tv Morning Joe MSNBC March 8, 2019 3:00am-6:00am PST
sentencing tells us. a trump administration said we're looking forward to manafort getting out of prison in time to lobby trump. >> wow. we'll be reading axios am in just a little while. >> i'm david gura alongside francfra frances rivera and louis burgdorf. "morning joe" starts now. if trump abides by anything, it's this -- never apologize. well, paul manafort didn't apologize either. for all of his crimes yesterday putting this exchange from november back into focus. >> it seems like you're leaning
towards pardoning paul manafort. is that true in. >> it's very poorly the way they're treating paul. i have not offered any pardons. i think they asked or whatever would you. i said i'm not taking anything off the table. >> good morning. this is "morning joe." mika's on assignment. along with willie and me, we have donny deutsch, david cevallos, former msnbc contributor barbara mcquaid. and, willie, my god, the sentencing, which the guidelines were at 20 years was service early reduced by this federal judge who had, boy, raised
questions about the way he handled this hearing and handled the trial from the very beginning. just an absolutely shocking sentence that, again, suggests that not on that paul manafort had no need to apologize in the eyes of this judge and also suggested that there are two americas when it comes to justice, that if you're a wealthy, white white-collar criminal, you're treated one way and if not you're treated another. >> paul manafort did not apologize. the recommendation was 19 to 19 1/2 years and he got four
years, who was fating between 19 1/2 and 24 years under federal guidelines but the judge called that range excess of and sentenced him to 27 months declaring that manafort had lived, quote, an otherwise blameless life. manafort did not apologize, nor did he express remorse. the judge also ordered manafort to pay $25 million in restitution and a $50,000 fine. while crediting manafort for the nine months in jail, which allows him to be released in about three years. manafort is set to be sentenced in washington, d.c. next week on two conspiracy counts, each of those carrying a maximum sentence of five years and, joe, there will be the question of when that is handed down by
judge amy berman jackson, whether those will be served consecutively while he is in prison. >> danny, will paul manafort have more time tacked ton to what he got in the northern virginia case? >> yes, he will. the sentencing guidelines for manafort in d.c. are way above even the statuary maximum. when that happens, the sentencing guidelines automatically become the statuary maximum. in d.c. that's two counts, five years up, you get ten years. that's the recommended guidelines right out of the gate for the judge is that ten-year maximum. that doesn't mean she'll sentence him to the full ten years. she might still go below the guidelines based on mitigating
factors, not aggravating factors. she could go below those guidelines but she will certainly be thinking about the sentence that paul manafort received, whether she speaks about it or not. >> so, danny, let me ask you, given the length of time that paul manafort created -- or engaged in these crimes and given that he did it at the highest levels of government and given that it could be argued that it damaged american democracy, how in the world could this judge go so far below the guidelines? >> the simple answer is because he can. the sentencing guidelines for well over a decade now have been advisory only. that means the judges can go below the sentencing guidelines. >> were you shocked he did? >> yes. in fact, it's on the record.
i did believe he would go below the sentencing years, rang in t range of 10 to 15 years. most defendants -- the guidelines are not a representation or an empirical study of how recent sentences have gone. they are promulgated by the sentencing commission and often you see courts go below and they can go above the guidelines because they legally can do so and have been able to do stow for many years now. >> barbara mcquaid, i would ask you how you feel about the sentence given because i know how you feel, because there's a quote from you calling the
sentence atrociously low and absurd. prosecutors said in court said we talked about paul manafort for 50 hours, we got nothing of value from him and we know now that he lied to us. >> i think this sentence is atrociously low, 47 months out average of 19 to 24 years. this is something you see quite a bit in white collar cases. danny out of the gate was expecting a sense tenexpect ing a sentence of 10 to 15 years. it is the evidence of two americas. we see in white collar crime cases where defendants get a huge break on their sentencing guidelin guidelines. they say things like paul manafort said i feel shame, i already feel punished because of the embarrassment i feel among my peers. tell that to the indigent defendant who doesn't have
prominent people to vouch for them. to say he as led an otherwise blameless life is like the old joke of other than that, how was the play, mrs. lincoln? he committed $55 million in fraud over an extensive period of time, failed to pay $6 million in taxes. it's a serious crime and he got a slap on the wrist and for that people should be outraged. >> and anybody who has followed paul manafort's career would say he's lived far from a blameless life. this guy has not ban been a boy scout for a very long time. all you have to do is talk to his colleagues and see what his m.o. has been. nobody knows him would say with a straight face that paul manafort would live a blameless life. it's a joke and this judge's
sentence of 47 months was a joke. given everything that's happened, manafort's lying was bizarre as was the statement that his attorney made after the 47-month sense tensing w-- sentencing was handed down. >> mr. manafort finally got to speak for himself and make sure he accepts responsibilities for his conduct. i think most importantly what you saw today was the same thing we had said from day one, there is absolutely no evidence that paul manafort was involved with any collusion, with any government official from russia. thank you. >> david ignatius, he wasn't charged in this case with collusion. if he wanted to, he could have just gone down to kinkos and
could have made a banner and held it up that said, "mr. trump, please pardon my client." i talked about the lying of the special counsel that was bizarre. that scene was bizarre. what do you make of this politically? >> it want jusn't just manafort lawyer to said he wasn't guilty of collusion, it was the judge himself. i thought one of the unusual el m -- elements about the way stated it that he was not being sentenced onning in having any do with collusion. the judge said i think you're trying to turn the screws on
this guy to get him to sing on other material that's more important. he lectured one of the prosecutors to look at me, don't look down, look up at me. it was almost like a school master in a school. so this judge from the beginning has been signaling skepticism about the case, he's a somewhat eccentric judge. but i thought the underlining issue of collusion by the judge was unusual and that he called the guidelines the prosecution had come up with excessive. we'll hear those phrases again from the trump side in the months ahead. >> donnie, your thoughts on 47 months and as barbara mcquaid referenced the inequity of justice, you think about somebody sitting in a jail cell for possessing an ounce of ma r
marijuana and paul manafort will walk out in three months from now. >> someone referenced a person going to jail for stealing quarters from a laundry room. manafort got 18%. there's not always inequity when you go income levels, and just a silly ignorant question, joe, i just want to ask you this. i'm not saying any of this happened. the same way we see donald trump reach across every unreachable aisle in america, whether it is
firing comey, saying to comey, the fbi director, hey, go easy on my boy mike flynn, are there any three, four steps removed where messages come down to judges? the judge seemed to have a hard on for just the mueller probe overall. >> there's no evidence. >> i'm saying not even close. is that beyond the realm? in such a clear direct line you just go where is this coming from? >> well, the thing is, first of all, no. no evidence of that at all. >> i didn't say evidence. is that beyond the realm of thought? >> we'll talk to people who have practiced in front of federal judges a lot more than i have but, no, i never knew of that happening because the consequences would be so severe, so absolutely severe. but, danny, i don't think this
judge gave any reason for anyone on manafort's team to try to risk their freedom trying to get to the judge because from the beginning he was hostile from this case. he sounded like somebody from the trump rally, as david ignatius noted saying no collusion when you have actually robert mueller still investigating whether there was collusion or not. that's like calling a game in the fifth inning. i'm not exactly sure what was going through the mind of judge ellis at the time, but it was a bizarre statement and he acted in a bizarre way throughout the entire trial. >> and that's exactly the point. this is a case where manafort went to trial. and when that happens, the judge sits through all the evidence and develops his or her own opinion, whether subtly or otherwise.
in this case there was evidence that judge ellis was not a huge fan of the prosecution. that's just an opinion. in reality when the judge sees the evidence every day, he's going to develop an opinion. it's not like manafort pleaded guilty, appeared before a judge and the parties had to educate the judge about what the case was about. for that reason, there may be some subtle biasses that played in, just like they would for any human sitting in judgment. it could be that judge ellis had his own opinion about the case. the most important thing to remember is our sentencing guidelines framework allows for this kind of sentence. if you are going to criticize judge ellis, criticize congress and the sentencing commission
and possibly return to a pre-advisory guidelines regime. the real criticism here is on the whole the guidelines ver ha -- very harsh. maybe if we're going to sentence so far below the guidelines we should retake a look at the guidelines and see if they reflect fairness. >> there are lingering questions about manafort and russia, including his multi-million dollar debt to russian oligarch oleg deripaska, as well as manafort's role in the june '16 trump tower meeting with russians. and with the linked information
and lied about his involvement with konstantin kilimnik. kilimnik wrote, i've never had anything to do with any intelligence service of russia. so sam stein, all of that is probably why you saw paul manafort's attorney come out of the courtroom yesterday and say "no collusion," he wanted to remind people there is more out there. >> that's what surprised me. i guess we have to figure out what the definition of collusion is. providing polling data to russian operatives seem to me to have some collusion.
paul manafort was actively accused of witness tampering and that obviously got him tossed in jail early. you'd think the judge would have taken that into consideration and yet he ended up with a sentence that is roughly similar to what michael cohen got. it goes back to what everyone is saying, this is about the inequities in the judicial system writ large and rudy giuliani said i was very sympathetic to paul manafort but his basic line was this is just a white collar crime the end, as if it should be judged differently from any other crime. this puts the spotlight on what
is a hugely biased and discrepancies in the judicial system unfortunately. >> so barbara mcquaid, we know what's next in the immediate future for paul manafort, that's sentencing by judge jackson in d.c. what about beyond that as it pertains to russia and potential collusion here? >> i thought paul manafort's lawyer's statement when he was careful choosing his word there was no evidence of collusion for government officials in russia. it wouldn't be surprising that he used cutouts or people like kilimnik, who are not officially government officials. i think one reason to believe that robert mueller continues to investigate collusion with russia is all of these redactions we've soeen in recen court filings, where they were
demonstrating that paul manafort had lied during his attempted cooperation in sentencing memos. all of those redactions suggest there are things they're not ready to reveal to the world. and with judge jackson, they talked about how he had lied with conversations with kilimnik. so just because we have not yet seen evidence of coordination, conspiracy with russia does not mean that we won't see it yet. my guess is what they're looking at isn't -- collusion is a distracting word. i think they're looking at a conspiracy to defraud the united states by interfering with the administration of fair elections. that has already been charged against 12 russian intelligence officers and if they can find additional people, including americans who participated in that, they can easily add with a
superseding indictment. >> and for 50 hours in court yesterday the lead prosecutors said it certainly was not 50 hours of information that was useful. barbara mcquaid, danny cevallos, thank you. still ahead, when it comes to discussing a presidential pardon, it all depends now on what the meaning of "never" is. and we'll sort through yesterday's house resolution condemning hate. what nancy pelosi is now saying about the congresswoman whose comments sparked the whole this evening. you're watching "morning joe." we'll be right back. this is your invitation to a higher standard of luxury.
when it comes to reducing the evsugar in your family's diet,m. coke, dr pepper and pepsi hear you. we're working together to do just tt. bringing you more great tasting beverages with less sugar or no sugar at all. smaller portion sizes, clear calorie labels and reminders to think balance. because we know mom wants what's best. balanceus.org who we are as people and making everybody feel welcome. ordering custom ink t-shirts has been a really smart decision for our business. - [narrator] custom ink has hundreds of products and free shipping. upload your logo or start your design today at customink.com.
upload your logo or start your design today why are all these business owners so excited? we're going to comcast. it's ahead of the game, ahead of the curve. comcast business is for me. it's switch and save days at comcast business. right now, get fast, reliable internet for $49.95 a month and save $600 a year. just one more way we take your business beyond. but hurry, switch and save days ends april 7th. i can't wait to go home and tell everyone about it. i just wanna get it right now. guess what i'm gonna do. (laughing) call today. comcast business. beyond fast. the house passed a resolution condemning various forms of hatred including anti-semitism yesterday.
what started as a vote to condemn anti-semitism because anti-semitic statements were made, quickly evolved into a broad resolution adding islam phobia, white supremacy and other forms of bigotry against minorities. the official came out as 408 in favor and, believe it or not, 23 voted against that. all the no votes were cast by not democrats but by republicans. they were so upset that anti-semitism was bubbling up in their own party but 23 voted
against it. iowa congressman steve king who was stripped from his committee assignments of a history of what many called bigoted statement voted present. and speaker pelosi, who appears on the latest "rolling stone" cover, alongside omar weighed in after the official vote. >> i don't think that the congresswoman congresswoman does perhaps appreciate the full weight of how it's heard by other people, although i don't think it was intended in an anti-semitic way. >> reporter: she hasn't apologized. >> it's up to her to explain.
>> you know, nancy pelosi and the entire democratic leadership team have put out the strongest statement that anybody could put out condemning the congresswoman. of course the congresswoman continues to peddle anti-semitic tropes but she released a joint statement calling the resolution historic, adding, quote, the time when extremism is on the rise, we must explicitly denounce religious intolerance of all kinds and acknowledge the pain felt by all communities." and i hope that means, i really do, i hope that means that her anti-semitic tropes will come to an end. if she continues you can only conclude she knows exactly what she's doing. because if her anti-semitic
tropes continue, she will be doing what people like david duke and others do with their anti-semitic tropes. i'm sure yesterday was a very moving experience for her. she's talking about condemning racism for all faiths. maybe yesterday was a teachable moment, as they say. let's bring in the author and founder of women for women international and host of "through her eyes." and also susan page. zana, a resolution of condemning all forms of bigotry and hatred. fantastic. at the same time, i was very moved when these two muslim
women were elected. i thought especially given all of donald trump's anti-muslim statements, muslim registry proposal and the hostility he's shown toward muslims throughout his entire life, i thought these two women would be great role models and examples of epluribis unum. it's been a rocky start. >> it has been. i think it still can be what you wanted it to be. i recently asked her not about anti-semitism, i asked her about the core issue, which is how to get just and lasting peace between the israelis and the palestinians. that is ultimately what is at
stake and what we need to discussion. it's a lot of jewish leaders who are saying that's the core issue that, we need to find language about it. in her answer she says we need to treat israel and her neighbors that we need to treat equally. she employs sanctions and divestment against israel equally to bds on saudi arabia. she is critical of netanyahu's government passing last year a law that changed the foundation. >> i understand all that zainab and there are a lot of jews in america to feel the same way about netanyahu's government. at the same time does she have to question somebody's loyalty because, like me, that are pro israel? does she have to talk about how jewish money is buying elections
and people vote a certain way just to get jewish money? which of course is preposterous because the saudis have so much more money and other governments throughout the middle east -- the uae, they have so much more money. this whole jew money trope is preposterous, it's anti-semitic and it goes back centuries. >> i grief aagree and i also be her apology. i think she and muslims and jewish, people on both sides need to articulate new language. we have the capability of tracking in old rhetoric that issis insulting and dangerous and i do believe her apoll apology and l
what is this new language. we need peace in the region. you know i was there in december in the west bank and i did not meet politicians intentionally. i met teachers, principals, students, women's rights activists and i learned there was hundreds of millions cut in aid to these civilians. honestly i did not want to meet with the politicians. to build peace we need to talk to the civilians. they are saying that palestinian classrooms right now have 60 students because $300 million in aid was cut. they're scrambling. we need to address, these are the core issues, we need to go to them. >> yes. we can't do that, though, if she's sounding like a white nationalist about jews moving into her neighborhood or about david duke talking about money.
we've seen this from white nationalists all along and anti-semitic bigots again talking about international bankers for decades, for centuries. just maybe -- i don't know, maybe i'm being too tough on represent it have o representive omar -- representative omar right here, someone who i really, really want to succeed. no one is rooting for her more than i am. isn't this like the third or four time she 's engaged in thee tropes? hasn't she had three or four teachable moments and she just keeps driving through the barricades? >> it's at least her second.
we had this conversation yesterday. the people who argue thatgagingc tropes are wrong. they're factually wrong. what she was doing whether consciously or subconscious was taking these images of jews and applying them to a rhetoric. we have to admit that's what was happening and that it's important to get that out of the way. i also think on a factual basis her point was inaccurate. she was saying there is almost this monolithic thinking in politics that is pro-israel. the reaction too her comments have disprove yean her point. she's back a cause slceleb for lot of people and she's become the front-runner for a guy who is jewish, senator bernie sanders has been supportive of
her. the reason he's supportive of her is because she is saying things about the israeli-palestinian conflict that he himself and other politicians have wanted to be part of the debate. i think she's actually factually wrong on that point. think where it gets dicey but i do think where it gets dicey is the proportionality of the outrage directed at her versus other bigotry and other comments. we were talking about this yesterday but i do think and i've talked to members of the house who think this way, too, that the idea that there's two resolutions condemnation doesn't really make sense when you consider the totality directed jews in the past.
and the muslim -- a huge swath of the country took it that we could have a policy that banned muslims and then they voted for the guy that authored it. what people are upset about is the proportionality of the response and that includes members the house democratic caucus, who are having a lot of difficulty shepherding this resolution, which is why it became an omnibus of anti-hate legislation till the end. >> donald trump received harsh condemnation by -- well, first of all, our show and just about everybody else for his muslim bans, for his muslim registry. if you'll remember the when he was trying to put through his,
quote, muslim ban, there were quotes all over the streets of new york and boston and near condemnation certainly from democrats and a lot of independents. so i don't quite get these democrats' lodge being that it doesn't make sense, donald trump did this so why should representative omar or anybody else be condemned if she continues to engage in anti-semitic tropes. i don't quite get that logic. >> as we discussed yesterday, there's about a lot of what aboutism in the last week. i don't understand if we can't all at once condemn anti-semitism where we see it, condemn a poster in the west virginia statehouse, a in front of the burning towels on 9/11 and she's mus almolim, she had
something to do with that. susan page, i'm interested of your view of how this played out inside the democratic party, where it looks like speaker pelosi, who has been a strong leader for many, many years, sort of was pushed into the corner and pushed into this broad resolution that condemns all kinds of hate by this group of influential, young freshmen numbers. >> this has been a test for congresswoman omar but also a test for speaker pelosi, who got off with such a strong start, especially with the government shutdown. now these divisions, by age, you see the fractures in a very and if congresswoman omar makes another statement that is a anti-semitic, there is going to be a and saying the
congresswoman didn't understand the weight of her remarks. there will be pressure on the democratic caucus to do something about it, for instance, to remove the congresswoman from her seat on the foreign affairs committee. the house is voting today on hr-1, the prime piece of legislation for the new democratic majority. we're not talking about that. we're tacking about this resolution passed yesterday. >> david, what's so disturbing, to me at least, especially in the age of trump is i am always hopeful that the democratic party remains the voice, the resistance against all forms of bigotry. and they have been for the most part over the past two and a half, three years. but you look to europe and you see that anti-semitism does come from right-wing extremists but there's also been a long history of anti-semitism on -- from the left. you look in the united kingdom
and jeremy corbin and he has chased out many jews from labor because of his hostility towards israel and his perceived anti-semitic remarks and statements. and some really, i personally believe talk about corbin and anti-semitism on the left and europe and anything -- do you have see what jonathan sees, a possible coming danger for democrats in their relationship with not on jews in america but also in israel? >> there has been growing anti-semitism of a very vile way
in europe. and this has been on the rise. you talk to new french immigrants to israel and they say we just felt we needed to leave france, the kind of anty semitism that we were experiencing in france led to us think we just didn't want to stay there anymore. so i think this is a growing problem. is that the democrats recognized after omar made these semitic comments that he had to say something, had to act, had to pa. and somebody said it was the kitchen sink that added every form of discrimination but the focus on her and her comments remains clear. i think the message to the country is there's a difference between criticizing example and suggesting that supporters of trillion israel somehow are
disloyal to the united states. that's bright link has been made. i think the democrats have said again there going but the broad condition in europe, the return of this particularly vicious anti-semitism to bother everybody. >> yeah, it should bother everybody. donnie, let's being really clear for those who have not followed the actions of speaker nancy pelosi closely. she has been -- she has once again shown herself to be a person of the moment. she's just done an extraordinary job since assuming the speakership and what has made everybody correct move. my concern was a few days back when some members started pushing back on and i do agree
with susan page, if representative omar, who i hope has a long and storied congressional career, because that would be great for not on her but the democratic party and great for america, but i do fear if she engages in another anti-semitic trope moving forward, then the speaker and the leadership are going to have to move against her and possibly strip her of her position on the foreign affairs committee. >> i couldn't agree more, joe. there's the moral aspect of this and i share your criticism as to whether represent at the omar will find a better past going forward. it seems to be kind of babd in there. to me this is so politically
perilous. every time something happens, i always think to myself what would donald trump do, what would donald trump say? i speak to seem thursday such fire power and it me if you turned on to fox last night you would see aoc and representative omar as the faces of the democratic party. now, we know that they're not and they're new faces and they're small faces compared to the overall faces of the party, but we giving them posters going forward -- >> the hypocrisy of fox news, showing anything that representative omar is doing and not shows donald trump, not showing kevin mccarthy's tweet
and basically said jew money is trying to steal this election. how about jim jordan putting a sign by a jewish democratic donor's name. infront of tom steyer, it's tom with a dollar sign about because the republicans have been shameful, whether you're talking about bigotry towards jews or muslims or hispanics. so fox news is doing that. what a joke. >> joe, that's my point. we do not have the wiggle room there. i would have gone further in i was spoker pelosi and call her out by name. my point is even if it's a one versus a thousand, if you all of a sudden are stuck quote women
it is news and it is ammunition for the other side. i'm so concerned going forward that nancy pelosi really needs to get some of these young, new, brash voices in line or it's going to give us another four years of donald trump. >> okay, we're going to continue this conversation in just a moment. i want to turn, though, to national political reporter for axios, jonathan swan. good morning. this morning's's 1 big thing" deals with jared and ivanka's security clearance. what's that information? >> the house oversight committee led by elijah cummings, unbeknownst to the white house, the leaking problem they have has been benefiting house overtime. they have now obtained documents that show the timeline for -- my
colleague has about president trump personally john kelly and the moment owe, but it does have the full timeline, in which february of 2018 kelly actually demoted jared to interim secret clearance. >> and you've got reporting this morning on democrats digging into all aspect of this administration, including looking at whether or not the white house meddled into big media deals. we got that reporting from the new yorker that the president may have ordered his top economic adviser to stop the time warner-at&t merger. >> we have a new general going to william barr asking him to investigate. obviously jane mayer reports that donald trump told gary
cohen to talk to the because that went through very, very quickly. that's another element that has not been focused on so much but we expect based on our reporting that's going to come into focus. >> democrats digging into every corner. coming up on "morning joe", just a week after taking on president trump in his congressional testimony, michael cohen is now taking on the president's personal business. details of a new lawsuit against the trump organization ahead on "morning joe." ♪
carl, i as my broker...invite here. what am i paying you to manage my money? it's racquetball time. ♪ carl, does your firm offer a satisfaction guarantee? like schwab does. guarantee? ♪ carl, can you remind me what you've invested my money in. it's complicated. are you asking enough questions about how your wealth is being managed? if not, talk to schwab. a modern approach to wealth management.
bookers book now and ask their boss later.. [do you want breakfast or no?] [definitely breakfast.] be a booker at booking.com i'with uncontrollederson who moderate-to-severe eczema, . or atopic dermatitis... ...you feel like you're itching all the time. and you never know how your skin will look. because deep within your skin... ...an overly sensitive immune system...
...could be the cause. so help heal your skin from within. with dupixent. dupixent is not a steroid,... ...and it continuously treats your eczema... ...even when you can't see it. at 16 weeks, nearly four times more patients taking dupixent saw clear or almost clear skin compared to those not taking it. ...and patients saw a significant reduction in itch. do not use if you are allergic to dupixent. serious allergic reactions can occur, including anaphylaxis, a severe reaction. tell your doctor if you have new or worsening eye problems, including eye pain or changes in vision. if you are taking asthma medicines, do not change or stop your asthma medicine without talking to your doctor. help heal your skin from within. ask your eczema specialist about dupixent.
playing an influential role in helping to shape and explain foreign policy. yesterday one of his early students, former secretary of state madeleine albright, inaugurated this big new brzezinski memorial series at the college of europe in warsaw, europe. >> he warned that xenophobia, ethnic hatreds, religious and grievance could give rise to a new form of fascism in russia. fascism, he wrote, is particularly expressive in exploiting the rational side of human nature, appealing to emotions that can be galvanized
through nationalistic symbols and responding for the craving for discipline and uniformity, unquote. he warned if such a desire for order took root, it would not be confined to russia but would almost certainly spread across europe. he took no pleasure in being proven right. >> though she stopped short of calling president trump by name while on foreign soil, the former secretary delivered a stinging rebuke to his policies. >> to begin, i believe the world needs leaders who will bring people together instead of driving them apart. i believe in a free press dedicated to the pursuit of truth in all its aspects and a government that protects the rights of journalists because the truth can never be an enemy to an honest leader. i also believe that democratic leaders should help and support one another instead of reserving their warmest words for
dictators and the world's leading abusers of personal dignity and human rights. i believe in multi-lateral cooperation to address global problems, including climate change, nuclear nonproliferation, terrorism and a free and fair and open system of trade. >> david ignatius, it's an extraordinarily moving speech. i do need to correct one thing she said in that speech when she said that dr. brzezinski took no pleasure in being proven right. madeleine albright, mika, you and i know he took great pleasure in being proven right. think about this setting and what a strong, moving statement that was from madeleine albright about the dangers of fascism, when it was fascism that drove the albrights out of czechoslovakia in '38, the br
brzezinskis out of poland in '38. also the place where she delivered the speech, in warsaw. poland right now is having a battle of their own, a tug of war between democracy that mad length -- madeleine albright and dr. brzezinski have fought for their whole life and a regime trying to undermine the rule of law there. >> i thought madeline taking to poland this message of internationalism, commitment of democratic values, all of the things that dr. brzezinski believed in and say them with such passion. i sometimes think we all stand on the shoulders of these
giants. madeleine albright doesn't look like a giant but she is one and so is dr. brzezinski. this is a time when we really miss those voices and the careers they built in america as they tried to discover all the things that this free country could give them. i remember in the last communications i had with dr. brzezinski, he was as focused then as the first day i met him on doing everything we could to understand the problems, to push back against mistakes he saw being made. it was great to see secretary albert hayneswora albright take the message, takes gospel on the road the way she was. >> and susan page, it matters. there is a tug of war right now. obviously some moves, some overreaches by the polish
government were met by strong protests that dr. brzezinski would have been proud of. whether you look at the battle raging in poland, in hungary or other parts of central europe over the future of democracy, this is something that dr. brzezinski couldn't have foreseen two or three years ago. >> we talked about the strengths of two or three american institutions and one is our infrastructure, but who have stature, who have looked at history and when they speak up, as dr. brzezinski did, it reinforces the strength of the country to survive whatever challenges are faced. it's like our court system, our congress, our free press. it matters to have voices like these that speck up and can be
heard. we really do appreciate it. we are now at the top of the hour. willie, of course washington is talking about and so many people talking about paul manafort's sentence that was handed down yesterday, 47 months when the recommendation was around 20 years. i know there was a lawyer -- a lawyer tweeted that he was a public defender in new york city. for context on manafort's 47 months in prison, my client was offered 36 to 72 months for stealing $100 worth of quarters from a laundromat. of course, you have the story out of texas where the woman who voted illegally because she thought she could vote with a green card, sentenced to five years in prison in texas. any way you look at it, it's an outrage and it really does show that there are two americas unfortunately when it comes to
sentencing white collar criminals. >> paul manafort got 20 years less than he potentially could have received yesterday from a federal judge. we've got new reaction as we do hit the top of the hour here. to that first bout of prison time for paul manafort, less than four years for president trump's former campaign trarm, who wass if who wass iffin and a and a half to 27 years but t.s. ellis called that excessive and declined the 69-year-old manafort has lived an otherwise blameless life. manafort did not apologize, nor did he express remorse and said, quote, i have felt punishment in these proceedings." the judge also ordered him to pay $25 million in restitution
and a $50,000 fine while crediting him for the nine months in jail, which allows him to be released actually in about three years. he is sentenced to be sentenced on two separate conspiracy counts, each carrying a middlesex mum season it have of five years. kevin downing had this statement. mr. manafort got to finally speak for himself and make clear here accepts responsibility for his conduct and most importantly, it's what we've said from day one, there is absolutely no evidence that paul manafort was involved in any collusion with any government official from russia. >> talking about collusion there, which was was not on the table. >> with us zainab salbi and
susan del percio and eugene robinson in his personal library. where is that, gene? what's going on? >> i was interested in my book study. i was just purr using and former justice department spokesman, an msnbc justice and security reporter matt miller and natasha bertrand, an msnbc news and nbc contributor. >> why don't we start with matt ellis. he's here to explain judge ellis
and his quirks. >> i think the sentence of a miscarriage of justice. those sentencing guidelines aren't pulled out of thin air. they're comparisons of other cases around the country. i think on its face, this is a dramatic departure that isn't justified by manafort's conduct. the bigger issue is when you look at the way the criminal justice system works and the different sentences that white call offenders get, there's a dramatic disparity. i think to go to your question, i think what happens is in a lot of these cases, you have a judge like t.s. ellis, who sees someone rich, powerful, near nearly 70 years old and thinks
of himself. and he calls him blameless. >> a joke. >> it's more than a joke. and you see sentences where wealthy powerful male defendants get sentences are not just in any sense of the word. >> matt, i'm sure you've seen it a lot more than i have, examples of where somebody can be sentenced in two different courts for two different things and if one judge goes particularly lenient -- is lenient on a defendant and goes under, then the other judge following up sometimes actually let's just say puts the foot on the accelerator a bit more and makes sure at least the sentencing guidelines are reached. i'll give you a great example of it. it doesn't line up exactly here
but o.j. simpson of course acquitted of murder but then when he was accused of further subsequent lesser crimes, boy, he got the book thrown at him and spent a hell of a lot of time in prison because of it. you just couldn't help and think that perhaps the judge was looking at what happened in simpson's past and what he got away with when sentencing him as harshly as he did. >> and judge amy berman jackson has the discretion to do that. she has two ways in which she can use that discretion. one is the sentence she gives him, up to ten years, there's statuary maximum of ten years, though one of them had a bunch of crimes underneath it. there's a cap of ten years and she could ten ser him it's her
decision whether to make him serve his sentence into d. krnkts consecutively, meaning at the end of his sentence or serve it concurrent. it multi-matly look like a 14-year sentence. the prosecutors made an interesting choice had they filed their sentencing memo in d.c. they didn't weigh in on whether it should be consecutive or concurrent. they said they wanted to make a recommendation after they saw what and that he was somewhat predisposed to manafort. maybe they had a suspension that this sentencing wasn't as serious as it otherwise should have been. >> josh gerstein, i read why are tweets. you weren't surprised the judge
went below the guideline. were you surprised how low he went behind the guidelines? >> i expected him to get about half the guideline and i thought we were looking at something in the eight to ten year range. i think that was generally the consensus of the reporters and the lawyers and the court warpers that were in the courtroom. so this was about half that. it was pretty surprising. the judge did have some argument for why he was going this way. he listed and said the guidelines recently changed to depend and he had another case a year or two ago involving a professor who had parked it and avoided about $18 million in taxes, which is roughly three
times the scope of and so the judge felt that this was a stiff sentence compared to what defendants for these kinds of white collar tax evasion crimes tend to get. maybe they should get more, but he said the reality of it is they typically get somewhere between six months or a year, sometimes just probation. >> josh, we heard the judge admonish the prosecutors in the courtroom yesterday. what was he admonishing them about and do you think that figured into the sentencing that he handed down? >> well, he kind of denied that it did figure into his sentence, but again, it was really palpable that the judge has a distaste for the concept of special counselsenly said the position of the special counsel's office is that they don't take a stangd on a the
judge snapped at him and said don't say special con and early why in the beginning of the proceeding, he mentioned again the criticism he leveled about a year ago against the special counsel's office, suggesting that their jurisdiction is not really cabined or restricted as to time or subject matter, but he said he'd ruled that that wasn't a legal obstacle to it was clearly in the back of his mind at a minimum and might have affected this. you did have manafort's lawyers yesterday that they felt in could have easily bar bargained away and that the mueller people were taking such a hard line and the judge basically said come
on, we all in we're here and obviously earlier he suggested that mueller's team was looking for hard line. >> in a tasha, i'm curious what your reaction life saying paul manafort has led an essentially given that he's studied his work with russia, the ukraine and even in the u.s.? what was anz ld that blameless statement from the judge. >> in many ways it was not completely shocking because from last august for paul understood
the breadth of paul manafort's criminal life, right? so he expressed shock, for example, that reporters had shown up in the numbers they had shown up. he did not understand why there was such a media frenzy surrounding this trial. he was surprised there was so much attention being paid to it at all. from that moment that just seemed like a signal that he really just didn't get it. with regard to paul manafort's life, i think to say he's blameless is further evidence of this profound mis&ing judge ellis kind of walked into this with. i mean, paul manafort, just to go back to his early days as a lobbyist in washington, i mean, he was known as part of something called the torturer's lobby because of all of the dictators and het and all of the hutuan rights apuces that they
committed or just kind of turned a blind paid out in the caribbean. and then kind of just tried to leverage his role on the trump campaign to be repay that debt to this oligarch. so the fact that the judge would say that paul manafort has lived this kind of pristine life prior to his massive tax and bank fraud crimes is really a complete joke to anyone who has studied paul manafort's life. and the sentencing guidelines what even his own defense lawyers were asking and last your during the trial. he kind of wraeng because he attacked the prosecutors essentially and said that paul
manafort would not be here at all if it weren't for his control in the frum many campaign, that the special counsel's probe was about russian conclusion since day one he's been very suspicious, like josh said, of this investigation. people are wondering whether or not that suspicion played a role here in ou he sentenced had ever so am i from you could even talk to people who worked in campaigns with him alongside of him. paul manafort is lucky they weren't called in as character witnesses because anyone i've ever talked to that's ever worked with him in a sidish eye and anyways, i'm sorry, go ahead. >> i was going to say that's been a big question and i think
that's part of the reason why he wouldn't be here if it weren't for the trump campaign and the swoun's probably. you write in part this "i've got the perfect slogan for president trump's reelection came pain, promises made, promises not kept, but i'm voters my voters are too stupid to notice. let's take stock. trump promised to build a wall along the 2,000-mile southern border. result, not a single mile of trump's wall has been built.
trump promised to reverse trade policies that he said allowed the rest of the world to play americans for suckers. result, the commerce department announced wednesday that the overall u.s. trade def sis. trum promised on twitter that there is no longer a nuclear threat from north korea. result, it is unlikely to have and sometimes we forget the policies that he pushed for the hardest, the things that he promised. on health care he said people were going to get better health care, cheaper health care, more accessible health care. hasn't done a thing but make it harder for americans to get health care. he said he was going to balance a budget. we've got the largest debt ever. and then you go down the lawn
drif li-- laundry list that you mentioned, his key promises, the things that energized his campaign the most, the president's come up hot or these were not occasional promises. these were things he woman let's not forget that mexico was got to pay to even some things he said he might have been expected to accomplish. he said he was going to repeal and republic place the affordable care act. he had majorities in both houses of congress beside him to get that done. he didn't get that done. they didn't even bother to try to come up with some sort of alternative. i man, this has been an extraordinarily incompetent and
infective administration in addition to all its transgressions and all the criminal activity and all the sort of "star wars" bar scene cast of characters that it's brought into our lives. but, again, you know, he plays to his base, he does it with his wedge strategy, trying to drive wedges so they have to be with him and not against him. and we will see how that plays out in 2020. did not work so well for him in 2018. and one hopes that the scales fall from a lot of people's eyes as they see what he has actually been able to accomplish and what he has actually not even bothered to try to do. >> and yet, susan del percio,
despite everything we've laid out is that north korea is back at its missile sites, those are up and running, the fact that we have a record trade deficit and illegal border crossings are double than they were this time last year. wall street journal had him at 46% approval rating, some had him in the high 30s. the people who love donald trump are hanging right in there with him. >> i think there's a difference for those who voted in donald trump and those who voted for him in 20 service. then there was also a segment of the population of drft that because of how the blue wave came in in 2018 but what's also important to recognize i think is that whooef become so divided as a nation that we don't just have a partisan policy or look
at things through being republican or democrat, it's actually hating the other person and that's what donald trump thrives on. so he's not rely on people to like him so much or even support his policies so much as he's relying on them to hate the other person, and that's really kind of the most disgusting thing about where we are in politics right now. >> gene's column is so important, a great road map for the democrats. donald trump's essence of his brand, there are two what i'll call emotional pillars to it. one is strength and the other is winning. he is only about winning. to me if you can paint him with the broad stroke of a loser, the biggest loser, instead of make america great again, let's make america win again. that is so effective. can you spin the economy two days. can i give you a half hour speech where the economy is roaring and a half hour speech of here are the warning signals. if the economy starts to shake a bit and you put it with those
other three or four propositions, and you stay on message, he's a loser and he's losing for you and he can't get your health care done, he can't get your wages up, he can't solve the income inequality. what i'm doing is the economy, this it that started in 2010 under barack obama and went for six years under barack obama, and you look at the unemployment rate, which was pretty extraordinary. donald trump can talk about the
unemployment rate for blacks and hispanics, and most economists we're going to be going into a downturn and that downturn has been being predicted for a very long time. at the same time, if donald trump is on the ballot and the unemployment rate 3.8%, it's going to be hard to beat him, no matter how rageous they'll take the one of would organizements that the economy is low, consumer confidence is up. they'll point to all these fact factors, they'll point to isis being almost dismantled, they're going to clean up the mess in syria before they leave. they have a story to tell. it's the question is do the people in the middle buy the story. >> and the question is who else is competing with the story. when i talked to an organization
called people first, who are can vatting people in the trump companies neonazis, they didn't even try to talk to them. but a good half are people who are, you know, returning, talking about they really are talking about jobs and they want health insurance and they want employment, you know, hi but when you go to the essence of what they want, they want their rights. and the democrats need to compete for these people. we need to go and talk about them and awe need need to address their grievance. that's what i don't know, who is doing that? is the democrat going to trump country. only rush limbaugh is talking to them, as i understand. >> it depends on which democrats that you're talking about.
are you talking about klobuchar or maybe joe biden. or maybe are you talking about the more progressive side? they're going to take a little bit during the showed. think promote his as and certainly a lot of pao and certainly folks in mesh began and pennsylvania who came out and voted for drft, people who may have voted for barack obama eight years ago, that is tru -- true that hillary clinton did
not turn out the voters. all this talk about whether the democratic party is going to be a moderate party or a progressive party misses the much bigger point. like barack obama, they have to be both. >> without question. we got that report in the the "new york times" yesterday that joe biden is now staffing up after he told john meacham last week that his family wants him to run. i was thinking of joe biden talking to us in that bar on the air in philadelphia during the 2016 democratic convention and him saying out loud on television about hillary clinton's campaign, they're not talking to my people, they're not talking in scranton, they're not talking in youngstown, they're not going into milwaukee and talking to my people, as joe biden calls them. will he get into the race and try to take back those people who were obama, obama/trump people and will he make it official.
you can get back to smoking your pipes, gene, and reading your leather-bound books. >> i have to give gene credit. if you or i were there, we all would be in our paisley smoking jackets -- >> well. >> exactly. you can't see me from the waist down, joe. >> oh. >> nor do we want to. we'll leave it at that. willie back to you. >> on that, we'll send you off to your weekend. >> ari melber joins us to discuss an apparent appeal for a presidential pardonby his attorney afterward. we'll also look ahead to manafort's second sense tensing heari -- sentencing hearing in washington. you're watching "morning joe." we'll be right back.
i've just been told that paul manafort has received 47 months in prison from this judge in washington. 47 months. a fairly light sentence as compared to the guidelines of up to 24 years. >> that's ken dilanian delivering the news on "the b t beat" in realtime yesterday. natasha bertrand is back with you as well as. ken, were you surprised along with everybody else? >> i was. i was not surprised that the judge went below the guidelines. it was clear in the pretrial hearings that judge ellis had no
patience for the special counsel, he questioned the legitimacy of the entire investigation. but to go that low without any seeming basis for it was really surprising. and the idea that he said that paul manafort had lived an otherwise blameless life suggested that he had never read a single article about paul manafort. this is a man who was the leader of something dubbed the torturer's lobby because he represented unsavory dictators in angola and ferdinand marcos and profited as a lobbyist. he invented that business with roger stone. he has not lived an otherwise blameless life. ellis acted as if this was a one-off. this was a ten-year fraud
scheme. he was already being paid tens of millions of dollars and yet he decided he couldn't pay the federal taxes on that, will le if not in name, that's how he was acting. he was acting on behalf of vladimir putin's interest for years, so that doesn't sound like a blameless life to many people. >> ari, most people who followed this case closely didn't think there would be a 19 1/2 to 24-year sentence but also didn't think it would go this low. is this 47-month sentence a surprise? >> well, it's lawful. this is the judge's call. i don't think the loud outcry from almost the moment that broke, close to the 7 p.m. hour
last night, i don't think the outcry is suggesting that the judge has exceeded his authority but rather a strong, widespread criticism that this was the wrong call. because, while no, you probably wouldn't get the full 20 years, but when the recommendation is near 20, the more you get away from it, the more you have to have exemplary circumstances, having mitigation, having maybe young kid to raise. there's all sorts of things that might bring someone down from 20. paul manafort has none of those thanksgiving and has what this is america so god help you if you're poor or a person of color in the system. god help you if you are a woman of color offering up your testimony and hoping it would be
a and even when there's a national media in the courtroom saying we're going to watch every moment of this. and even when you've been busted not only for your crimes but then for post conviction crimes after that and even you double cross one of the powerful men in america that the president seems april afraid of, bob mueller and even after all that you get a sweetheart four years off of 20? wow. >> so ari, how do you explain it? how do you spain you know what, the go as let's go easy on him. how do you defend that if you're judge ellis?
>> that's my first answer. >> i don't know how i came into that. >> sometimes. we sit here and go, no, we'll talk about it. one, i can't explain it. two, legally i can explain it as thus -- one, the judge has this call. he can look at this and say he wants to go lighter, that is within his authority. and, two, it is possible that where he identifies with him and overemphasizes with him as a beltway virginia elite with the right taken all the way up until literally yesterday because even judge ellis with all of his mts
did not express repentance on judgment day? >> couldn't it have been that the judge wants to go over mueller and his team, saying he didn't believe it was a well-founded case to begin with, that he just went after him because he was associated with the president? could it have been a referendum on the special counsel? >> it's possible. we do know that the judge had those antipathies. but again, that would not be appropriate. he didn't claim to be doing that yesterday. part of my job is to cover what the judge says his reasoning was. and his reasoning that and -- >> again, the look from judge ellis said man fort has lived an otherwise blameless life we have brand new reporting from nbc's
christian welcome who said in the wake -- a pardon is not beinged -- in or out is what he said. i want to point to something that mr. dowling, paul manafort's attorney said yesterday when he came out on the courthouse. he said most important what you saw today is the same thing we saw from day one, there's absolutely no evidence that paul manafort was involved in any collusion with any government official or russia. given the fact that government collusion was not on the pabl and what do you make of manafort's attorneys statement? >> i think someone said this earlier. might as well have been holding up a sign that said please go easy on my client.
he was for krch downing come and say the there was no evidence that he colluded with russian government officials is totally nonsense i call if you take it within the context and the trial itself and the sentencing. but when you look at all the president's rhetoric, that, which is there's no collusion that paul manafort, even though he's gotten this lienier sentence, is still willing to accept the pardon. we don't have to guess that, you know, the judge maybe had on his find during the fact that this was not a trial or a sentencing hearing about a trial with collusion with russia. he said it from the outset, i'm said that this is not so both
parties, the judge and paul manafort's lawyers seem to really want to make it clear that they wanted to repudiate the muller investigation and say, look, this is not this is completely unrelated from mueller's mandate, which of course it's not. he received a separate mandate from rod rose i don't know steeb saying he could have the or when she came out and saturday that. >> can 47 months in the federal court and next week he has a hearing in the d.c. federal court with amy what do you expect to see in that courtroom? >> well, speaking two two prosecutors who have practiced
before judge amy jackson, they expect she will throw the book at manafort and potentially give him the five years on each count. but she has the authority to slap temperature that would what i've been led to expect is maybe if she gives him ten, maybe five of that would add on. that would that would be a significant chunk of prison time for a white collar offender, for a 69 yoorld mabb. it could end up being live success people are who ailing are sthakled. i agree that she is much more by the board and congratulate grm she's the reason he was in
pretrial in the first place. we'll see what he does on that. on the collusion thing, he want accused of collusion. that was such a tell last night. these lawyers could have taken a victory lap and said we're pretty good at our jobs, look at how low it was and the fact that paul manafort's lawyers last night in the crux of this couldn't even imagine to their own legal victory or appeal to the next judge and were speaking almost exclusively to final judge in the white house was quite telling. >> and they got a response. ken dilanian and thank both, being here. >> and we'll sue i big one, ari, we'll be watching. coming up next on "morning joe." >> when you saw those pictures of babies in cages, what did you
do? what did you do? did you scream bloody murder up the chain to the president? >> congresswoman elissa slotkin grilled the homeland secretary over the administration's family separation policy. today her amendment aimed at limiting influence gets a vote when the michigan democrat joins us next on "morning joe." this is not a bed...
it's a revolution in sleep. the sleep number 360 smart bed, from $999... senses your movement and automatically adjusts on each side to keep you both comfortable. and snoring? how smart is that? smarter sleep. so you can come out swinging, maintain your inner focus, and wake up rested and ready for anything. only at a sleep number store, save $500 on select sleep number 360 smart beds.
and our shirts from custom ink help bring us together. we order custom ink to welcome new employees, personalize team shirts, and even for company events. the design lab is so easy to use. we just upload out logo and if we have any questions, customer service is there to help. seeing our team together in custom ink gear is an amazing reminder of how far we've come as a business. - [narrator] custom ink has hundreds of products to help you look and feel like a team. upload your logo or start your design today at customink.com upload your logo or start your design today why are all these business owners so excited? we're going to comcast. it's ahead of the game, ahead of the curve. comcast business is for me. it's switch and save days at comcast business. right now, get fast, reliable internet for $49.95 a month and save $600 a year. just one more way we take your business beyond. but hurry, switch and save days ends april 7th. i can't wait to go home and tell everyone about it. i just wanna get it right now. guess what i'm gonna do. (laughing)
call today. comcast business. beyond fast. the department of homeland security and congress have launched investigations into u.s. border agents allegedly targeting selected lawyers, activists to question at the border. they have a list of those who are to be stopped and answer a checklist of questions. they have stopped and arrested at least 21 on the list. the names on the list are people present during violence at the border in november and they're being questioned so the agency can learn more about what happened. house chairman has asked for a copy on the list, any dossier on
the individuals an -- and an explanation of why they're on the list. we're going to get to a member of the homeland security member in a moment but your initial reaction to that. >> well, obviously it's very troubling and, again, it suggests that the trump administration has turned the texas border into a war zone. and i'm glad the chairman is trying to figure out exactly the nature of the list and who is on it. there obviously are far-reaching implications. let's bring in right now a member of the homeland security. h has. >> like i said, i don't think anybody feels good when they hear a story about one of our government agencies tracking journalists. i think it's important we
understand what happened, i think it's interesting that the inspector general is also looking into this matter. we bin and p you -- i thought that your questionsin the hearing with the secretary of homeland security. the thing that we've been asking on the show for some time, and i know that you've had to have been asking on the campaign, this and following the number of children that have been detained, the number that have been reon itsed, were you surprised that kirstjen nielsen came to your committee with very few answers on that question? >> i was. obviously i was a pentagon
person and you come prepared. i was a little surprised she didn't come committee do, what can kcongres do, what tool dos you have to compel her and the department of homeland security to step forward and give you the answers that you need? if she never has the answers when she's in the hearing so how can you get that information the next day or the next week? >> yeah, well, listen, i mean, the whole reason that the issue of separation of families at the border became an issue where, you know, for the country was because ofexposure. people started seeing young people in cages crying who had been purposely separated from their parns. in michigan that was not a partisan issue. no one likes seeing those
pictures and that public pressure translated into the department of homeland security stopping that policy and trying to reunite families as much as possible and i think that's what we're going to need here. a couple days ago when she came up that was the first time in 11 months that she came in front of our committee and had to actually answer for the separation of children. so i think just exposure, shining a light on those things and then getting the public to realize that this issue is not over. >> congresswoman, they are -- you know, few things i want to ask you. one is you have a security background a national security background. what do you think of the security at the borders? what do you think we should pay attention to at the moment. >> sure. i'm a former cia officer and i've worked on prevenning homeland attacks my entire life so i'm a big bleefr eliever in
security. for me that means more technology, more customs agents. i'm willing to talk about fencing where we need it. but it has to be based on what is most effective. i'm from michigan. it's a border state too. i am a believer in big border security, particularly in our ports of entry since we no that's where so much is moving back and forth. >> what do you think about the idea of the wall as proposed by the united states. even john kelly who led homeland security as well said at an event at duke university didn't think a wall from sea to shining sea makes sense. >> i think we need to move past this concept of one solid wall and move towards actual border security based on a real needs assessment. we need border security. we need to be honest about that but we also need to be smart about it and that is not a wall from sea to shining sea as kelly said. >> a new report from bloomberg
says this morning the white house is now drawing up demands to have germany, japan and eventually any other country hosting u.s. troops to pay the full price of american soldiers deployed on their soil plus 50 pk50% or more for hosting them. the report says that in some cases, nations hosting american forces could be asked to pay up to 6 times as much as they do now under the formula. dav david, this is once again just shows the complete ignorance and shortsightedness, i hate to say this, of donald trump just not understanding that we want the troops there, not for their benefit. i hate -- i hate to reveal this secret, we want the the troops there for our benefit. >> president trump seems to have this idea that we should have user fees for our military and as you say, they're deployed to
protect the security of america and its allies. so i want to turn to congresswoman slotkin, former cia officer, and ask you, if you just step back a moment and talk a little bit about what life is like in the house democratic caucus these days talking about security issues, but talking about issues generally. it's been a kind of bumpy couple of weeks. i'm curious, your take on the vote on representative omar and more broadly, what you house democratic moderates think about your position in this new house. >> sure. so obviously we're a big caucus. we have lots of different views. that's a good thing, but we're also experiencing growing pains. right? and that's normal. to me the most important thing is that we actually build relationships with each other. i think that's something that's been missed as lots of folks have had this twitter battle back and forth. we have to talk to each other and try to understand everyone's
perspective. now, as someone from the middle of the country, i'm a pragmatist and i believe that no matter what, our job here is to pass laws, not just snipe back and forth at each over and make political statements and i think it's important that people realize that the way that we won the house of representatives as democrats is with a lot of practical reasonable people who talked about local issues, who talked about getting things done in a concrete way, not the kind of back and forth that characterizes washington. and sometimes i think we could have a bigger role there the caucus, but i think in general, this stuff has growing pains. i know the media loves to talk about it and -- but i think it's normal when you have a freshman class that is this big. >> congresswoman, i want to -- >> can i follow up with -- i'm sorry. go ahead. >> no, because i want to take it back to the separation of family and children so go ahead, joe. >> real quickly though, i understand they're growing pains and know when our freshman class
came in there were 74 red hot freshman right wing republicans came in and you could count on people saying something tup stupid every day especially because i was in thid eventuallt how to avoid negative headlines they want to avoid. at the same time though, we are talking here about the second or third time this representative, representative omar has engaged in anti sematic probes. do you think that representative omar will cease using anti sematictropes in the future? >> i think what we did yesterday basically condemns discrimination in many forms. that doesn't mean that we shouldn't separately call out anti-semitism when we see it and for me, i will tell you that thetrope around dual loyalty
hits pretty close to home. i ran the u.s./israel relationship at the pentagon and so that was something that i was just always aware of in the back of my mind whenever i was dealing with the israelis as jewish member. so i will tell you, we need to call those things out where they are and i just ask that everyone try to have conversations instead of doing this over twitter. that is the worst possible way to solve problems. >> and all the people said amen. okay. go ahead. >> indeed. congresswoman i do want to take it back to the separation of family and trirn achildren and t the borders. what do you think the right action is here? what can we help to solve the issue because there are still prison who are in prisons right now. >> so again, i think first and foremost the public needs to maintain pressure on the department of homeland security to reunite those families. and that is -- we need to hear from the public the way we did last summer. that absolutely moved the issue.
people's voices still do matter so i think we need to keep that up. particularly for states housing some of these children. i think they need to be loud and clear about what they think about it. and then i think we need to accept -- i mean, we saw the numbers this week. we have larger numbers of people coming over the border than we did even a few months ago. right? so the trend is not going in the right direction for managing this problem. and i think that's why you see the department of homeland security asking the defense department for help in housing some of these folks. we have to accept that we're not properly prepared for what's happening at the border. we have to always have humanitarian issues in mind first and foremost to deal with us. but i think it starts by continuing the public pressure of the department of homeland security. >> thank you for continuing to put the pressure on as well. we appreciate you being with us here this morning. coming up on "morning joe," today's jobs report is expected to give a key reading on the
strength of the u.s. economy amid concerns of a possible slowdown. we'll have the numbers as they cross a short time from now. plus, new insight into paul manafort's perceived slap on the wrist and the message from his attorney some say was an appeal for a pardon. plus eric holder, hillary clinton, michael bloomberg and now sherrod brown. many people said no to running for president. not our next guest though. john hicken looper says you can count him in and he joins us when we come back. and he joinss when we come back.
ignatius. there's no reason to apologize. i think if i apologize it wouldn't make ten cents worth of difference to them. there's nothing to apologize for. >> from the muslim ban to a gold star family, if president trump abides by anything it's this. never apologize and well, paul manafort didn't apologize either for all of his crimes yesterday putting this exchange from november back into focus. >> it liams liseems like you're toward pardoning paul manafort. >> i've never seen anybody treated so poorly. i have not offered any pardons and i think they asked for whatever, would you. i said i'm not taking anything off the table. >> well, good morning and welcome to "morning joe." it is friday march the 8th. mika is on assignment for international women's day at a know your value event in detroit
but along with willie and me we have renown ad man donnie deutsch. associate editor for the "washington post," david ignatius. politics editor for the daily beast, sam stein and barbara mcquaid and willie, the -- my god, the sentencing, which is guidelines were at 20 years were -- was severely reduced by this federal judge who had raised questions about the way he handled this hearing and handled the trial from the very beginning. just an absolutely shocking sentence that again, suggests that not only that paul manafort had no need to apologize in the eyes of this judge, but also suggested that there -- there
are two americas when it comes to justice. that if you're wealthy, white white collar criminal you're treated one way and if you're not, you're treated another. >> yeah, paul manafort did not apologize. the recommendation was 19 and a half to 24 years in prison for paul manafort. you've got some interesting points of view around this table and new reaction this morning to the first bout of prison time for paul manafort. four years -- less than four years for president trump's former campaign chairman who was facing as i said between 19 and a half and 24 years under federal guidelines but senior judge called that range excessive and sentenced manafort to 47 months on tax and bank fraud charges declaring he has lived an otherwise blameless life. in a short statement before his sentencing manafort did not apologize nor did he express remorse but he said i have felt punishment during these proceedings. judge ellis took note of the statement saying quote, i was
surprised i did not hear you express regret. the judge also ordered manafort to pay $25 million in restitution and a $50,000 fine while crediting manafort for the nine months in jail which allows him to be released in about three years. manafort is set to be sentenced in washington, d.c. next week on two conspiracy counts. each of those carry a maximum sentence of five years and it will be the question of whether that sentence when it's handed down in the federal court, the district of d.c., whether she serves those concurrently or consecutively adding to paul manafort's time in prison. >> it is a good question. why don't we bring in danny. danny, what do you think the answer to that is going to be? will paul manafort have more time tacked on to the 47 months that he got in the northern virginia case? >> yes, he will. the d.c. case is a very different case and her's why. the sentencing guidelines for manafort in d.c. are way above
even the statutory maximum and when that happens, the sentencing guidelines automatically become the statutory maximum. in d.c. that's two counts, five years each. you add those up, you get ten years. so that's the recommended guidelines right out of the gate for the judge is that 10-year maximum. that doesn't mean that she'll sentence him to the full ten years. she might still go below the guidelines based on aggravating or -- or really mitigating factors not aggravating factors. she could go below those guidelines but she will certainly be thinking about the sentence that paul manafort received whether she speaks about it or not. >> so let me ask you, given the lengths of time that paul manafort created -- or engaged in these crimes and given the fact that he did it at the highest levels of government and given that actually it could be
argued that it damaged american democracy, how in the world could this judge go so far below guidelines? >> the simple answer is because he can. the sentencing guidelines from well over a decade now have been advisory only. and that means that judges can go below the sentencing guidelines as long as they calculate them -- >> were you shocked that he did? >> yes, i was and in fact, on the record, i did believe the judge would go below the sentencing guidelines but i was thinking more on the order of 10 years to 15 years. not in the five-year range. but if you look at the statistics, if you look at all defendants, almost all defendants 69 years of age or older who are sentenced in the federal system, most of them get in about the five-year range and most fraud and similar cases get much lower sentences. remember, the guidelines are not a representation or an empirical
study of how recent sentences have gone. they are promulgated by the sentencing commission and often you see that courts go below and they can go above the guidelines because they legally can do so and have been able to do so for many years now. >> barbara, would ask you how you feel about the sentence given but i know how you feel. a quote calling the sentenceatr low and absurd. yes, we talked about paul manafort for 50 hours. we got nothing of value from him. in fact we know now that he lied to tus. >> yeah, i think that this sentence is atrociously low. 47 months out of a range of 19 to 24 years and this is something you see quite a bit in white collar cases as danny said even out of the gate he was expecting a sentence of 10 to 15 years and i think it is as joe
described, the evidence of two americas. we see this very frequently in white collar crime cases where defendants get a huge break on their sentencing guidelines. you know, they say things just like paul manafort said that i feel shame, i feel like i've already been punished because of the embarrassment i feel among my peers. well, you know, tell that to the indigent defendant who doesn't have prominent people to write letters for them, to vouch for them and all their good works. to say he's led an otherwise blameless life is like the joke other than that how was the play, mrs. lincoln. he had fraud over an extensive period of time. it's a serious crime and he got a slap on the wrist and i think for that people should be outraged. >> and anybody that has followed paul manafort's career would -- would say he has lived far from
a blameless life. this is this guy has not been a boy scout for a very long time and all you have to do is talk to his colleagues and see what his m.o. has been over the past 30, 40 years and nobody that knows him or has ever worked with him in washington, d.c. would say with a straight face that paul manafort has lived a blameless life. it's a joke and this federal judge is sentencing paul manafort to 47 months was a joke. it was also very bizarre, the "washington post" pointed this out, that -- that given everything that has happened, manafort's lying was bizarre as was a statement that his attorney made after the 47 month sentencing was handed down. let's take a quick look at his lawyer. >> mr. manafort finally got to speak for himself. he made clear he accepts responsibility for his conduct
and i think most importantly what you saw today is the same thing that we had said from day one. there is absolutely no evidence that paul manafort was involved with any collusion with any government official from russia. thank you. >> david ignatius, he wasn't charged in this case with collusion. if he wanted to, he should have just gone down to kinko's and they could have made him a banner and he should have held it up and said please pardon my client. it was -- again, one more bizarre act. i talked about the lying manafort's continued lying in the special council was bizarre. that scene was bizarre. what do you make of it and what do you make of it politically? >> well, it wasn't just manafort's lawyer who said he wasn't guilty of collusion. it was the judge himself.
i thought one of the most unusual aspects of the way the judge presented this was to state himself from the bench that manafort was not being convicted for anything that involved russian collusion and the presidential election. this judge -- judge ellis from the beginning of this trial has seemed to many courtroom observers to be skeptical of the prosecution's case. he said at one point, i think you're just trying to turn the screws on this guy to get him to sing about other material that you think is more important. he lectured one of the prosecutors, you know, to look at me. don't look down. look up at me. it was almost like a school master in a school. so this judge from the beginning has been signaling skepticism about the case. he's somewhat eccentric judge but i thought the underlying issues of collusion here at the conclusion of this trial by the judge was quite unusual.
that and the fact that he called the sentencing guidelines that the prosecution had come up with excessive. we'll hear those phrases again from the trump side in the months ahead. >> still ahead on "morning joe," russian collusion wasn't even part of yesterday's sentencing, but the issue is still hanging over paul manafort. we're going to be talking about that angle of the story straight ahead on "morning joe." i hear it in the background and she's watching too, saying [indistinct conversation] [friend] i've never seen that before. ♪ ♪ i have... ♪
uh uh - i deliverberty the news around here. ♪ sources say liberty mutual customizes your car insurance, so you only pay for what you need. over to you, logo. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ neighbors... loved ones. living with diseases like cancer, epilepsy, mental health conditions and hiv. maybe you're one of them. but new medicare rules could deny access to the latest, most effective therapies... therapies that keep them healthy. are medicare cuts that save less than one percent worth the risk to millions of patients? president trump promised to protect medicare... we need him to keep his word.
(danny) after a long day of hard work... ...you have to do more work? (vo) automatically sort your expenses and save over 40 hours a month. (danny) every day you're nearly fried to a crisp, professionally! (vo) you earned it, we're here to make sure you get it. quickbooks. backing you. was a success for lastchoicehotels.comign
badda book. badda boom. this year, we're taking it up a notch. so in this commercial we see two travelers 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. nobody glows. he gets it. always the lowest price, guaranteed. book now at choicehotels.com
[ sighing ] ♪ oh my momma she gave me ♪ these feathered breaths ♪ ♪ oh my momma check in from afar with remote access. and have professional monitoring backing you up with xfinity home. demo in an xfinity store, call, or go online today. so while judge ellis says russian collusion was not a topic of yesterday's charges but there are still questions including his $10 million debt to russian oligarch as well a manafort's role in the june 2016
tower meeting with russia. special counsel robert mueller's office broke off a cooperation agreement with manafort buzz they say he lied about his interactions with that aide whom they're investigating as a conduit between the campaign and the kremlin. in an e-mail to the wall street journal last week. adding that the accusations has been intentionally push out to make me a missing link in a story that is built on flawed foundation. as we mentioned in court yesterday mueller's prosecutor said manafort today them little of value during his brief cooperating period. so sam stein, all of that is probably why you saw paul manafort's attorney cam out of the courtroom yesterday and say no collusion. he wanted to remind people that there is more out there. >> that's what surprised me. i guess we have to figure out what the definition of collusion
is but providing polling data to ukraine officials with russian intel seems to me to meet some definition of collusion. but we are paul manafort's lawyer pleading otherwise and the other thing is that it wasn't just that paul manafort didn't express remorse or that he didn't cooperate with investigators. he actively was accused of witness tampering and that obviously got him tossed in jail early, but you would think that the judge in putting out the sentence would have taken those things into account, that paul manafort had not allowed the trial to go ahead smoothly. in fact actively tried to undermine it and yet he ended up with a sentence roughly similar to what michael cohen got. it goes back to what everyone is saying which is this is about the inequities in the judicial system at large and i was shocked by giuliani's statement after this case -- after the sentencing came down last night where he said i was very sympathetic of paul manafort but
his basic line, this was just a white collar crime in the end as if it should be charged differently from other any crimes and so yeah, this clearly puts a spotlight on what is, you know, obviously a hugely biased and diskraep opinion screpancie judicial system. >> we know what's in the immediate future for manafort. what about beyond that as it pertains to russia and potential collusion here? >> yeah, i thought that paul manafort's lawyer's statement on the courthouse steps there was very kelling when he was very careful to choose his words and say there was no evidence of collusion with government officials for russia. >> right. >> he was very careful to confine it to government officials. well, you know, it wouldn't be surprising that he used cutouts or people like kilimnik who are not officially government officials. i think one reason to believe that robert mueller continues to
investigate collusion with russia so to speak is all of the redactions that we've seen in these recent court filings, in the documents where they were advocating for the -- to the judge to demonstrate that paul manafort had lied to them during his attempted cooperation all of those redactions suggest there are things they're not ready to reveal to the world and in that litigation before judge jackson there were things that did directly talk about how paul manafort had lied relating to his communications with kilimnik. so thisn't cos to be something that robert mueller is investigating. so just because we have not yet seen evidence of coordination, conspiracy with russia, does not mean that we won't see it yet. and my guess is that what they're longing at -- collusion is a distracting word. what i think they're looking at a conspiracy to defraud the
united states. if they can find additional people including americans who participated in that they could easily add in a superseding indictment to that current pending indictment. >> coming up on mrch, the trump administration refused to provide documents to congress when it came to ivanka trump and jared kushner's security clearances. new details on that coming up next on "morning joe." sometimes, the pressures of today's world can make it tough to take care of yourself. but nature's bounty has innovative ways to help you maintain balance and help keep you active and well-rested. because hey, tomorrow's coming up fast. nature's bounty.
because you're better off healthy. nature's bounty. 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. so we improved everything.g. we used 50% fewer ingredients. added one-handed pumps. and beat the top safety standards. johnson's® choose gentle. ♪ ahhh, ha. ♪ ♪ ♪ oh yeah, baby. ♪ ♪ like a fool i went and stayed too long. ♪
neighbors...loved ones. living with diseases like cancer, epilepsy, mental health conditions and hiv. maybe you're one of them. but new medicare rules could deny access to the latest, most effective therapies... therapies that keep them healthy. are medicare cuts that save less than one percent worth the risk to millions of patients? call and tell congress, stop cuts to part d drug coverage medicare patients depend on. stop cuts to part d drug coverage [ sighing ] ♪ oh my momma she gave me
♪ these feathered breaths ♪ ♪ oh my momma check in from afar with remote access. and have professional monitoring backing you up with xfinity home. demo in an xfinity store, call, or go online today. welcome back to "morning joe." joining us now national political reporter for ox i don't say -- axios, one big thing deals with ivanka and jared kushner's security clearance. >> the house committee requested documents from the white house to explain the security clearance process for jared and ivanka. the white house refused that request. the leaking problem that they have has actually benefitted the house oversight as well as benefitting people in the media. they have now obtained documents that show the timeline for jared
and ivanka's security clearances. they were leaked to the house oversight from an administration source and my colleague has obtained those documents and has reported on that this morning. the one thing i should add is it does not contain the new explosive detail about president trump personally ordering john kelly in the memo, but it does have the full timeline in which in february 2018 kelly actually demoted jared to interim secret clearance. >> and there's also, you've got some reporting this morning on democrats digging into all aspects of this administration including looking at whether or not the white house meddled into big media deals. we got that reporting from the new yorker that the president may have ordered his top economic advisor to stop the time warner at&t merger. >> yeah, that's right. and we have a new letter from senator holland that's gone to the new attorney general asking
to investigate not only that, obviously the reports that donald trump told gary to talk to the doj to meddle into that merger, but also he's asking them to investigate the disney merger with fox because that went through very, very quickly, so that's another element that has not been focus on so much but we expect based on our reporting that ha's going to come into focus. coming up, there's breaking news on the economy. the new unemployment numbers are crossing. we're going to get a live report from cnbc. >> and former governor john hickenlooper is going to be here and he joins the conversation straight ahead on "morning joe." hear those words...
stage 2 breast cancer. i have three little kids. i can't have cancer. so we decided to travel to cancer treatment centers of america. dr. fernandez was wonderful. he said it was up to me to do what's best. it's about giving her options, where amy has all the information to make a decision that's best for her. we left on day one feeling like we're gonna beat this and this is the place that's gonna help us do it... that feeling is priceless. learn more at cancercenter.com. appointments available now. ♪ ♪ exciting, everything that i'm gonna do in my life ♪
♪ ♪ never let a day go by where i don't try ♪ ♪ and i've been dreaming ♪ ♪ dreaming bout places and things in my mind ♪ ♪ 'cause i've been ♪ growing wings now i'm ready to fly ♪ ♪ and i know i'm always ready for whatever ♪ ♪ i could take over the world believe that ♪ ♪ ooh yeah ♪ ♪ i'mma still shine right now ♪ ♪ ♪ i'm gonna shine right now ♪ ♪ intuit's giant solutions turbotax, quickbooks and mint can help you prosper. intuit's giant solutions turbotax, i never count trthe wrinkles.s. and i don't add up the years. but what i do count on, is staying happy and healthy. so, i add protein, vitamins and minerals to my diet with boost®. boost® high protein nutritional drink
has 20 grams of protein, along with 26 essential vitamins and minerals your body needs. all with guaranteed great taste. the upside- i'm just getting started. boost® high protein be up for life. one day, i found a lump on my right breast. in a small town, we don't have a health center on every corner. it would take three to four weeks to be seen. so i called planned parenthood, and they got me in that day. the trump-pence administration just issued a new policy blocking access to care at planned parenthood which could have a devastating impact on millions of people nationwide. had i have waited a day, i would have had stage iv cancer. planned parenthood saved my life. text titlex to 22422 to learn more. when it comes to reducing the evsugar in your family's diet,m. coke, dr pepper and pepsi hear you. we're working together to do just that. bringing you more great tasting beverages with less sugar or no sugar at all. smaller portion sizes,
clear calorie labels and reminders to think balance. because we know mom wants what's best. more beverage choices, smaller portions, less sugar. balanceus.org at outback, your steak & lobster wish is our command. steak & lobster is back by popular demand, starting at only $15.99. hurry in to outback! and try our everyday lunch combos, starting at $7.99. so why haven't youul started building? tyler's off to college... and mom's getting older... and eventually we would like to retire. td ameritrade can help you build a plan for today and tomorrow. come with a goal. leave with a plan. td ameritrade. ♪ welcome back.
a quick preview of what to expect on capitol hill. a center piece of the democrats' legislative agenda and of course last hour we spoke with congresswoman slotkin and what an impressive freshman member. she's actually added a key amendment that's aimed at closing loopholes that currently allow foreign entities to legally buy digital and tv ads for the purpose of influencing u.s. elections. that sounds like an extraordinarily important amendment and i'd hope republicans might be interested in making sure that foreign nations especially those with adverse interests to our own can't buy digital ads to try to influence american democracy especially when you have the head of the department of homeland security saying that actually russia is a direct threat to american democracy and are trying to -- they're trying to use their influence to undermine american democracy.
so we're going to be watching especially close to see how that vote plays out later in the day and specifically the congresswoman's amendment. now let's go to breaking news with the release of the monthly jobs report. sarah has the numbers. alex just told me in my ear how many numbers were -- jobs were added and i said wait a sect. you got that wrong. you mean 200,000 and he said no. >> 20,000. >> give me the number which -- okay. is that the lowest jobs number we've had in -- i mean, since i've been doing this for 11 years i can't remember much -- a number in that range. what's going on? >> it's certainly the lowest we have seen in many, many months if not years, joe. so economists were looking for us to add about 180,000 jobs this month in february. we some got 20,000. that is a very weak headline
number. but i will say there is a silver lining here and we saw a big jump in wages, something that we've been looking for to happen. wages rose .4% from last month. this year from last year, that's a 3.4% jump. that's very strong. so may not be hiring as much but at least people are getting paid more. the overall unemployment rate goes to 3.8%. what i would say is you can't read too much, joe, into one number. you know these numbers are all over the place. >> exactly. >> but we should pay attention if this is a trend of cooling job growth. we can't get 300,000, which is what we got in january, the month before, every single month. we have been averaging around 200,000 for all of last year, so it was a very strong year of jobs growth but you know the market's been extra volatile in the recent weeks and there have been increasing calls from economists in the slowdown of the economy. could this be the start of that
in the job market? one month does not a trend make but let's pay attention to what happens and to what companies are telling us over the next few months. >> and it is also important and i know you follow this so much more closely than i do. it's also very important to tell our viewers right now, this is extraordinarily low, but we have seen these jobs numbers adjusted a month or to later, so there may be an adjustment to this also. let me ask you, could the government shutdown, could any seasonal forces, could a cold winter have impacted these numbers and driven them down so low. >> absolutely. so february is always a quirky one yabecause one of the survey weeks, this is a survey where they poll for hiring. one of the weeks was marked for snowfall which always sort of messes up the numbers, so you got that working for you in february and also keep in mind, january although it was revised was revised to 311,000 jobs up.
so you're going to see giveback. if you go through where the numbers were, private sector was all the job growth in february. they added 25,000 and government jobs actually subtracted 5,000. so you're still sort of shaking off the effect of the government shutdown. still, economists know all these factors going in when they make the forecasts. that's why they were looking for 180 from 300,000. they weren't looking for anything this week. so we're going to have to wait to hear the white house reaction and company reaction. i will just emphasize though the wage numbers are very, very good. the best we've seen post recession. >> yeah, the wage numbers are good. we also though -- and you're right, i mean, we actually -- when you're picking up 300,000 jobs we aren't going to do that every month. that's 100,000 more than we're used to seeing. also, though, when we're just trying to get an overview of the economy you also look back and see the fourth quarter numbers were a little lower than
expected. growth a little lower than expected, so again, we're looking at trends, but there's no way -- again, i just want to keep underlining this and you underlining this as well, this one month does not make a trend. we would have -- i mean -- >> correct. >> how many weak months like this would it take before economists started thinking boy, it looks like we're headed towards a recession? >> well, if you get a repeat in march of a weak number then already you're going to start to hear calls of lower growth for the rest of the year. so really one or two more weaker than expected jobs reports and you know, this is much weaker and then you would start hearing about it. we're also going to have to watch all the other indicators in the economy. so far what we're getting, joe, is a slowdown from the very fast growth that we saw last year, but nothing close to a recession. and you know, that's an important point because europe for instance is really slowing down. they're looking at 1% growth this year.
the u.s. is still in a -- i'd say 2, 2.5% range if you look at economists' forecasts so far this year so a slowdown from the 3% range which we got last year but nothing markedly slow that you would start talking about recession. let's see what these jobs numbers continue to show. >> i'm glad you bring up europe because europe is slowing down, china is having a lot of troubles, china is slowing down. this trade war is actually having a far greater impact on them than us right now, so a lot of things going on there. thank you so much. it's going to be an interesting day where you work. >> yes, the markets already sharply lower. >> all right. thank you. donnie deutsch, okay, i'm going to toss this over the plate with you. i have three words for you, my friend. fools rush in. all right. also, video tape is forever. go. >> okay. my hypothesis earlier in the
show which you cut at the knees, look, i still believe and if you look at china and you look at housing which to me you have to look very hard on housing starts and you look at interest rates and you look at a 10-year bull run, if i'm a betting man i am betting heavily -- this is the beginning. you can't just look at one number but everybody i talk to in the street or every hedge fund guy, every bank really feels softening so i still will stick with my biggest loser strategy for trump when you combine this with the wall, with the trade deficit, when you combine it with health care so the video tape, we will replay once a month viewers of "morning joe" to see how wrong i usually am. >> that sounds awesome. and willie again, donny brings up a good point. we've been on a ten-year recovery. at some point every recovery just sort of weakens and reverses into a recession, but we'll see what happens. >> we'll give you a preview of
what the house will say and what the president's probably tweeting as we speak. unemployment down to 3.8% and wages going up more than they have in a decade. that's probably the case. we'll hear out of these numbers from president trump. the economy will play a key role in the presidential election. joining us now former colorado governor and 2020 presidential candidate john hickenlooper. governor, great to have you on with us. for people who don't know you you have a fascinating story. you are a gee contrologist turn brewer, a nationally ranked squash player if i have my stats correct. so we'll put the first question to you, why do you want to be president of the united states? >> you know, i'm running for president because you know, a, i love this country, but b, i see the country in a crisis. i mean, a monumental crisis. i don't think we've been this
divided since the civil war and i look at what i've done in government, what i did in small business, i've been able to bring people together and get stuff done. so whether you're talking about health care, colorado now has almost universal coverage. climate change, we've got industry to sit down with the environmental community and create the first methane regulations in america. or you look at just the basic economy. we took colorado from 40th in job creation to the number one economy in the country the last two years. this is the stuff that we need. we need people who can demonstrate that they've gotten stuff done and i not only know i can beat donald trump but i think i can bring us together on the other side and get back to accomplishing progress. >> there are a lot of very well known senators running for president of the united states. what advantage do you think a governor has, someone who has run a state from the executive
seat over a senator? >> well, i think and obviously i'm a little biased, but i think having that executive experience makes all the difference in the world. and so i -- when i was out of work for a couple years and started the brew pub, i created a business from scratch. i put the team together, i made it work and then when i was mayor i did the same thing. i brought people together, created a team and then got all the different groups in the community to work together to make real change and a governor, as a governor for eight years i've done the same thing again. we took on the nra. we got universal background checks passed in a purple state. that -- that record of accomplishment most of the senators and again, i know most of them and they're remarkable people and i'm always impressed, but they're out there, you know, debating and dreaming. i can do the dreaming too, but i also get stuff done. i'm a doer. >> so governor, you certainly were a doer when it came to business.
what you talked about sounds like the american dream as far as business goes and wow, an advertisement for american capitalism. are you concerned about some factions of your party embracing socialism? >> well, i think there's -- the democratic party, i've always loved there are all kinds of ideas. i look at my experiences and where i've tried to make a difference and it really is getting people together, getting them to lay down their weapons and getting stuff done. and the labels i think most democrats don't care as much about the labels. >> well, would you call yourself a proud capitalist? >> oh, i don't know. you know, again, the labels i'm not sure any of them fit. but i do believe that, you know, that ability to look at, you know, climate change and figure out how are we really going to create a sense of urgency and get people together. methane is one of the worth
pollute tants that there is and we're the first state to address it aggressively. >> right. let me ask you just i'll break it down even more. do you consider yourself a capitalist? >> well, again, the labels, you know, i'm a small business person. so that part of the system that you would call capitalist, i get it. when you open your own business, when we first signed the lease in lower downtown denver it was one dollar per square foot per year. that is if you haven't ever signed one of those leases that is almost free and it reflects how bad and how abandoned that part of the community was. we worked 70, 80, 90 hours a week to build the business and we worked with the other business owners to help them build their business. is that capitalism? i guess. so in that sense of building community that's one aspect of it. it's not all that it is. i served on 42 nonprofit boards and committees in that same
12-year period. >> right. so do you consider yourself a capitalist and does capitalism work? >> well, i think i -- i don't look at myself with a label. and i certainly think that small business is part of the solution. i think right now the way capitalism is working in the united states, it's not doing what it once did. it's not -- it's really not providing security and opportunity for the middle class and for poor people. and i think as a country we need to step back and look at that and say, how do we get america back to place it was where if you were -- worked hard enough no matter where you started on the economic ladder you would have a chance to go ahead and create your own version of the american dream. >> governor, so you basically said capitalism is not working for the middle class and the poor. what -- and yet you do oppose medicaid for all sf? i mean, what is your position on
that? >> did you say made cade for all? >> yes. >> i've said health care should be a right and i believe we should get to universal coverage. i think there are somewhere north of 1 50 million americans who get their health care through private insurance. i don't think we're going to take away that insurance from them or make them go to a whole new system very easily. >> so the capitalism works in the private sector insurance but not generally for the public? >> well, i think that there are places where we need to make dramatic changes. you know, there are 70 million people in this country that make less than $75,000 a year. we've got to find way to get more of the business profits and their stax savings that come don to those workers and that is a challenge that we've got to accept and work on. >> so nice to talk to you. i'm going to pick up kind of the
line of questioning where joe and susan were and i'm frightened that you're in a position where it's hard for you to come out and say it's a capitalist. we are a capitalist society. that doesn't mean we can still have more income equality, but that is my concern the way your party, my party is being hijacked that it's uncomfortable for you to say i am a proud capitalist. >> well, but the trick here is all these labels have gotten to the point where they divide us from each other. >> that's my point. >> you become a capitalist and you're right. people think that's a bad thing. you become a socialist. that's a bad thing. i prefer to say all right, how do we come together? whatever the label is that you feel most comfortable with, how do we come together and really move the ball down the field? how do we make sure that we are providing more opportunity to people that, you know, started out with more challenges. >> can't we say socialism? is it bad for the democratic party to say socialism is a bad thing?
that's not who we are? >> well, we have always -- i mean, when we had social security, people used to at that point say that's some form of socialism. you know, there are parts of socialism, parts of capitalism in everything. right? and are we going to try and get everything down to being purely capitalism? if you're purely market driven, then you end up with monopolies. you end up with all kinds of problems. so whatever label you choose, weir going to have to find ways to navigate and recognize that this is a system that incorporates aspects of many different economic theories. >> all right. governor, thank you so much for being with us. i know we hammered just one part of a -- of a -- i mean, i wanted to ask you about saudi arabia. i wanted to ask you about foreign policy. we hope we get another chance to do that but i just want to say here for myself and for my family and for everybody on this set, we know how difficult this
decision had to be for you and your family just like anybody who is running for president of the united states to contribute, to give back to their country and we want to thank you for doing that. like we want to thank every candidate but again i know it's a tough decision. thank you for serving your country and thank you for being with us this morning. >> thank you so much, i appreciate it. >> all right. thanks a lot. coming up next, one freshman over in congress is tweeting that she agrees that a woman's place is in the house. the house of representatives. and we've got a special panel coming up next as we mark international women's day and i also just want to talk a little bit about our interview with governor hickenlooper when we come back. keep it right here on "morning joe." re on "morning joe. to severe crohn's disease. 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.
webut some of us turn outhose dreams...... into action... the bookers. the doers. the 'hit that confirmation button and let's go!'- ers! because bookers know that the perfect place to stay... is right there for the booking. be a booker at booking.com the world's #1 choice for booking accommodations. seaonly abreva cany to help sget rid of it in... ...as little as 2 1/2 days when used at the first sign. abreva starts to work immediately to block the virus and protect healthy cells. abreva acts on it. so you can too. . willie, i just got a text from one of the smartest people i know in politics who said oh, my god the democratic party is
in crisis and they've gotten to a point where an american success story can't even say he is a capitalist. >> governor hickenlooper who has done well, started up this beer company in colorado and he couldn't say he was a capitalist because he is worried about that label. i think it is a statement where the democratic party is and a statement about fearing the left flask of the party. you've seen elizabeth warren and bernie sanders sticking to the core and those who are capitalists by definition by the virtue of the success they've had in their lives afraid to use the word. it is incredible. >> it is. and donnie deutsche, you've sed it, the democratic party is in crisis right now. trump is going to devour every one of these candidates if they can't say they support
capitalism. but yes, it needs to be reformed. it had to be reformed after -- after the gilded age. it had to be reformed by teddy roosevelt and reformed by fdr, it had to be reformed again by lbj. yes, capitalism has to be reformed from time to time to work for all americans. my god, if you are afraid to say you're a capitalist in america, i'm going to tell you, people on the left tweeting today may not like it, let me just let you in on a little secret. if that is a crisis for your party, you're going to lose in 2020. just, you know what, pull up the stakes on the tent and just pack her up. the party is over. >> you're going to lose in a landslide. joe, i'll take it one step further, this is how dangerous -- i find donald trump reprehensible as a human being but a socialist is more dangerous to the country as far as the strength and well-being of our country than donald trump. i would vote for donald trump, a
despicable human being. >> no you won't. stop yourself. >> let me correct myself. thank you, joe. >> you will never vote for a bigot, a guy that maid bigoted statements. >> yo, thank you. i stand corrected. i will be so distraught to the point that that could even come out of my mouth if we have a socialist -- because that will take our country so down. and we are not -- we are not denmark. i love denmark. that is not who we are. and if you love who we are, and all of the great things that still have to have binders put on the side, please step away from the socialist and let me correct myself. i will never vote for donald trump. thank you, joe. >> very good. fools rush in, donnie. video tape is for ever. >> there is my chin. >> and by the way, don't pick on denmark. i love denmark. >> i love denmark, too. >> today, we are as john kennedy said, i'm a jelly donut or
something like that. pertaining to denmark. it is an inside joke, kids. look it up on the google machine. today we honor the achievements of women worldwide and the hard work that still remains and with us now roxanna willis. her magazine annual glass ceiling index which assesses where women have the best chances of equal treatment at work is out this morning and editor of politico carey brown, the poll focusing on the state of women today both in the u.s. and worldwide and also former gop counsel for the house over site committee and a daily beast opinion writer, sofia nelson. let me begin with you, roxanna, where do we stand with women breaking through the glass ceiling? >> yes, so we've got the working environment of women across 29 countries and we've seen very
little improvement in the last year so the wage gap is still quite high. we've got the share of women in management still stuck at about 32%. the share of women in labor force hasn't moved much in the last year. so yeah, we've just seen across all of these indicators, little movement in progress for women in work. >> kerry, just looking ahead, where -- where are women more apt to make progress? where are the avenues that are best suited at this time? obviously we want to make it everywhere, but where should we be taking advantage of things? >> well, as joe referenced, we have this new politico poll and to the point of the theme of international women's day this year is balanced for better and women are concerned about their place in the workplace. their treatment in the workplace. more than 40% of the women that we surveyed said their concerned about pay equity, john
discrimination and workplace sexual assault. so to your point of where women can make progress, what we're hearing from women, the new female members of congress is the representation and how much that matters, having a seat at the table. similarly we asked women for a magazine feature today. kamala harris weighing in, amy klobuchar weighing in on the value of importance of getting that seat. and i think we'll be hearing that a lot in the democratic primary where women will play a huge role and i think candidates that can connect to women on that level could have an edge among what will be one of the most important sort of voting blocks that we're looking at. >> sofia, to that point, still donald trump, there are a lot of women that vote for donald trump. what is your message? how do you break through -- i don't want say that glass ceiling, that concrete weird wall that -- as far as i know any woman should be an automatic no for trump. how do democrats twist that message for them. >> one of the most important
things, balance for better is the theme for today and i think that we as women need to focus on the sisterhood of women and lifting other women as we ourselves climb and i think you have a number of women running on the democrat side, unfortunately on the republican side we know who the candidates will be two, men. but the democrats have a distinct advantage because they have women in roles where they could talk about what it means to be a woman in 2019, 2020. the way they break through is to have a message that women, when we are in positions of leadership, policy, et cetera, we're just better. and i don't mean that as a putdown to the guys but on emotional intelligence and sensitivity, the soft skills that we down play are our strength as women. so i really think the democrats and women -- i know i'll be talking to microsoft women later today and i will tell them, don't run away from being a woman. don't think and act like a man. be a woman. be good with that. that is my message. >> that is a great message.
>> donnie deutsche, who makes mistakes on this show and that is why we have him on to correct him and feel superior, attacked nordic countries a few minutes ago. what is so ironic about that -- his slight of nordic countries is that denmark is the best place for women to work or at least nordic countries are the best places for women to work. the united states down at 20. explain the disparity. >> yes, so the nordic countries do really well. they have equality measures in place. they have quotas for women on boards for instance. they have generous paternity leave as well. they just have an environment which they want equality basically. whereas in the u.s. you don't have any such paternity leave which means fathers can't help
out in the home and share the burden of unpaid work. >> still such a long, long way to go. the economists, roxanne willis and kerry brown and silvia nellsons, thank you. later today, sofia is talking to the ninth annual microsoft women's conference in new york city. i know they're going to really enjoy that. and also mika is tackling all of these issues with her know your value movement. and speaking today in detroit. go to know your value.com and get much more information. that does it for us this morning. stephanie ruhle picks up our coverage right now. >> thank you, so much, joe. i'm stephanie ruhle. this morning we start with 47 months, a federal judge sentences paul manafort to less than four years