tv Hardball With Chris Matthews MSNBC July 11, 2019 4:00pm-5:00pm PDT
because tomorrow belongs to those who welcome it with open arms. citi. welcome what's next that does it for "the beat." "hardball" starts now. the president caves. let's play "hardball." good evening. i'm steve kornacki in for chris matthews. ever since the days of his presidency, donald trump and his administration have sought to put the question of citizenship on the u.s. census. and today, after a hard fought battle that eventually reached the supreme court, president trump announced he was standing down. but as a face-saving alternative, the president rolled out a new executive
order. he says the citizenship question will not appear on the census form that is sent out to every american household, but that he'll still gather the citizenship data that he wants. here is how he put it. >> i am hereby ordering every department and agency in the federal government to provide the department of commerce with all requested records regarding the number of citizens and noncitizens in our country. they must furnish all legally accessible records in their possession immediately. >> now the problem is according to expert, trump's executive order mirrors what the federal government already does and is able to do when it comes to that kind of data. trump also blamed those who opposed him in his census fight launching some pointed attacks on democrats. >> are you a citizen of the united states of america? oh, gee, i'm sorry, i just can't answer that question, and that's
after spending billions and billions of dollars. there used to be a time when you could answer questions like that very easily. there used to be a time when you could proudly declare i am a citizen of the united states. now they're trying to erase the very existence of a very important word and a very important thing, citizenship. far left democrats in our country are determined to conceal the number of illegal aliens in our midst. they probably know the number is far greater, much higher than anyone would have ever believed before. maybe that's why they fight so hard. this is part of a broader left-wing effort to erode the rights of the american citizen, and it's very unfair to our country. >> now this comes just two weeks after the supreme court rebuffed the president, rejecting the argument that a citizenship question is necessary to protect
voting rights. in fact, the ruling stated that the administration's rationale seems to have been contrived, in other words saying they basically made it up. trump's announcement from the rose garden will likely come as a relief to those who oppose the inclusion of a citizenship question on the census. trump's concession averts some of the consequences many had feared, mainly, that undocumented immigrants would be discouraged from participating in the count. an inaccurate census could have a big impact on congressional representation, on appropriations of federal funds, even on the electoral college itself. but while the president is backing down on one front, he is also gearing up on another. today nbc news reported the president's long anticipated deportation rates are now set to begin this sunday. those raids will target about 2,000 families in ten major cities across the united states. for more, i'm joined by democratic congresswoman barbara lee of california, susan page is
washington bureau chief for usa today and glen kirschner is a former federal prosecutor. thanks to all of you for being with us. susan, let me start with you. the president and his attorney general for this matter at this press conference today very clearly did not want this to look like he was backing down, but this is a president who was saying he was going to fight through the courts to get this question on the census next year. he now says that's not going to happen. and what he says is going to happen instead, basically all these agencies, all these departments coordinating is something that the census bureau had already recommended as an alternative to putting this on the census next year. >> so just saying it's not a cave does not make it not a cave. just the attorney general saying congratulations, mr. president, does not make it a congratulatory moment. and the executive order is not at all clear that it's necessary to have a new executive order to give publicly available data from federal agencies to the commerce department that would seem to be something that would be easy to do. and in fact, as you noted, the government already calculates the number of illegal immigrants
and the number of noncitizens who live in this country, and they've done that for some time. >> glen, on that point, what the president was saying today is going to happen, and what he said the official purpose of this press conference and what barr was saying congratulations for was this plan he is saying to get all the departments, to get all the agencies coordinating, as susan says, and as pete williams has reported here on nbc msnbc. that's something the government is capable of and already does. is there an executive order here with a purpose? >> it doesn't seem so. as susan said, this is not a congratulatory event. this is bill barr spiking the football, even though the other team scored the touchdown. i do think that maybe the best news of the day is we've avoided a constitutional crisis. maybe the worst news of the day is that we've avoided a constitutional crisis. the reason i say that is because it does seem like president trump since the day he was
inaugurated has been marching towards, perhaps goose-stepping toward a constitutional crisis. an because it seems like the republicans in congress seem unwilling to stand up to him for any other transgression, i only wonder would they stand up to that. >> where would this have gone to a constitutional crisis? how do you define that here? and where was that point? >> i think a true constitutional crisis, we use that term a lot, is when the supreme court announces the law of the land, ie, administration. president trump, that is unlawful. and president trump does it anyway. that's a constitutional crisis because there is no one above the supreme court to address that lawlessness that contravenes the supreme court's ruling. >> well, the attorney general bill barr, we've been talking about him. he actually went further than the president. he said the justice department will look into whether only citizens should be considered when apportioning the number of representatives and electoral votes each state should receive.
>> there is a current dispute over whether illegal aliens can be included for apportionment purposes. depending on the resolution of that dispute, this data may be relevant to those considerations. we will be studying this issue. >> however, as nbc news noted earlier today, the constitution bases that apportionment on the census, which counts persons, not citizens. congresswoman lee, let me go to you on that. because i think that moment at the event in the rose garden caught a lot of people by surprise, and they're trying to interpret that. how do you interpret what the attorney general is saying there? is he teeing up broader legal fight about how to count people who actually should be counted in the census when it comes to apportionment? >> really lloyd out exactly what their motivation has been all along, and that has been to make
sure that the count in the census is reduced, targeting, of course, people of color, intimidating and trying to scare people of color from filling out the proper census forms. i think they're doing this for political reasons. we have redistricting coming up. and of course they want fewer people who would more than likely vote as democrats. so i think from day one, that's been their motivation. and i think it's really an attack on our democracy. it's an attack on our constitution. and this president is showing us once again who he really is. and so i'm certain that when we begin to look at the lawsuits, if in fact they move ahead on that, people will really realize who they are, what they're up to. remember now, the census determines the funding for schools, for hospitals for, roads. and so we have to make sure we have an accurate count so that
the most vulnerable people receive the type of services and benefits that the constitution requires. >> so the argument, though, against the citizenship question that you're making there and folks on your side have been making, one of the arguments has been it will not end up leading to an accurate count for the reasons you're saying. there is not going to be a citizenship question now. we know that. it's unclear if this executive order the president is announcing today is going to change much in terms of what the government is already doing. but do you think by having such a public fight over this, and the president and his attorney general talking the way they did today, is that going to have any effect do you think on who does and doesn't ultimately answer the census next year? >> well, i think the public fight, if he throws down like he is trying to do, then we have to have that public fight, because this president cannot violate the constitution. and when you look at what he's trying to do, and when you look at how he is trying to -- now that he lost in the courts
because this is -- he is a lawless president, quite frankly, and their administration is acting in a lawless way, this public fight will put the debate out front so that everyone will know what they're up to. an in fact, it really is an attack on our democracy and the census is extremely important for many, many reasons, including what i just said, in terms of building hospitals, for schools, for roads, and for every other public service that the most vulnerable communities need. and so if he wants to fight, our lawyers are ready for the fight. >> so you know, this public fight may have this unintended consequence -- or maybe it's an intended consequence which is to make illegal immigrants and also even immigrants who are here legally skittish about participating in the census. i think if you're nervous about your status, or if there is somebody in your household who is here in an undocumented way, even if you're here legally, it could make you suspicious about doing anything with the government that you don't trust.
so it could contribute to an undercount even without having the census question on the document. >> sure. even people now are already skittish. i know for a fact in my district, people are worried, quite frankly. once this proposal to put this question on the census forms came forward, people got worried. they're afraid right now. and so, yes, the chilling effect is happening as we speak. and so it's going to be up to us to try to make sure we communicate the realities of what the protections are of the constitution and why members of congress, quite frankly, especially democrats, are going to fight to make sure that they have the opportunity to fill out these forms without the intimidation, and without the bullying of this white house. >> susan, just one other thing quickly on this that caught me, and i want to run by you. we did not hear from wilbur ross, the commerce secretary. he was there. he didn't speak. both the president and the attorney general went out of their way to say hey, the
supreme court told us we could do this. we could ask the citizenship question. they just didn't like the argument from the commerce department. it sounded like they were serving up wilbur ross. he didn't speak. is his standing in the administration -- we talked so much about acosta this week. is there any question about ross? >> i think so. there have been various problems with various questions about ross in the past. you heard both the president and the attorney general basically blame the commerce department for making the wrong argument, for not laying the groundwork so you could resolve this in a legal way. because of the argument they made that they then had to back off, that is what attorney general barr said was the reason the question didn't make it on the census. we don't know that for a fact. well don't know that a different argument would have prevailed, but we know that the argument they made didn't. >> meanwhile, "the new york times" reporting that those deportation raids that will take place this weekend will include lateral deportations where, quote, the authorities might detain immigrants who happen to be on the scene, even though they were not targets of the
raids. today democrats on the hill blasted this plan. >> lateral means kids being left. it means moms, dads, families being torn apart. it is absolutely disgusting. >> the president is proceeding with what i would call his terrorizing of the immigrant communities. >> this is fundamentally unfair. it has nothing to do with the security and safety of the united states. >> i'm going to appeal to the people of faith, the faith-based organizations to appeal to the president. >> glenn, the president walked up to the line with this before a couple of weeks before and backed off. 2,000 families, ten cities, something along those lines. what is the purpose of telegraphing it this way in public days ahead of time? is there a purpose to that? >> the purpose has got to be to whip up his baise. hate is a powerful motivator and unifier, and it's red meat for some people. so you wonder what is really
being accomplished beyond what i would say is a misguided sort of pr benefit. >> does it serve in terms of executing these raids? does it serve a legal purpose? does it serve an administrative, a procedural purpose putting it out there ahead of time this is going to happen? >> zero. in fact, it could have the effect of endangering the public servants who are apparently going to be mobilized, the law enforcement officials to go out and carry out this nonsensical plan. that's one reason before we at law enforcement execute search warrants. we don't announce it. you want to minimize the risk to people. i'm not saying this is a good idea, but what i am saying is it's a bad idea for all reasons. >> congressman, you mentioned again, we saw the president kind of walk up to the line with this a few weeks ago, then call it off. i think it was on twitter on a saturday night. what are your expectations? do you think he is actually going forward with it this time or you think he'll be talked down from it? >> you never know what this president will do from hour to
hour, but i have to tell you one thing. using law enforcement, using i.c.e. agents to round up children and babies and mothers and fathers is unamerican. and so in my community, like in many communities around the country, we're making sure that we protect our immigrant community, and we're going to push back on any of these raids to take place. it's outrageous. and this president from moment to moment, you know, shows that he is totally -- this effort to demonize immigrants is awful. it's unamerican, and i hope the public understands that this is catering to his base. this is trying to get more votes for his reelection. but i think what's going to happen is he's going to lose more votes because people are seeing how he has come after and allowed family separation at the borders, has allowed the abuse
of children and women. i mean, this policy of this trump administration on immigration is downright inhumane and unamerican. >> susan, quickly, is there a politically a relationship here that today trump backed down on the citizenship question on the census and then sort of tees this up in a way? >> well, it is his fundamental issue, right. it's the issue that's animated him since he announced he was going to run for president. it did have one extraordinary effect today which is the speaker of the house, second in line of succession to the presidency reading to america the rules that i.c.e. agents have to follow, telling immigrants that if they don't have a judicial warrant signed by a judge, you don't have to let them into your house. basically trying to urge immigrants who may be part of this roundup what legal tools they can use to avoid being taken, which i thought was pretty remarkable. >> we had not seen that certainly in a while. susan page, glenn kirschner, congresswoman barbara lee from california, thank you all for joining us. coming up, lawyers for
jeffrey epstein say the accused sex trafficker is entitled to bail. meanwhile, the labor secretary is getting slammed for his explanation of the sweetheart deal for epstein. how long will trump continue to back alex acosta. plus, breaking news. brand-new nbc polling numbers just released. the state of the 2020 democratic race. somebody is down. somebody is up. a lot to talk about. t. :00. house democratic caucus woman alexandria ocasio-cortez calling speaker nancy pelosi outright disrespectful, while pelosi tells democrats to stop tweeting their complaints. how big of a problem is this divide for democrats? there is as i said much more ahead, so please stay with us. s. chocolate would be good... snacking should be sweet and simple. the delicious taste of glucerna gives you the sweetness you crave while helping you manage your blood sugar.
glucerna. everyday progress ♪ mmm, exactly!ug liberty mutual customizes your car insurance, so you only pay for what you need. nice! but uh, what's up with your partner? oh! we just spend all day telling everyone how we customize car insurance because no two people are alike, so... limu gets a little confused when he sees another bird that looks exactly like him. ya... he'll figure it out. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ stand up to chronic migraine with botox®. what if you had fewer headaches and migraines a month? botox® prevents headaches and migraines before they even start. botox® is for adults with chronic migraine, 15 or more headache days a month, each lasting 4 hours or more. botox® injections take about 15 minutes in your doctor's office and are covered by most insurance. effects of botox® may spread hours to weeks after injection
causing serious symptoms. alert your doctor right away, as difficulty swallowing, speaking, breathing, eye problems, or muscle weakness can be signs of a life- threatening condition. side effects may include allergic reactions, neck and injection site pain, fatigue, and headache. don't receive botox® if there's a skin infection. tell your doctor your medical history, muscle or nerve conditions, and medications, including botulinum toxins, as these may increase the risk of serious side effects. with the botox® savings program, most people with commercial insurance pay nothing out of pocket. talk to your doctor and visit botoxchronicmigraine.com to enroll. that's ensure max protein, with high protein and 1 gram sugar. it's a sit-up, banana! bend at the waist! i'm tryin'! keep it up. you'll get there. whoa-hoa-hoa! 30 grams of protein, and one gram of sugar. ensure max protein.
wanna take your xfi now you can with xfi advantage. giving you enhanced performance and protection. when devices are connected to your home's wifi, they're protected. helping keep outsiders from getting inside. and if someone tries, we'll let you know. so you can stream, surf and game all you want, with confidence you can get coverage where you need it most. that's xfi advantage. make your xfi even better. upgrade today. call, click or visit a store. welcome back to "hardball."
it's now been more than 24 hours since president trump's labor secretary alex acosta made a public appeal to save his job. his comments did little to quiet the chorus of voices, though, calling for his resignation for his role in cutting a lenient deal for sex offender jeffrey epstein more than a decade ago. a trump insider tells axios, quote, acosta did little to help himself, and remains in a tough and shaky position. acosta, who was pushed by the president to hold the news conference, blamed a state attorney for the circumstances and told reporters it was the best deal he could get. >> the grand jury convened by the state attorney, the district attorney of palm beach county reviewed the evidence and recommended a single charge, and that charge would have resulted in no jail time at all. no registration as a sexual offender, and no restitution to the victim. without the work of our prosecutors, epstein would have gotten away with just that state
charge. >> yesterday the former palm beach county state attorney called acosta's account completely wrong. the number of former federal prosecutors didn't agree with acosta's arguments either. let's watch. >> if he had really wanted to swoop in and save the day, it sounds like there was a 53-page indictment that his office had drafted, why not go forward with those charges? >> if they didn't feel they had the quantum of proof they needed, they simply could have continued the investigation until they did. there was no sort of time stamp on this. there was no urgency to negotiate a nonpros agreement. >> you're part of the department of justice. if you really feel like you're being overcome, overpowered, then you have the resources of the government, and your role is to stand up for the victims and resist that. and everything here about this just is what people are disgusted with about the justice system. >> and a lawyer for a 14-year-old girl who was the first to come forward to florida
police about allegations involving epstein told "the washington post," quote, mr. acosta's office did not take this matter seriously back in 2008, and still refuses to accept responsibility for his failed leadership, which led to a sweetheart deal for a pedophile. "new york times" is reporting that acosta has, quote, privately reached out the political allies for help handling the public relations debacle, and inquired about potential post government work should he be forced out. for more i'm joined by jonathan lemire and mimi roque car, former assistant u.s. attorney in the southern district of new york. john, you're at the white house. let me start with you, because that's where all the questions are right now when it comes to the future of alex acosta. does he have a future in this administration? we show that reporting from axios. apparently the president not yet convinced. what will it take one way or the other for the president to come to coop collusion on this? and when do you expect to know? >> right. the secretary's future is still
very much in doubt at this moment. he was urged by the president to hold that news conference yesterday. it has done little to quiet his critics, certainly by democrats, but also those in the law enforcement community. it remains to be seen what the president himself thinks. white house aides conveyed to secretary acosta that he did well. white house aides told president trump that the secretary did well. the president himself has yet to weigh in. our reporting suggests that he wasn't particularly impressed yesterday, but also not -- did not necessarily think that it was the end of the secretary necessarily either. we did see that he took his cues from the president there. no apology. that's a haul mark of the trump administration. acosta did not say he was sorry at all including to the victims. but he also lacked the fire that now justice kavanaugh did when he was faced with a similar round of questioning during his confirmation hearing. what happens next remains to be seen in part. it's going to depend on how it plays out in the media. as you know, this president is more attuned to the media coverage than probably any of his predecessors.
he is going to watch this play out on cable, in the newspapers the next couple days. that may lead him to a decision one way or the other. as much as he reluctant to seem he is bowing to pressure, whether it's from the press or democrats, if this becomes untenable, if it becomes too much of a distraction and there is no sign the story is going away, you may see the president move to oust him, particularly because so much of his reelection pitch is about the economy. and if the secretary of labor with jobs, of course, being a big part of the economy, if he can't be a part of this, that's going to be a problem for the president who does not like persistent negative headlines. >> mimi rocah, we showed some reactions yesterday from former prosecutors. you're one of them. you were not impressed by his performance yesterday. let me ask you about one argument he seemed to be making, or at least seemed to be suggesting at was that the cultural shift we've seen when it comes to allegations of this nature over the last few years, he seemed to be suggesting maybe
if i understood him, that the case would be handled differently now than he handled it. whid what did you seem to make of that line of argument that he seemed to be venturing down at point there's? >> that was the most offensive of all of his points. it really truly made me physically ill to hear him saying that someone who was a prosecutor back at the time that he was negotiating this plea, i can tell you that no prosecutors, no fbi agents, no one that i worked with or knew of would ever have turned away a case regarding child sex exploit station because of, quote, social norms. yes, our society has evolved on our view of rape and adult victims, but not when it comes to minors. no one ever thought it was okay to victim shame a minor in a sex trafficking case, first of all.
and lastly, you know, that isn't a reason for a prosecutor not to do a case anyway. you base your case on the strength of your evidence, on all sorts of factors, but not whether or not you think people are going to look down upon your victim. i thought every one of his excuses, and that's what they sounded like, fell flat. i thought that one was also offensive. >> john, we're also wondering if we're going to hear from some republicans here, some republicans on capitol hill. a lot of eyes on republicans in particular who are up for reelection next year in difficult races on the senate side, folks like cory gardner in colorado. are they waiting just for a clear signal from trump, or is there a possibility we'd hear from them before them? >> it's certainly rare that senate republicans speak out in contrary to the white house. most of them still seem very intimidated by this president and his twitter account.
mitch mcconnell gave a lukewarm endorsement of acosta but didn't call for him to go either. we've heard a number of republicans be critical of jeffrey epstein, but they have yet to be so about secretary acosta. it does seem like they're waiting for some sort of signal from the building behind me as to what to do. they seem very reluctant to defy this president, if he indeed wants to dig in his heels and defend acosta. and that is still a possibility here. we know that he is prone to defend powerful men accused of crimes or wrongdoing in this case i should say, or poor judgment beyond most republicans willing to do. so beyond it would seem to be politically tenable. but at the same time, the bottom line is how long this story drags out. it's showing no signs of dissipating. if this continues to dominate the news and the coming days here as the summer starts to move forward, i think the president, people around him seem to think that he will get tired of those headlines, he'll get tired of the coverage, and he'll look for acosta to go.
>> also today in a court filing defense lawyers said epstein is entitled to bail. that he be released to home detention and monitored by a tracking device by bail secured on his manhattan home which his lawyers value at $77 million. in documents submitted to the court, his lawyers wrote that epstein intends to fight the current charges on their merit and more to contest their legality given the inextricable intertwining of the current investigation and his nonprosecution agreement, which promised him immunity. mimi rocah, does he have any chance of getting bail here? >> yeah, there is a chance, but i don't think it's a good one. look, this is exactly what the southern district of new york expected would happen. this is not going to come as a surprise to them. first of all, almost every defendant asks for bail, and certainly ones with a loft t of
resources and high paid lawyers are going to ask to put up those assets that they have. the key here and the reason he won't get bail ultimately, that he will be detained is first of all, you can put up your house as collateral, but if you're that wealthy, as he claims to be, you're going to be willing to let that house go if you have a chance to get out of here, given the amount of time that he is facing. and i think knowing the amount of resources he has and also because he is a threat to the witnesses, potentially. and that's going to ring very strongly with the judge. >> okay. we will see. mimi rocah, jonathan lemire, thank you both for joining us. and up next, i'm going head over to the big board. we are going to break down some brand-new hot off the presses polling on the 2020 democratic presidential race. it's our first readout, not just here at nbc since that debate, it's the first readout of the entire campaign, and some big surprises in there. stay with us. here stay with us
most people think a button is just a button. ♪ that a speaker is just a speaker. ♪ or - that the journey can't be the destination. most people haven't driven a lincoln. discover the lincoln approach to craftsmanship at the lincoln summer invitation. right now, get 0% apr on all 2019 lincoln vehicles plus no payments for up to 90 days. only at your lincoln dealer. plus no payments for up to 90 days. i was on the fence about changing from a manual to an electric tohb she said, get the one inspired by dentists, with a round brush head. go pro with oral-b. oral-b's gentle rounded brush head removes more plaque along the gum line.
but prevagen helps your brain with an ingredient originally discovered... in jellyfish. in clinical trials, prevagen has been shown to improve short-term memory. prevagen. healthier brain. better life. -keith used to be great to road-trip with. but since he bought his house... are you going 45? -uh, yes. 55 is a suggestion. -...it's kind of like driving with his dad. -what a sign, huh? terry, can you take a selfie of me? -take a selfie of you? -yeah. can you make it look like i'm holding it? -he did show us how to bundle home and auto at progressive.com and save a bunch of money. -oh, a plaque. "he later navigated northward, leaving... progressive can't protect you from becoming your parents. but we can protect your home and auto when you bundle with us.
all right. welcome back to "hardball." well, here we go. this is our first nbc news/wall street journal poll of the democratic race since the dig debate. it's our first democratic poll of the entire campaign. we weren't taking them earlier in the year. we're starting now. the race is heating up after the
debate. where do things stand as we take our first poll? here it is. joe biden is the front-runner, but hey, 26%, he is only 7 point ahead of second place, notable there, elizabeth warren. in second place in our poll, 19%, seven points behind joe biden. this is one of the better -- this may be the best poll elizabeth warren has right now. kamala harris, of course, 13%, hitting double-digits. we've seen her in other polls rise since that debate. she is tied here for third place in our poll with bernie sanders. bernie sanders, remember, of course a couple of years ago against hillary clinton. he had a one-on-one race. now more competition, falling back a bit perhaps in this poll compared to where he was at the out set of this campaign. pete buttigieg 7%, beto o'rourke, what a fall it has been for beto o'rourke since those lofty expectations. we can show you where the support is coming for these candidates. there is some interesting demographic divides to take you through. number one, we've been looking at race. among white voters, it's a tie
between biden and warren in first place, both with 22% right there. check it out when you look at black voters. that's the reason still. that's one of the reasons. black voters one of the reasons biden is still in first place. he is getting 46% among black voters. kamala harris now second place, but a distant second place in our poll among black voters. i would keep a close eye on those numbers as this campaign evolves, as harris gets her moment in the spotlight. does she make it more than a moment? does she close that gap? remember, about one out of every four votes cast are going to be from black voters. another divide we can tell you about. it's the ideological divide among those who called themselves liberals. it's a runaway. warren in first place, 29%. sanders more than 10 points behind her, biden behind. the other end, moderates and conservatives, again, there is biden's strength, 35%. harris a distant second place there. you see sanders and warren not so well. and then there is one of the most dramatic divides in our
poll. this is one of the most democratic divides we've been seeing in every poll of the democratic race. it is the divide when it comes to age. and let me show you what i mean. among voters under 50 years old, 18 to 49 years old, bernie sanders is in first place, 25%. elizabeth warren right behind him. joe biden is barely in double-digits among democratic voters under 50 years old. flip this around and go to democratic voters over 50, and look at biden. he goes from 11% all the way to nearly 40% in the vote. and then look at this. sanders goes from 25% in first place. he crashes to just 3%. the oldest candidate bernie sanders, the oldest candidate in the democratic field, do you want to know why he is struggling a bit this the polls right now? one of the big reason older voters. voters over 50 do not support, have not been supporting bernie sanders in he's polls. only 3% there for him. so some of the interesting
divides. again, biden the front-runner, but only at 26%. and in our poll, elizabeth warren moving into second place at 19%. see how that evolves. anyway, up next, a freshman democrat in her ongoing feud with speaker nancy pelosi. why are newly elected progressives angry with the leader of their caucus? find out next on "hardball." r s! whoo-hoo! great-tasting ensure. with nine grams of protein and twenty-six vitamins and minerals. ensure, for strength and energy. i went straight to ctca. after my mastectomy, i felt like part of my identity was being taken away. my team made me feel whole again. cancer treatment centers of america. appointments available now.
welcome back to "hardball." the extraordinary public battle between house speaker nancy pelosi and some of her party's most high profile progressive freshmen escalated again today. pelosi had taken issue with the four congresswomen known colloquially as the squad. they are alexandria ocasio-cortez, ilhan omar, ayanna pressley and rashida tlaib, criticizing their votes against a border compromise if what they call her public
whatever in twitter world. speaking with "the washington post" about pelosi's effort to isolate the group, ocasio-cortez said when those comments first started i kind of think she was keeping the progressive flank at arm's distance to protect more members, which i understood. but with the persistent singling out, it got to a point where it was outright disrespectful, the outright singling out of newly elected women of color. public airing of grievances came on the same day that speaker pelosi warned her members to not tweet complaints about other democrats. but what did speaker pelosi have to say today about the increasingly public war of words threatening to divide her party? that is coming up. you're watching "hardball." l. for strength and energy! whoo-hoo! great-tasting ensure. with nine grams of protein and twenty-six vitamins and minerals. ensure, for strength and energy.
did you know congress is working to end surprise medical billing? that's when patients are hit with medical bills they thought would be covered by insurance. the problem is big insurance companies want a one-size-fits-all approach that lets them decide what they'll pay doctors for yocare. letting insurance companies decide means it could be harder for you to see the best doctors when you need them the most. tell congress, "end surprise billing, and don't let insurance companies put profits over patients. paid for by physicians for fair coverage. liberty mutual customizes your car insurance, hmm. exactly. so you only pay for what you need. nice. but, uh... what's up with your... partner? not again. limu that's your reflection. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty, liberty, liberty, liberty ♪ that's ensure max protein, with high protein and 1 gram sugar. it's a sit-up, banana!
bend at the waist! i'm tryin'! keep it up. you'll get there. whoa-hoa-hoa! 30 grams of protein, and one gram of sugar. ensure max protein. i said what i'm going to say on the subject. we respect the value of every member of our caucus, the diversity of it all is a wonderful thing. diversity is our strength. unity is our power. >> welcome back to "hardball." that was house speaker nancy pelosi this morning on her ongoing public dispute with a group of outspoken progressive freshmen democrats. just one day after admonishing democrats to keep their infighting private and not to tweet their disagreements, the speaker was responding to the very public charge from congresswoman alexandria ocasio-cortez that pelosi was, quote, outright disrespectful in
explicitly single out herself, and ilhan omar, rashida tlaib and ayanna pressley as women of color. tweeting in wednesday's private caucus meeting was in response to a new deleted tweet from ocasio-cortez's chief of staff last month comparing moderate democrats to segregationists. >> i've said what i'm going to say in the caucus. that's where this is appropriate, and i said what i'm going to say in the caucus. they took offense because i addressed at the request of my members an offensive tweet that came out of one of the members' offices that referenced our blue dogs and our new dems essentially as segregationists. our members took offense at that. i addressed that. how they're interpreting and carrying it to another place is up to them, but i'm not going to be discussing it any further. >> and for more, i'm joined by the former chief of staff to speaker pelosi and eugene scott, political reporter for "the
washington post." nade nadeem, let me start with you. there is also what the speaker said in this "new york times" magazine interview, she went public with some pretty negative comments about this group of congresswoman as well. i covered her many years ago. my impression is she is not somebody who vents that much in public. she is somebody who says things with a strategic purpose. what's the strategic purpose here? >> she knows that would be a colossal disaster if democrats are divided. she knows what's at the end of the road here, and that is an election in 2020 against donald trump. and the more divided and the more infighting is between members of the caucus, whether you're a progressive or whether you're a conservative, it doesn't matter. she has lived through this. back in 2006, against president bush when he wanted to privatize social security, she told both progressives and moderates, let's not have a plan on social
security. let's stick together. >> when she goes after them in "the new york times" magazine, as opposed to making comments behind closed doors does that serve the purpose you're talking about strategically? >> here is the thing. she is hearing it from her own members. her members are saying enough. they are on twitter, for example. you to understand that when you get a pin, as a member of congress, that comes with responsibility. responsibility to your district, but also responsibility to your colleagues as well. some of these moderate members are feeling a lot of pressure from outside groups, from their own colleagues for quote/unquote not doing the right thing. look, purity should not be a test in the democratic caucus in 2019. it should not happen. that's unfortunately what some of the members are faced with. >> if the goal here is unity, and not having public dissent, do you think she is going to achieve that here? >> i don't know. one of the people who perhaps put unity at risk even more was alexandria ocasio-cortez with her original statement to "the
washington post." i don't think she was trying to communicate anything about the intentions and the heart from nancy pelosi, and she went on to clarify that, but what she didn't want to illustrate is that these lawmakers came to congress, these four with a mandate, to represent women, to represent people of color, to represent the more progressive democrats and liberals in this country, and they want to be heard, and they want to be respected and paid more attention to than they believe they are getting from leadership from the democratic party. and i think what they wanted to do was make it known to their constituents that if we aren't able to move forward doing the things that you all sent us here to do, it's not because we aren't trying. it's because we're trying and we're not being heard. >> members of the congressional progressive caucus plan to raise concerns with the speaker about her criticism of this freshmen quartet. telling politico, quote, i don't think the speaker is used to having a group of members who has bigger twitter followings than her. i don't think most of us are. asked if she agreed with comments from ocasio-cortez about being singled out, she
added we women of color have faced this for such a long time. we're in a body of mainly old white men. you don't get to be here without having dealt with that most people. and nadeam, you mentioned this before. maybe you can elaborate on this. pelosi seems to feel she is channeling a broader sentiment in the caucus. within specifically the congressional progressive caucus, does pelosi feel she is actually speaking for a majority of members of the congressional progressive caucus here? >> well, i think she is speaking for the majority of her members, if not a large majority of her members. nobody has a more progressive record than nancy pelosi when it comes to actually enacting legislation. there is a difference between being an advocate and a legislator, you know. what nancy pelosi is, she is a legislator and an advocate both. i think what she is trying to communicate to these members, these progressive members who have been elected from great districts with a lot of support is this. use what you have. you have an incredible voice, an
incredible following. let's work together. let's be united, and let's go out there and get something done in 2020. and by beating donald trump, by maintaining the majority. see, that's kind of what's forgotten here. if democrats are going to be fighting against each other because you're not pure enough, you could end up losing some of these districts, and you're not going to be in the majority. these members have never served really in the minority. >> i'm having flashbacks listening to this thinking of the republicans and the struggle that john boehner had with the freedom caucus. strong-willed members, highly visible publicly with a vision that boehner said is going to cost the party unity and ultimately cost the party at the polls. is there a parallel there? >> there certainly has been some fear that the four would split off and form some type of freedom caucus version in the democratic party, but that hasn't happened yet, even though there has been some discussion at some point about primarying some of the more moderate democrats to get more people in congress who see things the way
the four have. but that's not what's happened yet. perhaps it won't happen. obviously that's what pelosi is happening will not happen, because she's going to bat every day against conservatives, and she wants these democratic lawmakers to join her, not to focus on people in their party who might not be as left as them. ultimately i think everyone is looking at 2020, and everyone is trying to make sure that democrats keep the house, but also get the white house and the senate. >> eugene scott, nadeam elshami. thank you. up next, the things that are hard to define the presidential primary. the presidential primary. i switched to liberty mutual,
because they let me customize my insurance. and as a fitness junkie, i customize everything, like my bike, and my calves. liberty mutual customizes your car insurance, so you only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ when crabe stronger...strong, with new nicorette coated ice mint. layered with flavor... it's the first and only coated nicotine lozenge. for an amazing taste... ...that outlasts your craving. new nicorette ice mint. there's brushing and there's oral-b power brushing. oral-b just cleans better. it's the one inspired by dentists... with the round brush head. oral-b's gentle rounded brush head removes more plaque along the gumline... for cleaner teeth and healthier gums. oral-b. brush like a pro.
our mission is to provide complete, balanced nutrition for strength and energy! whoo-hoo! great-tasting ensure. with nine grams of protein and twenty-six vitamins and minerals. ensure, for strength and energy. and twenty-six vitamins and minerals. but i can tell you liberty mutual customized my car insurance so i only pay for what i need. oh no, no, no, no, no, no, no... only pay for what you need. liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪
here, hello! starts with -hi!mple... how can i help? a data plan for everyone. everyone? everyone. let's send to everyone! [ camera clicking ] wifi up there? -ahhh. sure, why not? how'd he get out?! a camera might figure it out. that was easy! glad i could help. at xfinity, we're here to make life simple. easy. awesome. so come ask, shop, discover at your xfinity store today.
welcome back to "hardball." we showed you our brand-new nbc news poll a few minutes ago. that's where the democratic race stands right now. but where is it going? well, there is joe biden, the front-runner still, yes. but a more wobbly one after that first debate. the question for him was his shaky performance that night in miami a one-off? was he a guy who hadn't debated or even campaigned that much in years showing some understandable rust? if that was the case, then it's still very easy to see biden ending up the democratic nominee. democrats think he is electable now. and if his performances end up reassuring them, then he could solidify his hold on this race.
the other possibility, though, that it wasn't a one-off, that it's the new normal for biden, and that we'll keep seeing the same biden in big moments. if that's the case, then democrats may start asking themselves just how electable he really is. what about kamala harris? biden's loss in that first debate with us her gain. her attack on biden was very well choreographed. it was brilliantly executed. she was a well prepared prosecutor, and the more democrats see that kamala harris, the better she's likely to do. but we've also seen her struggle in the spotlight on questions where she didn't seem to have a rehearsed answer. twice she seemed to endorse ending private insurance, then she's tried to walk it back. she also seemed open to letting violent criminals like the boston marathon bombers vote, only to walk that back too. coming off the debate, harris has the spotlight now in a way she hasn't before. let's see how she handles it. how about bernie sanders? he has been falling back in polls, ours and others. he is very well-known to
democrats, but he has a lot more competition this time around. somehow he needs to get a fresh look from voters who probably already know his message by heart. here is pete buttigieg too. he is doing better than anybody thought he would when all of this started, but he also hasn't grown his support much in the last few months. look at it this way, with black voters buttigieg is at 3% in the new poll, and that's actually better than he has done in just about every other poll. he is going to need to make some major strides to contend for the nomination. and then there is elizabeth warren. slow and steady. she has been climbing for months now, and her ascent hasn't been one that's built on a breakout moment or a sudden burst of attention. she really stepped in it when she entered the race last year, making a show of that dna test. she was trying to show democrats that she'd figured out how to take on trump, but of course that blew up in her face. since then, though, since then she has made just about all the right moves for a democratic primary, and it's really starting to pay off for her.
we will see if what was true in that old fable is true in this campaign, that slow and steady wins the race. that's "hardball" for now. thanks for being with us. "all in with chris hayes" starts right now. tonight on "all in" -- >> are you a citizen of the united states? sir, you can't ask that question. why? >> the president folds, backing away from his threat to force a citizenship question on the census. >> it's deeply regrettable, but it will not stop us from collecting the needed information. >> tonight trump's new plan to marginalize immigrants. >> we will leave no stone unturned. >> then new questions about jeffrey epstein's finances, and just how wealthy he actually is. >> is jeffrey epstein a billionaire? >> no comment. plus, new orleans bracing for disaster, aslo