[ applause ] >> strengthening the bonds of citizenship as a national family. that's it. moments ago in the rose garden, president trump unveiled his newest immigration proposal, it's a two-pronged proposal crafted in part by trump's son-in-law and senior adviser, jared kushner, his top adviser on immigration, stephen miller, and the chair of the white house economic counsel -- the council of economic advisers, kevin hassett, who were on capitol hill this week reportedly trying to corral support from gop lawmakers and map out the messaging. but the proposal is probably dead on arrival, because it once again calls for more money for border wall construction and fails to address a number of serious issues like the status

of so-called dreamers, which those two issues basically make it a nonstarter for democrats. it also fails to address the overall level of immigration into the country, which is a major goal for conservatives and anti-immigration groups. >> we come up with a policy like this, make no mistake about it, it's cruel and inhumane, but it also hurts our economy significantly. and if you don't believe me, talk to business leaders. >> i think you might get all republicans, at least most of us, but you don't address the 11 million. i can't imagine any solution to our immigration problems that doesn't deal with 11 million. >> here's what the proposal does do. it mandates checks like a health screening and background check. it would also install a civics test. then each individual would receive points based on age. the younger you are, the more points you get, english proficiency, offers of employment and education levels. it also upends the family-based migration system that allows

immigrants to bring their spouses and children with them. the expected failure of this proposal did not stop president trump from touting the plan. >> immigrant and pro-worker. it's just common sense. it will help all of our people, including millions of devoted immigrants to achieve the american dream. >> all right. joining me from the white house, nbc chief white house correspondent, hallie jackson. hallie, let's just explain why -- i just don't want people think i'm opining on this. there are real reasons why this proposal is considered doomed on capitol hill. >> reporter: yeah, that's very fair, ali, that's something we've been reporting out for the last day or so, too. and here's why. democrats have said they're not onboard with this, and without democratic support, it's not ali, it's notable that's something you heard the president himself acknowledge. the president said, if the

democrats don't get onboard, hey, we'll bring this up again after the 2020 election. he says, when we win back the house, we'll have the senate, we'll have the white house. very political talk here, ali. clearly some political rhetoric to fire up republicans and that is the explicit intention of this plan, this proposal. when i speak with senior administration officials, they say, this is intended to unite the gop to talk about what we are for, rather than what we are against, and describing it as a bit of a starting point. here's how the president encapsulated that in his speech just moments ago. >> our plan achieves two critical goals. first, it stops illegal immigration and fully secures the border. and second, it establishes a new legal immigration system that protects american wages, promotes american values, and attracts the best and brightest from all around the world.

>> reporter: and you heard the president there lay out the sort of two prongs of this immigration proposal. the more meaty prong, if you will, is the one that is shifting to a merit-based system. as you explained, that would prior ties educated and high-skilled workers. that is another reason, in part, why democrats are opposed to this. it's not just because this plan does not address the 11 million people living in this country already illegally. it's not because this plan does not address so-called draereame people protected under daca. it's also because this plan talks about merit. and you heard speaker pelosi question this concept of merit, calling ate condescending word, and asking rather rhetorically, does this mean you have to have an engineering degree to come to this country and nobody else has merit? there are some real fundamental problems why democrats will have problems with this. i have to say, ali, while this is largely a political document that the president is presenting here, this was not a rally. this was not a make america again-type fiery speech from president trump. this was fairly subdued from the president, the crowd was fairly subdued for most of the speech,

save for the last little bit when, as i mentioned, they jumped to their feet on the discussion of the political potential ramifications of this. the president is trying to focus on immigration, turned back to that conversation. it is something that we know his base responds to, ali. he knows it. and that's the conversation. >> hallie, thank you, as always. hallie jackson for us at the white house. i want to continue what hallie was talking about, at the heart of what donald trump is proposing is the creation of a merit-based immigration system. the white house released estimates showing that right now, 12% of people obtained green cards and citizenship based on employment and skill. the plan is to increase that to 57%. right now, 66% of people enter based on family connections. the plan is to reduce that to 33%. it's all part of the administration's plan to create what they call or what donald trump calls the build america visa, recognizing three categories. extraordinary talent, professional and specialized vocations, and exceptional students. essentially, this system would

favor implicates who speak english and are well educated. the president has praised the immigration systems of canada and australia, which use a points system to prioritize skilled immigrants, but according to the nonpartisan publication, econofact, no country admits immigrants exclusively through this system. for example, canada also admits immigrants on the basis of family ties and this part is going to be important in a minute, for humanitarian reasons. and there is some evidence that immigrants selected on the points system perform less well in the labor market than one would expect. joining me to analyze those statements is the woman who analyzed this merit-based systems. jennifer hunch, she's a professor of economics at rutgers university. jennifer, thank you for being with us. >> it's a pleasure to be here. >> it seems obvious to us that merit-based systems are good. you are trying to attract the people who are going to be the most complete economic participants in the system. what's the criticism of it? >> well, it is good to have skilled immigrants. all immigrants, in fact,

contribute to the economy of the u.s. and skilled immigrants, particularly, also contribute more in taxes than some other residents of the country do. they contribute by innovating and patenting and contributing to growth. but what's less obvious is that medium and even the least-skilled immigrants also contribute to the u.s. economy. the way to think about this the best is that when immigrants are different from native workers, they come in and they do different things from natives. and they allow everyone to specialize more in what they're doing best. and that increases the efficiency of the economy, more output for everyone, increases output, gdp per capita for natives and benefits, of course, the immigrants, as well. it's that contribution of the unskilled immigrants that i think people overlook when they really push the so-called merit-based or as it's called the other countries, the point system. >> so he compares it to canada. there's a valid piece of information here when it comes

to humanitarian-based immigration. i want to point to refugees in particular. in 2017, the united states took in 33,000 refugees. canada, which is 1/10th the size, took in 44,000 refugees. so, there is another side to this, when comparing it to canada, but what part of the comparison makes sense? in other words welcome in your opinion, has it worked for canada and australia in a way that it can work for the united states? >> i can say it's worked in one way, in that immigration to australia, for example, is about double the u.s. rate. and although there are some grumbling slightly at the moment, immigration in canada and australia at similar levels are fairly popular in those countries. perhaps more popular than immigration seems to be in the u.s. at the moment, even though as i said, with it's about half the level. so it seems that admitting skilled immigrants are more accepted by the native born. but, what you find in canada, for example, at least the analysis of data before a recent

reform of the canadian system is that although most of the people who are admitted are college graduates, that they earn wages like high school graduates actually in the labor market. and for example, it's actually been found that unlike in the u.s., that canadian immigrants don't actually disproportionately innovate and patent. and i think that the reason was until this recent reform, a much lower role in employers in choosing the immigrants from canada. in the u.s., there's a very big role which will be reduced by this proposal and it's really employers who know who will be the best workers. >> one of the things we often talk about is these hb1 visas that employers use to get in particular in the united states, engineers, for instance. and one of the criticisms of the current system in the united states is that those skilled workers are chosen differently than people who get green cards. >> well, one thing that one should discuss with the president's plan is if you have a solution, what problem is it actually trying to address? now, actually, one of the

problems that exists is that the number of these temporary visas is chosen completely independently of the number of employment based green cards. so there's actually a big backlog of people, skilled people with the temporary visas who are trying to get a green card and can't because they not available. >> which would argue that that's not the problem we need to solve. we need to, in fact, just figure out how to get those skilled employees that are on a backlog into the united states. >> that would be what i would do. and you can increase the number of skilled workers admitted to the u.s. without a huge revamp of the system. the one thing you could expand or tweet, the h1b system and remember there's a temporary visa specifically for experienced, very skilled workers. there's also a particular type of employment baed visa for the very top people. you could tweak those things. but getting those things to balance is one of the things that needs to be addressed that will be interesting if the details come out about this plan and whether it would address this. >> as more details come out, we will be leaning on you to help

us interpret them. jennifer hunt is a professor of economics at rutgers university and her current research focuses on immigration and wage inequality. now to an nbc nbc news exclusive. while the administration is unveiling the immigration plan, patrick shanahan is expected to sign a request for the military to build tents at six locations along the border to house 7,500 detained migrants. as for those who will be overseeing operations at these facilities, deft department spokesman chris mitchell released the following statement. dod will not provide detention or custodial support for detained aliens at these i.c.e. detention facilities. i.c.e. is responsible for detention or custodial support. abc news has confirmed a fourth guatemalan child has died since december since being detained. according to the guatemalan consulate, the 2-year-old and his mother were detained around april 5th. shortly after his apprehension, the young boy showed symptoms of

illness, including a high fever and difficulty breathing. they took him to a children's hospital where he was diagnosised with pneumonia. "the washington post" was the first to report his death, saying on april 8th, they released the family from border protection and custody with a notice to appear in immigration court. the child remained hospitalized in el paso, texas, for about a month before dying on tuesday. joining me from el paso is msnbc's mariana atencio. mariana, what do we know about this child? >> reporter: ali, when the news broke last night, i was able to independently confirm his passing with the consul of guatemala who oversees the el paso sector. this child was 2 years and 8 months old. his 23-year-old mother is completely distraught. she says there has been no family statement, she's not ready to release photos or a name. this is clearly a family in

mourning. and when you think about that horrifying stat that you mentioned, four children from guatemala who have passed away after being apprehended or held by cbp since december. it's a relative short span of time. it underscores the human toll of this administration's immigration policy here in el paso. and the consul of guatemala is actually in that country today and tells me that his message to families is to not bring their children over on this perilous journey and this idea of, if you bring your child, you will be guaranteed admission or asylum into the united states is simply not true. and also the fact that this child, like the other three children, ali, was held in these facilities that the mayor of el paso told me today were built for single men from mexico initially, not meant to house children, especially not toddlers. ali? >> you have spoken to some -- >> humanitarian issues are unbelievable. last week, a couple of weeks

ago, border patrol here set up some soft-sided holding areas. they're paying $32 million for four months for that. the taxpayers of america need towns, it's not just down here on the border, out of sight, out of mind for the majority of americans, it has economic impact across the board. not the least of which, from my standpoint as mayor of el paso, there's an environmental issue when you take the cbp personnel off the bridges, because then the trucks are just sitting there, idling for hours. >> reporter: so a big admission. besides everything that we heard from the mayor of el paso, ali, was the fact that dreamers and daca, as you've been mentioning, was not included in this bill. remember, two years ago, this was the issue that had to be included in my immigration bill for it even to be considered. and i spoke to a local dreamer here who told me that they feel forgotten. ali? >> mariana, thank you so much for that.

mariana atencio in el paso, texas, for us. the president's immigration remarks came hours after the release of his latest financial disclosure report. nbc's hans nichols has been looking through the report and joins us now from the white house. hans, what is this report, first of all, and what are the biggest things you've learned from it? >> this is the annual financial disclosure report. this isn't the tax returns. this gives you a snapshot of people in government's overall holdings in income. it's not terribly precise. throughout the years, i've tried to get any hands on dozens of these. sometimes with the president, they automatically file them through the department of ethics and put them out right away. you get the broad picture of how wealthy someone is, what their assets are and what their income is. and what we've learned from president trump is some of his properties are doing a little bit better, some are doing a little bit worse. not a whole lot of movement. the doral, the president got -- $76 million in 2018. at mar-a-lago, it was down slightly, $22 million, last year

it was at $25 million. the total here at trump international hotel, the income there is up to $40 million a year. it's up about a half a million, a little bit when you see the numbers there. there it shows it double. that really reflects when the hotel went into operation. i'll give you an example for why this isn't terribly precise. the president took out a mortgage, a 30-year note on a piece of property, and the range was somewhere between $5 million and $15 million. my notes say between $5 million and $25 million, excuse me. that actual property, we believe, was his sister's property, which he bought in the range of $14 million. so these aren't precise, but they do give you an example of where the president stands with some of his assets and the kind of income. and it's basically showing, not a huge change from 2017. ali? >> hans nichols for us at the white house. thank you, sir. coming up, reports that president trump doesn't want to go to war with iran and instead hopes to reach a diplomatic solution through talks with iran's leaders. we're live in tehran with the

latest after the break. plus, the surge of republican-led states angling to take down roe v. wade in the supreme court. you are watching msnbc. e court. you are watching msnbc what's going on? it's the 3pm slump. should have had a p3. oh yeah. should have had a p3. need energy? get p3. with a mix of meat, cheese and nuts.

the latest inisn't just a store.ty it's a save more with a new kind of wireless network store. it's a look what your wifi can do now store. a get your questions answered by awesome experts store. it's a now there's one store that connects your life like never before store. the xfinity store is here. and it's simple, easy, awesome.

right now, administration officials are briefing top congressional leaders and the heads of the house and senate intelligence committees about the middle east, presumably about the threat from iran. that briefing comes hours after president trump met with switzerland's president. the two leaders likely discussed iran as switzerland represents

american interests there and has played the role of mediator in the past. before the meeting, the president was asked about a potential conflict with iran. >> mr. president, are we going to war with iran? >> i hope not. >> moments ago, "the new york times" reported that several administration officials told the newspaper that the president told acting defense secretary patrick shanahan during a meeting in the situation room this morning that he does not want to go to war with iran. that follows a report in "the washington post" that the president is frustrated with senior aids who he thinks could rush the u.s. into a military conflict and shatter his pledge to end costly wars. "the post" also reported that trump prefers a diplomatic approach to resolving tensions and wants to speak directly with iran's leaders. that report came after three american officials told "the new york times" that intelligence that led to the escalated warnings about the threat posed by iran came from photographs of missiles put on small boats in

the persian gulf by iranian paramilitary forces. "the times" reports the pentagon has declassified one of the photos, but has not released it yet. joining us now from tehran to take stock of all of this is nbc news tehran bureau chief, ali arouzi. ali, this thing is very, very confusing to me, because the president says he does not want to go to war with iran and would like to have negotiations with iran's leaders, a structure that was actually put into place by the joint comprehensive plan of action, otherwise known as the iran deal, which the president pulled the united states out of. >> that's right. it is rather confusing. there is no unified approach here. there's a lot of a mixed messages coming from the president. now, he's tried to track an approach to put maximum pressure on iran. he's sanctioned iran more heavily than they were sanctioned before they signed the nuclear deal, ironically. he has sent warships to the region.

he has trampled on the economy here, and he was hoping that that would bring iran to the negotiating table. that strategy has not seemed to have worked. iran has now dug in deeper. they said that they are not going to negotiate with the united states, especially president trump, which leaves him in somewhat of a predicament. all of this pressure hasn't paid off, so the big question here in iran is that if this tension continue continu continues for the next year or so and the president gets no results from iran, he gets no traction from iran, they're not willing to talk to him, then what? what is his next move? either he has to make some kind of military move, which could be very costly for all sides concerned or he has to back down with a bit of egg on his face, because he's put all of this pressure on iran and it didn't yield any result. when you put pressure on a country like this, you need a

unified approach. and the president doesn't have that. when president obama was making the nuclear deal, there was a fear in iran that if that didn't yield any result and he decided to attack iran, he would have the support of the international community, that's not the feeling in iran. the feeling is that america is going to go at this alone. that there is a wedge between america and its closest allies, and that plays into iran's hands. so it's very confusing how this approach is going to pay off. right now iran, although under a lot of pressure is thinking, well, actually, things aren't that bad. the entire world isn't against if you have and there's a lot of mixed messages coming from the white house, coming from the intelligence community, and that develops a lot of confusion, so maybe things are not as bad and we can wait this out for a year and a half and see what happens

when we go -- if there is another president in the united states or if president trump even comes back into power. they may be able to negotiate something with him that they weren't able to do before. so, we have to wait and see how all of this bapans out. >> ali arouzi, as always, a comprehensive analysis of what is going on between iran and the united states, something that has a lot of people quite worried. coming up next, missouri is the latest state to take extreme measures against abortion if senate there passing a law outlawing abortion at eight weeks. how abortion bans like this one are taking aim at the supreme court. we'll discuss that after the break. you're watching msnbc. that aftee break. you're watching msnbc. plike... zelle. to conveniently makesend money sier, to your babysitter. for overtime. or pinacle, to tap into your organization in the office,

on the go, or in the stop-and-go. pnc - make today the day. what you need and so much more. at wayfair, you'll find just you get to spend less time searching and more time loving every room, even the ones you never thought could look good. you get great deals on the things you need and actually want. you get fast and free shipping on thousands of items and finds for every home, and every style, at every price. that's what you get when you've got wayfair. so shop now!

early thursday morning, missouri state senate passed a staunch anti-abortion bill, one that would outlaw nearly all abortions at eight weeks of pregnancy. here you can see the governor and republican lawmakers celebrating their legislative victory. in a statement, republican state senators commented on the bill writing, quote, this comprehensive life-affirming legislation prohibits abortions once a heartbeat has been detected, prohibits abortions when a baby is capable of feeling pain, and would outlaw

abortion in missouri, upon the reversal of roe v. wade. the measure now returns to missouri's house of representatives for another vote on the senate's changes. if approved in the house, it will then go to the governor. the news comes just hours after alabama governor kay ivy signed into law a near-total ban on abortion in her state. alabama's bill outlaws abortion at all stages of pregnancy, with no exceptions for rape or incest. the only exception in alabama is if the mother's health is in serious danger. now, the recent surge of anti-abortion legislation marks a direct challenge to the supreme court's 1973 landmark verdict roe v. wade. but despite state legislatures feeling emboldened, given the new conservative -- the supreme court's new conservative majority, these bills have a long legal road ahead of them in the lower courts. joining me now, katherine glenn foster is the president and ceo of americans united for life. katherine, good to have you

here. thank you for being with us. >> pleasure to be here. >> i want to start with comments you've heard from pat robertson, who is a prominent evangelical, who has voiced concerns with just how far the alabama bill goes. he says, in fact, he says, i think alabama has gone too far. it's an extreme law and they want to challenge roe v. wade, but my humble view is that this is not the case we want to bring to the supreme court because i think this one will lose. talk to me about this. >> i think that that kind of comment really takes a different kind of look at the court. we know that the court has ultimately discretion over what cases it takes, what cases it decides to hear. and it's by no means guaranteed that the justices would pick these case, when there are close to two dozen cases relating to abortion in the lower courts at this moment. >> so then what is the goal of that bill in alabama if not to be one of those bills that gets

to the steps of the supreme court? >> well, as we've seen, throughout the years, the decades, even, the polling on abortion and on people's -- american's opinions of abortion has remained fairly steady. when you ask people, are you pro-life, pro-choice, it tends to be about a 50/50 split, when you don't start getting into more minute, more granular policy choices. and so in order to understand states like alabama or georgia or missouri, you can't understand that without understanding new york. and without understanding that as those who care about this issue, as you and i do, watch what's going on with the court, with the supreme court, watch what's going on with the polling, with the abortion rate, even, now being the lowest it's been, even in new york since 1972, the year before roe v. wade, we expect that the abortion issue will return to the states. and when it does, it will be a

legislatei matter. and just as new york legislated the reproductive health act, other states like alabama, like georgia. >> so the polling, you're right, does remain -- has remained relatively consistent over the years, if you ask the question, are you pro-life or pro-choice, but when you get into a little more granularity, as you suggest, and ask people about the criminalization of abortion, the number of people who believe that abortion should be criminalized under all circumstances, as this alabama law suggests, drops down to below 20%. so that doesn't actually have sort of 50% support amongst people. this does seem to be on the further reaches of abortion legislation, as it is taking place in states in america. >> right. when you look at different polls and different questions that can be asked, incredible majority of people, for example, oppose any kind of criminal punishment for the woman, for example. a wide variety of -- a broad

majority of americans oppose abortion, at least as of the end of the first trimester, about 75% of americans. one recent pew poll showed that in alabama, more women than men describe themselves as being pro-life and a majority of alabamians support this law. and so, what we do see is that states are widely divided on this issue. and a state like new york may be heading in one direction and a state like alabama may choose more life-affirming laws and policies. >> katherine, thank you for joining me. katherine glenn foster is the president and ceo of americans united for life. we'll continue this conversation. all right, i want to bring in jeffrey rosen, the president and ceo of the national constitution center and the president of the george washington university of law. jeff, the reason i want to bring you in is there are aims after some of these states to get a case before the supreme court that leads to an overturning or a reinterpretation of roe v. wade, i think it's important for

people to remember what roe v. wade was. ultimately, it was a privacy ruling having to do with the 14th amendment. tell us a bit about the background in roe v. wade. >> the holding in roe, exactly as you said, was that the liberty clause of the 14th amendment includes a right to privacy that is broad enough to protect a woman's right to choose pregnancy in the first trimester, it becomes less in the second trimester, and slows down in the third trimesters. roe was criticized on constitutional grounds and when the court reaffirmed nit it in 1992, it took on more of an equality rationale, citing justice ginsburg's work, saying a woman's right to choose her own life's course requires her to have reproductive choice before fetal viability. so according to the law of the land right now, any law that imposes an undue burden on a

woman's right to choose before fee tatttal viability which is 26 weeks is unconstitutional, but restrictions after 26 weeks are permissible. that's why this alabama law is clearly unconstitutional under that casey test, because it bans abortion from the very beginning, not 26 weeks. the missouri law, which basically bans abortion at eight weeks is also clearly unconstitutional under casey and that's why both of those laws are being passed in order to induce the court to revisit and ultimately overturn. >> but the missouri law has some interesting discussions around it, including the fact that it would ban abortion upon the reversal of roe v. wade. i didn't even know that you could build laws in that way. that you -- that something happens, is triggered by an anticipated action by the supreme court. >> i didn't know it either. i'm so glad you noticed that. it's really a fascinating question. on the one hand, missouri is acknowledging, we know this is unconstitutional under roe and roe will have to be overturned in order for it to come into effect.

that's descriptively true. on the other hand, legislatures are not supposed to pass laws under existing law. some supreme court justices might hold that by itself raises constitutional questions. other justices would say, well, everyone is allowed to say that roe v. wade -- roe is wrong and therefore they can impose this condition, but i haven't seen it before, either. and it poses novel and interesting new legal and constitutional questions. >> i suspect that means you'll be back for more of this conversation. jeff, always a pleasure to see you. jeffrey rosen is president and ceo of the national constitution center and a professor at the george washington university law school. coming up, house judiciary committee chairman jerry nadler says president trump is making it impossible to rule out impeachment. we're going to hear more from him after the break. you're watching msnbc. him after the break. you're watching msnbc. i got cones, anybody wants one! oh, yeah! get ya some! no, i can't believe how easy it was to save hundreds of dollars on my car insurance with geico. ed! ed!

we struck sprinkles! [cheers] believe it. geico could save you fifteen percent or more on car insurance. billions of problems. morning breath? garlic breath? stinky breath? there's a therabreath for you. therabreath fresh breath oral rinse instantly fights all types of bad breath and works for 24 hours. so you can... breathe easy. there's therabreath at walmart. i didn't have to call 911.help. and i didn't have to come get you. because you didn't have another heart attack. not today. you took our conversation about your chronic coronary artery disease to heart. even with a stent procedure, your condition can get worse over time and keep you at risk of blood clots. so you added xarelto® to help keep you protected. xarelto® - a blood thinner approved by the fda - when taken with low-dose aspirin is proven to further reduce the risk of blood clots that can cause heart attack, stroke, or cardiovascular death in people with chronic cad. that's because while aspirin can help,

a recent study showed it may not be enough to manage your underlying risk of blood clots. in a clinical trial, almost 96% of people taking xarelto® did not have a cardiovascular event. don't stop taking xarelto® without talking to your doctor, as this may increase your risk of heart attack, stroke, or cardiovascular death. while taking, you may bruise more easily or take longer for bleeding to stop. xarelto® can cause serious, and in rare cases, fatal bleeding. it may increase your risk of bleeding if you take certain medicines. get help right away for unexpected bleeding or unusual bruising. do not take xarelto® if you have an artificial heart valve or abnormal bleeding. before starting, tell your doctor about all planned medical or dental procedures and any kidney or liver problems. enjoy every moment - and help protect yourself from an unexpected one like a serious cardiovascular event. are you doing enough? ask your doctor if it's time for xarelto®. to learn more about cost and how janssen can help, visit xarelto.com.

the pressure is building on house democrats to pursue impeachment hearings against president trump. billionaire investor activist tom steyer is behind that push with a new campaign. >> he broke his oath of office. >> he's laughing at you. >> and he's getting away with it. >> this is our democracy. >> but congress is part of the system, and the system is broken. we have to fix it. >> all right, this comes after a letter sent by white house counsel pat cipollone denying a broad request for documents and interviews related to robert mueller's russia investigation escalated and the standoff between democrats and the white house continues. last hour, house judiciary chair jerry nadler spoke to my

colleague kasie hunt when asked about cipollone's letter and the possibility of impeachment hearings, he said this. >> everything the president does now is making it more and more impossible to rule out impeachment. the fact that the president now takes the official position that congress cannot investigate a fraud, abuse, waste, abuse of power, obstruction of justice, corruption in the administration is outrageous. that's one of the central purposes of congress s, is to hd the administration accountable. >> joining me now, nbc's kelly o'donnell at capitol hill. kelly, what kind of support for impeachment proceedings exist among democratic leadership right now. and i'm careful to say impeachment proceedings, because even guys like tom steyer make the point that congress needs to go through with the process regardless of what the outcome is going to be? >> reporter: well, there is a mix of different opinions, and

certainly among rank and file democrats, there may be more fire and energy towards impeachment, but those with a real responsibility to chart that path are much more careful as you point out to try to lay the groundwork in a broad way to cite different instances where they believe the administration may, in fact, be showing signs of obstruction, areas where the president could be vulnerable. and one of the tension points between the communications between pat cipollone and the administration's voice on that with people like house speaker nancy pelosi, who spoke about this today and her reaction about a letter from the white house counsel was very sharp in suggesting that there is a divide over what their responsibilities are. well, the house speaker feels very clearly that she knows what her mandate is in terms of her constitutional authority and what they might be looking for. here's nancy pelosi from earlier today. >> the letter that came from the white house yesterday was

completely outrageous. it says the president is above the law and congress has no right to investigate any of the actions of the president, hold him accountable in any way. one of the purposes that the constitution spells out for investigations is impeachment. so it isn't about impeachment, it's about impeachment as a purpose, a constitutional purpo purpose. >> and to give you a little insight into the letter from pat cipollone, one excerpt goes this way. congressional investigations are intended to obtain information to aid and evaluating potential legislation and not to harass political opponents or to pursue an unauthorized review of a do-over, as he puts it, of exhaustive law enforcement investigations conducted by the department of justice. that is the white house counsel's view, that is not the view of congress, and certainly, in areas like the battle over tax returns, legislative purpose

is something written into the law to determine if they could, congress could have access to an individual's tax returns. but on so many other areas, the congress has a much wider authority than simply legislative purpose. we also heard from nancy pelosi today, that she is keeping all options on the table regarding different types of contempt, for example, that could be used against william barr, the attorney general, or other officials. there's civil, criminal, and what's known as inherent, where the congress could actually, we've heard talk about jailing someone who would be held in contempt or to fine them. so there are different pathways that are sort of in the tool box of congress. and nancy pelosi is making clear in each of the times we get to talk to her about this that she is open to proceeding in a robust way, but carefully, step by step, putting together evidence regarding whether it's the president or other

administration officials. so a more methodical approach. not simply flip the switch towards impeachment. >> and the conversation of impeachment as a purpose or as tom steyer calls it a process as opposed to an outcome. because the bookmakers would say impeachment is an outcome that would be very long odds, but impeachment as a process would be a different story. kelly o'donnell, thanks. coming our ana shechter wil us through what she learned when she looked into this for us. you are watching msnbc. o this f. you are watching msnbc if you compare last quarter to this quarter... various: mmm. it's no wonder everything seems a little better with the creamy taste of philly, made with fresh milk and real cream.

woman: (on phone) discover. hi. do you have a travel card? yep. our miles card. earn unlimited 1.5 miles and we'll match it at the end of your first year. nice! i'm thinking about a scuba diving trip. woman: ooh! (gasp) or not. you okay? yeah, no, i'm good. earn miles. we'll match 'em at the end of your first year.

yeah, no, i'm good. wearing powerful sunscreen? yes! neutrogena® ultra sheer. unbeatable protection helps prevent early skin aging and skin cancer with a clean feel. the best for your skin. ultra sheer®. neutrogena®.

extremism, which, of course, is important, but we have to look at the numbers, and when you look at the pittsburgh synagogue shooting and the poway synagogue shooting and even the global nature of this threat that you see with the christ church massacre at two mosques, this is extremely serious and these kinds of white supremacist, violent threats need to be taken seriously and need the resources and also prosecutors need the tools to address those at the same level that they address international terrorism cases. >> what is the roadblock is it an administration thing? we reported there was a hearing? do you have a sense that lawmakers understand that this threat is serious enough and needs to be resourced in order to fight have not caught up with this trend, so there is an international terrorism statute that allows federal

prosecutors to prosecute federal terrorism charges when an act of violence is committed on u.s. there is no domestic terrorism statute, and that international terrorism statute, that gets the media attention. that gets a lot of attention and there's almost like a prize at the end of the row. there's an incentive toth pursu those cases, because those are the bbig, flashy cases. >> right. >> and we really need to be prioritizing these other cases, because we're seeing how deadly they can be. and we don't even hear about them as often. so what happens, is many of these domestic terrorism cases or violent acts carried out by white supremacists, those might be handlede in state court. so they're charged as a murder or potential, if you don't have a violentou act, but maybe an intention to commit a violent act, a state prosecutor might go after a drug charge or something like that to get that person off the street. but it doesn't get the headline.

>> but if it's not it's all happening. >> exactly.it it's not technically terrorism. >> we appreciate you reporting on this. >>or we'll be back right after this break. you're watchi msnbc. msnbc ♪ in big ways and in small, bank of america is here to help you get things done. what would you like the power to do?® ♪ done what would you like the power to do?® and i recently had hi, ia heart attack. it changed my life. but i'm a survivor.

after my heart attack, my doctor prescribed brilinta. it's for people who have been hospitalized for a heart attack. brilinta is taken with a low-dose aspirin. no more than 100 milligrams as it affects how well brilinta works. brilinta helps keep platelets from sticking together and forming a clot. in a clinical study, brilinta worked better than plavix. brilinta reduced the chance of having another heart attack... ...or dying from one. don't stop taking brilinta without talking to your doctor, since stopping it too soon increases your risk of clots in your stent, heart attack, stroke, and even death. brilinta may cause bruising or bleeding more easily, or serious, sometimes fatal bleeding. don't take brilinta if you have bleeding, like stomach ulcers, a history of bleeding in the brain, or severe liver problems. slow heart rhythm has been reported. tell your doctor about bleeding new or unexpected shortness of breath any planned surgery, and all medicines you take. if you recently had a heart attack, ask your doctor if brilinta is right for you. my heart is worth brilinta. if you can't afford your medication, astrazeneca may be able to help.

woi felt completely helpless. trashed online, my entire career and business were in jeopardy. i called reputation defender. they were able to restore my good name. if you're under attack, i recommend calling reputation defender. and consider joining their groundbreaking campaign to give every american the right to remove old, inaccurate search results by going to righttobeforgotten.org.

vo: if you have search results that are wrong or unfair, call reputation defender at 1-877-492-6705. hoping to take on president trump in 2020 just got a little larger. new york city mayor bill de blasio jumped into the race today, joining a field with a

current vice president, congress members, other mayors. during an interview on good morning america he said why he's the best to take on president trump. >> we know his tricks, playbook. i've been watching him for decades. so i believe i'll be able to show the kind of things we have done here are what's needed all over this country so working people can live better. >> tonight chris matthews hosts a live event with voters impacting american workers and what's at stake in the 2020 election. for that what hard ball the deciders at 7:00 p.m. eastern. i want to look at the markets before i go because we have recovered some of the losses. we're down about 3% still for the month. 2.25% if it's been a month. but on the news there might be something coming from china,

you're looking at a gain of .8%. that does it for me. i'll be back here tomorrow at 1:00 p.m. and again at 3:00 p.m. find me on social media. thank you for watching "deadline: white house" with nicole wallace starts right now. hi, everyone. it's 4:00 in new york. how many is too many? that's a question for democrats today as the largest field in modern history adds another, new york city mayor bill de blasio throwing his ring in the hat today. an image of people laughing at the mayor on the cover of one of his hometown newspapers, the post. he's the 23rd democrat now, joe biden is the clear front runner according to ever national