tv MSNBC Live With Velshi and Ruhle MSNBC May 31, 2019 10:00am-11:00am PDT
special coverage of the anniversary of normandy, the invasion of france. it will be an extraordinary day and week. and here is ali velshi from "velshi & ruhle." >> thank you. hello, everyone. stephanie is on assignment. stop the flow of migrants or feel the burden of tariffs, that's the message president trump is sending to mexico announcing on twitter on thursday night that on june 10th, the united states will impose a 5% tariff on all goods coming into our country from mexico unless that country stops the flow of undocumented immigrants, he went on to say, quote, the tariff will increase until the illegal immigration problem is solved. the president indicated that the threatened 5% tariff could rise to as high as 25% by october increasing prices for american consumers. markets reacted sharply overnight. right now the dow is down more than 1%. it's been relatively steady.
there was a bit of a gain earlier in the morning. but we're back down. we're not at session lows, but we're close to it. down 278 points. joining me now is bill griffith, and former chairman of the white house council of economic advisers. let me start with you, bill. the united states imports about $350 billion worth of goods from mexico like vehicles, machinery, fruit, vegetables. trade with mexico accounted for almost 14% of all u.s. imports in 2018. and this isn't a matter of things getting on a ship and getting off at an american port and going back, this is a supply chain that is interlinked between america and mexico. >> it is, and what does it mean? it has to mean higher prices here for u.s. consumers if
companies choose not to pass -- not to absorb those higher tariffs themselves. i'll give you two examples. general motors, almost half of the wildly popular trucks that they make come from mexico. that would be a lot for gm to absorb. beer, 75% of the beer that they make, comes from mexico. that would be a lot for that company to try and absorb that higher tariffs without passing the costs on. but eventually it could mean higher prices for consumers if in fact this does come out the way the president has said it's going to. >> kristin, we are hearing word that steve mnuchin and robert lighthizer were not in favor of doing this. did this all start with a tweet? >> there's a sense that this was
rushed. one official acknowledging that this was done on a very quick timeline and we have confirmed that there was a fair amount of division here behind the scenes about how to move forward and the extent to which folks on capitol hill and in mexico were briefed. what has the level of communication been? we asked sarah huckabee sanders earlier today if they gave mexico advanced warning. she said, look, we have given them plenty of warning over the past several months that we're not happy with what we're seeing at the border. the fact that you have these record numbers of migrants who are flowing across the border. the mexican foreign secretary speaking out saying that there will be talks between top mexican officials and u.s. officials and adding this, ali, the treatment of mexico is unfair and does not make economic sense to anyone. so a defiant posture from mexico about all of this, ali. >> let me tell you something
that peter navarro said. he was asked of the impact on americans. there's a message that seems to be coming out of the white house that is inconsistent with what people like you and bill tell us about who pays for these tariffs. let's play what peter navarro said. >> this is one of the most misunderstood aspects of the trump tariffs. china, for example, bears the burden of the tariffs in the form of lower exports, lower prices for their products, lower profits for their companies. the government of china has borne the burden of those tariffs -- >> so has the american consumer. importers pay for it. >> no, the government of china and mexico will pay for it. >> is there anything that peter navarro said there that made economic sense? >> no, did he start with, hello,
maybe that was accurate. look, people have -- this is not a random event. >> no. >> we have studied tariffs, economists have studied tariffs for decades and we've studied these tariffs, the ones that he was talking about. and 100% of the burden of those taxes -- and tariffs are taxes -- 100% of that burden was paid by the american consumer, the prices went up by the full amount of those tariffs. now, i think they're not actually going to do this with mexico. i think this is just the president trying to get people to stop talking about robert mueller and the things that -- the press conference and it's making the president look bad. this policy toward mexico is incredibly stupid. it's both a tax on american consumers of billions of dollars. it is also a direct tax on american manufacturing. the people who are the most opposed to this, who are looking
at each other saying, what are you talking about, are american automakers because the cars they're making in the united states employing thousands of americans have high parts content that's coming from mexico. and it's a tax on american car makers, not foreign car makers because more of our parts come from mexico than korean cars, japanese cars, et cetera this puts the um in dumb as they would say. >> there's been another effect to this and that is the currency, the mexican peso has dropped which offsets this. if something costs less against the dollar, then the fact there's a tariff on it might be mitigating. >> what's interesting, ali, the dollar index which represents the value of our currency against all the other major
currencies out there, the dollar is at its highest level this year. anything we send overseas is going to be more expensive. so, yes, the situation with mexico is their currency goes down. that makes their -- the -- it adjusts for the imports and it costs more when the tariffs go into effect. the dollar itself is at the highest level of the year and that makes it difficult for us to export statement. things are out of balance right now. >> christen, there's word that republicans want to pass the u.s. mexico canada agreement. this throws a bit of a wrench into this thing. >> it puts it into jeopardy. i spoke to one official who said our hope is that mexico will take swift action before the summer so we can move forward with usmca.
usmca is how president trump continued to insist that mexico would pay for the wall. it may be his best chance at getting one piece of legislation passed before he entered the real race for re-election. what we know is going to be a tough battle for re-election in 2020. this was the one thing that the white house thought, you know what, this is what we think we can get through congress. and now that is putting usmca in major jeopardy. >> thank you to the three of you for helping us kick the show off. we got breaking news in the midwest, thousands of acres of farmland are under water after a lev levee breach along the arkansas river. the ongoing flooding is pushing aging levees to their limit.
gabe is on the ground. what do we know about this emergency response and evacuations? >> this is a slow motion disaster. behind me is the arkansas river, but it should be nowhere near close to where i am. see that structure that is almost completely submerged, that is because the water is rising and just so you know where we're at, the levee breach is about eight miles in that direction. that levee breach happened around 11:00 a.m. this morning. to give you an idea of how deep this water is, look at the light post over there, that should be on dry land and it's really incredible that the water has risen this high. this is a situation that's unfolding here. management officials, they're urging residents not to panic. there's sandbagging going on, thankfully the levy breached
happened in rural areas. 100 homes are so, they urged them to evacuate. we don't have reports of injuries or anybody trapped in their homes. but they expect this to continue. it's not just arkansas that is having a problem. up and down the arkansas river but as well as the mississippi river, parts of missouri are facing flooding emergencies as well. the president has declared a federal -- as approved a federal disaster declaration for parts of arkansas. there has been flooding not here but in ft. smith, arkansas. the concern is what happens if this river continues to rise. we're here in the downtown area. emergency management officials just met in a meeting a few minutes ago and they're trying to figure out their next steps. >> we'll stay close to this story with you and other reporters who are reporting it. we're hearing from attorney general bill barr for the first time since former special
counsel robert mueller's surprise press conference. the attorney general talked about the investigation and his interpretation of its conclusion about whether the president obstructed justice. >> the response was that you were too soft on the president, that actually the special counsel was a little sharper on obstruction. >> i was trying to state the bottom line, and the bottom line was that bob mueller identified some episodes, he did not reach a conclusion, he provided both sides of the issue and he is -- his conclusion was he wasn't exonerating the president but he wasn't finding a crime either. >> joining me now is a former federal prosecutor. glen, the attorney general, i need help on what he said there. mueller -- he said the mueller report identified some episodes of potential obstruction but according to barr, there was no obstruction. tell me about the logical leaps
that bill barr seems to be making. >> we all need some help there. what a ridiculous ewe if aism. he laid out the evidence that supports each and every element of the offense of obstruction of justice by president trump and he did it over and over and over again. listen, he was engaged in political speak and his agenda is to support the president, not to be an honest attorney general on behalf of we the people. >> the former special counsel seemed to be indicating that he was acting more as a cop investigating a potential crime rather than a prosecutor building the case. reading between the lines, you might be able to say that robert mueller was saying, look, congress, i've given you the stuff to investigate, i've conducted the investigation, you need to move forward on this. the attorney general just doesn't seem to have that perspective on it. >> yeah, the attorney -- i think
my favorite part, i'm going to call it my favorite, of the statement that bill barr made, he said i'm disappointed that bob mueller didn't reach a conclusion on obstruction. think about it, once bill barr was confirmed as ag, he became bob mueller's supervisor. all he had to do is say, hey, bob, i know you wrote 448 pages, i would like you to add one more page and give me your conclusions. instead he didn't want to hear the conclusions. instead he waited for the report to come out and then he swooped in and tried to falsely exonerate the president. it's ridiculous that his boss would complain when his boss had the power to say, bob mueller, i would like your conclusions. in fact he still has that power. i don't know that bob has technically resigned yet. bill barr has been complaining that you didn't render a conclusion, what's your
conclusion? 1,000 former federal prosecutors have filled in the blank and it's an easy blank to fill in. the evidence supports that the president committed the offense of obstruction of justice many times over. >> so given the various roads that congress is going on about five separate investigations and then a discussion about impeachment proceedings or an impeachment inquiry, nancy pelosi seems to be resisting that, there seems to be growing calls among some democrats for doing that, what -- if congress said, what would you advice them to do, what path would you advise them to go down to fully examine or build the case against donald trump? >> i think there's only one viable option here. we already know that the president committed campaign finance violations by paying off playmates and porn stars. we then know that he welcomed
and accepted russia's help to, again, unfairly tilt the playing field in his favor. if we don't wrestle this monster to the ground now via an impeachment hearing, don't we think the president will be emboldened to lie, cheat and steal, maybe call in some of his new newly acquired friends, kim jong-un, vladimir putin, to tilt the field in his favor. the only option is to open impeachment hearings and wrestle this thing to the ground. >> thank you for joining me. i want to pick up that conversation, nancy pelosi is facing growing pressure to open impeachment hearings about president trump. nbc's jonathan alan writes, there are strong signs that the proimpeachment forces in the house are both larger than she portrays and growing. 52 members of the house are calling for trump's impeachment
since special counsel robert mueller spoke out clarifying that he could not exonerate the president from obstruction and had he had the evidence to do so, he would have done so. with me now political reporter jonathan alan. that number, a few days ago, i was reporting it was in the 30s. tell me what's going on and why speaker pelosi continues to downplay the calls for impeachment. >> i think a couple of things are at work here. it is growing. when nancy pelosi said the other day that it was 38, that was the number of people who had publicly called either for impeachment or for at least opening an inquiry. she spoke right after robert mueller had spoken. and in that time, the number has grown to 52. that's 14 additional members. if you look at it as a percentage, you're talking about a much larger percentage. what's interesting, it's really the tip of the iceberg. there's a lot of that iceberg that's still under the surface. what i mean by that is, there are a lot of members who have not come out because nancy
pelosi is asking them to hold back. a member said i'm holding back because of the leadership, but if there was a vote on the floor right now, i would vote to impeach the president. there are a lot of them who are agreeing with that. there is sort of growing sentiment since mueller came out that they're going to have to move toward impeachment. >> is nancy pelosi an island on this one, or does she represent broad view, that for a lot of reasons, some which may be entirely political and related to how this will affect democrats' prospects in 2020, is she an island or what is sort of the -- what's the prevailing thinking about is impeachment good or bad for democrats? >> she's not at all an island on this. she certainly has a good number of members and it's hard to tell where exactly the majority lies
on this. but there are a number of members who are wondering if it's the right thing to do. i think one of the things that's happening thousand is after mueller came out and spoke to his report, of course, most americans didn't read the 448-page report. a lot more of them saw him speak. you got a situation where he's said publicly he wasn't able to exonerate the president. attorney general william barr went on cbs. we heard the tapes earlier today. he said many of the instances in his mind didn't constitute obstruction. i think one of the big questions for congress, if they could get barr to appear, would be which of the instances did constitute obstruction. >> many didn't, which did? >> right. i think you're getting to a point now where it looks more and more political for them not to move in that direction if they think that the mueller
report actually included instances of obstruction of justice. they're making the calculation it's just bad politics for them to move forward. i think pelosi doesn't want to run into a wall of the senate voting no on removal and certainly doesn't want to lose her house majority. >> always good to see you. jonathan alan, nbc national political reporter. former special counsel robert mueller says he doesn't want to testify before congress about his report. will the house judiciary committee be forced to subpoena him. we're going to ask democratic committee member next. you're watching "velshi & ruhle" live on msnbc. corey is living with metastatic breast cancer, which is breast cancer that has spread to other parts of her body. she's also taking ibrance with an aromatase inhibitor, which is for postmenopausal women or for men with hr+ / her2- metastatic breast cancer as the first hormonal based therapy.
ibrance plus letrozole was significantly more effective at delaying disease progression versus letrozole. patients taking ibrance can develop low white blood cell counts, which may cause serious infections that can lead to death. before taking ibrance, tell your doctor if you have fever, chills, or other signs of infection, liver or kidney problems, are pregnant, breastfeeding, or plan to become pregnant. common side effects include low red blood cell and low platelet counts, infections, tiredness, nausea, sore mouth, abnormalities in liver blood tests, diarrhea, hair thinning or loss, vomiting, rash, and loss of appetite. corey calls it her new normal because a lot has changed, but a lot hasn't. ask your doctor about ibrance. the #1 prescribed fda-approved oral combination treatment for hr+/her2- mbc.
oral combination treatment be go[ laughing ] gone. woo hoo. ♪ welcome to my house mmm, mmm, mmmmm. ball. ball. ball. awww, who's a good boy? it's me. me, me, me. yuck, that's gross. you got to get that under control. [ dogs howling ] seriously? embrace the mischief. say "get pets tickets" into your x1 voice remote to see it in theaters.
welcome back to "velshi & ruhle." it's been a big week in washington. president trump is set to impose new tariffs on mexico meant to pressure mexico. bill barr speaking out after robert mueller's first public statement. democratic congresswoman zoe lofgren is with me from california. she sits on the house judiciary committee. i'm going to get so that second part in a second. i want to start with mexico and tariffs. tariffs in general. but some republicans are rebuking the president's threat. iowa senator chuck grassley said trade policy and border security are separate issues. this is a misuse of the president's tariff authority. do you agree with chuck grassley? is this something the president has overstepped on and what are
you going to do about it? >> well, when i heard the news this morning, i was stunned. i thought what is this authority to do this? and when i learned it was a 40-year-old bill, i thought the president's idea of an emergency is something he wants to do without the legal authority, just as he did with the wall and now the courts have stopped him. i think this is very questionable legally. it's not -- he doesn't have a lot of respect for the democratic system of government and the rule of law here and i'm glad to hear that senator grassley is also calling him on this. >> i want to talk to you about attorney general bill barr and the comments he made addressing the role of congress. he said the department of justice doesn't use our powers of investigating crimes as an adjunct to congress. now, that sort of contradicts what we've been hearing from
robert mueller and pretty much every lawyer who knows about this. robert mueller said that his report is his testimony and congress should consult him. what's your sense of what congress should do now? >> what we are doing, we have subpoenaed the underlying documents that support the mueller report and we have subpoenaed a number of fact witnesses which is what we need to do. we have the mueller report which we appreciate, but we don't actually have the evidence. i worked on both the nixon impeachment as a staffer and the clinton impeachment as a member of the judiciary committee. in both cases the committees examined actually evidence, not just a report. we're in that process now of securing the evidence. we have to go to court because our subpoenas have not been answered properly. and there's really nothing more we can do other than what we are doing. >> or start impeachment hearings? >> well, we'd still have to have
subpoenas, evidence, and go to court. that would change nothing. >> do you think your committee is in a position to or wants to to continue to go after testimony from both barr and mueller? >> well, personally i think barr has proven himself to be not very honest and kind of a spin master. i'm very less interested personally in hearing from him. we have expressed an interest in hearing from mr. mueller and i know there are ongoing discussions with him. so we will see how that turns out. >> you mentioned that you were a staffer during the nixon years and a house member during the clinton impeachment. let's talk about this. i was talking to jonathan alan about this. on wednesday, nancy pelosi said there are about 38 people in favor of starting impeachment proceedings or hearings at least. that number is up to 52 according to nbc's count. there's a growing movement and according to jonathan alan, he said he's spoken to members of
congress who said if there was a vote to start hearings, they'd go for it. they're not saying so publicly out of deference for nancy pelosi. you're a veteran here. tell me what your sense is of what's going on here. because there are some people who think nancy pelosi is standing in the way of something that democrats want to happen. >> i think there's a lot of hyperventilating going on about what the quest for evidence is, whether you call it the "i" word or not, we have to get the evidence. we've issued subpoenas, we've gone to court to enforce them. we have to do that no matter what you call it. and so i do think it's important to focus on our quest for collection of evidence and then we'll see what we need to do next. i think many members of congress and many members of the public are frustrated and concerned about the president's behavior.
i'm not impressed by much of what he's done. but that doesn't change the fact we have to gain evidence, we have to go through this process which is what the judiciary committee is doing right now. >> zoe lofgren, thank you for joining me. zoe lofgren, on the judiciary committee. in a matter of hours, missouri's last remaining abortion clinic could be performing its last operation. you're watching "velshi & ruhle" live on msnbc. [ alarm beeping ] 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 what would you like the power to do?® that's why with dell small business technology advisors. you'll get tailored product solutions, expert tech advice and one-on-one partnership. call an advisor today at 877-buy-dell. ♪
welcome back to "velshi & ruhle." hours remain for a judge to decide the fate of missouri's last abortion clinic. if he doesn't approve planned parenthood's request, the license will expire at midnight. if the st. louis clinic closes, it would been the first time the state has been without an abortion clinic since roe v. wa wade. we do not have an update on what the outcome of this will be? >> the judge can release his decision any moment now.
we're waiting here. there are some prolife advocates out here in front of the entrance to the clinic. we stopped to the staff and the words they're using are fear and anxiety. those are the things they're filling right now. what's happening here is patients are bumping up their schedules, trying to get in under that deadline. in less than 12 hours, if the judge doesn't rule if their favor they'll lose their license to provide abortions. women will then need to go to other states to get those services. >> according to planned parenthood, if the clinic wants to continue providing abortions, the missouri health department requires them to do a number of things. do we know what to are? >> what the judge called yesterday in the hearings sticking points meaning things during the investigation by the state department of health and senior services that they said they couldn't renew their licenses because of these, one was because of expiration of a
hand sanitizer bottle. they're going to find things wrong, things that are correctable on the site like that. but the other sticking points, there were patient complaints. it came out that those patient complaints did not exist. the second one were interviews by three physicians that they said they need to have before they can renew the licenses. they're all residents or fellows who are in training. they're not employees of planned parenthood. >> so the issue here, john, is that in a lot of cases with a lot of these laws that are passing, while the goal is to ban abortion or make abortion inaccessible, the strategy seems to be to chip away at things to make it harder to get an abortion or to prevent the ability of clinics to meet a standard that would allow them to stay open? >> and what planned parenthood
is saying is that the states are actually weaponizing these regulations and weaponizing these rules in order to try and shut them down and get a decision overall. they're coming out with these decisions that are restricting abortions which means women are going to have to be going to other areas. i talked to the medical director. i said if they're made illegal, i said does that make abortion illegal, and he said absolutely not. >> there are more questions over the citizenship question on the 2020 consensus and it stems from something found in the home of a republican strategist who recently passed away. you're watching "velshi & ruhle" live on msnbc. with va connect, powered by t-mobile, vets can speak to their doctors from virtually anywhere,
and get the care they deserve, without it counting against their data, so they can return to their most important post. soulmate, best friend, or just dad. the va provides the care, t-mobile provides the coverage. my time is thin, but so is my lawn. now there's scotts thick'r lawn 3-in-1 solution. with a soil improver! seed! and fertilizer to feed! now yard time is our time. this is a scotts yard.
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. "fine. no one leaves the table "fine! we'll sleep here."." "it's the easiest, because it's the cheesiest" kraft. for the win win. who used expedia to book the vacation rental which led to the discovery that sometimes a little down time can lift you right up. expedia. everything you need to go. expedia. - anncr: as you grow older, -your brain naturally begins to change which may cause trouble with recall. - learning from him is great... when i can keep up! - anncr: thankfully, prevagen helps your brain
and improves memory. - dad's got all the answers. - anncr: prevagen is now the number-one-selling brain health supplement in drug stores nationwide. - she outsmarts me every single time. - checkmate! you wanna play again? - anncr: prevagen. healthier brain. better life. the supreme court is hearing a case on the citizenship question, should the 2020 census include it. new evidence has emerged against the plan to do so. but that evidence may not matter. before i get to that part, why it matters or not, let's look at the census and why that matters. the constitution requires a census be taken every ten years, starting in 1790. the form has included questions relating to citizenship in the past but a georgetown law journal has found there's no
historical precedent for the trump administration's version of the question. according to "the washington post," a survey found if a question were added to the census, up to 10% of the population would likely not respond. a 6% decrease in noncitizen participation with the question, unfortunately since the article was written, that analysis is no longer available online. that would result in more than 32 million people uncounted under the analysis. more than 19 million people would be uncounted under the sense bureau analysis and all of this races big issues. it's used to determination reputation in congress. lower response rates without have all the representatives they're entitled to. federal funding for things like head start, medicare, snap, highway funding, social security forecasts, even wellness
programs, health studies, these studies require the most accurate population data. not citizenship data. think about a measles outbreak, do you care whether it's citizens who have it or noncitizens or do you want to know how many people have it. the "new york times" is shedding light on why they're pushing for this question in the first place. when the man died in 2018. his daughter was given 18 thumb drives of his laptop. among the data was a draft study on how adding a citizenship question to the census could help republicans gerrymander districts in their own favor. the case is interesting, the story is really interesting, but the bottom line, this case is
already before the supreme court, what happens next? joining me to talk about that is justice correspondent pete williams. pete, this is what most people like me would say is new evidence, except the supreme court has heard the arguments in this case already. >> that's right. the case was argued april 23rd and there's no formal mechanism for reopening the case. what happened is the aclu notified a -- the district judge that heard this case in new york and directed the census bureau not to add the question. that's the case that's on appeal to the supreme court. the aclu notified the judge and said even though the supreme court has the case, you have jurisdiction if anyone mislead the court. we want there to be a hearing on whether two government officials misled the court by denying this research had any role in the letter that ultimately came from the justice department or the commerce department asking for
this data saying it would help the government administer the data. that was filed in the district court yesterday. they sent a copy of that report to the supreme court with a letter saying here's what we filed. thought you ought to know this. they're saying the allegations are baseless. they're saying the government officials who drafted the letter had never heard of thomas's research. it played no role in their request and they'll respond more fully on monday as directed by the judge in new york. >> this guy whose computer this was found on, was known in political circles. >> he definitely has had a role in helping republicans use citizenship data and engineer gerrymanders to help republicans get elected. he did this study saying if you got more reprice data,
citizenship voting data, you could do this even better. the aclu says the evidence showed this did play a role, that a commerce department person advising secretary ross was well aware of this, and so was the justice department. but the government is saying, no, i didn't play a role. that's -- the government, by the way, has not responded in the supreme court. it will probably do what part aclu did which is respond to the judge in new york's request for a response from the government and then send that to the supreme court as well. what role that's going to play in the supreme court, as a purely technical matter, they're not supposed to look at evidence outside the record, and the record is what went through the lower courts. but these things sometime come in. they're human, they'll probably read it and be aware of it. whether it should play a role or not is a difficult question. >> thank you for your reporting. pete williams in washington.
former vice president joe biden is at the top of the polls. is that going to last. the latest on where the candidates stand. you are watching "velshi & ruhle" live on msnbc. it. wintix 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. 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.
ruhle." around 20 presidential candidates are struggling to set themselves apart as the march to 2020 continues, we're going to check in to see how the candidates are fairing in the polls. understanding that it is really early yet, but let's see where they are, joining me now nbc news national political correspondent. what's it looking like? >> this is the average of all the polls that are out there right now. real clear politics has been tracking this. as this kind of month ends and the month of may, the first monthly check-in, i think the two big stories from the past month, biden getting in the race and separating himself from the pack. you see him in the mid 30s there. biden gets in, surges, creates some distance. the other is the jostling underneath there to try to get in that second and third position. i think you've seen in the last couple of weeks some movement
from elizabeth warren. you see her hitting double digits in the average right now. within six of sanders. there's been some positive moment for warren. it's and also buttigieg. remember a month ago at this time, buttigieg starting to move up, maybe getting to double digits, looks like warren might be eating a bit into the base that buttigieg had started to establish. that's sort of the movement we have seen in the last month. we will see what the next month brings. the other thing is we have been talking a lot. there's been some divides have emerged. one story behind biden's strength has been his performance with black voters in the polls. he has been doing better with black voters than white voters. 44% support for biden. college and noncollege. black voters and white voters, there he is at 38%. college, noncollege divide. we can put them both on the
screen. not a huge difference for biden. you see warren doing better, she might be taking a bit from the buttigieg base, the strength with college educated white voters, warren doing better there than noncollegy, that might be one of the reasons it's possible she's sort of stolen a bit of his thunder in the last month. >> steve kornacki, we're waiting to see which of these 20 some candidates officially qualify for the debates. >> that's the other question, here's the big one. 23 candidates up on the screen here. there's some debate, there's a 24th potentially, mike, we don't have him on here, there's teenagers that run his twitter account. 23 candidates. the rules say two nights, ten candidates max. not all of these candidates are going to get on the stage. the ones who look like they are in the most danger right now of missing, let me see if i can find them, wayne messum, a mayor
from a small city in florida, seth moulton, a congressman from massachusetts, michael bennet, one of the late editions, senator from chicago. maybe de blasio. these four seem to be in the most danger right now of missing that cut. there's these basic thresholds you have to meet when it comes to fundraising and or polling. if more than 20 make that, then they go to this polling average formula, and again, these candidates for various reasons seem to be the ones who would be most in danger of missing that cut and not making the stage. a lot of others who you don't see circled here, if you haven't heard much about them, you'll probably see them on the stage. >> the first debate in a crowded field could make a lot of difference. that's a place where you're first going to hear these people in a structured environment. >> and that is what all of the names here, there's the ones that get all the attention, forget them for a minute. the ones who don't get a lot of attention, think of andrew yang,
they are dreaming of that moment on that stage, where if they can get one question and hit it out of the park and it's all over social media, pete buttigieg, he had one really good town hall, changed his fortunes, why can't it be me at this debate. >> it's going to be exciting to watch. we're about a month away from the first debates on msnbc and nbc. thank you, steve. following the democratic contenders for the first democratic debate of the 2020 election, and it will be, in fact, msnbc, nbc and telemundo. not looking good for jared kushner's middle east plan. palestinian leader said it can quote go to hell. that's next. you're watching velshi and ruhle on msnbc. g velshi and ruhle on msnbc
moving? that's harder now because of psoriatic arthritis. but you're still moved by moments like this. don't let psoriatic arthritis take them away. taltz reduces joint pain and stiffness and helps stop the progression of joint damage. for people with moderate to severe psoriasis, 90% saw significant improvement.
taltz even gives you a chance at completely clear skin. don't use if you're allergic to taltz. before starting, you should be checked for tuberculosis. taltz may increase risk of infections and lower your ability to fight them. tell your doctor if you have an infection, symptoms, or received a vaccine or plan to. inflammatory bowel disease can happen with taltz, including worsening of symptoms. serious allergic reactions can occur. for all the things that move you. ask your doctor about taltz. ...when a plan stops being a plan and gets set into motion. today's merrill can help you get there
yuck, that's gross. you got to get that under control. [ dogs howling ] seriously? embrace the mischief. say "get pets tickets" into your x1 voice remote to see it in theaters. welcome back to velshi and ruhle, jared kushner is in the middle east rallying for his peace plan. palestinian leader delivered a blistering speech calling for arab resistance to the peace plan. the trump administration has not shared the plan with palestinians. the "wall street journal" is reporting today that the rollout of the plan is delayed possibly until after the unexpected new israeli election in september. matt bradley is in saudi arabia where arab and muslim leaders are meeting this week in a series of meetings. reporting that palestinian
president mahmoud said the peace plan can go to hell. is there any likelihood they will be involved because they haven't been involved so far. >> just down the stream where i am in jetta, he said something similar, he said he absolutely rejects this plan, and you know, if the trump administration had been planning to consult the palestinians now might be the time since they're planning on rolling out at least the economic portion of this in late june in bahrain. you mentioned this is going to be delayed. that economic portion is still going to be announced. that's still on schedule, the trump administration as negotiators have in the past this they can dangle that carrot in front of the palestinians even if that means compromising land and a lot of their independence, so it's hard to see how that's going to pan out and the recent history of the conflict shows that it probably won't. >> and of course we're running pictures right now of jared
kushner with benjamin netanyahu. he landed in jerusalem just as the decision was made to dissolve the government, the parliament in israel and hold new elections. there's a two part plan, and the first part you said is economic. there's going to be incentives to other countries, generally speaking arab countries to support the plan. >> that's right. that's the idea. there's that economic plan that's going to be released in bahrain. the political plan is going to land with a massive thud. we don't know what it looks like. we know so far it's only had israeli input and other input from some of the neighboring arab countries but a lot of people in this region aren't expecting anything good and they're not expecting the palestinians to support it, and a lot of this delay goes back to domestic israeli politics so they're going to have to have a new election, and so the negotiations may continue. >> matt bradley t thank you for your reporting, and thank you for watching velshi and ruhle. stephanie is back at monday at
9:00 a.m. eastern. >> i don't know how you do it my friend. hello, i'm chris jansing, it's 11:00 a.m. out west, 2:00 p.m. in washington. where in light of mounting evidence, there are serious allegations out there that the trump administration may be trying to rig the u.s. census. how? by adding a citizenship test, purely as a tool to gain partisanship advantage. they are mandated by the constitution every ten years andand what's at stake is enormous. that is how we draw legislative districts, how we allocate federal funds and how we decide where to build new schools. so why exactly does the trump administration want to add a citizenship question to the census, well, officially, the justification from the white house is that it's to make the survey more accurate. but a new court filing from the aclu argues that the real justification is n