down. caterpillar is doing well. on the nasdaq side, markets are up across the board. netflix, facebook, alphabet are up, we call them the fang stocks, but google is now alphabet. that wraps up the hour for me. i'm going to see you back here at 1:00 p.m. eastern and then 3:00 p.m. right now my friend nicole wallace takes over with "deadline white house". it's 4:00 in new york. today there's new evidence of growing distrust between the democrats on the house judiciary committee and attorney general william barr. jerry nadler signaling today that barr's promise of the redacted version of the mueller report by mid april will not cut it. nadler announcing that the house judiciary committee will vote

wednesday whether or not to issue a subpoena to receive the full unredacted mueller report. thus far attorney general barr has thus far indicated he will not meet the april 2 deadline set by myself and five other committee chairs and refused to work with us to provide the full report without redactions to congress. the attorney general should reconsider so that we can work together to ensure the maximum transparency of this important report to both congress and the american people. house judiciary will also vote on subpoenas for five former staffers who may be witnesses in the obstruction investigation, the one in which robert mueller refused to exonerate the sitting president. a reminder of what those aides may have witnessed. don mcgahn spent at least 30 hours with robert mueller's investigators and witnessed the

firing of jim comey, the attempted firing of bob mueller and the effort to get jeff sessions recused. amy donaldson, who p according to the "new york times" turned over note that is detailed in real time behavior in the west wing. hope hicks testified that sometimes she told white lies for donald trump. reince priebus was there. and steve bannon. he was in the west wing during the early incidents known to be under investigation in the instruction probe. nadler's moves come as the latest poll show most americans don't think trump is in the clear when it comes to russia. an expert stressed that trump faces grave legal peril in terms of the yet unseen section of the mueller report. head of the office of legal

council of clinton writes in "the washington post" this weekend, quote, the most damaging aspect of the report would be a thorough account of trump's efforts to obstruct justice. the known facts are bad enough. the report probably contains others. barr's letter said mueller included facts on, quote, both sides of the obstruction question. that statement does not rule out the possibility that the facts are strongly on the side of guilt. and that is where we start today with some of our favorite reporters and friends. chuck rosenberg, former u.s. attorney. aaron blake, senior political reporter for "the washington post." also with the post, political analyst robert costa. and on set national political reporter heidi presbela. >> robert, i have to start with you, you've been signaling for days now, at least ten, on this

show, others and your own, that the concern before, during and after news that mueller had completed his report from the president's inner circle from republicans on capitol hill was always precisely what mr. dillinger writes about, the litany of conduct described in an obstruction report. >> that's exactly right. robert mueller's mandate was narrow. it was to investigate interference in the 2016 campaign by the russians, and also to evaluate the president's conduct and to see if it was worthy of prosecution. congress' mandate is wide. now we see the house democrats turning to obstruction. it's important that they're bringing members of the white house council to capitol hill issuing subpoenas. that means they want to delve further into what exactly the president did, regardless of what mr. mueller put in his report, now it's congress' turn

to figure out how far they can get figuring out a map of the president's behavior. a close observer said if robert mueller spent 22 months trying to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that donald trump had conspired with his own cabinet he may have come up short there, too. but in terms of of presenting some sort of narrative form, evidence of an effort to obstruct the investigation that that's going to look -- it's going to be easy to understand. everybody will be able to understand what that conduct is. and it will in some ways reignite the debate about whether or not a crime was committed in the court of public opinion. >> there's been this narrative out here that attorney general barr, by, you know, pulling out a few sentence fragments from the mueller report and putting them in that letter last week was doing the president some kind of huge favor. he was setting the bar for where this was going to be weeks before the report would come out and then we would have a narrative set in stone by the time we get to see the report, to the extent we do get to see

the report. i think things tend to work in the opposite direction. the fact we have the president out here talking about a full exoneration, how this is a major coupe in his favor sets the expectation high for what we see here. to the extent this report does show lots of evidence of potential obstruction of justice that may not have ultimately added up to the threshold that robert mueller had in his mind when he wrote it, to the extent that that change it is story line set by this administration, the white house, and to the extent they've been praising robert mueller, i think that could really do a lot to highlight some of the findings that we do see in the mueller report. so, you know, there was a lot of confidence from the white house after that letter came out. i'm not sure that confidence is completely warranted but we'll find out in the next couple of weeks here. heidi, congress narrowing their scope in a way that may prove strategically and

substantively wise around this obstruction question. it's a question that robert mueller was asked to investigate. he spent 22 months investigating whether or not donald trump obstructed justice. at the end, we don't know why he neither described the conduct as criminal but he put in the report that his investigation does not exonerate donald trump of obstruction. it seems that congress has an opportunity to say, well, give us the evidence, we'll see if we can arrive at a conclusion. >> that is, in fact, what they believe may have been mueller's intent all along. this is one of the many questions they pose that is unanswered by barr, which is was that information handed over without a conclusion by mueller because it was his intent, like during the watergate, to hand over to congress that it is their prerogative to draw that conclusion. to the extent we describe this as narrowing, yes. but the democrats believe that in examining this obstruction

issue, they're also going to highlight broader issues of wrong doing that fall short of criminal conspiracy. for instance, how many other contacts were there between the trump campaign and the russians that were then not reported to the fbi. what other business deals were -- and how many times was trump tower moscow discussed? was it discussed at all? that goes to the heart whether the president was and maybe is still compromised if there was a financial dimension to this. and finally whether the president then, at the end of the help from russia, which okay he did not conspire criminally with the russian government but at the end of it was there a reward for the russians in the form of sanctions that the president tried to lift at the very beginning of his presidency? >> chuck rosenberg, i want to slow this down a little bit and talk to you about what mueller was thinking when he came to the end of his obstruction of

justice investigation, packed up his briefcase, in my imagination, he dawned his superman cape, walked over to doj, laid it out in front of barr, rosen stein and whoever else was in the room and said here's what i got on conspiracy, criminal conspiracy to conspire with russia, we weren't able to establish that. now obstruction, guys, get out a pop and some chips because this is a more difficult conclusion. we didn't reach one. we do not recommend prosecution, but nor do we exonerate him and nor do we arrive at the conclusion that he can't or shouldn't be. what happened next, do you think? >> first of all, nicole, if he dawned a superman cape he probably flew over to main justice. but putting mode of transportation aside. it's never taken 400 pages for me to say nothing happened. so i imagine something happened, i imagine that something, particularly with respect to

obstruction was quite serious. i have a theory, it's plausible why mueller didn't recommend prosecution on the obstruction. it goes as follows. the department of justice has in place policies one to the '70s one to 2000 to say to charge a sitting president would be burdensome, so we don't charge sitting presidents. with that in mind, even if the obstruction constituted a crime, and it may well have, we don't know that yet, i can imagine mueller not making a recommendation because a recommendation to prosecute someone you can't prosecute is equally burdensome and stigmati stigmatizing. >> why not just exonerate? what's the word? why not a deck la nation decision. >> because the facts don't support it. >> what are the facts? that the conduct is what? >> i don't believe for a minute if mueller had facts that exonerated the president on obstruction he would have

hesitated to say so. the fact that he couldn't exonerate him -- >> so what could possibly make up evidence on both sides? i have a theory there is no evidence on the other side of obstruction question. there's evidence he obstructed justice and there's case law on the other side, that you articulated, law that says you can't indict a sitting president, there's a wide interpretation that barr posts about, article 2 gives the president the authority to do whatever he wants, including firing a sitting fbi director, that's in a memo he wrote, it's not a secret. do you think there's evidence on the other side of the obstruction question? >> there may not be a lot of evidence on the other side. for someone who believes in a robust theory of president authority, firings, recusals, pardons all fit under that theory, so it could be that there's something on the other side which would suggest that a president can't be charged with an obstruction of justice, but i

imagine the facts, many of which we have seen, weigh heavily in favor of a prosecution but for the fact that you can't charge a sitting president. i'm anxious to read the report because i imagine we're going to that we don't know that compels a prosecution. >> let me ask you two more questions on why mueller would have arrived at this conclusion. you're robert mueller, you're plugging away, matt whitaker takes over the department, and you maybe get to the point in your investigation where rudy giuliani, or whomever you're dealing with, says i'll give you written answers to collusion questions but not obstruction questions, and you have to answer the question not just did he obstruct, a lot of that happened in full view, you have to decide did he have the intent to obtrukt, you need to interview the president, who's going to give you the subpoena for that, matt whit taaker or b

barr, he was nominated and confirmed while mueller was still on the job. >> that's troubling to me. i imagine that if mueller thought he needed a subpoena and barr stood in the way, that's something we would find out. but there's also another theory here too, nicole. it goes as follows. federal prosecutors are not allowed to issue a subpoena to somebody who has told them, through an attorney, that they're going to invoke their fifth amendment right against self-incrimination. remember, the president only answered written questions about the first part of the mueller inquiry, the collusion and conspiracy piece. as far as we know he did not answer questions about obstruction of justice. if, and it's an if, if trump's lawyers told mueller that he would not answer questions if subpoenaed on that issue, on obstruction of justice, because he has a fifth amendment right against self-incrimination, then

mueller would be prohibited under policy from issuing a subpoena that would make him invoke that right in front of a grand jury. >> chuck, in your judgment, legal and political, was robert mueller able to determine whether or not the president had the intent to obstruct justice? >> if the president were any other person on the planet, there's no question in my mind that the mueller team could make that determination and would have made that recommendation. that's the legal and factual part of it. the policy piece that you can't charge a sitting president probably -- i'm sorry, definitely precludes charging him and probably precludes making a recommendation to charge him. >> so my question for you robert costa is why did bill barr sully himself with the politics of this if if he could have done what chuck just explained, hung the conclusion of the mueller investigation on those two

things, article 2 authority and department policy not to indict. it seems that he stepped into washington's political cesspool, if you will. we've got a president who said what he wanted in an ag was my roy cohn. he complained for two years about jeff sessions recusing, he wanted a roy cohn, he admired eric holder because in his mind he protected president obama. did roy step into the trap knowingly or unknowingly? >> it's hard to come to a conclusion about the attorney general's conduct so far until we see the full mueller report and how he's handling this report and what he intends to release to congress. at this point congress is demanding more information. many people in the country want to see the full report. the attorney general is navigating issues of executive privilege and everything else he laid out in his letter.

it's hard to totally see the full picture with the attorney general at this moment. if congress feels like the attorney general is not going far enough to release information, then barr -- the attorney general could be susceptible to criticism he's in some way protecting president trump or the institution of the presidency on legal grounds. then you can see him become more of a political target. for now he's been quite quiet. we're basing our conclusions on what he's written out. >> and ben wittis made that point, bill barr has promised transparency, he deserves the chance to deliver. but this list, these are all individuals you cover closely,don mcgain, steve bannon, hope hicks, these are all people who witnessed the conduct we've been talking about since the top of the show. this seems like whatever barr

releases, if congress gets their back up that it hasn't been sufficient they may very well call these witnesses and reinvestigate the obstruction case, don't you think? >> congress wants to investigate the obstruction case. they are going to face some challenges, because asdon mcg d mcgahn, former white house council, not part of the west wing, sitting home in virginia. if he's called to capitol hill, it's not like he's going to sit there and open his veins, he could be citing executive privilege based on his conversations with the president. you can see emmet flood say mr. bannon, mr. mcgahn, mr. priebus can't detail that because of executive privilege. so congress may be able to make progress on the facts, but at the same time they too will have

some obstacles. >> aaron blake, i want to play you something that was said on morning joe this morning. >> i believe they can go directly to the trial judge who presides over that grand jury and ask the trial judge to release to congress grand jury information that is redacted from the report. >> i'm ignorant enough to be dangerous with legal analysis like that, but the point being the democrats have a lot of tools in their tool box. >> they do. i thought that nelson cunningham, who i would add, has been outfront questioning whether we would see the mueller report one day, he flagged this early last year and now we're all having this conversation now. he had a piece in politico today that laid out the precedence for watergate, under which basically congress was able to get the road map, it was not released publicly, of course, until recently. i think there could be a difference ultimately between

what congress sees and the public sees here. that's something that makes a lot of sense as far as some of the rules involved here, as far as public disclosure goes, there are valid reasons we may not get an unredacted report because of people who need to be protected, who are not being charged with crimes here. certainly, the judiciary committee is being forceful in subpoenaing this right now, getting out ahead of the redacted report. they're trying to set a tone and make william barr meet them in the middle somewhere. and at some juncture it's going to be that congress get it is full report even if it's not released publically. >> let me read part of the piece, congressional democrats are right to demand for the report but they're wrong to ask the ag to violate the law. instead they should -- the version without the grand jury testimony removed, instead they should learn from watergate, demand the report but only for their own use, use it as a road

map for their own investigation and they should not wait. it seems they have a moment -- they have the wind at their back, public opinion with them, nobody believes the president has been cleared, even on the russia question. and they have this sort of high ground of in the days leading up to the mueller report's conclusion, democrats and republicans, voted unanimously for the full release of the mueller report. >> i don't think they are demanding that the entirety of the report be released to the public. they're demanding that it -- >> they get it. >> to them. that's the distinction and why you're seeing this subpoena cannon, which is how it was described to me by an aide, number one congress is capable of doing those redactions by themselves, and members of congress argue this is a report the american public paid for and we as representatives view classified information all the time we're capable of protecting that -- >> that's an important part. every classified intelligence

program is briefed to congress. >> yes. >> after every juncture. >> i forgot what the word was pelosi used but she thought it was hue bris of him to be doing this for them. the grand jury material, jerry nadler told us all he asked barr, will you please do like ja warky did and come with me and submit to the court that we can get this information. it's a formality, and he would not make that commitment. that's why you're seeing this action today with the subpoena threat because to aaron's point, yes, they want to try to force him to be as transparent as possible. this is one of the most politically sensitive documents in our history, nicole. and the question is, is barr going to tell us as much as he can or as little as he can? >> does trump get a vote? >> after the break stunning new developments from the whistle blower in the security clearance scandal at the white house.

she claims 25 individuals, including two current senior officials, were granted access to national security secrets over the objections of career professionals. and mayor pete's big haul, how the up and comer raked in millions. a woman's complaint against joe biden get his attention and the promise to listen respectfully. will it be enough for democrats? all those stories and more coming up. all those stories and more coming up. pursuing life-changing cures in a country that fosters innovation here, they find breakthroughs... like a way to fight cancer by arming a patient's own t-cells... because it's not just about the next breakthrough... it's all the ones after that.

we're finally back out in our yard, but so are they. the triple threat of dandelions, lurking crabgrass and weak, thin grass! scotts turf builder triple action. this single-step breakthrough changes everything. it kills weeds, prevents crabgrass for up to 4 months, and feeds so grass can thrive, all guaranteed. only from scotts. our backyard is back. this is a scotts yard. plants capture co2. what if other kinds of plants captured it too?

if these industrial plants had technology that captured carbon like trees we could help lower emissions. carbon capture is important technology - and experts agree. that's why we're working on ways to improve it. so plants... can be a little more... like plants. ♪ you know reliable support when you have it, and that dependability

is what we want to give our customers. at comcast, it's my job to constantly monitor our network. prevent problems, and to help provide the most reliable service possible. my name is tanya, i work in the network operations center for comcast. we are working to make things simple, easy and awesome. 25 individuals, including two current senior white house officials, were granted security clearances or access to national

security information despite recommendations to deny their applications. this according to a list made by an employee of the white house personnel office. trisha newbold who spoke to the house oversight committee where they identified her as a whistle blour. the "new york times" reporting ms. newbold told the committee's staff members that the clearances have been denied for a variety of reasons, foreign influence, drug use, and criminal conduct. she said it was overturned by more senior officials who did not follow procedures designed to mitigate security risks. which follows with the "new york times" reporting on jared kushner. from that report, quote, the clearance had been held up in part over questions from the fbi and the cia about his foreign and business contacts. including those related to

israel, the uae and russia, according to people familiar with the events. chairman cummings wrote a letter increasing pressure on the white house to cooperate with his ongoing investigation into the security clearance process, in light of the grave reports from this whistleblower and the ongoing refusal of the white house to provide the information we need to conduct our investigation, the committee now plans to proceed with a couple polsry process and begin authorizing subpoenas starting tomorrow. everyone is still here. chuck rosenberg, this seems like -- this has long felt like the looming national security crisis. that the people in charge of these background checks are blind to partisanship, they're blind to nepotism, usually don't have to say that when you talk about the white house security clearance office, but in this case you do. they render judgments that in most normal white houses are the last word on these background

checks, clearly not so in the trump white house. >> that's right. we ask nonpartisan professionals to do the background investigations, we ask nonpartisan professionals to adjudicate those investigations. i've been through the process many times, it can be maddening, it's laborious, it takes a long time. by the way, in every administration, there are people who fall out of the process. they can't get through it. the red flags go up, they're told and they politely and discreetly walk away from whatever job they were hoping to get. that said, it's also not unusual maybe once, maybe twice, to clear somebody who might otherwise have difficulty because they're uniquely talented or have a particular expertise. but 25? that's extraordinary. and it continues to show, i think, by this administration, a disdain for the normal proses of government. which in this case can be dangerous to our national security. >> and let's be honest, i'm sure

this wasn't your issue but mine was college drug use. and the questions that hold up an applications for added scrutiny are usually not foreign contacts, not red flags raised by the cia, some report from a college friend that the fbi knocks on the door and interviews and ask you, did you answer these questions -- let's be honest about the scope of concerns. they usually aren't red flags from the intelligence community. >> right. they're usually more minor. whatever your issue or other issues may have been, nicole, you answered honestly. >> i did. to robert mueller no less. but that's another story for another day. >> but you answered honestly. and answering honestly is a big deal because if there is an issue and it's a minor one. answering dishonestly excludes you and answering honestly meeb means you can be cleared. what we want to know about your credit history, criminal background or drug use can be

mitigated. people with minor nicks and dents can get through the process. but to your point, extensive foreign contacts and foreign contacts that you fail to report, that is a deeply troubling trend. and those types of people should never be cleared by nonpartisan professionals. they needed to go another level higher. they needed the politicals to weigh in and overrule the nonpartisan professionals, and that is dangerous. >> and robert, because my mother might see this, it was just marijuana, but let's keep going. on the trump white house security clearance question, republicans when they controlled the committee had concerns, there were flags raised inside and outside the white house, when these became apparent, and were run by republicans like trey gowdy. this seems like an achille's heel. you have trump loyalist don

mcgahn and john kelly who were so troubled around the security clearance process that they penned memos to the file around what they thought were abuses. >> it's significant to have the whistleblower inside the process. because as reporters we've been biting the edges, searching for answers for two years trying to figure out why were some of these security clearances blocked, what did the president say when he made the decision to override the decisions, was it just about college drug use or foreign contacts or getting context for the foreign contacts is critical. now that congress is getting answer -- some fresh answers maybe we can understand more what was the president doing when he waived these clearances through. how significant was that decision? >> aaron blake yours and robert's colleagues at "the washington post" have been on this since the early days of the

presidency reporting why jared kushner has had to update his disclosure on foreign contacts more than once, writing about his overseas contacts raising concerns. jared kushner has been -- i don't know what's beyond a red flag. i guess a flashing purple flag with a siren since the beginning. >> and chuck talked about how this process can be frustrating, it can take a long time. i think the general consensus with kushner is it took a large amount of time. the question was was this just a symptom of the fact this is a guy with a lot of different business interests, different international ties that needed to be figured out? we don't really know the answer to that question. we also don't know whether this whistleblower was referring to jared kushner in some of the things we found out, but it's not difficult to draw those conclusions. it's also important to put this in the context of everything we've seen over the last two years. this is not the first time that

the white house has been reported to be doing things with its information that seem to pose potential national security threats. we had the president talking with russians in the oval office, giving them classified information. michael flynn being kept in the white house after they were told for a couple weeks that he might be compromised because he had lied to them. the president's cell phone use, the idea the russians and chinese might be listening to him when he's using an unsecured cell phone. it's all these things that point to a cavalier attitude toward national security when it's not convenient from them. and that flies in the face of what we saw from the president when he was campaigning against hillary clinton. >> this is 25 people, this is systemic. officials within the white house, political officials are overruling and changing long-standing protocol and forcing career people like this to basically make approvals that

they've said should not be made. and, nicole, this is something to be clear that has been bipartisan concern for two years the democrats and republicans on the committees on the hill have been writing these letters trying to get more information and they've essentially been stone walled. you're seeing it now because the democrats are acting on it, but this has also been a concern for republicans as well. thank you so much for spending that time with us. we're grateful. after the break, i think i can, i think i can. the fund-raising story of the man who could. that's next. ng story of the man who could. that's next. >> teacher: let's turn in your science papers. >> tech vo: this teacher always puts her students first. >> student: i did mine on volcanoes. >> teacher: you did?! oh, i can't wait to read it. >> tech vo: so when she had auto glass damage... she chose safelite. with safelite, she could see exactly when we'd be there. >> teacher: you must be pascal. >> tech: yes ma'am. >> tech vo: saving her time... [honk, honk] >> kids: bye! >> tech vo: ...so she can save the science project. >> kids: whoa! >> kids vo: ♪ safelite repair, safelite replace ♪

at to cover the essentialsyou have in retirement, as well as all the things you want to do. because when you're ready for what comes next, the only direction is forward. this and even this.hark, i deep clean messes like this. but i don't have to clean this, because the self-cleaning brush roll removes hair, while i clean. - [announcer] shark, the vacuum that deep cleans, now cleans itself.

hi, what's this social security alert? it's a free alert if we find your social security number on the dark web. good, cuz i'm a little worried about my information getting out. why's that? [bird speaking] my social is 8- 7- 5 dash okay, i see. [bird laughing] somebody thinks it's hilarious. free social security alerts from discover.

i'm running to serve you as the next president of the united states of america. this is our moment of truth, and we cannot be found wanting. the challenges before us are the greatest of our lifetimes. an economy that works too well for too few and not at all for

too many more, a health care system where millions are unable to see a doctor or be well enough to live to their full potential, and the last, best hope of averting the catastrophe that will follow additional climate change fading before our very inaction. >> he's off. this was the weekend beto o'rourke's campaign kicked off in ernest. in six months he's gone from little known texas democrat to political sensation. in his home state he attracted crowds of 6,000, 14,000, he's one of the eight candidates on stage today in d.c. as democrats fight to break through their crowded field. one of the ways to do that is tell the world how much money you've raised. since it's april 1st, the first quarter of 2019 is over, i feel like we've had 17 quarters of

2019 already. we have one surprise, pete buttigieg said his team has raised $7 million in the first quarter of this year. all the more impressive considering the mayor of south bend, indiana hasn't declared yet. joining me now my panel. beto? >> he had a great weekend this weekend. he really did. you saw the excitement out there. what i loved about the weekend, in particular the clip you just showed, he was in el paso and it was a great contrast, right, to the awful anti-immigration kind of rhetoric we hear, the hateful rhetoric we hear from donald trump, what a great contrast to that. now the next thing is can he add policy to the rhetoric he gave

us -- >> why are you so hard on him? i'd vote for beto's bus over donald trump. >> it's still competitive. there's still 12 maybe more to come in the democratic primary. people are excited. he has more to show. >> pete buttigieg? >> mayor pete, how impressive is he, i think what he has done is he stepped into this kind of space where we saw a lot of respondents in early voting that said they wanted something new, something different. he's stepped into that and has allowed or taken his viral moments and been able to raise a lot of money. i think what's going to be interesting to see from all these other -- once the numbers come out, where did the money come from? is it large donors, small donors, will it show they have grass roots support, now he's going to be on the important debate stage. that's going to be key for him. then you have some other candidates it's going to take

some of their money from the senate campaign and put it into their presidential campaign. so people are going to be around for a long time. my only cautionary tale is this is a marathon. it's a long way to go. the first caucus is nine months away. >> i interrupted you. >> on this point you said i'd vote for beto's bus, which is hilarious. >> what's funny is you probably think i'm kidding. >> you said it before. i hear you. i think most democrats feel that way. also democrats i think rightly are trying to find somebody who's going to fundamentally change the economy and our democracy. if we want to vote for somebody to replace donald trump, frankly, the numbers look like that could be a lot of people, if not all. but if we are in 2024 looking at the same unequal democracy, economy, we'll be in the same place that gave us 2016, the underlying discontent, the

desire to look for scapegoats. so who's the next donald trump to come and point the finger at people of color and immigrants. >> who is that for you? >> for me that's a couple people. that's why i want to know what you would do in office. that's elizabeth warren who came into politics to fight for the middle class, taking on wall street, the bankruptcy bill. everything she's done has said i know who the enemies are, i know they're taking your money and i want to fight them. then we have bernie sanders, big ideas. i don't think he's as competitive in a general election as someone like elizabeth warren but i think you have to hear what mayor pete says about the economy. i think there are people waiting around the wings who are saying we need a stronger vision than just we have to beat trump. because that's the easy part. the hard part is fixing what was wrong that put trump in office

in the first point. >> in fairness to beto and mayor pete, democrats ran in the midterms on health care. donald trump was the only one pounding his chest about -- democrats said you do you and they'll run on health care. i don't see anybody yet in the democratic field -- i agree it's a rabbit hole to fall down an anti-trump pit and think that's all you can talk about. they all seem to be -- probably some of them are farther along in that grass roots effort, but they all seem at this early point trying some positive substantive messages. that's what the democrats want. >> no one is getting up on the stump talking about trump, none of them. it's very smart to try to talk about an affirmative policy agenda and a new direction to mobilize their voters. but it is a marathon, not a sprint and a lot is going to

change. that's why someone like beto, whose magic is his map it's not his wild scene in the streets, standing on top of ch a in play. it explodes president trump's map. it's not a mistake f right now to be vague about policy. we don't know what the democratic primary electorate wants. the polls are interesting, young voters like these old dudes like bernie sanders and joe biden. >> that's so weird. >> they do electability over everything else. >> they don't vote -- >> we just don't know where the debates are going to go yet. that's why beto is staying vague. people thought that kamala harris shouldn't have jumped in and endorsed the green new deal, she should have said i'm going to look at it.

she jumped too early. so i do think there's a reason to stay vague right now and beto is not going to pay a price for that. >> since we're talking about 2018, the big stars who took away from 2018 were a lot of these moderate breakouts like gretchen in michigan, abgal in virginia. if you want to break the field in different lanes i would put beto and pete buttigieg and biden in a lane of electability but also progressive creds. bidenless sew and pete buttigieg and -- >> if we do it alphabetically. >> this is going to create litmus tests to the candidates in the end may be more electable. meeting with republican opposition researchers and campaigns, they would love for bernie sanders or elizabeth warren to emerge as the nominee because they think they're the

least electable. so in their minds the question is they're going to hold back their opposition research on those two because they want to see them advance. they want to see you give them these litmus tests which they're going to trip them up with in the primaries and make them less electable in a general election. >> i think us voters are playing pundit right now. the fundamental question is who is going to fix the country. we will be talking about a different calculus of electability in 2024 if people don't have $400 in their bank accounts, which half of americans don't today. >> after the break, complaints from a nevada woman about one of the democrats at the top of the early polls. that story next. y polls. that story next.

straight from the world's best plant scientists comes miracle-gro performance organics. it's miracle-gro's next big thing. ♪ ♪ organic plant food and soil that finally work. ♪ ♪ and work... and work. ♪ ♪ and yes we did say organic. for twice the bounty, guaranteed. miracle-gro performance organics. organics finally grow up. and up, and up.

if your moderate to severeor crohn's symptoms are holding you back, and your current treatment hasn't worked well enough 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. before we suffer a full-on masculinity crisis, unleash your potential with test x180 ignite from force factor. boost testosterone to fuel desire and build lean muscle in the gym. plus burn fat and improve performance. now available at retailers nationwide. investment opportunities beyfirsthand, like biotech.ne because your investments deserve the full story. t. rowe price invest with confidence. joe biden's expected presidential run isn't off the ground yet and already he's

facing controversy. lucy flores says the vice president was standing behind her at an event in 2014 when he leaned in, smelled her hair and planted, quote, a big, slow kiss on the back of her head. nbc news has not verified that the incident took place, but she referred to the incident involving biden years before. here's part of the response. on my many years in public life, i offered countless hand shakes, hug, expressions of affection and support and comfort and never did i act inappropriately. if it is suggested i did so, i will listen respectfully, but it was not intentional. flores did not say he broke a law, but it was inappropriate and unnerving. i yield to you. >> with all seriousness, what joe biden is learning is that running in 2020 is not the same

as running in 1988 and 2008. there is an open question of is biden and his record meeting the moment we are in today. >> is that a bigger question? >> i think it's a long list of things for him. it's the full picture. the anita hill and the crime bill. we have to remember in the primary, 60% or more of women are going to be part of the majority of the voters who are going to come out in the primary. there is an open question as to is he going to be meeting the time we are in and voters are going to have to decide that. >> i think i have been having a lot of questions about vice president biden for a year now. it has been rumored a lot. most people i talked to including people who are very affectionate on him saying go out on top and be the great

statesman. have your role and become secretary of state in the next administration. right now you are as popular as you will ever be. the reasons why president obama put him on the ticket, the fact that he would quell the white working class vote that might be suspicious of a black man. those are not the reason yes the democratic party of today wants him as a front-runner. he is polling well because of name recognition, but i think his record, particularly on bussing and integration and on the fundamental questions of how it is that white families and black families are going to divvy up opportunity and say his position on bussing was right. i think he's not going to farewell in the democratic primary and give lucy flores respect. this was not a popular thing to do and say he did this and it made me feel uncomfortable. biden said that was not my intention. i'm sure it wasn't. i'm sure he had the greatest of

intentions as he does when he is very warm and caressing and moves boundaries aside, but only with women and girls. i have been look for pictures of him doing that with men and boys and it's not something that i think is going to stand up to scrutiny. that's interesting. >> i guess that opened it to me. i do think your point stands, it's the broader picture, not just whether he sniffed the hair of a few women. this is much broader. the thing i hear most is about anita hill and even the way he responded to saying i wish i could have done more for her. he was the chair and there were other women who wanted to speak out and not called. these are things that will continue to come back at him and to the point is there going to be a death by a thousand cuts?

there is a generational divide. my driver on the way here in washington drove joe biden. he said you know, he did that to me, heidi. i loved it because he was trying to show support for me because he knew i'm an older african-american woman. i'm really alone in this field as both a minority and a woman and he wanted to tell me what a great job i was doing. there is a generational divide to this and if there was not more there there and grot groping women and doing some more nepharious, i don't think this will be the death of a thousand cuts on this one particular issue. i think it's the broader. >> joe biden leads the polls for the democratic primary because he is the most electable democrat and the biggest threat to donald trump. he knows that joe biden is the person who can win back never trump republicans and win the

rust belt and win catholics and the list goes on and on. it can go to the flooded farmer and make the case in ways democrats can't. the numbers can't go down, but the people begging joe biden to get into the race is because they think he is the only person that can beat donald trump. that will change if democrats take him down. i do not condone what he did to lucy flores, but we don't know the damage he's going to do with him. it's not going to do damage with republicans and middle of the road voters. it is a problem in the prime and we will see how much primary voters want to take him down. whether or not his first day will be his best day. he is leading the field because he is the most electable democrat. >> 78% are comfortable with him as a candidate.

i heard this from republicans and trump supporters that i know. the irony with democrats, people listen to what you guys say with the democratic primary. what i say is meaningless. no one should listen to anything i say how the primary should end. you know me. people listen to what all of you say. what about this idea. donald trump wants to grab women in the bleep and accused by 19 women of sexual assault. and biden is going down because of this? i believe her and don't question her and everybody stands with the accusers, but what about weighing the two things? >> i do believe we can question and ask the questions of biden and seeing how he is going to handle this and hold donald trump accountable and we can do

both and chew gum at the same time. it is questionable because you have a sexual assaulter in the white house at 1600 pennsylvania and he got elected anyway. "access hollywood." people elected him anyway. it is concerning when you look at it that way. >> war we will sneak in a last break. we'll be right back. ll sneak int break. we'll be right back. kind of like how you get 24/7 access to licensed agents with geico. hmm? yeah, you just go online, or give them a call anytime. you don't say. yep. now what will it take to get 24/7 access to that lemon meringue pie? pie! pie's coming! that's what it takes, baby. geico®. great service from licensed agents, 24/7.

now kayak and opentable let you earn travel rewards every time you dine. with just one reservation on opentable, you can start saving money on hotels with kayak. get started at kayak.com/diningrewards.

i'm so sad to be out of time. thank you for watching. thanks to this great table. "mtp daily" starts now. >> thank you for letting me do that. >> if it's monday, democrats are threatening to go to court. i'm katie