said earlier today. whether republican or democrat, some note for robert mueller capping off probably a lifetime of service and i know there's been criticism of his performance yesterday but the work he has done for this investigation but also his whole life for this country should not be overlooked. yesterday shouldn't be the defining image. >> all right. thank you very much. that does it for us this morning. stephanie ruhle picks up the coverage right now. hi there. i'm stephanie ruhle. here's what's happening now. democrats strategizing their next move after robert mueller's testimony while the political and legal fallout is still unclear, mueller did manage to remind us of a few very key points. number one, that russia interfered with our election in 2016 and they are determined to do it again next year. number two, that this investigation resulted in indictments, convictions, and guilty pleas from nearly three dozen people, including the president's former lawyer michael cohen, his former campaign chairman paul manafort,

and his former national security adviser michael flynn. in fact, a jury convicted one of flynn's former business partners just this week on charges that he illegally acted as a turkish agent. despite all of this, speaker pelosi did not seem to change her mind on impeachment. take a listen. >> my position has always been whatever decision we made in that regard would have to be done with our strongest possible hand and we still have some outstanding matters in the courts. it's about the congress, the constitution, and the courts. and we are fighting the president in the courts. if we have a case for impeachment, that's the place we will have to go. >> let's dig into all of this. white house reporter for the "l.a. times" and a former federal prosecutor, former democratic senator from the state of missouri, also a former

prosecutor. former aide to the george w. bush white house and "time" magazine contributor and a former spokesperson for the house oversight committee and msnbc news contributor. senator, it is the day after. what is the next move for democrats? >> well, i think what nancy pelosi is trying to convey which is very important is there is still evidence they don't have. the white house is stone walling. i think they really need to turn up the heat and get these cases into court. the contempt of the witnesses that would bring don mcgahn in front of them, you know, that's the argument some are making for opening an impeachment inquiry because it strengthens their hand legally to get around executive privilege. so in other words, the courts would be more likely to give them all the information they are seeking if it was under the impeachment inquiry as opposed to just committee work. >> what do you think they should do? >> maybe open the inquiry and make it clear that is why

they're doing it, so they can get all the information they need and then make a decision about going forward. i don't think what happened yesterday strengthened their hand in terms of public sentiment. as much as he was good about not being biased and being cautious and careful, no one could watch those hearings and think he was out to get anybody, it still was not the kind of emotional day that would have probably moved a lot of public opinion on the subject of impeachment. >> to that point, the white house, of course, is saying it was disastrous for democrats and as the senator points out we're not sure that public sentiment shifts but you put out a piece saying, you know what? i disagree. yesterday may have been stronger than people realize. >> well, again, you have to realize something. most of the people in this country didn't sit there all day and watch all of the hearings wall to wall, hours and hours. >> that's what people do every day on msnbc. come on now. >> shockingly here in new york and d.c. but most people, they're going

to digest this through ten to 20-second sound bites, key exchanges. their perception of the hearing will be very much like what we saw last night when they ran these montages of the big moments. what they saw, people who digested the hearing that way, saw mueller say he couldn't exonerate trump from obstruction of justice. he said right now at this second russia is trying to interfere in our election. he said the president's answers were not truthful. when you see it that way, your perception is very different than those of us who watched it literally wall to wall. so i think because of that, because of the way people really consume information in this day and age of twitter and social media and seeing viral moments, i think they might be seeing it differently than we did. >> except of course the people who are seeing it are in their own echo chambers and have any of those people changed their tune? i think about that woman who went to justin amash's town hall a few weeks ago who said, what do you mean the president wasn't totally exonerated? what do you mean there was anything negative in the report? so, yes. the people who watched rachel

maddow and chris hays saw exactly what you are talking about but i'm pretty sure their opinions were set. >> i think it's true for everybody at this point. no matter what mueller said or did yesterday people who watch fox news weren't going to wake up and go he changed my mind on donald trump. we have seen those people are so far gone now they would literally follow donald trump off a cliff if he told them to. if democrats in the house hoped this would change anyone's mind they had the complete wrong mindset going into this hearing. >> a whole bunch of folks are in the middle here. only half of this country identifies with a party, only half. 25% say they're democrats, 25% say they're republicans. 50% call themselves independents. that's where this election will be won or lost and what they were trying to do yesterday was try to hit that group of people. you're right. they didn't watch it wall to wall but they also didn't see a report come to life. they didn't really get from what they're seeing on the news the

damning moment of this presidency that the democrats hoped for. that doesn't mean it was a failure. it wasn't. especially the afternoon i thought was really powerful. but i think we sometimes forget and frankly some of our people running for president forget that the way back to sanity, the way to remove the chaos in the white house is through that 50% of the people in the country that refuse to identify with a party. >> i agree there is that big population but if anything it makes the case why democrats need to actually have impeachment hearings so they can educate the american people about what is really happening and lay it all out for them to follow. >> how did republicans, and i don't mean hard core trumpers, but i mean your gop, how did they see this? >> i think it was the beginning of a small puncture at a bare minimum. eyou open up major newspapers and the headline says mueller says trump was not exonerated and can't say there was no collusion. while it is the very beginning

of the process, look at the slow build necessary for nixon to finally end up resigning from office. this isn't going to just magically happen overnight. i think part of the problem has been with the democratic com strategy has been setting expectations that there is going to be some slam dunk, some moment where donald trump is just proven, definitively, once and for all to be a liar and to have done x, y, and z. it is not going to happen that way. it is going to be a slow build of public opinion galvanizing in -- finally the forces against donald trump. this was so important an exercise yesterday because really at the end of the day that is all it was. it wasn't some kind of compelling, emotive testimony everyone is going to talk about for the next century. it was important because it started to chip away at the lie. you have donald trump, his strategy is to repeat, repeat, repeat, and lie, lie, lie. it started to chip away at that. >> it might not have been emotional, but robert mueller said that the president could be

charged after he leaves office. right? chris matthews put it last night, just think about this. he could serve another term or he could potentially serve time in prison. robert mueller might not have said that emotionally. he might not have been channelling robert deniro, but that is a powerful sentiment. eli, i want to share what the president said after these hearings. >> we had a very good day today. the republican party, our country. there was no defense of what robert mueller was trying to defend. but what he showed more than anything else is that this whole thing has been three years of embarrassment and waste of time for our country. and you know what? the democrats thought they could win an election like this. i think they hurt themselves very badly for 2020. >> three years and 30 plus indictments, how do you see this, eli? >> well, the president was

reacting as if he were a pundit on a cable news show yesterday saying that mueller's performance was bad, that democrats hurt themselves politically. there was no attempt, and there has never been any attempt by the president, his lawyers, the white house staff, campaign folks, to grapple with the actual substance of robert mueller's report findings. the fact that the president could not be exonerated on the subject of obstruction of justice, the fact that people close to him were solicitous or accepting of russian help during the campaign, and, so, they don't want to deal with the substance of that or the fact that russia as mueller sounded the alarm continues to interfere. there is nothing being done about that. the president has always looked at this solely through a political lens, through a media lens, a public opinion lens. from the beginning he has responded to what is effectively a legal situation for him. he has responded in a political way trying to smear mueller not cooperate, dismiss the entire thing, and to bring the american public along with him.

to the extent that nancy pelosi is reluctant to begin impeachment proceedings because she knows the republicans in the senate aren't going to move the ball, trump has been somewhat successful with that approach even though it is plainly obvious that he has no answer to the obvious facts that mueller presented to the country yesterday. >> cynthia, nancy pelosi said she wants to fight or democrats want to fight with their strongest hand possible. she said they are fighting this white house in court. that's obviously them trying to enforce don mcgahn adhering to this subpoena and sitting down and speaking to congress. do we think that's actually going to happen? because they're all about to go on vaca for five weeks. >> he refused to come two months ago and so far basically crickets. hope hicks lied to them and they gave her several weeks to come back. the problem is you can't just keep waiting for the next thing to happen that's going to solve all your problems.

oh, you know, first it was going to be, stone is going to flip. manafort has flipped. listen to gates. you know, there's always a solution for them that doesn't include them making a decision. they're always kicking the can down the road. and at some point they just have to make a decision. that's their job to make a decision about whether they're going to go forward. you know, the case isn't going to get any better. don mcgahn now after this hearing and the other tactics that the president has used, don mcgahn is not going to come willingly. they can pressure him in the court and then it is going to go up on appeal and take a long time. you think mueller was a reluctant witness, wait until don mcgahn gets on the stand. the case isn't getting any better. my position is they just need to make up their mind and decide to go forward and stop kicking the can down the road. >> so, senator, could that be nancy pelosi's strategy? to that exact point if robert mueller wasn't an enthusiastic witness wait until you get don mcgahn and hope hicks. is the right move for democrats to defeat the president in the

next election? >> well, i think that is certainly what nancy pelosi believes. i think she believes the strongest hand for this presidency is to defeat it next november. and she sees that the way the impeachment would work is ultimately he would not be impeached. so what have we gained? other than distracting people from high prescription drug prices, the failure of this president on trade, the failure of this president on the border, the failure of this president to keep his promises and on everything he promised from infrastructure to building a wall. we are talking just about impeachment from now until next november or from now until next spring instead of the stuff that he's really vulnerable on. and she thinks the cake is baked as it relates to public opinion. now, i'm trying to channel her here. i do think that if you're going to get mcgahn in front of committee you need all the documents in order to cross examine him because he is not

going to be a narrative witness. this is going to be a little bit like mueller. so i do think there is some legitimacy to the argument we need to get the courts, for nothing else than for precedent, that you can't have a white house stonewall congress like this. they're refusing to give them anything. that court battle needs to be waged and won and then i think it's appropriate for them to look at what they've got and then make that decision. >> protecting our elections should be something every member of congress and every american should care about. yesterday robert mueller reminded us that in the first paragraph of the report he writes, there were sweeping and systematic russian interference and he was asked about it yesterday. >> in your investigation, did you think that this was a single attempt by the russians to get involved in our election or did you find evidence to suggest they'll try to do this again? >> it wasn't a single attempt. they're doing it as we sit here and they expect to do it during

the next campaign. i hope this is not the new normal but i fear it is. >> but i fear it is. he said it's happening right now. will hurd asked him the question. will hurd is a republican. yet a few hours later, the same day, senate republicans blocked not one but two election security bills. that seems extraordinary. >> well, how is this not the most important thing that came out of yesterday's hearing? >> i think it is. >> i mean, our democracy is literally under threat, under siege, under attack. one of the two major political parties in this country doesn't want to do anything about that. why? because it benefits them. i think it does illustrate a little bit the danger of waiting until the next election to deal with the crisis we're having right now. because we know now the next election may not be fought fairly. it may be undermined by foreign interference, aided and abetted by the president of the united states who welcomes that foreign interference, who encourages it. who says if anyone gives me

anything that could be damaging to my opponent no matter where it came from, russia, china, north korea, he is going to read it rather than turn it over to the fbi. this is why i think impeachment hearings need to start happening because we don't know for sure that the next election is going to be a fair one. >> why would republicans block these two bills yesterday? >> they are doing donald trump's bidding. they are falling in line and they're continuing the narrative of, oh, the russians really didn't do anything to help donald trump win in 2016, which is his achilles heel. it was so symbolic almost for republicans to oppose this because in their heart of hearts they know that the integrity of our elections needs to be protected. it's a tough vote to defend after the fact if another incident happens and you have to go home to your constituents and be like, well, i just did federalism. i was really trying to keep control with the states. i didn't want the federal government interfering. that's a tough vote to defend. but for now, they would rather do that than be in donald trump's cross hares.

>> let's be clear. mitch mcconnell yesterday afternoon in his own way called putin on the phone and said, i love you so much. come on in. come on in. the water's fine. we welcome you to come to america and try to rig our elections. that's what mitch mcconnell did yesterday and it's on mitch mcconnell. these senate elections i think he is making a huge -- he very rarely makes a miscalculation politically. i think this could be one for him because the notion that right on the heels of -- >> same day. >> -- same day, saying, they are here, trying to go after it, and everybody in america knows who they were trying to help and everybody knows putin is trump's bff. so now it's the three of them. we have to argue who does putin like better at this point, trump or mitch mcconnell? i say it's a jump ball. >> wow. according to the senator they all might be in the hot tub together. thank you all so much. important conversation. senator clair mccaskill, and my

other guests. we have more to cover. next we talk about what democrats on the hill need to do after mueller but what about candidates? these are the people who want to replace the president in the white house. what do they think the next move is? first, registered sex offender jeffrey epstein, now reported he has been injured behind bars. what exactly happened? ♪ more, more, more ♪ 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. liberty mutual customizes your car insurance, hmm. exactly. so you only pay for what you need. nice. but, uh... what's up with your... partner? not again. limu that's your reflection. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty, liberty, liberty, liberty ♪ a cockroach can survive heresubmerged ttle guy. underwater for 30 minutes. wow. yeah. not getting in today. terminix. defenders of home. 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

breaking news this morning.

jeffrey epstein the millionaire financeer awaiting trial on charges of conspiracy and sex trafficking which he pleaded not guilty to was found injured in his jail cell. sources tell msnbc news that he was found semiconscious in the fetal position with marks on his neck. nbc's tom winter has covered the story from the beginning and joins me now by phone. thank you so much for being with me this morning. help us understand to the best of your knowledge what exactly happened in that cell. >> reporter: so that's really a great question, stephanie, and it is the question investigators have. what they know is that they found him semiconscious in that cell at mcc which is one of the facilities here in manhattan where people are essentially held awaiting federal trial or in between trials. it's a high profile facility that has held terrorists in the past, white collar defendants, paul manafort is there as an

example. basically they're trying to figure out, was this a -- did somebody try to injure jeffrey epstein, did he try to injure himself, or was this some sort of a ploy for him to, perhaps, get his own jail cell or to get better conditions at mcc? that is something investigators are trying to get their hands on at this point and figure out exactly what happened here. they have not commented to us. the u.s. marshals haven't commented to us. the u.s. attorney's office has not commented to us either. you can rest assured they are really going to be interested in what happened here because this is a -- this is a high profile case. it takes a lot of courage for these alleged victims to come forward. they want to make sure they can see this through to a successful prosecution and for there to be justice. so i think at this point it's a little bit of a mystery as to how jeffrey epstein was found in that position whether or not one of his cellmates, somebody that

is accused of murdering four people, former orange county, new york police officer. now we've talked to his attorneys. this is not something he had anything to do with. we're still waiting to hear back from epstein's attorneys. they've been steadfast in not returning reporters' calls since his arrest, so really a little bit of a mystery at this point, stephanie, but something we'll keep a close eye on because investigators have their -- really trying to figure out what happened here. >> all right. tell us about fresh reporting on a different type of investigation. leslie wexner, the ceo of "l" brands the well known parent company of victoria's secret, limited, express, other retail names had a very long relationship with jeff re-epstein who for years handled his money. they severed that relationship years ago after jeffrey epstein acquired les wexner's mansion, now valued at $77 million, a

residence that wexner gifted to epstein. now the company is investigating their relationship? >> yes, stephanie. you raised some of the key points there with respect to wexner and epstein. basically, there's ban lot een f questions over the years how jeffrey epstein was able to get the money and manage the money that he has. we've talked about it privately. a lot of people tried to dig into this. there's been some initial reporting so far and i don't think we're done hearing about that. it's always been talked about that les wexner was one of the key people to really give epstein a significant amount of cash to manage. there are obviously the connections with properties and in addition there have been allegations and i think this is why we're looking at an internal investigation according to a company spokesperson is because there have been allegations made in recent reports, not nbc news reports, we haven't verified

them, but some women say and not all of these women were under age at the time, but some women say epstein would have offered them positions as victoria's secret models or with the company. and so i think that got folks' attention and i think what they're doing is saying epstein never worked for us but the board authorized an internal investigation to figure out were any promises of jobs made, certainly any promises of jobs made to under age girls. and was any of this a factor in some of the things epstein has been charged with in the past or currently? so that is my sense of it. it is obviously in its initial stages and we'll wait to hear from the company what they come up with and then dig into some of these claims on their own. >> epstein was les wexner's personal money manager. there is no evidence of epstein managing anyone else's money that we are familiar with. thank you so much, tom winter. i appreciate you joining us. coming up robert mueller's testimony.

how it could impact the ballot box next year. plus the escalating battle between joe biden and cory booker. the two of them will come face to face today amid a very public brawl on one key 2020 issue. hmm. exactly. liberty mutual customizes your car insurance, so you only pay for what you need. nice. but, uh... what's up with your... partner? not again. limu that's your reflection. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty, liberty, liberty, liberty ♪ a cockroach can survive heresubmerged ttle guy. underwater for 30 minutes. wow. yeah. not getting in today. terminix. defenders of home.

{tires screeching} {truck honking} [alarm beeping] (avo) life doesn't give you many second chances. but a subaru can. (dad) you guys ok? you alright? wow. (avo) eyesight with pre-collision braking. standard on the subaru ascent. the three-row subaru ascent. love. it's what makes a subaru a subaru.

after a day of hearings, democratic candidates have a decision to make. what will they do in the wake of robert mueller's testimony before congress? will they continue their investigations and calls for impeachment or turn a page and focus on other issues that could dominate the election? yesterday we got a small glimpse. >> i think they are impeachable offenses the president should be tried for but i think it is something the house has to come about in an orderly way so the american people understand that this is not done for political reasons. >> this is a moment in history and every single person in congress should be called on to vote and then to live with that vote for the rest of their lives. >> that report is enough of an indication that the house of representatives should begin impeachment proceedings against this president. >> it really comes down to the voters and if anything said yesterday will change their minds come november 2020. joining me now michael

fitzgerald, iowa state treasurer, darrell west director of government studies at the brookings institution and elise jordan back with me. mike, do you think anything changed for iowa voters yesterday? were they sitting in their living rooms watching that testimony? >> i think iowa and certainly iowa democrats were certainly watching and paying attention if they could but i don't think it changed the perspective of the democrats. democrats in iowa know this president is a scoundrel for a lot of different issues that have been enumerated but there are other issues they want to hear from our candidates. how can our candidate win is the biggest issue. number two, address the economy like in iowa these tariffs are killing us. how are you going to address health care and prescription drug prices? the climate change. iowans, farmers are being flooded out of the fields. they want to hear about those issues and that is how democrats will win. >> some of our nbc reporters yesterday were out talking to people on the street trying to get an idea of if anything

changed post the hearings. >> it's so embarrassing to see how our congress works and the way they question each other and how the whole process is. >> i wish they would spend their energy, be done with focusing on impeaching the president, and spend their energy on the border. >> i wish everybody would move on. i think we're done with the mueller investigation. >> this has been nothing but a complete waste of millions of dollars in three years of american taxpayer money. >> i would like to see president trump impeached, but i don't think it's going to happen. >> impeachment doesn't get him out of office. voting him out of office gets him out of office. how should the 2020 candidates be playing this? >> i think impeachment is at a dead end. in the latest washington poll survey only 33% of americans supported impeachment which is down from 46% a year ago. so democrats need to move off that issue. there are big issues in terms of health care, education, climate control, income inequality, those are the issues where they

can beat trump. it is going to take big ideas to beat him. >> is there a portion of the democratic party, elise, who simply won't accept that? right? these candidates need to get through the primary. if there are candidates like a joe bide whoen could say, let's move on, let's move on to kitchen table issues, could you see the resistance faction of the democratic party say why on earth are you giving him a free pass? do not advance past go? >> i disagree with what typically you would come up with after looking at that kind of polling. i think that this is really a crisis for democrats. they need to get over their hesitation and need to be ruthless and firm. they need to start prosecuting donald trump. not even just what happened with the russian interference. you have campaign finance violations. are we just going to let it go unchecked? and now anyone can get away with whatever they want to get away with during the final month of a presidential campaign? you have the president using the

federal government to pitch one of his struggling resorts as the next site for the g7. you have so many various transgressions and examples of corruption that democrats look weak if they don't pursue it. they still need to be talking about kitchen table issues because, yes, voters in iowa don't care about what's happening right now with mueller and the russia investigation. you have to be able to do both. >> mike, do these examples of corruption, you know, most recently the president pushing members of the gop to be a bit more lenient on turkey and, remember, it was just two days ago mike flynn's business partner was convicted of working with the turkish government, do you think voters care at all about these corruption issues? not just the mueller hearing or really it is all about their kitchen table issues, supporting their family, having health care, making sure their schools are good and making sure they're safe?

>> i think iowans very much care about all of those issues that were talked about yesterday and all of the other issues that you just brought up. and the list can go on and on and on. people know who this individual is. democrats certainly abhor what he stands for. i think the public understands it. the question democrats have is, why should we elect someone else? why should we elect a democrat? can you win? and if you don't win you'll have four more years of this type of presidency. they are aware of it but how are you going to handle the economy that it matters to people in their own states and health care, education, and climate change? they got to have -- they want to hear from candidates that can deliver a winning message with charm and charisma and a way to convince at least one more vote than he gets. >> i want to bring in vaughn

hillyard. mueller and impeachment are not the only thing dividing democrats ahead of next week's debates. it seems as of yesterday the gloves are off between cory booker and joe biden, both speaking a the urban league conference. help us understand what's going on there. >> reporter: yeah, good morning, stephanie. cory booker the senator from new jersey just wrapped up a few moments ago here in indianapolis. the big conversation was, well, mueller took up the headlines and took up the airwaves yesterday. actually the tension escalated quite a bit between cory booker and joe biden just earlier this week biden of course releasing his comprehensive criminal justice reform plan. it was booker, yesterday, at an naacp presidential forum in detroit who fired back saying the former vice president's plan was not bold enough, calling it, quote, unacceptable and saying for somebody who was, quote, one of the architects of mass incarceration back with his support of the 1994 crime bill, cory booker said voters need to look at the totality of an

individual, a candidate's history. now, of course, just after that joe biden, the former vice president, fired back at booker saying that booker knows that he is wrong in his assessment of his record, even taking into question, cory booker's record as newark mayor, saying take a look at the doj's investigation into his police department back in 2011. now, cory booker spoke this morning encouraging folks to take a different look when they are having that conversation about electability saying they need to focus on turning out african-american voters and they need to turn to somebody who has fought diligently in recent history for criminal justice reform efforts. of course booker was central to the passage of that first step act, which was the criminal justice reform measure that passed at the end of this last year with bipartisan support and was signed by president trump. kamala harris will actually also be here tomorrow and i just want to make one other note there. just a few moments ago, on the mike joyner railed yo shdio shon

was asked about kamala harris explicitly and quite to note, the former vice president said that, quote, i thought we were friends in referencing kamala harris, the senator from california. stephanie? >> all right. i want to bring my team back here. elise, next week does joe biden need to be stronger, go farther than he did in the last debate? >> i don't think that the winning tack when democrats are looking for a candidate to take on donald trump is complaining that other candidates who are fighting for the nomination are fighting too hard. and that they are being too crafty. this whole kamala harris, i didn't see what was coming, it has made joe biden look weak over the past few weeks since the first debate. and he definitely needs to come out stronger. democratic voters want to see no matter what the candidate that they have up against donald trump is going to fight. >> does joe biden need to show the american people in that

debate who he is? because his record would be a foil. just yesterday in the hearings one republican referred to all democrats as socialists. we know that this is the president's most recent line. can't joe biden just rock up and say, socialists, do i need to remind you of what i've done for the last 40 years? >> absolutely. biden clearly has to be much feistier in next week's debate than previously because he let senator harris attack him, didn't really respond very effectively, and i think with this display we just saw what it indicates is biden is going to start going after other people's records. he is saying, hey, you're going back 30, 40 years looking at my record. what about your record as mayor of newark? with senator harris he is talking about her medicare for all plan. is it going to raise taxes? are people going to lose their private insurance? i think biden will be much more on the offense next week. >> mike, does joe biden need to show america that he, like the president, is a street fighter, not just challenge him to

push-ups but the president has changed the game. for those who want to vote him out of office do they need to see a candidate who can do that in a truly strategic way? >> oh, he certainly does. he needs to show he is strong and he can fight and he can articulate his message just like all of the other candidates do. but at the end of the day, democrats can't end up like we did four years ago where the bernie sanders people were so angry with hillary that a lot of them didn't come back and support him. we have to be united at the end. >> how do you walk that line? that is a great point. there were many sanders supporters who didn't show up and even some who showed up for the president. >> well, a good fight is a good fight. i think what candidates should stay away from is trying to make it personal. when it becomes personal, about the other candidate or about their supporters, then it's very hard for them to come back. but i'd say, yeah. they need to fight and prove

themselves and even not only at the debate but going around day to day to these events, articulating where they stand, how they differ with the other candidate. but don't make it personal. and hurtful. so at the end of the day, the party can come back together and win. because it's going to be a tough election. >> no doubt. thank you all so much. vaughn hillyard, mike fitzgerald, darrell west, and my friend elise jordan. now we have to turn to money, power, politics. the federal trade commission, the ftc, announced it is hitting facebook with the largest fine it has ever imposed, $5 billion bucks. it is also forcing the tech giant to stick to new rules designed to make sure facebook is doing everything it can to protect your privacy. this would settle an investigation that started more than a year ago after reports that cambridge analytica accessed the data of 87 million facebook users without their permission. we have the senior tech policy reporter for "the washington post," he has been all over the story.

tony, let's start with this. $5 billion at a top line sounds like a very big number. but if you're facebook, it doesn't really scratch the surface. how does the fine imposed and the rules change the game? or does it? >> reporter: right. the fine is big depending who you're talking to. so for the u.s. government this is the largest fine that's ever been imposed for a privacy violation. and in the eyes of the ftc it shows the government can stand up to tech companies. but from facebook's perspective this is what, less than 0.1 revenue that facebook made last year. it forces them to change some business practices and be more accountable to washington for the ways it uses data but doesn't actually stop facebook from using data or curtail their ability to make money off of it. that is why you heard a lot of democrats and republicans going back and forth about this yesterday. there were a lot of democrats who felt it wasn't tough enough on facebook. >> sounds like a lot of money but if it doesn't change their ability to do business what does it really do? if i'm a facebook user are the

new rules supposed to make me believe that my data and information is safe? >> the ftc says yes. the reason why they say yes is because the company now has to prove at every step of the way when they introduce a new product or deploy data in a new fashion that they are taking privacy into account. mark zuckerberg the ceo of facebook has to sign off on that. there is this paper trail of accountability that the ftc says will allow the government to keep watch over facebook for the next two decades. the ftc had considered other limits here. it considered more penalties on mark zuckerberg. it considered higher fines. but at the end of the day the agency ultimately couldn't broker a settlement with facebook over this. because the government is really limited in what it can do here in the absence of a national consumer privacy law. >> so stay with that. the absence of a national consumer privacy law. a law would actually change the game. on tuesday the department of justice announced a broad,

antitrust review of the tech giants. what exactly does a review mean? >> right. in this case we're not entirely sure. we've rarely seen the department of justice do this kind of work looking at a big industry like technology. it's really been decades since the doj has done this sort of thing. at least in the eyes of the justice department the goal is to look at search engines and social networks and ecommerce to see if companies have become too big and powerful that they're harming consumers and competition. while the justice department didn't specifically mention amazon, facebook, and google, it's pretty clear that's where their interests are. we'll see the first step of this as soon as today. you know, we've reported that state attorneys general who are also concerned about antitrust plan to meet at the justice department to talk with some of the antitrust regulators. >> talk. talk might be good. it's also known to be pretty cheap. thank you so much, tony. i appreciate your time. coming up, a judge blocks a move by the trump administration and the white house reacts by

calling it tyranny. we'll tell you what that is. plus, one of the key promises president trump made on the campaign trail. >> drain the swamp. drain the swamp. choosing my car insurance was the easiest decision ever. i switched to geico and saved hundreds. that's a win. but it's not the only reason i switched. geico's a company i can trust, with over 75 years of great savings and service. ♪ now that's a win-win. switch to geico. it's a win-win.

would shakespeare have chosen just "some pens?"s. methinks a tul pen would serve m'lady well. thanks! and a unicorn notebook! get everything on your list. this week's doorbuster - notebooks for 10¢, 10¢ in store or online from the advisors at office depot officemax.

the way you triumph over adversity. and live your lives. that's why we redesigned humira. we wanted to make the experience better for you. now there's less pain immediately following injection. we've reduced the size of the needle and removed the citrate buffers. and it has the same effectiveness you know and trust. humira citrate-free is here. a little change can make a big difference. humira can lower your ability to fight infections. serious and sometimes fatal infections, including tuberculosis, and cancers, including lymphoma, have happened, as have blood, liver, and nervous system problems, serious allergic reactions, and new or worsening heart failure. tell your doctor if you've been to areas where certain fungal infections are common and if you've had tb, hepatitis b, are prone to infections, or have flu-like symptoms or sores. don't start humira if you have an infection. ask your doctor about humira citrate-free. here's to you.

blocked the trump administration from restricting asylum seekers at our southern border. the administration put in place new rules that would require migrants to file asylum claims in the first country they traveled to or through instead of at the u.s. border. a u.s. district judge citing the trags's own court filings about unsafe conditions in mexico said this new policy could expose migrants to violence or abuse. the white house responded, calling the ruling tyranny of a dysfunctional system. joining me now, msnbc anchor, back for her first time since the birth of her beautiful baby boy, katy tur, and award-winning immigration reporter, jacob sobroff. what does this mean for people seeking asylum? >> you can't expect someone to seek asylum in a country where

they might get killed for seeking asylum here. that is the policy that makes people wait and not get into ports of entries and what the trump administration was trying to do is saying even if you do make it in illegally between ports of entry between port, yo can't seek asylum here anyways and the judge said that is preposterous. >> what does this do to the american voter? and i don't just mean president trump's base. but many swing voters have taken huge issue with you how the migrants are being treated. could any voters say, well, this is going to have less people come to our border, clearly we can't -- we don't have the capacity to handle all those twoing through. is there an argument to be made this this could make some sense? >> no, because we have the capacity to handling -- >> we're not right now. >> but that is because of an intentionally designed system to create a bottleneck at the border that is creating a great humanitarian crisis. >> that is an argument that

everybody will get. donald trump is very good at catch phrases. we'll so if that message that donald trump create this had crisis is the crisis that would not happen under a different presidency, if that message will get through to independent voters. >> and take me to that independent voter who says my health care is not great, my kids don't go to a great school, i don't have fast wi-fi, do these voters start to warm as crazy as it may sound warm to the president's already line approach to immigration? >> i think that we'll have to see. we don't know what voters will do in 2020 this far out, but we can look to the past. the president ran on immigration and democrats won back the house on running on health care, running on policy issues that matter to the american public. will that still be the case in 2020? i think there is an argument to be said that if democrats focus on health care, they focus on infrastructure, on making --

improving the day to day lives of everyday americans, there is a real shot. donald trump's margin that he won by is extremely small in the upper midwest and pennsylvania. that is where democrats need to focus on unless donald trump suddenly brings out more and more voter that's didn't have in 2016. >> if they keep asking are you better off, is that the winning argument for them? because the narrative that the president has set has some people saying, well, do the democrats care about them more than they do us. can democrats prove that we care about every american. >> i would love to talk about immigration nonstop and make the election about issues like that. but what i think democrats need to do is what we're trying to do this new show american swamp, explain the disconnect between every day americans and what is happening in washington, d.c. the way they talk about the way that we all live our day to day lives bears no resemblance to what is going on our

communities. >> and so let's play a clip. we have to talk about campaign finance reform because those big dollars aren't focused on you and me and certainly not the you and me that lives outside a big urban center like new york. let's share a clip. >> during the 2018 midterms, katy and i saw firsthand how campaign spending records were shattered with $5.7 billion spent. but it is not just the jaw i don't know dropping sums that got our attention, it is where that money came from. >> i recognize americans for prosperity. >> koch brothers. >> tom steyer. the nra. >> planned parenthood. >> the more you look, the swachlier swachl i swampier it gets. a murky mix of powerful corporations, special interest groups and a handful of wealthy individuals are buying our electi elections. and it is all perfectly legal. >> you can go through all of this and name every single person who works in that building and show how much money

is spent on them by outside groups and makes you wonder whose interests do they have in mind. the money spent on them, the people who sent tpent the money corporations or the voters. >> i had a frank conversation with a republican representative about why things don't get done in congress. and he told me that oftentimes gridlock is welcome for lawmakers because gridlock means that you are not putting your neck out. if you pass legislation that is not in the interests of a special interest or a big donor, you risk them using all of their money to get you out of office. so oftentimes the easiest thing and the most politically safe thing to do is to look like you are trying to get things done and not get anything done at all. he was extraordinarily frustrated and extraordinarily blunt with me. it is a real problem. >> so the broken system is working for the elected officials.

$5.7 billion. none of that money going to fix the system, to improve our education system, to address climate change. $5.7 billion. >> let heed give you ome give y. arizona sunniest state in the union, tiniest frakts haction h solar on their roofs. so we have to figure out -- it is a no-brainer. >> everyday people could save a ton of money by putting solar panels on their roofs. they could get a rebate check. and that is not happening in arizona because of special interests. >> the show sounds wonky, maybe a little boring depending if you don't want to talk about dark money, but -- >> oh, no. okay. boring, wonky. >> no, it is fun. >> i know we're all friends here at msnbc, but we were friends in

high school. the same dirty prius that i drive today is the one that i knew katy and it might make an appearance on the show. 150,000 miles. >> that is not wonky, that is exciting. you guys might have been friends, but katy took me to the royal wedding. thank you so much. watch the series american swamp premiering this sunday at 9:00 p.m. and it was one of the most fiery exchanges during robert mueller's testimony. coming up, republican congressman matt getz joins us to talk about the dramatic back and forth. atic back and forth. my experience with usaa

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. a cockroach can survive submergede guy. underwater for 30 minutes. wow. yeah, wow.

not getting in today. not on my watch. pests never stop trying to get in. we never stop working to keep them out. terminix. defenders of home. since my dvt blood clot i was thinking... terminix. defenders of home. could there be another around the corner? or could it turn out differently? i wanted to help protect myself. my doctor recommended eliquis. eliquis is proven to treat and help prevent another dvt or pe blood clot... almost 98 percent of patients on eliquis didn't experience another. ...and eliquis has significantly less major bleeding than the standard treatment. eliquis is fda approved and has both. don't stop eliquis unless your doctor tells you to. eliquis can cause serious and in rare cases fatal bleeding. don't take eliquis if you have an artificial heart valve or abnormal bleeding. if you had a spinal injection while on eliquis call your doctor right away if you have tingling, numbness, or muscle weakness. while taking eliquis, you may bruise more easily... and it may take longer than usual for bleeding to stop. seek immediate medical care for sudden signs of bleeding, like unusual bruising. eliquis may increase your bleeding risk

if you take certain medicines. tell your doctor about all planned medical or dental procedures. what's around the corner could be surprising. ask your doctor about eliquis.

that wraps up this hour. coming up, more news with. >> and i'm in for hallie jackson. impeachment battle shrines are being sharpened after robert mueller's marathon testimony on capitol hill. republicans say that it is time to move on. but house speaker nancy pelosi saying now not ruling out impeachment. >> it is the crossing of a threshold in terms of the public awareness of what happened and how it con forms to the wall or not. >> it is time that america turns the page. it is time for america to move forward. th