tv MSNBC Live with Velshi and Ruhle MSNBC February 20, 2020 10:00am-11:00am PST
i am chris jansing. we are following the continuing breaking news when long time friend of president trump roger stone, sentenced to prison. giving him three years, four months in prison, and $20,000 fine. this sentence of course has been at the heart of a contentious debate garnering headlines for weeks. the doj originally recommended a sentence 7 to 9 years. then of course attorney general bill barr intervened after president trump tweeted it was unfair. stone faced seven counts, including lying to congress, witness tampering, obstruction. joining us from outside the courthouse, ken delanian. glen kir shall ner, former federal prosecutor, and danny is he val oh. take us through what the judge said. that's one of the interesting parts of what's a consequential and fascinating story. >> reporter: that's right, chris. even though the judge did not
hand down the max essentially, handed down a sentence of a little over three years, some thought it was maybe less than expected, she gave roger stone a tongue lashing, made statements that spoke to larger context of the case. she addressed stone's defense in court which was so what. so he lied to congress. didn't really matter. she said of all circumstances in the case, that may be the most pernicious. the truth still exists, still matters. roger stone's insistence that it doesn't are a threat to the most fundamental institutions. and another point, she said dismay and disgust at the defendant's bell ij rans should transcend party. it wasn't the democrats that referred roger stone for prosecution, it was the republicans who controlled the house and senate at the time. she also made points that seemed to speak to the president's tweeting about the case. she said it was important a neutral observer decides stone's
sentence. she said she wasn't sentencing because of his political friends or political enemies, she said he chose to inject himself in the 2016 campaign with false claims about wikileaks, and made a series of bold faced lies to congress that were of national and international significance, she said. so really could not have been tougher to roger stone. there's also in the air the notion that donald trump that he would pardon him. he was suggesting he do just that on fox. >> before he gets to the pardon, i want to get to the picture of what she had to say. there are so many things that are roiling around. there's criticism of doj, question of whether or not the
president intervened, the timing looked suspicious, in spite of the fact bill barr denied he took action because of what the president tweets. then you have this larger question of pardons. the president making statements about how people have been treated unfairly, you have people that were pardoned showing no remorse. put this into context as you see it as we look at the u.s. judicial system now, glen. >> chris, one of the interesting aspects of the lengthy sentencing hearing. >> glen, i am going to interrupt you. roger stone is walking out, we want to see whether or not he is going to make comments. there are lots of folks that would like to hear from him. let's listen a second.
he gets in the car and is going away. sorry to interrupt you, glen. continue. >> one of the most interesting aspects of the hearing was after judge jackson went through and really excruciating detail the nature of the offenses and who roger stone was and why she decided 40 months in prison was the appropriate sentence. the other thing she did, she cross-examined the prosecutor. assistant u.s. attorney john crab who at the moment is acting chief of the criminal division, that's the entire federal court division at the u.s. attorney's office in the district of columbia, he stepped into this case after the four career prosecutors basically withdrew in protest when their original sentencing memorandum was criticized by the president and then overridden presumably by bill barr. she really aggressively
cross-examined prosecutor crab on whether the original sentencing memo by the four career prosecutors was vetted and approved up through the chain at the u.s. attorney's office. prosecutor crab said it was up to and including the u.s. attorney for the district of columbia, tim shay, who was recently installed by bill barr. she then went further. she said was it sent to the department of justice to be vetted, reviewed, and approved over there. and prosecutor crab said it was. she continued and asked if it was in fact approved by the department of justice and that's where prosecutor crab balked and said you know what, all i can say, he actually acknowledged based on what attorney general barr has been saying was that there was some miscommunication between the u.s. attorney's office and department of justice. she continued on, she said what was the nature of the
miscommunication, and prosecutor crab said i don't know. then she finally sort of wrapped up cross examination of the prosecutor by asking him okay, you signed the four-page memo, the second memo, that significantly softened sentencing request of the first memo d it, correct? yes. she wanted to know did you draft it. he said i'm not at liberty to talk about internal department of justice protocol. so it was really unlike i had ever seen in 30 years as a prosecutor, a judge cross-examining the prosecutor to try to get some insight into why the department of justice did this dramatic flip flop in the positions it took on sentencing. >> so many extraordinary things about this case, danny, and there's part of the justice system that will move on as it would in any other case, for
example, stone requested a new trial. >> this is standard practice to move for new trial at the close of your case. it is not unusual. in all likelihood, the reason roger stone didn't take the stand, and this is a very difficult decision for defense attorneys because it is important to show remorse to a judge, but you can't really have the client get up there, show remorse if part of the basis of the appeal is he didn't do what he is charged with. so that's a real challenge. also, building on what glen says, he is absolutely right, in this case it was highly unusual for the doj to come swooping in and file a memorandum and the vast majority of cases i am hrd of, doj doesn't come in, they don't come in and readjust sentence recommendations. even if the original memorandum had been left alone, statistically roger stone probably would have gotten close to the same sentence anyway because similarly situated offenders get nowhere near, and
in fact, 87 months at the original low end of the guideline, roger stone would have been in the top five of offenders if he had gotten that highest of the low end of the guidelines. top five since 2005 of all offenders sentenced. that gives you an idea how harsh sentencing guidelines can be. so because judges can go below guidelines, statistically even if main justice hadn't intervened, filed that memo, there's a high likelihood he would have gotten the sentence in the range today anyway, which is what makes this second memorandum such a stumble in my view. >> let's go back if we can, ken, to what you mentioned before. already people were talking before the sentence came, would the president who obviously made it clear how he feels about roger stone being pursued, would he pardon him, and then we're just learning his son-in-law who already has a big portfolio
which includes a piece in the middle east is looking to develop this new protocol for how pardons are given. we have already seen the president, you've pointed it out repeatedly, take just case of blagojevich where you saw in most past cases, you would have given a pardon to somebody that showed some remorse. he gave this press conference, stood outside his house, said basically they had stolen these years from him, now he was going to vote for donald trump. talk a little about the possibility of pardon, especially in light, ken, of the new system being developed in the white house. >> reporter: right, chris. this new system essentially bypasses an existing system in the justice department where pardon attorneys review applications and have to fit a series of criteria, most important of which the one you described, showing remorse for your offense. these pardons where you have offenders come out and not only
not expressing remorse but denouncing the prosecution, having the sentence commuted as blagojevich, former governor of illinois did, that will have a pernicious effect for years to come. hard to understate what a corruption of the pardons process as it has existed since the constitution was written. now we have today donald trump tweeting and a fox news personality, tucker carlson, he said roger stone must be pardoned, it is a political prosecution. judge jackson went out of the way today to explain why it wasn't a political prosecution, why this was done by the book, why it was fair, why it was important. roger stone was convicted by a jury of his peers of lying to congress, tampering with a witness. prosecutors also implicated donald trump in this trial, not in criminal wrongdoing, but unflattering conduct, in zeal to get dirt on democrats, emails
they knew were hacked by russian intelligence searches. evidence shows donald trump was in touch with roger stone. it is in donald trump's interest to denounce the prosecution and perhaps to pardon this defendant. >> well, and first thing you do, glen, you come up with a list of people because there was this thing about pardons that we saw, commutations being the friends and family way of going about these cases. look at trump aides charged from george pop dop lus, michael flynn, if we see a new system put in place, glen, and we have the pardoning of people who only have connections to this president who have been loyal to this president, what does it mean for the doj and for the justice system? >> well, it means somebody is going to have to closely scrutinize each and every pardon because it feels like there's certainly the potential for it
to be an abuse of power. one of the monany lines from jue jackson, she said roger stone wasn't standing up for the president, he was covering up for the president. when you think about the potential of donald trump then pardoning roger stone who a federal judge just said committed felony offenses, lied to congress, obstructed an inquiry, tampered with a witness in order to, quote, cover up for donald trump, how in the world can a pardon issued under those circumstances not be corrupt. so i think this is yet another problematic layer that the president seems intent to sort of put on top of everything else. >> yeah. i want to point out that adam schiff just tweeted something similar, the end of that, he says, it should go without saying, but to pardon stone when crimes were committed to protect trump would be a breathtaking
act of corruption. and the other part of this, danny, is what chilling effect you already had, four people, four prosecutors that at the beginning of the controversy said look, we can't stand by when we have taken our work, we made our arguments, and basically somebody comes in and says oh, no, no, no, at the last minute, we're going to change what the sentencing recommendation is. what does it mean if you go through the whole process, give your blood, sweat and tears to a prosecution, and then with basically a pen it goes away? >> the prosecutors did everything they were supposed to do. first, sentencing guideline calculations were already made in a very confidential document called a presentence investigation report. we won't see that because it stays very private. but probation calculates that. second, the internal guidelines for doj require u.s. attorneys
and line prosecutors to seek sentence within the guideline range, generally speaking, unless there's some extenuating circumstances. they applied the guidelines correctly. that threat that was proven boosts the guidelines by eight levels, i think it is that number. but the application was correct. they didn't do anything wrong. on the day they filed the sentencing memorandum, everything that was in there was technically correct, which was acknowledged by sentencing memorandum number two. so sentencing memorandum number two, in addition to the fact that it likely didn't move the needle that much ultimately did nothing really other than to undermine the line prosecutors in this case. no surprise they resigned. one comment on pardons as glen was saying, building on what he was saying, yes, a pardon in this instance may be corrupt, but keep in mind, it doesn't undo the pardon, even if pardon is given for a bag of corrupt cash, the pardon itself, the underlying pardon is still lawful and effective and there
are no take backs, although you may seek to impeach or prosecute the person that issued the pardon sometime in the future. >> while roger stone has been sentenced to 40 months in prison, the story is far from over. thanks to all of you. by the way, we are keeping an eye on it. still no tweet from the president on roger stone's sentence. we'll bring you updates as we get them through the hour. the democrats have sights set on one key front heading to super tuesday, the delegate count. we breakdown the math. and first, the ninth democratic debate of primary season, did elizabeth warren bring enough fire power to stay in the race? you're watching msnbc live. ♪go straight till the morning look like we♪ ♪won't wait, we're taking everything we wanted we can do it♪ ♪all strength, no sweat i'm about to capture proof of the ivory billed woodpecker.
the nevada caucus. did the raucous democrats can stand up to donald trump or did the candidates hurt each other more than the man tly in the white house? after a widely panned debate performance, today, former new york city mayor michael bloomberg is trying to make the latter case. >> the real winner in the debate last night was donald trump because i worry that we may very well be on the way to nominating somebody that cannot win in november, and if we choose a candidate who appeals to a small base like senator sanders, it will be a fatal error. >> but of course, other people are still in it. massachusetts senator elizabeth warren debated like her campaign's future depended on it, focusing stinging blows on bloomberg who often didn't have good answers to the most obvious questions. amy klobuchar and pete buttigieg really went after each other, and while joe biden had a good debate for him, bernie sanders benefitted from so much fire
being aimed at bloomberg and emerged largely unscathed. >> i'm better positioned according to your poll than anybody else to beat donald trump. >> a billionaire who calls women fat broads and horse faced lesbians, and no, i am not talking about donald trump, i am talking about mayor bloomberg. >> mike bloomberg owns more wealth than the bottom 125 million americans. that's wrong. that's immoral. >> been very lucky, made a lot of money, i am giving it away to make the country better. a good chunk of it goes to the democratic party as well. >> we shouldn't have to choose between one candidate that wants to burn this party down and another candidate that wants to buy this party out. >> i wish everyone was as perfect as you, pete. >> joining me, nbc news political reporter ali vitale in the room during the debate. curious what it was like in there. it felt for a lot of people at various times a little
uncomfortable and now we are wondering what this all means. the campaigns are trying to spin it their direction. >> all the campaigns tried to spin it their direction, chris. let's start with elizabeth warren's campaign. she's inside a canvassing location behind me, talking with some of her supporters. this is sort of the vibe you want the day after a debate. her team very happy. their goal last night on stage is make elizabeth warren someone you can't ignore. you played that clip, the way she started the debate, mentioning how michael bloomberg talked about women. that was the first 180 seconds. in the room, the audience gasped, followed with applause as she finished her point. that set the tone for the entire debate going forward. elizabeth warren going at michael bloomberg. but she was not they thing most people on stage had in common is they felt it was good for them to go after michael bloomberg
and have a point, have a moment at his expense. his campaign admits it wasn't the best night for him. said in the second half of it, that's when he got sea legs. this is what it is. you come into a presidential contest late, michael bloomberg was able to catch up in terms of scaling up his campaign, getting on air waves. you also have to catch up in terms of getting on debate stage, being able to defend your record. i think the other person that benefitted from the way the debate shook out last night, certainly elizabeth warren able to reinvigorate her campaign, but bernie sanders. don't forget, he is the frontrunner now, across the polls, in terms of delegates, bernie sanders is the frontrunner. what we saw last night on stage was michael bloomberg taking most of the fire and focus a frontrunner would typically take, which means sanders got off probably easier than other frontrunners in the past. >> without a doubt. thank you for that update. joining me, political correspondent jenna johnson and gabe deben det ee. gabe, big picture, how did the
debate impact the race? >> reporter: i think ali laid it out well. it is clear everyone is going to go after bloomberg. for a long time, we wondered how bloomberg will stand up to a lot of the scrutiny here. we got the beginning of an answer. moving forward, a lot of campaigns are thinking about him as still a big threat, he obviously hasimagine. but at the same time, they don't see him as being the one to beat any more. obviously that's still bernie sanders. but when you look at someone like elizabeth warren, she still feels good here. i think moving forward, she's going to have a case to make, whether it is here in nevada, moving forward in south carolina, she made the case last night she is not to be ignored. >> everybody wanted to see if michael bloomberg could make that case for himself as opposed to hundreds of millions in ads he has been running. i thought it was stunning how he didn't have strong answers to questions. he absolutely knew they were coming on race, sexism, on nondisclosure agreements, on tax
returns. but i guess one answer, the question we don't know the answer to now is are those the issues that voters are going to base their votes on? was it changing any minds last night? >> reporter: yeah, i mean, that's the big question. remember, while there are a lot of viewers watching the debates, a lot don't watch every second, they watch the recaps. or they just watch the commercials coming up on youtube as they watch television. so the big question is how much did the debate hurt him. for reporters who have been following him who knew these questions were going to be coming and were just astonished that he didn't seem to have polished answers or even a strategy how he was going to present himself, what his argument would be. for reporters watching this, it seemed like a huge disaster for him. but we have to wait and see.
does that actually translate into fewer votes for him. for a lot of candidates, if they have a bad debate performance, immediately they see a hilt in fundraising, and that hurts what they can do. for him, he doesn't have to worry about that. he is not going to take the same hit in money and in scope, but does it still hurt him? we just don't really know. >> look, warren had, jenna, this incredibly strong night. here she is on the ndas. >> told to sit down and be dquit enough, i am ready to stay and fight. >> common sense says she may see the result saturday in nevada just as amy klobuchar did. some reports indicate 70,000 people have already voted. so you do wonder, between the people that have already voted and people that didn't watch the debate, aren't following it that
closely, are we overstating what we're going to see here. >> i mean, we'll have to wait and see but elizabeth warren had to do good last night. the stakes were very, very high for her, after disappointing finishes in iowa and new hampshire, and coming into nevada pretty weakened. one sign of strength we've seen is the massive fundraising hall following the debate last night, which seems to breathe a little energy in there. but what we saw on the debate stage is a candidate who has been trying to be civil, trying to focus on policy, trying to focus on taking the high road, and we saw candidates fighting for herself, for her campaign. her supporters loved that. we're going to have to wait and see if other voters love that too. >> gabe, maybe donald trump was just watching us when we were
playing that sound from michael bloomberg because he seems to have responded to it just now. the real winner last night was donald trump, quoting. mini mike bloomberg, i agree. he is going on this every moment. he is going to continue to do his west coast swing, and you know what else i thought was really interesting, that last night when the democrats were going at each other about things like sexism, ndas, whether or not being a billionaire is a good thing or a bad thing, the rnc and the campaign were putting out press releases about health care. the president may tweet about mike bloomberg, call him mini mike, but gabe, i found that interesting. >> reporter: yeah, no doubt whatsoever that the official campaign apparatus of the republicans is trying to say let's stick to the issues here. this is standard campaign operating procedure here. but this take that the president
has been sharing and that a lot of republicans, especially those around the white house have been sharing the last few hours, oh my goodness, such a messy democratic debate, must be great for donald trump. i am old enough to remember 2016 when the republicans had legendary disastrous and contentious debates, and donald trump still won in the end. the case he is trying to make, that democrats in disarray will make him basically easy to get reelected. it sort of doesn't jive with history. you have barack obama out there telling people i have been reporting, he is telling people, can we calm down about the fact that the primary is messy now. in 2008 we had a messy primary, i still got elected. that's what a lot of democrats are saying. >> you guys are going to stick with us. we'll talk later on about the idea that the delegate math is done, that bernie sanders is on a trajectory to win. we'll see what steve kornacki has to say and talk to you as well. people want to stick around for
well, here's to first dates! you look amazing. and you look amazingly comfortable. when your v-neck looks more like a u-neck... that's when you know, it's half-washed. try downy fabric conditioner. unlike detergent alone, downy helps prevent stretching by conditioning and smoothing fibers, so clothes look newer, longer. downy and it's done.
a but i hearsearches fa different calling. the call of a schmear of cream cheese. for i, am a schmelier. i practice my craft at philadelphia. here, we use only the freshest milk... that one! go! go! and the finest ingredients... what is this? until perfection is achieved. she's ready. schmears! philadelphia. schmear perfection.
they have businesses to grow customers to care for lives to get home to they use stamps.com print discounted postage for any letter any package any time right from your computer all the amazing services of the post office only cheaper get our special tv offer a 4-week trial plus postage and a digital scale go to stamps.com/try and never go to the post office again!
welcome back. with the rise of bernie sanders to frontrunner status, comes a much talked about decision for democrats. can a self described democratic socialist beat donald trump. the topic underlines a lot of democratic discussions these days. last night we saw amy klobuchar go after michael bloomberg because of a leaked campaign memo warning sanders is close to locking up the nomination. if all of the moderate candidates remain in the race, despite not having a path to victory, sanders will win. here is bloomberg himself making the argument against sanders. >> i can't think of a ways that would make it easier for donald trump to get reelected than listening to this conversation. this is ridiculous. we're not going to throw out capitalism. we tried that. other countries tried that. it was called communism. it just didn't work. >> but here is the point. let's talk about democratic socialism, not communism,
mr. bloomberg, that's a cheap shot. >> joining me, steve kornacki. the idea has taken hold if you watch the twitter-verse, talk to democratic voters, the idea that delegate math is on some inexorable push. where are we really? >> take a look, chris. this is the delegate count now in the democratic race. 23 delegates. that's pete buttigieg who has the most now, 21 for sanders, 8 warren, 7 klobuchar, 6 biden. you need 1991 to win. basically from iowa, new hampshire, almost nothing has been awarded here. these states have really been about tests of strength, who is doing well, resonating with voters, not so much delegates. a few delegates up for grabs here. that's about to change. once you get through nevada and south carolina, more delegates are given there, where it really starts to change is super tuesday, march 3rd. this is what's up for grab march
3rd. 23-21 in the delegate count. 1,344 delegates up for grabs super tuesday. california, texas on the same day, north carolina, virginia, massachusetts, staltes like thi. there's opportunity there. this is what bloomberg and his team are trying to put out there, there's opportunity there for bernie sanders in the view of the bloomberg campaign to maybe not get majorities in the states but to have a splintered field running against him and to start winning states with 30, 35, 38% of the vote, things like that, rack up delegates. let me show you what they have in mind. look at california. we showed you this is the biggest single prize on the board. new poll came out a few minutes ago, monmouth poll in california, sanders is ahead, biden 17, bloomberg, 13, warren, 10. a lot in flux. when you look at states like california and super tuesday, remember, delegates and how they're given out. there are 144 delegates given
out statewide. to get any delegates statewide in california, the threshold is, remember this number, it is 15%. so if you use this poll that came out as a guide, nobody south of biden would get any statewide delegates in california. they would all fall under the 15% threshold. it would be left to sanders and biden to divvy those up. here's the thing. say sanders pulls away. say he gets a win in nevada, win in south carolina, his margin goes up in california, and biden falls from 17 to 14. and this is the line, this was the line to hit the threshold, in that case, if sanders is the only one statewide over 15%, he would get all 144 statewide delegates. the other thing they have in california, 271 are given by congressional district. there are 53 congressional districts in california. it is the same rule in any given congressional district, only
candidates clearing that 15% threshold can get any delegates. that's the dream scenario for sanders. somehow keep everybody under 15 in california or most under 15, gobble up the lion's share of statewide delegates, and be winning in congressional district after congressional district, get a huge delegate hall from california and other states as well. be in a situation you come out of super tuesday, he is a couple hundred delegates ahead of the nearest rival, you get into a situation there, you see with the 15% rule, it is tough to play catch up in these things. that's the scenario bloomberg is talking about, that's the scenario democrats that don't like sanders are worried about. >> that's the scenario sanders lived four years ago. fascinating. thank you. jenna, gabe are back with me. jenna, harry reid who knows a little about politics gave an exclusive interview to msnbc, quoting him, the race is far from over, and a lot can and will change.
is that the prevailing view or is the prevailing view this is a real question, could bernie sanders essentially lock this up super tuesday. >> reporter: i mean, that's exactly the question. a lot is going to be happening very, very quickly. for the past year, we have been so focused on iowa, new hampshire, nevada, south carolina. three days after south carolina we are going to have super tuesday, and things are going to change very, very quickly. we have a lot of states in play, states where you have to have money a lot of times to be organizing there, to be up on the air waves there. and that could really change everything. but at the same time, it could also keep this race muddled, keep the democrats on a path to really contested convention in milwaukee which a lot of democrats are worried about, something they don't think would be good for the party. >> you know, first of all, there's the question of whether
or not you believe that bernie sanders can win the nomination, is he the weakest person in the race. obviously michael bloomberg and other moderate candidates think there's a strong argument to be made, but are we at the point, gabe, we are seriously looking at the possibility that we go to the democratic convention and it becomes a knife fight? >> reporter: well, that's certainly a possibility. i think we have a long way to go between here and there, largely because of the math we've just been talking about. listen, bernie sanders has been methodical going after super tuesday states for quite some time, far more than anyone else, spent time in california the last few months. they knew so much of this would come down to what happens on super tuesday in just about a week here now. because so much of this race will be determined then likely, it seems possible he will have a straightforward lead. now, the question i think a lot of the campaigns are grappling with, what happens if he doesn't technically hit the threshold to
clinch the nomination outright, has plurality of delegates. you know, last night, you saw him say if that's the case, i should be the nominee. other campaigns weren't so clear about that. there's a lot of time between now and milwaukee, that's in july, of course, and basically all the delegates in the race have to be given out here. sanders looks like he's in good position. i think there will be a lot of conversation by moderates and people that are anti-sanders one way or another talking about whether they can consolidate around anyone else or if they can do something to deprive the nomination. >> i don't see moderates dropping out soon. let's see what happens super tuesday. gabe, jenna, great to have you both on. much appreciate it. check out road to 270 with chuck todd and steve kornacki. create your own 2020 election scenarios at home. try the road to 270 interactive
then they come to my store. buy that sofa. and leave happy it's easy, and it's effective. and it's why comcast spotlight is changing its name to effectv. because being effective means getting results. -well, audrey's expecting... -twins! grandparents! we want to put money aside for them, so...change in plans. alright, let's see what we can adjust. ♪ we'd be closer to the twins. change in plans. okay. mom, are you painting again? you could sell these. lemme guess, change in plans? at fidelity, a change in plans is always part of the plan. welcome back. time for money money money.
right now, the markets are feeling a bit rattled. dow down more than 200 points. this morning, we saw a 350 point drop. we're going to keep an eye on that for you. first, let's get to the coronavirus. new information that two of the passengers quarantined on board that cruise ship off the coast of japan have died of coronavirus. japan's health minister says they were japanese and in their 80s and had chronic conditions. they tested positive a week ago for the virus. meanwhile, 13 more cases were reported on the ship this morning, bringing the total number to 634. it is raising concerns about how the virus was able to spread so quickly on the ship among people that should have been isolated. joining me, gaye and phil porter from the cruise ship, both under a mandatory two week quarantine at lackland air force base after getting off the ship. good to see you again. you both look good. how are you feeling today?
>> well, i think we're very sad thinking about the families of the elders that died. on the ship there were some very nice multi generational groups, celebrating lunar new year with grandmas, grandchildren, and i have a feeling it is somebody like that, so they went on holiday for the new year's and they've had this tragedy. >> it absolutely is tragic and our hearts go out to all of the families impacted by this. i'm wondering, phil, how glad shipare that you're off the >> we're glad to be off the ship. i mean,s s not going to be a good situation, and once the so-called quarantine started on the ship and we looked at the loopholes and things being handled by multiple people, you know, a quarantine with sick people, healthy people in the same boat, all being dealt with
by the same staff and crew, who by the way were terrific, but there were so many loopholes in that. we're so glad to be out. here the quarantine rules are very, very strict, very tight, terrifying because in a sense we're sitting here waiting to find out if we get sick or not, so it is scary, but certainly better off than a place like that. >> that's the big concern obviously, the concern we have for you, that you're able to stay healthy. on the other hand, you sent us photos of where your life is right now. when i last spoke to you, it didn't sound like fun. you had no air conditioning, you weren't allowed outside, you had a leaky bathroom that phil, you had to fix. this is the fourth day in quarantine. what's the situation? how are you feeling about your circumstances? >> it's really minimal. we're in kind of military
control. the cdc is running the health end and the military the back end. we have to learn how to communicate to the military a simple request like fresh it, every once in a while you can grab one if somebody has one, but it is not like service on the ship or in a good hotel, nor are we expecting that. it goes from hot weather to cold, heat works better than the air conditioning. we complained about the air conditioning and they said they would fix it. now we find out the building doesn't have any air conditioning. >> then, that's hard to fix. not like they're going to suddenly redo the system. we're out of time. but i have to ask you both. would you take another cruise again? >> maybe not tomorrow. >> nobody could blame you for that.
>> we cancelled the next two trips, one is safari, one a cruise. >> phil, gaye, we're going to keep checking in. we've going to keep checking in on you because we've grown fond of you and hope you stay healthy. thanks for taking the time to talk to us. >> you're very kind. thank you. >> thank you. michael bloomberg has spent a whopping $400 million on his campaign so far, and it's only just the beginning. but what does that kind of money really buy a candidate? you're watching "msnbc live." ♪ it's the easiest because it's the cheesiest. kraft. for the win win. but when i started seeing i knew aboutthings,emors. i didn't know what was happening... so i kept it in. he started believing things that weren't true. i knew something was wrong... but i didn't say a word. during the course of their disease around 50% of people with parkinson's may experience hallucinations or delusions.
but now, doctors are prescribing nuplazid. the only fda approved medicine... proven to significantly reduce hallucinations and delusions related to parkinson's. don't take nuplazid if you are allergic to its ingredients. nuplazid can increase the risk of death in elderly people with dementia-related psychosis and is not for treating symptoms unrelated to parkinson's disease. nuplazid can cause changes in heart rhythm and should not be taken if you have certain abnormal heart rhythms or take other drugs that are known to cause changes in heart rhythm. tell your doctor about any changes in medicines you're taking. the most common side effects are swelling of the arms and legs and confusion. we spoke up and it made all the difference. ask your parkinson's specialist about nuplazid.
here is a stunning fact, that's central to where we are in the democratic race for the nomination. according to "the washington post" this year, google and facebook have served up 2 billion michael bloomberg ads which works out to 30,000 ads a minute. his total spending on digital and tv ads, $233 million. and we just found out that the bloomberg campaign has filed their january 2020 report today, which shows total campaign to date spending, $464 million, which brings us to ask, can michael bloomberg now buy his way out of a bad debate performance?
joining me now philippe reinus, spokesperson for hillary clinton. shermichael is a consultant who worked on political campaigns. you guys just have to be -- your heads have to be exploding when you hear these kinds of numbers, what you would have done just to have a couple of months nearly-half a billion dollars. a lot of people have been saying since michael bloomberg had such a bad performance, can ads make up for it? were there enough people that didn't see the debate that they're going to just keep watching this deluge of ads? >> if i had a bad debate performance i would be very happy i had $60 billion in the bank to help me. your last point is important. as much tv as i watch, i haven't been watching for the last 12 hours but i bet if i did there have been more segments of 90
seconds showing that devastating exchange with elizabeth warren than there have been ads from michael bloomberg. the answer was just bad, specifically on the nondisclosure agreements on women who have filed complaints. now again, you're going to want a ton of money, not only to go against your primary rivals which you need next. i didn't see on the graphic, i saw the 264 million but couldn't see number two, you're going to need money. but i think -- >> tom steyer. >> tom steyer. now, tom steyer couldn't even make the stage last night. >> so that's interesting, right, because people keep saying that michael bloomberg bought his way on to the stage but tom steyer has been no slouch in spending money and he wasn't there. >> and just ask president ross perote or steve forbes about whether or not you can buy your way to the presidency. >> but i guess the other
question looking ahead, is shermichael, what money can buy and not? >> it can buy an act to move up somewhat in the polls, and we have seen that over the past several weeks with mike bloomberg. one thing last night proved is that money cannot buy a great debate performance. at the end of the day, if you cannot debate well in a conten shsz format against your other democratic rivals, why in the world should democratic voters and democratic independent-leaning voters expect you to be able to do well against donald trump? it doesn't make any sense. if people thought last night was bad, just imagine when the debate is in south carolina in a week, and mike bloomberg has to answer tough questions about race. we saw how he fumbled all over the place. to borrow a phrase from joe biden, elizabeth warren beat him like a drum. and if you thought last week was bad, then just imagine what's going to happen -- if you thought last night was bad, just imagine what's going to happen
next week when african-americans in that audience are going to be looking for substantive responses on stop-and-frisk, his views about redlining and other issues pertaining to criminal justice reform and policing. he hasn't been able to deliver substantive answers thus far. i predict we are going to see in many ways a downfall of bloomberg as it pertains to african-americans because of his inability to target black people with a message of, this is why i did these things, i know it was wrong, and this is how i'm going to correct them. he hasn't done that. i suspect he's going to be in trouble. >> we only have a minute left. if you're one of the other folks are you breathing a sigh of relief today thinking, there's no way i can match the money, but i do have an opening here with a good debate performance? some people got cash yesterday just off of a good debate performance? >> see, i don't think so. i'll tell you why. because before last night, people were on the verge of
writing off both joe biden and elizabeth warren. >> yes. >> they saved themselves last night with, in the case of elizabeth warren, a really solid performance which came at the detriment or the expense of mike bloomberg and joe biden just had a steadier performance compared to before. but i don't think that, come next tuesday, i mean bloomberg could have a good two hours and the next day shermichael and i could be talking to you and be like, bloomberg is back, has redeemed himself. and look the thing that is cost-free for michael bloomberg is the guarantee that the other people running for president will make mistakes, starting with some of them are going to do very badly in the nevada caucus. so i don't -- you can't buy me love, can't buy the promise of the primaries, and look, the guy is not worth $60 billion but he has, you know, run and tucked tail when he's -- >> guys, i wish we could talk for another hour. we're out of time.
will you come back after the debate next week? i would love to talk to you. >> yes, absolutely. >> see you in a week. >> thanks to both of you. that's going to do it for me. right now katy tour picks up our coverage live from las vegas. hey, katy. ♪ suddenly feels like there's a race for the 2020 democratic nomination again. and it's all thanks to the guy who is not even on the ballot here. mayor michael bloomberg who began the night with an imposing profile was everybody's target, elizabeth warren hit him early and often. >> i have no tolerance for the kind of behavior that the me too movement has exposed. >> he has gotten some number of women, dozens, who knows, to
IN COLLECTIONSMSNBC West Television Archive Television Archive News Search Service
Uploaded by TV Archive on