tv MSNBC Live With Ali Velshi MSNBC April 23, 2019 12:00pm-1:00pm PDT
ali velshi picks it up. >> i'm no lawyer, not sure about that. people have been chalking cars for decades. >> but you vice president done anything illegal. >> the issue is, i see the point is when they chalk your car, you haven't done anything illegal. right. it is anticipation that you're going to do something illegal. i'm going to chalk the car, two hours i'm coming back. >> unreasonable search. >> i would argue in 2019, we have digital technology. why not photograph the car with whatever it is to establish what time it is. then not touch the car. i somehow think the law will work out and you'll still get tickets. good to see you, friend. nice to have you here. >> you too. a harsher impact on democracy. that's what jared kushner thinks of robert mueller's investigation compared to russia interference in the elections. >> frankly the whole thing is a
big distraction for the country. you look at what russia did, buying some facebook ads to sew dissent. i think the investigations and speculation that's happened for the last two years had a much harsher impact on democracy than a couple of facebook ads. >> a couple facebook ads. that's a senior white house official, reducing russia's interference in the u.s. elections in 2016 to a couple of facebook ads. in fact, that's just not true. just a note. special counsel robert mueller's redacted report says russian facebook accounts made over 80,000 posts and reached at least 29 million people, but may have reached an estimated 126 million people. it ignores mueller's line in the introduction of the report that reads the russian government interfered in the 2016 presidential elections in sweeping and systemic fashion. in addition to the extensive detail on the aggressive cyber
tactics that russia used, and still uses to interfere in our democracy, as our very own intelligence and national security reporter ken delanian put it, jared kushner was arguably undermining efforts to protect future u.s. elections from foreign interference. with that, start with our national security reporter who wrote that, ken delaney. and with us from the white house, hans nichols. ken, i don't know where to start. to diminish interference in the election, which by the way donald trump has done repeatedly, repeatedly, talked about how it might be a 400 pound guy on his bed. this is remarkable for jared kushner to have said in the wake of the mueller report. >> when it shows somebody at the hi highest levels of foreign policy hasn't come to terms with what the u.s. intelligence community and justice department say is a threat to democracy. not only did he minimize the social media interference, he left out what was arguably the
more consequential vector of attack, the hacking and leaking of democratic emails which his father-in-law made extensive use of, citing wikileaks more than 140 times. they profited from that interference and now jared kushner is trying to minimize it, and it really undermines what the intelligence community is trying to communicate to the public. >> hans, just so we're clear, the president tweeted his approval of what jared kushner said. >> he did, yeah. the president's tweet captures what the whole kushner, that 17 second sound bite you played, a distillation of what this white house has been saying for more than two years. they clearly don't think it had that much effect on the outcome of the election, they're standing by it, it undergirds their legal strategy, the backbone of their political strategy as well. earlier we asked hogan gidley about this, what the response from the white house would be on whether or not they will
cooperate with any of the congressional investigations, listen to his response. >> pretty clear what jerry nadler and others are trying to do here, they don't want to get to the truth, they want to get to this president. at this point i don't know what jerry nadler thinks he is going to get that robert mueller didn't. >> is executive privilege being considered? >> that's up to the attorneys. i don't have an announcement on that. >> later, the white house clarified. they're saying the question of whether or not he will testify, don mcgahn will testify will be worked out between white house counsel's office and don mcgahn's personal attorney. as for kushner's comments, to me they were clarifying. this is how the white house feels about this issue. >> thank you for your reporting. the question to impeach or not impeach president trump. that's the question swirling through washington since release of the special counsel final report, it is a question that
two democratic candidates voiced support for. >> the tools that we are given for that accountability is the impeachment process. this is not about politics. this is about principle. this is about what kind of a democracy we have. >> i think we have very good reason to believe that there is an investigation that has been conducted which has produced evidence that tells us that this president and his administration engaged in obstruction of justice. i believe congress should take steps towards impeachment. >> all right. i want to take a moment to walk through what impeachment is, article 2, section 4 of the united states constitution that reads the president, vice president and all civil officers of the united states shall be removed from office on impeachment for and conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.
impeachment was first brought up at the constitutional convention in 1787 it was championed by alexander hamilton that based it on the british legal system where political officials could be removed for mal and corrupt conduct after being charged by the lower house and tried by the upper house. james madison saw the clause in dispensable defending against incapacity, negligence or perfidy of the chief magistrate. impeachment can be done on the basis of political mistakes or offenses. for instance, andrew johnson was impeached on charges of insulting congress, but just because articles of impeachment are filed, it does not necessarily mean a president will be removed from office. however, it is a system viewed as controversial, and political,
because the supreme court has no say whatsoever. it is entirely up to members of congress. articles of impeachment would require a simple majority of the house to pass. the house is currently controlled by democrats. the senate would then have power to remove a president with two-thirds vote. house alone reserves the right to impeach. if impeachment articles pass the house, the president is impeached. once that happens, the senate decides whether or not to convict. it's never been done in history. considering senate is controlled by republicans, conviction of president trump at the moment remains very unlikely. all right. i am joined to continue the discussion. let's go over here. senior editor at the atlantic is joining me. your article, one of many i read the last few days that makes the
case about the process of impeachment speaks to the idea that the process is what is important here, and perhaps the outcome needs to be sort of secondary. >> i think that's exactly right. it is something that robert mueller has just reminded us of. if you don't believe a sitting president can be charged with a crime, and that's one point where mueller and attorney general bill barr absolutely agreed, they also agree on what the alternative is, that is the process of impeachment. it is a process for investigating a president, for putting evidence on the record, examining witnesses. putting everything on public display. and it is a vital protection for the constitutional system, not merely a political outcome. >> and this is something people may have misinterpreted from the mueller report, partially because the president and his pr machine and twitter finger has been making the case that the mueller report, mueller and his team did not see fit to charge
the president, hence he was exonerated, when in fact specifically the mueller report stated some of the things it found were done wrong could have been things congress can look into in terms of impeachment. >> yeah, that's exactly right. you can think of it this way. in if i were to charge you with a crime, say i have evidence you committed a crime, you should have the right to defend yourself, go to trial, argue in front of a judge and jury that the evidence is not sufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. you deserve that protection. if a president capital n't be c, it is not fair for a federal prosecutor to say i looked at the evidence and concluded you're likely to be convicted at trial, i just can't charge you because a president would lack the opportunity to clear his
name. that's what impeachment gives us. it gives us the opportunity to air the evidence in a rule bound process and for the president to defend himself. i know it sounds counter intuitive, but there are two sitting vice presidents that asked the house to start impeachment proceedings against them because they understood it was the only way to defend their reputation against charges leveled against them. really, this is our process. >> mueller was saying i can't go and tell you the president committed a crime if i can't charge him with the crime and he can't have a system by which to defend himself, but congress can go through that process. >> yeah, that's exactly right. he went a step further. he said i could tell you if i wasn't going to charge him with a crime, and i'm not going to tell you that. >> i want to quote page 220 of the mueller report where he says this. worthy of reading the paragraph. because we determined not to make a prosecutorial judgment,
we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the president's conduct. the evidence we obtained about the president's actions and intent present difficult issues that need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment. at the same time, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of facts that the president clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state, based on applicable standards, we are not able to reach that judgment. if you don't read the report, that's clear, that's not exoneration of the president, that's robert mueller saying we're not in position to go down that road. >> this is one point where the white house statements and attorney general barr's statements are impossible to reconcile with what robert mueller wrote in the report. this is not by any means
clearing the president. mueller goes through ten specific instances where he examined potentially obstructive conduct by the president. some of them seems to indicate it didn't meet the bar. in others, writes in a lawyerly way, but unmistakable way that it seems to, yet he leaves aside this question of prosecutorial judgment because it is up to congress to decide when a president has broken the law. there's an interesting footnote. he does say it is worth holding a criminal investigation like this, in part because you can charge a president after impeached or removed, after his term of office is expired. there's still reason for a prosecutor to look at the conduct, put everything in the evidentiary record. >> let me ask you one thing, there's debate amongst democrats whether it is politically expedient, whether it bogs them down or indicators to a wing of the democratic party.
you're reading of the constitution and the mueller report, does congress, should congress, does congress have a choice in this matter or do they need to begin the process to fulfill their obligations about investigating misconduct? >> well, i think i would like to hear more talk from congress about its duty and less about 2020 and political advantage. the constitution lays it out as the proper method foray jude indicating these sort of disputes, whether or not it plays to their political advantage, congress has a duty to follow that process. we have ten specific incidents on record that can't be cleared off the record, absent hearings. there's no substitute for that. whether or not the speak are and house leadership find it expedient to embark on impeachment proceedings, they have a basic constitutional duty. sometimes those are politically inexpedient, but doesn't excuse our elected representatives from
doing what they were sent to washington to do. >> thank you for the article and for being here. up next, a sri lange and official says the attacks were retaliation from last month's attack in new zealand. and for the first time, a drug company and former ceo are indicted for their alleged involvement in our country's devastating opioid crisis. more on that. you're watching msnbc. on that you're watching msnbc. if you have moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis, month after month, the clock is ticking on irreversible joint damage. ongoing pain and stiffness are signs of joint erosion. humira can help stop the clock. prescribed for 15 years, humira targets and blocks a source of inflammation that contributes to joint pain and irreversible damage. vo: humira can lower your ability to fight infections. serious and sometimes fatal infections
including tuberculosis, and cancers, including lymphoma, have happened, as have blood, liver, and nervous system problems, serious allergic reactions, and new or worsening heart failure. tell your doctor if you've been to areas where certain fungal infections are common, and if you've had tb, hepatitis b, are prone to infections, or have flu-like symptoms or sores. don't start humira if you have an infection. woman: help stop the clock on further irreversible joint damage. talk to your rheumatologist. right here. right now. humira. right here. right now. at a comfort inn with a glow taround them, s . s if i book direct at choicehotels.com." who glows? just say, badda book. badda boom. book now at choicehotels.com.
mno kidding.rd. but moving your internet and tv? that's easy. easy?! easy? easy. because now xfinity lets you transfer your service online in just about a minute with a few simple steps. really? really. that was easy. yup. plus, with two-hour appointment windows, it's all on your schedule. awesome. now all you have to do is move...that thing. [ sigh ] introducing an easier way to move with xfinity. it's just another way we're working to make your life simple, easy, awesome. go to xfinity.com/moving to get started.
we are learning about the deadly bombings in sri lanka that killed at least 320 people. the islamic state claimed responsibility, releasing photos it says are of the attackers. so far provided no evidence to support the claim. according to the defense minister, coordinated attacks were carried out in retaliation for the christchurch mosque massacre. joining me, january is mackey frier. what's the latest? >> reporter: well, the claim came first from islamic state media agency that a statement with names of 7 suicide bombers, calling them our fighters. then isis released a photograph of an islamic cleric identified as the leader of the attacks. this is a common tactic for
islamic state as we have seen over the years, tendency to associate with attacks by direct involvement with their own comb combat ants or inspiring attackers. from the outset, security officials maintain if this was the work of a local group, they would have to have some outside help to pull off some a complex attack. also a mention or claim this was retaliation for mosque attacks in christchurch, new zealand. there's no evidence to support that, ali. he made this comment during a debate in parliament when the government is trying to deflect blame for what was an extraordinary breakdown insecurity and policy. officials knew for weeks about the potential attack, had intelligence and alert from india, also a security memo dated april 11th that had the names and addresses of people that were having suspected ties
to this group. police knew enough to arrest 40 people, and they knew where to find them. the fbi is now involved in the investigation here, the prime minister was revealing more details, that there was actually a failed bombing at a fourth hotel. the country remains under lockdown tonight, and as you mention, the death toll has been raised to 321. >> what a story. thank you. two pulitzer prize winning journalists lost their final appeal, accused of breaking a colonial era law reporting on myanmar's crackdown on the muslim minority, a crackdown that the united nations calls a genocide. at the time of their arrests, the journalists were working on an investigation for reuters into whether the country's military killed ten row hinge a men and boys. the journalists convicted of
illegally having possession of documents, they say they were placed on them and a whistleblower testified to that in an earlier trial. the whistleblower was also jailed. this all centers around how the mostly buddhist government treated one of the minority groups. they have lived in the country for generations but are refused citizenship and live in extreme poverty. the military is accused of burning the villages to the ground, as well as murdering and raping villagers. survivors, almost 700,000 people fled violence, made a long walk to bangladesh. myanmar repeatedly denied accusations of mistreatment. reuters journalists are sentenced to seven years in prison. the secretary general says the condition is unacceptable and united nations will continue to seek their release. up next, a fight in the opioid crisis, major drug company and its former ceo were
charged for their role in the devastating epidemic. details after the break. connecticut expands its lawsuit against the opioid manufacturer, purdue pharma. attorney general william fung joins me about opioid sales in connecticut and downplaying addiction. d downplaying addiction. billions of mouths.
that's why with dell small business technology advisors. you'll get tailored product solutions, expert tech advice and one-on-one partnership. call an advisor today at 877-buy-dell. ♪ at first slice pizza lovers everywhere meet o, that's good! frozen pizza one third of our classic crust is made with cauliflower but that's not stopping anyone
today, a fallout over the opened crisis. a major drug distribution company and former ceo are facing criminal charges. the company, rochester drug cooperative, rdc, charged with narcotics conspiracy and conspiracy to defraud the united states. the former ceo, lawrence dowd iii accused of sending tens of millions of oxycodone, fenlt nil and opioids, after the company's own compliance department found no need for so many highly addictive drugs. here's what a spokesman said. >> shocks me a compliance order described pharmacies as sticks of dine night, waiting for the dea to light the fuse.
and they did not heed the warning or terminate those customers. if the pharmacies were sticks of dynamite, what is rdc, a warehouse of dynamite. >> it is the main cause of overdose deaths in the united states. the drug company agreed to a settlement with the u.s. attorney's office and is expected to pay a $20 million fine. in a statement, the company admitted we made mistakes, rdc understands these mistakes directed by former management have serious consequences. nbc news tom winter broke the story and joins me now. tom, let's talk a little about this. this is a big departure in the effort to fight opioids. >> i think and the person you showed, ray donovan that heads up the dea's office says america has a two prong crisis. we have mexican cartels bringing in drugs and pharmaceutical companies pushing the crisis. i think the key thing today is
to name a pharmaceutical company a narcotics trafficker. you have a situation you're saying you not only didn't play by the rules and outside the regulations, you were trafficking in these very addictive, dangerous drugs. >> you gave some examples earlier you heard in court filings about this. it is remarkable. the ceo, former ceo charged had evidence that something was out of whack with the number of pharmaceuticals delivered to a particular pharmacy. >> one particular pharmacy in woodbury new york. his own compliance people and executives were saying that's where the stick of dynamite comment comes from, saying you have a real problem here. these guys are ordering way too much of this, they're order sub sets which we know from another case is a highly addictive opioid spray, this is a problem, you're going to have an issue. he said kill them, kill them, the account, kill them and die. he is going back to his people saying don't end this account,
keep filling it. there were numerous examples cited in the indictment where he essentially ordered them to keep filling the orders. >> this is the heart of the problem, people's complaints with pharmacies, the pharmaceutical and distribution companies that it would have been abundantly clear to rationale people far more were going to pharmacies that wasn't normal, the rate at which prescriptions were filled. >> there were 8,000 red flags, internal flags in the rochester drug cooperative they were saying look, there's something out of line about this order, this prescription. they have prescriptions coming from doctors that were providing, either under investigation or where patients were paying cash. those are enormous red flags when you look at it from drug seeking behavior, someone prescribing medications that shouldn't be prescribed. they were going ahead, the u.s. attorney office talked about there were some pharmacies
rejected from other drug distributors, rochester still picked them up, started to sell them. these are basic things when you look at it. according to court documents today, what happened was they only told the dea about four red flags. you have over 8,000 versus 4. >> unbelievable. tom, amazed that you can get smart on anything no matter what it is. tom winter is a guy we rely on. from the distributor to the manufacturer in connecticut, the state government expanded an existing lawsuit alleging the maker of oxycontin, purdue pharma, fraudulently moved $00s of millions of profits to its owners, the sackler family. why? according to the attorney general, purdue is trying to cry poverty in effort to avoid accountability for its role in the opioid crisis, but business has been kind to the family, a massachusetts court filing revealed earlier this year they made at least $4 billion between
2007 and 2018. on top of the original lawsuit by the way that alleges that leadership at purdue pharma knew their drug, oxycontin and misleading marketing practices were causing harm. the company responded to new allegations in a statement to green witch time. they deny the allegations and will continue to defend against misleading attacks. joining me, connecticut attorney general william tong. good to see you. what's the new charge that you have put before them? >> so we expanded our investigation and our complaint. what we're doing now is following the money. we are hearing purdue threaten that they're going to go into bankruptcy court, seek protection, try to cry poverty. we are going to make clear to the court this company should have more money than it has, if
they claim bankruptcy it is bought they looted billions from the company over the last decade or longer. they knew as late as 2007 when purdue pharma pled guilty to federal criminal charges they were in big trouble, and to continue to take billions of dollars out of that company and put it in trusts and limited partnerships for benefit of the sackler family is unconscionable and unlawful. >> to what degree can you and fellow attorneys general use public harm as a cause for monetary claim from these companies. there was an expert witness quoted in a cnbc report in the nationwide multi district case in cleveland that estimated it will cost nearly a half trillion dollars to undo damage from the opioid crisis. i'm not sure that takes everything into account. >> that's why we have to pursue the wrong doers wherever we can
find them, we'll pursue them to the ends of the earth. the fact is even if purdue pharma or other manufacturers try to claim poverty, seek protecti protection under our nation's bankruptcy laws, we're going after them and seek to claw back every dollar madoff te off the addiction crisis. they talked about rochester as having sticks of dynamite in its warehouses. in our view, pharma knowing it helped fuel the addiction crisis literally we think poured gasoline on the fire. >> let me ask you, whenever we do this topic, we have done it a lot, i have done it with you before, i get legitimate complaints and concerns from people who are chronic pain patients who feel that all of this attention on the pharmaceutical companies, on the distributors and on doctors that did prescribe these drugs have resulted in people who actually need these drugs, including
fentanyl which tends to be serious, not being able to get drugs legitimately and they're suffering as a result. i'm sure you heard this before and thought about this. >> yes. and we don't want to punish pain. we know that opioids and other pain medication have legitimate role in pain management, but there's a difference between using very strong medication for very serious medical ailments and post surgery or chronic pain management, there's a difference between that and pushing drugs, pushing theories that the reason we have addicts is because they don't get enough opioids. the answer is to give them more opioids. and if they just had enough of the opioid, they wouldn't be addicts. it is a calk eyed backwards thinking that motivated purdue pharma and individual defendants like richard sackler to pursue monday, profits over the tremendous human cost of this crisis not just in connecticut
but across the country. across connecticut, more than $10 billion a year, and a thousand souls lost here in my home state. >> always good to talk to you. thank you. he is the attorney general of connecticut. bernie sanders says all prisoners should have the right to vote while incarcerated, including murderers, sexual predators and domestic terrorists like the boston marathon bomber. we're live on the campaign trail with sanders. and it is official, sort of. joe biden set to announce his presidential run this thursday via video. monday, the former vice president will be in pittsburgh for an event at a local union hall. set for a tour of iowa, new hampshire, south carolina, nevada. you're watching msnbc. nbc.
vermont senator and democratic presidential candidate bernie sanders brought the issue of voting rights for convicted felons back to the forefront when he was asked in a cnn town hall whether people that are currently in jail should be allowed to vote. >> if somebody commits a serious crime, sexual assault, murder, they're going to be punished. they may be in jail for 10 years, 20 years, 50 years, their whole lives. that's what happens when you commit a serious crime. i think the right to vote is inherent to our democracy. yes, even for terrible people. but i do believe that even if
they are in jail they're paying their price to society, but that should not take away their inherent right to participate in our democracy. >> other democratic candidates while they support the right to restore voting rights to convicted felons, shouldn't be when they are in prison. >> i believe when you have served your sentence, part of being restored to society is that you're part of the political life of this nation again. and one of the things that needs to be restored is your right to vote. >> try to believe they have the opportunity to contribute. but some like the boston marathon bombers, those individuals should never vote in america again. >> we have to address that and address that immediately. that's one of my first areas of focus and concern. but you know, do i think that people who commit murder, people who are terrorists should be deprived of their rights? yeah, i do.
>> shaquille brewster with the sanders campaign in massachusetts. good to see you. how are voters viewing senator bernie sanders' comments that felons should be allowed to vote in prison. >> reporter: hi there, ali. i did get to speak with voters. bernie sanders wrapped up an event, he is not backing down from this issue at all. i spoke to a senior campaign official that told me this is something the campaign plans to lean into. they see it as an opportunity to educate people about reconstruction era of restrictions on felons' ability to vote. this is something this official said they're going to expand on with hard substantive policy as they go to south carolina, but i did talk to some of his supporters, it was something on their minds, a lot of them watched the cnn town hall. listen to what they told me when i asked them about this. >> it is not a surprise to me that he took that position. >> do you agree with it? >> i agree with it to an ex-at
the present time -- extent. prisoners are people and we have to figure out how to take them from the cell back into society. >> i support that 100%. >> why? >> well, i know that in florida they did something similar and i believe that regardless of who you are as a citizen, you deserve to have the right to vote. that includes our inmates. >> reporter: this is an example of sanders embracing that trademark outsider status he likes to show. this time around he's less of an outsider in 2020. and getting more scrutiny. more people paying attention to what he is saying and reacting to what he said. >> good to see you. on the trail with bernie sanders in massachusetts. senator sanders says his view is shaped by vermont being one of two states, maine is the other, where people don't lose the right to vote when they go to
jail. 14 states and district of columbia automatically restore voting rights after they're released from prison. 22 states, felons lose voting rights while in prison and on parole or probation but restored once the sentence is complete. in 12 states, felons that commit some crimes lose voting rights indefinitely, but they can be restored after a pardon from the governor or after an additional waiting period once they finish their sentence, including parole and probation. joining me, christopher ugan, author of "locked out." christopher, good to see you. thank you for being with us. >> thank you. glad to be here. >> talk to me about either side of this. why do some felons lose rights to vote and why do people think they shouldn't?
>> well, there's about 6 million disenfranchised. you laid it out nicely across the states, it is a patch work quilt. if you total it together, it is about half those people have done all their time, about a fourth of those people are supervised, and then a fourth are incarcerated currently. senator sanders is running into the heart of the defense by confronting critics, saying yes, i am talking about murderers, talking about folks that have done serious crimes. typically the approach has been to portray it as more warm and fuzzy people convicted of low level felonies perhaps for marijuana convictions, et cetera. this is an unusual stance by an american politician. >> one thing about it is illegally, i don't know where you go back to determine what the intent was. was there original intent that people convicted of crimes lose
their vote or are there arguments to say a citizen should never lose the right to vote? >> it is an ancient practice. casting out, banishing citizens has existed for millennia, but the issue in the united states is really stepped up in the civil war and reconstruction era, when disenfranchising measures were taken against newly enfranchised slaves. these laws persisted, for many years even as other poll taxes and restrictions on the franchise fell, but we do see quite a bit of variation today, and the rationale is uh- you offended against the state, against the king, therefore you're no longer eligible. others have argued that no,
there's no rational reason or justification for punishment that should include disenfranchising, it doesn't aid, in fact, it inhibits reintegration. we should do away, sever the connection. >> he is the author of "locked out." disenfranchising in american democracy. if congress doesn't step up, tens of millions will only receive three quarters of social security benefits they might be counting on when they retire. we'll tell you why after the break. you're watching msnbc. you're watching msnbc. meat, che. meat, che. i keep my protein interesting. oh yea, me too. i have cheese and uh these herbs. p3 snacks. the more interesting way to get your protein.
all right the militia group taking it on itself to detain mount families at the border has been kicked off the land it is camping on. that's the word from union pacific, which owns the land. take a look at this. you can see the officers notifying the group moments ago. this comes days after the group's alleged commander was arrested. joining me from the border, i think he got us this video was nbc california perry. what -- california perry. >> i'm standing right here. the union pacific police officers, the group would take issue categorized as a militia.
they tell me they consider themselves "citizen journalists." viewing them with weapons pointed near and around migrant brings suspicion to that categorization. they were told a few minutes ago they need to vacant the property they are on. someone ran a survey and determined it's part of the railroad's land. union pacific said they need to vacant the land now. the state police arrived with the union officials, union pacific officials. i can say there's om three members in the camp right now. they have gech them 30 minutes to vacant the property. >> is there some likelihood to get off the property but be somewhere they can continue their militia-like activities. >> militia-like activities. they are going to move about a quarter mile away. they are going to try to find some piece of private property to move onto so they aren't at the whims of the local officials. you will hear the train. just to tell the viewers, i am
between the railroad track and the wall. there's only a quarter mile stretch of land here. this is where this militia-like group has been doing their patrols. what they do, they try to find migrants crossing. they basically identify the migrants, put the videos out, the videos go viral because you see these groups of migrants sitting on the ground with men dressed basically as soldiers in camo gear heavily armed. they hold, for lack of a better term, those migrants in place until the border patrol can meet this group. the relationship between officials and militia-like groups is testy to say the least, ali. we're talking about well armed individuals, citizens, virtually patrolling the border looking for migrants crossing. >> remarkable story cal, thank you very much. calip perry on the border. social security, the backbone of the retirement system but facing serious
financial difficulties. the trustees who oversee the programs are asking them to act sooner rather than later. it's nuanced. it's made up of old age and survivors trust fund and insurance fund. trustees say in 2020 the cost of social security will exceed its income for the first time since 1992. they will have to dip into the reserve fund to make up the shortfall. the reserve fund is expected to last 16 years. congress responded to 1980s shortfall by increasing payroll tax collections and raising retirement age from 65 to 67. old able and retirement fund which makes payment to retirees or spouses or eligible children ofworkers expected to be depleted by 2024. that doesn't mean there won't be payments. without acts by congress
recipients will get three-quarters of their benefit. congress can take action. social security trustees, the or fund, disability trust fund, is not expected to run out until 2052. that's 20 years later than what was projected last year because of a decline in disability mixes. then there's medicare. the trustees say the hospital insurance fund will run out of money by 2026 if no changes are made. doctors, hospitals, and nursing homes would not receive full payments putting a greater financial burden on patients. social security and medicare are funded through payroll taxes for social security. both employees and moyers pay a 6.2% tax on the first 132,900 of the workers salary for medicare employees and employers pay 1.45% tax on all earnings. but people earning $200,000 or more, and mattered couples earning $250,000 or more.
a lot of people rely on it. 52.7 million receive social security retirement and survivor benefits. 10.2 received disability benefits and medicare covered 59.9 million americans. this years it's estimated combined cost of social security and medicare will be equal to 8.7% of gdp. it's expected to rise to 11.6% of gdp by 2035. joining me to take a closer look at the social security is monique, economist and policy analyst at the economic policy institute who focuses on retirement security. monique, that's a lot of numbers, a lot of information and a lot of long-term trend stuff. what do you as an expert have to tell my viewers who are not experts about relying on social security for the next 10, 20, 30, 50 years? >> the most important thing for people to know is that social security is the most important thing they are going to have in
retirement unless they are super millionaires and it will be there for them. that said, right now social security is beauty 5% of gdp enterms of tein terms of the cost. that's increasing with baby boom retirement to 6% of gdp and then level off. so it's not a long-term problem but we do need to fill in that it is gap. that 1% of gdp, we need to raise revenues to make sure people get their full benefits they are promised. >> give me some context here. there is a fear mongering element to this, right? there are people who say it's out of control so as to achieve a fiscal goal that tends to be a conservative goal. >> yes, absolutely. it's been going on for decades where people are trying to convince the population they aren't going to get the benefits and they might as well cut them. there's really no reason to believe that. actually what's going to happen in 2035, even if congress does nothing, which i certainly hope they don't do nothing, benefits
cut by 20% then and maybe a little bit more later automatically. but most of the funding for social security actually comes from current workers who are contributing to the program. so it's a pay as you go program. it's solvent. it's doing well and people shouldn't feel like it's not going to be there for them. that said, we need to expand it and make sure of the financing. actually yesterday's report that came out from the trustees showed the overall system having slightly better financing. >> better off than it was. we were not going to be in balance as of 2018 and now it's 2020. what's the obvious fix? you say we have to shore up the finances, what's the obvious fix for this? >> the obvious fix and virtually every democrat i know elected official is raising cap on taxable earnings. you mentioned after $132,900 people are not paying taxes on benefits. on medicare they are but not on social security. so we need to scrap that cap. that doesn't actually completely
close the long-term shortfall so we'll need to gradually raise revenues in some other way. i support a slow and gradual increase in the payroll tax rate. some people don't. but there are a lot of other ways we can find a little bit of money for that. it's not that much monday. >> the bottom line, it's more nuanced than it sounds. >> the most important thing to remember, back in the days when people really were fear mongering around social security, a lot of people forgot it was supposed to level off after baby boomers retired. the escalating health costs has slowed down, so good news on medicare also. generally seeing health care costs slow down unexpectedly. disability rates slowed down very unexpected. overall system looking a little bit better but we do need to fix things before 2035. >> the issue continues to be more people retiring as a proportion of people putting into the system? >> yeah. i mean, a lot of people point out that the dependency ratio,
or old age dependency ratio is declining from about -- or increasing. so there's fewer active workers to retirees. there are a lot of other factors, also people are living longer. there are a lot of factors positive for social security. more women working, fewer receiving spousal benefits they didn't contribute towards. there are many factors that are good. in general, the -- so it's not all bad news. people tend to focus on the bad stuff. >> thank you. it was a detailed discussion which my viewers will appreciate. monique with the economic policy institute. ding ding ding ding ding. i've got to show you markets. it's interesting. don't tweetous there's a record because we have a minute to go in trading. the record on s&p 500, all-time report 2930, right now at 2933 and we have half a minute to trade and takes about 15 minutes to all settle in. we may have a stock market record on the s&p 500. we don't have one on the dow,
it's close but not there. but we are -- all three markets are closing in the green today. the dow is not at its peak but doing very well. the number you're looking for at s&p 5002933, at the moment 2933 and the bell has begun to ring. that wraps it out for me. see you at 1:p.m. with stephanie. thank you for watching. deadline white house with nicolle wallace starts right now. >> hi, everyone. it's 4:00 in new york. this is what a white house you said siege looks like. democrats naming names and setting dates for oversight hearings. the house oversight committee moving this afternoon to hold the former white house official in charge of security clearances in contempt for refusing to appear at a hearing to investigate the white house process for granting security clearances. that office under scrutiny for, among other things,