Chris Hayes, MSNBC host: Okay.
Bob Moore, thank you for your wonderful report on this.
Please go ahead and come back.
It's here tonight.
The "Rachel Mado Show" now starts with Ali Weixi and joins Rachel.
Good evening, Ali.
Host: Nice to meet you, Chris.
Have a good weekend. HAYES: You too.
VELSHI: Thank you for joining us this hour.
Rachel's off tonight. But fear not.
She came back on Monday.
At the same time, I will try not to destroy anything.
It's Friday night, and these days mean keeping an eye on the news is like playing juggling and spinning eight plates on stilts.
Today, we are ready for the first Democratic debate later this month, with 20 candidates on two nights.
The great Steve konacchi will be here to collapse with us and we will be debating who and what we can expect from this game every night --
Not as ups as you think.
This is another worrying and confusing day in the White House's narrative around Iran, where the Trump administration continues to insist that Iran suddenly becomes more militant and aggressive, and Iran responds to a string of recent attacks
We will get some expert advice on this situation in a moment.
But we're going to start tonight with what the president said.
He said a lot.
You may be familiar with his Twitter account.
As a country, he says a lot about what we choose to ignore because it is our life now.
To keep the government going, to keep the rule of law intact, and even to keep us sane as citizens, we must prove that some of what the president has said is correct.
For example, did you know that today our president told his friends on the Fox News Channel that when he visited the United StatesK.
Last week, Queen Elizabeth liked his company, Donald Trump's, and liked her more than anyone's company for decades.
This is actually the second time he has revealed this to Fox News in a week.
For the first time, he said he heard from people that the Queen has never had a better time with him like Donald Trump did. Never.
Queen Elizabeth is 93 years old.
She is almost the queen of severdez, but this is the pinnacle of her rule, the highlight of her rule.
Give the throne back to Charles.
There's nothing more than the time she spent with Donald Trump.
If you think our president's statement is too long and too difficult, you will start to twitch a bit.
I mean, it would be awkward for any American to say that.
So this is something we ignore.
This is background noise.
This is Trump's ace.
But sometimes our president says something that needs to be answered.
Sometimes what he says is so offensive or repelling that we feel we have to respond to it so we don't get involved.
We have to speak out against it, so no one thinks it's acceptable for us.
Sometimes he says something involving a particular person, and it feels like there needs to be some kind of response, both legal and judicial, like former White House lawyer DonMcGahn. (
Start Video Editing)
US President Donald Trump: Sorry, they have no criminal evidence.
ABC News anchor GEORGE stephanoopoulos: he has a lot of evidence listed, including the episode where you asked your White House lawyer Don McGahn, and you told him that Miller had to go.
You called him twice and you said Miller Hasto was gone and called me when it was done.
Trump: The story about this is simple.
First, I never thought about firing Mueller.
I never suggested firing Mueller.
That's not what he said.
I don't care what he says.
It doesn't matter what he says.
This is to show what a good lawyer he is.
Why did he lie under oath?
TRUMP: Because he wants to make himself look like a good lawyer, or-or he believes, because I will often tell anyone who is willing to listen, including you, including the media, that Robert Miller is conflicted.
Robert Mueller is totally interested.
Stephanoopoulos: and it's got to go.
Trump: I never said that. (END VIDEO CLIP)
VELSHI: That's right there, in the interview section released today by abc news, the US president accused his former White House lawyer of committing a crime.
He accused don mcgan of lying after the oath.
But at the same time, the president stopped don Mcgann from giving evidence to Congress about what McGann told Mueller.
He told McGahn that when I told everyone that you were a liar, a perjurer, you had to keep quiet, which seemed like a completely untenable situation.
If you are Don McGahn, why Don't you respond?
Why don't you respond?
This is a new thing in our time, in this era of governance, and sometimes the president speaks out loud about something that supports or encourages such immoral or even blatantly legitimate behavior, and in order to uphold the law, the rest of the government must act cautiously, and remind people that no, actually, you can't do that even if the president just told you.
A few months ago, CNN reported that the president told border agents not to let immigrants in while visiting Calexico, California, near the Mexican border.
Tell them we don't have that ability, he said.
If the judge caused you trouble, say sorry, judge, I can't do it, we don't have a room.
They seek further advice and tell them that they will not give them that direction and that they will take personal responsibility if they do what the president has to say.
They are told that you must abide by the law.
You must abide by the law.
It's not what the president told you, it's against the law.
Also, the president met with tribal leaders and told them to ignore federal laws that prevented them from drilling on the land.
Quote: President Trump hosted a group of Native American tribal leaders at the White House and urged them to do so and extract whatever they want from the land they control.
The Chiefs explained to Trump that there were some regulatory obstacles that prevented them from gaining energy.
But it's me now.
The government is different now. Obama`s gone.
What we do here is different.
The room paused and the tribal leaders looked at each other.
Trump continued, saying to a tribal leader, what would they do?
Will they let you put it back there once you take it out of the ground?
I mean, it can't get back there once it's off the ground.
You just have to do it.
I tell you, Chief, you have to do that.
The tribal chief looked back at a White House official in the room.
Maybe someone from the Office of the White House legal counsel said, can we do that?
The official said vaguely that the government is making progress and plans to revoke various regulations.
When asked, please think about it for officials in the White House attorney's office, so are we allowed to violate federal law as the president of the United States just told us?
But even officials sitting there can't let themselves agree with the president's instructions to break the law.
No, you can't do that.
Then, a president asked a House of leaders to please the suspects with more violence. (
Start Video Editing)
Trump: When you see these towns and you see these mobs being thrown behind a rice wagon, you just throw in rudely, I said, please don't be as good as when you guys put someone in the car and you protect their heads, you know?
The way you put your hands on is like don't hit their heads, they just hit their heads.
You can take your hand off, I said. (END VIDEO CLIP)
VELSHI: after these comments, the head of a major US economyS.
Law enforcement agencies sent an email to all of his staff reminding them that, in fact, they could not and should not do what the president encouraged.
DEA, acting director of the programme, wrote to his organization in a speech yesterday in New York, citing the president's words, forgiving the police for misconduct in dealing with individuals arrested by law enforcement officers.
I am writing to strongly reaffirm the operational principles that we adhere to as law enforcement professionals.
I am writing because we are obliged to say it when something goes wrong.
Our core values are: the rule of law, respect and compassion, service, dedication, integrity, accountability, leadership and courage, diversity.
That's what we do.
That's how we treat people, victims, witnesses, subjects and defendants we meet at work.
That's who we are.
A few weeks later, Chuck Rosenberg, acting head of DEA, resigned.
Now, we are in the latest iteration of this model, the brand.
As Americans, we all have to face a new model in which the president publicly supports or advocates wrongdoing.
Earlier this week, President Obama said he would definitely accept campaign help from foreign governments in the next election, and of course he would not report that to the FBI.
Are you crazy?
The chairman of the Federal Election Commission issued a statement claiming that I would not think I would need to make that statement regarding illegal contributions from foreign governments.
Let me make it 100% clear to the American public and to anyone running for office.
It is illegal for anyone to demand, accept or accept anything valuable in connection with the United States from a foreign nationalS. election.
Any political campaign that receives a proposal to ban donations from foreign sources should report to the FBI.
This is the head of theU. S.
Institutions that enforce the campaign finance law.
Yes, she said. I know the president says you can, but you can't.
Just last month, the president's hand
The FBI director said the same thing. (
Start Video Editing)
FBI Director christopher wray: My point is that if any public, my point is that if any country or anyone acting on behalf of the country contacts any public official or any campaign member, affecting or interfering with our election is something the FBI wants to know. (END VIDEO CLIP)
So we're consistent here, right? (
Start Video Editing)
The FBI chief said it should be.
Trump: The FBI director is wrong. (END VIDEO CLIP)
I mean, the president broke the law.
This is what we are familiar with in this country.
We currently find that we have limited ability to solve this situation, but this is not a brand.
Bring new experiences to us.
We have some experience with the president to guide the people around them against the law.
But a president openly and happily tells Americans that it's illegal. You're illegal. You're illegal. Let's break it together.
I don't think that's what we 've dealt with before.
Every government official who is not the president must decide every day how to get into this new terrain.
Join me now, former US president Chuck Rosenberg. S.
Lawyers and senior FBIofficial, as we mentioned, used to be acting head of DEA.
He's also a contributor to MSNBC.
Chuck, I'm glad you were with us tonight.
Thank you for joining us.
Chuck rosenberg, MSNBC contributor: Ali, thank you for inviting me.
VELSHI: when we used you in the setup to explain that you were acting for death, the president made these comments to law enforcement officials saying that you were not very good and what position you took.
You have to personally write an email to your staff saying that this is not the way we are sentimental.
After Donald Trump commented on accepting help from a foreign campaign, some law enforcement veterans told politics that Trump's comments, quotes, withdrew his work for months, basically, foreign spies are invited to run 2020 presidential campaigns, and agents who are trying to stop them are discouraged.
Tell us what the president has to say about the people responsible for protecting our election security? Rosenberg: of course.
I think the "political" article is a bit exaggerated, Ali, a bit accurate.
Let me explain.
Of course, the president's comments will keep the agents down, but don't think they will stop the work they are doing because the president has said something irresponsible or annoying.
Look, if you read the first volume of the Miller report, he made it very clear that Russia started the effort in 2014 long before Donald Trump became president.
We also know that Russians want to help Donald Trump become president. Now we see why.
But before he became president, and long after he became president, the FBI's work for men and women had been going on.
This is a current, ongoing, serious threat.
The president's words did not help.
They are irresponsible. They are hateful.
They can't help.
But they will not stop the men and women of the FBI, and the men and women of the intelligence community from protecting our work.
This is just a simple fact. Do they help? Absolutely not.
But they won't stop protecting their jobs.
Chuck, we believe that the institutions of this country operate independently.
They work under a set of rules, like the FBI when you were there, like the DEA.
However, when the president says so, what we should think about is, what does this system allow in terms of people's retreat?
As the head of the DEA at the time, you sent out a letter.
I think it eased some of the jitters of DEA.
But the FBI has always been the president's target.
Yes, he does.
Look, this is a very difficult letter to write, and in some ways it is a more difficult letter to write.
I did it internally.
I don't want to spread it publicly, but I know it's risky.
What you want to avoid is dragging your agency into some open debate, right?
Men and women in DEA do difficult, important, dangerous jobs and they do a good job.
You don't want to drag them into the debate and, of course, into the political debate.
I think this is the calculation that any leader has to do.
Chris Wray must have to think about it as director of the FBI.
So every time the president says something irresponsible, you can't respond.
Because, Ali, you have to reply 9 times a day.
ChrisWray has more important things to do than speaking to every word of the president.
Please believe that when I tell you that the FBI has 37,000 men and women and 36,999 non-political professional civil servants, they will continue to work.
Chuck Rosenberg, it's always a pleasure to meet you.
Thank you for joining us on Friday night.
Rosenberg: Thank you.
Chuck Rosenberg, former president of the United StatesS.
Senior FBI official, head of DEA, is now a contributor to MSNBC.
Michael besomess, president of NBC News historian, is joining me now.
I'm glad you're here, Michael. Thank you.
MICHAEL besomess, president of NBC News: Thank you, Ali.
Michael, let's take a look at the history of this.
As I said earlier, things like this, the president said publicly to different constituencies that it is OK to break the law.
I mean, we have some examples of the water gate incident.
But is this information new?
Yes, it is.
You know, the idea of the Constitution is that the president will be the head of state, and one of the things that the head of state does is basically to advise the Americans and the United States that you should abide by the law.
This is not a big demand for the president.
But Donald Trump doesn't want to do that because he doesn't want to limit what he takes power.
That's why he called the media the enemy of the people.
That's why he intimidated Republicans in Congress so they were reluctant to support him.
In the past 24 hours, we have seen a big example.
How many Republicans do you see in Congress standing up and saying, I may agree with President Trump's tax policy, but it is shameful for him to keep more and more people out of compliance with the law?
The most important thing is that he put the last 2-
1/2 years to break the rule of law so that he can get away with it in some cases that are almost murder.
VELSHI: We are at a stage where legislation is introduced and if you work in a campaign, an opponent or a foreign government will provide you with information and you are forced to report to the FBI.
This looks weird, right?
For all the things that the president does not want to be restricted, the idea says that I will accept if someone gives me slanderous against the opposition.
Beszlos: he is trying to prepare so that if he does, you can simply say that I told you that I would do that so that Americans would not be surprised.
Even more ominous, he's opening the tent.
He is basically telling every foreign government on Earth, please bring me all the dirt you may have on VELSHI: Because I am ready to accept it.
I'm ready because I want to win.
He felt scared.
There is other evidence that he is nervous about the possibility of being defeated by the Democratic Party next year, and then he will be vulnerable to various prosecutions.
So, he's basically trying to get a life saver.
Once you have made the Americans, Congress, and the legal system accept the view that the Chinese people do not want us to live well, so do Russia and other hostile countries, they are doing all sorts of things to help him win the election and we lose sovereignty once you have it.
Jefferson and Adam and Hamilton are 1787 worried about the problem.
VELSHI: this-when George stephenopoulos asks him about Chris Ray, the other thing he says is, you know, if someone gives you information,
He said to Stephanopoulos that Wray was wrong.
The FBI is wrong.
It's because you heard me talking to Chuck.
Of course I do.
VELSHI: He said that when the president said something about the beating of the suspect, he said it was wrong.
Where are you going with it?
You have the head of the agency, and the president has two different explanations of the law.
You have a president who does not respect the FBI, who is now openly calling on Americans not to respect the FBI.
I think his game is that he's trying to vandalize Chris Ray and maybe get him to resign so that the president can have a FBI director to obey him as attorney general, and it turns out, this is a very dangerous thing for this country.
Michael, thank you for being with us on Friday night.
President historian of NBC News.
Nonetheless, the Trump administration says there is evidence that foreign opponents have done something wrong.
When did we hear about it before?
Well, more. Stay ahead. Stay with us. (
Will poem: On Wednesday February 5 2003 of the Secretary statecolin Bauer of the United Nations in Iraq of war. (
Start Video Editing)
Colin Powell at the time
The Secretary of State: my colleagues, every statement today is backed by reliable sources.
These are not assertions.
We give you facts and conclusions based on joint intelligence. (END VIDEO CLIP)
VELSHI: he delivered a speech entitled "failure to disarm", which included some intelligence, satellite photos, intelligence interceptions, intercepted calls.
Then CIA Director George Tenet sat behind Secretary of State Powell.
He was there because the CIA had secured all the intelligence that was cited as evidence.
Secretary of State Powell said it is irrefutable for Iraq to conceal evidence of a large number of weapons of mass destruction.
It turns out that irrefutable and undeniable evidence can actually be refuted and denied.
The images are old and the translation of the incoming call is modified and the evidence is not valid.
No weapons of mass destruction.
Colin Powell later said it was a huge intelligence failure for us.
He said the speech left a lasting stain on his record.
The wrong intelligence, the reason for the war, got us into 16-
We are still fighting an Iraq war.
Just hours after two oil tankers were attacked in the Gulf of Oman yesterday morning,S.
Officials began to blame Iran.
In the afternoon, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo called a State Department spokesman at which he made it clear that Iran was behind the attack.
He did not provide any evidence, but hurriedly made a list of the attacks that the Taliban was responsible for, including some that we had never heard of, such as the Afghan attacks that the Taliban was responsible.
But minister Pompeo said Iran.
He said he took that actingU. S.
The ambassador to the United Nations informed the Security Council.
Then he did not answer the question.
Late last night, CentCom released a vague video saying that the showedIranian vessel had retrieved the unexploded mines from a damaged tanker.
They cited the video as evidence of Iran's involvement.
Iran denies it was behind the attack.
Today, the Japanese owners of an oil tanker attacked contradict the United States. S.
He said it was not a mine, but an object that the crew saw flying towards the ship.
The truth is, both of these things may be true.
But at this moment, at this early stage, we don't know much about it yet.
Today, Germany said there was not enough evidence to determine the tanker's attack on Iran.
On the other hand, the American economyK.
Come out and agree with the United States. S.
Behind the attack was thatIran.
If you think you 've seen the movie, it's because you 've seen it.
But maybe the movie will end differently.
It is not clear what will happen next.
Will the government post more information in the public for Americans to see?
Will the government raise this issue with the United Nations?
Will they share intelligence with our allies?
What is the last game?
Join us now, former US spokesman Hagar ChemaliS.
A former Treasury spokesman for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence visited the United Nations during talks in Iran.
Xia Jia, nice to meet you.
Thank you for being with us.
Former President of the United StatesS.
Ministry of Finance spokesman: Thank you.
I want to start with the last question.
What is the end of the game?
The president recently said he wants one-on-one talks with Iran to resolve these issues.
But this deal, you spent a lot of time creating a framework for that conversation.
This is a bill for the withdrawal of the US president.
So what is our final game with Iran?
Ending the game is not a war.
I made it very clear.
It is clear that this government is focusing on targeted financial measures as a tool of their choice.
Still, the key point here is that I don't think President Trump's primary goal is to reach another deal.
His primary goal is to weaken Iran's influence and support for terrorism in the region.
This is the first sentence he said when he retired from the last moment.
This is what he reiterated and what I was told by my sources in the government.
If so, then sanctions are effective.
I don't think he has any reason to deviate from that strategy.
VELSHI: he has said that in the past few days, Iran's economy has been getting worse and worse, from experience.
But his national security adviser is tough on Iran.
There were even talks where the president tried to get Bolton to give up the idea of a dialogue with Iran.
Do you think this government is aware of the dangers of military conflicts in the region, including Iran and Saudi Arabia, and how bad it actually is?
Yes, they know the danger absolutely.
The United States and Iran have no interest in the war.
Both sides are aware of this.
That's why the attack did not happen in the United States. S.
Ships or in the United StatesS. property.
It's a warning, and if there's more sanctions, it's what we're going to do, right?
The Iranians act like the mafia.
We will not perform well unless we get a good return.
This is in return for America. S. sanctions. VELSHI: Right.
So, the Iranians, there are Iranian troops.
What we hear is the guardian of evolution.
Then there are Iranian agents, who exist throughout the Middle East.
After imposing the sanctions, the United States said that any attack by these agents would be an attack-they would consider it an attack on Iran.
This sounds like a reason for revenge.
Are there any dangers of misjudgment on both sides?
CHEMALI: when it comes first-when it comes first on the agent, they don't move unless Iran allows them to, right?
They were armed by Iran.
They received intelligence and technical assistance from Iran.
These are groups operating in Syria.
They carried out military operations in Lebanon, Yemen.
Houthi, Hezbollah, Iraqi militia, and of course Syria, right?
They are funded and supported by Iran, they know, so when Iran says jump, they say how high jump.
Without Iranian guidance, it is unlikely that they will pursue something on their own.
So that's why it would be considered to be operating directly from Iran.
Nice to meet you, Xia Jia.
Thank you for joining us.
Yes, thank you for inviting me.
Vichy: Hagar Chemali is a former US press spokesman. S.
During the talks in Iran, the United Nations delegation and a former spokesman for terrorism and financial intelligence from the Ministry of Finance.
Next, the new American campaign against Michael Flynn.
Right in front. (
VELSHI: the end of the national security adviser is almost one way or another, and now felon, Michael Flynn, is found guilty.
Today, as expected, prosecutors and defense lawyers have submitted updates to the judges overseeing Flynn's case in Washington, D. C. C.
They think they will be ready to start talking again in 60 days.
Now remember, as early as December, a hearing was held by Judge emit Sullivan, he should have announced at the hearing that Michael Flynn was found guilty of lying to the FBI about contact with the Russian ambassador between the election day and Trump's inauguration.
But the hearing turned around.
The judge's view of Flynn's crime is much more severe than that of the prosecutor of the special prosecutor, and strongly recommends that Flynn reconsider the degree of cooperation in order to obtain the light sentence requested by the prosecutor.
Flynn consulted his lawyer and then accepted the judge's advice.
But since then, Flynn has fired his lawyer and hired a new lawyer for Fox News directly, one of whom has spent a lot of time criticizing Mueller's investigation as a deep state conspiracy.
The new lawyer says it will take her 60 days to keep up with the progress.
She has a lot of material to read, which makes sense given the progress of the last sentencing hearing.
If Flynn is looking for a new legal strategy, like, I don't know, maybe it makes sense for the president to pardon and abandon his original legal team?
Time will tell us that what Flynn's new lawyer is looking for is time.
Look at this space. (
VELSHI: John Delaney was the first candidate to compete.
It was 2017.
Lawmakers in Maryland have announced his intention to challenge President Trump.
Later in the same year, when the man named Andrew Yang announced his plan to defend against the upcoming robot attack, the field doubled.
Finally, in early 2019, we began to see a series of campaign announcements.
The name of the candidate who joined the ranks.
This field has grown rapidly to more than 20 candidates, the largest in the history of presidential politics.
Since then, candidates have been spreading out, talking to voters, publishing policy plans, honing their campaign messages, and have been firing on one of the candidates who unite them, Donald Trump. (
Start Video Editing)SEN. CORY BOOKER (D-NJ)
Presidential candidate: I'm running for president because we can't stand Donald Trump for four more years. SEN.
Bernie Sanders (I-VT)
Presidential candidate: help me defeat Donald Trump, the most dangerous president in the country's history. SEN.
Elizabeth Warren (D-MA)
Presidential candidate: Donald Trump delays, deviates, moves, fires as president and does everything he can to block Justice. SEN. KAMALA HARRIS (D-CA)
Presidential candidate: We have the president of the United States, a man who is sworn in to defend the Constitution, who is in breach of his sworn commitment and we have to hold him accountable. FORMER GOV.
John hikenroper (D-CO)
Donald Trump is the worst president in American history. JOE BIDEN (D)
Presidential candidate: I have full authority.
No, you don't, Donald Trump.
Quote Donald Trump: I have absolute power.
No, you don't, Donald Trump.
Or, only I can fix it.
Donald Trump, solve yourself first. (END VIDEO CLIP)
VELSHI: President Trump has been the focus of criticism on this road for months, but that has begun to change.
Recently, Washington Governor Jay Inslee slammed Joe Biden's plan to tackle climate change, saying it lacked courage and ambition.
This week, former Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper came out against Bernie Sanders's socialist view, while former Texas congressman orour
As The Washington Post reported today, the Democratic competition has entered a new phase with the withdrawal of candidates-please forgive me.
I'm allergic to the news.
The candidates gave up their willingness to refute each other and were willing to criticize former Vice President Joe Biden, who led ahead of schedule.
The new phase will peak in two weeks.
Today, NBC News announced its official lineup for the first presidential debate to be held in Miami later this month.
On the first night, Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren will be an undisputed star along with other senators Corey bookers and Amy crochall.
The star characters Bernie Sanders, Joe Biden, Kamala Harris and Pete butigeg in the dead of night are all ready to fight each other.
Now joining us is the great Steve colnach, national political correspondent for MSNBC.
Steve, I need you to explain on a night like this tonight, when you look at two lineups, two nights, ten nights and ten nights, what do you think is the most prominent?
Steve kornacki, national political correspondent for MSNBC: Yes, Ali, it stands out that DNC really doesn't want Republicans to see this in the main debate of 2016. (CROSSTALK)
KORNACKI: Yes, university, joint venture, whatever you call it.
They came up with a very complex system where they thought they would mix the game.
Luck in the draw is luck in the draw.
The bottom line is that there are five candidates who stand out from the vote, four of whom will be in a debate, one of which is Elizabeth Warren, who will be in the other.
It does make people wonder, especially if you're Warren, you're the undisputed star in this debate.
This brings some opportunities.
You can shine more.
There are shortcomings in this.
Will the audience be as big as everyone else?
Will people insert that as they do for another insert?
Will your position be weakened by not being on the same stage and not having the opportunity to engage with Abidan, Sanders, Harris, butigeg?
VELSHI: there are candidates running on a variety of things-their appeal, their passion, their potential for election.
There are also people who are only from a policy perspective, and some of them have written books about policy.
Elizabeth Warren falls into this category.
Who did these benefits?
Who are these debates good?
Better debaters, more policiesA rich candidate? KORNACKI: Yes.
One thing I think to remember is to make this a football match.
There are ten candidates on the stage. You have two hours.
What do you get, three or four? bats.
For many of these candidates, especially those with 1% people and less than 1% people, they face special challenges.
As the campaign progresses, this is the standard to maintain these debates, and the threshold will rise. VELSHI: Right.
KORNACKI: Summer is almost over.
So these candidates are-bats.
They have to hit the home run.
They have to triple and do something similar-VELSHI: Right.
KORNACKI:-to get more donations in order to make progress in the polls, so when these thresholds are raised, you know, they won't be debated here for a few months
The direct future of small-
The well-known candidates were indeed active in these debates.
VELSHI: In the end, everyone agrees with the idea that they want to beat Donald Trump, which will not be an interesting debate.
So what else do they need to do to make themselves different?
Yes, who has the potential to stand out? VELSHI: Yes.
First, we talked to Elizabeth Warren about the first debate, she was a star.
I'm interested in Corey Booker.
Corey bookers is a man who dates back to 10, 20 years and has been talked a lot about his career as a potential president for the future.
He is a good person in terms of communication, but he is always strong.
So far, he really got lost in the shuffle.
Does he have a chance?
This is the candidate I think really needs to have an important moment.
I think he has the ability to deliver it in such an environment.
Let's see if he has
Seth Morton, Steve Block, Wayne Mercer, they're not on stage.
Any opportunity-the stage of debate.
Do they have a chance to come back from there? Yes.
So, here's how I see this, CNN's next debate in a month's time.
If you look at Block's position in qualifying, you'll find Block qualified for CNN's debate.
He may end up on a stage.
He has a way to go.
It's hard to see Morton do this because he's been voting so far.
It is much more difficult to see mesem and gravel.
The question for me is about block.
Can he-did he get a little attention here?
Ironically, he missed a debate and caught the attention of the media.
If there are several polls next month, he can even get him as a percentage of 1 or 2, and he will participate in the CNN debate.
He may still be able to play.
But I think he has to take part in the CNN debate, otherwise, the same standard issue will become more strict and excluded, and it will really start to affect him.
VELSHI: Steve, we will spend a lot of time together for the next year and a half, thank you, my friend.
Steve conatch, national political correspondent for MSNBC.
When we came back, the appeals court had a major setback in the Trump administration's plans for young women who came to the country to seek asylum. That`s next. Stay with us. (
This is an update.
At 2017, in the early days of the Trump administration, a 17-year-
The little girl came to the United States for asylum.
She went to the country alone.
She was sent to an unaccompanied minors shelter supervised by the United States. S. government.
She was pregnant for being raped and wanted to have an abortion, but since she was in this shelter she was in the United StatesS.
Regulation and policy in the United StatesS.
At the time, the administration under the leadership of Donald Trump believed that the under-pregnant immigrants they cared for were not allowed to have an abortion. TheU. S.
The government at that time tried to force pregnant teenagers to give birth against their will.
They don't allow them to ask a doctor to make an appointment for an abortion. So when this 17-year-
The Trump administration said no, she said she wanted an abortion.
As far as America is concerned, they sayS.
The government is concerned that it is not in the best interest of the teenage rape victim to end her pregnancy.
So she joined the lawsuit against the Trump administration with ACLU's help, and a federal judge finally invited the government to let her have an abortion.
She was one of the four specific teenagers designated as plaintiffs in that lawsuit.
But they represent all pregnant teenagers seeking asylum in the United States because the Trump administration's package of policies is to stop all undocumented minors detained from having an abortion.
In order to implement this new policy, the government is using spreadsheets to track who among these young women are pregnant and who are asking for abortion.
They are even following the menstrual cycle so that they can know how far each girl has been pregnant.
The idea is to close the possibility that any of these young women can have an abortion as long as they are in the United States. S. custody.
As Rachel reported, so far, ACLU has been a great success in challenging this policy in court.
During the march, a federal judge ordered the Trump administration to allow abortion for detained teenagers who were passing through the court. But the Trump administration has appealed the ruling, and we have waited months to know what decisions the court of appeal will make.
Today, it decided that if these young women and girls want to have an abortion, the Trump administration will not allow them to have an abortion, which is the Supreme Court precedent that gives the right to any woman in the country, whether she is an American woman or not. S. citizen.
In the ruling, the three judges wrote that the Trump administration's policy to stop young people seeking abortion conflicts directly with roe v. Wade.
Quote: The Supreme Court has determined and redefined that the Constitution provides basic protection for women's choices.
We cannot at will downplay the constitutional rights recognized by the Supreme Court precedent so that others do not seek a better life in this country.
For ACLU and young women and girls in the Trump administration, this is a huge victory, or the Trump administration has prevented them from obtaining constitutional rights to abortion.
But is this decision permanent?
Brigitte Amari is joining us now.
She is the deputy director of the aclu Reproductive Freedom program and a lawyer who has been fighting the court of cheese.
She came back with us tonight.
It's nice to have you here.
Thank you for being with us.
Brigitte Amiri, senior staff lawyer for the ACLU Reproductive Freedom program: It's a pleasure to be here.
VELSHI: arguments-the government makes some unusual arguments when trying to represent its case, none of which seem to have legal value.
That is to say, will this ruling last for a while?
What happens next?
AMIRI: so this victory is very important for young people now under government custody who may seek access to abortion information or the abortion itself.
So our victory remains that these minors are able to get the information and care they need.
But this is not the end of the road.
Now this case is only a preliminary injunction on the preliminary victory we have obtained in the lower courts, and that is a recognition of this.
But the case continues.
The government can appeal to the United States. S.
The Supreme Court and we also have Togo back to the local court to remove this policy once and for all.
VELSHI: this is a policy that refers to the Constitution and its protection for all women in the United States.
When it comes to asylum seekers or immigrants from other countries, the government says certain laws do not apply to them.
This rule affirmed Roe v.
Wade and the country's constitutional protections for women do cover them.
In fact, the government did not even make the argument that the constitutional rights to abortion for these unaccompanied minors were diluted by their immigration status.
Instead, they tried to make a series of other arguments to bypass the very clear order of the Supreme Court, which states that the government cannot prohibit anyone seeking an abortion from doing so.
VELSHI: in fact, if they can't get it here, they make an argument that they can go back to where they came from and get one there.
The Court of Appeal said it was absolutely wrong.
You won't say when the government violated your constitutional rights and if the government banned abortion, you can go back to the country you came from or go to another state.
This is not how the Constitution works.
VELSHI: does this case have an impact on our current discussions with all other states that are trying to file their case with the Supreme Court to challenge Roe v. Wade?
So this is a court of appeals victory, saying that the government's ban on abortion could be a constitutional violation.
Seven states have tried to ban abortion.
These are also attempts to blatantly violate the Constitution.
Brigitte, thank you for joining and congratulate you on your victory.
Emil: Thank you.
Brigitte Amiri is deputy director of the ACLU Reproductive Freedom program.
We will be back soon. (
Remember last month when Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin went to the House Financial Services Committee to participate in the second part of his annual testimony?
In April, after intense exchanges with Maxine Watersin, he returned to the second round of discussions on the status of the international financial system.
But the biggest headline at the hearing was that the US Treasury secretary told lawmakers that the bill to redesign $20 was delayed.
The reason for the delay is that he has to prioritise redesigning other denominations with counterfeit issues, so the new $20 will not start selling until at least $2028, Mnuchin said.
Now, this is different from the Obama administration's schedule.
The company announced that the new $20 will be announced in 2020.
It should be held at the same time as the 100 th anniversary of the 19 th Amendment giving women the right to vote.
Harriet Tabman is not only an activist to abolish the death penalty.
She is also an advocate for women's rights.
So today, we learned from the New York Times that the work of the new $20 Tubman bill was actually in progress before the Mnuchin brakes.
A former Treasury official leaked to The New York Times a picture of the $20 that was reportedly completed at 2016, the New York Times, also in conjunction with printing and according to engraving, recently on last May, the employee saw a digital image of a metal carving board and a bill, he said, the design seems to go far in the process.
So why change?
According to The Times, current and former department officials say
Mnuchin chose the delay to avoid Mr.
Trump will completely cancel the plan, causing more controversy.
The New York Times also reported that the New York Times report also quoted Secretary of State Mnuchin as saying that speculation that his department was in trouble in the process was untrue
But when you think of the president saying that he thinks the plan to put Tabman in the bill is politically correct, you forget it.
That's what it is for us tonight.
I will be back for my show at one o'clock P. M. on Monday. m.
"VELSHI and RUHLE ". Don`t miss it.
Rachel will be back at 9: 00 on Monday.
Now, it's time to sit with Ali Melber on Lawrence O'Donnell's "Last Word.
Good evening, my friend.
This is a report card in a hurry.
This copy may not have the final form and may be updated.
Copyright 2019 ASC Services II Media, LLC.
All materials here are protected by US copyright law and may not be copied, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of ASC Services II Media, LLC.
You may not change or delete any trademark, copyright or other notice in a copy of the content.