Skip to main content

tv   Deadline White House  MSNBC  November 27, 2019 1:00pm-2:00pm PST

1:00 pm
r rachel maddow. you can now watch or listen to this show on sirius xm radio. tune in msnbc.com/now. and apple tv. and of course you know you can always find me on social media on twitter, on facebook, on instagram, on snapchat, and on linkedin. thanks for watching. geoff bennett in for nicolle wallace, "deadline: white house," starts right now. ♪ it's 4:00 in washington. i'm geoff bennett in for nicolle wallace. as the hits keep coming from donald trump and his allies, just a little over an hour ago, a new story in the "new york times" says a report president trump himself has been anticipating for months from a justice department watchdog will undercut trump's claim that the fbi spied on his 2016 campaign. the theory trump's attorney general bill barr also fuelled in his testimony before congress what he claimed that, quote, spying did occur. but the "new york times" reports this. the justice department's inspector general found no evidence that the fbi attempted
1:01 pm
to place. as agents investigated whether his associates conspired with russia's election interference operation, people familiar with the draft of the inspector general's report said. now the finding is one of several by mr. horwitz that undercuts conservatives' claims that the fbi acted improperly in investigating several trump associates starting in 2016. the blow to a one-time favorite trump talking point comes on a day of developments in the ukraine scandal that are calling into question donald trump's chief impeachment defenses and bringing into focus the appearance that the president was withholding military aid from ukraine despite multiple warnings from within his own administration that what he was doing might be wrong. another report in today's "new york times" reveals that trump was briefed on the whistle-blower complaint that ignited the entire ukraine scandal well before he finally unfroze that aid. it poses a significant challenge to the claims we keep hearing from the president's allies that
1:02 pm
trump's decision to ultimately release the assistance in mid-september proves he wasn't holding it up for any kind of corrupt purpose. the report also illustrates debate within trump's west wing over how to deal with the whistle-blower complaint once it was relayed to the white house. "the times" reporting this, quote, lawyers from the white house counsel's office told mr. trump in late august about the complaint explaining that they were trying to determine whether they were legally required to give it to congress, the people said. so this all means according to "the times" that trump was made aware of the complaint and the fact that it might soon become public before he assured senator ron johnson there was no quid pro quo and before he told ambassador gordon sondland he wanted, quote, nothing from ukraine. conversations he and his allies have highlighted to suggest the scrutiny over the aid is all much ado about nothing. >> rather than ask the president nine different questions, is it this, is it this, is it that, i
1:03 pm
just said what do you want from ukraine? i may have used a four-letter word. he said i want nothing, i want no quid pro quo, i just want zelensky. >> here's my answer, i want nothing. i want no quid pro quo. tell zelensky to do the right thing. then he says this is the final word from the president of the united states, i want nothing. >> i was supporting the aid as is senator murphy, as is everybody that went to that initial inauguration. when i asked the president about that he completely denied it. he adamantly denied it. he vehemently denied it. >> he said i'd never do that. >> we now know that at the time trump was getting his allies on message. he was already aware he was in hot water over his conduct with ukraine. here to talk through it all with us, we have ax yos political
1:04 pm
reporter mccammond. plus, former u.s. attorney joyce vance and from "the washington post" white house reporter ashley parker and "new york times" reporter who covers the fbi adam goldman. and, adam, i want to start with you. walk us through your new reporting on this horwitz report. >> well, one of the claims that have been made by trump and his allies is that the fbi had been spying on its campaign or possibly even trying to infiltrate it with an informant. as part of the justice department inspector general's investigation into the fbi's russia investigation, they looked at this allegation and they did a deep dive on undercover agents the fbi might've used in this investigation or informant and determined that there was no evidence to support these allegations. much like some of the other theories that have been pushed by trump's allies. >> but your reporting also
1:05 pm
suggests that there is something of a mixed bag here that there is something in the report. there are a few findings in the report that president trump and his allies might cling to. so what are those exactly? >> look, there are a number of them. clearly there were some serious mistakes. errors and omissions made when putting together this wire tap application for surveillance on carter page, a former trump campaign adviser. there were serious mistakes there so let's not downplay that and also an individual has been referred for criminal prosecution for altering an email in this wire tap application. there were serious problems. and the fbi is going to ding this hard. >> it was careless, sloppy, maybe even unprofessional. but, you know, then on the other side, you know, they can say look at all these conspiracy theories that trump, allies and
1:06 pm
others floated the dossier was used in the packet to open the actual investigation. now that's wrong. that somehow the cia was involved in the opening of the russia investigation. that's wrong that this professor named joseph massoud who's been talked about who had met with a trump campaign adviser sort of being controlled by the fbi is sort of a setup plot. that's wrong. and now we know that the leaders of the fbi didn't politicize the investigation, the russia investigation, and nor did they try to infiltrate the campaign. >> tell us more about this man who investigates the investigators, michael horwitz i understand he's a democrat, he's an obama appointee. tell us more about him. >> michael horwitz is a well-respected figure in the law enforcement community and in the
1:07 pm
department of justice. and he does tough investigations. he's known to be fair but tough. he did that previously on how the fbi acted in 2016. he certainly didn't give the leadership of the fbi a pass in how they handled the hillary clinton investigation, in particularly that press conference comey held in july of 2016 or the letters that were sent to congress. in fact he called comey insubordinate. he was certainly rough and beat it up. horwitz has a real responsibility here, a real responsibility here to cut through the clutter to cut through these conspiracy theories and lay down the markers, what is true and what is not. i think people believe he is going to do that. >> adam goldman, thank you for joining us on this. we appreciate it. and joyce vance, over to you. this certainly does not paint a picture of a deep-state conspiracy. what it does though is shed new light on the attorney general's
1:08 pm
role he seemed to have pumped up some sort of conspiracy. so what lasting thoughts does this leave you with? >> well, on two hands, as adam pointed out, this discloses that there were some issues with some of the lawyers over at the fbi. problems like that need to be rooted out. they need to be taken very seriously. the good news is that that indication is that that isolated issue impacted any of the work that was being done by the fbi here. it didn't result in a prosecution of carter page. and the important takeaway is that everything that president trump has been saying for the last couple of years about the deep state and the effort by the obama justice department to attack his campaign, that's all been made up. none of it was true. but it was fomented and it was really put into progress as much as by the president by his attorney general bill barr who
1:09 pm
famously went in front of congress and talked about spying, which is not what the justice department does. the justice department does court-ordered supervision or court-ordered evidence collection. the notion that the attorney general would call it spying was shocking to many of us then, and the inspector general report confirms that it was indeed untrue. >> let's turn back now to the impeachment inquiry in this reporting by the "new york times" that president trump knew about the whistle-blower complaint when he ultimately released the aid to ukraine. gordon sondland first suggested that in his testimony before the house intelligence committee two weeks ago. but now you have a couple of sources telling the "new york times" that in fact was the case. alexi, help us understand what this means for the timeline and how this really builds democrats' case. >> it certainly bolsters democrats' argument that trump only ultimately released that aid to ukraine once he was caught because they launched their impeachment inquiry into him. so they argue that he felt
1:10 pm
caught and sort of spooked by that. now we also know that there were other pressure points coming from all different angles to the president. it was the fact that he knew that this whistle-blower filed this complaint two weeks before he ultimately released the aid and also within that time after house democrats launched their impeachment inquiry he was pressured according to tim morrison's testimony to the committee by mike pence his vice president and senator rob portman. so he not only has bipartisan pressure coming from different sides, but he also has the knowledge that this whistle-blower filed a formal complaint that his lawyers didn't necessarily know how to handle and to what level it should be elevated. and so now we know the pressure. and that totally cuts into republicans' arguments that, oh, no, there was no quid pro quo because, look, he released the aid. but the question is why did he release that aid. we only have suggestions from republicans who are being extremely loyal to the president. but we need to hear from president trump himself or at
1:11 pm
least his lawyers. >> it certainly helps explain why he said there was no quid pro quo. the president using that legalistic language there in his conversation. >> and he snapped at him. sondland's testimony was the president was in a bad mood. senator johnson and his long letter also described the president when he was asked about this being in a really upset mood and yelling at him. the president seemingly was aware that he had been found out. and when he got questioned, when the question was put to him, he was ornery about it. so i think you are seeing this composite picture of what was going on in the white house coming into place into clear view now. and it really does upend this defense that you heard from jim jordan, from the president and others that they released the aid, made sure that he was really committed to corruption and actually, no, they released the aid because, as adam schiff says, they got caught. they were about to get found out. the complaint was already in the
1:12 pm
pipeline. so it helps explain the motivations, helps explain why the president was upset about it and it forces like alexi says reporters to go back to the president and say, okay, you said this, knowing that this was out there, that you were about to be revealed for what you were doing. trump last week was reading those notes. and just basically trying to take it out of one context and to put it into another. >> i actually don't think it truly matters why he released the aid in the sense that he committed the act that i believe is unpresidential and grounds for impeachment, which is holding up the aid for a long period of time in order to get a favor from a foreign country to investigate his political opponent. yeah. >> that right there i think is grounds for his impeachment. why he ultimately let the aid go. first of all he is never going to admit to it. the fact that we all knew that something was up when he actually used the term quid pro
1:13 pm
quo unprompted. we knew something was odd there. but to me we already have enough information based on everything that was laid out in the select intelligence committee and all of the information to come to a decision on whether or not he should be impeached. >> at that rally last night in sunrise, florida, president trump and his group of supporters there had a whole chant going there "no quid pro quo, no quid pro quo." the white house strategy seems to be to win whatever the day's news cycle is. so what are they saying for themselves right now? >> that i told him, quote -- >> well, first of all that's always the president's strategy. the president, once people try to understand what he's doing, the easiest and clearest lens to understand it is this is someone who is trying to get through the meeting, the minute, the hour, the day, the news cycle. and what you're seeing is them trying to delegitimatize the impeachment proceedings the way
1:14 pm
for over a year they tried in the court of public opinion to delegitimize mueller's report. this entire time they have been complaining, republicans have been complaining that they didn't have a seat, they didn't have a voice. now they do, but i think for them they need to figure out do they take that seat and risk sort of giving some legitimacy to this being a bipartisan process, a process where the president's attorneys have a say. or is it more effective for the president to do what we saw him do last night which is to stand up and rally his supporters. he said no quid pro quo. there were some other choice words he used it. >> joyce vance, one of the major defenses you don't know the president's intent. so it's a mistake to draw inferences to assume culpability. but this reporting, it certainly
1:15 pm
speaks to what appears to be a consciousness of guilt. the president was briefed on this whistle-blower complaint. he is telling gordon sondland i don't want anything, no quid pro quo. what's your read on this? >> i think you are exactly right. this is evidence that he had guilty knowledge, that he had a corrupt intent when he engaged on this entire process and that the aid was ultimately released only after they realized that the whistle-blower was about to create problems for them. but the entire argument that republicans are making here is a real nonstarter. and i will be a little bit on the legal nerdy side and just say it's very difficult for prosecutors to prove intent. it's hard to get inside of someone's head and know what they are thinking. so often prosecutors are in the position of using circumstantial evidence and drawing inferences and asking a jury to believe what prosecutors have concluded about someone's state of mind. here of course the jury is the american people and the senate. and the president has given
1:16 pm
people the democrats in congress plenty of information from which we can infer that there was in fact a corrupt scheme here, an abuse of power ongoing with this being the linchpin evidence on the timeline showing that once they knew that the gig was up and they were about to be discovered, they took steps to try to have this final defense of, well, we gave up the aid so no harm, no foul. >> and, eli, we can combine this with the transcripts we got last night from mark sandy, the omb official who testified willingly. and what struck me about this testimony is that when he said when he started asking questions he was ultimately sidelined and replaced by a political appointee, michael duffey in much the same way that marie yovanovitch was ultimately sidelined and replaced with gordon sondland. >> anyone who was in the way of what the president wanted to do was just moved out of the way. there were two omb officials who resigned out of concern.
1:17 pm
that was also in the transcript we got last night. it was pretty clear, it seems like, to a lot of people in the executive branch what was going on, what the president was pursuing here. and anyone with concerns, anybody who was an impediment to the president pursuing this sideline with zelensky, they were just moved out of the way. >> yeah. ashley parker, my thanks to you for spending some time with us. good to see you as always. >> thank you. after complaining for weeks about a lack of representation there is a very good chance trump won't be putting a lawyer in front of the judiciary committee. and speaking of rudy giuliani, might he be in trouble with the president? the first sign of trump's i hardly knew him defense. plus, say what you will about michael bloomberg's late entry into the 2020 race. but he's got a plan, one that threatens to change the way we think about primaries going forward, if it pays off. ard, if.
1:18 pm
1:19 pm
plus, say what you will plus, say what you will
1:20 pm
1:21 pm
donald trump and his allies have long complained that the impeachment process isn't fair. they claim without legal representation he wasn't getting due process. but that defense is no longer valid because as the impeachment inquiry enters its next phase, the white house is welcome to participate. in a letter sent by jerry nadler, asked the president if he and his counsel would be attending next week's hearing. politico reports this. as of right now people close to president donald trump on the white house staff and on capitol
1:22 pm
hill do not believe he will send a lawyer to participate in next week's judiciary impeachment hearings as is his right. but nailing down this white house is like trying to tack jell-o to a wall. they are ever-shifting and they hardly stay on the same page. look no further than this week when they couldn't decide on the message about the gender of a dog. the white house has responded to nadler's letter saying that they are reviewing it. joyce and the table are back with us. what's the over/under on president trump sending a legal team? first of all, who would he send? >> i would love for it to be rudy giuliani. let's just finish this movie that they have all started. he answered written questions from mueller, didn't even want to sit down for that. that was the most effort he was willing to put into that. what trump thrives on and succeeds on is being as ambiguous as possible and throwing out generalizations without tieing himself down to any facts as to avoid purjuring
1:23 pm
himself. i would imagine he feels he has no advantage to actually sitting down and he's just going to keep throwing out these allegations that it's b.s. and they're all out to get him. >> the ambiguity is part of it. but it's also not about being worried about getting caught in contradiction. saying that you want to cooperate, those are just things you say. they are not things that the white house actually plans on following through on. and they are just unabashed about not caring. if somebody says to him you said this yesterday, he just bulldozes right past it, you know, to the point that ashley was making about he's just trying to get through moment to moment news psych lael to news cycle. >> and that is president trump's gift. he uses shamelessness as a political tool. it's one of the reasons why this impeachment inquiry has been reduced by most republicans as some sort of partisan snowball fight on this.
1:24 pm
>> i would be surprised if he sends a team next week because it's easier for him to demonize the whole process. oh, this is just democrats on a witch hunt, right? because he and his team and republicans have not come up with a defense for what he did, which we know based off of the facts have not been contested. there is no one out there saying that he didn't say what he said to zelensky who he obviously held up the aid. there is enough evidence out there to make this solid case for impeachment. all republicans have been able to use is basically, you know, this is a witch hunt, this is democrats out for him. the last thing they were hanging onto was this notion that, well, he released the aid so there's nothing wrong with that. we know that's nonsense now. everything along the way republicans have been putting out as a defense for the president has been strip ad way as false and bogus. i actually think if you're the president you are going to stay on the sidelines. you are going to complain about the process because the process is all they have got. and the process if you look at
1:25 pm
it, the process that was implemented by house democrats during this select intel hearings was what was actually established by rule by house republicans. >> thanks for making that point. that's right. if they have a problem with the rules it's their own rules that they established. >> but they've got a problem with everything. >> it was the process, the substance, and now it's the process again. >> it gets to the point that they don't actually have a defense for his actions because i don't know if they think it's wrong or not, but they don't have a defense for it. >> and the irony is that president trump doesn't let anything go unanswered, whether it's in twitter or in person. but he likes to be in control of the medium through which he is answering. and this to doug's point would only legitimize the process. >> wouldn't it be in the white house's best interest, or i should say in a white house's best interest, not particularly, especially this one, to participate in an impeachment inquiry, to have some sort of representation there to make the president's case?
1:26 pm
>> well, absolutely it would. if for no other reason than to observe procedural points and to make sure you have the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses. but this really takes us back to the resignation of don mcgahn to the loss of many of the people that were working on legal inside of the white house and that the president has never been willing to assemble a war room, to look at impeachment so that he could continue governing sort of like the process that bill clinton used where he had the two separate functions going forward during impeachment. and trump in many ways is exclusively reactive to what goes on with impeachment. he has no overarching strategy to carry him through. we saw chairman nadler do something that i think was very smart. he pointed out in concluding the letter that participating was a privilege and not a right and that participation would be permitted only so long as it was
1:27 pm
decorous. and that frankly may have made the participation far less attractive for president trump who is only there for the show and the circus and participating and legitimizing legal process as the last thing he wants to do. the only strategy he really has left, there is no substantive defense. he will have to call the process illegitimate. that's hard to do when you're participating in it. >> yeah. that hearing next wednesday at 10:00, so mark your calendars. after the break a stress test for the time-honored trump tactic. is the president now angling to put daylight between himself and rudy giuliani? we will talk about that coming up. i? we will talk about that coming up hey there people eligible for medicare.
1:28 pm
gimme one minute... and i'll tell you some important things to know about medicare. first, it doesn't pay for everything. say this pizza is your part b medical expenses. this much - about 80% - medicare will pay for. what's left is on you. that's where an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan, insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company comes in. this type of plan helps pay some of what medicare doesn't. these are the only plans to carry the aarp endorsement for meeting their high standards of quality and service. so call unitedhealthcare insurance company today and ask for your free decision guide.
1:29 pm
with this type of plan, you'll have the freedom to choose any doctor who accepts medicare patients. and when you travel, your plan will go with you - anywhere in the country. whew! call unitedhealthcare today and ask for your free decision guide. call unitedhealthcare today wayfair's biggest black fridis now on. ever yes! score unbelievable savings. like living room up to 70% off. storage solutions from $9.99. and area rugs up to 80% off. plus, tons of limited-time mystery flash deals. and free shipping on everything when you shop from thanksgiving through cyber monday. and we're just getting warmed up. our black friday blowout is happening now through december first. shop the event of the season, only at wayfair.com.
1:30 pm
secretary perry, ambassador volker, and i worked with
1:31 pm
mr. rudy giuliani on ukraine matters at the express direction of the president of the united states. president trump directed us to, quote, talk with rudy. my recollection is that ambassador sondland stated, quote, dammit, rudy, every time rudsy gets involved he goes and fs everything up. >> what do you think he meant by his characterization of rudy giuliani as a hand grenade? >> the investigations that he was promoting that the story line he was promoting, the narrative he was promoting was going to backfire. i think it has backfired. >> death, taxes, and donald trump's habit of cutting loose associates when they get into trouble, it happened with gordon sondland, it happened with the indicted ukrainians igor fruman and lev parnas. it happened with michael flynn and with roger stone. call it the low-level coffee boy defense. people with unique access to trump who trump would later insist he hardly knew. and now it might be rudy giuliani's turn.
1:32 pm
>> what was rudy giuliani doing in ukraine on your behalf? >> well, you have to ask that to rudy. but rudy, i don't even know -- i know he was going to go to ukraine, and i think he canceled the trip, but, you know, rudy has other clients other than me. >> so you didn't direct him to go there on your behalf? >> no. but you have to understand rudy is a great corruption fighter. >> giuliani's your personal lawyer. so you didn't direct him to go to ukraine to do anything? >> no, i didn't direct him. but he is a warrior. rudy's a warrior. rudy went, he possibly saw something, but you have to understand rudy has other people that he represents. >> i know. >> the president there painting giuliani as a lone-wolf corruption fighter despite a mountain of testimony saying otherwise. saying, quote, mr. giuliani is a highly respected man. he was the mayor of new york
1:33 pm
city and i would like you to call him. he knows what's happening and is a very capable guy. i will have mr. giuliani give you a call. and new reporting this afternoon may make trump forget giuliani entirely. the "new york times" and "washington post" are reporting that while giuliani was working to dig up dirt on joe biden in ukraine, he was privately pursuing hundreds of thousands of dollars weather of business opportunities with ukrainian government officials. everybody is back. and, eli, why hasn't president trump cut rudy giuliani loose? he's done that with other people who have presented problems for him, done that with other people who have flown too close to the sun. >> he hasn't yet. >> point taken. >> no one knows where this is going, what the president's going to say about rudy giuliani day-to-day. again we said the president doesn't get caught in contradictions or hypocrisies being pointed out. rudy giuliani is being presented by the president as a great
1:34 pm
corruption fighter. and you have this new report that he was over in ukraine seeking out business deals for himself while he was representing the president. i mean, it's almost sort of just too much and, you know, if you step back from it, you see -- i don't know that trump will be embarrassed by that or worry about that. but he entrusted rudy to do this. >> yeah. >> that's clear. it almost doesn't matter what he says at this point or when he cuts him loose, whether giuliani goes dark from here on out. but, you know, the president believes to doug's point that this is a political matter, and as long as he can continue to portray rudy as some white knight and the democrats as some sort of deep state out to get him, he's probably not all that worried about it. >> the "new york times" says this. giuliani pursued business in ukraine while pushing for inquiries for trump. you have "the washington post" with giuliani was in talks to be paid by ukraine's prosecutor. when i read these stories, joyce, it reminds me of what
1:35 pm
fiona hill testified to before house investigators. she was talking about gordon sondland. and i think she was talking about rudy giuliani too. she said basically she said these two men were walking, talking national security nightmares that they were ultimately selling access or trying to sell access to president trump. >> it's very reminiscent of what happened with michael cohen during the campaign where he too was selling access. it's hard to believe that the president would surround himself with people who would do this on multiple occasions and somehow be unaware that they were doing it. that really defies belief. but the big unknown here is what's going to happen in the southern district of new york with this investigation into giuliani. it is i think at once difficult to process the fact that that investigation ultimately will require sign-off by the attorney general who has proven himself to be trump's wing man. but at the same time that it has
1:36 pm
gone on for so far and appears to be so serious and so focused on giuliani. and if he is ultimately indicted or charged or if prosecutors bring him in to give him a last chance to make a deal, will giuliani decide to take a bullet for trump or will he decide to sing? he knows how that game is played. he knows that witnesses who cooperate can remain witnesses and avoid becoming targets. so this is i think the biggest known/unknown that we have going forward. >> joyce just mentioned michael cohen. when we are talking about whether and how president trump will distance himself from rudy giuliani. michael cohen will remember when president trump was asked on air force one about the stormy daniels payments. he said, oh, ask michael cohen. i don't know anything about that. and he does this with everyone. they start out as the smartest people in their industry. they're killers, they're warriors.
1:37 pm
then he slowly starts to talk about them in more ambiguous terms and distances himself. the participattern of behavior seeing him exhibit fits with the laundry list of people that you mentioned earlier. and we'll remember rudy giuliani's first day on the job. he revealed on a fox news interview that trump knew about the stormy daniels payments when trump had been denying it up until that point. it is shocking that he has lasted this long. >> the former mayor is aware of that cycle because reuters has some new reporting that said he was joking about having an insurance policy. how did democrats deal with this asymmetry? on the one side you have this torrent of controversy and scandal surrounding the president, surrounding rudy giuliani. and on the other hand you have republicans trying to make a case that doesn't really exist substantively about joe biden. we've seen this happen before.
1:38 pm
from a messaging perspective, how do democrats deal with this? >> they must understand that the objective of the campaign by trump and his allies is to create confusion. confusion in the general public because everyday folks aren't watching a ton of tv. they aren't watching the hearings from hour to hour. they are getting sound bytes here and there. so republicans are trying to create confusion. what democrats need to do is have a simple and sharp and coherent message about what trump did and why it rises to being impeachable offense. and i think actually they did a really good job of that throughout thisn the intelligence committee led by adam schiff. i think nancy pelosi was wise to trust him with this process. they've kept on the ball, dan goldman has done an excellent job of asking questions and laying out this case that is pretty clear that the president abused his power. he asked for a favor in return for myrtlery aid. and i think the more they can just stay on that message when
1:39 pm
we move to the judiciary committee next week, just keeping on this simple message. because the american people by and large, there is an information deficit out there on all of this stuff. and they basically understand what trump did was wrong. in fact, i think 70%, 80% of the country, even republicans understand what he did was wrong. the question is how do you get them to the point where they support impeaching him? and that's where you tie in the bribery argument. >> just to make another point about the degradation of american foreign policy. you have trump telling bill o' reilly in that interview, well, rudy had a lot of other clients as if that's a defense. that is what fiona hill is talking about when she refers to rudy as being a foreign policy nightmare. because when you have an unofficial channel and that person might have their own personal business interests all mixed up with the national interests of the united states, that is a problem. that is what begets corruption that rudy is supposedly a corruption warrior.
1:40 pm
no, that's a message that's being sent by this administration to other countries and other leaders. >> well, right. they weren't rooting out corruption. they were exporting corruption from the oval office. that's the case that democrats are building. thanks for spending your time with us. always a real pleasure to speak with you. after the break, 68 days from the first votes in the democratic presidential race and new poll numbers flashing red for elizabeth warren who was once considered a frontrunner. once considered a frontrunner. ♪
1:41 pm
1:42 pm
the first fda-approved medication of its kind, tremfya® can help adults with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis uncover clearer skin that can last. most patients who saw 90% clearer skin at 28 weeks stayed clearer through 48 weeks. in another study, the majority of tremfya® patients
1:43 pm
saw 90% clearer skin at 3 years. tremfya® may increase your risk of infections and lower your ability to fight them. tell your doctor if you have an infection or symptoms or if you had a vaccine or plan to. serious allergic reactions may occur. tremfya®. uncover clearer skin that can last. janssen can help you explore cost support options. i'm here to talk with people right now in iowa. i keep doing it all across the country because i'm not running a campaign where i have to spend time sucking up to billionaires. i actually spend time at townhalls. today is my 170th townhall. we have taken thousands of unfiltered questions, and we're well over 80,000 selfies right
1:44 pm
now. this is a person-to-person campaign because i think that's what democracy should be. >> senator elizabeth warren making note of her own selfie count. i like that. but reacting to new poll numbers that show a 50% decline in her support in one month according to the latest quinnipiac poll, former vice president joe biden regains the top spot at 24%. mayor pete buttigieg rises to second place. warren plunges 14 points to land in third. senator bernie sanders fills out the top four at 13%. and joining the conversation right now is reverend al sharpton, host of "politicsnation" and president of the action network. joe biden's leading the pack, same as it ever was. it reminds me of something that former president obama said a couple weeks ago at a private dinner. he said americans don't want to remake the system. they don't want a revolutionary overhaul. what they want is a candidate
1:45 pm
who will vow to improve the system. basically he was saying that a moderate should be the one that democrats pick. and apparently former president obama was speaking to the pulse of the democratic, most democratic voters. >> well, i think you clearly would see from these poll results that those that are considered the moderates or the centrist democrats are the ones that are gaining traction and that would be joe biden and even buttigieg who, according to this quinnipiac poll has began rising even more. so clearly i think that president obama, to no surprise, has his hand on the pulse of a lot of voters. because i think that many are concerned, a, that the system be corrected, and, b, that they are in a position to defeat donald trump. so even those that may be more left or more left-leaning still don't want to go too far that
1:46 pm
they feel that they would in some way risk the general election. and i think that's basically what we are seeing this particular poll reflect. >> doug, what's happening to elizabeth warren's campaign? granted, a poll is a snapshot in time. but for the sake of this conversation let's just game it out. is pete buttigieg eating into her standing? >> well, what happened is she faced scrutiny for the first time in this campaign in a way she hasn't faced since before she got in the race and was dealing with issues related to her dna. and i think that her opponents were successful in generating questions about her medicare for all plan, how she would pay for it, whether taxes would go up on the middle class, private insurance, the price tag. and that had an impact, clearly. i think the dynamic we are seeing from a polling standpoint right now is that you have two frontrunners. you have mayor pete in the early states in iowa and new hampshire and then you have joe biden
1:47 pm
nationally. and if you forecast this race down the line, that is very good for joe biden because he is the only one in this race right now who actually has support of people of color. and you are not going to win this nomination unless you have african-americans and hispanics supporting you. and so pete is doing well in new hampshire and iowa. but look at south carolina. he is not doing well there. you look at super tuesday states where a significant chunk of delegates are going to be coming out. a significant number of black voters are going to be coming out and he is not doing well in those states. >> let's talk about mayor mike bloomberg's campaign because even democrats who don't necessarily want him to be their nominee, the fact that he is mounting a campaign that basically makes a run around, democrats say that is a good thing because every four years you hear people say why is it iowa and new hampshire, these two small states that aren't representative of the democratic party and certainly aren't representative of the country at large, why do they have an outsized influence?
1:48 pm
>> growing up around iowa and new hampshire is a good thing for those of us that have always argued that you are giving an undue kind of jumpstart to states that do not reflect the diversity of what the base of the democratic party needs. and it really is offensive to many that say that we have to deal with a momentum that is established outside of states that really represent or reflect many of our communities that are expected to do the huge turnouts when the whole season of primaries are over. in that regard, i think it's good. i think the challenges that bloomberg will have to face in even the latest states some of his own baggage in some of those diverse communities. and that's going to be his challenge. because even in super tuesday every many states that have large black populations, large brown populations that are not
1:49 pm
going to sit well with the background of stop and frisk and it will take more than one speech to erase that or be give some kind of forgiveness for that. >> alexi, you've been out in these critical states. what are people telling you? >> well, what's interesting about south carolina, and to doug's point is that joe biden certainly has i think it's, what, 40% support among black voters? the polling is tricky to do, but the fact remains that he's been digging this entire time. i think the big question is whoever could capture black millennials, one, whoever that is, that's a question. but, two, is that significant enough to help push them to an equal level as joe biden given his support with black voters. but when i talk to folks in south carolina, democrats, folks on campaigns, organizers, voters, they talk a lot about how senators kamala harris and
1:50 pm
cory booker have the best ground game in south carolina. but they also talk about how well biden has a commanding lead among black voters. they get the sense that voters are moveable there and that he might have a stronghold on south carolina right now, but that's only up until that point. and that's coming from democratic strategists. >> when we come back, mayor pete's outreach to new voters we'll tell you about that coming up next. ♪
1:51 pm
1:52 pm
1:53 pm
- [woman] with my shark, i deep clean messes like this, this, and even this. but i don't have to clean this, because the self-cleaning brush roll removes hair while i clean. - [announcer] shark, the vacuum that deep cleans now cleans itself.
1:54 pm
and we've been talking all day about mayor pete buttigieg having to atone for comments he made back in 2011 where he said that minority children need to see evidence that education is going to work for them. and, rev, i want to come back to you on this. rhetorical question but not really. how is it in 2019 the democratic party that has twice nominated barack obama for president, a country has twice elected him president. you have a democratic party, the base of which black and brown voters, black women to be specific about it. and yet, you have a top-tier democratic candidate who still has to atone for, let's just call it what it was, an ignorant comment. an ignorant and uninformed comment he made some eight years ago but nevertheless, having made it regardless. >> that is what is very troubling. to see someone in the top tier that you can bring this out after months of -- of -- of all
1:55 pm
kind of looking into all of their backgrounds. you have joe biden who authored the crime bill. '94 crime bill, which was -- which led to a lot of the mass incarceration, disproportionately black. you have bernie sanders who voted for it. you have elizabeth warren who was accused of misstating her race, and you have buttigieg that makes this kind of statement. and then you wonder why many of us have a problem getting the kind of turnout in our community and confidence that we do. and i think that we need to be very candid about these things. upfront about it. and -- and make people accountable so then we can move on. but i think to try to brush over it is -- is more insulting than the original misstatements and -- and, in my opinion, kind of distorted feelings in looking at america. what buttigieg said, i think was offensive because it was stereotypical and not dealing with the reality that the system
1:56 pm
put people in those places. because you have -- blacks are not as monoligtic -- any more monolithic than anybody else. i think it was offensive and i think that a lot of progressives and moderates have this distorted picture of what black life is in america. >> reverend al sharpton, making it as plain as always. appreciate you, sir. we'll be right back after this. appreciate you, sir. we'll be right back after this unpredictable crohn's symptoms following you?
1:57 pm
for adults with moderately to severely active crohn's disease, stelara® works differently. studies showed relief and remission, with dosing every 8 weeks. stelara® may lower your ability to fight infections and may increase your risk of infections and cancer. some serious infections require hospitalization. before treatment, get tested for tb. tell your doctor if you have an infection or flu-like symptoms or sores, have had cancer, or develop new skin growths, or if anyone in your house needs or recently had a vaccine. alert your doctor of new or worsening problems, including headaches, seizures, confusion and vision problems. these may be signs of a rare, potentially fatal brain condition. some serious allergic reactions
1:58 pm
and lung inflammation can occur. talk to your doctor today, and learn how janssen can help you explore cost support options. remission can start with stelara®. make family-sized meals fast, and because it's a ninja foodi, it can do things no other oven can, like flip away. the ninja foodi air fry oven, the oven that crisps and flips away.
1:59 pm
sharpton. plus, ashley parker and joyce vance and especially to nicolle wallace for having me here today. that does it for this hour.
2:00 pm
i'm jeff bennett in for nicolle. "mtp daily" with my friend katy tur in for chuck starts right now. tur in for chuck starts right now. welcome to wednesday. it is "meet the press daily." good evening. i'm katy tur in new york in for chuck todd. it has been quite the afternoon of breaking news. moments ago, nbc news confirmed what was first reported by "the new york times." that the highly-anticipated inspector general's report on the fbi's handling of the russia investigation is expected to undercut the president's claims that he was spied on. a person familiar with the draft copy of the report confirms that it concludes that the fbi did not spy on the trump campaign, which would significantly undermine all the right-wing conspiracy theories that the president and his allies have been pushing. also, this

85 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on