tv MSNBC Live MSNBC August 25, 2018 1:00pm-2:00pm PDT
that's it for me. i'm david gura, i'll be back tomorrow and follow me on @ david gura and the news continues with david louie. >> thank you, my friend. a law that msnbc, thanks for sticking around. ahead this hour, what is in that safe? speculation grows following a report that "national enquirer" kept a safe with secret documents that revealed potentially damaging information about president trump ahead of the 2016 election. trump versus sessions. president trump launches more attacks on his attorney general. questioning his loyalty and
character. indicting a president. the arguments for and against filing charges if it is determined that president trump committed a crime. we'll start this hour with some new reaction for you from stormy daniels' attorney michael avenatti. to this week's bombshell, associated press report that the "national enquirer" kept a safe with documents about hush money payments and damaging stories that it then killed about donald trump leading up to the 2016 election. now michael avenatti spoke to joy reid this morning, speculating here on what might be inside that safe. >> plenty of damaging information, joy. i think it is a treasure trove of documents and evidence relating to the extent that michael cohen and donald trump went to cover up facts, to hide facts from the american people, in connection with the 2016 election. >> do you think this is mostly about paying women off. >> is there there is no question. >> and this is as "national enquirer" david pecker and long
tief cfo allen wiselberg were granted immunity for information in the michael cohen case. cohen's lawyer accused him of breaking campaign finance law. and let's go to john franery and former federal prosecutor for the southern district of new york and former special counsel to the senate committee. and barbara, immunity. and this is the cohen case specifically. but it doesn't come in one flavor, right? what sort of the range that we might consider in terms of what these two are granted when it comes to immunity and in other words not conflating cooperation with the idea of immunity. >> yes. immunity does come in a number of different forms. there is one that is called use immunity that is negotiated between the parties and you work out an agreement that you won't use a person's statements against them in exchange for
information. that could be drafted as a contract, and you could agree on the scope of what that immunity would be and the topics to be covered. and the other is transactional immunity and that means they won't be prosecuted on their own statements orz anything as a result of it. we don't know what we have here but if there is immunity given it means the person -- weisselberg or pecker has given up his fifth amendment right to not incriminate himself and not talk and will talk in exchange for an agreement not to use those statements against him or not to prosecute. so either one of them likely has a lot of great information that could be useful to all of the various investigators who are looking at these financial transactions. >> all investigators here, john flannery. if you are on the trump side right now, you're concerned -- >> do i have to be. >> let's just say you are. >> okay. i'll do it. i'm ready. i can do this. >> go with me on this one. when you hear the different types of immunity, what are you
doing on your side to prepare now based on what the information is that is now released? >> well if i'm on the trump side, i'm very suspicious that the use immunity they conferred on me may have an order and n r nair -- narrow and concerned on the trump side if the people representing the trump position are telling the truth because if they are not, they could be prosecuted for perjury. i'm very suspicious they wanted to have a couple of links nailed down with weisselberg and with pecker. both as to the safe information and as to the information that -- out of the trump organization. i think that it is pretty damning stuff because it opens it up to both campaign officials and other members of the trump organization. in fact, while they identify weisselberg in the cohen play, there is also mention of another trump organization executive that had to sign off on the bogus payments to cohen for the payoff -- the hush-money
payment. and so you have to wonder if that is a trump family member and principal among those the hypothetical is this trump jr. and donald jr. and that seems very likely. but we don't have confirmation of that yet. so if i were in the trump house, i would be very concerned about the fact that we're losing control of the entire thing and what our president did, whatever he said he's done, appears to be something else. >> now it appears here, barbara, just based on the bailiwicks that they each have under them in the organizations, that the cfo and you look at weisselberg, that is where all of the good stuff is if your trying to get something out of cohen here, right? because theoretically the cfo would know a to z in terms of all financial transactions. >> yes. in any white-collar investigation, following the money is important. money tells you about people's motivations and it tells you about illegal activity and
connections between people. and as the person who is in charge of the money, i would think that allen weisselberg has so much information to potentially give in many aspects of the investigation. not solely related to campaign finance violations, but money laundering, working with russian organized crime or any of those things, i think that weisselberg has accessed that information and been the organization since the 1970s and so he is someone who is -- could be potentially very valuable to the investigation. >> he was there during the good times and the bad times and good times and all the way through. so john, do pipe in here. the question might be is can they come after him with immunity just on certain transactions and why would he flip? he's a long time lieutenant of donald trump. >> i doubt that he flipped. i think he was probably compelled within a narrow description of use immunity and this whole other world that we at trump are concerned about is the pecker material.
if they are not a news organization like you are and they are in fact just a political front, all of that is contributions that was concealed was never reported and so forth, so pecker and the ami and of course the enquirer are exposed and the number of stories that michael avenatti is suggesting are there, i think there is a good chance they are legion because of the relation over a long time between trump and mr. pecker. so this is a -- this is a real nightmare from the trump side of the equation, from the prosecutor side of the equation, this is a tet onic drift against the trump organization. >> for both of you, being such smart legal minds here, as you hear this story develop and from us, our perspective as news folks, you hear about a safe kept at the "national enquirer" full of documents and what are they about? hush money payments supposedly, potentially damaging stories that were killed. and so barbara, you must be
saying, this is exactly what i need if i want to move forward in a expeditious way to get something. >> yeah. i think you never count your chickens before they're hatched. there is al cap own's vault and who knows what is inside but i think you could use a grand jury subpoena or a search warrant and see what you have there in the document. s. and documents are useful because they could corroborate the testimony of witnesses. if you get someone like pecker to cooperate or weisselberg then you could use the documents to support their testimony and it could also smitometimes provide road map to other things. >> and we're hearing about the immunity within a 48 hour period and one after other. and john flannery, as we look at the potential investigations, both local and state and federal being discussed, who might be next that will be granted immunity? that might now be in assist of these prosecutors? >> well, i don't know.
i get the feeling from the immunity that was identified, but we don't know the scope in terms of what protection the individuals have, but they have a high motive to get immunity and to cooperate. >> family members? >> exactly. exactly. family members and i would put don jr. at the top of that because there are several different kinds of problems he has. testimony that was contradicted particularly about the june 9th meeting and additional things he did. his dad telling a story that meeting was only about getting adoptions -- russian adoptions back on the calendar. so would say don jr. is in a very bad spot. unrelated, roger stone has exposure. i think in the days ahead, if they decide to do it before labor day, that we could see several important developments come from mueller, i don't know if could see something from the d.a. office in manhattan and it is a state prosecution and the attorney general of new york is
also in a position having looked at the trump -- what do you call it -- the charitable foundation so-called. so there are several things moving and these moving parts would suggest to others this is a time to leave the sinking ship. the ship of state. and maybe we'll restore the republic. >> barbara, who are you watching who might be next or in discussions? jared kushner? >> you know, i don't know. i think that people like jared kushner and donald trump jr. are potentially targets here. so i think that the people who might be getting immunity agreements and be witnesses are probably people whose names we don't know. people who work in the trump organization, or at the enquirer who are the book keepers or lower level assistant or somebody's assistant or secretary because they kept all of the information and typed the letters and knows where they are. so it could be someone like that. so i would expect if there are more immunity agreements it might be somebody's name we don't know yet. >> bottoms up as they make their
way up the pyramid. john flannery, barbara, stay with us. lashing out, the president takes aim at jeff sessions, the fbi and launches new attacks on democrats. (man) managing my type 2 diabetes wasn't my top priority. until i held her. i found my tresiba® reason. now i'm doing more to lower my a1c. i take tresiba® once a day. tresiba® controls blood sugar for 24 hours
for powerful a1c reduction. (woman) we'd been counting down to his retirement. it was our tresiba® reason. he needs insulin to control his high blood sugar and, at his age, he's at greater risk for low blood sugar. tresiba® releases slow and steady and works all day and night like the body's insulin. (vo) tresiba® is a long-acting insulin used to control high blood sugar in adults with diabetes. don't use tresiba® to treat diabetic ketoacidosis, during episodes of low blood sugar, or if you are allergic to any of its ingredients. don't share needles or insulin pens. don't reuse needles. the most common side effect is low blood sugar, which may cause dizziness, sweating, confusion, and headache. check your blood sugar. low blood sugar can be serious and may be life-threatening. injection site reactions may occur. tell your prescriber about all medicines you take and all your medical conditions. taking tzds with insulins like tresiba® may cause serious side effects like heart failure. your insulin dose shouldn't be changed without asking your prescriber. get medical help right away if you have trouble breathing, fast heartbeat, extreme drowsiness, swelling of your face, tongue or throat,
performance and going after his ethics. today the president tweeted, jeff sessions said he wouldn't allow politics to influence him because he doesn't understand what is happening underneath his command position. highly conflicted bob mueller and his gang of 17 angry dems are having a field day as real corruption goes untouched. no collusion. the president also seizing on a clear politics report claiming that the fbi did not examine the vast bulk of e-mails found in the personal laptop used by hillary clinton aide huma abedin and her husband anthony wiener and last night went after the democratic party during a rally for republicans in ohio. take a listen. >> while democrats run down our country, they do -- they run it down. it is always negative. nasty. the way they come after me. get used to it. we won the election and we're going to win again in 2020 and hopefully keep winning. >> let's bring in congressional reporter from the daily beast,
andrew des and jay newton small. jay, the president going back to one of his favorite punching bags today, and that is again the attorney general. and if you're a watcher there in d.c. as both of you are, you look at the calendar of events and go, maybe this is not such a good week for the white house and maybe this might be an expression of that frustration. what do you think, jay? >> well, richard, i think it is absolutely been a terrible week for this white house given michael cohen's guilty plea -- or plea deal and then also manafort guilty of eight different counts. aupd see that in frustration with particularly sessions and that is what he's taking out on sessions here, is this absolute frustration that he feels increasingly cornered, that all of these people are turning -- the justice department and all of these investigations are not breaking his way and people are being found guilty, people are taking plea deals as trump himself on twitter this week said a plea deal is -- should be
illegal because they're just -- they are just lie and say anything in order to get out of whatever evidence held against them and so -- so he's taking it out on all on jeff sessions who is his punching bag on this issue throughout his entire basically tenure as attorney general. and it is striking to me mostly about this week is that you saw a couple of republicans in the senate sort of back up trump and say, you know what, maybe he should pick another attorney general. and that is the first time i've seen the party itself and especially establishment republicans in the senate beginning to say jeff sessions, maybe it is time for to you go and maybe this is getting uncomfortable for not only the president but for the party and we should consider shaking things up. >> and you know, although he's been the punching bag as we've been saying. >> he did fight back. jeff sessions, attorney general, sticking up for himful. >> that is right. and i think up until this week, two things have been consistent.
the first is that the president has lost the confidence of his attorney general. that happened really early on in his presidency. when jeff sessions recused himself from all mart-- mattersg to russian investigation and jeff sessions' allies on capitol hill, he was a senator, have backed him up in this -- this feud with the president and said it would be a bad idea for the president to release him and we saw two top republicans, lindsey graham who could become the next judicial chairman and chuck grassley suggesting the president might be able to -- might have an opening soon rather to dismiss his attorney general. that is not something we've heard from capitol hill ever since this feud first erupted about a year and a half ago between jeff sessions and the president and that is significant. chuck grassley said something along the lines of, well, last year i didn't really have any time to hold hearings on
nominations, meaning a nominee for the new attorney general, and he said this week plainly, he said, yeah, i think i would have time over the next few months for a nomination if that were to arise. so i think it was notable that we heard that from both graham and grassley this week. >> well on that very note, i do want to share what was said by the attorney general just this week in defense of what he's doing as well as department of justice. while i'm attorney general, the actions of the department of justice will not be improperly influenced by political considerations. this in response to the president's interview on network cable tv. so jay, why now on opening and lindsey graham and chuck grassley. are they vying for the job? what is the difference right now and today if you will, than two weeks ago when we weren't hearing such talk from senators in. >> well i think i would be surprised if either wanted that job. i can't imagine many people in american want that job, to stand
between donald trump and bob mueller and tread that fine line. i do think there is -- we should note importantly there is a caveat in what both chuck grassley and lindsey graham are saying and they don't believe this new nomination should come before the mid-term elections so while grassley did say he would have time in his schedule and would have to first wait until the confirmation of brett kavanaugh to the supreme court and then maybe after the -- the actual elections in november they could consider perhaps holding hearings on a new attorney general. but this is clear that this case, that this investigation is yielding incredible fruit. it is actually having huge impacts. and i think you see with michael cohen this spawning other kinds of investigations which are also impearling the president in different ways so the question with michael cohen is can the president now be indicted or now get into trouble or be investigated himself for
directing an illegal activity while a sitting president. so there are other arms of the investigation that goes and goes and there is i sense that it is getting so big that i hear from sources on capitol hill that it has to at some point stop. you can't spend years and year as investigating everybody else for all kinds of different fraud and other things like paul manafort and then the former trump campaign chairman found guilty this week and who has another trial coming up in d.c. over the next couple of weeks. so all of these investigations and trials are just really bad for the party. and they wish they could run on the economy right now. but they can't. because everything is being sucked out of the -- all of the oxygen is sucked out of the room with the investigations. >> and andrew, since jay did bring up kavanaugh, it looks like this will happen. democrats -- at least at this point are unable in the senate to stop him being from confirmed but is that then potentially the reason as to why they are discussing a new attorney general? because you could get kavanaugh
through and the democrats can't stop then and a new attorney general they could get through and that democrats can't stop them. >> right. that is exactly -- that is exactly true, richard and it is important to note that democrats in the minority have very few options at their disposal to stop brett kavanaugh given that they are in the minority. but i want to note here when it comes to confirming a new attorney general, i have talked to top republican senators who have acknowledged they can't confirm a replacement now and won't be able to any time over the next few months at the least because you'll see a wall of opposition among democrats and then especially with the situation with senate john mccain, we don't know when there is a replacement seat there and the main question that is going to be asked of a potential new attorney general is would you recuse yourself from russia-related matters just like jeff sessions did? i don't think president trump would appoint someone to be attorney general who would recuse himself. this is a key sticking point for
folks looking to support oro pose this potential next attorney general. so i think there -- a lot of complications and problems that republican senators realize with the idea of confirming a new attorney general. >> andrew and jay, you both have a good saturday. thanks. >> thank you. pardon power. that is what is next. new reporting that president trump could ignore top advisers and go ahead and start handing out pardons to associates accused of crimes. i'm a fighter. always have been. when i found out i had age-related macular degeneration, amd, i wanted to fight back. my doctor and i came up with a plan. it includes preservision. only preservision areds 2 has the exact nutrient formula recommended by the national eye institute
enter your destination and the dates of your stay. tripadvisor searches over 200 booking sites... to find the best deal on the right hotel for you. tripadvisor. ♪ as moms, we send our kids out into the world, full of hope. and we don't want something like meningitis b getting in their way. meningococcal group b disease, or meningitis b, is real. bexsero is a vaccine to help prevent meningitis b in 10-25 year olds. even if meningitis b is uncommon, that's not a chance we're willing to take. meningitis b is different from the meningitis most teens were probably vaccinated against when younger. we're getting the word out against meningitis b. our teens are getting bexsero. bexsero should not be given if you had a severe allergic reaction after a previous dose. most common side effects are pain, redness or hardness at the injection site; muscle pain; fatigue; headache; nausea; and joint pain. bexsero may not protect all individuals. tell your healthcare professional if you're pregnant or if you have received any other meningitis b vaccines.
i feel badly for both. i must tell you that manafort is a good man, he was with ronald reagan and a lot of different people over the years and i feel very sad about that. it doesn't involve me, but i still feel -- it is a very sad thing that happened. this has nothing to do with russian collusion. >> president trump praising his former campaign chair paul manafort after his conviction on eight counts of tax and bank fraud. on twitter trump called manafort a brave man because he refused to break, unlike michael cohen. trump has not ruled out a pardon for manafort. politico reports that
administration expects him to do so against their advice. joining us now, usa "today" aliza ray and barbara back as well. and i guess it is pardon watch. what are we hearing and seeing? issing this going to happen this week. >> you never know with president trump. if you are starting to hear leaks out of the white house that aides believe it will happen, i think there is at least conversation, the president is leading them to believe that they wouldn't be leaking that if they didn't have any expectations it would happen. on capitol hill republicans are very concerned about this happening. they don't feel like the manafort and coen guilty verdic verdicts helped them and they don't want to talk them or defend a presidential pardon when manafort -- a jury found him guilty on eight counts. so republicans are really hoping this doesn't happen, but the tact that the white house is now kind of leaking this out means
the president very well might do it. >> testing the waters. and barbara, is a pardon -- would a pardon of manafort be considered potentially as obstruction of justice? >> well, it could be. standing alone, no. but in the context of this investigation, it could be. you would need evidence that the president is acting with a corrupt intent and that could be very difficult to prove. but the timing of it, when manafort's cooperation would be valuable to robert mueller does seem suspect. but the president's power to grant a pardon is very broad. we saw it with joe arpaio and others who have been pardoned in a very unconventional way. this is sort of the difference between the law and the norms. the law is that the pardon power is unlimited for federal cases and the norm is the president takes it to the justice department and the office of pardon and a five-year waiting period occurs after they are released from prison so to see
they are getting along with a law-abiding life but president trump turned that on his head and he could do it again in this instance and unless you could prove it was done with a corrupt intense, it is difficult to call it obstruction of justice but in the context of all of the other things going on with the russia investigation, would you think that it could be one factor among many in a pattern. >> a pattern and now that the discussion of how that decision was made in terms of manafort and who was on the jury. paula duncan, a juror and trump supporter, by the way and she said in this interview with cnn that she had -- she had a make america great again hat in her car every day but when asked about the idea of a pardon. let's listen to her. >> how would you feel if the president pardoned manafort? >> i feel it would be a grave mistake for president trump to pardon manafort. >> why? >> justice was done.
the evidence was there. and that is where it should stop. >> so aliza, i know we had another report out from cook and the political report out and we're trying to read through the tea leaves. what will trump voters think about the investigations when you see that trump supporter who is on the jury say what she said, what is your reaction? >> well you certainly might have more trump supporters like her but the truth is trump's base is very strong. they support the president, they feel that this is a witch hunt as he says and he's done a really good job of making this -- speaking to them that people are out to get him. the justice department is out to get him. might be a little different because a jury is technically people's peers but again the president has talked specifically to his base here and so far they've stood by him. now this sort of center of the electorate or the independent or soft republicans, that is who might really be turned off and that is who republicans are
particularly worried about because they need to hold on to the voters to have any chance of keep pg the house. >> and just looking through the pardons by the president so far in his year and a half in office. joe arpaio one of them. christian saucia and scooter libby. some of those pardoned or provided commutations for. is there any thread that you could put through the history of what he's done so far? >> well, one of the things that stands out is that he is not used it in a traditional way which is a measure of forgiveness for people who have turned their lives around. he's instead trying to use it in a way to make the point people were treated unfairly. and this cast dispersions on prosecutors in general and the special counsel in particular because he believes that he's being treated very unfairly about the special counsel so i
worry that he is just -- sort of grooming the public that that is an appropriate use for the pardon. but when he speaks in defense of paul manafort, this is somebody convicted by a jury of eight felony counts. some people steal money with guns and other people steal with lies and that is what paul manafort did and he's a convicted felony and a pardon is offensive to anybody who considers justice in law and order. >> and is congress on the hill, aliza, any sort of energy that will say president trump please be careful when you use pardons? >> well, the way lawmakers interact with the president is very interesting. they have found that going public and saying something like that is actually very in ---in eeffective and working through white house aides is the better way to handle. it you will see republicans shut it down by saying he wouldn't do that.
that wouldn't be smart. >> is that it -- >> that is as far as they go. yes. because he'll see them on tv saying that and the real lobbying is done behind closed door and that is the most effective way to communicate with the president. >> aliza collins, barbara mcquaid, have a good weekend. thank you. >> thanks. >> you bet. following a national trend. nevada is in the midst of a history-making wave of women running for office. that could be just the beginning of a rapidly changing political landscape. plus. >> plus -- what would it take for the doj to indict a sitting president. alright, i brought in new max protein
to find the hotel you want for the lowest price. dates. deals. done! tripadvisor. and if you get lost, just hit me on the old horn. man: tom's my best friend, but ever since he bought a new house... tom: it's a $10 cover? oh, okay. didn't see that on the website. he's been acting more and more like his dad. come on, guys! jump in! the water's fine! tom pritchard. how we doin'? hi, there. tom pritchard. can we get a round of jalapeño poppers for me and the boys, please? i've been saving a lot of money with progressive lately, so... progressive can't protect you from becoming your parents. but we can protect your home and auto when you bundle with us.
a wave of women. we've heard that term before as more and more first-time female candidates run for office across the country. on the federal level, a record 200 women are nominated for seats in the house of representatives. that is a headline. we're also seeing it on the state level. nevada, for instance, is on track right now to become the first state to have a female majority legislature. nbc news capitol hill reporter leann caldwell spoke to the candidates there in the great state of nevada. and leann, what did you find in terms of this potential history-making year? >> hey, richard. what we found is that the enthusiasm for women is really great there. we focused on nevada because it is one of the few states that have the opportunity to hit this
threshold. it is tied with arizona and vermont to have the -- about 40% of women in the legislature currently, but nevada had their primary and a lot of women won those primaries and they have a great chance of winning in the general election and so they are -- they really could meet this -- or break this barrier. what we also found is that there was the trump factor. most definitely a lot of women that we talked to said that the president was a major factor in them deciding to jump into the race. we have one candidate, julie pezzina running for state senate and she said the divisiveness in 2016 is one of the reasons she decided to get in and if not now, then when. there is also another candidate that we spoke to, her name is lisa romanov and it is the epitome of the environment.
she's running against a self-proclaimed pimp, a brothel owner, he calls himself the trump for par rump and this is the area he represents and women are excited for her and saying, can we -- you have to win. we want anyone but him. but i also want to note that it is not just women who are making these greatin roads across nevada and in the country. a record number of minorities and muslim-americans running for office and a record number of transgender americans running for office as well. so it is -- it is going to be quite -- it could be quite a record-breaking year. >> is that what you are seeing there in the state of nevada, many women are either latino, asian or transgender? >> so there is one candidate who is a native american and she would be the first native american to represent -- to be elected in nevada. there is other latino
candidates. there is lgbtq candidates. i didn't come across a transgender one but it is beyond just white women who are running. it is very diverse. >> that swing state very diverse state and that is why it is interesting to see that break down. leighain caldwell, we'll be watching because of what you just told us. thank you. and now to what is still an open question in the mueller investigation? can a sitting president be indicted? well the justice department has issued a few memos over the years with guidance. and we looked into them. the first one in 1973 from the doj office of legal council among the richard nixon scandal and it said it would damage the institution of the presidency to the same extent as an actual conviction. there is another memo we looked at. that same year from the office of the solicitor general echoing the same sentiment and added
that the vice president can be indicted because it would not be as disruptive to the country. then in 1998, with bill clinton in the white house, the office of the independent council determined that a sitting president could be indicted in a civil case. distinguishing it from a criminal case by noting that civil proceedings are easier to schedule and therefore less disruptive to the presidency. take you to 2000. the doj reaffirmed the original 1973 memo suggesting that a sitting president cannot be indicted. well, the u.s. code of federal regulations does have a process in place. should special counsel robert mueller decide here to request that president trump be indicted. now if mueller decides to do that, and he claims what is called extraordinary circumstances, that have compelled him to indict a sitting president, he must then get approval of the attorney general. or in this case, the deputy attorney general rod rosenstein
because as you know, sessions has recused himself of this special investigation. now if rod rosenstein does not approve, he's required, mueller, to inform congress and they could decide whether or not to bring articles of impeachment. that is some of the -- what we understand for the path to indictment should happen. corruption and the president. we have new polling that shows his supporters do not believe he is corrupt. even as the russia investigation closes in on members of his inner circle. what the president supporters fear most.
how's your family? kayak. search one and done. so many d.c. watchers say it is a rough week for the president. two of his top associates were found guilty of serious crimes and two others were granted immunity by prosecutors. but even if several of the president's former associates face criminal charges, his supporters are standing by him. there is a recent poll that found 70% of republicans say the president is not corrupt. and this week's developments likely will not change their minds. peter binart points out that what they fear most is not the corruption of american law but the corruption of america's
identity which they believe trump is defending and stands for. joining me now jim stand and in his new book it is about the corruption of purity rather than the law. and julie wig-in ski and michael singleton. jason, you're book is about to come out and you lay out ten principles or pillars. >> yes. >> what do you think is most relevant to understand that which i began this segment with? that despite all of this flurry above, that which remains that supporters of this president -- or many supporters of the president say we still aren't go -- are still going to support him and he will be good for us. >> and many of his supporters view him as the law and order president which is another inversion of the terms. so there is a certain kind of
playbook here that anti-democratic politicians run across the world. you find all of the governments or bond in hungary running anti-corruption campaigns even though they are very corrupt. but corruption there -- what you do is you denounce the democratic system as corrupt. the democratic system itself is corrupt and your own corruption is evidence that you're the man to take it on. >> so are you saying that the president is saying that the democratic institutions are corrupt themselves? >> i think that that is the playbook and i leave it to the viewers to see if he's denouncing the deep state and the institutions as corrupt. >> sher michael, how would you react to that just laying out one of the pillars that our author jason stanley put out for us. >> i think professor stanley is correct and i did read the article that cites his book. i think there are two different groups that have sustained the bad behavior, bad leadership
qualities of president trump and as it related to the voters and not necessarily republicans in office, i would call them the conformers and i believe they would continue to support the president even if his behavior may be antithetical to their morals or even if his actions are different, and they do believe that their livelihood is at risk, is threatened of being diminished. why so many in the rust belt continue to support the president. why? because they believe that he will continue to protect their religious liberties. if you are in the rust belt you believe he will bring the jobs back, and they continue to support him because of those things. >> what we have seen, julie, is what the president tried to stay on course with, issues related to immigration and to the
economy, right? the tax plan included. this is for you, at least that's what the administration is saying and perhaps that is what these supporters are watching and all this other stuff flowing above in washington, d.c. is that which the president is framing as this stuff that happens in d.c. >> the world has been transformed through technology, and if you look at what trump's shro slogan was from the beginning, make america great again, it's that there was a simpler time when there was a more ordered world that they understood, when manufacturing was strong, and you worked at the same company until you retired for 30 or 40 years, and that world no longer exists. not for any other reason other than technological and automated advances, but to them that's what they are terrified of, the brave new world we all entered
into, and they see him as the only bull work against strauping progress, and stop the progress of the capital progress, but progress we made technologically and every other way. there's nothing donald trump can do to make them break with him. he's right, he can shoot somebody on fifth avenue and they would stand by him. >> just to push back on what we are all saying here, is it too early to really know how voters and supporters of donald trump, despite all these investigations going on, is it too early? we don't really have data yet, and we should wait until this november to really understand the effindicationess of this. >> democracy is about
compromise, compromise between different interests groups. what happens in anti-democratic moments anti-democratic politicians recognize it as plowing through principles not shared by everybody and refusing to compromise and they represent compromise as corruption, and that is, of course, a per version of democracy. >> we are trying to discuss where we are at, and any other potential candidate here. michael, you could not help but look at the political reports in the house overview and they are guessing 25 to 35 is the hot spot in terms of the number of seats that will go for the democrats, which means the balance of power will be in the "d" column after november. >> i do predict that will occur, richard. democrats only need 23 seats in
the house to take control. history is on their side and it has only been three times in our history since the 1930s that the party of the president in charge actually gained. with that said, even if they take control of the house, i predict a complete stalemate in congress, meaning the house and the senate. >> you mean things are not going to change? >> i don't think anything will change. it's been difficult, richard, imagine with the president trying to pass comprehensive immigration and other comprehensive policy initiatives, and republicans control the house and imagine how more difficult it will be with democrats controlling the house. they have no mandate to work with the republicans or the president and then you have senators that have their own factions to deal with within the republican caucus that also have issues with donald trump, so come 2020 the american people will look at trump and say the economy did okay, but as far as policy you have not led us in a direction you promised and they may decide to go in a different
direction. that's a realistic possibility. >> the beltway is not the right place to look for voters are reacting to our current time. we were discussing a moment ago here, julie, with leeann caldwell, and how the house may swing the majority of women. >> donald trump has about 36 or 37% approval that will be with him. the question is when the economy is going gang busters and jobs are being created because of the previous administration, and i think mike made a point that said his entire fate rests, really, with the economy. that's why you see him taking shots at the chairman of the fed who is his appointee, and when the economy turns as the economy always turns, and he better hope it doesn't happen before 2020, because the people that were
promised jobs by him and to bring back manufacturing in the midwest and in the rust belt, that's not -- if that doesn't happen i predict even some of the supporters who are diehard cultists will say this is not what we signed up for. >> thank you all three. your book is going to be released soon. >> september. >> thank you all. in our next hour for you, the new romantic comedy, "crazy rich asians" is lighting up the box office, but some say the movie is missing the mark. the big thing critics say the film left out. rushed into booking one. that's why we created expedia's add-on advantage. now after booking your flight, you unlock discounts on select hotels right until the day you leave. ♪ add-on advantage. discounted hotel rates when you add on to your trip.
only when you book with expedia. when it comes to strong bones, are you on the right path? we have postmenopausal osteoporosis and a high risk for fracture, so with our doctors we chose prolia® to help make our bones stronger. only prolia® helps strengthen bones by stopping cells that damage them with 1 shot every 6 months. do not take prolia® if you have low blood calcium, are pregnant, are allergic to it, or take xgeva®. serious allergic reactions, like low blood pressure; trouble breathing; throat tightness; face, lip or tongue swelling, rash, itching or hives have happened. tell your doctor about dental problems, as severe jaw bone problems may happen or new or unusual pain in your hip, groin, or thigh, as unusual thigh bone fractures have occurred. speak to your doctor before stopping prolia®, as spine and other bone fractures have occurred. prolia® can cause serious side effects, like low blood calcium; serious infections, which could need hospitalization; skin problems; and severe bone, joint, or muscle pain. if your bones aren't getting stronger
isn't it time for a new direction? why wait? ask your doctor about prolia. and i'm still going for my best even though i live with a higher risk of stroke due to afib not caused by a heart valve problem. so if there's a better treatment than warfarin, i'm up for that. eliquis. eliquis is proven to reduce stroke risk better than warfarin. plus has significantly less major bleeding than warfarin. eliquis is fda-approved and has both. so what's next? seeing these guys. don't stop taking eliquis unless your doctor tells you to, as stopping increases your risk of having a stroke. eliquis can cause serious and in rare cases fatal bleeding. don't take eliquis if you have an artificial heart valve or abnormal bleeding. while taking eliquis, you may bruise more easily and it may take longer than usual for any bleeding to stop. seek immediate medical care for sudden signs of bleeding, like unusual bruising. eliquis may increase your bleeding risk if you take certain medicines. tell your doctor about all planned medical or dental procedures.