tv MSNBC Live With Ali Velshi MSNBC March 12, 2018 12:00pm-1:00pm PDT
them back? >> there is stormy daniels. >> betsy devos. that was an interview. >> guns in schools. >> we didn't talk about that. can we talk about that interview for four seconds. >> but it takes more than that. white house is not happy with her performance. 13 months into her tenure. >> and she has no idea what is happening in michigan. >> basic issues she wasn't able to articulate the vision of her landmark and the idea of schater schools -- charter schools. >> he's never been to an underperforming school. i've nifr intentionally been to an underperforming school. it sounds like she was trying to brag -- >> a strange interview. which might be part of the reason that the white house press briefing is delayed. they have a lot to answer for. >> i'll see you at 5:00. >> see you then. good morning, i'm ali velshi. and we are awaiting the white house press briefing supposed to start 30 minutes ago. sarah huckabee-sanders has a lot to talk about today. in part because of a series of
interviews done by education secretary betsy devos and there is policy things to answer to. the president's new proposal on gun policy raises the purchase of guns from 18 to 21 and now they are pushing to arm experienced school teachers, something the national rifle association supports but one teacher's union doesn't. and you'll hear about that in a few minutes. and who does the president have leading the effort, devos tried to explain the president's plans to arm teachers this morning. >> what percentage of teachers at schools would need to be armed in your mind to be affective? >> i don't have a percentage. it should be those who are capable and qualified and only in places where it is appropriate. >> well the decision to tap secretary devos to head the president's new federal commission on school safety is drawing questions. after a rather embarrassing exchange on 60 minutes last night where she failed to answer
some very basic questions about schools in her home state. >> have you seen the really bad schools? maybe try to figure out what they are doing? >> i have not -- i have not -- i have not intentionally visited schools that are not underperforming. >> maybe you should. >> maybe i should. >> the secretary -- the education secretary of the united states has not deliberately visited schools that are underperforming. joining me now from the white house, peter alexander. what is going on first of all? we were expecting a white house press briefing by now. >> reporter: you are right. it was supposed to be at 2:00. and then 2:30 and now 3:00 and nothing about when it will take place. an hour is sometimes enough time for a policy position to change so we wait to see exactly where the president stands on those things and recognizing that immediately after that awful massacre that took place in parkland, the president expressed not just openness but strong support for a variety of issues. come pr-- comprehensive arming
school teachers and pushed for this idea of raising the minimum age to purchase firearms to 21. well clearly something changed in the course of that time. a time during which he also met privately with some of the top members of the national rifle association and the nra present today among other things on the idea of raising the age -- the minimum age requirement to 21 saying on that topic not much political support to put it mildly. this is a president who said i alone can do. it it is a president who if he wanted to marshal support among republicans and red state democrats on this issue as well. so it is one question we'll be pressing to sarah huckabee-sanders when we see her. hopefully moments from now. >> and that is not the only topic. keeping an eye out. new developments on stormy daniels saying she will give the money back -- >> false alarm. >> she will give the money back. >> but the step stool is working. >> that is good to know. i thought you were that tall.
one wonders whether that is the delay. the discussion on what will happen with stormy daniels and the money she's offering to give back. >> reporter: that is as a good question, hallie jackson who is here for this briefing press to sarah huckabee-sanders on this topic and they are deflecting saying that is something you have to reach out to the private lawyer or michael cohen or his own lawyer if you want to answers to those questions. so despite the fact that you now have the porn star and the president a new prop-- proposit to pay $130,000 to be free to speak her mind. at this point it is unclear that the white house will have anything to say about that or frankly what their opinion of that is more broadly. >> i can't even believe we're having this discussion. good to see you. we'll chat with you on the other side of the press briefing which is now running an hour late or half an hour late. betsy devos credibility is under heightened scrutiny after last night's interview with 60 minutes. when asked a simple question about how charter schools have
impacted public school performance in michigan, this is how she responded. >> the argument that if you take funds away that the schools will get better is not working in michigan. where you had a huge impact and influence over the direction of the school system here. >> i h-- i his take to talk abot individuals attending >> the public schools here are doing worse. >> michigan schools need to do better. there is no doubt about it. >> have you seen the really bad schools? maybe try to figure out what they are doing? >> i have not -- i have not -- i have not intentionally visited schools that are underperforming. >> maybe you should. >> pa-- maybe i should. >> and with me is randy winegarden. there was a perplexing interviews followed by perplexing interviews after
that. it is a little alarming. we'll get to the specifics in a m. but she has been the education sect of the united states for 13 months. the issues are well established. you and i have been discussing them for many, many years. we know what the issues are. the issue is implementation and funding. but betsy devos did not seem to have a basic grasp on the issues facing the public education system in america. >> look, ali, you would do a much better job as secretary of education because you are thoug thoughtful about these issues an what happened in the last 13 months, we invited her to some schools with us. she went to three with me. people told her -- of the 18 public schools she went to last year, three were with me. people poured their hearts out to her about what was needed, special needs parents, early childhood educators, high school kids, it is not unobvious.
we need to meet kids where they are, emotionally and socially, we need to engage them instructionally and train teachers and make sure they have a voice and cultures of collaboration. you do these things, schools -- improve. she doesn't want to learn. in fact the only thing she seems to want to do is what she said years ago, defund and end public education as we know it and i think yesterday was an example of that. >> let's talk about the question that leslie stall asked her which -- she didn't have an answer for. but we've debated this in the past. how do you explain -- we've seen example of charter schools where you take the money dedicated to the public school system and you put it into the charter school that you are talking about and you do different things and sometimes the results are actually pretty good in those charter schools but i think the question she was asking was what happens to the 99% of students left behind in that public school? how does a better charter school make the public school system
better? >> it doesn't, actually. and what has happened is that the original concept of charters were that they would be incubators, laboratories and so if something was working there, you would bring it to a public -- a system of public schools to help inform them. what happened in michigan is they became competitive. they became competitive model and then what also happened in michigan is that a billion dollars was taken out of the regular public schools, so it decreased the amount of money that kids had for things like art and music and guidance counselors. and then because the -- the charters in michigan were so unregulated, you actually have charters that would close on parents the day after they got their funds. there is huge audit issues. >> and a group rates them and out of 27 in terms of accountability, mifrpg h--
michigan has a three. hang on for a second. saers sarah huckabee-sanders is taking the podium -- >> the offer was made and we've accepted. north korea made several promises and we hope that they stick to those promise and if so the meeting will go on as plans. >> and what preparations are being made so far toward this meeting? >> we're continuing to prepare on a number of levels. most of that is an administration -- interagency process and i won't get ahead of the details or the where and when or any of that here today. >> a couple of weeks ago the president said he wanted to raise the age on purchasing assault weapons and talked about supporting universal background checks and taking guns away from those identified as a threat even without due process. what happened to all of those proposals? >> a lot of those things are still outlined in the proposal that you'll -- if you don't have yet, you should receive here in
the next few minutes in your in boxes. but right now, the president's primary focus is on pushing through things we know have broad bipartisan support or things that we can do from an administrative perspective that we can do immediately. but we haven't let go of some of the other things that we're going to continue review and look at as i've mentioned in the opening -- part of my first comments. >> was there a single thing in this proposal from the president that is not supported by the nra? is there anything in here that the nra opposes? >> the president still has in this plan the age limit increase and that is part of one of the -- >> that is -- >> one of the things will be reviewedo reviewed on the best path forward whether it could be done at a federal level or done on a state by state basis. but the president, as you know, doesn't have the ability to just create federal law. and he would need a number of other individuals to come together to help make that
happen. so what he is pushing forward are things that could immediately be accomplished. either through the administration or that have broad-based bipartisan support in congress. but that doesn't mean that he has wiped away some of the other things that we're still looking at how best to move forward on. >> and what -- why did he name this devos administration after the blue ribbon commissions. all he said they do is talk and talk and then later write a report. on this issue, are commissions okay? >> the president isn't -- doesn't just have one piece of this plan. there are a number of things that he is pushing forward that are very tangible. both through support of specific pieces of legislation that we expect to move forward, as well as administrative action like getting rid of the bump stocks that the president has been very vocal about and will continue to push for. >> sarah, picking up where john left off with regard the national rifle association, at that february 28th meeting with lawmakers, president trump sort
of made an example of republican senators who were afraid of crossing the nra. and he said, quote, some of you are petrified of the nra. you can't be petrified. but based on the plan last night it seems like president trump was the one petrified of the nra. because he backed away from some of the ideas that he brought into the discussion and i'm asking why he chickened out, why he didn't go forward with what he had proposed -- >> he hasn't backed away from these things at all. as i just said, they are still outlined in the plan. but he can't make them happen with a broad stroke of the pen. you have to have some congressional component to do some of these things and without that support, it is not as possible. however, we are focused on things that we can do immediately. let's not forget the -- the obama administration had the white house and congress for two years an never did anything. this president is supporting specific pieces of legislation and still laying out other priorities that he would like to see, talk about and implemented whether we have to do that on a state level --
>> he could have put out a proposal for legislation and advocated for universal background checks or called for raising the ages in the states -- >> he hasn't. it is listed -- it is still in the policy proposal that you will see. >> federal -- let me clarify. >> it is reviewing best path forward for how to do that. so that door isn't closed on that front. >> a comment on -- out of the -- theresa may saying that the british government believes that russia is behind the attempted murder of poisoning of a former russian spy. and with a nerve agent that was by a russian manufacturer. is that the assessment of the government and number one, does the united states government plan on designating russia as -- like in north korea with a [ inaudible ] -- the murder of kim jong-un's half brother and
of russia using chemical weapons and will there be any repercussions from the united states. >> we've been monitoring the incident closely and take it seriously. the use of a highly lethal nerve agent on u.k. soil is an outrage. the attack was reckless and indiscriminate and irresponsible. we offer the fullest condemnation and extend our sympathy to the victims and their families and our support to the u.k. government. we stand by our closest ally in the special relationship that we have. >> so you are not saying that russia was behind this now? >> right now, we are standing with our u.k. ally. they are still working through even some of the details of that. and we're going to continue to work with the u.k. and we certainly stand with them throughout this process. >> theresa may was either -- said russia using it themselves or given the chemical weapons to a person to -- given highly unlikely the nature of this -- >> like i just said, we stand
with our ally and we certainly fully support them and are ready if we can be of any assistance to them. >> what was the president's reaction yesterday to education secretary betsy devos going on 60 minutes saying she admitted she has not intentionally visited underperforming schools. then went on another network this morning and said that everything was on the table when it came to school safety as well as guns. clearly it is not everything -- everything is not on the table. >> the president's laid out what his positions are. both on the school safety front and what he thinks the best path forward specific to immediate actions we can take and also things that need further review on determining the best path forward. and that is the focus of the president, not one or two interviews. but on actual policy. that can help protect the safety and security of school kids across this country. >> [ inaudible question ]. >> i'm not sure if he saw the whole thing or not. kevin. >> thank you, sarah. a question about congress and
possibly blocking our delaying tariff implementation. how concerned is the white house about that and a follow up on china if i may. >> sure. our position on this front hasn't changed. the president has been clear for quite sometime what his position is. and what his authority is under the 232 statute and we're moving forward. >> if i might. i know the president made a tongue and cheek comment about president xi having the ability to rule for quite sometime. perhaps indefinitely. is there an administration position on something like that -- is that healthy for the relationship between our country. >> that is a determination for china to make, not something for the united states to weigh in on. >> but it is healthy from the administration perspective with our relationship with a leader in a country that will be there potentially indefinitely. >> i will say that president and the president xi have a good relationship and a lot of the willingness of china to step up
and participate at a far higher level than they have in the past to put maximum pressure on north korea has certainly been successful. and has been in large part due to that relationship. but as the president is also said, he wants to make sure that they don't take advantage of us when it comes to trade and we're going to continue to push for what is best for america. >> a couple on the guns issue. the -- on the age restrictions -- the said said he's criticized his predecessors saying they haven't shown leadership on this issue and i wonder how you can make the political expediency argument for his school policy and backing things only he thinks that could pass and not things that may need additional leadership. >> that is not what i said. we're specifically driving forward on some of the things that we know can immediately happen. and we're determining what the best path forward is on some of the other things that don't have the same broad base of support. you can't just decide that you
want laws to pass and it happens. but you can look at the best process forward to actually implement that type of policy. >> certainly the leader of the party -- >> which is why he's laid those out in his proposal. >> -- policy forward if he choose to -- >> which is why he laid that out in the policy that he's put forth that he rolled out -- >> on the commission, is commissioner devos going to continue to be the face of the school safety policy and this commission after last night's interview. >> i think that the sprez -- the president will be the lead on school safety when it comes to this administration. he has been since the process has begun and will continue to lead on it as we move forward. >> thanks, sarah. i have two questionsch o, one o guns an the trip to california tomorrow. they met with six students from parkland florida and said he would go strong on the age limits. and this proposal doesn't have the president stepping forward and demanding action from congress on those age limits.
why is the president back ago way to the promise to the six students he would go strong. >> i don't know how many times i can explain the same thing. the president still supports this. that is why it is in his plan. and he is looking at and reviewing the best path forward to try to get it through. but at the same time -- >> [ inaudible question ]. >> he is making sure that the things we can do right now were actually doing instead of holding everything back until we can get some of those other pieces done, we're pushing forward on the things that have support that can be accomplished immediately. and then we're working through the process to see what we can do to get the other things done. that seems smart and it seeps like bold leadership to me to push through on things that help protect kids while not ignoring some other policies that the president supports. which we're doing. >> can you tell us more about the president's trip to california tomorrow. why is he going to the wall to see the wall prototypes first and also this is a state that did not vote for the president, is the president going to make an opportunity to reach out to
people that didn't vote for him by going to this state? >> i think this is an important thing that the president has talked about. the safety and security of the country and strongly feels that the wall is a big part of that. and he's going to lock at those prototypes. one of the things that he'll be doing is speaking members of the military, you'll see all five branches of the military represented at the speech he gives. while california may not have -- he may not have won that state, there is certainly a lot of support for this president. not just there, but across the country. and he looks forward to being there and presenting a lot of the specific policies. >> a lot of republican lawmakers in california think the wall is too expensive and could be a waste of money. is the president concerned he might be putting undue political pressure on republican lawmakers by visiting the wall in california? >> no. the president campaigned on this. he talked about it extensively. and he's the president. and this is something that he is not going to back away from and
something that he's going to continue to push for. john. >> thanks, sarah. since kim jong-un's overture to meet with president trump last thursday, and his proposal to denuclearize, the north korean media has mentioned nothing. they haven't referenced the overture, haven't referenced the idea that north korea would get rid of its nuclear weapons. i heard what you said earlier about how you believe that a meeting will still take place. what makes you think that based upon the fact that kim jong-un hasn't even mentioned this to his own people, that anything of substance will come out of such meeting. >> we know that the maximum pressure campaign is working and we know they've responded due to that. and they have pushed this message through the south koreans to us. we have accepted their invitation on the three promises that they made and we're going to move forward in this process. >> denuclearize is a point of pride -- we are told -- >> i'm sorry, i can't hear the first part.
>> this nuclear country as a point of pride we are told for north koreans. so to simply get rid of their own nuclear weapons it seems something that would undercut what that -- what kim jong-un stands for. again, why would -- >> i think that shows the affectiveness of the maximum pressure campaign. and that is one of the reasons we're not letting up on the maximum pressure campaign and we're going to continue pushing forward on it. >> thank you, sarah. two questions. first, following up on what john asked, we know that kim jong-un has been using a special envoy to seoul to send messages. has he spent -- sent any special messages to any special envoy to the president. >> i'm not going to ged ahead of or go beyond the things we've put out publicly. >> the other thing is that regarding tomorrow's election in pennsylvania 18's district, the president's campaign visit
notwithstanding, he's reported in several sources today who referred to republican rick saccone as, quote, weak, and running a poor campaign. it seems unusual in light of what he said on saturday and in light of his praise of him as a friend. did he actually say that about mr. saquon. >> i can't weigh in on any spes -- specifics but can refer you back to the president's public comments he made on saturday. >> in answer to ryan's question, is it the president's intent tomorrow to pick a winning design. >> he wants to look at the different prototypes and beyond that i'm not going to get ahead of the president's visit. >> and there was a report this morning that the saudi government inflicted physical abuse on the people who were held captive for the time that the ritz carlton hotel. some something the white house intends to bring up with the crown prince. >> i won't get ahead of the koflg
koflgss -- conversations that take place on the 20th but we'll have a read out of that meeting. >> the president during his campaign said nobody knows the system better than me which is why i alone can fix it. it sounds like now you are saying that because certain things that he's -- he does not have support in the congress, that he's only going to push forward on the things that are already -- >> that is not actually what i said. but you guys continue to misunderstand and misrepresent the comments that i am making. i'm saying the president is pushing forward on things that we know have broad basedup and immediately get done. while at the same time, we're looking at the best way forward to push these other things through. whether it is on a state level or on a federal level, we're looking at the best process forward because the president does have to work within the constitution. we can't just write things down and make them law. we have to follow a process and the president is going to go through that process and determine the best path forward
on a number of issues that are outlined that he has supported. >> let me ask you about the manchin-toomey legislation and it is not clear whether the president supports having universal background checks. in this proposal, he supports the fix nics but does he support the idea of background checks for online purchases and private sales. >> the president supports fixing some of the problems within the background check system. that we have outlined in some of the legislation that we already support and we're considering other options beyond that. take one last question. >> sarah, thank you. the president tweeted, he said not much political support to put it mildly for raising the age. i looked at every single poll and the support for raising age is like 78% and 82%, rasmussen was the lowest with 67%. so what is he talking about? >> congress, who has the ability to make law. not online polls. >> he's determined there is no
support in congress for this? >> not broad based support that could push this legislation through at this time. that doesn't mean once again that we are ignoring the concept or not looking at how we can build a coalition of support for it. but we're still determining what the best path forward is on how we can implement something like that as well as as number of other issues on this. >> thank you so much. >> [ inaudible question ]. does he remain committed to that? >> that is the end of that very late white house press briefing. sarah huckabee-sanders leaving, addressing a number of questions that were put to her and including the one that i was just discussing with randy winegarden, the president of the american federation of teachers before we went in to listen to sarah. you have written -- i have so much to talk about but that is taken some of our time. you've written a letter to the president about school safety when it comes to guns and arming teachers. >> right. >> and it has detail and you ask a lot of questions about the
logistics and how the plan would work and whether kindergarten teachers would carry guns in holsters or gun closets, where would the guns be stored? would teachers be able to reser? but you have this one question that you ask here, in the seconds after an active shooter alert are teachers supposed to get their guns or get their students to safety? would teachers be held liable for this actions and decisions? and the context of the discussions we were having last week about the west virginia teachers, we think earn about $47,000 or $48,000 on average. >> they are pay 48th out of 50th. >> and so we're trying to get public school teachers to remain public school teachers given the resource issues that they already face. these are important questions. what do you think the answer is to that? >> look, it is insanity that the president is focused on hardening schools rather than creating safe, welcoming environments where parents want to send their kids to school, where teachers want to be in school, where kids are engaged. that is the focus we should
have. and frankly, this notion of arming teachers, most people think it is insanity. even those -- frankly those who know how to use guns, think it is -- >> because you have members of your union who are nra members. >> absolutely. >> who do own guns or military. >> we have many republican members -- we have many members who are former -- who are vets. an frankly, i had a conversation with about 60,000 of them right after parkland where we were talking about what to do and -- because i don't make these decisions by myself. they are informed frankly by the 30 years that i've spent in an around schools, including new york city schools. but there was not a person on that phone call who was in support of arming teachers and frankly one of the nra members who was talking about guns said -- asked many of the questions. so if you know even a sent illa
of information about schools, you would never think this was a good idea. and when somebody starts talking about well we're hardening schools like nobody allowed people after the perimeter to bring gun news airports or allows theme to do that in federal courthouses. why would you have -- and this was a picture that i saw today. why would you think about and imagine a kindergarten teacher with a holster on her hip. imagine what that means in terms of teachering and learning and in that environment for children. i think we can do better than that. if i think if australia or canada figured out how to figure it or great brittain has done it, we in the united states can do better by having fewer guns in school and better environments and having more money for resources like mental health resources and having the money that betsy devos said she
didn't know was gone from the michigan schools back in the michigan schools like they're trying to do in detroit. we can do better than this conversation right now on guns. >> we'll continue our conversation. we have been shortened. but thank you. from the american federation of teachers. i want to talk more about this matter with republican governor matt bevin of kentucky. good to see you, thank you for being with me. >> good to be with you. >> you know your way around guns. you are a -- a good supporter of the nra and second amendment rights but you have a great deal of experience with it. you served in the military, you were a captain, i believe. >> i was an active duty army officer and yes i've served time in the military and i'm also a concealed carry gun owner and i'm comfortable with firearms and familiar for people here in kentucky. >> and what is your sense of the president proposing.
there seemed to be more possibly on the table in terms of the fair and proper regulation of guns in a way that doesn't make people feel threatened about their second amount rights. but that can keep our schools safer. what is your sense of what they've come up with? >> again, i think it is just now being unveiled and there is two parts. they're putting out, as was just noted by the white house press secretary, certain things that they think there is immediate widespread support for and other things they would like to tighten down. like what kind of background checks do we provide to ensure that we really are looking at criminal background. and also mental health background of individuals and there is not an he'sy answer and i applaud their decision to bring people together for the right approach. there are things like that that make sense and would be wise to look at. but as it relates to flee-yejer responses and take guns a way
from this age -- >> but do you think that part -- the assault rifle raising the age to 21, do you feel that feels simplistic given the rational that people can't buy in some places like florida a handgun until they are 21. about should they be able to buy an assault-style rifle at age of 18. >> they're using these to defend our nation in uniform and there is 18 and 19 and 20-year-old young men and women giving their lives in uniform so you and i could have the freedom of this conversation. and the idea that this is the second amendment and it is protected by our constitution is something we should not take lightly. this is a very important protection. our founders -- >> but you know there is nothing like -- >> that the right to keep and bear arms is an important right. >> you know -- when it was written, i think you could get three shots off in a minute. >> let me -- again, this idea -- that is a spacious argument. >> how is it? >> let me tell you this, there
is already. >> how is that a spacious argument. it is a fak. >> there are laws -- it may be true. but the reality is it isn't a function about how many bullets are shot. it is about the fact that we have young people going into schools and killing other young people. whether it is one bullet at a time, three bullets at a time or ten bullets at a time. >> but they are doing it with knives. >> i'll tell you what, in some places they are. >> well they are not. that is not true governor, they don't do that in canada or china or -- >> -- killed 29 people. >> that is the example everybody uses. one example. >> but because it is real. it is a real example. >> so is vegas and so is parkland and so was sandy hook. so was souther land springs and i was at each one. they are not the same thing. i've never covered something like that in another country. >> there is a law against murder. there is a law against bringing a loaded firearm to school. there is a law against discharging a loaded firearm in
a school. there is a law against attempted murderch these students who have gone in and killed students have violated every one of those laws. you tell me any law, if you violate those, that you would be willing to comply with that would prevent you from violating those. we're dealing with a bigger problem than the need for another law. >> but a person who brings an ar-15 into florida at the age of 19 isn't actually breaking a law? >> again, in many places you are allowed at the age of 18 and up -- we consider that adulthood. at a certain point in society we can't protect ourselves from evil. that is a given and sad, harsh reality. doesn't mean you don't have rules. doesn't mean you don't make laws understood. but there are certain things at a certain point you can't protect people from everything. and at what point is it then 25 and then 30 and then 50 and ultimately you can't own a gun which is what many people i think would like. and i think our founders understood -- how many guns or bullets a gun shoots in what period of time, the idea of the
populous being disarmed while the government has armed and it makes all of the rules is unsettled to people and you look at what happens around the world. >> i don't think that is the aim of the kids -- aiming of the kids at parkland and i don't think they're discussing disarming a populous with a government that has arms. >> some of them are. >> we have a good history of not agreeing. it is okay. i want to ask you about something you know about. you ran a family business in bells. your family business is in the manufacturing of bells, does thattin form your opinion about tariffs of aluminum and steels. you are in a state with one of the largest producer and on some level it will help folks in kentucky and we have the europeans talking about imposing tariffs on american-made goods and specifically named bourbon so how do you feel about the tariffs. >> here is what i will say as it relates to the bell company. it is a cash flow -- it has a
handful of employees i took it over to keep it from going out of the business because it is bankrupt. it is a labor of love. so frankly policy doesn't affect that world one way or the other. it doesn't. it is a tinily little company not affected by anything that happens at this level. however, as it relates to tariffs, it is affecting kentucky. we have people that are both smelting aluminum and people producing steel here. and they are going to be affected at the one end. on the other hand we have people making widgets, different products made out of steel and aluminum that may be importing raw materials, adding value to that who are going to be adverse lit affected by this. so it is like squeezing a balloon. some will be helped and some will be hurt. we need to be helpful to the way it is applied. the president said there will be exceptions so we are not penalizing those that where that -- are good faith players
and would you like to see help our producers of steel and aluminum rather than hurting broadly those who produce it somewhere else. let's elevate ours as we're accusing of other countries doing with their supplies. but i think we can get through this and i applaud our president for addressing this because it is needing to be addresses for quite sometime. >> good to talk to you. you are being modest. and it is a family business and a labor of love and you are keeping them employed in a old and notable company. so you can take credit for that. good to talk to you as always. >> thank you. >> kentucky governor matt bevin. there were no questions i during the relatively -- during the press briefing about the settlement that stormy daniels is offering the president to tell her story. nbc has obtained the letter -- her real name stephanie clifford and her attorney just sent to the president's lawyer michael cohen. she wants to give back the $130,000 paid for her silence once month before the
presidential election and cohen and his attorney until tomorrow at noon to accept the offer. if it is accepted she free to talk about an intimate relationship with the president or release text messages or photos or videos. the white house continues to deny any intimate relationship occurs. i'm joined by mariy ---ary mel bur and the coast of the beat. if that is accepted, she can do x, y and z. it does have to be accepted. the president's lawyers have to say, sure, we'll take the money and you're off the hook. >> what is so fascinating. they have a contract so this is a debate over the contract and not to speak and the money there of. i watched your interview with the governor, for me on a personal level, the bourbon tariff hits home. >> i can imagine. >> and i hope it doesn't -- >> it doesn't happen. >> i hope the price of bourbon doesn't rise and i enjoyed your colloquy. but for stormy, the contract debate continues because if they pass and we cann infer they are
not interestested in the deal and michael cohen is trying to keep that silence. >> and in secret, those would have been the terms under which that agreement is made. he is not doing something usual in secret, that is the way the process goes. >> yeah. >> so it is a good p.r. move on the part of stormy daniels and her -- and stephanie clifford and her lawyer. but is it affective? can they force michael cohen, dot dot dot, president trump's hand to come forthwith anything? >> i think you are putting your -- that is the hearst of the matter. i guess another way to answer your question is are they tip toeing up to the line of breach, called breaking the deal and then find out what happens. the arbitration tells us there is some kind of deal and michael cohen is trying to silence her. that is news worthy when it involves with the president and
depending on the 60 minutes interview and it is fascinating there are movements ab -- and the rumors that president trump is trying to stop 60 minutes from airing the interview and it is trump land view that she is violating the agreement. >> and you said there are some rules or agreement and her and her lawyer will step over the line but we don't have any sense of what that point is. >> we do know according to materials obtained by the nbc news and other leaks there is confidential information in the secret arbitration and there is a certain type of hypocrisy that donald trump as a candidate ran pledging to take women accusers to court. the idea being i'm so confident in the outcome i'll pursue in open court and he never made good on this pledge and take this proceeding, through michael cohen, his lawyer, who said maybe it is not for trump and try to keep stormy out of court. that is what we know.
the breach could look like a situation where she speaks and they say this is a breach and they say she owes them more money for speaking. >> and i think her lawyers is banking on the fact that if any of the out comes happen, someone will have to admit to this deal in public. >> admit to the deal and admit to what is the stuff that is secret? is it the fact there was an alleged relationship. well alleged is a word that lawyers use to cover a lot of ground. something could be alleged and untrue. we know there is an alleged relationship and more than one view in fairness to the white house, they deny any underlying relationship. >> but mostly interested in $130,000 paid 12 days before an electi election whether that was legal. >> and michael cohen who we know from the grand jury subpoenas is under review in the mueller probe, who is michael cohen representing, if not donald trump? this is not normal. in other words, they are not comporting that this is a private thing that we should leave alone.
as journalists, if this is private -- >> this is much more. >> but they are acting that there is more than -- >> that is the point. this is not about an aaffair and and and -- infidelity and this is about money paid to not give information out. ari melber is the chief legal correspondent. tune into the beat tonight at kf and tonight sam nunberg will be one of the guests. up next, an nbc report that qatari officials say they have the emir -- emiratesin -- frommin flusing yaek and the secret after the break. fromin flusing yaek and the secret after the break.
so that's the idea. what do you think? i don't like it. oh. nuh uh. yeah. ahhhhh. mm-mm. oh. yeah. ah. agh. d-d-d... no. hmmm. uh... huh. yeah. uh... huh. in business, there are a lot of ways to say no. thank you so much. thank you. so we're doing it. yes. start saying yes to your company's best ideas. we help all types of businesses with money, tools and know-how to get business done. american express open. to get business done. but i'm not standing still... and with godaddy, i've made my ideas real. ♪ ♪
nbc news has new reporting that officials from qatar have evident they claim showed the imrites has information over trurp and other associates. they opted not to give information to robert mueller because they are worried about hurting their ties with the white house and the big question is whether jared kushner's financial concerns had any bearing on the trump administration backing of a blockade of qatar imposed by saudi arabia and emirates and their allies. the national security and justice reporter, julia, this is hard for us mere mortals to keep track of because last week we heard about george nader doing
lobbying on behalf of the emirates who set up a meeting with erik prince in the seychelles with a russian and an emirates prince there at the same time. so put this altogether for me. >> you've got it, ali. you are keeping up with moving parts. to back up, uae and qatar are fighting through lobbying and ins fluns over the trump administration -- influence and the trump administration over the past years sin the united arab imir ats and including saudi arabia decided to block aid them and cut off food and medical supplies and president trump endorsed that decision in june of 2017 of last year and since the qataris have been saying that endorsement was influenced by elicit meetings between the emirates people working on their behalf like nader and berrely.
our reporting today said they've been gathering a lot of information on those meetings but didn't take it to robert mueller. even though we know that robert mueller is looking into the influence of the emiratis and that information might have been valuable to them. and the reason they didn't do it because they didn't want to damage their influence or relationship with the trump administration which they have seen as improving since june of 2017. they were just here earlier this year and they thought things -- with going well and they held off on a meeting with robert mueller and in a nutshell this shows the tough position foreign governments are in because of foreign business relations of jared kushner. they are put in a position where they either have to come forward with what they believe is important information for robert mueller to have to do his investigation, or to maintain their diplomatic ties. that is not a position we want other governments to be in.
and tts -- it is the one they found themselves in now. >> you have gotten to the heart of the problem. and qatar hosts a -- a u.s. military base so the -- and the entanglements with the government are important and big. thank you for your reporting on this. julia ainsley. i want to go to austin, police are holding a press conference after a series of fires that they are saying are linked. let's listen in. >> she was significantly injured in that explosion. she is a 75-year-old hispanic female. she was transported to the hospital by emergency medical services. and it currently listed in critical but stable condition and her injuries are considered life-threatening at this time. so we again are praying and thinking of her and hoping for a recovery from this incident. this, again, is the third in what we believe to be related incidents that have occurred over the past ten days. and similar to what we have said
in the earlier instances, we want the community to be aware of what is going on, because again, based on evidence that we have at this scene, as well as at the other two scenes where we've had these explosions, t - evidence makes we do not have a specific victim ology or ideology that we have identified. so, assigning a motive to this at this point is not -- we're not possible to do that based on the stage that we're at in the investigation. we are not ruling anything out at this point because when you rule something out, you limit your focus of the investigation and you might miss something so at this point we are willing to investigate any avenue that may be involved behind these attacks and we are imploring the community, if you know anything about these attacks, it is imperative that you come forward and that you let us know. we are having innocent people getting hurt across this community and it is important that we come together as a community and solve this.
we have the continued support and partnership with all of our federal agencies. the alcohol, tobacco, firearms explosives division is here along with the fbi, the united states postal service, and many other agencies are working with us. we currently have the evidence response team from fbi san antonio and austin. they now have their dallas team coming here to assist us as well, and the atf is bringing in their national response team to austin in addition to help support us as we go through this investigation. we are putting together a task force that will work jointly until we conclude this investigation and we arrest the person or persons responsible, and we will leave no stone unturned because we are not going to allow this to go on in our city. that being said, this will be a lengthy investigation, putting all of this evidence together as we work towards a conclusion. all three incidents that have occurred to this point have all occurred at residences, and we don't want to have people be
overly alarmed, but it is important that people be vigilant and be aware for things that look suspicious. if you have had a package show up at your home and you were not expecting a delivery, if the package that is delivered to your doorstep looks suspicious in any way, call 911. report it. we will respond. it may take a little while to get there because we are getting several calls, but we have had all of our law enforcement partners join us in this effort. we have explosive and canine teams join us from the atf, public safety and we're pulling resources from other austin areas as well because we want to ensure this community we are going it to do everything to keep you safe while this investigation is on kbg up until the time we conclude it with an arrest. and we don't know at this point what that time line looks like. we also know we've got a music festival here in town and we've got a lot of visitors and it is important for those that are here in austin, that are here for the spring festival, to be aware of what's going on.
enjoy yourself, have a good time. there is no reason to believe that you are at any greater being other than be aware, look for things that are suspicious. we've been putting the message out repeatedly. if you see something, say something. if you see something that looks out of place, if you see something that is suspicious, it is important that you call us. and for any residents that have these suspicious packages, under no circumstance should you move them, touch them or handle them in any way. instead, make that call. if you can exit your residence or go to the back of the residence until we can get there and deem that safe. this investigation is ongoing, we believe it is related to the other two incidence that have occurred in the city. again, we have no specific ideology or victim ology behind this and it will remain an ongoing investigation while we pursue any and every lead. so, with that i will open it up for questions. however, remind you again that we are in the preliminary stages, so there is not a lot of information that we can either put out or that we will put out to protect the integrity of this
investigation. >> [ inaudible question ] >> we do not know yet whether the victims are the intended targets on these cases. again, they are being left at homes where there are either multiple residents or it might even left at the wrong address. so, that's part of the investigation that's going on now. and that's what we're trying to identify, what is the victimology and what might be in common amongst these victims. >> devices that are similar to -- any evidence similar to the devices that have been exploded in the package wrapping? >> these are box-type deliveries and so, again, that's why we're saying if you receive a suspicious package, a suspicious cardboard package, but really i don't want to limit this to anything. if you receive a suspicious package then call us and let us come out because a device like this can be hidden in many different ways and so it's important, again, if you're not expecting a delivery and yet one shows up and it's not from
someone that you do business with or that you were expecting, it's important that you call us. >> we heard the term isolated incident on march 2nd. here we are three incidents later. >> correct. on the first one we did believe it was an isolated incident. we had nothing that made us believe it was anything larger than an isolated incident. standing here today, having had the two incidents we have had today and doing an initial review of the evidence we have, we do believe these are related at this time. >> can you tell us what they might look like? >> we're not going to go into the specifics on the actual package because of the -- protecting the investigation and that is why it is important for the community, any package that you are not expecting or that looks suspicious, call us. >> are there resources by southwest still going on? >> we are luckily a large city with a large police department and we will manage this. i will say we've had offers for assistance from other agencies to bring in help if needed and we've actually received a call
from the governor's office as well already asking if we need any assistance. so we're working through that right now. we're putting our plan together. as i mentioned earlier, we brought in additional explosive canine teams into austin so that we can respond to these calls that are coming in where individuals have reported suspicious packages. it's not time to panic, but it's time to be vigilant and it's time to pay attention. it's time to pull together as a city and community and solve this. so, we need the community's participation. if you see a suspicious package on your porch or somebody else's, let us know. >> the third package, was it left -- was it left by ups, by the postal service? you said the second one was not. >> no, we do not believe this package here today was left by any of the official mail delivery services, whether it be the united states postal service, u.p.s., fedex or dhl. that will be part of the investigation. standing here we do not believe this was delivered by any official delivery service. >> is it by opening or moving
them from the porch? >> these devices can be exploded by being moved. that is why we reiterate, if you see something out of place do not handle it, do not touch it, call us. >> do they know how long the package was at their door, do they have any idea when it was dropped off or anything like that? >> no, what we know is the victims when they have seen the packages they have gone out and handled them and we had the explosions occur. >> was there any connection to the victim? >> what i mentioned earlier, we're working on victimology now. that is one of the things you want to do when you're investigating what you believe to be a series of incidents. if you want to look for commonalities among your victims where their paths may have crossed so you can determine if it is connected or random. at this point we have not yet determined that. >> is it a possible hate crime? >> we can't rule anything out. as i mentioned earlier today, when you rule something out you limit your focus and you may miss things. what we have had to date right
now is we have had two victims that were african-american and the victim of the latest incident was a 75-year-old hispanic female. so, we are still working to identify whether or not that may play a role, but we are not going to rule that out as we are not going to rule out any other potential motive. >> are they relative in size even, big, small? >> i can't go into the specific sizes, but they're an average size delivery box. they're not exceptionally large. >> [ inaudible ] question. >> we have a pattern of incidents that have occurred in this community over the past ten days and so we believe are related so that's what we're focused on right now, is the connection between the three. >> any person or anyone that anyone has seen? >> we do not have descriptions of suspects or vehicles. that is why again, it is so important that the community -- if you believe you know something, if you have heard something, however trivial you may believe it to be, that may
be the piece of information that we need to crack this case. so, it's important that you report that to us. >> have any of those turned up any leads or have any been suspicious when you asked them upon arrival? >> no. since this morning's press conference, when we implored the community, please let us know if you see something suspicious, we have received several calls. none of those calls have turned out to be anything suspicious or anything explosive. >> what kind of explosive is it? >> do they seem to be amateurly made, do they seem to be expert put together? the extent of how the packages appear, the detonation? >> you know, the bomb teches 'se putting this together, the atf and the bomb squad. we have an person -- >> just a recap on the situation in austin, texas. the atf is now at the scene of
two separate bombings. that would be the third. in some case someone left a package on a doorstep, it exploded and killed a 17-year-old boy, wounded a woman. a second explosion badly hurt a woman in a different part of the city. investigators are trying to collect surveillance video to come up with a suspect with we'll continue to cover that for you. thanks for joining us. that's it for me. i'll see you a at 11:00 eastern and "deadline white house" with nicolle wallace starts right now >> hi, everyone. it's 4:00 in new york. porn star stormy daniels is sending an i.o.u. to the president for her $130,000 hush money paid out allegedly paid by michael cohen. it completely unhinged commander in chief riffing about north korea in the news media while bragging rights to congressional seats hang in the balance. welcome to monday, folks. here was donald trump unplugged this weekend. >> a lot of pe