were following at the top of the hour. the shooting at a manufacturing plant in aurora, illinois. four police officers were injured, all in stable condition this hour. there have been civilian injuries. we don't know how many or how serious those are. the shooter, he's been apprehended and police will hold a news conference later this evening. the president on his way to mar-a-lago has been briefed on the shooting. peter alexander, before you go, you have breaking news. >> we were having the conversation that the house judiciary committee said it's going to investigate the president's national emergency declaration. >> see, you have to come back. we love it. thank you for being here. kim, john, joyce, thak all of you. that does it for our hour. mtp daily starts now. hi, chuck. >> hello, nicolle. peter is causing a lot of trouble here for this president. >> he's all purpose. he breaks the news, analyzes it, reports it. >> you've been the one-man band today. >> this was a doozy today.

>> i think you get to file the brief at the supreme court yourself. thank you. have a great weekend. if it's friday, i alone can declare it. >> good evening. i'm chuck todd in washington. welcome to mtp daily. sarah sanders has just confirmed she's been interviewed in the mueller probe. we also have more explosive details from andrew mccabe's book, and those are developing stories for later in the hour. we're going to begin with a presidential power grab. this is one of those days where it's hard to know where to begin with what we saw from the president today. he declared a national emergency to address a political emergency largely of his own invention. while announcing this emergency, clearly admitted that he didn't need to do it. and he also seemed to say that, yes, he is building some of this wall to help his 2020 re-election bid.

and his reasoning about this so-called national emergency was riddled with bogus and deceptive claims. so right now, the floodgates on legal challenges are wideope nl, and exhibit a in those challenges could very well be the transcript from this press conference because his comments clearly undercut the administration's comments for declaring this emergency in the first place. i'm going to speak with someone who will be among those challenging the president's legal standing here. california attorney general xavier becerra who has held a press conference today basically telling the president we'll see you in court. whether he has standing is unclear, but it might not matter. speaker pelosi herself could file a lawsuit. we'll begin with the mammoth fallout from the president's stories. the democrats are united in condemning this act. republicans are divided about what to call it. we have a lot to get to. peter baker is chief white house correspondent at "the new york

times," and an msnbc political analyst. shane harris, maria teresa kumar, contributor and president and ceo of voter latino, and bill kristol is part of the bulwark. love that name. just sounds tough. >> don't know what it is. >> but it sounds good. sounds meaty, sounds tough. >> this is 2019. >> there you go. close enough to bull moose and teddy roosevelt. might mean something. i want to start with essentially what could be the case against the president. and that is it was an answer he gave to our own peter alexander. peter himself may file the supreme court brief, but he was asking about the need for the national emergency and here was the president's basic answer. >> i want to do it faster. i could do the wall over a longer period of time. i didn't need to do this. but i would rather do it much faster. >> and then i want to play the second one, which has to do with the idea this is a campaign

promise. >> one way or the other, we have to doit. not because it was a campaign promise, which it is. it was one of many, by the way. not my only one. i ran on a very simple slogan. make america great again. i don't have to do it for the election. i already done a lot of wall for the election. 2020. >> so peter baker, the president today made a case for a political emergency. and maybe he did that quite well. but did he make a case for a national emergency? >> well, that's the real question. now, look, there are laws that permit the president of the united states to declare a national emergency, and it's been used 58, 59 times depending on which ones you koublt, and 31 of them still on the books. but there are not that many that involve moving funds around, specifically without the authorization of congress. they usually involve things like sanctions and blocking the property of foreign enemies and things like that. we asked the white house today, examples they had of times when

presidents actually moved money around using this authorization. they cited two of them, both with president bush, the first president bush in the run-up to the gulf war, the second after 9/11. these are existential events that happened in that time and they didn't happen at the opposition of congress. they happened to movethenings around without needing to get congress involved. this is a very different circumstance. there isn't a precedent quite like this. nothing that happen in the last 30 days or 60 days that's new at the border. if anything, border apprehensions are down. it comes on the same week the congress of the united states explicitly refused to give him this very money. so this creates a very different circumstance when it goes to court, and in the court of public opinion. >> and shane, the lack of statistical backup to this, to the point of on border crossings, he said they're at their lowest levels. he called it an invasion of people. on drugs, a majority of the illegal drug trafficking is at the port of entry. he said it's a lie. he was asked where he gets his

statistics. he said i have my ways, then he he does use some government statistics, and then the el paso back and forth where there's a republican mayor who seems to dispute all of his facts there. again, none of this is going to play well in a court of law. >> not at all. it looked like he hadn't done any prep work to mount a political defense of this. a statistical defense. >> he came out so defeated. he came out defeated. >> precisely. so it seemed like he was not really making any effort to try to make, mount a defense of this legally, politically, however you want to look at it. we should also note the white house counsel's office has advised him already this is going to be challenged. it's going to be very tough. you're probably going to be defeated at the district court level. what you saw in the speech is he doesn't care. he wants the fight. it doesn't matter what the data says, it doesn't matter what the lawyers say. this is going to be donald trump versus the courts, and we know that he has no qualms about attacking the judiciary and so-called justices. that fight is now going to move from arguing with democrats to

arguing with judges. >> it should not be donald trump against the courts. i object to the politicians who say it's a legal problem. it's a legal problem. the courts may find this is an abuse of presidential power, but congress is there. we have a third branch of government called congress. whose power is he taking? congress'. congress had an appropriations debate over the last two, three months. decided to appropriate money for a physical barrier, and trump decided i'm taking money from other pots and using it for this. this is a direct assault on congress. the emergency act he's using is the basis of this, provides explicitly for congress to override the president's emergency. i think the speaker will bring this to the floor, and there will be votes. i think they'll get a majority to oefr ride the president and he'll veto that and we'll see if he can get a veto-proof majority. i think it's a bad -- republican senators and congressmen in particular should not be allowed to say i'm not so sure. it's complicated. some of these emergencies in the

past have been fuzzy, and therefore we're not going to stand up for the core, the core congressional authority, which is appropriating funds. >> maria teresa, i know irony died a long time ago, but i have to -- before i get you to respond -- >> do we have a tweet? >> no, a comment from a future vice president of the united states. take a listen to the future vice president of the united states, right after barack obama issued an executive order. i believe this was the one that did get pushback, overturned by the courts. this was his attempt to protect the parents of dreamers. take a listen. >> i think it would be a profound mistake for the president of the united states to overturn american immigration law with the stroke of a pen. the president ought to sit down in january with the new republican majority in the senate and the historically large new majority in the house and search for common ground. that's what leadership looks like. >> there you go. that's what leadership looks like. work across the aisle, listen to congress. that's what you have to do.

that's what governor mike pence said. >> cooler heads are going to prevail. to pick up where bill left off, this idea of when they're going to have these conversations and the republicans are going to have a come to jesus moment, it's better for them to do it now. if this goes to court, we're talking about in the middle of the 2020 election, all of a sudden the american people being reminded that the president decided for capricious value to all of a sudden hold a national emergency when he didn't have to. none of the republicans are going to want to have that debate next year in 2020. >> peter, how quickly do we think this ends up at the supreme court? i get the sense this should get expedited. i assume it gets expedited. could we see it done before the end of this term? because it really is a dispute between congress and the presidency, which really, this isn't about the district court. sorry, district courts. this one feels like only the supreme court needs to speak on this. >> yeah, that's a good question. i'm not a court expert. i think there all two different ways this goes. the congress, the democrats in

congress, as you say, speaker pelosi and their caucus would consider a possible legal challenge after this legislative action you just described. then there are the other folks who might be affected like land holders along the border, like people who are going to lose their military spending projects because the money is diverted. it could be a while until you identified particular people who are going to be harmed by this or could argue they're harmed by this and therefore get that standing. so i'm not really clear on that. it could be quick, but i mean, they have some money to play with on the border wall that doesn't require the national emergency money, and it may be a while until they start spending it. >> do they delay spending it to delay the court fight? >> for me, it triggered that all of a sudden this president is turning texas into a swing state. imagine all of those landowners all of a sudden with eminent domain. it's becoming more of an issue. >> this goes to the challenge of the orthodoxy of the entire

conservative movement. what is the conservative muflt if it is not for preserving the constitution? >> limited government. >> yeah. >> as well as -- >> that's my understanding. more than anything else. >> i don't think -- incidentally, i'm not so sure, all the law professors can say there's a good legal case against it, but they can say congress can uphold their own powers. if they have chosen not to, we may not step in. i think the actual private cases by particular landowners is a different story because they have a right to sue and a private right. again, i come back to congress and i think, i am curious, i have been talking to a lot of people. i would say republicans are very unhappy about it. they're unhappy, they grumble. >> sometimes they write strongly worded letters. >> even a tweet. a deep frown on the face. >> how about a nonbinding resolution? >> in this case, they have to vote. i think, i mean, i don't know. this is a moment where they really should break from the president. it's a direct assault, as you say, on judicial conservative

values. constitutional, limited government and the fat the congress has a serious debate, decides to appropriate x amount, that's the law of the land. >> we have a full screen number four, basically every wing of the republican party you could think of in the senate. you know, your main stream conservative, grassley. your libber tear yin, paul. rubio, your sort of, you know, large internationalist. collins, your moderate in here. you take any piece of the republican wing in the united states senate, they say this is a bad idea in one form or another. it could unite the republicans in congress against him. it could. but i think the president's decision will be not unpopular with his base in the short term. >> he has to also start building some wall to make sure he's reminding him he's actually doing something with the money. >> i think he could take a picture of a wall and tweet it out. >> the wall has become a symbol at this point. we could get met aphysical about the definition of it, but to

bill's point, there is this mechanism by which they could assert their institutional prerogative. but it would force them to go from issuing the statements and the strongly worded opposition to actually standing up and saying no. we matter here. we have institutional priority here. and if they could actually muster that, then you have the spectacle, though, of republicans ginning up for a veto from the president that's maybe a break they're willing to have, but the path is clearly there in the statute. >> they have to be fair, russian sanctions, they did it on yemen. there's a beginning of some breaks, but this is the one where if they don't stand up on this, it's really pathetic. >> the senate majority leader is in cycle. that's one thing you have to remember. >> mr. institutionalist. i stand for the prerogatives of congress, bollig over for this. >> you guys stick around. up next, president trump admits his national emergency

declaration will wind up in court. so what will that court fight look like? that's next. at's next. our grandparents checked their smartphones zero times a day. times change. eyes haven't. that's why there's ocuvite. screen light... sunlight... longer hours... eyes today are stressed. but ocuvite has vital nutrients... ...to help protect them. ocuvite. eye nutrition for today.

i felt i couldn't be at my best wifor my family. c, in only 8 weeks with mavyret, i was cured and left those doubts behind. i faced reminders of my hep c every day. but in only 8 weeks with mavyret, i was cured. even hanging with friends i worried about my hep c. but in only 8 weeks with mavyret, i was cured. mavyret is the only 8-week cure for all common types of hep c. before starting mavyret your doctor will test if you've had hepatitis b which may flare up and cause serious liver problems during and after treatment. tell your doctor if you've had hepatitis b, a liver or kidney transplant, other liver problems, hiv-1, or other medical conditions, and all medicines you take including herbal supplements. don't take mavyret with atazanavir or rifampin, or if you've had certain liver problems. common side effects include headache and tiredness. with hep c behind me, i feel free... ...fearless... ...and there's no looking back,

because i am cured. talk to your doctor about mavyret.

test. >> yeah, so -- >> does that, dihe undermine his own argument? >> i thinkne he did. i think you're going to see those quotes repeated in every brief that's filed against him because they really do make him sound as though this is something that's sort of a leisurely thing and he's almost sort of making up the emergency, right? it really sort of is sort of

confirming the sense that if we look seriously at the problem at the border, that we would be hard pressed to find any kind of empirical evidence that suggested that there's anything getting worse. for example, these migrants are unarmed. and they'rear coming from poor countries, and this doesn't sound like the kind of thing that requires the armed forces to be involved. >> theto fact that the stats sh that things are getting -- that appears statistically it's getting better not worse, so when he said i could have kept fighting and getting more money from congress, actually, statistically, that backs up he had time. there is no urgency. >> i think that's right. that's going to be the major argument here. but i would caution one thing. that is that the law that we're talking about itself doesn't defineit what a national emergey actually is. and the courts will be particularly reluctant to define that in any clear way. >> you heard bill kristol say, hey, if congress, which has the ability to override a veto, has

the ability to perhaps withdraw this emergency, if they essentially don't have the votes it, the supreme court might say, well, you have the power to do that. we're not going to d help you u your power. is that a possibility here, that that way they stay out of it? >> i think it's more than a possibility. it would be a preference. if you're talking about chief justice roberts, he is an institutionalist and everybody says that he would prefer not to thrust the supreme court into major national battles. this is one of them. and so if there's a way for him to sort of delay and for congress to actuallyay do the rebuking, that would be preferred. >> myki final question for you frankly very pertinent to my next guest. how does the state of california, who has -- as a state attorney general, because there's a bunch thatst would li to file a lawsuit, the state attorney general in washington state woulduita like to, xavier becerra said he will. what would give them standing? >> thee best argument from the state'sar perspective is to rel on a case about standing involving the state of

massachusetts. and if the state of california can make an argument that its interests in the land down there are l affected by what the president's done here in terms of reallocating resources, that's the best argument they can thmake. >> professor tsai, thank yous for giving us kaunconstitutiona law. >>ka joining me is one of the people who planned to challenge the president in court, california attorney general and former congressman, xavier becerra. good to see you again. you justai heard our constitutional law professor. what do you make of his argument about the state of california's potential standing or nonstanding inst this lawsuit? >> chuck, first, good to be with you. secondly, i think i can find another $7.9 billion reasons why we would have reason to sue the president for this illegal declaration. >> what would that be? >> well, he's going to harm the

people ofgo california. we pay our taxes. those dollars are allocated by congress for particular purposes. very important purposes. whetheros it's to help american in california who suffer from naturalff disasters like wildfires, s mudslides, floods. they are displaced. they need those resources. there are people who aree servg in our military, men and women along with their families who live in military installations who need to have a number of projects undertaken. they will suffer. there are programs under way in california where we utry, for example, to interdict drugs before they come to our borders. those could be impacted. any number of ways california could be hurt, and right now, we're reviewing that declaration to make ourat case in court. >> what do you believe is the toughest case for youel to maken standing? i mean, that's a pretty expansive view of standing. by your explanation, it sounds like any taxpayer in america would have standing.

>> if an american is harmed by the actions of our government, that individual, that american, has an opportunity to have his or her day in court. california has close to 40 million americans. we pay a lot in taxes. we would be harmed if more than $8 billion that was directed for important purposes were illegally redirected by this president to are border wall. and so we will defend the interests of the people of california all there way. >> he looks like he's only going to focus on texas. do you believe if you can't sue individually, do you try to create sort of a class action of multiple states, that that -- would that enhance your argument? >> well, remember, the harm comes notbe just by him doing, encroaching on property and my state, for example, the harm comes if the president steals taxpayer money that was destined

to help californians and misuses it for something congress never intended. and so there are a number of basises for which any number of states or individuals would have a reasondi to go into court and say, judges, you have to stop the president from overreaching. >> what is the -- you defended the president, president obama's decision when he by executive order tried to expand protections not just for daca recipients but for those parents of daca recipients when he tried to expand it, and the court essentially said no, that he couldn't do that. what is the difference in what president obama was trying to dr that you defended that action and what president trump is doing today, of which you're contesting? >> president obama did not declare a national emergency. and try to extinguish the operation of any number of national laws, including

constitutional provisions. president obama used his executive authority to try to determine how we would enforce immigration laws. he never tried to change those laws. he just said, this is a way i'll enforce them with the resources i have. i'm going to go after criminals who are undocumented versus mothers and children who arecu undocumented. that's just prioritizing your prosecutorial duties. president trump is saying that, like 9/11 or like the iran hostage crisis, america is in an emergency situation where he wants to suspend all sorts of laws in order to do what is important for the country. in this case, he says to build his campaign border wall. which everyone along the border or many people along the border and most experts would tell you is not the way you try to protect the american people from drugs and other types of criminal activity. again, it's up to the president. the president is his own worst enemy. o he's giving us some of our best

evidence when he says he's happy to do this, when he says he didn't need to do this, it's a great thing to do. i mean, i don't think there are manyth presidents, the 9/11 president bush or president carter in the iran hostage crisis who were saying this is a great thing tosa do. i don't need to do this. no, an emergency is when it's an existential circumstance facing the country. >> ultimately, this is right now it appears to be a dispute between the legislative and executive branch. >> it's more than that. >> well, let me ask you this. does congress have to basically do everything in its power to stopin the president here in orr to get the supreme court to act? because i don't know if you heard,kn bill kristol is making the argument if congress, the supreme court might actually let this go, even if they think, let this go because ultimately, congress does have the power to withdraw t this emergency if somehow they created a veto-proof majority to do that. >> by stat ult under the

emergency statute, federal statute, congress can take certain steps to try to undo what the president is trying to undertake. if they fail, that doesn't mean the president gets to do what he's doing. there are constitutional constraints on the president as well. the president is not above the law. andbo simply because congress, republicans in the senate may try toan block this effort to sp the t president from doing something illegalpr doesn't mea that we're all hopelessly in despair, unable to enforce our constitutionalnf protections. >> california attorney general xavier becerra, i have no doubt this lawsuit is coming soon. and when it does, we look forward to talking about it with you utthen. thanks for coming on. up ahead, amazon cancel tz itsam order for new york headquarters. and now centrists and progressive democrats are pointing fingers at each other over who's to blame. this is a debate happening throughout the democratic party and could define 2020. that's coming up. (ding) hey, who are you?

oh, hey jeff, i'm a car thief... what?! i'm here to steal your car because, well, that's my job. what? what?? what?! (laughing) what?? what?! what?! [crash] what?! haha, it happens. and if you've got cut-rate car insurance, paying for this could feel like getting robbed twice. so get allstate... and be better protected from mayhem... like me. ♪ essential for pine trees, but maybe not for people with rheumatoid arthritis. because there are options. like an "unjection™". xeljanz xr. a once-daily pill for adults with moderate to severe ra for whom methotrexate did not work well enough. xeljanz xr can reduce pain, swelling and further joint damage, even without methotrexate. xeljanz xr can lower your ability to fight infections, including tuberculosis. serious, sometimes fatal infections and cancers, including lymphoma have happened. as have tears in the stomach or intestines, serious allergic reactions, low blood cell counts, higher liver tests

and cholesterol levels. don't start xeljanz xr if you have an infection. your doctor should perform blood tests before and while taking xeljanz xr, and monitor certain liver tests. tell your doctor if you've been somewhere fungal infections are common and if you have had tb, hepatitis b or c, or are prone to infections. needles. fine for some things. but for you, one pill a day may provide symptom relief. ask your doctor about xeljanz xr. an "unjection™". i couldn't catch my breath. it was the last song of the night. it felt like my heart was skipping beats. they said i had afib. what's afib? i knew that meant i was at a greater risk of stroke. i needed answers. my doctor and i chose xarelto®

to help keep me protected from a stroke. once-daily xarelto®, a latest-generation blood thinner significantly lowers the risk of stroke in people with afib not caused by a heart valve problem. warfarin interferes with at least 6 of your body's natural blood-clotting factors. xarelto® is selective, targeting just one critical factor. for afib patients well managed on warfarin, there is limited information on how xarelto® compares in reducing the risk of stroke. don't stop taking xarelto® without talking to your doctor, as this may increase your risk of stroke. while taking, you may bruise more easily, or take longer for bleeding to stop. xarelto® can cause serious, and in rare cases, fatal bleeding. it may increase your risk of bleeding if you take certain medicines. get help right away for unexpected bleeding or unusual bruising. do not take xarelto® if you have an artificial heart valve or abnormal bleeding. before starting, tell your doctor about all planned medical or dental procedures and any kidney or liver problems. learn all you can to help protect yourself from a stroke. talk to your doctor about xarelto®.

welcome back. tonight in 2020 vision, president trump may have his first presidential primary challenger. depending on how things sh s sh up, it might not be his last. >> i hope to see the republican party assume once again the mantle of being the party of lincoln. >> bill well, the former massachusetts republican governor turned libertarian vice presidential nominee, turned republican again, announced a

presidential exploratory committee today. polling suggests there is an appetite for it. about a third of republicans nationwide said they would like to nominate someone other than president trump. >> how do you see yourself gaining republican party support and securing the nomination for president? >> you know, it's going time. >> weld could be a test case for other republicans who might be waning a bit. think about people like former tennessee senator bob corker, former u.n. ambassador nikki haley, or maryland governor larry hogan. >> let's repudiate the debilitating politics practiced elsewhere, including just down the road in washington. >> of course, it's not lost on many people bill weld's version of the republican party, even in the '90s, thought bill weld wasn't conservative enough then. don't know how he fits today, but we'll find out. by the way, there are many democratic presidential candidates. you get to catch them on the primary debate stage or stages for the first time on the nbc

family of networks in june. to qualify, a candidate will need to either have at least 1% in three qualifying polls or at least 65,000 individual donations in at least 20 states. up to 20 candidates will be randomly divided into two debates airing on consecutivenectomy in june. we'll have it all, nbc, nsnbc, in english and spanish. we'll be back with more after this. ter this ♪ at outback, your steak & lobster wish is our command. steak & lobster is back by popular demand,

starting at only $15.99. hurry in to outback! and if you want outback at home, order now! introducing the new capital one savor card. earn 4% cash back on dining and 4% on entertainment. now when you go out, you cash in. what's in your wallet? guys do whatever it takes to deal with shave irritation. so, we re-imagined the razor with the new gillette skinguard.

it has a unique guard between the blades. that's designed to reduce irritation during the shave. because we believe all men deserve a razor just for them. the best a man can get. gillette.

welcome back. president trump's national emergency declaration is dividing republicans, but democrats are contending with their own division this week, which was on full displace when amazon scrapped its planned new york city headquarters, sighting opposition from community activist angry over the $3 million in tax breaks that were used to lure the company to the city. >> it's incredible. it shows that everyday americans still have the power to organize and fight for their communities.

and they can have more say in this country. >> while the left flank of the democratic party celebrated amazon's decision, more business friendly democrats lashed out. not necessarily at amazon but the lawmakers whose opposition killed the deal that would have created thousands of jobs. it's a prime example feuding factions within the democratic party. the risest democratic socialist wing versus call it a pragmatic wing. whatever you want to call it, with me is tim ryan, democrat from ohio. i hesitate to put you in a progressive, pragmatic, whatever camp. so i'm just going to simply ask you, where are you on amazon? you wrote a letter saying you would bring them there. where are you on the idea of tax break incentives to lure jobs to a community? >> i think the current race to the bottom in states and communities are forced into

doing is disgusting. it erodes the local tax base. it does hurt the communities in a lot of ways, and as i said, it's a race to the bottom. i do think that all of us should come together and try to stop that. there should be federal legislation to stop this race to the bottom. but having said that, i come from a community that needs jobs. needs work. we need higher wages. we need private sector investment. and so while you can be for a progressive tax code, which i'm for. you can be for trying to end the concentration of wealth that is devastating our economy and our middle class, which i'm for. you saw the study where 400 people in the country have more wealth than the bottom 150 million. that's obnoxious. but at the same time, we need to work with the private sector. we can't be divided from them to the extent where they won't invest in communities like youngstown, ohio, where we need the work. >> i want to show you elizabeth warren's tweet about the decision. she said one of the wealthiest companies on the planet just walked away from billions in

taxpayer bribes because some officials in new york aren't sucked up to them enough. how long will we allow giant corporations to hold our democracy hostage? for what it's worth, there was a poll of new york democrats, not just all new yorkers, new york democrats, 56% supported the move to new york. is this a case where maybe the voters aren't having their say in this decision before perhaps politicians get in the way? >> it could be. i don't know the intimate details or the dynamics of what's going on in new york. what i do know is that i would love to have amazon's hq-2 located in northeast ohio. and we have a lot to offer them between cleveland and pittsburgh and akron and youngstown, four airports, a great workforce. we just lost a general motors factory, chuck, that was almost 2,000 of the best paying jobs in our community, so i'm going to aggressively pursue getting them

in our xunt. i think it would be a signal for them to say, look, we need a more conscious capitalism. we need a more fair capitalism that actually cuts workers in on the deal, cuts communities in on the deal. like companies like patagonia and unilever and southwest where it's not just about shareholders. it's about stakeholders. and we need more of that, and this could be an opportunity for amazon to take the lead. i will tell you, i will be at event this weekend in my community, and i will guarantee you i will have 50 to 100 people come up to me and say do you think we really have a shot at getting amazon? because we need the work. >> i notice you used the world capitalism a few time there's. there's this rising democratic socialism movement inside the democratic party. where do you stand on it? and obviously, you are a capitalist. you have said it a few times. what is the line to you, and is

there -- are you at all concerned that the socialism is creeping too close to the mainstream of the party? >> well, i think we're at the point again where probably franklin roosevelt was where we need to save capitalism from itself. you know, this concentration of wealth cannot be tolerated any longer. we have 45% of the people in the country can't even withstand a $400 emergency. can't afford health care, losing their pensions. this is a real problem. i think what people in new york are saying, i sympathize with what they're saying. the economy is broken. and we need to fix it. and it's going to take democrats to do that. but we also need the free enterprise system. i mean, if we're going to try to compete with china, if we're going to try to innovate our way to reduce carbon in the united states, we need the innovation and the entrepreneurship of the free market and the free

enterprise system, and we can't be hostile to business. we can be hostile to greed. we can be hostile to inequality, and i will join with my democratic colleagues in trying to fix that. i'll be the first one at the table willing to do that. but we also can't be divided. the big enemy in our country right now is division. we have to come together. we have china breathing down our throats. we have income inequality. we're falling behind in education. the food system is broke, the health care system is broke. we have big problems. we have to come together and part of that is partnering with the free enterprise system in a more conscious way where workers are cut in on the deal. >> congressman ryan, that sounded like the end of a stump speech in iowa. i say this -- are you running? it was a pretty good wind-up. it's a compliment. are you running for something more than re-election? >> i have not made a decision on that, but these issues that we just talked about are deeply

concerning to me. i'm concerned for the country. i'm concerned about our competitiveness as a country. concerned about climate. concerned about health care. i really -- you know, i'm worried. and so i'm strongly considering it. and i will continue to strongly consider it, and i'll keep you posted, chuck. >> i would appreciate it. as you know, we got 20 spots on the debate stage. we're looking forward to filling it. congressman tim ryan, democrat from ohio, thank you very much. up up head, the former acting fbi chief, andrew mccabe's dramatic new claims. why he says his concerns go way beyond president trump. wake up sweetie. ♪ doctor dave. see ya. ♪ here's your order. ♪

hey. applebee's to go. now that's eatin' good in the neighborhood. you should be mad they gave this guy a promotion. you should be mad at forced camaraderie. and you should be mad at tech that makes things worse. but you're not mad, because you have e*trade, who's tech makes life easier by automatically adding technical patterns on charts and helping you understand what they mean. don't get mad. get e*trade's simplified technical analysis. [indistinct conversation] [friend] i've never seen that before. ♪ ♪ i have...

♪ welcome back. tonight i'm obsessed with evolution. political evolution. and on the issue of the constitution and presidential authority. boy, if some republicans evolved, take vice president mike pence. four years ago, he seemed to have a very strong opinion on presidents using their power to go around congress. >> i do not believe the president of the united states should use his executive authority to overturn american law concerning immigration. >> but that was during the obama administration. he wouldn't possibly change his stance under president trump, right? right? >> the president of the united states has the absolute authority under the constitution and by statute to declare a

national emergency and reposition resources. >> let's try senate majority leader mitch mcconnell. here he is four years ago. >> the action he's proposed would ignore the law, would reject the voice of the voters. >> mitch mcconnell today. >> i have indicated to him that i'm going to prepare -- i'm going to support the national emergency declaration. >> how about ted cruz, who wrote this about president obama in a very lengthy 2014 op-ed? quote, the president's taste for unilateral action to circumvent congress should concern every citizen regardless of party or ideology. how about today? [ crickets sounding ] >> he had no comment. crickets, zilch, zippo, nothing. no cause for concern this time, but then again, the president himself has evolved on this issue. >> now he has used executive action, and this is a very, very dangerous thing that should be

overwritten easily by the supreme court. >> gee, i guess the oval office really does change people. your brain changes as you get older. 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. healthier brain. better life. to be nobody but yourself in a world which is doing it's best to make you everybody else... ♪ ♪ means to fight the hardest battle,

which any human being can fight and never stop. does this sound dismal? it isn't. ♪ ♪ it's the most wonderful life on earth. ♪ ♪ because they let me to customize my insurance,rth. and as a fitness junkie, i customize everything. like my bike and my calves. liberty mutual customizes your car insurance so you only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ when it comes to reducing the evsugar in your family's diet,m. coke, dr pepper and pepsi hear you. we're working together to do just that. bringing you more great tasting beverages with less sugar or no sugar at all. smaller portion sizes, clear calorie labels and reminders to think balance. because we know mom wants what's best.

more beverage choices, smaller portions, less sugar. balanceus.org time now for the lid. panel is back. shane harris, maria teresa kumar, bill kristol. when this day began, i think we thought we would be hearing more about andrew mccabe. obviously, in typical trump era fashion, some gigantic story steps on it and so be it. but i think the astounding thing today is what he had to say about jeff sessions. here's excerpt one. the fbi, this is his description of jeff sessions. andy mccabe's in "the washington post." the fbi was better off when, quote, you all only hired irishman, he said about the worth force. they were drunks, but they could be trusted. not like all those new people with nose rings and tattoos. who knows what's they're doing?

i have not run into many fbi agents with nose rings. by the way, sadly, i had a few in my neighborhood. none of them have nose rings. >> it's a shocking statement. it's bigotry. that's what that is. you could insert any other minority in this country into that, and the attorney general of the united states is making blanket aspersions about irish americans and cops, and it's really something. it's not the most headline grabbing thing in andy mccabe's book, but i think it gives you a sense of how somebody who spent his entire career at the bureau is reacting to this person who has now been installed at the attorney general. and making these kinds of casual comments. he was clearly offended by it, and it's objectively offensive. >> if there's a larger running theme, andrew mccabe is saying look, it seems as if everything was seen through the eyes of ethnicity. whether it was sessions or whether it was the president. when he was asking where did they come from or where did their parents come from? >> it wasn't that it was said.

it became policy, the doctrine of the doj, whether it was the muslim ban, whether it was the separation of children, whether it was identifying who should be here under temporary protective status. it was literally something, one thing to have a conversation around it, but then he actually implemented it into policy. >> i have sort of the opposite point. some of those policies were ill advised and some were struck down, but it's not true so far as we know, the fbi has been run in a discriminatory matter. it's a tribute to american institutions that in fact the fbi has gone along and so far as we know has promoted people by merit. >> it sort of seems like it. >> the director of the fbi ignored these bigoted comments if they were made. the flip side, i don't disagree that some of those policies are reprehensible, but the flip side is the institutions are strong enough to resist bigotry at the top, which is good. >> bill, i want to poke you on something in a way i'm sure we were just talking about. the president's overall performance today. if your a lay person and you're

sitting there like, i mean, he was all over the map. at times it was not fully coherent. it was -- i love the tweets are going he's not using a teleprompter? really? i couldn't tell. but it was sort of the larger, you're like, how is it that -- i mean, it's sort of like where is the outrage? where is the discomfort? everybody whispers about it. and you just ask yourself, what the heck is going on? >> i think tom nichols had a tweet, we're becoming a banana republic in the sense we're not following the rule of law. also, our president is kind of bananas. you watch him and can't help but laugh a little bit, but arr not funny. neither the application of rue rule of law and the application nor the fact it's become routine to become stunned at the president with allies watching, with our deployed soldiers and marines watching. >> you throw out an allocation,

barack obama was going to go to war with north korea. >> afterwards, we took that piece of his book and said actually, he looked at it and said that would be folly. >> he has a sum mit with north korea in a week or tw weeks. he's telling the north koreans, you can have whatever you want. >> whatever you want. >> as long as i can say i'm more passivist than hillary clinton, i guess. >> i feel like we have seen this display 100 times. there was something about this when the president is under maximal pressure to defend this decision to declare a national emergency, and he's not only spewing falsehoods and lies but he's saying to people challenging him on them, well, my stats are better than yours. i use stats. it doesn't matter. as if he doesn't care he's been outed as someone who is disconnected from the truth. that struck me as the casualness of it was something i hadn't seen before. >> well, i guess the good news is it's always about himself. if it was about something bigger, it might be scarier to some people. >> he's the president.

>> all right, guys. happy friday with that, and we'll be right back. -i call it my comfortable future plan.

-it's our confident forever plan. -welcome to our complete freedom plan. -it's all possible with a cfp professional. ♪ -find your certified financial planner™ professional at letsmakeaplan.org. -find your certified financial planner™ professional if your moderate to severeor crohn's symptoms are holding you back, and your current treatment hasn't worked well enough it may be time for a change. ask your doctor about entyvio®, the only biologic developed and approved just for uc and crohn's. entyvio® works at the site of inflammation in the gi tract, and is clinically proven to help many patients achieve both symptom relief and remission. infusion and serious allergic reactions can happen during or after treatment. entyvio® may increase risk of infection, which can be serious. pml, a rare, serious, potentially fatal brain infection caused by a virus may be possible. tell your doctor if you have an infection

experience frequent infections or have flu-like symptoms, or sores. liver problems can occur with entyvio®. if your uc or crohn's treatment isn't working for you, ask your gastroenterologist about entyvio®. entyvio®. relief and remission within reach. uh uh - i deliverberty the news around here. ♪ sources say liberty mutual customizes your car insurance, so you only pay for what you need. over to you, logo. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪

that's all for tonight. we'll be back monday with more mtp monday. we'll dig into the dispute over president trump's declaration of a national emergency. wisconsin senator ron johnson not a happy camper about the president's declaration.

meet the beat with ari melber starting right now. >> i have a rhetorical question for you that you can answer or not. if you can schedule it, delay it and say you just wanted to do it because this was faster, is it an emergency? i guess that's the question we're all going to face. >> you know, my answer to that is always quoting getty lee, if you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice. >> well, and that's true in life and governing. >> there you go. >> i think this is going to be a met aphysical legal rhetorical debate we'll be having for a while. thank you as always. >> this is here on "the beat" another mueller friday. as mueller's prosecutors win a new ruling to gag roger stone. that just happened. and it's big. mueller also dropping the hammer on paul manafort. he's making a new push asking the federal judge to sentence manafort to prison immediately. those developments obviously ominous for several