tv MSNBC Live With Stephanie Ruhle MSNBC May 8, 2019 6:00am-7:00am PDT
i'm going to go back to the boston red sox ownership. we have a home. it's not fenway stadium but it's the same as fenway park. it's a home. they want to keep that place iconic for the rest of the time they own it. >> roger bennett, bruce, thank you both. tickets now for liverpool, they go on sale tomorrow. that does it for us this morning. chris jansing picks up the coverage. this is yours. >> joe and mika, thank you both very much. hello, i'm chris jansing in for stephanie ruhle. this morning it's happened again in america. two students, one of them a girl, stands accused of opening firearm on their classmates in a colorado school, killing one and injuring eight others. >> it's been so, so hard. but i got to hold my babies last night and they're home with me
now. it was an absolute nightmare. >> asserting privilege. in an hour the house judiciary committee will vote on whether the attorney general should be held in contempt. one element to the escalating showdown as the administration denies a request for any documents relating to former white house counsel don mcgahn, who spoke with robert mueller for more than 30 hours. a member of the house judiciary committee will join me live. and a decade in the red. "the new york times" gets a look at the irs tax records for president trump from 1985 to 1994. the major revelation, donald trump the businessman reported more than double the losses of any other taxpayer in america. so we're watching several developing stories at this hour but we start with the devastating scene out of colorado, where we're learning new details of the deadly shooting at a school in a denver suburb. kids from kindergarten through
high school sent running for their lives. one purpose dead, eight others injured, two of them critically. authorities say two suspects opened fire on their classmates in two separate locations at the school before police managed to take the pair into custody. one of the suspects is due to appear in court later this afternoon and this morning survivors are describing a scene of pure terror as a classmate aimed his gun at them. >> the shooter came in late. he walked to the other side of the classroom where we also had another door, and he opened the door. he walked back as if he was going to go back to his seat, and then he walked back to the door and he closed it. the next thing i know, he's pulling a gun and he's telling nobody to move, and that's when kendrick lunged at him and he shot kendrick, giving all of us another time to get underneath our desks to get ourselves safe
into running across the room to escape. >> kendrick is kendrick castillo, 18-year-old graduating senior whose heroism helped save lives. let's go to island ranch, colorado with nbc's ron mott. i know officials gave an update there moments ago. what's the very latest? >> good morning, chris. the very latest is here hearing stories stories about what took place at the school and despite all of the training the young people and administrators there go through, it was still a very terror filled chaotic scene. let me set the scene. we're at the douglas county substation here, just to the south of the stem school. not far from columbine high school, eight miles to the north and west, and the denver area unfortunately had become accustom to these shootings. they had one at arapio high school as well. so an hour, they were able to
send deputies not just from here, short drive, one to two minutes, but units on the street got there even faster. there was a private armed security guard working on the campus. that guard by the time the county officers had got there already had one of the two suspects in custody. we talk about the young man who sadly lost his life, 18-year-old kendrick castillo, a few days from graduating high school, which was so sad. he charged along with some other students, tore the shooter, was hit by gunfire. went down. other students tried to help him. another young man by the name of brendan bially apparently tackled that student along with other students in the classroom and were able to at least contain the shooting in that classroom. as you know, chris, there was another secondary shooting site within the school. it's a fairly large campus and it's unusual in modern american education, it's a k through 12 school, so you have 5-year-old kids up to high school kids on
one campus. i saw reports of the an 8-year-old hearing gunfire which he said he never heard before in his life. the response time from law enforcement saved lives and certainly some of the responses from those students in that building saved some lives as well, chris. >> absolutely heroic, the actions of those students. what more do we know about the two suspects, ron? >> well, there was misreporting yesterday that these were two males. as you mentioned, chris, it was a juvenile female along with this 18-year-old male who has been charged and being held. he's got a first appearance in court at 1:30 local time this afternoon. apparently the pair walked into one of the shooting scenes. one student reported that they had a guitar case and pulled at least one weapon. we understand there may have been other weapons in that case. pulled it out and started firing at the students and you saw the reaction, students ducking under the desk and another group of kids charging. >> ron mott, thank you very much, on the scene for us.
now the escalating battle at the nation's capital over president trump's multiple refusals to provide information to congress, a pass that's is squarely into the constitution separation of powers. we're moments away from the house voting on whether to hold attorney general william barr in contempt for refusing to turn over the unredacted mueller report. and also defying a subpoena to turn over other documents and testify. our team in d.c. joins us with details. let me start with kelly o'donnell, who's in capitol hill this morning. negotiations broke down between house view dishy committee and staffers about handing over unredacted mueller reports and underlying evidence. within the past hour we heard this from speaker nancy pelosi -- >> yes, i think that the attorney general should be held
in contempt. >> that's something she stated so clearly before. what are we expecting with the contempt vote at the top of the hour? >> it's so important, chris, to sort of monitor these incremental changes because it does paint a picture of where this is headed and one of the things chairman nadler, jerrold nadler of new york, the democrat in charge of this process said is he would be willing to hold off on contempt if there was a good faith effort to make other progress. so the negotiations did go on of the but there has been no breakthrough and we expect there will be a vote today but it's not a vote like we see on the floor, where there is a one roll call and it's over. this is a process of debating within the judiciary committee, which could be included in the contempt citation and will be a debate back and forth. so settle in and expect this to be a bit of a day, not surprising on capitol hill, but there has also been a development from the liaison to the hill sending a letter saying
they are asking that this contempt vote be held in advance. this is a note -- letter to the committee from stephen boyd, who is saying in the face of the committee's threatened contempt vote, the attorney general will be compelled to request that the president invoke executive privilege. this is a key development, because we've only been hinting at executive privilege based on the communications we've been monitoring up until this point. this moves that ball a bit further, invoking executive privilege with respect to the materials subject to the subpoena. again, this is the mueller report redacted sessions that the committee wants access to. i hereby request the committee hold the subpoena in advance and delay any vote on whether to recommend a citation of contempt or noncompliance with this subpoena, pending the president's determination of this question. so here's what we have, a subpoena for the documents and the committee deciding that
because that subpoena has been ignored, that this contempt of congress citation should be debated and voted upon today. so now the liaison for the department of justice to capitol hill is saying it is the attorney general's recommendation that executive privilege should be invoked and asking the committee to hold off. so this is the kind of thing we will be watching at all of these investigations, the different steps where a stop sign can go up and try to slow the process down as negotiations and legal issues are worked out. so although there's a lot of detail in that and a lot of in the weeds, it's an important development and a sign between the tension between the capitol hill and white house over this issue. >> so pete williams, obviously, our justice correspondent, what are your sources telling you about the justice department's strategy here? where is this going and what is the strategy? >> the justice department says
that they have made accommodations to the house and they're somewhat surprised by the -- what they consider the house's unmoving position here. initially what the justice department said is here's the redacted report, we will show you everything except the grand jury material, which we can't by law. come on down to the justice department and look at it. then in this meeting yesterday they said okay, we will send that moderately, lightly redacted report up to mr. nadler so he can look at it himself and based on that tell us what more materials the underlying materials that the mueller team gathered that he needs. but that apparently didn't satisfy the house. so the justice department's position is hey, we were making progress. why all of a sudden blow the whistle but that's is what happens happened here. if there is a contempt vote, what happens is this goes to court. and i think one of the reasons you see all of these letters go back and forth to express the
positions of the justice department and the house is both sides want to make a record for the court to review so the judge can say, all right, who was trying to do this seriously? how am i going to work this out? and the judge will probably enforce some kind of accommodations so there is some sharing of materials here, probably neither side will get what it wants entirely. >> do we know, pete, what court that would go to? >> federal district court here in washington. there are two options for the house, one is to go and say, hey, let's do a criminal case, referring to the u.s. attorney. but that almost never goes anywhere, especially if the government asserts executive privilege. the other is civilly sue, and that's a civil lawsuit that would go right to the district court. >> let me go to peter alexander at the white house. you also have house democrats, as you know peter, threatening to hold former white house counsel don mcgahn in contempt after the white house said look, don't comply to the subpoena for
documents. send it back to the committee. you're supposed to be talking to us, not don mcgahn. tell us a little more about the white house argument here. >> let's walk you through this now. you have jerry nadler here saying his committee is prepared to hold former white house counsel don mcgahn in contempt of court, this coming after directing mcghan not to comply with a subpoena for documents that may shed light on key episodes on possible obstruction of justice by the president. that deadline was yesterday. mcghan's successor, former white house counsel, said in the letter tuesday the records remain subject to the control of the white house for all purposes and he added mcghan does not have the legal right to disclose these documents to third parties. the letter, however, did not assert executive privilege. that tends to require a formal decision from the president. chairman nadler replied saying, quote, even if the president would properly invoke privilege, any claim of executive privilege has been waived to documents the
white house voluntarily disclosed to mr. mcghan and his counsel. nadler said barring a court order, mcghan has to provide the documents and testify. now they initially proposed that testimony for later this month. i think the date was may 21. the white house notably has not announced its position on whether it would seek to block mcghan's testimony as well. >> so let's talk about the house judiciary committee, what you're hearing from the chairman and members there, kelly, about the next step for mcghan. >> we will see it play out, and certainly over these days, there's a frustration because mcghan, of course, is in many ways one of the largest figures looming in the pages of the mueller report. >> no one was mentioned more, no single individual. >> exactly. >> and it's his account, his memory, his contemporaneous documentation that gave a roadmap.
there were others, of course, as well. but because of his position as white house counsel and close advice and proximity to the president, that makes him this huge figure. there is an expectation there's a volley here and the congress believes it has an oversight rule to play and should have access to this, but they recognize that this will, as pete described in the laying out of the sort of legal foundation, it's going to take some time. but it's a fight democrats believe is worth taking and one where bit by bit, straw by straw, will be here every day as it happens. they want to push this and want access to mcghan to fill in what his documents and what the report has not been able to fully answer questions for this committee and are there ways that the committee can move forward beyond the mueller report with don mcgahn as an important part of that? >> in the 30 seconds we have left, pete, i want to ask you the question a lot of people keep asking about mueller
himself, which is why is he even still on the government payroll? obviously that plays into how much sway the committees have in getting him to testify. >> so the quick answer to the question is there's still cleanup work to do for the special counsel's office. not clear how much longer he will be on the payroll. the house thought he would be off in a couple of weeks, which is why they thought maybe mid-may. but we don't know when -- maybe nobody knows, maybe not even he knows when his work will be entirely done. then he will be somewhat freer to testify, although not entirely. the government can still assert executive privilege over the work he did. >> but this is regarding referrals? >> yes. >> thank you, pete, kelly, we appreciate it. yesterday was a big dow down day. the market is set to open minutes from now. obviously we saw the big losses yesterday ahead of the
president's -- ahead of the president's conversations about china, about trade, friday's deadline to raise those tariffs on the chinese. how are the futures looking right now? >> you know, those losses we saw here yesterday continue as we went to asia overnight and europe as well. we've seen losses there. looking at futures pointing to a down market here in new york when the markets open in 15 minutes time frames. i will do what investors did a few moments ago and look to the president's twitter feed. the president tweeting
about the u.s./china trade deal moments ago. he wrote the reason for the china pullback and attempted renegotiation of the trade deal is the sincere hope he will be able to negotiate with joe biden or one of the very weak democrats and continue to rip off the united states $500 billion a year for years to come. the president continuing, guess what, that's not going to happen. the china has just informed us, they, vice premier, are now coming to the u.s. to make a deal. we will see, but i'm very happy
$100 billion a year for tariffs filling u.s. coffers. great for the u.s., not good for china. let me say there was a lot of anxiety this weekend when the president said he was game to raise tariffs $200 billion on imported goods and new tariffs on $325 million worth of goods. there was concern that would happen secretary treasury secretary mnuchin saying they are willing to make a deal. they are coming to the u.s. the big deal is time. 12:01 friday is an awfully short period of time to come to the deal with the chinese. as i mentioned pullback on what they agreed to in order to get that done friday morning. chris? >> we will check back in with you a little later, david gurria. thank you. and now back here commuter chaos this morning. not just in the big apple but
uber and lyft drivers taking part in a strike now. jacob, do we know how long it will last? >> chris, the strike just ended here in new york city, it was during rush hour, 7 to 9. and during that time we saw the rates double. the typical rate getting out of the city went up by twice or three times as much and people in los angeles waking up now will feel the same pinch. as far as why they're striking, let me give you a little sound from one of the drivers we have spoken to so he can explain his feelings about it. >> well, i'm going on strike hoping uber will come to the table and speak with drivers and acknowledge the problem and they will know that the percentage they are taking from drivers is too high and they will see by dropping their percentage a little bit will offset the driver to be able to make ends meet. >> chris, just imagine right a company whose product requires these very drivers is about to
go public, and you would think that in a normal world, those drivers would be thrilled, and that the workers who make a company's products would be excited they're going public and raising all of this money. but it says something about the new nature of a company like that there's a sharp division between the people who run the company, the people who work for the company in this unclassified way. that's really the frustration for so many of the drivers. >> thank you very much, jacob ward. appreciate that. breaking news this morning, iran has announced it's pulling out of part of the 2015 nuclear deal. in a speech on state television, president hasan rue manny said he sent a letter to china, european, france and germany, if they can't reach a deal in 60 days, they will begin higher enrichment materials. and he blamed the u.s. by saying pulling out of the iran nuclear
agreement they made it impossible for iran to comply. stephanie ruhle is on assignment this morning. just ahead she will join us live from las vegas with reaction to that story and this one. and this one, bombshell "the new york times" report revealing details of president trump's taxes during a ten-year period of the late '80s and '90s, we already knew he reported losses but the numbers are staggering. and the house committee meets to vote on whether or not to hold the members in contempt. . when you stay just twice this summer. or.. badda book. badda boom. book now at choicehotels.com
rather than worry about how to pay for long-term care. brighthouse smartcare℠ is a hybrid life insurance and long-term care product. it protects your family while providing long-term care coverage, should you need it. so you can explore all the amazing things ahead. talk to your advisor about brighthouse smartcare.
brighthouse financial. build for what's ahead℠ brighthouse financial. we see two travelers so at a comfort innal with a glow around them, so people watching will be like, "wow, maybe i'll glow too if i book direct at choicehotels.com". who glows? just say, badda book. badda boom. book now at choicehotels.com
listen to your mom, knuckleheads. hand em over. hand what over? video games, whatever you got. let's go. you can watch videos of people playing video games in the morning. is that everything? i can see who's online. i'm gonna sweep the sofa fort. well, look what i found. take control of your wifi with xfinity xfi. let's roll! now that's simple, easy, awesome. xfinity xfi gives you the speed, coverage and control you need. manage your wifi network from anywhere when you download the xfi app today.
the battle between house democrats and the trump white house may be reaching a tipping point this morning as the administration is now openly defying multiple congressional subpoenas connected to the mueller report, also refusing to comply with demands for the president's tax returns. the house judiciary committee is smack in the middle of this and maryland democratic congressman jamie raskin sits on that committee as well as house oversight, and is a former constitutional law professor. it's good to see you, congressman. are you going to vote on whether to hold attorney general barr -- you're going to vote, obviously, whether to hold him in contempt. what's your vote? and do you think this vote gets us any closer to the information you want? >> that is the plan to vote this morning, obviously. we'll have discussion of it and
each member will have the chance to weigh in. i would hope we would vote unanimously as a committee that it would not be along partisan lines the entire house of representatives vote 420-0 to tell the executive branch to release the complete unredacted mueller report with only excisioned made for material that could not lawfully be turned over. in the past giving reports to congress, it's congress who's done redactions. here we have the attorney general doing the redactions, or at least pretending to do redactions. in fact it looks like most of them were made by robert mueller himself because he ended up sending letters to the attorney general saying what are you waiting for? why are you not turning the material to congress? we did the redactions for grand jury material. we scrubbed it for material that could affect other investigations and prosecutions. so we do believe, as you suggest, the attorney general is playing a game, the
administration is playing a game. they have not turned over the president's taxes. they have not turned over the mueller report. they are withholding the information from the oversight committee. they sued elijah cummings for just trying to get material in his committee. basically they tried to pull a curtain down over the executive branch of government and they're not complying on cooperating at all and obviously that is not sustainable in our constitution system. the supreme court said we have a report to inquire and engage in investigations and get all of the information we're talking about. >> jerry nadler was just on cnn and he was asked about the possibility of robert mueller testifying. he says he's less confident now than he was. is the white house strategy working here? >> well, that remains to be seen. i do think it's a question of political will and toughness on our part. i think we've got to stand up to these bullying tactics and to these uniform categorical defiance of the congress.
remember, we are the representatives of the american people. the president's core job is take care that the laws are faithfully executed, not circumscribed and not stifles and thwarted, certainly not violated. the president haes g's got to f the law but it's up to us to enforce the law through contempt citations if we need to do them and using whatever material at our disposal to make sure we're able to do our jobs. >> there's a lot of conversation about the fact it's possible a final sort of decision on all of this could go past 2020, that there could be enough that the white house could do to sort of hit pause on a lot of this. there's a unc law professor who's quoted in "the new york times" and speaks for a lot of people we heard from, he said quote, a president who refuses to respond to congressional oversight is taking the presidency to new levels of danger, not responding to that is literally to say you're above the law and you're above the constitution. there's nothing in history that comes even close to that.
i want to reiterate, you're a professor of constitutional law, are we finding the system of checks and balances isn't equipped, frankly, to handle the situation we're in today? where are we going with this? >> don't give up on the american constitution yet. it has its champion and ardent admirers around the world and those of us who will fight for it every step along the way. the executive branch disagreed in the past, whether democratic or republican, about this or that document or witness. that's totally within the stream of checks and balances. but what we have here is something radically different. we have the president telling everybody in the executive branch, do not cooperate with congress. do not turn over any documents. do not come and testify. and that's completely unacceptable. it is a threat to the constitutional system and the congress specifically the house of representatives, is the people's branch and we represent the people and we have a right to this information. the supreme court has said that our investigative inquiry rule
is central to the legislative function. >> but they have also in the past federal courts said congress's power is not all consuming. they can't just do anything that they want to do. so how do you see this falling and are we setting new constitution constitutional precedents here? >> clearly our power is not absolute or limited. in the past we've always gotten special reports from special counsels and if information needed to be redacted for grand juries or other reasons, we are perfectly capable of doing that. and that report needs to be turned over. our certainly the majority caucus, the whole congress is unified saying we will not accept this con tensuous defiance of a lawful order of the united states house of representatives. >> congressman, its good to talk to you. congressman raskin, we appreciate your time. >> delighted to be here. we want to go back to wall
street. the markets are just about to open. there we go. they're cheering. closing down 500 points yesterday with the president's tariffs threats home and abroad. what will be driving the day today? >> yeah, there's a lot of concern about what will happen with the u.s./china trade deal. the president tweeting about that a few moments ago. the president is saying the meetings in washington were pushed back a day. there was uncertainty about whether or not they would make that journey from beijing to washington, d.c. what inventors are grappling with is uncertainty over the fact that a long time it was calm. washington was going to beijing and beijing to washington, it was happening back and forth and we thought we could see a deal hashed, it appeared to be a sure thing. and that thrown up sunday when the president expressed
dissatisfaction over the chinese backed things, and president said it would cause more tariffs on china. investors watching whether or not we will get to a deal before 12:01 a.m. on friday, where tariffs of 10% on $200 billion on chinese are said to go up to 20%. these tariffs have been in place for a while and pell have not felt the burden but that's likely to change come friday if they go up in that way. it will affect consumer goods. those who go to buy an iphone or clothes would be affected by the tariffs in place. >> david gura, thank you very much. i want to mention nancy pelosi did an interview this morning and asked about china, and she said i never believed the chinese would honor what they said they were going to do. i know you will keep us posted. thank you. up next, the report everybody is talking about. "the new york times" revealing details of businessman donald trump's taxes from the '80s and
'90s. and wow. but are the losses he reported just smart business tactics? a pulitzer-prize winning tax expert joins me to break it down. plus, stephanie ruhle joins me from vegas where a huge selection of investors are talking about china trade and, yes, a lot about that "the new york times" report. york times" report will be like, "wow, maybe i'll glow too if i book direct at choicehotels.com". who glows? just say, badda book. badda boom. book now at choicehotels.com ♪ applebee's bigger, bolder grill combos. now that's eatin good in the neighborhood. if you have moderate to little things can be a big deal. that's why there's otezla. otezla is not a cream. it's a pill that treats plaque psoriasis differently.
with otezla, 75% clearer skin is achievable. don't use if you're allergic to otezla. it may cause severe diarrhea, nausea, or vomiting. otezla is associated with an increased risk of depression. tell your doctor if you have a history of depression or suicidal thoughts or if these feelings develop. some people taking otezla reported weight loss. your doctor should monitor your weight and may stop treatment. upper respiratory tract infection and headache may occur. tell your doctor about your medicines and if you're pregnant or planning to be. ready to treat differently with a pill? otezla. show more of you. but dad, you've got allstate. with accident forgiveness they guarantee your rates won't go up just because of an accident. smart kid. indeed. are you in good hands?
politics" and new report that shows the president really did make history with his business empire, not by making money but losing money on an unprecedented scale. according to "the new york times" analysis of trump's irs tax crypts from 1985 to 1994, the president loss more than $1 billion, far from being the most successful businessman of his generation. year after year trump appears to have lost more money than nearly any other individual american taxpayer. this morning the president tried to downplay the report, calling it old news and insisting almost all real estate developers show losses for tax purposes. i'm joined now by david k. johnson, pulitzer prize winning author who has wrote books on the president. he's a tax expert and looking at the president's returns for years. i'm so glad we were able to have you on today. i want to read the president's tweet in its entirety this
responding to "the new york times" report, quote, real estate developers in the 1980s and 1990s, more than 30 years ago, were entitled to massive write-0s and depreciations, which would if one was actively building show losses and tax losses in all cases. much was nonmonetary, sometimes considered a tax shelter, you get it by building or buying. you also wanted to show losses for tax purposes. almost all real estate developers did and often renegotiate with banks. it was sport. additionally, the very old information put out is a highly inaccurate fake news hit job. so let me go to the major first part of that. is it accurate to say losing this kind of money is a good business strategy, or that it was just a product of its time? >> well, donald is correct that most large real estate families do not pay income taxes because we have special tax coat provisions that allow them to
report losses, even as they have very lavish lifestyles. but the size of these losses, they are enormous. what donald doesn't mention is he bought a airline he way overpaid for and was losing $7 million a month on until he shut it down and made numerous other awful business deals during these 11 years that are covered by the information "the times" got. >> you obtained part of the president's 2005 return, which gave us at the time a lot more than we had previously known. when you saw "the new york times" reporting did it fit in what you already knew about the way trump operated, did anything about this surprise you? >> i certainly felt vindicated about a number of things i had written but it was the size of the losses and they were year after year. >> by the way, a billion dollars was a billion dollars back then. not a lot of people even had a billion dollars, let alone lost it. >> we're looking to adjust for
inflation in today's money, and it's more than $2 billion. one of the years in question, trump accounted for nearly two cents out of every dollar or business loss reported in the entire united states. >> wait, say that again. accounted for two cents out of every loss in the entire country? >>y, almost two krechbcents out every dollar. essentially the myth of donald trump, the modern midas who everything touches turns to gold, was killed yesterday afternoon with this report. those of us who follow trump and pay attention to his finances for years had always known he was a fraud but the scale of it is much larger than we thought. in his tweet, chris, donald ends by saying this is unreliable. this information comes from irs tax transcripts and "the times" said the source is someone who is properly in possession of them. there are a number of people who would have these tax transcripts. you can get your own tax
transcript. it is the information the irs extracts from your tax return so auditors and others can work with the tax information, not the actual return. this is 100% reliable information and "the times" said it even checked it against some tax returns they have where numbers should match and match up dollar for dollar. >> we're looking at trump walking through his casinos. you mentioned the airline, other investments he made that went very bad. we had information, obviously, about his financial and business history. it's been out there. but the president continues to work very hard, extremely hard you might say, to keep his tax returns hidden, even directing his treasury secretary to defy a congressional request. so why, what do we think is in there? >> well, remember the donald trump as i revealed three years ago had two income tax fraud trials. these were civil trials, not criminal.
he lost both trials. he was ex-scorated by the judges both times and at one trial his accountant testified, that's my signature on my tax return but neither i nor my firm prepared that tax return, end quote. that as strong a badge of freud as you're ever going to hear in a tax case. >> you know more about president trump's taxes and financial life, almost anybody, we appreciate you coming on this morning. thank you. i'm in for stephanie ruhle because she's in las vegas covering the annual salt conference, a gathering of lawmakers from around the country, and all of the attendees are talking about this tax story. stephanie, you couldn't pick a bet are day to be there with these people. what are they telling you? >> it's amazing because this conference at the helm is anthony scaramucci, so people here are somewhat inclined to say the mueller report, let's
put it behind us. but when i arrived last night, that was not the tone. people were saying my goodness, we've got to see president trump's taxes. why? not like this is mitt romney, just a business guy, we don't need to see it. this is a man who lost hundreds of millions of dollars annually. he then recovered some by building a brand, an image of being a wealthy, powerful guy and renting that out. making him very vulnerable to a foreign adversary, almost a target because he is dress pret desperate to maintain that image. people here are saying hold your horses, we need to these taxes. even if there isn't an issue with russian lenders or wrongdoing, how about the spirit of it? president trump's base voters are all about being forgotten and screwed by the super wealthy who are able to gain the system in this idea of winner takes all. if you see those taxes, which "the new york times" has done extraordinary reporting, even if it's legal, the tax loophole
gymnastics the president was able to do at the helm of a real estate business is a complete slap in the face, an insult to all of those hard-working americans who say, i'm sorry, i pay my taxes fair and square every day. so i would say there's also a feeling of nervousness here at salt because you've got major investors, major real estate guys who will get up on that stage and they've got to be worried when the country sees these taxes, when they see exactly how the president won his success or made his money, they will say it's time to change the system. >> along with johnson, are they surprised, everybody knew he had taken a lot of deductions and many years he didn't pay taxes, but were they shocked by the sheer number of it, over $1 billion? or did they think, you know what, that's kind of what we knew about him? >> i would say the latter. so people here knew who donald trump was. they always kind of laughed at
the big image and almost applaud he was able to uphold that image and convince the country he was this massive business guy. remember when mayor michael bloomberg spoke at the d in. c and said this guy is a fraud. he's a huckster. when you actually look at those taxes, people see he absolutely is. now, beyond sort of sort of mocking him, the real concern is, given what an unskrup lus business person he was, that he was able to take advantage of capitalism, people are worried about who could he be influenced by? who may be manipulating him? they care. >> stephanie ruhle, i know you have a very busy day, thank you. we will see you interview attorney general jeff sessions and chris christie. fantastic. we can't wait to see you. thank you very much. enjoy your time in las vegas. >> appreciate it. coming up, we will talk about electability. is that word being used to eliminate candidates before the race even gets started really? and a new nbc news analysis
one voting bloc that could be key if she's going to make it to the white house. there's new analysis from nbc news revealing that harris is hauling in twice as many donations, twice as much money as her competitors in minority communities. but as this question of electability continues to resurface, how will harris ultimately fare? she and others are focusing purely on the idea of electability is just a way to sideline certain candidates. here to break it down political reporter laura barron-lopez, nbc national political reporter jonathan allen and senior correspondent for the hill, amy parn. so you're behind the report about success is having among minority voters. give us the headline, what did you find? >> what we found is kamala harris has a strategy of engaging voters of color in communities outside atlanta, outside washington, d.c., outside cleveland, ohio, i know close to your heart, chris.
so what we found here is the business strategy she's pursuing shows she will be campaigning well in states well beyond the first early states or plans to be. there will probably be a big fight between african-american s and this money could be a leading indicator of where voters follow later on. >> is this what you see here, laura. is this an early indicator? we already know people like buttigieg, beto and bernie have been having trouble connecting with minority voters. >> these voters are key whether they're black voters or latino voters. there was a drop in the black vote in 2016. just as important as driving out those white moderates in the midwest that possibly went to trump, democrats also are looking at driving out minorities. so, harris seems to be connecting well with these communities, as is elizabeth warren. we see that she is starting to maybe make end roads with those
communities and that could provide a path for both candidates to emerge. >> the women have been talking something more that you wrote a month ago which is electability and kind of pushing back on what they consider to be dated, outdated, sexist notions. what do you think about this conversation and where it's going. >> it's complicated. i think a lot of people look at 2016 and they think a woman still can't win against trump in particular. joe biden has come out strong from the gate saying i am the fighter, i can take on donald trump and this is why. he laid it out there. i think a lot of people are pointing to him as the most electable one, which is interesting considering what the field has looked like and how the energy and how everyone has talked about the energy being on the left and so i think he's tried to make the electability argument more so than the others. but it's definitely affecting a lot of women, in particular, i think because of 2016. >> elizabeth warren and kamala
harris coming out with proposals today. a lot of certain candidates in this race who haven't been so strong on policy. warren's plan focused on the opioid crisis and harris to boost defenders and how do you see the policy-driven women in particular put themselves out there and differentiate themselves from the others and really making an appeal to voters? >> well, warren has done well by putting out very specific policies, whether it's the one that she came out with today about opioids or addressing the wealth gap and i saw this first hand when i was with her in south carolina. it plays well on the stump. i have a plan has turned into a bit of a slogan. and harris equally is also pushing out more policies now. so, they're playing this long game hoping that this is a good
bet for them to emerge if sanders or biden become sidel e sidelined. >> one of the internal questions has been, how do you go after trump on news of the day and how much do you stick to your own message, right? i'm curious to see this new reporting on the president's taxes showing massive business losses. it will not sway his base, but how big of a weapon it might be for the democrats. what do you think? >> i mean, i think a lot of democrats who want to make the argument that donald trump is essentially a cheater across the board in all kind of ways and that he's not cheating for the american people, but cheating for himself. so, i think that's something you will hear from these candidates. they, obviously, want to stick to their messages on the issues that involve voters but to the extend they can tie that to those issues and say that the president is serving himself instead of them. i think you'll hear them do that. one quick thing if i can on the electability question. the last three top vote getters in presidential elections were a black man and a white woman.
so, the idea that a white man is the only person that can win an election in this xunt secountry rather odd for me. i don't think hillary clinton proved a woman couldn't win but could win by losing over 70,000 votes over three states. wilbur and orville wright when they crashed a plane when they were trying to fly, it proved they could fly, might need a little bit of an adjustment. >> keep going back to the idea that after john kerry didn't win or any of the other white men who represented the democratic party didn't win, we didn't hear people saying, gee, can a white man be elected president, right? laura, jonathan, amie, good to see all of you. in just minutes, the house judiciary committee will vote to meet on whether the attorney general should be held in contempt. we'll bring you the vote as it happens. don't go anywhere.
at first slice pizza lovers everywhere meet o, that's good! frozen pizza one third of our classic crust is made with cauliflower but that's not stopping anyone o, that's good! woman 1: this is my body of proof. man 1: proof of less joint pain and clearer skin. man 2: proof that i can fight psoriatic arthritis... woman 2: ...with humira. woman 3: humira targets and blocks a specific source of inflammation that contributes to both joint and skin symptoms. it's proven to help relieve pain, stop further irreversible joint damage and clear skin in many adults. humira is the number one prescribed biologic for psoriatic arthritis. announcer: humira can lower your ability to fight infections. serious and sometimes fatal infections, including tuberculosis, and cancers, including lymphoma,
have happened, as have blood, liver, and nervous system problems, serious allergic reactions, and new or worsening heart failure. 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. man 3: ask your rheumatologist about humira. woman 4: go to mypsaproof.com to see proof in action.
we just got our first glimpse of the newest member of the royal family. for now he's being called baby sussex as we wait for his name to be announced. joining me live from windsor castle is keir simmons. when will we get a name? >> good question, chris. well, you know, meghan and harry are meeting the queen noon local time and now any time i suspect because the queen, i think, will want to authorize the name, if
you like. give her seal of approval. it was a wonderful photo call with the two of them, i thought, looking more nervous than i ever saw them. meghan looking glowy and the little baby so wrapped up that prince harry had to be told to turn him so the world could get a view. a royal and also has american heritage, will be entitled to american citizenship. what a wonderful bond between two countries. they were asked, chris, the question that every new parent gets asked. how is he sleeping? he is doing really well and that is a really good baby. that is the answer every parent gives. they didn't look too tired, though. >> they look great. >> look like they're doing great. >> appreciate it. that will wrap up this hour. i'm chris jansing in for stephanie ruhle. coming up more news with hallie
jackson. >> i am hallie jackson in washington where, yes, it is a busy hour. we are watching that explosive fight between house democrats and the attorney general over the mueller report. any minute on the left side of your screen, you're looking live at the room where the house judiciary committee will vote on whether to hold bill barr in contempt of congress. because he's refused to make everything in that report available to congress. after last-minute negotiations between the two sides fell apart overnight. >> do you think bill barr cares if he is held in contempt by the house? >> don't know. doesn't matter. >> we've got our team with the high stakes and the high drama on this and all the other stories we're bringing you this hour. but, let's start with my msnbc colleagues and kelly o'donnell, pete williams and hans nichols at the white house. kelly, what do we expect to go down over the next 30 to 60 minutes in