tv MSNBC Live With Velshi and Ruhle MSNBC June 15, 2018 8:00am-9:00am PDT
steve scalise who in the days after we heard that his injuries were greater than we thought they were. he started at second base, and he got the first out of the game. even though he now walks with a limp, absolutely extraordinary. he got mobbed even in this environment there can be a little bipartisan cheering. maybe we'll say a prayer, and you've got your bible with you today. >> i do have my bible. we've been talking a lot in the last few days about religion. as it relates to immigration these days. it's a little-known fact that my degree is in religion. i went to a theological college. >> i did not know that. >> i do not have a degree in economics. people will point it out, my degree is in religion. >> and yet, it's relevant today. >> it is. one day in many, it will be relevant about religion. we're going to go to church today. good morning, everybody. stephanie ruhle is off. it is friday, june 15th.
let's get smarter. >> i think that the report yesterday maybe more importantly than anything, it totally exonerates me. there was no collusion. there was no obstruction, and if you read the report, you'll see that. what you'll really see is you'll see bias against me and millions and tens of millions of my followers that is really a disgrace. >> are you going to -- >> no, i think that whole investigation now is -- look, the problem with the mueller investigation is everybody's got massive conflicts. here's the good news. i did nothing wrong. there was no collusion. there was no obstruction. the i.g. report yesterday went a long way to show that, and i think that the mueller investigation has been totally discredited. >> you've spoken to passionately about the circumstances that led to otto warmbiewarmbier's death. >> i don't want to see a nuclear
weapon destroy you and your family. i don't -- excuse me. because i don't want to see a nuclear weapon destroy you and your family. i want to have a good relationship with north korea. i want to have a good relationship with many other countries. now we're well on our way to get denuclearization and the agreement says there will be total denuclearization. nobody wants to report that. so the only thing i did was i met, i got along with them great. we have a great chemistry together. that's the good thing. >> why did you offer to halt the military exercises with south korea? >> that was my offer. just so you understand, do you want to hear? okay. military, i call them war games. i hated them from the day i came in. i said why aren't we being reimbursed. >> north korea's term is war games. >> that's my term. >> we pay for millions and millions of dollars for planes and all of this. it's my term. i said i'd like to halt it.
because it's bad to be negotiating and doing it. it costs us a lot of money. i saved a lot of money. that's a good thing. >> reporter: are we close to seeing mr. kim at the white house? >> it could happen. yeah, i would have him. i think it's something that could happen, yeah. hey, he's the head of a country, and i mean, he's the strong head. don't let anyone think anything different. he speaks and his people sit up at attention. i want my people to do the same. >> reporter: your former campaign manager and lawyer are dealing with legal troubles. are you paying close attention? >> i feel badly. i think a lot of it is unfair. i look at some of them where they go back 12 years. manafort has nothing to do with our campaign. i don't think it's right they burst into a lawyer's office on an early morning. i never heard of that. can you imagine if they burst into barack obama's office? it would not be acceptable. >> reporter: is there any consideration of a part snn. >> i don't want to talk about
that. they'll -- look, i do want to see people treated fairly. >> are you worried that michael cohen might flip? >> i did nothing wrong. you have to understand, this stuff would have come out a long time ago. i did nothing wrong. it's really nice. >> reporter: is he still your friend? >> like him. i haven't spoken to him in a long time. >> reporter: is he still your lawyer? >> not anymore, but i always liked michael. take a look -- i would, you're asking me about -- >> reporter: should he be fired? >> i am amazed that peter strzok is still at the fbi and so is everybody else that read the report. i'm looking at scott. he's done a fantastic job at epa, but, you know, we'll make -- i'm not happy about certain things. i'll be honest. excuse me. excuse me. i'm not happy about certain things but he's done a fantastic job running the epa which is overriding. i am not happy about -- >> reporter: there president, do you agree with children being taken away -- >> i hate it.
i hate the children being taken away. the democrats have to change their law. >> reporter: are you planning to meet with putin this summer. >> it's possible we'll meet. this all started because one of you asked should putin be in the g7. i said no, he should be in the g8. a few years ago putin was in what was called the g8. i think it's better to have russia in and out, because just like north korea, just like somebody else, it's much better if we get along with them than if we don't. >> wow. just wow. we have a lot to cover today. let's start with the president of the united states, again, praising a murderous dictator. you heard him this morning showering prize, compliments, and envy for north korea's leader, kim jong-un. a brutal dictator notorious for murdering, starving, imprisoning, and terrorizing his own people. i need you to listen again closely to what the president of our united states said about inviting this notoriously oppressive leader and apparently
new-found friend to the white house. >> are we close to seeing mr. kim here at the white house? >> could happen. i mean -- >> they talked about that yesterday. >> yeah, i think it's something that could happen, yeah. hey, he's the head of a country, and, i mean, he's the strong head. don't let anyone think anything different. he speaks and his people sit up at attention. i want my people to do the same. >> he's the strong head of a country. he speaks, his people sit up at attention and i want my people to do the same. the president of the united states wants the american people to give him the same attention that the north korean people are forced to give their leader. let's just take a moment to look at some of the atrocities documented about kim jong-un's regime. according to a 40 0-page u.n. report, at least 120,000 people men, women, and children, are being held in the four known
political prisons according to amnesty international. former detainees in the camps say they were stripped of all sense of being human. no thinking, no free will. just fear. detainees caught rats to eat. they were beaten by guards if caught with contraband, cigarettes. some died from the wounds from those beatings. starvation isn't an issue in just the camps. the regime uses starvation as a means of control. distributing food to those considered useful to the government. one famine in the 90s killed an estimated 1 million people. you want this for your people, donald trump? according to new york times since taking power in 2011, kim jong-un has consolidated his power by using executions. citing the institute for national security strategy, "the new york times" says, quote, in the first six years as leader, he has ordered the executions of at least 340 people.
kim's own family is not spared his brutality in executions. the same report says, quote, one of kim's uncles was convicted of treason and then executed with anti-aircraft machine guns. his body incinerated with flame flowers. the u.s. says there's evidence that north korea was -- with a chemical warfare agent known as vx. you want that for your people, donald trump? is that why you want americans to sit up and listen to you? trump is not ignorant of that oppression. quoting his own words, trump has said, quote, an estimated 100,000 north koreans suffer in gulogs, toiling in forced labor and enduring torture, starvation, rape and murder on a constant basis, end quote, from the president of the united states. it's interesting that president trump now says he has great respect for this north korean leader. he wants his people to do the same as north koreans.
sit up and listen to a strong leader. minutes after saying he wanted the american people to sit up in attention, like they do in north korea, here is how the president tried to clarify his comments. >> reporter: what did you mean when you said you wished americans would sit up at attention? >> i'm kidding. you don't understand sarcasm. >> oh, it was all a joke. okay. well, then it's okay. jeff bennett is live at the white house. also with us is msnbc terrorism analyst malcolm nants. malcolm, you're a military man from a military family. you're taught to sit up straight and listen to your commander in chief. this is something entirely different. >> it absolutely is. and in my family, we were taught to sit up and pay attention and salute the flag so that other americans could have the freedom and liberty to do as they please. however, that being said, anyone who is in the service of this nation, particularly the
president of the united states must not only understand that. they must execute that faithfully for the other citizens of the united states. i don't believe that donald trump understands what his role is. he sees that sitting with a murderous, brutal dictator is the equivalent of bringing that dictator to our way of thinking. that's not true. it's the other way around. we are seeing him emulate and show envy of that dictator at the time that he should be showing decorum and honor. >> jeff, one of the things that the president said this morning is that what am i supposed to do? walk out and say terrible, mean things? i get along with him very well. i have good chemistry. i asked him about the remains he brought back the remains or gave back the remains of great heros. what's the strategy here? what's he trying to do?
it's just not clear to the american people listening to donald trump what he's trying to achieve in praising kim jong-un who he raised to a new level of insult in past months. >> that's right. i think it should be said that the u.s. and western allies for decades have often turned a blind eye to totalitarian regimes around the world. often in the interest of u.s. instability and at the expense of people living in those countries. american leaders up to this point have been careful about the words they use to refer to those leaders as a way of trying to maintain some semblance of a moral high ground, and yet, the president having just returned from the talks with kim has roughered to him as funny, smart, talented and said he loves his people even though we know that kim is an accused human rights abuser. take a listen to what else he had to say about the personal chemistry, as he put it between him and kim in the interview with fox news this morning. >> reporter: when you finally met him, and sat across the
table, we've heard a lot of bad things about rocket man. >> we got along very well. we had a good chemistry. i don't know if that's politically correct, but we did. no rockets in the air for seven months. no research. they just blew up their test site. they're blowing up their engine test site for ballistic missiles. he's giving us back our great heros who died, as you know. the remains back. >> so what accounts for this, people close to the president said he is intent on selling this as a victory. the president said today, i did a great job this weekend. so setting aside the fact that north korea hasn't agreed to a time line or even whether they'll hand over the regime's weapons as u.s. officials want. >> so malcolm, let's discuss this. i don't think anybody should take issue with the fact that in attempting to negotiate with north korea, whatever it takes, if you need to develop good chemistry, i remember that after
the iran deal president obama praised the deal and the hard work that went into it and the work that the iranians put into it. he didn't raise iran's leaders, by the way. he emphasized the verification part of this. but i think americans would be understanding of the fact that there's a middle ground to walk. the problem is this president hasn't walked a middle ground. he said inflammatory things about north korea's leader that had americans worried, and now he's chummy with him. i understand it's complicated to be president and you have to walk a middle line when you're negotiating. what is an approach that would make sense? >> an approach that would make sense is the adult approach. that means the actual leg work which has to be done so that when we speak to a totalitarian murderous dictator, that it is done with a unified body of speech that represents the entirety of the united states. donald trump in his approach represents donald trump in his
transactional way of doing business with people. we do not do business with murderous dictators as the united states on an off the cuff basis. this was almost the equivalent of chamberlain going to germany in 1939 and saying hitler is a great guy. he sat around. maybe we should keep doing wiz with him. kim jong-un is going to keep those nuclear weapons. this whole thing is going to fall apart, because if he doesn't, kim jong-un could end up dead or even worse, his own regime could kill him and this entire deal will die with him. >> what do we make, malcolm, about the suspension of the military exercises? it may be a good thing that we've done that. it may bring the pressure down, but it does seem to a lot of observers that we gave something up that kim jong-un wanted. and it is unclear what we got in return. the president tweeted the other day that there's no nuclear threat from north korea, but
expert after expert has come on and said there's no evidence that there's no nuclear threat from north korea. we don't have a proper count of how many nuclear weapons they have. iran had verifiably zero nuclear weapons and it took us ten years to get a deal with them. we don't have a full count of what north korea has. saying there's no threat in north korea is patently false. >> the president said today he unilaterally gave up strategic exercises with our allies in south asia and asia because he wanted to get rid of it anyway. because it was costing us money. that leads me to believe that he doesn't even understand the fundamental basics of how the defense of this nation works. we spend that money so that our sons, our daughters, our brothers and sisters, husbands and wives, do not have to die in combat when a surprise like, let's say, a north korean attack, comes out at us.
these things are insurance. we have been insuring the stability of korean peninsula since 1954 when the cease fire went into effect. if end that yarks that's great. i'll never take that away from anybody, but right now the president has to understand that what he's done is he has disarmed us. and if these exercises actually do stop, we will immediately degrade our ability to defend all of our interest in asia, not just the korean peninsula. >> malcolm, thank you for your analysis. we have much more to cover from what president trump said this morning from blaming democrats for separating parents and their children at the boarder. that's a fact. and the new tariffs on chinese products. the markets are not liking the tariff discussion. the dow giving up .8% after a down close yesterday as well. the dow jones down 210 points right now. much more coming up. y grandma. - anncr: as you grow older, your brain naturally
begins to change which may cause trouble with recall. - learning from him is great... when i can keep up! - anncr: thankfully, prevagen helps your brain and improves memory. - dad's got all the answers. - anncr: prevagen is now the number-one-selling brain health supplement in drug stores nationwide. - she outsmarts me every single time. - checkmate! you wanna play again? - anncr: prevagen. healthier brain. better life.
until her laptop her sacrashed this morning.eks, you never know what the day's going to bring when you're running a small business, it might even bring a blue screen of death. having it problems? ask a business advisor how to get virus and spyware removal, and 24/7 tech support. office depot now offers on demand tech support for as little as $15 a month. ♪ this week get boise case paper for only $29.99 at office depot office max.
that's the democrat's doing that. >> ultimately congress has to change the law. at the same time people said you ripped these families apart. it's heartless. >> that's the law, and that's what the democrats gave us. we're willing to change it today if they want to get in and negotiate. >> all right. president trump a short time ago
placing blame on democrats for the country's current immigration policy tearing migrant families apart. a recent report found that 1768 families were separated by border agents in the last 17 months. this is why we are talking about this today. attorney general jeff sessions, and president trump's press secretary are now using the bible to justify ripping children from their parents at the border as part of the current zero tolerance immigration policy. >> having children does not give you immunity from arrest and prosecution. bringing children with you doesn't guarantee you won't get prosecuted. now, i would cite you to the apostle paul and his clear and wise command in romans 13 to obey the laws of the government because god is ordained the government for his purposes. >> i can say that it is very biblical to enforce the law. that is actually repeated a number of times throughout the
bible. >> you just said it's in the bible to follow the law. >> that's not what i said. i know it's hard for you to understand even short sentences i guess, but don't take my words out of context. the separation of -- it's the product of the same legal loopholes that democrats refuse to close. these laws are the same that have been on the books for over a decade. the president is simply enforcing them. >> okay. so jim acosta was asking where are in the bible it says this is legitimate. some of you don't know this about me, but i have a bachelor's degree in religion, not business. we're about to go to church. sticking with the spirit of what would jesus do, we actually did dig through the bible to find passages that lent themselves to the current border practice of separating migrant children from their parents. i want to begin with matthew, chapter 19, verse 14. but jesus said suffer little children and forbid them not to come unto me. for of such is the kingdom of
heaven. let's go to jeremiah, chapter 22 j verse 3. thus say the lord, execute your judgment and righteousness and deliver the spoil out of the hand of the oppressor and do no wrong. do no wrong to the stranger, the fatherless, the widow. neither shed more blood in his place. matthew chapter 26 verse 42. for i was hungered and you gave me no meat. i was thirsty and you gave me no drink. i was a stranger and you took me not in. naked and you clothed me not. sick and in prison and you visited me not. let's go to isaiah, chapter 10. whoa into them the decree unrighteousness decrees and the write gree vousness which they have prescribed. widows may be their prey and that they may rob the
fatherless. i'm not done yet. let's go to matthew chapter 25 again. this time verse 40. and the king shall answer and say unto them, i say unto you, in as much as you have done it into one of least of my brethren, ye have done it unto me. that's just a small sampling of what's in the wiebible. joining us now, james martin, the editor at large of the jesuit magazine. i don't do a lot of verse. i've studied verse. i don't do that. but administration has forced this discussion upon us, because they have said it's the biblical thing to do. i don't think there is a christian, a muslim, or a jew in this country who can find me in their holy book references that suggest that that is appropriate. >> i think you're right. i think what they're doing is
called proof texting. you take a verse of the gospels or the old testament out of context and throw it at people weaponizing the bible. the entire bible and certainly if we're talking about a christian point of view is in favor of the poor and those struggling. and in fact, jesus's test for whether or not you get into hef season how you treated poor and struggling people and the stranger. it's clear. and their use of it is disgraceful. >> i would rather not have the conversation in that context. we have other good political contexts to have them. including the fact that that we signed onto international agreements about the way we treat refugees, but you bring up an important point. if you are going to take a holy book and weapon neize it, you h to have the other side of the argument. i do not enjoy taking five verses out of the bible and quoting it out of context.
if people read the bible or koran, they should read it in context. >> we should avoid getting into back and forth as you're suggesting. the overall spirit of the bible, right, is caring for the poor, and being loving and compassionate and merciful. i cannot imagine anyone thinking jesus would approve of ripping children from their parents. now, i mean, it goes against pretty much the entire bible in the ethos of jesus, and it's unchu un-christi un-christian. >> many religious groups who may otherwise support donald trump and his views on other matters have said this is a bridge too far for us. >> yeah. it's about time. and also attorney general sessions reference to romans 13, we should be clear in terms of following the law, has been used to support slavery and also was used by the nazis as well. you cannot take these bible verses out of context and throw them about like that. it's dangerous. >> i appreciate your time here.
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. but as it grew bigger and bigger,ness. it took a whole lot more. that's why i switched to the spark cash card from capital one. with it, i earn unlimited 2% cash back on everything i buy. everything. and that 2% cash back adds up to thousands of dollars each year... so i can keep growing my business in big leaps! what's in your wallet?
a judge is just minutes away from making a rulg in the latest case against paul manafort. but this one is going to be a biggie. manafort is accused of witness tampering, allegations which could land him in jail at any time now. manafort's been under house arrest since october when special counsel robert mueller hit him with almost two dozen financial crimes. charges stemming from his lobbying work with ukraine. today he's being arranged on charges of obstructing justice. accused of trying to influence two witnesses who could testify against him. because of this, the judge could revoke manafort's bail and make him wait in jail until his trial. it's expected this fall. manafort denies all the charges against him. this morning president trump,
again, tried to distance himself from manafort. >> manafort has nothing to do with our campaign. but i feel so -- i feel a little badly about it. they went back 12 years? paul manafort worked for me for a very short period of time. he worked were rond reagan and bob dole and many republicans. he worked for me for 49 days or something. a very short period of time. >> note to anybody who ever does work for donald trump, he throws people under the bus quickly. this is a quick reminder of the charges against manafort that got us here. mueller hit manafort and his business partner with a 12 part indictment. conspiracy against the united states, accusing them of hatching an elaborate scheme to hide foreign money to avoid paying taxes. the indictment claims that manafort laundered $18 million that he used to buy property and goods in the united states.
manafort is also accused of several counts of failing to file reports of financial accounts. he allegedly lied on his tax returns for six years stating he had no foreign bank accounts. manafort is also charged with being an unregistered foreign agent of the government of ukraine and lying about it to federal officials. according to federal law, anyone in the u.s. working on behalf of a foreign government must tell the justice department. prosecuters say he generated tens of millions of dollars in income as a result of his ukraine work. manafort is also accused of working together with gates to make fruaudulent statements to the justice department. he pleaded not to all the charges. in february gates pleaded guilty to conspiracy and lying to the fbi while agreeing to cooperate with the special counsel. joining me now is ken delaney. he is outside the courthouse. nick ackerman former assistant
u.s. attorney for the southern district of new york. welcome to both of you. what are we hearing now? is there a ruling about to come down? >> reporter: our producer who is inside the courtroom is telling us the ruling could come any minute. there was a recess and the judge was going to come back out and rule. and the ruling is on the prosecution motion to essentially send paul manafort to jail. to revoke the bail. this is conduct that didn't happen 12 years ago as you heard donald trump discuss. it was a few months ago, allegedly. in february after rick gates pled guilty and the prosecution offered an indictment talking about an alleged scheme to lobby on behalf of the government of ukraine inside the united states. manafort a day after the indictment reached out allegedly to two of the witnesses to offer his view that no, there was no illegal lobbying inside the united states.
he did so by phone, encrypted messaging app according to prosecuters. one of them was so rattled he reported it to the fbi. he said he thought manafort was trying to get him to lie. that's the basis of the allegations, the motion to revoke manafort's bail and this new indictment accusing him of obstruction of justice. >> ken, i heard the sirens coming. if you need help with bail money, let us know. we'll help you out. nick, i want to -- you and i have been together talking about this since the beginning of the manafort case. it's a strange duck. he keeps on pushing the bounds of what he's allowed to do. according to what i've learned from you, if the feds come after me, whether or not i am guilty or think i'm guilty, poking that bear is a bad thing to do. and he keeps poking the bear. he co-authored an op ed when he had a gag order. he keeps doing things that are going to get him into more and more trouble, and it's always david and go lithe up against
the government. >> this isn't poking a bear. this is taking a hatchet and pounding it on the bear. this is obstruction of justice. carrying a maximum sentence of 20 years. i don't think any of the other counts in the indictment carry that number of years in terms of a sentence. plus it goes right to the heart of our justice system. what he's trying to do is to get witnesses to lie about what he did. >> but he does have lawyers. right? i mean, even if your lawyers aren't good, these are basics that they must know about. witness tampering is not something you must do. >> no. and certainly his lawyers, i'd be shocked if his lawyers advised him to do this. this is something he did on his own. what really makes it disturbing is the judge has a choice here, and that choice is very limited at this point, because in order to revoke bail, you either have to show somebody's a flight risk or they're a dainger to the community. they're a danger to the
community if they're still committing crimes. and the standard is probable cause. is there probable cause that paul manafort obstructed justice and tried to tamper with witnesses? here the evidence has already been done by a grand jury. they've charged him. >> what's important is every part of this case is documentary evidence. >> that's right. >> this isn't a complicated case that depends on a lot of witnesses. >> there's not a lot of witnesses. >> they have texts and documents and bank statements. >> and they blocked out every possible defense. he can't use the old i told the lawyers or i relied on the lawyers. they have him lying to the lawyers. he can't use the i told my accountant defense. they have him lying to the accountants, and now they've got him trying to get two witnesses in there to lie about what he did in terms of his lobbying business. so he is actually make -- he's made the perfect case for the government. >> let's say i'm the accused, paul manafort, and you're my lawyer, and i just -- there's -- i'm not meaning to tamper with a
witness, but is there a way i can be in contact with someone to try and establish what their recollection of the events was and share my recollection? is there any legal way to do this? >> it's a very dangerous thing to do. the only way you should do it is to have your lawyers or their lawyers investigators, go out and talk to potential witnesses. that's fine. but what he was trying to do by virtue of the e-mails that we've seen on this that have been put into court is basically suggesting a false story that they were doing work solely in europe and had nothing to do with lobbying in the united states. >> that's different than asking what your recollection was of this thing. it's suggesting hey, i think your recollection of this should be this. >> exactly. but it's more than that. you don't want the defendant and the person charged with the crime going out and doing that. it's one thing -- e-mails encrypted, secret to the potential witnesses suggesting to them what their testimony ought to be.
>> one sloppy defense. i don't understand it. nick, don't go too far. ken, please come back to us as soon as we hear from the court on what the decision is about paul manafort. ken and nick, coming up next, a story up next, about to hit your wallet. tariffs. china's promising to retaliate. why it's going to cost you a lot of money. and stocks are dropping this morning thanks to donald trump's new tariffs on china. we'll dig into that next. here's where the dow stands now, exactly 1% lower at 252 points.
you always get the lowest price on our rooms, guaranteed?m let's get someone to say it with a really low voice. carl? lowest price guaranteed. what about the world's lowest limbo stick? how low can you go? nice one, carl. hey i've got an idea. just say, badda book. badda boom. badda book. badda boom. nice. always the lowest price, guaranteed. book now at choicehotels.com that's a good thing, but it doesn't cover everything. only about 80% of your part b medical expenses. the rest is up to you.
so consider an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan, insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company. like any of these types of plans, they pick up some of what medicare doesn't pay. and could really save you in out-of-pocket medical costs. call unitedhealthcare insurance company today to request a free [decision guide] to help you better understand what medicare is all about. and which aarp medicare supplement plan works best for you. with these types of plans... you'll be able to visit any doctor or hospital that accepts medicare patients... plus, there are no networks and no referrals needed. there's a range of plans to choose from, too. and your coverage goes with you when you travel, anywhere in the country. join the millions who have already enrolled in the only medicare supplement insurance plans... endorsed by aarp, an organization serving the needs of people 50 and over... and provided by unitedhealthcare insurance company,
which has over 30 years of experience behind it. apply for a medicare supplement insurance plan any time you want. call unitedhealthcare today. remember medicare supplement insurance helps... pay some of what medicare doesn't these kinds of plans could save you in out-of-pocket medical costs. you'll be able to choose any doctor who accepts medicare patients. and there are no referrals needed. so don't wait. call unitedhealthcare now to request your free [decision guide.] this easy-to-understand guide will answer some of your questions.... and help you find the aarp medicare supplement plan that's right for you. like nothing you, ncy or she, has ever seen. filets of 100% real natural chicken or seafood. handcrafted, and served any way she wants. purely fancy feast filets. love is in the details.
markets are raektsing to new tariffs on chinese imports. here's a live look at the dow. off about 250 points. the president spoke this morning about the tariff announcement. >> we're just going to do $50 million on $50 billion of high-technology equipment and other things coming into the country because so much of our secrets, we have the great brain power in silicon valley, and china and others steal those secrets. and we're going to protect those secrets. those are crown jewels for this country. >> okay. the president also cited discriminatory trade practices that put american business which export at a disadvantage. these tariffs are a piece of what policy makers call protectionism. i want to just discuss that with you. we've gotten ahead of ourselves in this discussion.
there are three key ways that governments try to protect businesses or industries from global competition. there are tariffs. there are subsidies, and there are quotas. there are others but let's touch on at least three for you. let's take this baseball hat. it may be a quintessentially american hat that could be made anywhere. let's say a factory in the midwest pays its workers $15 an hour to make this baseball hat. well, the same hat can be made for less money in china, because a chinese company is paying its workers $2 an hour. americans like inexpensive products. they buy the baseball hat made in china. that competitive advantage jeopardizes american jobs. that's why the u.s. government decides to slap a tariff on chinese imports. this is effectively taxing americans who buy the cheaper-made in china hat. and it should effectively make this hat for expensive so that this hat can actually compete. the thought is if you have to pay more for a made in china
hat, you may decide to buy the made in america hat instead. now, subsidies work with the same principle, but it's on the front end. the government offers financial asis answer the to the american factories. the subsidies help lower the cost of making the made in america baseball hat. this helps american companies compete against the made in china hat that is manufactured overseas. we've talked about tariffs and subsidies. let's talk about quotas. the government can restrict the amount, the number of hats entering the market. these quotas give american companies room to charge higher prices for their baseball hats. it's very rudimentary, but tariffs, subsidies and quotas are all tools used by governments all over the world. they're the opposite of free trade. americans like the jobs that made in america creates, but they like the low prices that made in china produces.
very simple view, but it's a good basis to have a further discussion with one of my favorite economists, an economist and harvard professor. ken, good to see you. i don't mean to insult your intelligence by using a basic understanding, but that's kind of what it is. >> i played little league baseball, and little league baseball teams have to buy hats. so yes, you can protect a worker's job, not very many, but you make it more expensive for the little league baseball teams to buy hats. that's the trade off. usually if you try to put protectionism on it, you end up hurting a lot of people benefitting a few people. sometimes we do it to try to get the other country to behave better or president trump was talking about stealing our intellectual property. that's real. it's a crude instrument. >> tariffs, quotas and subsidies are a crude instrument. trade deals are sfus kate --
sophisticated. they take years and years of planning. things like nafta should be renegotiated over time. milk and soft wood lumber fell outside of nafta, because america and canada were not able to come to agreements, but they're a sophisticated tool. it's a dispute settling mechanism. they establish -- hang on one second. we've got breaking news here. a ruling on paul manafort. he is, in fact, going to jail. ken delaney national reporter outside the courthouse. what's the news? >> reporter: i'm seeing reports. we haven't heard from our producer inside the courtroom, but i'm seeing reports the judge in this case has revoked paul manafort's 10 million bail. that means he goes immediately into a cell in this courthouse behind me and onto a county jail. i have to say both pete williams and i reached out to legal experts to ask about the
likelihood this would happen today, and neither of them thought it was likely. i'm being told nbc news has confirmed he's being sent into custody, into jail awaiting his trial and the first date that he will go on trial in virginia is july, 25th as of right now. >> that's a remarkable development, ken. this, i mean, paul manafort has been struggle. we know this. it's financially onerous to fight the government on this type of thing. but he was able to do it in relative comfort, under house arrest. now he's going to jail. this has got to put increasing pressure now on paul manafort who until now has denied all charges, and refuses to cooperate with the government, even though rick gates, his rote jay a long time ago agreed to do so. some speculate was rick gates was threatened with enough jail time or it was going to be too expensive to continue to fight the government.
now paul manafort is in the same bad position as yesterday but he's going to be in jail. >> reporter: you're right. this man wears $5,000 suits and dines in the finest restaurants. now he's going to be in a hard, concrete cell. yes, he was staring down a virtual life sentence if convicted on all the charges. but he's a fighter. he was fighting until this moment thinking he has a chance to win. he may still be exonerated on the charges but he's going to have to fight from a jail cell. and this is a huge deal. this means the judge ruled that there was probable cause that he was going to continue to commit crimes. the government, again, presented evidence that he tampered with witnesses. he and his lawyers denied that. this judge apparently found the evidence was persuasive enough to revoke his bail. >> nick, just spell out what happens now only because paul manafort is kind of -- it's interesting in so far as he has resisted all pressure for a long
time. there are a few key players. michael flynn, michael cohen, and paul manafort. they were inside donald trump's head. as much as this morning donald trump went out of his way that pall manafort worked with his campaign for 45 days and wasn't that influential. he was the kpacampaign manager. he was in that meeting. >> he was in all kinds of kf conversations with all the top players here. what broke the water gate case was when james mccord got a 25-year sentence. he was sitting in jail. >> that's very influential. that's a very different situation than being on trial. >> it could be worse. this could be the beginning of a life sentence. paul manafort, if he does not cooperate may never, ever see the outside of a jail cell. >> what is his motivation in not
cooperating. there are shade offense gray in here. >> his motivation would simply be that he wants to maintain his reputation as a stand up guy. he doesn't want to have to testify against people. he's not come to the realization that he's committed a whole bunch of crimes. the only way to save himself is to cooperate. it doesn't mean what donald trump says is he's going to make up a story. what the prosecutors are going to do and prepared to do is corroborate what his testimony will be. the only way one of these witnesses whether it's mfrts or possibly michael choen who ohen being talked about a potential cooperating witnesses is corroborate what they have to say through documents.
you were looking through it and you made an interesting point. you'd gone through it and it was documentary evidence. it was an interesting case and you are depending on a lot of witnesses but the case of government initially made against paul manafort and they have since added onto that was in your opinion relatively strong. >> very strong. >> it's not like the defense lawyers can point the finger at a cooperating witnesses and say don't believe whoever. it's in statements that pall manafort said. this is a matter of putting before the jury a stack of documents, this high that the jury simply has to look at and has no choice but to find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. >> hang on. i want to replay just this
morning, probably in anticipation of this happening, donald trump was asked about paul manafort. here is what he said about him. >> manafort has nothing to do with our campaign. i feel a little badly about it. they went back 12 years to get things he did 12 years ago. he worked for me for a short period of time. he worked for ronald reagan, bob dole. he worked for me 49 days. a very short period of time. >> 49 days. he worked for me for a very short amount of time. joining us live now in addition to nick and ken is danny savallas. this 49 days. this you work for donald trump and you get into any trouble, all of a sudden you were the coffee boy. you're not really important. there's no way that any american can believe that paul manafort,
like michael kcohen and michael flynn were unimportant to the trump campaign. >> he was the campaign manager. sometimes the bar gets reset in this case people because are looking for what involves trump. the reality is the campaign manager is under indictment facing serious charges. it's what he does to distance himself. now mr. manafort is going to be spending some time in jail awaiting trial and i don't know him personally but he doesn't strike me as a kind of doing time personality. that may influence his decision on whether to cooperate. >> there was a point manafort
repeated attempts to contact a witness constituted danger to the courts. she couldn't impose a less e strictive order. this isn't middle school. i can't take your phone, said the judge. nick made this point earlier that manafort's actions really do put the court in a corner. they don't have a ton of options right now. if he did something that challenged the public safety or committed crimes, this is what had to happen. >> is that for me? >> yeah, for you ken. >> his alleged conduct goes to the fundamental integrity of the justice system. that's why the judge took this so seriously. he didn't, as nick suggested, the proper thing to go to his lawyers if he wants to find out what other witnesses are saying and have them meet with those lawyers. he reached out and used encrypted messaging apps in way he was trying to disguise his
communications. going back to what nick said before, manafort may be crucial in terms of collusion case that mueller is investigating and the question of whether it goes to donald trump. there may not be documents because donald trump doesn't use e-mail. >> why is paul manafort not only cooperating giving the pressure on him but he's doing more than that. he's going outside the bounds of what is charged by feds should do. he never wins. >> when paul manafort is allowed to go home on home detention, he signed an order where he
acknowledged he would not commit any crimes. he signed the order saying he would do a lot of other things. that's why several days ago i was certain it would be revoked because the law is clear. a judge shall revoke. not may, not might, shall revoke pre-trial release if he finds probable cause that a new crime was committed. that's all you need. probable cause. it was a fore gone conclusion that paul manafort was going to lose his pre-trial impressive le -- privileges. >> the judge said you left me with no other choices. if you're paul manafort, does the added of being in jail does that change the way you approach
the case or do you sit it out and keep ongoing? >> it's hard to tell. i think actually being behind bars for white collar defendants like him can have an effect psychological psychologically. no one knows what he was involved in pertinent to the campaign. does he have anything very important to give or did he just give caught up for his prior crimes by being involved with trump and getting under the microscope. that's the worst case scenario for him if he doesn't have anything relevant to give about the campaign and then he's stuck. >> nick and i talked about this many, many mornths ago to say i it's true that paul manafort has nothing to give up because donald trump didn't e-mail and paul manafort doesn't know about this and this all has to do with stuff that paul manafort was involved in before the election, that's the worst case scenario for paul manafort.
the prosecution needs him to sing like a bird and he's got no tune. >> yeah. it's worst case unless he gets pardoned. that's the worst case. he doesn't have anything to bargain with. even know with all this pressure mounting, even if he comes up with something, obviously he's going to be subject to withering cross-questi cross-examinati cross-examination. >> well said. i want to reiterate for our audience. paul manafort is going to jail. the judge said that manafort's repeated attempts to contact witnesses constituted a danger to the integrity of the court. she said she could not impose another less restrictive order saying this isn't middle school, i can't take your phone and with that paul manafort was remanded
to custody. i'll hand it over to my friend and colleague andrea mitchell where our coverage continues. right now on andrea mitchell reports. lockup. president trump's former campaign manager paul manafort's bail is revoked at the jury tampering hearing as the president does a walk about on the white house north lawn. >> manafort has nothing to do with our campaign. he worked with me for 49 days. a very short period of time. >> manafort is accused facing charges that include alleged money laundering, tax evasion and failure to register as a foreign agent. ken, tell me what happened inside. >> reporter: well, the judge said she really had no choice but to make this move. that's really interesting to me because long time courthouse