tv MSNBC Live With Stephanie Ruhle MSNBC May 31, 2019 6:00am-7:01am PDT
at the end of this npr show, we talked about tom, tom hanks, and the greatest generation. i want to salute tom brokaw for making this world war ii museum. and i've walked around it with tom brokaw, something special that will be there to keep us remembering this for years. >> it's an extraordinary museum right there in new orleans, if you get there, you have to go see it. we're lucky in this country to have historians like walter isaacson, tom brokaw, and even you, michael barnacbarnicle. that does it for us this morning. stephanie ruhle picks up our coverage, hey, steph. >> hi, willie. i'm stephanie ruhle, we have a lot to get to this morning. our team of extraordinary reporters is here with details on the stories impacting your life today, starting with global
markets taking a nosedive today after president trump tweets a surprise announcement, that the united states will impose tariffs on goods from mexico until mexico stops migrants from crossing the u.s. border. breaking news, flooding in the midwest and plains reaches an even more dangerous level. mandatory evacuations under way at this moment after a levy breach overnight. we've got barr versus mueller. the attorney contradicts the former special counsel, saying there was no reason mueller should have avoided coming to a conclusion on obstruction. >> i personally felt he could have reached a decision. >> in your view he could have reached a conclusion? >> right, he could have reached a conclusion. we must start this morning with president trump's surprise announcement overnight, tlern threatening to hike tariffs on all mexican goods. that would take effect in less than two weeks. two people who know how this works are with me from the white house, hans nichols and kayla
tausche. hans, what is the president proposing? >> reporter: i'm glad he used "threat" in there, this is both a proposal and a threat. this isn't policy yet. the president himself will decide what metrics are let when he removes this threat. they aren't firm on what the flow of migrants has to flow down to, how much it has to flow. yesterday at this time we were wondering what the president's announcement on immigration would be, there was back and forth at the white house whether anything would come today. on twitter, it dropped like a bomb last night. here is what he said, on june 10 the united states will impose a 5% tariff on all goods coming into our country from mexico, until such time as illegal migrants coming through mexico and into our country, stop. the tariff would be 5% on june 10 and go all the way up to 25%
until they stop the flow of migrants. number one, they may have briefed some members of congress, particularly republicans, but they didn't get buy-in. chuck grassley, joni ernst, are very critical of this. mick mulvaney's point is they can lift this any time they want, they have not set metrics. president trump has threatened to close the border with mexico and gone out of his way to almost compliment the mexicans on how they're doing on stopping the flow and in 24, 48 hours, says no, the flow of migrants is going back and forth. this is up to the president's own whims, steph. >> this could be a threat but what if they take it as the boy who cried wolf? kayla, let's remind our audience, tariffs are paid by
importers, not the mexican companies. so the importers would pass the costs to the american consumers. help us understand the impact. >> reporter: yes, and consumers would feel that when they're going out to buy a new car. vehicles are the top item that companies import from mexico that they make there and then send across the border. it would have a dramatic impact on consumers if this were to go through. as hans notes, this isn't a done deal yet. the white house is allowing a slight grace people for mexico to come to the table and make a proposal that it sees as sufficient, that we don't know exactly what that is. economists are having a hard time figuring out exactly what the impact on consumers would be because they don't know if this is goeing to go into effect and at what point the tariffs would rest. they could potentially about up to 25% on october 1st if this situation still isn't resolved. those two numbers would have a dramatically different impact on the market.
if it's just a 5% increase, companies are unlikely to pass that on to consumers. if a 25% increase, coming into the late summer, fall, that's when you could start to feel it in your checkbook. >> take me inside the white house, kayla. you know all the parties who work on this stuff. how likely does it sound like this thing will actually go into effect? >> reporter: i'm told 50/50 at this point. this is something the president has raised before but in passing. it's never taken on the life it took on in the last day. in the past there have been members of the white house trade team who have been able to talk the president out of this. but where it seems like this directive is coming this time is essentially a green light from the white house counsel here. yesterday on a briefing call the acting chief of staff mick mulvaney made very clear that it was the white house counsel that approved the usage of the international economic emergency powers act to actually put this policy into effect. the white house was asked
whether, you know, it's a good precedent to use an economic instrument, a blunt economic restaurant at that, to effect a policy outcome. they said they don't really connect the two. >> dow futures are now down 260. it will be another day for the president to consider is he the tariff man or mr. market. kayla tausche, hans nichols, thank you so much. you know we'll be digging into this when the u.s. markets open in less than 30 minutes, so stay tuned. now to ken dilanian who covers national security and intelligence. ken, these are stunning new comments by attorney general bill barr. he now says special counsel bob mueller could have reached a decision on obstruction of justice but didn't. explain. >> this requires a little bit of a legal explanation, steph, so bear with me. robert mueller approached this case knowing that he could not indict a sitting president under justice department doctrine but he went further. he and his lawyers decided not only couldn't he charge donald trump, he couldn't even explain, assess, or say in his report
whether he believed trump committed crimes. attorney general william barr says that went too far, he didn't have to be that fair to donald trump. let's take a listen to exactly what attorney general barr said. >> i personally felt he could have reached a decision. >> in your view he could have reached a conclusion? >> right, he could have reached a conclusion. >> he seemed to suggest yesterday that there was another venue for this and that was congress. >> well, i'm not sure what he was suggesting. the department of justice doesn't use our powers of investigative crimes as an a adjunct to congress. >> what's so bizarre, stephanie, is barr says he doesn't believe there is a case that trump obstructed justice. what might have happened, one wonders, if mueller said trump obstructed justice? would barr have overruled it? we would be in a different case if mueller had said trump obstructed justice. >> thank you, ken. we have mandatory
evacuations under way in the state of arkansas after a levy breached there overnight. millions of others in the midwest and the south are at risk today as the historic flooding continues. officials warn other levies could give out. nbc's kristen dahlgren is on the ground in ft. smith, arkansas. >> reporter: hey there, stephanie. another tough day in the midwest. we're at ft. smith, arkansas. you can see what this flooding has already done to neighborhoods this morning. there is a real fear that we are going to see more and more houses that look like this by the end of the day. we are seeing some levy breaches now, today. two are east in dardanelle, arkansas. officia officials on scene are trying to
figure out how to shore it up. some very real concerns. a lot of water coming down these rivers. and many of them are not expected to crest until next week. so this is a disaster that is going to keep going for many days now, staeephanie. >> thank you, kristen dahlgren joining us from arkansas. missouri may be the first state without an abortion clinic since roe versus wade. stephanie gosk joins me now with new details as we await a decision from a judge. >> an important distinction, this has actually nothing to do with the heartbeat bill that was signed by the missouri governor, an eight-week ban on abortions. this is a totally separate issue. this is about the license for the only licensed clinic in the state of missouri that performs abortions. right now the state of missouri is saying they're in violation after an inspection that was done in march, that there were a
number of safety violations among some other things. planned parenthood has taken their case to the judge because their license expires tonight and they're looking for that judge to provide relief, injunctive relief, and keep this clinic open. so we're waiting for that ruling, and it could come at any time today. but listen to what planned parenthood had to say about this. >> the state does not want to renew this license. and they are changing the rules and changing their conditions and trying to find what is the line at which planned parenthood won't cross in order to protect access to high quality physicians and their ability to provide high quality care. >> steph, this is clearly different from the heartbeat bill. but the spirit of all of this, taking us back to a pre roe versus wade america, seems to be connected. >> there's something the larger american public hasn't been
aware of. there has been a simmering fight, organizations like planned parenthood have been trying to fight efforts to close them down because of these bills that have been more restrictive than anything we've seen for a while. but this has been going on. >> you and i are sitting here in new york, but in the state of louisiana there is a new law that a democratic governor just signed, and that's a big deal, because we say, that's what these people are looking for, that's what the voters across the state are asking for. >> yeah, i mean, we don't have any recent poll numbers out of louisiana. the numbers i've seen were five or six years ago, they clearly show a majority of people in louisiana, over 50%, believe that roe v. wade should be overturned. you see the phenomenon of a democrat who supports that position as well. some of these democrats, you could argue, are in their positions because of that, they
got the vote because of that. we're seeing that play out in louisiana. another important thing to note about that louisiana law is that it's not going to be immediately enforced. that's going to be tied up in the courts as well, it's linked to a similar law out of mississippi that's right now in federal court. >> how much talk is there about the economic impact? for this many, this vote or this issue is a cultural and social issue. but the fact that we've already heard from companies like disney who say, i'm not sure if i'm going to be doing business in georgia if this takes effect, will this end up being a major economic issue? >> specific for georgia, disney, netflix, our company nbc universal, georgia has been a very popular place for filming movies and television series, they get up to $3 billion in revenue a year, it produces 92,000 jobs. this is actually a serious economic threat. disney, netflix, and possibly nbc universal, say they're considering pulling their
filming if the law that was signed, the heartbeat law that was signed, is actually enforced in georgia. we're not there yet, georgia is not there yet, it's not being enforced on the ground. that's an important part of the conversation. >> but the conversation is being had. thank you, steph, very much. we're going to dig into these stories including the statement from the attorney general that he disagrees with how robert mueller interpreted the law. and later, how trump's tariff announcement caused two powerful republican senators to say the president was going too far. guess what, you have two hours with me this morning, we'll dig through all of it. but first, yesterday we were told the white house reportedly asked the u.s. navy to keep a warship named out of late senator john mccain out of sight during president trump's recent visit to japan. this morning acting secretary of defense patrick shanahan has
asked his staff to look into the matter. >> wouldn't it be weird if the military develops new technology just to hide things that trump adopt li doesn't like? the generals would be like, we need that to hide eric. ...when a plan stops being a plan and gets set into motion. today's merrill can help you get there with the people, tools, and personalized advice to help turn your ambitions into action. what would you like the power to do? we see two travelers so at a comfort innal with a glow around them, so people watching will be like, "wow, maybe i'll glow too if i book direct at choicehotels.com". who glows? just say, badda book. badda boom. book now at choicehotels.com
assess the facts. listen to this. >> we analyzed the law and the facts and a group of us spent a lot of time doing that, and determined that both as a matter of law, many of the instances would not amount to obstruction. >> as a matter of law? >> smaas a matter of law. in other words, we didn't agree with a lot of the legal analysis in the report. it did not reflect the views of the department, it was the views of a particular lawyer or lawyers. and so we applied what we thought was the right law. >> joining the conversation, former u.s. attorney brett brower. he also served as the fbi's assistant director for the office of congressional affairs. you guessed it, his boss was jim comey. darryl west joins us, vice president and director of government studies at the brookings institution, also the author of "divided politics,
divided nation: hyperconflict in the trump era." perfect example of that right here. greg, what do you make of what barr said? for us mere civilians, the right law versus the wrong law? >> well, good morning, stephanie. i think these comments have confused things even more, if that's possible. you have to remember, the whole point of the special counsel, of any special counsel, is to take the investigative decisions in a politically charged investigation away from the political appointees at the department of justice. and so the idea that despite the independent special counsel's findings and conclusions as to what the law says, that the attorney general and the deputy attorney general, both trump appointees, would weigh in and disagree and make decisions around the special counsel, incomplete undermines the whole point of appointing the special
counsel. as i said, i think things are even more confused now. >> greg, why wouldn't bill barr have simply told robert mueller, you left out your last chapter, time for a conclusion? >> well -- >> he's his boss. >> great point. i've said all along that if i was the ag or his chief of staff, and the special counsel came to me and said, we really just can't decide this obstruction of justice issue, i think my advice would have been, you need to go back and decide it because as the ag, i'm the president's appointee, and by the way, i'm the guy who wrote that 18-page memo about obstruction, so i'm not going to get involved in making this decision, your job is to make the decision, tell me what you think should happen. if it's indict, we'll talk about whether the ofc opinion allows for that. if it's not indict, fine, i'll accept that, but you make the decision. >> darryl, is bill barr helping the president's case here, in confusing the american people,
he put out a summary two days after the report came out basically saying nothing to see here. here we are two months later, there's a lot to say. >> barr is not helping his boss donald trump. >> he's not? >> it would have been nice if barr had told mueller this broader interpretation of the law, because everybody who knows mueller says he's a very rules-based guy who really follows the law. his understanding of the law was that under the doj opinion, he could not indict a sitting president. so he was very limited in how he could present information in the report. he outlined ten instances of obstruction of justice but was not able to reach the conclusion that this guy could be or should be indicted because of his view of that doj law. >> then why do you say he's not helping the president? there's a lot of bad stuff in that report and the president has successfully pushed a narrative saying i'm exonerated, nothing to see here. quite a lot of people believe it. so this confusion seems to be a positive for the president. >> at mueller's press conference
this week he made it clear he did not exonerate president trump. >> do you think think he made it clear? >> i think it is clear. certainly if you look at volume 2, all of the details that they provide on witness tampering, the way sessions' recusal was handled, michael cohen, paul manafort, and so on, there's a lot of evidence there. but mueller did not feel like he could recommend an indictment. but he basically left it to what he called other venues, which is clearly a referral to congress to consider impeachment as a possibility. >> greg, bill barr also talked about his decision to investigate the investigators. here is what he said. >> like many other people who are familiar with intelligence activities, i had a lot of questions about what was going on. and i assumed i would get answers when i went in. and i have not gotten answers that are at all satisfactory. and in fact i probably have more questions. and some of the facts that i've learned don't hang together with
the official explanations of what happened. >> what do you mean by that? >> that's all i really will say. things are just not jiving. >> things aren't jiving. is that enough to justify an investigation, greg? he's talking about your old boss, jim comey. they could do an investigation here and not find anything. >> well, stephanie, he's actually talking about jim comey, rod rosenstein, dana boente at the fbi, potentially chris wray. everybody who has been involved in this or reviewed it has concluded that the fbi, doj, engaged in no misconduct. so to initiate an investigation essentially echoing presidential tweets based upon no real evidence -- and the attorney general has said himself on the record that he's not aware of any misconduct but he wants to get to the bottom of it. well, there's an oig investigation pending. it seems to me that the better course, the usual course would be for the ag to simply allow the ig to finish his work and
then take appropriate action as necessary. but this politically charged investigation, again, based upon what apparently the president would like, is unprecedented in my experience. >> yeah, but what if the president wants this just like he wanted a voter fraud commission and if there's no wrongdoing, like the voter fraud commission, the president will have to take it off the table. >> well, that's what's so troublesome about the way this seems to be proceeding. it's just not the way fbi and doj operations are generally reviewed. again, there's a process for that. it's the office of inspector general. and so this, unfortunately for the ag and for the department, to do it this way looks political and that's a very bad thing for the department. >> very bad thing for the department. darryl says from a political standpoint, it's time for congress to act. greg brower, darryl west, thank you both so much. the question of the justice department policy of not
indicting a sitting president, presidential hopeful elizabeth warren just pledged to nominate a head of the office of legal counsel who will overturn that policy. that story is not going away. but next, it's money, power, politics. you know we're covering markets set to open in five minutes. we know it was a turbulent week. how wall street will react to the president's threat of billions more in tariffs, this time on our third largest trading partner, mexico. before we move on, better than the dictionary. that's what people are saying about the eight newly crowned co-champions of the scripps national spelling bee. they each outlasted 562 competitors spelling 47 words correctly in the final round, stretching the competition into the early morning. the good news, they won't be splitting the winnings. instead each will be awarded the full $50,000 prize. 47 words? i say they each deserve it. fact is, every insurance company hopes you drive safely.
but allstate actually helps you drive safely... with drivewise. it lets you know when you go too fast... ...and brake too hard. with feedback to help you drive safer. giving you the power to actually lower your cost. unfortunately, it can't do anything about that. now that you know the truth... are you in good hands?
the doctor's office might mejust for a shot.o but why go back there when you can stay home with neulasta® onpro? strong chemo can put you at risk of serious infection. in a key study neulasta® reduced the risk of infection from 17% to 1% a 94% decrease. neulasta® onpro is designed to deliver neulasta® the day after chemo and is used by most patients today. neulasta® is for certain cancer patients receiving strong chemotherapy. do not take neulasta® if you're allergic to it or neupogen (filgrastim). an incomplete dose could increase infection risk. ruptured spleen, sometimes fatal as well as serious lung problems allergic reactions, kidney injuries and capillary leak syndrome have occurred. report abdominal or shoulder tip pain, trouble breathing or allergic reactions to your doctor right away. in patients with sickle cell disorders, serious, sometimes fatal crises can occur. the most common side effect is bone and muscle ache. if you'd rather be home ask your doctor about neulasta® onpro. pay no more than $5 per dose with copay card.
dna results fromt you ancestry.er with your i was able to discover one cousin, reached out to him, visited ireland, met another 20 cousins. they took me to the cliffs of moher, the ancestral home, the family bar. it really gives you a sense of connection to something that's bigger than yourself. new features. greater details. richer stories. get your dna kit today at ancestry.com. we see two travelers so at a comfort innal with a glow around them, so people watching will be like, "wow, maybe i'll glow too if i book direct at choicehotels.com". who glows? just say, badda book. badda boom. book now at choicehotels.com
of tariffs on mexican imports unless mexico succeeds in doing something that has never been done before, stopping the flow of illegal migrants coming to the united states. markets around the world fell sharply after the president's announcement. that includes wall street right here where markets just opened. the president says the tariffs will start at 5% on june 10 and will be imposed on all $346 billion worth of u.s. imports from mexico. that amounts to a tax of more than $17 billion. despite the president saying mexico will pay, we know that in reality, the cost will ultimately get passed on to you. why? because u.s. importers pay the tariffs, not the exporters. and the perfect group to dig into this, cnbc's senior economic reporter, steve liesman. and jake sherman, politico's senior writer. jake, what do you make of the president's threat, we have to all it a threat at this point,
to force mexico into changing its approach to immigration? it's never been done before, cross pollinating these two verticals. >> yeah, so everybody that i've spoken to in the white house almost to a person, people who are not authored to speak for the record, have no idea what's going on here. let's just lay that as a base case, that there's deep disagreement about what the president did and many people, republicans and democrats, believe that the president just blew up the trade deal, the usmca, which is the president's top legislative priority, the new nafta, which he was trying to get passed here in the next a couple of months. that's a huge defeat for the president. number two, it seems unlikely, in every news report, and everyone that i've spoken to does not believe that mexico will be able to stop illegal immigration, period. but the president is obviously giving himself wiggle room because he alone is going to be the decider of whether mexico is doing enough to stop illegal immigration and there be he might be able to peel off the
tariffs. so a political pickle for the president. at the same time he has put these tariffs on, he has significantly decreased his ability, his leverage to get this trade deal across the finish line. >> is it a political pickle, though? this is the president's game plan, it's what he does for 50 years in business, he bluffs, he plays a game of chicken. >> it's not the president's game plan because for the last several months his white house has been working overtime to get this big trade deal over the finish line. he's been working with democrats, they've been working with republicans. then yesterday he started the clock on the trade deal which was the first thing he did yesterday, which nancy pelosi was furious at him for, tried to force nancy pelosi into an early vote on this trade deal, and he does the tariffs, which both parties are extremely upset about. he really doesn't have much time to get this trade deal through. so while he might be bluffing on the tariffs, we can accept that, he might be bluffing. at the same time, as he's bluffing, this trade deal which he has said is his top legislative priority is going to
be on hold. and it could in the end kill this big trade deal. >> it could be more than nancy pelosi. the usmca deal is jared kushner's baby. at the millikin conference, ivanka trump was talking about how important this was. brendan, talk about the supply chains. >> so china sends us a much larger percentage of finished goods, consumer goods, things we buy, actually products. what we trade with mexico and what we receive from mexico is a lot of what's called intermediate goods, products made from other stuff. we might get crude oil from mexico that gets molded into a dashboard that gets sent back
there to get assembled and then sent back up to be put into a car. that's a massive distinction between that and what we do with china which is buy their final products. >> our very low employment rate is a feather the president wears in his cap, and he can. but steve, he's now claiming the tariffs will produce a massive return of jobs back to the united states. how and where would that happen? >> well, it's a little hard to figure out exactly how that happens. there's there's a couple of things that would happen before that. as with china, manufacturers could move to other countries. one of the ironies that's sinking into the "c" suite in companies this morning, they were going to move to mexico. i guess they're not moving to mexico now. we'll see if that happens. they were going to move to
vietnam. so that's the first reaction that some companies would do. other companies might reduce their -- try to reduce their costs, increase their productivity. one of the i think underlying misassumptions in the president's thinking is that companies are in china or in mexico as some sort of random call here and they're not here for basically economic or financial reasons. and so i think the gap or the wedge, what we would call it, between the costs of doing manufacturing in mexico versus the united states, is quite large. and i don't even know that a 5% or a 10% tariff is going to undo that. perhaps for some at the margin it will. but as you see here, with the dow now off 305 points, i'm looking at the screen here, the market does not see economic upside, it has never in any particular news event where tariffs were going up, seen net economic upside or financial upside to the u.s. economy or to u.s. companies from tariffs.
>> but they do like usmca, and the president is now putting that at risk. just a moment ago he tweeted this, let's pull it up. mexico has taken advantage of the united states for decades. because of the dems, our immigration laws are bad. mexico makes a fortune from the u.s., have for decades. they can easily fix the problem. time for them to do what finally must be done. brendan greeley, if we're talking about mexico's practices around trade, that's why we had improvements in the usmca. if the president is making a move that will strangle the mexican economy, won't more migrants try to get out of their country and get into ours? >> this is a statute they use to punish really bad actors. the statutes under which we're
limiting trade with iran and venezuel venezuela is the same statute he's using how. we're treating mexico like iran, issuing punitive economic measures to get a political result. that's not how you handle trading relationships with a trading partner and it puts mexico into bad company. >> jake, the president said, if the illegal migration crisis is alleviated by actions taken by mexico to be determined in our sole discretion and judgment, the tariffs will be removed. we've got, you even mentioned it earlier, members of his own party, chuck grassley saying it is unprecedented to use presidential tariff authority to counter congressional intent. how is this thing going to turn out? >> well, let's start with the fact that congress is unlikely to do anything to claw back any tariff authority from the president.
capitol hill has ceded a lot of authority to the administration going back many years. >> then why would chuck grassley pipe in at all? >> because i think there are republicans who believe they need to speak out. what we've seen in this administration since the beginning of 2017 is congress speaks out and doesn't do much on the other end. lindsey graham, for example, is supportive of this after being against tariffs for a long time. it's funny, i was on the phone with people from the white house last night who were saying this is counter to our message that the northern triangle countries, not mexico but other countries in the region have more to do with illegal immigration than mexico. so this runs counter to what the white house has been saying for years, yes, mexico has a role to play, by the way, it's also american immigration laws. the president has said the border needs to be tightened. this is a weird confluence. >> but jake, isn't the president's argument here, he's not deciphering whether it's the northern triangle or mexico, but he's saying mexico is the border country and i don't care what
country the migrants are coming from, i don't want them entering ours. >> yeah, but i mean, the experts will tell you and many members of congress will tell you that factually that's not accurate. factually there's not much more mexico can do. there are some additional steps mexico can take, but by the way, this all goes back to the fact that the president has been unable to coral his party and the democratic party around a set of immigration principles that would tighten the border and do other things to fix the system that everyone kind of understands is broken. >> facts, the darnedest things. remember, when republicans controlled congress, they did not give the president the money he wanted for the wall. steve liesman, brendan greeley, jake sherman, thank you all so much. coming up, the citizenship question on the census will be decided by the supreme court very soon. but brand-new evidence just discovered could prove that the question was specifically added to help republicans. and you won't believe how it was uncovered. it's a shocker. but first, last night was
game one of the nba finals, the toronto raptors defeated defending champion golden state warriors 118-109. drake was very happy. this despite the warriors' surprisingly activating injured all star center demarcus cousins. but they are still without kevin durant who is doubtful for sunday's game two. steph curry, draymond green, are celebrating. i have confidence in those two. celebrating. i have confidence in those two uh, i'll look into it. (phone rings) lisa jones! lisa: (on phone) hey carl, what are you charging me for online equity trades? (nervous chuckle) lisa: and do i get my fees back if i'm not happy? like a satisfaction guarantee? ugh. schwab! lisa: oh right, i'm calling schwab. thanks, carl! wait, lisa! lisa... are you getting low costs backed by a satisfaction guarantee? if not, talk to schwab. a modern approach to wealth management. high protein. low sugar. tastes great!
high protein. low sugar. so good! high protein. low sugar. mmmm, birthday cake! pure protein. the best combination for every fitness routine. noso let's promote ourke summer travel deal on choicehotels.com like this: surf's up. earn a fifty-dollar gift card when you stay just twice this summer. or.. badda book. badda boom. book now at choicehotels.com
welcome back. i'm stephanie ruhle. r. kelly is in new legal trouble today. the singer now facing 11 additional counts of sexual assault and abuse, some of those the most serious charges to date. nbc's rehema ellis is here with the laterest hem what's this al about? >> as you say, new charges against singer r. kelly and they're serious. the most serious class of felony he could be facing is involved in this new charge, called class "x." this is just short of a murder charge in the state of illinois, it's really serious. four counts of aggravated criminal assault, sexual assault, two counts of criminal sexual assault by force, two counts of aggravated criminal sexual abuse, and three counts of aggravated criminal sexual abuse against a minor. this happened in 2010. now, our understanding is that the minor mentioned in these 11 new counts is one of those who was mentioned in the original
charges that were filed against him back in february. he denied all of those, vehemently denied them, as you know. we have a statement from his attorney which says, kelly was not charged in a new case, he was recharged in an existing case, same alleged victim and time. it changes nothing. they are the same conduct, just charged differently. we expect the same results that mr. kelly will be acquitted. he's expected to appear in court next week on thursday to address these new charges. >> and if he's not acquitted, if he's found guilty, what do these new charges mean in terms of a possible sentence? >> well, what we're talking about, as i mentioned before, is a class "x" felony which could carry up to 30 years in prison. if they try all of this together, he's now got 21 charges against him. the bottom line, if he's convicted, he's going to face a lot of time behind bars. >> pretty serious. rehe
rehema, thank you so. new evidence in just most consequential cases before the supreme court right now, a case that will impact how political power and federal funds will be distributed across the country for the next decade. the trump administration wants to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census. it claims such a question would protect voting rights. opponents say the question is a partisan power grab. if minorities are undercounted, the drawing of districts and the funding of states will favor republicans. new evidence just revealed yesterday may prove that very point. pete williams joins me with the latest. pete, what is this new evidence? >> the aclu says it's documents found after a long time republican consultant died, found by his daughter. the aclu says they show he was the one who came up with this idea and suggested it to the government, even drafted the letter that was eventually sent to the commerce department by the justice department about the
voting rights claim. but all along, the idea, the aclu says, was to get more precise data on citizenship which republican legislatures could use to more carefully draw voting boundary lines and disadvantage latinos, who more often vote for democrats. the justice department says the justice department official who the aclu says misled the trial court about this had never heard of this and that it played no role in the justice department's request to the commerce department. a couple of things are going to happen. the aclu called this to the attention to the supreme court, it heard the argument on the census issue in april. it's not clear how that is going to factor into the justices' decision. the case technically is closed and this sort of last minute evidence doesn't normally play a role. still, the justices will read it and who knows what effect it
will have on the supreme court's decision. there will be a hearing before the trial judge in new york, even though the case is on appeal, he still has jurisdiction if anybody misled him. lawyers for both sides will have to say whether or not in fact these government lawyers did testify honestly or whether they're testimony was misleading. that would be next wednesday in new york. >> pete, we don't yet know if the supreme court will take this new evidence into consideration. >> right. >> do we know, is there a direct link, besides him being a republican strategist, is there a direct link between his work and making its way to the census argument? >> so, well, the census argument to the supreme court, clearly in new york, the aclu says it played a role. they say, number one, the study was read by a commerce department adviser to wilbur ro ross, the secretary who proposed adding this question. they say the consultant played a role in drafting the language
that ultimately ended up in the justice department letter. the government officials who testified before the trial judge didn't bring any of this up, they said, no, no, they thought this up themselves. so that's the question up there. >> we'll see if we get an answer. pete, thank you so much. really, really important story. we're keeping an eye on markets. right now they are down. this story is going to continue to develop throughout the morning. now down 300 off the president's tweet threatening tariffs on our third largest trading partner, mexico. don't go anywhere, it's a busy morning. s a busy morning. 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
high protein. low sugar. tastes great! high protein. low sugar. so good! high protein. low sugar. mmmm, birthday cake! pure protein. the best combination for every fitness routine. you don't see psoriasis. you see clear skin. you see me. 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. get clear skin that can last. noso let's promote ourke summer travel deal on choicehotels.com like this: surf's up. earn a fifty-dollar gift card when you stay just twice this summer. or.. badda book. badda boom. book now at choicehotels.com you get the freedom of what 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.
♪ i want it that way... i can't believe it. that karl brought his karaoke machine? ♪ ain't nothing but a heartache... ♪ no, i can't believe how easy it was to save hundreds of dollars on my car insurance with geico. ♪ i never wanna hear you say... ♪ no, kevin... no, kevin! believe it! geico could save you fifteen percent or more on car insurance.
today we're highlighting a company that is disrupting the food industry forever changing the way you and i eat. in fact, cnbc named impossible foods one of its top 50 disrupters for 2019. the company behind the burger that everybody is talking about. it smells and cooks just like beef, but it's made from plants. the burger is being rolled out in fast food chains like burger king. eliminate the need for animals in the food system by 2035. i recently spoke to the ceo and founder of impossible foods, pat
brown, and after 25 years as a researcher at stanford's medical school, i asked him why he suddenly decided to enter the food industry. >> i decided the use of animals in food production was an absolute environmental catastrophe. this biodiversity collapse got me going and since nobody was trying to solve the problem. nobody really thought it was possible to completely replace that whole industry, i felt like, well, i mean, it's not my job, but, yeah, it is my job because no one else is doing it. so, that's what i did. as a scientist, i knew it was possible. i knew it wasn't easy, but i knew it was doable. >> wasn't impossible, hence the name. >> indeed. >> help us understand the difference. we know the toll it takes on the environment, animal food production. how different what you're doing is. i don't think people realize this is a climate change story. >> oh, absolutely.
so, the use of animals and food production is one of the greatest sources of greenhouse gas emissions in the world, probably second only to the power industry. the greenhouse gas emissions from our production process are about one ninth the greenhouse gas emissions involved in producing the same burger a product from a cow. >> the impossible burger is not a health food. >> well, it's not a health food. it's, i would say, by any reasonable measure healthier than what it replaces. so, if you are choosing to have a burger, you're better off choosing an impossible burger than one from a cow. lower saturated fat, zero cholesterol, no antibiotics, no hormones used in producing it, no slaughter house contaminants and so forth. so, if you're going to have a burger, you're better off choosing ours.
>> that was the ceo of impossible foods, pat brown. yes, that left me hungry, but, no, i'm not going to get a break any time soon. i'm sticking around with you for one more hour. we're going to be digging in further on the president's latest tariff threat. sca jared kushner in the middle east right now. we just got new reports that we could be waiting a bit longer for his peace plan. we'll explain that on the other side of the break. i'll talk about all of this and more with senator michael bennet from the state of colorado. this is the ocean.
we see two travelers so at a comfort innal with a glow around them, so people watching will be like, "wow, maybe i'll glow too if i book direct at choicehotels.com". who glows? just say, badda book. badda boom. book now at choicehotels.com 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. you never know what life is going to throw at you. [ whimpering ] and from this point on. nothing is going to be the same. [ "all these things that i've done" by the killers ] no, no, no. this way buddy. no! liam's heads for comforts is in the 80th percetile. oh that's cool. it's a lot of head. it's like you're the dad and i'm the mom and we're in a relationship and this is our baby. [ laughing ] well... it's exactly like that! exactly!
still here. i'm stephanie ruhle in for hallie jackson. a lot of news to cover this hour. the markets dropping after president trump tweeted the united states will impose tariffs on goods from mexico. we'll have that in a moment. but we must start this hour with attorney general bill barr speaking for the first time since robert mueller's surprise statement and barr is making major news responding to claims that he provided political cover for president trump. >> the response was that you were too soft on the president. that, actually, the special counsel is a little sharper on obstruction. >> just trying to state the bottom line. the bottom line was that bob mueller identified some episodes, he did not reach a conclusion. he