tv MSNBC Live With Ali Velshi MSNBC July 15, 2019 12:00pm-1:00pm PDT
great to see you in person. it's monday, july 15th. president trump insists his twitter attacks against women of color are not racist. >> if you hate our country, if you're not happy here, you can leave. and that's what i say all the time. that's what i said in a tweet which i guess some people think is controversial. a lot of people love it by the way. if you're not happy in the u.s., if you're complaining all the time, very simply you can leave. these are people that hate our country. hey, john, they hate our country. they hate it, i think, with a passion. >> are you okay with people -- >> quiet. >> thinking your tweets are racist, sir? >> quiet. these are people that if they don't -- >> i'm asking a question. >> -- that if they don't like it here, they can leave. and i don't know who's going to miss them, but i guess some people will. >> i'll miss you if critics of this country were to leave. his attacks are targeted at
these group of four women, four freshmen congress women, democratic congresswoman rashida tlaib, alexandria ocasio-cortez who was born in new york, same as the president, not far from the president's own birthplace, ayanna pressley, and ilhan omar a so many allee refugee who moved to the united states when she was 12 and like me is a naturalized american citizen. we all have the same citizenship. this all started over the weekend when the president tweeted so interesting to see progressive democrat congresswomen who originally came from other countries whose governments are a complete and total cass atmosphere fee, the most corrupt anywhere in the world. he tweeted why don't they go back and help fix the crime-infested places from which they came. and earlier this morning he asked when will the radical left congress women apologize to our country, the people of israel, and even to the office of the president for the foul language that they have used. so many people are angry at them and they're horrible and
disgusting actions. since the uproar which included this question, are you okay with a racist president republicans? only a handful of republicans have actually come out against the president's words. let's start at the white house where nbc's kristen welker joins me now. kristen, this was not what the president or at least not what was planned for the president to do. >> it was an event about something else. but clearly from the tweets and then the president's comments. this was on his mind. what's the fallout been since he made these comments this morning? >> reporter: well, ali, i think you make an important point. the president wanted to talk about these products that were made in america, wanted to talk about the economy. and yet he wound up answering a number of questions about his tweets over the weekend which a number of democrats announce and some republicans have come forward and said were in fact racist. so president trump digging in, insisting there was nothing wrong with saying that effectively those four freshman
congresswomen of color should go back to where they came from, most born in the u.s. with the exception of one. they're all u.s. citizens. so he has been on defense with this, ali. and so have senior administration officials. look, i was just in a briefing with secretary mnuchin. he wanted to talk about bitcoins. but what was the focus of so many of the questions that he got? so many of the questions focused on these tweets from over the weekend. so he was forced to defend the president saying, look, he has no problem with it. he understood what president trump meant. mark earlier today, a senior official who works with the vice president also on defense forced to defend these comments and to say, look, president trump does have people of color working in his administration, but of course we pressed him on that point and said what does that have to do with the president's tweets? so the fallout deepening by the hour, ali. and you do have republicans coming forward and saying, look, they can't stand by these comments.
lindsay graham saying that president trump should really rise above this and not engage in this type of politics. i do think it's significant and important to point out that president trump has a history of this type of rhetoric. remember, he launched his political career on the birtherism campaign, and that idea something that he has since stepped away from. but he engages in identity, race, and culture politics, ali, and he's giving us a preview, i think, of things to expect on the campaign trail as he fights go re-election, ali. >> kristen welker for us at the white house. joining me now is reena shaw, republican strategist and board member for the republican women for progress. reena's worked for republican members of congress and faced racist replarks from supporters of president trump. reena, you in fact in 2016 when you said you couldn't back trump, you started to face that backlash that included some of the language that we've heard today, the go back to where you came from. >> reporter: yeah. i received a racist voicemail in
2016 after appearing on fox news where i wouldn't support then candidate trump. it just came for me, ali, the way in which people came for me talking about the color of my skin saying i should go back to where i came, from calling me a muslim when i'm in fact a practicing jane. and i believe that what this president is doing is fanning the flames. he cannot denounce white supremacy, white nationalism. this is a moment in which he could have kept his mouth shut. he didn't need to engage in it. if i was advising the president, if i were one of his advisers i would have said stay out of it. >> but he doesn't listen to anyone around him, and that's the problem. >> the president seemed to own this, and something kristen got to at the end of her comments is that the president's got a history with this. it sort of seems to come relatively naturally to him. he was asked very specifically are you worried about the things you're saying about being construed as racist and being embraced by white nationalists and he said i don't care.
>> yeah. he doesn't care. he doesn't care about history, he doesn't care about words, and he simply doesn't care for the constitution. so i think we've seen who trump is in this moment. he is somebody who peddles in hate. if this were four white women and the spat they had was with a speaker who was, say, a black woman, we wouldn't be having this conversation. i wouldn't be sitting here today because the president of the united states wouldn't have tweeted the words he did by using the phrase "go back to your country," he couldn't say that to white women. he can say that because these are women of color. i think this goes beyond intent. i think it's despicable that the vice president chief of staff would try to defend this. i think this goes beyond birthplace as congressman jim hines put it. >> these are congresswomen, people who have been elected to office, they are challenging his power, that can check his power. and that's what he feels threatened by. >> reena, you're a republican and you advise republicans.
last i checked the republican party was fully on side with the first amendment and the idea that criticizing your country is -- i often call the first amendment an obligation, not a right, because i think that if you don't practice it, you don't have it. and part of practicing it is being critical of your country, of your government, of the way things are going. >> right. >> the president tried to brand that today as something that was unpatriotic. it almost sounded like he was suggesting people are traitors wore criticizing their country. that's not a republican principle. it's not a principle upon which this country was founded. >> correct. this shouldn't be a partisan moment. we should be able to denounce the rhetoric that this president uses on a regular basis. it's that of a preschooler. i have a preschooler who i constantly have to tell please do the opposite. do not name-call. do not judge people by the color of their skin. these are virtues that we cared about in this country, and i think we still, do and i believe in the heart of the people of this country. i believe in good republicans who have, unfortunately, had to stay silent, those in congress.
>> look. i have personal problems with staying silent. i think that gives rise to this. i think it makes it okay and normalizes it. but they are worried about their re-election. and, trump, he gets another term, right? say he gets another term. but then we're done with him. so it's going to be up to principled conservatives like myself to rebuild the party, to talk about what makes a patriot. i am a patriot because my family's situation. just because my skin is brown doesn't mean we go back to india. my dad's side is ugandan. we were kicked out of that country because he said he wanted us to go back to where we came from. >> always a pleasure to talk to you. rina shaw is a republican strategist and board member for republican women for progress. while the president goes after those four congresswomen, the justice department says it's making a lawful exercise to restrict eligibility for asylum. in less than 24 hours, a new rule from the administration will take effect that could effectively deny asylum
protections to most of the migrants traveling across the southern border. the rule states, quote, with limited exceptions, an alien who enters or attempts to enter the united states across the southern border after failing to apply for protection in a third country en route to the united states is ineligible for asylum. essentially, this means migrants coming from honduras, guatemala, and el salvador cannot seem asylum if they did not seek it in mexico first. to be clear, mexico has not agreed to this rule. the washington post also points out less clear is whether the united states would be able to deport such applicants back to the nations they passed through along the journey because the transit nations would have to agree to take them and provide protection. and the american civil liberties union already announced it's planning to file suit to stop the rule change calling it patently unlawful. this all comes after new reports indicate, quote, there was little evidence of massive immigration enforcement
operations despite the president's weeks of warnings that he'd mass-target 2,000 undocumented migrants to deport starting this past weekend. earlier today the president denied the criticism that the raids were overstated to generate hysteria among immigrant communities. >> is this to scare people, mr. president? >> the i.c.e. raids were very successful. people came into our country illegally. many were felons. many were convicted of crimes. many, many were taken out on sunday. you just didn't know about it. >> in fact, i went to -- i spoke to the head of i.c.e. i spoke to a couple of people. we had many people. it was a very successful day. >> all right. joining me now nbc correspondent julia ainsley who covers the justice department and homeland security department. joulia, there are some references including to the
third-party country being party to the agreement. earlier which and i talked, you talked about canada and how it's different when migrants or asylum seekers come to canada. can you explain what we need to know about this? >> that's right. that's because we have an agreement with canada. and canada has been deemed by the u.s. by canada by the u.n. to be a safe third-party country. it's where people can go, apply for asylum and they believe they will get due process and adjudication of their claim. that same determination that same agreement has not been made with mexico or any of these other countries that these immigrants might pass through. for example, the guatemalan courts just ruled over the weekend that they cannot be a safe third-party country which would nullify the agreement the trump administration was working on with guatemala. mexico would not agree to that to be that safe third party country for them. they're simply not set up to do that even from a logistical point. it's not deemed safe.
they actually, you know, wouldn't have the due process there that they would in the u.s. or canada or some other countries because they don't have enough people to adjudicate some of these claims. so as a result a workaround the trump administration just decided to put out this rule that said, okay, they are now considered a third-party country, and anyone who goes through those countries and sets foot there cannot claim asylum here. the people this really affects if and when this goes into effect tomorrow as it's planned to, are people who are lined up on our southern border, ali, to legally come through the ports of entry, turn themselves in, and claim asylum. they're not people who are trying to sneak past the border patrol. they are saying i am here, i am fleeing fear and persecution. please give me an interview. those people would be denied. >> i want to reiterate those people who come from those countries through the mexican border present themselves for asylum and go through that process. the overwhelming majority of those people have their claims rejected. so regardless of how many people
are coming across the border, the percentage of people who make a credible claim according to the u.s. government is actually from a percentage perspective very small. >> well, so, i think we have to piece apart what we mean by credible claims. so the first one is credible fear. the overwhelming majority do pass that. that's when you sit down with an asylum officer and you say what you were saying checks these boxes. then you have to go before an immigration judge. there is a backlog right now of about 900,000 cases waiting to go before an immigration judge which is a big problem because you can go into this country for years before you would ever have your day in court. and a lot of people are worried about people who never show up for court, just disappearing into our country. so the majority of those get denied. but when you first meet that asylum officer at the border, that is often granted. >> thank you for the distinction about credible fear. we do have some breaking news that i need to ask you about. more than 60 current and former -- well, actually current
customs and border patrol agents are now under investigation. they had posts mocking migrants and members of congress. what do we know about this? >> that's right. so there was a press call earlier today, and we can now report on this, ali. what we learned is that there are 70 people total, 62 of them are current customs and border protection employees who were part of that facebook group that first became known. i believe it was by propublica that they were putting demeaning comments about members of congress. they say five people were part of another facebook group and at least one person is still to be determined what group they might be part of. what we know so far is that two of those people they've had their investigation concluded and it's been handed over to dhs to make a decision on how to deal with them. but the people who explained this to reporters today said, look, it's just up to us to do the investigation, figure out what behavior happened here, but we don't make a disciplinary
decision. so the big question is will we and the american public ever find out if these people were held accountable for their actions. >> julia ainsley for us. i want to go now to the senator floor where senator chuck schumer is talking about the president's attacks on minority congresswomen. >> do not want to carry out or are too difficult to carry out in a fairway because they can't be done fairly. perhaps it's even to distract from his administration's attempt to dismantle our health care system through the courts. but maybe the president just feels comfortable stoking racial divisions in this country. maybe that's his millieu. after all, this is part of the pattern of behavior that began with the birther treatment of president obama and his characterization of mexicans in his announcement speech, continue with his attack on an american-born judgment of
mexican descent, his proposed muslim ban in response to charlottesville and includes comments about caribbean and african nations that cannot be repeated here on the floor of the senate. whatever the reason, whatever the motivation, the president's comments demand condemnation from all corners of the political spectrum, all corners. but it's become frightly common for many of my republican colleagues to let these moments sail by without saying even a word. republican leadership especially rarely criticizes the president directly, even in a situation like this that so clearly merits it. so i'm left to wonder if the silence of many republicans in the wake of president trump's zeenphobic tweets is out of
embarrassment or agreement. embarrassment or agreement both are inexcusable. some of my republican colleagues are hoping that the president realizes the error of his ways, they said. disavows or deletes his tweets from yesterday. but the president just walked out of the white house a few hours ago and doubled down on his racist comments. my republican friends, he's not backing off. where are you? when something this serious, this bigoted, this unamerican happens. if you're saying to yourselves, well, he got us our big tax cut, well, he's taking regulations off big corporations, well, he pulled out of the paris accords. we have to go along with this racism? you're making a deal with the devil.
it's so wrong, so wrong. the president of the united states is supposed to bring this country together. it's clear this president won't, doesn't want to, and revels in dividing us. no american president has done this. no american president has resorted to open and bold-faced bigotry so often. his goal, president trump's goal, sadly, is not to unite but to divide. that's how he's climbed the ladder politically. >> all right. we're going to continue to monitor senator chuck schumer in the senate. i want to bring in clara long, continuing our conversation about asylum. she is the acting deputy, washington director at human rights watch. thank you for being with us.
>> thank you. >> i want to continue the conversation that i was having with julia ainsley about the proposed changes to asylum in the united states. i think it's probably important because donald trump has done a remarkable job of muddying the waters between immigration and asylum and refugees and migrants and immigrants and illegals. it's hard to keep track. asylum is something very specific that has generally accepted internationally-recognized rules that surround it. >> that's right, ali. it not only has internationally recognized rules around it, it has u.s. law behind it. and, you know, the aclu has said, and i think this legal analysis is correct, that the regulations scheduled to go into effect tomorrow are patently illegal. what they do is essentially ban from asylum anyone who has passed through any other country with two small exceptions before they arrive in the united states and has not been denied asylum in that country. the idea is you have to request
asylum, go through the process and be denied and then perhaps you can try again in the united states. that flies in the face of the legal scheme that congress put into place in the refugee act. congress contemplated a safe third-country system, a system in which the u.s. could return places to places like canada where there is indeed an agreement with that country, that in canada you have basically essentially similar due process guarantees, similar sort of expected treatment in terms of protection. what this rule would do is, say, anywhere that you've passed through, even if that place really can't handle your claim, makes you ineligible. >> something that most americans i think hold true, right? due process means if you're lying you may get caught for lying. if your claim is not valid, we'll figure that out. the due process, the ability to make your claim and provide
evidence, something that is very difficult for migrants. but just to be clear, if a migrant shows up here and has gone through canada, they can be returned to canada because the understanding is that canada has the infrastructure and due process protections to allow them to claim their asylum status there? >> correct. it's not just the understanding, it's a legally binding international agreement, a safe third-country agreement between the u.s. and canada that's actually bilateral, it goes both ways. canada can return people to the u.s. absence some exceptions, and the united states can return people to canada. >> we don't have that kind of agreement with mexico. >> we do not have that kind of agreement with mexico or with guatemala or with many of the countries that migrants are -- most migrants and asylum seekers are passing through before they reach the united states border. and the reason why those agreements don't exist or shouldn't exist is because migrants who are seeking asylum in guatemala or in mexico are facing overloaded systems that
are really not set up to deal with the claims that people need to make. >> all right. what is the net effect of this action that the government is taking? what will actually change as a result of what president trump wants to do? >> that remains to be seen to some extent. you know, i'll make the comment that, you know, the proposed rule doesn't even exclude unaccompanied children. so just to connect for your viewers to, you know, the scenes that we've witnessed coming out of the clint border patrol station, the very cruel treatment of child asylumseekers. this could have an impact on children as well. but i think the question now is what will a court do with this rule it and will -- you know, i think it's pretty clear that legal advocates will challenge the rule as soon as it goes into effect, or they at least will attempt to. and then the question is will a court decide to approve what's called a preliminary injunction. will it decide to stop the rule
while it's, you know, ruling on the merits, considering the claims in a more fullsome manner, or will it allow it to go forward while a court challenge proceeds? >> clara long is the acting deputy washington director at human rights watch. how would the presidential candidates fair against donald trump? a new nbc "wall street journal" poll. >> ali, we took a look at the four top polling democrats in the head to head democratic race and said, okay, how do they do if you match them up against president trump? because obviously democratic voters, we've seen, they're very interested in that question of electability. here's what the "wall street journal" apology found. the democrat right now faring the best against president trump. you see biden over 50%, a lead over trump of nearly double digits. a 9-point lead there for biden. biden more than any of these candidates, of course, running
on that issue of electability. he does the best of all the democrats against trump. he probably needs to be doing the best against trump in these polls to reinforce that argument he's making to democrats. bernie sanders, he also leads the president seven-point advantage. elizabeth warren is ahead, a little bit closer there a five-point advantage. then kamala harris she also leads a one-point advantage there. so all four of the leading democrats have the edge in this poll over president trump it. >> varies, though, from nine points on the high end with biden down to one point with harris. i'll show you what doesn't vary, though. you can see it, president trump's support, it's pretty tight here. 42% on the low end. 44% on the high end. and of course, ali, that tracks rather closely to the president's approval rating which sits at 45% in our poll. >> when a guy like you who understands polls better than anybody i know looks at numbers like that, how do you calculate the fact that national, popular approval ratings don't
necessarily map over to election results? >> well, we saw that obviously in 2016. you could say it was kamala harris, take that, for instance, she leads the president by a point right here while hillary clinton won the popular vote by a couple of points over president trump in 2016. of course, that didn't add up to an electoral college victory which, i think, when you look at the biden campaign and the electability argument they are trying to sell democrats, that's one thing they want democrats seeing in these polls. it's not just that biden leads because every candidate can say they leads. biden's campaign wants democrats to look at that and he's leading by such a wide margin. but every poll that comes out like this reinforces that biden argument. >> steve kornacki is our nbc news national political correspondent. coming up, former vice president joe biden, he unveils his health care proposal, a plan
that would preserve and expand upon the most popular opponents of obamacare. we're going to take a close look at it with simone sanders. she is the senior adviser to the biden campaign. you are watching msnbc. wake up! there's a lot that needs to get done today. small things. big things. too hard to do alone things. day after day, you need to get it all done. and here to listen and help you through it all is bank of america. with the expertise and know-how you need to reach that blissful state of done-ness. so let's get after it. ♪ everything is all right what would you like the power to do?® ♪ all right
that's when patients are hit with medical bills they thought would be covered by insurance. the problem is big insurance companies want a one-size-fits-all approach that lets them decide what they'll pay doctors for yocare. letting insurance companies decide means it could be harder for you to see the best doctors when you need them the most. tell congress, "end surprise billing, and don't let insurance companies put profits over patients. paid for by physicians for fair coverage. ♪ how do you like it, ♪ how do you like it ♪
♪ more, more, more ♪ how do you like it, how do you like it ♪ all you can eat is back. how do you like that? applebee's. now that's eatin' good in the neighborhood. has been excellent. they really appreciate the military family and it really shows. with all that usaa offers why go with anybody else? we know their rates are good, we know that they're always going to take care of us. it was an instant savings and i should have changed a long time ago. it was funny because when we would call another insurance company, hey would say "oh we can't beat usaa" we're the webber family. we're the tenney's we're the hayles, and we're usaa members for life. ♪ get your usaa auto insurance quote today. former vice president joe biden is separating himself from many of his fellow democratic presidential contenders when it comes to health care. biden's campaign released a video in which he said that he wants to build on obamacare instead of setting up a whole
new system. >> i believe we have to protect and build on obamacare. that's why i propose adding a public option to obamacare as the best way to lower costs and cover everyone. i understand the appeal of medicare for all. but folks supporting it should be clear that it means getting rid of obamacare. and i'm not for that. i know how hard it is to get that. i watched it. starting over makes no sense to me at all. >> i want to take some closer look at some of the key points of biden's proposal which he says is going to cover more than 97% of americans. he wants to create a government-run health insurance option for people who aren't happy with their private insurance plan. he also wants to expand tax credits for people to buy insurance by eliminating obamacare's income cap of 400% of the federal poverty level which is currently used to
determine who is eligible for those credits. biden also wants to make it easier for poor, uninsured adults in 14 republican-led states that have not expanded medicaid to insurance by allowing them to buy into the proposed government-run plan without paying premiums. now, when it comes to prescription drugs, biden wants to appeal a rule that bars medicare from negotiating prices with drug companies. he wants to limit price increases for most drugs to the rate of inflation and allow consumers to buy prescription drugs from other countries such as canada. biden campaign officials say the plan would cost $750 billion over ten years. the campaign said it would be paid for by rolling back the republican tax cut for the wealthy and by doubling the tax rate on capital gains such as the sale of property or investment for those of annual incomes of more than a million dollars. joining us now to talk about this is a senior adviser of the biden campaign, simone. >> thank you for having me, ali.
you ran through that very comprehensively, mind you. >> we are trying to help our viewers understand health care. and sometimes we do so based on the criticisms of others who are looking at it. so i want to start with joe biden who has tweeted this about the plan. he says i fought to improve and pass obamacare. i traveled all over the country to fight the repeal, but i will not be deterred from ending the corporate greed which creates dysfunction. we must pass medicare for all. how do you respond to that? >> i mean, look. vice president biden released his health care plan today, and the video that we released make it's very clear. there are some people in this democratic race for president that would like to do away with obamacare. there are some people on that stage that are willing to, you know, throw the baby out with the bathwater. and vice president biden is making it very clear. our health care plan will build on the success of the affordable
care act and frankly address some of the issues. lots of people across america know premiums are too high. there are lots of folks in states, as you noted earlier, states that have not passed medicaid expansion who are eligible for medicaid and currently don't receive it because their governors and state legislators have yet to act. under the biden health care plan, those folks will be able to opt into health care insurance. that's just a fundamental difference between what senator sanders and others are proposing. i think it's very important for folks across the country to know that as folks are talking about making sure everyone is covered, absolutely, democrats, we all agree everyone should be covered. the biden campaign believes that we're not doing away with private insurance and that we have to build on the affordable care act and all the democrats don't believe that. >> let's say you come up with a really good public option. would i be able to take the money that i currently pay my employer for private insurance and use that for a public
option? >> well, ali, look. under our plan regardless if you are being insured through your employer, if you are on the market on your own, if you are eligible for medicaid, and that is how you will be covered. so we want to be really clear that folks will be covered under our plan. we are getting again 97% of folks in america will be covered and there will be access to full-services of preventative care. but we're also going to take on the insurance companies, the pharmaceutical companies. and i know there has been a lot of conversation in this race about holding the drug companies accountable. one of the things you didn't note in the intro is that under our plan we will also create an independent review board so that drug companies cannot launch a product without having that price reviewed because we know that there are life-saving drugs that americans need that they just can't afford because the prices are just too damn high. >> let me ask you about the expansions into the states that did not expand medicate.
"the new york times" said this would be a huge boost to poor people who are left with no options at all to get affordable health coverage according to larry levitt. but mr. levitt said mr. biden's plan could also have the, quote, unintended consequence of encouraging some states that have already expanded medicaid to pull back. how do you make sure that doesn't happen a bunch of states say, oh, biden's plan is going to take care of it so we can save all this money? >> i think that's why electing good folks that believe in health care for all are really important. a biden administration would absolutely work with congress, but also governors and state legislators around the country, ali, because that's how you get things done. we are not doing anything unilaterally. but the fact of the matter is it is such a gross misstep for states across the country to have failed to expand medicaid. and our health care plan is not going to leave those folks on the table. >> because you deal with states
that are unmovable on this, and then what happens if the democrats take the house and biden becomes president and the senate is still controlled by mitch mcconnell? it's a technical question here, and i'm not looking to drag you into a conversation about making deals with segregationists. but how exactly does joe biden get that done? >> i mean, look, i think what we've presented here today is a plan that is not just for democrats or just for republicans or a plan that could be good for independents. i think this is a plan that's great fort american people. when and if -- look, we're running in this primary, i hope that vice president biden is a democratic nommee. and on day one we'll be ready to get to work on this, ali. there will be compromises that have to take place. but we are going in there strong to say that, look, republicans ran for years if we remember on repeal and replace of obamacare. when republicans were in charge, finally got their chance to be in charge of the house, the senate, and, frankly, and the white house, they didn't have a
plan for the american people. vice president biden, the biden administration will have a plan, and i would venture to say that the american people made it very clear in 2018 that they want a government that is going to get to work for them and that health care and taking away their health care is not an option. >> can we use short hand here? if a person casually talking about this at dinner friday night, can they say biden's bringing obamacare back with a little more? >> and is fixing some of the issues that have currently arose in our system. some other folks in this race, they're trying to -- they're not about building on obamacare, ali. they are trying to start from scratch. and we are putting a line in the sand that we will forcefully defend obamacare from democrats and republicans alike. >> simone, good to talk to you as always. she is the senior adviser for joe biden's presidential campaign. joining us now to continue the conversation is elizabeth rosenthal, the editor and chief of kaiser health news, is also
the author of "an american sickness." your hot take on joe biden's plan. >> well, it does start with the aca or obamacare, but it really adds a whole range of different components, some of which are borrowed actually as he noted from the original proposal for obamacare from the obama administration like the public option and others of which are borrowed from other countries such as the setting drug prices, a maximum premiums, 8.5% of income. that's similar to germany. the idea of a review board for drug prices. many countries do that. and then he talks about medicare-like public option. but i think as always it's really great to see people moving on health care for people like me. you know, it's really encouraging. but the devil is also in the details. and i think that remains to be seen. will that price be able to just
really advise or be able to say, no, no, that price is too high. when we say it's medicare-like, we know medicare has done a pretty good job of controlling hospital prices. but will this medicare-like plan have that same power? if so, you can expect to see the insurance industry and the hospital industry fight back like the devil. that in many ways is what weakened obamacare to begin with, so it's going to become quite a fight. >> you really know details about these things. but for folks who are polled it becomes hard particularly with medicare, medicare for all, obamacare, aca, something that's like obamacare. a recent kaiser family foundation poll said 46% hold a favorable view of the law, 40% hold an unfavorable view of the law. then i've seen all sorts of polls about medicare for all. when these candidates get up there, what are the key questions that we should be asking in order to compare these
systems if the devil is in the details? >> well, i think the key question is how are you going to control prices because that's the essential problem with our system. and, you know, there are lots of ways to do that. some countries have a national health system, where of course, you do have control of prices like medicare for all. others such as germany have some kind of price guidelines, price-setting. and you could do that through the market as well by really cleverly designing a market. the but as we've seen so far, that hasn't worked in this country. so unless a plan has a good capacity to really hold down prices, boy, it's going to have a hard time working. and the aca did a lot of really good things. but in some ways the one thing it didn't do more many americans was its branding the affordable care act. many americans still find health care affordable. and that's why we're seeing all these democratic candidates trying to tackle that. and it's a really hard nut to
crack. >> thank you for joining with us to help analyze these plans. she is the editor in chief of kaiser health news and the author of "an american sickness: how health care became big business and how you can take it back." facebook shares are up nearly 2% on friday that the federal trade commission approved a record $5 billion settlement with the social media platform over its privacy practices. let that sink in for a second. they were fined $5 billion and the shares were up. the ftc opened an investigation into facebook in march 2018 after it was revealed that the former political consultcy firm cambridge analytica improbably accessed the personal data of up to 87 million users. critics accused the company of violating a 2011 consent agreement with the federal trade commission to protect user privacy. now nbc news has not confirmed the settlement. but here's what we know about it thanks to the washington post.
facebook may have to document every decision it makes about data before offering new products to keep closer watch over third-party apps that acre secretary user information and require top executives including ceo mark zuckerberg. joining us now to take a closer look at this is washington post" senior tech policy reporter tony rom who was one of the first to report on the settlement. he's also an nbc technology contributor. tony, this idea of mark zuckerberg having to attest. it takes bits out of things that happened after the financial swindles of the early 2000s that ceos and decisionmakers in the company cannot plead ignorance anymore to what their policies are intended to do. >> right. this is all about holding a company that's of the massive size of facebook accountable for the decisions that it makes with data. and depending where you sit on the side of the political ledger, either this goes as far
as it should or it doesn't go far enough. never before have we seen the u.s. government bring a fine of this size against the company for violating its promises on privacy. and things like for requiring mark zuckerberg to prove that he knew what the company was doing. there are plenty of folks who look at the fact that facebook's stock was up after this. and fear that it's not actually going to change the company's behavior. >> right. because that's the opposite of deterrence. if you look at the $5 billion fine, the 2018 revenue for facebook was $56 billion. so this is less than 10% of a year's revenue. at some point the concept of a fine, particularly one that has a b in it is to force a deterrent. but the market value of the company went up. so i'm just wondering if we think about regulation entirely incorrectly in 2019. >> right. the fine is a really tough proposition here because while it's big for the government and
it's not necessarily big for facebook. in the minds of congressional democrats, you're exactly right. this fine isn't going to have the deterrent effect on facebook or any of its peers in silicon valley that have had privacy problems in recent months. on the flip side of this though, we don't have a national privacy law. there is nothing on the books that generally regulates the way that companies collect and monetize data. and in that respect the government has been using decades-old laws to police these companies on privacy. so there's really a limit to what an agency like the ftc can do, and it really brings us back once again to this question of congress of whether they're going to learn their lesson. >> as we've been covering this we've looked across the pond to europe to at least implement laws. is that the example we should be looking for as we head into an election year, this is not the top issue, but it's up there, how to handle data and privacy. you point out that we have no modern laws to deal with this in
the united states. it's almost like we've thrown up our hands saying we can't figure it out. i don't really think that's true. i think we can figure it out. >> that allows the government there in the european union to bring very steep fines tied to a company's revenue if they continue to violate rules regarding data that's collected and how it's monetized. you actually don't even have to look across the pond. we've had u.s. states looking to do similarly. california adopted tough privacy rules last year to the same effect. it's just washington that's been really slow here. we've heard lots of talk from democrats and republicans about the need to turn legislation into a law. but in many respects, we actually don't even have that legislation introduced. we are still pretty far behind here in the nation's capitol. >> tony romm is a senior tech policy reporter at t"the washington post". what investigators say they found in a safe in jeffrey
epstein's mansion. plus, reports president trump is considering firing his long-time friend commerce secretary wilbur ross after the supreme court rejected his attempt to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census. after the break we're going to look at who's still left in the president's cabinet and how they're surviving this long. you're watching msnbc. award winning interface. award winning design. award winning engine. the volvo xc90. the most awarded luxury suv of the century.
today's senior living communities have never been better, with amazing amenities like movie theaters, exercise rooms and swimming pools, public cafes, bars and bistros even pet care services. and there's never been an easier way to get great advice. a place for mom is a free service that pairs you with a local advisor to help you sort through your options and find a perfect place. a place for mom. you know your family we know senior living. together we'll make the right choice. book two, separate qualifying stays at choicehotels.com... ...and earn a $50 gift card. because when your business is rewarding yourself... ...our business is you. book direct at choicehotels.com
i didn't have to shout out i didn't have to get you a lift. and i didn't have to call your wife to meet you at the doctor. because you didn't have another dvt. not today. we discussed how having one blood clot puts you at risk of having another,... ...so we chose xarelto®, to help keep you protected. xarelto®, is proven to treat and reduce the risk of dvt or pe blood clots from happening again. in clinical trials, almost 98% of people
did not have another dvt or pe. don't stop taking xarelto® without talking to your doctor, as this may increase your risk of blood clots. while taking, a spinal injection increases the risk of blood clots, which may cause paralysis- the inability to move. you may bruise more easily or take longer for bleeding to stop. xarelto® can cause serious, and in rare cases, fatal bleeding. it may increase your risk of bleeding if you take certain medicines. get help right away for unexpected bleeding or unusual bruising. do not take xarelto® if you have an artificial heart valve or abnormal bleeding. before starting, tell your doctor about all planned medical or dental procedures and any kidney or liver problems. enjoy every moment and help protect yourself from an unexpected one, like another dvt or pe. are you doing enough? ask your doctor about xarelto®. to learn more about cost and how janssen can help, visit xarelto.com.
break news in. a little more than an breaking news. in a little more than an hour four congresswomen will address reporters. ayanna pressley, rashida tlaib, oscasio-cortez and ill ee an omar will hold a press conference after the president told them to go back to where they came from and accused them of hating our country. another top official at the white house could be out the door. president trump told aides and allies he's considering removing commerce secretary albert ross. this after they removed the citizenship question from the 2020 census. out of 24 of the top cabinet positions president trump assigned back in 2016 only ten,
the ones with xs, remained in their position. mike pompeo did transfer into a different position in the administration and so did mick mulvaney, he became acting chief of staff in addition to his role as director of the office of management and budget. alex acosta is still secretary of labor but just until friday in his effort for overseeing a deal for jeffrey epstein. joining me is chris whipple, author of "the gatekeepers: how white house chief of staff define every presidency." what a quaint notion that the chief of staff would play a role in this. however, in this particular case the acting chief of staff mulvaney is the prototype, he's the example of how you stick around in trump's orbit. trump sent him to the consumer financial protection board basically to dismantle it, which is largely what he's done. >> but here's the problem. obviously, this has almost nothing to do with wilber ross'
competence or lack thereof and it has everything to do with the reality show this white house has always been. this is a white house which going on throw years still has no idea how to govern and fundamentally isn't interested in governing and that comes from the top. we know that because if they were interested in governing, they wouldn't have 20 top officials with acting in the title. if they were interested in governing, they would have a health care plan. if they were interested in governing, they would have an infrastructure bill and maybe a border policy that didn't lock up children in cages. so the problem is that -- and you've heard me say this before, this is a president who understands the show but he's not interested in governing, he's interested in campaigning. >> what is the consequence of all of these acting secretaries? somebody asked me the other day and i didn't know the answer to this. how would that work in the private sector if, you know, ceos were not fully accountable to everyone, they were interim
and acting? what is the answer in government? >> the effect is you have a white house unable to govern. this is a white house that, again, you've heard me say it before that i think donald trump is somebody who does not understand the difference between campaigning, which is demonizing and disrupting and dividing and governing, which is actually getting something done. the way you do that is by empowering people to get it done. you do that by having officials who are not acting but who actually have authority. >> if you're acting, you're always sort of scared the day you don't do the president's bidding, you're out. wilber ross wasn't acting and the day he didn't succeed -- this reminds me of medieval europe. >> you're up and you're down, you're in or you're out. ross may be out soon but the bigger fundamental problem starts with mulvaney, chief of staff, who's not been empowered to really act as white house chief of staff and may not be interested in doing that. but especially after this outrageous tirade by the president on sunday morning, a
competent white house chief of staff would have been in the oval office on monday morning saying a couple of things. number one, this doesn't make you look strong, it makes you lock weak. number two, it's stupid politically. your base is not going -- >> he's proved that. >> pat buchanan isn't coming out of right field to take away your nomination. you to be re-elected, you have to expand your base and you have to learn how to govern. >> not only was there not a cls to go in and tell the president that doesn't work, then the president went and did something this morning that seems weird. what are triggered the president to go after knees four freshmen congresswomen who were, by the way, in their own fight with nancy pelosi. . >> it is unhinged behavior, which may be impossible for mulvaney or anyone else to check. but the thing is it's not only unhinged, it's not only and echo of the darkest days of vietnam, remember your country, love it or leave it. it's not only racist but it also
echoes -- it's right out of the nixon playbook. it's ugly, divisive and stupid politically as well. >> thank you so much for being with us. author of "the white house chief of staff." and now the judge will decide whether jeffrey epstein should be granted bail after charges he abused girls in the early to mid-2000s. prosecutors say he's a flight risk and danger to the community and should remain behind bars. they detailed what investigators found in a safe in epstein's manhattan mansion -- a stash of diamonds and cash and a particular note, a passport from a foreign country with a picture of epstein under another name. it was issued in the 1980s, so it is expired. and it shows epstein's residence as saudi arabia. epstein's lawyers are arguing for him to be released on house
arrest. the judge said he needs more time to make the bail decision. we'll be right back after a quick break. it's tough to quit smoking 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, 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.
wifi up there? -ahhh. sure, why not? how'd he get out?! a camera might figure it out. that was easy! glad i could help. at xfinity, we're here to make life simple. easy. awesome. so come ask, shop, discover at your xfinity store today. for me. i'm going to see you right back here tomorrow at 1:00 p.m. eastern with stephanie ruhle and 3:00 p.m. eastern. you can always find me on social media, twitter, instagram, snapchat and linked in. i appreciate hearing from you. thank you for watching.
"deadline: white house" with nicolle wallace begins right now. hi, everyone. it's 4:00 in new york. donald trump today has the republican party in a vice. the likes of which they haven't experienced since charlottesville. and before that, in the aftermath of the "access hollywood" tape. republicans who have hardly been profiles in courage today found just over a dozen of their members break rank and slowly, timidly, begin to call out donald trump's flagrant bellicose racist attacks against four female members of congress. we made a decision on this show not to amplify trump's attacks by showing them or even reading them here but it should surprise no one that they're false and that they serve as ugly reminders of donald trump's xenophobia, misogyny and racism. don't take our word for it though. here's the one, the brave, the likely now endangered republican who spoke out on camera. >> i think those tweets
IN COLLECTIONSMSNBC West Television Archive Television Archive News Search Service
Uploaded by TV Archive on