that does it for our hour. i'm nicole wallace. mtp daily starts right now. if it's tuesday, it's a banner day at supreme court. tonight, the travel ban is upheld raising powerful questions about presidential power. >> the supreme court ruling was a tremendous victory for this country and for the constitution. >> who's going to be next? is is president going to issue an executive order against mexicans? >> civil war. >> i did not call for harm for anybody. the president lied again. >> is trying to trump the president's polarizing rhetoric the right move for democrats? poll position. we have new numbers in some of the most important senate races. this is mtp daily and it starts

right now. good evening. i'm in for chuck todd. in today's supreme court ruling, is the presidency more powerful than ever. one is potentially congress. congress has not shown much willingness to exercise that power. not with trump's republican party running it. the other becomes the judiciary. today the supreme court affirmed trump's broad bower power to ac. today the supreme court upheld the revised version of the travel ban which impacts muslim majority countries. five of the seven countries affected are muslim majority.

reason in that 5-4 decision it grants the president broad discretion. it has a legitimate grounding in national security concerns quite part from my religious hostility. make no mistake about it here. this president ease religious hostility towards muslims has already been well documented. >> donald j. trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of muslims into the united states. >> the hatred is beyond comprehension. it's going to get worse and worse. you'll have more world trade centers. >> fdr's solution for german, italians, japanese. we're at war. we are now at war. >> i think islam hates us

there's something there that a tremendous hatred. >> the muslim ban is something at in some form has morph into an extreme vetting. >> this is the protection of the nation from foreign terrorist into the yiet. >> this was a contentious decision. just sotomayor said it's mas ka raiding behind a facade of national security concerns. they said we express no view on the soundness of the policy. what does the ruling mean. the president's allies are cheering the ruling because it

affirms the president to act in the name of protecting the country but critics is panning the decision because it affirms the president's power to act in name of protecting the country. >> who's going to be next? is the president going to issue an executive order against mexicans? is it going to issue executive order for people coming from hond honduras, guatemala. >> everyone thought the time the japanese internment happened, everyone thought it was okay. we cannot let ourselves go down that road. >> we're going to speak with senator mazie in just a few moments. this afternoon the president cheered the court's decision and used it as call for more action at the border. >> today's supreme court ruling just coming out. a tremendous success. a tremendous victory for the american people and our

constitution. i'll always be defending the sovereignty, safety and security of the american people. that's why i was putting here. we're discussing the funding of the wall. it gives us security and safety. we need border security. >> beth, msnbc senior policy editor. thank you for being with us. let me ask the question this way because i think everybody is familiar and we remind folks what president trump said on the campaign trial about the idea of instituting a sweeping ban. critics say that's what this

travel ban represent, his attempt to take the rhetoric and put it into policy. what the court is saying is that the underlying action he took here, the policy prescription he came up with, which is to say there are x number of countries. we're not satisfied with their vetting standards and we're going to suspend entries from those countries until we are. the president does have that underlying problem. is there a dispute? >> i think that today's decision will go down as one of the worst in supreme court history for the reason that you've just suggested. the court hear is rubber stamping the president's action taken after consistent statements of hostility toward a minority faith that he can do what he wishes with immigration policy. while the court does pay lip service to the idea that they

can reswview what the presidents did, they rubber stamp his actions despite the clear evidence. the court closes its eyes to all the statents the president made and the court parts ways with what every one else in the country and around the world knows based on president trump's statements that he enacted all tlee three versions of is ban in order to carry out his promise to ban muslims from coming into the country. >> i just try to understand here. the court is looking at this. if i'm understanding the argument here in the decision correctly. they are saying it's about 8% of the world's muslim pop yulation this applies to. it would look different from what he's saying. they're saying the underlying power being exercised and what makes this complicated is the underlying power to deny entry is a legitimate power that any president could claim and the debate becomes about is he

motivated by animous? they're saying the ultimately the underlying power is he can execute this. >> i think they got two things wrong. first the cord held the president has the power under the immigration laws passed by congress to enact this kind of nationality based ban. in fact, congress never authorized the president to engage in this kind of sweeping nationality based ban. even setting aside that this was pretextual. rudy giuliani said let's do territories instead of religion. that was a pre-text when he switched from banni inning muslo

predominantly muslim countries. he's banned over 100 million people of coming into the country. upwards of 95% of those people are muslim. we saw an interesting thing happen during the argument. justin kagaen pointed out that if the president of the united states announces i want to ban jews from coming into the united states and it's nationality base ban on people from israel, that ban would not ban all jews from coming into the united states and ban israeli who is are not jewish. when you look at what the president said and bringing it back to what happened here with the muslim ban, the president started before he was elected and continued consistently after he was elected right up through version, one, two and three of the ban to denigrate islam, a

minority religious faith in this country and carry out his immigration policy based on that hostility toward a minority faith. as the justice pointed out, the hypicrisy is blatant. they bent over backwards to just sniff out any hint of amimous towards christians. we had a report complete with these consistent statements that the ban was based on his effort to keep muslims out of the united states. retweeting a known white nationalist in britain with virulent propaganda with regard to his third ban upheld by the supreme court. you see where the supreme court had really closed its eyes in

this case to a religious minority. that's something the founders of our country were trying to prevent. we see this coming out today. >> is there a connection between the legal victory he guessed today and the broader immigration agenda? we're talking about what's going on at the southern border right now. is there any connection? >> it's a huge victory for him. he suffered such rebuke from republican, democrats, every one in between that policy of separating children from their parents. he had to buckle. he had to go back on what he said was something he needed to do as the president of the united states to keep this country safe, to enforce the law which hae said others have created. he had to get rid of that practice by executive order. not even a week later, he's given a huge victory saying we talk a lot about donald trump

and instinct and he goes with gut. he's been very instinctually trying to push people out of the country. he did it the wrong way last week, the supreme court is telling him he did it the right way this time. the fact it was shot down by courts on the way up. ultimately the policy is right. it changes everything for him in terms of how he can control this debate and push forward the agenda on keeping the borders, in his description, safe from outsiders. >> i s struggle to figure out if there's a thing of center of public opinion on immigration. how to locate that. i found polls from early 2017 where there was a majority opposition. polls of a majority support. 57% said they supported it. i'm looking at the polls. do we have a sense how this is being processed by the country?

he didn't run on this in. >> he ran on a lot of things and the tendency is of justice of the peace ten to seize one thing and say this is why he won. it's hard to say how much of a rule this played beyond the brorder sense of donald trump who has helped power him in the primarieies and in the general. i do want to step back and talk a bit about what the court decision was. i spent a lot of time on the phone with a professor of law at the university of michigan who really walked through what the decision was here. he also pointed out this masterpiece cake shop decision. noted this was different because it was national security issue. essentially, he articulated the court generated a reason out of nothing for why they could uphold what president trump did. they taken this national security argument and while there is a strict standard that needs to apply when requestering something that's overtly

discriminatory in the law. because this was not overtly discriminatory, they didn't have to apply the standard. this is obviously a professor who was against the travel ban. that distinct is important. he noted that only an idiot would write law that would overtly discriminatory given a strict standard would apply. the court gave itself the space to ignore all the things that donald trump said. >> it's interesting this takes us back. i'm almost having flash backs to the earliest days of the trump presidency. this was about day eight or nine of his presidency when he put the first version of his order out there. the question then that hung there and still here now, what was the purpose for it. was it to say here is the campaign promise. i fulfilled it in some way. was it the time i remember was the scenes of protest in the

street. this was something that would help the president to get folks riled up like that. do we have a sense of what it was about? >> i don't know there's ever going to be a definitive answer because i think there's a number of factors that played into this. there were people around him who wanted this to happen. people will tell him this will fulfill a campaign promise that you should over and over again on the campaign trail. this is something that the president believes. this is something he actually believes will help the country, national security wide. you have to step back and think about what this does for the president psychologically. to have something at a time where he feels like he was almost trapped last week. he was within the confines of the presidency and the power of the presidency to now feel emboldened going forward. that's a huge shift in his mood. this is a president whose mood determines so much. it determine what is tweets and

the administration broadly. >> do you have a sense what the next step from that is? if he's feeling this jolt of confidence, what he would roll that into? >> it's hard to say. he's been out on the trail a lot which also impacts his mood. what we're seeing with harley davidson, kneehe feels okay to after an american company. last week he may have had a different sensibility of going after things. right now he feels emboldened to say whatever he wants or do. >> thank you for joining us. please stay with us. ahead, the war of words in washington getting more and more uncivil. democrats are debating among themselves. do they match the nasty rhetoric with nasty rhetoric of their own or would that backfire on them? (indistinguishable muttering) that was awful. why are you so good at this? had a coach in high school. really helped me up my game. i had a coach. math.

ooh. so, why don't traders have coaches? who says they don't? coach mcadoo! you know, at td ameritrade, we offer free access to coaches and a full education curriculum- just to help you improve your skills. boom! mad skills. education to take your trading to the next level. only with td ameritrade. but prevagen helps your brain with an ingredient originally discovered... in jellyfish. in clinical trials, prevagen has been shown to improve short-term memory. prevagen. the name to remember.

(vo) imagine a visibly healthin 28 days. purina one. natural ingredients, plus vitamins and minerals

in powerful combinations. for radiant coats, sparkling eyes, and vibrant energy. purina one. 28 days. one visibly healthy pet. welcome back. the supreme court has spoken on the president's so called travel ban. what comes next? joining me is democratic senator from hawaii. that's the state that brought the lawsuit on the president's travel order that resulted in today's development. thank you for joining us. i know and we played some of your clips of what you were saying earlier today. i know you're critical of this ruling. one thing you said that jumped out at me. you liken the decision by the supreme court today to an infamous decision back in 1994 that authorizesed the internment of japanese americans during the second world war. in making that comparison, do you think that's where this

could end up? do you think the supreme court has given this president or any president the power to do something similar with muslims? >> that's my fear. the court said under the immigration and nationality act that you can do whatever you want just so long as you deem it to be in the interest of national security and you don't have overt things like -- this is a muslim ban. he was so overt about it during the campaign and he wanted to prevent muslims from coming to the country. the court said we're not going to consider that. the dissent by just sotomayor said this is very much like the decision where the government came in and the president justified his actions saying this is for national security. i think it's quite reminiscent. i say who's next? is he going to ban mexicans?

people from guatemala, people from honduras. i think the president is feeling pretty powerful and we hardly need to give him more power and he does not limit himself to the rule of law or due process or anything else much that promotes democracy in our country. >> let me ask you because the ruling from the court here, he said the proclamation, meaning the travel ban, is squarely within the scope of presidential authority. they would take no decision on his motivation but he was exercising legitimate authority under the law. is there thought your part as a lawmaker to what i think the law? >> pretty much the court said if you don't like our interpretation of how wide the latitude is to the president under the appropriate act then you members of congress can change that.

as though we have an environment where this congress is going to do anything positive regarding immigration. i say this is a dark day for our country, for anybody who cares about checks and balances because notice, the person who gave the supreme court the fifth vote on this was none other than neil gorsich. the tweet was of mitch mcconnell shaking hands with neil gorsich. by preventing merritt garland for getting a vote. i think history will deem this as an error but another decision that will come down the pike tomorrow relating to public sector unions. neil gorsich will probably give the court the fifth vote on that decision also. >> i'm trying to understand your interpretation of your view of presidential power as it relates to this case.

if we took a future president. it's not donald trump. i don't know if it's a republican or democrat. i don't know anything about this future democrat but if a future president asserted that i as the president have the power to make a determination that the following three or four countries have absolutely, unacceptable vetting procedures and until those vetting procedures are addressed, i'm not going to allow entries into the united states from those countries. would that future president, do you think that future president has that power? >> the error of this court's decision is they did not take into consideration the true motives for this iteration of this muslim ban. you can coat it any way you want. you can try to sugar coat it by saying this is for some other reasons. the court saying that whatever the president says to justify

what he's doing has no impact on the decision at all. that is a very broad, broad reading of the powers that the president has to do whatever the heck he wants under the rubric of national security. look at the totality of the comments and the statements that can lead one to conclude that the real desire was for a muslim ban which should be unconstitutional as based on religion. >> in the argument you're making, the idea of he said this on the campaign trail. let's match this up with the action he tried to take as president and see if we can see clearly what the true motivation is. is there any kind of slippery slope potential in that sort of thing. on a different issue, not net y necessarily immigration. you try to match up what a presidential candidate says on

the trial into what they do, are you trying to discern motive? >> i think it's important to discern, it's not just motives that we're making up. it's assurances and expolice station -- explanations that came out of his mouth. the slippery slope is the president can target some over group, some other country next and say this is for national security reasons that i'm doing this. just about any case that you can think of but in this case where the presidential power is basically unfettered, i think that creates more of a dangerous sliply slope than them saying wait a minute, you said all these things that you wanted to impose a muslim ban and this is not constitutional. we're not going to allow you to do that. that would have been a much

better ruling. that would have set some parameters so we don't get on a slippery slope. this creates the opening for the very kind of slippery slope that you're probably referring to, steve. >> all right. thank you. ahead, we have new poll numbers in three key races that could decide which party controls the senate. they have just been released. we'll have it for you right after the break. dear great-grea, you made moonshine in a backwoods still. smuggled booze and dodged the law. even when they brought you in, they could never hold you down. when i built my family tree and found you, i found my sense of adventure. i set off on a new life, a million miles away. i'm heidi choiniere, and this is my ancestry story. now with over 10 billion historical records, discover your story. get started for free at ancestry.com i've got a nice long life ahead. big plans. so when i found out medicare doesn't pay all my medical expenses,

i looked at my options. then i got a medicare supplement insurance plan. [ male announcer ] if you're eligible for medicare, you may know it only covers about 80% of your part b medical expenses. the rest is up to you. call now and find out about an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan, insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company. like all standardized medicare supplement insurance plans, it helps pick up some of what medicare doesn't pay. and could save you in out-of-pocket medical costs. to me, relationships matter. i've been with my doctor for 12 years. now i know i'll be able to stick with him. [ male announcer ] with these types of plans, you'll be able to visit any doctor or hospital that accepts medicare patients. plus, there are no networks, and virtually no referrals needed. so don't wait. call now and request this free decision guide to help you better understand medicare...

and which aarp medicare supplement plan might be best for you. there's a wide range to choose from. we love to travel - and there's so much more to see. so we found a plan that can travel with us. anywhere in the country. [ male announcer ] join the millions of people who have already enrolled in the only medicare supplement insurance plans endorsed by aarp, an organization serving the needs of people 50 and over for generations. remember, all medicare supplement insurance plans help cover what medicare doesn't pay. and could save you in out-of-pocket medical costs. call now to request your free decision guide. and learn more about the kinds of plans that will be here for you now - and down the road. i have a lifetime of experience. so i know how important that is. this is no ordinary coffee. it's single-origin kenyan coffee from the nyeri highlands, 6,000 feet above sea level.

but how do you really know that the beans journeyed to the port of mombasa and across the pacific? that you can trust they're 100% authentic? ibm blockchain. a smart way to track every step, ensuring this coffee did indeed come from 6,000 feet above sea level. and not a foot lower. ♪ ♪

tonight in meet the midterms we have exclusive new poll numbers from three critical battleground states. remember, control of the senate. it's also on the line this year. we got numbers here. they will speak directly to which party is off to what kind of start in this. we start here in florida. this is a very interesting number. bill nelson is being challenged by rick scott, the republican governor. there's been a number of polls in this race over the last couple weeks giving a conflicting view of where things stand. you see our brand new poll of four-point lead here for nelson. there had been one from somewhere else that had scott ahead. obviously, democrats are pleased to see this one. this will be a marquee battle. scott is somebody who has won for governor twice. narrow margins both times. nelson been in the senate since 2000. how about arizona. remember in arizona first

there's a republican primary. this is jeff flake. he's not running again. republican primary for the senate. martha mcsally, the candidate that they want to win this primary. you got kelly ward. she's run before. you know the story about joe arpa arpaio. here's the interesting thing. flash forward to the general election. how do they match up against the democrat. actually, 11 ahead of mcsally. ten ahead of ward. not seeing any major difference. the theory of republicans is that mcsally will wear better that a general candidate than ward would. there's ohio. sherrod brown, running. how does that one look. sherrod brown over 50%. double digit lead over the republican congressman.

sherrod brown in very good position. a democrat in a trump state. there's a governor's race featuring some name you may know in ohio. mike dewine. former republican senator. he's running against cordray, elizabeth warren. we see dewine leading. as governor's races that will be a hot one this year. democrats getting good news in florida, arizona, ohio. very uphill if they want to take over the senate. those numbers gets them off to start in the direction they want to be going in. when we come back, fighting over civility. you're turning onto the street when you barely clip a passing car. minor accident-no big deal, right? wrong. your insurance company is gonna raise your rate after the other car got a scratch so small you coulda fixed it with a pen. maybe you should take that pen and use it to sign up with a different insurance company. for drivers with accident forgiveness, liberty mutual

won't raise their rates because of their first accident. liberty stands with you. liberty mutual insurance. okay, so... my mom washes the dishes... ...before she puts them in the dishwasher. and if they come out gross... ...she washes them again. so what does the dishwasher do? new cascade platinum lets your dishwasher be the dish washer. these new actionpacs unleash three different cleaning agents

that dissolve food, lift it off, and rinse it away the first time. wow! that's clean! and less work for my mom. new cascade platinum. nothing cleans better. i we worked with pg&eof to save energy because wenie. wanted to help the school. they would put these signs on the door to let the teacher know you didn't cut off the light. the teachers, they would call us the energy patrol. so they would be like, here they come, turn off your lights! those three young ladies were teaching the whole school

about energy efficiency. we actually saved $50,000. and that's just one school, two semesters, three girls. together, we're building a better california. i did not call for harm for anybody. the president lied again. as a matter of fact, i believe in peaceful protests. i believe that protests is at

the center piece of our democracy. i believe that the constitution guarantees us freedom of speech and i think that protests is civil protests. >> tone it down or trump it up? that's now the question facing democrats. you heard california democratic congresswoman maxine waters clarifying her call. clarification didn't do much the back blalas backlash. protesters con fronted mitch mcconnell and his wife as they left an event in georgedown. >> why don't you leave my

husband alone? that is not. back up. >> i'm not trying to disrespect you. >> back up. you leave us alone. you leave my husband alone. >> let's bring back tonight's panel. i'm watching that speech right there and thinking of chuck schumer saying don't go and harass folks. we just showed them to where he meets that definition. i wonder if there's a hesitation we're seeing on the part of democratic leaders that's not felt by their base. >> i think we would like to live in a world where our elected leaders are not heckle ed and harassed and thrown out of restaurants. if civility was an issue deciding electoral politics, donald trump would have never been lekked. it's not one they should be

debating in any way shape or form. it's not going to be waning iss -- a winning issue for them. those folks trying to speak to the mcconnells point to a frustration that exist in the liberal base. they don't feel they have a leadership that's out there fighting for them. they see a lot of nonaction on the hill, asking for civility, asking for restraint. michelle obama, they go low, we go high. a lot of liberals are saying that's not working for me anymore. you guys need to step up and deliver something that makes us feel like you're representing us in this epic clash between donald trump's america and their america. they're not seeing that. that's why we're getting this grass roots rage out there. >> seems like it's a philosophical question. seems like it's a strategic question. they go low, we go high and

michelle obama when she said that at the democratic convention, she was describing donald trump and how to respond to him. was that a tactical argument she was making that no longer applies because donald trump won so it's not a good tactic or was she describing a principle there that you should stand by even if your side loses an election. >> this is why the office of the presidency matters so much. the country does take a step from the president. the president should set the tone for the rest of the country. he has set the tone but the tone is aggressive. one that is -- one in which people don't speak nicely too or about each other. i have a story about a young eric trump that he told a teacher who was asking him very nicely to cline ean up in a mat said you're a very mean word for a woman that i cannot say on

television. this is man who for his entirety of his life has not spoken nicely about people, has not used polite language. we're seeing that play out in the rest of the country. >> the idea, one idea, one note of caution for democrats maybe eager to go down that road. is there a risk of he drags you down to his level ? >> sure. that's the level we're already at. it's important to note theeds p these protest, this e gauengaget officials began after the family separation policy. that was a trigger for a lot of folks. it's important for folks to remember that when michelle obama said that, they thought they were going to win. >> was that sticking to the principle or say that because that will sound good and get votes. >> i think that michelle obama,

i trust her morality enough to that she was saying it enough to believe. i think chuck shchumer is sayin that because that's how you win elections. used to be when you're in the middle, twr middle, you can appeal to both sides. there's no appealing both sides. they want to see people who are at the polls, who are hard left and riegtght. they want people in this moment who will fight trump. one last thing i'll say but it's important to note that first of all, we see a big surge in democratic turn out this year which a function of frustration resident trump but the republicans have a built in advantage for turn out any way. whether or not if you're doing something that will massively n

increase a little turn out for republicans and a big for democrats. fine. the republicans have an advantage at any point. >> we look to elections in november is democrats talk about impeachment. not that they want him impeached but they want democrats talk about it is bauds they think the more it wakes up their own base. the effect is maybe more than marginal. >> trump needs something to run against. that's how he runs well. that's why he's still talking about hillary clinton 18 months after the election and democrats want to impeach me. that's a good motivating cry for folks who love him but may not have been interested for the midterms. he's running against what we're seeing. he's running against nancy pelosi, maxine water and still against hillary clinton. those are all three. they are all women.

they're provocative. maxine matters made a lot of statement over the years but makes her an object of ire among republicans. trump knows what he's doing. if that's his opponent, impeachment. all things that will make people furious, it's going to worked. she's starred on television displacing those kids from the board. get the popcorn ready because we're going to head back over to the big board. there's voting going on all over the country. we'll break it down right after this. who wants customizable options chains? ones that make it fast and easy to analyze and take action? how about some of the lowest options fees? are you raising your hand? good then it's time for power e*trade the platform, price and service that gives you the edge you need. alright one quick game of rock, paper, scissors.

1, 2, 3, go. alrighte*trade.ck game of rock, paper, scissors. the original place to invest online.

welcome back. we have a bonus edition of meet the midterms for you here. if it's tuesday, somebody is voting. they're voting in a lot of places today. let's show you another place where some action is. it's here in new york, on the republican side in a district new york's 11th district. dan donovan. michael grim. the former congressman, convicted felony.re-elected. served seven months in jail. saying it was the obama administration. they railroaded me. i want my seat back. he's challenging dan donovan,

the republican who ended up replacing him. this little yellow patch you're seeing here is the closest thing to a republican in new york. you're looking at staten island. very popular there. you have grimm going after d donovan in this race. donovan has trump's endorsement. he said careful republicans because if you go with grimm, this district that barack obama carried in 2012 this district will be at risk of flipping to democrats if republicans choose grimm. we'll find out what republicans choose a few hours from now. we're keeping an eye on some other long tentured democratic members ofcongress. all of them receiving well funded challenges. folks who attracted more support than you would expect opponents to entrenched members like this to receive. we don't expect any of them to luds.

-- lose. the polls close here in new york at 9:00. they close a lot earlier in south carolina. we have a lot going on. i'm going to be tracking all of it. looking forward to another big pri pa primary night. president trump threatening an iconic american company. i have type 2 diabetes. i'm trying to manage my a1c, then i learn type 2 diabetes puts me at greater risk for heart attack or stroke. can one medicine help treat both blood sugar and cardiovascular risk? i asked my doctor. she told me about non-insulin victoza®. victoza® is not only proven to lower a1c and blood sugar, but for people with type 2 diabetes treating their cardiovascular disease, victoza® is also approved to lower the risk of major cv events such as heart attack, stroke, or death. while not for weight loss, victoza® may help you lose some weight. (announcer) victoza® is not for people with type 1 diabetes or diabetic ketoacidosis. do not take victoza® if you have a personal or family history of medullary thyroid cancer,

multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, or if you are allergic to victoza® or any of its ingredients. stop taking victoza® and get medical help right away if you get a lump or swelling in your neck or symptoms of a serious allergic reaction such as rash, swelling, difficulty breathing, or swallowing. serious side effects may happen, including pancreatitis. so stop taking victoza® and call your doctor right away if you have severe pain in your stomach area. tell your doctor your medical history. gallbladder problems have happened in some people. tell your doctor right away if you get symptoms. taking victoza® with a sulfonylurea or insulin may cause low blood sugar. common side effects are nausea, diarrhea, vomiting, decreased appetite, indigestion, and constipation. side effects can lead to dehydration, which may cause kidney problems. change the course of your treatment. ask your doctor about victoza®.

other countries are negotiating and without tariffs you could never do that. if they don't want to negotiate, then we'll do the tariffs. just remember, we're the bank. we're the bank that everybody substantiat wants to steal from and plunder. can't be that way anymore. >> president trump talking tariffs. time for the lid. the panel back with me. emily, this is interesting because we're talking so much about midterms here. republicans, the president trying to get republican support.

there is a disconnect there. >> there is a huge disconnect. this does fot senot seem like a he will be picking. he will need congressional support for whether he's pushing immigration. this doesn't seem like a wide fight. to bring harley davidson to bring into the conversation, doesn't seem like a wise fight. people are deeply tried to this company. it seems like an unwise move in a number of ways. >> you mentioned harley davidson. we play this. this was the president earlier responding to harley davidson in the perspective move to some of their production. here is what he had to say. >> harley davidson is using that as an excuse. i don't like that. i've been very good to harley davidson. they yuuse it as an excuse. the people that ride harley davidson are not happy with

them. i wouldn't be either. >> i'm trying to figure it out. we talk about the trump base. is this one where he has figured out where the voters are or is this something he's going to bring voters to place they haven't been before on the republican side? >> maybe if he bashes harley with a sledge hammer in the middle of fifth avenue, would people stick with him. this is such a side show to the tariff fight. they targeted motorcycles in particularly. it seems it's based in wisconsin and speaker ryan is from wisconsin as well. i think it's weird that president trump has done so much to highlight this. it was a news story yesterday. trump clearly sees this as a fight hets to take on. i'm not sure why. i find it hard to believe that add enthusiastic as they may be for the brand, i find it hard to believe they will say i like

everything he's doing. >> it's interesting he talks so much about. he wants to tout the economy. so much good economic news to count. there's warnings if you go down this road on tariff, start moving closer to some full flejflej -- fledged trade war, do you think that's on the radar of this administration? do you think they see it this way in. >> looking over donald trump's career, he's talked about trade for a long time. this is one thing he's been extremely consistent on over his entire public life. he's talked about trade and other countries ripping us off. this is something that's true to his core. whether his advisors think this is great fight to pick is a whole other stieory. it's not great fight to pick. all the things he promised his base, the iconic base, he hasn't done any of it.

he has not gotten an infrastructure plan off the ground that would generate a lot of blue collar jobs. he didn't do anything to fix health care. he's entering a trade war that hurt farmers, hurt people who produce a lot of things in the middle of the country. they will pay the brunt of this. he's got a cabinet that's filled with billionaires and he's earning money off of being in the white house. it's unclear where the message is he's doing for his base in a substantive way what he said he would do for them other than sticking the finger in the eye and we know his base loves that. he's at fairly high percentage point popularity right now. something he's doing is working. i want to add one more thing. the trump brand, the whole bunch of them haven't made anything in this country in many, many years. it's done overseas. >> 90% support with his own party. only w at in point after 9/11 with his own party.

thank you. ahead rkts, a music video mystery.

when i received the diagnosis, i knew at that exact moment, whatever it takes, wherever i have to go...i'm beating this. my main focus was to find a team of doctors that work together. when a patient comes to ctca, they're meeting a team of physicians that specialize in the management of cancer. breast cancer treatment is continuing to evolve. and i would say that ctca is definitely on the cusp of those changes. patients can be overwhelmed ... we really focus on taking the time with each individual patient so they can choose the treatment appropriate for them. the care that ctca brings is the kind of care i've wanted for my patients. being able to spend time with them, have a whole team to look after them is fantastic.

i empower women with choices. it's not just picking a surgeon. it's picking the care team, and feeling secure where you are. surround yourself with the team of breast cancer experts at cancer treatment centers of america. visit cancercenter.com/breast i meani had ti to ta care otomorrow -10am? but...l staff meeting. 3:45? tai chi. 6:30? sam's baseball practice. you are busy. wouldn't it be great if you had investments that worked as hard as you do? yeah. introducing essential portfolios the automated investing solution.

in case you missed it, not all russian trolls traffic in fake news. some of them are musical. ♪ wish you at least could be honest ♪ ♪ i wish that do yyou told me t truth ♪ >> that is russian pop star just

out with his late est music vid, got me good. it features some pretty obvious look alikes. if the name iman sounds a little familiar to you. there's a reason for this. he was a key player in arranging that infamous trump 2016 meeting between the president's son and the russian. the real president once had a cam cameo. what are we to make of the latest video? is he trolling the president or the mueller probe? what about those lyrics.

♪ you really got me ♪ you really got me good >> you got me too. that's all for tonight. we'll be back tomorrow with more mtp daily. the beat with ari melber starts right now. our top story is the most conseque consequential test on the power of presidency. this is taa test he narrowly passed. whether you agree with the decision or not, it's a reminder that for this president's attacks on the rule of law, it's the law that had the final word. it was the law that narrowed his original travel ban after the first days of total airport chaos.