tv MSNBC Live With Ali Velshi MSNBC May 8, 2019 12:00pm-1:00pm PDT
revitalization of the law enforcement community. about 90%, 85, 90% of the department of justice is crime. fbi. dea. atf, marshall service, prison system. all the united states attorneys in 94 districts throughout the country. we rallied those. the morale is up. they work with local law enforcement. crimes, homicide jumped 12% -- >> you are listening to steph new ruehl at the salt conference interviewing former attorney general jeff sessions and new jersey governor chris christie. i will keep an eye on it. we will bring you a little more of it as it happens, we will get stephanie to talk about that remarkable decision. i want to move on to itseother , neither the attorney general or president trump will comply, before declaring to make a protective assertion of executive privilege. moments before the house
judiciary committee began her to vito hold the attorney general in contempt of congress, the president asserted executive privilege to shield the unredacted version of special counsel mueller's report and all the underlying everyday that comes with it. the president's defiance was followed by a full throated approval, which wrote, in the circumstances you may properly exert executive privilege with the entirety, entirety of the department of justice's material the committee has demanded. any moment now, the house judiciary committee is expected to vote in favor of holding barr in contempt, officially leaving it to the full house to approve the decision. today's actions mark a historically intensifying feud between the executive and legislative branches that has staen shaken up america's democratic core and the divide in congress how to proceed could not be clearer. >> as a co-equal branch of government, with emust have access to the materials we need
to fulfill our constitutional responsibility in a manner consistent with past precedent. >> i think it's all about trying to destroy bill barr. because democrats are nervous he's going to get to the bottom of everything. he will find out how and why this investigation started in the first place. >> the conduct of special counsel mueller's report in the case of any other person if not having the legal policy against indicting a signature president would result in felony charges. there are people incarcerated right now because of lesser charges. let's get to the white house, halle jackson on capitol hill for us. nbc's kelly o'donnell, why are we on the house judiciary contempt vote on william barr? >> reporter: well, it is an all the day event on capitol hill. this is the committee room behind me. they have been debating and talking about these issues. partisan lines, of course, there is more than one vote to be
taken today. they have some amendments, because a part of what they are doing is there is a document that they are voting on ultimately. the conclusion is pretty well foregone. there are many democrats on there committee. they have laid out their position. we feel they will find bull market barr in contempt of congress. republicans voting against that. it is a multi-step process, they are changing some of the language. the bigger picture is the one we are talking about. not only this one instance of fighting them for contempt as we expect will happen this afternoon, who are not producing documents related to the mueller report. the underlying and redacted document itself. this is not about william barr's failure to show up for in-person testimony before the committee. >> that itself not an issue here. but we also know that as a part of the building blocks for democrats on what may eventually some day maybe be impeachment
matters. a hint of that was coming through in some of the comments today. first i want to have you take a listen to part of the argument here by democrat hank johnson, a member of the committee, talking about why this is so important. >> how can we impeach without getting the documents? is we must get this document. the american people expect us to do it. once we get it, our hearings can continue and lead to whatever they may lead to including impeachment. >> reporter: so maybe that's the cart ahead of the horse here. but it does give you some of the rationale that many democrats share on this committee and elsewhere about the need to push the department of justice for these documents, so they can learn more about what was underlying in the investigation for robert mueller. house speaker nancy pelosi has been much more circumspect over
time, we know, about the matter of impeachment. she the u.s. say she believes william baring should be cited for contempt, she gave us a new phrase, self impeachable. here is the house speaker talking about her concerns about the conduct of this administration. >> every single day, whether it's obstruction, obstruction, obstruction, obstruction is having people come to the table ignoring subpoenas, it's every single day the president is making a case. he is becoming self impeachable. >> reporter: self impeachable. so that is from nancy pelosi who as i mentioned has been one of those not beating the drum towards impeachment, but outlining the democrat's frustration. they think a much larger argument that the administration and the president are not
honoring the rule of law and the co-equal branch of government that is congress and its responsibility for oversight and so forth. so the battle goes on. today is one of the fights on what may get us down the road towards impeachment. today is notable in and of itself with the expectation that the attorney general will be held in contempt by this committee, ultimately, that still goes to the full house for a vote. we don't have timing on that yet. halle. >> thanks, halle jackson at the white house. i will be speaking to jeff rosen at the national constitution center and liz holtzman who was involved in the watergate trials, the watergate hearings. i go es the examples that i have been looking for in terms of a president extending executive privilege over everything, not even specifics. but everything having to do within with an investigation into that president is something that prior administrations approached with caution and care. what's the feeling at the white house about this? >> that this is the right move for them. they will point to past instances where presidents haven't heard of the executive
order or executive privilege i should say in order to protect certain materials. i do think it's important to explain what we are talking about here. people ask the question the mueller report is already out, at least it's unredacted version. that's not what the white house is trying to do here, there are tons of pieces of evidence, the stuff used in essence to compile that mueller report, that is what the executive privilege is on, in addition to the full unredacted mueller report, the white house has a legal argument reflected by what you hear from some of the republicans in the room. we are looking live at the left side of the screen, how the press secretary incapsulated what the white house' view on why they have a legal leg to stand on. watch. >> chairman nadler is asking the attorney general of the united states to break the law and commit a crime by releasing
information that he knows he has no legal authority to have. it's truly outrageous and absurd what the chairman is doing. she should be embarrassed he is behaving that way. >> to break that down and put it in plain english terms there. the argument the white house and press secretary is making, bill barr, the attorney general can't release things like grand jury information, which is a part of this unredacted mueller report to congress. legally, he isn't supposed to do so. they're arguing with him. democrats are trying to get bill barr to break the law. democrats say no we are not. we are trying do our part. we are ledges latesively compound bound to do, which is overside, where we have questions, we have the power to do that that's where the tension point is here, ali. i think both sides believe they have the better argument, ultimately we'll see. one other quick point here. there have been questions how this relates to robert mueller's testimony.
as you know, how democrats would like to see him, ask him some questions, frankly, house republicans as well. no date has been set for that or at least has been finalized. folks ask if the question, does that assert executive privilege, the potential for robert mueller's testimony down the road. when he is a department of justice employee, potentially. it may make it more complicated what he can and cannot talk about. once he is no longer doj, a private citizen, bob. then he will be able to go out and he can certainly have his prerogative as to whether or not he wants to speak in front of congress. >> halle, it's a complicated matter. no one better than you to help us understand this. halle jackson, kelly o'donnell for us at the united states congress. congressman akim jeffreys today declared an exempt hearing. we are headed into a constitutional crisis. the issue at hand here is exactly what is considered executive privilege. executive privilege is not written into the constitution, but it is something that
previous presidents have argued is implied in the constitution's separation of powers. executive privilege is the right of the president to withhold information from the congress and the courts and ultimately the public. it can be used in certain national security needs and protecting white house deliberations when in the public interest to do so. the second part is valuable in that it allows presidential advisers to freely speak their mind without the threat of a subpoena. but this is not understood to be an absolute privilege as noted in the 1974 supreme court case u.s. v nixon. that's when president nixon's attorneys argued it was within the white house to withhold the infamous audio recordsings with advisers. the supreme court ordered nixon to provide those tapes and suspended materials to federal district courts, citing neither the doctrine of centralized
powers or the generalized need of high level communications, without more can sustain an absolute unqualified presidential privilege of immunity from just dish prju di process under -- under judicial process under all process. the allowance of the privilege to withhold evidence that is demonstrably relevant in a criminal trial would cut deeply into the due process of law and gravely impair the basic functions of the courts. joining me now, jeffrey rosen, the president and ceo of the constitutional center. jeff, thank you for being with us, as it relates to an investigation, materials related to an investigation that is at least in part related to the president's own conduct. tell me why u.s. versus nixon didn't settle executive privilege and where it would
apply? >> well, you set up u.s. versus nixon very well. as you said, u.s. versus nixon protects presidential deliberations ability new york security or diplomacy, but does not provide a general shield against the president's need to turn over materials that might be relevant to law enforcement. what is so interesting about the mueller report is we know the categories of redactions. one of them was sensitive intelligence matters. so that could conceive aeblg be covered by executive privilege. the other is ongoing privacy rights and third parties and grand jury secrecy material, rule 6e are not covered. those are subject to a balancing of law enforcement interests against the interests of congress. we know in fine 74 a court ordered the turning over of grand jury materials to nixon's impeachment it led to. asserting redactions in the mueller report will not ultimately fly from court.
the protective privilege you mentioned might temporarily freeze when they decide when to serve. broadly, if we're headed to the supreme court, and see u.s. versus nixon you will not see all of the redactions covered by executive privilege. >> you and i spoke before they were going to assert this protective privilege over all of these materials, so the question at hand last night was, what will happen with congress declaring william barr to be in contempt of congress and how that gets settled? is that moot now as a result of this? in other words, william barr free to ignore a contempt judgment against him by congress because of this action by the executives? >> not at all. they're two separate conflicts between the executive and congress. the courts will decide how much of the mueller redactions are covered by executive privilege. separate from that, all
officials have an obligation to obey congressional subpoenas unless they got a good reason for fought doing so barr has not asserted the executive privilege over his refusal to testify. >> that would require a separate assertion. i think he will not comply. possible contempt or criminal penalties against barr will proceed separately to keep the mueller report from congress. >> carley savage of the "new york times" argues, if congress forces the compliance and a judge orders it, then and somebody like william barr defies it, that figure could be held in contempt of court. which is a completely different story when held in contempt of congress. how do you see this playing out? this is fundamental. the idea of does congress have certain rights that cannot be quashed by the executive or are they in a stalemate here? >> yes, congress does have fundamental rights.
it's clashes over the refusal to obey a subpoena when thomas jefferson tried to do that that led the marshall court to say no, thomas jefferson, you have to testify. so congress has constitutional authority to conduct oversight investigations, including ones that could lead to impeachment. generally executive refuofficia are required to testify unless they have a good privilege for not doing that, many of these battles will end up in courts in different ways. congress has very strong arguments that at some point congress or its agents will have to testify before it. >> i always feel smarter to talking to you, jeff is the president and ceo and professor of the george washington university of law. i want to bring in liz holtzman, a member of the house judiciary committee that voted to impeach president nixon. she is also the author of the case for impeaching donald trump. impeaching trump. liz, good to see you.
let's keep walking through this, u.s. versus nixon proceedings which this conflict in a different way was presented before congress, congress took action and said, we are entitled to this material. >> yes, what happened was, you had, first of all arc special prosecutor, prosecuting questions of coverup, the watergate break-in as well as the break-in,lets. they needed materials. they also turned over materials to the house judiciary committee. the special prosecutor sought materials from the white house because once you have a white house taping system, the prosecutor wanted the tapes. nixon said no he also claimed it was national security. his claims turned out to be false claims and the court rejected them. meanwhile, the house judiciary committee, which was conducting house impeachment proceedings said we want the tapes too. we few what was going on those
dates, nixon was meeting with his advisers over the coverup. we knew that. we wanted the tapes. nixon said no to us. so what we did, we didn't bring contempt proceedings. one of the articles of impeachment, the third article of impeachment was the president's actions to obstruct the impeachment by refusing to turn over materials. you know, i want to put it into two words. coverup. that was basically what was involved in water gate and the impeachment of nixon. the coverup of the break-in. the coverup of the abuses of power and the coverup with the impeachment. the whom sale refusal of the president in this case to turn over a single document, a single document to the house judiciary committee, which is looking at the mueller report is just thumbing his nose at the constitution, at the rule of law. he's saying, you know, i'm the
king, you want to do something about it. try. >> according to what we've heard so far, until this goes before a court and the court rules on it, there is no -- if the president doesn't care about the optics of it, hold out on this until something happens. >> yeah. congress does have this little jail in the capitol, which hasn't been used for about 100 years. as i said, they ought to clean out the rats and get clean sheets and make sure everybody understands, this is something sam irvin head of the senate watergate committee, somebody doesn't come to testify, they're going to jamie. so congress has that power. although i'm sure that will be tested in the courts, the courts will deal with it. the issue is for the american people. if they see that what the president of the united states is doing is covering up trying to force congress from seeing the witnesses, force congress to, from getting, keep congress from getting the documents, keep
the american people from seeing the witnesses, from reading the documents, from hearing about the documents, the american people see this as coverup, trump's goose is cookled. that's how this has to be presented. >> all right. liz holtzman, always good to talk to you, a former new york democratic congressman and author of the case for impeaching trump. a decade in the red, headlining, a bomb shell report from the torque times, revealing businessman extraordinaire. president trump claimed losses of over $1 guilty from 1985 to 1994. $1 billion. the times obtained ten years of printouts of mr. trump's tax transcripts, information we know mr. trump has worked diligently to hide from congress and the public. after comparing the results, the "new york times" found that trump actually reported more money lost than nearly any other individual american taxpayer
during those years. the uncovered data, now giving us a new look into what many recall to be the explosive rise of the trump brand era. by the time his master of the universe memoir, donald j. trump was already in deep financial distress, the "times" states, here's the kicker, the report found because mr. trump lost so much money, he dodged payinging in tacks for eight of the ten-year period. let's walk through the time line of those losses, so we can see the full scope of this every single year, between 1985 and 1994, donald trump reported a negative adjusted gross income on his taxes. here we go, negative 51.4 million in 1985. 99.6 million in 1986. negative 4.35 million in 1987, negative 44.6 million in 1988. neg live frae 93 million in
1999. look at this, negative 403 million in 1990. this was the year he said was good for him financially. can you imagine that? negative 396 million in 1991. negative 76.1 million in 1972. the successful billionaire president. negative 814 million in 1993. it gets better. 918 million in 1994. and in a previous report, the "new york times" no under that mr. trump declared an adjusted gross income of negative $915.7 million in 1995. all right. we let that sink in for just a second. joining me to talk more about this is one of the remarkable journalists on that "new york times" byline, my old friend suzanne craig. good to see you. >> good to see you. >> this is stunning this sort of report.
it lays bare the idea that donald trump campaigned on and many people still support him as the successful businessman as president. but it's more than that, because those numbers are not the full story. there are loans upon which he defaulted valued at more money than he declared as losses. so donald trump through the '80s into the '90s was a financial train wreck. >> what's incredible with this, if you had asked, we before we started looking on this, what good years donald trump may have had in his career. he might have identified some in '85, '86. he might have said the year he wrote his book "the art of the deem" that brags about his deal-making ability, that might have been a good year for him. what we are seeing none of these were. there was red ink in every year and core business losses in the "art of the deal" in 1987 were like 42 million. by the time his casinos he it the rocks, they were up to 200
million in 1991. every year, though, you notice, he has said publicly he really ran into financial trouble in 1990. what we are seeing now is it happened much earlier. we actually because of the tax returns, that itself the information we have, we can see even in 1984 he was losing money. we can see the do you that that carried over. >> i was talking to tim block berg earlier today, he was saying donald trump is and practiceing machine, a marketing machine. is that the measure you were using for him as a business person, you might meet with some questions. everything that he operated, the businesses he operated, routinely there were massive losses. some banks continued to loan him money, particularly deutsche bank. >> most banks and you still hear it today when you are doing reporting on the president, 1989, 1990 and the losses, a lot of banks would fought do business with him after that. >> donald trump tweeted that was the way it goes.
>> that he said during the campaign, not paying any more taxes than you are supposed to pay is smart. he said that you declare loses to reduce your tax liability. >> yes. >> is there any allegation that any of this that he broke any laws? >> no, one of his arguments, no, not in what we've seen. there are some things we have questions about. one argument is depreciation is great. you want losses. these are not normal in terms of what we saw. we were able to compare him to other wealthy people. in some years ago it looks like he lost more than any other individual taxpayer in america. i mean, he was a really bad businessmen, some of this could be depreciation. it's a fraction of most of these are real losses. it's real money. some of it was banks him some of it was his. they're real losses. >> what is incomplete in the story that you are gathering? what would you like? what piece of information would you like to have to get more information on this story? >> well, a couple things.
one, the main one from the story that we reported was, there is a number we can't make sense of, it's interesting in he reported. 52.9 million. the interesting thing, a lot of donald trump's finances that are black boxed. in that specific era, there is a lot of financial information around him, his casinos were in distress, new jersey regulators were all over him. we have a lot of information. we can see his assets, we didn't have close to that interesting in. we can't sort out what it can be. it's interesting, it's 52.9. in the years before tick around 8, 9, 11, back down the year after. we can't understand that. the other thing, of course, that would be great to have is more tax information, more tax transcripts from the modern era. we think we have now painted a strong picture from the investigation we did in 2008 of his father and their relationship and the wealth that was inher retsd and the tax se
nan begans -- inherited and the tax shenanigans. we have a complete picture. it was a period of a lot of acquisition of financial ruin. but then we get to 1995, we have one trafficmenfragments of retu 2005. then nothing. sources ofing in. how he is makinging in. this guy, we don't understand where and who hising in is coming from. >> thank you to you and your team for remarkable investigative reporting. part of the remarkable "new york times" investigative reporting to you that has conducted this information. coming up, uber and lyft drivers in a show of force, ahead of wall street debut later this week, what the drivers are demand, what the future of ride sharing, and governor bill weld joins me to talk about what he's doing to win over republicans as
he challenges president trump for the party's 2020 nomination. you are watching msnbc. ion. you are watching msnbc >> tech: they wanted it fixed fast so they brought it to us. >> mom: hi. >> tech: with our in-shop chip repair service, we can fix it the same day... guaranteed. plus with most insurance a safelite chip repair is no cost to you. >> mom: really? drive safely. all right. ♪ acoustic music >> singers: ♪ safelite repair, ♪ safelite replace. one-of-a-kind women weg call "mom."e with an engaging new experience... ...ancestrydna can help her uncover her history... ...to tell a story as unique as she is. order a kit for mom (or dad) at ancestry.com
here'sshow me making it. like. oh! i got one. the best of amy poehler. amy, maybe we could use the voice remote to search for something that you're not in. show me parks and rec. from netflix to prime video to live tv, xfinity lets you find your favorites with the emmy award-winning x1 voice remote. show me the best of amy poehler, again. this time around... now that's simple, easy, awesome. experience the entertainment you love on x1. access netflix, prime video, youtube and more, all with the sound of your voice. click, call or visit a store today.
they want to minimize what is happening between the congress and the president as normal squabbling. which is not. i think they're saying the next place this is all headed, this court. the thing that stood out to me is chris christie over and over basically saying you knew who president trump was, you get what you get, you don't get upset if you don't like it, vote for somebody else in 2020. as it relates to the tax returns, he was like listen when i was running against trump and he wasn't releasing his taxes, we thought man he was dead meat, it seems like he was saying this is the bar he set if you don't like it vote for somebody else. >> you were having a zinc conversation about what they are going to do in politics. chris christie says he's not interesting in running again. jeff sessions had an interesting answer, he hasn't declared, suggesting he is interested in
running and pursuing and helping and pushing the trump agenda he seems to be continued enamored of. >> reporter: that's what's amazing, jeff sessions, the second senator to come out and support president trump. that was a couple years ago. he then became attorney general and president trump pummelled him, day in, day out. session kind of shrugged it off when he said why didn't he recuse himself? he said it was clear, because he was involved in the trump campaign, he needed to do that. he needed to recuse himself. when i asked him what was the difference between they sold barr and he didn't. he said there wasn't such a cheer line. session stood by why it made sense for him he resues himself. basically he said i stayed in my job. while i didn't like how the president was beating on me, i focused on other things, i was ready to resign, when the president told me to, i did.
jeff sessions was waving the flag yet again, wouldn't that surprise you in if i was beating you to a pulp every day and sunday, i might not say ali's my boy. >> fortunately, none of us agree with each other. great interview. we look forward to seeing you back here tomorrow? >> i'll see you tomorrow. >> thank you for that. stephanie ruhle in los vegas. this afternoon, ride share drivers rally outside lyft headquarters in queens new york to demand protest and more rights for workers. this came as they held a strike, one example of protests against uber and lyft taking place in eight u.s. cities, the protests comes two days ahead with an expected valuation of around $90 billion. lyft went public back in march with a valuation of $24 billion.
the fare is already too high and they fear investors will push uber and lyft to slash the driver's earnings even more. uber and lyft say those drivers are freelance contractors, not employees. joining me now, correspondent jake ward, he has been talking to some of those driving, jake, this is a strange story insofar as the technology has been revolutionary from the perspective of people like us who use uber and lyft will and the perspective of so many new people able to take jobs as these dliefrivers. the early chapters are fougnot looking like a success story. >> reporter: the airless bubble that we use within these apps, to sort of hide from you the complications of when things get tough, when things have to be negotiated. so listen for instance to one strike organizer describes what it's like to talk to uber about working conditions. so as an organizer, what is it
like to try to negotiate with uber as a company? >> i mean, it's hard to negotiate with uber because any time you try to get to them, you know, you have to send a message, a text message or you call sometimes and it goes you know, pick up your phone, we are not responsible. >> reporter: there is nobody within that company that is assigned to sit with you as a set org nooanizer to figure thi thing out in. >> you are texting tell. they answer you by text message. >> reporter: that's a part of the negotiations? ? exactly. that's a part of negotiations. >> reporter: you know, the amazing thing there is a that you really -- imagine your employer doesn't have a face. you can not reach them by phone. you cannot sit down with them and talk about this. to be cut off from your employer is supposed to be an unbelievable frustrating thing. >> talk to me what they earn. has somebody done the math on
this? >> reporter: yes, so the economic policy ensues what what looks like the most comprehensive average. on average, ubers are learning less than $9 an hour, less than the state minimum wage in many states. really for many of these drivers, they say there are all these fixed costs, you buy the car, you loo es the car, you have maybe sometimes commercial insurance. we have drivers here in new york city, all of those costs add up over time. then you are locked in, as these incentives, which they used the guarantee drivers, as those fall away, in the ito perspectives, you see that i will trim those away. drivers are tethered to the costs in a way they cannot get out of. they feel trapped in their job. that's why they're doing this. >> lyft says the hourly earnings have increased in a statement over the last two years. so that's their response. good to see you as always. the one man who is
woman: this is your wake-up call. if you have moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis, month after month, the clock is ticking on irreversible joint damage. ongoing pain and stiffness are signs of joint erosion. humira can help stop the clock. prescribed for 15 years, humira targets and blocks a source of inflammation that contributes to joint pain and irreversible damage. vo: 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. woman: help stop the clock on further irreversible joint damage. talk to your rheumatologist. right here. right now. humira.
these days we're all stressed. i hear you, sister. stress can affect our minds. i call this dish, "stress." stress can also affect our bodies. so, i'm partnering with cigna to remind you that your emotional and physical health are more connected than you think. go in for your annual check-up. and be open with your doctor about anything you feel. physically, and emotionally. body and mind. cigna. together, all the way. that's better. president trump is heading to florida this afternoon, where in a few hours he will, in fact, hold a campaign rally in panama city, he began escalating his
conflict with democrats. he instituted an xegtive privilege as the house began hearings for holding william barr in contempt of congress for failure to turn over the rest of the report and key underlying everyday. the committee has yet to take a vote on whether to hold barr in contempt. we are expecting that to happen, we are expecting it to go along party linesch joining us to talk about this is governor bill weld who is challenging trump for the 2020 nomination. good to see you. >> good to see zbru people have talked about a major figure in the republican party challenging president trump for the republican nomination. some say it's a fool's errand, that donald trump has a lock on the republican party right now. your response. >> i think a year is a long time in politics. i have been trying hard in new hampshire to be a significant factor there. and beyond that, i couldn't stand idly by and watch what this fellow in the oval office
is doing. he's not doing anything for the workers who will be displaced by artificial intelligence, drones, robotics, long haul trucker gone in there interesting observation, now being a long haul trucker is a good job for the next several years, it will be a good job, one day it will stop. what we have is a lot of people in america who are, they're validating their anger they have sort of been left behind with technology. >> talk about the future of work. because mr. trump is not talking about the future of work. what is going to happen is there will be replacement johns for those jobs lost, automation. there will be higher wage jobs, because they require more technical skills. it's our job and that's a combination of online learning, which is totally as sticky as little red school house social learning and making community college courses that have those technical skills free to the displaced workers. not to everybody like bernie sanders says, just to the
displaced workers. >> that's a national retraining program that has not been undertaken anywhere in the developed world. >> i'm telling you, it would be cheap at the price. i looked at the comfort, a fraction of a percent of the state bucket to do it. no one is stliing about it. no one is planning ahead in washington. >> is it worrisome to you? as i watch the democratic lineup. i find those candidates, some who are so heavy on policy and great ideas, whether they're good ideas or not, that provoke good discussion, sometimes take a back seat to folks who are rile and pick the low hanging fruit of people who are angry? >> yeah, the green new deal, all the environmental energy stuff is fine. i don't agree we mr. trump, the future of energy is coal and oil. then they go on to say we will eliminate all oppression. everyone will have a guaranteed basicing in. i quote. even those unwilling to, who. please, the united states of america. i don't think so. >> let's talk about what the
president has done today. you release a statement on the president's use of executive privilege with respect to the mueller report. you said donald trump seems to model his response to the mueller investigation and nixon is inappropriately using executive privilege to see everyday from his criminal conduct. the courts rejected that during watergate. they will reject it here. all of whom said this is not what executive privilege is to be and the courts in 1973 said so. >> i lived that with liz holtzman. i was a staffer on her committee. >> wow. >> so i vividly remember article 3 of impeachment was confirmation, refusal to comply with congress am suspense, that wasn't contempt of court. that was contempt of congress. that's where the president and his ag are headed right now. i don't think they have the slightest interest of engaging with congress. if you notice the first time the first subpoena came, the president said we will resist
all suspense, they're partisan, they're part sans, they're democrats, therefore, we will resist all subpoenas, that doesn't hold ul legally. i understand the president has difficulty conforming his conduct to the rule of law or other norms whatsoever. but he seems to be clueless about the process. he seems to me frankly to be dying for impeachment. he's trying to eek congress into impeaching him. that's a pea patch he would love to play in, hurling insults, saying witch hunt, hoax, without having to discuss anything. because i think he has nothing to do. you heard those 500 prosecutors yesterday who said he clearly committed obstruction and it wasn't close. >> if he wasn't the president of the united states, he would be charged with something. here's the question, who do you peel off in order to try to get the republican nomination? >> i got to think at the end of the day, the american people are reasonable. i do think that mr. trump is unprepared for the duties of his
office. he is certainly not taking care the laws are faithfully executed, which is part of what he took an oath to do. that basically is why dick nixon was impeached and removed. i think we might get this i got the question, with this current senate, i convicted nixon. i paused. on the answer, it's yes. i was right there. >> really? >> when the tames came out showed that nixon had been lying to the american people, trying to stop an investigation on phony grounds of national security, barry goldwater and carl curtis went to see him and said you got to resign. have you zero support in the senate. have you zero support in the congress. and nixon had enough self awareness and he was you know reputable, pretty reasonable guy and has a lot of experience. he was gone within a month. he was gone almost immediately. >> bill weld, thank you for taking the time to speak to us. good to see you. good luck in your campaign. up next, we're taking you to
if you have postmenopausal osteoporosis and a high risk for fracture now might not be the best time to ask yourself are my bones strong? life is full of make or break moments. that's why it's so important to help reduce your risk of fracture with prolia®. only prolia® is proven to help strengthen and protect bones from fracture with 1 shot every 6 months. do not take prolia® if you have low blood calcium, are pregnant, are allergic to it or take xgeva® serious allergic reactions, like low blood pressure trouble breathing; throat tightness; face, lip, or tongue swelling rash; itching; or hives have happened. tell your doctor about dental problems as severe jaw bone problems may happen or new or unusual pain in your hip groin, or thigh, as unusual thigh bone fractures have occurred.
speak to your doctor before stopping prolia® as spine and other bone fractures have occurred. prolia® can cause serious side effects, like low blood calcium; serious infections which could need hospitalization; skin problems; and severe bone joint, or muscle pain. are you ready? ask your doctor how prolia® can help strengthen your bones. >> tech: at safelite autoglass, we every chip will crack.. this daughter was home visiting when mom saw a chip in her windshield. >> mom: honey is that a chip? >> tech: they wanted it fixed fast so they brought it to us. >> mom: hi. >> tech: with our in-shop chip repair service, we can fix it the same day... guaranteed. plus with most insurance a safelite chip repair is no cost to you. >> mom: really? drive safely. all right. ♪ acoustic music >> singers: ♪ safelite repair, ♪ safelite replace.
has been excellent. 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. it was funny because when we would call another insurance company, hey would say "oh we can't beat usaa" we're the webber family. we're the tenney's we're the hayles, and we're usaa members for life. ♪ get your usaa auto insurance quote today. klepper is heading to the front
lines of american activism in a series premiering tomorrow night he takes a deep dive into some of the biggest issues in america and talks to people most passionate about them. here's a preview. >> four months. >> four months? >> yes. >> what are you carrying? >> i don't know the number. i believe it's an ar-15. >> do you like open end carry? >> yes. >> why is that? >> i feel responsible for protecting others because i'm the one that could provide protection with a gun. >> that's a lot of responsibility for you. you're 13. >> yeah. >> is that good for you guys, the 13-year-old carrying an ar-15. >> he's probably a better shot than i am -- that's not true. >> they used to draft 13-year-olds to play war games -- >> in your time. i think you're stuck in the past. >> joining me now, jordan klepper. what's different about this show?
>> i'm there and getting arrested and almost drowning in a boat in a nutshell. >> wow. >> yeah i've been behind the desk a lot and i like being behind a desk, and you can comment on what's going on out there. and it's interesting to go out and walk with open carry folks and get in a boat to protest pipelines. >> that's an interesting clip we showed but you're going across the spectrum? >> we started the show to talk about american tribalism. how people define themselves with groups. we told a story how people define themselves for the causes they fight for. we look for all sides there. the clip you saw was me with an open carry group in texas and trying to normalize the experience of gun on the streets. >> is that a form of identity politics. what we used to think was ethnic or class is now around clauses?
>> i think so. it's what do you stand for. it's an active way. you see people not only finding community based on what they support -- >> is that good or bad? >> i don't know. it's action. i think what i was inspired by is people aren't on their couches screaming. they're going to state houses and marching. they're talking about things they care about. >> do we separate ourselves too much with some of these beliefs though? there's a sense you get in a bucket and because you get in that bucket you have to vote a certain way, think a certain way about other policies and we're not finding our commonality. >> if your one cause you care about becomes a broader ideology, yeah, i think there's danger there. i think community, what i found in all of these, there's no perfect protest by any means and people are going there because they care about the cause and there's a community built up around it, which can be a positive thing or it can be used for bad.
>> you had a conversation with hillary clinton, it's too long to run. tell us what happened. you were talking to hillary clinton and you got her to read from the mueller report? >> i did. she helped me spend $1,000 of my own for a go fund me account, asked her if she would read the mueller report for an audio book and she did. >> what did the money go to? >> the big portion went to freedom university, which is undocumented kids in georgia who are just fighting to go to college. >> thank you for joining me. congratulations on the new show "on america's front lines" premiers tomorrow at 10:30 p.m. on comedy central. we're keeping an eye on capitol hill, the house judiciary committee is expected to vote this afternoon to hold attorney general william barr in contempt of congress. we'll be back after this quick break. you're watching msnbc. quick break. you're watching msnbc. to improve short-term memory.
prescription drug ads are a constant presence on television, but they don't include how much the drugs actually cost because they tell you pretty much everything else. that is about to change. the health and human services department said drug makers will be required to disclose a list price in tv ads if a month's supply or the usual course of therapy costs $35 or more. many drug companies oppose the rule saying providing that information would be misleading because most patients don't pay the actual list price. the new rule proposed as part of the trump administration's
effort to reduce drug prices takes effect in 60 days. if a drug maker fails to comply, its competitors can respond by filing a lawsuit under a 1946 law that prohibits false advertising. monday and tuesday were rough markets. the top of the day looked like another one, but look at that, the market has come -- i wouldn't call that roaring back. the dow looks like it'll close about 20 points higher. all major markets are flattish for the day. but the s&p, which is broader than the dow is down a couple points. nasdaq down 13. we'll see how that ends in 15 minutes. that does it for me. i'll be back tomorrow. you can always find me on social media, twitter, facebook,
instagram, snapchat and linked in. thank you for watching "deadline: white house" with nicole wallace starts right now. hi, everyone. it's 4:00 in washington d.c. where open warfare between the trump administration and congress has democrats declaring that a constitutional crisis is upon us. in the house judiciary committee a vote on contempt charges for attorney general william barr just moments away. we'll bring that to you live once it begins. the historic clash on capitol hill follows days of negotiations between the justice department and the house judiciary committee for a document that donald trump said totally exonerates him. the white house today resorting to extreme measures to hide it. asserting executive privilege over the full mueller report. the "new york times" reporting on the high stakes of the stone walling. quote, president trump's wholesale refusal to provide information to congress threatens to up