and didn't take no for an answer. thanks to "the washington post" and west virginia's charleston gazette mail. i don't know if you love your local paper or if you hate your local paper or haven't read it in so long you don't remember, but regardless, do it anyway, subscribe to your local paper. your country needs you to. good evening. i'm ari melber. thanks for joining our extended special live coverage from tonight's democratic presidential debate. we already have highlights coming in as the debate, you might have heard, is almost wrapping up and there is a lot to unpack and discuss. we're going to have a full round of live postgame analysis right here on msnbc including brian williams coming up and chris matthews live from detroit. now, what's been going on? well, the candidates have been running right up until this debate in michigan, including beto o'rourke literally on a run in detroit this morning where he was swatting away some questions. meanwhile, pete buttigieg was focussing more on inside time. he posted a picture of himself

deep in prep or at least the appearance thereof. elizabeth warren campaigning last night in toledo, ohio where she took her 40,000th selfie photograph with supporters. you can see the excitement there. they're clearly keeping track. bernie sanders was huddling with musician cardi b. yesterday in detroit. this was a picture she posted from it. she was asking him questions she got from some of her fans around the nation. their discussion's not out yet. cardi posted a message today telling her fans make sure you watch the debate. so everybody has been in on this. the democratic field is obviously big. it's more diverse than many other years. there's a lot of daylight between candidates on policy and that's especially true at the top of this field. even with all the differences between these candidates, you know one thing that everyone at the top has in common? everyone who appears to be a very viable potential democratic nominee from bernie to booker to biden to buttigieg even to candidates who don't have the

letter "b" at the start of their name? the top tier candidates have released their tax returns already. and that's typical. every presidential candidate who has been in the major party races since richard nixon has put out tax returns during their bid. it's one of these things that american electorates have come to expect from anyone who is open to the vetting to potentially be president. it's something that we seen as we all know as basic transparency and disclosure and it's happened in both parties until, of course, donald trump totally shattered that tradition. refused to release any tax returns whatsoever. now, democrats in congress, as you may know tonight, they're still in the middle of an escalation politically, legislatively and legally in this battle with trump to get his taxes. they asked, they invoked a law that allows them to ask. the president then used his own irs administrator to refuse to comply with what seemed like a pretty straightforward legal rule. so now they are seizing on that

to sue the president and try to pry loose his taxes through the third branch of government. meanwhile, the president's lawyers were actually in federal court just this week with all this other stuff going on. they're fighting a state-level effort from new york that would provide the president's state taxes, which would still show more than he has to the federal congress. so whatever happens in this current legal battle, you have the president breaking with norms and opening the way for a lot of candidates, frankly, maybe in either party to follow his new norm. don't release your taxes and maybe you'll be fine politically, at least in the short run. now, there are states that are trying to fix this. this is an important story tonight because there is new movements to pass these types of laws that actually would require candidates to cough up their tax returns. now, in some states it's just been talk. it's been brainstorming until now. this is a brand-new story you may not have heard about because it happened today. the governor of california, gavin newsom, signing into the

state law a bill which doesn't have a lot of wiggle room. it requires all presidential candidates, and they mean all presidential candidates, to release five years of income taxes or, and this is why it hits them where it counts, or get kicked off the ballot in the delegate-rich state of california. now, this is the first law of its kind to be put anywhere on the books in the nation and it would appear to be a direct response to, yes, the obvious trumpy reality of a president in office running for re-election without ever releasing tax returns. the president hasn't really faced any direct repercussions for this secrecy. maybe that would change here because this law in california is not just for the future down the road, future presidents, et cetera. no, it would clearly in the way it's written apply to this president as well. so if it stays on the books, if it's not kicked out by some legal challenge or court, it could keep the current president, yes, off the california ballot in the year 2020. and joining us now is gavin

newsom, democratic governor of the state of california. thanks for doing this. >> good to be with you, ari. >> what does this new law do? >> it simply provides responsibility for anyone who wants to place their name on the primary presidential ballot to release five years of tax returns. it also requires the governor of the state of california to do the same, and i think it's appropriate, not just under the circumstances but because norms have been charged sin. since 1973 every elected president has provided their tax returns. we are now in a position where we feel california needs to lead in the absence of federal government requiring the same of the current president and potentially future presidents. >> you mention the current president. you say norms have been challenged. so this is targeting donald trump? >> no, i mean no more than it's targeting me. if i choose to run for re-election, i would be required to do the same. it's politically neutral. it's party neutral. every president candidate. everybody we see up there on the presidential debate stage would

be required to do the same. >> then why not wait until this controversy's over? you could set this up for after 2020? i mean, it does appear to be in timing and in its inflection going after the thing he hasn't released. i take your point that as lawyers would say it's facially neutral, it's technically neutral, but i think a lot of people watching and some people might even cheer this depending on their politics, but people watching would say it does look like it's going after trump. >> well, i just -- look, bottom line we believe in transparency. you can question the timing. i should note there was an effort a couple of years ago in california to do the same. the fact is we need to lead on the issue of conflicts. we need to lead on making sure the american people know if individuals in positions like mine or the president of the united states himself is self-dealing, conflicts of interest are real. we have a president that shouldn't be concerned about this because he made a commitment to the people of this country. he promised on the campaign trail he would release his tax returns. so this may be much to do about

nothing, but i think it's the right thing to do. >> and in terms of how the state law works, this is for the primaries. it's not as i understand it for the general election, is that right? >> that is correct. and, again, this was supported -- or not again but should be pointed out it was supported by every democrat in the california legislature. there has been a total i think of 18 states that have attempted to do this. some are still in the process and motion. this is not unique to california, but this is the first that landed on any governor's desk. i ask that it be amended to include me or any future governor because i think the issue of transparency should not be exclusive to the president of the united states. it should also be held to the account of people like myself who run the fifth largest government in the world. >> yeah, no, and you're in charge of clearly a very important big state. the other thing here is the politics, which i recognize in your role as governor you're trying to be as fair and sort of broad as possible, but i think

people know california is not a state that donald trump generally needs to win in the general election or any republican in the current mix of things, so if he just sort of boycotts this and isn't worried about that in the primary of the general, does that make this ultimately mostly symbolic? >> yeah, i mean, if that's what he chooses to do. he can choose to do the right thing. he can choose to do what he promised you and everybody watching he would do after this audit is complete. and that is provide us that information. >> do you think he was lying about the audit? we've talked to a lot of experts who say that defense never really washed. >> no, i mean, it's rather absurd. i don't know. the last i checked with the irs i think there is a three-year limitation on audits, but this may be some extraordinary exception, but the fact is he made that commitment, he made that promise. he should be held to account in that respect. look, at the end of the day, since 1973, i'll remind you in 1973 it was richard nixon who said the american people deserve to know whether, quote, unquote,

their president is a crook. every other elected official has done this. norms are being challenged left and right. it requires a response. it requires us to step up and it requires us to assert ourselves. and, again, this should be done at the federal level. i'm not naive about that. but in the absence of that, states like california will assert themselves. >> right. before we let you go, it's a big night for politics and the way you are leading on this news, which i think folks are interested in. i also wanted to get your latest on the response to the shooting. anything you can tell us as governor and the talk with the democrats looking at gun control in these debates? >> yeah, i'm sickened by it. i'm disgusted by it. i was with four of the victims yesterday. i was with the grandmother of the daughter who was holding a 6-year-old in his arms and died -- her arms that died. i can't tell you how many times i've done this. what the hell do you say to these parents? we're living in a country where only in the united states this happens. federal laws need to be enacted, which requires federal leadership, which requires

courage, requires conviction, requires congress, requires the president of the united states to lead and to look these people in the eye and be held to account. comprehensive background checks and tell me why a 19-year-old kid who can't even drink can get a weapon of war from one state, bring it into another state and kill three people and injure so many others. this has got to stop. we have to move beyond the fact that we continue to have people like me on tv every damn that this happens and we move on to the next night's news story and say, well, maybe it's not the right time to talk about this, maybe the next congress, the next president will figure this out, this is a damn disgrace and it's happening on our watch. >> i hear you on all of that. we work in words over here and we don't have the words when we see these things happen over and over. >> that's right. >> governor newsom, thanks for spending some time with us tonight. >> thanks for having me. grateful. we have a lot more coming up. what is the fastest way to get

under donald trump's skin, how do you rattle him? well, apparently ask chairman elijah cummings. what is leading up to what president trump appears so worried about. next, we also talk to a member of the house oversight committee who serves directly alongside chairman cummings on that very big story. and later, the 11-year-old journalist giving some old pros a run for our money. a run for }÷ (avo) life doesn't give you many second chances. but a subaru can. (dad) you guys ok? you alright? wow. (avo) eyesight with pre-collision braking. standard on the subaru ascent. the three-row subaru ascent. love. it's what makes a subaru a subaru.

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

talk to your doctor about mavyret. look limu. a civilian buying a new car.ug let's go. limu's right. liberty mutual can save you money by customizing your car insurance, so you only pay for what you need. oh... yeah, i've been a customer for years. huh... only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪

welcome back to our special coverage live tonight. you know, when democrats retook the house after those mefrms they couldn't expect all their bills to become law. mitch mcconnell was the charge of the senate. donald trump in the house. but there is a unilateral power democrats got and that is oversight. it's no accident some of the highest profile freshmen progressive democrats wanted to get seats on the powerful oversight committee. it has authority across the federal government, which includes the white house. the oversight committee under the chairmanship of maryland democrat elijah cummings has clearly been in overdrive when

you think about the investigations they have operating, the number of subpoenas that cummings has come out of the gate with. he subpoenaed president trump's financial records. from his accounting firm demanding records from trump's one-on-one meeting with putin. he brought in trump's lawyer michael cohen for that very, very damaging public testimony which included discussion under oath of those hush money payments. he also subpoenaed white house adviser kellyanne conway about the hatch act. improperly given to officials who work for trump, including his own family members and probed whistle-blower complaints that the white house was illegally trying to transfer nuclear technology to the saudis. cummings also publicly grilled trump's acting homeland security chief this month over the detention and treatment of migrants at the border and the separation of children from their parents. the white house has largely defied many of these demands. cummings says in fact he hasn't got a single piece of paper from the white house since he became

chairman. today there is a new narrative from the white house, as donald trump may be on defense. it comes from mike pence. and from white house officials trying to backrun "the new york times." it's the president's race-baiting tirades against chairman cummings, which have obviously centered on the fact that he is black and represents a city that is known as urban black place for people. these fairly obvious facts, though, are being spun a little bit. let me explain. you have this vote last week to authorize subpoenas for work-related emails and text messages on personal devices of trump's daughter and son-in-law. and now you have this. aides said the subpoena move last week riled mr. trump and helped fuel the anger that had been on public display since saturday. where you have pence telling reporters today it goes back to chairman cummings' grilling of the homeland security chief. so what's happening here is a couple of separately real things may be colliding for political spin because part of what the white house is saying is, well,

cummings has been tough on them. true. and part of what else they're saying is nothing about these attacks on cummings according to the trump white house is actually racist because trump is just calling cummings' majority black district, quote, disgusting and rat-infested, but when he does all of this, it is just the way trump would go after any oversight chairman or anyone he has beef with, nothing to do with race. so in spinning this new defense, which is a sign they're on defense, the white house is also admitting something else, and this is the other true part amidst all of spin. this particular chairman of this particular house oversight committee has donald trump rattled. why? and where are they headed? well, to get into all of this, i'll thrilled to tell you we have a very news worthy guest, a member of this house oversight committee, democrat roh khanna

of california. >> thanks for having me on. >> you were no stranger to the power and target of the house oversight committee when there is cross-party conflict like there is here. what is your reaction to the white house, as i'm referring to it, pretty effective at putting on the heat mixed with something that sounds like a defense to the way that donald trump's attacked congressman cummings? >> well, ari, i think you're absolutely right. chairman cummings has gotten under this president's skin. he's gotten under the president's skin because he's been extraordinarily effective. he was effective in exposing the hatch act violations of kellyanne conway. he was effective on the census. i think his hearings influenced the supreme court decision coming out against the census. and he has the support, ironically the respect at the very least of people like mark meadows and jim jordan, some of the president's closest allies,

so he picked a fight here that really was a losing fight, and i think people around him are realizing that. >> so you think this is a sign that they don't want to necessarily continue it on these terms. you mentioned something that is easy to forget in these very polarized times, which is chairman cummings is pretty tough on the oversight. as you mentioned, he actually has quite a solid working relationship with several trump-friendly republicans. explain. >> he does. there was a time on the committee that people made an attack on mark meadows and chairman cummings actually defended mark meadows. he said that mark meadows isn't a racist, that he has a relationship with mark meadows, so chairman cummings actually goes out of his way to be to civil to people on the republican side. now, he doesn't always agree with them. he obviously votes against them. they disagree with some of the policies that he advocates, but you can ask most of these republicans. they have a tremendous amount of respect for him. >> what do you do about the fact

that this white house doesn't want to ever do good-faith cooperation with these investigative committees? that it seems that you have to on anything you want go to the mat of subpoenas and then seeking court enforcement. at a practical level, does that work? it may be sort of a break with norms and ethics, but does it work because it's taking your committee a lot longer to get things i think you would agree in a traditional setting, including traditional republican administrations would not be pulling teeth every time. >> well, this president doesn't recognize the separation of powers. he's used to running things in a business and he thinks that government works the same way. and he doesn't realize that there are three co-equal branches of government. so he has really defied basic separation of powers, but chairman cummings has still been effective. look at what we did on the census. we got wilbur ross to testify. his testimony was terrible. it led to many critical admissions. i believe that influenced the supreme court. the chairman also was very

effective on michael cohen and many of the committee members asked effective questions. we have been able to get records on the president's financial issues, and i think that there is a pattern now that's being established where the president has been so uncooperative, so lacking transparency that people are seeing through it and it's going to hurt him, particularly with independent voters around this country. >> right. and while i got you, in a brief answer, who won the debate tonight? >> well, i think bernie sanders did terrific. i think he came out with passion, he defended himself, and he made it very clear why we need medicare for all and why he's going to take on the special interests. >> and what about any candidates you didn't endorse? >> senator warren. i think senator warren also did very, very well. she was passionate. she really talked about people's stories and had a clear rationale. i think the two of them really dominated the debate stage tonight. i think marianne williamson

actually had some surprisingly eloquent answers and i think she did well as well. >> congressman khanna being friendly and fair to multiple democrats. what a -- what a model for the primary that we hear some people want. it hasn't gotten too rough yet. it has been a busy, busy news day and night. i really appreciate you joining us tonight. >> appreciate your having me on, ari. >> yes, sir. thank you so much. we have so much to get to. we have other issues that democrats are still trying to press the administration over. we have, as i already gun teasing out, a little bit of our live post-debate coverage and a lot more special guests. stay with us. stay with us s body weight. it never questions the tasks at hand. but this year, there's a more thrilling path to follow. (father) kids... ...change of plans! (vo) defy the laws of human nature... ...at the summer of audi sales event get exceptional offers now!

[ text notification now that you have] new dr. scholl's massaging gel advanced insoles with softer, bouncier gel waves, you'll move over 10% more than before. dr. scholl's. born to move. ♪ corey is living with metastatic breast cancer, which is breast cancer that has spread to other parts of her body. she's also taking ibrance with an aromatase inhibitor, which is for postmenopausal women or for men with hr+ / her2- metastatic breast cancer as the first hormonal based therapy. ibrance plus letrozole was significantly more effective at delaying disease progression versus letrozole. patients taking ibrance can develop low white blood cell counts, which may cause serious infections that can lead to death. before taking ibrance, tell your doctor if you have fever,

chills, or other signs of infection, liver or kidney problems, are pregnant, breastfeeding, or plan to become pregnant. common side effects include low red blood cell and low platelet counts, infections, tiredness, nausea, sore mouth, abnormalities in liver blood tests, diarrhea, hair thinning or loss, vomiting, rash, and loss of appetite. corey calls it her new normal because a lot has changed, but a lot hasn't. ask your doctor about ibrance. the #1 prescribed fda-approved oral combination treatment for hr+/her2- mbc. make ice.d be mad at tech that's unnecessarily complicated. oral combination treatment but you're not, because you have e*trade, which isn't complicated. their tools make trading quicker and simpler so you can take on the markets with confidence. don't get mad. get e*trade. do you want ready to wear clothing without all the hassle? you can, with bounce dryer sheets. we dried one shirt without bounce, and an identical shirt using bounce. the bounce shirt has fewer wrinkles, less static, and more softness and freshness.

bounce out wrinkles, bounce out static. has been excellent. they really appreciate the military family and it really shows. with all that usaa offers why go with anybody else? we know their rates are good, we know that they're always going to take care of us. it was an instant savings and i should have changed a long time ago. it was funny because when we would call another insurance company, hey would say "oh we can't beat usaa" we're the webber family. we're the tenney's we're the hayles, and we're usaa members for life. ♪ get your usaa auto insurance quote today.

i guess you feel like you're doing a great job, right? is that what you're saying? >> we're doing our level best. >> what does that mean? what does that mean when a child is sitting in their own feces, can't take a shower? come on, man! what's that about? none of us would have our

children in that position! they are human beings! >> president trump has been spending this week attacking congressman elijah cummings, who has used his chairmanship of the oversight committee to take on trump's officials, including what you saw there. acting homeland security secretary mcaleenan who admitted despite a court order mandating that parents crossing the border with their kids must be allowed to keep them, actually the united states still separates families and he defended this when it is key to their own safety and welfare, claiming they do it rarely. tonight the aclu is challenging the position. saying the arguments are neither valid nor in that best interest standard. arguing the government systematically separating large numbers of families, highly dubious allegations of unfitness and errors in identifying bona fide parent/child relationships. the aclu says the government has done this more than 900 times in the past year, which includes

separating babies and toddlers by their parents. i'm joined now by the attorney arguing this very case, deputy director of the aclu immigrants' rights project. >> thanks for having me. >> what is this case about? >> so this is an extension of our original case. we were in court last summer, as you know, trying to stop the family separation policy. we stopped it. we got an injunction. now we find out that the government is still doing it. that's what's shocking. 185 under 5. the government tells us we're doing it for the children's own safety because the parent has a criminal history. very serious crimes, abuse of a child, what we get back or traffic violations the parent has a theft of $5. >> right. >> forgery. minor crimes possible. >> this is a thing in the law where it might sound reasonable, as you say, if it was something that actually jeopardizes a

child. forget the immigration context. in the united states we have laws that will separate a child from a truly unfit parent. this court order says basically no more separation absent that the parent is a threat or a danger. >> exactly. >> okay, watching at home you think danger is a word that has to mean something. is this a case where the law needs to be better defind or the trump administration in your view knows better and is being lawless? so here's the thing. i think you put your finger on it. the judge laid out the right standard. under state law you can't take a child away from a parent unless there is a very, very serious offense to the child, abuse or danger. i think that anybody would have understood the court's order, but it seems like the administration is claiming they don't understand it so we're back in court and we're asking the judge to do is still the government, look, i meant what i said. there has to be genuine danger to this child or the parent is unfit. one child got taken away