tv Deadline White House MSNBC May 14, 2019 1:00pm-2:00pm PDT
rule and 3:00 p.m. eastern. find me on social media, twitter, instagram, facebook, ". next up, nicolle wallace right now. >> hi, everyone. 4:00 in new york. what do you do if there are two investigations under way into the origins of the fbi's counter-intelligence investigation into russian interference into the 2016 election? well, if you're attorney general barr you open up a third, investigating the investigators, revealed new reporting from the "new york times," quote, attorney general william barr has assigned the top federal prosecutor in connecticut to examine the origins of the russia investigation. that's according to people familiar with the matter, a move that president trump has long called for but that could anger law enforcement officials who insist that scrutiny of the trump campaign was lawful. donald trump gave barr's latest move two thumbs-up and sideswiped his sitting fbi
director chris wray while he was at it. >> you missouri what, i am so proud of our attorney general that he is looking into it. i think it's great. i did not know about it. >> do you have confidence in christopher wray after he said -- >> i didn't understand his answer. i thought the attorney general answered it perfectly. so i certainly didn't understand that answer. i thought it was a ridiculous answer. >> wray should consider himself warned that serving as fbi director in the trump presidency can be a lonely proposition. if you stay strong, superiors at doj will have your back, right? well, not this one. former deputy attorney general rod rosenstein had this to say about wray's predecessor jim comey. quote, former director is a partisan pundit selling books and earning speaking fees while speculating about the strength of my character and the fate of my immortal soul. that is disappointing. speb speculating about souls is not a job for prosecutors.
wearing a wire and getting votes is? with us at the table former director of cia john brennan, cnn security unless. aide to george w. bush white house and host of saturday night politics on nbc donny deutsch. plus former attorney assistant general litman. i have to start with you. so striking to see trump on twitter a couple of times. christopher wray's testimony last week standing out because it stands in contrast to that of attorney general. on the heels of attorney general barr appointing a third investigation, a review, into the origins of the russia investigation, donald trump sounding very emboldened grens christopher wray had may be the closest thing we have to a
guardrail in federal law enforcement. >> i'm thankful for an fbi director that's doing the right thing, speaking the truth. it's just not in the fbi culture, nicolle, to turn away from the truth and the facts. if you ask an fbi agent, an fbi director about something, you're going to get a straight answer if he can answer it at all. so what we're seeing really is a clash of cultures. we're seeing the trump administration and their way versus the fbi way. that's what america needs to understand. now, is wray's tenure going to be short-lived because of this? well, it's quite possible. those are the people we need in the position of fbi director speaking the truth and illustrating the fbi's motto, which is fidelity, bravery, integrity. we're not seeing that in the attorney general, we're certainly not seeing it in rod rosenstein, a real disappointment and i think showing his true colors and further onshowing that clash of
culture between truth, rule of law and partisan politics. >> director brennan, last night "new york times" breaking news a third review under way with the russian investigation. you were in the u.s. government as our country's cia director when the counter-intelligence investigation commenced. what do you make of the fact that it's being reviewed by a third set of investigators? >> well, john durham is a very well respected individual. i believe he's going to do this, i'm hoping he'll do it in the right way. i'm hoping attorney general barr would carry out his duties but i'm mistaken there. i do believe it's important that therehow strongly predicate tha investigation was. i was theref 2016. it was very well predicated. to launch the counter-intelligence investigation about what the russians were doing to interfere in our election and who among american citizens might have been working with them. >> so is there anything -- i take your point that durham is a
professional, but is there anything unprofessional about ig horowitz doing the same investigation. >> i think there are instances where an ig is looking at an issue and also other investigations. i'm here they are going to be able to work somewhat collaboratively together. i do hope this review that mr. durham is going to do will be taken care of quite quickly. but i do think that there is ample, ample evidence to justify what the fbi and intelligence community did in the summer of 2016. >> harry, is there any sense that the justice department can take on a number of separate parallel investigations? this is the third. the huber investigation was announced by jeff sessions in a letter to look at the origins of the russia probe. the inspector general is looking at some of the ififisa applicats
and the match that lit that probe. can the justice department manage three separate investigations into the same investigation? >> it's not a matter of management, it's a matter of impact. the attorney general wants to know what happened, fine. when you do a third and even a fourth time, because, remember, the horowitz initial report also delved into this. there are no facts that seem to be a mystery at this point, as john says, and really not law either. so the worry is that overall when you get to two, three, four, you get the sense of we're going to continue until we get the answer we want. it's also, durham is a pro but he's not the fastest working pro, so there's a real prospect that from now through the election the talking point has now been delivered to trump that the investigators are being investigated. even if he does the right thing, as he should, finds no culpable conduct, it still will have its
effect during the election season. >> let me play for you, frank figliuzzi, i know you know the players here and i want your thoughts on the development. let me play for you attorney general barr under questioning from senator harris around this topic. >> has the president, or anyone at the white house, ever asked or suggested that you open an investigation into anyone? yes or no, please, sir. >> the president or anybody else. >> it seems you would remember something like that and be able to tell us. >> yeah, i'm trying to grapple with the word "suggest." there have been discussions of matters out there. they have not asked me to open an investigation. >> perhaps they have suggested. >> i don't know. i wouldn't say suggest. >> hinted? >> i don't know. >> inferred? you don't know. okay. >> frank figliuzzi, it would
sound to me like he either knew or had already asked for another review of the origins of the russia investigation when he was facing questions from senator kamala harris. >> you could play this video at quantico, virginia, to a new agents class on classic interrogation. this is textbook evasion and detection right there. here is the problem. there's no accountability for that. we're talking about opening investigations, using u.s. attorneys to do something the inspector general will do. who is investigating barr? he won't show up for subpoenas, won't go to the house. he gets to skate on that while everyone else, including investigators under him at the fbi, get investigated. this is a problem. >> mr. brennan, i want to play for you the three voices on this question of spying. i want to ask you if your conduct or decision making.
>> spying on a political campaign is a big deal. >> investigations against alleged mobsters, suspected terrorist, other criminals, do you believe they are engaged in spying when they are following fbi investigative policies and procedures? >> that's not the term i would use. >> who uses the word spying to discuss authorized lawful surveillance on a counter-intelligence probe, other than sean hannity. >> william barr, clearly, and i think donald trump as well. >> why? >> well, i think they are trying to imply and to really indicate there was misuse of authorities. that was not the case. does cia spy? yes.
adversaries? yes. do we spy against domestic individuals? no, we do not. we work very closely with the fbi. when the russians were trying to interfere in that election and change the outcome of it in their favor, we, cia and fbi, worked very collaboratively so we could have the ability to see what the russians were doing and who they were working with. when william barr said spying, it clearly indicated there was something inappropriate if not illegal. nobody used the term spying when they are referring to a legitimate predicated authorized investigative action on the part of the fbi. >> why do you think he uses it? is it taunting? does it signal to the intelligence community that he's coming for you? does it signal he's watched too much sean hannity? what does that word mean inside the intelligence community? >> i think he's playing to mr. trump. throughout that testimony it was clear what mr. barr was doing was trying to say things and characterize things in a manner that was not only consistent with what mr. trump has said but also very supportive of it.
so when he responded to kamala harris and to others on these issues, he thought about it. they asked him, was there spying? he said, yeah, there was. to me that really suggests he already is looking at things that really did not happen. it was predicated, legal, authorized. if they want to take a look at the fisa, that's legitimate. a question about investigations and whether that's going to suck the air out of the whole environment. it's clear in my mind that what mr. barr was suggesting was that the fbi was engaged in politically motivated spying against one of the candidates. >> let's just be super clear for our viewers. a fisa application, i can remember talking to a justice department official at the time devin nunes was trying to declassify over the objections of fbi director. christopher wray was there.
this doj official said bring it on. this is an incorruptible piece of the justice department. these are so scrubbed, so scrutinized, these are slowed down by the beaurocracy. rod rosenstein's signature is on the reauthorizations. the standard for reauthorizing a fisa is even higher. th to prove. once and for all, what will they find in one, two, three examinations, reviews, investigations of the origins of the russia investigation. >> i don't know. they may try to be dissecting the language in the fisa application. >> what was the concern? what was going on? >> i think they are trying to demonstrate that there was problems with what the obama administration did as far as pursuing the investigation. it went through a rigorous due process within the department of justice and fbi. it was approved by the fisa court. it went through all of those steps. if they look back in 2020, are
they going to find something that should have been said differently. whatever they might. that's what they are trying to do is uncover something they will misrepresent as being part of this deep state effort to try to undermine donald trump's election. >> harry, rod rosenstein's signature is on one of those fisa reauthorizations. he said a very bizarre evolution being someone described as in tears, near tears in three separate press accounts and someone who was willing to wear a wire to record donald trump whipping votes for 25th amendment, which was the only reported incident of any attempted coup i've read about. now to someone who quotes donald trump on the question of the rule of law and who went after jim comey in prepared remarks last night. what do you make of rod rosenstein's evolution. >> or is it a real evolution. in general in his time in office, he's had lapses. he let things through, played ball. he was under a lot of pressure. he both begins and ends with
really questionable conduct. it's not simply the sort of thin skinned sniping as if there's already a war of words for history. but what about this very final act, having overseen the investigation of validating what seems to be an incredible or impossible to justify judgment by the attorney general that everything was fine on the obstruction side. so he is exiting in something of a cloud, and i think already trying to wrestle with his role in history. >> we'll see. we'll monitor closely to see if he sells any books or gives any speeches. >> right. >> donny, we've got breaking news tailor made for you. "new york times," house panel investigates claims against trump lawyers from "the new york times." let me read some to you, house intel committee investigating
whether lawyers tied to president trump and his family helped obstruct the panel's inquiry into russian election enter feerps by shaping false testimony. the line of inquiry stems from claims made by the president's former personal lawyer and fixer michael cohen who told congress earlier this year that the lawyers in question help edit false testimony that he provided to congress. this is a new development to an allegation that cohen has made. but clearly the investigations birthed by cohen's testimony and hours and hours with federal investigators and sdny and mueller live on. >> michael was very explicit about that as it related to the moscow tower. they edited. not the way they did it. it was one of the frustrations michael had going away with such a stiff sentence. so much of what he has done and given has given birth and will give birth to many investigations. i think some incredibly damning investigations that he was
frustrated though he didn't sign on as full cooperation agreement, his testimony has gleaned so much more for the oversight committees yet did not seem to get any points for that. >> i know he's your friend. there are phones in jail. i want to ask you about this testimony. what does he -- he's alleging that the president's lawyers change -- it would seem the house intel committee is now alleging obstruction of justice. is this something cohen testified to. >> cohen testified there was editing. he was not talking about obstruction. he's not a judge. clearly that was something he testified before congress on it. >> the committee sent request for presidents lawyers jay sekulow and the attorney representing ivanka trump, they signed an agreement. anything cohen heading to prison or mueller wrapping up was the end of anything, it may have
been the end of the beginning. the senate intel committee subpoenaing donald trump jr. it would seem the white house has entered the beginning of the next phase of all these congressional velinvestigations >> the koda of mueller record was now it's up to congress. what i wonder about in this story, he talks about how the mueller report gave some credibility to what michael cohen said, didn't completely accept it all completely, but then they didn't compel jay sekulow also to testify. why did so many people not have to go and talk to bob mueller and his team. it still baffles me donald trump himself did not face intense pressure to have to go and speak himself. >> he did those very cogent answers. there was a lot of pressure. there was timing also. there was a proctor there. he was under a lot of pressure. >> do you want to jump in and
try to answer allialliss's ques. >> i wish i knew the answers. there's going to be inquiry after inquiry. here is what we're about to see. we're going to see all the trump lawyers, all the trump team completely obstruct attempts to get to the truth here. the lawyers you just named aren't about to show up on the hill. they are going to claim executive privilege. they are going to claim attorney/client privilege. they are going to say they had a joint defense agreement that covers all of this. there's a much larger question, nicolle, which is we are facing a battle between three equal branches of government, and we don't know who is going to win. all of this is going to end up in the supreme court. >> harry, let me give you the last word and read you a little more from this breaking news. among other things, it appears your clients may have reviewed, shaped and edited the false statement cohen submitted to the committee including causing the omission of material facts. the intelligence committee's chairman, representative adam schiff of california wrote to
lawyers representing the four men in a may 3rd letter obtained by "the new york times." this seems like a very clear escalation of at least the house intel committee taking very seriously their oversight responsibilities. what happens next? >> they are throwing down the gauntlet. i agree with frank, this will all proceed to litigation. this one in particular will be litigation under the crime fraud exception. that is, they are not going to be looking to charge them but to say your attorney/client privilege, executive client privilege, it doesn't exist. it's vitiated because what you were doing was a crime. we're not charging you with a crime but you can't keep that material privileged. that's while you'll have to testify. likewise with trump jr. who suggested he's cooperating. notice he's studiously avoided saying anything since he gave the testimony that was probably false to congress. he'll now be on the hot seat and he's avoided all efforts but
he'll be at a real quandary and will probably wind up taking the fifth amendment. >> let me make sure i understand. i feel like i should have gone and earned a law degree to cover this administration. let me make sure i understand what you mean. why would they not -- why would they give the assurance no one would be charged with a crime if they uncover criminality? >> they are not investigating. to charge them with a crime, they would have to rely on the u.s. attorney and the department of justice. the department of justice will never do it. they take the position, in fact, that they don't do it. but they can say can congress, you can't keep this privilege because it essentially was a crime of obstruction. the crime fraud exception comes in now and means the communications aren't privileged. that's what they will argue to the court. >> so we learn more about the steps, the incredible steps they took to lie and keep everything hidden. looks like obstruction is their
modus oppoerandoperandi. "washington post," scuttle trump immigration roundup targeting families. the story to hear to believe. beto reboots and elizabeth warren rejects fox news. will either news shake up the democratic primary. joe biden might not be winning twitter but does that really matter? voters say no. all those stories coming up. stay with us. no. all those stories coming up. stay with us
your brain changes as you get older. but prevagen helps your brain with an ingredient originally discovered... in jellyfish. in clinical trials, prevagen has been shown to improve short-term memory. prevagen. healthier brain. better life. rheumatoid arthritis or psoriatic arthritis. when considering another treatment, ask about xeljanz xr, a once-daily pill for adults with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis or active psoriatic arthritis for whom methotrexate did not work well enough. it can reduce pain, swelling, and significantly improve physical function. 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. don't let another morning go by without asking your doctor about xeljanz xr.
stance on immigration, we've seen thousands of children separated from their parents, babies, put in jail and now this. "the washington post" reports of a plan to arrest as many as 10,000 migrants in a blitz operation in 10 u.s. cities. quote, according to seven current and former department of homeland security officials, the administration wanted to target the crush of families that had crossed the u.s.-mexico border after the president's failed zero tolerance prosecution push in early 2018. the ultimate purpose, the officials said, was a show of force to send the message that the u.s. is going to get tough by swiftly moving to detain and deport recent immigrants, including families with children. what's more stunning than the idea itself is why some had issues with it. dhs officials said the objections acting i.c.e. director vitiello and kirstjen
nielsen regarding the targeted at large arrest were operational and logistical and not about ethical concerns about arresting families an immigration judge ordered to be deported. first up, frank, where does the law come down on this idea of blitz. these are words used in military history, families targeting families for mass deportations. are they skirting close to the law anywhere here? >> yeah. look. there's no problem -- law enforcement initiatives to address issues. here is the problem i think is going to be judged very poorly through a more aal lens when we look back on history. that's the focus on children and families. the federal system, particularly federal law enforcement system, is not set up to deal with juveniles. we simply aren't there. we don't do that. so when you see there's a deliberate attempt to round up
kids, families, for the purpose of not really enforcing law but rather to send a message to people, we've got serious moral and ethical issues as a country for that. near the top of my list of people i'd love to see testify on the hill on this topic, of course, is former secretary nielsen, who i think must be loaded with information involving statements, sentiments, and direction from the president of the united states on this moral quagmire we're finding ourselves in. >> her testimony, at least, would be riveting. there was no testimony she was on the side of angels. this was scrapped, not because secretary nielsen was offended by the idea of it but she saw it as unscalable. she saw the logistical challenges -- there's some reporting. i want to read this to you. vitiello urged i.c.e. agents to
conduct more surveillance work in particular that children wouldn't be separated from their families in the blitz such in instances when a child might be at school or at a friend's house when their parents are taken. their objections reflected a deeper concern the white house was pushing a shock and you a operation designed tore show but lacking in research. they were not worried about separating the parents from their children, they were worried about the logistics of doing so while the kids were at school. >> and they had experienced the backlash from their previous policy of detaining children on the border and separating them from their parents and how the public blowback was swift and fierce as it well should have been. i agree with frank, this is going to be remembered as one of the worst chapters in our history but i'm equally concerned we aren't stopping for a second to say, why is this happening? why in april were there more families and children crossing over the border than in recent memory some what is the root cause of instability and why are we trying to weaponize the border and militarize our border
and not address overarching security problems. >> nicolle, stop and thing. as we use words, think about that our country now, the commander in chief, authorized i.c.e. military to literally go to the streets in ten cities across the country, including new york where we are, storm and show up and grab families and c. every time i'm on the show, nicolle, i go into the same last 15 seconds of the speech. we're going to scary places guys. that always happens in other parts of the world and it's hang here. these are not ms-13 members. overwhelming statistics of people coming in less criminally disposed than people living in this country. they are running, like the jews ran from nazis. they are running for safety. obviously we have to have laws. that we have gotten to the point that the president for a show of
force ors to show how big and tough he is and how large he is, it's not even on a moral compass but sociopathic behavior. what is most frightening, it's not in the hands of the president, it sits across his inner circle. we are in the scariest place we've been in in our country since i've been born in 1957, since i've been here. >> if you were still doing intel work, and you went in to brief a president about a country that's taken this swerve and their immigration policies are so severe that they are talking about rounding up families, that they are not pressing pause because that is a moral violation, because they couldn't iron out the logistics, let me put out other immigration policies batted around in recent days. renewed child separation that led to the problems and clashes with nielsen who resigned. the plan to release immigrant detainees into sanctuary cities. human weapons. what kind of assessment would
you give a policymaker if you were looking at america like a blind test. you didn't know it was america. you just saw someone putting in place these kinds of policies. >> i think we've seen it throughout the course of history, these authoritarian, tyrannical leaders will do anything to preserve power and prevent any opposition or issue develop that could hurt them. words escape me to try to describe the depth of the cruelty, immorality and lack of empathy that this administration embodied by mr. trump shows to young children and to families. it just shows he has this very unemotional, again, unapathetic approach. secretary nielsen, i don't know what her personal feelings are on this issue. she might have recognized it was going to be an impossible effort to try to convince mr. trump to be less immoral, to be less unethical, unprincipled and show
empathy. logistics and possibility of this in order to slow it down. i don't know. it's clear that those things do not resonate in terms of trying to convince them it's not the right thing to do. he wants to do what is the most politically expedient thing to do and to show he is tough. taking out these emotions on families, young children, separating children who will never see their parents again because of the lack of planning and preparation and the lack of care and concern. so i agree with donny and alize, this is a country i don't know. >> what does it say, the breaks were not put on a cruel policy because someone said this was cruel, they were put on it because they couldn't figure out how to scale it, couldn't figure out how to pull it off. what does it say when you're examining a leader who has cruelty at the center of the
policy like this and everyone around him goes along. does that leader become more ominous? what eventually stops a leader like that. >> worrisome, because they feel empowered and they have surrounded themselves with sycopha sycophants, individuals that will allow him or her to do this. if i were briefing a president about an authoritarian leader, i would say this is the track they are on. the trends are not good. we can expect to see more of this, because he feels as though he can do it with impunity. unfortunately mr. trump continues to go down this road. not only will his staff and members of the cabinet support him, the senate and house in terms of republicans and what lindsey graham and others are saying now in terms of flouting the law, i think this just puffs up mr. trump's chest to say i can do this. damn be the law, damn what american values are. it's really disconcerting. it should be to all of us. what is coming down the pike between now and 2020, god only
knows.now either. >> puffs up something. frank figliuzzi and john brennan, thank you both for spending time with us. after the break beto reboots his campaign and prepares to go national while elizabeth warren calls fox news a purveyor of hate. those stories coming up. purveyf hate those stories coming up. 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.
what you need and so much more. at wayfair, you'll find just you get to spend less time searching and more time loving every room, even the ones you never thought could look good. you get great deals on the things you need and actually want. you get fast and free shipping on thousands of items and finds for every home, and every style, at every price. that's what you get when you've got wayfair. so shop now!
our mission is to provide complete, balanced nutrition for strength and energy! whoo-hoo! great-tasting ensure. with nine grams of protein and twenty-six vitamins and minerals. ensure, for strength and energy. and tto harrison, the wine and minertcollection.. to craig, this rock. the redwoods to the redheads. the rainbows to the proud. i leave these things to my heirs, all 39 million of you, on one condition. that you do everything in your power to preserve and protect them. with love, california.
we've been on the road now for eight weeks, traveling to over 15 states, have held more than 150 town halls, running the same way we started. i recognize i can do a better job also of talking to a national audience, beyond the town halls we're having. >> would you say those are mistakes, being on the cover of "vanity fair"? it looks elitist? >> yeah. i think it reinforces that perception of privilege, that headline that said i was born to be in this in the article i was attempting to say my calling was in public service. no one is born to be president
of the united states of america, least of all me. >> i like that. please allow him to introduce himself. his name is beto after a hot start and slow fade he's refocusing, changing up his early state barnstorming in favor of high-profile events. our colleague rachel maddow, "the view" today and televised town hall next week all in an attempt to catch up of the upper echelon of democratic field. that includes elizabeth warren who today publicly rejected a town hall invitation. she smacked it down -- publicly smacked down an invitation from fox news. she laid out her reasoning on twitter saying fox news is a hate for profit racket that gives a mega phone to racists and conspiracists. it's designed to turn us against each other risking life and death consequences to provide cover for the corruption that's rotting our government and hollowing out our middle class. i've done 57 media avails and 131 interviews taking more than 1,100 questions from the press
since january. fox news is welcome to come to my events just like any other outlet. but a fox news town hall adds money to the hate-foray profit machine, to which i say, hard pass. joining the conversation msnbc politicalarrett haake in new york because bet okay is in new york. anita, i'm going to botch this. >> toliver. >> i love that. that's beautiful. let me start with you. just shoot thoughts. there's no need for a horse race, who is up, who is down, have both candidates done themselves good with their moves today? >> absolutely. one with beto, he's naming it. this is something i called it out before for saying i was born to be in this. no, you need to come correct to the american public expecting more. this is not a situation where you're jukt posing yourself against a horrible character like ted cruz but fighting for oxygen in a crowded field. senator warren, she called it
like she saw it. this isn't her saying i don't want to talk to all voters. she was in virginia, a state trump won by 40 points. she's talking to voters, meeting them where they are, just not through fox. >> having worked on campaigns she's saying fox reporters are welcome to cover me. i'm not going to be on their air. your guy -- your guy because you cover him, just to be clear. sorry, sorry. you know, i've been intrigued by him. we've been talking about beto since the midterms. i think he is incredibly promising. it's so early. he has plenty of time to reboot two or three more times if he needs to and if the voters are interested in seeing him do that. i think this is the perfect time to make these moves. how are they going over on the trail? >> they are changing the method, not the message. the interview with rachel, almost everything he said i've heard in town halls but he needs a bigger mega phone.
sitting with rachel maddow is not going to help you that much in texas. he had to run away from the idea he was a democrat, beto from texas, not beto, a national democratic figure. this is the opposite. they have to adjust in that way. also, they are building the airplane in midair here. they didn't have really a campaign when he launched. he wasn't frankly all that sure what his platform was going to be when he launched. i watch him day in and day out and taking things away from the questions. he makes a big deal of the fact he takes questions from voters at every single event. i've watched him incorporate these things he learned. i do think there is room for that. voters tend to like candidates who can learn and adjust along the way. in a field this big, i've been calling it the tinder problem. if this is not exactly what you want, you can keep swiping. there's somebody else who might have that. that's the challenge he faces. >> i have concerns about beto for a few reasons. the big news is he's talking on mass media versus one-on-one
versus what are you bringing to the table. i think buttigieg took a lot away from him. there are certain candidates we put hope on. they seem like blank pieces of paper. we don't know much about them. they feel good. the difference between the buttigieg and him to me starts with buttigieg being a veteran. that to me as far as a brand, when your guy, harvard, rhodes scholar, every opportunity in the world and you go, time out, i'm going to go to afghanistan. people don't do that. where beto, he was kind of a nonevent in congress -- >> i think it's beto. >> beto. nonevent in congress. the guy running the city. i just think there seems to be more depth on what i'll call the blank paper hope candidate. as far as elizabeth warren, i want to push back in that my feeling is that every democratic candidate's job one is to win and to beat trump. it's great in theory to say come to my events. the overwhelming majority of the people watching msnbc, they are
blue. they just are. if you want to convert, you've got to go into enemy territory. that's what was very smart -- >> she's doing that already. >> she's not. >> in the field. >> the events, once again, that's built in. people who are coming to her events are people who are already built into i want to choose a democrat. >> not necessarily. in west virginia the woman said i didn't believe this was a place i should be but i came and i listened and you're addressing a crisis. >> i think you're finding a needle in the haystack. if i want to win an election and i need to turn trump voters just as a marketer, i'm going where they are. >> i was very impressed that elizabeth warren went to the mississippi delta. is that a place that's going to get her the democratic nomination? she's going to different places, she's listening to different voters. she's making a genuine effort to put policy out there and everyone else is scared to go forward, which is part of beto's problem. he's got to start putting some
ideas out there. >> they started this with the climate plan. they spent a lot of time putting that together. i think we're going to see more of that. going to mississippi delta can help elizabeth warren. getting african-american voters on her side is a huge part of this and an advantage over bernie sanders, her closest ideological competitor on all of this. don't sleep on elizabeth warren, she's as good as any candidate i have seen in the field full stop. she's very, very good at this. i think from the day after her campaign tried to deal with the native american heritage issue, if you set all that aside, i think you can make an argument she's run as good a campaign as anyone, using what sa she's good at and trying to wage the battle on her turf after starting off, you can argue, almost disastrously on president trump's terms. they have turned that around. >> let me say something about her comments and her decision on fox news. you may disagree with the tactic, that tactically she should have been on their air. george w. bush won largely because he said to voters, you may not always agree with me but
you will always know where i stand. you may not agree with elizabeth warren but you know exactly where she stands. i don't know where amy klobuchar stands. let me say, i don't know if they believe what she believes. i think believing and calling out fox news as a purveyor of hate is a powerful message, beyond just the democratic primary voters. >> look, she's had the best policy answers. yes, that is a smart branding move. i still come back to winning. i'm from the trump school, until you win. everything is great in theory. >> spend the night with a bottle of wine and twitter mentions. after the break, the twitter world versus the real world, the biden edition. stay with us. biden edition. stay with us
what is that? uh mine, why? it's just that it's... lavender. yes it is, it's for men but i like the smell of it laughs ♪ for people 50 and older colat average risk.ing honey have you seen my glasses? i've always had a knack for finding things... colon cancer, to be exact. and i find it noninvasively... no need for time off or special prep. it all starts here... you collect your sample, and cologuard uses the dna in your stool to find 92% of colon cancers. you can always count on me to know where to look. oh, i found them! i can do this test now! ask your doctor if cologuard is right for you. covered by medicare and most major insurers.
can't see what it is yet.re? what is that? that's a blazer? that's a chevy blazer? aww, this is dope. this thing is beautiful. i love the lights. oh man, it's got a mean face on it. it looks like a piece of candy. look at the interior. this is nice. this is my sexy mom car. i would feel like a cool dad. it's just really chic. i love this thing. it's gorgeous. i would pull up in this in a heartbeat. i want one of these. that is sharp. the all-new chevy blazer. speaks for itself. i don't know who they got to design this but give them a cookie and a star. i had nomine...ms of hepatitis c. ...caused liver damage. epclusa treats all main types of chronic hep c. whatever your type, ask your doctor if epclusa is your kind of cure. i had the common type.
mine was rare. epclusa has a 98% overall cure rate. i just found out about my hepatitis c. i knew for years. epclusa is only one pill, once a day, taken with or without food for 12 weeks. before starting epclusa, your doctor will test if you have had hepatitis b, which may flare up and could cause serious liver problems during and after treatment. tell your doctor if you have had hepatitis b other liver or kidney problems, hiv or other medical conditions... ...and all medicines you take, including herbal supplements. taking amiodarone with epclusa may cause a serious slowing of your heart rate. common side effects include headache and tiredness ask your doctor today, if epclusa is your kind of cure. you needed any reminding that social media is not real life, especially in politics,
michelle goldberg writes this of the democratic primary in today's "new york times," quote, it's not just that twitter traffic doesn't appear to reflect the priorities of the democratic electorate, spending too much time on the platform can be actively misleading about the state of the party. as you can see in the polling surge of joe biden, a man despised by the online left, he's utterly at odds with the style of progressive politics that dominates the internet. among democratic voters he's leading the field by double digits. the table is back. so you know, former republican, my party burned to the ground, i'm watching the democratic party. my position is i will vote for the democratic nominees bus. you had me at hello. but i want to know what happens between the trail and democratic twitter. people come and say biden is going to fail, biden is going to burn out. everywhere, the grocery store, i live in new york, obviously, people love biden. what's real? >> the demographic reality here
is biden pulls in older communities, older people of color particularly because he was barack obama's vp and he's in great standing, still known as barack obama's vp. now, what's going to happen now is when he takes the debate sta and opens his mouth about defending his 40 years in service and some eyesores that he has or really distinguishing himself as a presidential candidate in his own right, that's where we're going to see a shift. right now, he is riding high off name recognition. >> he is a known commodity. on the trail it is interesting. some younger candidate events, had a woman say does joe biden know how to use, can he text? there are some older voters that have that concern, i don't mean that to be glib necessarily, but there's that generational shift. if it is joe biden or anybody else in the younger generation, you're having a different conversation. most voters aren't tweeters. it is very easy to get on that slide down into this internal
discussion amongst people that sit at tables like this. >> there's a term, demographic and psychographic. they're millennials, highly intellectual, and biden, that's not biden's base, we know that. the other thing is the head fake on twitter. if you follow twitter, you would think the democratic party leans hard left. they do not. the majority still is moderate whereas the republican party has really gone harder right, more people identify as conservatives than before, less identify as liberals than before. it is the medium, but that's not the reality. >> i will be a little bit of a contrarian. what twitter does show us is the passion quota. i think of 2016 and i think of all the focus groups where i heard lukewarm support for hillary clinton and electability and they had to vote for her,
oh, yeah, just, you know, not the passion you heard from trump supporters that wanted to stand behind their guy. that's why we could have had president rudy giuliani, no chance he would have ever beaten barack obama, but at this stage in 2008 guilliani was -- >> all this is showing is you're just getting a voice of passion that happens to use this technology, and the other passi passionate voices you're not hearing. >> it is a valuable way to check the pulse but if that's all you look at, you're in trouble. >> i wonder how useful it is. i want to put this out there. i'll just speak for myself. what i got wrong in '16 saying i don't see trump -- this wasn't true, there were a lot of trump supporters, david brooks wrote i miss the trump supporters.
but the idea that there is this elite, nonelite divide. i think i see support for joe biden across generations. i mean, people my sisters' ages, and it is more than just being a very popular and revered president, vice president. it is a reaction to trumpism. he will clean us up. >> he will bring us back to stability, that's something that some democrats want. don't want a full pendulum swing, some want to feel stable after the chaos of trump. >> he said something different today. if he is elected or once trump is out of office, the fever will break and republicans will come to the table. >> what table? they burned them all. >> almost every other democrat running disagrees with that theory. it comes down to whether you think trump is an aberration or this is what the republican party -- >> i just think there is a way
and the thing will fundamentally change things is with donald trump out of the white house, no joke. you will see an epiphany occur among many of my republican friends. >> beto o'rourke and kamala harris talk about things in the obama administration and before weren't good enough, seeming to say if we can just go back to 2012, we're going to be fine. there's a lot of folks in the democratic electorate that don't believe that. >> he is saying this lunacy, things we talked about earlier, sociopathic tendencies to not seeing pulling children apart. because of the cowardess of the people, they'll go with it. as soon as that goes, even if the norm today is not -- >> but mitch mcconnell is not going to be putting the green new deal on the executive calendar just because donald trump is not president any more. >> i think any democratic candidate that ignores the fundamental unrest and unease with the existing institutions
and systems that have created massive inequality, i think fundamentally that's not the candidate that's going to be the nomination. >> he has been there for four years. >> one thing, if people feel you can get trump out, that's what's going to drive vote. that's it. viscerally, people feel biden can do it. >> does he have enough to get through the primary. >> i think issues are going to slide off, can this guy knock trump out. it is a primal protective thing. >> the only concern i have with that, saw it in his rollout video, he was rolling out a message for the general election, seemingly skipping over a lot of the nuance and issues that are capturing primary voters' attention. >> it is the emotional need that he understood. that doesn't mean others can't occupy that space, but he is occupying it. >> right now, biden is doing
well because he is filling that more moderate lane, not competing with 20 others -- >> look what happened, did we need him? people like him. >> he has the same problem they all do. how do you break through and differentiate and be a better biden than biden. >> he came out swinging in an interesting way. i am a person that won a statewide race the same year trump won my state by 20 plus points. i am centering corruption and campaign finance reform in a strong way. >> i like that. we'll be hear and listening. come to the table any day. we're sneaking in a break. be right back. n a break. be right back. and we'll match it at the end of your first year. nice! i'm thinking about a scuba diving trip. woman: ooh! (gasp) or not. you okay? yeah, no, i'm good. earn miles. we'll match 'em at the end of your first year. >> tech: you think this chip is well sooner or later... yeah, no, i'm good.
if your adventure keeps turning into unexpected bathroom trips you may have overactive bladder, or oab. ohhhh... enough already! we need to see a doctor. ask your doctor about myrbetriq® (mirabegron). it treats oab symptoms of urgency, frequency, and leakage. it's the first and only oab treatment in its class. myrbetriq may increase blood pressure. tell your doctor right away if you have trouble emptying your bladder or have a weak urine stream. myrbetriq may cause serious allergic reactions like swelling of the face, lips, throat or tongue, or trouble breathing. if experienced, stop taking and tell your doctor right away. myrbetriq may interact with other medicines. tell your doctor if you have liver or kidney problems. common side effects include increased blood pressure, common cold or flu symptoms, sinus irritation, dry mouth, urinary tract infection, bladder inflammation,
my thanks to you all. we'll keep it going. thank you for watching. i am nicole wallace. "mtp daily" starts now. hi, chuck. >> don't kibitz too loudly. >> i am loud. i apologize in advance. >> i'm pretty loud myself, as you know. >> thanks, chuck. if it is tuesday, where is the democratic party strategery? good evening, i am chuck todd in new york city. welcome to "mtp daily." we have a lot of news to get to. let's dive in. sta starting