tv Deadline White House MSNBC March 20, 2019 1:00pm-2:00pm PDT
objects he would like us to chase instead of the looming belief in robert mueller's nearly two-year investigation into donald trump's campaign and russian interference in the 2016 election, all signs suggest mueller is nearly done and his report could go to the attorney general at any time. donald trump, who is embroiled in twitter wars against the late senator john mccain and the husband of senior aide today eagerly lobbed a last-minute smear against mueller. the former director of the fbi and vietnam war veteran -- >> i know he's conflicted and i know that his best friend is comey, who's a bad cop, and i know that there are other things, obviously, you know i had a business transaction with him that i have reported many times that you people don't talk about, but i had a nasty business transaction with him and other things. i know that he put 13 highly conflicted and very angry -- i call them angry democrats in,
so, you know, it's what it is. let's see whether or not it's legit. you know better than anybody, there's no collusion. there was no collusion. there was no obstruction. there was no nothing. i told him he wouldn't be working at the fbi, and then the following day they get him for this. i don't think so. i don't think people get it. >> he's spinning as fast as he can. trump also greenlighting the mueller report's releet with the trumpian spin he may live to regret. >> do you mind if we see the mueller report? >> i don't mind. i told the house, let them see it. let it come out. that's up to the attorney general. we have a very good attorney general, he's a highly respected man, and we will see what happens. but it's interesting a man out of the blue just writes a report. >> just out of the blue. whatever we learn in the coming days and weeks, mueller's final conclusion will cap a sweeping
body of evidence against those inside the trump orbit, including 37 indictments and guilty pleas, among them several former savior aides and some of trump's closest allies. at least 50 witnesses interviewed by mueller's team, stretching over several days and appearances, dozens of suspicious contacts with russians and few records of what was discussed and a lot of faulty memories around those conversations. not to mention at least eight separate lines of inquiry by state and federal prosecutors spun off from the mueller probe. and new investigations on capitol hill that at least five committees in the house, that is where we start today with some of our favorite reporters and friends, aaron blake is a soon yor political reporter with "the washington post." with us at the table "vanity fair" senior reporter emily jane fox. former chief spokesman at the department of justice, matt miller's back, former dnc senior adviser doug brunell and chief national correspondent from "the new york magazine" makes a
triumph faept retu triumphant return to the table. there's so little that we don't know about what's going on in trump's mind because he tweets it, he blurts it out. this fiction, does it feel like part of a last-ditch effort to sort of soften the ground of his base or is he talking about something real? >> i don't think he's talking about anything real or any new line of attack against robert mueller. he i think is like the rest of us, which is the report could watch imminently or in two months. the imminent report has been six, seven weeks old. >> we took the word imminent out. looming. >> it is definitely looming. i think the ground is soft under his base or par, whatever the way his ground would be. they seem to be with him. i don't think what he said today will influence that in any way. but it's all very curious. it's sort of part of a larger pattern of cure osness that we
keep wondering about in shows like this. >> we've covered some lunacy in the twitter war with a dead person is an insane thing write and read at the beginning of a newscast. that seems to be the effect. the cause seems to be this looming mueller conclusion. >> maybe. every time i tie to get into his head and figure out why he's doing some explicable, i find myself scared by what i find going down that road. i don't know whether he's being strategic, whether he's trying to create a different fight and create distraction because he's worried about this report. i don't know if he's doing it because he's panicked or if it's just he's a terrible person and he likes to attack john mccain because at the bottom he's a bad person who likes to do bad things, like pick fights with dead people and pick fights with the parents of war heroes. i don't think we know. it's hard to figure out if there's grand strategy behind what he's doing or foaming at the mouth as he often does. we're stuck with the same
conundrum in what he has done last few days as we have been for two years now. >> aaron blake, as you look at the prospects for this president with robert mueller completing his nearly two-year investigation, if at whatever point that happens in passing along t along to the attorney general his findings, whatever the outcome, the fact that the debate is along whether or not you can indict a president, the debate is whether or not a president can obstruct justice, a fight rudy giuliani seemed to want to have a few months back. it's undeniable in full view donald trump sought time after time after time to obstruct the mueller probe. it's undeniable he tampered with witnesses. there's bad conduct we can silt and write ourselves without the benefit of classified information and interviews with dozens and dozens of witnesses
robert mueller had. >> it's interesting you bring up the fact the justice department generally believes it cannot indict a sitting president. i think that actually makes the comments the president made about the public release of the mueller reports more interesting. generally speaking, the justice department does not release details on investigations if they're not indicting someone. they do that to avoid these cases looking like they're political, looking like they're trying to get bad information out there about people they can't actually charge with crimes. in other case what the president would say about the public lease of the mueller report would not seem to matter that much. what people in congress think about this wouldn't with seem to matter because this would be an internal doj decision. remember, this is an unusual situation in which the president can't be indicted. so if you're william barr and you're con fronting that scenario, you basically have a rule that says you cannot disclose things for people who are not being indicted. you also have a president who cannot be indicted.
so what can you say about that president? he does have a certain amount of discretion here and i do wonder if the president effectively giving him the green light to disclose the mueller report, as far as his own personal conduct goes, might have some kind of impact on what we ultimately learn from this. >> it's such a good point, matt miller. this is i think the argument jim comey and people may agree or disagree about whether or not he's a messenger on this, i think the point he's trying to make is because we're all operating -- and we never know we're operating on the right assumptions but we're operating under the assumption that's a decision has been made the president cannot be charged, cannot be indicted, that that is not the calculation that had to be made in the case of hillary clinton. why not release all of the findings. why not make public all of the conduct that was discovered and scrutinized and why not if it was the president himself saying put it out there, i can't be indicted, let him pound his chest with the fact he can't be indicted, not that he didn't commit crimes. >> that's exactly right.
i believe the mistake comey made in the clinton case is he didn't follow the practice in the rules, which is basically indict or shut up. if the indictment is not on the table because of the department's own rules, then the shut up doesn't apply. especially if the logic behind the doj of the president can't be indicted is it's up to congress to police presidential misconduct. they can only do their job if they have all of the information the department has, meaning they have to make it public or turn it over. that said, the president is not the only person being investigated by the justice department. i do think let's say that mueller has found someone like donald trump jr. walked right up to the line and committed a crime. did a number of things that are very inappropriate and maybe that were completely against what we would expect someone as a senior in a campaign to do or how they behave themselves but didn't quite cross the line to commit a crime he can prove in court, i think that information ought to stay private. the same rules that should have applied to hillary clinton ought to apply to other presidents, because don jr. could have been
indicted. but not for the president. it's different for him. >> let me ask you, there's been some -- adam schiff questioned why the president wasn't before a grand jury. isn't it easier to share evidence in a report like this if it's not grand jury evidence? >> that's right. and one of the things that's always been interesting, if you look at the way mueller's done this investigation, we've never seen any reports of the president's aides, who are most key, most central to the obstruction investigation, going to the grand jury. they've done voluntary interviews which means the grand jury secrecy rule that's would prevent the justice department from releasing that testimony publicly or giving it to congress don't apply. the white house might try to assert executive be privilege but the hard line about not releasing it because of grand jury secrecy is not the case for those witnesses. >> there's a gift on display here on the president's part -- and i don't say that very often during this hour, but that gift is sort of to dance in his relocated goal posts. he's relocated the goal posts so many times, it went from i
didn't do anything wrong to i was allowed to do it all along to everybody does it. and it would feel like what he's prepared to do is no matter what mueller finds, all i said i didn't do is collude. no matter what mueller finds, i can't be indicted. steemz like he's prepared to celebrate a victory that only he can define as victorious. there's no one claiming he didn't do truly troubling and disturbing and things that make you look like you're guilty of something. >> he will brand this as a victory no matter what because that's what he has always done. but i think he also believes it's a victory too. and that is the weird disconnect he has. he draws his own universe in whatever way he sees benefits him most and actually believes it. if you just take his criticism of robert mueller that he said today, i don't know if we really want to dissect it because it was dribble. >> it's dribble.
>> but the words he used against robert mueller were criticisms any other person would say about him. he was attacking his best friends. look who donald trump has associated with, many have pleaded guilty or been charged with federal crimes now. he was attacking the fact that he's angry. the president has been on a tried for six days in a row now. so the things that -- the way he draws the world around him is just so out of touch with reality, and i think we will see that when the mueller report comes out as well. >> doug, i know take impeachment off the table until or unless you see something that rises to the occasion and brings republicans around. here's something that he write that's would get trump impeached. mueller or the southern district or one of the other 18-plus investigations targeting the president could dramatically affect washington in one of three ways, one, outlining clear evidence fds a specific crime. two, a demonstrably smoking gun including pattern of obstruction
of justice, through demonstrable access taking advantage of a foreign power's goals, including conspireing in the 2016 campaign. if you look at that, it seems smoking gun of obstruction, there's smoking gun of an intent obstruct we've all seen in full view. we also know from reporting in your newspaper the tweets and public comments were among the things mueller was knitting together. and on this question of action taken to compromise american interest, we know the acting director of the fbi thought there was enough reason to suspect that might be the case, to open a full investigation into the president. >> i would hope those would be thing that's would lead to an impeachment. right? >> one would hope! >> i would hope they would lead to an impeachment. and obviously on obstruction, when he fired the head of the fbi, right -- >> tried to fire mueller. >> right. >> asked sessions to unrecuse. >> right. >> we can put together ten
things right here. >> right. >> that we know about. >> to your previous point, this is also -- like i worry about the bar being raised so high on the evidence that's going to come out in the mueller report, that if it doesn't -- if there's no smoking gun, trump will say it's a big witch-hunt. even though all of these people have been indicted, charged in conviction of felonies, serious crimes that led to other investigations in the sdny, different house committees. there's obviously a lot of wrongdoing and corruption in this administration. i just worry if the bar has been set to high that trump, to emily's point, will claim victory unless there is a written note from him to putin saying i want you to impact the election. >> i don't disagree with anyone that comes here and lays out the political reality.
it guts me but i don't disagree with you. scooter libby, my former colleague, was pardoned by the president for obstruction. this president has a soft spot for the crime of obstruction of justice. if there's a comprehensive litany of crimes under the obstruction of justice category, doesn't that drive the speaker to rethink her decision? >> i think absolutely, that was my point. if there is evidence of obstruction, there seems to be pretty clear evidence of obstruction, i think the speaker and her -- the other chairman in the house would have to take a strong look at it. because look, even if there wasn't direct collusion, if he's committed obstruction of justice and there seems to be pretty clear evidence that, that happened, you really do have to pursue whether it's impeachments or continue with investigations in the house or move to
impeachment. >> i think because she said more recently there's been a focus on nancy pelosi saying she would like to not do impeachment, i think what should get more attention is what she said a few months earlier, she does not believe a sitting president can not be indicted. i don't know if that's as subtle a law as we're talking about. i don't know where mueller is on this or barr is. i don't think any of us do. i imagine there will be very soon some discussion about whether or not that is actually on the table here >> that's a good point. neil cattial, now a public figure, a lot of justice department officials don't intend to be, but this is the point he makes and it's such a good point. we have no idea what robert mueller thinks. we actually have no idea what the prosecutors at sdny think and we have no idea what the new attorney general thinks. >> yes. look, i don't think we should default immediately or default to the idea this can't happen and therefore it's up to congress.
>> and nancy pelosi didn't take impeachment off the table. i think we also have to remember she set a bar of compelling evidence than that there needed to be bipartisan support for that. the process of impeachment involves the house and the senate removing a president. in order to do that with this senate, you have got to get some republicans to come along. >> i disagree a little bit indictment is off the table. i think it is. i think it's very unlikely bill barr would overturn the pan but i think the reason we're so attracted to it, it's so ouvous the president's behavior is inappropriate and possibly criminal, thinking he can be indicted somehow lets the rest of us out of responsibility or off the hook. the justice department will fix this and do what they're supposed to do and hold him accountable and jury of 12 convict him. i don't think that's going to happen. if he is able to get by with blatantly obstructing justice. there's the crime of obstructing justice and then presidential acts that would be an abuse of his office. i think without a doubt whether
he's crossed the line into the crime of obstruction of justice, he's absolutely abused his power as president. to some except thinking bob mueller will bail us out lets the country off the hook. >> correct, but i do think the country has a greater faith in the legal system than the political system. >> rightfully so. they have indicted dozens of people and charged them with the crimes of obstruction of justice. >> and in this case republicans in the house and senate where they control the majority are going to actually settle this in a satisfying way i think is folly to think. >> and it's not just political. i don't agree with your political analysis, it's the message they're sending. the bar that they're setting. if what mueller produces is a comprehensive report or detailing of crimes committed, i thought the way she checkmated
him, the republicans, when she said impeachment is off the table, if they look at that and are fine with crimmality in the oval, fine. i thought she said we will lock arms with them and if crimes are so blatant, we will re-evaluate. >> look at the redacted search warrants from michael cohen's case yesterday. there were 18 1/2 pages in that search warrant that were blocked out because there's an ongoing investigation. and the number of people who could be investigated for that crime, the circle is so small. from my understanding of the case, all of their last names have to include trump or their business cards have to say trump organization on them. >> so there are the pages in your card, emily jane fox, talking about the redacted pages that became public yesterday. what's interesting to me is the judge made the decision to release this information this year. so the information was deemed too sensitive i think last month. february 7th. so this is information that was sensitive last fall.
this is information deemed that sensitive to redact 18 full pages six weeks ago. >> the judge said that this is part of an ongoing investigation. so there are just too few people who could possibly be investigated in a crime that cohen pleaded guilty and implicated the president. that they won't touch him in some very close way. >> aaron blake, let me get to you jump in on all of these topics. indictment, not indictment, the set of law. your thoughts? >> i think the obstruction of justice question is interesting. there was a poll that came out today from the associated press that found 8-10 democrats found if mueller produces actual evidence that the president obstructed justice, that congress should move forward with an impeachment process, should try to remove him from office. about a quarter of republicans agreed with that. we basically have three-quarters of republicans who do not think that obstruction of justice necessarily rises to the level
of removing the president. i don't think that's terribly surprising but it's also worth looking back in the '90s when kenneth starr basically said that the president had committed an impeachable offense, including obstruction of justice, and it was not enough for congress to remove him from office. >> he was impeached, and a lot of those republicans voted yes on impeachment. >> that's true. i think there's another difference here and that's that president clinton obstruction of justice dealt with personal problems. a lot of people had problems the idea this personal matter he was effectively lying about and trying to cover up was actually anybody's business. in this case the underlying subject matter has to do with business before the country. it has to do with russian interference in the election. it has to do with the legal process that has taken place while the president has been in office and official action he's taken with regards to that. i think that could potentially add up to something more than it did during the clinton days but also the fact only 25% of
republicans are on board with impeaching a president for obstruction of justice i think suggests a very high bar heading into the mueller report. >> aaron blake, thank you so much for spending some time with us and starting us off today. after the break, donald trump gets between a senior aide and her spouse. and that aide, she takes the president's side. we'll bring you the latest in the bizarre public feud between george conway and the president. also ahead, making nepotism great again, a new book about jared and ivanka leaves you wondering if that wasn't the goal all along for their west wing adventure. and the face of change, mayor pete is standing out in a democratic field. or child. or other child. or their new friend. or your giant nephews and their giant dad. or a horse.
or a horse's brother, for that matter. the room for eight, 9,000 lb towing ford expedition. whooo! want to take your next vacation to new heights? tripadvisor now lets you book over a hundred thousand tours, attractions, and experiences in destinations around the world! like new york! from bus tours, to breathtaking adventures, tripadvisor makes it easy to find and book amazing things to do. and you can cancel most bookings up to 24 hours
in advance for a full refund. so you can make your next trip... monumental! read reviews check hotel prices book things to do tripadvisor you should be mad at airports. excuse me, where is gate 87? you should be mad at non-seasoned travelers. and they took my toothpaste away. and you should be mad at people who take unnecessary risks. how dare you, he's my emotional support snake. but you're not mad, because you have e*trade, whose tech helps you understand the risk and reward potential on an options trade it's a paste. it's not liquid or a gel. and even explore what-if scenarios. where's gate 87? don't get mad. get e*trade and start trading today.
the latest inisn't just a store.ty it's a save more with a new kind of wireless network store. it's a look what your wifi can do now store. a get your questions answered by awesome experts store. it's a now there's one store that connects your life like never before store. the xfinity store is here. and it's simple, easy, awesome.
donald trump woke up this morning eager to reignite his beef with his senior adviser kellyanne conway's husband. george conway, often referred to as mr. kellyanne conway, is very jealous of his wife's success and angry that i, with her help, didn't give him the job he so desperately wanted. i barely know him but just take a look. a stone, cold loser, in all caps, and has been from hell, exclamation point. that bizarre mr. conway line from the leader of the free world, something he repeated later on, on the south lawn. >> i don't know him. he's a whack job, there's no question about it. but i really don't know him. i think he's doing a tremendous disservice to a wonderful wife. kellyanne is a wonderful woman. i call him mr. kellyanne. the fact is that he's doing a
tremendous disservice to a wife and family. she's a wonderful woman. >> for his part mr. kellyanne conway tweeted this -- insisting it wasn't an insult except perhaps to the extremely, juvenile and borish. what i really want to be called is individual blank. the woman between the two men weighed in speaking by phone with politico and defended the president saying, quote, he left it alone for months out of respeskt for me but you think he shouldn't respond when somebody, a nonmedical professional, accuses him of having a mental disorder. you think he should just take that sitting down? the president is obviously defending me. he can privately say to me, honey, you're a distraction. we love you. you'll always be part of the family but go be with your kids, they need you. go make a million dollars an hour. ooh, i would do that. go down that, honey, it's the opposite. the conway conflict is one open
front for the president. the other is dedicated to a now days-old spat with the late senator john mccain, a fight trump carried on for five minutes at a rally in ohio last hour. >> i endorsed him as his request and i gave him the kind of funeral, which he wanted, which as president i had to approve. i didn't care about this. i didn't get a thank you. that's okay. but i wasn't a fan of john mccain. now what we can say, we're all set, i don't think i have to answer that question but the press keeps, what do you think of mccain? what do you think? not my kind of bguy but some people like him, and i think that's great. >> here to help me through this, former republican congress in florida and now an independent in the nick of time and i'm happy to say ukly for us luckils
msnbc contributor. i have no words. you go. >> on the conway dispute the only thing that jumps out there is the misogyny of the president the way he referred to him as mr. kellyanne conway. on the mccain front, it's hard to temper one's anger. it's disgusting behavior by the president. we know donald trump is intimidated by people whose stature he can never achieve. he attacks the nfl because they would not let him in their ownership group. ' tac he attacks the media because they have a trust process he will never have, he attacked robert mueller because there are finality and determinance to his work that would question the fledgling real estate empire. on john mccain, donald trump simply does not have the ability to obtain the heroism and honor and dignity we remember the former arizona senator for. no amount of fred trump's money
can buy this man-child of a president the honor and integrity of john mccain, so he acts out. in freudian terms, it is all id. there's no id or alterego to balance it but if you extrapolate it out, it does raise intentions hillary clinton worn the nation of. this is a man temporarily unfit to be commander in chief and a man that can be baited with a tweet by the husband of one of his senior advisers simply cannot be trusted with the nuclear codes. >> david, i want you to keep talking. you have given me a pit in my stomach and lump in my throat. i want you to talk a little bit on -- i think the republican party is acting like man, women, cohorts to this president. they've gone out and huffed and puffed but it's been lame, weak, pathetic. nobody has said what you said or even a fraction of what you
said. where is mitt romney? he had a lame meili-mouth compliment for mccain. this is about the depravity of the united states president. >> this is where the mccain matter is different than the conway matter. we saw political odd couples in mary madelyne and james kvapil. we see that with kellyanne and george conway. but with senator mccain, donald trump is writing history, or in some cases rewriting history. there are a number of united states senators allowing him to do that by not speaking up. they deserve to be held just as accountable as the president because in their silence, donald trump is demeaning the nation's memory of john mccain. let's be honest, nicolle, if donald trump was not president of the united states but was a member of the united states senate, donald trump would be less popular among his colleagues than ted cruz. but the reason these senators are so quiet is because they are fearful of the political consequences of taking a moral
act. >> why isn't there a political price to pay for being a wuss? >> there should be. >> we both said the same thing. >> there should be. it remains to be seen whether there is or not. the bizarre thing about mccain remarks today was the president seemed to be upset he was not thanked for whatever it was he allowed. i think it was the use of the cathedral. to be fair, senator mccain was in no position to thank him at that moment. >> he was dead! be i think the george connelly story is kengted becau story is connected because george connelly is screaming at the top of his lungs, the president is mentally ill. and that's the point he's trying to make. >> and that would take issue with mr. jolly's comparison, the
james carville/mary madelyne mixed republican-democratic marriage. that was a goofy thing. they went on a speaking tour and wrote a book. there are democrats and republicans who get married. this is something much more twisted. it's weird. it seems like they're watching their marriage just sort of dissolve on twitter. it's just a bizarre, quintessentially trumpian thing that is happening. he used to be a washington trope. now it's just like kind of a weird joke. >> i said this to you during the break, it's like the say q&a of retaliation. although offensive you know this better than anyone working in the white house and i know as someone who interned in the white house a few months, you do not do things in your private life that debase the office the presidency. you state out of the line of fire, you stay out of the spotlight, because the office of the presidency is something you should respect and your conduct should be fitting of that office. what we see now is
disrespectful, it is unhelpful. there are a million things these people should be focused on. what george conway is saying is true, and reasonable but this interfighting within a marriage should stay within their house and it should not be something that should be distracting us from the real issues we should all be focusing on. >> i have no judgment about those two. it's the president inserting himself in the middle of it that's the fingernails on the chalkboard for me, matt. >> every bit is disgraceful. the president is always worse when he's punching down. it's been true and the campaign's true since he's been president. >> he refuses to punch up because you punch a putin -- >> that's exactly right, you're always punching down. and i think he gets away with it because with republicans at least, he from the beginning, say what want about him, one thing he's always gotten from the day he launched his campaign is the intellectual corruption of the modern republican party, that he can get away with anything if he was successful, they would not hold his feet to the fire and would not stand up
to them. he had to know watching the way they dealt with bijerrism for years, it was affecting their party. nobody would stand up and say he was wrong. he knew the party was bankrupt and if he could roll through it, no one would stand up to him and they never have. >> let me give you a last word, david. >> we have to be careful how we talk about voters and supporters. there was a buy nary choivote i november. but we have to look at donald trump because this bleeds down to the people who continue to support this president. after the break, the shady practices of donald trump jr. and ivanka trump, we have the book's author next. ok's author . they really appreciate the military family and it really shows. with all that usaa offers why go with anybody else? we know their rates are good, we know that they're always going to take care of us. it was an instant savings and i should have changed a long time ago.
tell-alls written about him and now it's his daughter and son-in-law's turn. the new book out by investigative reporter vicki ward called "kushner, inc." looks at the rise of jared and ivanka in the white house exposing shady practices, the couple's sense of entigtlement and consequent for power. it quickly became apparent to kushner and ivanka they were not universally liked by the new team of presidential lawyers and their spokesmen. what strong clue, they kept being asked to leave the room. the lawyers notice, the couple, mostly ivanka, interrupted pretty much every meeting they had with the president. a former spokesman for trump's legal team explained to me kushner and ivanka appeared not to have any understanding of the difference between a regular pr issue and federal crime investigation, and they could not get between the president and his lawyers without becoming witnesses and ruining the privilege of the conversation. they were reckless, said corralio.
joining the table now, author vicky ward. congratulations. you have been on a whirlwind of a book tour. we're so happy to have you. this is an interesting piece. the mark corollo clash with the trump world does not get as much attention as it deserves. we were talking at the beginning of the show how the president could be in trouble for obstruction of justice, it's flashpoints that you write about that could be the canary in the mine. talk about what you learned from him. >> mark corollo is a very classy guy. he worked with robert mueller at the department of justice. he found when he went to work for the president's legal team, it wasn't actually the president who was the problem, it was jared and ivanka. that was an extraordinary moment where he went in, went under several conditions. one of them was no one could
trash robert mueller. but at one point jared kushner says to him, can't you just come and join us permanently? don't you want to serve your country? and carollo turns around and said, young man, i think i did that when i spent three years at the butt end of an m-16. and he said to me, all my life i never had to sell anyone young man, but i never felt so offended. >> what offends -- i know mark too. i think that what offends him is what you write about, this toxic combination of a warm embrace of nepotism. they're not there for any reason other than the president unlike anybody who came before him since the kennedys believed in in tix, embraced nepotism, things it's great and their personal ambition. do mark's sort of indicate there are other factors or that toxic
brew? >> mark felt they were the president's greatest vulnerability. he came to the view that the president's legal teams fell apart all because of ivanka. he's like what are we doing here? he wanted to be loyal to trump and he felt after a large number of the republicans interviewed for the book, that jared and ivanka are actually going to be the president's undoing. in your last segment, you sort of rightly talked about the president's sort of visible, irrationable, radical behavior and jared and ivanka really profited off of that. there's a mythology that they're somehow the calming water intluns around him. the point of my book is they're not. they're actually in many ways worse becauser that more dangerous because they come in disguise. they are more calm and they have
a larger vocabulary. >> you painted a picture of this sort of discrepancy between how they pitched themselves to anyone that will still take the lines and the bs, and what they actually do inside the west wing. does any of this ring true to you? >> i think the distinction i will make is i don't think they went in there trying to be the moderating voices that everyone expected them to be. they know their father and father-in-law better than anybody and they know their ability to actually do anything and change his opinion is very small. so i think there was a projection that a lot of people who knew him very well or pinned their hopes on him being this new york city society couple had hoped they would be these moderating voices, they went in there for the wrong reasons. they didn't go down and move their lives to washington to help the president. they went in there to help themselves and do their own thing. >> they're also tied to a lot of questions about criminality and scandal. the biggest background clearance
under way right now is about security clearance, and there were republicans who had questions about that when they were still in control. >> which ivanka flat-out lied about in an interview. >> right, on tv. >> on tv. i think the thing about the two of them is they're both dangerously naive, which is fine, a lot of people when they come to washington are naive, but they're so arrogant about it. they have no sense of what they don't know. and this seems to be the picture you paint in your book, the sense of entitlement that comes with being handed money and power from birth and told you're rich and powerful because you deserve it and you deserve it more than other people. you see it in these ridiculous policy proposals that come out of jared's office. the middle east plan, do all of these other things. he has no idea what he's doing but doesn't have the sense to step back and defer to the people who do. >> i also think it's worth pointing out there are kind of bipartisan toxic in some ways. the trump base such as it is, people might look to jared and
ivanka wrongly as moderating influences on the president. they give moderating influences bad news. but no one likes nepotism across the spectrum. and the base thinks the centrists whispering in his ear, making him do things, there is suspicion across the board. this is not just rejection of the new york society types and washington types of these two. >> it's much more sinister than that because it's all about the money and lack of transparency. you said they went for their own reasons. their own reasons are power and money. the fact they didn't divest, and everyone else in the white house had to divest. it's one set of rules for them and one set of rules for everyone else. that caused a lot of friction and unhappiness around him. then as i write in the book for jared to go and close the white house log while he is
frenetically networking, nicolle, if anyone closed the white house logs in the bush white house, i mean -- >> the difference is you had congressional oversight. we tried that with the nrg task force and those logs were quickly subpoenaed and turned over. i think the difference they have in the president an enabler and a republican-led congress a backstop for corruption. what was the most disturbing revelation about their influence? i know from my own reporting they repel candidates from working in this west wing. they drum out anyone with a sliver of integrity or morality or rule of law. people like john kelly, they repelled all of the candidates for kelly's replacement. what sort of bucket of harm are they doing? >> i think the two -- well, three really big things, one would be the underreported role
jared had the firing of james comey to try to save his own skin, because reports were just coming out that he had not mentioned his meetings with the russians during the transition or security clearance. he had a very impassioned meeting with trump, with bannon, a lot of other people in which he said you have to fire comey. he wasn't just supportive of the president, he was leading it and there was a reason he was leading it. i think he's far from solving middle east peace. he nearly pressed into a war because of this ridiculous, this very venal relationship with mbs, then the future crown prince of saudi arabia. it's all about money. he thought mbs had money. mbs thought he was a fantastic pawn and condit into the white house. we have this summit in rio that was all about cooperation and ten days later, mbs, you know, launches the cascade because he
wants qatar's money. rex tillerson, i have no idea about this why because jared kushner completely appropriated all relationships with mbs. you know, this is -- qatar is where america has an airbase. that's our security. this is really, really dangerous. i think it's horrifying. the last point, as we mentioned horrifying, is what ivanka said to gary cohn is the heart of the book. she denied that her father had ever said they were very fine people on both sides. given how these people -- how jared and ivanka have represented themselves, i think it was just an extraordinarily revealing and disturbing to see. >> congratulations. let me read the white house respons response.
sarah huckabee sanders said it's not surning the media would spend time promoting a book based on shady anonymous sources and false information instead of all of the incredible work jared and ivanka are doing for this country. interestingly, she listed none of the incredible work. after the break, he's historic running for president. stay with us. stay with us
mom! he's blinking too loud. sorry, is that too loud? you don't need any more hormones in your house. that's why you chose kraft natural cheese. made with fresh milk without the added hormone rbst. it's cheese as it should be. essential for pine trees, but maybe not for people with rheumatoid arthritis. because there are options. like an "unjection™". xeljanz xr. a once-daily pill for adults with moderate to severe ra for whom methotrexate did not work well enough. xeljanz xr can reduce pain, swelling and further joint damage, even without methotrexate. xeljanz xr can lower your ability to fight infections, including tuberculosis. serious, sometimes fatal infections and cancers, including lymphoma have happened. as have tears in the stomach or intestines, serious allergic reactions, low blood cell counts, higher liver tests and cholesterol levels. don't start xeljanz xr if you have an infection. your doctor should perform blood tests before
and while taking xeljanz xr, and monitor certain liver tests. tell your doctor if you've been somewhere fungal infections are common and if you have had tb, hepatitis b or c, or are prone to infections. needles. fine for some things. but for you, one pill a day may provide symptom relief. ask your doctor about xeljanz xr. an "unjection™". you introduced yourself, what's the message of your campaign? >> when you take one look at me my face is my message. a lot of it is the idea that we need generational change. we need more voices stepping up from the generation that has so much at stake for the generations right now. i talk about when the world will look in 2054 when i am the current age of the current president. this is about an era, the decisions being made right now will decide how the next 20, 30,
and 40 years will go. >> that was a military veteran, major of south bend, indiana, and candidate for what sets him apart. mayor pete's call for a fresh face in washington has resonated with voters. david is still here, doug rejoined the table, and he is the person. . his appearance when he is at a town hall or this morning on "morning joe, he seems to express people. >> yeah his stock is on the rise. the delegates, the county chairs that he met, he left a great impression on them. he did a really good job in that
race, it set him up for this rals, and he met every moment, he was able to raise $600,000 in 24 hours, he got that 65,000 magic donor mark that he needs to get into the debates. and he has a fantastic resumé. he was a veteran, he was a road scholar. he represents a city in the midwest. he can talk about reaching out to blue collar workers and rural workers, right? rural communities? his issue is one, is he inexperience snd right, that is something that he has demonstrated, he is able to handle a lot of difficult questions, but he really answers
them substantively. his time will be on the debate stage in june. if there is a shining star and there typically is, don't be surprised if it is him. >> he talks to voters like they're smart, and david axelrod said it, presidential elections are usually a reaction to the presidency that came before it. if the reaction to trumpism is honesty, integrity, and treating the voters like they're smart, he seems like the answer. >> we should be so lucky, right? it is fascinating to watch him. but one of the things, they're talking about a candidate of color, a female candidate, those
are fantastic things for where we are as a country right now. at the end of the day i would personally like to see someone with more intelligence than this president. i think the way someone beats donald trump is this. we need a candidate we can believe in and by believe in that can come in different forms, right? one form is a jfk or obama like transcenden transcendence. or believing in a candidate might be the steady hand, the person to inject stability like joe biden. we will see the emergence of who that candidate is, but the failure to nominate someone that we can trust makes it a credittive race for donald trump a year and a half for now. >> i think he is incredibly progressive. he is having his moment in the sun. the way that some of the other
champs in the field -- the way that some of these fields, they get their turn for awhile, and most of them that do well get their moments in the ditch, and how you perform is about handling yourself when you're up or down. a lot of them will have a look, and the idea of it, the 37-year-old mayor of south bend, it is kind of crazy on it's face, but he has more experience than the current president of the united states. >> yeah, you have an e mergent n a big field of name are policy wonks and those with an it factor. he has the sizzle and the steak. >> we're going to sneak in our last break, we'll be right back. r last break, we'll be right back. . pass the ball... pass the rock.. ...we're open just pass the ball!
no, i can't believe how easy it was to save hundreds of dollars on my car insurance with geico. yea. [quartet singing] shoot the j! shoot, shoot, shoot the jaaaaaay... believe it! geico could save you fifteen percent or more on car insurance. believe it! geico could save you fifteen percent [zara larsson - "wow"] ♪ ♪ make you're jaw drop drop say oh my drop drop drop ♪ ♪ make u say oh my god my drop drop ♪ ♪ make you're jaw drop make u say oh my god ♪
this is decision tech. it's screening technology that helps you find a stock based on what's trending or an investing goal. it's real-time insights and information, in your own customized view of the market. it's smarter trading technology, for smarter trading decisions. and it's only from fidelity. open an account with no minimums today. we're so happy you're here, you get the last word. >> mayor pete is having a moment, moments in march of
2019, probably they don't amount to much, but he has been very compelling of a lot of people. but the question is, i think the rap on him is that he could not even goat be dnc chair, but like deb by wasserman schultz should be running? good week for him. >> a lot of your great political reporting is stringing these moments together. >> totally. >> my thanks to matt miller, that does it for our hour, thank you for watching. "mtp daily" starts now. >> here is a real test. >> i never do well on -- mayor buttid buttiedge. we all learned how to do it. i wouldrg