tv MSNBC Live With Alex Witt MSNBC June 2, 2018 9:00am-10:00am PDT
out west. here's what's happening right now, pushing the diplomatic envelope. what was in the letter from north korea to donald trump about the on and off again nuclear summit and why what the president said is getting reaction today. maybe we pushed too far. new allegations about president obama and his thoughts about the 2016 election results. plus, the idea of universal basic income and the democratic candidate for president who says it's great for the economy. but, we begin with new reaction from the president reigniting his feud with democrats over the border wall. this time, using the white house weekly address as his platform. >> they don't want border security for two reasons. number one, they don't care about it. number two, they're afraid it's going to make me and the republicans look good. and they don't want that. >> well, the president's comments come at when his add station has come understand fire for losing track of nearly 1500
immigrant children placed with sponsor families or foster homes. meanwhile, president trump is at camp david this weekend no doubt getting ready for his upcoming summit with kim jong-un just a shorten days away. nbc's correspondent kelly o'donnell is joining me now. how much are preparations for the north korea summit occupying the president's schedule today? >> well, alex, good afternoon. one can only assume this is a high priority for the president because the stakes are so great. he did tell reporters that he has foreign leader calls scheduled this weekend that will deal with the issue of the summit, handling north korea, and trade. and we've not seen any readout yet from the white house which would be a summary or description of what went on during the call. but one would think he's doing preparation before he has this high-level negotiation. one of the things that was confusing to reporters when the president completed his meeting with the north korean official who came and spent part of friday here is that he was talking about the delivery.
so, the purpose of kim yong-chol coming to the white house was to present the president with a letter from joouk joou that was the centerpiece of it. and just a matter of minutes later when reports were asking for more information, acknowledged that he had not read it. so, here's how that played out friday afternoon. >> a letter was given to me by kim jong-un. >> it was a very interesting letter. >> did you send anything back? >> no, i didn't. i haven't seen the letter yet. i purposely didn't open the letter in front of the director. he said, would you want me to open it? he said you can read it later.
i may be in for a big surprise, folks. >> reporter: so that begs get how could it be a nice and interesting letter if he had not yet read it. perhaps he was talking about the envelope in which he was presented. we just don't know. it was curious to say the least. because obviously, the content of that letter is part of the buildup to the summit. later we talked to officials and said after kim yong-chol did leave the white house, the read did read the letter and it was that would change the course of the summit. the president and in those remarks said at the appropriate time he would likely make at least parts of the letter public. but it was a strange turn where the focus of the meeting was something the president was talking about. he gave two very distinctly different impressions in a span of just a couple of minutes talking to reporters. alex. >> he sure did, kelly o'donnell
which we're going to discuss going forward. joining me now, katie rodgers, white house correspondent for "the new york times." katie, welcome to you. you heard kelly's report there. did the white house provide an explanation to the president's response to that letter? and is there any new reporting according to kelly, she said there were no surprises in the letter so -- >> well, i think, with the president at camp david relaxing and also getting work done, we haven't gotten a readout yet from the white house of what was specifically in that letter. i think part of what the president seemed to be signaling yesterday, though, was a relaxing intention. he was trying to signal in order to get this summit done we're going to, you know, relent a little bit on the semit maantic maximum pressure and we're going to do simpatico. and also just saying this might take a while.
so, i think this letter in a large part, seems to be ceremony. you know, he didn't read it, during the meeting. you know, he said it was interesting and nice. but, i mean -- i think this visit largely seemed to symbolize, okay, this was the first step in what might be a really long process with an unpredictable negotiation partner. >> let's bring in the white house reporter for the associated press and msnbc political analyst. jonathan, thank you for joining me. you heard the president say he believes north korea would agree to denuclearization. but it seems like both countries and this has been an issue from the start, the version of what that looks like could be different here. does the white house offer any wiggle room on this? >> publicly, they're not. mind closed doors there may be some. but i think you're right we may have two definitions of what denuclearization means and what
a me a win would look like for both sides and to broker a deal for kim jong-un to gain legitimacy with the president of the united states in less than two weeks now in significant ngapore. for the president, he's staked a lot on this summit. this is something that he wants to get down for his legacy of rewriting the history books. and he's always wanted to do something that none of his predecessors can do. the talk last summer about fire and fury, and yet he feels it moved kim jong-un to the negotiating table. it was striking yesterday that sanctions would still be in force but he wanted to no longer use the phrase maximum pressure which is what he was saying that the united states and its allies were doing to kim jong-un to bring them to the table. we should point out we don't
know the size of the letter delivered to the white house yesterday. but it certainly seems there's a degree of understanding on their part this is a president who has drawn two big statements. and a large envelope like that seemed to play well with the president. maybe that's what he sent by saying it was a nice letter before he actually read it. >> yeah, could be. is there anything to be made, jonathan, of john bolton's being missing from the meeting in the oval office yesterday? >> white house is not commenting. they're simply saying as plans changed, the chief of staff met john bolton outside and brought him in for a meeting with secretary of state pompeo. we were advised that john bolton was going to be in that meeting. but we know the north koreans were very upset with his comments where he made the comparison between north korea and libya and how, of course, that led to the downfall of that regime, the gadhafi regime.
and in the smouse, the president himself was flurustrated that bolton using that imagery. and there might have been a calculation made to keep bolton out of this meeting to make sure not to upset the north koreans. >> okay. let's talk about the president's pardon of the filmmake d'souza this week. >> he's freaked out more over my pardon than anybody other. i was something on cnn i think it was earlier today or yesterday, these things become a blur. but they're saying how dangerous it is that i got this pardon. and i was thinking about that and it occurred to me i think i know what they're getting at. it's dangerous to them. it's dangerous to their ideology. >> you know, katie, earlier in the day can d'souza suggested
that the president issued a pardon for his voice to the public. what do you make of all of this? >> well, really, president trump has pardoned only a handful of people. but the people that he's pardoned are people who are perceived to be with him aligned with him politically. people that -- a celebrity, sylvester stallone has been in his ear about a pardon he did recently. i think there's kind of a mixed bag about the pardons he's issued but i think, you know, the president's advisers have publicly said, this is a signal to supporters if you hang in there, this can come your way, this pardon might happen for you. i think in some ways the president is in awe of his power to pardon. his absolute power. it's almost like figuring out a new trick or, you know, process that he can just circumvent everything with. and it's too early to say how he's going to use this going forward but his supporters definitely seem to think this is
a signal to people like michael cohen, that this might be, you know, a solution going forward. >> yeah, to those in the russian probe, jonathan, is that what you're hearing as well? is that how it's all being interpreted, this particular pardon? >> that's one piece for sure. i was with the president on air force one on thursday flying to texas when he sort of out of nowhere announced. he had tweeted the dinesh d'souza pardon and then he announced i'm considering a pardon to blagojevich and maybe martha stewart. to piggyback on katie's lines, first of all, those who received pardons championed by conservatives or championed by celebrities or been on "the apprentice" in the case of blagojevich and martha stewart, it's something that the president sees he can do, he's been so frustrated by some of the washington, the legislative
process, capitol hill, members of his own staff. she's tru he's frustrated that he can't just snap its fingers and get something done. he's drawn to it. i think we'll see more and more of it. and the other thing that these pardons, rumored pardons have in common, they're all perceived to be people victims of government overreach. overzell otherwise prosecution. i think there's par parallels in the president's mind people around him have told us, that strikes a chord with him. >> and can't be lost in a president who was it that pardon martha stewart, james comey? that has an underlying fact into it as well. katie, the president has provoked anger from canada. a close u.s. ally. and trade and tariffs. is this about fulfilling a campaign promise? the president said he was going
to do something no matter what the consequences are or is there a larger strategy behind it? >> i don't know about a larger strategy, but the president, you know, as a candidate, really hammered home the message, we're being taken advantage of. the united states has been providing for the rest of the world for a long time. losing a lot of money for a long time and this ended with me. he was elected partially on that message, and that's a deliverance of a campaign promise with what we're seeing with canada and mexico. i think the underlying core of this is we're not going to be taken advantage of anymore. we're not going to be laughed at anymore. that's a big thing with him, too. then you have prime minister justin trudeau of canada saying this is an insult, we're allies. it's ridiculous for the president's allies to be saying this is a national security issue. the problem is not with us. >> go ahead. >> but i was just going to ask, jonathan, might a problem also
be to turn and hit trump voters on their pocketbooks? >> yes, it is going to have an impact. some of these tariffs that may come back from china, mexico and canada also, it's going to affect the trump voters. the republican base, particularly in the midwest, the rural states, and i think that is weighing on the president. you know, he speaks privately, tremendous fondness of his base and this agricultural industry here, these are great patriots, he has said. he feels like they'll stick with him, this is for the overall national good. we'll have to see how that plays out but certainly, this is, the idea of tariffs, being tough on trade, for a president who is is not particularly ideologically consistent, this is something he's believed in predating his time to "art of the deal." >> i want to speak to you what you wrote about kim kardashian west visiting the white house
trying to release the clemency for johnson for the cocaine possession. there was skepticism of a celebrity engaging with the president on this. what did you find was it spectacle or more to it? >> i mean, it's the biggest story of the week, right? no i think that the president is open to, you know, anybody of her stature who wants to come and speak with him. i think somebody like kim kardashian west in her own way has influence on par with the president, in some ways. and she was touched by the story of alice johnson and went to the president and said, this is the kind of person you should be pardoning. this is the kind of life you should be saving. not somebody who has pled guilty to campaign finance law violation. you know, the kind of person kikim kardashian west is advocating for is somebody president obama might have looked at and
pardoned and had say commence commuted for. so far, this president has stuck to big names, prettil political aligned people. i would say one of the advantages she has going for her is her celebrity influence. as jonathan says, he does like that. >> he sure does. thank you so much. pardon power. what congress can do to keep the president from going too far and how he grants clemency to celebrity felons. advanced connectivity... and one more thing... the world comes with it. the new, reimagined 2019 jeep cherokee. p3 it's meat, cheese and nuts. i keep my protein interesting.
oh yea, me too. i have cheese and uh these herbs. p3 snacks. the more interesting way to get your protein. anna and a little nervous. into retirement... but not so much about what market volatility may do to their retirement savings. that's because they have a shield annuity from brighthouse financial, which allows them to take advantage of growth opportunities in up markets, while maintaining a level of protection in down markets. so they can focus on new things like exotic snacks. talk with your advisor about shield annuities from brighthouse financial- established by metlife. but prevagen helps your brain with an ingredient originally discovered... in jellyfish. in clinical trials, prevagen has been shown to improve short-term memory. prevagen. the name to remember.
did will be a beginning. i don't say and i've never said it happens in one meeting. you're talking years of hostilities and process. it's a process. we're not going to go in and sign something on june 12th. we never will. we're going to start a process. i told him today, take your time. we can go fast, we can go slowly. but i think they'd like to see something happen, and if we can work that out, that would be good. >> president trump appearing to concede it's going to take more than one meeting with the north korean leader before the two leaders come to an agreement. joining me now karen bass, congresswoman, good to see you. thanks for joining me here on a saturday. your reaction for what transpired with the meeting with the north korean official and then announcing, summit's back on? >> well, i think he sees the summit almost as the goal.
because the korean leader hands him a big envelope. he gets excited by that. he comes out and says that, you know, it was a very good statement. i don't think it makes much sense. and it just makes me wonder what will actually happen in the summit. i think the sad thing is, though, is that world leaders know how to play president trump. and i'm sure there will be a lot of pomp and circumstance. maybe there will even be a big parade. and there's no telling what he will agree to. the idea that we would start negotiations with the summit, that really should be at the end. i don't know what we're actually going to get out of this. his goal is the complete denuclearization of north korea. and i don't believe there's any indication from the north korean leaders all. >> hmm. i guess the definition of what denuclearization means on both sides needing to be more clearly spelled out but the president told reporters human rights abuses were not involve in the oval office with the north korean official.
how dbig a deal was that? but think about that the issue of human rights has already come up in other talking and that it probably would come up on june 12th? >> well, i absolutely think it should come up on june 12th. but again, i think the problem is we don't really know what is happening here. because it's not clear at all that is a strategy to this process. the president on the one hand says it's complete denuclearization. on the other hand, he says that this summit is just the beginning. so, i think from the vantage point of the north korean leader. he's won already. he got a major victory by having the president agreeing to the summit. who knows what will happen. maybe there will be two. maybe there will be three summits. i think it raises his profile and his stature in the world. and i'm referring to the north korean leader, not president trump. >> do you believe that the president is spending camp david this weekend solely focused or mostly focused on north korea
and something that come from. that? >> i know what will you meant. it would be helpfulful that's what he's doing but we know that trump really doesn't put much into preparation at all. i hope he's there. i hope he's preparing for the summit. but who knows. >> all right. and interestingly, ma'am, as all of this is going on, we have "the wall street journal" reporting that the there are early talks for a trump/putin summit. >> right. >> in fairness, presidents obama and bush, they met with putin in the first six months of their administration. the fact that this president would be following that precedent 17 or 18 months in his, would you allow him for that? >> well, i don't think there's really any comparison between the two. we know of all of the difficulties that the country has faced with the relationship with russia. and, so, to me, though, the concern i was raising about the north korean leader is similar with putin. the president, i believe, likes to have summits. he likes to have the pomp and
the circumstance. what is the content? what is the strategy behind even having this at this point in time? >> all right. i want to ask you about, in addition to your work on the foreign affairs and judiciary committees i know you're also a member of the overcriminalization tank force. i want to get your reaction of dinesh d'souza this week. let's listen. >> the president said, dinesh, you've been a great voice for premiu freedom. i've got to tell you, man-to-man, you've been screwed. he goes i've been looking at the case. i knew from the beginning that it was fishy. but he said upon reviewing it, he felt a great injustice had been done and using his power he was going to rectify it, sort of clear the slate. and he just wanted me to be out throb a bigger voice than ever defending the principles that i believe in. >> go ahead. >> i just think it's so sad. i think of all of the people who
are languishing in prisons all around the country, people who are serving life sentences for nonviolent drug abuses. and that's who he chooses to pardon? he is using his power to pardon which none of us can question because it's in the constitution, he's using it to serve his own individual purposes. and i think that's really sad. >> does congress have any oversight at all to avoid what is perceived as abuse of this power? >> well, you know it would take a change of constitution. i certainly introduced legislation many months ago to prohibit the president from pardoning members of his family. but really, it would take a constitutional change. and i think that this is a power that he could use in such a constructive way. and it's so sad to see him using it just for his own individual purposes. he's trying to send a message. he's trying to send a message for all of the people under indictment or under investigation. don't feel you have to
cooperate. whatever you say, don't worry, i will pardon you down the line. and i think that that's a despicable use of presidential power. >> i want to also get your reaction to the president using his weekly address to once again attack democrats for not funding his border wall. here it is. >> they don't want border security for two reasons. number one, they don't care about it. number two, they're afraid it's going to make me and the republicans look good. and they don't want that. that comes before our country. they've blocked every effort to close deadly loopholes. to keep out vicious criminals and to stop the flow of illegal immigrants and drugs. >> reaction to that, especially after the backlash the administration is facing for losing hundreds of undocumented children? >> well, you know, i think again, he just uses issues of immigration and race to gin up
his base. and the idea of separating parents from their children, you know, may was national foster care month. the foster care system is supposed to protect children from abuse and neglect. we don't have enough foster homes for children who really need to be removed right now. and so to misuse this to punish parents i just think is egregious. and the other thing is is that science has proven that there is long-term damage to separating parents from children. and the idea that he would use the system that way i just really i think is egregious. so, you have all of the children that we don't know where 34 that are unaccompanied, minors, that i think is shameful. and then we need to go back and find those children. and then you have the policy of children who have come here with their parents to punish the parents, to separate them away. one of the things that scares me the most is that i think some of these parents might never find
their children again. and what does that say to the world that this would take place in the united states of america? >> that is heartbreaking for sure. democratic congresswoman karen bass. thank you so much. coming up next, the discourse in america and the dueling controversies over roseanne barr, any comparisons? -♪ he's got legs of lumber and arms of steel ♪ ♪ he eats a bowl of hammers at every meal ♪ ♪ he holds your house in the palm of his hand ♪ ♪ he's your home and auto man ♪ big jim, he's got you covered ♪ ♪ great big jim, there ain't no other ♪ -so, this is covered, right? -yes, ma'am. take care of it for you right now. giddyup!
hi! this is jamie. we need some help. overwhelming air fresheners can send you running... so try febreze one. with no aerosols and no heavy perfumes. so you can spray and stay. febreze one. with tripadvisor, finding your perfect hotel at the lowest price... is as easy as dates, deals, done! simply enter your destination and dates... and see all the hotels for your stay! tripadvisor searches over 200 booking sites... to show you the lowest prices... so you can get the best deal on the right hotel for you. dates, deals, done! tripadvisor. visit tripadvisor.com and i recently had hi, ia heart attack. it changed my life. but i'm a survivor. after my heart attack, my doctor prescribed brilinta.
it's for people who have been hospitalized for a heart attack. brilinta is taken with a low-dose aspirin. no more than 100 milligrams as it affects how well brilinta works. brilinta helps keep platelets from sticking together and forming a clot. in a clinical study, brilinta worked better than plavix. brilinta reduced the chance of having another heart attack... ...or dying from one. don't stop taking brilinta without talking to your doctor, since stopping it too soon increases your risk of clots in your stent, heart attack, stroke, and even death. brilinta may cause bruising or bleeding more easily, or serious, sometimes fatal bleeding. don't take brilinta if you have bleeding, like stomach ulcers, a history of bleeding in the brain, or severe liver problems. slow heart rhythm has been reported. tell your doctor about bleeding new or unexpected shortness of breath any planned surgery, and all medicines you take. if you recently had a heart attack, ask your doctor if brilinta is right for you. my heart is worth brilinta. if you can't afford your medication, astrazeneca may be able to help.
californians are leading against donald trump. our senator should, too. kevin de león is the only candidate for senate who passed laws protecting immigrants from trump... and helped dreamers stay in school. he led bold action against climate change. and only de león fought for universal, medicare for all. democrat kevin de león the only true progressive for senate. change california now is responsible for the content of this advertising.
watchdog groups are monitoring the number of white nationalist candidates running for federal and state offices this year. at least eight candidates have been identified as running on platforms of hate. nbc's morgan radfield caught up with a few. >> i consider myself a white racialist. >> i think most people want a white neighborhood. >> do you think that black people are genetically inferior? >> the average i.q. of a black person is about 20 points lower than the average white person. >> joining me now, roland, some of the candidates who spoke to
morgan said they voted for president trump. is it fair to blame him for emboldening these candidates? >> naturally, you sit down and lay out the language that donald trump uses and the language that george wall lace used in 1968, when you lay the language down that richard nixon uses. when you use phrases that you push the buttons when you look at donald trump and attacks on illegal immigration. in many ways it mirrors the language being used attacking civil rights. when you saw the whole white flight out of suburbs and trust me, trump knows exactly what he's doing. the whole birther language. and questioning the identity of the 41st president. there's a direct correlation between the language that trump uses the button he's pushing that appeals to white
nationalists. >> does the president's pardon of dinesh d'souza, does that add to the phenomenon and would that even happened in the absence of a trump presidency? >> what d'souza does, because he's a man of color, he basically gives it to them see, he's not one of its. the president of the united states has a right to pardon anybody. president barack obama issued a number of pardons. the difference with him, he has no process. you can do that but he has no process. dinesh d'souza is a vile despicable individual. when you look at the comments he's made, what his ex-wife has said about him. he pushes the race buttons and wants to come up as, oh, no, i'm just a scholar. so, trump even in his own comments saying how he called him up and said i want to see you out there, that's what
d'souza does. you have to ask the other question, what is it about the republican party with white nationalists that's appealing to them? you're not seeing the level of white nationalists on the democratic side. but what is appealing to them on the gop side? that's how we begin to go deeper and say, wait a minute, something else is here about their agenda. about the rhetoric, about the attacks of people of color, that's important. >> in all fairness, these republican parties have denounced these candidates. we just want to say they've gone on record saying that. but the declining level of discourse -- >> alex, let me stop you right there. >> okay. >> here's what i really want your producers to do for a great segment next weekend. go back and get the tapes of lee atwater, where he described how you use language. this is a guy who ran president george h.w. bush's campaign. later head of the republican
national committee he said, we can't say things we used to say. so there are audiotapes where he is describing how they use coded language to appeal to white voters, namely white men, trust me, it will be a fascinating segment. and he's considered the creme de la creme of political strategists. >> and it's a way of using humor, that masks it or gives a level of cover to the lee atwater point and your point is taken there. but with regard to humor, what happened with roseanne barr and samantha bee. they're both comedians and condemned. compare and contrast the two incidents. >> first and foremost, you have roseanne barr who trafficked in pizza gate and other conspiracy theories. who trafficked in anti-semitism
in attacks. calling her an ape wasn't the first time she'd done that. and with susan collins. samantha bee, first of all, with her talk on ivanka trump, she's used that word before on the show but there was not an outcry. now you ask the question if she's used the same word before and it was bleeped, it wasn't outcry. are we only mad that she was using it in reference to ivanka trump? that's the real deal there. no, there are other ways you that can criticize somebody. samantha bee is critical within the context of her show in terms of how it's framed as a satirical comedian show. whereas, roseanne barr with personal attacks on twitter. huge difference. >> is there a double standard
for the consequences for the choice of words? >> very simple, donald trump did you order people to be thrown out of your rallies that had shirts with the same wording of hillary clinton in your rallies? and there are females saying that donald trump called them of the exact same word. i don't care what donald trump tweets. you got kelly sadler sitting in the white house who made a vile comment about john mccain, told meghan mccain she was going to apologize, she has not done it. this president loves to demand apologies from other people she still hasn't apologized to other people about his racist eye berther attack on president obama. he hasn't paapologized for word he's done. and considering that he has not apologize for the vile things he's said about women and other folks as well. so, his tweet is actually
irrelevant. goal sit down, you should apologize, donald trump for things you have said that are despicable and not words that the president of the united states should be using. >> all right. roland martin, telling it like it is. what are you doing, going to a houston astros game or something? >> i told cramer i was going to represent us and yankees fans, we're going to beat y'all again. >> i'm going to be wearing an l.a. dodgers shirt. >> you don't want to do that we'll beat y'all, too. >> roland, thanks so much. awkward ethical fit. that's the words in "the washington post" about ivanka trump. why it's raising questions, next.
but how do i know if i'm i'm getting a good deal? i tell truecar my zip and which car i want and truecar shows the range of prices people in my area actually paid for the same car so i know if i'm getting a great price. this is how car buying was always meant to be. this is truecar. better things than for rheumatoid arthritis. before you and your rheumatologist move to another treatment, ask if xeljanz xr is right for you. xeljanz xr is a once-daily pill for adults with moderate to severe ra for whom methotrexate did not work well enough. it can reduce pain, swelling and further joint damage, even without methotrexate. xeljanz xr can lower your ability to fight infections, including tuberculosis. serious, sometimes fatal infections, lymphoma and other cancers have happened. don't start xeljanz xr if you have an infection. tears in the stomach or intestines, low blood cell counts and higher liver tests and cholesterol levels have happened. your doctor should perform blood tests
before you start and while taking xeljanz xr, and monitor certain liver tests. tell your doctor if you were in a region where fungal infections are common and if you have had tb, hepatitis b or c, or are prone to infections. xeljanz xr can reduce the symptoms of ra, even without methotrexate. ask your rheumatologist about xeljanz xr. new insight into former president obama's reaction to
president trump. an early look at longtime ben rhodes' memoir due out tuesday, mr. obama asked aides what if we were wrong. he'd read a column asserting how they thought it was important to people. and globalization that let people feel behind. maybe we pushed too far behind. maybe we pushed too far. let's bring in columnist for daily beast and msnbc analyst. welcome to you both. jonathan, do you think there's any truth to this idea that the president could have gone too far with globalism when many americans may have wanted to fall back in their tribes? >> yeah, i think he was having a lot of second thoughts after the election. i had a chance to speak to him i guess in december 2016. he sounded really deflated. not remorseful but just
analytical about what had happened. you know, he's a -- he's a rigorous thinker. and he believes as martin luther king said, and he's quoted martin luther king many times on this, that the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice. and i think what he was thinking is maybe on that arc which was long. he was maybe a little early on the arc and not thinking enough about how threatened people would be, not just by globalism, but the idea of him personally as president of the united states. >> do you think tribalism was a factor in the election of president trump? >> i think if you refer to tribalism as it pertains to the working man and working woman feeling they weren't represented in the party anymore? yes. and i think what obama did was take a seat back and he's very reflective. he's having a moment where he's
actually kind of -- he's analytical, he's looking at the race saying what happened. how did these always tried and true states from blue turn to red. >> what was the undercurrent of it? and i think the undercurrent was the feeling that the working man and woman, the middle class which a lot of times was the back bone of the democratic party felt like they weren't represented. and i wonder if maybe a long time when the unions came about that a lot of the men and women that were working felt like the unions really had their back. and that was their voice to stand up for, you know, the big boss saying you're treating workers unfairly. and all of a sudden, the unions became about the unions and kind of forgot the working man and woman. and all of a sudden you have trump and trump kind of appealed to let's just say we'll call that sector a tribe. and that was the motivating factor that switched on for trump. and normally, this voting class goes democratic, and all of a
sudden they're like oh, my gosh, we're energized that trump is going to bring some of their industries back. really, i think that's where the momentum shifted. yes, i think obama was right when he said i think maybe they want to go back in their tribes when he's looking at his presidency. the global -- how can i make the presidency more of a global act. and i think he's now reflecting and looking back saying maybe i should have done thing differently which i respect. it's very nice to hear a president going back and, you know, doing crazy rhetoric or anything but actually having a thoughtful conversation saying maybe i should have did this or that. it might have help. >> jonathan, can i ask you about the president back on the national stage this month. he's head lining a dnc fund-raisers and ddc both in
california. what do democrats want him to play as a role in the midterms? do you think he's going to be more vocal on the views of the trump administration? >> i think it will be more along the lines of trying to mobilize democratic voters. i'm not sure he's going to kind of lace into trump because that's not really the root to a big democratic november. and but what he will do is he'll go to a number of districts that he carried twice that then went for donald trump. and that are flipable for the democrats. so, he's going to have a very targeted approach. i believe they've isolated about 70 races around the country, not just for the house of representatives. but in some cases for governor, or for senator. and even in some cases for the state legislature, because he's very committed to trying to regain some of those 750 state legislative seats that the democrats lost in 2010. and then more in 2014.
he had disastrous midterm elections when he was president. and it hut him badly. and i think he wants to try to make some gains in the states, in advance of the 2020 census when they're going to redraw all of those lines. because there's been a tremendous amount of gerrymandering, he's very concerned about that. and just one more note on his overall take of things. ben rhodes' work will be interesting but what i'm really waiting for is president obama's memoirs. he sees himself as a writer as well as a politician. he's a very reflective individual. i think they'll be very unusual memoirs and grapple with all of the things he's hinting with today. >> i want to talk about i vvank trump with you, noelle, facing the allegations, china has reported 13 trademarks in the last few months.
just a few days avenue the president decided to ease the sanctions for zte. "the washington post" said in an editorial that the timing of this trademark approval bolters the appearance that the foreign office seeks on the business favors on the president's daughter. are they going to see this on the president's longtime repeated efforts to drain the swamp? >> well, i mean, yes, depending on what angle if you do not like trump or trump's family, you're going to use anything you can. they're going to use this as bad optics and they're going to go into that. but on the other part of it, there's a reason for these trademarks. i think ivanka was looking at she didn't want there to be fakes. that's one thing when you have the trademarks to prohibit fakes or knockoffs using her name to gain profit. the flip side of that is to protect her and her brand.
and she is a brand. a lot you have people would say she wouldn't be her brand without her father. i think he's proven she's been able to separate herself before the election. she was able to separate herself and she was very -- you know, a lot of people really liked her. and thought she was a great role model for women and today still is. but i think that this -- what this does is protect her brand. and it protects people from profiting off her brand that are not her. >> jonathan, i've got ten seconds to weigh in. >> well, you remember the line from "hamlet," shakespeare, there's something rotten in denmark. they led off with zte, the sanctions they lifted them in the same people that decline did the president's daughter these favors. she just can't be in business and the government at the same time.
it's a huge conflict of interest and it stinks. >> good to see you both. my next guest is running for president as a democrat. and tox about jobs and the knick by the age of 16 for doing nothing. signature toughness... and one more thing... the world comes with it. the new, reimagined 2019 jeep cherokee. i have no idea how we're going to get through this. follow me. unitedhealthcare has the people and tools to help guide you through the confusion. well that wasn't so bad at all.
i've been making blades here at gillette for 20 years. i bet i'm the first blade maker you've ever met. there's a lot of innovation that goes into making our thinnest longest lasting blades on the market. precision machinery and high-quality materials from around the world. nobody else even comes close. it's about delivering a more comfortable shave every time. invented in boston, made and sold around the world. now starting at $7.99. gillette. the best a man can get.
concerns for a trade war after the president imposed tariffs on steel and aluminum imports from the eu, canada and mexico. joining me now andrea yang, entrepreneur and author of "the war on normal people." he's also a 2020 democratic presidential candidate with pretty big ideas on the future of business and labor here in the u.s. andrew, a big welcome to you. thank you for joining me here in the studio. do you think the president's tariffs can save americans' jobs? >> quite the opposite. the labor force has shrunken by 5 million workers over the last 18 years. those jobs we all know are the subject of automation and reduced job loss much more than
anything that a tariff can do or undo. >> looking at this book, i know you paint a scary picture. you say 68 million workers, i believe in five sectors, are going to begin to see their jobs disappearing right away. where are the jobs going? >> we're actually in the middle of it. we're in the third and fourth inning of the greatest technological shift in human history. the reason why donald trump is our president today we automated away manufacturing jobs in michigan, pennsylvania and wisconsin, essentially the states that he needed to win and my friends in sill done valley know we're about to do the same for truck drivers, fast food workers which happen to be the largest jobs in the economy. >> and you call it the freedom dif densd. you want to give every single american between 18 and 641,000 bucks a month. why do you think this is necessary? and $1,000 how far does that go?
>> $1,000 goes a lot farther in other parts of the country than in new york where we're sitting but the reality is the labor force is down to 62.7% which is the same level of el salvador and the dominican republic. it's a low that for some reason our leaders are not acknowledging. the $1,000 a month according to roosevelt institute would create 4.5 million jobs because people would have more money to spend. it would be a system loss of our regional economies and would help get places around the country much more on their feet and dynamic and mobile. >> look, it's a big concept, but when we even look at the long-term efficacy of social security, say, for instance, of staying alive, how would we afford this? >> our economy has grown by $4 trillion in the last ten years alone. our current mismanagement aside
we actually have plenty of resources to do this. we're the most advanced in the history of the world. universal base income of $1,000 per adult would cost $1.5 trillion on top of spending. my plan to pay for that as president is to implement a value-added tax which is something that every other country in the world has except for us. it would be harvested from a i and software and machines which is not captured by income taxes. the beneficiaries are these local tech companies. >> can i ask you the relationship you have between this and improving the national discourse? >> yes. so, what's funny, if you sit someone who is conservative down, and you prime them by saying you're rich, invulnerable and nothing bad can happen to you. 60% of americans can not pay an extra $500 bill.
the freedom dividend would reverse that. we have to restore a sense of abundance and opportunity for a majority of the company. that's what the freedom dividend would help us to do to become more rational. i'm an entrepreneur. i've worked with hundreds to create thousands of jobs that's what we need to restore the dynamism to our economy. >> and our an author and presidential candidate for the democratic party. thank you so much. in our next hour, playwright tony kushner joins us to show how say play harkens back to president trump's past. challenge you. test you. tomorrow will show up. so will you.