let's just say zero. what is the relationship between the president fox news goes from here, i don't know. but i've already bought my continue to the first trolley to hell. i want to hand it over to chris for "cuomo prime time." >> the gift came before the request. thank you very much. i'm chris cuomo and welcome to "prime time." the president is backing away from his words of support for gun reform despite three more planned shootings being thwarted. but now we have a memo that may explain why this president has lost his spine. we're going to bring in one of the biggest warriors of this battle in congress. does he have a counter to this playbook on guns and white nationalism? another question, if this economy is the strongest ever, why does this president need another tax cut to juice it? the answer may lie in the

potential of a recession on the horizon and the reality of new poll numbers showing troubles on what should be the president's greatest strength. the professor is here to tell us what matters and why. i'm back, you're here, what do you say? let's get after it. after the back-to-back attacks in dayton and el paso, this president once again signaled he was open to tougher background checks to help curb gun violence, but once again he's lost his spine. >> we have very strong background checks right now. just remember, we already have a lots of background checks, okay? >> a democrat rolled out the ban

just earlier this year. he was able to get a single republican in his chamber on board. that's impressive in this environment. so let's get reaction from the congressman. good to see you, sir. >> good to see you. >> he's backing off. what does it mean? >> first of all, this is -- we've seen this movie before, the president makes statements which seem to indicate he supports some common sense gun safety and then he talks to the nra and he back pedals. we know background checks work. 3 million gun sales have been denied since the law went into effect. we know they work. >> by the way, just to factor it in, he says he's right, we have plenty of background laws already. >> the problem is, one in five gun sales in this country happens without a background

check. so we fixed that, we passed universal background checks, we passed that back in february. it's been sitting on mitch mcconnell's desk. it will fix this loophole in the law. we know background checks work, we just want to apply it to all gun sales. the president knows that, we should do something. we sent those bills to the senate back in february. mitch mcconnell has been sitting on them. he ought to bring the senate back into session and pass those bills immediately. >> i was reading a memo from the republican congressional caucus that says this is just a steppingstone for you guys for a registry. you want to take all guns. your response? >> yeah, this is the same argument the gun lobby has made from the very beginning. don't agree to any common sense proposals. the most reasonable proposals because they're the first step

in taking away your guns, it's nonsense. they know it's nonsense. the american people expect us to work together to reduce gun violence in this country and we're not powerless to do anything about it. we can take specific steps. we've passed two important bills. we're going to take up two more and we have many more bills that will reduce gun violence in this country. we can do a better job keeping guns out of the hands of people who are a danger to themselves and others and our republican colleagues need to join us in this effort. but, look, let's understand something, the republican party by and large is a wholly owned subsidy by the gun lobby. they are a significant contributor to the -- >> it's the ability to get people to polls. looking dollar for dollar, they're not more impressive than a lot of other lobbying groups. but they get people to the polls. this is an internal memo shared by republicans where they had an argument articulated when asked about assault weapons to say you

want a registry and when asked about white supremacist, don't go there, and then say, what about the left? what do you make of that? >> yeah, first of all, the gun registry argument is a complete falsehood. there's nothing in the ban that relates to a gun registry in any way. these weapons were designed to kill as many people as quickly as possible. i'm proud to say we have 204 cosponsors. it's bipartisan now with congressman king signing on -- >> peter king, not steve king. >> peter king. when the assault weapon ban was in place previously, the number of mass killings reduced significantly and we know when assault weapons are used in mass killings, it increases deaths by 62%. why? because these guns are designed to kill as many people as fast as possible. they don't belong in our neighborhoods, they don't belong in communities.

they belong on the battlefield. >> now that you know they have a playbook, this is why we keep hearing an echo effect, i don't know if they're copying the president, but they're following the same playbook and this memo makes it clear, what do you think of the strategy of saying, hey, white supremacy, say it's wrong, but say white nationalism is no worse than these guys on the left. what do you think about that and how do you counter it? >> i think we all have a responsibility to condemn white nationalism, domestic terrorism. what we're arguing for are common sense proposals to reduce gun violence in this country. we have a gun violence epidemic. unlike any other country in the world. and there are things we can do, we've passed two important bills that will significantly reduce the likelihood that criminals

and others who shouldn't get guns can get them. universal background checks supported by 95% of the american people. and then we're going to take up additional measures. common sense proposals to reduce gun violence in this country and that's our responsibility. it ought to be a bipartisan effort. sadly, it's not -- >> now you know why. >> the american people are demanding -- >> they demanded in opinion polls, demanded at our town halls, they've never demanded it at the actual polls on election day. if they vote on it, i think that's -- >> i think that's changing. >> we'll see. we'll see.

we'll have to see. >> i think people are going to be held accountable. absolutely. >> one other thing, the idea of a payroll tax, yes, you can say they're juicing the economy, yes, you can say -- what is your thought about the idea? what is your counter? >> first of all, the tax cut that the republicans passed with the president's support, a $2 trillion tax cut which was unpaid for, it went to the richest americans and the most profitable corporations in america. i didn't go to the middle class. and now the middle class is being asked to pay for it. so we ought to have had a tax cut that benefitted working people, that raised the income of middle-class families, but instead went to the richest people in this country and the biggest corporations. if there's going to be tax reform, we also need to be sure we're generating revenues to do all of the things we expect government to do. you can't give away $2 trillion unpaid for because they'll come back and say we need to cut back pell grants and social security and infrastructure to pay for the tax cut we gave to the richest people in this country. >> the problem with the payroll tax is, it sounds great to the

working man and woman, the problem is, that money goes to pay for medicaid and medicare. where are they going to get the money from? >> which are also very important in middle-class families. >> 100%, 100%. >> exactly. >> thank you very much for coming on to make the case. appreciate it as always. >> thank you. you have to diagnose the politics on both sides but you always have to keep the facts straight. the president lost the popular vote in this election and it burns him and that's why he blames it away every chance he gets. most often with this illusion of voter fraud. remember, he commissioned a panel, they had to disband it for finding nothing. new claim, google is why he lost. let's test that with the oao, the one and only fact finder, mr. daniel dale, next. and zero minimums to open an account. at fidelity those zeros really add up. ♪ maybe i'll win ♪ saved by zero

it's my special friend, antonio. his luxurious fur calms my nerves when i'm worried about moving into our new apartment. why don't we just ask geico for help with renters insurance? i didn't know geico helps with renters insurance. yeah, and we could save a bunch too. antonio! fetch computer! antonio? i'll get it. get to know geico and see how much you could save on renters insurance.

let's see, aleve is than tylenol extra strength. and last longer with fewer pills. so why am i still thinking about this? i'll take aleve. aleve. proven better on pain. we have this week's episode of trump attack-tics after tiring of going after me, he went after his fed chairman and

now google. here's the tweet. google manipulated from 2.6 million to 16 million votes for hillary clinton in the 2016 election. see that, '16. must be true. he says this was put out by a clinton supporter. not a trump supporter. ed google should be sued. my victory was even bigger than thought. so let's test it with daniel dale. good to have you, brother. true, not so true? >> it's not true at all. i spoke to the author of this study. he's a clinton supporter, that part is correct. there are various questions about the quality of the study but even the study's author says that the president didn't describe the study correctly. what the study's author says is he has no evidence that anything

was manipulated, search results or votes themselves. what he says, and this is disputed, is that google's search results showed bias during the 2016 -- >> meaning what? >> what he says is he got a bunch of people, basically random americans to google various election related things and he says that the first page of the google results were more pro-clinton on google than other websites. there are a lot of questions about the methodology i can get into. >> science aside, nobody believes polling is scientific anyway. here's what is interesting to me is that the president is now ascribing credibility to an infection that he ignores about russia. you messed with the type of stuff that's out there, you colored the perception of different things. he's charging google with that, but he and his puppets will never acknowledge that russia doing the same thing would have been a problem. isn't that interesting, that now he's basing this on something

that i understand that the people who did the study don't invest the same significance that the president is trying to ascribe to it. but the idea that someone messed with how people processed information, he only accepts if it was bad for him, not if it was good for him. >> right. i think we've seen over and over, chris, the president has no regard for consistency. there are charges that he refuses to accept against himself that he will make about others, when the time is right for him. he will reject allegations against him and accept them about others in other cases. he does what he feels will help him in any even moment. >> here's what surprises me, is that clinton, hillary, responded, put up the tweet. the debunked study you're referring to was based on 21 undecided voters. for context, that's about half the number of people associated with your campaign who have been indicted. is that accurate? >> what the study author did is get 95 people from around the country to rate search results

for supposed pro-clinton or pro-trump sentiment. then he took that level of bias and said according to my findings in studies about other elections in india, australia, in other foreign countries, that level of bias would produce this many million approximately votes affected in this election. so people who criticized the study say, you can't take the results in an indian legislative election and apply them to the 2016 american election. if you're going to assess how votes -- >> it's not apples to apples. method logically, it's not apples to apples. you would have to approach the sample with whether or not they changed outcome based on that. >> and the study author says he has no evidence that anything was deliberately manipulated. he said this may have been unconscious biassed. >> i guarantee you somebody is going to get people together and do the exact same thing showing them things that were written during the campaign that were bs from troll farm and is the president, i will bet you lunch anywhere, will reject the

methodology and findings. thank you very much for helping us keep the facts straight. appreciate it. you may remember, everybody, the president wanted muslim and brown-skinned congresswomen out of this country. then he helped get them banned from entering another country. today we heard from two of those political opponents. is this about unity with israel or the darkest kind of division? that is the starting point for a great debate, two great debaters, i love it. next. see? romance isn't dead! but it is here. thanks, captain obviou

don't hate-like their trip, book yours with hotels.com and get rewarded basically everywhere. why are you here? why are you here? why are either of you here?! hotels.com. be there. do that. get rewarded. ♪ are we supposed to dance? ♪ boy boy bands without dancing are just ok. get a better than just ok unlimited plan with spotify premium included on america's best network. only from at&t. more for your thing. that's our thing. (danny)'s voice) of course you don'te because you didn't!? your job isn't doing hard work... ...it's making them do hard work... ...and getting paid for it. (vo) snap and sort your expenses to save over $4,600 at tax time.

quickbooks. backing you. stop struggling to clean tough messes with sprays. try new clean freak! it has three times the cleaning power to dissolve kitchen grease on contact. it works great on bathtubs. and even stainless steel. try new clean freak from mr. clean. to take care of any messy situations. and put irritation in its place. and if i can get comfortable keeping this tookus safe and protected... ...you can get comfortable doing the same with yours. preparationh. get comfortable with it. ♪ ♪ ♪ applebee's handcrafted burgers

now starting at $7.99 now that's eatin' good in the neighborhood. now starting at $7.99 so that early retirement we planned. it's going ok? great. now i'm spending more time with the kids. i'm introducing them to crab. crab!? they love it. so, you mentioned that that money we set aside. yeah. the kids and i want to build our own crab shack. ♪ ♪ ahhh, you're finally building that outdoor kitchen. yup - with room for the whole gang. ♪ ♪ see how investing with a j.p. morgan advisor can help you. visit your local chase branch.

it's not unusual to hear an american politician to say they're pro-israel. it's not unusual to hear this president say it. but in this case with these two congresswomen, we have to look at it a little bit more deeply. and we have to listen to what the two democratic women said in their answer today. listen to this. >> it is unfortunate that prime minister netanyahu has taken a page out of trump's book and even direction from trump to deny this opportunity. >> the muslim community and the jewish community are made into the boogeyman by this administration. >> the president says this is about being pro, pro-israel, jewish. these two say no. let's use this as a start of tonight's great debate. it's good to have you both on the show. patrick, what do you think of

that premise that this is about the president using two people who he loves to make the face of the democratic party because it helps to divide us and them and that's what's motivating him? >> i will tell you that donald trump should go play the lottery. the fact that he has drawn these four women, the squad, if you will, and has been able to paint them as the providing leftist left of the democratic party, the guy should play the lottery. you can't get luckier than this. >> is it because their brown? >> no. >> that's the only thing that seems obvious to me. >> the only things that these folks stand for are not going to work in swing states in this country. it's why donald trump will cruise to a very narrow election victory, but he's going to win. this stuff doesn't sell with people outside of manhattan -- >> let's take a look at this stuff and i'll bounce it to angela. in terms of wanting to posture himself as a way that shows an

affinity tour with jewish people, let's put up on the street what he hasn't been talking about. he didn't mention the guy who tried to run down a bunch of jewish people over the weekend. he's downplayed the threat of white nationalism. he says it's not a big deal. and he backed off gun control which is something that would be relevant if you are being hunted by haters like jewish are and others in this country. but angela, patrick says the president is lucky because of these two. but it's because of what they're selling as policy, not how they appear, what's your response? >> i think it's an unfortunate time in this country when people

who are seeking greater access to health care are demonized when people who are seeking solutions to the types of climate change that have poisoned small children are deemed as radical and dangerous, a day and age where racism is taken head on and they're dealing with the types of issues that have divided this country for far too long, frankly, since its foundation, it's unfortunate that now this is about winning elections more than this is about changing the consciousness of people to ensure that we begin to do the right thing. i will take the squad any day over donald trump. when they challenge us to be our best selves, taking the same tone, chris, that nelson mandela did before his death. i'm hard pressed to understand why this is about winning when the win is not a long-term solution at all. it is about appealing to the worst among us, the worst fears among us, for white folks who are afraid of becoming the minority in this country.

appealing to the fears and prejudices and xenophobia and racism in people's hearts. that's problematic. this is about winning an election at all costs and consciousness and the right thing be damned, okay, but i think we have a lot more to lose. >> it's not unusual in politics for people to play to advantage because they think they're going to win. but the idea of whom he's picking, there are a lots of democrats who believe the kinds of things that these two do. they just don't look like them. >> chris, we're back to this identity politics. this is the worst kind of thing -- >> you don't think this is a -- >> they picked themselves, chris. the fact of the matter is, these members of congress have decided to stand up and speak out for the democratic caucus. nancy pelosi can't even control these folks. this has nothing to do with the color of their skin. this has everything to do with the fact that they're supporting terrorist organizing in israel.

nobody knew what the bds was. we need to be careful here. >> let's talk about terrorism. >> politics is about elections. this isn't about -- >> let's talk about terrorism. let's talk about terrorism. >> these four women, particularly these two, have taken over the democratic party. hi jacked it from their own speak. >> it's so interesting that you use the term -- the only two muslim women in congress, the term you chose -- >> it had nothing to do with whether their muslim or not. absolutely not. >> i beg to differ and -- >> that's right, i did. because they hijacked the party from their own principles. >> that's an interesting word choice. >> they hijacked the democratic party and that's one of the reasons why donald trump should play the lottery. he's a lucky guy. >> white men who think like you. that is the greatest -- >> you're right. it's all because of guys like me. that's silly rhetoric. it doesn't get us to where -- >> the fact that you're on here knowing how dangerous times are right now, defending this

nonsense, calling people these folks -- >> hold on, holden. let's reset the table. reset the table. hold on. angela -- just to be clear. patrick, give me a second -- patrick. calm down so we can have a rational conversation. you're not saying that he's a terrorist. you're saying that the threat in this country is what exactly? >> it's racist rhetoric and that type of rhetoric fueling the type of hatred that is resulting in white supremacist threats, the increase in hate crimes all over this country. >> okay. i take your point. patrick, why are you shaking your head on this? this is a matter of fact. white supremacist are -- hold on. let me finish. you can't -- listen.

don't make a mistake, don't come at me before i finish the point. so the idea is this, why would you shake your head about what you know is a matter of fact. we are dealing with terrorism in this country that is done at the hand of white nationalists, and extremists. your own fbi director that the president picked said the same thing. why would you shake your head no, you accept all of that as fact, do you not? >> the fact of the matter s we're talking about politics here. we're talking about the fact that you set this up, chris, that the president has sort of used these particular opponents to define how he sees this election. this political election. what i'm telling you is, when we get into this kind of rhetoric that is all the fault of white males and -- >> it's not all the fault of white males.

i'm saying he picked these women, patrick. he picked these women. he refuses to call out white nationalism unless he says don't forget about the left, he says antifa must be on the list of terrorist organizations. he does not say that about neo-nazis. why? >> these women have picked themselves. they chose to hold a press conference today in washington. it gives president trump the material fortunately or unfortunately he needs -- i do not believe that. you may. i will tell you, i don't need to believe that because i don't think that's it. she say outrageous things no matter what color her skin is. >> the challenge is, it doesn't serve you to belief it because it doesn't feel right. the challenge that we have here is you have the opportunity -- just like hijacking in these folks, but i think the reality of it is very simple. you have the opportunity right now to do the right thing instead of choosing what's politically expedient to you. and i challenge you and your colleagues, watching this program, we're not your enemies, these folks are as american as you. >> what do you think that i view -- >> i'm talking about the same

type of rhetoric that donald trump used against president obama when he was not from this country, right? this is the same toxic -- >> this is one of the reasons this is escalating into this kind of -- >> i take the point. >> we get nowhere like this. >> when you say this is why it's escalated, yeah, with this president, he needs to undo the representation for using race against a sitting president when he knew it was b.s. and by doing more of it, it doesn't help him outlive his own reputation. i appreciate the arguments on both sides. thank you as always. this president shifting to the economy, says, forget about this recession talk, he puts out his people, many of them very competent, recession, not

happening, then why push another payroll tax cut? it means you would be taking money away from medicare and medicaid. the professor is in. we have professor brownstein with the reality of the economy and what is in new poll numbers that makes this president nervous. next.

so, every day, we puts aour latest technologye. and unrivaled network to work. the united states postal service makes more e-commerce deliveries to homes than anyone else in the country. he borrowed billions donald trump failed as a businessman. and left a trail of bankruptcy and broken promises. he hasn't changed. i started a tiny investment business, and over 27 years, grew it successfully to 36 billion dollars. i'm tom steyer and i approve this message. i'm running for president because unlike other candidates,

i can go head to head with donald trump on the economy, and expose him fo what he is: a fraud and a failure. ...and it's now on sale fors and just $59.ories. it can lead you on an unexpected journey... ...to discover your heritage. get your dna kit (now) for just $59 at ancestry.com. uh, well, this will be the kitchen. and we'd like to put a fire pit out there, and a dock with a boat, maybe. why haven't you started building? well, tyler's off to college... and mom's getting older... and eventually we would like to retire. yeah, it's a lot. but td ameritrade can help you build a plan for today and tomorrow. great. can you help us pour the foundation too? i think you want a house near the lake, not in it. come with a goal. leave with a plan. td ameritrade. ♪

some new signs that suggest this president's greatest potential strength may become a weakness, the words recession, consumer confidence, presidential competence are all in the air and creating a foul smell to noses in the white house. just how concerned should the president be? let's throw three questions to professor ron brownstein. the white house is saying, payroll taxes, those aren't on the table, but more tax cuts for the american people are. the idea that we have the strongest economy, but we may need a tax cut to juice it, those two don't go together. >> no, the president said something revealing the other day, he said the consumer is

holding up the economy. as you recall, the principle justification to this tax cut which gave benefits to business is that it would produce a surge in investment. that has not occurred. and at this point it is consumer spending that is keeping, you know, the economy in high gear. he wants to juice that further with some kind of tax cut next year. i suppose it's possible that democrats in an election year could give him a sugar-high tax cut. it's also possible that i could start one of the games in the world series. >> would you be going side arm? >> exactly. >> give them the knuckle. let me ask you this, though. how much of this is about the polls that came out from nbc wall street journal in terms of the optics of the economy and, look, it should be seen as a pretty healthy number given what his others are. 49, 46, but with the economy, they're strong and he's still under 50 and it reminded me and brownsteinesque fashion, obama

around 2012. he was at the same approval as this president. but on the economy, even though he inherited a bad economy, he was getting crushed. he was like 20-something percent. this economy should have this president much higher. what does it mean to you? >> every president worries about the downside of a slowing economy. that is a whirlpool that tugs down anyone in the oval office. but trump already has a unique problem which is as your numbers on the screen show, the share of people who approve of him on the economy is higher than the share who approve of him overall. what that means in this poll today, somewhere between -- roughly one-sixth to one-fifth of the people who approve of him

on the economy say they still disapproval of his overall performance because they disprove of him on other issues. that is unprecedented. we have never seen that level of dissatisfaction with a sitting president among people who are satisfied with the economy and it is one of the principle vulnerabilities he faced. in that poll today, i believe it was 17% of the people who said they approve of his economic performance say they intend to vote for a democratic in 2020. it's the slice of voters, that is really i think the most plausible path for him to re-election and right now the vast majority of saying they do not want him for a second term. >> that's without them having good reason to go against him on the economy. if this talk about a recession is made manifest in any away, i know he's fighting with powell. i get the argument of powell

having raised rates too much and too fast. i don't think the president is wrong about that. but how he's handling it is creating another layer on people's feelings about how he handles things in general. but, if iran goes sideways and starts messing with oil prices in a way that shakes up the economy around election time, if the china trade deal, china has so many more tools in their bag to handle any tariff situation than we do, then he may wind up having the economy get a shake at exactly the wrong time and then what? >> right. and the possibility of a hard brexit, a no-deal brexit creating a recession in europe. as we said, any president worries about the downside of a sinking economy. first, he is not getting as much benefit from the upside of the economy because an unusually high share of the people still disapprove of him. if a recession does come, there

will be a lot of neutral voices who will pin it on his own policy decisions. the escalation of the trade war with china -- >> that's the problem, he made the problem. he juiced it with the tax cut, people will connect the dots on that because it's just economics and math, we know what the deficit is, and now if one of his political gambits winds up creating pressure, he's going to have to answer for it. professor, as always, you made us better, thank you. >> thank you. what should be universally accepted as good news, the nfl season is upon us, has a layer of controversy. jay-z just made a deal with the league. let's bring in d. lemon to discuss, next. ♪

are we supposed to dance? ♪ boy boy bands without dancing are just ok. get a better than just ok unlimited plan with spotify premium included on america's best network. only from at&t. more for your thing. that's our thing.

let's see, aleve is than tylenol extra strength. and last longer with fewer pills. so why am i still thinking about this? i'll take aleve. aleve. proven better on pain.

announcer: fidelity is redefining value for investors with zero account fees for brokerage accounts, and zero minimums to open an account.

we have fidelity mutual funds with zero minimum investment. and only fidelity offers four zero expense ratio index funds directly to investors. because when you invest with fidelity, all those zeros really add up. ♪ so, maybe i'll win ♪ saved by zero so, colin kaepernick is not happy about another big name usually known for supporting him, jay-z, here's what's going on. the rapper announced a deal with the nfl last week, it's meant he says to help use music and football to inspire change, to encourage more social justice.

no matter how he described it, controversy followed. jay-z responded this way. >> i think we passed kneeling, i think it's time to go into actionable items. >> all right. kaepernick heard it and then tweeted this. they have never moved past the people. let's bring in d. lemon. d. lemon, the charge from jay-z's side is, i'm trying to do the right thing. it's not just about protest, it's about what he calls action items and that's what i'm going to be working on. do you accept? >> not fully. i can see where he wants to move on, but they haven't really dealt with the initial issue yet. and the initial issue was the kneeling and is the kneeling, and also that colin kaepernick has been somehow banned from the nfl. so you don't have a leader take you onto the battlefield and

then you get rid of that leader, abandoned that leader and i think colin kaepernick has been a leader on this particular issue and i don't think they should abandon his issue -- >> jay-z said it was never about him having a job, kaepernick. >> it is about him having a job. i disagree with jay-z about that. >> he was about the protests and getting social justice. that's what he should -- >> if your leader takes you into battle to do something, if your leader gets injured somehow, immobilized or killed, it's not that you run away from your leader, it's not about your leader and what happens to them, initially, but that is all part of the equation. yes, it is about him not getting a job and being banned. >> if that's a -- because that's a manifestation of the problem. i don't love the metaphor of the leader. he started it, he was the catalyst, but there are a lot of

african-americans in the league who share his concerns, life experience and much worse. i think the -- >> chris, there are a lot of african-americans who share that, but they're not at the cost of their jobs. they're not still taking a knee. they're not standing up for this particular issue. and i think that unless he deals -- unless the owners, i think the owners -- i had this conversation last week on the show when you were off. unless the owners in some way -- i hate to word that -- using jay-z, they're using his clout in this community to smooth over the issue. >> he's selling their clout. here's what jay-z needs.

i need to understand better what this deal is. i was trying to do some research, i get how it's described, maybe he's going to pick musical talent, maybe that will help inspire social justice reform. i don't understand. it seems like pay me for my consultantcy. >> i respect jay-z immensely, they do really great things for the community. but on this particular issue, thing there's -- people can take issue with it and i think it's a fair subject and i think he should be criticized for it and i think it should be taken on which is what you're doing now. >> what are you doing? >> another issue, did you see the "new york times" 1619 project. >> yes. in the literature section. >> we are going to talk about that because there are some controversy, the president's not happy about it. some of his supporters saying it's a reflection of him. i don't understand how slavery is, but we shall see. >> some painful and poignant writings for people to pick up on. see you in a second. got the first closing coming up after the day. it starts with gratitude and ends with certitude. i can't believe it. that sophie opened up a wormhole through time?

(speaking japanese) where am i? (woman speaking french) are you crazy/nuts? cyclist: pip! pip! (woman speaking french) i'm here, look at me. it's completely your fault. (man speaking french) ok? it's me. it's my fault? no, i can't believe how easy it was to save hundreds of dollars on my car insurance with geico. (pterodactyl screech) believe it. geico could save you 15% or more on car insurance.

mno kidding.rd. but moving your internet and tv? that's easy. easy?! easy? easy. because now xfinity lets you transfer

your service online in just about a minute with a few simple steps. really? really. that was easy. yup. plus, with two-hour appointment windows, it's all on your schedule. awesome. now all you have to do is move...that thing. [ sigh ] introducing an easier way to move with xfinity. it's just another way we're working to make your life simple, easy, awesome. go to xfinity.com/moving to get started.

all right. no secret how i spent one particular afternoon on vacation, and there is nothing to add, except to say thank you. thank you to all who reached out in person, who sent messages. i appreciate it. that includes mr. hannity and ms. maddow. they acted as colleagues, not competitors, and i won't forget it. in fact, i'm not going to forget and i will use all of the feedback. because the key is for us all to be better, and that starts with me. so let me do what we do best here and expose an ugly reality. here's the argument. republicans have been intentionally downplaying white supremacy, that it is literally part of their playbook. the obvious question is why are they doing this? we'll get to that. but first let me dismiss any suggestion that this argument is false. here's the proof obtained by the "tampa bay times." this is an internal memo circulated among gop members of congress. here's a sample question. you can go online and get it for yourself.

i'm going to truncate for time's sake. do you believe that white nationalism is driving more mass shootings recently? the answer is to give a proforma form of white nationalism. they are told to own white supremacists by their team and say, what about the people on the left? adds in nazis suck, but so do d dot, dot, dot. that but, that qualification of the condemnation sounds like a defense, because it is. especially if your "the left is bad, too" defies the facts. of course there are thugs acting under many flags and all who break the law to advance a political agenda are to be called out. maybe criminals, maybe terrorists. these white nationalists, however, are among the worst morally and statistically. the adl says nearly three-quarters of extremist-related murders in the past decade were committed by

right-wing extremists like white nationalists. so why does the president say he's considering naming antifa a terror organization by silent about the same for white nationalists? is this perverse notion of covering for their side fueling the resistance by republicans to condemn white nationalist murders as acts of terror. not even domestic terror. just terror. i wouldn't even qualify it as domestic and international. it's all terror. just call it that. the president can't go after muslims and brown folks enough. nothing from him putting these white haters into the mix as terrorists, though. plenty of going all out to mitigate their impact. listen to this. >> you have some very bad people in that group. but you also had people that were very fine people on both sides. >> he's strained, he was trying to make it okay. why? because clearly he's about dividing us by race and

ethnicity, echoing slurs, encouraging people to use them. is this memo the cement solidifying this sordid structure of the gop campaign? if so, the obsession with congress women tlaib and omar makes sense. if so, female, brown, muslim, it's like a trifecta for them to divide. no, he says it's about standing with israel, standing with jewish people here and there. that's why he says he tweeted that members of the u.s. congress hate israel and all jewish people? i think he's looking to divide, not show unity. why? well, here's the argument. if you want to support the jewish people here, well, don't both sides own white supremacy? call white nationalists terrorists, especially when they are the ones targeting jews here.

why was he quiet about this? the guard at a prison that contracts with i.c.e. accused of running american jews down last week. why didn't he say anything? the foiled shooting of a jewish senator warranted at least a tweet, no? clearly this president has plenty of time and inclination to tweet a lot of things that don't matter as much as that, right? and yet, silence. and now along with it, his moving away from trying to help control access to the weapons haters keep choosing. why back off background checks? back to the memo. question: do you think we should ban assault weapons? here's the answer. the left wants to create gun registries and move toward confiscating weapons and leaving law-abiding citizens vulnerable and unarmed. they know damn well that's no proposition and no proposal anywhere in congress right now. but it may explain why our president is once again slinking away from what he said.

remember this? >> take the guns first, go through due process second. >> take the guns first, due process second. then this. >> i'm also very, very concerned with the second amendment, more so than most presidents would be. people don't realize we have very strong background checks right now. >> except for that about 20, 25% of the sales don't go through them. remember him talking about red flag laws? now he thinks the only person they should apply to is me. that was one of his tweets when he came after me. he's literally joking about red flag laws when they could be the difference between life and death. so what's changed? you know, i laugh. it would be funny if it were just about cheap shots. but it's not. it's about shots with bullets that keep killing us and our kids everywhere and everyone. and he knows it. he's acknowledged it.

but it seems there's a different plan. we see it in the memo. there is a way to keep power by motivating those of you who are so worried about some of these issues that you are susceptible to being played. listen to this. >> we must stop the glorification of violence in our society. this includes the gruesome and grisly video games that are now commonplace. >> really? you have these groups that are organizing being empowered, being emboldened, attacking more, and you want to talk about the games? lots of places have games. they don't have this problem. now, is this really about the party and that he's copying this playbook, or is it about his party mirroring what they hear from him and deciding we have to go along to get along? all they know is they're clearly on the same page. the playbook makes it plain. the proof is clear of what they want this election to be about and how they want to play it.