Skip to main content

tv   MTP Daily  MSNBC  November 14, 2019 2:00pm-3:00pm PST

2:00 pm
we're out of time but i want to thank nick, ben rose, elise jordan. most of all, you for watching. we'll be back tomorrow morning at 9:00 for a full day, all day long coverage of the impeachment proceedings in donald j. trump. that does it for our hour. "mtp daily" with chuck todd starts now. welcome to thursday. it is "meet the press daily" and good evening. i'm chuck todd here in washington where after yesterday's opening day of public impeachment hearings we can say with relative certainty that the politics of impeachment are going to scramble the presidential race. it's not a matter of if it's going to but how? "the washington post" reports that republicans in the senate are considering a lengthier impeachment trial in the senate
2:01 pm
with the intention of sowing chaos in the democratic presidential primary. the theory, a lengthy trial could potentially sideline six of the democratic candidates who are also sitting senators. yes, there are still six sitting senators running. i know you probably only think it's warren and sanders and who else? well, it's elizabeth warren, it's bernie sanders, it's michael bennet, it's kamala harris, it's amy klobuchar and i'm drawing a blank. cory booker, of course, during the most important part of the primary calendar. it's a strategy that has potential to backfire because the president and the evidence in the impeachment inquiry has made it clear the candidate he worries about most is joe biden. and sidelining biden's two main rivals could actually help him win the nomination, not hurt. but logic aside, republicans today are confronting a potentially bigger problem when it comes to defending the president from impeachment while also looking ahead to his re-election bid. yesterday's hearing showed them the weight of the evidence they are dealing with and while today republicans might feel confident that they're mounting a credible
2:02 pm
defense to prevent trump from being removed from office, it does seem far less certain that their defense will prevent him from being voted out of office. in part because the republican party's defense right now seems to concede he may have acted inappropriately. they argue it's not a high crime or misdemeanor. but it also doesn't sound like a ringing 2020 endorsement either. on the other side of the aisle, while democrats haven't yet laid out a case that's likely to remove trump from office via an impeachment and conviction, they are showcasing credible evidence of presidential misconduct that raises the stakes for future hearings. which brings us back to impeachment collision with 2020 and whether the republican party argument against his removal right now could actually wind up helping the argument for his removal next november. so let's ponder this question now. joining me now betsy woodruff swan. matthew, founding editor and
2:03 pm
eugene robinson, washington post columnist and msnbc contributor. you're sort of what going me go this idea that it doesn't necessarily endorse presidential behavior. look at this mash from the last 24 hours. >> are we having a hearing about inappropriate or are we having an impeachment inquiry? it goes to the core of the fabric of democracy. >> what i can tell you about the trump policy toward the ukraine, it was incoherent. it depends on who you talk to. they seem to be incapable of forming a quid pro quo. >> i think this case is going to come down to the president's intent, his motive. did he have a culpable state of mind? >> matthew, it does seem as if the best defense right now of the president isn't a great defense of his capabilities of being president. >> right. i think the general republican defense is what was done was
2:04 pm
inappropriate or feeling rather what was done is inappropriate but does not level to the rise of removing him in an election year. now, as you point out, that only elevates the question of president trump's behavior and conduct, which is a major vulnerability. whenever we look at public opinion data, even among republicans, there's some 52% of republicans who wish that he would change his behavior. right? so saying, yeah, it was bad but doesn't necessarily help him in november. >> and, betsy, this gets to what the president has been privately complaining about this strategy. he's not crazy about -- he's been, no, defend what i did. >> that's exactly true. >> this is a case where i think his -- i get where his instinct -- like don't give 'em an inch. you give 'em an inch and all of a sudden, i'm the one on the island. >> that's why we've seen so many tweets and comments saying the call with zelensky was perfect when even his own national security staffers said the calls could have been better. he really wants to see sort of aggressive intervention by his
2:05 pm
republican allies and part of the reason jim jordan was moved to the house intelligence committee specifically so he could participate in these moments is because he's one of the few republican members of congress who will really go all out to defend the president. >> even he didn't do that yesterday, gene. he went into what -- and i don't blame him. it's easier to mount the don't impeach him defense than it is the this was appropriate defense. >> right. because it wasn't appropriate. >> yes. >> you cannot credibly say, well, he didn't do it. definitely looks like he did it and you can't say that it was like a great way to do foreign policy or -- or -- you just can't say that stuff. so you can -- look, we're down to whether or not he had a corrupt mindset. whether he had corrupt intent. whether that was his intention. you know, i would argue that when you use rudy giuliani and lev parnas and igor fruman as your instruments of policy,
2:06 pm
we' we're halfway there to showing that corrupt intent. but that's not where donald trump wants his defense to be but that's where it's going to be. >> this is where, matthew, it feel like in the same way democrats i remember felt really good about the benghazi hearings with clinton. but over the long haul, did they do long-term damage to her? this could be a similar situation. >> right. well, of course, we have to remember perceptions of president trump are pretty much fixed. they're set in stone. and what's happened to the impeachment polling, it seems to me is it's also becoming set in stone. it's his job approval rating and it's -- it's split down the middle basically. slightly more want impeachment but it's -- it's a tight race. and i don't see anything coming from these hearings that is going to move republican opinion in the pro-impeachment direction. >> the huge piece of this that's going to take republican messaging and blow up everything we've been seeing for the last couple days is when democrats have a nominee for 2020. because right now, when
2:07 pm
republicans only have trump to talk about and all they can discuss is how did these hearings go? what do you make of bill taylor and george kent? it's tougher for them, even for the president's enthusiastic defenders. but look, as soon as democrats nominate someone who republicans can unify in their dislike for, it's likely that the party on the hill will come together much more enthusiastically about going against a democrat than supporting the president. >> all right. let's talk about the senate trial gambit. i -- again, i don't -- i don't get the logic of why they think keeping elizabeth warren off the trail is a good idea. >> i don't either because if you think about it, if the nation's intention is focused on the senate, the senators who are running for president are going to get plenty of air time. they're going to be in plenty of demand. >> true but it will be -- it -- >> it's different. >> but buttigieg and biden will get iowa to themselves. that's a big deal. >> yeah. no. that is a big deal. i just don't know if -- if that
2:08 pm
really is -- is a -- is a good way to go. you're really going to drag this out? you're really going to have this over a longer period rather than a shorter period? if you're republican party, if you're republican senate -- >> more importantly, does a longer trial help trump? it may hurt the democratic race but does it help the president? >> well, i mean there is the possibility in a senate trial, you might have witnesses like hunter biden called to the stand. >> okay. but that's a day or two. but my point is, dragging that out? >> i agree. the incentives for both parties i think is to keep the trial short and from the public statements of mitch mcconnell at least, that seems to be his inclination, as well. >> there is also a lot of dissonance within trump world about this particular question. there's not a consensus as to whether or not a long time would be helpful. on the one hand, impeachment proceedings have had the trump campaign printing money from small dollar donors and there's one school of thought that the longer this goes, the larger their cash influx is going to be. at the same time, even though there's no question as the post
2:09 pm
reported that some republican senators have been talking about the idea of having a long trial, i haven't seen or heard any indicators yet that mcconnell himself is actually on board with this idea. and i think it's pretty unlikely in the long run that we see it look the way some of these republican senators are talking. >> i want to narrow down a little bit and talk about yesterday and the interesting spin that i think where i actually sense, gene, that neither side's 100% confident how well what happened yesterday and how yesterday's going to play. the reason i say that is this. today, you have the democrats wanting to change the language. they don't want to use quid pro quo. you were -- in some ways -- yes, you wrote this last week. and here's nancy pelosi now -- now essentially using tougher words instead of quid pro quo, which of course has been something that we've seen an evolution on this really almost played out on air over the last couple of weeks. let's see the mash first, guys, and then end with it nancy pelosi.
2:10 pm
>> when you're trying to persuade the american people of something that is really pretty simple, which is that the president acted criminally and extorted in the way a mob boss would extort somebody, a vulnerable foreign country, it's probably best not to use latin words to explain it. >> you can argue over semantics but i think it's pretty -- pretty easy by now to know that the president essentially used american foreign aid money to try to bribe ukraine and doing things that really should not be done. >> congressman, i can't help but notice in our entire conversation, i don't believe unless i misheard you that you used the phrase quid pro quo. >> well, using latin per se is not something i tend to do, hallie. this for that. you can call it whatever you want. it's all just words. the fact of the matter is he engaged in bribery or extortion. or if you like quid pro quo. it doesn't matter what you call it. he did it. >> the devastating testimony corroborated evidence of bribery uncovered in the inquiry and
2:11 pm
that the president abused power and violated his oath by threatening to withhold military aid aid and a white house meeting in exchange for investigation into his political rival. a clear attempt of the president to give himself the advantage in the 2020 election. >> i know words matter but do you think the -- the difference between impeachment being at 60% and 53% is the latin use of quid pro quo? >> no. i -- i don't. but -- but i do think it's better not to use the latin. i mean, i think, you know, simple, direct language is best in trying to deliver any message. and -- >> trump's proven that. >> exactly. >> i mean, that is something, in fact, he was mocked for it. right. he was mocked for it and it turned out, nope, make america great. >> the language had been moving away from the latin for a while now. this is the first time today that i'd heard nancy pelosi come out. >> that's why i used her at the end.
2:12 pm
i feel like she's putting, okay, guys. >> this is what it is now, right? and so look, does that make a difference -- the difference between 53% and 60%? no, it doesn't. i just do remind everybody, though, we've had exactly one day of public hearings. >> right. >> right? so this is just kind of getting started. >> matthew, this brings me to -- i want to do this excerpt from -- because there's a rule in washington when people use the word draw. so playbook about republicans felt. they dove head first down rabbit holes, regaling crowds with right wing twitter conspiracy theories but they also did a decent job muddying the waters. according to playbook, we heard the quote draw language from many republicans on wednesday night. matthew, in my experience, if you're arguing it went that things were a draw, it usually means you don't think you won. >> there's some spin there involved. i do think the witnesses
2:13 pm
complicated the democrats' approach, though. because both kent and taylor were very focused on process. it was all about which channels was this foreign policy being conducted through? and while there is legitimate questions and criticisms about what was going on with the trump administration's shadow foreign policy, i think in the minds of voters, i don't think they're going to impeach somebody for having -- for trying to go around the national security bureaucracy and state department. so i think that kind of got the democrats' eye a little bit off the ball. >> i think matt's right. i don't think there's a lot of single-issue proper usage of diplomatic channels. i think it's a fairly small community of people and another challenge that kent and taylor presented for democrats was that they didn't come out and call for impeachment. they focused very narrowly on talking about what they knew about and not getting ahead of their skis. and i think it's likely that more witnesses who come in are going to follow the example that they set. >> you know, i actually thought that was the strength of their
2:14 pm
testimony. i thought they would have not been credible had they -- had they jumped into the political fray that we think he should be impeached. no, that's not their job. >> there were some democrats who wanted to hear that, though. >> i'm sure they did. >> i don't think they should have wanted to hear that. i think it weakens the democratic case if they're trying to build a case portraying these people as being partisan. >> well, look, i think this is a case where the democrats have this boxed. i understand where they want to keep it narrow. keeping it narrow also makes it seem not as big. you broaden it, it seems more serious if you start including the other stuff. the russia, the syria. then it's a different story but that's a harder case to make. betsy, matt, eugene, stick around. up ahead, a new report that there was another witness to that previously-unknown phone call. certainly brings him closer. one of the witnesses is head aed to the hill tomorrow to testify behind closed doors. but let's be realistic, folks.
2:15 pm
it's the open testimony from gordon sondland that could be the real blockbuster. we're going to dig into all things gordon sondland after the break. into all things gordon sondland after the break. surprise! a new buick? for me? to james, from james. that's just what i wanted. is this a new buick? i secret santa-ed myself. i shouldn't have. but i have been very good this year. i love it...i love it... this year, turn black friday into buick friday, all month long. current eligible non-gm owners and lessees get 20% below msrp
2:16 pm
on most of these 2019 buick models. i'm about to capture proof of the ivory billed woodpecker. what??? no, no no no no. battery power runs out. lifetime retirement income from tiaa doesn't. guaranteed monthly income for life. nooooo! you ever wish you weren't a motaur? sure. sometimes i wish i had legs like you. yeah, like a regular person. no. still half bike/half man, just the opposite. oh, so the legs on the bottom and motorcycle on the top? yeah.
2:17 pm
yeah, i could see that. for those who were born to ride, there's progressive.
2:18 pm
welcome back. the second public impeachment hearing is set for tomorrow and there will also be more testimony taking place behind closed doors tomorrow where impeachment investigators will likely learn more about what was the biggest new development from yesterday. talking, of course, about the revelation from bill taylor's testimony about a previously unknown phone call between president trump and the ambassador to the eu gordon sondland. >> in the presence of my staff at a restaurant, ambassador sondland called president trump and told him of his meetings in kiev. the member of my staff could hear president trump on the phone asking ambassador sondland about the investigations. ambassador sondland told president trump the ukrainians were ready to move forward. >> taylor did not say who the staffer was but two sources tell
2:19 pm
nbc news his name is david holmes. the lawyer for political affairs in ukraine. and according -- a second person overheard that phone call at a restaurant in ukraine. i do want to know ap cited a single source and nbc news hasn't spoken to anyone able to confirm that second report. now, the newly revealed call did take place on july 26th reportedly. that would be the day after president trump's now infamous phone call with ukraine's president zelensky. sondland did not mention it in his closed door testimony, nor in his revision of that testimony where he confirmed that, yes, indeed he was seeking essentially a quid pro quo. now, the new phone call closely connects president trump to this shadow diplomacy led by his personal attorney rudy giuliani and ensures that sondland's testimony is probably the single most important testimony we have to date to look forward to. your clichéd must see tv if you will.
2:20 pm
joining me now, former u.s. assistant attorney mimi roka. and nbc legal analyst and criminal defense attorney danny savalas who obviously will be playing defense here. danny, i'm going to start with you. you're gordon sondland's lawyer. you've made one revision and you didn't disclose, perhaps you didn't even disclose it to your lawyer, and neither time, your testimony nor the vision of this second phone call. now, what do you do? >> well, as a defense attorney, some days you eat the bear and some days the bear eats you. with gordon sondland, the bear is going to be eating him because anytime a witness starts out having already given two inconsistent statements, some of them sworn, and is now testifying for essentially a third time, he is going to get eviscerated. so the only real avenue of defense to explain the inconsistencies in testimony has to be a horrible memory. anything else appears
2:21 pm
intentional and it appears deliberate and it appears as if he's concealing information. he's got a very difficult day of testimony approaching and he's going to have a lot to explain just in terms of his prior inconsistent statements alone. >> mimi, what do you do with something like this? cause you need the credibility of the witness but a second revision just hurts this witness's credibility. i don't care whose side you're on. >> well, yes. you need his credibility but i think it's pretty clear at this point that sondland had a motive to lie and the motive here was to protect the president. so if you're the republicans, and in some ways you hurt yourself the more you show that he was covering up for the president, the more guilty the president looks. and at the end of the day, you know, fighting over and arguing over and shredding gordon sondland really makes the president look worse because it's not just gordon sondland who would be admitting, yes, the president said that.
2:22 pm
you now have these two other witnesses who heard the conversation and remember you have the phone call where trump is talking to the president and it's exactly in line with this phone call that we've now heard about between trump and sondland, right? the -- the report is that trump was asking sondland about the investigations. is ukraine doing them? well, guess what? the day before that, the president was on the call with the president of ukraine saying i want you to do these investigations. so it's really hard for me to see how at this point, first of all, sondland doesn't admit to it. unless, as danny says, he just says, you know, i have no memory. and second of all, how -- how -- how they get away from those facts. how the republicans get away from that being true having happened. >> mimi, what's his legal exposure right now? >> sondland? >> yeah. >> oh, i think he's definitely at risk for perjury. but, look, i will say perjury is
2:23 pm
a very hard crime to prosecute. for the reasons that danny just said. it's -- it's -- there's almost always the i forgot way out. it depends on how specific the questions were that were asked of him to begin with. you know, how much does he have wiggle room in the answers he gave? was he asked if he had any conversations with trump about this? and if so, you know, about what? like, how is it -- how is it phrased? so he may have some wiggle room. but he definitely, at this point, given that, you know, bill barr is not going to be the attorney general forever. and i don't just mean a democratic attorney general. i think any prosecutor would take a good look at his prior testimony and his revisions no matter what their political party. any honest and independent prosecutor. but, again, i think this is really about trump and the inescapable facts that are just building up brick by brick and this is another brick that he did a shakedown of the ukrainian president. >> danny, is it possible that
2:24 pm
gordon sondland got advice from his attorney that said don't disclose that call unless you are so specifically asked the question in such a way where not disclosing it would look like you're covering up? is there any possibility an ethical defense attorney could have given him that advice? or you think it's most likely sondland withheld this from his attorney? >> i think most criminal defense attorneys will tell you most of the time, clients present the story that they want their lawyer to believe so that they'll go out there, sword and shield in hand, and fight for them. and it's unfortunate for clients that they do that because attorneys need to know the whole truth. but i've wanted to be a fly on the wall for gordon sondland's meetings with his attorneys because not only that incident you just talked about but there was a moment where they had to have him in a meeting and say, hey, you got to consider revising your statement because it's looking like you may have given something that isn't accurate. so gordon sondland has probably
2:25 pm
had a lot of really difficult meetings with his attorneys for several different reasons concerning his testimony and phone calls and things that maybe he thought were significant. maybe he thought were not. and building on mimi's point, she's absolutely right in that prosecuting perjury, there is some wiggle room for defendants with galactic memory loss. and that's the kind of thing that can make a perjury prosecution even more difficult. >> the easiest way to figure out this phone call situation, mimi, would be simply subpoenaing his phone records. but this isn't a normal investigation. i don't think congress can get their hands on the phone records of state department employees. >> well, it depends what kind of phone was used. i mean, it sounds like it was an unsecured phone. i mean, it could have been personal phones that were used. we really don't know. >> well, there's that issue too. he may have violated some sort of classified -- but that's a separate situation i would assume. >> but even if they do that, look, the phone records would show that the call took place and that would be very good corroboration. but i got to tell you, as a
2:26 pm
prosecutor, if i had this case in front of a jury and i had two independent witnesses who, you know, of course republicans are going to try to impeach them but what really are they going to have saying they overheard this? and you have a phone call where you have trump's own words that sound so very much like what we're hearing about. i would not be afraid to go in front of a jury with that evidence and say this happened. and i think a jury would believe that. >> danny, andrew weissman said that he thought the president made a mistake yesterday by saying he can't -- he doesn't remember -- he can't recall that phone call because he says now the president can't rebut what sondland says about what the call was about. >> yeah. this -- the reason this phone call, you've keyed right in on why this phone call is so important because prior to yesterday, president trump's defense was developing as two prong. prong number one is i don't know any of those other people. i don't know what they were doing. i know nothing about it.
2:27 pm
and then prong two is, well, the one thing i did admit to, the four corners of that memorandum, that is perfectly okay. the phone call creates a problem because it creates a nexus between president trump and gordon sondland, who was boots on the ground involved in whatever this ukraine campaign was, at least allegedly. >> and, danny, if you were -- at this point, you would tell gordon sondland throw yourself on the mercy of the impeachment inquiry at this point? just let it all hang out? >> that's right. i mean, obviously, no matter what he says, each side is going to have grounds to say that he is completely fabricating. and ask what is a very old question in cross-examination with prior inconsistent statements. it's almost hackie. it's were you lying then? or are you lying now? and now, we're on third instance of potential inconsistent statements. he's got a real challenge ahead of him. >> but the democrats should embrace that and say, yeah, you were lying to protect the president. and he only tells the truth when
2:28 pm
other people come out with it. that's the pattern here. >> and now, you guys have just shown why this hearing with sondland on wednesday, if you're following this story, you're going to want to stop whatever you're doing and watch. mimi and danny, thank you for sharing your expertise with us. much appreciated. up next, could deval patrick's bane capital ties undo his 2020 chances? 2020 chances? ♪ do you recall, not long ago ♪ we would walk on the sidewalk ♪ ♪ all around the wind blows ♪ we would only hold on to let go ♪ ♪ blow a kiss into the sun ♪ we need someone to lean on ♪ blow a kiss into the sun ♪ we needed somebody to lean on ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ all we need is someone to lean on ♪ i need all the breaks, that i can get. at liberty butchumal- cut. liberty biberty- cut. we'll dub it.
2:29 pm
liberty mutual customizes your car insurance so you only pay for what you need. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ i get it all the time. "have you lost weight?" of course i have- ever since i started renting from national. because national lets me lose the wait at the counter... ...and choose any car in the aisle. and i don't wait when i return, thanks to drop & go. at national, i can lose the wait...and keep it off. looking good, patrick. i know. (vo) go national. go like a pro. man 1 vo: proof of less joint pain woman 1 oc: this is my body of proof. and clearer skin. man 2 vo: proof that i can fight psoriatic arthritis... woman 2 vo: ...with humira. woman 3 vo: humira targets and blocks a specific source of inflammation that contributes to both joint and skin symptoms. it's proven to help relieve pain,
2:30 pm
stop further irreversible joint damage, and clear skin in many adults. humira is the number one prescribed biologic for psoriatic arthritis. avo: 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. man 3 vo: ask your rheumatologist about humira. woman 4 vo: go to to see proof in action.
2:31 pm
2:32 pm
shouldn't be. but i'm placing my faith in the people who feel left out and left back who just want a fair shot at a better future, not built by somebody better than you. not built for you. but built with you. >> welcome back. tonight in 2020 vision, that was former massachusetts governor deval patrick releasing a video that officially announces his presidential run just hours before heading off to nearby new hampshire to officially file for the 2020 primary there. but last year, said he was not running and explained his sudden change of plans during his first post-filing campaign stop. >> in many ways, it has felt to me watching the race unfold that we're beginning to break into sort of camps of nostalgia on the one hand and big ideas sort of my way or no way on the other. and i think we have to be about how we bring people in, how we
2:33 pm
bring people along, and how we yield to the possibility that somebody else or even some other party may have a good idea. as good or better than our own. >> can you tell he wants to create the strong men of warren versus biden? anyway, joins a very crowded field, including fellow massachusetts senator, resident elizabeth warren. patrick said he spoke to warren last night and that it was a quote hard conversation for both of them. bernie sanders campaign said today the senator does not consider patrick or michael bloomberg, for that matter, competition. he's already missed filing deadlines in alabama and arkansas and months of campaigning in early states. patrick potential problems he'll face in a primary and what happened to michael bloomberg? all of that ahead. 0 perts go beyond the numbers to examine investment opportunities firsthand.
2:34 pm
like a biotech firm that engineers a patient's own cells to fight cancer. this is strategic investing. because your investments deserve the full story. t. rowe price. invest with confidence. doprevagen is the number oneild mempharmacist-recommendeding? memory support brand. you can find it in the vitamin aisle in stores everywhere. prevagen. healthier brain. better life. hi honey, we got in early. yeah, and we brought steve and mark. ♪ experience the power of sanctuary at the lincoln wish list sales event. sign and drive off in a new lincoln with zero down, zero due at signing,
2:35 pm
and a complimentary first month's payment. some farms grow food. this one grows fuel. ♪ exxonmobil is growing algae for biofuels. that could one day power planes, propel ships, and fuel trucks... and cut their greenhouse gas emissions in half. algae. its potential just keeps growing. ♪
2:36 pm
. there is a sort of
2:37 pm
once-in-a-lifetime appetite today. to bring big solutions, big enough for the challenges we face. but i think that there has to be more than the big solutions. we have to use those solutions to heal us. >> welcome back. deval patrick says his campaign is about big solutions to the challenges we face but the former massachusetts governors campaign is facing plenty of his own challenges. can he raise the money? can he qualify for december's debate? will his work at bain capital, the private investment firm co-founded by mitt romney hurt him with progressives? eugene, i meant no offense to our youthful colleagues. but i had a bill bradley flashback today because i look at deval patrick running for president and i think the same thing i thought about bill bradley in 1999, which is why are you running about four years too late? like, when bill bradley finally
2:38 pm
ran, like what was that? like deval patrick, i felt like '16 was his year or even '08. >> thought he would have been the better candidate. >> right. it does feel like -- it does feel like four years too late for deval. >> well, it does. now, look, he's what, 63 years old. exactly. he's a spring chicken compared to the leaders of the democratic race right now. so he has that going for him. but he hasn't held office for a while. >> second term believe it or not. >> works on -- worked for bain capital. that -- that's not going to be a huge boost for him. >> not an asset. >> and he's getting in awfully late. i mean, you know, is this late compared to, you know, elections of -- no, it's not. but today, it seems pretty late. >> by the way, this is later than fred thompson got in, for what it's worth, and later than
2:39 pm
wesley clark got in. so it's pretty late. it's late for late, as yogi might have said. >> i think he described it, you know, he said running for president is a hail mary. this is a hail mary from two stadiums away and it's a good line but unfortunately for him, i think it's true. >> i'm not aware of any empirical evidence that democratic primary voters are unhappy with the field as they have it right now. however, there's tons and tons and tons of evidence that democratic major donors are really distressed about the way this race is shaping up just from chatting with people in the donor community, they see biden's numbers appearing to flatli flat line or dip a little bet. betting on buttigieg, a lot of these folks like but not necessarily quite there. he's quite young. totally. exactly, which is the way these guys thi guys think about things. so deval patrick, my sense is, is a reflection of the appetite in the donor community, especially the high dollar donor community for there just to be somebody else in this field.
2:40 pm
>> i find it amusing he actually deafly used michael bloomberg here in an odd way. i wonder if we're a week away from bloomberg setting up a super pac for deval patrick. >> no video and no visit. i think deval launched as a traditional candidate. he has his video. he went to new hampshire. he is going to be in the game. bloomberg's not doing that. i think betsy is right. this speaks to a great uncertainty among not just democratic donors but democratic elites about the field. worries about biden but also worries about warren and sanders. and it also speaks to kind of the weird nature of this primary, which is that the three vote leaders, biden, warren, sanders, each appeal to different parts of the democratic coalition and do very well within that part. but have not been able to break out into any of the other sectors. >> patrick v. warren is going to be an interesting subplot for a little while. here's deval patrick asked this morning about the wealth tax. >> i think a wealth tax is --
2:41 pm
makes a lot of sense directionally. but my idea would be a much, much simpler tax system for everyone where we eliminate all or most of the deductions and we -- and we smooth out and simplify the system we have. and as we do get the rates right. i don't think that wealth is the problem. i think greed is the problem. >> tonight's language, i -- i -- everything deval patrick speaks to here sounds like a really good general election message. >> uh-huh. yeah. yeah. i don't know if that speaks to this year's democratic primary electorate. i'm not sure that that speaks to them. you know, there are a lot of people who -- who are all in on call it medicare for all, call it, you know, a radical change in the way we do healthcare in this country. that makes it universal. a lot of people are all in on the issue of inequality and -- and some, you know, major, major
2:42 pm
measures to deal with that. whether it's a wealth tax or something else. and so i -- i -- i don't -- well, it's the first day on the campaign trail. maybe, you know, i don't want to judge him. >> well, let me give you more. let me give you guys more to judge. here is his answer to bain capital. deval. >> you know, there's a right way and a wrong way to do everything. and -- and some transactions in private equity are going to go -- going to go sideways with or without, by the way, private equity. but i do think that capitalism, and i am a capitalist, has a lot to answer for. there are reasons why people, and justifiable reasons, why people feel like -- like our economy and our government has been tilted too much in the direction of moneyed interest. some of those are companies and some of those are individuals. there is a way out of that. >> you know, betsy, i do think he could be vulnerable on this
2:43 pm
but you'd have to run a campaign against him to make him vulnerable on this. and this is the question i have. do we really think any democrats would run the campaign to -- against him that could make him vulnerable? >> i'm not aware of any serious democratic candidates feeling particularly spooked by deval patrick. biden's fundraising is not awesome right now. he's had some challenges in the last quarter. the dollars could have been bigger than they wanted to. >> i bet he's not counting on deval patrick to do a fundraiser for him in boston anymore. >> probably not. >> and i bet you he was. >> exactly. deval patrick is the kind of person in an ideal world would be a very effective bundler, right? be able to bring together lots of folks to support you. that's not going to happen. but i don't think we're going to see any democratic candidates spend money on bill boards or tv ads going after patrick. he's getting in so late and even at this point, it doesn't seem like he's going to be particularly competitive. i don't think he worries elizabeth warren or pete buttigieg. >> anybody else feeling less confident that michael bloomberg's going to file? >> yeah, well you have to be because he hasn't filed.
2:44 pm
i mean, you know -- >> and he chose not to file in new hampshire. >> he just really wanted to compete in the alabama. >> right. and arkansas. he's got all the a's. the alaska caucuses too. >> you know, you really got to go to new hampshire. go to iowa. >> he's not going to -- >> so what are you going to do? you're going to super-tuesday? you going to go california? you gonna win there? >> all i know is that there is a long traffic lane right now on the rest stop that is how do i find joe biden's voters that he's supposedly going to give up? but joe biden hasn't given up those voters yet. >> exactly. exactly. i keep looking at those polls. i keep waiting for that biden total to collapse. >> what if amy klobuchar got into this? >> all the republicans in 2015. it's just a matter of time. donald trump. it's just a matter of time. and what happened? trump won. >> kept saying, you know, marco rubio is really --
2:45 pm
>> it's possible joe biden has -- has a sort of anti-trump stickiness to him. all right. betsy, matt, eugene, stick around. by the way, deval patrick will be among my guests this sunday on meet the press. but he won't be on stage wednesday when "the washington post" host the next debate live from tyler perry studios. that will be wednesday 9:00 p.m. eastern. gordon sondland in the day and the democratic debate at night. how about that for your hump day next week? next, can president trump and the rnc rescue another governor or will the kentucky loss extend into louisiana? or will the kentucky loss extend into louisiana re real people than me: jd power. 448,134 to be exact. they answered 410 questions in 8 categories about vehicle quality. and when they were done, chevy earned more j.d. power quality awards across cars, trucks and suvs than any other brand over the last four years. so on behalf of chevrolet, i want to say "thank you, real people." you're welcome. we're gonna need a bigger room.
2:46 pm
tothe problem is corporationsfix anything. and the people who run and own them have purchased our democracy. here's the difference between me and the other candidates. i don't think we can fix our democracy from the inside. i don't believe washington politicians and big corporations will let that happen. the only way we can make change happen is from the outside. for me, this comes down to whether you trust the politicians
2:47 pm
or the people. and if you say you trust the people, are you willing to stand up to the insiders and the big corporations, and give the people the tools they need to fix our democracy. a national referendum. term limits. eliminating corporate money in politics. making it easy to vote. i trust the people. and as president, i will give you tools we need to fix our democracy. i'm tom steyer, and i approve this message. we have some great new ideas that we want to present to you today. [son]: who are you talking to? [son]: that guy's scary. the first item on the list is selecting a chairman for the... for the advisory board what's this? as well as use the remaining... child care options run out. lifetime retirement income from tiaa doesn't.
2:48 pm
guaranteed monthly income for life.
2:49 pm
tonight, i'm obsessed with what we all saw on capitol hill yesterday in front of millions of viewers, lawmakers grilled bill taylor and george kent. revelations were significant and so was the blatant deep seeded partnership from lawmakers. i guess we should have seen this coming. you know who actually did? this guy. well, okay, sort of that guy. alexander hamilton, start of the critically-acclaimed hit broadway musical "hamilton." you also may remember him from such episodes as founding fathers. but before his album went triple platinum, mr. hamilton wrote part of a collection of essays and in 1778, he penned federalist number 65 about impeachment. quote, the prosecution will seldom fail to agitate the passions of the whole community.
2:50 pm
and to divide it into parties more or less friendly to the accused. have we seen that? in many cases, it will connect itself with the pre-existing factions. hmm, fox news. and will enlist all their animosities, partialities, influence, and interest on one side. and you think jim jordan on one side. or on the other, maybe you think al green. hamilton clearly knew how divisive impeachment would be and in the very same essay, he also issued a warning. there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt. that was written 231 years ago, folks. hamilton was calling out the threat of partisan ship nearly a century before the very first impeachment of a sitting president. and the lawmakers at the center of the process this time would do well to heed that warning. after all, history has its eyes on you.
2:51 pm
♪ limu emu & doug
2:52 pm
hour 36 in the stakeout. as soon as the homeowners arrive, we'll inform them that liberty mutual customizes home insurance, so they'll only pay for what they need. your turn to keep watch, limu. wake me up if you see anything. [ snoring ] [ loud squawking and siren blaring ] only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ 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.
2:53 pm
whether you're or here on a wifi hotspot. xfinity mobile has more coverage to keep you connected to what matters most. that's because it's the only wireless network that automatically connects you to millions of secure wifi hotspots and the best lte everywhere else. switch now and see how you could save up to $400 a year. and get 50% off when you buy any new lg phone. xfinity mobile. click, call or visit a store today.
2:54 pm
we're going to have a change in the governorship based on the vote of the people. i'm not going to contest these numbers that have come in. it isn't fair to throw that on our legislature to try to find something that there just isn't. >> welcome back. following a recount of last week's vote, matt bevin conceded
2:55 pm
defeat. they are doing everything they can to avoid losing saturday's rubber matt in the state house slate. president trump is on the way to louisiana to hold a rally. we were triple checking ourself on how to pronounce mr. rhys pony's name. he is the republican candidate the president will be stumping for. while president trump won the state in 2016, a republican is no sure thing. the rnc sunk in another million dollars at the last minute for get out the vote spending. let's bring the panel. betsy, matthew, and eugene. so, betsy, this feels like the president is more concerned about this victory really at this point than the republican party. he seems to be more invested. >> he likes winning. and he likes being connected to people who are successful.
2:56 pm
and he also really enjoys giving these rallies. >> and it's his country. >> exactly, it's his people. it's not a hard sell for one to call in trump and have him help out. louisiana is a weird state. they had a democratic senator until 2014 when republicans flipped the senate. john bel edwards is one of the only more socially conservative democratic governors left in this country while most of the democratic party is much more progressive on social issues, john bel edwards is kind of a hold out which makes him interesting. it's hard to predict exactly how these voters are going to act nay weird off year. >> more importantly, louisiana voters, the louisiana democratic party is not considered to be as liberal. it's not just john bel edwards. all louisiana democrats -- john kennedy is a former democratic office holder in louisiana. wasn't that long ago ehe was th state treasurer. so, this is going to be a coin flip race.
2:57 pm
>> well, so bel edwards is an encome bent, he's pro life. he is not where beto o'rourke is on guns, far, far from it. and the sleeper issue here is medicaid. he expanded med cane. he said he's going to freeze medicaid. medicaid is kryptonite to republicans. >> i was just going to say this is -- in some ways this is why frankly eugene, the democratic party, why they're not united in embracing an expansion of obamacare is beyond me because they've got republicans in a bind. >> it is. it is popular. look at it from the president's point of view. you just had a big loss in kentucky. so, he certainly doesn't want another loss in louisiana. my hunch is that he's going to get one. i agree with matthew. i think the medicaid issue is
2:58 pm
salient. >> more importantly, i've watched this republican campaign. they have tried to national liez this race in the way bechb tried to gnanational liez kentucky ine end. it's clear he's not a natural democrat. it doesn't come across as believable. >> i think for most louisiana democrats, that's going to r register. bevin tried to nationalize that race. you talk to republicans who shrugged the day after he lost because he made so many enemies in his party. people didn't like his personality. he lost by a very small margin and a big part of it was him as an individual. so, nationalizing these races is not often not necessarily a successful tactic. >> matthew, you think about these things long term. what does this say about where
2:59 pm
the old conservative movement is headed that medicaid is -- this expansion of medicaid, republicans are going to have to figure out how to embrace. >> i think conservatives thought for a long time once you introduce entitlement, it's almost impossible to get rid of it. that's one reason conservatives spent so much energy trying to stop obamacare and the affordable care act. >> now you have to figure out how do you reform it. how do you get people off the government program? but once -- or if you're in a state where it hasn't been introduced yet, you can still argue against it. in places like kentucky, louisiana where it has been introduced, republicans have to come to grips with the fact that the safety net isn't going anywhere. >> donald trump hates campaigning against medicaid. he doesn't like it. >> he likes empowerment. >> he knows it's popular. >> he knows his people like it. >> at the end of the day, one thing populists understand are things that are popular. >> and it's the weird similarity between trump and john bel
3:00 pm
edwards. >> yes, very true. thank you. great political discussions today. that's all we have for tonight. we'll have more tomorrow with more "meet the press daily." >> good evening chuck, thank you very much. we have a big show tonight. trump ambassador sondland under fire for not revealing the phone call he had with donald trump. donald trump's lawyers are down playing the evidence of bribery, rudy giuliani talking about an insurance plan. and did you know the roger stone jury is beginning deliberations? we have the report on all that and how it relates to the mueller probe ahead. we begin right now with a major development in the impeachment case. the speaker of the house of representatives, nancy pelosi, who has been so careful throughout this process that for months she was opposing the plur ralty of her


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on