Movements. My guests this morning, senator minority whip democrat dick durbin of illinois and republican senator david purdue of georgia. Plus, Elizabeth Warrens refusal to shake hands with Bernie Sanders. I think you called me a liar on national tv. Lets not do it right now. Has stirred fear in the left that this threatens the chances of securing a democratic nominee. And the nbc news countytocounty project. You have to speak to us. But ive been hearing people will change and get behind the nominee no matter what. We talk to africanamerican voters in milwaukee about 2020. Joining me for insight and analysis are hugh hewitt, formed maryland congresswoman donna edwards, and the authors of a new book on President Trump, phil rucker, White House Bureau chief for the Washington Post and carol leonnig, also of the Washington Post. Welcome to sunday. Its meet the press. Announcer from nbc news in washington, the longest running show in television history, this is meet the press with chuck todd. Good morning, everyone. Last we we witnessed the dignified and solemn rituals that played out on capitol hill with terms like hear ye, hear ye, do impartial justice and on pain of imprisonment marking the occasion. But beneath the 18th century rules and 19th century pageantry was corrosive 21st century partisan politics. Republicans accuse democrats of doing everything they can to remove a president they demise. Democrats akuds republicans of dwengds a president no matter the things against him. A source working with the president s Impeachment Team says they will argue the articles of impeachment allege no violation of law, that impeachment is the result of what they believe is a flawed process in the house and they insist that the democrats case collapses on the actual facts. We will take it head on, this source claims. Still, were left to wonder about another jury, similarly divided between supporters and opponents of mr. Trump. Thats the one watching at home. That jury remains as divided as the senate, and the question is, are they still open to being persuaded one way or the other. A lot of president s, some good, some not so good. But youve got a good one now, even though theyre trying to impeach the son of a bitch, can you believe that . Late on saturday House Democrats outlined their case, arguing he used his official powers to pressure a Foreign Government to interfere in a u. S. Election for his personal political gain and then attempted to cover up his scheme by obstructing Congress Investigation into his misconduct. President trump put his own personal interests above the national interests, above our National Security, and if not stopped, he will do it again. The president s lawyers issued a sixpage letter, calling impeachment a brazen and unlawful attempt to overturn the results of the 2016 election and arguing the president broke no laws. Also this weekend, new documents from lev parnas, the guiliani associate that is facing federal Campaign Finance charges. They include whatsapp messages showing parnas was working with an aide to the Top Republican on the Intelligence Committee devin nunes to set up calls to federal prosecutors for guiliani to feed information about joe biden. The messages also show the possible surveillance of marie yovanovitch, the former u. S. Ambassador to ukraine. President trump knew exactly what was going on. He was aware of all of my movements. I wouldnt do anything without the consent of Rudy Giuliani or the president. I dont know him. I dont know parnas other than i guess i had pictures taken, which i do with thousands of people. As the senate trial begins you will do impartial justice, according to the constitution and laws, so help you god. Many senators have already signalled how they will vote. Im not an impartial juror. The facts are that he committed an impeachable act and i will vote to convict him. The showdown over whether to call witnesses, including former National Security advisor john bolton is likely at least a week away. Democrats will need at least four republican votes. If i determine that i do not have enough, i will vote to accept Additional Information by way of additional witness. I think that if they wanted witnesses, they should have called them in the house. On friday, the president unveiled additions to his legal team, including harvard constitutional lawyer alan dershowitz. Abuse of power even if proved is not an Impeachable Offense. And former independent counsel ken starr, who once argued the case against bill clinton. Collectively, the president s defense team has made over 350 appearances on fox news in the last year. And joining me now is the number two democrat in the United States senate, its dick durbin of illinois. Welcome back to meet the press, sir. Good morning, chuck. Before i get to what tuesday will look like, let me ask this. Are there any active negotiations happening right now between your leadership, yourself and senator schumer, and senator mcconnell, senator cornyn and the Republican Leadership team . I checked and as of late last night there really had not been exchange, for instance, of the mcconnell memo which is supposed to kick off this entire trial. You know, were less than a little over 48 hours away from the trial actually commencing and there hasnt been the most basic information or exchange of information. So instead of having the debate behind the scenes, youre going to have the debate in front of us on tuesday. So you know it looks like senator mcconnell is going to outline rules that while similar to clinton, what do you make of this reporting that indicates hes thinking of doubling the amount of trial time per day to speed up this trial . Chuck, as you said in the opening here, donald trump is on trial for impeachment. And the jury, of course, will be 100 senators. But the senate itself is on trial as far as im concerned, and the jury is the American People. The question is whether or not we are going to have a fair trial. Whether members of the senate are going to be loyal to the constitution or loyal to the president. A fair trial, everyone understands, involves evidence. Evidence would be documents and witnesses. We know the president has refused to provide documentation beyond the july 25th telephone memo and hes refused to provide basic witnesses who actually heard what happened on that conversation and saw what happened afterwards. So at this point, you know, the senate is on trial. I hope at the end of the day enough republican senators will understand history will find you. Make certain that you make a decision that you can live with in terms of our constitution and your own professional career. So explain what youre going to try to do on tuesday. Hes going to introduce rules outlining this. Theres going to be some debate. What power do you have other than rhetoric . Well, its an interesting situation. The senate members, by and large, are silenced. We can make motions. We can amend motions that are made before the senate. The argument for those positions will be made by house managers on the democratic side and the president s legal team on his side. There may be some rulings by the chief justice presiding over this. But ultimately the decision is made by a majority vote of the United States senate as to the process we follow. Does this mean you have to be working with adam schiff, jerry nadler, the house impeachment managers, on Certain Senate rules that youre going to debate since they have to do the debating on your behalf . Well, it goes without saying that on both sides giving a heads up and fair notice to the managers as well as the president s defense team on the republican side is necessary if theyre going to have to argue the position of the motions that we make. So that means you have to essentially work with adam schiff to make these let me ask you this. What motions are you going to call for on tuesday that you know Mitch Mcconnell will try to stop . I dont know exactly what will transpire. As i mentioned, we dont know what the mcconnell memo or resolution includes as we start out. Weve been very open about this. Chuck schumer and the democrats in the senate have said lets bring in the witnesses, lets put the truth before the American People and let them join us in judgment. I would assume the early motions made by Chuck Schumer on what of democrats will go right to that point. Let me get you to respond to something from the president s legal team. It was more of their official response so more of a statement than a legal document right now. But this is what they write. House democrats abuse of power claim would do lasting damage to the separation of powers under the constitution. The essential argument theyre making is that this is very subjective. Its a partisan decision that was made in the house. Its not a bipartisan decision. And abuse of power there isnt a defined it isnt defined anywhere in law. So how do you respond to that critique . Just ask those who criticize it to take a look at federalist 65. Alexander hamilton, not the musical, the real alexander hamilton, actually spoke out about what this trial gets down to. They were saying they beginning that the standards of treason, bribery, high crimes and misdemeanors and it goes beyond the commission of a crime. Alan dershowitz takes a unique position saying your crime must have been committed. When it comes to abuse of power of the office, you know, the president misused the office for personal, political gain. That to me is in the realm of what they considered in high crimes and misdemeanors in the abuse of power. The accusations and the documents that lev parnas, the guiliani associatie that is now cooperating with the Southern District of new york, looking perhaps for leniency here, we dont know what his motive is to release all this information, how do you plan to get that evidence into this trial since its not clear theres an avenue for it . Well, i think it all depends on four republican senators. They have to join us in really the pursuit of truth to make sure the American People hear the whole story. Whether that includes mr. Parnas or not, i cant say. We have four witnesses we believe are essential to start this conversation and put the evidence before the American People. He has confirmed many of the suspicions we had about this guiliani effort on behalf of the president and how far it went. He has now implicated, for example, a member of the house of representatives on the republican side. Theres a lot of issues that hes raised. But in terms of whether or not he or anyone associated with him is called as a witness, most of us believe the trial should start with the four basic witnesses we called for. I understand that. But if you get four or more republican senators to agree with you on that, but they basically say yes, but, the president gets to call a set of witnesses that they want to call too, are you comfortable with that outcome if it means one of those witnesses may have the last name of biden . Well, listen, i dont know what the republicans will suggest. But weve been told even within their caucus theres a dispute as to whether or not that is really in their best interest, whether thats more theater than it should be. The bottom line is this, the four republican senators who will initiate could initiate calling witnesses will really open the negotiation between the republicans and democrats in the senate. The bottom line, is there going to be a fair trial . Are we going to have evidence, documents and witnesses . To this point senator mcconnell has said no, not necessary. Hes made up his mind long ago. But i think the American People expect a real trial to have real documents and evidence. Is the outcome in doubt even if you get your witnesses . In terms of the ultimate case, i cant say. I can tell you there was a moment when the chief justice arrived and we each raised our right hand, you could feel a change in the United States senate. I saw 20 years ago with the impeachment trial of bill clinton and ive seen it now in this impeachment trial of donald trump. There is a feeling that we have a separate and awesome responsibility under the constitution. Not to let the American People down and to make sure we do the right thing so the ultimate outcome i cant predict. One final question on the obstruction article. Should the house have made more of an effort in the courts before they filed that obstruction article . I can tell you that the courts process is a long one. It would have gone way beyond the current time into some period right before the election. But dont forget that the house judiciary chairman, jerry nadler, offered to the president of the United States the opportunity to bring his attorney into their Judiciary Committee hearing to ask questions, to produce evidence. They refused. If theres evidence out there that exonerates the president , were still waiting to see it. Senator durbin, i will leave it there. Democrat from illinois, number two in the senate leadership. Thank you for coming on and sharing your views. Good to be with you. Now for a viewpoint from the other side, david perdue of georgia, welcome back to meet the press, sir. Good morning, chuck. Let me start with the basic this week. You said this week that the senate should not consider new evidence. Theres a lot out there with lev parnas. Why not . Chuck, what i said was no evidence within the scope. What we are obliged to do is to look at the case presented to us from the house. But i think its very rich to hear people talk about, well, what the senate needs to do is have a fair trial. Were purposed to do that, but where was that outcry during 116 days of investigation and trial in the house . What we are proposing to do right now is exactly what we did during the clinton hearing and that is to hear both sides present their cases. When you talk about how long that might take here in a minute. And then let every senator ask a question or several questions and then well go to a Decision Point at that point, which they did in the clinton case, about whether or not we have further information or more witnesses come to the u. S. Senate. But let me remind everybody, chuck, that in the clinton case they decided to have more witnesses come in but the only three witnesses they approved to come in had already given testimony in the house. They just wanted clarification. Let me ask you this. It does sound like you dont want to see this dismissed immediately, but youre not yet open on witnesses. Are you still openminded on witnesses . Well, i am, only within the scope of these two articles of impeachment. My personal preference, chuck, would be to see this dismissed out of hand because i think its an illegitimate process in the house. They did not give this president due process. However, what Mitch Mcconnell has decided to do i fully support. He has all 53 republican senators backing him on this, and that is to do this exactly like we did during the clinton impeachment hearing. Okay. So when let me ask you this. What is tuesday going to look like . Were going to have this back and forth. Are you looking to speed up this trial daywise . Are we going to have instead of five hours of trial a day double the amount of time . What is it that you guys are going to be proposing on tuesday . Well, well see how the vote comes out on tuesday, but what were proposing and we have tried to enter these negotiations with the other side but they wont have any conversation until we deal with witnesses up front and thats not what we did during the clinton trial. So what will happen tuesday is Mitch Mcconnell will put forward his proposal. Well have a vote on that. That proposal right now will look very similar to 24 hours of presentation by the house managers over two days, then 24 hours of presentation by the president s team over two days and then 16 hours of questions submitted by the members in writing to the chief justice. The chief justice decides whether or not they get asked and how they get asked and what sequenc sequence. And then we have the opportunity to do exactly what we did after phase one in the clinton trial and that is to decide where we go from here. Do we have more witnesses, do we need clarification, whatever. Those motions will be done then. Thats our proposal. Why shouldnt the senate hear from lev parnas under oath . This is somebody who is an associate of Rudy Giuliani who was at the center of this. Why not have the United States senate put this man under oath and hear what he has to say . Again, secondhand information. This is a distraction. This is a person thats been indicted right now. Hes out on bail. Hes been meeting with the house intel committee. If the house felt like this information was pertinent, i would think they would have included him and his testimony in this how is it secondhand . He was in ukraine, he was doing the bidding. He wasnt on the phone hes got material he seems to have some material evidence that might be helpful in connecting some dots. Well, thats the deal hes trying to get to get his sentence reduced. Im not sure he does at all personally. Why do you think folks like mr. Parnas end up so close to the president president . The president says he doesnt know who he was. I dont accept that at all. Why did he get so close to Rudy Giuliani . Why is Rudy Giuliani bringing people like him so close to the president . Does that bother you . What he was trying to do was get access into the government of ukraine. That was one way to do it. Lets put this in perspective, chuck. The headlines of the Washington Post on the day President Trump was inaugurated said the campaign to impeach this president has already begun. This is an impeachment looking for reasons. They want to undo the 2016 election and in fact the 2020 election i believe. I really think what happened in the house was not a fair trial. Its illegitimate because of that. They denied due process to the president. Were going to have a fair trial in the senate. Can you imagine, chuck, if in the senate we were to not allow the house managers to present their side of the case, that we could make the decision and we could vote this with 51 senators to only hear from the president. Can you imagine the outcry wed have over that . Thats exactedly what happened in the house. Let me ask you this. I know you dont believe this rises to ousting the president of the United States. Do you think what the president did with ukraine and the asking for assistance from a Foreign Government was a legitimate use of president ial power . Answer this, chuck. The president of the United States is responsible for routing out corruption. We are giving money to a country we are afraid is going to the wrong people for the wrong reasons. He is asking for help to rout out this corruption. He asked president zelensky to talk to the attorney general about it. You can characterize that as talking about a political opponent. What hes talking about is an american citizen that was potentially involved in corruption. Thats what this president was doing on that phone call. It was a congratulato gracongra congratulatory phone call. If president obama was calling hong kong asking about you and your Business Career and your time living in foreign country, going this guy wants to be a United States senator, we just want to make sure hes on the up and up, would that be a legitimate use of president ial power . Thats a totally improper characterization. What happened here was there was evidence of potential corruption. What the president was following up on was that. But i come back to this as well. It seems to me that what were talking about here are the details, but we have people no less than jonathan turley, who testified in the house, hes a constitutional law professor at your alma mater there at George Washington has said neither of these articles rise to the level of impeachment. Besides that, they have not proven either one of these in the house case. Well see when they presenting it to the senate next week. Jeff flake wrote it this week whos that . Jeff flake, a former senator. Who . Okay, touche. He basically wrote in an oped, if president obama did this exact same thing, would you be sitting here as comfortable defending what he did as you are President Trump . In fast and furious he did exactly this. He withheld evidence from the house of representatives and the republicans decided that it was not obstruction of congress. The democrats agreed and we did not pursue it. Nancy pelosi, nadler all said that was not obstruction. Yet in this case when the president decides to use executive privilege, they now all of a sudden say, oh, no, that is obstruction of congress. So its a little bit hypocritical i think to see some of the comments that are coming out now versus what happened back in 98. Would you like to see the president be more forthcoming deciding his side of the story because right now its more rhetoric than evidence that he uses to defend itself. This has all been tried out in the media. He has not had an opportunity. Remember, next week is going to be the first time america gets to hear President Trumps defense. He hasnt had an opportunity to do that. We did not have due process in the house. Its clear. And so now for the first time were going to have that. Its ironic to me, chuck, that with all the success we had last week with the china trade deal and usmca being passed in the United States senate that this overshadows all of that. Yet we have not heard the president s defense. How is the president , though, denied due process if he denied witnesses going in front of the house that might have had exculpatory privilege . He used his executive privilege and every president has used that. President obama used it, president clinton used it back in the day. He was well within his rights in my opinion. Jonathan turley agrees with that. I have a feeling the debate about executive privilege is going to be one well hear a lot about perhaps over the next couple of weeks as everybody has this debate. Senator david perdue, republican from georgia, thank you for coming on and sharing your views, i appreciate it. Thanks, chuck. When we come back, the impeachment trial. What ar Retirement Income is complicated. As your broker, ive solved it. Thats great, carl. But we need something better. Thats easily adjustable has no penalties or advisory fee. And we can monitor to see that were on track. Like schwab intelligent income. Schwab introducing schwab intelligent income. A simple, modern way to pay yourself from your portfolio. Oh, thats cool. I mean, we dont have that. Schwab. A modern approach to wealth management. And now for their service to the community, we present limu emu doug with this key to the city. [ applause ] its an honor to tell you that Liberty Mutual customizes your Car Insurance so you only pay for what you need. And now we need to get back to work. [ applause and band playing ] only pay for what you need. Liberty. Liberty. Liberty. Liberty. Yes im stuck in the middle with you, no one likes to feel stuck, boxed in, or held back. Especially by Something Like your cloud. Its a problem. But the ibm cloud is different. Its open and flexible enough to manage all your apps and data securely, anywhere, across all your clouds. So it can help take on anything from rebooking flights on the fly, to restocking shelves on demand, without getting in your way. Welcome back. The panel is here. Hugh hewitt, host on the salem radio network, former congresswoman donna edwards, carol leonnig, and phil rucker, and carol and phils new book is a very stable genius, Donald Trumps testing of america comes out on tuesday. Excerpts have been floating around. You guys have gotten quite a bit of buzz here. Congrats on that. I want to get to sort of how the book and impeachment converge here a little bit. Donna and hugh, i want you guys to deal with this statement from the president s legal team thats not a legal response yet, this is the summons. House democrats excuse me. Articles of impeachment are constitutionally invalid on their face. They fail to allege any crime on violation of law, let alone high crimes and misdemeanors as required by the constitution. Hugh, youre a lawyer. Technically this sentence is not accurate. The house impeached. You may not like what you did, its constitutionally valid, you just may not like what they did. I think they were trying to convey exactly that. I read last night the house managers trial memorandum and their entire statement of material facts. I do not believe they have presented a case that rise to the level of an offense that is impeachable, much less any offense at all. In fact i looked with a little bit of stunned amazement at material allegation 73, which is on page 25 of the second submission, in which they contradict their own allegation, which is at the beginning the president was attempting to influence the 2020 election. They cite in their own statement of material facts, it was about the 2016 election, a volker to yermak text. I dont think were going to get the witnesses now. They do not have a case. On article 2 i think it was absolutely silly. There was no Impeachable Offense. Donna edwards, is that how you see it . It isnt how i see it at all. Im a lawyer, maybe not as good as hugh. But my reading of the houses brief is that they state really clearly, i think, a strong constitutional argument in the beginning of the brief that lays out the history of impeachment, really reminding us that high crimes and misdemeanors was left to the definition of the legislators. It doesnt mean the breaking of the law. They talk specifically about the abuse abuse of power allegations and that the abuse of power is exactly the kind of abuse of public trust that the founders had in mind. And so i think its a really strong and compelling argument. And the question is whether theres going to be a fair trial so that democrats can really present the argument against the president. One quick question on the obstruction article. In hindsight should they have waited longer to file that one and fought in the courts or use muellers obstructions to strengthen that article . No, i actually think that the article is strong on its face with the evidence. Would it have been bolstered if witnesses were not obstructed by this president of the United States and prevented from giving testimony, would it have been bolstered if documents were produced . No documents have been produced to the house of representatives, and so i think that they made the case that they could. Now its really important to focus on what kind of trial this is going to be and whether its going to be the kind of trial that the American People expect. The wild card in this trial, guys, is the fact that unlike the clinton impeachment, theres new characters, new information and thats what this week has. Heres one of the potential new characters, lev parnas. President trump knew exactly what was going on. He was aware of all of my movements. I wouldnt do anything without the consent of Rudy Giuliani or the president. Okay. You guys have covered this not just in the book very well, phil, carol, phil, start with you. Lev parnas, hows the president handling somebody whos another person whos turned on him . Its like michael cohen, the president s personal attorney turning on the president. Lev parnas is somebody who tried so hard to get into the trump orbit. There are photos all over the internet with him posing with the president , with his allies at maralago, a lot of thumbs up. Now hes turning completely. Hes providing this new evidence. Those notes that were scribbled on the hotel stationery and he wants to tell his story. The question, i think, becomes whether the senate republicans, enough of them, want to hear witnesses to bring him forwardly and importantly john bolton, the former National Security advisor, whos head he would be willing to testify if asked. What do you make of the president s relationship now with rudy if the people rudy was bringing into this thing are now causing political problems for the president . From our reporting its really shocking inside the white house and the president s closest confidants are all saying, oh, my gosh, where has rudy led us essentially. He wanted to be secretary of state and he was essentially operating as a uber secretary of state, going around the country, making some money and also trying to do things leading our foreign policy. Now there are advisers to the president who said he led us down a path that really makes the president vulnerable. Hugh, why isnt there more anger at rudy . Im surprised there isnt. Do you think wed be here without Rudy Giuliani . No. But i also believe theres not much anger at rudy because not anyone on my side of the aisle believes an Impeachable Offense occurred. I cant stress this enough. Youre on to it with your question about article 2. This is about future president s, not just President Trump. Not only do i think he did not commit an Impeachable Offense or any offense, im also concerned that this rushed job, especially on article 2, is a horrible precedent for future president s. When the issue of witnesses comes before the senate this week or next, i think a lot of democrats may be tempted to vote on behalf of future president s. Whats the worst going back to abuse of power, donna, whats the worse precedent . If the president doesnt believe what he did with ukraine was wrong, then future president s may do the same thing. Well, i think going back to the constitution and the framers, this is exactly the kind of violation of public trust, and particularly around foreign interference in an election. We had come off of a king. We didnt want that. We wanted a democratic republic. What the president has done really goes right squarely at its constitutional responsibility in making sure theres not foreign interference in our elections. It strikes me, and your book chronicles this well and well get to more of the excerpts a little later in the show, but do you think, carol, and phil, that the president would be here if his first or second teams were still around him in the west wing . You know, what we found in our reporting is that the guardrails are gone. The trajectory of this presidency is escalating towards a presidency of one. More chaos, less discipline in decisionmaking. The people who tried to hem him in are out. He drove them out of the room. He has a lot of people around him who view themselves and their mission as telling him yes. Is there a Single Person left that tries to restrain . The people in power left, like mike pompeo, the secretary of state, Mick Mulvaney, the acting chief of staff, they see their job as trying to get the president to a yes of executing what he wants done in a way they can defend publicly and in a way that is somewhat legal but theyre not trying to challenge him. Theyre trying to execute his orders and placate his conspiracies to smp degree. You had Robert Obrien on. I completely reject the idea that team three, which this is, is somehow less able to tell the president hard facts. In fact i think team three is the best team hes had. But hugh, what about the part where Mick Mulvaney agrees to withhold the aid which turns out to be against the law, the aid to ukraine. I dont know that it is against the law. I dont believe that to be the case. I dont think they made that case. Well the gao does. I do not believe thats been shown in the managers brief. Congress is part of the government too. Were going to pause it here. When we come back, hoping to make up some lost ground. What ive been hearing that people will change this time and get behind the nominee no matter its tough to quit smoking cold turkey. 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. Chantix reduces the urge so when the day arrives, youll 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 lifethreatening allergic and skin reactions. Decrease alcohol use. Use caution driving or operating machinery. Tell your doctor if youve had Mental Health problems. The most common side effect is nausea. Quit smoking slow turkey. Talk to your doctor about chantix. Doprevagen is the number oneild mempharmacistrecommendeding . Memory support brand. You can find it in the vitamin aisle in stores everywhere. Prevagen. Healthier brain. Better life. Most people think as a reliable phone company. But to businesses, were a reliable partner. We Keep Companies ready for whats next. man we weave security into their business. second man virtualize their operations. woman and build ai customer experiences. second woman we also keep them ready for the next big opportunity. Like 5g. Almost all of the fortune 500 partner with us. woman when it comes to digital transformation. Verizon keeps business ready. Welcome back. Throughout the year as part of our countytocounty project, were following five key counties in five swing states that we believe will help us tell the most about where the president ial election is head had. These counties represent different voting groups. Theyre not all 5050 counties, some of these are turnout counties. Our project includes a largely White Working Class county, a majority hispanic county and this week we talked to milwaukee county. In 2016 donald trump won 3500 fewer votes than mitt romney did in 2012 and yet he took the state because Hillary Clinton won 231,000 fewer votes than president obama. Much of that falloff came among africanamerican voters in milwaukee county. So we asked my colleague to go to milwaukee county. She cat down with five africanamerican voters to discuss how theyre feeling about the 2020 election so far including the lack of candidates of color still in this race. I think weve relied on identity politics in the past. Weve relied on how to attract black voters to get a black candidate, how to attract women voters is to get a woman candidate. Folks are really struggling. They want someone thats going to raise wages, they want someone thats going to address student debt and Affordable Housing and affordable schooling and prison reform. Some of our minority candidates werent speaking about those issues. That goes to show no one is going to vote for you because they dont look like you or identify with you, theyre going to vote with you if you fight on their behalf. The candidate that can beat the current president. The important issues and qualifications now, who can beat the current candidate or the current president. We have kind of pushed aside the other candidates and qualifications. Initially people were excited about the wide scope of candidates, those of color, although thats not always the key. At least we have some choices. But now i think our voice has been limited. Look, in milwaukee they didnt get the turnout it needed or the turnout democrats wanted in 2016 to win the state. Thats one of the reasons Hillary Clinton lost wisconsin, she didnt come here. Does it make a difference who the candidate is in terms of getting the vote out . At this point it may be centered on who the candidates running mate will be because the assumption is its going to be biden who stood up on the stage. The only time they mentioned anything black, they were each trying to outdo each other saying i have black support, i have black support. Biden stood there and said i have more black support than any of you or all of you combined. I think older black voters will heavily lean towards biden, you know. Black people have been protesting against warren. Mayor pete doesnt even have support in his own community. You can go down the line on that. So if you want to engage and excite the black vote, biden needs to bring in a black running mate. I dont know. Okay, okay, no. I wouldnt necessarily i respectfully disagree with that. I think its going to come down who speaks to our issues. You have to speak to our issues. Around this country in black communities, its void of investment, its void of redevelopment, and when you look at the central city and you realize if any of those people in that Community Want to go to the movies, they have to leave that community. If they want to go bowling, they have to leave that community. If they want to go roller skating, they have to leave that community. If they want to go to a nice restaurant, they have to leave that community. When you talk about real robust economic development, where that plan is. Thats what you need to speak to for the black vote, not just in milwaukee, but in central cities around this country. And i think thats why Bernie Sanders does so well here. More specifically when he talks about issues like health care, Affordable Health care, when youre speaking about black businesses, a lot of folks arent able to start businesses or willing to leave their jobs to start businesses because they cant afford to pay for their own health care. They cant afford to pay for their employees health care. When i talk about issues being more important, i dont think its going to be a black vp thats going to engage the voter. Im still praying. I think its going to be someone thats absolutely speaking to the issues and showing the true vision on how to improve peoples every day lives. It sounds like youre not hearing from from any of the democratic candidates. Put castro in there. He was talking about police brutality. He was talking about some of those concrete issues. Some of the other candidates just come up being leaders, looking down. But the key is going to be will there be enthusiasm to pull that turnout, to pull those black men millenials and those people that usually dont vote that barack obama did i think i see something different. Instead of waiting for a candidate to speak to our issues, we need a candidate thats going to listen to us when we speak because we are living the life and see the disparity. A candidate thats going to take black voices as credible ones and take what we say when they come to our cities and do their rallies, are they going to take what weve been saying for generations and put that into policy until waiting for someone to echo what we already know. Thats what im waiting for. The thing about biden whos the candidate that im more likely to support is he angers the progressives. Im so nervous that biden becomes the nominee, which it appears he will be, theres going to be a lot of people will stay home. Everybody says vote blue, no matter who. Theyre not going to. People are fearful of whats going to happen but what ive been hearing is it will change this time and get behind the nominee no matter what, the democratic nominee. So weve been pushing from the angle that please just vote. We can fix things later, but get behind the nominee right now. President trump says he has growing support among africanamerican voters. Youre here, youre in the community. What do you see . What do you hear . He had 4 and now he has five. I think its stronger than that. I also hear a lot of folks talking about the economy. Look, i know it does not work for everybody, but somebody bought a house in the last four years. Somebody got a promotion in the last four years. Somebody got a raise in the last four years. So they attribute any economic success to this current president. I think thats troublesome for the democratic nominee because a Strong Economy is really, really tough to beat. And for transparency sake, the entire focus Group Interview is on our website, meetthepress. Com. When we new york state is taking business to the next level. Supporting Innovative Companies that will shape tomorrow and Building Workforce development and tuitionfree College Programs to generate the talent companies need. With a 150 billion investment in state of the art, modern infrastructure, and a nationleading commitment to lowcost clean energy, new york is doing more than any other state to build for the future of your business. New york state, the state of the future. Learn more at esd. Ny. Gov to take care of yourself. But natures bounty has innovative ways to help you maintain balance and help keep you active and wellrested. Because hey, tomorrows coming up fast. Natures bounty. Because youre better off healthy. When we see you enter through our doors. We dont see who youre against, or for. Whether tomorrow will be light or dark. All we see in you, is a spark. We see your kindness and humanity. The strength of each community. The more we look the more we find the sparks that make america shine. Welcome back. Data download time. If the last decade felt like one political earthquake after another, you may be surprised to hear that there technically hasnt been much change in the overall numbers of the two political parties, but it is underneath those top line numbers that there has been a massive political realignment that will carry us through this new decade and possibly beyond. Let us take you back to 2010. Thats when the nbc news wall street journal poll found 37 of voters identified as republican compared to 42 who said they were democrat. The end of 2019, the numbers are exactly the same. Pretty remarkable stability. Has it felt stable, though . Lets look below the surface at who those republicans and democrats were and now are. First, the education gap. We always talk about it. In 2010 voters with a High School Diploma or less were much more likely to identify as democrat by an 11point margin compared to republicans who had a 2point edge with College Educated number. A decade later those numbers filmed. Republicans lead with voters with a High School Diploma or less, democrats have a wide lead in College Educated voters. Then theres the other gap we talked a lot about during the 2018 midterms, the gender divide, specifically when it comes to suburban women. 2010 they lean democratic but it was by a very small threepoint margin. By 2019 that margin has grown to 13 points. Compare that with men aged 50 or older. They lean republican in 2010, but now that advantage has gone well above double digits. Look, all of these big doubledigit swings are ultimately about a lot more than education or ethnicity, geography or gender. They show a hardening of views among socioeconomic lines. Voters on opposite sides lead opposite lives making it harder to relate to each other and see eye to eye on policy. Thats how you compromise. These shifts and others are remaking the parties on a fundamental level changing what it means to be a democrat or republican and the process likely isnt over yet. When we come back i think you called me a liar on national tv. What . I think you called me a liar on national tv. Lets not do it right now. You want to have that discussion, well have that what i love most about being a scientist at 3m is that im part of a community of problem solvers. We make ideas grow. From an everyday solution. To one that can take on a bigger challenge. From packaging tape. To tape that can bond materials to buildings. And planes. One idea can unlock a breadth of solutions. At 3m, we are solving problems that improve lives. Wyou can see relationships. Gy, one idea can unlock a breadth of solutions. Connections. Patterns. You can see what others cant. And i like to question your im yoevery move. N law. Like this left turn. Its the next one. You always drive this slow . How did you make someone i love . That must be why youre always so late. I do not speed. And thats saving me cash with drivewise. My son, he did say that you were the safe option. And thats the nicest thing you ever said to me. So get allstate. Stop bossing. Where good drivers save 40 for avoiding mayhem, like me. This is my sons favorite color, you should try it. [mayhem] you always drive like an old lady . [tina] youre an old lady. Doprevagen is the number oneild mempharmacistrecommendeding . Memory support brand. You can find it in the vitamin aisle in stores everywhere. Prevagen. Healthier brain. Better life. Danafarber Cancer Institute discovered the pdl1 pathway. Pdl1. They changed how the world fights cancer. Blocking the pdl1 protein, lets the immune system attack, attack, attack cancer. Pdl1 transformed, revolutionized, immunotherapy. Pdl1 saved my life. Saved my life. Saved my life. What we do here at danafaber, changes lives everywhere. Everywhere. Everywhere. Everywhere. Everywhere. Back now with end game and what we teased before. Donna edwards, this issue of a woman nominee, though, has been something that even joe biden has talked about regarding Hillary Clinton, and i think take a listen to the last thing biden says here and tell me if this is probably what Elizabeth Warren in general is responding to when it came to whether it was Bernie Sanders or somebody else. Take a listen. I think theres a lot of sexism after hillary. I think its unfair, a lot of it. Well, thats not going to happen with me. Well, i think that Elizabeth Warren, joe biden, have actually given voice to at least what Democratic Women feel happened to hillary. Some of that has been in hindsight, looking at the overall scope of the coverage and the attacks. I see it on social media. And i think that it was a voicing of acknowledging up front that sexism and even within our party and certainly in the electorate is there. And i think Elizabeth Warren actually did a good job of saying, you know what, heres how you prove electability and then she made her argument. Carol . You know, i think the sexism element is something that is good for us to all discuss, whether its in the republican party, the Democratic Party or journalists. But Hillary Clinton had other problems too with the electorate. I mean she had a toxicity that came with her that had nothing to do with her gender and had everything to do with the baggage People Associated with her husband and her time in the white house. So we need to be careful about just saying its about sexism. That may have been a big part of it. Phil rucker, this is also about the progressive being divided on the left, which is a gift potentially to joe biden. The Sanders Campaign worried about it, even floating through their favorite publication, they researched this Elizabeth Warren could be treasury secretary and vice president. Hmm, that seems a bit hamhanded. Both the Warren Campaign and Sanders Campaign have a similar base of these voters and if united could win the nomination. This division were seeing is so dangerous to both of them. If Bernie Sanders takes off in iowa, which the polling there seems to suggested may be happening on the ground, how is he going to win other those warren supporters if theyre in this feud right now. Hugh, what are you hoping for as a conservative that wants to see the democrats lose . This split here . This split might actually help biden who might be the tougher foe. I thought the winner of the split was pete buttigieg. Because either the warren voter or the sanders voter who is turned off, theyre not going to go to joe biden, they have already committed to a progressive. I can tell you one thing, because virginia allows early voting and i dont know where nbc or salem will have me on then, i vote this week and im voting for Bernie Sanders. I think a lot of people will because hes authentic. Going to do calculated voting . No, because i think hes authentic. Are you going to vote for Bernie Sanders over donald trump . No, im voting for donald trump. But i want a clear choice between the authentic traditional socialist and all the people who just pretend to be. Oh, wow. Let me go back to your book, guys. I say this, it was interesting you had a whole bunch of former staffers and they all seemed to say the same thing to you. A longterm and immediate danger to the country, at times dangerously uninformed. This is a presidency of one, its trump unleashed, unchained, unhinged. These are people that work for him. A lot of people will look at this book and say no, no, no, no, youre just picking the bad stuff. Absolutely not. Phil and i were really careful and rigorous. We did not want a salacious book of cool little sound bites. We wanted to understand this presidency, hit the pause button amid all the crises, amid all of the hourbyhour news flashes and make sense of this presidency and figure out what motivates donald trump. What we learned is how distraught and frightened some of his senior aides were. And some of his current aides who broke their silence with us for the first time because they wanted history to be right and they wanted us to get it right. Whats that explanation . There was some heroic anecdotes where the person giving you the anecdote seemed to put themselves in a heroic thing and i half tease. Whats their explanation for not standing up to trump more . Some of these people feel honor bound not to criticize a president while still in office. Others are still serving him, still working for him and are afraid of losing their jobs or being retaliated against by the president. One thing we know about donald trump, he nurses these grudges and strikes back and punches back and could very easily fire people if he finds out who their sources are. Thats why carol and i were so rigorous in reporting more than 200 sources in the administration and close to the president , to make sure that were careful to protect them. Hugh, all of these books do have one thing in common. The president doesnt seem to know the story of america as well as perhaps other president s have. Does that bother you . I dont agree with that. I think he has a intuition that is manifested at the rallies that he knows especially the White Working Class. Im going to read a very stable genius but theres a book out called tight rope about what has happened to working White America and its been a disaster. I think he speaks to that and intuitively knows about that better than any of the democrats i watched this week. I buy that, but its our history, thats what feels like is missing with him. Right. And its the arc of our history and the way that that story hugh is talking about is actually connected to a story of people of color in this country who have suffered tremendously. He also seems not to have a grasp of World History and where the United States sits in that. All right. The book is a very stable genius. I think the president tweeted and so thats good for all authors. Thats all that we have for today. Thank you for watching. Im going to be erring on the side of rooting with the packers. Go, pack, go. Well see you next week, because if its sunday, its meet the press. In just over 24 hours, the impeachment trial of President Trump will take over the senate, but in the fight over who will be allowed to testify at the trial and if there will be witnesses is still reaching. Tragedy in paradise. A man guns down two Police Officers in hawaii before setting his hows ablaze what led to the violent shooto shootouts preparing for the worst. Virginia in a state of emergency. A bitter arctic blast buries roads and snow, and puts half the country under ice