tv MSNBC Live With Stephanie Ruhle MSNBC March 5, 2019 6:00am-7:00am PST
do think that people often vote also based on the material realities of their lives. and so i do think that there is a particular form of messaging that helps working class people of all backgrounds. i do think that the democrats need to promote that message better in a particular way. in other words, i argue in the book that policies that hurt white americans also hurt everybody else and we can flip that and make policies that are better for people. but i would also say that i think we're in a hard moment to talk about race but ultimately we need to have a much more broad conversation about whiteness. we can't just let donald trump define what it means to be white. there needs to be pushback on this point about race in america. >> the boo is being "dying of whiteness: how politics of racial resentment is killing america's heartland." thank you. say hi to everybody at vanderbilt for me. >> thank you. >> that does it for us this m k morning. >> hello, i'm chris jansing. this morning, construction, obstruction and abuse of power.
house democrats launching a sweeping investigation into president trump and dozens of his associates. sending requests for documents to 81 people and organizations from every corner of trump's world including donald trump jr. and jared kushner. >> our job is to protect the rule of law in this country. that means abuse of power, attacks on the press and judiciary and attacks on law enforcement agencies and obstruction of justice. >> blocking the emergency exit. senate majority leader mitch mcconnell confirming there are enough votes in the chamber to overturn president trump's emergency declaration to build the wall. another sign that president's grip on his own party is slipping. >> i will vote for the motion to disapprove of this. and i will continue to speak out. i do believe that there is at least 10 republican no votes. and hanging up. reports the nsa is quietly
ending the controversial program that collects americans' phone and text records. we begin today with the head of the house judiciary committee casting a very wide net calling for documents prodozens of current and former white house officials from trump family members even wikileaks and the nra. the president tweeting this morning that democrats have gone and i'm quoting him here, "stone cold crazy." i've got a great team to help me break it down. but first, let's break down what we've learned. the judiciary committee is spearheading one of six congressional investigations happening in the house. but it's the only committee, of course that, can initiate impeachment proceedings. last night chairman jerry nadler said what he is looking into and it's a lot. >> we have to look at the three major threats of the rule of law that we've seen and that is corruption, personal enrichment and violation of the clause. it means abuse of power, attacks on the press, attacks on the
judiciary, attacks on law enforcement agencies and obstruction of justice, interference with the various investigation that's are going on. >> he also said that his investigation is different from the ones being run by robert mule eastern the sdny. listen. >> our job is very different from other law enforcement agencies. the special prosecutor has a specific mandate to investigate only the russian interference with the election and possible collusion by the trump administration or anybody wels that interference with the election and only to look at crimes. the southern district of new york also only looks at crimes. we have to look at a much broader question. our job is to protect the rule of law. >> a committee council told nbc take a check of what we reported, that the goal for judiciary is to he maget a treasure-trove of evidence as the foundation for the investigation. initially that included document
requests to more than 150 people but ultimately those requests went out to just 81. but it includes a who's who of the most notable people connected to president trump and his business and campaign. for example, the president's oldest sons, eric and don jr. are on the list and so is jared kushner, all of the men targeted by robert mueller including paul manafort, michael cohen, roger stone, even the fbi and the nra are named. but two notable names not on that list, former chief of staff john kelly and the president's daughter ivanka trump. the judiciary committee is also requesting documents from the white house. now press secretary sarah sanders initially issued a statement saying only that the request had been received and they would respond at the appropriate time. took just a few hours though and the president was asked about the judiciary committee. here's that exchange. >> are you going to cooperate with mr. nadler?
>> i cooperate all the time with everybody. and you know the beautiful thing, no collusion. it's all a hoax. you'll learn about that as you grow older. it's a political hoax. there's no collusion. there is -- folks go, and eat. >> so pretty familiar, pretty calm reserved response. but then contrast that with the borderline statement that came from the white house after 9:00 p.m. it reads in part, "today chairman nadler opened a disgraceful and abusive investigation into tired, false allegations. chairman nadler and fellow democrats embarked on this fishing expedition because they're terrified that two year false narrative of russia collusion is crumbling. the democrats are more interested in pathetic political games and catering to a radical leftist base than producing results for our citizens. the democrats are not after the truth. they are after the president." i want to bring in ken delany
who covers national security for nbc news. so let's just say we take from that statement that the white house is not happy with the documents. do they have a choice though of whether or not to comply, ken? >> the reality is the white house has a lot of ways at their disposal to resist the requests. so when you see former white house officials on this list like former chief of staff or former spokesman sean spicer, you can expect the white house will assert executive privilege and resist document requests regarding those people and things that happened in the white house and they can be successful in that. there was a case in the obama administration, the fast and furious scandal, it took six years for a judge to rule on a house subpoena there. obama was out of office. it's actually hard to enforce a congressional subpoena. that said, many of the people on this list are private individuals, unconnected to the white house. congress is likely to be much more successful to get documents
from those people and the robert mueller investigation and the sdny may have obtained manufacture the documents that the judiciary committee is seeking. and so they may have more success in getting those documents from law enforcement agencies at the end of the day. this is the beginning of the fight not the end. and judiciary probably, you know, set out a broad list of targets knowing they may get a small percentage of the documents they're seeking here. >> just the beginning. ken, thank you for. that i want to bring in my panel. partner at a local law firm and has experience representing white house employees during clinton scandals. mia wiley for social justice at the news school and msnbc legal analyst. christine quinn, vice chair of the democratic party. so let's start with the legal part of this, jeff. you've been on the inside of these kinds of investigations. a very wide net is being cast, gathering a huge amount of evidence and then determining the direction of the
investigation. do you think that jerry adler is going about this in the right way? >> what he is doing is really investigating first. he hasn't said anything about any impeachment proceedings. he's going to gather the evidence. he's doing exactly what a house oversight committee is entitled to do under the constitution. so he gathers the evidence and most of these documents have already been turned over either to mueller or to the southern district, for example. and so executive privilege will be raised by some people but most of the people on this list and it's an extensive list will have to produce the documents. >> so you're confident that sounds like that most of the people will indeed have to cough these up? >> absolutely. in fact, if they don't, they'll be subpoenaed and fought in court. executive privilege is not extensive completely when it involves a criminal investigation. >> so i think it's worth saying this, we say it every day.
but impeachment is a political process. i want to read what the president tweeted less than an hour ago. "now that they realize the only collusion with russia was done by crooked hillary clinton & the democrats, nadler and schiff and the dem heads have gone crazy. innoce letters sent to innocent people to harass thiem. they won't get anything done for our country." how do they keep this from looking like a phishing x expedition. >> you can't stay that donald trump hasn't seen the pond. there is a number of public details and facts that demonstrate it's far from some kind of abuse of their own authority, right? remember, they're coming out of a congress in which they were trying to issue subpoenas or ask for witnesses where when the republicans were in the majority
they refused. so there's a little bit of a creation of a political problem by the lack of bipartisanship from the previous congress here if we're honest. that said, you know, i do think jerry nadler is completely within his rights. and there is a legitimate question about how do you parse the amount of work across the committees? in other words, so many of these investigations are overlapping. how do you make sure you're doing it in a way that neither interfears with t interferes with the criminal investigations outside of congress and how you navigate the fact you have multiple committees overlapping in the things that they're requesting. >> yeah. if you're looking at do we have something here that is really an impeachable offense, the second part of that question is can we convince the american people this is an impeachable offense? so does this become a question of not just building a case brick by brick by brick but look
teg publ looking at the public polling. >> we're in the thick of this. they have cast a net that is appropriately wide to get the information to see what happened. they are not concluding what the information says before they get it. >> but the statements they have made even as they say we're not ready to say this is about impeachment, there are some members of congress who are. but even they're saying they're seeing signs that there was criminal behavior. >> they're saying that there are signs to lead them to want more information. i think it's important because the democrats who are in leadership and in leadership of these committees have not drawn a conclusion that they're on the road to impeachment. some of them are getting, you know, political pushback on that from parts of the democratic party. but they're appropriately deliberate and going at one step at a time. other members of congress have their own opinion.
but we're talking about those who will lead the investigations not having taken a position in advance. and that's important because there is political pressure on them. in the case of chair nadler, tv and radio commercials out there trying to push him to get ahead of himself and he's not yielding to that which is a demonstration of leadership and sincerity in the process. >> we have the president's two oldest sons. we know he has drawn a line where his family is concerned, where his personal business is concerned. the committee wants documents related to conversations about michael flynn, sean spicer's resignation, the contact with james comey, jeff sessions recusal. but the trump brothers have never been part of the white house. they run the company. so what do you make of that? >> remember when donald jr. went to the house intelligence committee and he said he couldn't answer a question because of attorney-client privilege and he claimed he had the relationship with his father
because an attorney was in the room when he had this conversation. i don't think that will stand up in court. i think you'll see don jr. and eric trump resist along the lines and find some sort of, you know, shoot for the moon legal strategy to say oh, yes, we have executive privilege, too. but at the end of the day, they don't. ivanka not being subpoenaed was very smart. i think we're seeing through chairman nadler the public relations game. this is a pr trial. >> so as a pr move, why don't you get her documents? >> several people subpoenaed will incite exclusive privilege. but you'll see other people such as trump organization employees, they're going to have to turn over documents. there's no way about it. but then it gives democrats the ability to stay on the next public relations front what are they hiding from the people claiming executive privilege. once that fight is going
through, then they hit ivanka with the subpoena. that's the big one. she is portrayeds through the press the favorite child k. do no wrong. she's brilliant, amazing. and when you hit ivanka, then you know it's starting to get serious. it's bawl bringing the public along slowly to whether or not they can support impeachment. >> so, jeff, when you look at all the layers of this and how extensive it is, how does the white house legal people pivot from dealing with what you could argue is a limited scope in the mueller investigation to the massive scope six investigations going on all at once? i mean, i know that they've been beefing up their white house staff. but do you need a medium size law firm to really get a handle o thn? you wa on this? you want to be ahead of it, right? >> they beefed up and brought on a lot of attorneys to deal with this. but the investigations are not just coming from the hill. it's coming from the southern district. it's coming from the new york state attorney general's office. its coming from mueller. and when the white house comes out and says the investigation is crumbling, it's no the near
crumbling. in fact, these investigations are all live investigations. they will have to bulk up in terms of who they utilize to review the documents. >> so we just got a new tweet from the president which shows you, you can read the level of how irritated he's getting, right, by the amount that comes out a lot of times. he's calling it now the greatest overreach in the history of our country. now it's a big fat fishing expedition and that's what the dems are doing. >> can you do that? >> we say that every day with this president. >> so i want to go to -- fascinating interview, if you saw it last night with jerry nadler. he expects to have the former acting attorney general mat whitaker back to testify about allegations the president wanted him to lean on sdny.
how significant is that? >> pretty significant. again, you're talking about a congress that has the question about whether you have a sitting president abusing presidential authority. if he is trying to interfere in crimes by obstructing the acting attorney general to tell the southern district what to do and not to do that, is a clear abuse of his power as president, particularly when it is designed to protect his business interests. >> i want to -- we have 30 seconds left. nbc exclusive revealing last night a $70,000 check, a copy of it, that president had allegedly promised to michael cohen, reimbursement for the hush money payments and cohen got in february of 2017. does this damage the argument that the president was not personally involved in authorizing these payments? >> of course it does.
>> that is laughable. you see a check made to michael cohen. there is no way that he didn't know what was going on. and don jr. signed it. >> right. >> it's impossible to think that no one knew. >> and multiple people close to the familiar ly inside the organization says nothing happens without him knowing. >> that puts don jr. into the pattern of a co-conspirator. he signed the check. if he had knowledge it was done to do something that is a campaign finance violation, he is clearly right in the middle of it. >> and a conspiracy. >> you know, with the president saying that the nadler investigation is the biggest one in history. someone ought to give him a class about the mccarthy hearings and the trumped up lies. >> thanks to both of you. coming up, a new report says that the nsa has discreetly pushed aside the program and
the matters.ar... introducing the all-new 2019 ford ranger, it's the right gear. with a terrain management system for... this. a bash plate for... that. an electronic locking rear differential for... yeah... this. heading to the supermarket? get any truck. heading out here? get the ford ranger. the only adventure gear built ford tough. so let's promote our spring ftravel deals, on choicehotels.com like this: (sneezes) earn one free night when you stay just twice this spring. allergies.
or.. badda book. badda boom. book now at choicehotels.com. all of you. how you live, what you love. that's what inspired us to create america's most advanced internet. internet that puts you in charge. that protects what's important. it handles everything, and reaches everywhere. this is beyond wifi, this is xfi.
simple. easy. awesome. xfinity, the future of awesome. so there's a big and unexpected debate over a surveillance program that analyzed americans' phone calls, text messages, it was initiated first as an anti-terror move. but now a senior aide to house minority leader kevin mccarthy revealed to a podcast that the
trump administration hasn't even used the program in six months. the practice initially exposed by edward snowden and replaced by the freedom act of 2015 sparked national debate about citizens' privacy versus security. now here's the rub. the program is set to expire this year and "the new york times" reports that trump administration might just let it go. so joining me now, national security and legal reporter for "the new york times" and msnbc contributor charlie savage. okay. charlie, great story. so let's go back to when the practice was exposed in 2013. there was this huge national debate about privacy versus thwarting potential terror attacks. but the same party that promotes itself as more hard line in combatting terrorism may now let the program expire. so what's going on? >> so this program is to remind viewers this was evolved over time but the basic idea is the
government has access to logs, records of everyone's phone calls and text messages. and it uses that to as a social network essentially when it learns of a number that might be associated with a terrorism suspect. it looks at everyone who has been in contact with that number and everyone who has been in contact with other people, they can hop out and then hunting for hidden associates of known terrorism suspects. it's a program that has the potential to tell the government a lot of private information about people. we don't think it ever thwarted a terrorist attack in practice. when revealed by edward snowden, it was about the rule of law and something the government is permitted to do. now the reformed version of the program has to be reauthorized at the end of this year or the legal authority for it ends. and the revelation here is that actually the program hasn't been
working. it hasn't even been turned on since some time last summer. we knew last summer the nsa deleted the entire data base of hundreds of millions of records of americans' communications because of problems and it now what we're learning is they never been able to fix that. the question is should we turn back on something that we have been living with without for quite a long time? is this really necessary? and it's very interesting that it's the trump administration. they haven't made a final decision as i understand it about whether to ask congress to just let this go. but -- >> i want to talk about specifically how this got let go. because you discuss this aide, luke murphy, he said -- murray, why it was suspended in the first place. technical irregularities con tam
dat contaminated the data base with message logs they had no authority to collect. i want to make sure i understand and our viewers understand, this was a tech problem they didn't fix rather than a philosophical or national security decision that we don't need this anymore? >> well, i think it's kind of both. it turns out to be extremely hard to make this thing work. it looks like it was the problem is more on the telecom side than on the nsa side. the companies are sending more information and they're supposed to and that contaminates the system and has, you know, replicating effects when they go to look back at the second hop of numbers. but they have been working on it as i understand it for a long time, trying to make it work and it's expending a huge amount of engineering resources and the value they're getting from this program has always been questionable. one of the things that came out after revealed in the post
snowden aftermath was that in more than ten years of having this extraordinary power, this program had never stopped a single terrorist attack. and so the question is the value versus the effort in trying to make it a very difficult thing work. >> charlie savage, the report is in the "new york times." thank you so much. meantime, the president's grip on his party appears to be slipping. and as a result, also slipping away potentially is the prospect of building a wall along the southern border without congressional approval. senate majority leader mitch mcconnell said they have enough republican support to pass the house resolution and in turn block the president's emergency declaration. he also acknowledge that's he warned the president this could set a dangerous precedent. >> are you worried that future democratic presidents could use that kind of authority and do the congressional run around in the future for something like climate change or gun control? is. >> yeah, i am. that's one reason i argued without success to the president that he not take this route.
>> and in another review, mcconnell's fellow kentucky senator and trump apologist rand paul is the fourth republican to say he'll vote with the democrats saying republican disapproval is even more widespread. >> i will vote for the motion to disapprove of this. and i will continue to speak out. i do believe that there is at least ten republican no votes. we'll see. possibly more. >> joining me now from the white house and nbc ha in. hans nichols. so what is happening behind the scenes at the white house about this? >> chris, the white house is preparing for a quiet defeat. and that is what they want. that's the direction they want this to go. it's obviously they are going to lose this. and so according to "the washington post," there is some mid level communications, conversations on how to paper over their differences. now we normally know that meetings like this take place.
>> the instructions reportedly are if you can't say something nice about the emergency declaration, shut up? >> keep your powder dry. i think that is the quote from "the washington post." right? it's not like these meetings happen all the time. you and i know that. what's interesting is how quickly it's leaked out and jumping ahead already to try to manage the defeat. if rand paul is right, and the number is ten that will end up opposing this, that is a real erosion of support for this president. i think what is also really interesting here is to listen to mitch mcconnell. this is the first time we've publicly seen him hold his nose against something that he's obviously opposed to. most up to this point when he's opposed toing som opposed something, he's put a good face on it and gone through the motions. he is saying, yeah, he doesn't really twha real doesn't want the president's decisions to prevail. he's go going ahead and bring this forward for the vote. look at the final number. obviously, it probably won't be veto proof. chris? >> hans nichols, thank you.
let's weigh in with matt bennett. former white house deputy assistant under president clinton. christine is also back with he many. so mitch mcconnell didn't want the president to do this. lamar alexander has been offering up some alternative ways to get this funding recently and no go. why do you think, matt that, the president is so adamant about this? >> well, it's pretty clear that this is the thing he promises his base and going to deliver come hell or high water. >> even if he goes down, he's going to show i'll go down fighting. >> he's not going to go down. he's going to get this emergency declaration. but it's insane. this isn't how emergencies work. you don't declare an emergency and then say it's going to take me 15 years to build a 2,000-mile wall. it's proposterous thing to do. also, it's a terrible, terrible attack on the article and powers of congress. and that's why mitch mcconnell
is so upset. >> if the president vetoes and, again, congress unlikely to overturn that veto, does it actually become a victory for the president? >> i think the president knew he would have this declaration filed against him and he can veto it. he can go out to his base, see, i fought for you. i did what was necessary to secure this country. if the courts overturn this he's going to go out in 2020 and say if it wasn't for the activist judges, they'll be the new book end. and it's all a political strategy. it's no the a national security strategy. it's not an emergency. it's all about securing the base and make shurg they're with him in 2020. >> and yet, christine, give rand paul credit. he said i can't go and say okay, president trump, you can overreach when i railed against president obama all that time.
so conversely, democrats who were supportive of obama when he did a lot of the executive orders and so on that republicans said were overreached, can they criticize him now? >> absolutely. what he is doing now is unheard of. using emergency declaration in this manner. this has never happened before. it's really not comparable whatever you thought about president obama's moves to what he did. and, you know, the idea is going to be a victim rich. the president's base is going to love it. that base is not enough to get re-elected. and for him to have lost control of his party in the senate, to have the senate leader, a republican saying i tried to convince the president to change his mind is a sign of weakness. and a sign of how far out the sprez even from the republican who's have stood with him. >> let's talk about one of
those. it goes to your point, matt, which is she said about her decision. i'm quoting, i truly don't see this as sending a message at all about one way or the other about border security but rather about executive overreach. look, if you skim the federalist papers, if you know something about separation of powers, if you know about the power of the purse and the constitutional authority given to congress, you can make that argument. but my question is do the voters care? >> they don't care about article one power. that's for sure. that's an elite argument going on. what they do care about is focus on the things that matter to them. and building a huge wall isn't going to make their lives better. they know it. they have had it with the guy that came in promising the moon and, you know in, the old days the snake oil salesman gets on the train and leaves town. this salesman had to stick around and they're beginning to recognize that. so they're not going to get wound up in the things that bother people like us about
article one power. they do care that this guy has pushed his entire plolitical stock in something that doesn't matter. >> also they care about the military projects that will potentially not be funded. they care about national security and america's place in the international world. what projects are those? he met with the vice president and she couldn't get answers to those questions. what's the national security impact of cancelling those? or what's the bread and butter impact of not building more barracks or not building a new base? how does that affect the town and its small business that's thrive off of that. >> and that's what president promised he was going to have the best military ever. evan, we have to talk about the politics of this and mitch mcconnell is put right in the middle of it. the way the hill put it, senate ma jord leader needs the support of president trump and senator rand paul to win re-election
next year. meaning, he must rely on two men on opposite sides of the debate over the use of emergency declaration to build a wall. is this trouble for him? will the president look at him and say well you did the best you can? or is he known to have a long memory? >> mitch mcconnell will win re-election with our without president trump because he has the faith of the kentucky voters. i think he is fine there. there are other republicans in a tough position. i would say to any republican who is considering this in the senate, think of it this way. principles are only such if you stand by them when it's inconvenient. you can be tough on immigration and in favor of the wall but you should also recognize that you can't go about getting it when it's in an unconstitutional manner. and this is that. >> we can't say that enough. principles matter most when it's in t inconvenient to hold your principles. thank you for sticking around. up next, the house is expected to vote on a measure to
condemn anti-semitism after parties have been blasted for recent comments. we'll dig into that resolution next. plus, a stunning new development in the global fight against hiv and aids. in what has been called a surreal moment for a london patient, he is stoaid to have bn cured or in long term remission as some scientists are cautiously describing it from hiv. this is only the second known instance of this type of cure, both of them resulting from bone marrow transplants and given to infected patients. ven to infected patients. velers at a comfort inn with a glow around them, so people watching will be like, "wow, maybe i'll glow too if i book direct at choicehotels.com". who glows? just say, badda book. badda boom. book now at choicehotels.com itso chantix can help you quit "slow turkey." along with support, chantix is proven to help you quit. with chantix you can keep smoking at first and ease into quitting.
chantix reduces the urge so when the day arrives, you'll be more ready to kiss cigarettes goodbye. when you try to quit smoking, with or without chantix. you may have nicotine withdrawal symptoms. stop chantix and get help right away if you have changes in... behavior or thinking, aggression, hostility, depressed mood, suicidal thoughts or actions, seizures, new or worse heart or blood vessel problems, sleepwalking, or life- threatening allergic and skin reactions. decrease alcohol use. use caution driving or operating machinery. tell your doctor if you've had mental health problems. the most common side effect is nausea. quit smoking "slow turkey." talk to your doctor about chantix.
tomorrow the shouse going to vote on a resolution to condemn anti-semitism. can we all agree that is bad? okay. this is the direct response to a series of controversial comments made by freshman congresswoman recently. you know this she was speaking at a progressive town hall about israel and she told the crowd, "i want to talk about the political influence in this country that says it is okay for people to push for allegiance to a foreign country." this comment got widespread backlash and in a letter to speaker nancy pelosi, the ceo of the anti-defamation league called her reference to foreign allegiance a vile anti-semitic slur. a congresswoman responded saying lawmakers must be able to debate without prejudice or bigotry. i'm saddened that representative omar continues to mischaracterize support for
israel. now while the draft of the resolution which was obtained by nbc does not mention congresswoman omar by name, it does spell out the remarks that she has said. the top democrats including nancy pelosi and steny hoyer are behind this resolution. should the democrats be doing this? >> absolutely. you know, if somebody speaks out in a way that is anti-semitic and homophobic or bigoted in any way, you need to respond to it. as everyone said before, principles only really matter if you use them when you're -- they make you uncomfortable. en that would mean against a member of your own party. so the "washington post" columnist henry olson argues that democrats are not going far enough. speaker pelosi and the rest of the leadership need to realize that omar is their party's version of representative steve king. they must do what republicans
did to king, remove omar from the seat on all house committees. does he have a point or is that really a step too far? >> he has an absolute point. omar has a history of making anti-semiconduct anti-semitic comments. how much do you realize it's not being naive. it is something deeper. she said that israel has hypnotized the world and is making the world not see their evils. she has gone out and said it's all about the benjamins. either repeated anti-semitic statements made by her. we have seen by the left, more and more anti-semitism. look at the women's march leadership. they have gotten in trouble for significant anti-semitism. they held up oday, a convicted terrorist. >> let's stick to this. is this a lukewarm response then? >> no, i don't think it's a lukewarm response. it is very serious that speaker
pelosi and steny hoyer and members of leadership are stepping out criticizing a brand new freshman member. usually, you know, freshmen get a lot of latitude. she should not be given latitude. i'm not arguing for that. but what they're doing here is very significant and very powerful in sending a message. you just wish republicans were willing to step up quickly and strongly in the case of what jim jordan tweeted, for example, at jerry nadler. we would have a more balanced situation. >> can we stick to this for a second. the star of this freshman class is tweeting about this. here's the first one. >> it's not my position to tell people how to feel or that hurt is invalid. incidents like these do beg the question, where are the resolutions against homophobic statements and anti-blackness
and citizen phobia and a member saying he'll send obama home to kenya and in another tweet she says don't get me started on this. where does it start and end? >> a number of the questions she asked which are fair questions about other bigoted ways of being and speaking, a lot of those happen when the democrats weren't in leadership. not all. but right now we're seeing nancy pelosi's leadership be swift and strong. i want to say for the record, we don't have to go night, i take exception to the comments you made about the women's march organizers just for the record. >> well, i -- we won't have to get into that. i think alexander cortez while she is right, where he, we should not tolerate those statements or any form of bigotry or discrimination. that's a what aboutism she pulled. and it takes pressure off and deflects from the original offense. omar has a repeated history of making these statements and she seems to not care. you saw when she was -- after she put out the big apology from it's all about the benjamins
baby tweet and she got in serious trouble less than a month ago, she was caught in the halls of congress and she could not be barged. she is chewing gum saying i put it in my statement. >> let's go now to jim jordan. he is facing a backlash of his own after tweeting nadler feeling the heat big time jumps to tom stir with a dollar sign and conclusion. impeaching our president before a first document consider q. and then to be clear this tweet counts as in inane and anti-semitic. republicans have been very outspoke been the president's comments. but we haven't heard much about this back and forth. >> and it's just an example of the double standard. you know? the republicans are going to criticize speaker pelosi for not doing enough. and then when a member of their own party does something anti-set anti-semitic adding to what you rightly cited as anti-semitic rhetoric across the country, you
hear about contradict its. >> christine, we're out of time. would you come back when you have some firm opinions? >> sure. >> it's great to see you both. >> thank you. >> coming up at the top of the hour, a huge hearing on vaccines. the senate is going to hear from a teenager. this is really compelling stuff. he defied his parents, got vaccinated on his own. we're going to dig into this political fight to tackle what is a really big public health issue. but before we get into that, we have to mention that first lady milania trump was stepping out on her first ever cross country solo tour this week. it's all part of her the best public wareness campaign focused on keeping kids healthy. protecting them against online bullying and pro venting opioid abuse.
♪ now i'm wondering if yourool i loves still strong. ♪tayed too long. ♪ ♪ ooo baby, here i am, signed, sealed, delivered, i'm yours ♪ applebee's 3 course meal now that's eatin' good in the neighborhood. in the next hour, a teenager who defied his own mother by getting vaccinated will head to capitol hill to testify about the outbreaks of preventable diseases in america. he's 18-year-old ethan lindenburger. he sat down with nbc news to tell us why he chose to get his vaccinations against his mother's wishes. >> so when i turned 18 i presented to my mom my decision and said i'm going to get
vaccinated. in ohio, the law is once you're 18 can you get vaccines without parental consent. and at first obviously it is frustration and upset. we talked about that. and we found common ground and understanding that respect is a understanding that respect is necessary in a circumstance like this. i'm making medical decisions like this for myself and other people. >> joining me now is dr. john torez. you got this political fight so address this public health issue, and this public health issue, if you look in pediatric journals, they look at the religious and personal beliefs that keep people from getting their kids jvaccinated. safety concerns about getting their kids vaccinated in spite of overwhelming science there's something you should do. is this young man a one off or is it a sign that more people are listening to the science? >> i think it's a sign more people are listening to the science. he said a few months ago he started looking into it and saw his mom was posting information that he thought was not
accurate. he started going deeper and realized the vaccines were there to help us and the vaccines are something that helps us healthy. he decided when he turned 18, he was going to defy his parents, his mom, and say i'm going to do what i think i need to do to stay healthy and get the vaccines. i think you're going to see more people follow suit. >> that's a teenager. legally he can do that. but you have babies not getting vaccinated. even a between or young teenager who still legally cannot go against their parents' wishes. >> there's a big struggle around different states and around the nation to try to figure out the answer of the question. what can we do about this? there are people who believe that vaccines are harmful. even though there's tons of data. there's a danish study that looked at over 600,000 children. they followed them and looked at their vaccination rates and autism rates. they found out that those that got vaccinated with the mmr were
7% less likely to develop autism. it's going completely against the one horrible study that was done back in 1998 that showed some connection between the two as being discorrected time and time again. that set up the struggle. states and the nation is trying to figure out how to legislate this. we have personal freedoms, but we have public health which is important, paeshl wiespecially measles. measles is very contagious. >> public health. and we talk about how much health care costs. the numbers from the cdc are ast astoni astonishing. vaccinations can prevent 21 million hospitalizations. saving nearly 295 million in direct health costs and $1.38 in total society costs. >> it's amazing. i don't know if you've seen the meme will somebody held a sign, seen polio? no, you can fake a scientist. that's what it is.
what's happening is if you look look 50 years ago, people were afraid. these are diseases that have gone away, especially in the u.s. they've never seen these diseases. now they're afraid of the vaccine instead of the diseases. they moved that fear. we're trying to move it back and saying we don't want the diseases to come back. we need the vaccines to do that. john torez, good to have you here. >> up next, we're going to alabama after a deadly tornado. search and rescue operations are underway right now. stay with us for a live report from the ground. m, so people watching will be like, "wow, maybe i'll glow too if i book direct at choicehotels.com". who glows? just say, badda book. badda boom. book now at choicehotels.com
the search is now resumed in alabama where the deadliest tornado in years plowed through a rural area near the georgia line. at least 23 people have been killed. that twister packed winds of 170 miles per hour and several children are among the victims including an 8-year-old and 10-year-old. taylor was staying with a friend when the storm hit. her parents talked to lester holt about their little girl. >> reporter: you told the police who you were looking for? >> and they were very, very kind to let me come be with her, and i, i was very appreciative of that. it helped a little bit. >> what do you want us to know about your little girl? >> she's perfect.
>> did not have a mean bone in her body. >> she was the air in my lungs. >> beyond heart wrenching. tammy lightener is in the middle of the destruction in salem, alabama. sadly those stories are being told over and over again, and there are still people unaccounted for. what's going on right now, tammy? >> chris, we now know all of the unaccounted for, the missing have been located. they're still continuing to search for possibly elderly who were living alone or those who were not reported missing. if you take a look at the debris around me, this gives you an idea of just how difficult this search is. we do know the people who were living in this area had so many warning the tornado was coming. they received a text message, but just how much warning is unclear. some said they had about an hour warning.
others precious few moments. normally you can see a tornado coming, but because of the trees in this area, they likely could not see it approaching. it came from behind me, and most of the homes in this area were completely destroyed as the house behind me completely flattened. the few remaining were made of brick. at some point this search and rescue mission will turn to recovery mission. >> thank you so much for that. obviously we're going to stay on top of that. tammy lightener reporting for us from the devastation in alabama. that's going to wrap up this hour. i'm chris jansing in for stephanie ruhle. coming up, more news. look who's here in studio. >> came to visit you, my friend. >> my great and good friend. >> i appreciate it. good to see you. good to see all of you. i'm hallie jackson in new york. and this morning president trump has 81 problems. and congress is one of them. his white house overnight unleashing on house democrats who are unleashing a sweeping
investigation of their own leaving washington wondering if this could be the first step toward impeachment. more on how the president's family, his foundation, his business could be caught in the cross hairs. plus, michael cohen days away from going behind bars. what we're learning about a possible get out of jail free card. the talks on the pardon for the president's former lawyer. on capitol hill, democrats calling out one of their own with another vote condemning anti-ti anti-semiti anti-semitism. how another freshman is rising to her defense today. we have our team covering it all. in a moment we'll speak about breaking news on the show. we start with the new reaction to another investigation surrounding the president focusing on obstruction, construction and abuse of power. the white house calling the document requests disgraceful and abusive. and the president, by the way, is pushing back this morning on twitter while the committee's chairman says he's already gotten some very positive