tv Politics Nation MSNBC January 12, 2020 2:00pm-3:00pm PST
♪ good evening and welcome to "politicsnation." on tonight's show, easy as pie. joe biden and bernie sanders sit atop most 2020 polls. but today the sanders' campaign argues that when black voters look at the resumes of both men, they shouldn't have to think twice. later, national co-chair for the sanders' campaign, nina turner,
will join me live. and what's wrong with this picture? not a single candidate of color will appear in tuesday's democratic presidential debate. dnc chair tom perez will join me to discuss the lack of racial diversity on that stage and in the echelon of the democratic field. but today we'll start with impeachment where nancy pelosi is defending her decision to delay sending articles of impeachment to the senate. this morning she detailed what the party had to gain by holding up the process. >> we wanted the public to see the need for witnesses, witnesses with first-hand knowledge of what happened, documentation, which the president has prevented from coming to the congress as rereviewed this. >> leader mcdonald didn't budge on witnesses. >> i think that he will be
accountable to the american people for that. over 70% of the american people think that the president should have those witnesses testify. >> pelosi may just get her wish. after that interview with abc, the president tweeted calling for both house intel chairman adam schiff and pelosi herself to testify before the senate. and as the process moves forward, the house still has not named its impeachment managers. who will serve as prosecution in the trial. as the "new york times" points out this weekend, that delay is leaving those democrats very little time to prepare, making an already difficult job even harder. joining me now, one of the jurors in the impeachment trial democratic senator kirsten gillibrand of new york. she is also a member of the house armed services committee.
senator, how important is it to you as a juror in this trial that there will be the witnesses and documents presented before this senate at trial that we've been hearing discussion about and some of whom the witnesses testified before the house? >> i believe it's essential that we are allowed to hear from witnesses as well as see all the documentation. you have to remember that the articles of impeachment include obstruction of congress. and what that count is about is that the white house refused to allow people in the administration to testify. one person who is willing to testify is john bolton. john bolton came out just weeks ago saying he would like to testify, he is available to testify. he has relevant, direct knowledge. i would like to hear his testimony because it wasn't allowed in the house. i'd also like to see documents. there are several people --
>> let me stop you at john bolton, though. john bolton has said he wants to testify. the president has come out and said he would use executive privilege to bar bolton's testimony. how will you and democrats in the senate react? is that a legitimate claim that the president would have? >> i don't believe that is a legitimate claim. and bolton no longer works at the white house. and i do not believe executive privilege adheres to all workings of personnel within the white house. it just doesn't. that's not what it's designed for. so i believe he could testify. i also believe that secretary pompeo could testify along with other people who have direct knowledge of president trump's conversation about withholding ukrainian aid in exchange for an investigation of his political rival, joe biden. >> now, you only need four republicans to give you 51 votes
to agree to witnesses and/or documents. would your communication with people across the aisle, do you believe that it is feasible that four republicans may say i may not vote for the president to be removed, but i will vote that witnesses and documents ought to come before the senate? >> i do think it's possible. i have heard from my colleague lisa murkowski when she said publicly that she had deep concerns that that is something that i think may ultimately support her effort to get to see witnesses and documents. so, i'm hopeful that there are four republican senators who recognize that this is their constitutional duty. this is not politics. this is something they are obligated to do under the constitution. >> now, aren't we, senator, also dealing with something basic, such as the equal powers in the
various branches of government, legislative, executive, and judicial? if the president can say executive privilege to anybody that worked with him, in many ways he can show a superior power to the legislative branch because it would really mean no president can face impeachment that you can call some people with relevant information a term you used here tonight to come before an impeachment trial. doesn't that really deal with the -- >> yes -- >> imbalance of powers as laid out by the constitution? >> yes, reverend. you have actually made the case perfectly. the constitution intended to have three co-equal branches of government. it intends to have balance of powers. the legislative branch's responsibility is to do oversight over the executive branch. and so it is not designed in the constitution that the executive has a blanket privilege with all
of its workers and employees under executive privilege. it doesn't exist. >> now -- >> so i believe -- >> go ahead and finish your point. >> i believe that the managers will be able to then make a case why witnesses are essential, especially because one of the counts is obstruction of congress. >> now, if speaker pelosi meets with the democratic caucus on the house on tuesday and they pass the two articles of impeachment up wednesday, what kind of time does the democrats in the senate have to prepare for trial? isn't that giving a very small window to get prepared? >> i think they have more than enough time to prepare. they have had a full investigation over many, many weeks. i believe that the speaker will appoint managers who are intimately aware of the facts in evidence. and even if only given a few days to prepare, i think they're ready. they are very knowledgeable about these allegations.
we have many indicia of abuse of power and many indicia of obstruction of congress. so i think they know exactly what testimony and evidence they will put forward. and i don't think they need a great deal of time to prepare. >> i'm out of time, but i must ask you this. you ran for president in this cycle. you withdrew one of your colleagues in the race, julian castro, withdrew and endorsed elizabeth warren. are you going to endorse a candidate, and if so, who might that be? >> i hope to endorse someone before the new york primary. and i'm just so grateful that we have so many great candidates who are running against president trump. all of them are better than him. and i will hopefully choose someone before our primary just to give guidance to constituents in our state. >> well, you and i go way back, and we talk a lot just between us. are you leaning toward any one particular candidate? >> not yet. >> just between us.
>> i've been very impressed with the conviction and the determination of our candidates, and those who are still eligible for debates i am very optimistic that we will choose the right person. >> all right. new york senator kirsten gillibrand, we appreciate the time. >> thank you. for more on the upcoming impeachment trial, i'd like to bring in tara dardell, a democratic strategist and also the associate editor of commentary magazine. we are getting down to the wire in terms of this impeachment trial, starting by all indications unless something happens that no one has been able to see coming. we will probably see the articles of impeachment transmitted this week. what do you think is the next steps, and what are the most important things that we need to know going into this trial, tara? >> well, i think there are
several important things going into this trial. but i think the democrats, and in particular nancy pelosi keep reminding people that the senate does not want to allow witnesses to testify. if you thought that your president had not done anything wrong, then you would welcome that level of transparency. you would welcome people testifying because you would feel those people would exonerate him. i think point two, that's important for the american people to continue to understand is that mitch mcconnell very plainly said that he is cooperating and coordinating with the white house on the impeachment trial. i know it's been said before, but i think it bears repeating because in any other setting if the prosecutor -- >> should he recuse himself? >> right. if the prosecution said i'm going to coordinate with the defense, i mean, that's just not -- >> should he recuse himself? >> should who recuse himself? >> mcconnell. >> well, yeah. given the fact that he's already said he is coordinating, then
absolutely. >> i mean -- >> you're not going to do that. >> take an oath of impartiality. how does he and lindsey graham who have already said that the president is innocent, how do they become fair jurors in this? and should he recuse himself, and should the democrats ask for their recusal when the session opens? >> across the board, no. this is not uncommon. >> no, but he didn't say that i find the president to be innocent or that i find that the president, under no circumstances, will be convicted. those are the statements that mcconnell made. >> of course. but your framing was are they impartial? and by those standards, i don't think you can call tom dashel impartial. the -- >> the impartiality is in the oath. >> it is. >> i didn't create that. that's in the oath.
>> and this is also a political body that is going to behave politically. it's simply naive to assume that they're not going to behave as political actors in the senate representative constituents. i understand the oath. but this is how this has worked. we understand how politicians behave in this setting. >> isn't that the problem? i mean, this is the problem. this is why we have the level of abuse of power that we have from the president of the united states. at what point do we demand that we have our elected officials follow the same conduct that we follow in our own lives? i run a small business. if i did any of the things that the president is doing, i would be out of business. i think this type of attitude is what contributes to the corrosive nature of our system. >> maybe it's the time in which we live. we had rudy giuliani redefine what truth and lying is when it was brought up. we now have the secretary of state pompeo and the president redefining what imminent is when it comes to iran. now we're going to redefine what impartiality means in an oath?
impartiality means can you listen to the evidence impartially? and they've already said no. they've made a decision. >> yeah, they have, and it is unfortunate to hear them say basically i've heard the evidence, i've already made up my decision. that is not how you approach this trial. and republicans are in a difficult position, especially with john bolton saying i have information, i'd like to talk. if they were to move for a speedy acquittal, a relevant witness saying i am dying to talk, and doesn't get the opportunity, would provide a disadvantageous narrative for democrats. they never subpoenaed john bolton. they withdrew the subpoena about his deputy, which was understood to be a proxy case. when impeachment articles were passed, the court mooted the case saying the venue is closed. if they wanted to hear john bolton. you heard senator gillibrand just now say he wasn't allowed. yes, the president is going to invoke executive privilege, and then goes back to the courts where we do this all over again.
>> is it not hypocritical for the president to say that schiff and pelosi should testify, but i'm going to block the people that i were to have testify, that the democrats want to have testify? either if you have testimony or not. the president said he wants schiff and pelosi to testify. >> no. i think the president should be as trance parent as possible. it, again, opens up just common sense would lead you to believe why is he not allowing these people to testify what has he got to hide? there are privileged conversations, completely irrelevant to the facts of this case, nevertheless something the president wants to keep privileged. i understand why his deputies and subordinates to refer to that. >> the president has told 15,000 lies. this impeachment process -- >> the day's not over. >> the day's not over. and this impeachment process is covering one element of what
he's done. we haven't even gotten into -- it doesn't even cover the fact that you have the -- i call the predatory loan industry staying at his hotels, having hosted lavish conventions at his property and then having the law changed shortly thereafter. we haven't even gotten into the tip of the iceberg. the point here is this comes down to do we want the president of the united states to be able to do exactly what he wants? is the president of the united states above the law? that's what this ultimately comes down to. all this other process, that's what it comes down to. vindman, who testified, was plain spoken, many of which were republicans, many of which were appointed by him. the facts that these leaks are coming out with such frequency, it means there are people in his inner circle, all of these leaks have come from his own circle. >> i'm out of time. thank you both for being with me. coming up, my next guest
said african-americans have a very clear choice about who should be the 2020 democratic nominee. who you may ask? i'll ask you stick around and find out. we'll be right back. ight back. where ore-ida golden crinkles are your crispy currency to pay for bites of this... ...with this. when kids won't eat dinner, potato pay them to. ore-ida. win at mealtime.
but maybe not for people with rheumatoid arthritis. potato pay them to. because there are options. like an "unjection™". xeljanz xr, a once-daily pill for adults with moderate to severe ra for whom methotrexate did not work well enough. xeljanz xr can reduce pain, swelling and further joint damage, even without methotrexate. xeljanz can lower your ability to fight infections like tb; don't start xeljanz if you have an infection. taking a higher than recommended dose of xeljanz for ra can increase risk of death. serious, sometimes fatal infections, cancers including lymphoma, and blood clots have happened. as have tears in the stomach or intestines, serious allergic reactions, and changes in lab results. tell your doctor if you've been somewhere fungal infections are common, or if you've had tb, hepatitis b or c, or are prone to infections. needles. fine for some.
than others. joe biden is still running away with the black vote with 48% of respondents saying he's their first choice to be the nominee. that's more than double the support of the next most popular candidate among african-americans, bernie sanders. but sanders' 2020 campaign co-chair is out with an op-ed today making the argument that, quote, bernie sanders has always stood up for african-americans, and joe biden has repeatedly let us down. joining me now nina turner, author of that editorial and national co-chair of the sanders' campaign. nina, is this an attempt to try and break the wall that keeps appearing to be solid of black support for joe biden, more than double your candidate with black voters and probably the same or close to it in south carolina, which is the first state with a
sizeable black voting base? >> the goal is to educate our community. it is vitally important that the african-american community not allow anybody to take us for granted. when we are called somebody's firewall, it is quite insulting because no other ethnic or racial group in this country is determined to be somebody's firewall. so my op-ed bears the facts of the case, record to record, comparing senator bernie sanders' record to that of vice president biden. and not only just comparing the records, but looking in a very futuristic way, the difference between somebody who stands up for medicare for all and understands the disproportionality in terms of the pain suffered by african-americans and somebody who says that the system -- >> let me -- >> -- is okay. >> in your op-ed, you take joe biden to task for his involvement in drafting and voting to pass the, quote, tough on crime legislation that
targeted black communities. and in the next paragraph, you call bernie sanders, quote, one of the leading dissenters to that agenda. but bernie sanders voted for the infamous 1994 crime bill. if we are going to talk about facts, the fact is while many of us, me included, were protesting this bill, bernie sanders voted for the bill you attacked joe biden of. >> right. it's not an attack to lay out somebody's record. so i'm glad we're having this conversation. in 1991 senator bernie sanders voted against the crime bill. >> in 1994 he voted for the crime bill. is that a fact or not? >> i'm getting to 1994. in 1991 he voted against the crime bill. in 1994 he stood up against that crime bill. >> and voted for it. >> and it wasn't until last-minute amendments, as you well know, the violence against women act and the ban on assault
weapons the senator did indeed vote for that bill -- >> but, ms. turner. he voted for the bill that resulted in mass incarceration over the country. >> reverend. >> don't you think it would be a better argument to say i made a mistake, apologize for that, and move on, than to act like -- he voted for the bill. we protested it even with the last-minute stuff. >> reverend, you didn't -- you're not letting me finish my thought here. >> please. >> i was going to say that, and the senator has since said that he regretted the vote for that bill. but the bottom line here is he's not on the floor bragging about being the author of a crime bill. he took to the floor to say that we as a nation were making a mistake, that we should educate instead of electrocute. and he has since then apologized for that that if he were to do it again he would not vote for it. you can't parse out the things
that you like and the things that you don't in the bills. you've got to make a decision and vote. but he did take to the floor both times. and the reason why i bring up 1991 is because that is important. 1994 is important too. but never did he get up on the floor and brag about and call people vicious and violent. never did he take to the floor. you remember this because you were involved in this too. when the welfare reform hit, and then take republican talking points about the welfare queen. we know exactly who they were talking about when it comes to labelling somewhere a welfare queen, black women. so there are stark differences between senator sanderers and vice president biden who has said that he really has nothing to apologize for. >> on the welfare reform bill, he certainly stood there on the 1994 bill -- >> he stood strong against it. >> he voted for the bill against our protests. and you did not, in your op-ed, say that he voted for it. i'm only dealing with what you
said. the facts don't change. because that was -- >> no, you're right. facts don't change. >> would cause a lot of mass incarceration and unfair sentencing. >> and there is no doubt about it, reverend. and senator bernie sanders has the most comprehensive criminal reform policies of any candidate. you know, the movement of the democratic party, for example, is to legalize marijuana. you and i both know what the war on drugs did to decimate our communities. not only does senator sanders want marijuana to be legalized. he wants to expunge the records of people who have those types of charges on their record so that they can begin to rebuild their lives. the vice president doesn't believe that that should happen. so it's not just about where somebody has been. it's where they are and where they would like to go. >> and i agree with that.
and i have said he's certainly running a trance formative campaign. but i think facts are facts and especially for those of us who try to raise those issues, especially for those of us that tried to raise those issues. both of them in this discussion went the other way. >> you remember the speech. >> let me go to the next point. among black voters, 57% are given priority to a nominee that can beat the president in november over one whose position on the issues match their own. with this seeming fight that your op-ed and people are saying that some of these sanders workers are going into a negative kind of canvassing on joe biden, do you risk the charge that happened in '16 that they said that bernie sanders' campaign set a tone to when
hillary clinton became the nominee, a lot of his supporters didn't vote. are you risking dividing the party that if you're not successful as a nominee, you will again have the same problem you had in '16 with some of your reporters inadvertently don't vote and help donald trump? is it burn the house house if i don't win or are we going to try and say i'm the better candidate and respect any of them on the race and any of them would be better than donald trump? >> reverend, the senator has always respected everybody in the race. but facts are facts. and it is time to contrast records, past, present, and future. and in terms of being not being comfortable with being able to lay that out. they said the same thing about president obama in 2008. so any time records are contrast, people feel uncomfortable. this is a contest, and this is simply what this is about. no, there is no risk to that.
i mean, those same folks won't bring up the fact that 25% of the people who supported secretary clinton in 2008 ended up voting for mccain. some of them even held events for mccain because they were so mad that president obama was the nominee. so we all are out here lobbying hard for our candidate and using the facts and comparing and contrasting records. this is about who is best positioned, rev, in this moment of time to question evil, selfish president. that's what this is about. >> and i'm out of time, but the question is you did not raise the facts on all the candidates. you went after joe biden and said joe biden or bernie sanders. not talking about everybody's record. so that is why -- >> the african-american community deserves to know the contrast. that's why. >> and i've raised the question, do you risk it looking like that you're trying to tear biden down, not just contrast
candidates because he is a direct contrast, i say attack, on joe biden rather than here's my clean glass, here are the other candidates' glasses. >> the african-american community has the right to know. as you opened up, you talked about the firewall. what i am saying to our community is look at the records and consider who would be the best champion. and when it comes to electability, senator bernie sanders is the best positioned. he did not vote for the iraq war. he did not right now currently vote to give the president more money in a military budget so he can continue to upset the entire world. he continues to stand up medicare for all. he did not side with the republicans to slash social security. and, rev, three-fourths of the african-american beneficiaries of social security, half of their resources rely on those benefits. he didn't stand up with the republicans and say we can slash social security, medicaid, and
medicare. he is talking about cancelling student debt, which the vice president does not agree with. and, rev, if we do that, we will slash the racial wealth gap, which is vitally important to our community from 12 to 1 to five to 1. >> all of that is unquestionably true. he also did vote for the '94 crime bill. nina turner, national co-chair for the bernie sanders campaign. after two years of investigating hillary clinton, there appears to be nothing to lock her up.
for this week's gotcha, i'd like to turn my attention to president trump's base. particularly those of you who take a special interest in corruption. but only when it pertains to former democratic presidential nominee hillary clinton. that investigation you've all been clamoring about for the last four years, well, according to "the washington post," it's over. perhaps pending official notice
to the justice department, but it's all -- it's overall the same, it's all over. and the investigation's found, quote, nothing of consequence. no wrongdoing by secretary clinton in the drummed up controversies around the clinton foundation or uranium one. and that must be really disappointing, seeing as how now private citizen clinton, is a favorite foil for you all and for the president. but i hope you can handle your feelings with poise. perhaps, by following the example of someone like hillary clinton. she has spent the bulk of her adult life dealing with the overwrought inaccurate suspicions of people like you. but time and time again, the investigations come up empty. from so-called travel gate and
whitewater in the '90s, all the way through the overblown scandal surrounding her emails in the 2016 election. and who could forget clinton testifying for over eight hours about benghazi? i for one have my doubts the current president would last eight minutes testifying before anyone. but then again, unlike clinton, your president is constantly committing actual crimes. so the next time you want to chance something at a rally for your dear leader, maybe rethink the lyrics. here are a few ideas with the same number of syllables. first, the obvious. lock him up. or maybe, trump does crimes. what about you're impeached? or my personal favorite, i gotcha. along with support, cx is proven to help you quit. with chantix you can keep smoking at first and ease
into quitting so when the day arrives, you'll be more ready to kiss cigarettes goodbye. when you try to quit smoking, with or without chantix, you may have nicotine withdrawal symptoms. stop chantix and get help right away if you have changes in behavior or thinking, aggression, hostility, depressed mood, suicidal thoughts or actions, seizures, new or worse heart or blood vessel problems, sleepwalking, or life-threatening allergic and skin reactions. decrease alcohol use. use caution driving or operating machinery. tell your doctor if you've had mental health problems. the most common side effect is nausea. talk to your doctor about chantix. aleit's a master stroke ofe's heartachew.ommon side effect is nausea. and redemption. the lexus nx. modern utility for modern obstacles. lease the 2020 nx 300 for $359 a month for 36 months. experience amazing at your lexus dealer.
your monthly bills. download it now to see how much you can save. - do you have a box of video tapes, film reels, or photos, that are degrading? legacybox professionally converts them to dvds, thumb drive, or the cloud. legacybox is simple and safe, with over half a million satisfied customers. visit legacybox.com today, and get 40% off.
on tuesday, i will head to des moines, iowa, to take in the next democratic debate. ahead of that event, the des moines newspaper released new polling that shows bernie sanders in first place, elizabeth warren in second, followed by pete buttigieg and joe biden. however, those top four candidates are technically in a statistical tie due to the margin of error. only six of the candidates from the poll you just saw will actually appear on the debate
stage. you can see them here, vice president biden, buttigieg, senator amy klobuchar, senator sanders, tom steyer, and senator warren. the most glaring omission from the event, candidates of color. joining me now is the chairman of the democratic national committee, tom perez. mr. chairman, before we get to the question of the debate stage, would the pending impeachment trial coming up, how will that affect the iowa caucus february 3rd if we are in the middle of an impeachment trial for the president before the senate? >> sure. the impeachment will have no impact on this tuesday's debate. when the impeachment trial starts, our senators are very good at walking and chewing gum. they understand the need to multitask. all of the candidates for
president have built a really impressive infrastructure in iowa. and if they have to be in washington, all of our senators and frankly the voters stand that their first responsibility is to be in washington to carry out their very, very solemn responsibilities of serving as jurors. and i'm confident voters will understand that. and i know these candidates, they're very good multitaskers. >> but i realize it would not affect this tuesday's debate. but i'm saying if it becomes a longer trial, could it affect future debates? you have two debates scheduled in february. if the trial starts next week and goes into february, candidates can not debate and be in washington at the same time given the sites of the dnc debates in february. >> absolutely. the iowa caucus will go on, on february the 3rd. if there are debates that are conflicting, for instance,
friday the 7th of february is the new hampshire debate, and if the senate is in trial, then we will have to figure out a plan b to reschedule that debate so that all the candidates can make it. and we are in regular touch with the campaigns. we are in regular touch with leadership. it's beyond my control to state the obvious. what we're trying to do is our level best to plan for every sing single twijcy. and all of our network partners have been exceedingly understanding of this situation. >> let me get to the issue of diversity. certainly, you cannot win the general election without black and latino, asian support, and native american, none of which will be on the stage.
there are those that say that the rules should be changed. there are others that are saying if we change the rules, do we feed into those to put people of color there? how do you deal with the fact that you must have rally -- black voters rally people of color? but at the same time under th e rules, there will not be one on that stage tuesday night. >> i'm really glad you asked this question. and my privilege has been working with you, working with president obama, working with my former boss, ted kennedy and others, to make sure that america is truly the land of opportunity. because civil rights is, indeed, the unfinished business of america. and that is why when we, about a year ago, announced our criteria not knowing who was going to be in the race, we announced the most inclusive criteria ever because we knew we would have the most diverse field in america history, and we did. and as a result of that we had
six debates over the course of 2019. you saw the remarkable diversity of our democratic party and our values. in last's month debate in december, eight people qualified for the debate. three women, you have the first only gay candidate for president in pete buttigieg, and you had two candidates of color. unfortunately, prior to the december debate but after she had qualified, senator harris stepped down. and that was very sad for me on a personal level. she was a powerhouse in the democratic party. >> she had qualified to be in that debate and stepped down before she could have appeared on that debate? it would not have been a debate without a black woman on there because she had already qualified is what you're saying? >> that is exactly right. i will tell you no doubt she would have qualified for january as well. we should have a separate conversation about how we ensure
in the future that people have the resources necessary to sustain campaigns. so let's fast forward now to january. we have a debate on tuesday. and we said last january that we would always raise the bar. we would do so very, very slowly. and we established new criteria for january, which were actually i think among the most inclusive interior ever. you had to get 5% in no less than four polls. and there were 23 eligible polls, including 13 in the four early states. so that means you had to bat four out of 23. contrast that with four years ago. what you had to do, there were only five qualifying polls for iowa. and you had to average 5%, not just hit 5%. you had to average 5%. the bar was much higher. and as i look in the past, you not only cleared this bar in
past run-ups to iowa, you cleared it with ease and you cleared it repeatedly. reverend jackson was at 22% when he was running in '88 and he was have cleared this easily, and he did in 1984. obviously president obama cleared the field. the folks who are at the top of the polling right now are the candidates who have been able to reach out and connect and earn the support of the diverse quilt that is our democratic party. am i sad that kamala harris isn't there and other candidates of color? absolutely. the voters are speaking right now, and that is where we're at. make no mistake about it. the democratic party is going to continue to be the party of civil rights, the party of inclusion. and we will continue to fight for everybody to have that access to opportunity. but those are the facts. and i think it's really important to understand how we got here. >> well, that's what i wanted to have, and that's what i wanted
to hear. i still hope to see that as we go forward that we have the diversity we started this whole season with. dnc chair, tom perez, thank you for being with us today. >> thank you. coming up, congress is proposing new legislation in an effort to combat one of the most harmful epidemics affecting the black community. details on that when we return. ? you're in a no parking zone. oh, i... i didn't know. you didn't see the sign? that... that wasn't there when i was here earlier. (whimper) really? you know, in italy, they let you park anywhere. have a good day, sir. with geico, the savings keep on going. just like this sequel. 15 minutes could save you 15% or more on car insurance. (glass shattering) (frustrated yell) (car horn blast) (yelp)
shine light on one of the more underreported stories in our community. the high risk of suicide among black youth. a congressional black caucus emergency task force recently issued a report which found that suicide attempts by black adolescents rose by 73%. 1991 to 2017. right now, suicide is the second leading cause of death by young people ages 10 to 19. the same day the report was released, legislation was introduced seeking more than $1 billion to combat the epidemic. joining me now, congresswoman bonnie watson coleman of new jersey, chair of the black youth suicide task force. this is something that you have really been passionate about. where are we, and how do we get ahead of this? >> we made us an emergency task force because we wanted it to be of limited duration so we can
move on to the solutions. so we had a number of hearings around the country, diverse members of various communities testifying. now we had the report that came out, and as a result of that report, we found out where many of the gaps are. so we have introduced legislation called the pushing mental health equity act of 2019. there's over $1 billion worth of resources hopefully that will go to things like insuring that the children at school have the appropriate resources, insuring that people who are delivering these mental health services are culturally competent. making sure that our teachers and our administrators, even our parents and other folks in the community are recognizing signals. signals that something is going on and needs to be addressed. we're also putting additional money into opportunities for curriculum to change so that
those who are in school learning to be psychiatrists, psychologists, counsellors, et cetera, can understand the uniqueness of our culture and therefore gain the comp tensy they need to address what we see in our communities, because it's not always manifested in the same way. if it's manifested in the same way that a young white kid is acting out, it's not received in the same way. >> that's why the cultural sensitivity. it's also personal with you. you shared with me, you have people coming up to you saying they can't handle certain things. >> i was in massachusetts last night at a program and a young girl asked the question, how do i deal with this trauma? with trauma. for her, she was less than a teenager. our children are just experiencing so much. and we have for so long not seen the signs, not dealt with them. had this stigma with regard to
mental health issues. we need to get a handle on it because we could lose a whole generation. >> we're going to keep on this, and thank you for keep coming back. we're going to stay on it with you. new jersey congresswoman bonnie watson coleman, thank you again for your time. >> up next, my final thoughts. stay with us.
framp for example, in the state of florida, they are 47, number 47 out of 50 states in low pay to teachers. and their commitment in terms of public resources. that is why on tomorrow, i'm going to be in tallahassee, florida. joining frederick ingram and the florida education association and reverend holmes and reverend talb and others as they rally and march at the state house, saying we must deal with paying teachers, and we must deal with the resources needed in public education. and hopefully it will set a tone with the florida legislators as well as states around the country. we cannot in any way lessen our commitment to public education when the majority of students, black or white, latino or asian, get their education. we are not talking about a partisan issue here. we're talking about the future of the nation and our young
people. that does it for me. i'll see you back here next weekend. up next, "meet the press" with chuck todd. this sunday, iran fallout. >> stopped him quickly and we stopped him cold. >> president trump cheers the killing of qassem soleimani, but what's behind the administration's shifting explanations? >> the threats included attacks on u.s. embassies, period, full stop. >> so you were mistaken when you said you didn't know precisely when and you didn't know precisely where? >> no, completely true. those are completely consistent thoughts. >> now anti-government protests have erupted across iran over the downing of that ukrainian passenger jet. my guests this morning, president trump's national security advisor robert o'brien and republican senator rand paul. plus impeachment trial.