admiral mcraven and steve bullock. and that does it for us for this edition of andrea mitche"andrea report reports". a lot of breaking news continuing right here on msnbc. here's ali velshi and stephanie ruhle. >> it's been an eventful couple of hours. >> i'm stephanie ruhle. >> and i'm ali velshi. it's wednesday, may 22nd, and we begin with a dramatic stalemate in washington today. president trump walking out of infrastructure week talks. don't say how many times this is infrastructure week. walking out of talks with democratic leaders, nancy pelosi, and chuck schumer at the white house. >> then an unexpected news conference, defiantly claim can go negotiations are not possible if congress is investigating m him. moments later on the hill, nancy pelosi and chuck schumer reacted. this spat started after speaker pelosi accused president trump of engaging in a cover-up. >> would you believe it's important to follow the facts.

we believe that no one is above the law, including the president of the united states. and we believe that the pits has engaged in a cover-up. >> i don't do cover-ups. you people know that probably better than anybody. >> we went in the spirit of bipartisanship to find common ground with the president on this. >> i came here to do a meeting on infrastructure with democrats. >> to watch what happened in the white house would make your jaw drop. we democrats believe in infrastructure. >> i'll tell you, there's a danger here. if some day a dcemocrat becomes president, they can impeach him for any reason, or her. >> thomas jefferson, when he was president of the united states, tasked his secretary of the treasury, gallatin, to put forth an infrastructure proposal initiative for the country. a hundred years later, teddy roosevelt did his infrastructure big initiative and it was called

the establishment of the national parks service. we came with heft with commitment, with knowledge, with hope of shared vision of creating this great jobs initiative for our country and spirit of president eisenhower, when he instituted the interstate highway system. it was important for jobs and mobility. it was a national security initiative. and it was bipartisan. >> when you look at all of the transparency, when you look at all i've done, and i will tell you, my lawyers say, you don't have to do this. you can use presidential privilege. >> it wasn't really respectful of the congress and the white house working together. he just took a pass. >> we came here very seriously. the president asked in his letter last night, where would democrats spend the money on

infrastructure? i was prepared to give him a 35-page plan detailing this. >> when they get everything done, i'm all set to, let's get infrastructure, let's get drug prices down. in the meantime, we're doing tremendous work without them. >> he is looking for every excuse. today, that there are investigations going on. hello, there were investigations going on three weeks ago when we met. and he still met with us. it was planned. when we got in the room, the curtains were closed, the president -- there was a place for him at the front, so he could stand and attempt to tell us why he wouldn't do infrastructure. >> in my event, i pray for the president of the united states. >> okay, a lot going on there. i do have to remind people that this infrastructure thing has not worked for this president since day one. you and i have covered this with remarkable gusto, because as

economic journalists, we would love to see an infrastructure program. it is not something that has been successful in years gone by. >> and the fact that the president's background is a builder, many people thought, this is going to be his lane. and we should point out one other thing, sarah sanders this morning stepped outside the white house and talked to reporters and said, this is a witch hunt. when are these democrats going to actually do something that they were elected for in terms of a legislative agenda. so let's be clear? chuck schumer just said it there, two weeks ago when the investigations were going on, they met to talk about infrastructure. >> and the president seemed to be keen on it then. >> nancy pelosi and chuck schumer went to the white house, and according to axios, they sat there for 15 minutes this morning waiting for the president to enter, he entered, spoke for three minutes, shook no one's hands, left the room, and nancy pelosi then spoke for two minutes. so the argument, what are democrats going to do? serve the american people and work on a legislative agenda or go forward with these investigations? democrats are saying, we're doing both. we're working on drug prices,

we're trying to talk infrastructure. and the argument they're being obstructionists will be a hard argument for them to make -- >> when the president says flat-out, not dealing with infrastructure while investigations are going on. he's made the choice today he's not doing that. joining us today at the white house, hans nichols, kelly o'donnell, on capitol hill, nbc news national security, ken dilanian, and maya wiley. hans, what was that meeting supposed to be and why did it go so wrong? >> it's unclear what it was supposed to do, but the president came out after the fact and said he intended it to be about infrastructure. but you'll recall last night about up 15, the president sent a letter saying, actually, the only thing we need to focus on is usmca, the revamped nafta, the trade deal with mexico and canada. now, coming out of the meeting, the big question i have is, can the president climb down from his rhetorical high water marks? because he is basically saying, it's not just infrastructure, he's saying infrastructure,

pharmaceutical reform, all of these things cannot proceed unless these investigations s p stop. that is basically the president calling an end to what he said were two tracks. there's always been a question on whether or not congress could proceed on parallel attacks and whether or not the pressure on pelosi would be too great to stop cooperating with the president on infrastructure, on spending, and solely focus on investigations. in some ways, it looks like the president almost wants to go to this two-track and he's forcing pelosi's hand. guys? >> or not. he now forced his own hand. now nancy pelosi can turn the tables on the president. chuck schumer just held up, what was it, a 30-page document where they were ready to roll on infrastructure. and just take us back to that meeting. because the talks didn't break down, as we understand it in the meeting, the president walked in skp and said, i'm not playing. >> reporter: it was ant meeting. it was scheduled as a meeting, but it never took place as a proper meeting as you and i understand a meeting to be. to give you a sense of the

timeline, it was 11:15 the meeting was supposed to stattrt 11:14 is when schumer came in. i saw around 11:18 they were t setting something up inside the rose garden. as the president was keeping schumer and pelosi waiting, he was staging this press conference or this meeting where he went out and spoke to the press. i don't think we should quite call it a press conference. the question is, and i think this is incumbent on us to figure it out reporting wise is when did they decide to do it? what was the proximate cause? was it pelosi saying, he's engaged in a cover-up? or had this something been the president was looking for an opportunity to do for some time and today he just seized one. >> kelly, what's your sense of it from capitol hill? >> this is one of those big moments where i think the president wanted to be face-to-face with the lawmakers he has this issue with and do it on his own turf, the white house, so keeping with the scheduled event of inviting them over, and i think the meeting that evolved into a showdown,

evolved into thanks but no thanks kind of confrontation. so in this way, this is not the kind of thing where the president is going to call the house speaker and say, don't bother coming, i don't like what you said. and if you go below the surface a little bit, there was already a lot of questions about things like, how do you even pass infrastructure, even though they had an agreement a few weeks ago for $2 trillion in spending? where do you find that money. would there be enough votes when you factor in, you have to have republicans along as well. and while everyone loves the infrastructure broadly, everyone wants to see roads and bridges and airports in tip-top condition, there's always the nitty-gritty of getting that done. and you've got his kind of resurgence that hans talked about of the usmca, the trade pack, trying to get that at the front of the agenda. so how does this all play out? certainly, there was a tipping point that had already begun. the president was very transparent, i probably should pick a different word, was very obvious when he said it in his

remarks, saying that last night when i heard about the democratic meeting, he was upset. so that started a clock ticking. then when he sees the house speaker talking right before she left the hill for the white house and used the cover-up phrase, directing that at the president, in very personal terms, of course, maybe that was the explosive point. we will be looking through all of our sources for more of the way to peel back the layers here, but this was clearly a confrontation, one that's been described to us by democrats in kind of a dark way, of painting the president in unflattering terms about being sort of unwilling to participate and taking a pass and the really remarkable comment from the house speaker about praying for the president. there are a lot of context where i hear people say they're praying for the president. you hear mike pence talk about it. very different tone than the way house speaker nancy pelosi spoke about it today. it was sort of imbued with sort of a lot of concern about the

president and his ability to sort of function in this role and work with them. all of that is political. and the president used the power of the rose garden for his own kind of a smackdown of congress and congress has to keep moving forward now to see what can they try to pass to get on his desk, if anything substantiative. one of the things that stood out today, you both might have noticed this. the treasury secretary said, we need a new debt ceiling. and he implored congress to do that. that's going to be a lot harder than all we've seen in the last hour or two. >> a republican treasury secretary asking for the debt ceiling raised. and again, i just find it noteworthy, because the republican argument has been, which are you going to do? focus on a legislative agenda or the investigation? democrats came to play and said, we'll do both. the president said, no. could there be something else around the mueller investigation that has the president, dare i say, fired up today? ken, the department of justice has reached a deal with the house intel committee.

i'm talking adam schiff here, over obtaining an unredacted version of robert mueller's report. help us understand what happened. because the president likes to say over and over the mueller report is done, he was completely exonerated, but that's not the case. and now the report seems to be, we're going to get more of it. >> that's right. and crucially, they're also going to get the house intelligence committee information that wasn't even the mueller report, stephanie. their whole focus right now is on the counterintelligence aspect of what happened with russia and the trump team. and that really was not covered by robert mueller. robert mueller wrote a report like a u.s. attorney, a prosecution report or a declination memo. here's who i decided to prosecute, here's who i didn't. he left out entirely the issue of were members of the trump team compromised by russia? did they take meetings they shouldn't have taken? did they report anything to the fbi? were they warned by the fbi? all of this information is in fbi files. and adam schiff wants to be briefed on it.

in fact, there's a legal obligation for the executive branch to brief the congress on pending and ongoing intelligence matters. and that's the argument schiff made. and the trump administration knew that they had really no leg to stand on to deny that information. this is a 50-year pact between congress and the executive branch over classified intelligence matters. so now the trump administration has agreed to provide some of this information and it's going to help adam schiff's investigation. and the interesting thing here is david nunez, the ranking republican on the committee also wanted that information, for his own reasons. he think it's going to show misconduct by the fbi. schiff thinks it's going to shed more light on, if not crimes, moral turpitude by the trump campaign, with regard to russia. >> can i make one note to you, ali? >> sure? >> we should also know that the republicans don't have an infrastructure plan. the president doesn't. we know that the president repeatedly said, it's all about infrastructure, but we know, republicans don't want to pay for something that big. the hill reporting president

that the president calling it stupid. his own former economic adviser gary cohn drafted a proposal that the president called so stupid. now he's making it all about the investigation, because he doesn't have an infrastructure plan. >> it's like health care, right? you just come up with your plan and put it out there for people to debate and argue and come up or down. but we have for two and a half years now heard about an infrastructure plan. and we get suckered more than most. i get very excited talking about infrastructure plans. and this is the stuff that ends up happening. maya, let's talk about what ken was just talking about. adam schiff's committee was supposed to vote today on holding attorney general william barr in contempt. how does all of that to stephanie's earlier point, it seems to be a lot of things. it can't just be nancy pelosi having said that the president, whatever she said about him this morning -- >> was involved in a cover-up. >> was involved in a cover-up. because there's 11 different things going on with respect to congress and the president right now. >> i think barr blinked. barr blinked because, one, there

was a decision from district court about trump's tax returns, that said quite plainly and clearly, and over and over again, that there really are -- there's no way that they can hold -- i'm sorry, it wasn't on the tax returns. it was on the financial documents. >> the financial documents. >> but it's the same argument. that will apply to the tax returns. and we already saw that an attorney, even a career attorney within the treasury had basically said the same thing. >> which is the opposite of what steve mnuchin had said the last time he testified. he said, the irs attorneys agree with me but we heard from that leaked document they don't. >> and there is no -- forget what donald trump said in that press conference, there is no executive privilege here on those, because executive privilege is about conversations you have on making decisions about government. these are his personal financial records and tax returns. but i think the reason that's so important in this context is exactly what we've all been

talking about. if you have literally 30 instances of the trump administration refusing documents, six witnesses you're withholding from congress with very little legal leg to stand on, if any. at a certain point, when you get hauled into court, a court is going to look at this and say, you are forcing our hands here. courts don't like to make these decisions, to tell one branch of government what it must do for another branch. as the third branch of government, it doesn't like to do that. it wants congress and the executive branch to work it out. what barr did, which was part, was he said, i'll give in, because i know i'm going to lose. my real goal here is to slow walk. so i will give in, but you have to agree my timeline. that you give us time and we won't do it on your calendar. >> right. one of the things that the president continues to say over and over again, he tweeted it just moments ago is congress

can't have a do-over. generally speaking, congress is looking for things that they've either -- and maybe if they saw the whole mueller, they would want to do less investigating. but the point is, they haven't. so they're looking for other things. and the president is trying to get a group of americans to believe that anything congress wants a do-over. it's done, it was in the mueller report. >> ali, kevin mccarthy tweeted it yesterday, mueller report's over, case closed. can you elaborate? because the case is not closed! >> no, what mueller said explicitly, explicitly in his report, particularly in volume ii in the obstruction section is he said, this is for congress. he didn't say it in that language, because to ken's point, he used prosecutorial language. impeachment is not a prosecutorial standard. the issue of whether or not the trump administration is compromised, whether it's

corrupt because of his financial ties to foreign governments, all of which is part of the evidence that's in the mueller report and underneath it, as well as the issue of whether he has abused his authority, right, not a crime of obstruction, but abuse of his presidential powers, is exactly what congress is supposed to do under the constitution. that's not a do-over. that is a constitutional obligation of congress to assess whether or not they have grounds to move forward with impeachment. and that is simply what the constitution requires. and if we don't do it in this case, when would we? >> the president continues to say this russia hoax, and we have to remind our viewers, in the first 14 words of the mueller report, the mueller report said, russia attempted interference through sweeping and systemic measures. the president since we received a report was unwilling to discuss this.

he was one willing to discuss vladimir putin with robert mueller. he was willing to discuss mueller with putin. he's made no public statements about that interference and what we should do and can do to protect our country going forward. >> thanks to our guests, maya wiley, hans nichols, and ken dilanian. coming up next, 2020 contender and new york city mayor bill de blasio joins us live right here on set. how does he plan on standing out from the crowded field as he takes his message nationwide? you are watching "velshi & ruhle" live on msnbc. ruhle" live on msnbc with an ingredient originally discovered... in jellyfish. in clinical trials, prevagen has been shown to improve short-term memory. prevagen. healthier brain. better life.

what's going on? it's the 3pm slump. should have had a p3. oh yeah. should have had a p3. need energy? get p3. with a mix of meat, cheese and nuts. you never know what life is going[ whimpering ]ou. and from this point on nothing is going to be the same. raising a kid it's not easy. no, no, no. this way buddy.

come on. no! gidget could you watch liam? it's like we're his parents. it's like you're the dad and i'm the mom and we're in a relationship. and this is our baby. [ laughing ] well... it's exactly like that! exactly! be the first to discover the secrets. at the fandango early access showing may 25th.

welcome back to "velshi & ruhle." new york's mayor bill de blasio the the latest democrat to throw his hat into the ring to challenge donald trump in 2020. de blasio served for mayor for the last five years, previously serving the city as public advocate and as a city council member. as mayor, his policies have focused on democratic priorities from universal pre-k, a universal health care proposal, and emission reduction plan and politician reforms. >> but during his administration, critics have attacked him on issues, some that have plagued new york for quite some time. incoming equality, homelessness, and the lack of access to affordable housing right here. he has taken fire on infrastructure, as "the new york times" found subway on-time rates dropped from 80 and 90% in the mid-2000s to an average of 65% in 2017. and he has faced criticism over his plan to spend more than $1

billion to create $100,000 new jobs. so far, the program has spent $300 million to create 3,000 jobs. though they note, another 16,000 are predicted. and these struggles have translated into polling. a new quinnipiac poll shows that mayor degra mayor de blasio has the lowest polling. >> you knew going into this thing you'd be a little bit polarizing. do these numbers, do they shock you? >> it's not where you start, it's where you end. this is the very beginning of an election. and the things that we have done here in this city are things that matter to this whole country. pre-k for every child for free. paid sick days for hard-working folks who don't lose a day's pay when their child is sick. universal health care. that means that uninsured people actually get direct access to a primary care doctor. this is what working people

need. and my message is working people first. and that has not been the priority of the federal government. the federal government is on the side of the 1%, not working people. in this city, we've shown what it means to actually stand up for working people and have a government on their side. and i've been blunt about the reality. i say, there's plenty of money in this world and there's plenty of money in this country. it's just in the wrong hands. and i talk about that all over this country. and every place i go, people appreciate that honesty and they want to see the change. >> they appreciate that sentiment, without a doubt. but who's your base? where's your base? >> when i ran for mayor of new york city, i got the exact same questions and i ended up winning a democratic primary, overwhelmingly won the general election with 73% of the vote. won re-election with 67%. i know i can build a broad coalition for change. because i'm talking about the needs of working people and backing it up with facts and actions. my candidate is, is it words or deeds? i'm showing actual impact on

working people's lives in the largest, toughest city in ameri america. >> so's elizabeth warren. she's got very progressive policies. >> when you can make change in everyday peoples lives. ask the parents who have pre-k for free for their kids. ask the folks who have gotten affordable housing. ask the folks who were not evicted because we got them free legal services to stop an eviction. look, i'm chief executive of the biggest, most complex place in this country, where the number one terror target in this country, but we also have to be the safest big city in america. we've achieved that while bringing police and community closer together. and these are big, tangible things that affect everyday people's lives. in iowa in particular, and you know iowans pride themselves on being the interviewers for all of america. when i talk to folks about deeds, experience, getting things done, they listen very,

very careful. they want a president who actually knows how to do things for working people. >> so one of the things we talk about a lot on this show is income disparity and wealth disparity. >> yes, you do, and i thank you for that. >> probably of our world, it is certainly the problem of our country. and this city has a lot of it. >> yep. >> this city is ground zero for a lot of great things, but also the picture of wealth disparity. there are people who cannot afford, who serve our city as nurses, as teachers, as firefighters, as a police officers who cannot afford to live very close to where we are here in the center of manhattan. what does new york teach you about what you can go out there and pitch to americans about how you deal with income disparity and wealth disparity in this country? >> that we've got to be blunt about the fact that this disparity is going to really undermine this country. it's going to destroy the social fabric of our country if we don't deal with it quickly. and i want to thank you both, because you have really dealt with this issue. so we know you can lift the floor for working people. when you give them pre-k for

their kids, give them paid sick days or universal health care, it takes a huge economic burden off of them. but here's the other piece of the equation, higher taxes on the wealthy. that's why i say there's plenty of money. if the wealthy were taxed a as the level they should, and i harken back to the eisenhower administration, that's the kind of taxuation of wealth that we should have. >> almost 90% marginal tax rate. >> but can i just -- i want to dine on this pie in the sky, but let's go to new york city. and this idea that let's tax the wealthy. every rich person i know in new york is feverishly figuring out how do they move their home address so they stop paying taxes here. so when we look historically, whether you're talking the wealthy or corporate america, they've proven that they know how to game the system so they're not going to pay these taxes. how is it that you think given the influence that the wealthy have, that corporate america has, you can change a system that's -- the system is actually working. it's working for the wealthy. and it always has. and it does here in new york.

>> stephanie, one difference. it's working more for the wealthy and the 1% than it ever has in decades. and that's a dangerous reality. here's the problem. i would happily ensure that the wealthy pay their fair share in taxes. that's controlled by our state government and our federal government. you give me the power to do it, we'll do it. but let me tell you something, if we have national legislation to take back, repeal those trump tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations, put that money back in the hands of working people, through things like an infrastructure plan, that's how you change this country. if it's national, then you don't have one locality fighting each other over tax levels. the other thing i want to be very blunt about, to your point, there are some rich people looking for lower tax jurisdictions. we've also seen a net gain in millionaires in this city and people actually want to be here and paying their taxes loyally. so i would say to you, this is a national problem that we've got to be blunt about. the status quo can't continue. here's the things we have to come to grips with as americans. this kind of disparity -- you

talk about a threat to national security. a country in which people don't think the government's on their side anymore, they don't think the next generation will do better than the last one. they don't think they can get ahead no matter how hard they work. when i talk to everyday working americans, they are struggling. they are scared to death pant what one health crisis could do to their family. they don't know if they're going to be able to find enough work to actually pay the bills. their wages have not been growing. these are things that must be addressed by the federal government. and what do we see in washington today? we see yet another circumstances where something that would help us, an infrastructure bill, is suddenly on the back burner because trump is paying another bait and switch strategy. >> let's talk about -- we were talking about rich people maybe moving to not pay taxes. one of the other issues that we face here in new york city is homelessness. we have a poverty report showing that 141,000 people were lifted out of poverty. that's the good news. the coalition for homeless found in march of 2019 that more than

63,000 people per night slept in one of the city's shelter. that's a 31% increase since -- i'm sorry, i got my statistics confused. but that is the highest level of homelessness since the great depression. that's a problem around this country. >> it's a huge problem around the country. the difference is here in new york, we provide shelter to people in need. now, the number of folks -- >> that's a distinction that's important. everyone in new york city is entitled to shelter. >> if someone god forbid can't afford their housing anymore and ends up on the street, or god forbid because of a mental health challenge or substance abuse challenge, we guarantee we'll keep a roof over their head. the people in shelter are starting to go down. the number of people street homeless is starting to go down. in many other parts of the country, i go there and i'm shocked to see so many people on the streets. we try to address it very differently here. but it's all about incoming equality. even during the great recession, the cost of housing went up in

new york, while wages did not. so a lot of people got caught in that squeeze. we have the biggest affordable housing program in the history of new york city. it's going to reach 700,000 people with affordable housing. we're stoppi inping illegal evis by getting people lawyers for free. but there's a lot more to do. >> you said you want to take free pre-k for all nationally. >> yes. >> does that mean you're going to make education a core part of your platform? because beyond pre-k, that's great for 4-year-olds. we've got a failing public education system for kids in the fourth grade, eighth grade, and through high school. and if you care about inequality, you've got to care about education. >> you're exactly right. and education is the issue i've focused on the most as mayor of this city. and i'll tell you, look at when children grow and learn the most, between 0 and 5. that's what the science tells us. when does the american education system start full day? at the age of 6. so the number one thing to do to

improve public education in america is reach those pre-k kids, full-day high-quality pre-k for free. we're going to do it for 3-year-olds next. and really double down on that time when kids -- >> but 3-year-olds, while it's failing for fourth graders? >> no, listen to what i'm saying, if we're going to make big structural change in this country, actually going to give kids the education they need, give everyone a chance to start at the same starting line, we're going to compete with china and germany and all the places that invest in education all the time, we've got to start by getting early childhood e education right. there's lots of other things to do, including making teaching the kind of profession that more and more people choose to go into. we don't have a teacher short arran age here in this city, because we constantly uplift our teachers and treat them as crucial to the future of our city, give them a lot of support and decent pay. you've seen these teacher movements across the country, they're fighting just for basic

investments in education. >> while we do all of those things, the statistic i was quoting the other day, part of the problem is since the recovery from the recession or since the end of recession, we've seen rent go up by about a third in the city, about 31% since 2010. so when you talk about the teachers and the firefighters and the police officers, we still have people who earn better and do better in new york and they still have trouble living here. so how -- is that ever going to even out in new york and san francisco and places like that, where working people can't live close to their jobs? >> look, we have to change it and there's a lot of ways to change it. we have the biggest affordable housing program in the history of the city. we have rent regulation, which is something that works and we're going to strengthen it up in our state capital in the next month. there's a lot of tools we have to help everyday people we've. public housing is another one of them. where are we not seeing help? the federal government is absent on public housing, absent on affordable housing. there is no american --

>> the federal government is going the wrong direction. >> but think about the magnitude of this. there is literally not an affordable housing strategy for america. the cost is going up all over the country. there is not a policy to stop global warming, there's not a resiliency policy, there's not a universal health care policy, not a mental health strategy. we are in a country right now, the greatest country in the world, but being governed in a way that doesn't even approach our greatness. we've got to have a strategy to address these issues. >> we've got a republican president, one of the reasons he won are those working people that you're talking about, the firefighters, the police officers who said, enough is enough, and they went out and voted for him. are you going to be able to get republicans to vote for you in the way he got lifetime democrats to vote for him. >> i'll get working people to vote for me, regardless of ideology, regardless of party affiliation. what the democrats have not done well enough in recent years is be the party of working people.

to too many americans, democrats somehow became the party of the elite. they did not say boldly, bluntly, we need a government that is for working people first. >> do you want the elite to vote for you? >> listen, here's what i want to say. i want working people to know the government will be on their side. i want working people will know that we will challenge the 1% on behalf of working people. i've done it in new york consistently. that's why we put money back in the hands of working people in all the ways i described. this is what we need to do differently. and my fear always is that democrats talk about a lot of things except what working people need. >> i know we have to go, but people talk about working people all the time. if you're only going to go for that, do you not want to get more people than that to vote for you? >> i want the biggest coalition possible, but it has to be based on working people in this country who are not hearing this message clearly enough from the democratic party. they need to hear that we will tax the wealthy at the level that they deserve, they need to

hear we'll put money back in their hands. when you say universal health care, it means you're acknowledging what most working people go through, even if they have health insurance, what about the deductibles? out-of-pocket expenses, premiums, co-pays. a lot of people have insurance and they can hardly use it because there are so many hidden taxes and side payments. they can't afford to use it. people are working hard, stephanie. they're working harder, i would argue, than any time in our history. there's more stress in our lives, there's longer hours, but they're not getting anything back for it. when the democratic party says, squarely, we're going to fix that and be on the side of working people, that's when we see the coalition build across all party lines, all regions to win back this country. >> we say it all the time, people aren't political, they want to live their best life and take care of their families. >> mayor bill de blasio. and an important reminder, msnbc's road warriors and all the democratic contenders are on the road to miami for the first democratic candidate's debate of the 2020 election. you do not want to miss it.

and you can see it here on msnbc, nbc, and telemundo. coming up next, new york state has just passed a bill that could force the release of president trump's tax returns. we'll dig into what's next for that bill and if the democrats plan would actually work. you're watching "velshi & ruhle" live on msnbc. watching "velshi" live on msnbc. ♪

i have heart disease, watch what i eat, take statins, but still struggle to lower my ldl bad cholesterol. which means a heart attack or stroke. could strike without warning, pulling me away from everything that matters most. (siren) because with high bad cholesterol, my risk of a heart attack or stroke is real. ♪ repatha® plus a statin seriously lowers bad cholesterol by 63%. and significantly drops my risk of having a heart attack

or stroke. do not take repatha® if you are allergic to it. repatha® can cause serious allergic reactions. signs include: trouble breathing or swallowing, or swelling of the face. most common side effects include runny nose, sore throat, common cold symptoms, flu or flu-like symptoms back pain, high blood sugar, and redness, pain, or bruising at the injection site. i won't let a heart attack or stroke come between me and everything i love. neither should you. tell your doctor to lower your ldl and reduce your risk with repatha®. pay no more than $5 per month with the repatha® copay card. who used expedia to book the hotel that led to the ride ♪ which took them to the place where they discovered that sometimes a little down time can lift you right up. ♪ flights, hotels, cars, activities. expedia. everything you need to go.

flights, hotels, sure, there are advantagesns and natural talents, but they won't teach patience or discipline. or get you back on the court after a heartbreaker. let this game be your spark. pursue your passions with relentless ferocity. because the only way to get that trophy, is to take it. tennis teaches kids to dream, compete, and succeed. sign up with net generation.

welcome back to "velshi & ruhle." moments ago, the new york state legislature passed a bill that would allow president trump's tax returns to be released to democrats in congress. >> it's an interesting bill. it's backed by governor andrew cuomo. the legislation would allow the leaders of three congressional committees to access any new york state tax documents filed by elected officials. >> joining us now from albany, nbc correspondent ron allen. ron, explain this to us in more detail. >> reporter: it's a very interesting bill and it is targeted directly at the tax returns of president trump and others, but clearly, you see what's going on here. the democrats control the senate, the assembly, and the governorship in the state of new york. and for the fist time in many years, and they have made it

clear that president trump is on their agenda. you know, the state attorney general here has a number of investigations going on of president trump's finances, his businesses, which are all based here in new york and he is or was a resident of new york. so democrats in the legislature decided to get together to help their colleagues in washington who have been unable to get access to president trump's tax returns. so they have passed a bill, specifically crafted so that the chairman of the committees in washington can request the president's state returns from new york, which will very closely mirror his federal returns. now, of course, the question is whether or not any of this will happen. the bill goes to the governor who is expected to sign it and this will all go to the courts. and the courts will decide like they decide so many other things whether or not the public and these investigators in washington ever get to see fthe president's state returns. but file this under another one of those things where elections have consequences, and democrats in this state, president trump's

home state, are clearly exerting their political muscle to try to help their colleagues in washington, d.c.. >> you characterized it well. it is actually a very interesting bill. >> can i ask you, does he file here or florida? >> because of his corporations, because of the trump organizati organization, there are a number of entities that do file in new york. there was this great "new york times" investigation, so there are a lot of entities that file in new york, and as a result of that investigation, the new york state attorney general said, we're going to investigate this closely to see whether the legal grounds for this is new york state owed any money as a result of the sport that donald trump says he engaged in in avoiding taxes. >> i was just thinking for a moment there, imagine -- >> i don't know enough about his personal taxes. >> and then it ends up it's florida and ron desantis says, check you later. >> and ron allen made an interesting point, that in theory by seeing these tax returns, they should mirror some of what's on your federal tax return. in some cases, that's true, but in some cases, it's not. but the idea is that more information will be available.

ron, thanks very much. next, a confidential draft memo from the irs. we mentioned it earlier. it appears to contradict treasury secretary steve mnuchin's reasons for not releasing president trump's tax returns. will that contradiction force mnuchin to change his tune? plus, housing secretary ben carson confused a common real estate term with an oreo cook. >> i would also like you to get back to me, if you don't mind, to explain the disparity in reo rates. do you know what an reo is? >> we'll speak with that very alarm who pushed carson to explain himself. california democratic congresswoman katie porter joins us next. democratic congresswoman katie porter joins us next. ♪ there goes our first big order. ♪ 44, 45, 46... how many of these did they order? ooh, that's hot. ♪ you know, we could sell these. nah. ♪

we don't bake. ♪ opportunity. what we deliver by delivering. what you need and so much more. at wayfair, you'll find just you get to spend less time searching and more time loving every room, even the ones you never thought could look good. you get great deals on the things you need and actually want. you get fast and free shipping on thousands of items and finds for every home, and every style, at every price. that's what you get when you've got wayfair. so shop now!

it's toughcold turkey.king so chantix can help you quit slow turkey. along with support, chantix is proven to help you quit. with chantix you can keep smoking at first and ease into quitting so when the day arrives, you'll be more ready to kiss cigarettes goodbye. when you try to quit smoking, with or without chantix, you may have nicotine withdrawal symptoms. stop chantix and get help right away

if you have changes in behavior or thinking, aggression, hostility, depressed mood, suicidal thoughts or actions, seizures, new or worse heart or blood vessel problems, sleepwalking, or life-threatening allergic and skin reactions. decrease alcohol use. use caution driving or operating machinery. tell your doctor if you've had mental health problems. the most common side effect is nausea. talk to your doctor about chantix.

welcome back to "velshi & ruhle." a new memo undercutting treasury secretary steve mnuchin's defiance to hand over president trump's taxes. >> a confidential irs draft memo first obtained by "the washington post" says tax returns must be given to congress unless under, quote, the invocation of the doctrine of executive privilege. the memo appears to contradict the trump administration's justification for denying lawmakers' requests for president trump's tax returns. >> joining us now, "new york times" economic policy reporter, alan rapoport, who wrote about this memo. alan, how is treasury secretary steve mnuchin reacting to this after he said, what was it, two weeks ago, nope, me and the irs are on the same page?

>> that's right. and he had a hearing this morning with the house financial services committee and he was asked about it multiple times, probably about half the hearing was about that memo and about the president's taxes. and he had a few things to say. one, he emphasized that it was a draft memo. it wasn't final. he also made the point that he said that it did not undercut his argument that there needs to be a legitimate legislative purpose for the tax returns to be released. and interestingly, he tried to cast doubt on the authenticity of the memo, saying he wasn't sure he wrote it, they were going to do an investigation, and this was not some sort of smoking gun that undercut what he said -- >> but in your opinion, does it change mnuchin's refusal to hand over those taxes? >> it doesn't sound like it at all. he's steadfast that he does not want to see the irs weaponized by democrats, as he likes to say. but he did say that they'll take into consideration, that they will do a review, he said he hadn't even read the memo as of this morning, but he said it won't change his mind at all in

terms of turning over president trump's tax returns to congress. >> i think if i were being called to congress to testify on something, i would read the memo, just in case someone asked me about it. >> alan rapoport, thank you. because you know economic poli report ea reporter for "the new york times." secretary mnuchin gave another reason why he wouldn't turn over the president's taxes. during his testimony in front of the house financial services committee he said releasing the documents would be against the law. >> why haven't you complied with chairman neil's request? >> because i think that would be unlawful as advised by the department of justice. >> so are you aware then that by denying this, that you are in direct violation of the law? >> no, absolutely not. you have been advised i am not violating the law. i never would do anything that violated the law. i have been advised had i turned them over, i would be violating the law. >> huh?

>> joining us is democratic congresswoman katy porter of california. she is on the house financial services committee. she did hear from secretary mnuchin this morning. did any part of steve mnuchin's argument satisfy your questions about why he will not it uturn these returns over? >> it did not. the law is clear. it says the secretary shall provide the tax returns. the fact that the staff memo is absolutely correct in its legal interpretation. so what it says is what we all believe, what we know to be the law. in fact, secretary mnuchin was before the committee today because of the statute that says he shall appear before the committee. shall means you must do it. and so that's exactly what this irs staff memo says. so it's very clear he must turn over the tax returns and there is no excuse for that. >> here is the issue. if he must turn them over or else, he made the argument there is no have i have reason, the

irs agrees. now we are in the or else category. how do you actually get them? >> i think we can look at subpoena powers to do this. i think we can continue potentially go to court to enforce the treasury statute that exists's in the u.s. code that these tax returns shall be provided upon the request of the chairman of the ways and means committee. at this point i think this is going to have to be resolved by the courts, going to have to be resolved by subpoena. this distracting from the important work this country needs to do. the fact that the irs' own lawyers seem to believe, along with the majority of lawyers in this country, including folks like me, that these tax returns must be provided. if mr. mnuchin isn't hearing that from his lawyer, he ought to get a new lawyer. >> with all due respect, what makes you believe this potential subpoena would be treated any differently than any of the other ones racking up in the white house? >> at this point i have very

little confidence in that. that's the unfortunate circumstances we find ourselves in today. >> let's turn to another moment in your committee, in front of your committee. during an exchange with the housing and urban development secretary ben carson, he was talking to you, he appeared not to understand a basic housing term called real estate owned, which unfortunately is going to be all too familiar to a number of americans who lost their house in foreclosure. let's listen to the exchange. >> i'd also like you to get back to me if you don't mind to explain the disparity in reo rates. do you know what an reo is? >> oreo? >> no, not an oreo. reo. >> real estate? >> what's the o stand for? >> the organization. >> owned, real estate owned. >> somebody owned somebody there. >> what do you make of that? carson said he was having trouble hearing you. what's your take away after having had that exchange yesterday? i'm sorry, but respectfully

i was very clear in my words. i was using the term reo. when he couldn't hear me or i thought he was mishearing me i took pains to politely correct him, spell out the acronym, reo. i asked him to be sure we were on the same page so we could have a productive conversation, if he knew what an reo was, and he gave the incorrect answer. an reo is not an organization. it's not a real estate organization. that's not correct. so for mr. carson to go on tv today and say that i am the one who doesn't know what's going on and he'd be happy to inform me is, frankly, very rich. i spent more than ten years in the trenches working with families facing foreclosure, listening to their stories, and i want mr. carson to take this problem very seriously. he still does not ahave his facs straight. on fox business he claimed that fha closes quickly, sells properties quickly. it does not. the tip company time for when

they close on a property is over 500 days. so the reality is in the last 24 hours while he may have learned what an reo is, he has not learned what's going on in fha and what he needs to do to lead it successfully. >> representative katy porter of california, thank you for joining us today. >> thank you. next, the stalemate in washington. today's question. can the white house and congress push past this moment to lead our country? you are watching "velshi & ruhle" right here on msnbc. here's one you guys will like.

show me making it. oh! i got one. the best of amy poehler. amy, maybe we could use the voice remote to search for something that you're not in. show me parks and rec. from netflix to prime video to live tv, xfinity lets you find your favorites with the emmy award-winning x1 voice remote. show me the best of amy poehler, again. this time around... now that's simple, easy, awesome. experience the entertainment you love on x1. access netflix, prime video, youtube and more, all with the sound of your voice. click, call or visit a store today.

that was a very eventful hour. interesting to talk to mayor de blasio. he is making the point he wants to be elected bit working men and women of this country. >> the point you made was that doesn't everybody say that? >> they do. >> it doesn't all work. if i were the working men and women in this country, i would be mad. i think there is a valid reason to be mad at people. you keep saying you have proms and policies for me and they haven't worked out that way. but the mayor -- >> solving for that is easier said than done. remember what's extra tricky, in large part that is president trump's base. president trump ran on this idea of economic populism, speaking to americans who felt forgotten, and mayor de blasio has a similar message. you know, bernie sanders has said but you didn't deliver. >> what did you bring bernie sanders up for? >> bernie sanders is going to be

on msnbc today. >> that's what you brought it up for. i will be interview senator sanders at 3:00 p.m. eastern. we will ask him some of the same things. you will be becoack at 9:00 a.m? >> indeed. check us out on social media. right now kasie hunt picks up our coverage. >> i am looking forward to that interview. thank you both very much. good afternoon. i am kasie hunt in for katy tur. it's 11:00 a.m. out west and 2:00 p.m. here in washington where it has been a day of high drama and unexpected news conferences. this afternoon during what was supposed be a meeting on infrastructure at the white house with democratic leadership the president suddenly summoned reporters to the rose garden to address this comment from house speaker nancy pelosi earlier in the day. >> it's important to follow