evictions for home owners facing mortgage deadlines, mortgage payments, and renters around the country as well as other key benefits that have been stalled in the gridlock of congress. the house democrats had passed a bill back in may. it has not been acted on by the senate. the talks broke down on friday. they were trillions apart. the democrats demanding $2 trillion and came down $1 trillion and the white house offering far less than that at least a trillion dollars less than that. joining me now is our panel. let's go to melissa murray nyu professor. can the president by executive order take these actions or does it matter whether he is taking actions that require expenditures, appropriated expenditures that is the province of congress? >> again, that is the whole question. it really depends on how this is structured. under the constitution the president under his article 2 powers can issue executive orders so long as they proceed

from those article 2 powers or alternatively from a grant of delegated authority from congress to the president. it is not clear whether we would imagine this particular executive order being something like a delegated grant of power from congress since congress hasn't been able to reach any kind of solution on the question of the second stimulus package. again, i go back to the point that harry made earlier that a lot of this is really just political brinksmanship from the president. he wants to be seen as the person who is taking the lead on this. it is very much sounds of the april stimulus checks that he insisted bear his signature. he wants to be seen as the person doing this when in fact as representative edwards said this is something that could be done comprehensively through simply having congress pass the stimulus package and having him sign it as opposed to doing it through these piece meal executive orders. >> and in terms of any kind of legal challenge, how would that work? the house democrats would try to take him to court if he was

dipping into appropriated money and trying to transfer it as he did with the wall? >> well, congress may be the most likely opponent for the president if this were to be a legal challenge but as you suggest there would obviously be political losses in doing so. so then the question becomes, is there some other group that would have standing to challenge this, someone else who might be injured and perhaps it could be the banks, if the rent abatements were to go through or the banks who owned the student loans, those could be likely injured parties that could press this. but a real question could be, what happens if there is no one to step up to challenges? i think that is highly unlikely. again, is this really something the president wants to see happen or is this really a political ploy and a stunning example of political theater that is taking place at a time where the president is really on the ropes electorally? >> and of course harry litman, the legal issues, the political issues, and also the whole drama

of doing this luxurious golf, at his luxurious golf course where he has people in the back of the room who are members paying $350,000 a year for their membership observing this and this is being called a white house official ceremony as well as a news conference as he did yesterday when these people were jeering the reporters as well. harry, pause for a second. ali velshi has just joined us as well by phone. ali, we're seeing this playing out in bedminster, new jersey waiting for the president to come in to sign executive orders maybe on the mortgage waiver, trying to reimpose that. don't know if he is going to try to get around constitutional restrictions on the $600 unemployment compensation that expired, additional supplemental covid unemployment comp that expired last week because that would raise serious legal

issues. what about the economic effects here? republican and democratic economists, the head of the fed all saying that this kind of money is needed. the states and local governments need this money. the economy needs the money. it is the economy faltering still that is affected mostly by the pandemic. so it is all wrapped up and seems that the president is doing exactly the wrong thing by not agreeing to negotiate a solution to get relief to people and try to get more money into the economy. >> yeah. this is, andrea, optics obviously and bad optics because the bedminster site doesn't really suit the moment. but it is optics insofar as the president cannot by executive order provide the amount of money that is required. you can disagree with democrats as to how many trillions of dollars are required but one thing that we have seen in the last several months is when it comes to keeping interest rates

low and providing businesses with the necessary money needed to keep the economy going, we have a money tree. we were capable of putting in several trillions of dollars but now you've got 20 or so senators under mitch mcconnell according to him who think the contribution to the debt of another plan of the size that the democrats want is too large. so the president's back needs to be in dealing with those 20 or so senators and mitch mcconnell in getting them to come to a compromise. there was a compromise effort as you've reported by chuck schumer and nancy pelosi of a trillion dollar reduction in what they were planning. here is where economists come in. they say when you are giving money to the people who need it the most who are spending it on essentially housing, food, and transportation, 100% of that federal money gets turned around and used in the local economy. so, a, it is effective spending

of money. b, while this country doesn't concern itself with conversations around debt and deficit the moment you do go into debt and deficit are these moments, these emergency moments in which people's income is disappearing and you're replacing their ability to pay for their food, transportation, and housing. so the president is trying to get a political win out of this but, a, there isn't enough money to get the political will so it will end up being a half measure. b, what currency he has is with republicans in congress and he's not achieving that. and, c, it's going to run out the same way the cares act did. so it is an example of a short term kick the can down the road don't do the hard work. what should be happening is there should be no golfing. there should be no golf course. there should be a lot of people locked into a room with an agreement on how to spend the necessary taxpayer money for the people who need the relief. so on one hand the president

will get some kudos from some people by using an executive order for once in a rare time in favor of something that the american people actually need. on the other hand, it is not enough money. it doesn't solve the problem and it is not broad enough to address the catastrophe we are facing right now. and the irony and the thing that people are going to hate most is the fact that we act edmeadly when it came to the feds saying we can't have money drying up, credit lines drying up like in 2008 so the feds guaranteed every corporation that needs money will get money and interest rates are low but we can't deal with $600 a week and the moratorium eviction for people who really need it. it is a philosophical and ideological problem that the senate, senate republicans have got to deal with, the president's trying an end run and it is not going to work.

>> and stephanie ruhle is also joining us. what we are seeing is not just gridlock but something i've never seen in an emergency like this. no negotiations. really no give. no compromise. no compromise at all on state and local. and what the president seems to want so much is deferring the payroll tax, cutting the payroll tax and kicking that down the road but that liability will be due at some point. what you're taking is an economy already crippled by the pandemic, people who are hurting, and telling them they'll get a big bill at the back end. >> without a doubt. and the payroll tax cut makes deferment makes absolutely no sense when you think about the people, andrea, that are hurting the most. these are the people who don't have jobs right now. and you continue to hear treasury secretary mnuchin say well we're just not going to pay people to stay at home. andrea, let's not forget, we have lost tens of thousands of small businesses in this country. there is not a hiring boom out

there. this idea millions of americans sitting on unemployment are just chilling counting their money and choosing not to go to work is such an over exaggeration. rather than congress rolling their sleeves up and saying how do we solve this? is it a jobs program? is it something that is actually going to create a long term solution? and the president's executive order does nothing with funding for schools. the president said over and over reopen our schools. you are not going to reopen schools without significant funding from the federal government. the teachers union has estimated it will cost $116.5 billion to safely reconfigure schools. thus far the federal government has allotted $13 billion. last i checked, that is over a billion dollars short. there are all sorts of working families out there, andrea, who would love to send their kids back to school or who have to

leave their jobs because they have to care for their kids at home. republicans also want liability shields for businesses. well, i can promise you there are all sorts of people out there who are saying i can't risk going to my job if i don't have health care, if my employer won't look after me if i to do get sick. there are huge risks that aren't being addressed. the president is going to do what the president loves to do which is get out his big old pen and sign an executive order and then he can point the finger and say to the american people who are suffering, you're right. you could lose your apartment. you don't have money right now. but it wasn't my fault. blame congress. i tried to help. and the people he is hurting in government are fellow republicans because he undercuts them and says well you couldn't get anything done but i can. when the rubber hits the wall this executive order doesn't do that much. it is the president doing what he loves to do. put on a show. >> and we are just seeing that

the president has tweeted a couple minutes ago that he would be out for a major news conference in ten minutes so we think the 3:30 expected news conference might be happening in about eight minutes from now. we'll take a quick break and be right back. back and take. it. on... ...with rinvoq. rinvoq a once-daily pill... ...can dramatically improve symptoms... rinvoq helps tame pain, stiffness, swelling. and for some... rinvoq can even significantly reduce ra fatigue. that's rinvoq relief. with ra, your overactive immune system attacks your joints. rinvoq regulates it to help stop the attack. rinvoq can lower your ability to fight infections, including tuberculosis. serious infections and blood clots, sometimes fatal, have occurred... ...as have certain cancers, including lymphoma, and tears in the stomach or intestines, and changes in lab results. your doctor should monitor your bloodwork. tell your doctor about any infections... and if you are or may become pregnant while taking rinvoq.

take on ra talk to your rheumatologist about rinvoq relief. rinvoq. make it your mission. if you can't afford your medicine, abbvie may be able to help. shingles doesn't care. i logged 10,000 steps today. shingles doesn't care. i get as much fresh air as possible. good for you, but shingles doesn't care. because 1 in 3 people will get shingles, you need protection. but no matter how healthy you feel, your immune system declines as you age, increasing your risk for getting shingles. so what can protect you? shingrix protects. for the first time ever, you can protect yourself from shingles with a vaccine proven to be over 90% effective. shingrix is a vaccine used to prevent shingles in adults 50 years and older. shingrix does not protect everyone and is not for those with severe allergic reactions to its ingredients or to a previous dose. the most common side effects are pain, redness, and swelling at the injection site, muscle pain,

tiredness, headache, shivering, fever, and upset stomach. talk to your doctor or pharmacist about protecting yourself with shingrix. shingles doesn't care. shingrix protects.

their words and deeds serving as a crucial reminder that in this time of stress and catastrophe we really are all in this together. and we are expecting president trump in his bedminster, new jersey golf resort the ball room with the american flags, the presidential seal on the podium. he is expected out to sign one or more executive orders trying to circumvent congress after talks completely fell apart between the white house, house democrats, and senator schumer representing senate democrats. no mitch mcconnell. no agreement on senate republicans on a covid relief package. the president decided to go around congress and try to do it himself. ali velshi is with us. let's talk about the practicality of this. the politics are pretty obvious. he is going to try to blame the

democrats saying i can do something because you do nothing. but how do they respond given the fact that they passed legislation back in may and mitch mcconnell hasn't done a thing with it? ali velshi, are you still on the line? i think we may have a -- we may have lost ali. harry litman, let's talk about the executive orders that he is going to sign whether or not he can carry them out. there have been a lot of executive orders that have gone through. agencies have -- and environmental regulations and all kinds of things have actually gone through but a lot of others have just been signed and we never hear from them again. >> yeah. they have a pretty bad record in the court. but importantly, the way -- he can -- let's go to the foreclosures. he can cut some people a break.

congress can cut them a check. all he is able to do is have a federal hook. in the case say of foreclosures, that hits maybe, maybe one-third of all renters. the ones who live in buildings, backed by federal mortgages. the other two-thirds he can't do a thing about them. congress could of course. but he can't. same thing with student loans. if they're federally backed he can maybe do something to help. if they're not, those students are still going to be out of luck. taking it this route means if it is not just questionable legality, but limited utility. >> and, donna edwards, as a former member of congress, the house democrats obviously have the power of the purse, but this president has really refused to negotiate. here he is in bedminster, new jersey. his chief of staff is from -- formerly a member of congress, the freedom caucus, who are very

hard line against government spending. but even many republicans, republican governors and senators leave half the caucus want more spending and republican economists want more spending. >> i think you're right, andrea. i think today by signing these executive orders the president is readily acknowledging that he plays no leadership role with the republican party that he cannot wrangle the republicans in the senate to come together on a relief package for the american people. and it is actually pretty startling that you've got this complete disarray among senate republicans, a president thinking that he can act by fiat signing a couple executive orders as harry and others have described really have very, very little impact on the broad swath of americans who have lost their jobs and who are struggling

right now. and yet the senate sits on a package that is very comprehensive in nature that does the things that the president is trying to do in a limited way in his executive order but does additional things as well to help shore up the economy, get testing and tracing and treatment for coronavirus, support state and local governments, strengthens this united states postal service in order to prepare for elections that are coming up. this is a much more comprehensive approach and the president has ignored that and republicans in congress are in that senate are fighting with each other over what to do. and i look at, for example, something like the payroll tax cut, which only helps if you have a job and doesn't really help because you got to pay it back at the end of the day and, yet, 30 million americans are without an extra $600 a week so that they can meet their

responsibilities, pay their bills, and take care of their families. >> and i think we have ali velshi back with us. to the point the president is not exerting any leadership by being part of the negotiations, one of the problems that he has with the senate caucus is they don't want this payroll tax cut. neither does his treasury secretary from all reports. he's sort of a lone man standing on that. >> yeah. he's got a strange obsession with payroll tax cuts. it's an unusual -- from an economic perspective it is -- he seems to think -- it's like he heard from someone that this is going to be the solution that you need. the solution is actually more specific because payroll tax cuts solve an employment solution. the reason people are unemployed at the moment isn't because the payroll tax is too high. it is because there's been a collapse in demand. we saw it come back a little bit in june. and then it, about half way through july we saw it collapse again. when people are home, getting

sick, there are shutdowns, your demand has collapsed. so doing things like the fed did, making money available to banks that could then give it to companies, that makes sense. the payroll tax cut feels like taking this urgent moment and getting a political thing done with it. getting something that business owners will like done that will have close to zero effect on unemployment. nobody who is not employing someone right now is saying i'm not doing so because the payroll tax is too high. they're doing it because they don't have business. so again, the urgency here is not the economic urgency of making life a little easier for employers. it is creating a situation in which people can continue to spend money and create demand. and where that demand is most acute right now is in very basic stuff. housing, staples, you know, household staples, food, and transportation. those are the places around which the president should be tinkering but, again, that $600

a month supplementary unemployment is key to people. that is actually paying the rent or paying the mortgage. the $1200 extra check that democrats have been looking for which is something that major, other major democracies like canada have been doing for sometime. >> the president -- >> good afternoon. >> the president is at the podium. let's listen. >> -- to reach an agreement with democrats on additional china virus relief. already my administration has enacted over $3 trillion in historic relief saving many tens of millions of dollars in jobs and you see how fast the economy is coming back. it does look like it is going to be very sharp v. we have a tremendous enthusiasm, tremendous spirit, and tremendous job growth. we set a record on number of jobs in the last three months. it's the most jobs ever created in a three-month period during a three-month period. it's great.

before we begin, i've just signed two bills that are great for our vets, our vets are very special. we passed veterans choice as you know and veterans accountability. they've been trying to get that passed for decades and decades and no president has ever been able to do it. we got it done so veterans have choice and now you have the accountability that if you don't love your vets, if you're in the v.a. and you don't love the vets or take care of the vets, you can actually get fired. if you don't do your job. we want people that love our vets. the first expands the eligibility for vets with blindness in both eyes so we have an expansion benefit, expansion of various elements of being and working with the v.a. for vets with blindness and in particular blindness in both eyes. and we have a lot of problems with blindness and the v.a. and we're doing something about it. they've been talking about this

for many years. so that is expanding eligibility for vets with blindness in both eyes. okay? the second is -- requires the v.a. to establish a treatment program for vets who need treatment rather than punishment for certain nonviolent crimes. and you know what that all means. it is something they've been trying to get done for a long time. the second requires the v.a. to establish a treatment court. this is a treatment court program for vets who need treatment rather than punishment for certain nonviolent crimes. i think it is self-explanatory. we've wanted this for a long time. they've been trying to get it for a long time. now we have it. and i want to thank everybody for helping us get that done. we had a lot of support from a lot of great people including people in the v.a. in the current negotiations, we have repeatedly stated our willingness to immediately sign

legislation providing expanded unemployment benefits, protecting americans from eviction, and providing additional relief payments to families. democrats have refused these offers. they want to negotiate. what they really want is bailout money for states that are run by democrat governors and mayors and that have been run very badly for many years and many decades in fact. you know the states. everybody knows who we're talking about and what we're talking about. i don't think we have to go over it. but what the democrats primarily want is bail out money. has nothing to do with the china virus. it has nothing to do with anything that we've been talking about over the last period of time. they want to bail out states that have been badly managed by democrats, badly run by democrats for many years. in fact in all cases many decades. we are not willing to do that. nancy pelosi and chuck schumer have chosen to hold this vital assistance hostage on behalf of very extreme partisan demands

and the radical left democrats, we just can't do that. hopefully we can do something with them at a later date but we'll be signing some bills in a little while that are going to be very important and will take care of pretty much the entire situation. as we know it. and as you have been covering it and in some cases actually covering it accurately. many of the far left policies they are pushing have nothing to do again with what we have been working on so hard, namely the corona -- you can call it so many different names. what a horrible thing china released upon the world. one-third of their bill, the heroes act, is spending completely unrelated money to the virus. here are just a few of the policies in their extreme left bill. again, this is a bill supported by biden and biden is totally controlled now by the bernie sanders left wing of the party and in fact has gone further

left than bernie sanders ever dreamt of going. so obviously other than bernie have brought him left, if you look at the manifesto they've agreed to, it is far further left than i've ever heard anything about bernie sanders. the massive taxpayer bail out of badly run blue states. we talked about. that is one of the things they are looking to do. measures designed to increase voter fraud. banning voter i.d. they want to ban voter i.d. we should have voter i.d. in every state. every state should have voter i.d. you have i.d. on everything you do practically. everybody has voter i.d. -- everybody has i.d. except for voters. when you vote you don't want i.d. they don't want it. we have some states where it works out great and if you want to stop fraud in elections have voter i.d. they want measures designed to increase voter fraud which is banning voter i.d. in all states and banning requirements for signature verification in federal elections. now, why would they want, in this bill, which really has

nothing to do with what we're talking about, stimulus, something banning voter i.d. in every single state? they want to ban it including states where we already have it because we have some states where we have it. indiana and others that do very well. why would they want to ban voter i.d. in all states and why would they want to ban requirements for signature verification in federal election? who would want a bill banning signature verification? what is that all about? you know what it's about? fraud. that's what they want. fraud. they want to try and steal this election because frankly it is the only way they can win the election. the bill also requires all states do universal mail-in balloting, which nobody is prepared for. regardless of whether or not they have the infrastructure. they want to steal an election. that's all this is all about. they want to steal the election.

so in the bill they have a bill that requires all states to do universal, mail-in balloting regardless of whether or not they have the infrastructure like in nevada it is such a disaster, their infrastructure as total disaster. they don't want to have signature verification. they don't want to have any of the safeguards that you need. and they don't want to have safeguards that are so common and so basic and even other states that we disagree with have this nevada thing is a mess but we'll see how the courts determine, what the courts determine. but they certainly don't have the infrastructure in nevada. so we'll see how it is. as you know we brought suit last week. we'll see how that all works out. i think we'll win it. but basically what they're trying to do with all of these requirements including no signature verification, they're trying to steal an election. and i was in ohio. i was in texas. i was in florida over the last four or five days.

and if you would see the crowds along the highways and the roadways, people have said they've never seen anything like it. and they haven't seen anything like it. and the press doesn't report it. because they're fake news. they even want to force states to implement the controversial practice known as ballot harvesting. very dangerous practice. meaning they would allow democrat party operatives to deposit thousands and thousands of completed ballots at the post office without any verification of who filled them out. including a verification of signatures on the ballot. so you're not even going to have a verified signature. anybody, i could sign it. you could sign it. anybody in this room could sign it. and that's going to count as a vote. how can you do a thing like this? so this is what they're asking for. this is what nancy pelosi and crying chuck schumer are asking for. okay?

it's ridiculous. it's horrible. a horrible thing. the democrat bill includes stimulus checks for illegal aliens. so if you are able to get into the country illegally and our borders as you know, doing very well right now. we have a very strong border and the wall is up to 276 miles. and will be completed around the end of the year. we'll do some extra mileage in certain areas people didn't realize were so bad. so we'll be completed with it right after we're going to do the additional mileage probably a little bit after the year. i think from what i've heard, joe biden, sleepy joe wants to rip the wall down. he wants people to pour into our country. they want to have open borders. we don't want to have open borders. so the democrat bill includes stimulus checks for illegal aliens. they require the mass release of illegal aliens from detention. they also compel the mass release of inmates including serious felons. how do you like that one?

and this is in the bill we're talking about. what does this have to do with stimulus to the economy? what does this have to do with the coronavirus? what does this have to do with this? so think about that. they require the mass release of illegal aliens from detention. what does this have to do with what we're trying to do? this is a radical left policy so they can go to portland and try and rip the place apart that they've been doing for many years and they've been doing for years and years. they also compel the mass release of inmates. what does this have to do with what we're talking about? this is nancy pelosi, crazy nancy and chuck schumer. they want to compel you to do this stuff and has nothing to do with what we're talking about and it includes serious felons. they want to have these people released on a mass basis including serious felons. that is page 1,689, page 1,762.

think of that. 1,762. that is nowhere near the end of their bill. they have things in there nobody has had time to look at or read. these people, i honestly believe they don't love our country if you want to know the truth. in addition to demanding the extreme partisan positions democrats are actively blocking the following measures. support for k-12 schools to help them safely open, additional funding for the paycheck protection program to help millions on the payroll. very good programs. very successful. kept a lot of businesses open. that is why we're doing so well in reopening our country. additional money for hospitals, testing, and vaccines. direct payments of $3,400 for a family of four. now remember. this is what the extreme partsans, this is what we're

talking about, democrats are actively blocking the things that we want and what we want is good for people. these are things that they're blocking. support for k-12 schools so they can open. think of that. also direct payments of the $3,400 for a family of four, plus. and funding for child care and mental health care. and you need that especially when you have so much of a lockdown. you need that. mental health care. funding for broadband, airports, and agriculture. rental assistance. and support for community banks and credit unions to help them provide $100 billion in loans to the hardest hit communities, including rural communities and farmers. they don't want anybody to get that. democrats are obstructing all of it. therefore, i am taking executive action. we've had it. >> as the president delves into

politics more than the substance of what he is doing attacking nancy pelosi, chuck schumer, joe biden, we're going to step back from this for a moment because it is not the presidential event that had been advertised and certainly not a news conference. josh ledderman, let's talk about the facts that he is claiming because he's gone from talking about a sharp "v" shaped economy and the great jobs improvement, which is contradictory to everything that the economists are saying, to misstating what is in the actual legislation that he has rejected and hasn't exactly, hasn't at all described the executive orders he says he is going to sign. >> that's right, andrea. quite a bit to fact check in the first few minutes of the president's comments there. specifically, on those executive orders, even though he hasn't yet laid out exactly what he is going to do the president said in those remarks just now it'll take care of basically everything we're talking about. we know that is not true because

we know just based on what can be done through executive authority he cannot grant new funds and do any of the much larger things both parties acknowledge need to happen right now. the president veering from the truth on several other occasions during those remarks as well for example talking about how the border wall would be finished around the end of the year. how that would be plausible i'm not really sure but we know very little of the new wall construction is actually occurred since president trump took office. the president also making some specious claims there about mail-in voting suggesting that democrats want to have mail-in ballots that have no verification whatsoever of people's signatures. that of course is not accurate as well. >> and the voter, the whole i.d. program has been used in many states to try to suppress

minority votes so there are a lot of issues there as well. josh, we believe he is going to do something on the mortgage issue. that is something he can do. but that as stephanie ruhle was pointing out earlier has a domino effect of course on some of the people who in these small communities are actually the mortgage holders. there's a lot of economic pain out there. and again, the unemployment comp that is so desperately needed is the one area where we do not think he has any legal authority. and the payroll tax cut he so desperately wants would help people who actually have jobs but not the unemployed. >> that is right. one of the consequences of using executive authority as opposed to actually getting congress to pass a law is that you can only affect smaller swaths of people. so for example with the eviction moratorium, the president does have some latitude when it comes to those federally backed mortgages so if you have a

mortgage through fannie mae or freddie mac that might be one thing but basically everyone agrees that as far as a private mortgage that doesn't really touch the federal system there is not going to be that much the president can do without going through congress. i'm reminded as we hear the president talk about this, andrea, of another president, president obama, and his pen-and-phone strategy in the second term when he was unable to get basically anything through congress and used his executive authority to try to do things on everything from climate change and gun control to immigration and the economy. and there the president was able to make an argument that he was filling a void left by a lack of congressional leadership. that was an important political message and it seems to be the one that the president is trying to emphasize. even if the steps that he is announcing are not going to be able to have as broad an effect as he and economists would like.

>> and former congresswoman donna edwards, let's talk about the appropriateness of attacking nancy pelosi calling her names, calling joe biden and chuck schumer names at an event like this. if he were going to announce an executive order and say i'm taking leadership they are not but to deride them to the amusement of those golf club members who seem to be laughing in the back of the room, he's got an audience. it is an audience of the people who pay him and his company $350,000 a year to be members of a golf club and now to have this entertainment with the members of the press corps basically acting as props. >> well, i mean, we have become so used to -- and i hate to say it -- accustomed to the president of the united states using official events to posture politically. we have become accustomed to him

calling his opponents and adversaries names that are derogatory, and what he is doing today, there is nothing either executive or presidential in the way that he behaves at that podium on most every occasion and then particularly today as we have the contrast of him signing an executive order in front of his wealthy friends at bedminster then headed on to the hamptons while people are standing in food lines, testing lines, and pantry, food pantry lines and unemployment lines. and that contrast shows that this president is just not equipped to do the thing that americans require the most, which is a really comprehensive approach to deal with the economy and the faltering state of so many americans and to deal with a coronavirus that has gone out of control. he has just demonstrated over and over again that he is

willing to use his presidential podium and the most inappropriate and ineffective way. and we saw that again here today. >> we are joined now, donna edwards, by jim clyburn of course the majority whip, the number three ranking house democrat. congressman, thank you so much for taking the time to join us. what is your reaction to the president doing this end run around congress? >> well, thank you very much for having me, andrea. this is so ridiculous. the fact of the matter is this president would do well to step out of the picture, allow mitch mcconnell and the senators to sit down with nancy pelosi and other negotiators and come up with a comprehensive approach to assist people who are trying to

get their kids back in school, trying to stay on their jobs, trying to take care of their children especially those who are receiving unemployment insurance. we need to have a little bit of compassion as this country goes through the largest health care crisis that we've had since 1918 over a hundred years. people are hurting and he is making fun of his adversaries. gathering his golfing partners in a club house and making as if this is some reality television show. this is a country that is in crisis. and we need a president who will provide leadership. i learned early in my life that leadership is as leadership does. and if this is what he calls

leadership, my goodness. i have no idea what the future of this country is going to be over the next several months. >> congressman, let's talk about whether or not you have legal options against these actions he is taking today. >> well, i'd like to know how he is going to fund all of this unless he is planning once again to transfer funds from -- congress has the purse. all money bills originate in the house. nancy pelosi is speaker of the house. we want to fund what is necessary to keep people on their jobs, in school, and keep people in this economy in a productive way.

we are willing to do that. that is why the house democrats put a $3 trillion bill called the heroes act on the table. this president is talking about blue state and blue city governors and mayors. that is not what this is all about. texas is not a blue state. they are in crisis. florida, georgia, south carolina. these are not blue states. we are all about people. we don't care what color they are. blue or green. black or white. we are trying to get people back in to the flow of things so we can have an economy all of us can be proud of. he doesn't have the authority at all to fund anything unless he does what he has done before, his transfer of funds from the department of defense to build his wall, maybe he'll transfer

money from the wall to take care of unemployed people. >> kra congressman, he is now claiming one-third of the house democratic bill has nothing to do with covid. can you respond to that? >> yes, i can. i've watched this press conference. everything in our bill has got something to do with covid. no state, no city, no town, no county will be in crisis today were it not for covid. we know people are not working because we asked them to stay home. children are not in school because they're staying at home. so school districts are in crisis. we're going to spend back to school, we have to do something about these h vac systems and we know more than 50% of the school buildings in this country are not equipped with sufficient

ventilation, sufficient h-vac system, heating and environmental control systems that will allow children to sit in the classrooms that are healthy. that is what we're trying to do. that is what this money is all about. are we going to layoff citizen councils, close down councils? that is what he is asking us to do. he wants to take care of people who are already employed. how about these people who are off their jobs? the restaurants? they can't stay open because they don't have funds. we have money in our bill that would keep restaurants all over this country funded or in business. we want them to stay in business. they cannot have -- they can have check out facilities and they can have people sitting outside their buildings. we want them to stay in business. no, not this president.

he wants to see them go out of business while he takes care of people who are already employed. the payroll tax, that is what a payroll tax would do. you don't get tax if you ain't on the payroll. >> one of the other things he said that the democrats are calling for the mass release of undocumented immigrants. due have any idea what he is talking about there? >> i have absolutely no idea of what this man is talking about. no democrat ever asked for the mass release of undocumented immigrants. come on. we believe that there ought to be a pathway to citizenship for everybody in this country. we are in the middle of a census that he is now trying to short circuit. because under the constitution you count every person not every citizen. the court has knocked him down on that and now he is trying to

short circuit the count so we won't know who we have, where the resources are to go, who ought to be represented, and how they should be represented. i have been saying for a long time, andrea, and you know that, i've said it on your show before, this man has no idea about protecting the democracy that this country has become. and we can do better. what we cannot do better, with this guy doing foolish stuff. now this stuff he is signing today is a joke. he knows it's a joke. he is seeking headlines. he is trying to divert attention from the great harm he is visiting upon this country. that is not going to sit well with the american people after today. the headlines tomorrow, i don't think he wants to see them. >> one of the issues he has been talking about is that in the bill is money for mail-in

balloting to guarantee that we can have mail-in balloting during a pandemic which everyone mostly the experts say is absolutely necessary. he is saying there is no verification for mail-in balloting. that is not true. >> it absolutely is not true. he has used it before to vote. his staff used it to vote. i use it every election. i always have to work on election day. i've always mailed my ballot in. the fact is the entire state of washington used mail-in ballots. i've been saying for a long time that i believe this country ought to adapt what they do in colorado and i might add one of their united states senators who is up for election this year happens to be a republican. he benefited from mail-in ballots when he got elected and if he wants to remain elected he will need mail-in ballots.

you don't necessarily have to mail them in. just get your ballot in the mail. sit down at your kitchen table. fill out your ballot. if you can mail it in that's fine. but have your ballot. if you mail it in, that's fine. but have ballot boxes all around town. there is a way to do this and we ought to fund the procedure for starting to vote on october 3rd, at the you have absentee ballots and what we call early voting, usually 30 days out, we ought to start voting for everybody around that time and fund the process so the people can have social distancing over a 30-day period rather than trying to cram all that in to one day. that doesn't make sense. this democracy is too valuable

to the people who live under it, as well as the rest of the people around the world for us to be messing around with. that's what this president is trying to do, mess around with the democracy that's not perfect but on the way to perfection it's the best anywhere else in the world and he is trying to devolve us into something less than the best. and that's not what we stand for in this country. >> two of the specifics in the executive order is to reestablish the supplemental unplomt benefu unemployment benefit at $400. the democrats are asking for $600. the initial offer from the president $200. he's talking about the payroll tax cut for those making less than $100,000 what about the

$400 compromise? >> that's halfway. you know me. and i suspect nancy pelosi would be very interested in looking at $400 as a compromise if we can do these other things like protect the cities and the towns and the states to give a $400 deal to these people who are unemployed and take away the security that they have when their cities and their towns cannot stay open. their water systems will not work.

the garbage will not get picked up. $400 mighti be a good compromis if we're doing all these other things. >> congressman clyburn, he's taking questions now so let me just interrupt. >> this is going to get tied up in the courts. >> this will go very rapidly through the courts. if we get sued. maybe we won't get sued. if we get sued, it's somebody who doesn't want people to get money and that's not going to be a very popular thing. >> are you trying to set a new resident that the president can go around congress and decide how many -- >> did you have hear of the word obstruction? congress has obstructed -- the democrats have obstructed people from getting desperately needed money. go ahead, please.

>> you said you have veterans choice. but it was passed in 2014. it was a false statement, sir. >> thank you very much, everybody. thank you very much. >> we've just seen the president saying that let the democrats do what they want. legally that's not very good politics for democrats to try to take money away from people, accusing them of obstruction. harry, what you heard the president say, how will it work going forward? do you think it will end up in the courts? >> of course it will end up there. there are many little lies the president said but there's a big lie. the big lie he's trying to say is he wants to give money and the democrats don't.

it's a fact on all these programs they wanted to give much more and his fit of peak is over not wanting to try to give the kinds of assistance that people need. will it go to court? yes and then the big question will be will the court stay it or not. he kind of wants it to go to court. then he can say i tried so hard for the people that it's the nasty democrats that did this and the nasty courts that supported the democrats. >> andrea, in some states

unemployment benefits are only at $250 a week. and so we're talking about making sure that people have the ability to meet their responsibilities and their obligations and take care of their families and i think when democrats and republicans keep that in mind, i think's an opportunity for a compromise that doesn't involve this sort of piecemeal approach to dealing with a very comprehensive problem. >> let me expand on just also what we were just talking about with harry on the mail-in balloting. that is a key issue. we've seen deep cuts and the whole sale fi wholesale firings at the postal service, by the new postmaster general, who is a major trump donor, has no experience, they seem to be trying to shut down the postoffice a office and slo delivery and this was money that

was needed before those cuts. >> the impact is -- delivery by private delivery companies is really not an option. if we wanted elections safely and securely, we have to make sure that in-person voting is as safe as it can be. the opportunity for mail-in ballots because so many more people want to be able to vote by mail and the need the postal service to meet their obligations to get mail fwults vo -- ballots and for people to be able to get them back in time. we can't let a political hack at the postal service or the president of the united states undermine our elections by preventing all of us from being able to vote safely by mail if we want to.

>> and we got about a minute left, harry. final thoughts on what we're facing here. it's really a constitutional challenge. big picture, we take a step back, you've got a president facing all sorts of criticism over emoluments, having this event at his golf resort with his friends and wealthy members as hecklers in the back of a news conference that barely took place and challenging congress's right to provide covid relief in the middle of a pandemic. >> exactly. nice perk, right? maybe they'll have to raise the dues to $400,000. i just want to follow up on something that donna said. norm ornstein has a really good proposal to supplement post office clebs with safe bollecti where you just leave your ballot the same as returning a library book, say, but with plenty of security. something like that i think is going to be really essential. but that's part of what trump is

specifically declining to do, i.e., give money to state and local governments and of course he's making that a political issue about supposed democratic maladministration. >> donna edwards, as we wrap this up as well as, the challenge for nancy pelosi and chuck schumer, what do they do? they want to get this money, the snap money, the food nutrition program, all of these things desperately needed by millions of people and this piecemeal approach is all they're going to get now from the white house. >> well, i think that they actually will be able to come back to the bargaining table because i think even republicans are going to realize and especially as they go back to their states and their districts that this is simply not enough what the president is doing now is just a tiny little slice of

what really needs happen to begin to make people whole, to make communities whole and to make sure that we can get through this crisis and they are going to hear an earful from their constituents about this, should they go home for a long recess and not deal with the needs of the american people. and so i think the democrats in the house and nancy pelosi still have a lot of leverage on republicans to do the right thing by the people in -- by the american people. and we will see come monday. but this will be impetus to get back to the bargaining table. and we should not let the president of the united states usurp the role of congress in appropriating fund and doing their job under the constitution. we can't let that go by by allowing the president to use his big black sharpie to sign