wound 16 like what happened in new york and what just happened. it's happening all over. so let's ban immediately all trucks, all vans, maybe all cars. how about cars? let's not sell any more cars. love you too. thank you. i recently read a story that in london, which has unbelievably tough gun laws, a once very prestigious hospital right in the middle is like a war zone for horrible stabbing wounds. y that's right. they don't have guns.
they have knives. and instead, there's blood all over the floors of this hospital. they say it's as bad as a military war zone hospital. knives. knives. knives. london hasn't been used to that. they're getting used to it. it's pretty tough. we're here today because we recognize a simple fact. the one thing that has always stood between the american people and the elimination of our second amendment rights has been conservatives in congress willing to fight for those rights. and we're fighting. we're fighting. we're fighting to defend our freedom. we need the people in washington to support our freedom, to support our candidates.
to support ted. to support the people that have to raise their hand. you know, they say we have a majority. we have, what, a majority of one person? that's not really a majority. we need republicans to do it right to get the kinds of things we want. we've got to get republicans elected. we've got to do great in '18. we need judges who will enforce our laws. protect our sovereignty and uphold our american way of life. the constitution can't be changed by judges, bureaucrats or the united nations. that is why we appointing federal judges who will interpret the law as written.
in my first year, i nominated and the senate confirmed more circuit judges than any new administration, by far, in history. and we will have the all-time record very soon. president obama was very nice to us because he left us a lot of judges. i said that's a lot of judges. like almost 140. that's a lot of judges. i was very surprised. i was very happy. and we put an incredible new justice on the supreme court. judge neil gorsuch. yet virtually every single democrat in the senate opposed neil gorsuch, just as they have consistently opposed judges who will protect your basic freedoms. and by the way, the way they're
slow walking people that are supposed to be working for us in government, if you look at what they're doing, in the history of this country, there has never been anything like what the democrats are doing on great people who gave up their jobs and their lives to take a job as an ambassador or people working for our government, and they can't get approved because every single one of them is being slow walked by the democrats. and it's never happened before. and you know what? i hope we don't have to worry about it because we'll be there a long time so we won't have to worry about it, but what they're doing is disgraceful. what they are doing, schumer and the group, what they are doing is disgraceful. what they are doing to the wall and immigration is disgraceful. and you just take a look at the border. you take a look. take a look at what's happening. my administration and
conservatives in congress were elected to uphold your rights. to rebuild our military which we are doing a great job of rebuilding. to restore our prosperity to secure our communities and defend our borders. oh, we have the worst immigration laws anywhere in the world but i'll tell you what. it's not easy for people to come in. it's not. but we have the worst laws. after years defending the borders of other countries, we go into wars with other countries. we shouldn't be there. we go into wars to defend their borders. we don't defend our own borders. and we're going to start defending our country. we're going to start defending our borders.
you've all seen on television, all over the papers the illegal migrants pouring up through mexico, flooding the border. many from central america, honduras, all over the place coming up by the thousands. we're stopping them at different fronts, but we don't have laws. we have laws that were written by people that truly could not love our country. illegal immigration must end. illegal immigration must end. we are going to have strong borders. i will tell you, we have maxed out every law. we are going to have truly strong, and we're going to take people into our country but they're going to come in based
on merit, not based on picking somebody out of a bin. we are not going to let our country be overwhelmed, and we're going to demand congress secure the border in the upcoming cr. it's going to be very soon. going to be very soon. in recent months, democratic lawmakers have voted against legislation to close deadly immigration loopholes like catch and release. how about that one? we caught them. oh, release him. bye-bye. welcome to america. welcome to america. that's what we have. we're going to keep the violent criminals out. senate democrats like john tester. you saw what happened there. what he did to one of the finest people in our country. what he did to the admiral. what he did is a disgrace jon
tester. bill nelson. and bob casey voted against kate's law. legislation names for kate steinle who was gunned down by a five-time deported illegal immigrant. and you saw what happened with that court case. can you believe the result of that court case? can you believe that? the same senators, along with nearly every other democrat, all voted to protect something that's actually becoming very unpopular, sanctuary cities. can you believe people are -- democrats and liberals in congress want to disarm law-abiding americans at the same time they're releasing dangerous criminal aliens and savage gang members onto our streets. these countries send up their worst. remember in my opening speech i got criticized for it.
remember? well, guess what. they're not sending their finest. that i can tell you. we're getting some real beauties in here. but we're taking ms-13 horrible killer gang members. we're getting them out because our guys are much tougher than theirs. there is not even a little bit of a contest. and that's the only language they understand. that's the only language they understand. these are savage killers. my administration believes our cities should be safe havens for americans, not sanctuaries for criminals. and we believe that violent gang members must be thrown out of our country immediately, not let to stay to fester and to get
larger. we get them out, and we're taking them out by the thousands. if we had the right laws, which we can have very quickly with cooperation, we wouldn't even have a problem. would be so much better. so much easier. we believe that politicians who put criminal aliens before american citizens should be voted out of office immediately. as we secure our borders, we're also supporting the heroes who fight crime, serve our citizens and secure our streets. our brave men and brave women in blue. we love them. in my administration, we have a
simple policy. we will protect those who protect us. you saw what i did with the military equipment, the excess equipment sitting all over the country in warehouses never to be used again. and other administrations, they just didn't want to give it to the police. they said it's too much protection. it looks too strong. it looks like military. guess what? it's now being distributed all over to our police forces. and it's better than they could ever buy. can't buy stuff like that. today our love and prayers go out to the family of slain dallas police officer rohilio santander who last week was murdered in the line of duty very, very close to this arena. we ask god to help the others who were wounded and they will recover. they will be better. they will be back. send our love. so important.
thank you. and we mourn together with the entire dallas police department, it's a great police department, a police force that has lost too many heroes but has never lost its will to protect and serve you. we're also taking very strong action to secure and protect our most valuable resource, our childr children. all of us here today are deeply committed to school safety. nothing is more important than protecting innocent lives. and i will tell you, wayne and chris and all of the people at the nra, we speak about it all the time. these are great people. these are great americans. these people have great heart. they know what they're doing.
our entire nation was filled with shock and grief by the monstrous attack on a high school in parkland, florida. we mourn for the victims and their families. i've gotten to know members of those families. these are incredible people. and our hearts break for every american who has suffered the ho horrors of a school shooting. i met with the survivors, the parents of school shooting victims at the white house. i was inspired like all of you were by their incredible courage. we agreed that it's not enough to simply take actions that make us feel like we're making a difference. we must ensure that we actually make a difference. and my administration has pursued an aggressive strategy on community safety. we're working to improve early warning systems so when the police are called, when the community sees the red flags, which they saw in parkland all
over the place, there has never been a case where more red flags have been shown. swift action is taken by the authorities. law-aed bying gun owners want to keep firearms out of the hands of those who impose a danger to themselves and to others. we all want that. we all want that. i recently signed legislation that includes more than $2 billion to improve school safety, including the funding for training and metal detectors and security and mental health -- mental health is a big one. they don't like to talk about mental health. that was the number one example in parkland. that legislation also made vital improvements to our background check system which everybody wants. finally, all of us agree that we
must harden certain schools. at the same time, the police have to be able to get into those schools if there's a problem. we want armed guards. we want to be able to get in. i saw some of the craziest plans that i've ever seen. you can spend a fortune on each school. you'll spend so much more. nobody knows more about construction than i do. you'll make it so hard that you can't run a da. you know what that is? through the doors. it means a tractor. there's only one problem if one of these maniacs get in and it's so hard you can't get. so you have to be careful. we strongly believe in allowing highly trained teachers to carry concealed weapons, if they're highly trained.
and we want highly trained security guards. 98% of mass public shootings have occurred in places where guns are banned. just so you understand. tragically, as we've seen, there's no sign more inviting to a mass killer than a sign that declares this school is a gun-free zone. come in and take us. 98%. you know they're cowards. you saw that in the recent case where he did all of his damage and then he sort of slinked out of the school and the policeman outside caught him in a different community. that policeman did a good job. that policeman did a good job. caught him in a different community. but they are cowards when they
know there's guns inside, they're not going in. we just don't understand that. we can't get that word out. but highly trained people. at the same time, there is no stronger deterrent for a sick individual than the knowledge that their attack will end their life and will end in total failure. when they know that, they're not going in. you're not going to have school attacks. we support the second amendment. not only because we believe in freedom, but also because we trust in everyday talented, wonderful people. they love our students. and by the way, these teachers, they love their students. they love their students. they understand it. they love their students.
and they're not going to let anybody hurt their students. but you have to give them a chance. in america, we trust the people to be wise and to be good. we trust them to take responsibility for themselves, their families and their communities. and that is why in america we have always trusted the people to keep and bear arms. it is fitting that we gather today in the great state of texas, a place that cherishes their right like no other. you know, before i left today, a couple of people came up to me. good political people. they said going to the nra convention and speak tooing tod that will be very controversial.
it may not be popular. you know what i said? bye-bye. got to get on the plane. because we have to do the right thi thing. we have to do the right thing. this would not exist if not for a handful of determined and defiant texans who refused to surrender their rights nearly two centuries ago. right? you know who i'm talking about. in 1835, soldiers from general santa ana's army marched into the little texas town of gonzalez and ordered those
settlements to surrender their small cannon they relied on to protect their lives and protect their homes. the texans refused. you refuse. you're tough. that's right. they were not about to give up their only means of self-defense. in response, santa ana's army returned with a large group of additional people. they had men all over the place. the army was big. this time, they were met by dozens of texans, settlers, soldiers and ordinary citizens who had rushed to gonzalez to defend their rights and their freedom as santa ana's men watched from a distance. those brave texans raised the flag for all to see. and you know what it said. on the banner they painted a cannon along with four words that echoed through the ages and you know what it is?
we will never give up our freedom. americans are born free. we will live free. and we will die free. so, again, it is a great honor to be with you. very special people. we truly appreciate your support. i'm doing the right thing. i'm doing it for you, but we're doing the right thing. we're doing the right thing together. i want to thank again all of our friends and patriots from the nra. we will never fail, and we will always protect your second amendment. thank you. god bless you. and god bless america. thank you all. thank you. >> all right. donald trump at the nra
convention in dallas. clocking in at, i'm going to wait for the official timekeepers but looks like 44 minutes and 40 seconds. 44:40. the judges have not tuned in yet but that is what it seemed like. that was a long speech. i'm ali velshi. the president has spent his day talking. a lot. he just wrapped up that speech to some of his biggest supporters, members of the nra at the annual convention in dallas. >> your second amendment rights are under siege. but they will never, ever be under siege as long as i'm your president. >> which is a little weird because he is the president and their rights are under siege. but let that go for a second. guns were not the only focus of president trump's speech. here's one of the many topics he touched upon. >> it says judge questions mueller's authority to prosecute manafort.
now paul manafort is a nice guy, but you know, he worked for me for a very short period of time. literally for like, what, a couple of months? a little period of time. then what happens, he worked for ronald reagan, he worked for bob dole. they worked, i think, as a firm for john mccain. they worked for others. does anybody say that? no. but he's out there fighting. >> very similar to what the president has been saying about michael cohen. worked for him just a little bit. the president is trying to have a positive narrative created ami amidst all the negative headlines. he was confronted about what he actually knows about stormy daniels and whether lies were told to the american people. >> when did you change your story on stormy daniels? >> we're not changing any stories. all i'm telling you is that this country is right now running so smooth. and to be bringing up that kind of crap and to be bringing up witch hunts all the time. that's all you want to talk
about. you're going to see -- excuse me. >> you did not know anything about the payments? >> you take a look at what i said. you go back and take a look. you'll see what i said. >> okay. we went back and found the tape of you last month aboard air force one, and this is what you said about that payment to stormy daniels. >> did you know about the $130,000 payment to stormy daniels? then why did michael cohen make this if there was no truth to the allegations? >> you have to ask michael cohen. michael is my attorney. you'll have to ask michael. >> do you know where he got the money to make that payment? >> no, i don't know. >> doesn't know why the payment was made or where the money came from. rudy giuliani has tried to help set the record straight issuing this three-part statement clarifying everything he's said during the publicity tour on the stormy daniels payment, the timing of it and firing of james
comey. trump still says he wants to talk to robert mueller. >> i would love to speak. i would love to. nobody wants to speak more than me. in fact, against my lawyers because most lawyers say never speak on anything. i would love to speak. because we've done nothing wrong. >> let's begin in dallas at the nra convention where the president spoke. he's just wrapped that up he's getting ready to head back to washington. geoff bennett is there for us. this is a day it's not ideal to be the reporter summing up a 44-minute speech by the president because he was all over the place. >> he was, ali. if we need yet another indicator of how surreal our politics have become, the president from that stage praised kanye west and the nra faithful applauded kanye west. so take that for what it is. but we know the president sees every stage as a campaign stage. he sees most crowds deserving of a show.
and on that front he delivered. it was a speech to nra members, of course, but he gave a little bit of something for the huge crowd of trump supporters who were here. he talked about building the wall. he talked about his track record for confirming conservative judges. he framed himself as sort of a nationalistic culture warrior. talked about respect for the flag, the national anthem. he also talked about guns. that's what this crowd wanted to hear. he talked about arming teachers, arming school guards. of course, this all leads up to the midterm elections. a lot of the president's comments can be seen as a road map for what we'll hear from him as we head to november. he urged this crowd not to grow complacent. >> we're fighting to defend our freedom. we need the people in washington to support our freedom. to support our candidates. to support ted. to support the people that have to raise their hand. you know, they say we have a
majority. we have, what, a majority of one person. that's not really a majority. we need republicans to do it right to get the kind of things we want. we've got to get republicans elected. we've got to do great in '18. >> the president has addressed this crowd before. last year he vowed to come through for the nra, but the nra is really on the defensive, ali. at the state level, democrats, gun policy -- gun control supporters are really making great gains. so the nra and the president are doing their best to win back some of that ground. >> geoff, thanks very much, at the nra convention in dallas. the president mentioned this next story. special counsel robert mueller's bank fraud case against paul manafort. it may have hit a road block. the president quoted from the federal judge in virginia who said today that the charges against the former trump campaign manager have nothing to do with russian election
interference. the judge even suggested that the special counsel only wants to use manafort to get to president trump. ken dilanian is an intelligence and national security reporter for nbc news. he's been covering the case. ken, you explained this very clearly earlier. is this just a judge who was offering political as opposed to legal opinion, or is this something that the mueller team should be concerned about? >> it's not entirely clear. some courthouse observers point out that it's very common for a federal judge to smack the government around in court. the government which usually comes in with a stronger hand and then rule in the government's favor. most legal experts feel like paul manafort's motion to dismiss the charges, which is what was argued today, is a real long shot. but there's no doubt that donald trump found a lot to like in what judge t.s. ellis had to say in the courtroom. he's a republican appointee, appointed by president reagan. he was skeptical of the entire framework of the special counsel and of the connection to this
paul manafort bank fraud and tax fraud case to the larger mandated special counsel to investigate russian collusion. he wasn't making these judgments. he was more asking questions and the response he got back from the mueller team was, no, this is absolutely related. paul manafort was the campaign chairman. he was getting money from this ukrainian party. we investigated and found the money. and this was all legal. so the most important thing is the judge did not rule on this motion today. he's taking it under advisement and legal experts still expect him not to dismiss the charges, but we'll just have to wait and see. >> ken dilanian, nbc news intelligence and national security reporter. there's been a noticeable shift in the country with more people pushing for more gun safety. the president himself just said it. your second amendment rights are under pressure after the deadly shooting at parkland high school where 17 students and staff were killed. and in the months leading up to parkland, the u.s. was victim to two of the deadliest mass shootings. the las vegas and sutherland springs, texas.
despite it all, the national rifle association isn't budging on gun safety measures and continues to pump money into political campaigns. i want to take a look at the data from a watch dog group, the nonpartisan independent non-profit center for responsive politics that tallies how much support members of congress get from the nra. the nra has spent more than $7.7 million on arizona senator john mccain throughout his career. that's more than on any other legislator. that money includes campaign funding and attack ads on opponents. a lot of this has to do with the amount of time john mccain has been in office. people who have been in for a long time tend to have gotten more money from the nra. the next closest are richard burr, just shy of $7 million. missouri senator roy blunt at $4.5 million. and north carolina's other senator thom tillis has received $4.4 million. colorado's cory gardner has pulled in $3.8 million.
and florida senator marco rubio is benefitting from just over $3 million in nra indiana. and in the 2016 election they spent more than $30 million supporting president trump. this is seen as being influential in donald trump's success. now some of the money the nra received is being looked at by the federal election commission, particularly donations from
russian entities. it's illegal to use sources from foreign sources in an election. the money came from 23 individuals living in russia. most of the money came from dues and magazine subscriptions but two people made donations toe s totalling more than $500. the nra denies ghef money was used on campaigns. but there are serious questions around wealthy russians and their involvement in the nra. oregon senator ron widyden is looking into the money relating to this man, alexander torshin. he's an ally of vladimir putin and an nra member. the nra says torshin paid membership dues in the past but hasn't given donations to the group despite close ties. torshin is also on the list of individuals sanctioned by the u.s. government in response to russia's interference in the 2016 elections.
there may be more to examine here. all the money pales in compareton to how much more money it spends trying to intervene in campaigns to elect or defeat candidates. the center for responsive politics broke down the numbers on nra spending. they found the biggest chunk of the spending, the yellow, was spent on independent expenditures. going after candidates not nra friendly. the second largest chunk was on lobbying. while the nra spends a lot on supporting candidates, it spends a lot more on stopping candidates who don't follow its agenda. my next guest has labeled the nra a protection racket. this isn't something he's only starting to say now. richard painter has been saying this for years. this op ed on your screen he wrote for "the new york times" back in december of gent 12, less than a week after the shooting at sandy hook elementary school.
richard painter is the former chief white house ethics lawyer under president george w. bush. he is also now running for the united states senate in minnesota as a democrat after being a life-long member of the gop. richard, good to see you. i really want to hone in on this. you have articulated this better than most. the nra doesn't simply support you if you support their view on guns and the world. but they threaten you if you tor loosen or add any nuance to your support. >> absolutely they do. the nra makes it very clear to members of congress that they have to toe the line 100% of the nra agenda. if they do not, they will face a primary challenger. particularly in the republican party. they will face a primary challenger who will attack them from the right with enormous amounts of nra money and other money from extreme right wing
organizations, and they'll be taken out. and that's the message. it's very clear. that's the way protection racket works. so what we have is an inability of the united states congress to deal with gun violence in this country. we have people purchasing ar-15s and other assault weapons and law enforcement doesn't even know who owns them, whether these weapons are falling into the hands of criminals or insane people or terrorists. we do not have safety in our streets and in our schools because we do not have reasonable gun laws. that's the risk. not this diatribe we heard from the president about immigrants, blaming immigrants for our gun violence in this country. >> so let me ask you this. >> our problem is homegrown and the nra is responsible. >> there are opportunities to have really important nuance discussions as we do on msnbc with gun owners. with responsible gun owners, of which there are millions in the
united states. but because of this protection racket, a member of congress who has enjoyed the support of the nra in the past or enjoys a good rating from them cannot introduce nuance into their discussion because of the fear that the nra will find some candidate who is less nuanced who doesn't -- who agrees not to budge and they will run them against them. so when people say that the two sides are in their corners and don't have conversations, one side, if you are backed by the nra, you can't engage in a robust conversation about reasonable gun laws, as you call them. >> no, you can't. and i have many friends who are gun owners, responsible gun owners. i am the responsible owner of two automobiles that are registered in the state of minnesota, and i have a license to drive those cars. and they can't just be turned over to anybody who doesn't have a license. we regulate automobiles, but we're not willing to regulate
guns. being for regulation of guns doesn't mean you're anti-gun but i have to say if the american automobile association had been operated like the nra and had this influence, this protection racket influence, driving in the cross town expressway here in minneapolis would be complete chaos. you'd have to have somebody pick up the dead bodies and beer cans every morning. that's the way we approach guns. we refuse to have regulation and conflate the discussion of regulation with a completely absurd accusation that those who are for some regulation are anti-gun. >> right. >> i am pro-gun. i am pro-regulation. and that's the way the future. >> and the president just pointed out that's exactly it. people want to regulate. it's a threat to the second amendment. that's the picture that the nra is very happy that the president is painting. richard painter is a former white house ethics lawyer under bush. now a candidate for senate in minnesota. coming up -- rudy giuliani issues a statement clarifying the comments he made this week
on the stormy daniels payments and the former firing of james comey. we'll dive into what he's saying now and what it all means. plus, the national urban league releases its report on the state of america. what it will take to bridge the digital divide and a key item being included in its report for the very first time. ♪ ♪ (baby crying) ♪ ♪ don't juggle your home life and work life without it. ♪ ♪
and don't forget who you're really working for without it. ♪ ♪ funding to help grow your business... ♪ ♪ another way we have your back. ♪ ♪ the powerful backing of american express. don't do business without it. my dai need my blood sugar i'to stay in control.en. the powerful backing of american express. so i asked about tresiba®. ♪ tresiba® ready ♪ tresiba® is a once-daily, long-acting insulin that lasts even longer than 24 hours. i need to shave my a1c. ♪ tresiba® ready ♪ tresiba® works like my body's insulin. releases slow and steady. providing powerful a1c reduction. my week? hectic. my weekends? my time. ♪ tresiba® ready ♪ i can take tresiba® any time of day. so if i sleep in, and delay my dose, i take it as soon as i can, as long as there's at least eight hours between doses. (renee) once in use, it lasts eight weeks with or without refrigeration, twice as long as the lantus® pen.
(announcer) tresiba® is used to control high blood sugar in adults with diabetes. don't use tresiba® to treat diabetic ketoacidosis, during episodes of low blood sugar, or if you are allergic to any of its ingredients. don't share needles or insulin pens. don't reuse needles. the most common side effect is low blood sugar, which may cause dizziness, sweating, confusion, and headache. check your blood sugar. low blood sugar can be serious and may be life-threatening. injection site reactions may occur. tell your prescriber about all medicines you take and all your medical conditions. taking tzds with insulins, like tresiba®, may cause serious side effects like heart failure. your insulin dose shouldn't be changed without asking your prescriber. get medical help right away if you have trouble breathing, fast heartbeat, extreme drowsiness, swelling of your face, tongue or throat, dizziness, or confusion. ask your health care provider if you're tresiba® ready. covered by most insurance and medicare plans. ♪ tresiba® ready ♪
mr. elliot, what's your wiwifi?ssword? wifi's ordinary. basic. do i look basic? nope! which is why i have xfinity xfi. it's super fast and you can control every device in the house. [ child offscreen ] hey! let's basement. and thanks to these xfi pods, the signal reaches down here, too. so sophie, i have an xfi password, and it's "daditude". simple. easy. awesome. xfinity. the future of awesome. rudy giuliani once again finds himself doing damage control trying to clarify some
of the comments made earlier this week on the payment the president made to michael cohen. >> that money was not campaign money. sorry. i'm giving you a fact now that you don't know. it's not campaign money. no campaign finance violation. so they funneled it through the law firm? >> funneled through the law firm and the president repaid it. >> oh, i didn't know that he did. >> yep. >> okay. to that, giuliani said there is no campaign violation. the payment was made to resolve a personal and false allegation in order to protect the president's family. it would have been done in any event, whether he was a candidate or not. okay. we'll put that aside for a second. on the timing of the payment to stormy daniels, here's what he said. >> imagine if that came out on october 15th, 2016, in the middle of the last debate with hillary clinton. >> so to make it go away, they made this -- >> cohen didn't even ask. cohen made it go away.
he did his job. >> now giuliani says my references to timing were not describing my understanding of the president's knowledge but my understanding of these matters. not sure how this clears anything up. and on the president's decision to fire then-fbi director james comey, here's what he said the other day. >> he fired comey because comey would not, among other things, say that he wasn't a target of the investigation. he's entitled to that. hillary clinton got that. and she -- he couldn't get that. so he fired him and he said i'm free of this guy. >> now rudy giuliani says it is undisputed that the president's dismissal of former director comey an infer why are executive officer was clearly within his article ii power. recent revelations about former director comey further confirm the decision. i want to bring in a congresswoman who voted to impeach president nixon and who has been with me through a lot of this giuliani saga, including
when he was first chosen. and you expressed some skepticism about it then. i don't know what's going on. rudy giuliani is a one-man wrecking ball. >> i think so. and the interesting thing is that donald trump this morning said, well, rudy is going to get his facts straight. it's as though we can just erase everything he said because he didn't know what his facts were. but it's kind of crazy for a lawyer to get out, as he did, giuliani, and spout facts he doesn't know anything about? >> this is important. he's not acting for donald trump now as just adviser or former mayor of new york. he's actually acting as a lawyer. >> correct. and the thing is what he did yesterday and the day before was basically to present president trump as a liar to the american people because you showed and you showed it on tv, it's not your words. it's the president's words. the president denied being responsible for these payments. denied knowing anything about them. >> then giuliani went on fox and
friends. now he's reversing that. this becomes very confusing but as you said before, rudy giuliani deliberately or otherwise is sowing chaos? >> yes, and who knows what his objectives are here. i mean, it's astonishing to me as a lawyer. you need to be prepared. that's kind of the basics of law. be prepared. that's the critical thing. know the facts. donald trump seems to be exonerating him but the fact of the matter is that despite this so-called clarification, rudy put out there -- it doesn't clarify anything. but he put out there when he was describing why the payments were made to -- that it was done because look what would have happened if that information had come out in the last debate. >> you've been a legislator and a lawyer. and you are a lawyer. can you guess at what the strategy might be here? >> impugn the client then don't suggest that it might have been for campaign purposes but
don't -- other than confusion of the general public. >> i think it hurts the client, but as far as i'm concerned, president trump has been lying to the american people from the get-go, so this is nothing new. but it's very astonishing to see in a matter involving the president of the united states, potential criminal violations, potential abuse of power, potential obstruction of justice to have a lawyer going out there for the president who doesn't appear to know what he's talking about. >> it is very strange. those of us who covered giuliani for years knows that's the case. it sometimes appears he doesn't know what he's talking about. but to be brought into this case. liz holtzman voted to impeach president nixon. a want to talk now about the subpoena. president trump this morning said he would love to speak with special counsel robert mueller but like many other things the president has said, it's subject to change. as for whether he would be compelled to answer mueller's questions, well, that may be up to the supreme court to decide.
three presidents have been subpoenaed in the past. thomas jefferson for documents, richard nixon for tapes and bill clinton for testimony. jefferson produced some of the documents. nixon was forced to hand over the watergate tapes. >> president nixon has not yet responded to the sledgehammer decision of the supreme court today which ruled he must immediately turn over tapes of 64 presidential conversations. the court said the president's claim of absolute privilege would upset the constitutional balance of a workable government. it said its ruling was that the president had to give way in criminal proceedings, a limited intrusion should presidents would rarely be involved in criminal cases. >> to refresh your memories. nixon resigned before he was called to testify before a grand jury in 1975. the question about whether a president needs to talk became moot in that instance. bill clinton agreed to testify on his own, but that was involving a civil sexual
harassment lawsuit. this would be the first time in donald trump's case that a sitting u.s. president could be forced to cooperate in a criminal investigation, possibly involving his own conduct. what would the nation's highest court say if the issue came before it? my next guest may be as qualified as anyone to answer that. michael conway served as the council to the house judiciary committee during richard nixon's impeachment inquiry. he even helped draft the articles of impeachment against richard nixon. michael, thank you for being here. >> you're welcome. >> you heard some of my conversation with liz holtzman. increasingly as we've spoken to lawyers over the last couple of days, despite the complexities of compelling the testimony of a sitting president, i would say more than half of the experts i've spoken to have said there is a likelihood that the president can be compelled to testify under oath. >> i totally agree with that majority. the supreme court's decided this issue in a couple difference ways that would be very powerful
argument for mueller to enforce his subpoena. before u.s. v. nixon, there was a case that involved journalists coming before a grand jury in 1972. and there are some very broad language in that case where the supreme court ruled that journalists had to be called to a grand jury even if their sources were going to be revealed. and in that they said that no matter how high a rank or station that a person has, they are required to respond to a grand jury subpoena. in u.s. versus nixon, it was a trial subpoena. a grand jury subpoena is much broader. the supreme court in that same case said the role of a grand jury is investigatory and in conducting an inquisition. so i believe that that case then relied upon by u.s. nixon really established the point quite clearly that the president has to give testimony just as an aside in that case, there was an interesting footnote. they said that quoting a famous
english jurist, that the heir to the crown in england, the head of the church of england, the lord high chancellor would all be required to testify and respond to a subpoena and leave their responsibilities and duties aside to be a witness. >> back in 1974, the supreme court actually acted relatively quickly when confronted with this. was sometime in the spring of '64. i'm not sure i have all my facts right, but i believe it was the subpoena was before the u.s. district court. it went to the supreme court. let's just listen to nbc news reporting from july of 1964 on this. >> president nixon has not yet responded to the sledge hammer decision of the supreme court today which ruled that he must immediately turnover tapes of 64 presidential conversations. the court said the president's claim of absolute privilege would upset the constitutional balance of a workable government. it said its ruling was only that the president had to give way in
criminal proceedings, a very limited intrusion, since presidents would rarely be involved in criminal cases. >> and by the way, i may have misspoken. that was 1974 obviously. in this particular case, robert mueller has been very clear to say that the president is not the target of the investigation. so, how would the president be able to argue to get a stay or an exemption from testimony if he was faced with a subpoena? >> i think it would be very difficult because in the nixon case, as you mention, it was a trial subpoena which is very limited to -- evidence has to be relevant to the trial. this is a grand jury subpoena. all kinds of people are called before a grand jury who are not targets. they're witnesses. they have information that may lead to discoverable evidence and the grand jury is really investigating whether a crime committed, not trying to prove a crime as you would in a trial. i think the president would have a very difficult and steep hill to climb to say that he could not be required to produce evidence and give testimony. so, his advisors would be wise to till him if he's going to
testify, to do it under some agreement where there may be some limitations or conditions rather than appearing before the grand jury where he has to show up without his lawyer. >> that's right. someplace where he can have his lawyers nearby might be better for him by is why says he wants to sit down. michael conway, former counsel to the house judiciary committee during the nixon impeachment and one of the writers of articles of impeachment. april brought another solid month of job growth. let's look. employers added 164,000 jobs last month, up from a revised 135,000 jobs that were added in march. still, the 164 was lower than about the 193 or 94 that we were expecting. but here's the interesting part. the unemployment rate fell from 4.1 to 3.9%. last time the unemployment rate was this low was in 2000 at the height of the tech boom. the unemployment rate amongst african americans also reached a new record low of 6.6%. president trump talked about this a short time ago during his
speech to the nra convention in dallas. >> african-american unemployment has reached another all-time in history record low. and, by the way, kanye west must have some power because you probably saw, i doubled my african-american poll numbers. we went from 11 to 22 in one week. >> there is a little more to the poll than the president is letting on. but while that is good news for african americans looking for jobs, as a group, as a population, african americans still lag behind whites in several key areas. employment being one of them. household income being another, education and life expectancy. now, every year the national urban league takes a closer look at those challenges in something called the state of black america report. the group's report for this year was released today and for the first time it has a section focusing on the digital divide. joining us to talk about this is
mark, former new orleans mayor and president and ceo of the national urban league which produced the report and with us is my colleague joy reid, host of a.m. joy, weekend mornings here on msnbc. i often join joy on her show to discuss economic issues. so, i'm glad that you're able to join us to have this one. mark, let me start with you. >> thank you. >> in 2018, while we have to look at the legacy issues african americans face that affect earnings and life expectancy and all that, if we don't confront the major issue, we are tech reliant and prosperity relies on technology, we may not solve this problem as quickly as we should. >> so, this report demonstrates or reveals a para docks. african americans are more likely to own a smartphone, more likely to use social media sites, and are really aggressive as adopters of social media and technology. but the flipsid3 is far less likely than any other ethnic
group to work at these social media and tech companies. their numbers are less than 5%. and for the three sort of best-known facebook, google and twitter, their african-american employment levels are 1.8% of their work force. so, clearly technology, the digital revolution is the axis the american economy is revolving. african americans must be included in what i call the benefit producing elements of this revolution. >> joy, you're seeing 5.7% of technology industry employees are african-american. and of course college graduation contributes to this, too. college graduation rates for full-time students at four-year institutions, white graduation rate 43.7%, 21.4%. these are first-time students at these institutions. we have two problems. we have to deal with legacy issues that we have not department with yet. >> yep. >> and we've got to get right in front of this new problem,
african americans are 13 plus percent of the population. but i've got 13 stats in front of me which i can show under representation. >> and that bleeds out. if you're not getting into these high-tech fields, you're not having the income levels, the homeownership levels in the community. one issue you've seen colleges howard university aggressively do is partner with silicon valley and try to get and feed more african-american college students into this industry to set them up for success. listen, african americans have aggressively moved into, you know, the days of segregation into areas like law and medicine sort of bed rock of getting out of poverty. i think we have to find a way to make technology that new bed rock. >> mark moriellee, tell me whose problem is it in getting african americans into technology, where is the likely est place that intersection takes place? >> this is an american problem and the responsibility and ability to change it lies with the leaders of these companies
who, with intentionality, smart initiatives, programming and a recognition that as the report indicates, there are large numbers of african americans in colleges and universities who are choosing stem majors. there is an abundance of initiatives, programs, all across the nation in cities that are designed to increase the ability of african americans to work in the tech industry. and we've also got to understand this. every tech job is not a college job. there are many middle jobs that our job training programs are preparing people for like network administrators, customer support specialists, cable installers that also represent opportunities in the tech industry. >> right. >> why should we do this? because the work force is changing democrat graphically. and for these companies to continue to be leaders that we all want them to be, their work forces have to become more diverse. >> joy, we have a minute left. i want to show median household
income by race. for whites it's 63,000 roughly, hispanics 46,000, blacks 38,000. so, while i like the fact we have historic low black unemployment rates. >> sure. >> we then have to parse this a little more and say more blacks have jobs doesn't mean more blacks are richer. >> absolutely. that 6.6% is still higher than white. median black women it's lower. one of the things we're not doing well is making sure we're funding public schools. the majority of african americans are attending public schools. since brown v. board -- >> the strikes all over the country. >> it's dramatic. it's impacting black and brown children in these schools. they need good technology, up to date textbooks, teachers. it starts with funding public schools that shows we care what happens to these populations because, by the way, if one graupel of americans is not succeeding and is lagging behind economically, it drags down the entire gdp.
>> joy reid, thank you for joining us, host of a.m. joy. and mark from the national urban league. >> black america.org. >> a good report. thank you for doing it. that wraps up this hour. thank you for watching. i'm back tonight. "deadline white house" with nicolle wallace starts right now. /s >> hi, everyone. it's 4:00 in new york. rudy giuliani's turn in the center ring of donald trump's three-ring legal circus hit a spectacular speed bump today with the president blaming rudy's learning curve for what he describes as rudy getting some facts wrong. >> i'll tell you what, rudy is a great guy, but he just started a day ago. but he really has his heart into it. he's working hard. he's learning the subject matter. and he's going to be issuing a statement, too. but he is a great guy. he