Skip to main content

tv   MSNBC Live With Katy Tur  MSNBC  May 15, 2019 11:00am-12:00pm PDT

11:00 am
four hours. and my guess is that he will the commercial breaks. leave it out on the t >> last commercial break, we met your next guest. >> who by the way told us he is testimony. >> peter baker, last word to deliver to one thing today. you.bebb happy with that >> the truth. testimony. >> peter baker, last word to you.ebb happy with that testimony. anthony scar new economy scara >> peter baker, last word to happy with that testimony. >> peter baker, last word to you. happy with that testimony. >> peter baker, last word to you the truth. you. happy with that testimony. >> like a yankee in fenway park. >> peter baker, last word to you. how personally concerned are the family members in this case? >> well, one of the things that has always gotten his dander up is if his children were taker >> it is opposite day here. getted in his view and the idea that somebody in his family would face legal exposure of >> 23450is nice to drop the mick some sort is obviously very out. >> all right. concerning to any father. and the idea that because of thank you both very much. something that the president had done, you know, doubling so. good afternoon to all of you. so i think that that is why they i'm kasie hunt in for katy tur. drew a red line and forced it is 11:00 a.m. out west, 2:00 republican allies to come to the p.m. in washington where a defense of donald trump jr. flurry of battles over congressional oversight are reaching a fever pitch. >> all right. first white house counsel just thank you all very much. issued a sweeping rejection to still ahead, the president's the house judiciary committee's own party demands answers for request for w40uhite house reco. escalating evacuated he accused congressional from neighboring iraq. democrats of trying to rer plus, the white house looks to the hill to find bipartisan
11:01 am
relitigate the mueller report. support on trade, but not and the house judiciary committee has scheduled a necessary necessarily on reform. hearing for don mcgahn set to but first al lamb lawmakers pass a near total abortion ban setting an early stage for a testify next tuesday. whether he will show up remains supreme court fight that many unclear. was argued years and years ago and mcgahn now a private the roe vs. wade. roe vs. wade citizen, so a direct difference hey, who are you? may be easier said than done. oh, hey jeff, i'm a car thief... what?! >> he is supposed to come in the i'm here to steal your car because, 21st. he is under subpoena. well, that's my job. if he doesn't come in, we'll do what? what?? what?! (laughing) what?? what we have to do then. what?! >> any assurance that he will what?! come in? [crash] what?! >> no, we do not. haha, it happens. >> the president's son donald and if you've got cut-rate car insurance, paying for this could trump jr. is also set to testify feel like getting robbed twice. so get allstate... before congress after initially and be better protected from mayhem... threatening to defy a subpoena from the republican controlled senate intelligence committee. like me. ♪ but according to a source close to don jr., the topics will be you get the freedom of what a 7-day return policy. limited and the session closed. this isn't some dealership test drive around the block. so today's big question is, who it's better. will win the oversight fight this is seven days to put your carvana car to the test and see if it fits your life. between congress and the white house? joining me now "new york times" load it up with a week's worth of groceries. take the kiddos out for ice cream.
11:02 am
chief white house correspondent and analyst peter baker, daily check that it has enough wiggle room in your garage. beast politics reporter betsy you get the time to make sure you love it. and on the 6th day, we'll reach out woodruff, "washington post" and make sure everything's amazing. national reporter carol lenig, if so... excellent. if not, swap it out for another former assistant attorney or return it for a refund. general harry litman, and former it's that simple. because at carvana, your car happiness is what makes us happy. white house communications director and founder of sky bridge capital anthony i've always been amazed and still going for my best, scaramucci. even though i live with a higher risk of stroke peter, i want to start with you due to afib not caused by a heart valve problem. just with this new reporting that this letter from the white so if there's a better treatment than warfarin... house counsel essentially page's i want that too. eliquis. eliquis is proven to reduce stroke risk better than warfarin. long rejection of everything plus has significantly less democrats are asking for, major bleeding than warfarin. essentially saying we have done eliquis is fda-approved and has both. everything, we've done more than we should have already, and what's next? we're not going to give up anything else. reeling in a nice one. who wins this legal fight in the don't stop taking eliquis unless your doctor tells you to, long run? >> a great question. his argument seems to be that as stopping increases your risk of having a stroke. eliquis can cause serious and in rare cases fatal bleeding. congress you can't just have don't take eliquis if you have an artificial heart valve or abnormal bleeding. hearings. which is really interesting. while taking eliquis, you may bruise more easily and i get the constitutional and it may take longer than usual for any bleeding to stop. argument, but anybody in washington the last number of seek immediate medical care for sudden sign of bleeding,
11:03 am
year, the idea that you are not allowed to have an investigation like unusual bruising. for the sake of an investigation eliquis may increase your bleeding risk seems rather quaint. if you take certain medicines. >> very good way to put it. tell your doctor about all planned medical >> we've had benghazi, many, or dental procedures. eliquis, the number one many congressional hearings -- cardiologist-prescribed blood thinner. >> we should call the clintons about this. ask your doctor if eliquis >> and one thing he is trying to is what's next for you. do is possibly dare them into actually starting an impeachment inquiry. but then nobody could make the argument that the house doesn't have the right to have hears and investigate because that is central to their power. >> and it really, betsy, is alll judicial powers to be given to the house. >> that's right. but even given what nadler is looking for, the implication in cipollone's letter that congress can only demand material related to legislation is not something that will win in court because t. the courts have recognized that oh! i got one. the best of amy poehler. congress has the responsibility, not just the right, but the amy, maybe we could use the voice remote to search for something that you're not in. responsibility to oversee the executive branch. that that is -- kind of civics show me parks and rec. from netflix to prime video to live tv, 101, that is part of how separation of powers works, the xfinity lets you find your favorites
11:04 am
with the emmy award-winning x1 voice remote. different branches keep an eye on each other. show me the best of amy poehler, again. so to argue that congress this time around... now that's simple, easy, awesome. doesn't have the argument to demand witness testimony or experience the entertainment you love on x1. documents when there is a access netflix, prime video, youtube and more, all with the sound of your voice. click, call or visit a store today. legitimate oversight purpose, that is likely to be overin court. but the cipollone argument may get more traction because he is able to say we've already given these documents to mueller's team. in the case of the huge sweeping request that nadler made, he only asked for material that mueller had already gotten. he basically said take all the emails you sent to email, hit forward, send they said to me. and so because of that, the white house is going to be able to argue how can you say you need this for oversight or investigation when we've already gone through this, when it has already been scrutinized. >> anthony, if the president has already been exen on rated by the mueller report and he and those like to him restate, no the fate of the tightest abortion ban in the nation is now in the hands of alabama's cluk collusion, no obstruction, so governor. the legislation passed the
11:05 am
what is the harm in turning this republican-held male dominated over to jerry nadler? >> i think it is a guardrail alabama legislature late last thing frankly. i think that what they are night. it bans abortion at every stage trying to do is set some limits of pregnancy and it criminalizes because they feel like they have had 2 1/2 years of this sort of doctors who perform them. the only exception is if a stuff go on. it has been distracting to the mother's life is at serious risk. and while alabama's measure is the most extreme to date, it is presidency. but i do predict that they will far from the only effort to show up. i think it is hard to refute the subpoena power of the congress restrict be borings. lawmakers in mississippi, ohio, and even originalists at the supreme court would say that they have the power to do it. georgia have passed so-called unless you can prove that it is heartbeat bills. the laws ban abortion after the purely for political purposes, detection of a fetal heartbeat. and i think that will be tough to prove in this situation.dict emboldened by trump's presidency, opponents of abortion rights have launched their most aggressive efforts on up but they are trying to curb the state level to date with a some of the questioning. common goal. >> and part of the argument here as joyce vance writes, quote, is that they gave up the they are looking for a clean entirety of -- or most of, vehicle to take to the supreme court. they want to overturn roe vs. frankly, the mueller report, that the redaction bes were relatively limited, that they wade sub planting it with made offers to members of something that looks like state congress to see an even less laws the law of the land. redacted version than the public
11:06 am
has been allowed to see, and joining me now our national that that was something they reporter and also amy ho. didn't have to do, they should get credit for it and therefore their refusal to answer these other requests is perfectly heidi, what is next for this ban? acceptable. what is your view of the we know it goes to the governor standing of that argument? kay ivey. is she expected to sign it and what would the immediate court >> well, i think it makes them challenge look like? >> she has not indicated yet more sympathetic and what pat cipollone seems to be doing here whether she will sign it. most likely a lower court will in 12 pages is trying to say, look, these are the things that block it because it is blatantly you will need to do for me in unconstitutional, but the order for us to consider turning broader issue, this is not the only case coming to -- pushing over some of this material or to try to get before the court the people. now, the white house rejects to essentially all do the same this idea that they are stone thing, which is to establish walling, but this does sort of personhood for a fetus, to get stall things a bit. it does set the clock back. that issue before the court which essentially would lead to because now nadler has to say, a challenge to roe. okay, i have a narrower request so if not 24 case, it could be another one because as you pointed out in the intro, there or now i'm telling you my legislative purpose. are so many of them at this those are the two things that the white house counsel has demanded. you know, it is really hard to imagine, i have to agree with point in statehouses across the. betsy, hard to imagine at the end of the day if this ever sees
11:07 am
court that the white house counsel's office will win on the ultimate argument of congress' unique role of oversight. and the impeachment proceedings, what is the knowledge here for one of the cases to ultimately if those were moving forward, of make its way up to the supreme court and challenge roe vs. course there would be a much easier way to pierce the wade? if these people are looking for privilege and force the white house to turn this over. the perfect case, i mean which but at the end of the day, this one of these attempts to ultimately just gives the white restrict abortion is that case? >> i'm not really sure. house more room to say let's talk about it some more, let's it almost seems as if they are discuss it some more. trying to put a bunch of them they don't want -- and the out there and see what one president especially doesn't sticks. want to see these witnesses on i'm not sure there is necessarily a strategy in terms television talking about how the of which one is the perfect case president responded to them and so much as that they really feel how the president tried to emboldened by the trump basically throttle an presidency. he promised to put justices on investigation he didn't like. >> and of course another piece of this overall puzzle that is the supreme court who would overrule roe vs. wade and he's very important to the president personally is the subpoena from put two justices on the supreme the republican senate intelligence committee to his court in addition to the three justices who where already on the court who had voted to son, don jr. according to nbc news, a source uphold abortion restrictions in the past. so this is their moment in time, close to donald trump jr. said so let's go for it. that the closed door session
11:08 am
would be under oath and expected >> and let's talk about the to take place in mid june. politics of this overall. in the red states, you are this source says that it will be limited to five or six topics seeing these measures pass. and trump jr.'s appearance will i'd like to put up a picture of the people who voted in favor of last between two and four hours. but i do want to contrast this this ban in the alabama senate. just take a minute, look at them with what mark warner had to say to us earlier today as far as for a second. what do they have in common? whether or not this is going to >> so obvious. be limited in scope when the >> 15% of alabama's legislature, senate intelligence committee the house and senate, is women. does talk to donald trump jr. take a look. 51% of the population is women. we know that women are going to >> are you happy with the scope of the agreement? be a huge force in the 2020 >> listen, we've made no elections. and as our colleagues wrote this compromises with any of our morning, this can be a really -- witnesses. anyone that reports otherwise, if you go too far on an issue like this, it are a k. really it is not true. >> so no compromises. backfire. >> why did we have the women's some pushback against the idea march, why was there so many that there have been guardrails women running for congress in put on donald trump jr.'s this last cycle which we both appearance. >> that's right. and we have warner on the record covered, historic number elected to the congress and that was not and mieanwhile a person close dn just in congress. as you pointed out, it was all jr. one thing nobody is disputing is across the board in legislature. so the political experts who i that jr. has specifically agreed talked to say that it is not
11:09 am
too answer questions related to only an opportunity here for the trump tower moscow project which we know is a conversation national right to life because that was ongoing during the lead they have brett kavanaugh and up to the presidential election and in addition to that, he has gorsuch on the supreme court, agreed to answer questions about the june 2016 trump tower but a backlash to what the meeting where he spoke with legislatures see coming down the people who are connected to the road that it won't be possible to come things like this as kremlin. so those two topics women become more and more unsurprisingly will be on the empowered both at the national table. people close to the conversation and state level. have confirmed to me this >> how does the politics play with the supreme court? question about were their we all know that officially they are supposed to be apolitical, guardrails in place is a really interesting conflict between the but we know in reality that has been increasingly not the case two sides and almost makes me over the years, that they are wonder how they reached the agreement they reached and if both sides actually had an conscience of the political agreement in terms of what they were agreeing on. reality surrounding them and >> and how much of this is there has been a feeling posturing. especially since planned harry litman, what kind of parenthood versus casey in 1992 protections does donald trump that all of this was settled jr. not have because he is a law. how much of a sense is there private citizen as compared to somebody who perhaps works in the white house and might from that kind of combined benefit from some cover? political legal perspective that >> he basically possesses no we could see a fundamental change? information that belongs to the >> i mean, i think that the focus -- there has been a lot of white house. they can't order him to stand discussion of the president's appointees, but the focus for a down. anything you talk to his father
11:10 am
lot is the chief justice john about would not be covered by executive privilege. he has to walk right into the buzz saw of the possible perj y roberts who has voted in some of the restrictive abortion, but a lot of sense that when push perjury, but i'm sure he's thought about that and i doubt comes to shove because of the sense of the court as an there would be much of an institution, that he will might appetite at the department of be the justice of the five justice as well. i want to double back quickly on conservative justices who might not be ready to take the step the point that carol and betsy and overrule roe vs. wade when he feels like he can accomplish made, it is dead on the house many of the same things by will win on the notion that they have oversight. what cipollone is saying is you must have a legislative purpose, essentially whittling away at it but it is clear from the court that will be far less political that the legislative purpose gives rise to the oversight. perhaps would i upholding some of the restrictions, but not so there is really no precedent overruling it outright. >> and speaking of the public for saying congress can't go debate, here is how the women here. it is only negotiating the terms candidates in 2020, we have more women candidates running for president than ever before, have talked about this issue and and trying to bargain for time would talk about this issue on the white house's part. should we see a credible >> and time of course of the challenge. take a look. essence as the 2020 elections >> what they did in alabama, loom. anthony scaramucci, you georgia, is unconstitutional. predicted the last time we talked that donald trump jr. >> this is an outrage and it is
11:11 am
would show up to the senate intelligence committee. nothing short of an attack on but it is also pretty clear that women's basic human rights and civil rights. he wasn't exactly honest the it is something that women of america are going to have to last time around. fight against with everyth does he know better now? >> let us all agree that women's >> i don't thiknow what he saidd i know what has been reported in health care is under attack and the mueller report. we will not stand for it. but i have be we will not stand for it. >> so heidi, very much a different set of voices than we have been able to hear in the past. >> and we're covering what is going on in the rhett states. let's also cover what is going on in the blue states where a lot of these women are empow empowered. they so that the most likely scenario is not that roe is overturned, but it is chipped away at. so what they are doing is creating what they call safe havens, places where they are trying to codify roe. massachusetts is called the roe act because the most likely scenario is that it becomes a state by state issue that roe is
11:12 am
nullified in some states, access to abortion is tightly constricted and in other states you have legal abortion. what will happen though is that basically it will be a rich/poor state/blue state kind of divide. >> a major, major divide. heidi, amy, thank you. this time tomorrow, key lawmakers will be briefed on rising tensions with iran, as the white house orders some government workers out of neighboring iraq due to increased threats. and the president's own party wants specifics. what are those threats? fshsz what are those threats fshs ur home; ur home; it is also about opening up your heart. consider fostering.
11:13 am
11:14 am
at a comfort inn with a glow taround them, so people watching will be like, "wow, maybe i'll glow too if i book direct at" who glows? just say, badda book. badda boom. book now at or psoriatic arthritis, little things can be a big deal. that's why there's otezla. otezla is not an injection or a cream. it's a pill that treats differently. for psoriasis, 75% clearer skin is achievable, with reduced redness, thickness, and scaliness of plaques. for psoriatic arthritis, otezla is proven to reduce joint swelling, tenderness, and pain. and the otezla prescribing information has no requirement for routine lab monitoring. don't use if you're allergic to otezla. it may cause severe diarrhea, nausea, or vomiting. otezla is associated with an increased risk of depression. tell your doctor if you have a history of depression or suicidal thoughts or if these feelings develop.
11:15 am
some people taking otezla reported weight loss. your doctor should monitor your weight and may stop treatment. upper respiratory tract infection and headache may occur. tell your doctor about your medicines and if you're pregnant or planning to be. ready to treat differently with a pill? otezla. show more of you.
11:16 am
. nbc news has learned that the gang of eight will be briefed tomorrow on the middle east after republican senators demanded more information on what the state department is calling a, quote, increased threat from iran. earlier today, the state department ordered, quote, non-emergency u.s. government employees to leave its embassy in baghdad and its consulate in erbil. both foreign allies and senate republicans say they need answer on the threats behind the latest move. >> i would urge the state
11:17 am
department and d.o.d. to come down here and explain to us what is going on because i have no idea what the threat stream is beyond what i read in the paper. and i think there are a lot of people in my shoes that wheare going to support standing up to iran, but we need to understand what we're doing. >> joining me now, pete, alr alexander and also courtney could y kube. obviously not pleased that they have not been given more information. what is the plan around briefing congress and moving forward? >> we've been reaching out to the white house for any additional details about who within the administration will be briefing the gang of eight members. and the gang of eight of course the top republican and democratic leaders in both the house and senate. you see it on the screen there.
11:18 am
nancy pelosi and chuck schumer for the democrats. mitch mcconnell also. you see richard burr there as well as mark warner. so who will be gathered to brief them? we don't know. but that is expected to take place at some point tomorrow afternoon. we've also learned separately that briefing that was scheduled to take place for the house intelligence committee at some point today has been canceled. >> courtney, what is the sense from the pentagon side about the seriousness here? because i mean there clearly has been a ratcheting up of tensions in the past couple of days. john bolton, you and i were talking earlier in the week about the con continue against ci contingency plans to send additional troops, et cetera. but there seems to be little understanding even monk thoamon
11:19 am
on capitol hill with what the threats are? >> and we know very little. we're about the last ones who usually get information on intelligence threats. the fact that the hill hasn't been briefed is indicative of the fact that we don't have a lot of information either. our reporting has bourne oig out a little bit of it, which is that there are these concerns, this intelligence stream that there were special calls from inside iran to some of the proxy forces that exist throughout the region. specifically we know about shia made lish made li made lish sma lish sha oig grou. but it hasn't been briefed in an official way. >> and peter, what is your sense on the white house side, i mean we've got all of these indications that things aare ramping up and in fact david ignatius wrote last week that
11:20 am
recent mobilizations behind them lies a perception by each side that the other side may be about to attack. this didn't appear to be posturing but instead a confrontation that could lead to actual conflict if there is a m miscalculation. but the president seemed to down play it yesterday. >> i think you're right. first of all, one of the big drivers is the national security adviser john bolton who is obviously very hawkish, certainly as it relates to iran. but he is not alone in that within this administration. but the president himself who campaigned this populist theme, this sort of noninterventionist theme, pulling america out of places like afghanistan, syria and iraq, this is sort of a unique moment for him as we hear what he has said just yesterday, we heard the president describe effectively it is fake news this idea that there was some updated military plan to send as many as 120,000 american troops to the region if iran were to talk or axccelerate their work on their nuclear program.
11:21 am
but at the same time the president sort of backed off the 1 120,000 number, he also seemed to suggest if we had a troop presence over there, it would be a hell of a lot more than 120,000. so it does underscore from the president who said that it is responsibility to temper john bolton and others within his administration, some of the sharp divisions that do exist within the white house, certainly as it relates to iran and the recent events that have taken place. >> and courtney, the secretary of state mike pompeo also spoke about this publicly in the last day. here's what he had to say when he was in sochi. take a look. >> looking for iran to behave like a normal country. that is our ask. and we have applied pressure to the leadership of the islamic republic iran to achieve that. we fundamentally do not seek a war with iran. we've also made clear to the
11:22 am
iranians that if american interests are attacked, we will most certainly responsible in an appropriate fashion. >> courtney, it sounds as though he is -- if american interests are attacked, we will most certainly respond. do you read into that that they are preparing for something specific? >> no. i mean, right now, you know, this is essentially turned in to a very dangerous and potentially escalatory game of chicken. so the united states -- and this is what we repeatedly were hearing out of the u.s. military 24erks are not seeking a confrontation. so look at what the u.s. military has done so far. they have surged or accelerated deployment into the region. they have moved bombers in. they have swapped out with the fort mchenry, so a one for one presence, and moving a patriot battery back into the region. so the u.s. is kind of going back to a presence in the region, a very visible and
11:23 am
confirmed and announced presence in the region. one that the u.s. had there just about a year or so ago. the fact that they are announcing these movements which is very uncommon is indicative of the fact that the military is doing this as a show of force, as an attempted deterrent against any iranian action. but as far as the military moving for ready with any of these plans that we have been hearing about in the last 24, 48 hours, they have are not at that point yet. >> court any ney and peter, thao you both. coming up, the new strategy on imxwrapgs migration reform f on fellow republicans. that is next. that is next at carvana, no matter what car you buy from us,
11:24 am
you get the freedom of a 7-day return policy. this isn't some dealership test drive around the block. it's better. this is seven days to put your carvana car to the test and see if it fits your life. load it up with a week's worth of groceries. take the kiddos out for ice cream. check that it has enough wiggle room in your garage. you get the time to make sure you love it. and on the 6th day, we'll reach out and make sure everything's amazing. if so... excellent. if not, swap it out for another or return it for a refund. it's that simple. because at carvana, your car happiness is what makes us happy. you don't see psoriasis. you see clear skin. you see me.
11:25 am
but if you saw me before cosentyx... ♪ i was covered. it was awful. but i didn't give up. i kept fighting. i got clear skin with cosentyx. 3 years and counting. clear skin can last. see if cosentyx could make a difference for you. cosentyx is proven to help people with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis find clear skin that can last. don't use if you're allergic to cosentyx. before starting cosentyx, you should be checked for tuberculosis. an increased risk of infections and lowered ability to fight them may occur. tell your doctor if you have an infection or symptoms. or if you have received a vaccine or plan to. if you have inflammatory bowel disease, tell your doctor if symptoms develop or worsen. serious allergic reactions may occur. see me now. i'm still clear. how sexy are these elbows? get clear skin that can last. ask your dermatologist about cosentyx.
11:26 am
11:27 am
nancy pelosi met with president trump's top trade negotiator. pelosi and democratic leaders are huddled with robert lighthizer to discuss the replacement for nafta and the trade war with china. the administration's goal is to shore up as much support from democrats as possible on trade. also on the white house agenda, an overall to the immigration system. trump's son-in-law jared kushner and senior adviser stephen miller met with republican senators on tuesday. republicans reportedly emerged with blaze for kushner and miller, but according to the "washington post," not everyone was impressed. an anonymous person familiar with the discussions said, quote, kushner didn't give many
11:28 am
details and there were a number of instances where people had to answer questions because he couldn't. so just how do they plan to gain democratic support on immigration? it sure seems like they don't. after meeting with -- after the meeting senator lindsey graham said i don't think that it is designed to get democratic support as much as it is to unify the republican party around border security. joining me now, joe crowley and also carlos curbelo. great to see you both. i want to start with you, congressman, because immigration was obviously an issue that you played a big role in, you came up with a compromise. now it seems as though stephen miller and jared kushner is spearheading this immigration plan in -- they have started in the senate. but it is very unclear that it would offer for example anything on dreamers, which susan
11:29 am
coloracollins says it is a nonstarter. >> the big question is whether the president and mr. kushner want to actually proffer a proposal that could gain bipartisan support or if the administration is going to continue using immigration as a wedge issue, kind of how the president began his campaign back in 2015, to divide and conquer to get that republican base riled up. if there is no dreamer component to the deal, it is probably dead arrival. so the fact that kushner is involved gives me a little bit of hope because he did put together the criminal justice reform clo mompromise at the en the last congress, but from what i'm hearing it didn't seem like this is a serious proposal. >> and republicans have been divided on immigration as well. is there anything to be gained from unifying them? >> politically the president thinks that this is a big issue. he thinks that this is the issue that scored him the win in 2016.
11:30 am
so uniting republicans does seem to make a little sense. does that mean that we will get immigration reform done? probably not. >> and congress manaman crowley seems as theough the focus may e changing around the dynamics on family based immigration. and a democratic house would never go for that. >> especially knowing that miller is involved in the drafting of the supposed legislation. i think you have two forms of legislation. bills that actually can be passed and entered in to law. the other is messaging. and right now you know that the closer we get to the election cycle, the more messaging we've seen. and i think this is all about messaging. really red meat to the base. this is not about actually passing comprehend hsive immigration reform without the d.r.e.a.m.ers. >> and when would they do it, as well. we have another fiscal cliff looming and then we're in 2020 when both of you know not a lot
11:31 am
tends to happen in presidential years. so let's talk about trade. robert lighthizer was up on the hill talking with nancy pelosi today about it. there are some real questions about whether the usmca which is the renegotiated nafta has a future and they need the democratic us who to do it. what is your over/under? >> full disclosure, i'm co-chair of the past usmca coalition, so i want to be on the record. >> appreciate that. >> as a democrat, i do believe this warrants passage. in-that it is better than nafta. i think that going back to nafta is really not acceptable. and no agreement is really unacceptable too. so this is a better agreement. it is better for farmers. it is better for rules of orig n origin. >> so what is the hang-up for democrats? >> it is a sticky issue. i've had a mixed record on trade myself. some i agreed with, some i didn't. but i think we're talking about
11:32 am
our two neighbors, and there is relative balance in trade amongst the three of us. mexico does fairly -- a little better than we do with them, but we do better with canada. so i think in all in all in north nerk of america there is a balance of trade, but it is also about geopolitics as well. these are our closest allies. and we should treat them better. >> and i think that there will be some political calculations here too because the president always touts the new naftas a major achievement of the administration. of course it didn't really matter unless congress ratifies it. so i think that some democrats are probably thinking about whether or not to give the president this kind of victory in advance of the 2020 election. so i think that that will come into play too. but i agree, this is a deal that should get done. and it would be a shame if congress didn't pass a new nafta. >> and let me ask you about tariffs. jon tester was on "morning joe"
11:33 am
this morning talking about the damage it is doing to farmers in montana. we've seen -- not necessarily the battle with china, but on the tariffs question, we've seen wisconsin dairy farms struggle under this president's poly cities. if you are a republican, at what point do you start losing about some of these areas that are usually republican held? >> tariffs are taxes. no way around that. >> tell mitch mcconnell that. >> every day earn ins pay for these tariffs. and i think a lot of americans are more toll rants wierant wit confrontation with china because it is obvious that they which flight some of our policies for their advantage. but the tariffs against our allies, the broader tariffs that just inflate the cost of so many goods and products in our country, i know for a fact that lot of republicans' patience is running thin with those. >> and senator grassley said that this bill is dead on
11:34 am
arrival if 232 of those tariffs are replaced. >> absolutely. joe crowley, carlos occur vel lo occur vel low, thank you both. and elizabeth warren's refusal to hold talks has spaurkspaur sparked do he bait. to fox or not to fox. that is next. to fox or not to fox that is next behr semi-transparent stain, overall #1 rated. stay done for years to come. find it exclusively at the home depot.
11:35 am
you might or joints.hing for your heart... but do you take something for your brain. with an ingredient originally discovered in jellyfish, prevagen has been shown in clinical trials to improve short-term memory. prevagen. healthier brain. better life. with moderate to severe ulceratiyour plans... crohn's, can change in minutes. your head wants to do one thing... but your gut says not today. if your current treatment isn't working... ask your doctor about entyvio®. entyvio® acts specifically in the gi tract, to prevent an excess of white blood cells from entering and causing damaging inflammation. entyvio® has helped many patients achieve long-term relief and remission. infusion and serious allergic reactions can happen during or after treatment. entyvio® may increase risk of infection, which can be serious. pml, a rare, serious, potentially fatal brain infection caused by a virus may be possible. tell your doctor if you have an infection experience frequent infections
11:36 am
or have flu-like symptoms, or sores. liver problems can occur with entyvio®. ask your doctor about the only gi-focused biologic just for ulcerative colitis and crohn's. entyvio®. relief and remission within reach. wenit gave me a leafput in the names almost right away. first. within a few days, i went from knowing almost nothing to holy crow, i'm related to george washington. i didn't know that using ancestry would be so easy.
11:37 am
wake up! there's a lot that needs to get done today. small things. big things. too hard to do alone things. day after day, you need to get it all done. and here to listen and help you through it all is bank of america. with the expertise and know-how you need to reach that blissful state of done-ness. so let's get after it. ♪ everything is all right what would you like the power to do?® ♪ all right we're following breaking news in new york city. a helicopter has crashed into the hudson river. near the piers on manhattan's
11:38 am
west side. the vehicle appears to have activated its flotation devices per new york's wnbc. no serious injuries have been reported thankfully. we'll continue to monitor this story as it develops. turning back here debate am dnls in t s democrats in the 2020 field, to fox or not to fox. warren clearly thinks that it will be well received by her face. her campaign sent out an email saying we will keep building our grass roots movement without any favors to fox news. but gillibrand has a very different view of the >> my belief is that presidents of the united states need to represent everyone and i'm going to ask every voter for their vote regardless of where they live, whether they are in a red
11:39 am
state or purple state or blue state. and i believe you need to meet voters where they are. a lot of america happens to watch that network. so i would like to do a town hall so i can speak to all americans. >> joining me now is annie lent j skit. thank you both. it's great to see you. let me start with annie. what are the calculations for w squarely competing with the same set of voters as elizabeth warren did a town hall. many people thought he came out on top. why make this completely different call? >> that's right. i think that's a perfect example. i think senator warren is trying to differentiate herself from sanders. the two have a lot of similar voting support that they are locking for. but this gives senator warren a
11:40 am
chance to say i'm more of a team player, i'm more of a democrat than sanders, who has been criticized in the past as an independent and he's been criticized for going outside of the democratic party. so i think warren there is trying to make that point. but it's also on brand for her. senator warren likes to come across as a fighter. some of the democrats in this field are trying to carve out a niche as being uniters. she wants to say, hey, i'm going to fight. she has a lot of skepticism toward large companies. and a willingness to call them out by name. there are some primary voters in particular who are hungry for that. so there are some reasons for her to do it. the other thing i would add is in addition to the fundraise in that you pointed out, she's also list building off of this. she's putting out all sorts of ads asking people for their names and addresses and that
11:41 am
list is so valuable. >> bernie sanders was asked about his decision to appear on fox news when he was on the daily show. and he had an explanation. it's a little similar to what kirsten had to say. we'll talk about it. take a look. >> to me, it is important to distinguish fox news from the millions of people who watch fox news. i think it is important to talk to those people and say, you know what, i know many of you voted for donald trump. but he lied to you. it's important to explain to hyhim to what degree he portrayed the working class of this country and lied during his campaign in terms of what he would do. >> in your view, who is approaching this the right way? elizabeth warren or bernie sanders and the other candidates willing to go on fox? >> that depends upon who you think the more important voting
11:42 am
bloc in the democratic base is. do you think that it's more important to reach out to people who voted for donald trump to change their minds to vote for democrats in 2020, or do you think that voters of color who are very ompbdsed by the white nationalism out in the open on fox news and their votes matter do you it win the primary. it's a difference of priorities. so elizabeth warren is not only saying, i'm not going to go there and do a fox news town hall. she's articulating this specific reasons why. she's saying essentially what they do is hate for profit. so a company is making money off promulgateing these ideas. i think there's a serious conversation as to whether or not it's okay to put yourself in a space on fox news where they are going to be making money off of you. that's what we're talking about here. there's a reason why or a good reason to wait past when sales and ad sales are all happening
11:43 am
at fox news and saying i'll do a one off appearance and still weereach that constituency. but partnering to do a town us hall is the the wrong decision. i would say elizabeth warren has the right strategy here. >> i do think it's important to point out since you raised the question of ratings and the corporate money that elizabeth warren said fox news reporters are more than welcome to show up at all of her events and cover them just as any other journalist would. she mentioned white nationalism and some other things that fox has been accused of covering? there's this question of elizabeth warren and her native american heritage and the way it's been covered on fox news and the way the president attacked her. >> by avoiding a fox news town hall, there's no question she
11:44 am
avoids what could be five or six question in a row on that topic. but there's no indication that's a reason for her to do this. she is has an answer for it. she's given it before on cnn and gaggles with reporters. it would be an additional upside she avoids having to answer the questions, although she's answered them repeatedly in the past. >> she has. thank you both very much. enjoy the conversation. an update on the breaking news that we brought you from new york city. a helicopter crashed moments ago into the hudson river near the piers. they have confirmed the helicopter fell short of a landing pad. they say the pilot is out of the water and the helicopter is secured. pedestrians are being warned to avoid the area. we'll monitor the story as it develops. we'll monitor the story as it develops helps keep me feeling dry,
11:45 am
how will they know i worked hard? i've gotta make stuff harder. ♪ there, that's hard. ♪
11:46 am
- there but what are wes to get our messactually saying?ys. any message is a story. and all stories tell the tale of the times we live in right now. how do you want to be remembered? how do you want your story to play out? our own experiences make the best stories, and your words carry a lot of weight. think about what you want to say before you say it. or send it.
11:47 am
one more thing before we go. if you have a newer iphone showing your face to open up your device is not anything new. it's also a savetime saving tool for police agencies. but san francisco says no more. city supervisors unanimously approved a ban on police using facial recognition technology. it's part of broader oversight that orders san francisco departments to spell out details of surveillance currently in use and any they hope to use. it's used everywhere on you whether at the airport or a retail store. especially in a city that cherishes public protest.
11:48 am
facial recognition is is useful because it's simple. they obtain ed a security image from a camera like this one to plug into the software. combing through a database with a list of potential matches. >> city officials worry that police using facial recognition software is a slippery slope. telling our nbc station in san francisco the good policing does mien living in a police state. that wraps things up this hour. ali velshi picks things up from washington. >> you have a a great afternoon. >> you too. >> we dare defend our rights. that's the stateot of alabama. and today these words are being put into action by people on both sides of the abortion argument. all eyes now on governor kay who has six days to sign is an abortion ban into law.
11:49 am
the only exception is if the mother's health is to be considered in serious danger. the bill provides no exception in cases of rape or incest, even if the victim is a child. the legislation would make performing an abortion a felony. punishable by up to 99 years in prison. the bill saw overwhelming support in the house and passed by a margin of 25-6 in the state senate. it's the most severe measure yet by a conservative l
11:50 am
11:51 am
11:52 am
11:53 am
11:54 am
11:55 am
11:56 am
11:57 am
11:58 am
11:59 am
12:00 pm


1 Favorite

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on