where else, new york. ♪ >> thanks to you at home for joining us this hour. montana governor steve bullock is our guest tonight. he has just joined the democratic race for president. you have never seen him on cable news in this context, although you have seen him on this show before. i'm very excited to have him here tonight. today was the deadline on the subpoena for the justice department to hand over any of the counterintelligence information that was turned up by the robert mueller investigation. the justice department as of today appears to be defying that subpoena, or at least they're not handing anything over. congressman adam schiff, the head of the intelligence committee did a sort of bombshell interview with "the washington post" today in which they suggested that the counterintelligence investigation that was announced

by james comey in the spring of 2017, that counterintelligence investigation into potential links between the russian government and their interference effort and people associated with the trump campaign, shift suggesting in this interview today that that counterintelligence investigation appears to have disappeared, and he and the rest of the intelligence committee at least have not been able to get any information out of the justice department or the fbi as to whatever happened to that investigation, whether it continued, whether it was cut off, or what any of its findings were. in defying that subpoena to hand over any counterintelligence information turned up by mueller, the justice department today also appears to be defying that subpoena by that same committee to hand over the unredacted version of mueller's report and to hand over its underlying evidence. and it's one thing to refuse a request. it's another thing to refuse a subpoena. we will see what the result of that is, but this appears to be the justice department again

standing in defiance of a lawful congressional subpoena. so we'll see how that resolves. in the short-term puts an even hotter spotlight on the question of whether or not robert mueller himself will testify to congress about his findings and his investigation. there continues to be this strange ambiguity around this seemingly simple question of whether or not mueller is going to testify. the continuing ambiguity around that question has led some observers to question whether the ultimate aim here might not be just to get robert mueller alone testifying to congress, but instead to get robert mueller and his team from the special counsel's office testifying together as a unit as to what they discovered in their investigation and what they did and what they turned up, and what they didn't investigate, which is now becoming an even more interesting question. both jerry nadler, chairman of the judiciary and adam schiff, chairman of intelligence, both as of today making sort of increasingly urgent public

claims about that expected testimony from mueller and/or his team, but still no apparent movement from the justice department on allowing that to happen. so that is still pending, still out there. on top of all that today, the white house counsel sent this remarkable letter to congress making clear that the trump white house position is that they really are planning just to defy all subpoenas. one year of watergate is enough. you must stop investigating. no witnesses will be made available. no testimony will be provided. no documents will be handed over, nothing. this is their official stance in writing now from the white house counsel. we saw them -- we saw the president's private lawyers, counsel for the president that have been hired to try to keep his taxes and his finances secret, we saw those lawyers make basically that same argument yesterday in court in the oral arguments in the mazars case, where the president's

lawyers are arguing that the oversight committee can't rightfully subpoena financial evidence about the president from his accounting firm. there was that strange hearing in court yesterday when to the judge's astonishment, the president's lawyers argued bluntly that across the board congress has no right to investigate a president for alleged corruption or any alleged crimes. the judge appeared to be plainly astonished by that claim from the president's lawyers yesterday in the mazars case, but they apparently are going with that as their argument. both in court and as their political argument including from the white house counsel today. it's the same grounds on which the white house counsel today said he would refuse to hand over any witnesses or any testimony at all in any congressional investigation. i mean this -- stepping back from this a second, this does mean that we are now already at the point in the trump presidency where between him and

william barr and his white house counsel trump really could shoot somebody on fifth avenue, like he said during the campaign, and not only get away with it, but nobody could even investigate it. i mean remember when trump said that during the campaign? i could stand in the middle of fifth avenue and shoot somebody and i would get away with it. think about that. the attorney general now asserts bluntly that the president cannot be criminally charged. the attorney general also asserts that if the president can't be criminally charged, then he can't be criminally investigated either. the attorney general also says that if the justice department is investigating the president and the president believes that's bad, the president believe that's wrong, that he's been wrongly accused, he definitely didn't do anything wrong, nobody should be looking at me, that's grounds enough for the president to end that investigation and fire the investigator. and now both the president's private lawyers and the white house counsel and the justice department in defying the subpoenas, they are all arguing

one way or another that congress has no right to investigate the president for corruption or other crimes at all. so if you can't be charged, you can't be investigated. anybody who does start investigating you, you can fire. and oh by the way, congress can't investigate you either. i mean you really could stand in the middle of fifth avenue and shoot someone. i mean, i don't -- i don't know what we the rest of the country are supposed to do with this new revelation about this view of the presidency. i guess stay off fifth avenue. but also look on the bright side. if you have ever, ever personally had truly epic, truly wicked criminal ambitions for yourself, now you know what the job is for you. i mean if you were so lucky as to get elected president, you could not only by definition not commit any crimes, you could not be charged. you could not be investigated. you'd be the freest criminal on earth if you were lucky enough to be elected president of the united states and if you had

attorney general william barr working for you. so, i mean, clearly that's not the way america is set up, right? that's what they're trying to argue now. clearly that's untenable. but it just means that we are in an untenable situation right now, which means there will be change. we've got these assertions from the white house. we've got these subpoenas from congress. we've got the judiciary now getting involved in the first time, trying to handle these remarkable claims from the white house about how they are immune from all scrutiny. but that's where we are. mark this moment in history. that's where we are. so there is a lot going on in the news. as i mentioned, we are going to have the first live interview in just a moment with the latest democrat to announce he is running for president, montana governor steve bullock. that is coming up. but there is one other story that i want to make sure that we get to tonight at the top, along with some expert help. i want to start with this map. this is where republicans have

full party control of state government. 22 red states, 22 republican-controlled states across the country the republicans have control of the house and the state senate and the governor's mansion. 22 of those. by comparison, democrats have control over just 14 state governments. it's true that republicans did get pummelled in the 2018 midterms, but on the state level, it's a different picture. republicans have really kept a very stable foothold in a large part of the country. and in practical terms, that level of state domination by the republican party is starting to have consequences for your rights. for example, a brand-new total abortion ban in the state of alabama. this new law that has now been signed by the state's governor bans all abortions statewide. a doctor who performs an abortion in alabama would face up to 99 years in state prison. there was a big fight before it passed as to whether there would

be any exceptions for women who became pregnant by virtue of rape or incest. the answer from alabama legislature was no. total ban, except i should say the republican sponsor of the ban during last night's debate and vote on the bill, he did still seem to think there was one exception. but i'll have to let him try to explain to you what he thinks it was. >> does the bill make exception for patients who are victim of rape? and of course i kind of know the answer. can you tell me why it doesn't? >> it allows for anything that's available today is still available up until that woman knows she's pregnant. >> up until the woman knows she's pregnant -- hold on. maybe this is one of these

things that is easy to misunderstand. what it sounds like the republican sponsor of the alabama abortion ban is saying here is that a woman will still be allowed to get an abortion in alabama as long as she doesn't know she's pregnant. i think that's what he's saying here, but that is incomprehensible. just roll that part of the debate again. say it again. >> does the bill make exception for patients who are victim of rape? and of course i kind of know the answer. can you tell me why it doesn't? >> it allows for anything that's available today is still available up until that woman knows she's pregnant. so there is a window of time, some say seven days. some say ten. there is a window of time that every option that's on the table now is still available.

so she has to take a pregnancy test, she has to do something to know whether she is pregnant or not. you can't know that immediately. it takes some time for all those chromosomes and all that that you mentioned. it doesn't happen immediately. >> all those chromosomes and all that, it takes some time for that voodoo that you do that happens in there. i don't sweat the details, but what i'm saying is that you guys are overreacting because any woman in alabama will be free to get an abortion as long as she doesn't know she's pregnant yet. so you just go get yourself an abortion every day just in case, and it's legal until the moment that you find out you're pregnant, and then what you just did is going to put your doctor in prison for 99 years. i mean, honestly, sponsor of the bill, that's what they're arguing here. you can get abortions, as many as you want, until you know

you're pregnant, and then you can't have any more abortions. i don't -- but if you want to see the republican party's gobsmacking approach to this, and if you want to see it get sort of scary fast, he will tell you that later when that same republican lawmaker was asked how under his total ban on abortion a woman who had a miscarriage could prove that she'd had a miscarriage and not a criminal felony abortion, his reply was, quote, the burden of proof would be on the prosecution, not on the female. the prosecution would have to prove that. so don't worry. alabama woman who has just had a miscarriage with all of the attendant grief and terror and upset this has caused you in your life, don't worry if you've had a miscarriage, you'll be fine, as long as the prosecutor can prove that you had a miscarriage. guess how the prosecutor is going to prove it? yeah, guess. the voodoo in the chromosomes, who knows. that total ban on abortion in alabama passed the senate last

night. tonight the state's republican governor signed it into law. this is the strictest abortion ban to pass the legislature. it's not just happening in alabama. it is happening all over the country in all the states where republicans have full control. this is what republicans are doing with their control of state government. including alabama. we've got radical restrictive abortion bans passing at least one chamber of the state legislature. so far in already half, already 11 of the 22 states under republican control, plus one more in montana where republicans control the legislature, but there the democratic governor, that democratic governor who vetoed one of these anti-abortion bills in his state last week, he is going to be here in just a moment talk about his presidential bid. the gudmaker institute tracks abortion. they say they have never seen anything like what we are seeing this year in 2019. quote, the extreme nature of this year's bills is unprecedented. but that's what republicans, that's what the republican party

is doing, where they have control in the states. they're not moving anymore to limit abortion. they're moving to ban it all together, full stop. it's happening all at once in a new radical republican party wide draconian effort that we have never seen before. and that sounds unconstitutional, right? because you're not supposed to be able to been abortion that would be against the law. that's of course the entire point here, though. with republicans being very pleased with their position on the supreme court right now with the merrick garland nomination from president obama having been denied as improper by mitch mcconnell as the republican leader in the senate and mitch mcconnell calling that one of his proudest moments in the senate since the current president put brett kavanaugh on the supreme court, for the first time conservatives think they've got a solid right wing majority on the high court that will overturn roe v. wade as long as they get the chance. they have to get a law up to the supreme court that they believe will provoke the supreme court fight that will go to those five conservative justices in the way they want to receive that fight

so they can overturn roe and declare that abortion can be banned in states that are republican controlled and anybody that wants to do it across the country. all these republican-controlled states this year are tripping over themselves to make it happen. but alabama so far is in a class by itself. lots of other states are trying to ban abortion at six weeks, which is before -- 90% of women wouldn't even know they were pregnant. alabama isn't even bothering with exceptions for pregnancies that took place because of rape or incest. this guy who wrote alabama's total and complete abortion ban says bringing one of those laws was the exception to the supreme court right now. he said that would be a wasted opportunity. he said, quote, why not go all the way? in response to this alabama ban, the "new york times" editorial board interestingly sort of pulled the ripcord today. i read this as them breaking glass in case of emergency with "the times" editorial published today was essentially a primer

for americans to get ready and start preparing to live in a post roe v. wade america. they literally published a guide with how to organize with your local reproductive rights organization, how to protect women going in for what are still available abortion procedures. how to learn about acquiring abortion pills on your own as you anticipate your access to a possible abortion being cut off where you live. quote, don't let abortion rights fade from consciousness as these extreme laws become america's new normal. joining us is dahlia lithwick. she's senior editor and legal correspondent at slate. dahlia, thank you for being here. >> thank you. >> the theory of the case here is that the republicans wherever they have control, they are unleashed because they believe the real competition here is a beauty contest for the prettiest anti-abortion law that those five male justices will like the most that will lure them into overturning roe. and it's just a matter of who gets there with just the right pitch, but it's going to happen this year.

>> i guess if that were the theory, alabama is probably not winning, because what alabama did was just bonkers. this is not attractive to john roberts. this is not attractive to brett kavanaugh. this is an all-out ban, no exceptions for rape or incest. this is a cruel and heartless deliberate vehicle, but it doesn't look like anything that the court would bless, particularly thinking about going into an election year. the court has a long game, i think. john roberts has a long game. we know how he feels. we know i think how the five conservative justices feel about roe v. wade, and we know largely because of how they voted just three years ago in the texas abortion case. but you can do away with roe with a chip, chip, chip, slow erosion of rights. you can do it as i think the court had planned to do by just simply taking tiny incremental steps saying this too is not an undue burden. we'll close more clinics. we'll do what has been happening

in red states for years, right? just say nothing is an undue burden. you have to pave the halls with gold, and that's okay. and that was a strategy that i think was going to work eventually at the supreme court when kavanaugh comes on the court. when alabama kind of jams the court like it did today and said here's this completely crazy ban that doesn't care at all about the welfare of women, that forces the court into a position that i don't think this court wants to be in. >> but you've got ohio, and you've got these other states that are pursuing the next best thing to what alabama did, which is the six-week bans. that's essentially a 90% abortion ban because went don't know they're pregnant at six weeks. all operating under the theory of the case i was laying out. they're all pushing, as guttmacher says, it's not that we haven't been seeing lots of abortion restrictions lately. we haven't seen abortion bans this complete. presumably that's because they think the kavanaugh court wants a complete ban. no longer wants to chip away, no

longer wants to make it impossible to access. they want a ruling that a fetus is a voting adult who you can murder by exercising your right to choose. >> i think that's right. and i think that that is -- look, there has been a real split in the pro-life -- i'm hesitant to call it that after today. >> anti-abortion rights. >> into the anti-abortion community. and the split has been do we do this fast or do we do this slow. i think there has been a general consensus for a long time. we'll do it slow and not force the issue and not test the court into giving us an adverse ruling that will set us back. now there seems to be some kind of foot race to be the ones to get there first and to do it in a way that completely disregards i think the fact that there are already two cases teed up at the court. the court has to think right now there is a louisiana case that has functionally the same admitting requirements that

texas had the court upheld three years ago. the court is dancing around taking that. there is an indiana case before the court that would, again, jam the court up, but not in a way that is embarrassing, that would allow the court to continue to essentially say drip, drip, drip, we can make this go away. >> so you think these states are wrong? you think they've miscalculated how this court is going to handle these outright bans? >> i think that john roberts, everything you and i have ever said about john roberts, institutionalist, incrementalist, incredibly aware of public opinion. i think the idea that you're going to force jean-roberts to do something bonkers in an election year that will motive women in ways that we haven't seen before, i think john roberts is aware that he can get exactly the same outcomes by just waiting until louisiana and indiana, those other states do functionally the same thing as a ban. >> i don't know. i know you know more things

about this than i do, and i know you understand this better than i do. i don't know. i feel like these guys all coordinate. i feel like the pro-life movement gets these judges elected. i feel like they socialize, they strategize together at the same events. i mean, we'll see. we'll see. we'll see. i'm not going to bet you, not even a beer. okay. dahlia lithwick, great to have you here, dahlia. we'll be right back. [ chuckles ] so, what are some key takeaways from this commercial? did any of you hear the "bundle your home and auto" part? -i like that, just not when it comes out of her mouth. -yeah, as a mother, i wouldn't want my kids to see that. -good mom. -to see -- wait. i'm sorry. what? -don't kids see enough violence as it is? -i've seen violence. -maybe we turn the word "bundle" into a character, like mr. bundles. -top o' the bundle to you. [ laughter ] bundle, bundle, bundle. -my kids would love that. -yeah. bundle, bundle, bundle. for people 50 and older colat average risk.ing honey have you seen my glasses? i've always had a knack for finding things...

colon cancer, to be exact. and i find it noninvasively... no need for time off or special prep. it all starts here... you collect your sample, and cologuard uses the dna in your stool to find 92% of colon cancers. you can always count on me to know where to look. oh, i found them! i can do this test now! ask your doctor if cologuard is right for you. covered by medicare and most major insurers.

did you know comcast business goes beyond fast with a gig-speed network. complete internet reliability. advanced voice solutions. wifi to keep everyone connected. video monitoring. that's huge. did you guys know we did all this stuff? no. i'm not even done yet. wow. business tv. cloud apps and support. comcast business goes beyond at&t. start with internet and voice for just $59.90 a month. it's everything a small business owner needs. comcast business. beyond fast.

2006, the minimum wage in the state of montana was $5.15. $5.15. that meant if you were working nine to five. >> eight hours a day, monday to friday, 40 hours a week, you never took a day off, you never took a sick day, you never took vacation, you worked five days a week for 52 straight weeks every single week of the year, cumulatively you would make for the year $10,712 as your annual salary, before taxes.

in that state that year, 2006, they decided they would put a measure on the ballot to raise that state's minimum wage, raise it from $5.15 an hour to $6.15 and then, importantly, they would tie the minimum wage to prices. so when prices went up, the minimum wage would automatically keep pace. it would tick up every year. $6.15 an hour still sucks, but that ballot measure that year would mean a dollar an hour raise right away for the lowest paid people in that state, and it would mean the minimum wage would never fall that far again behind the cost of living. so it was 2006 that measure was on the ballot. it won in that state by a 46-point margin. margin. 73% of the state voted for it. only 27% voted against it. that was a landslide and an avalanche and a tsunami and all the other metaphors for bigness all piled up on top of each other. when a democrat named jon tester

that same night took a u.s. senate seat away from an incumbent republican senator that year in montana, that surprise victory that night was credited in part to the huge support for that sorely needed minimum wage increase that was on the same ballot. and the big turnout boost that came from people who wanted to go to the polls to vote for it who may also have decided to vote for jon tester while they were there. well, this was the voter information pamphlet in montana that year showing the argument for that minimum wage hike. $5.15 now. let's boost it to $6.15 and tie to it price hikes. and you can see down there at the bottom of the page who was behind it, the director of raise montana, the private citizen who that year led that hugely successful effort to give people a raise in that state was a man named steve bullock who in 2006 was the director of raise montana. that's what steve bullock did for his state in 2006. two years later in 2008 he ran for attorney general in montana.

not easy for a democrat to win statewide in a red state in a presidential election year. again, that was 2008. john mccain was at the top of the ticket. the republican party carried that state in the presidential race over barack obama, but steve bullock won his race for attorney general that year, even as the state went red for the presidency. then four years later in 2012, steve bullock ran for governor. again, not easy for a democrat to win statewide in a red state. again in a presidential election year. this time the republican nominee was mitt romney, and mitt romney that year carried montana, won montana over barack obama by solid double-digits. nevertheless, that same year, that same night in 2012, democrat steve bullock won the governorship, even as the state went red for the presidency again that same night. then four years later, 2016, he ran for reelection as governor. again, not easy for a democrat to win statewide in a red state,

this time again in a presidential election year. this time it was republican donald trump who that same election night trounced hillary clinton by 20 points in montana. but even as the state went that red that night in november 2016, democrat steve bullock was re-elected governor that same night. and it's not like he's just squeaking by. by some measure, steve bullock is the most popular democratic governor in the country, and he's governing as definitely a democrat. i will note for the record that now that he is governor, he now gets the privilege of announcing to the state when the minimum wage goes up every year because of that battle he led and won with such a huge margin back in 2006. this was the announcement this year about montana's minimum wage going up again because it is yoked to price increases. so it keeps pace with inflation. as a democratic governor with a very republican legislature, steve bullock has also figured out a bipartisan way to expand

medicaid in his state. that got about 100,000 people in his state on to health insurance who hadn't previously had it. and that's -- 100,000? that's a lot, right, just hearing that as a number. but consider the fact that that's 100,000 people in montana finally getting health insurance in a state that only has about a million people. so that's i mean 10% of the state gets health insurance through medicaid expansion? that's a transformation in that state, and he did it with a republican legislature. bullock also figured out a way to raise spending on public schools. he figured out a way to freeze college tuition in the state. he figured out a way to stop ruining people's lives at the stupid and petty point of the criminal justice system by no longer letting them seize your drivers license if you were late paying a fee or paying a fine. after citizens united gutted the state's centuries old no

corporate money rule for its elections, steve bullock fought that all the way to the supreme court as attorney general. he then as governor worked with the republican legislature to ultimately enact some of the most progressive new campaign finance protection laws in the country. that said, it is a red state, and it's a really republican legislature that he's got. steve bullock is pro-choice. that means he has vetoed approximately one gazillion efforts at abortion bans and abortion restrictions in the state, including one as recently as this month. he vetoed republican efforts to end same-day voter registration in his state. after trump's fcc repealed net neutrality nationwide, bullock was the first governor in the country to sign an executive order requiring net neutrality in his state. he was the first governor to do that, but then other governors followed. so there is this democrat who keeps finding concrete ways to make progress in what is nevertheless this really, really red state. that democratic governor is as of yesterday now running for president. he is the only democratic

candidate running who has won a state that trump won in 2016, but he has won statewide in that state three times, including on the night when trump took his state by 20 nights that night, the election night 2016, 20 to 30% of the voters in the state who voted for trump nevertheless that same night on that same ticket crossed over and voted for democratic governor steve bullock as well. now, is that what democrats are looking for in a presidential candidate this year? i don't know. democrats have every choice imaginable and some that are unimaginable. at this point it's easier to list the democrats not running than the ones who are. but this is what it would look like for them to run steve bullock. day one of the republican congress after the trump election, as soon as the republican congress came in to start the new congress at the beginning of 2017, day one they passed a rules package that would make it easier to give away public lands.

and then they literally put up this bill right off the bat. look at the title of it. "disposal of excess federal lands." disposal, really? they're excess, public land that's extra that nobody needs. it's just junk. let's give it away. let's dispose of it. a huge chunk of the land that congressional republicans decided in 2017, decided was excess and should be disposed of, should be given away to private interest, a huge chunk of that public land they wanted to get rid of was land in montana. here's what steve bullock and montana had to say about that. >> it's time that we send a message to that floor of the building that proposes the transfer of public lands have no place in this building and no place in montana. [ cheering ]

and the beauty is with a crowd like this, not only do we need them to hear us up here, we need them to hear us all the way to washington, d.c. look. this ain't about politics, whether you're democrat or republican, a libertarian, a vegetarian, these lands belong to you. >> that bright idea right at the start of the republican congress in 2017, that bright idea in washington the take away three million acres of public land in montana and sell it off, that did not fly. republicans thought better of it, shelved it, backed off.

you can see why from these pictures, right? but that was how the trump era started in 2017 in montana. now montana governor steve bullock wants to run against trump to get him out of the white house in 2020. governor bullock joins us live here next. and the gastroenterologists who developed it. (vo) align helps to soothe your occasional digestive upsets 24/7 with a strain of bacteria you can't get anywhere else. (woman) you could say align puts the "pro" in probiotic. so where you go, the pro goes. (vo) go with align. the pros in digestive health. and try align gummies. with prebiotics and probiotics to help support digestive health. 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. ♪ the 2019 subaru outback is how safe is the car you're considering? an iihs top safety pick plus. the honda cr-v is not. sorry, honda. which suv would make the best investment? the subaru outback has the best resale value in its class for 2019, according to kelley blue book. even better than the toyota rav4. sorry, toyota. it's easy to love a subaru. who used expedia to book the hotel that led to the ride ♪ which took them to the place where they discovered that sometimes

a little down time can lift you right up. ♪ flights, hotels, cars, activities. expedia. everything you need to go. your control. like bedhead. cars, activities. hmmmm. ♪ rub-a-dub ducky... and then...there's national car rental. at national, i'm in total control. i can just skip the counter and choose any car in the aisle i like.

so i can rent fast without getting a hair out of place. heeeeey. hey! ah, control. (vo) go national. go like a pro. roxana: when i got into teaching, it was this idea of really transforming our schools. marisa: one of my biggest responsibilities as a teacher is to serve as an advocate for my kids. newscaster: hundreds of teachers are hitting the picket lines. newscaster: thousands gathered here. rosanne: we need smaller class sizes. angelia: more counselors and more nurses. roxana: we have to be able to invest in our young people. angelia: every student has a right to quality education. ever: no matter what neighborhood you live in. roxana: our students don't have part-time needs, so they can't have part-time solutions. rodney: because we know quality public schools... roxana: make a better california... marisa: for all of us.

joining us now here for the interview is steve bullock. he is the governor of montana. he is the newest contender in the very large democratic presidential primary. governor, thanks so much for making the trip. >> rachel, it's good to be here for sure. >> so you are joining the race as either number 22 or number 23. >> 37. >> 40. >> at this point. yeah. >> and people are looking differently at the 22nd candidate than they might have been at the second candidate. and why did you wait this long to get in? >> yeah, because fundamentally i would have loved to get in earlier, but i have a job to do. i have about a 60% republican legislature. i had medication expansion. one 000 montanans lives were at stake to get that through. had freezing college tuition.

had a foreign dark money ban that few other states have passed. i signed my last bill just monday. and now it's tuesday and here i am with you. so i really couldn't have -- if i was going to do my job, i think it would have been that much more difficult to get some real difficult things through this time if i was here with you instead of with people in montana. so i get that i'm late into it. but thing is a lot of room for me to do some things here. >> am i right that the legislature meets like 90 days every two years? like it's a pretty tight time frame. >> 90 legislative days every two years. >> why has the democratic party never, ever, ever elected -- nominated a westerner president? lbj, texas, yes. but that's as close as you get. >> you know, i don't know if it's in part population in part. there is a bias towards the coasts. when we talk about public lands, when we talk about sort of the importance of winning in the places like i am, we really need to have sort of the western values on the ticket.

i think it contributes significantly for sure. >> when you had that remarkable night in november 2016 when you won reelection while donald trump took your state by 20 points, you set out thereafter and tried to start a conversation with national democrats about the democratic party speaking to rural voters and speaking to people who they might not expect to support them, speaking to people who might have crossed over to vote for trump. how do you assess the success of that overture that you made? do you think that the democratic party is taking that seriously or getting any better at that? >> well, i think they need to, because fundamentally, two things. one of which if we don't win back some of the places we lost in 2016, we're not going to win this presidency. and second of which, even if you win, it's not just about cobbling together 270 electoral votes. you showed your map earlier. 22 states completely republican controlled. you're never going to get anything done in congress if there is a whole lot of the country that says well this democratic party just doesn't identify or fight for me or work for me.

so i think that hopefully, you know, since even 2016, i've traveled quite a bit talking about what we need to be doing to win back places that we ought to have never lost in the first place, and this next step is going to be part of that for sure. >> the common wisdom about that divide has been that the republican party has been really good about picking cultural divisive social conservative issues to make rural democrats and working class democrats and potential crossover voters feel like the democratic party is elite and cosmopolitan and against them on these issues. i think that was a long-standing diagnosis here. but now we're in sort of a different place. roe v. wade very well may get overturned this year. places where republicans are in control really are looking at banning abortion, and they're starting right now tonight in alabama. you yourself have been through a transformation on gun policy in recent years. those issues aren't just symbols.

they're real policy issues that have real implications. i'm not sure the democratic party is going to go back in terms of being anti-abortion or being pro-gun in the way that they were. is that the right diagnosis about what's wrong with the democrats in talking to rural voter, or is it a totally different conversation? >> well, thing is a couple of different things. in montana i can't win just by going to patches of blue. i have to travel over the 407,000 square mile state. we're not even showing up, we're not ultimately going to win. second of which, if you look over the last decade or so, a third of the counties in the country actually had business gains, 150,000 new businesses were in a third of the counties of the country. two-thirds of the counties actually lost businesses. you take that map and line it up where donald trump won, and it's dang near the exact same thing. so fundamentally, i think that there are parts of it that certainly your cultural issues. but if you don't feel like your life is getting better, that you have a fair shot at success, when i was growing up, 90% of 30-year-olds are doing better

than their parents. today it's only half. the average worker hasn't gotten a wage increase in 40 years in real terms. if you don't feel like you're life is getting better and the democrats aren't even giving you a path along that way, we're not giving them a reason to vote for us. >> i wonder how that maps for you on to the issue of climate. climate is a foreground issue for everybody who is running this year. >> you bet. >> i think the republicans are even starting to think that they may have to talk about climate. >> it's about time. >> i do think they're -- i think they're doing their own assessment of how they're going to deal with that. montana is a coal state. governor jay inslee from washington, also another popular democratic governor, he is running this year, he is running on a climate change form will platform. he is calling for an end to coal fired plants by 2030. he said the two of you fundamentally disagree on what the science demands in terms of climate. how do you compete for a democratic elector and for a country that really wants climate to be tackled head-on.

>> as i do. we're outdoors. people. i had any second worst fire season two years ago, 1.3 million acres burned. come to glacier park soon because the glaciers will be gone. i've doubled our wind generation just in my six years, quadrupled our solar, and i know we need to do things. scientist says ultimately we've got to get carbon neutral by 2050. i think we can do it before that. i think we can do it by 2040. and there are steps we can take. we have to be getting rid of a billion tons of co2 globally a year. we need to rejoin paris. with we are the -- we emit about five billion tons a year. china is actually twice as much. we cannot do this alone. we need to regain our leadership in the world. we need -- we could actually then get back in the cafe standards. you also need to say let's actually figure out short-term and long-term how we get to 2040

there has been more coal plants closed in two years, two and a half years of trump than in eight years of obama. by and large, these were older plants. price makes a difference and consumer preference makes a difference. >> do you think that needs to be accelerated? do you think coal plants need to be phased out? >> i think the scientists say by 2050 -- >> some scientist says by 1950 would have been a better idea in you look at glacier park melting right now. >> i think you either have to -- you have more technological changes in your phone in the last five years than how we've ever generated energy from coal in the last 40 or 50. so there has been some efficiencies, but a lot of the old plants are just going away anyway. and think about from the perspective of george h.w. bush, the first bush 30 years ago said we're going to address the greenhouse effect from the white house effect, meaning we will lead from the very top. republicans don't even acknowledge that climate change

exists because of the outside influences, the koch brothers and others that turn around, finance their elections and they can't even have a meaningful discussion. i think we are at a really exciting time where we're talking about the steps we need to take, and we'll be taking those steps and i'll be taking those steps. >> you have been a target of the koch brothers in recent elections. that's one of the things i want to talk with you about. i will be right back with montana governor steve bullock right after this. stay with us. and struggle. we actually... seek it out. other species do difficult things because they have to. we do difficult things. because we like to. we think it's... fun. introducing the all-new 2019 ford ranger built for the strangest of all creatures. you won't find relief here. congestion and pressure? go to the pharmacy counter for powerful claritin-d. while the leading allergy spray only relieves 6 symptoms,

claritin-d relieves 8, including sinus congestion and pressure. claritin-d relieves more. with moderate to severe ulceratiyour plans... crohn's, can change in minutes. your head wants to do one thing... but your gut says not today. if your current treatment isn't working... ask your doctor about entyvio®. entyvio® acts specifically in the gi tract, to prevent an excess of white blood cells from entering and causing damaging inflammation. entyvio® has helped many patients achieve long-term 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®. ask your doctor about the only gi-focused biologic

just for ulcerative colitis and crohn's. entyvio®. relief and remission within reach. it's how we care for our cancer patients- like job. when he was diagnosed with cancer, his team at ctca created a personalized care plan to treat his cancer and side effects. so job could continue to work and stay strong for his family. this is how we inspire hope. this is how we heal. we love you, daddy. good night. i love you guys. cancer treatment centers of america. appointments available now.

or psoriatic arthritis, little things can be a big deal. that's why there's otezla. otezla is not an injection or a cream. it's a pill that treats differently. for psoriasis, 75% clearer skin is achievable, with reduced redness, thickness, and scaliness of plaques. for psoriatic arthritis, otezla is proven to reduce joint swelling, tenderness, and pain. and the otezla prescribing information has no requirement for routine lab monitoring. don't use if you're allergic to otezla. it may cause severe diarrhea, nausea, or vomiting. otezla is associated with an increased risk of depression.

tell your doctor if you have a history of depression or suicidal thoughts or if these feelings develop. some people taking otezla reported weight loss. your doctor should monitor your weight and may stop treatment. upper respiratory tract infection and headache may occur. tell your doctor about your medicines and if you're pregnant or planning to be. ready to treat differently with a pill? otezla. show more of you. i. we're back with gosh bullock. thanks for being here. >> you have had headlines that most people haven't had to deal with. there are democrats speaking anonymously to the press who say they wish you were running for senate instead. there is a republican senator in your state who is up next year who everybody thinks is vulnerable, and everybody thinks you would beat. you don't want to be a senator? you're worried about that race? what are you thinking about it?

>> rachel, this wasn't an either or. i was never going to run for the senate. i do think have i both the skills and abilities as an executive to bridge some divides. that's the kind of work i've always done. >> you've never been a legislator? >> never been a legislator. i have great respect for the senators, but this is something that never really got me excited. >> one of the hurdles that i see for you is that democratic electorate nationwide, and in a whole bunch of early states have a really key constituency in african american voters, african american women in particular. montana is less than 1% african american. you don't have experience talking with the black community in order to earn their votes and earn their trust and get them to vote for you. how do you anticipate meeting that challenge? >> and i think i'll do it the same way i've been attorney general and governor in montana. certainly both trying to represent everyone, but also

recognizing that there are unique challenges, and we're 7% native american. we've had significant challenges there, things that i've done for the lgbtq, executive orders, protecting gender identity, things that i've done on equal pay for equal work. now i will approach this and the rest of historically disadvantaged communities. i'll show up. i'll listen, hopefully more than i talk, and i'll recognize that this notion of fair shot of the american dream hasn't been available for everyone. there is no reason why an african american woman is four times more likely to die in childbirth than non, or in montana why an american indian has on average a life span 20 years less than a nonnative. in each of these areas, we'll certainly come in and say i need to learn, but i've been successful i think in both listening and trying to bring

everybody up and recognizing that there are different challenges in different community, and i think now, right now better than perhaps ever before, not only is the democratic party recognize that, but the country recognizes it. >> tell me about your evolution on guns. i know that you have changed your mind over time, certainly about whether schwepps should be banned, but also on universal background checks which surprised me. as recent as a few years ago you were not in favor of universal background checks. i can understand some of the other policy distinctions among democrats on gun issues. but the background check to me feels very black and white. how as recently as a few years ago could you believe that you shouldn't have to get a background check to get a gun? >> a couple of things. i've signed bills. i've vetoed a lot of bills relating to guns in my six years as well. i've been asked to lower the flags by both presidents trump and obama 53 times in total. over a quarter of those were from mass shootings. when i drop off my sixth grader

this year when he started school, he learned his first week where to go if an active shooter comes. no sixth grader should have to deal with this. so i started looking at it as a public health more even that a political issue. public health issue, gun owners don't want guns to get in the wrong hands. universal background checks now make sense to me. and ultimately, they make sense to the majority of americans. gunowner and not. it was actually going to a march for lives rally where i was asked to speak that i said i don't want to speak. i'm just going to listen. when i went with my kids, that's when i said listen, assault weapon, it's not used for self-protection. it's rarely used for hunting. stores and chains like dick's and walmart, they've banned them. it's time to have this conversation. i think we can have a conversation because everybody wants to keep their family safe. everybody wants to keep guns out

of the wrong hands. but even think post-vegas, it took a year plus to ban bump stocks. at some point we got to recognize, and this again goes to the influences aren't necessarily in the buildings. it's the outside dollars. if the nra, which was a hunting and a gun safety organization when i was a kid, now it's a political organization not allowing any compromise. if we looked at this as a public health issue more, we would take steps like that. >> steve bullock, democratic governor of the great state of montana, who with a republican legislature has managed over your three terms as governor to get a lot of stuff done that a lot of democrats would feel envious of, even in nontotally red states. sir, i am intrigued by your candidacy, and i'm happy to have you here talking about it. >> thanks. >> we'll be right back. stay with us. >> "the rachel maddow show" is sponsored by vrbo. travel better together. together

if ywhen you brush or floss, you don't have to choose between healthy gums and strong teeth. complete protection from parodontax has 8 designed benefits for healthy gums and strong teeth. complete protection from parodontax. (music throughout)

>> tech: at safelite autoglass, we every chip will crack.. this daughter was home visiting when mom saw a chip in her windshield. >> mom: honey is that a chip? >> tech: they wanted it fixed fast so they brought it to us. >> mom: hi. >> tech: with our in-shop chip repair service, we can fix it the same day... guaranteed. plus with most insurance a safelite chip repair is no cost to you. >> mom: really? drive safely. all right. ♪ acoustic music >> singers: ♪ safelite repair, ♪ safelite replace. for people 50 and older colat average risk.ing honey have you seen my glasses? i've always had a knack for finding things...

colon cancer, to be exact. and i find it noninvasively... no need for time off or special prep. it all starts here... you collect your sample, and cologuard uses the dna in your stool to find 92% of colon cancers. you can always count on me to know where to look. oh, i found them! i can do this test now! ask your doctor if cologuard is right for you. covered by medicare and most major insurers.

>> that does it for us tonight. very happy to have you with us. i'll see you again tomorrow. now it's time for "the last worded with lawrence o'donnell." >> good evening, rachel. the situation in alabama is moving quickly. we'll have joyce vance join us, a former u.s. attorney fra alabama to tell us what the next legal step is. this is clearly a law, an abortion ban law not designed to be implemented but designed to go to court. >> yes. >> so we will hear from joyce what happens next. >> the great thing about having joyce on this issue too is joyce was doing the best national legal analysis about that will bill even before it passed.