tv MSNBC Live With Stephanie Ruhle MSNBC July 3, 2018 6:00am-7:00am PDT
10 miles on every dollar they spend at thousands of hotels.e giving venture cardholders brrr! i have the chills! because of all those miles? and because ice is cold. what's in your wallet? good morning, i'm chris jansing, in for stephanie ruhle. this morning, trump versus everyone. the president awake and tweeting on north korea, immigration, i.c.e., the economy and maxine waters. what he's saying to our allies ahead of what's shaping up to be a contentious nato summit. >> they must feel like the rest of us do getting ready for our root canal with the dentist. it just is going to be painful experience. >> ouch. shortening the short list. president trump meets with potential picks to replace justice kennedy. >> i interviewed and met with
four potential justices of our great supreme court. they are really incredible people in so many different ways. academically in every other way. >> but the white house is trying to play is could i t coy on wha president wants. >> i'm not going to get into any specifics. >> a new question over the conduct of epa chief scott pruitt. aides reportedly telling congressional investigators that he asked them to help find his wife a job with a salary of over $200,000. >> we deserve to have somebody who actually does protect our environment. i would urge you to resign before your scandals push you out. >> we'll talk more about all that. but this morning, the question is what's gotten into the president? he has been on a tear this morning. six tweets in an hour, hitting everything from maxine waters to the economy, from the supreme court to ms-13. all before most people had had
their breakfast. all that venting, even as we're learning for the first time, that the president sent accu accusatory blunt letters to many allies and suggested he's willing to use american troops as bargaining chips to get what he wants from them. i've got a great panel with me today. first, let me explain why this is so important. simply, it sets the stage for a potentially accra mons ynious n meeting next week. it's no secret the president doesn't like international organization or global trade deals and he has repeatedly said the u.s. is getting the short end of the stick. whether it's the wto, nafta or nato. president trump is adamant the u.s. is paying too much and not getting enough in return. but in the case of nato, it's more than just the global economy at stake. it's global security. right now, the u.s. has tens of thousands of troops stationed abroad, including significant numbers in nato countries like germany, italy and the cult ouk.
but president trump has never embraced the alliance and gone back and forth over whether he thinks it's worth keeping. >> tell you about nato, it's obsolete and we're paying too much money. >> i said it was obsolete. it's no longer obsolete. >> now with the next nato summit set for next week, he is returning to one of his chief criticisms, that european leaders aren't paying enough for defense. according to "the new york times," he's even sent sharply worded letters to allied leaders demanding they increase their spending and that he may consider, quote, adjusting america's military presence if they don't follow through. while the threat is new, the complaint is not. presidents george w. bush and barack obama both called on nato allies to pay more. then defense secretary robert gates had this to say back in 2011. >> if current trends in the decline of european defense capabilities are not haltpeded
rever reversed, future u.s. political leaders, those for whom the cold war was not the experience that it was for me, may not consider the return on america's investment in nato worth the cost. >> so how much is enough? well, back in 2006, nato countries agreed to a guideline that says they'd commit at least 2% of their gdp to defense spending. but as of today, the u.s. is one of only four countries that have hit that mark. germany, italy, spain and belgium are among the countries that have not. now, here's why that's significant. there are approximately 50,000 troops stationed in those four countries right now. including nearly 35,000 in germany alone. now, "the washington post" says the president has asked the pentagon to explore the possibility of pulling those troops out. the nsc says those kinds of reviews airport s aren't unusu could also be a sign he's serious about using those troops as leverage. i want to bring in nbc's peter alexander at the white house for us this morning.
peter what more can you tell us about the presidential threats? >> first of all, the president says the nsc didn't make that request of cost review. but it is clear from letters the president wants to see larger contributions. president obama, as you note, he also pressed american allies to reach that 2% contribution goal for nato. it is really president trump's tone here that distinguished him. all of this after that g- summit where the president, president trump, antagonized traditional allies, called the organization's existence into question now. he's going to see many of those same leaders at nato next week. they are bracing for berating both public and private, more posturing from the u.s. president. we spoke to sarah sanders, the press secretary. she again echoed the white house, this usual line that the president would like to see nato allies fulfill that commitment. arguing the u.s. is carrying a lot of the burden. the president wants to see other countries step up and do their part. of course, it's not just the
g-7, not just nato. the president has also made those veiled threats about pulling out of the world trade organization, the wto, telling us here we will be doing something, in his words, if the wto does not start treating the u.s. properly. so different organizations, same attacks from president trump, chris. >> he's consistent on that, peter alexander, thank you. colonel jack jacobs. kate lynn huey burns for real clear politics. noelle nikpoor is a republican strategist. there's almost an implication here that troops abroad are simply a favor to the countries where they are so if you're not paying up, we'll pull them out. explain to people why we keep those troops in those countries. what's the benefit to the u.s.? >> we have early warning for any kind of russian excursion. the threat to europe has been
there since the second world war and hasn't really changed. a lot of people thought that the soviet threat would stop and there wouldn't be any russian threat. you know, all you have to do is take a look at events the last few years and look at what happened in cry moo ya, soviet aggression toward ukraine, and in particular they're posturing on the border with the baltic states and you get the idea that the threat is real and it needs to be counted or blunted by american presence. we're so there we can test our defense plans in plans with ou allies. >> america may not be a part of that. we don't really know where the president is going to land on this.
i'm curious from your conversations, from your knowledge on the inside what do military leaders think of this kind of uncertainty? >> well, i think it's a rotten idea. we've had a long-standing pact which has prevented war in europe. they will continue to prevent war. we have to make sure that every decision that we make does not benefit russia. russia is the 800-pound gorilla in the region. i don't think we're going to pull out of nato. if there is a decision by the white house to do so, one expects that the congress will step up and prevent that from happening. it's really dangerous not to keep troops in a region where there are a great number of threats and specifically in those areas where we intend to fight. at least partially because we have to continue to test our plans every year to make sure that we can defend properly. the military establishment doesn't like that idea. >> the concern in europe
obviously, noelle, is there's going to be another high-profile summit following the g-7 where any semblance of an alliance collapses. and it collapses, if it does, going into president trump meeting with the person they're all concerned about, which is vladimir putin. he would like nothing more than these alliances to go off the rails. so if this is just the president doing the art of the deal, trying to put pressure on, get them to ante up some more money, is this a dangerous game he's playing? >> it's a dangerous game because the american people, we don't know what exactly he's doing. now, he's demonstrated with everything that he has been doing that this is how he rolls. this is the art of the deal. this is how he negotiates. this is much how he negotiated when he was doing real estate. kind of that, you know, throw everything out and let everybody else pick up the pieces. that's basically what he did. if you look at what he did with the g-7 summit, what he did is
basically said this is what i'm not going to do, this is what i'm going to do, and turns around and leaves. and leaves the -- >> and leaves early. and katelyn, you know, the president's been making this argument over and over and over again about border security. we have to keep our country safe, while simultaneously, it seems, either not believing that nato is crucial to our security, maybe not believing that having troops in countries abroad is critical to our security. how do you even square one with the other? >> the president, and we saw this on the campaign, we're seeing this in his administration, he's very singularly minded when it comes to alliances. right? he is very focused on the transactional, not necessarily thinking about publicly or explaining to the public the importance of alliances and what alliances serve us on measures and matters that we don't even know about, right, when it pertains to national security. so i think that's really important here.
that the president, you know, talks to his supporters and this resonates with them, you know, why are we spending this on nato when other countries aren't pulling their weight. >> i said i was going to save you money. this is how i'm going to save you money, right? >> exactly. but the larger picture he doesn't explain to people and i think that's problematic. especially against the backdrop of russia. i think that's what distinguished this from what past presidents have done. >> he's challenging some of the wrong relationships like with canada. i think some of the decisions to evoke kind of a holy war on are with countries we have no business -- >> i also think, you know, one of the people who knows about this best is the former allied supreme commander of nato who we all know and it was really s
distinctive what he had to say on "morning joe." take a listen. >> they must feel like the rest of us do getting ready for a root canal with the dentist. it just is going to be painful, they know it's coming. >> i swear that my teeth started throb weatheringbing when he wa about that. katelyn, i guess the question is, is it possible this is the way the president wants it? he wants them to go in nervous. he wants to go in there seem like the big guy. >> sure, it's been part of his negotiating tactic for years. the question, though, is, you know, what have we seen yet in this administration that we have gotten out of that kind of approach. we haven't seen, you know, when he talks tough to canada, you know, we've seen them pose threats of retaliation that could actually hit trump's own base core constituency when it comes to the economy.
so we just haven't seen the -- i guess the fruits of his labor as it pertains to the art of the deal. >> i think the white house would argue -- less than an hour ago we heard the british prime minister's office saying they have been discussing the burden sharing, the 2% target. germany announced this week it was going to increase its military budget. we saw angela merkel sort of go to the mat and she got some of what she wanted. they could argue with the white house look, it's working. >> that's another point. that's where the republican party thinks -- >> by the way, where are the republican leaders in all this? why are they not talking about this? >> well, it's a fine line. if you look at what his negotiation style is. if you look at how he's doing this, i don't think anybody thinks it's great when he, you know, rips off and calls, you know, somebody like north korea's leader little rocket man, you know, it's provoking. nobody really likes it. he did the same tactics if you'll remember, in campaign mode when he had 16 people -- >> back to the question, where's the leadership, where's the
congressional oversight? >> i think what you hear -- i think you hear silence from them until after the results are proven and then when the results, when it works out, then they get behind them and they're going yes, this was a great tactic. but before they come out, you know, in front of him saying this is great, the way he's doing this, about, you know, threatening to pull out of nato, doing this or the g-7. i think you don't hear anything from them until after his negotiation styles work. when they work, if they work, then you see the gop members coming out saying look how great this was. >> big if. >> we have a true art of the deal later. >> colonel jack jacobs, thank you. the fbi agent, remember hi, criticized for exchanging anti-trump text messages during the 2016 presidential election with a former bureau lawyer with whom he was romantically involved. now he's saying i'm sorry. peter strzok worked on separate investigations of donald trump's campaign and hillary clinton's use of private e-mail.
he appeared before two house committees in closed tour session last week, insisting his work was driven by evidence, not bias. let's get the details from nbc news intelligence and national security reporter ken dilanian. so i mean let's start with the apology. what did he apologize for and why? >> chris, he was asked whether he regretted these -- this series of inflammatory texts, that he exchanged with an fbi lawyer with whom he was having an extra marital affair. don't forget in these texts, he called donald trump an idiot. loathsome. menace. and some words that we can't say on television in these exchanges. and then even more alarming, you know, at one point his lover, lisa page, asked him donald trump's not going to get elected president, right, and he said no, we'll stop it. this is a man who worked both on the clinton e-mail investigation and then transition the into the
trump/russia investigation. look, this was just wrong. no one can defend it. he said he regretted sending these texts and he's sorry. the inspector general, in its report on this whole matter, said this went to the heart of the fbi's reputation for independence. and this was done, by the way, on government e-mail. just bad judgment on his part. >> we should know better if you want people not to find out something, don't put it in writing. in the meantime, you do have some news on the russia investigation. a federal judge has ordered the former national security adviser michael flynn to appear at a hearing next week regarding his sentencing. what can you tell us about that? >> that's right, it will be a week from today. to be perfectly honest, we're not really sure why the judge
has ordered this. the judge did this on his own. the mueller team has agreed to delay sentencing because he is continuing to cooperate. but the judge appears to be a little impatient and wants flynn in court, to ask some questions about what exactly is the status of this. because these things can't linger forever. right now, it appears that robert mueller still has some business with mike flynn, the former national security adviser. >> so interesting, thanks so much, ken dilanian. coming up, the president was also tweeting this morning about his potential pick to replace supreme court justice anthony kennedy. we've got new polling on what americans say they want in the next justice. and just moments ago, the white house flag was lowered to half-staff to honor the victims of the shooting at the news the capital gazette. the mayor initially said their
initial request was denied. to most people, i look like... ...most people. but on the inside, i feel chronic, widespread pain. fibromyalgia may be invisible to others, but my pain is real. fibromyalgia is thought to be caused by overactive nerves. lyrica is believed to calm these nerves. i'm glad my doctor prescribed lyrica. for some, lyrica delivers effective relief from moderate to even severe fibromyalgia pain, and improves function. lyrica may cause serious allergic reactions, suicidal thoughts or actions. tell your doctor right away if you have these, new or worse depression, unusual changes in mood or behavior, swelling, trouble breathing, rash, hives, blisters, muscle pain with fever, tired feeling, or blurry vision. common side effects: dizziness, sleepiness, weight gain, swelling of hands, legs and feet. don't drink alcohol while taking lyrica. don't drive or use machinery until you know how lyrica affects you. those who've had a drug or alcohol problem may be more likely to misuse lyrica.
or just say badda book, badda boom. book now at choicehotels.com. this wi-fi is fast. or just say badda book, i know!oom. i know! i know! i know! when did brian move back in? brian's back? he doesn't get my room. he's only going to be here for like a week. like a month, tops. oh boy. wi-fi fast enough for the whole family is simple, easy, awesome.
in many cultures, young men would stay with their families until their 40's. clock is ticking, we're just six days away from president trump announcing his replacement for supreme court justice anthony kennedy. the president actually met with four possible picks yesterday. 45 minutes each. and while he wouldn't name
names, he was quick to praise their credentials. >> they are outstanding people. they are really incredible people. in so many different ways. academically in every other way. i'll be meeting with two or three more. and we'll make a decision on the united states supreme court, the new justice that will be made over the next few days, and we'll be announcing it on monday. >> now, "the washington post" reports the president met with these four federal appeals judges, brett kavanauge. and there's a new poll out on one of the biggest issues surrounding this decision, the impact on roe v. wade. morning consult political reveals 52% of voters want the supreme court justice to support abortion rights. 73% are democrats, 49% of independents. a majority of republicans, though, 54%, want the new justice to oppose abortion
rights. joining me, msnbc contributor jeremy peters. my panel is back with me. jeremy, who are you talking to? what are your sources telling you? >> well, chris, cavanaugh and barrett seem to have the inside track. it's all going to come down to i think what their published opinions and writings are going to do to the confirmation process and just how contentious they make it. something counterintuitive to consider here. amy coney barrett is somebody who's known to be deeply religious. she's a catholic. she belongs to a very small tight-knit group called people of praise who have received some scrutiny lately for some of its less orthodox belief. >> such as? >> taking a lifetime loyalty oath to the organization and basically preaching an ideology that says the husband is the
head of the wife in the family unit. >> let's see how that plays out when the wife is a supreme court justice. >> exactly. seems a little odd to me. >> ask ruth bader ginsburg's husband. >> point being, the republicans are eager to make this a fight over a religious test. they want to make the democrats look intolerant when it comes to people of faith and they would love nothing more than another moment like you saw in coney barrett's confirmation hearing for the appeals court position when dianne feinstein seemed to belittle her faith, saying the dogma runs deep in you. so while that may seem like the kind of messy confirmation process the president wants to avoid, there's actually a school of thought that that might be good for the republican party because that might fire up the
base. >> obviously the other big thing is abortion, you know, there e are -- you have said there not enough attention being paid to what the president said over the weekend about abortion rights. i want to play that key part of it. >> on the campaign trail, you said you would leave it to the states. >> well, maybe some day it will be up to the states. that's a complex question. the roe v. wade is probably the one that people are talking about in terms of having an effect. but we'll see what happens. but it could very well end up with states at some point. >> how did that strike you? >> it's consistent with what president trump has said before. i was struck to hear him say that as he had the short list in front of him. he makes no secret he doesn't see an issue with the states deciding on the legality of abortion which effectively means that roe v. wade is overturned.
i think though that when you look at his list of nominees, for get about the list, look at the letter that president, then candidate trump, sent to leaders of the pro-life groups back in the middle of his campaign, when he pledged in writing to support and appoint pro-life justice to the supreme court. we pretty much know what kind of justice we are going to get when it comes down to the issue. >> i think everything we know from exit polling in 2016 is exactly how many republicans and how many evangelicals voted on this issue as their number one issue, the supreme court. i mean, it was significant. but i just say i'm a little surprised by these numbers and i'm curious about your reaction. 73% of democrats want the next supreme court justice to support abortion rights. i thought it would be higher actually. >> i did too. >> and 54% of republicans want the new justice to oppose abortion rights.
i also thought that would be higher. >> yes, i did too. especially when you look at the base of the gop, which is, you know, made up of a lot of evangelicals. and back to your original point, which i'm so glad you brought this up, was the fact that during the election, when people had to choose between hillary and trump, a lot of republicans were uncomfortable with a lot of the things that president trump had either said or activities he was accused of. and one of the key reasons people were asking why are these evangelicals coming out and voting for someone like donald trump, was the fact that they're looking at the supreme court. >> oh, they will say very openly. we talk about the supreme court but you look at who he's played on the federal bench, which is the farm team, right? not only are we talking about somebody who at 40 could serve as supreme court for, you know, 40 years, but you're also
looking at, then, other federal judges who later on could potentially also serve in that roll. i don't know, kate lynn, i think the president has said the short list includes two women. there's also been a lot of talk about how that would optically and in terms of argument be a good thing for him. why? >> well, he wants to remember pressure, red state democrats, right, who three of them voted for judge gorsuch. one of them includes heidi hi hidecamp of north dakota. we know on the democratic side, women have certainly been driving the energy and, you know, the mobilization effort for democratic candidates, and when you talk to democrats, they're very much focused on highlighting the issue of roe v. wade in order to energize that
force to put pressure not only on all of the democrats, trying to keep all of those 49 democrats together, but also putting pressure on people like lisa murkowski. >> right. >> susan collins. so that's where they see the pressure point is when this relates -- >> overall on the democrat ek side, let's also note, jeffrey, that they're putting together a number of different organizations. have millions of dollars. and they've already been looking at this list. the president put this list out, by the way, on the campaign trail. they said thank you very much, it give us a little time to do our background research. but jeffrey toobin in the new yorker outlines how he thinks that trump's pick could actually undo justice kennedy's legacy. and we know how hard they worked to tell justice kennedy this is going to be legacy affirming. quote, it will overall roe v. wade. it will allow shopkeepers, hotel owners to refuse service to gay customers on religious grounds. it will guarantee that fewer african-american and latino
students attend elite universities. it will approve laws to hinder voting rights. it will sanction execution by grotesque means. it will evoke the second amendment to prohibit states from engaging in gun control including the regulation of machine guns and bump stocks. is that a little bit of hyperbole or at least on the left, is that really the view of what's to come? >> i think the left is in a real quandary here. they have never really been able to organize very effectively around the idea of the supreme court. it's always been something that's far more central to the political culture and the dna of the right. now, i wonder if that changes. i think with roe v. wade on the line, you're going to see everybody from emily's list to the national organization for women to planned parent hood really galvanize because it's really now. the idea that roe v. wade is one vote away from being struck down is going to send a panic into
the liberal base. >> the phrase you use is instructive, to see whether they will. it's not like we didn't know this was coming. it's not like whether you're on the right or the left. >> right. >> once donald trump got elected, it was pretty clear that at some point he was going -- well, first of all, mitch mcconnell made it clear he was going to be able to appoint at least one supreme court justice, which obviously he had with goresuch. but that there would be two or even three coming. so talking about what they're going to do now, why? why wasn't that something that was ready to roll the minute this happened? the minute justice kennedy put his letter of resignation in? >> i think a lot of it has to do with complacency. the right is so used to being on the losing end of the culture wars at the supreme court. in fact, they were often at the losing end due to justice kennedy's vote. so they're much more revved up about this. they're going to be in a fighting mood going into
november. now, the question is whether or not the left is able to match that intensity and i think really the jury is out at this point. >> jeremy peters, always great to see you. the ladies are staying with me as we continue this hour. but i want to talk about facebook now. because they are under fire. three federal agencies now looking into their sharing of that political -- of that data with the political consulting firm cambridge analytica. you've got the fbi, you've got the securities and exchange commission and the federal trade commission all joining the department of justice in its inquiries. looking into how the personal information of 71 million americans was shared. joining me now, "washington post" silicon valley correspondent elizabeth dewarskin. what are the federal investigators looking for? is it what face book knew then, three years ago, or the discrepancies in their most recent accounts? >> well, exactly, it's pretty fascinating. we have, a couple of months ago, we have mark zuckerberg,
facebook ceo, testifying before congress. he's hauled before congress. he really doesn't want to go. the senators are asking him question after question. in the back of my mind, as a reporter, is what are going to be -- what are the consequences of this going to be. and it turns out several months later that shortly after we knew that the federal trade commission, which regulates privacy issues, was investigating facebook. and now we've learned that it's the fbi, the department of justice, and the security and exchange commission, which regulates financial matters. the week after zuckerberg testified, you see this big drop in the company stock price. 13%. and so the regulators are supposed to be looking at this this big swing. and it turns out that they are. >> yes, i mean, and what's their response to this? have they had anything to say? obviously the hope within the walls of facebook was he was going to go, he was going to testify, do a great job and tamp down some of the concern which
clearly hasn't happened. >> exactly. we thought it might be dying down a little bit after the hearing. trust me, he did not want to go before congress. it was the last thing he wanted to do. you know, he hates that. most tech ceos absolutely hate that. but it turns out that there are deeper consequences to this. i think one of the questions is whether there are discrepancies and what zuckerberg told the lawmakers and told the public which would be material information to investors and what actually happened in 2014/2015, which was the years -- the period when cambridge analytica was siph siphoning the data from facebook. another big question of course is why didn't they tell the public at the time when they found out that all this data was taken in an inappropriate way? should they have informed the public? and there's interesting, if you pay close attention to the hearing, there's interesting what you'd say are discrepancies and the different accounts of how the different parties have told the story. and what we've learned is that's
what the federal investigators are looking into. >> yes, i think you don't have to understand the increases of the law or anything, just say why didn't they tell us, right. that's the key consumer question. so facebook is running this new ad campaign. it's not really an apology but it is kind of like an attempt to win back consumer trust. is that what they think is going to ease user concerns? i'm curious about this whole idea of them like trying to say we're the good guys. >> i don't know if you can win back trust with an ad campaign. by the way, they're doing ad campaigns all over the world around how to spot fake news as well. and the question is, is it their responsibility to run an ad campaign? is this a marketing campaign? or does it require substantive changes in the dna of the company. you asked why didn't they inform people three years ago. and the answer from my view as a reporter is they actually didn't really see that data as sensitive.
they say now they saw it as very sensitive. but, in fact, at the time, they were giving that type of data away to everyone and their brother. that's why the obama campaign used the same data. that was our story from a few months ago. the obama campaign had the same data that cam britain had. so they didn't see it as highly sensitive. that changed a couple -- shortly after. now what they're doing on the concrete side is they're auditing developers. so they're going back and saying every app that got access to our platform, every business that had the facebook like by them. because at the time if you use the facebook like button on your website, that also gave you a lot of data. they're looking at every developer that had access. they're auditing. and they've sus spended 200 of those developers. the question of course is what did those developers do? what did they get when they weren't paying attention? and then there's the category of exceptions. there's all these companies that got exceptions when facebook did finally restrict their data. what do those companies, which
includes devicemakers and large app developers, what did they do with the data? and how do theys go tho s gget exceptions?elizabeth, thank you up next, shaping up to be the year of elected women. is this a lasting change or just a response to president trump? but before we go, rescuers in thailand trying to figure out know how to free that soccer team and coach trapped inside a cave because divers did finally locate them after nine days of searching. but it could take months to get them out.
to most, he's phil mickelson, pro golfer. to me, he's, well, dad. so when his joint pain from psoriatic arthritis got really bad, it scared me. and what could that pain mean? joint pain could mean joint damage. enbrel helps relieve joint pain, helps stop irreversible joint damage, and helps skin get clearer. enbrel may lower your ability to fight infections. serious, sometimes fatal events including infections, tuberculosis, lymphoma, other cancers, nervous system and blood disorders, and allergic reactions have occurred. tell your doctor if you've been someplace where fungal infections are common, or if you're prone to infections, have cuts or sores, have had hepatitis b, have been treated for heart failure, or if you have persistent fever, bruising, bleeding, or paleness. don't start enbrel if you have an infection like the flu. since enbrel, dad's back to being dad. visit enbrel.com and use the joint damage simulator to see
how your joint damage could be progressing. ask about enbrel. enbrel. fda approved for over 15 years. you're smart,eat you already knew that. but it's also great for finding the perfect used car. you'll see what a fair price is and you can connect with a truecar certified dealer. now you're even smarter. this is truecar. >> i'm alex trebek. if you're age 50 to 85, please listen carefully.
the lock i want to talk to you about isn't the one on your door. it's a rate lock for your life insurance that guarantees your rate can never go up at any time, for any reason. many policies don't have one but you can get a lifetime rate lock through the colonial penn program. this plan was designed for people on a fixed income with coverage options for just $9.95 a month. that's less than 35 cents a day. your rate is locked in for life and coverage can never be cancelled. your acceptance is guaranteed. you cannot be turned down because of your health. call for your information kit and gift. both are free, with no obligation. ♪ you shouldn't be rushed into booking a hotel. with expedia's add-on advantage, booking a flight unlocks discounts on select hotels
until the day you leave for your trip. add-on advantage. only when you book with expedia. it's being called the pink wave. women running for office in record numbers this year. only 1 in 5 numbers in congress is a woman, only 4 under 40. but that could change. there's new numbers. latest count, more than 311 women still in the running for u.s. house of representatives alone. 39 of them in gubernatorial races. 35 for u.s. senate seats. nbc news political reporter ali vitale spoke with the woman running, she is gwen graham. tell us about her. >> she's a kind of household name. at least her father was. i spent two days with her first building a house with habitat for humanity.
the vibe there was this could be the year that a woman wins the governor's seat in florida. take a look at what she had to say. to become florida's next governor, she will work for it. >> i'm dripping with sweat. >> reporter: with rick scott running for senate, this governor's race is wide open, expensive and crowded. graham is counting on hard work and grassroots appeal to beat her primary opponents. >> that's okay. perfect, thank you. >> reporter: that means taking a page from the family political playbook. doing work days. from building a house with habitat for humanity to cooking at a cuban bakery. laboring alongside floridians to learn their craft and hopefully earn their votes. what her father, former florida governor and u.s. senator bob graham did in 1978. >> i'm running for governor. 40 years to the day that my father ran for governor back in 1978. and he has done 408. so this is 56. i'm determined to get to 409.
>> reporter: she plans to log a lot more work days in her race to break florida's gubernatorial glass ceiling. all while campaigning hard on kitchen table issues like health care, gun safety. >> we're not going to end with doing nothing. >> reporter: and what it means to be a leader. you've made this a race -- a little bit of a referendum on trump. what's the role that he plays in this state right now? >> i have said very publicly that i think donald trump is an embarrassment. and sadly he continues to confirm my statement every day. >> reporter: but graham's one term in congress could get in her way. >> graham is not the person she claims to be. >> reporter: and taking back tallahassee for democrats. >> i don't believe we should be looking at labels. labels are just limitlimit.
for me, i think women bring a different leadership approach. >> reporter: that approach is front of mind here for voters at a women's leadership conference in orlando. what would it mean to see a woman elected? >> after 2016, everything. >> reporter: and graham predicts that now is the time for female candidates. >> we all feel it, right? we all know it. this election is about women. >> reporter: and if voters feel that too, 2018 could be graham's chance to make her mark on her home state. now, we still have about two months to the primary for the democrats over there in florida but a new nbc poll showed something interesting. it's a close race for graham. she's two points behind. but over 40% of people said they were still undecided. so you're going to see over the course of the next several weeks a real tightening. a lot could change. it's going to be really interesting and probably really expensive because that's what it is to run in florida. >> i find all of the women who are running to be so fascinating but i think there's one thing
that -- whether it's implicit or explicit, there's so much research about how if you take a group of men who are meeting and you add a woman to it, what it means about cooperation, conversation. you can talk to any of the women senators. they meet as a group he they talk about how different it is then when they meet with the senate as a whole. do you think there's maybe something there, katelyn? it's not just about the going out and run bug the response so many of them seem to be getting, so many of them already having won primaries. >> right. what's important this time is there seems to be an infrastructure for women to run. i remember talking to women in other campaigns and the biggest challenge they would say is the ability to fund-raise. and now after the women's march, after everything we've seen over the past year and a half, there are operations in place to help women run for these offices. >> right. in many ways, the rnc, the dnc,
they have found a different kind of structure that's been widely criticized by many of these new candidates. this is interesting. 39% of all democratic nominees now are women this year. just 11%, noelle, are republicans. what does that tell you? >> well, first of all, i've got to disclose that i am a fund-raiser and i have found it very easy to raise money for some of the female candidates. >> more so this year than before? >> you better believe it. let me tell you something, i have got elizabeth, who's running for congress, trying to knock off an incumbent down in california. i've got a gubernatorial candidate in hawaii that we're looking to flip that state in hawaii from blue to red. one of the things i've noticed, and they're under 40, too. one of the things i've noticed, which is really great, is the ability to raise more money with these women. they are energetic, passionate about their cause and a lot of people, a lot of people want to see a female candidate. there's a pink wave coming.
forget the blue wave, forget the red wave, there is a pink wave. >> watch out, world, it's going to change things big time. what a great story. >> she's fierce. she's getting in there. >> she feels like this is the time, she's got the pulse. >> okay, well, we're going to keep on all of this from now until november. how many days is it? up next, more aides blowing the whistle on scout pruett. new reporting he asked aides to find a $200,000 job for his wife. (vo) i was born during the winter of '77. i first met james in 5th grade. we got married after college. and had twin boys. but then one night, a truck didn't stop. but thanks to our forester, neither did our story. and that's why we'll always drive a subaru.
sfun stunning, new details about scott pruitt's spending and management decisions. two aides spent hours testifying before the house oversight and government reform committeed last week. he didn't just want his wife to get a job. we knew that. but it had to be a high-paying job. the administrator wanted his spouse to find a post with an annual salary of more than $200,000. pruitt reportedly asked one of the aides to contact the attorneys general association. that's a group he used to lead. the house probe, 1 of 15 ongoing
investigations of ethical investigations investigating scott pruitt. you think you can't be surprised anymore. did anyone on pruitt's staff at any point suggest to him that there might be ethical questions? or say, i could get into trouble because i'm not a head hunter for your wife? >> there's a lot we don't know. we did report in the story that the one aide, samantha dravious, declined to call the attorney generals association, thinking it would be a conflict of interest. today, i know it's hard for everyone, myself included, to keep up with the many investigations, you know, around scott pruitt. to this point, he's been adamant that, you know, his troubles are mainly the result of political opponents or disgruntled employees who are, you know, hout to get him. certainly, he does have a lot of critics.
what we saw in our reporting was his closest aides, some of the people he recruited when he first came to the epa, divulging some of the details you talked about. >> there's another part of your story, that i'm filing just when you thought you heard everything. scott pruitt, using one of his aides to book a hotel room on her own dime. but then what happened? >> well, to our understanding is that he never paid this young aide back who was in her 20s. and another staff member -- >> it was how much? 600 bucks? 800 bucks? >> roughly $600 in this instance. >> young aide, $600, a huge amount of money for them. >> sure. another staff member ended up paying that back. >> wasn't there some money left in a drawer? >> in her desk drawer. >> how -- i guess this is the question everybody has. is it clear to you from your reporting, how is it that he
holds on to his position, with what i guess has to be a record number of ethical investigations going on? >> he has an audience of one. the opinion that matters is president trump's. the president has stood by his epa administrator. we'll see if that continues to be the case. but you know, scott pruitt is very aware that that's the person whose confidence he has to maintain. and that's what he's focused on to this point. >> he was just confronted at a restaurant about these ethical issues. and i want to show you what a woman posted on her facebook page. >> i want to urge you to resign because of what you're doing to the environment in our country. this is my son. he loves animals and air and water. he deserves to have somebody at epa who actually does protect
our environment, somebody who believes in climate change and takes it seriously, to guard it for all of us, including our children. i urge you to resign before your scandals push you out. >> you cover environmental policy. are all of these ethical and legal questions taking away from what people like that mom see is real problem here, rolling back rules on toxic chemicals, rules regarding the ocean? >> they're taking attention away, even as we continue and others continue to try to cover the policies that are being put in place, at epa. i should say, the policies that are being rolled back because it's mainly deregulation we're seeing these days at the epa. that's still going on. i mean, scott pruitt has been aggressive about that. the personal problems haven't slowed that down. >> brady dennis, from "the washington post,." thank you so much. thanks for having me. don't be surprised if one democrat supports the supreme court nominee.
three democrats confirmed neil gorsuch. one of them was joe manchin. what his constituents want in a new justice. i was just finishing a ride. i felt this awful pain in my chest. i had a pe blood clot in my lung. i was scared. i had a dvt blood clot. having one really puts you in danger of having another. my doctor and i chose xarelto®. xarelto®. to help keep me protected. xarelto® is a latest-generation blood thinner that's... proven to treat and reduce the risk of dvt or pe blood clots from happening again. in clinical studies, almost 98% of patients on xarelto® did not experience another dvt or pe. xarelto® works differently. warfarin interferes with at least 6 of your body's natural blood-clotting factors. xarelto® is selective, targeting just one critical factor. don't stop taking xarelto® without talking to your doctor, as this may increase risk of blood clots. while taking, you may bruise more easily, or take longer for bleeding to stop. xarelto® can cause serious, and in rare cases, fatal bleeding. it may increase your risk of bleeding if you take certain medicines.
get help right away for unexpected bleeding or unusual bruising. do not take xarelto® if you have an artificial heart valve or abnormal bleeding. before starting, tell your doctor about all planned medical or dental procedures and any kidney or liver problems. learn all you can... to help protect yourself from another dvt or pe. talk to your doctor about xarelto®.
and announced the winners on her website. that's good stuff and it wraps up this hour. coming up, more news with hallie jackson. hey, there. >> chris, thank you. i'm hallie jackson in washington, where the short list is getting shorter and the stakes could not be higher. president trump interviews more potential supreme court justices. four down, a few more to go. we'll tell you what you should know about the top few candidates and what our new polling out today shows what americans want when it comes to the critical question of what happens to roe v. wade. we're serving up your tuesday edition of swamp watch. scott pruitt reportedly pumping big-league friends to get his wife a job, one that paid hundreds of thousands of dollars a year. "the washington post" reporter who had that scoop joins us. and the 12 missing soccer players and their coach, found alive, incredible news, followed