Skip to main content

tv   MSNBC Live With Stephanie Ruhle  MSNBC  January 13, 2020 6:00am-7:00am PST

6:00 am
it is incredible. we're on colbert tonight. stephanie ruhle picks up the coverage. busy day. >> thank you so much, mika, joe. good morning. it is monday, january 13th. here is what is happening. closely watching developments in the united states and iran. two governments that appear to be on the brink of war just a few days ago are facing protests from their own people. nbc has exclusive reporting that president trump authorized the killing of qassem soleimani all the way back in june. now he has a whole lot of people looking more closely at the administration's rationale for launching the fatal strike specifically on january 3rd. and the president's statements are raising more questions than they are answers. first, he said he green lit the attack after a u.s. contractor was killed and the u.s. embassy in baghdad came under attack in december. he mentioned imminent attacks.
6:01 am
but didn't give details as to what possible attacks. he didn't even give them to congress. later, he said the threat was to the u.s. embassy, then went on fox news, said it wasn't one embassy but four. his officials said that was more a belief than fact. >> what the president said was he believes that it probably could have been attacks against additional embassies. >> probably and could have been. that sounds more like an assessment than a specific tangible threat with decisive piece of intelligence. >> well, the president deputy say there was -- he didn't cite a specific piece of evidence, he said he probably believed it could have been -- i didn't see one with regard to four embassies. >> kara lee had the exclusive reporting on president trump's authorization for the attack. you wrote this was authorized last summer. if it was authorized last
6:02 am
summer, why exactly would it happen now, january 3rd? >> because what five kurcurrentd former officials told my partner and i, last summer when iran was ratcheting up aggression in the middle east, there was a push particularly among the president's national security adviser at the time for the president to respond by assassinating qassem soleimani, specifically after iran shot down a u.s. drone in june. what we're told is at that time the president said no, that was not a proportional response, but he would agree to do that if iran killed an american. also set the condition that it is not something he was authorizing the military to just do, if iran crossed the red line, they would need to come back to him with a specific operation plan that he would have to sign off on. the reason this raises questions about the justification, one of
6:03 am
the justifications that the administration is saying, the reason they assassinated soleimani, they're arguing there was imminent threat that soleimani was plotting attacks on americans, and that suggests that this was an operation born out of new intelligence, something more in the moment. what we learned is that this goes back many, many months. >> if there's not new intelligence, how unusual for any administration to have a plan to kill a terrorist leader even if it was that far in advance? >> it is not unusual to have a plan to kill a terrorist leader such as al qaeda or isis. what's different about qassem soleimani, he was a senior member of a sovereign government. now, a government that the u.s. says is state sponsor of terror and the irgc is something that the trump administration designated as a foreign terrorist organization last year
6:04 am
in april. so it is just a little bit different than having a plan to take out leaders of basically what you would consider typical terrorist organizations that are not necessarily nation states. >> carol lee, thank you so much. joining me to explain why it matters to you at home, yasmin i can't soofian. why does it matter if it was authorized last month or last year? >> it will matter if sons and daughters, church goers that they see every sunday get shipped off to war. the danger for escalation, although it seems to have receded somewhat is still very
6:05 am
real. thousands of troops deployed to the middle east days after christmas, having come back from a community doing reporting where there are military veterans day, there's a mixed sense of how it might play out. certain level of support for the commandish in chief, but also a real sense of unease and uncertainty that president trump has a plan, isn't just leading the united states into another endless war, the kind he promised to end when he campaigned for president. >> let's go to the reporting. if the rationale couldn't they just go with that rationale, said we would do it, somebody died, we did it, move on. >> that was the calculation they were making, and pompeo as far
6:06 am
as dangling this in front of the president, drawing the red line. the fact of the matter is there's been a target on general soleimani since 1998. he was a soldier in the iran, iraq war. 1998, assumed the position of leader and that was during the clinton administration. since then, there's been a target on his back. he told me they were tracking soleimani a long time, and always had inclination to believe he was way too powerful, way too influential, consequences too dire to target and kill him. that was the calculation from above. now to make the decision to kill him, the question has always been, the question has not necessarily been is this a bad guy, does he have american blood on his hands, after all, he is an iranian general who believes
6:07 am
was at war with americans. the question was why now and was it worth it. >> jeremy, given all that and who he was, and our current and previous administration's positions on this guy, why not simply say we finally had a clear shot at him and move on, instead of creating narratives that keep falling apart. we don't need them. >> right. this is a president, this is a man who before he became president had a little saying for this truthful hyperbole. he always exaggerated and some cases disregard the truth. >> what if the truth will set you free, what if the truth will actually help you? >> in this case, seems like this was an impulsive decision based on reporting of "new york times" and others. this is at the end of a list of options presented to this preside president. he made the decision basically on the golf course, basically said let's do this. i think creating justification
6:08 am
for this after the fact is what we have seen happen over the last week and a half when indeed maybe all along plans existed in some form. the problem is once you start to backdate forms, things start to get messy. >> let's get this on the front page of newspapers as soon as congress is in session, and not the impeachment trial which isn't going away. while all this is going on, developing news out of tehran. crowds of iranian demonstrators are protesting. this is important. they're not protesting the u.s. government but now they're protesting their own government. tehran bureau chief allei arouz is there. what's going on? >> reporter: hi, stephanie. large protests across the country and in tehran where i am, people were very, very upset about the news that iran shot down that ukranian passenger
6:09 am
plane. there were multiple vigils in this city and other cities around the country. those vigils quickly turned into protests, joined by huge numbers of security forces, and the night turned very violent. you have to understand, stephanie, as well, before the protests broke out last night, there were rows and rose of riot police in the streets of tehran. people still came out, which is a very risky thing to do. now, today there's still a lot of tension in iran. there are calls for people to come out. again, a massive security presence in this city. the universities are getting a little rowdy. that's always been the back burner. >> unfortunately we are losing ali's signal. we have to leave it there.
6:10 am
i want to dig deeper. former president of the national iranian american council with us, currently executive vice president of the quincy institute which examines foreign policy. gail will he man, senior fellow with foreign relations, she was in the region three weeks ago. i have to go to you first. one week ago we thought, many americans feared going to war with iran. today, their own people are protesting in the streets their own government. what is the significance of that? >> you should throw out the play book for what we expected to see in the region from basra to beirut to baghdad to what we're seeing in tehran. no one has seen the convergence of factors before. of course, long-standing protests that have been going on with not that much coverage outside the region of young people protesting for better governance, for a regime that responded to its demands. now you see a swing within seven
6:11 am
days to real anger at what happened with the soleimani killing to mistrust being expressed, publicly expressed even by semi state run news agencies that are saying listen, this is unforgivable, the fact this was kept from the iranian public, that there was a coverup at the outset. >> there are reports of iranian forces using live ammunition on protesters, iranian protesters. just last week on the same streets, they were marching in pro-government rallies, anti-america rallies. is that all over? >> i wouldn't say those necessarily were pro-government rallies. those were rallies because people felt that the nation had been under attack, they felt their dignity had been violated. it was not necessarily expression for support for the government. what you're seeing now is actually not necessarily surprising, the same dignity has now been violated by the iranian
6:12 am
government because they have lied to them and shot down an airliner, lied about it, and killed almost 200 civilians. i think it is possible for the iranian public to on one hand be upset about assassination of soleimani who many over there believed protected the country from isis, at the same time, be absolutely outraged about what the iranian government is doing. we're seeing the complexity of the iranian society which often times we don't give them credit for. >> what do the american people think of this? is this a threat to us? >> that's tough to know. that's a good question, tough question to understand what the american people think of it. what's hard to know is you have to understand the complexity of iran and the iran, u.s. relationship, long history of mistrust that both countries have. what i think is interesting most about the protests that we're seeing here, steph, is you need to understand the income disparity that exists in iran
6:13 am
now. there's really no middle class. there is the elite class of iranians and the working class of iranians. from my reporting, from people i speak to on the ground, my understanding is that these protesters, these videos that are emerging are university students, the elite ruling class. these are individuals studying to be doctors, lawyers, engineers, people that can visualize themself on the ukranian jet headed west. then the working class protesters can't put food on their table, making a couple hundred dollars a month, those were the ones that protested against increased gas prices, people protesting the economic situation, recession that exists in iran now. i think the real change that we could feasibly see, if they converge, protesters going out to smaller cities, we begin to
6:14 am
see a bit of that, we're beginning to see this take fire, take step. if in fact that happens, that's when you could see a change in iran. the bad thing about that is when the iranian government feels threatened, they use violence. we know that from excellent reporting in "new york times" with hundreds being killed in the streets, and in smaller cities protesting the economic situation there. however, these protesters as we have seen on instagram and twitter, these protesters have access to social media and they know the world is watching. and the iranian government certainly doesn't want a redo of 2009 when that woman and all of us remember, shot in the streets of iran was taken down, represented the face of the green movement going forward, and the iranian government doesn't want that going forward. it is an incredible time in iran that we're all watching. >> what's our role in this? you talk about economic insecurity and why we're seeing people living in such poverty there, it points in large or
6:15 am
some part to the economic sanctions imposed by our government on iran. the president over the weekend sent out tweets supporting the protesters. should the president stay out of this, could this impact his position on sanctions going forward? >> we have to make a bit of distinction between the united states and this specific president. this president who has imposed a muslim ban, prevented people from being able to visit families in the united states, who has talked openly about targeting culture sites, having his support would be the equivalent in my view of having the supreme leader of iran endorsing pelosi in impeachment. i don't think nancy pelosi would find that particularly helpful. this president because of his actions have become toxic. that's not to say previous presidents didn't have similar problems, but the degree to which this president has it is unprecedented.
6:16 am
as a result, the best way of helping is to not fuel this in such a manner that would justify or give the iranian government the excuse that would resonate with other parts of the society in which they would once again say this is all the u.s. behind it, et cetera. right now, those type of pretexts are not working. we shouldn't do anything that would allow it to work. >> last word to you, anti-government protests are happening across the region, lebanon, iraq, algeria, sudan. are they connected? >> yes. it is a young people's quest for dignity. a quest for better governance. here, what young people want, sufficient indicated opportunity is the enemy of global stability, and we're seeing this play out. i think i would watch two things. watch what iranian influence does abroad, watch what happens in lebanon and iraq with the discussion of u.s. troop levels and watch what happens at home. where do protests go.
6:17 am
do they escalate, does the iranians regime come out with violence against protesters or do we see largely peaceful protesters take to the streets and not find government that is willing to exercise violence in response. and i think both of these will play out on social media and on television. and the regime as we all do, know that everyone is watching. >> playing out on social media. we'll stay on that topic but leave this conversation there. thank you all. coming up, like it or not, the 2020 election will be won or lost on facebook. it is not going away and they're not changing the rules. we're going to explore how president trump is already light years ahead of every democratic candidate. they can complain about it or they can get in the game. and president trump continues to tell foxconn's first u.s. plant as the eighth wonder of the world, but what's happening is far, far from that. we take you to wisconsin for the truth. consin for the truth. hi dad. no. don't try to get up.
6:18 am
hi, i'm julie, a right at home caregiver. and if i'd been caring for tom's dad, i would have noticed some dizziness that could lead to balance issues. that's because i'm trained to report any changes in behavior, no matter how small, so tom could have peace of mind. we'll be right there. we have to go. hey, tom. you should try right at home. they're great for us. the right care. right at home. but she wanted to be close to nature. home. so, we met in the middle. ohhhhh! look who just woke up! you are so cute! but one thing we could both agree on was getting geico to help with homeowners insurance. yeah, it was really easy and we saved a bunch of money. oh, you got it. you are such a smart bear! call geico and see how easy saving on homeowners and condo insurance can be.
6:19 am
6:20 am
6:21 am
after weeks of waiting, a big moment is about to happen in washington. house speaker nancy pelosi says articles of impeachment are in fact coming. she meets with her members to talk time line tomorrow. over the weekend, dangled the possibility sending articles to the senate might not be the last time you hear from house investigators. >> we haven't eliminated the possibility of ever subpoenaing
6:22 am
and going forward with bolton. >> if the senate does not subpoena john bolton and other witnesses, will the house move? >> that's not excluded. it is not excluded. we'll see what they do. >> president trump took to twitter suggesting the senate should consider outright dismissing the case against him. garrett hague is on capitol hill. garrett, not the senate should dismiss this, let's go with how quickly could nancy pelosi and articles moving forward happen? >> reporter: what you could see is a vote early as tuesday night, possibly wednesday. pelosi wants to do one last check in with the conference tuesday morning before they put the resolution that sends articles to the senate and appoint house managers on the house floor. once that happens, we might still be a few days away from what you and i recognize as something like a trial happening on the senate floor. there's some housekeeping needs to be done, chief justice has to be sworn in, newly appointed managers have to prepare their
6:23 am
case, then the mlk holiday next weekend. you may not see what looks like trial action until tuesday next week potentially. from then, the key thing to watch for is the end of the arguments, extended opening arguments we'll see from house managers and the president's attorney will be the big vote on witnesses. this is the thing to watch for here. democrats need to peel off four republican senators. right now, sounds like they'll have susan collins and mitt romney for sure, they need at least two more. that's the job of house impeachment managers, find those two republican senators, convince them of the necessity of calling witnesses. >> thank you. bring in david drucker, senior correspondent for washington examiner. matt miller, nbc justice and security analyst, tom la bianco, author. president trump floated the idea of an outright dismissal of the impeachment case in the senate. is that even remotely a
6:24 am
possibility or is that just a narrative for the president, for fox news audience that wants to say this thing is meaningless? >> doesn't seem to be a possibility at this point. you would need 51 republican senators willing to take that political risk. while i wbet 40 or 45 would be willing to do so, similar to the question of whether there would be witnesses, there are a small number of republican senators to deny mcconnell and dismiss outright. i think you'll see it play out with motion to dismiss and when there's a vote for witnesses, whether it comes at the beginning of the process or after the house managers. you're going to see a vote, there will be a number of republicans, may only be three, may not be enough to be successful, to bring witnesses into the process. that's ultimately the question. can you get beyond murkowski, romney, get collins and someone
6:25 am
else like cory gardner, martha mcsally. if they don't, they do so at their own political peril. the american public wants to see an open and fair trial. >> they suggest they should split articles of impeachment, send the obstruction charge and keep investigating the ukraine. >> that's interesting. she's kind of doing that already. we heard a bit of that earlier in her interview where she indicated that they're continuing to do investigations. does she hold one key card back and send one over, it sounds like we're going to get that answer maybe tomorrow when the house democrats meet for the first time to seriously discuss what the next steps are on this. one thing you can say for certain out of this is that she and mcconnell have been canny how they handle this.
6:26 am
you have to give some edge to pelosi because she successfully redirected the narrative time and again back to impeachment. look, we're coming out of this, last week, start of the year, iran, big focus on iran. now we're back to impeachment. that's not something the white house likes. the white house, trump, never like talking about impeachment. >> david, would you agree with that, pelosi's decision to delay the articles, did that work out for her? >> i don't think it worked out all that well simply because there was never leverage to force mcconnell and force senate republicans to call the witnesses that democrats want to hear from. when i talk to republicans, what they remind me is democrats want to hear from john bolton, mick mulvaney, we want to hear from hunter biden, the whistle-blower and other people. you can't call any witness unless you have 51 votes for each witness. that's how this will work. ultimately after the opening arguments which as matt mentioned, that's the extent of
6:27 am
the trial really, extended opening arguments, there will be votes on witnesses. i think republicans have softened their blanket opposition to witnesses generally, and it is possible you'll hear from witnesses that testified in the house. i don't think you'll hear from new witnesses. ultimately, if pelosi's goal was to rile up trump, then it wasn't necessarily a failure. if it was to force republicans to cave, it was a massive failure and a misunderstanding of where they were on this. they could carele less if there ever a trial. they're happy confirming judges and the trade deal, and i think from here, what republicans want to do is hold a two week trial, get this over with. you won't see them move for quick acquittal, they don't think it would be in their political interest to do so, even though the president started to make noise there. ultimately, i am not sure what
6:28 am
democrats gained over the past week. >> one republican unlikely to ever cave is mitch mcconnell. we know chief justice roberts will be presiding, but at the end of the day, mitch mcconnell runs the show and sets the rules. are there any guardrails to stop complete partisan control? >> public political pressure, that's the only guardrail. the chief justice presides, 51 votes can overrule. if you look at pelosi's decision to withhold articles of impeachment, sure, she didn't in the first instance, hasn't forced the republicans, forced mcconnell and other republicans to let any new witnesses in, but pelosi and schumer and the rest of the democrats can never force republicans to do anything as long as they don't have votes. they can raise the political cost of acting otherwise. that's what the delay has done. republicans may ultimately hold the trial they want, sham trial
6:29 am
that doesn't allow witnesses in, doesn't allow for presentations of evidence. if they do so, they raise the political cost to vulnerable members for taking those votes, they can do whatever they want, eventually they have to go before voters and defend those decisions. i think it is tougher now than before pelosi withheld articles. >> thank you so much. i'm sure we'll be checking in with you later in the week on this. going to leave it there. in a few hours, attorney general bill barr will update the pensacola shooting. a saudi air force officer shot three u.s. sailors, injured 8 others. justice department has been investigating as an act of terrorism, according to reports, the u.s. preparing to remove more than a dozen saudi military students from a training program and send them back to their home country. y. what's for dinner?
6:30 am
6:31 am
(fake gagging noises) ♪ it's the easiest because it's the cheesiest. kraft. for the win win. looking to simplify your skin care routine without sacrificing results? try olay total effects. one dose provides more vitamin b3 than 50 cups of kale and improves 7 key areas of visibly healthy skin. try olay total effects.
6:32 am
6:33 am
directly after president trump ordered a drone strike that took out iranian general qassem soleimani, nearly 800
6:34 am
different facebook advertisements praising trump as strong commander in chief flooded the internet. some ads asked voters to take the, quote, official trump military survey which led directly to the president's re-election website. while it is misleading, wrong, it is absolutely allowed and happening. it is all just a preview of how much this election will be fought and ultimately won or lost on facebook and other social media outlets. joining me, "new york times" white house correspondent behind a new report on the president's facebook ad blitz, and sarah fisher, reporter for axios. take us through, how they reached and micro targeted voters in the aftermath of the back and forth of iran. >> well, this was a surprise for the campaign, too. they have been very clear the messaging for the campaign comes
6:35 am
directly from the white house and trump. they can build him an organization, but they're not trying to push a message not by him. they felt they were on solid ground with the message about the economy, saw among voters impeachment was motivating small dollar donations, getting people revved up. they felt steady on the two messages. they're thrown for a curve ball with the soleimani raid, but this was an example of how quickly and nimble the campaign tries to respond to news and politicize it. they came out with 800 distinct facebook ads, trying to present this as a commander in chief moment, and targeted specific voters in battleground states with these ads. what's interesting in my reporting last week, i talked to a lot of trump critics and critics of the raid that point me to the usa today poll that showed by a vast majority, americans felt less safe because of the raid, and saw it as
6:36 am
reinforcing their view of trump as an erratic decision maker. clearly, the trump campaign is seeing something different among a targeted national group. they saw it as something they could push. >> let's stay right there. sarah, people keep pointing to national polls saying nationally people don't feel good about what the president did in iran. but the president's strategy is to go directly to those battleground states, even micro target themselves down to counties. is that strategy working when it comes to his focus, which is getting reelected? >> i think it is probably working because they're going to test it. if it wasn't, they wouldn't run it that way. i was looking at some of the targets in facebook's ad library. one thing i found is a lot of them overindex targeting to men. you can imagine a message of bravado would resonate more closely with voters in battleground states, especially states with disenfranchised voters, in the rust belt, in the
6:37 am
midwest than women that might be worried about what this means for children going to war. i think the president's campaign is absolutely being strategic in the way it targets messages and to the point, there are variations, they're not done testing what's resonating the best and will continue to message off this. >> facebook isn't changing the rules, this is going to be a steel cage match, getting into people's homes. social media has become the connect i have tissue of society. >> we see two things going on. the trump campaign has targeted bernie sanders more than in the past. he might be helpful to them in some of their states, but could be threatening to them on a social media scale. on the populism front, he has a
6:38 am
grass roots movement. and bloomberg is changing the money game. he will spend a billion dollars, even if he is not the nominee, even if it is bernie sanders. this changes the calculus for the trump campaign who had a strategy that relied on having more money than any democratic candidate, long way ahead being the incumbent while the democrats figure out the nominating process. we saw him tweet about mini mike bloomberg and his money, saw a competition of super bowl ads. trump said he is spending 5, bloomberg said 10, the trump campaign said they're spending 10. the bloomberg money will change strategy for the trump campaign. >> we know disinformation is a huge problem but we're not getting new regulation between now and november. given that, what needs to be the strategic moves for democrats to get into all those homes, specifically in battleground states where the election will be decided? >> i tell you one thing that's
6:39 am
scary, you look at how money is spent online, look at 2018 midterms or 2016. you leverage facebook for data, you've written great pieces about this, using hawking merchandise and ads, transition that into video platforms, like google youtube. one sense, we might be too late. at this point what we needed to get from facebook will be used for other platforms off facebook like youtube, other social media, more video centered things, local tv. i would suggest democrats need to do is think about how do they, once the trump campaign starts to leverage other platforms, go after facebook harder so that toward the end of the race, the general, they can have better informed for buys on local television. at this point that's probably the best they can do. the other thing i would say is work with the big spenders, as annie said, michael bloomberg, other spenders, to get their
6:40 am
data and inform whatever candidate is winning. >> commercial data matters. thank you so much. next, the president's promised it would bring 13,000 jobs to wisconsin. two years in, what is actually going on with the foxconn plant. just this past friday night, president trump was praising it. we take you to wisconsin to the actual ground for the latest. tug cold turkey. so chantix can help you quit slow turkey. along with support, chantix is proven to help you quit. with chantix you can keep smoking at first and ease into quitting. chantix reduces the urge 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,
6:41 am
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. quit smoking slow turkey. talk to your doctor about chantix. ♪ oh, oh, (announcer)®! ♪ once-weekly ozempic® is helping many people with type 2 diabetes like james lower their blood sugar. a majority of adults who took ozempic® reached an a1c under 7 and maintained it. here's your a1c. oh! my a1c is under 7! (announcer) and you may lose weight. adults who took ozempic® lost on average up to 12 pounds. i lost almost 12 pounds! oh! (announcer) ozempic® does not increase the risk of major cardiovascular events like heart attack, stroke, or death. there's no increased risk. oh! and i only have to take it once a week. oh!
6:42 am
♪ oh, oh, oh, ozempic®! ♪ (announcer) ozempic® should not be the first medicine for treating diabetes, or for people with type 1 diabetes or diabetic ketoacidosis. do not share needles or pens. don't reuse needles. do not take ozempic® if you have a personal or family history of medullary thyroid cancer, multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, or if you are allergic to ozempic®. stop taking ozempic® and get medical help right away if you get a lump or swelling in your neck, severe stomach pain, itching, rash, or trouble breathing. serious side effects may include pancreatitis. tell your doctor if you have diabetic retinopathy or vision changes. taking ozempic® with a sulfonylurea or insulin may increase low blood sugar risk. common side effects are nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, stomach pain, and constipation. some side effects can lead to dehydration, which may worsen kidney problems. once-weekly ozempic® is helping me reach my blood sugar goal. ♪ oh, oh, oh, ozempic®! ♪ (announcer) you may pay as little as $25 per prescription. ask your health care provider today about once-weekly ozempic®. which is the only egg good eonly eggland's best.
6:43 am
with more farm-fresh taste, more vitamins, and 25% less saturated fat? only eggland's best. better taste, better nutrition, better eggs. >i spend a lot of time sin my truck.y? it's my livelihood. ♪ rock music >> man: so i'm not taking any chances when something happens to it. so when my windshield cracked... my friend recommended safelite autoglass. >> tech: hi, i'm adrian. >> man: thanks for coming. >> tech: oh, no problem. >> tech: check it out. >> man: yeah. they came right to me, with expert service where i needed it. that's service i can trust... no matter what i'm hauling. right, girl? >> singers: ♪ safelite repair, safelite replace. ♪
6:44 am
foxconn is going up to wisconsin as you know, a great company, they make the apple iphone. >> we can say the eighth wonder of the world. this is the eighth wonder of the world. will be about a 15 billion dollar plant. nothing like it in this country. i got foxconn to go into wisconsin. they have to get people. they spent a fortune, built the most incredible plant i've ever seen. >> time for money power politics. that was president trump touting success with foxconn in wisconsin. that was this past friday night. back in 2018, the technology giant promised to build a $15 billion complex, create 13,000 jobs in mount pleasant, wisconsin. the reality on the ground is very different. the company has already changed the type of factory it is building, opting for a smaller, cheaper version than originally planned. documents also reveal while
6:45 am
foxconn planned on investing $10 billion in the plant through the end of 2020, so far invested just $3.3 billion. while the company pledged to donate 100 million bucks to university of wisconsin as part of the project, so far the school only received $700,000. in a statement to nbc news, foxconn said this. foxconn is moving forward with the development of the wisconn valley science and technology park as part of our effort to make wisconsin a global technology hub. over the first year of work in wisconsin, we invested over $370 million in construction contracts and supported thousands of construction jobs. well, let's find out. joining me to discuss, local resident, kim mahoney, leading the charge against foxconn, now running for county supervisor. kim, the president is quite proud of the foxconn project in wisconsin and promise of 13,000 jobs. take us to wisconsin. what is really going on there?
6:46 am
>> well, stephanie, thanks for having me this morning. foxconn was supposed to create up to 2080 jobs to stay on track with the target of 13,000 jobs by the end of 2019. it is on track to not even meet minimum goals of 520 jobs to qualify for any tax credits from the state contract. they have invested about 150 million, but have awarded contracts for another 370 million, but those numbers combined together only makeup 17% of 3.1 billion they were planning to invest by the end of 2019, so they're falling far short of goals they set even within the first two years. >> aren't creating some jobs better than no jobs, and if they create so little that they don't get a big tax break, isn't that
6:47 am
a win for residents of wisconsin? >> well, the incentives are only for the state contract. the local incentives are up to $911 million. and none of those are tied to job creation or investment. they're being paid up front and financed by the local government. >> your home is on newly developed foxconn land. you're the last person who refused to sell your house to them. if foxconn had lived up to their promise, built more, hired more, created more, would you still be fighting them? >> we're actually not fighting foxconn. our local municipality offered up all of the land of foxconn for free, and we offered to sell property in four separate written offers. the village of mt. pleasant refused to consider our offers, instead threatened eminent domain to force us to sell on its terms. they lost. they don't have the ability to
6:48 am
take my home using eminent domain. they instead said they would leave us there, build a chain-link fence around us. >> the president will be speaking at a rally in wisconsin this week. it will be interesting to see what people of wisconsin have to say about the president calling foxconn and their plans the eighth wonder of the world, after all, it is in their backyard. kim, thank you so much for joining us. we'll leave it there. coming up, the royal reshuffle. senior members of the royal family holding a summit with prince harry and meghan markle's future on the table. le's future on the table. with sofi, get your credit cards right by consolidating your credit card debt into one monthly payment. and get your interest rate right so you can save big. get a no-fee personal loan up to $100k.
6:49 am
get a no-fee personal loan i don't make compromises. i want nutrition made just for me. but i also want great taste. so i drink boost for women. new boost women with key nutrients to help support thyroid, bone, hair and skin health. all with great taste. new boost women.
6:50 am
and i recently had a heart attack. it changed my life. but i'm a survivor. after my heart attack, my doctor prescribed brilinta. it's for people who have been hospitalized for a heart attack. brilinta is taken with a low-dose aspirin. no more than 100 milligrams as it affects how well brilinta works. brilinta helps keep platelets from sticking together and forming a clot. in a clinical study, brilinta worked better than plavix. brilinta reduced the chance of having another heart attack... ...or dying from one. don't stop taking brilinta without talking to your doctor, since stopping it too soon increases your risk of clots in your stent, heart attack, stroke, and even death. brilinta may cause bruising or bleeding more easily, or serious, sometimes fatal bleeding. don't take brilinta if you have bleeding, like stomach ulcers, a history of bleeding in the brain, or severe liver problems. slow heart rhythm has been reported. tell your doctor about bleeding new or unexpected shortness of breath any planned surgery, and all medicines you take. if you recently had a heart attack, ask your doctor if brilinta is right for you. my heart is worth brilinta.
6:51 am
if you can't afford your medication, astrazeneca may be able to help. breathe freely fast, with vicks sinex. my congestion's gone. i can breathe again! ahhhh i can breathe again! ughh..
6:52 am
vicks sinex, breathe on this morning, a family powwow like none you have ever seen. queen elizabeth and the senior members meeting behind the closed doors to decide the future roles of prince harry and meghan markle after they announced last week that they wanted to step back from their official royal duties. nbc's kelly cobiella is outside the gate where the meeting is taking and keir simmons is with us. what do we know about this meeting? >> well, we know some basic things about this meeting, stephanie. we basically know who is going
6:53 am
to be there. it will be prince harry, prince william, prince charles their father and of course the queen. in addition to some probably -- to some aides from the palace, from all parties involved. what they'll be doing is they'll be presented with a range of options of how this new progressive role would work and those options will be presented to the parties at the table. they'll go through them and talk about what will work, what won't work. presumably, you know, hash out some compromises on all sides. but there are a lot of details to get straight here. this is not a simple thing. this role doesn't exist within the royal family you're either in or you're out. so the questions are things like residency where will harry and meghan live? what is their residency, where do they pay taxes? what are their finances?
6:54 am
do they still get money from the queen and do they have security and who pays for it? not a simple deal to hash out. >> keir, walk us through, first of all, are harry and meghan in this family meeting. >> harry's there, meghan is on the phone. >> why is not there? >> we don't know. it sends a message that she's in north america while this meeting is taking place. >> they're going to release themselves from their royal duties, doesn't that mean they're not doing their job? if they don't do their job, are they really in a position to be supported financially? i mean, are they moving to the upper westside on a school recommendation? i think not. >> what's amazing about it, these are the conversations that are happening right now inside sandringham estate with the queen, prince william and prince harry and meghan on the phone. you know, you remember in the crown where -- when margaret comes to america and she meets with president johnson. >> yes.
6:55 am
>> she does a good job and then the queen has to kind of stop her there and say, you know, that's as far as you go. i am the queen. but in a way that's what you're seeing here. this is about power. this is about politics. this is about charles and william are the future monarchs and harry can't just set up an alternative crown and an alternative court here in north america. because everything they do, as members of the royal family, will impact back on that same royal family. for example, what if they get political? friends with the obamas. i mean, the questions are serious. in the end these are questions that the royal family have grappled with before and the queen with decades of experience will be sitting there and thinking not just how do we solve the heat and the emotions of the current situation but how do we put in place something that will work for the decades to come. >> when keir simmons asks do you remember a television show, the
6:56 am
answer is always going to be yes. kelly, thank you so muchled. a top aide to president george w. bush reveals why the former administration debated direct action against soleimani but decided it was not worth the risk. orth the risk you get everything you need for your home at a great price, the way it works best for you, i'll take that. wait honey, no. when you want it. you get a delivery experience you can always count on. you get your perfect find at a price to match, on your own schedule. you get fast and free shipping on the things that make your home feel like you. that's what you get when you've got wayfair. so shop now!
6:57 am
doprevagen is the number oneild mempharmacist-recommendeding? memory support brand. you can find it in the vitamin aisle in stores everywhere. prevagen. healthier brain. better life.
6:58 am
which is why xfinity mobile data,is a different kindent. of wireless network that lets you design your own data. choose unlimited, shared data, or mix lines of each and switch any line, anytime. giving you more choice and control compared to top wireless carriers.
6:59 am
save up to $400 a year when you switch. plus, save even more with $150 off galaxy a70. click, call or visit a store today. that wraps up this hour. i'm stephanie ruhle. more news right now with geoff bennett. >> thanks. i'm geoff bennett in for hallie
7:00 am
jackson. sources inside the administration reveal new exclusive details about that deadly drone strike on a top iranian general saying president trump gave the okay to take out qassem soleimani months ago. why that newest time line could undermine the rationale for the strike as publicly senior administration officials struggle to explain the intelligence leading to the attack. the president's own defense secretary unable to confirm his boss' claim regarding threats against u.s. embassies. >> are you saying there wasn't one? >> i didn't see one with regard to four embassies. plus, we're on the ground in the middle east getting our first look inside the iraqi base and protests in tehran grow violent, not against the u.s. but against the government and their response to that downed passenger jet. our team is here with all of this coverage from here in washington and around the worl


1 Favorite

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on