tv MSNBC Live With Ali Velshi MSNBC August 15, 2018 12:00pm-1:00pm PDT
stripped for being -- for making false statements and behaving erratically and it was not donald trump, it was trump who stripped the clearance. that means we are living in absurd times. >> erratic conduct, outbursts on twitter, sowing division would seem to describe the president. not necessarily john brennan. gentlemen and kristen welker, thank you very much. we did reach out to john brennan. he's thinking about joining us. he's considering it right now. if he does, ali velshi will immediately bring him to you. ali velshi, what a day. i started this segment by saying, question, how do you get omarosa off the news. answer, revoke the security clearance of the former cia director. >> it will only be partially successful. we now know these tricks. there is nothing pressing on the agenda that required these people would be named and security clearance revoked. i think there's a drawer or bag at the white house where they
have a bunch of tricks on hold for whenever they cannot get off the subject. it is wednesday today and we have been going at this for a few days. the white house cannot control its messaging this week so they try something new. >> must be a pretty big bag. >> the beauty is we're on tv a lot and have a lot of time. we can chew gum and walk at the same time so we are going to do that. >> speak for yourself. >> have a good afternoon. good afternoon, i'm ali velshi. to protect the nation's classified information, that's the reasoning press secretary sarah huckabee sanders gave at the start of this press conference we were just talking about where she announced the official revoking of former cia director john brennan's security clearance. >> historically, former heads of intelligence and law enforcement agencies have been allowed to retain access to classified information after their government service so that they can consult with their successors regarding matters about which they may have special insights and as a professional courtesy. neither of these justifications supports mr. brennan's continued
access to classified information. >> the white house, get this, accuses brennan of erratic conduct and behavior. coincidentally it comes a day after brennan's tweet which was a strong rebuke against the president and his insulting language when referring to former trump white house aide omarosa manigault newman, referring to her as a lowlife and a dog. so far newman has been dominating the discussion. the pressure is reportedly getting to the president and the white house. joining me now from the white house is nbc news' hans nichols. hans, this explanation seems a little strange given that the president does nothing but tweet and he's -- he can be described as erratic in his tweeting. it seems highly politicized. >> well, it's politicized but it's also those who have criticized him. this doesn't fall along straight party lines. of those six, seven other names, michael hayden a republican but very critical of the trump administration. of course jim comey was a
republican, he's now said he's a democrat. so there are a couple of republicans on there. to me the most interesting one from let's say the enemies list side of things, those people who are on warning, on notice that their security credentials could be, their access could be revoked, bruce ohr is a sitting member of the department of justice, answers to jeff sessions who answers to the president. he is talking about revoking the security of members of his own administration that have authorities, have warrants to carry out their job. now they have less of an ability to do that. the broader point here, though, john brennan's authority to criticize the president isn't derived from his intel briefings that he may still have access to. this guy was a former station chief in saudi arabia, a homeland security advisor, he had an office in the basement of white house. it's not like he's using raw intel files to make his criticism of president trump. what president trump is clearly doing is getting into a back-and-forth with someone that was a member of a former administration, but his ability to criticize isn't going to be
hampered by the fact that he's lost his access. that's simply not the case. >> so the thing that's getting under the president's skin is not going away by him doing this. this may be the white house not being able to control the narrative this week because of the release of omarosa's book. >> potentially. you're talking about the bag of tricks the president and white house has. all white houses like to change the conversation. they like to use words like pivot or talk about the economy or go to a different location. this was fairly drastic today and there were no questions on omarosa. there was one shouted towards the end but sarah huckabee sanders did not have to answer the question on whether or not she was aware and if she'd asked the president specifically if he had ever used that word, that ugly word, that racial epithet. >> hans, good to see you as always. thank you. joining me on the phone is john mclaughlin. john, good to talk to you again. just talk to me about what hans
was just saying. the thing about john brennan and others that are named here that gets under the president's skin is criticism of this administration, none of which is affected by whether or not you and others like you have clearances. >> not at all, ali. this is ridiculous. i can think of few things the president has done that more directly indicate a kind of authoritarian attitude in his governing style. to pull clearances from someone is something that you see happen when leaders of countries that are trying to move them in that direction try to silence their enemies, along with other things they do. and clearly nothing that john brennan has said or that the other intelligence people on this list have said has anything to do with classified information. the reason you pull someone's clearances, the unique reason really, is if they have abused or in some ways released in an
unauthorized way classified information. these people haven't done that. they have only spoken out using their first amendment rights to state their personal opinions. looking at abuse of classified information, the president might look in the mirror. you recall what he did when he released inappropriately classified information it's said from an israeli report when he talked to the russians. >> right. >> so i think it's just across the board a foolish thing to do and i believe katy tur was probably correct in saying this is nothing more than a distraction at this point. the other point i'd make to you is that in my understanding and having been involved in these cases, typically there is some sort of a hearing before this is done. typically there is an appeal process. and often these cases can escalate to a federal court. i doubt anyone in the white house has thought through any of that, because as usual, they rolled the ball down the lanes, broken up the pins without any
idea of how they're going to set them back up again. >> john, i want to underscore something you said. you said it feels like an authoritarian act. it's not just random, it is of the president's critics, which should be more worrisome to people. it's not everybody who served in prior administrations gets their security clearance revoked. this is about people, john mclaughlin -- john brennan point in case, but there are other names that the white house is evaluating, all of whom who have criticized the president. >> absolutely. when i think of someone like sally yates, i don't know sally yates personally, i've met her, but i can think of few people in the federal government who have served in the justice department who are more respectful of classified information. you'll recall it was sally yates who went to the white house to alert the white house way back at the beginning of all of this that there was a potential
security and counterintelligence problem with general flynn. so this really has the feel of someone simply trying to do two things, silence critics and also distract from another damaging political event that's going on with omarosa. >> the president is revoking the security clearance of former director of the central intelligence agency, john brennan. he's also evaluating the clearances of james clapper, james comey, michael hayden, sally yates, susan rice, lisa page, peter strzok and bruce ohr. john mclaughlin is the former deputy director of the cia joining me on the phone. john, john brennan and others in their criticisms of the president are not yousing any r intelligence, they're not using classified information. what's the net effect of taking clearances away from these people? >> well, i think if you are in any way timid about expressing your personal views, the message
that goes out is be careful what you say if you have a clearance and if you're worried about having it revoked. i don't think it's stretching a point too far to say that if you look inside the intelligence community, one of its duties, of course, is to speak the truth, regardless of the consequences. that sometimes involves saying things that the listener doesn't want to hear. i'm sure that's what happened to president trump a number of times. i don't think the intelligence community will shrink from that duty, but it does throw a kind of bucket of ice, if you will, onto people who have that job to think that delivering unpleasant news is not something that this particular president relishes. and i've worked for a lot of presidents. and frankly, they don't like hearing bad news, but they also sometimes thank you for it, because they know that what you're trying to do ultimately is help them. i just don't have a feeling
that -- you know, the way for the trump -- for president trump to engage on this is if he disagrees with what they're saying, to speak up himself and express the reasons for his disagreement not to yank their security clearances. that's what happens in a real democracy. >> john, good to talk to you. thank you for joining us. john mclaughlin is a former deputy director of the cia. joining me now on the phone is ben rhodes, former deputy national security advisor for president obama. ben, good to have you with us. john brennan tweets a lot. it's something that the president takes issue with. yesterday he tweeted in response to the president's tweets about omarosa. it's astounding how often you fail to live up to minimum standards of decency, civility and probity. it seems like you will never understand what it means to be president nor what it takes to be a good, decent and honest person. so disheartening, so dangerous for our nation. perhaps that was the last straw, ben, but i'm very worried by what john mclaughlin just talked about, and that is the act of an
authoritarian president in taking actions not against a group of people but against a group of people who are only defined as his critics. >> yes. i mean what john brennan says on twitter should have absolutely no bearing on his fitness to maintain his security clearance. the fact is he served this country for decades under presidents of both parties. he is as qualified and knowledgeable about terrorism, the biggest threat to american security as anybody. he is somebody that the intelligence community, the u.s. government would want to use as a resource. and the fact is security clearances have never been politicized like this in our history. they have been walled off from this type of political interference. an for this president to target a political enemy with an act of yanking their security clearance because he doesn't like being criticism, it's authoritarianism in its purest form.
it's saying if you say things that i don't like publicly, i'm going to try to do something to hurt you or embarrass you. that's not how a democracy is supposed to function and it's dangerous for national security to say people who don't agree with me cannot participate in any way, shape or form in certain discussions about securing their country when they're qualified to do so. >> ben rhodes was a deputy national security advisor. ben, the question was asked if the president is going after people that are not supportive of him. to that point here's what john brennan said last night on msnbc. >> i think donald trump has badly sullied the reputation of the office of the presidency with hiss invective tendency an his relationships to benefit himself as opposed to the country. i do think that america's standing in the world has also
been tarnished. but i think even more fundamentally what he is doing here in the united states is very polarizing and he is, i think, the most divisive president we've ever had in the oval office. he is feeding and fueling hatred and animosity and misunderstandings among americans. >> ben, this is john brennan talking about what the president is doing. in revoking these security clearances, this reminds us of other countries where people wanting to take power and clear the ranks of anybody that's critical of them. is there a lasting effect on our republic and democracy by seeing a president act this way? and give me some comparisons to when you were in the obama administration. there were obviously critics. there were all sorts of critics that had national security clearances. did this ever cross your mind to do? >> no. look, actually, some of the people who are on the list that was publicized by the white house were critics of ours. michael hayden was george w.
bush's cia director, was a critic of barack obama. we never sat around and contemplated publicly yanking his security clearance or privately doing so for that matter. it really is crossing a new line. and the reason it's dangerous is, first of all, it denies the nation the resource of people with certain expertise who disagree with the president. it politicizes national security in a way that there's just no need for. how we have a counterterrorism policy that protects our country should not be subsumed under this petty partisan politics out of the white house. if there was somebody like john brennan who could offer some advice, you should want that advice an shouldn't want to punish him. but it is also mindful of the type of punitive actions that you would see in autocratic countries where someone comes into power and says i'm going to purge anybody who's differed
with me. i'm going to punish people who publicly criticize me. let's be very clear about what happened here. somebody criticized the president of the united states and so then he decided to take a public action the following day to harm that person. that's not supposed to happen in a democracy. the fact that it's playing politics with our national security makes it that much more dangerous. >> ben rhodes is a former deputy national security advisor for president obama. with me now, let me just ask my control room -- oh, i see him right there. it's danny cevallos. danny, good to see you. danny, what do you make of the actual consequences of this? let's just put this into context. this white house has been struggling and saying out loud that the media should stop covering the omarosa stuff. on the other hand, the president has been tweeting about it almost nonstop. there are people who think this is simply an attempt to change the narrative. >> it's possible. it may not even be legal.
it's questionable whether or not the president can use the revocation of security clearances in this way, this summary way where he just does it by announcement, by fiat. >> john mclaughlin says typically there's a system. >> there's a standard process. now, there is a national security exception to that standard process which i think trump would probably invoke, and then he might even argue that just under article 2, under the inherent powers of the presidency he has the power to revoke without going through the required process. this isn't like a pardon where the president can pardon by tweet if he wants to. the revocation of national security clearances and other kinds of clearances has to be done through a standard procedure. if the president doesn't follow that, then it may not be valid. but then there's the additional question of whether the courts can even hear this. there's precedent for the proposition that the courts even hear the issue of a revocation of a security clearance. this would be a case essentially of first impression when security clearances have been
revoked in this fashion. >> so there's a lot of stuff that's ground breaking about this, but this president is part of an ongoing -- look, there have been other presidents before him, including the last two, who have made arguments about what the president is allowed to do. and this president has sort of taken that argument further than the others. >> when it comes to security clearances, president trump is right in that the president is at the apex of security clearances. he is the classifier in chief and the unclassifier in chief. >> so when he was accused of giving away classified information to the russians that might have been from the israelis, the argument in his defense was that he's the president. the minute he says it's not classified, it's not classified. >> it's like the argument can the deity create a rock so heavy the deity cannot lift it. can he be guilty of giving classified information if he's the guy who decides what is and is not classified. it's also important to know there are two kinds of classification of security clearances. there's eligibility and then there's actual access to the information.
it will be interesting to see going forward exactly what kind of revocation that president trump plans to use, because revocation of access is not necessarily the same as revocation of the eligibility. >> all right. in this particular case, i'm looking at a series of tweets that go back to the beginning of july from john brennan about president trump. it would be hard to make the case based on the tweets, based on his appearances on msnbc or his speeches or anything else, these people, james comey, sally yates, sally rice, bruce ohr, they're somewhat experienced at this sort of thing. making the argument that there's a national security danger in having them continue to have their clearances, that would be hard to do. >> that would be hard to do. but because he's the president, his argument is simply even if i don't have a national security exception, there's another option and under my inherent under article 2 of the constitution, i am the
president, i decide what is and is not classified. and he can try, as he's done in many situations, as we've seen in this presidency, the way president trump and his administration test the limits of constitutionality is just do and deal with what happens after you do. to jump first and then litigate afterwards. >> i want you to stand by because i want to just discuss this a little bit more given that the white house did state their reasoning for doing this but i want to bring ken dilanian in on the phone, nbc's intelligence and national security reporter. ken, i just want to read to you what sarah huckabee sanders said. she said first at this point my, my meaning the president, at this point my administration any benefits that senior officials might glean from consultations with mr. brennan are now outweighed by the risks posed by his erratic conduct and behavior. second, that conduct and behavior has tested and far exceeded the limits of any professional courtesy that may have been due to him. ken, what do you make of this?
>> it's extraordinary, ali. the only erratic behavior we've seen from john brennan and i wouldn't call it erratic, that's objectionable to this white house, is the incredibly strong statements he's made that have been critical of the president. admittedly, brennan has used some very harsh rhetoric, and it's not normal. we haven't seen this before where a cia director has come out so soon after leaving office and gotten into the plolitical fray, but he's done so because he's troubled by how this president is conducting himself. this decision is going to have far-reaching impact throughout the intelligence community. while danny is absolutely right, the president is the king when it comes to classified information and he can do this, he has the power to do it without any process. and i've talked to lawyers who specialize in this area and they say there's really no federal court recourse for this. there are administrative hearings about clearances, but once the government decides to deny ou a clearance or revoke a
clearance, that's it. you have no real option to sue to reverse that decision, so he can absolutely do it. but for the professionals who serve in the intelligence community are going to get a clear message from this, which is if you criticize this president and this white house, your clearance is at risk. that is a horrible message to send as a matter of public policy and i think you may see resignations, you may see a slow trickle of people away from the intelligence community as a result of this. what they care about above all is being professional, speaking truth to power, calling it like they see it. they don't want to be a part of something that seems political. >> ken, thanks for your analysis on this. ken dilanian. danny, thanks to you as well and thanks for john mclaughlin. coming up next, catholic church prices. more than 300 priests are accused of sexually abusing children or helping cover up that abuse. i'll speak with the attorney that spoke to the row lease of the grand jury report. that's next. it's america's most popular street name.
but allstate agents know that's where the similarity stops. if you're on park street in reno, nevada, the high winds of the washoe zephyr could damage your siding. and that's very different than living on park ave in sheboygan, wisconsin, where ice dams could cause water damage. but no matter what park you live on, one of 10,000 local allstate agents knows yours. now that you know the truth, are you in good hands?
i've been making blades here at gillette for 20 years. there's a lot of innovation that goes into making america's #1 shave. precision machinery and high-quality materials from around the world. nobody else even comes close. now starting at $7.99. gillette. the best a man can get. these are wolves in shepherd's clothing. these people are not protecting the most vulnerable members of their communities. >> i think that all of us will have a hole in our soul for the rest of our lives. >> the wounds all these years later are far from healed for the survivors of sexual abuse at the hands of men they most trusted, men of the church. in the largest and most comprehensive report ever produced in the united states, the state of pennsylvania pored
through hundreds of thousands of documents and discovered at least seven decades of child abuse at six diocese in the state involving at least 300 priests. the 900-page report begins with this simple request. we need you to hear this. we know you've heard it before, but never on this scale. they are begging all of us not just those of us in pennsylvania to pay attention because their findings also revealed this. quote, it happened everywhere. the report accuses the church of covering it up and putting the welfare of the institution above children. >> over the last several months an intense legal battle has played out between my office and individuals who have concealed their identities through sealed court filings. they sought to do the same thing that senior church leaders in the diocese we investigated have done for decades, bury the sexual abuse by priests upon children and cover it up forever. >> now, this report was
published because survivors fought for it. i'm joined now by a man who's helping with that fight, attorney david insco. he represents four survivors of abuse, including a man named todd fray who petitioned the supreme court to get the documents published. david, thank you for joining me. the scope of this is remarkable. i guess what i'm struck by is for the entirety of my reporting career, i have reported on these sorts of stories. i remember before i was a reporter hearing about them. we've at least been hearing about this for 30 or 40 years. how is it possible that this grand jury report talks about things that have happened in the last decade on the scale that it's still happening? >> it's simply shocking, ali. this report categorizes abuse that's taken place for more than half a century in the commonwealth of pennsylvania. and the active cover-up of it by the hierarchy of the church.
it touches almost everyone in the commonwealth of pennsylvania in these diocese. these are the schools, the parishes, the high schools of our friends and loved ones as well as my clients. it touches the entire state, frankly. >> what does success look like for your client and other survivors? i had some people today telling me they're just happy it's out there because they were doubted when they told their parents or they told people about it. but what does success look like here? this can't continue to go on. >> it can't, ali. there are a number of things. this is a victory today. it is a victory for my client. it is a victory for survivors. it is hopefully a victory for those who are still suffering, because there are hundreds if not thousands of victims in the commonwealth of pennsylvania who still haven't come forward. it's a victory for them. there are still portions of this
report, as you know, that have been redacted by the challenges of several of these petitioners, which almost led to the whole blocking of the report. >> what's the argument for that? how can you possibly argue for that to have it redacted? >> it is frankly a disingenuous argument being made by these collaborators and abusers, that they do not have a certain level of due process, even though the commonwealth and attorney general followed the grand jury statute to the letter in this investigation. they were thorough, they were accurate, and all of the information should be released. the supreme court will hear those arguments. we have filed briefs on behalf of mr. frye, who is attempting to raise the voice of the victim to the supreme court of pennsylvania and we hope that every last line in this report comes out. >> is there something unusual about pennsylvania or do we
think this is happening at a similar scale across america? >> this is -- the only thing that is unusual that we can be thankful for, if there's anything we can be thankful for today, it is that those in law enforcement both in the district attorney's office here in philadelphia, which started this grand jury investigation back in the early 2000s, as well as now the state attorney general's office have fully investigated all of the eight diocese in the commonwealth of pennsylvania. that makes this unique. we have no -- we are not the most catholic state in the union. we rank in the -- i think 13 or 14. most populous states than us are new york and california, have a greater percentage of catholics. there's nothing unique about what happened in pennsylvania other than those people had the will to look at it and make a full accounting, as we see in this report. >> i certainly don't want to minimize any individual's experience with abuse, but when you read this report, i don't
know what's worse, the abuse or the cover-ups, the euphemisms that the church used to describe the abuse, the incomplete investigations that were conducted, the removal of priests but not really removal, just transferring them to someone else, the not calling the cops. if somebody said to me today, if somebody stole the church's money, they'd call the police. >> indeed, indeed. and what we're learning, what these victims are learning today is they're learning about what happened in their own cases. my client, mr. frye, who fought for this report to come forward and was one of the brave men and women to testify before the grand jury to make this report possible, he learned that he was not the only one abused by his priest. he also learned that his priest, while the abuse was going on, was disclosing it in confessional to another priest, who never told him to report it to superiors or go to the police
while it was going on. these are the kind of things that are being learned by survivors because of this report. >> david, thank you for your work and thank you for joining us to tell us a bit more about this. david inscho is an attorney for four survivors of abuse. the latest round of primary elections ended up upsets, breakthroughs and a sense of which party is more motivated this year. i want to take a closer look. walk over with me to the board. democrats in minnesota, wisconsin, connecticut and vermont turned out for -- turned out more voters than republicans did. that enthusiasm is going to be key to winning races in the fall, including in the wisconsin governor's race. republican governor scott walker is seeking a third term, but he's going to have to fend off a challenge from the state school superintendent, tony evers. also in the badger state, republican state senator leah vukmir will take on tammy baldwin. and tim paw lenty's comeback bid
is over. he lost the primary to jeff johnson, who will face democratic congresswoman tim walz. meanwhile one week after the kansas primary, governor jeff colyer conceded to the trump favorite, kris kobach. kobach will face democratic state senator laura kelly. vermonters will see a lot of brooke paige's name on the ballot. he could also be the gop's nominee for the u.s. senate. this practice, by the way, is legal in vermont. paige has done it before. vermonters also made history, making christine hulquist the first transgender candidate to win. christine joins me now. congratulations on your victory. how do you feel about it? >> oh, i'm very excited and i also will tell you that it's -- i'm honored and humbled.
i have certainly recognized that i'm riding on the shoulders of thousands of vermonters before me who has fought for what is right and what is just. >> interesting that you say you did not intend to make history. >> well, you know, in vermont -- vermonters have always been leaders in the nation in terms of civil rights as well as environmental issues, and so i've -- as ceo of an electric cooperative that serves about a fifth of the state, the northern part of our state and serving some rural communities, it just never comes up as an issue. of course i've talked to thousands of vermonters and i will tell you it only came up with one vermonter and it was just a curious question. so this is -- i think vermont is a beacon of hope for the rest of this country. >> you are running on a very progressive platform. the issues you're running on include internet access for everyone, $15 minimum wage, paid family leave, universal primary health care and a ban on assault weapons as well as overdose
prevention sites. as you said, vermont is a progressive state in a lot of ways. are you finding a lot of support for these ideas? >> yes, but i want to point out some of those issues i don't know why we call them progressive. you know, to expect everybody to have health care and have a living wage, that seems like -- >> i'm canadian. i think of these as normal platforms, not progressive. >> there you go. >> i found something interesting despite the fact that you said you were not aiming to make history, you did say that your experience has made you more sensitive to marginalized people and marginalized communities, has really informed the way you would think about how you would govern. >> yes. i will tell you when i -- after i transitioned, you know, it's one thing to learn -- to know the gender hierarchy. it's another to experience it. and i will tell you just one
example, and i know this kind of is controversial, but i'm going to say it anyway. my first week as a woman was the first time a man on the street told me to smile. of course it happens all the time. >> wow. >> yeah. so there are many -- i have a whole list of things that are just subtle and in our culture just in terms of gender, let alone some of the other biases. i should tell you i've only been a woman for three years so i haven't experienced my whole life, but it's been quite an experience to experience those differences. >> so tell me, how do you balance that? you've got experience as a ceo, you've just resigned from that position recently. you have lived as you said most of your life as a man and three years as a woman. before you transitioned, you were quite conflicted about that. you had told your wife at the time that you were very conflicted about it. how do you carry on a campaign and not let this become central to it? >> well, i also will tell you that these -- vermonters are going to elect me for what i'm
going to do for them. that's absolutely clear. you know, it's about -- vermonters don't -- you know, this is not an issue. what the issue for vermonters, the fact that i do have a long-range plan on how to grow our rural economy. so those -- it's certainly at the national level i understand how significant it is, but for vermont it's not that significant. >> well, then moving away from that topic entirely, the cook political report rates your race as solid republican, meaning they suggest that governor scott is going to win a second term. his popularity has decreased recently. does that daunt you? >> oh, no, not at all. in fact i -- if you look at his trajecto trajectory, a few months ago he was the third most popular governor. now he's the 13th most unpopular. i always look at these polls as looking in the rear-view mirror. certainly vermonters are really upset with his divisive leadership in the state. just last night, he went there
in terms of adopting the national gop agenda of using fear. if you look -- i'm going to lead by hope and aspiration. he's going to lead by fear and division and it's going to be very clear. you know, last night he told people christine is going to raise your taxes. i never said i was going to raise anybody's taxes. who wants to raise taxes? that's not something anybody would want to do. so that's clearly the tactic is to divide vermonters and drive in fear. >> christina hallquist, thank you for joining me. let's have a look at the board. less than 30 minutes ago in trading, the dow has been down all day as you can see from that big red splotch on top of the numbers. it's down on worries about what's happening in turkey. it's been ten years since the great recession changed the world.
i'm talk with an expert about what it means to the united states and what it means about our politics, and oh yeah, that time i was on oprah when we come back. this is not a bed. it's a revolution in sleep. the new sleep number 360 smart bed, from $999... intelligently senses your movement and automatically adjusts on each side to keep you both comfortable.
ahoy! gotcha! nooooo... noooooo... quick, the quicker picker upper! bounty picks up messes quicker and is 2x more absorbent. bounty, the quicker picker upper. let's take a look at some numbers: 4 out of 5 people who have a stroke, their first symptom... is a stroke. 80 percent of all strokes and heart disease? preventable. and 149 dollars is all it takes to get screened and help take control of your health. we're life line screening... and if you're over 50... call this number, to schedule an appointment... for five painless screenings that go beyond regular check-ups. we use ultrasound technology to literally look
inside your arteries... for plaque which builds up as you age- and increases your risk for stroke and cardiovascular disease. and by getting them through this package, you're saving over 50%. so call today and consider these numbers: for just $149 you'll receive five screenings that could reveal what your body isn't telling you. i'm gonna tell you that was the best $150 i ever spent in my life. life line screening. the power of prevention. call now to learn more. turkey is moving to shore up its currency, but wall street is still worried about the count
country's financial situation. the dow is off just half a percent which is a much better than it was earlier in the day. i'll talk to you a little later about why we're concerned about turkey's currency and how currency crises can be contagious around the world. ultimate ultimately, we are nearly a decade away from a financial crisis that almost led to the collapse of the financial system. when house prices were sky high in the 2000s, lenders offered mortgages that couldn't qualify for them. they packaged them and sold them to other financial institutions and then home prices started follow. in 2008 i appeared on oprah to explain what happened using annie as an example. >> annie's interest rate went up and he couldn't afford the new payment. so the bank repoe tessesses ann house but it isn't worth as much as the mortgage. so this beautiful system all of a sudden collapsed because the
bank didn't have to just repossess annie's house, they had to repossess millions of houses, put them all on sale and the bottom line is they weren't worth much money so this is what brought us to the brink of collapse. >> losses forced some financial institutions to go out of business or be sold. look at all those names that don't exist anymore. aig nearly collapsed. the federal government moved in. congress approved a $700 billion bailout program. the federal reserve bought government securities and other financial assets to increase the money supply. that staved off a greater economic crisis. but the profound effect continues today. the federal reserve bank of san francisco released a study this week which found that the financial crisis cost every american $70,000 in lifetime income. it also says that u.s. economic growth remains well below what its 2007 trend would have implied. and it's unlikely the economy will ever make up that lost
ground. columbia university economic history professor adam tews has just written a remarkable extensive history of the financial crisis and its impact, it's titled "crashed, how a decade of financial crises changed the world." adam, thanks so much. thank you for writing this book. >> thank you for having me on. >> i want to put up a chart of u.s. wage growth. u.s. wage growth between 1998, ten years before the crash, an 2018. we'll pull it up when we get it. you can see that there was a drop during the recession but then it was fairly flat after that. we're now at under 4% employment and we're still not seeing wage growth that's outpacing inflation. there are a lot of americans who don't feel like the effect of that recession is over. >> real wages were falling the last couple of quarters. even in sectors like trucking, there's a real bottleneck in trucking. wages aren't going up. >> all we hear is how we need more truckers. >> and the salaries aren't going
up, so it's a shift in the balance of power as well as an economic issue here. >> so there are some secular economic things that are broken, but one of the things we've seen in america and around the world after this crisis, if you went into that crisis with assets, you made money. >> yes. >> you could buy up distressed houses and buy up all sorts of things. if you went in without assets, you never made up for that lost ground. >> exactly. and it hits the african-american community, the latino community in the united states the hardest. the assets they have are housing, real estate and those in the neighborhoods they live in flat lined from 2009 on whereas the upper middle class, the top 10% have 401(k)s. only about half of americans have any kind of stake in the stock market. >> so we look at the stock market and tell you what it's doing, but half of the americans have no relationship to it. >> in that 47% that do, it's only the top 10% or 1% that have a big stake. >> so we used to think there was
a trickledown effect. >> yeah. >> it doesn't seem to be there anymore. >> we had that story what's good for gm is good for america. it's just not true. in the '70s growth to the american in the middle no longer relates to growth for the aggregate. gdp numbers do not translate. >> so that's why workers are frustrated. that's why people say i don't like these free trade deals. i'm glad they're good for you and corporate profitability and gdp growth. your book aez it was the financial system imploded it was the markets themselves that needed governing by state action on a gigantic stale. and that meant who governed and where they obtained their political support was not incidental. >> this is killing the idea that markets can run themselves. in extraordinary interview with former fed chair greenspan where they asked him how are you going to vote in the 2008 election. he said it doesn't matter because fortunately the world is
governed by markets. nothing could be proven more wrong in 2008. markets do implode and it matters crucially who governs. because even in '08, the bush administration can't whip the republican party into line at a moment of national crisis to support the bailout of fannie mae and freddie mac. >> they underwrite mortgages. >> all these folks have mortgages because of fannie mae and freddie mac. and the republican party won't back their own presidency up. if you want to understand where the fault lines in the gop emerge and split open, summer of '08 is really that moment. >> let's come back to continue this conversation because i want to talk about how it's affecting the decisions we're making right now politically. we're out of time today. >> it would be my pleasure. >> a history professor and author of "crashed." happening right now, the prosecution is preparing its rebuttal after the defense's closing arguments in the manafort trial, and soon the whole thing goes to the jury.
paul manafort is facing 18 charges, all banking and tax fraud related. the charges are related to his work with the trump campaign. but this trial is the first test for the special counsel's office and the prosecutor has repeatedly sparred with the judge. our national security and justice reporter, julia ainsley, joins us now from the courtroom. julia, the -- are we maybe two hours away from this thing going to the jury, maybe less? >> we'll see. it might not be until tomorrow, ali, that the jury gets this. this is why. right now there's a back-and-forth between the prosecution and the defense over what instructions will be given to the jury. right now the prosecution is worried about an argument the defense made in their closing statements where they said none of us would be here if it wasn't for the special counsel, that they went through and found numbers that didn't match and they're bringing things forward that never came forward previously. in fact none of the banks even reported this to the government. what the prosecution thinks that infers is that this is somehow
motivated, it could be politically motivated. they actually want to keep out the word special counsel, special prosecutor, and just talk about the fact that the justice department is bringing this. just before i stepped out of the court, of the court, ali, i did hear him say they shouldn't think about the justice's department in bringing this case. they should just look at the evidence and decide whether or not to convict paul manafort on these 18 counts. right now that delay is still going on. we'll hear a 17-minute rebuttal, that is the exact amount of time that judge ellis has given to the prosecution. that's what they have left on their clock in order to rebut the defense's argument. then he wants to give an hour and a half of oral instructions to the jury. that might not be until tomorrow because he's been pretty careful about releasing everyone by 5:30. so this could be coming a little later than we thought, allie. >> julia, thank you for your great reporting. julia ainsley. they are spending millions or
candidates who support development in the black community. their strategy to impact the mid terms is next. ew cultures to explore. with two times more detail than any other dna test... you can connect more deeply to the places of your past. and be inspired to learn about the people and traditions that make you, you. savor your dna story. only $59-- our site's lowest price ever. chair, new laptop headphones, with free 24/7 tech support. yep, thanks guys. i think he might need some support. yes. start them off right. with the school supplies they need at low prices all summer long. like these for only a 25 cents at office depot officemax. about the colonial penn program. here to tell you if you're age 50 to 85 and looking to buy life insurance on a fixed budget, remember the three p's. what are the three p's?
the three p's of life insurance on a fixed budget are price, price, and price. a price you can afford, a price that can't increase, and a price that fits your budget. i'm 65 and take medications. what's my price? you can get coverage for $9.95 a month. i just turned 80. what's my price? $9.95 a month for you, too. if you're age 50 to 85, call now about the number one most popular whole life insurance plan available through the colonial penn program. it has an affordable rate starting at $9.95 a month. no medical exam, no health questions. your acceptance is guaranteed, and this plan has a guaranteed lifetime rate lock, so your rate can never go up for any reason. and with this plan, you can pick your payment date, so you can time your premium due date to work with your budget. so call now for free information. and you'll also get this free beneficiary planner,
one group says it's working to make congress more responsive to issues affecting minority voters. it's called the black economic alliance. it's a nonpartisan group of black business executives. the alliance is spending millions of dollars to back midterm election candidates who are fighting for economic causes that will benefit african americans. the group is also getting involved in competitive midterm races in which black voter
turnout could be a decisive factor. the alliance's cochairman said the group raised approximately $3.5 million and expects to raise several million more. joining us now is dr. tony coles, chairman of the black economic alliance. thank you for being with us. some candidates you're backing are african-american, some are not. >> well, we believe that the stakes couldn't be higher at this moment. we've got so many important discussions from health care to immigration, from education to the economy. it's our belief that this is a perfect time to have a conversation as the economy continues its rebound to focus on the economic progress for black americans. some startling zstatistics here which many of you may be aware. across adults, college educated adults, black americans earn 25% less than white americans. the median average income of a black household is 60% lower
than a white house hold, and the average net worth of a black household is 1/10, 10%, $17,000 compared to the average white house hold at $171,000. >> which means people don't get to inherit. >> that is correct. and we think that this is a critical moment to have the conversation to seek pragmatic and tractable policy solutions to address some of these issues. >> tony, what does success look like here? because these things you just mentioned to me are structural problems. they're not necessarily in the moment political problems, right? the gap between white and black wealth creation and wages and earnings have been going on for a long time. >> that's true. but consider the following. there are opportunities for us to consider policies which will encourage skills-based work force development so that all americans and included in that black americans, can participate in the new economy jobs that are
largely technology based. that's an area that's been under developed in stow site aociety the business world. we have an opportunity to nhk sure the jobs that will be present in the next 10 to 15 years have a work force prepared for them. think about homeownership, ali. you spoke in the last segment about homeownership. >> yes. >> think about the notion, for instance, homeownership is a way to stabilize the asset base of american citizens. it's something that has eluded many african americans for decades. but it's one of the most important to continue to keep our eye on fair lending practices and ensuring that black americans can own their own home, which is just a part of the american dream that everyone wants to participate in. so these are the practical kind of solutions. and we think by working with candidates who support these kinds of policies, who will work and encourage to promote legislation in these areas, we can make a difference. and there's been a lot of
excitement generated by candidates who are seeking endorsement from the black economic alliance who believe in these things. >> you've endorsed four that i know of, tim kaine in virginia, stacey abrams in georgia. ben running for governor in maryland. the governor of ohio. you're hoping to have endorsed ten or 12 people by the election cycle? >> yes, that's right. we're expecting to announce the house race endorsements within the next two to three weeks or so. we're continuing the vetting process of candidates there. that's gone very well. and we believe that we'll be in good position for the midterms to make progress for black americans. >> dr. tony coles, what a pleasure to talk with you. thank you for joining me. the co-chair of the black economic alliance. the white house loves to cite improvements in black unemployment numbers, but one particular comment by white house press secretary sarah sanders during yesterday's briefing has led to a rare correction from the white house. here's the comment.
>> this president, since he took office in the year and a half that he's been here, has created 700,000 new jobs for african americans. that's 700,000 african americans that are working now that weren't working when this president took place. when president obama left, after eight years in office, eight years in office, he had only created 195,000 jobs for african americans. president trump in his first year and a half has already tripled what president obama did in eight years. >> not true. sanders is correct, 708,000 more black americans had jobs in july of 2018 than when president trump took office, but her claim that only 195,000 jobs were created over president obama's eight years simply wrong. data from the bureau of labor statistics shows that figure is 3 million. big difference. sanders later tweeted, correction from today's briefing. jobs numbers for president trump and president obama were correct, but the time frame for president obama wasn't. i'm sorry for the mistake, but no apologies for the 700,000
jobs for african americans created under president trump. that story was incorrect. i'll see you back here at 8:00 p.m. eastern. thank you for watching. "deadline white house" with nicolle wallace starts right now. /s >> hi, everyone. it's 4:00 in new york. we have we come on the air with breaking news. desperate for a distraction from the sea of negative headlines, the president taking an extraordinary step of revoking the security clearance of john brennan, former cia director who is a frequent critic of the president's pro putin foreign policy. here's director brennan last night on our network, his last public appearance before learning that his clearance had been stripped. >> i think donald trump has badly sullied the reputation of the office of the presidency with his