Skip to main content

tv   MSNBC Live With Craig Melvin  MSNBC  June 27, 2018 10:00am-11:00am PDT

10:00 am
oal planning session today with td ameritrade®. d that does it for this edition of "andrea mitchell reports." tomorrow on the show, andrea sit down for an exclusive interview with secretary of state john kerry from the aspas festival. you don't want to miss that. chris jansing is up next on msnbc. great to see you. >> and you. you have to rush back to the white house a lot is going on. good afternoon from msnbc headquarters in new york. i am chris jansing in for craig melvin. breaking reports on a new communications director for the white house. you won't believe who it is. that, in a minute. and three big blows in the supreme court and a would-be future speaker of the house voted out in his primary. so what does it tell us about e par and its message? or lack thereof.
10:01 am
plus, all talk, no action? in about 30 minutes, we expect a vote on immigration in the house, but with all the attention we've seen at the border, it doesn't look like republicans in congress have the votes to mak any r change. and comic relief. while the president takes aim at late-night comedians, they may be the ones getting the la laugh. we begin with a series of setbacks and defeats that have translated into a rough 24 hours for the democratic par establishment. dealing a major blow to unions. tweeting, a big loss for the democrats coffers. this, one day after the supreme court sided against democrats and with the president on his travel ban and abortion. and late last night, upsets stunni stunning. even the winner couldn't believe
10:02 am
it. voters sending a strong message to the party establishment ousting a powerful ten-term democratic congressman in favor of a virtually unknown political newcomer, whom he outspent by the way, 18-1 joe crowley, touted as a possible successor to nancy pelosi. but here's the fresh face in new york city.z alexandria ocasio-cortez. she talked about why her campaign was a winner. >> yeah. i mean, our campaign was focused on just a laser-focused message on economic social dignity for working class americans. we're very clear about our message and priorities and very clear about the fact that even if you've never voted before, we are talking to you. >> yeah. why did you run? >> why did you run? >> i think the big thing is just that i knew that in our community, we needed a very
10:03 am
clear voice. i think we deserve representation that rejected lobbyist funds and put our voters and our community first. i felt like our party could be better. our message could be better, and that we could be better as a country. >> msnbc's derek hake is on capitol hill for . t to get to. leaderwith the democratic seemed to me as i listened to nancy pelosi he was not making as much of it as other people are. that joe crowley's out of there and, man, it's hard to overstate how stunning this is. >> reporter: yeah. absolutely, chris. a huge surprise. a 20-year veteran up here on capitol hill widely discussed as someone who could have been the next speaker of the house. that is no more. democrats particularly those in praise the winner of this to contest, whose name i'm still trying to pronounce correctly. >> ocasio-cortez. >> benefit of the teleprompter. they've tried to quarantine the
10:04 am
race saying it was a race about one district, an outer borough of new york city, one single race and doesn't reflect more broadly on leadership but i was in a news conference with nancy pelosi earlier and asked would the democratic party more female driven more progressive, more diverse and younger, should not its leadership reflect that, too. this is how she responded. >> well, i'm female, i'm progressnd the rest, so what out of three ain't bad. we have an array of genderous genetions, geography and opinion in our caucus and are very proud of that. we are excited about another generation of people coming in to the congress. i am particularly excited that so many women are running across the country. >> reporter: my response in the middle of that, which you couldn't hear. i said, i didn't have a problem with it, but seemed voters in new york did.
10:05 am
you heard her push back on that. again, this was a one-district issue, and not a reflection on her leadership and the leadership of the oth top democrats in the house who have all been there for quite some time and in their late 70s. there is not broad agreement in the caucus and among democratic candidates running across the rest of the country, that that's the case. >> interesting to see how it plays out. meantime, an immigration vote coming up in the next half hour or so. democrats b have no say issue it to their base right now. >> reporter: interesting that you phrase it that way, chris. democrats would have a say. they are not going to vote for this bill. they are going to speak with their hands and sit on them essentially in this vote. democrats don't like what's in the house bill, don't like the limitations it places on legal immigration and the $25 billion it appropriates up front for the president's wall. what we have here this afternoon is an all-republican exercise. and seeing -- >> i meant to say, a bill the
10:06 am
republicans essentially say take it or leave it? >> reporter: exactly right. the republican caucus can't agree amongst themselves what they want to see in an immigration reform bill. you've heard it before and see it play out in a similar way on the floor today. the expectation, the most conservative members will reject this bill and don't like the path of citizenship for dreamers in it, constantly worried about being tarred with an accusation of amnesty for anything they should vote for and, frankly, the president's back and forth on this bill, although he's a supporter as of thisning twitter, has made it hard for republake a hard vote. you'll see moderate republicans pushing for bill areikely to watch itail sometime in the next hour. >> thank you for that on capitol hill, garrett haake. and bring in bill rucker, and msnbc political analyst, and nbc news national political correspondent steve kornacki. so we've got a lot to get to on
10:07 am
that, but phil, just hearing from your newspaper that former fox news co-president bill shine could be the next white houseco. th is a guy who got ousted because he was considered an enabler in the sexua harassment of roger ailes. again, i feel like a broken record, but again, something that if this happens you can hardly imagine happening in any other white house? >> that's right, chris. the job is not official yet. but bill shine is in the final stages of negotiations with the white house. it's expected to become official perhaps later today, perhaps later this week. this is the job that hope hicks filled in the first period of the administration that's been vacant several months trump has sought somebody to fill the shoes of hope hicks as the communications director, more of a behind-the-scenes but very senior role in the white house. and it's important to point out that bill shine, the former fox
10:08 am
executive, who we believe is going to be getting this job, is very close with sean hannity, the fox news host and personality who's quite close to president trump. talks to trump regularly, sort of an informal adviser to the president. this is a melding of the two worlds. trump white house and fox news. >> and reported often he is the last person to talk to the president at night. all right. move on to all of this stuff going on politically. i want to play first this amazing reaction when ocasio-cortez found out last night she'd actually won. >> ah! >> look the at herself on television right now. >> i cannot believe these numbers right now, but i do know that every single person here worked their butt off to change the future! >> a lot of people are set up with congress looking at her victory calling it breath o fresh air. but what's the message to the
10:09 am
establishment, saeestablishment democrats, and are they listening? >> i'm not sure if they're listening. we talked to good questions of nancy pelosi at the press conference we at. i talked to jim clyburn, the number three house democrat who said his takeaway was stuff happens. people get tired of some politicians want to move on and vote them out. the two most prominent reactions to joe crowley's stunning loss. i will say this. ocasio-cortez spent $100,000 compared to joe crowley's the cagn.ollars in the close of stunning. the queen's county party boss was not able to turn out voters in the amount he clearly needed to win the race. so i mean, it's really stunning on many levels and, again -- >> it also goes back to, if you're going to skip debates and you're not going to do the kind of door-to-door retail politics that she did, there may b a price to pay. >> i think that's true, but a
10:10 am
lot of people, a lot of incumbents skip debates when they don't think their candidate is worthy or has a chance to win. there is peril in that for sure. top of the party, joe crowley was widely -- not by a small pocket of people, but widely seen as the next democratic leader and now -- >> and liked. >> still liked and clearly not liked that much in hi district, but liked. this is a massive power vacuum at the top of the party when democrats are beginning to talk about for the first time a change in power at the top of the house democratic caucus. >> steve, talk about that. there's been a lot of conversation about a possible generational shift. you have at 56, i think even joe crowley would have been more than a decade younger than the rest of the you have senator schumer, who's the -- 67, i think. the youngest. oldest, steny hoyer at 79 and top four, a total of 133 years
10:11 am
in congress at a time when the polls are showing us, right? that people are looking for something new, something different. what did you see either in the -- the crowley race or as you were looking at stuff last night, what's it tell you a possible changing of the guard to come? anything? >> yeah. there's two pieces of it. one is the institutional question. the leaders in congress, the faces you just showed there especially after this no electionhowever it shakes out. what does that leadership roster look like? does it get younger? is there a complete turnover? is there complete chaos in the ranks as a result of something like this and other developments like this? that's one question. the other question, though, is a bigger picture question pointed more towards 2020. about the evolution of the voting base of the democratic party. the activists, the voters, the folks energized, mobilized. this is a big pic shift we've talked about here and elsewhere for a long time. a democratic party, it's getting
10:12 am
younger. it is getting less white. getting more diverse, and in the center of gravity, it's shifting to the left. a lot of the issues that you saw in this campaign here in new york she was running on are not , would have had any democrat considers running mainstream on. >> and a diverse population in that district. >> and eric cantor, republican leader, number two, lost four years ago. looked back, pointing to something. when donald trump ran through the primaries in 2016. said you know what? that cantor loss was a warning shot. i wonder if in the spring of 2020, democratic primaries and 15 different candidates out there and all of these possibilities in the air, if something happens, something shakes out there, somebody emerges and we say, wow. this party was a lot more hungry for something very new and very different than we realized, and the hint was new york in 2018. >> phil, the president was fweeting abofweet i tweeting about this and
10:13 am
including the supreme court decision but tweeted about joe crowley's defeat. wow. big trump hater. congressman joe crowley, many expected would take nancy pelosi's place just lost his primary election. in other words, he's out. that is a big one that nobody saw happening. perhaps he should have been nicer and more respectful to his president. is the president feeling pretty good right now about his party going into the midterms? >> he is, but that analysis is a little off tune. in that primary race. >> simplistic. >> joe crowley didn't lose because he wasn't nice enough to president trump. not an accurate reading what happened on the ground in that district. the president feels this disarray in the democratic party is good for him and the republican party heading into midterms and he's going to be certain to seize on every episode just as he pounced last night on this electoral surprise. >> one of the interesting things about this, we heard nancy pelosi talking about this, jake. the growing number of women running for office. i talked to one of the
10:14 am
pennsylvania congressional candidates women yesterday who says we have at least four in a delegation that has zero. out of the 468 women who filed candidacies for the house, 341 of them are still in the running. 40 still ine races, and if ocasio-cortez wins, the young ef woman ev -- youngest woman ever elected to congress. what's the impact with all of these women who could, indeed, set a new standard, a new record in congress? >> far be it from me to speak for the women of america, but i will say that it is a place that is largely male, largely graying male. of course, the big outlier is nancy pelosi, who's a woman and was the first female speaker of the house when she took the role in 2006. >> yeah. you heard with that pushback when asked about a young, progressive woman. well, i'm progressive. i'm a woman. >> yeah, and nancy pelosi
10:15 am
historically has bristled at questions about her age and her ability to lead the democratic caucus. she says she calls herself a master legislator, and will take a back seat to absolutely nobody when talking about her own political skills leading the de caucus. there's nobody who thinkswomen capitol hill. obviously a good thing, both republicans and democrats say. it's a huge part of the political dynamic shaping across the country now and both parties are trying to harness is. republicans, too. the -- right now youngest woman ever elected, elise stefanic, republican of new york led an effort in the republican conference to attract and recruit more female kands. candidates. >> a good point. whether or not that will get people to the polls. ask you kwivly, steve. our latest poll in battleground states show many voters prefer congress to be a check on president trump's policies. does that tells anything about turnout? is what we're seeing over the
10:16 am
past several months with these primaries tell us anything about the schedule for turnout? >> interesting. we've seen a pattern here of turnout surge on the democratic side. although as we talk about this story in new york last night and joe crowley going down, actually seeing smallest turnou irony, new york split its primaries in half. threw congress' races on one day start of the sum everything else end of summer. the theory hey, new york establishment machine this is how the party regulars protect themselves. really low turnout. let the machine do the work, as jake said. crowley was the boss in queens county and yet you saw the low turnout. came back to bite him. not only does crowley lose, very nearly, she nearly lost her seat in new york last night, too. haven't a single democrat lose a seat in one of these primaries this year. one of the most powerful went down in nearly a second and probably a lot to do with that primary schedule in new york. kornacki, thank you. phil, jake, appreciate it.
10:17 am
steve, we'll see you here when you take over at 2:00 eastern, and again at:00 for "mpt daily." and watching a vote set to begin this hour on the compromised immigration bill. virtually nobody expects it to pass. will congress ever figure out how to compromise on a critical issue? first, on the heels of president trump's meeting with north korean dictator kim jong-un, the u.s. and russia agreed on a time and place for a summit between trump and vladimir putin. how are american allies reacting and how will the backdrop of the russia investigation factor into that meeting? on our planet than people. we're putting ai into everything, and everything into the cloud. it's all so... smart. but how do you work with it? ask this farmer. he's using satellite data to help increase crop yields. that's smart for the food we eat.
10:18 am
at this port, supply chains are becoming more transparent with blockchain. that's smart for millions of shipments. in this lab, researchers are working with watson to help them find new treatments. that's smart for medicine. at this bank, the world's most encrypted mainframe is helping prevent cybercrime. that's smart for everyone. and in africa, iot sensors and the ibm cloud are protecting endangered animals. that's smart for rhinos. yeah. rhinos. because smart only really matters, when we put it to work- not just for a few of us, but for all of us. let's put smart to work. booking a flight doesn't have to be expensive. just go to priceline. it's the best place to book a flight a few days before my trip and still save up to 40%. just tap and go... for the best savings on flights, go to priceline.
10:19 am
yomight taor for your heart... but do you take something for your brain. with an ingredient originally found in jellyfish, prevagen is the number one selling brain-health supplement in drug stores nationwide. prevagen. the name to remember. i'm 85 years old in a job where. i have to wear a giant hot dog suit. what? where's that coming from? i don't know. i started my 401k early, i diversified... i'm not a big spender. sounds like you're doing a lot. but i still feel like i'm not gonna have enough for retirement. like there's something else i should be doing.
10:20 am
with the right conversation, you might find you're doing okay. so, no hot dog suit? not unless you want to. no. schedule a complimentary goal planning session today with td ameritrade®.
10:21 am
the jackson family patriarch joe jackson has died. the father of 11 managed the career of his children including his son michael jackson, his daughter janet jackson and the jackson 5. michael jackson's estate just release add statement saying -- joe was a strong man who delivered his sons and daughters from the steel mills ofndiana to worldwide pop superstardom. he was 89 years old. national security adviser john bolton confirmed tomorrow we'll learn when and where president trump will hold his much-anticipated summit with president putin. today it was underway when bolton sat down with the counter
10:22 am
parts. >> both president trump and president putin feel it's important for the two leaders of two very important countries to get together, discuss problems and areas of cooperation. it's something i think both feel will contribute to improvements in the u.s./russia bilateral relationship and in civility around the world. >> that presidential meeting expected to take place in mid-july when trump is already traveling to belgium for the nato summit and visiting great britain as well. evelyn farkas is a former deputy of defense for russia and msnbc national security analyst and ned price and msnbc national security analyst and contributor. ned, i think the president has made clear what we just heard from bolton, that he believes you have to directly talk to other world leaders. there has been some question about what the president really got for what he gave in his
10:23 am
talks with north korea. including giving up those military exercises. is it a good thing just to sit down and talk? or are many of our allies right now, balkan leaders in particular, nervous? >> well, i think both things can be true, chris, and in this case, both things are. it is true that there is utility in sitting down to talk with both our friends and our adversaries and vladimir putin whatever donald ump might think is, in fact, an adversary. we can ask ourselves why is it necessary that donald trump has attached such urgency summit, a stand-alone summit when we can expect great pomp and circumstance follows president trump's circumstances. calling into question why it's necessary to vet president putin the way he has with this stand-alone summit, but there it be some utility in talking especially if donald trump does the what he failed to do in the
10:24 am
past, question him on the outstanding relationship. >> we're used to presidents, there is pomp and circumstance to this. presidents you served and pull-asides with presidents, with leaders, that they don't have these one-on-ones that involve a lot of pomp and circumstance. evelyn, there's an argument trump's meeting with kim jong-un ratcheted down tensions on the peninsula and he can reverse concessionsf talks collapse. people who are fearful trump may give unconceptions not beneficial to the u.s., are those worries premature? >> no, they're not, chris, because i mean, sure, atmospherics are important and tension. intention is good we think. but the facts on the ground are the facts on the ground and that's what the united states and our national security community is worried about. so you see now there are new reports coming out about north korea doing some sort of refurbishment where they have some nuclear facilities.
10:25 am
they are not -- possibly not keeping their word. the facts on the ground really matter and i worry, because once again we have no agenda with the russian president. i mean, it's unclear to me what they would talk about, and frankly -- >> that's what john bolton is doing right now. i mean, you have somebody setting the stage for these talks who's been a hard-liner, and in an opinion piece, back i think in 2017 he called russia's interference in our election an act of war, very unlike his boss who called putin smart, call kd him tough. somebody he would actually he thinks get along with. what do you see of bolton the role in all of this, evelyn? >> i think, chris, as you said, yes, there to pave the way. find out, i guess, what kind of agenda could be cobbled together. if, as you say, he continues with those hard-line perspectives and he communicates firmly and clearly to the russians about what u.s. expectations are with regard to ukraine, the war in syria,
10:26 am
meddling in our elections, poisoning people overseas, et cetera, then maybe something can come out of this meeting. then the president would have to follow through. meanton would say, these are our, our concns. these are the things we want you to do, if you're willing to compromise, then we'll have a real talk. but i'm just not confident that president trump would be able to do that. he seems to like to have these meetings where he tries to charm his, you know, political counterpart, and unfortunately, the substance that comes out of it doesn't add up. so you can have a charm offensive and maybe with north korea it will work, although i'm skeptical. i know with putin that's not likely to work. >> look, netted, nato obviously, the president going to that meeting has take an clear and firm stand about russia. i mean, wedo you see anything happening there, anyone who were influence him going into this meeting with vladimir putin?
10:27 am
what would tpotentially come ou of it, do you it think? >> it's fair to say for the first time our international oh allies are probably just as concerned about the american president as about the russian president. they will be watching closely to see what donald trump shows up at the summit. is it the same donald trump who was at the g7? essentially wrecked the g7 by pulling out of the communique, by proving obstinate and stubborn, suggesting that crimea belongs to russia, suggesting that russia should be readmitted and reconstituted the g8. they'll be very nervous about wh they see and hear from donald trump and i think rightly so. this is not a president who has found much utility in nato. this is a president that for some unknown reason, some reason that bob mueller is looking into right now has continued em place vladimir putin. there are going to be a lot of nerves as the american president arrives at the summit.
10:28 am
>> ned price and evelyn farkas, thank you. we'll talk a lot about this between now and then. right now, to the u.s. house floor, lawmakers voting on a highly immigration bill after being delayed last week. addressing family separations at the border. funding for the president's wall, pathway to citizenship for some undocumented immigrants. the president, just five days told republicans to stop wasting time and give up on immigration until after the mid-terms. re vei reversed course. calling on them to pass this bill. and garrett haake on capitol hill. when the house voted last week the president said this is all going to be a waste of time. any reaction there to him i guess reversing course with this tweet? any thoughts on why he did this? and what are we expecting here? >> reporter: a couple different things. lawmakers inert to the idea the
10:29 am
president will tweet back and forth on the bills and maybe contradict himself from time to time what he would like to see them do. much more consternation last last week when the president ecertainly called the exercise pointless than this tweet this morning. part of it, assumption on capitol hill, this bill does not have the votes to pass right now. they tried over the weekend, republicans did, to see if they could add provisions to it that might appeal to the more conservative members, and that didn't really change their vote count. so at this issue, the president is at least in the second half of that tweet not entirely wrong. it's hard to see how this bill really any other bill gets through the senate right now, but -- the tweets have been unhelpful up to this point. this one this morning probably too late to matter. >> basically, they're showing, well, we can put something out there, even though we know there's no way it's passing? >> reporter: there is a couple of different political elements to this. remember, the whole reason this is happening in the house was this discharge petition that was
10:30 am
floating around. republicans and democrats had signed it over the last couple weeks. the speaker promised moderate republicans who had signed that petition, guys, hold off on this. we'll get a vote on an immigration bill on the floor. a lot of people, republicans, moderate republicans and in tough re-election races, denim in california, carlos car bel bell -- carbela, they want to say we fought for this. got a vote on this and couldn't get it over the finish line in respect is a political value to endangered republicans and i should add to conservative republicans who will go back home to their districts and say i voted against this because i think it's amnesty. absolutely a political aspect regards of the chance to actually pass. >> meantime, congress seems unable to address these family separations one judge in california is. late tuesday federal judge dana
10:31 am
sabra ordered straighted migrants be reunited. it comes as tensions over immigration continue to escalate. look at this shocking video of a woman, berating a hispani man in los angeles and now it's going viral. this guy's just doingyard work. her attacks echoing words the president has used. >> why do you hate us? because we're mexican? >> yes. >> we're honest people right here. >> yes -- >> how many people have i raped? how many drugs h i dealt? huh? oh, yeah? >> yeah. >> so she calls him a rapist. an animal a drug dealer. can i just fact check that this is a -- 27-year-old lifelong californian and u.s. citizen who's a computer systems
10:32 am
administrator. and then you hear the woman quoting the president's vicious words. and this from trump's attorney general. jeff sessions actually making a joke about critics of the president's zero tolerance policy. accusing them of hypocrisy. >> the same people live in ged communities many of them and are featured at events where you have to have an i.d. to even come in and hear them speak. i like a little security around themselves and if you try to scale the fence, believe me, they'll -- be even too happy to have you arrested and separated from your children. >> nbc's cal perry joins me again from tornillo, texas. it's unclear exactly how many have been reunited with their parents since the president's executive order last week. they had a health and human
10:33 am
services, asr said yesterday families can essentially be reunited. they can click on a button. a key stroke. locate them. that is not at all what many reporters on the ground are hearing. i just want to play this. >> there is no reason why any parent would not know where their child is located. i could at the stroke of -- at key strokes, sat on the orr portal with just basic key strokes within seconds could find any child in our care for any parent. >> so then we saw your colleague gabe gutierrez doing an interview where he has somebody, again, on the ground saying, we can't even find these people. what do you see? what are you hearing? >> reporter: look, yeah. the government was woefully unprepared to carry out first the separations of the children from their parents, and because they were woefully unprepared to execute that policy they were woefully unprepared to reunite these children with their
10:34 am
parents. yesterday we heard there are still 2,047 kids not reunited with families. they are in government custody. down from just 2,053. six people possibly reunited with families. >> >> and jacob soboroff talking to the federal government, still taking insome. those that we find in jeopardy with their family. part of the mess you see behind me. tent city. wouldn't have been necessary at all, chris, if we hadn't moved tender aged children in and out of these facility separating them from their parents, because in the camp behind me are adolescen adolescence, in these shelters until that policy came through and in a weird loophole. they don't know when or how they'll be reunited. the camp behind me, the 26 originally separated, i confirm, told it just about 36 hours ago, only three have actually been reunited with their parents. this idea, when i stand and i talk to hhs here on-camera, they
10:35 am
say we know where all the kids are and where all the parents ar it seems completely untrue when you look at the facts on the ground. these reunifications are just not happening at the speed they should be, if they had a handle on the situation. >> exactly what the judge said. in making this ruling. i'm quote here. the unfortunate reality is that under the present system migrant children are not accounted for with the same efficiency and accuracy as property. so can this ruling make a difference? >> oh, yes. this ruling any is concerned about the potential reunification of these parents and children, this ruling is significant. first of all, you have to consider even to get an injunction at this level is extremely difficult. the test that judges have to evaluate, whether or not there's any other legal remedy, in this case the judge decided there was not. risk of irreparable harm and likely success on the merits. a high bar to clear. the judge here, a george w. bush
10:36 am
appointee decided the aclu met all the standards. what this ruling does not do, does not affect these zero tolerance policy and does not weigh in fix the issue of family detention. however, because it mandates the eunification of these families within weeks days and phone calls within parents and children within days, this can be appealed. the trump administration can figure if they want to challenge it. typically withreliminary injunctions they go into effect. >> is this going to be a big fight in the justice department? >> most likely. typically, these type of injunctions, they stay in place while the other party is challenging it. we saw it with the travel ban. while -- until the supreme court ruled it was, could go forward, it was held off in practice, the administration of it. this ruling is significant. a victory for the aclu and going forward -- the cite ed they
10:37 am
made -- >>n the aclu case, coa, 6-year-old daughter taken five months a the mother, cal perry and son from brazil apart eight months on the ground, again. any confidence that this ruling will make a difference? that somehow they'd get the resources that people will be able to find each other? is it seen there as a good thing? >> i don't think people here believe that it's necessarily going to fix anytng, because when you're along this border you see the process that takes place in the court. you see people shuttled in, in large groups. see them pleading all guilty together pup see the language barriers. i mean, the are not the translators necessary to speak the languages some of these kids speak. some speak indigenous languages we don't have a grasp on here. the idea somehow it will fix the logistical problems,
10:38 am
nitty-gritty issues you have to get into. take this el salvadorian embassy was here yesterday. the conversation they hadded in one of documentation. the u.s. government won't accept certain stamps from the el salvadorian government. it you're a parent trying to prove this i your child and have a birth certificate from el salvador, the u.s. doesn't use that. how does this ruling change that? there are simple logistical things on the ground i think people point to and say we need to move that first. >> cal perry, thank you for your continued reporting and raoul reyes, always good to have you here. we'll keep watching what's going on on the floor for the immigration bill. the vote is about to start. plus, the supreme court dealing a major blow to unions. latest in the a string of victories for conservatives, a decision that will have a direct impact on millions of americans is next. then there's the hosts of late-night joining forces, taking on president trump's
10:39 am
recent attacks against them. >> hey, low life. >> hey, lost soul. >> what are you up to? >> mostly whimpering. >> be a man. >> i'll try. >> what are you up to? >> oh, i'm busy having no talent. hi, i'm bob harper, and i recently had a 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 n with a low-dose aspirin. no more than 100 milligrams as it affects how well brilinta works. brilinta helps keep platelets from sticking together
10:40 am
and forming a clot. in a clinical study, brilinta worked better than plavix. brilinta reduced the chance of having ather 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, 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 cord your medication, astrazeneca may be able to help.
10:41 am
10:42 am
i'm 85 years old in a job where i have to wear a giant hot dog suit. what? where's that coming from? i don't know. i started my 401k early, i diversified... i'm not a big spender. sounds like you're doing a lot. but i still feel like i'm not gonna have enough for retirement. like there's something else i should be doing. with the right conversation, you might find you're doing okay. so, no hot dog suit? not unless you want to. no. schedule a complimentary goal planning session today with td ameritrade®. just coming in to the newsroom a grand jury indicted the driver accused of plowing into a group of protesters at a white nationalist rally in charlottesvilast summer. that driver, james alex field.
10:43 am
the 21-year-old ohio man facing 29 different hate crime charges including a count of a hate crime act that resulted in the death of heaeyer who fields hit with his car. she was 32 years old at the ral toy protest against the white nationalists. a news conference in a little more than an hour from now. our eye is on that. meanwhile the supreme court dealing a major blow to unions. justices ruled non-union members cannot be forced to pay union dues that will chip away at workers' rights. the third time in two days republicans held a victory. major rulings on the president's travel ban and abortion rights seeing the same 5-4 outcome. for more, danny savalas msnbc legal analyst and stephen strain, author of "god and donald trump." we're definitely seeing here,
10:44 am
danny, the consequences of president trump nominating justice neil gorsuch to become the latest supreme court justice, the republicans deciding not to give a vote to the democrats while obama was still in office. what do you make of this? >> justice gorsuch's impact is clear. heomes that 5-4 decision. one could argue in many ways he's a continuation of the justice he succeeded, which was justice scalia. >> and yet garland, somebody nominated at a time when there was a lot of time left on the calendar for this to actually go before the senate. >> that's a separate issue and a political decision or strategy that was employed by members of congress. at least in terms of gorsuch's impact on the court, something to consider, that he's voted yes 93% of the time in concert with justice thomas and justice alito be but also voted with justice
10:45 am
kennedy the same percentage. so it's something to think about. i wonder if justice scalia would have voted the same or certainly not garland but interesting statistic. >> and evangelical made up 26% of the 2016 electorate, 81% of those supported donald trump. the supreme court on tuesday decided pregnancy centers do not have to provide information about abortions to patients, given abortion opponents a victory there. how important was this to evangelical? what are you hearing? >> first of all, hello, chris and dandy. great -- danny. huge to evangelicals. i'm a christian journalist covering this community since the ford administration and we feel there has been one thing after another that has sort of, an agenda against our religious freedoms that pro-abortion and
10:46 am
so forth. so at least this helps level the playing field, and we are thrilled that president trump nominated neil gorsuch, lie he promihe -- like he promised. promises made, promises kept, he says. >> everyone is looking at what will be the impact on the midterms? you talk to folks, for example, at the susan b anthony list and i have in recent weeks. they know they only have 49 members in the senate, if roe v. wade comes before them. they want to switch two more votes to their side even though they have 51 members of the senate. they only have 49 sure votes on the issue that's most important to them. is this energizing? does it have any impact at all on the midterms or the idea that somehow one issue in this case, whether or not a new supreme court justice gets nominated, and we don't know thang to happen. does that make a difference or is that overstated?
10:47 am
>> this is huge to evangelicals. in fact, the one thing that got a lot of people who didn't like donald trump personally, who didn't like his tweets, didn't like his background to vote because of the supreme court. mainly because of hillary clinton would have put in someone very, very different. i document this in my book, "god and donald trump." very, very important. energizes the base. will get people to the polls and one thing that a lot of people overlooked in the third debate is then candidate trump said if he was elected, roe v. wade would be overturned. i had never heard a politician say that, and yet he said it. but the media did not cover it very much and it seemed to go over everybody's head. >> maybe not over the head of evangelical voters. danny, one of the things that was interesting when i was doing a little googling yesterday. one of the first things that popped um about the supreme court justices their age and health. right? a lot of people are thinking about that. probably on both sides.
10:48 am
look at the numbers. i mean, the ages of the justices. ruth bader ginsburg, oldest at 85. anthony kennedy, 81 anthony breyer, 79. and left-leaning, people with a lot of the more liberal and progressive folks out there, very, very nervous. how consequential could it be, then if there was another conservative justice who makes it to the high court? you know, the president still has two and a half years left on his term. >> i've followed this well over a decade. one thing that fascinating me the modern trend of presidents trying to appoint the youngest possible judge that can squeak by nomination, who's still done enough in his or her career to be 2340notable but not controversial. nothing too exciting. maybe on a court didn't hear a lot of dramatic cases. each president, democratic and republican, have succeeded. starting with justice roberts
10:49 am
who was quite young when appointed chief justice, and the effective appointing a young justice, it's so significant. almost a shame. there are probably so many very capable circuit court judges who might be older and maybe being subtly discriminated against, because who wants to somebody in their 70s on the court when you're just repint g repointing them in ten years? probably what politicians are thinking and that makes the 48-year-old justice with very predictable opinions suddenly the most appetizing person in the world and yet most people never heard of him or her. >> one way to assure your legacy goes on even after you're gone. appoint a young justice. danny savalas, steve straight, thank you very much. look like at the house floor. lawmakers are voting on a compromised immigration bill. and president trump tweeting this morning. although the odds of the bill passing in the republican-controlled house are slim to none. i'm sorry?
10:50 am
oh. garrett haake. he's there. garrett, how's it looking? not anything we're surprised by at this point, i assume? >> reporter: no. the only surprise, the only sur now appears to be the margin. but the vote is ongoing so it is a fluid issue. there are already 259 no votes which means it will do worse than the more conservative bill that was voted on last week. remember the operating theory here was that the conservative bill would give the chance for hardliners to get on the record about something they wanted to see done. then there was this more moderate bill negotiated between the conservative wing of the party and moderates may be able to get across the finish line. >> but even if not get across the finish line, garrett, was there some sort of expectation that if they could keep it at least close or closer than the bill from last week, maybe it s build on? >> sure. absolutely. and that was the whole point of
10:51 am
these negotiations. you didn't have the moderates really involved in the crafting of that more conservative bill last week, so you would think this bill which had been negotiated ostensibly in good faith between all these factions of the republican party would do better. as it appears right now, that will not be the case. >> not even close. >> it is performing substantially worse. chris, really this is going to be -- i don't want to make too see how there would be t it is another broad immigration bill again certainly before mid-terms. just seems extraordinarily unlikely. terrible outcome in the house. i think this is the last-ditch attempt to see a big immigration package done before the election. >> that bill goes down by a significantly wider margin than many might have expected. garrett, thank you for that. so, who says president trump is a divider? last night his rhetoric brought three late night hosts together for a rare joint appearance responding to the president's insults at a rally on monday.
10:52 am
>> got it. it's surprising trump is orange because if you ask me, he is bananas. i'm done. great monologue. [ phone ringing ] >> hey, low life. >> hey, lost soul. what are you up to? be a man. >> i'll try. what are you up to? >> i'm busy having no talent. >> did you see trump's rally last night? >> nope. >> me either. heard he said some pretty bad stuff about us. >> really? that doesn't sound like him. >> heard he said we're all no-talent, low life lost souls. >> that's not right. that's conan. hang on. i'll get him. >> hey, guys, what's up. >> pdent who? >> trump. >> donald trump. >> the real estate guy who sells steaks? >> he's president? >> yeah. >> wow. how is he doing?
10:53 am
>> not so good. well, guys, give him time. okay? and remember, please, be civil. if we're not careful, this thing could start to get ugly. hey! i'm about to start shaving my chest. you guys want to watch? >> no, thanks. >> hey, we still on for lunch? >> yeah. where you want to eat? >> red hen. >> red hen. >> senior editor with "business insider" and msnbc contributor, they had that skit on both fallon and colbert's show. they're usually competing for ratings. did the president accomplish anything besides giving them more fodder for their late night shows? >> apparently not. this reminds me of about ten years ago. remember there was that promo for th super bowl when it was on cbs. the reveal was they were on the balcony of the ed sullivan theater and jay leno was sitting next to letterman and oprah? yes. when the president attacks
10:54 am
people together, it brings strange bedfellows together. i think it gave them a good bit to use. late night has become basically a center and left province. republicans basically don't watch these shs anymore. so i think you had a time 40 years ago where johnny carson was seen as a less political figure and late night was appealing to a broader audience. so i think these shows mostly have an audience of people who disapprove of the president. of course a majority of the company disapproves of the president. >> they've got a lot to work with, let's not kid ourselves. they've got a lot to work with. you wonder if there's anybody that trump won't take on in a tweet. this week, jimmy fall maxine waters, the red hen restaurant, harley-davidson, we know he likes to fight outspoken democrats. we know what he feels about the fbi. why is he attacking an american company? >> the tone of his tweets about harley-davidson is different.
10:55 am
he seems almost wounded by this. he had done some high-profile things with harley-davidson before focused on promoting u.s. manufacturing. there is a sense that the president feels betrayed by harley-davidson's decision to move some production abroad, especially since it is clear harley-davidson is doing that in reaction to the president's own policies. when you read between the lines what the president is saying, i think he literally didn't understand that the tariffs he was imposing would cause this. >> to your point, he tweeted a short time ago, i've done so much for you -- meaning harley-davidson -- and then this. >> wounded. exactly. another thing he was saying is don't they understand that if they do this they'll have to pay big taxes on bringing their stuff back into the u.s.? >> harley-davidson is not planning to move production abroad in order to import motorcycles into the u.s. the idea is motorcycles going to the european union or other countries that might impose tariffs on the u.s., those will be produced somewhere else, maybe in brazil where they have manufacturing facilities already. the motorcycle goes from brazil to france. never comes through the u.s. there can't be a u.s. tariff on it.
10:56 am
>> it even goes beyond i think just clearly not understanding the way these tariffs work. but he has a strong base of support within these folks. i just want to play a little bit of what some republicans have had to say. >> i'm actually on harley-davidson's side. i don't think these tariffs are beneficial to anybody, any business in america. i'm very concerned about it. i'm a strong supporter of the president, but i think he is wrong on that. >> i don't think tariffs are the right way to go. i think tariffs are basically taxes. what ends up happening is you get escalating tariffs or escalating taxes. one of the reasons we did tax reform is to make it easier for businesses to keep manufacturing in america and exporting overseas. >> yeah. i mean it was kind of a funny headline in politico, trump to harley riders - do you love more? >> yeah. i mean if those republicans in congress are so distressed, the constitution gives power to set tariffs to congress. they passed laws in the past that gave the president powers he's using right now to impose
10:57 am
tariffs. if paul ryan and orrin hatch are so upset about these tariffs, they should sign a bill into law that would take away the president a's power to impose these tariffs. >> chris, we're looking at the vote breakdown on this bill. as expected, no democrats crossing the line to support this bill. looking at the final totals now, it is absolutely worse than the more hardline conservative bill that we saw get a vote last week. only 121 republicans voted in favor of this. it is hard to pick who has the more egg on their face on this, who's sort of happy and who's not. i think conservatives will see this as proof that a conservative bill is the only one that can get through the house of representatives. moderates are going to leave very frustrated here. it is tough to see what they got for their efforts. they were so close on that discharge petition that would have forced a series of votes and could have potentially gotten democratic support, including the m of act would thn one of those things that would have gotten a vote
10:58 am
here. so a lot of talk, a lot of debating, a lot of negotiation which everyone involved said throughout was good faith. but really leading to an exceptionally lackluster result here, even for an issue that's so bedevilled congress for so long. >> congress, and it's also been so much in the headlines, that the president has made such a focus. obviously all politics is local, we certainly saw that in new york with the election results. but what are they going to take home what are they going to say to their constituents? how do they sell their vote, one way or another? >> yeah, sure. different groups of republicans got what they wanted on this. conservative republicans who voted for that other bill last week can say they voted with the president, they voted on the bill that didn't have a pathway to citizenship. they can say they voted for the wall. moderate republicans can say they voted for something in this bill that we just saw fail that did have a pathway to citizenship. even they in fact can say, if they are so inclined, that they voted for the wall. and everybody can say that they voted for something that the president supported because at different times along this
10:59 am
process we have seen the president support different versions of that. and i do think that's a big part of this tim gration story heimm is it going to take the president of the united states to, yes, consistently get what he wants to see in an immigration bill. both of these big priorities to the president dealt with family migration and china migration. both included the visa lottery. and one the issues of the d.r.e.a.m.ers, one with the path to citizenship and one without. you never saw the president use the bully pulpit in a consistent way to try to push these bills across the finish line. >> it is fascinating. you have to believe they didn't go in to this thinking two be that kind of vote, those numbers. i'm chris jansing. steve kornacki joins me now. >> it is a fun week. lots of elections. now voting on the floor of the house to talk about, as well.
11:00 am
it is 11:00 a.m. out west, 2:00 p.m. on capitol hill. that is where we are following the breaking news i just mentioned -- the house failing overwhelmingly to pass that so-callecompromise bill on immigration. let's bring in msnbc's garrett haake. garrett, just picking up our verage with you, again we are looking at the scene there from the floor. take us through again for folks just tuning in exactly what this piece of legislation represented and exactly the scale of defeat we just saw there for it on the house floor. >> yeah, steve. this piece of legislation represented probably the last chance to get any kind of big immigration bill through either chamber of commerce -- or xham b chamber of congress -- been talking for a long time -- to get a bill that's a compromise between factions of the republican party, democrats did not really participate in this effort. they did not like the changes that republicans wanted to make to legal immigration. they did not like


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on