tv MSNBC Live With Hallie Jackson MSNBC March 5, 2019 7:00am-8:01am PST
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
responses. this new investigation casts a net over the entire trump universe starting with the administration itself. the white house, the fbi, the justice department. add in the trump 2016 campaign, the trump organization, and the transition committee. plus some members of the president's family, donald trump junior, eric trump, jared kushner. congressman jerry nadler explaining his thinking. >> we have to look at the three major threats to the rueful we've seen. that's corruption, personal enrichment in vital of the emoluments clause. it means abuse of power, attacks on the press and the judiciary and attacks on law enforcement agencies. and obstruction of justice. >> my colleague hans nickels is at the white house. hans, we have seen over the last 18 hours or so, you could call this boosted up pr push coming up with a much more fiery tone than we initially heard about this. >> it shifted. and the white house has two weeks to get their stories
straight. that's when mr. nadler wants the documents to come through. yesterday you saw the shift here. and the morning that first statement from sarah huckabee sanders cooperative indicating they would work together. the president when we asked him around lunchtime what he did, he said we always cooperate, and then came that statement from sarah huckabee sanders last night, and then this morning president up and tweeting. he's calling the democrats crazy. he's using strong language when you look at the direction the president seems to be taking it this morning, at least on twitter, it is a marked shift from yesterday. and hallie, just what they're dealing with, basically the strategy from the democrats seems to be to be asked to be cced on everything that all the 81 people may have sent to the mueller probe, to the special counsel's office. it's a way to piggie back off that investigation while broadening it out. you have companies. the president's companies and campaign, his inaugural committee and his cabinet.
it's the broadness of the requests that's going to be a real challenge for this white house. >> hans there at the white house. hans, thank you much. let me bring in now chairman -- excuse me, congressman ted lou of california. thank you for being on the show. >> thank you, hallie. >> let me pick up. you heard him say folks have started giving the committee documents they've had a positive response. who is he talking about? do you know? >> i don't know the specifics, but these document requests should not be burdensome. we're asking for documents that many of the people have already give ton other entities. away tonight to know if there are dots to be connected and we're going to try to connect the dots and leave no stone unturned. this is just the first wave of document requests. we'll have additional document requests and trying to interview as many witnesses as possible and show the american people who we found. >> you talk about additional document requests. we showed the list of 81 organizations that congress reached out to.
ivanka trump is notably not on the list. is she next? will she be in the next round? >> it's possible. in terms of these document requests, they may open up new leads which will result in additional requests based on what we get. special counsel mueller's investigation is narrow. he's interested only if anyone committed a crime related to russia interference. the house judiciary's oversight function is more broad. we want to know if donald trump, his family and associates committed any crime. we also want to know did they engage in any misconduct, whether or not it arised to the level of a federal crime. >> mamaxine waters said impeachment is the only answer. your party's leadership has hit the brakes on the impeachment talk. do you agree with congressman waters? is impeachment the only answer? is she right?
>> that would depend on what the investigation finds. right now we have good reporting from msnbc, news articles, people making various statements. the house committee doesn't have a record. we need to build this record, collect the documents, interview witnesses under oath. we're going to show the american people what we found and then we'll make a decision based on our investigation. >> correct me if i'm wrong, but it sounds like what you're saying in the answer is it's too soon to talk impeachment. >> that's correct. that's my view. we need to make sure we have all the facts, present them to the american people and then we'll have a conversation in how to proceed. >> you're about to send out a letter or make public a letter you have sent to the attorney general that we have exclusively first here on msnbc for you to talk about with us. you're requesting that the department of justice open an immediate investigation to determine if jared kushner is criminally liable for his false statements related to those security clearance issues. i have a couple questions for you on this new letter that i believe you sent to ag barr
yesterday. what is your hope? what do you hope to get out of this by sending this letter and requesting more information on kushner's security clearance? >> i already had a security clearance. i had to fill out an sf 86 form. on the form it says if you make false statements or omit material facts, you can go to prison for up to five years. jared kushner not only sent in one false and misleading form. he sent in two. congressman don buyer and i have made a criminal referral to the department of justice. asked them to investigate jared kushner to see if he should be indicted for putting in false or at least material false sf 86 forms? . >> have you heard from the department of justice? >> we have not. we recently sent them the letter. we have a new attorney general. we don't know what bill barr thinks. this is clear, if this was
anyone but kushner, they would be in a lot of trouble. >> what do you hope to get out of this? do you think the attorney general will respond in the way you hope he would to this request? >> we hope they open the investigation. that is not a difficult ask. and if career prosecutors simply want to look at the facts, they would open investigation. what jared kushner did in leaving out his meetings at trump tower, leaving out foreign contacts, it raises flags the cia and fbi raised when they denied him the clearance only to be overruled by donald trump. >> this potentially puts you in the cross hairs of the white house. >> it does. but this is what the framers intended in the separation of powers. >> before i let you go, i have to ask you about this resolution that will be brought up tomorrow related to anti-semitism and as you know related to congresswoman omar. how do you plan to vote? have you decided? >> i have.
we should condemn all forms of religious bigotry whether it's against muslims or jews or catholics. i intend to vote yes on this resolution. >> congressman omar was not singled out in this resolution. should she have been in your view? >> no. it's a resolution condemning anti-semitism. we should condemn anti-semitism in all its forms. >> i appreciate you coming on the show. keep us back if you hear back for your request. congressman lou from california, thank you. >> i want to bring in nick confessore and mara. welcome. >> it's fascinating. i think there is a major issue for democrats right now confronting this problem in their own ranks. and they're trying to do it delicately. they're treating it like a
family member. educate, and show them why the rhetoric is offensive and why it bothers so many colleagues. the question is will the statements stop? will she stop using the kind of language? >> we're going to hit on that later. when you look at what he said about impeachment, that syncs not with what waters said, but with what nadler said. he talked about this last night. i want to play a snippet of this conversation. >> this is not a preimpeachment hearing. it may come to that if the facts show that. it may not. >> you know, the congressman is smart to put out a wide net. these are all legitimate inquiries. all legitimate investigations. but i do think it's important that democrats are careful in front of the cameras not to be grand standing. as we saw some of them do at the hearing last week with michael cohen. and i think they should just be extremely disciplined in the way
they go about these investigations. of course, the problem is every member of congress is looking for those 15 second clips they can show to his or her base. >> sure. throw in an ad for constituents? >> it's going to make it easier for the white house to spin and say see, the democrats want to be anti-trump. it's not really about the substance of what they're investigating. >> is there a legitimate risk that some democrats get out over their skis when it comes to impeachment. >> absolutely. look, there's an appetite on the base of the democratic party for this. there are people who say we have all the answers we need. we have enough right now. that was the waters view. there is a lot of political value in looking judicious. in following the process, and if they're going to draft articles of impeachment in a year or in 18 months, they need to have a fact pattern to establish and drawing it on news clips and nexus is not going to look good for them. >> when you talk about the investigations democrats are
working toward, the post talks about the lanes the democrats need to be in. about half a dozen house committees are probing president trump in some capacity. but while the chairman meet regularly and have tried to pick lanes, they keep bumping into one another overlap that could create problems in the future. >> i think that i read that story, and i think those things will sort themselves out eventually. i don't think that at this point having too many -- having a wider scope of investigation is necessarily a problem. there are rules that allow congress to deal with this, and i think that will play out behind the scenes. one thing the democrats could do that congress freshman congresswoman alexandria ocasio-cortez has so far been really very good at is just talking a little bit more about the civics portion of what they're role is as a co-equal branch of government. that's something a lot of americans don't necessarily understand, but so if they talk about as you said, nick, the process of how these investigations are supposed to
unfold and how really this is no different than any other investigation in the history of the branch, that would be helpful. >> both of you stay with me. more to talk about later. coming up nearly four years after the 2016, former hillary clinton staffers are talking about how they really feel about bernie sanders, and here is your not so spoiler spoiler. it is not quite a peaceful moment. james comey outlines how he thinks it should go when robert mueller drops his report. we'll explain that next. t mueller drops his report we'll explain that next. we switched.
i switched. we switched. i switched to chevy. i switched to chevy. we switched to chevy. we switched for value. for family. for power. it was time to upgrade. i switched from ram to chevy. see why people are switching to chevy. we love our chevy. i love my malibu. my colorado. my camaro. my traverse. why did we switch? just look at it. ♪
i have never asked for nor would i accept a pardon from president trump. >> that is running smack into this, the headline from the wall street journal this morning. lawyer for cohen approached trump attorneys about pardon. this allegedly happened after the raid on the hotel room and office. sources say cohen's attorney at the time left the impression that if mr. cohen could not rely on a pardon, he might cooperate with prosecutors from the manhattan u.s. attorney's office investigating mr. cohen. and in an exclusive msnbc the beat, cohen's current lawyer revealed a third check he says the president's people gave to cohen as reimbursement for hush main paid to stormy daniels. >> it's the check that the president himself said to my client when he visited him in the white house, said that that
check would be forthcoming soon. and sure enough, it was, on valentine's day, 2017. >> we have our top legal experts here. chuck rosenberg and joyce vance are former u.s. attorneys and msnbc contributors. thank you for joining us here. chuck, let me start with you. what's your reaction to the journal's reporting on michael cohen and specifically the piece if he could not get a pardon, he might cooperate with probation reports. how do you read that? >> defendants are always looking for a way out. once they're caught or are in trouble, there's a couple paths to redemption or at least to lessening the impact, whatever they did wrong. a pardon is one, but that's extraordinarily rare. very few people get them. even fewer people have a personal connection to a president in order to ask for one. if cohen's attorney asked for one, well, i guess that shock me. the typical path to redejs mpti is cooperating. that's how most defendants work
off time. i'm not surprised they would explore this stuff. i'd be surprised if he got or accepted a pardon. >> the journal reports there's no indication cohen was aware of the discussion, was personally asking for this or involved in this as he said in the testimony we showed. does that clear him in your view for now? >> i think that it would be premature to talk about clearing. the devil here is in the details. and how explicit of a kwid pro koe quo was. if it's we'll lie for the president in exchange for a pardon, then we're in very different terrain than if where chuck is discussing the normal sort of horse trading that goes on. >> the justice department says william barr is not going to be recusing himself in oversight of the investigation. that's despite the memo he wrote that expressed skepticism about collusion between the trump campaign and russia. >> the memo is troubling. it appears to be prejudging a
case or maybe toting up to the president and ultimately to the white house while barr is under consideration. that's troubling that he would sit on the investigation. but what i find reassuring here is he followed the advice of doj ethics advisers who did not find that he needed to recuse like most people from inside of the department, i have a lot of confidence and faith in their results, so i think this is cautiously a good sign. >> that's interesting. chuck, do you agree? >> i agree. look, whitaker, the former acting attorney general sought the advice and then rejected it. barr said he would seek the advice. he accepted it. i agree with joyce. the ethics advisers give good advice. you ignore them at your own peril. barr did the right thing in following their advice in this case. >> stamp of approval from both of you on that one. let me ask about something else related to the mueller investigation. somebody who used to be in the
president's legal orbit officially was out talking about the investigation. and taking a very different tone from the guy he used to represent. here ty cobb on a newscast. >> bob mueller is an american hero. rudy and the president have been effective in a way that you know would not have been preferable for me, but they have ratcheted up the public's concerns about the investigation and its legitimacy. i object to that proach, but it's his choice. he's the president. >> real different tone. >> it's incredibly different. he went onto say that his loyalty was to the institution, not to the president, which i think is the key here. that's a tone that it would be i think a positive for us to hear from more people involved in government whether they're in the executive branch or up on capitol hill. >> chuck, james comey is back on the scene.
he's writing this op ed that came out in the washington post. specifically talking about the mueller investigation and whether transparency is possible. his push is saying hey, republicans are wrong. you can be transparent when it comes to this investigation. is comey correct there or do you think there are reasons why the gop should be concerned about keeping some of this information out of the public view? >> the central thesis of the article in the washington post is that while the department does not normally talk about closed cases or cases where we do not bring charges, we occasionally do when there's a great public thirst for learning what happened. the example that he gives, he gives several. jose padilla in the early 2000s. the killing of michael brown in ferguson, missouri. these are times when charges at least initially were not brought, but the public learned about the investigation because the department made it public. and so his point i think is a good one, and an important one. we don't normally do it, but
this is probably, i shouldn't even say probably. this is a situation where we ought to do it. >> quick final thoughts, joyce? >> if you believe in the integrity of the institutions, doj, the white house, the government, then there has to be disclosure in this case, otherwise the american people won't have closure. >> we're lucky to have both of you. thank you both for being on. much appreciated. after the break democrats in congress getting ready to take on one of their own with another resolution condemning anti-semitism. we'll talk about whether this thing has any teeth after the break. thing has any teeth after break. that there's a lobster i in our hot tub?t. lobster: oh, you guys. there's a jet! oh...i needed this. no, i can't believe how easy it was to save hundreds of dollars on our car insurance with geico. we could have been doing this a long time ago. so, you guys staying at the hotel?
yeah, we just got married. oh ho-ho! congratulations! thank you. yeah, i'm afraid of commitment... and being boiled alive. oh, shoot. believe it. geico could save you 15% or more on car insurance. that guy's the worst. this is decision tech. it's screening technology that helps you find a stock based on what's trending or an investing goal. it's real-time insights and information, in your own customized view of the market. it's smarter trading technology, for smarter trading decisions. and it's only from fidelity. open an account with no minimums today.
this year, the house is set to vote on a resolution condemning anti-semitism. this one in response to comments made by ilhan omar. she's under fire from her own party this morning after saying in a forum last week that political influence groups like the pro israel lobby are pushing for allegiance to a foreign country. why is it okay for me to talk about big pharma and not talk about a powerful lobbying group that's influencing policy. overnight the president again called for the congresswoman to
be removed from the foreign relations committee which we should point out is not only table right now. we have our panel with me onset. this time congresswoman omar is not apologizing. it seems like there's pushback. she's also not singled out specifically in the resolution. >> that's exactly right. representative omar has her defenders up here on capitol hill. just this morning late last night representative alexandria ocasio-cortez tweeted in defense of her, saying that it's a legitimate concern that omar has that she wants to have a policy debate about israel. she says that's something that's been lacking here in congress and that's what omar is pushing. as far as the resolution is concerned, yes, this is a democratic resolution, but it does not name representative omar, and it's also something that's very similar to what republicans had -- something that's already passed the
congress, and it is expected to get unanimous support up here even representative omar is very likely to vote in favor of it. but you also mention something really important. the foreign affairs committee, and taking her off that committee is not something that's being discussed right now among any democrat. republicans are pushing this. but the resolution seems to be the big statement that democrats are trying to make. >> and timing on that, tomorrow do we know when? >> tomorrow, yeah. not yet clear. yep. right in the afternoon. >> we will be on top of that. you will be too. let me pick up on something leanne referenced. the tweets and this morning from alexandria ocasio-cortez. she's responding in part to congressman who said questioning support for the u.s./israel relationship is unacceptable. right? that's the top tweet. her response is i'm curious if
he's going to further expand on his stance that it's unacceptable to question. >> omar is not criticizing the power of the lobby. she's not criticizing the policy of the israeli government. she's making an accusation of dual loyalty that people who are supportive of israel aren't loyal americans. that's toxic. >> and that's a trope that's anti-semitism that's been around for decades. >> yes. what you saw from the other congressman, he's saying you can't even question the boundaries and the commitment of the american/israeli relationship. i don't think there's a lot of questioning that there is a relationship, but there's all a debate of how much should the aid be? are we putting enough pressure on the israeli government? that's a legitimate discussion. it happens across the aisle. and i think he's pushing too far in the other direction to say he can't even talk about what the boundaries of the discussion are. >> i couldn't agree more. i think there's a perfectly
legitimate policy conversation to have about the united states' relationship with any foreign country. that's a policy discussion. that's perfectly appropriate for a member of congress to engage in. the difference is that the rhetoric that congresswoman omar has used is at times, i find, whether inadvertently or not, i think really does traffic in those kind of anti-semitic language. i'm not sure she's aware of that, but i think it's a good moment to have a conversation about why language matters, and how specific language can really actually harken back to some pretty disturbing views? >> two things here. worth noting that congressman omar has been the target herself of attacks against religion including this weekend at this gop sponsored event. we debated showing this poster displayed that seemed to link her to 9/11. horrific stuff.
omar and her allies called out democrats oncoming to her defense on things like this. >> she has been defended on things like that. people have condemned the posters. people can play that game all day. it's a trope of politics. it happens all the time. or you can express your values which is what the house is going to do and say anti-semitism is wrong. >> and this is happening against a backdrop of a rise of anti-semitism, hate crimes against others including muslims. you don't want to play a what about game. we need to have a national conversation about how to talk about these issues, how to talk about race, how to talk about gender and how to talk about anti-religious bigotry. that is an important conversation to have, because i do think that not everyone really understands the history of why some language is anti-semitic or racist.
>> do you think most lawmakers are capable of having that conversation given the moment of time we're in in washington? >> you know what? twitter is a terrible place to have that conversation. that's where it is mostly happening. i think people of good faith can get together. if they aren't educated on the background of the language, think can be and can learn. people have to treat each other like human beings and learn from the experience. >> that's right. >> okay. quick. to bring it back. are republicans trying to go too far? there was a piece about how mccarthy and others are considering a censure. >> the republicans are in no position to be the party of values here, and especially on issues of anti-semitism or racism or bigotry of any kind. especially as long as the president is at the head of the party and steve king is still in the caucus. >> i want to turn now to something that is just in now to our news room. that is new comments being made by eric trump. we heard from him. he's been on the list from house
democrats of the 81 people or organizations. he was talking with a fox news anchor this morning responding to that. i'm not sure. can we play the sound or do i need to read it. we're going to try to turn around the sound. eric trump and his what appears to be his first response to the request. says welcome to another tuesday in our world. it just is what it is. these people are so desperate, he says. that's what it comes down to. they are so desperate. you try to obstruct. you try to impeach. you try to harass and distract if you can't win. he said it's let's go harass anybody who has ever made contact with trump. let's send the 81 document discovery request for everything under the sun, et cetera, et cetera. i'd love to get your reaction and if we can turn it around the next couple seconds, we'll play it. eric trump is not just anybody who has ever made contact with donald trump. he's his kid who also runs his business. he's pretty directly involved. in fact, timing, we got it. let me play it and i want you
guys to talk about it. >> they're desperate. if you can't win, what do you do? you obstruct in do you try to impeach or harass or try and distract? all the sudden it's let's go harass anybody who has ever made contact with trump. let's send out 81 document discovery requests for everything under the sun. let's harass. let's make a spectacle and take a convicted felon and put him on the stand and let him lie to the entire world. >> okay. the reality is it's on a subpoena. it's a request for stuff they've already assembled and produced for other bodies. it's a catch up request. the house democrats are saying give us the documents. everybody else has so we can catch up. >> eric trump is certainly fired up about it. nick and mara, we're bring you back later. first, here's something we haven't said a lot. why there's more influence over the primary and how democrats
plan to use it, next. y and how plan to use it, next t my room from the floor plan... free wi-fi... ...and the price match guarantee. so with hilton there is no catch. yeah the only catch is i'm never leaving. no i'm serious, i live here now. book at hilton.com and get the hilton price match guarantee.
i'm not running, but i'm going to keep working and speaking and standing up for what i believe. i want to be sure that people understand i'm going to keep speaking out. i'm not going anywhere. what's at stake in our country? the kinds of things that are happening right now are deeply troubling to me. >> so, that's hillary clinton once again saying she is not jumping into the crowded field of democrats running for
president in 2020. put that puppy to bed. there are, though, about a dozen democrats by our count who are it. that does not include oregon senator jeff merkley who announced he's not going to get into the race. there's in reporting that old grievances between the clinton and sanders worlds are bubbling up. politico reporting the former clinton camp is stewing over bernie sanders's 2020 campaign and is pointing to sander's flaws and vulnerabilities. i'm joined by a political analyst. it's great to see you on the show. >> thanks for having me. >> what's the deal? we thought clinton and sanders buried the hatchet. do you get a sense there is unrest or disturbances aimed at the sanders camp? >> i don't know there's stuff aimed at the sanders camp. i think what staffers are trying to articulate because we experienced what happened in 2016 and the devastating loss,
is that there are a lot of vulnerabilities that we can identify because we did all the op on bernie sanders. a lot of that was not reported or at least thoroughly examined in the primary. there was 80 % of the coverage about bernie sanders was positive. and so i think that there is potentially a risk in not fully examining every single aspect of his record, every single vulnerability and being honest about that. because i think that just like any of the other democrats running in 2020, bernie sanders can be criticized fairly and critiqued, and i think that that's the conversation that democrats are having right now. >> in a way could that end up potentially helping sanders? let me explain that. you have david brock, a big clinton donor on the offensive. he's been raising concerns you're talking about related to san sanders. jeff weaver said the campaign in 2016 never did better than when we were being attacked.
w does waver have a point? >> i know there were 4 million votes separating bernie sanders and hillary clinton, and the delegate math in march basically made it completely impossible for him to win, and yet the primary extended until june. what i think is happening right now, obviously you're going to have the david brocks and the jeff weavers going back and forth and standing up for their folks, but bernie sanders and his campaign needs to measure vulnerabilities so they can have defenses. the same thing was said about hillary clinton. just like with any other campaign, you have to address the issues. you can't just attack the people making the critique in the first place. >> hillary clinton has been saying for the past year and a half that she is not going to run again in 2020. in fact, to prove that we've been talking about in this show, we pulled these things together.
here's a look down memory lane. >> you will never be a candidate -- >> no. i am done with being a candidate. >> we're going to talk about 2020 in a minute. do you want to run again? >> no. no. >> you wouldn't run again? >> no. i'm not going to run again. >> i think i'm in a position where my voice will actually be magnified because i am not running. >> it's not like she's being cryptic about it. why do you think she still keeps getting asked? >> people like to pile on hillary clinton, and that's -- >> that's what you think this is j a pile on? >> i think so. even just a few months ago, there was a political story being basically with one source saying she's thinking about running again just so people could do another round of don't run, go away, disappear, never speak again. i think with hillary clinton the moment i read the introduction of her book what happened, i knew she wasn't running again because she was being honest about the sexism and misogyny she faced. that's not something you can be open about if you want to run for president again. i think that every single time
we wonder if she's running again, even though she's telling us straight up she's not, that's on us. we got to listen to her when she says she's not running, which she's not. >> thank you for coming on, my friend. i appreciate it. >> thank you. >> let me bring in another pal. steve kornacki. it's great to see you live and in the flesh. >> hallie. >> interestingly, cnn spoke with a small panel of democrats. i want to play an interesting exchange not about her but related to somebody else who is considering getting into the race. watch. >> how many of you would like to see joe biden get in? show of hands. what's happening? >> his time is done. >> who's time is it? how does biden stack up? >> i don't think those folks you heard from were contacted by the most recent pollsters from morning consultant. they've been doing a weekly poll of the democratic race for a while now. see where things stand. this is the newest one. biden continuing to be out in
front there. 31%. there's sanders. 27% in the new pole. that's up a little bit. it suggests possibly a bounce there maybe for sanders off of his attention and the money he raised from that. kamala harris, a similar bounce earlier in the year. it moved her into third place in this race. but biden, sanders continue to be the top two right there. and you're just talking about that whole issue of sanders, clinton is there any lingering resentment. clearly there is at that sort of pundit commentator campaign alum level. the question i've had is does that trickle down to democratic voters when you poll voters on sanders? do they have negative feelings? this poll, they do favorable, unfavorable. right here you see look, biden incredibly popular. look at sanders as known by biden and almost as well liked. 75 favorable. 15 unfavorable. so i think one of the questions i have is right now i'm not looking at the numbers and
seeing a lot of democrats saying that sanders, we don't like him, but i do hear it at that sort of pundit level. i wonder if that becomes a concerted effort at the pundit level. does it trickle down and do the numbers start to change? >> how much -- i will say this. we make special exceptions 23r you because we love you. on this show we typically don't talk about polls for democrats. explain why people should look at it and why it matters that you're looking at the numbers at this early stage. >> everybody looks and says it's early. it's just the name recognition. it's just the name. the earliest polls we took heading into 2016 hillary clinton won the nomination. excuse me. mitt romney was the front runner in the early polls we took on the republican side in 2012. became the nominee. sometimes you get dark horses. trump was a dark horse. but the numbers don't mean nothing, i think. >> steve, thank you for coming on. somebody on steve's big board,
amy klobuchar is going to be on this network in about an hour and change. amy klobuchar joining andrea mitchel at noon eastern. on this show the secretary of state being confronted with facing a problem. he's telling american farmers, and what they are telling him in return. m in return no more excuses with cologuard. we all make excuses for the things we don't want to do. but when it comes to colon cancer screening...
i'm not doin' that. i eat plenty of kale. ahem, as i was saying... ...with cologuard, you don't need an excuse... all that prep? no thanks. that drink tastes horrible! but...there's no prep with cologuard... i can't take the time off work. who has two days? and i feel fine - no symptoms! everybody, listen! all you need is a trip to the bathroom. if you're 50 or older and at average risk, cologuard is the noninvasive option that finds 92% of colon cancers. you just get the kit in the mail, go to the bathroom, collect your sample, then ship it to the lab! this is your year! own it! cologuard is not right for everyone. it is not for high risk individuals, including those with a history of colon cancer or precancer, ibd, certain hereditary cancer syndromes, or a family history of colon cancer. ask your doctor if cologuard is right for you. covered by medicare and most major insurers.
. as president trump's trade war with china enters year two, believe it or not. the administration is deploying a run to assure farmers they'll be okay. secretary of state mike mpompeo headed to iowa to try to calm some nerves. >> help is on the way. >> would you comment on any time frame? any day that marches on it's getting tougher and tougher. >> no. >> that was the whole answer. just the awkward laughter drifting into nothingness. joining me now is former democratic senator heidi hikamp.
doesn't sound like that was what iowa farmers wanted to hear from secretary pompeo. >> think about how unusual it is to send the secretary of state to try and shore up your rural base by talking about trade. and the one thing i know about secretary pompeo -- and he's done this this whole career -- he lowers expectations so when you deliver you can say we got a better deal than what we thought. he didn't come out there as the president probably would have and say it's going to be the greatest deal ever for farmers in america. there's a reason why they sent the secretary to talk to farmers in iowa. they're concerned about shoring up the rural base before they get to 2020. on the horizon, net farm income continues to be challenged. >> you talk about the outlines broadly of a potential deal. "the new york times" has details about that, even though a lot of details are still up in the air and it sounds like this mar-a-lago summit, there is some
agreement that would require beijing to lower barriers that prevent american companies from operating in china. is that worth the pain of the last year? >> but i haven't seen any numbers that would take us back to the original sales for soybeans, let's say, that we experienced before the trade wars. we have to be very careful in terms of the metrics. the other thing that i found remarkable is the american enterprise institution, which is not a liberal group. basically sounding an alarm that, look, do not fool us with a fake agreement. we're going to be judging this based on the standards. i think they're painting themselves a little bit into the corner by raising expectations when people are watching the details of this deal very, very closely. >> there is a real economic impact to this, right? a new study found these tariffs cost u.s. businesses and
consumers $3 billion in tax and losses every month. i think back when we were going through the shutdown. there seems to be talk about the economic impact to this trade war. why is that? is it because people hear tariffs and tune out, what do you think? >> no, i think part of is that people understand that china cheats and they want this fixed. so they're willing to tolerate and give the administration some running room. but they're going to judge this at the end pretty harshly if we don't get a better deal than what we started with before the trade wars. so the longer this goes on, the more difficult it is for american consumers, the more difficult it certainly is for agriculture. the judgment is going to come at the end of the day when this deal is struck. i think the ustr bob lighthizer who is very competent and capable, i think he's going to have some answering to do if this deal does not come forward
in a way that really benefits the american consumer and the american businessmen. >> how important is it the president gets this all wrapped up before 2020 really starts to ramp up? from a political perspective. >> it's extremely important. this entire episode is quite an interesting test of the president's base in the sense that you have -- certainly not everyone in rural america voted for donald trump. let's not make that an assumption. that is where his base is. i think there's a lot of pain being felt. you can look at local news stories across the country, especially in the midwest. when you read the stories about what this is costing rural america, you have to wonder how that impacts a local farmers
view. >> thank you. we'll be back with today's big picture. ou we'll be back with today's big picture. then i realized something was missing... me. my symptoms were keeping me from being there. so, i talked to my doctor and learned humira is for people who still have symptoms of crohn's disease after trying other medications. and the majority of people on humira saw significant symptom relief and many achieved remission in as little as 4 weeks. humira can lower your ability to fight infections, including tuberculosis. serious, sometimes fatal infections and cancers, including lymphoma, have happened; as have blood, liver, and nervous system problems, serious allergic reactions, and new or worsening heart failure. before treatment, get tested for tb. tell your doctor if you've been to areas where certain fungal infections are common, and if you've had tb, hepatitis b, are prone to infections, or have flu-like symptoms or sores. don't start humira if you have an infection. be there for you, and them. ask your gastroenterologist about humira. with humira, remission is possible.
we are back with today's big picture. just like last year, for this year, every day during women's history month we're bringing you a photo by, for or about women. so let's kick it off with today's big picture coming to us from texas. this is part of an investigative series. i want to show this to you. you're looking at a dallas infertility specialist who froze
her own eggs at 34. she's now a single mom. emily says it took several years and seven rounds of hormone shots. she is saying that technology may not be keeping up with the demand. ten times more patients are turning to egg freezing. emily calls it an expensive lottery ticket. don't miss it. we'd love to hear your thoughts as always. now i turn it over to an instaking. thank you for getting away from the swamp. great to see you here in person. good morning, everyone. craig melvin is on assignment. star turn. no questions today over the credibility of former trump attorney michael cohen after a stunning report that cohen's attorney approached the president's team about a possible pardon.
did the president's former fixer lie to lawmakers when he publicly testified to the contrary? harassment. democrats launch an investigation into possible construction. obstruction of justice and abuse of power by the president and his inner circle. how the president is firing back this morning. and public rebuke. house democrats set to vote on a resolution to condemn anti-senttism. does it go far enough for republicans? we start with the democrats' investigation of president trump. the star witness, the broad net democrats cast tuesday from documents from every corner of trump world comes after michael cohen's testimony just last week. cohen testifies behind closed doors again tomorrow. but now critics are questioning the former trump attorney's honesty for the second time.