Show: MTP DAILY Date: February 5, 2018 Guest: Eddie Glaude, Aditi Roy, Tom Carper, Nick Confessore, Susan Del Percio
NICOLLE WALLACE, MSNBC HOST: Thanks to Michael Crowley, Betsy Woodruff, Zerlina Maxwell, and David Jolly. That does it for our hour. I`m Nicolle Wallace.
MTP DAILY starts right now with the fabulous Katy Tur in for Chuck.
KATY TUR, MSNBC HOST: I love these Mondays, Nicolle, because you`re so close.
WALLACE: You`re so close --
TUR: You`re just across the studio. You`re right there.
WALLACE: We`re going to innovate a walking handoff.
TUR: And then I`m going to trip and it`s going to on YouTube.
(LAUGHTER)
TUR: Nicolle, don`t give them any ideas. Thank you very much. See you later.
And if it`s Monday, more memos, more problems.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TUR: Tonight, memo versus memo. Democrats want their version out, but will the President try to stop it?
REP. MIKE QUIGLEY (D), ILLINOIS: I`m concerned he won`t sign off. I`m as concerned that he will try to redact or change the memo.
TUR: Plus a bipartisan immigration bill heads to the Senate. The President calls it a waste of time, but what happens when time runs out on DACA?
And the Dow tanks. Will the lowest point drop in history change the President`s tune about his economic wins?
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: You can work hard, but if you don`t have the right leader setting the right tone -- in all fairness, and I`m not even saying --I`m non-braggadocious.
TUR: This is MTP DAILY and it starts right now.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
TUR: Good evening. I`m Katy Tur in New York in for Chuck Todd. And we`re following breaking news at this hour. The House Intel Committee is meeting behind closed doors right now to vote on whether to release a Democratic rebuttal to that controversial Republican memo that was made public on Friday.
President Trump says the GOP memo totally vindicates his claim that the entire Russia investigation is a sham. It proves no such thing. And you don`t have to take my word for it because the President`s own Justice Department isn`t even standing behind the Republican memo. Some Republican lawmakers say the memo has no bearing on the Russia investigation as well.
A Democratic memo is going to dispute the Republican claim that the FBI unfairly spied on Carter Page, a former member of the Trump campaign. GOP leadership says they won`t move to block it from being released, but President Trump could if he wants to.
The White House says they`re going to be fair. But as they say that, the President is ripping into the top Democrats involved in the Russia investigation, arguing that they, quote, must be stopped.
Folks, President Trump and his allies have latched on to that argument that the Justice Department under Trump`s own appointees is some kind of deep state trying to undermine the President. A Democratic memo is not going to change that.
The Republican memo compiled by Devin Nunes who worked for the Trump transition was a big Rorschach test.
The President said it cleared him. His GOP allies agree. The moderate Republicans weren`t so sure. Democrats said it was either a nothing burger or an epic fail. And both sides pointed to the rhetoric on the other side as proof that their side was right.
Now, it could be everyone`s turn to see what they want to see in the Democratic memo. And as they vote at this meeting, Democrats are in the awkward spot of arguing that the best way to combat against releasing sensitive FBI information is to release more sensitive FBI information.
This right here is how you get trapped in a Trump conspiracy theory that goes after an institution like the Justice Department. As my favorite band might say, you`ll never get out of this maze, you`ll never get out of this maze.
Democrats may not want to go further down a rabbit hole involving FISA warrants, a low-level Trump campaign staffer, a sensational dossier, and the funding behind it, but they might not have much of a choice right now.
Just a few minutes ago, I spoke with Democratic Congressman Mike Quigley of Illinois who is a member of the House Intel Committee, and I began by asking him if he was concerned that President Trump might be trying to block the Democratic memo from being released.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
QUIGLEY: I do believe the House Select Committee on Intelligence will vote today to have the second memo be released. Am I concerned that the President of the United States would do something to obstruct this investigation? Absolutely, because the best indicator of future activity is past activity.
He has done nothing to facilitate this investigation and let it go forward freely. So it is a great concern that once his staff reads our memo and sees how effective it is, he will not want it to see the light of day.
TUR: I use the word "block," and you use the word "obstruct." Why?
QUIGLEY: Because blocking was when he said there was -- he made up this bogus wiretapping claim, that, you know, President Obama wiretapped Trump Tower, his inane tweets. Those kinds of things are blocking.
Directing Mr. Comey not to go after General Flynn, especially after he knew General Flynn had lied about his involvement with the Russians and the sanctions against Russia. That`s obstruction. Firing Director Comey, attempting to fire Mueller, those are elements, in my mind, of outright obstruction.
TUR: So if he says no to releasing this, you believe this will be another example of the President obstructing the investigation?
QUIGLEY: Well, first of all, I think it`s a horrible thing to do, but I think it`s -- you know, when you`re trying to develop a case of whether or not the President obstructed, it goes to his intent. And it`s never one thing he says or does, it`s a pattern of speech and behavior.
So besides it being a horrible thing to do, I`d like to think his lawyers would press him that this would be just one more case in the element of obstruction.
TUR: Well, what would Democrats do if he does try to block it or in your words, obstruct?
QUIGLEY: You know, all we have is public pressure and pressure from Republicans. Already, the Speaker of the House and a growing number of Republicans have said that both memos should be released.
They haven`t shown a lot of profiles and courage. This would be the time for them to step up. So we would be, under the law, at the mercy of this president releasing the second memo.
TUR: Let`s talk about the Democratic memo because the Democrats` big argument for not releasing the Nunes memo, the Republican memo, was that, one, it was a partisan document and, two, that it was going to release sensitive or classified information. Is the Democratic memo a partisan document?
QUIGLEY: Well, first of all, we asked the Justice Department to vet our memo to make sure we`re not releasing information that would be inappropriate. The Republicans didn`t do that. So it`s also 10 pages, footnoted, extraordinary well documented.
And I would compare it to a master`s thesis while the Republican memo is more like the kid didn`t read the book. He`s on two Red Bulls at one in the morning, trying to write a report. There`s that kind of difference in quality, so I`ll let it stand on its own if it gets to see the light of day.
TUR: I`ll get back to the partisan aspect of that question in a moment. Has the DOJ, though, advised that some parts of the memo should be redacted?
QUIGLEY: Not to my knowledge. We haven`t had our meeting yet today so I guess I`ll find out shortly.
TUR: Do you say, though, that this is a partisan memo? My question is, do two wrongs make a right, and what do the American -- what does the American public trust?
QUIGLEY: Well --
TUR: If the criticism of the Republican memo was that it was partisan and it was going to reveal classified or sensitive information -- Republicans said it did not, just FYI -- and if the Democrats are saying that we`re going to release our own, are you, in effect, saying that two wrongs make a right here? That we have to release our own in order to even out the scales?
QUIGLEY: Yes. We rely on the FBI and the Justice Department to keep us safe. Their remarks about the first memo are that they have grave concerns about its accuracy. They said it was dangerously reckless in terms of the information that it was revealing and that would not keep us safe.
I think, to your point, neither memo should be released. The only thing more dangerous than the Republican memo being released is it being out there standing on its own. It needs our second memo to correct the facts.
I believe it will go beyond correcting the facts. I believe when people read the second memo, it will enhance the credibility of this investigation.
TUR: A lot of folks looked at the Republican memo, the Nunes memo, a lot of analysts, legal analysts -- especially legal analysts -- and said there was nothing here. This was a big nothing burger, to use a phrase that`s used way too often. Why not just let this thing go and move on?
QUIGLEY: Yes. Unfortunately, despite what some Republicans have said, it does attack the integrity of the FBI and the Justice Department. And it says a lot of things that are extraordinarily wrong, besides misleading and cherry picking. It is dangerous to let that go out there and not be rebutted.
So, look, I would rather be working on the investigation. Let`s remember what`s happened here. The pattern of distraction, deflection, delaying, and obstruction continues. We`re probably going to waste three or four weeks when we should be trying to find out exactly what the Russians did and how to stop it again.
TUR: What are you doing to stop the Russians? I mean, you`re talking about a bunch of distraction, but we are still talking about, now, a counter memo from the Democrats to push back against the Republicans.
What can you tell the American public that you`re doing in order to stop Russia`s meddling in the 2018 election, which is now -- I know it`s still February but still -- rapidly approaching?
QUIGLEY: Look, I`ll be there any day they schedule meetings to interview. I`ll continue to review documents. There is a lot of work to do.
Steve Bannon, of all people, is the one that said this is all about money laundering. I was in Cyprus for a reason a year ago to investigate the issues here involving money laundering.
But the Republicans have made that very difficult. I mean, Mr. Nunes has refused subpoenas on key witnesses. So if you are asking what we`re up for, we want this process to go forward as quickly as possible.
TUR: What are you looking at in money laundering? Are you saying that there is money laundering between the Russians and the Trump campaign?
I mean, I asked about Russia meddling in the election and you brought up money laundering. Where were you going with that?
QUIGLEY: Well, I think there is -- look, we could talk about all of those things. There`s a long list. The Russians hacked into boards of election. We haven`t spent a dime to help prepare our boards of election against that. I`m introducing legislation to address just that.
In terms of money laundering, you know, the Trump financial world did an extraordinary amount of business with Deutsche Bank. Deutsche Bank was fined $610 million for its role in helping the Russians launder $10 billion. So I would just suggest that`s the tip of the iceberg. We need to delve in so much deeper.
TUR: Congressman Quigley, thank you very much for joining us.
QUIGLEY: Thank you. Anytime.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
TUR: And joining me now is John McLaughlin. He is the former acting director of the CIA and an NBC News and MSNBC national security analyst.
John, thank you very much for being here. You served nearly 30 years at the CIA. When you look at what`s going on right now, what is your takeaway?
JOHN MCLAUGHLIN, FORMER ACTING DIRECTOR, CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY: Well, Katy, it is just extraordinary. Of course, in those 30 years, I was subject to congressional oversight. And since I`ve been away from the CIA, I have observed congressional oversight.
I`ve seen it wax and wane. I`ve seen it in good times and bad times. But I would say what we see going on here with the House Intelligence Committee is the worst I`ve ever seen in terms of failure of oversight, a partisan atmosphere in oversight and so forth.
So the fact that we have these dueling memos is really just tragic for the FBI. I think it makes it harder to be an FBI officer. It`s tragic for the collection tool that this FISA process represents, the process of getting warrants this way through the court.
And also foreign intelligence services looking at this have to have much less confidence in the United States than they typically would in normal times. So it`s a bizarre circumstance.
TUR: Do you think the Democratic memo should be released?
MCLAUGHLIN: Absolutely, and a couple of thoughts on that. As I was listening to Congressman Quigley, it appears that the Democrats have gone through a routine declassification process which, I gather, the Nunes memo did not.
That probably means, normally, that there will be some redactions, some things blacked out to protect sources and methods. So I think that`s going to make it harder for the President not to release it, but, you know, he has shown a tendency to be able to easily set up self-destructive scenarios.
So if they chose not to release this memo, I mean, it would put the Speaker of the House in a terrible position. It would put the FBI Director in a terrible position. And it would expose what everyone assumes this to be, a very partisan exercise.
To your point with Congressman Quigley when you asked if whether it makes - - whether two wrongs make a right, no, they don`t. This is a situation we should have never arrived at.
We are here, we are where we are, because of what Representative Nunes has done with the support of the White House. And therefore, to not put the Democratic memo out is -- you know, will leave the record muddy, unclear, and very -- in a very partisan influence way.
TUR: Given that we are where we are, that there is this Republican memo, there could potentially be the Democratic memo, both sides -- if you wanted to argue, both sides could say that these were partisan, even though the Democratic memo is rebutting the Republican memo.
Do you think, in the interest of full transparency, all of the sunlight that you could get on something, that the underlying documents to support the FISA warrants for Carter Page should be made public?
With whatever redactions they need, but in order to show the public what the FBI did and the intelligence community did in order to justify a FISA warrant on this American citizen.
MCLAUGHLIN: I think that would be a difficult thing to do. You know, I used to sign these occasionally when they had foreign intelligence dimension.
We`re talking here about something the size of what many people will remember as a phone book, often 50, 60, 70, a hundred pages. So by the time you redacted everything, I think it would be a frustrating document for most people to look at.
A better alternative might be, in the interest of transparency, since this created a lot of confusion, I think, is for someone in the intelligence community or in the Justice Department to put out some kind of statement about exactly what these warrants are, how they`re put together, what are the ingredients, some examples without a lot of detail.
Among other things, they are intended to protect the privacy of people who are involved in them, which is another reason why it`s tragic to have this all thrown under the table.
TUR: So the remedy would, at least, partially be the FBI putting out more information about how they do it. What about the public`s trust --
MCLAUGHLIN: That would be my thought. Or, you know, there are a lot of people involved. There`s the Director of National Intelligence, the head of the FBI, the Justice Department -- probably most importantly.
TUR: What about the public`s trust in Congress being able to oversee the FBI or the DOJ or the intelligence community?
MCLAUGHLIN: Well, I think that`s the real tragedy here. These two committees that oversee all of the intelligence agencies were created in the 1970s in a circumstance, in a way, similar to what we`re going through now. It was right after Watergate in the midst of some scandals involving CIA and the FBI.
These committees were set up with the understanding that the Speaker of the House or the majority leader of the Senate would pick the very best people, nonpartisan people.
They would -- the bargain was -- the grand bargain was they get everything that comes out of the intelligence community, the most sensitive information, in return for discretion, in return for honest criticism, in return for their efforts to make intelligence better.
To hold its feet to the fire, but to assure the public that there was no games being played here, that -- when this particular part of our national toolkit was nonpartisan and on the up and up. And so I think the American public must look at this current spectacle and say, who is really overseeing these agencies and who is in charge? It`s not supposed to work this way.
TUR: Understatement. John McLaughlin, thank you very much. Appreciate your time.
MCLAUGHLIN: You bet, Katy.
TUR: Ahead, we`ll be back to break down this -- the latest twist in the memo drama with tonight`s panel.
Plus, Wall Street whiplash as markets plummet violently. The Dow was down 1,500 points at one point during today. We`ll get a live report from CNBC coming up.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
TUR: Welcome back. What was billed as a tax reform speech by President Trump in Ohio today sounded a lot like a vintage Trump rally, complete with the attacks on the news media, bragging about the 2016 election, shout outs to the crowd, and of course, very strong rhetoric against the Democrats.
The President suggested at one point that Democrats who did not clap during his State of the Union were somehow guilty of a capital crime.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: You have the other side, even on positive news, really positive news like that, they were, like, deaf. And un-American. Un-American.
Somebody said treasonous. I mean, yes, I guess why not.
(LAUGHTER)
TRUMP: Can we call that treason? Why not?
(APPLAUSE)
TRUMP: I mean, they certainly didn`t seem to love our country very much. But you look at that and it`s really very, very sad.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
TUR: Even if he`s not serious about treasonous, you can`t deny the sentiment behind that. If you don`t clap for me, you don`t cheer for me, then you`re not on my side and therefore you`re not on the American public side.
Don`t forget, in that same State of the Union address, the President called for Republicans and Democrats to set aside differences for the good of the country. And if you can believe it, that address was less than a week ago.
More MTP DAILY right after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
TUR: Welcome back. Let`s bring in tonight`s panel.
Eddy Glaude is the chairman of the Center for African-American Studies at Princeton University and an MSNBC contributor. Susan Del Percio is a Republican strategist, and Nick Confessore is a political reporter for the "The New York Times" and an MSNBC contributor.
Guys, let`s first talk about intel and then we`ll get to the economy. The Democrats are trying to push back by releasing their own memo.
It`s part of the maze you get into when you`re dealing with Donald Trump. He gets you into a conspiracy theory, and you end up releasing more sensitive information when you`ve just said we shouldn`t release any sensitive information.
Is this going to be enough to counter the narrative, or are we already too far down the rabbit hole to where people look and say I can`t trust anything anyone is saying in Congress right now?
EDDIE GLAUDE, JR., CHAIRMAN OF THE CENTER FOR AFRICAN-AMERICAN STUDIES, PRINCETON UNIVERSITY: I don`t know if it will be enough to correct the record, given how the waters have been polluted, just to mix all of that up.
It just seems to me that something strange has happened. Distrust is no longer a kind of one of the background context for political engagement. Distrust has actually become political currency, and so you have parties leveraging distrust for their own political ends.
So the Republicans, the deep state Republicans, are leveraging distrust over deep state, the conspiracy theories in order to achieve political -- Donald Trump is doing it in order to provide cover for himself. Democrats leveraging distrust of what Republicans are doing in order to make political gains, right?
And so what happens to the polity when distrust is actually the currency of the day? So this is just one example of some, I think, a deeper, deeper sickness at the heart of our democracy.
TUR: What does Trump have to lose by saying OK to releasing the Democratic memo?
SUSAN DEL PERCIO, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: Well, I think it just goes, everything, against his nature. This is not a president who is like, oh, sure, let me have something that goes out against me. Because he`ll figure the Democratic memo is going to be anti-Trump and an attack on him, or he`ll at least make it sound like that if he`s forced to do it.
But both of these memos are ridiculous. I mean, let`s not -- we -- these memos are a commentary on something that most people have never read and most people will never see. So to what end did we actually go through this declassifying process, the first time in our history, to have this information?
It is so disappointing. I expected it from President Trump. I did not expect it from Speaker Ryan.
TUR: What do you think, Nick? I mean, if he says no -- regardless of whether or not it`s a good idea to release these memos, he has already released the Republican one. We`re already down this rabbit hole again. The Democrats are releasing theirs. If he says no, does he pay a political price?
NICHOLAS CONFESSORE, POLITICAL AND INVESTIGATIVE REPORTER, THE NEW YORK TIMES: I think he does because his entire frame here is, first of all, that the memo is a critical piece of evidence against the case against him. Right? And second, that there is a massive cover-up happening at the FBI and at Justice.
If he says no, no, no, I`m going to stop the memo and it can`t be seen, I`m going to keep it secret, that actually cuts against the narrative he is trying sow. I think there is probably some cost to him, not with his partisans obviously because there never is but with some other people.
TUR: But, quickly, could the --
DEL PERCIO: But it doesn`t matter just because it just --
TUR: Go ahead.
DEL PERCIO: It doesn`t matter because the harm`s already been done. To Eddie`s point, to Nick`s point, people are not -- show less trust in the FBI right now than ever before.
TUR: Republicans mostly.
DEL PERCIO: Republicans. And that was the danger. That was the horrible thing that Trump created.
TUR: It`s not just the FBI. Devin Nunes says that was just phase one, and the next one is going to be the State Department. Do we have that sound bite?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BRET BAIER, FOX NEWS HOST: Are there other memos that are going to come out? Are there other memos? You said this was phase one.
REP. DEVIN NUNES (R-CA), CHAIRMAN, HOUSE PERMANENT SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE: Yes. So this completes just the FISA abuse portion of our investigation. We are in the middle of what I call phase two of our investigation which involves other departments, specifically the State Department and some of the involvement that they had in this.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
TUR: State Department?
GLAUDE: I have no --
TUR: They have no oversight of the State Department.
GLAUDE: Can we draw a conclusion that he is not the sharpest knife in the drawer? I mean, it`s just -- at least I want to draw that conclusion.
TUR: What has the State Department done that would anger Donald Trump?
GLAUDE: It makes no sense.
CONFESSORE: And it is -- well, the head of the State Department has said he is a moron so that could possibly -- would be a certain thing.
But, look, obviously, he is part of the environment that thinks that the government is full of resistance people who are against the President and they should be investigated. It is preposterous, but the point is he doesn`t have oversight over the State Department.
TUR: That`s -- yes.
CONFESSORE: And if his hands aren`t full with running the House Intelligence Committee, maybe Speaker Ryan should give him his own committee to do his own investigations on something else --
TUR: What role does --
CONFESSORE: -- and have somebody else run the House Intelligence.
TUR: What role does the Speaker have in this?
GLAUDE: He`s --
CONFESSORE: He has every role.
GLAUDE: Right, right.
CONFESSORE: He picks the members --
GLAUDE: Yes.
CONFESSORE: -- of the House Select Committee on Intelligence.
TUR: But what role does he have --
CONFESSORE: And unseats them.
TUR: What role does he have in the releasing of this memo? Should any fingers point to Paul Ryan?
DEL PERCIO: Yes!
GLAUDE: All fingers should point to Paul Ryan. I mean, in some ways, he has given Nunes the space to do exactly what he`s doing.
DEL PERCIO: He should have shut this down.
GLAUDE: Exactly!
DEL PERCIO: He should have --
GLAUDE: And let`s --
DEL PERCIO: He should have shut it, no question.
GLAUDE: Let me be very clear. There is a moment where libertarians and progressives actually come together.
We have should have a debate in this country about the scope of the surveillance of American citizens. We should have a debate around the FISA courts. That debate should happen. It should have happened before we renewed it. At least some of us --
DEL PERCIO: Last week.
GLAUDE: Some of us to the left -- Pelosi was pushing. So we need to have that debate, but it doesn`t need -- but to fold it into the Russia investigation it seems to me is just a massive --
TUR: It clouds it.
DEL PERCIO: And we need independent investigations, as well, of the FBI but real investigations.
GLAUDE: Right.
TUR: Let`s talk about the economy. Donald Trump was in Ohio outside of Cincinnati today, touting his tax plan. This was as the Dow was plummeting. Half of Americans don`t have any money in stocks, so let`s put that aside. Let`s talk about the economy.
Donald Trump had a couple of people come on stage and say what they were going to do with their thousand-dollar bonus. One said that they were going to try to start a family. And I looked and found out how much does it cost to start a family, just to physically give birth in Ohio. It`s over $5,000. That`s a lot of money.
No one is arguing that a thousand dollars is not going to help you start save -- start saving. But a thousand dollars is not the amount of money you need for the -- for -- just $1,000 from one-time bonus is not the amount of money you need in the long haul.
Why are we -- how is he able to celebrate these one-time thousand-dollar bonuses instead of companies raising wages with the amount of money they got in the tax plan because corporations benefited a lot more than the middle class?
CONFESSORE: Look, all they want to talk about is these bonuses because the bonuses are good news. People like getting money. And for a lot of people, a thousand bucks is real money and they`ll all be glad to get it.
But the way to think about this is how much of the pie are workers getting out of this huge tax cut that was passed? Companies like to give bonuses because they happen once and that is it. What they don`t like doing is raising wages and salaries.
So I think a way to evaluate this policy on the merits is over the next three years, do we see wage growth? Do companies start passing along some of their take from this tax cut to their workers?
And if the answer is no, I suspect that in three or four years, people are not going to remember the thousand dollars they got in this year. And they`re going to wonder, how come I haven`t had a raise?
GLAUDE: Let`s put it this way. Think about when you go to the department store and they say -- and you put your clothes there. You`re going to buy them.
And they say, do you want to open up a credit card today? We`ll give you an additional 30 percent off, 15, 30 percent off. And you take it. And then realize the interest rate on the credit card is 30 percent.
So you get your thousand dollars up front with the tax cut, right? But when you look at the levels of inequality that will follow from this tax bill, when you look at the cost that will come from this, you will see that you`re going to pay for it down the line.
TUR: Everyone is getting --
DEL PERCIO: Initially, it was --
TUR: Everyone is getting a tax cut. Lots of people are getting bonuses. No one is going to argue with that, but the people that are getting most benefit from this are at the very top, the very rich, and they are corporations.
Let`s also remind everybody that the individual tax cuts expire, the corporate tax cuts do not. That`s the point of that. Eddie, Susan, Nick, stay with us. We`re going to come back too a little bit later in the hour, probably talk about that treason thing that Donald Trump just mentioned a moment ago.
Ahead, here we go again. The countdown is on to another possible government shutdown. Can lawmakers reach an immigration deal before Thursday? Two leading senators say they have a solution.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
TUR: Is another government shutdown looming on the horizon? That is ahead. But first, Aditi Roy is following a record shattering day on Wall Street with the "CNBC Market Wrap."
ADITI ROY, GENERAL ASSIGNMENT REPORTER, CNBC: Thanks, Katy. A long awaited sell off triggering a volatile trading day on Wall Street. At one point the Dow experienced its biggest intraday point drop in history, plunging more than 1500 points.
The Dow finishing 1175 points lower. It also broke below 25,000 dipping into correction territory. The S&P shed 113 points losing 4 percent in its worst day in six years. The Nasdaq lost 273 points. That is it from CNBC, first in business worldwide.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
TUR: Welcome back to "MTP Daily." As Yogi Berra might say, it`s deja vu all over again. Once again, government funding is set to run out in just a few days. And with the shutdown looming once again, some lawmakers are trying to get a deal done on immigration. And once again, the White House is not on board.
Today, two senators, Republican John McCain and Democrat Chris Coons unveiled a bipartisan compromise that`s tied to a bill already out there in the House. It offers some dreamers the path to citizenship and increases border security, but it wouldn`t immediately fund construction of a border wall.
It also doesn`t address two other priorities for the White House. Family- based legal immigration or the diversity lottery and President Trump already indicated this kind of bill is dead on arrival. So what happens from here?
Let`s bring in Democratic Senator Tom Carper of Delaware. Senator, thank you very much. What are your initial thoughts on the Coons-McCabe bill?
SEN. TOM CARPER (D), DELAWARE: First of all, let me just say you mentioned -- you quoted Yogi Berra. Yogi Berra also said when you come to a fork in the road, take it.
TUR: Take it.
CARPER: And we`ve been at a fork in the road for a couple of months now and we need to simply need to take it. One of the things that is missing here frankly is leadership from the president. This is a guy who co-wrote the art of the deal and we need for for him to be able to help foster and make a deal take place.
TUR: Well, listen, the White House has said --
CARPER: This is not -- this is not -- it`s not all that hard. It is not all that hard. Leader Chuck Schumer is going to laid down. A week or two ago he said look, we don`t want to build the wall. We think it is foolish and wasteful, but we`re willing to put that on the table and that could be part of the deal. And the president has a hard time just saying -- sometimes having a hard time saying yes.
TUR: The White House has said that this bill is a nonstarter. They said it is even worse than the Lindsey Graham-Durbin deal which they did not like. Is it a nonstarter for the White House and they`re not going to budge on it? Why bother with this sort of legislation? CARPER: Actually, there has been three good groups -- bipartisan groups that have been working on something. They are similar in some ways and different in other ways. You know, the stock market -- we`ve been following the stock market. You`ve been reporting on it today. I think down today 1100 points, down last week at about 900 points.
One of the reasons we are seeing this kind of gyration is because of a lack of certainty and lack of predictability here in Washington and fears that the budget deficit is just down to about $400 billion a couple of years ago is now going to scream back up -- upward to a trillion dollars. That`s scaring people.
We don`t have -- we have to pass a bill. C.R. is a wasteful and terrible way to do business as you know. It is demoralizing for our fellow employees. The president has to lead. We need that. As Lindsey Graham likes to say, we need a Tuesday president, not the Thursday president.
TUR: Well, let`s talk about the C.R. because Thursday, the government funding runs out again, and there`s talk of another C.R. Would you not vote for that?
CARPER: Yes, I`m not interested in voting for C.R. unless I`m convinced it will actually help us get to a long-term budget agreement for the balance of the fiscal year that will stabilize this, put the kind of priorities -- fund the kind of priorities we have for defense and non-defense spending, but also make sure that we stop wasting money in variety of other areas.
TUR: How much does the solving immigration, solving DACA factor in for you in government funding, should it be tied together? CARPER: I think a lot of people on our side and others as well, they look at the "dreamers" and say the morally right thing to do here -- these are kids that came over here. They are young, didn`t come by their own volition, their parents brought them, they grew up here, educate here, work here in many cases, and we have a moral responsibility to them. That is all true.
Having said that, actually there is an economic imperative here as well. Today when folks went to work in this country, there is still 2 or 3 million jobs unfilled. Unfilled. Nobody is there to do the job. They don`t have the education, they work still. They work out if they can`t pass a drug test.
And one of the reasons why I think the stock market is gyrating around is because we`re at full employment. And the time when we have all these jobs -- are we going to send 700,000 or 800,000 people back home to the countries where they were born? If they are perfectly capable of doing these jobs and they can pass a drug test, why would we do that?
It is economic insanity. And I think the business community is saying that to the administration. They are certainly saying that to those of us in the Congress. And we should focus on that economic, that economic side as well.
TUR: What about a one-year deal, a temporary deal that extends DACA protections for just one year. Would you be open to that or does it need to be a permanent solution?
CARPER: I think the permanent solution some certainty unpredictable is much better than a one-year deal. The -- some people think the DACA deal -- the "dreamer" deal is amnesty. It is not. The idea is like a 12-year pathway to get there and folks have to stay out of trouble.
These people speak better frankly than a lot of us do. And they have to stay out of trouble with the law. All kinds of things they have to do over the next 12 years. They have to get in line behind other people who are here before them.
I think -- so doing a deal with the "dreamers" is as much about -- as I said earlier, as much about making sure that we have the folks who could go to work tomorrow.
TUR: Let`s talk about what you would be willing to give up in order to get a deal, because right now the White House and some hard-line Republicans are on a very different page than the Democrats and even the moderate Democrats and the moderate Republicans were coming up with bills like the Mccain-Coons bill or the Graham-Durbin bill.
There`s a lot of sunlight between those two places. Would you be willing or do you think Democrats should be willing to give money for the wall? CARPER: Yes, I think the natural agreement or natural deal is one of border security which I think most of us are for. I was the chairman of Homeland Security Committee a couple of years ago and the idea that there are places along the border where a wall makes sense, not 2,000 miles, probably not 200 miles to some places, but there are a lot of places where I think --
TUR: Twenty-five billion dollars like the president wants?
CARPER: No, no, no. I submitted to John Cornyn and Dick Durbin and Lindsey about a half billion dollars worth of (INAUDIBLE). Everybody said it makes sense. The customs and border patrol says it makes sense.
TUR: You say everybody says that, but here`s the thing. The president doesn`t say that. The president is the one who ultimately has to sign this legislation, if it can get through the Senate and the House. So you are talking about a very different number than the president is.
Let`s talk about the other two things on the president`s wish list and you tell me if they are nonstarters or not. He wants to end chain migration which is what they call it or family reunification which many others call it. Do you want to end that? Would you be willing to end that?
CARPER: I`m not prepared to do that. Should we talk about it? Sure, we should talk about it. I think the natural trade though is border security for the "dreamers" and actually the border security doesn`t have to cost 15 or $20 billion, it could cost a lot less.
And again, the president -- what Chuck Schumer said to the president, Mr. President, we`re willing to authorize a wall and we`re willing to start up with so much guaranteed funding and why don`t we just get started with it?
TUR: What about the --
CARPER: I think that is a pretty good offer. It is an honest offer.
TUR: What about the visa lottery program. Get rid of that for the "dreamers?"
CARPER: I`m not going to stand here on television and negotiate the deal. I`m not going to do it. We have bunch of folks who are trying to negotiate a deal. I think the key -- I served as governor of Delaware for eight years. And you have a point in time for negotiations in a state and point of time of negotiations for a country.
It is very helpful (INAUDIBLE) and actually be the honest broker. This president can do this. He worked that book, he co-wrote the book. We need that president to show up and help us make this deal.
TUR: Let`s see because there is still a lot of daylight between these two plans. Senator Tom Carper, senator, thank you so much for being here. We appreciate your time.
CARPER: Thank you, Katy. Thanks so much.
TUR: And coming up, we`ll talk about that comment from President Trump calling the Democrats reactions of the state of the union treasonous. Plus, the Philadelphia Eagles fly into victory and their fans fly into sheer chaos.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
TUR: Welcome back. The city of brotherly love is definitely feeling the love after Super Bowl Sunday. The Philadelphia Eagles stunned the New England Patriots last night winning 41-33. This is Broad Street, the main drag in town where thousands of fans flocked to celebrate the big victory.
Want to see how some of them did it? These guys climbed on to a hotel awning until it and they came crashing down. We believe everyone is OK, we hope so. These fans flipped over a car that happened to be parked nearby. Others yanked down traffic lights and smashed them to smithereens.
Philly just announced it will hold a parade for the birds coming up this Thursday. Hopefully by then, the city will be able to clean up from all of the aftermath of last night.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
TUR: Welcome back. It is time for "The Lid", Eddie, Susan, and Nick are here. Guys, earlier in the show we showed the president calling Democrats who did not support him during state of the union, didn`t clap for him treasonous.
GLAUDE: Disagreement is on America, disagreement is treasonous. This is revealing his autocratic tendency. Donald Trump has no real commitment to democracy. TUR: I keep going back to this moment from the campaign. It was December 21st, 2015, and he was on stage in Grand Rapids, Michigan. And he says everybody who goes against us, it`s X, X, X. I think it`s -- you know, anybody who doesn`t cheer for him, is not on his team, and therefore not American.
NICK CONFESSORE, POLITICAL REPORTER, THE NEW YORK TIMES: He has an ability, I think, to distinguish between himself and the government and the institutions of our country. He thinks he is the state. And I think it`s actually a thing he can`t quite figure out as president.
But, look, if the standards he would impose were imposed by Barack Obama on him, he`d be in jail. He`d be a political dissident. Trump would. If Barack Obama felt this way about the criticism of the president.
TUR: That`s a good point. Look at football. I mean, when he talks about football players kneeling. It`s un-American as well. Not saluting the flag. Is it about the flag? Is it about the anthem? Or is it because he is taking some sort of offense personally to that? He feels like it is something that is criticizing him.
SUSAN DEL PERCIO, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: When it comes to that, I actually think he enjoys being in the pop culture environment. I think it`s where he feels he`s getting the most bang for his buck on his message if you will. It`s when he reaches out more to his base and he does it, picking very controversial issues.
But just to get back to what Nick said, I keep thinking that Donald Trump thinks that the state is there to serve him. He doesn`t understand this is public service, and he is there to serve all of us.
TUR: How does it help in negotiations when you`re calling the other side treasonous?
DEL PERCIO: Well, that`s not exactly what I would do when you`re facing a government shutdown later this week or you`re trying to come to terms --
TUR: That`s not all the time though and Donald Trump is calling S-hole countries, he`s trashing Democrats on Twitter, blah, blah, blah, on and on and on and on. DEL PERCIO: And he gets away with it, and it`s really frustrating.
TUR: But ultimately the Congress is despite all that trying to figure out a way to pass legislation. Is he noise to everybody, even to Democrats?
DEL PERCIO: I think the difference between the health care debate when he ended up calling the House version mean and then he kind of took a back seat on the tax cuts, that`s where they like him. They like him not speaking so they can kind of negotiate and get done what needs to get done. TUR: What happens when the president is just noise?
GLAUDE: Well, he`s noise -- in some instances he`s noise and he provides cover, when people are engaging and pursuing their particular ideological agendas. In other instances, he`s noise which always provides cover in other instances for people to actually say they`re doing one thing and then do another.
So for example, I`m thinking about this in relation to DACA. There`s a lot of noise coming out of the White House with regards to the "dreamers." Democrats, if they fold and allow the Stephen Miller wing of the White House to in effect overturn how we think of legal immigration --
TUR: Why do you say Stephen Miller wing and not the Donald Trump wing? GLAUDE: It`s a short hand. That is Donald Trump`s position, you`re absolutely right. If we allow this kind of position to move forward where he`s going to upend legal immigration on the backs of "dreamers" and they fold, then they`re going -- they`re going to fold while they point to the noise of Donald Trump.
Here`s the noise. We got to resist him, resist him, resist him. We need to this. I think they`re going to pay in 2018. They will pay.
DEL PERCIO: By the way, we say like the Miller wing of the party or whoever and not Donald Trump, because Donald Trump has no core values.
TUR: Donald Trump started the campaign by saying he wants to build the wall. He`s been hard-line immigration now for quite a while. It`s one of the things that he`s stuck to regardless of everything else.
I mean, he has been hard-line about his desire for that wall. He fluctuates on whether he wants it to be a cyber wall or fence here and there, but he wants a wall. He doesn`t want any, he wants to get rid of -- deport illegal immigrants. He`s sort of soft on DACA, but not really. Not his actions. DEL PERCIO: Is it because he feels strongly about it or did he know was a great way to campaign issue and something to run on. And that`s where I think you see him running. He has not been an immigration enthusiast for decades. TUR: So he`s campaigning for 2020 right now?
CONFESSORE: I don`t think so. You can look back decades to the `80s and see him voicing similar views on trade.
DEL PERCIO: Trade is different. Trade is different.
CONFESSORE: I think he -- I think in this era, he sees a trade and immigration as two sides of the same coin. With trade, it`s people from other countries taking things from us as trade, or it`s them coming to our country and taking it from us. Two sides of the same issue for him, I think.
TUR: Intentionally. Eddie, Susan, Nick, guys, thank you, appreciate your time. Ahead, what is not my area of expertise, whatsoever?
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
TUR: In case you missed it, this is not jeopardy, but here`s the daily double anyway. This organized sport draws rabid excitement from millions of fans, and deafening silence from three bewildered game show contestants. Anybody? Sorry, the answer is football. It was a rough round on jeopardy the other night. Three players showed off their complete lack of football knowledge by just standing there quietly and waiting for it to be over. (START VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Option play? Ryan? UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Football, 400. UNIDENTIFIED MALE (voice over): I can tell you guys are big football fans. Tom Landry perfected the shotgun formation with this team.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Dallas Cowboys.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I do think we should go to commercial.
(LAUGHTER) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Fair catch. Let`s look at the thousand dollar clue just for the fun of it. If you guys ring in and get this one, I will die.
(LAUGHTER)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
TUR: Remember players, always answer in the form of words. That`s all for tonight. Chuck is back tomorrow for more "MTP Daily." "The Beat" with Ari Melber starts right now. Ari, Alex Trebek is cold.
ARI MELBER, THE BEAT SHOW HOST: He`s cold and it made me wish for the Will Ferrell Alex Trebek.
TUR: You know, my favorite jeopardy category is pen is mightier.
MELBER: It`s a good one. You know, I realize I have a cold. I forgot to take my cough (INAUDIBLE). I think I am going to do it right now while you`re on camera.
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. END
Copy: Content and programming copyright 2018 MSNBC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2018 ASC Services II Media, LLC. All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of ASC Services II Media, LLC. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.