tv MSNBC Live With Katy Tur MSNBC May 22, 2019 11:00am-12:00pm PDT
sanders up for? >> bernie sanders is going to be on msnbc today. >> that's what you brought it up for. i will be interview senator sanders at 3:00 p.m. eastern. we will ask him some of the same things. you will be becoack at 9:00 a.m? >> indeed. check us out on social media. right now kasie hunt picks up our coverage. >> i am looking forward to that interview. thank you both very much. good afternoon. i am kasie hunt in for katy tur. it's 11:00 a.m. out west and 2:00 p.m. here in washington where it has been a day of high drama and unexpected news conferences. this afternoon during what was supposed be a meeting on infrastructure at the white house with democratic leadership the president suddenly summoned reporters to the rose garden to address this comment from house speaker nancy pelosi earlier in the day. >> it's important to follow the
facts, believe that no one is above the law, including the president of the united states, and we believe that the president of the united states has engaged in a cover-up. >> instead of walking in happily into a meeting, i walk into look at people that have just said that i was doing a cover-up. i don't do cover-ups. after two years and 40 million or $35 million, it will end up being more than that by the time all the bills are paid. this is what happened. no collusion, no obstruction, no nothing. nor'easter we ha we have had a house investigation. we have senate investigations. we have investigations like nobody's ever had before and there is nothing, we did nothing wrong. >> pelosi made her remarks about the president being engaged in a cover-up after a gathering behind closed doors on capitol hill with her democratic caucus. she has been facing increased calls among the rank and file to
begin impeachment proceedings against the president. she went straight from that meeting on the hill to the white house with senate minority leader chuck schumer. their infrastructure meeting that wasn't ended with these dueling news conferences. two vastly different interpretations of what happened. >> for some reason, maybe it was lack of confidence on his part that he really couldn't come match the greatness of the challenge that we have, wasn't really respectful of the congress and the white house working together. he just took a pass. >> it's clear that this was not a spontaneous move on the president's part. it was planned. he went to the rose garden with prepared signs that had been printed up long before our meeting. >> i walked into the room and i told senator schumer, speaker pelosi, i want to do
infrastructure. i want to do it more than you want to do it. i'd be really good at that. that's what i do. but you know what? you can't do it under these circumstances. so get these phony investigations over with. >> so today's big question is, can the white house and congress push past this moment and actually lead the country? joining mikaelly o'donnell on capitol hill, nbc news correspondent hans nichols at the white house. also "associated press" white house reporter and msnbc political analyst jonathan lamire. "daily beast" politics reporter and msnbc contributor betsy w d woodruff. michael steele. a panel to fit the events of the day. kelly, let me start with you. kind of walk us through how we got to this moment because, of course, it started in a meeting
where democrats were trying to decide whether to move forward with impeachment of the president. speaker pelosi came out. she called what the president has been doing a cover-up. then of course she doubled down on those very comments just a few hours later. take a look. >> the fact is in plain sight in the public domain, this president is obstructing justice and he has engaged in a cover-up, and that could be an impeachable offense. >> to be measured in terms of where we came from to this point today. the fact that the speaker is senning this kind of a clear signal seems to be about a couple of things, first, it was a message to the white house clearly heard and it set off big-time consequences. also important to fellow democrats who have been restless
and passionate about the potential pathways towards impeachment and there had been some rumblings and really kind of a spike, i think, would be a fairway to describe it, of more members who do not have the direct decision-making authority, but would ultimately cast a vote here talking about impeachment. and today this meeting, the meeting in and of itself was one of the trigger points for the president, a chance for democrats to meet amongst themselves without staffs, members only, and to walk through the game plan that the six committee chairs have been exercising in their respective topic areas. everything from intelligence to the tax issue to the obstruction and oversight type issues, judiciary has gotten so much attention, to walk fellow democrats through what they are gathering, what the potential is. all of that building a larger case that could eventually
potentially go to impeachment. so for the speaker it was a way to say to democrats we hear your concerns, we know where your passions are, we are doing the work. and she really capped it by saying so distinctly and publicly that the president has engaged in a cover-up. that in and of itself could be impeachable. that is telling democrats i am with you but please with me, the speaker saying metaphorically, to follow her strategic plan politically. >> kelly, thanks. hans nichols at the white house. this has continued through the afternoon with a series of tweets from the president. i think the key part of what he said here is that he says, you can't investigate and legislate simultaneously. you can't go down two tracks at the same time. and this is really a fundamental, i mean, difference between how the democrats are approaching this. it's also different from what we've seen in gornens this the past. just ask bill clinton who spent
most of his president is i being investigated while also working on major legislation. >> or chuck schumer and nancy pelosi. as late as april 30th, the congress was saying you could go on these two parallel tracks. what we have seen from both sides is a clear escalation. the president with his early morning tweets. then that press conference and clarifying with the tweets. we heard from nancy pelosi, talk of impeachment. the question is can they ever climb down? we have seen the president climb off a ledge and climb away from some of his rhetorical positions in the past. we saw that most clearly with the government shutdown where he said he was going to keep the government shutdown unless the wall was built. well, the wall wasn't really built and the president ended up opening up the government. the question i have today is, how long will he extend this idea that you can't have two tracks? if the democrats are investigating, everything will be shut down. that's debt ceiling, spending, a whole host of issues, or whether or not he will grant himself any
exemptions. in the past, he has granted himself exemptions. we will see if he ends up climbing down from this rhetorical position as well. >> yeah. and jonathan lamire, let's talk about the president's personality as it relates to everything hans was just laying out because that seems to be at the center of this. nancy pelosi and chuck schumer are perfectly capable of pursuing these dual paths. like i said, we have seen other presidents negotiate it successfully, try to put points on the board, basically, while still fighting back against inquiries from congress. this president does not -- and i was thinking this this morning, as this was unfolding. this president does not seem to have the capacity to do that as a human being. i mean, you have covered him for quite some time. what about today surprised you and what didn't? >> first of all, happy infrastructure week. >> i think this is really the infrastructure week after what happened. i mean, like do we have another
one that really competes? >> i think infrastructure week is the friends you meet along the way, casey. what we have from this president today was not surprising in most ways. it was perhaps a little more dramatic than some of his other moments. but we know he has been angry at these probes for weeks. he has instructed the white house to stonewall at every occasion, on every front, and he is escalating the tension with the congressional democrats, those who are investigating him. day in and day out, this morning with the tweets and now of course today, he is very adept at sort of playing the victim and using it as a political maneuver here. he likes to paint the system being rigged against him, whether it was the election in 2016 or the deep state since he took office. he is now suggesting that the democrats here, after getting the robert mueller probe, are still engaging in political and partisan overreach and coming after him and trying to get him from office. at the same time people around
him are almost goading the democrats into impeachment talk. they are convinced this is a win for the white house, that the public will turn on impeachment, they will say that there was no sort of evidence of crimes committed by this president. the economy is still good and so on. th they see what happened in borderline in 1998 and '99 and his poll numbers went up. they think that can happen here with the president as well. the president, whether he is campaigning or governing, he likes to say the forces are against him and likes to play the fighter. he likes the dramatic move. he likes to grab the headlines. he likes to pull off the stunt like today where what are we doing? we are talking about him and we're talking about how he blew this meeting up and tried to take control of the situation again. >> yeah, it's a great point. betsy woot roug betsy woodruff, this cover-up line that the president repeated that's now in the cry ons, nancy pelosi said that. is that a twist for this
president? >> it's not unusual for him to seize on phrases that his critics use and try to make them his own. remember when initially the term fake news entered the vernacular because of what the russians were doing. trump weaponized that against responsible media in the united states. that said, of course it is ironic that the president has brought this discussion about cover-ups to the headlines. when on request after request both the white house and the agencies throughout the executive branch have been very resistant of what the information the democrats are looking for as well as the witnesses. one big question going forward is whether democrats are going to be able to effectively keep track of the trump administration officials who are stiff-arming them. for instance, several weeks ago john gore, a senior official in the justice department's key civil rights decision, refused
to show up and honor a subpoena that came down from chairman elijah cummings' committee. there has been no follow-up on that. without question there are many challenges for democrats when it comes to how much political juice do they have to go after and essentially try to plak whack-a-mole with the trump administration officials who are refusing to show up or answer particular questions or provide documents. >> michael steele, the bottom line seems to be this is classic trump and governance, which is today you can't trust anything he says until, you know, it's all been -- until the pen has been put to the paper. lindsey graham tweeted today after all of this unfolded, talked about -- he said all i would say is try to rise above it if you can. the country is looking for leadership. i mean, there are big issues to tackle and it seems like there is no way they are going to be
tackled? >> we have an infrastructure week message which is my way or no highways. look, infrastructure is optional. raising the debt limit and funding the government are not optional. this may be a columbia rivliffh. the president may reverse course tomorrow, maybe right now. at the moment we are so far apart that it's difficult to imagine bridging the gap and preventing a catastrophic default and yet another government shutdown. i think both sides got what they wanted today. all of the momentum in the democratic caucus in favor of impeachment. today the president threw nepalm on that fire. he seems to have calculated politically it's favorable for him for house democrats to impeach him, to be perceived as overreaching. that's really the only way he gets to rise above and be the more statesman-like figure. >> i don't think statesman is ship is a word for today. anyway, okay, michael steele,
woman: my reputation was trashed online, i felt completely helpless. my entire career and business were in jeopardy. i called reputation defender. they were able to restore my good name. if you're under attack, i recommend calling reputation defender. and consider joining their groundbreaking campaign to give every american the right to remove old, inaccurate search results by going to righttobeforgotten.org. vo: if you have search results that are wrong or unfair, call reputation defender at 1-877-492-6705. listen to your mom, knuckleheads. hand em over. hand what over? video games, whatever you got. let's go. you can watch videos of people playing video games in the morning. is that everything? i can see who's online. i'm gonna sweep the sofa fort. well, look what i found.
take control of your wifi with xfinity xfi. let's roll! now that's simple, easy, awesome. xfinity xfi gives you the speed, coverage and control you need. manage your wifi network from anywhere when you download the xfi app today. coming up next, one of th they are out to get us. the republican party and president trump, they were out to get us.
this was a one-sided horrible thing. >> we are continuing to cover president trump's reaction to comments made by the house speaker nancy pelosi who told reporters the president was, quote, engaged in a cover-up. the president threatened to take all legislative action off the table until democrats agree to end their investigations into his administration. joining me from the hill, michigan democratic congressman. thanks for being here. >> thank you. >> let me ask you first to react to what the president has apparently said, that he does not want to do any business of state until these investigations are wrapped up. your response? >> well, it's just ridiculous. i mean, this is the return of trump the man baby who is just so angry and throwing a fit and saying, unless you do things the way i want them done in the order that i want them done, i am not going to meet the needs of the american people. let's be clear.
he is not punishing congress by not working on infrastructure. he is punishing hard working americans who depend on infrastructure for their livelihood, who depend on infrastructure to be connected to the rest of the world, and when he says the american people don't deserve 21st century infrastructure because he doesn't like the fact that congress is investigating some of the aspects of his administration and doing the job that constitution requires us to do. it's really pathetic. lindsey graham spoke briefly to reporters earlier today. here's part of what he had to say in the wake of the president's remarks. take a look and we'll talk about it. >> i would encourage the president to focus on what's best for the american people and fight back against efforts to undermine him, this administration and his family, but also challenge my democratic colleagues to meet him in the middle on roads and bridges and prescription drugs. >> when your leaders went to the
white house on infrastructure earlier in the month the sense was that they were prepared to work with the president. what do you say to how senator graham framed this? >> well, i mean, it's hard to react to senator graham. he has been one of the biggest enablers of this president, encouraging him to ignore subpoenas and then to turn around and say, but democrats should work with the president on infrastructure? yeah, we're happy to do that. our leadership went down there to do that and the president decided that he has such strength of support in the congress, particularly in the republican-led senate, that he doesn't have to do anything he doesn't want to do. if senator graham is serious about this, i would ask him to challenge the president. not mollify the president. not coddle the president, but challenge the president to do what he committed to do not only when he ran, but just a few weeks ago. if he were to do that i think he would find we are willing to work him. we are going to do our jobs,
conduct the oversight that we need to do. the most important thing we can do is meet the needs of the american people. just imagine the president of the united states has said because you are conducting this oversight, because you are living up to the oath of office that you swore to uphold, the constitution you swore to uphold, i am not going to work with you to meet the needs of the american people. he wants to punish the very people who need a government that can solve these big problems. because he is being so petty, he is going to punish the american people. it's just shameful. >> congressman, all of this unfolded in the wake of the house speaker's comments that the president had engaged in a cover-up. frankly, in remarks that we just showed to our viewers earlier this afternoon, she told the center for american progress that it's possible that the president committed impeachable offenses. that struck me as her taking a step forward towards
impeachment. is that your understanding of her remarks, and do you feel as though your caucus is moving down that road? >> i think if we're moving thdo that road it's because the president is taking us there. he clearly is covering up something. he clearly is trying to do everything he can to block us from getting access to important information that we have to have to do our work. so i think the speaker is right. he may be guilty of impeachable offenses. we are going to continue to do our investigation to determine what the facts are. because the president is so unwilling to do anything to comply with reasonable requests, he may leave us with no alternative. i'm not there yet, but i'm a lot closer than i was a month ago. and it's the president who is getting us there. >> what would be the straw that would break the camel's back for you? and is there a point at which you have to really make a final decision on whether you are going to do this or not? >> yeah, there will be a point.
it's almost difficult to say when that moment will be. but when the president fails to comply with legitimate directives, in fact if they fail to comply with an order of the court, that would be a red line that i think he does not want to cross because then that would trigger something. even as these facts unfold, for example if we can get finally section 6103 of the tax code to be adhered to, and inform us as to whether or not he has tried to manipulate the irs to his advantage, that would be another red flag that would signal that we have to take some additional steps. he is also creating an opportunity or a circumstance, i should say, where just the effect of his unwillingness to comply with legitimate requests from congress for testimony or for documents, you know, he may be painting himself into a corner where we have no choice. we are getting there. we are getting there quickly, unfortunately for him.
for the country. and for the country. >> yeah. how heavily do the political implications here weigh on your mind, this idea if you go down this road then perhaps you would be handing the president the re-election? >> well, first of all, i am not sure that we can calculate precisely what the political implications will be. so i know that conventional thinking is that it would be helpful to him. i can't imagine how that might be the case, but that's the conventional thinking. but my view is, when it comes to a question as weighted as whether or not we should use one of the few times in american history, use the tool of impeachment, any member of congress who is thinking about the political implications of that decision is thinking about the wrong thing. this is not a choice that i want. i would prefer not to have come to some of the conclusions that i have come to about this president. i would much prefer that he cooperate and not put us in a position where we might have to use this tool.
i don't want to be here. i don't want to do this. i mean, i want to be here to serve the needs of the people that i represent, not deal with a lawless president. but if he takes us here, i don't know that we will have a choice. >> all right. congressman, thank you very much, sir. appreciate your time. >> thanks, kasie. by the end of the day new york's governor could sign a newly passed bill into law that allows congress to get what it's been after for years. president trump's tax returns. that's next. they're america's biopharmaceutical researchers. pursuing life-changing cures in a country that fosters innovation here, they find breakthroughs... like a way to fight cancer by arming a patient's own t-cells... because it's not just about the next breakthrough... it's all the ones after that.
went to ancestry, i put in the names of my grandparents first. i got a leaf right away. a leaf is a hint that is connected to each person in your family tree. i learned that my ten times great grandmother is george washington's aunt. within a few days i went from knowing almost nothing to holy crow, i'm related to george washington. this is my cousin george. discover your story. start searching for free now at ancestry.com
just last hour new york state's state legislature passed a bill that would allow congress to get donald trump's state tax returns much the bill doesn't name the president, but it would clear a path by which three different congressional committees could gain access to the long sought after state returns. the bill is the latest effort by the democratic-led new york stays house to act as an additional check on the administration. this, of course, as capitol hill remains locked in a fight for pretty's federsident trump's re.
treasury secretary steve mnuchin was pressed about a memo that showed his department had no legal stand to go reject a request by democrats. >> so are you aware then that by denying this, that you are in direct violation of the law? >> no, absolutely not. i have been advised i am not violating the law. i never would have duffer anything th -- i never would have done anything that violated the law. >> ron allen is at the statehouse in albany and bloomberg opinion executive editor timothy o'brien has covered this extensively. ron, this bill is expected or has passed. what happens next? what happens next? >> what happens next is that it goes to the governor here who is, of course, a democrat. it was an intense debate here in the assembly. remember, kasie, for the first time in a long time democrats control the assembly, senate, and the governorship in new york. many who won in 2018 ran on a
platform of saying that they were going to hold president trump, who is of course a resident of new york state, accountable. this was a way of doing it. some called it a workaround to help their colleagues in washington. the opponents call this a weaponization of the state legislature. basically, it's a law that will allow the congressmen investigating on three committees to get hold of president trump's state tax returns. not the federal returns, but the state returns are very similar. if they request them, and they probably will, and we expect the governor to sign off on this bill. of course, that will help what's going on in congress. the question of course is whether or not any of this would ever happen because this ultimately will no doubt go to the courts. here is a sense of the debate that went on a little while ago and the emotion that was there. take a listen. >> let's cut to the chase. this bill is not designed to advance new yorkers' interests.
it's designed solely for political headlines on a national stage that does not help or protect new yorkers. >> congress must guarantee that the irs is not giving favorite treatment to any of its bosses, including the president. congress was guaranteed that no public official is selling government policy for personal gain. congress has always had access to tax returns as one tool to make these guarantees reality. >> so call it what you like. headline-grabbing or oversight and the legislature playing its role, states rights. the bottom line is that democrats in the state who know donald trump well, who knew him before he was president and in many cases really don't like him, quite frankly, pulled off this maneuver, this law so that they can go after these tax returns. what happens now, of course, again the governor will be
expected to sign the bill, and then we suspect when the request is made by the suspecheads of t committees in washington the trump administration, like other things, will try to block it in the courts and we go on and on. it's more pressure on the president and the administration to release these documents. it's a really novel, if you think about it, it's a novel political clever way to try to achieve their objective here at the state level that they can't seem to achieve as readily at the federal level. >> yeah, and to that point, tim, you have covered extensively this president's kind of financial past, the president himself. is this as ron allen suggests a venue that might actually work? or yet another opportunity for the president to stand in the way? >> well, i think it definitely could work if the goal is to get his taxes into the hands of congress. the president simply doesn't have the kind of legal and institutional power to intersect or intercede with new york and new york state's laws the way he
does as a federal official. so i think he's got leverage. i think that will come to haunt him in some of the other investigations that are targeting the trump organization, the trump foundation, the people who work for him in new york and his finances. new york has quite a bit of leverage over him in these situations, and i think the other thing to remember, kasie, is that new york has a long memory and donald trump is a child and a son of new york. new york politicians, the new york media, and a lot of other institutional players here have been observing him for decades. >> tim, the irs did put out a statement to kind of broaden this out to this more national conversation that we started with saying this memo that mnuchin was pressed on was a draft background paper, not finalized and isn't the official position of the irs. it was in fact prepared last fall. they say that the document wasn't sent up to the treasury
department. how thin is the ice that mnuchin is standing on right now? >> well, legally, i think he is on very thin ice. the fact of the matter is the law says that the congress has the right, if it deems it legislatively necessary, to request the president's tax returns. mnuchin's interpreting legislative reasons narrowly. i don't think the courts, if it goes to that point, are going to interpret it as narrowly as he does. all of this falls right, i think, in the middle of congress' oversight authority and framers of the constitution didn't want an executive branch that could be populated by people who aren't either independent of the judiciary or the legislative branches. and i think a lot of what we're seeing in play right now speaks to these larger issues, as you mentioned, nationally. how much transparency the presidency should have and how beholden he should be to congressional oversight. >> all right. tim o'brien, ron allen, thank
money tied to a book advance for a person identified in court papers as victim one. a senior federal law enforcement official tells nbc news that victim one is stephanie clifford known publicly as stormy daniels. another allegation in the indictment prosecutors accuse him of attempting to extort millions of dollars from nike. avenatti tells nbc he is not going to comment at this time. meanwhile, the house judiciary committee shows no sign of slowing despite repeated stonewalling from the trump administration. instead, they issued two more subpoenas to former white house insiders. one went to former white house communications director hope hicks who once admitted to a congressional committee that she told white lies on behalf of the president. the other is annie donaldson. she served as chief of staff for ex-white house counsel don mcgahn. we know from mueller's investigation that donaldson took copious notes while with
the administration, including a note documented in the report which read, quote, is this the beginning of the end? after the firing of former fbi director james comey. joining me nbc news correspondent covering national security ken dilanian. ken, let's start with hope hicks because she has the keys to the kingdom really, or the keys to the castle. why subpoena her now? >> well, she was mentioned 73 times in the redacted mueller report. there is a lot of focus on her role in drafting that statement that donald trump issued about the trump tower meeting where his son was involved in soliciting information -- >> a statement that turned out to be false? >> yes. and she talked about making emails disappear. the thing with her, the last time she was on the hill, she refused to talk about anything that happened in the presidency. she was preemptively invoking executive privilege. that will be an issue again. they have to june 4th to turn over documents and there is a deadline for her to appear in
june. this is going to be litigated. they are not going to show up. we have seen this movie before. the houser judiciary committee is trying to put a parade ofness withes in front of the american people to have televised hearings and the trump administration is resisting. >> hope hicks has a huge job with a publicly held company out in hollywood. what's the calculation if you are trying to decide how to handle this for her? >> well, the thing is that they have a reasonable legal argument on their side when it comes to advisors to the president who have privilege. that's the argument the obama administration made, the clinton administration made. it's different from tax returns. so i think she can feasibly resist as long as trump is claiming executive privilege. until this ere is a court order. then it gets dicey. with a corporate job, that becomes problematic. >> one other thing we learned,
federal prosecutors unsealed search warrants for michael cohen's email accounts. >> what wasn't in the warrants. the entire section about the hush-money investigation was redacted because it's still a pending investigation. prosecutors in the southern district are still digging into ma matter including individuals in the trump organization. most of the rest of it we already knew. it showed that michael cohen had a shingle out trying to profit from his association with donald trump. he was paid millions of dollars. at the end of the day he lied to banks. he had fraud going on with taxi medallions. the rest is history. >> did we learn why he landed on the radar from these warrants? >> no, there is a lot of redactions. that specific hinthing is not m clear. >> going back to annie donaldson quickly, because i realize we forgot to touch on her and these judiciary subpoenas, why is she of so much interest? >> don mcgahn's chief of staff. she took copious notes.
remember donald trump objecting to note takers. and she is cited dozens of times in the mueller report. she was a fact witness to things like trump wanting to get rid of sessions, wanting to fire mueller. with mcgahn refuse to go appear they are taking a shot at her. she may not have the same privilege because she didn't work directly for donald trump. she was taking notes and she was involved in phone conversations. she could be a great witness for them. >> we know how the president feels about note takers. >> absolutely. >> absolutely unwelcome. ken dilanian, thank you. quote, it will all come down to turnout is perhaps one of the most cliche phrases in american politics. up next we are going to explore the theory that 2020 really could come down to turnout because it could be at levels not seen for over 100 years. is ® delicious boost® high protein nutritional drink has 20 grams of protein, along with 26 essential vitamins and minerals.
boost® high protein. be up for life. gimme two minutes. and i'll tell you some important things to know about medicare. first, it doesn't pay for everything. say this pizza... [mmm pizza...] is your part b medical expenses. this much - about 80 percent... medicare will pay for. what's left... this slice here... well... that's on you. and that's where an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan,
insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company comes in. this type of plan helps pay some of what medicare doesn't. and these are the only plans to carry the aarp endorsement. that's because they meet their high standards of quality and service. wanna learn more? it's easy. call unitedhealthcare insurance company now and ask... for this free decision guide. inside you'll find the range of aarp medicare supplement plans and their rates. apply any time, too. oh. speaking of time... about a little over half way and there's more to tell. like, how... with this type of plan, you'll have the freedom to choose any doctor who accepts medicare patients. great for staying with the one you know... or finding... somebody new, like a specialist. there are no networks and no referrals needed. none. and when you travel, your plan will go with you- anywhere in the country. so, if you're in another state visiting the grandkids,
stay awhile... enjoy... and know that you'll still be able to see any doctor who accepts medicare patients. so call unitedhealthcare today. they are committed to being there for you. tick, tick, tick, time for a wrap up. a medicare supplement plan helps pay some of what medicare doesn't. you know, the pizza slice. it allows you to choose any doctor, who accepts medicare patients... and these are the only plans of their kind endorsed by aarp. whew! call unitedhealthcare today and ask for this free decision guide.
call unit(boy) got it. oday nooooooo... (dad) nooooooo... (vo) quick, the quicker picker upper! bounty picks up messes quicker and is two times more absorbent. bounty, the quicker picker upper. i personally think it's the biggest cliche in politics. it's all going to come down to turnout. you think? surprise, surprise, elections are decided by the people who actually show up to vote. however, as axios reports we may actually be gearing up for an unprecedented level of voter engagement in 2020. according to some election experts, our era of hyper polarization could lead to the highest rate of voter turnout in over a century. joining me axios political reporter alexie mckaman and
msnbc national political correspondent steve kornacki. alexie, this was your reporting in axios. walk us through this point. >> i talked with various election experts. a couple pointed to the 2018 midterm elections that had a record turn out for an off-year election. it reached just over 50%, which was the highest a midterm election turnout has been since 1914. the folks i spoke with were sort of saying, look, there were interesting candidates in some races. people think about alexandria ocasio-cortez, but that wasn't exactly happening around the entire country. some states made laws easier so people could vote easier like same-day registration. we saw increased turnout in every state. the one thing that one elections expert said, this could be attributed to someone like donald trump. he is the only major change in politics since 2014. they are sort of predicting a
67% turnout for the next presidential election, which would be the highest in a century. >> fair enough. but steve kornacki, as we know, everycornacki, every election year is dramatically different. how are you -- what could happen for 2020 on this front? >> they have been asking voters, do you define yourself extremely or very interested in the next presidential race. the highest categorization there of your interest levels. 81% in the poll they came out with. right now they are extremely interested in the next presidential election. in that same poll on the eve of the 2016 presidential election. you can't get politics or more
election in the air for that. it is basically the same. at right now, presidential election date level of interest in the next presidential election. if you go back and compare this number to roughly the same point of some past and presidential with this. this this is the summer of 2015. that was 60%. again, 81% right now, 60%, a year out from the 2016 election. a little bit more a year out of the 2012 election. september 2011. it was 65%. these are sort of the normal as you expect to see at this point, they are some where in the low 60s, we right now are 20 points higher than that. so this idea, the 2016 election basically never ended. the numbers bare out and it does raise the possibility certainly to be at that level heading into 2020 or maybe go up from there.
>> do democrats have a better chance or not necessarily? >> our nbc point, i don't have the number here to put up on our screen. our poll a couple of weeks ago tested that question, motivational among the party founded equal at this point. if there is good news there for republicans, it was that maybe there is an improvement of cutting off since last year where democrats had a bit of advantage there for the midterm election, it looks like both. i will tell you what, this reminds me a lot of an explosion, interest in voter, after 9/11 and after the contested 2000s election. in the 2004, it was about competing energized, mobilized bases. that's the story and it will be the story in 2020.
>> all right, steve cornacki and alexa, thank you for much for being here. >> senator bernie sanders joins ali velshi to talk about the inclusion pros pari inclusion prosperity. in just a few minutes coming up right here on msnbc. we also though want to bring you new reaction from attorney michael avenatti to the new unsealed indictment against him, he's accused of trying to steal money from client stormy danielss extorting nike to millions of dollars. he just tweeted, i look forward to hearing all the evidence. i will be fully exonerated once the relevant e-mails and contracts and text messages and documents are presented. we'll see. a conspiracy theory is making the realms claiming that bleach can cure autism. two moms are on a mission to
stop it. stop it. 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
what would you like the power to do?® it's toughcold turkey.king so chantix can help you quit slow turkey. along with support, chantix is proven to help you quit. with chantix you can keep smoking at first and ease into quitting so when the day arrives, you'll be more ready to kiss cigarettes goodbye. when you try to quit smoking,
with or without chantix, you may have nicotine withdrawal symptoms. stop chantix and get help right away if you have changes in behavior or thinking, aggression, hostility, depressed mood, suicidal thoughts or actions, seizures, new or worse heart or blood vessel problems, sleepwalking, or life-threatening allergic and skin reactions. decrease alcohol use. use caution driving or operating machinery. tell your doctor if you've had mental health problems. the most common side effect is nausea. talk to your doctor about chantix.
caused by parasites and even the moon. some of them are bogus and really dangerous. among the most dangerous is using chlorine which the fda warns it is essentially industrial bleach and it can cause permanent harm including kidney failure. parents are giving it to their kids orally. so some parents are buying into. they both have children with autism. they are working as molds to infiltrate these facebook groups to prevent kids from coming to harm. to do it, they disguised
themselves as desperate parents looking for answers about their child's autism. they take screened shots of posts from parents who say they are giving chemicals to their children. melissa and amanda researched the parents and they figured out who they are and where they live, they send the information to local child and protective services. they reported over 100 parents since 2016 and rarely if ever know whether their tips are followed upon. that's going to wrap things up at this hour, i am kasie hunt in washington. please do follow me on twitter and catch me every sunday night. a ali velshi picks things up right now. >> hello, have a great afternoon. michael avenatti is indicted in new york charged with fraud and identity theft and attempting to extort nike.
joining me now is sarah fitzpatrick who like the rest of v of us have been familiarizing ourselves with these documents. there are stuff that everybody don't know. >> absolutely. it is truly stunning to see it laid out in this indictment. michael avenatti of the case he's famous for is stealing from his client, stormy daniels. he forced her signature and diverted some of her money from her book advance through an account that was controlled by him. i heard from michael avenatti told me in a statement he was quote, i was entitled to any money retained related to the book per my agreement with the client. it was part of my agreement for representation. >> he's saying this is all apart of my agreement with stormy. >> the