thanks for being with us. physical follow the show online, on twitter. here's alley velshi and stephanie ruhle. >> it is tuesday, may 7th. let's get smarter. the idea that you have a delegation that includes chinese vice premiere, lee yao hu, the top trade negotiator on china's side. so all of a sudden you have secretary mnuchin, trade rep robert lighthawouser. the house moves closer to holding the attorney general in contempt, as the senate majority leader is expected to declare case closed on the mueller report. >> today, members of the house judiciary committee are set to meet with justice department officials who have refused to turn over the full redacted mueller report if they cannot reach an agreement, democrats are planning to vote tomorrow to

hold attorney general william barr in contempt. >> another "no" from this administration. former white house counsel, don mcgahn, saying he will not be handing over documents from the mueller investigation until the white house reaches some sort of an agreement with house democrats. >> two years of exhaustive investigation and nothing to establish the fanciful conspiracy theory that democratic politicians and tv talking heads had treated like a foregone conclusion. the special counsel's signing is clear. case closed. case closed. this ought to be good news for everyone. >> reporter: case closed. that's word from mitch mcconnell, speaking out on the senate floor, just moments ago. he was talking about the mueller report. but as congress gets closer to holding the attorney general in contempt, democrats say it's far from a done deal. >> what's at stake here is the constitution of the united states of america. will congress do its job and

fulfill its constitutional duty to serve as a check on the president? the answer from the majority leader and his republican colleagues is "no." case closed, case closed. >> when fbi agents conduct investigations against alleged mobsters, suspected terrorists, other criminals, do you believe that they're engaging in spying? >> well, that's not the term i would use. >> is the election interference broader than just when we talk about foreign interference in our elections, is it broader than just russia? >> that was something that was really fairly unique to the russians, but certainly, we know that other countries have been eyeing those efforts and entertaining whether or not to take a page out of that book. >> the trump administration now accuses china of reneging on their commitments as part of the trade talks, threatening even more tariffs. >> he is willing, they say, to take more stock market pain on the trade issue in the short-term, if he feels it's getting him to his longer term

goal of resetting the u.s. relationship on trade with china. >> all right. we're going to get into a lot of that, we're talking about there. but i want to take a quick live look at the stock market, which has, in the last few minutes, taken another downturn. we are not at the low point of the day, we're about 20 points away from it right now. >> remember, what we've had in the last few days is volatility. it's not that volatility is not welcome, it's part of the markets. it's necessary. and we saw the markets go up, up, up. remember, friday, extraordinary jobs number. the market ticking really high levels. let's bring in cnbc's bill griffeth to walk us through this. bill, yesterday warren buffett said, you know, a week ago, people woke up and they thought there was a 1% chance that a trade deal wouldn't get done. yesterday, they woke up and it was a 10% chance. so this is normal risk adjustment. are we still in risk adjustment or is it more than that? >> i think we're a little bit more than that right now, because we now know, assuming

things go according to the new plan, that the tariffs go into effect midnight thursday night. well, that gives wall street a deadline right now. that tells them that this is going to happen. and they do not like higher tariffs. we already know that. tariffs, higher tariffs, mean higher prices and slower growth. what have we enjoyed for the last several years in this economy? greater growth with lower prices. so they're just reversing that occasion and wall street is adjusting to all of that right now. >> but, bill, given what we've seen in the last couple of years, in terms of the volatility that we've seen in different points of this market, these moves are not huge. they're a little jaw dropping to people, because we don't see them all that often, and you remember days some months ago when we did see them all that often. but we're talking about a 1.25% drop on the dow right now, almost at session lows for the day. still, a couple days of this does not a market downturn make.

>> in the aggregate, you have to look at where the declines are occurring. the biggest decliners of the day are chip stocks. we did a story yesterday, the top ten companies that have the greatest exposure to china, in other words, they derive the greatest amount of their revenue from doing business with or in china, eight of the top ten companies are chip companies. they make computer chips. computer chips are the building block of technology. if chip prices go up, that means all technology prices go up. that means demand probably goes down and technology is arguably the greatest driver of growth in the u.s. economy. so that's where a lot of the adjustments in attitude and expectations are going into wall street right now. >> so i just want to set this up, because stephanie is going to explain this in a little greater depth. the president tweeted that china has been putting lots and lots of money into u.s. coffers. to be clear, any extra money that ends up in the u.s. because

of tariffs are because americans are paying more? >> yes, and there is a misunderstanding about these tariffs. china does not pay the tariffs. u.s. importers pay the tariffs. so they are incurring the higher costs, that's why u.s. consumers would theoretically incur those higher costs, because the importers are having to pay those higher costs right now. and so, wall street doesn't like high inflation. the fed has said, we don't see an inflation, we're not going to raise interest rates right now, but we may get temporary higher inflation if these tariffs go into effect and they last for quite a long time. >> bill, thanks for helping us understand it. bill griffeth at cnbc. >> always a pleasure. >> all right. let's help you understand this. a major driving force behind the volatility, we talk about it all day, is the president's latest threat to raise tariffs on imports from china. so what he's doing, he's vowing to increase tariffs from 10% to 25% on $200 billion worth of

chinese goods by this friday. that is as chinese negotiators are set to arrive in d.c. for another round of trade talks. that's why the market went back up last night, people thought, hey, maybe they're talking. the president says the tariffs that are already in place are boosting the u.s. economy. and the president claims china has been paying tariffs to the united states for months, but that is not really true. that is because tariffs are a tax that are ultimately passed on to you and me, the consumer. >> wait, not china? >> not china. so what exactly is a trade war? and why should americans care about the increasing tension between the united states and china? trade wars begin, remember, the president said they're easy to win, they're not. trade wars begin when one country places a tariff on imports from another country. the tariff, or the tax, is levied on specific goods. in this standoff, president trump first imposed import tariffs on aluminum and steel in

march of last year. if the other country retaliates with tariffs of its own, which it did one month later, that constitutes a trade war. so why do trade wars begin? sometimes imposing tariffs can be a punishment for what a country believes are unfair trade practices. but more often, a country imposes tariffs on imports to protect domestic businesses and give them an advantage over international competitors. so who really pays the tariffs? it's companies, not countries, that make the direct payments to the united states' government. so when the president first placed tariffs on aluminum and steel from china, u.s. importers were forced to pay that extra tax. but companies then pass those higher costs on to consumer in the form of higher prices. so here's an example. when tariffs were placed on imported washing machines last year, the average price of a washing machine unit went up by 12%. the tax foundation estimates that the current tariffs in place will cost an average american family around $450 a year. now, here's the thing, ali, an

average american family might say, i'm willing to pay that $450 -- >> if jobs come back. >> -- if jobs come back. because, yes, the president is mistaken on how trade deficits work. we might give chinese companies money and they give us goods that we want. so me as the consumer, i like that. but this arrangement has contributed to manufacturing going away. >> the issues is, are the jobs going to come back? are we looking to get washing machine manufacturing jobs back in canada -- in america. >> but there is somewhat of a through line, when you look at portions of the country that are hollowed out or what's hurting middle income families or income inequality, you can point to global trade. >> sure you can. >> absolutely, you can. that's exactly true. >> and people are angry about that all over the world. people who have lost those jobs to lower wage countries. >> absolutely. so the president is correct in his sentiment. the issue is, those jobs might not ever come back here.

so what he's doing -- >> just might be making the cost of goods higher. i've been saying canada. >> we are talking about america here. >> joining us now is the former u.s. trade representative, ron kirk. ron, good to see you, as always. thank you for being with us. we can disagree as to how the president may be doing this, and by the way, a lot of our allies, including those in canada really disagree with it, because the president went and imposed tariffs on all sorts of countries, who agreed that china is not always the fairest player and needed something done. >> because they're not. >> so how do you address this? because china does need to be dealt with. this may not be the best way to deal with them. >> china does need to be dealt with. and as stephanie laid out in her previous piece, you know, the challenge with tariffs as the only answer to frustrations over illegal unfair trade practices is that the brunt of the burden is born by u.s. businesses and

consumers. and as you noted, we've now had these tariffs in place for over a year. and as stephanie correctly observed, the president told us trade wars are easy. well, trade wars are not. and if you go back historically, there's enough evidence to show the great depression was prolonged because of the smoot-hawley tariff act. it's just not a very thoughtful response to it. but i do agree that the president should insist that china has to live up to the commitments that it's making now. we're not privileged to what those are. i still am encouraged because of the fact that we do have a high-level delegation from china that is going to be here on friday. and this administration or in particular, this president, is known for his twitter rage. and so i think,, if anything, we've got to hope this is just another one of his late-night twitter storms and perhaps we'll make a little more progress on

friday, and as we saw at the end of march and the earlier depoimd deadlines, they will extend the talks until we get an agreement. >> but the chinese are showing up on friday. the markets took that very positively. do you think there's any rationale behind the president's unpredictability does get china to the table. they do want to play ball, because they don't want to be in a trade war. >> well, they don't want to be in a trade war, but china is going to have to ultimately change their behavior. but stephanie, as someone who had this role before, one of the marks of a good negotiator is finding a way for your -- the person you're negotiating with to give you what you want for their reasons. and that means you've got to sometimes step away from the bluster and bravado in making someone to do something, and let them find their own rationale. and as china tries to move into a higher knowledge base, more technologically driven economy,

it's going to be imperative that they begin to respect intellectual property and protect trade secrets, much as we've asked them to do. but the problem with the president in particular, and i don't fault at all his lead negotiators, i don't think this unpredictability is helpful. i mean, you're dealing with a country that measures time in dynasties. so if china believes they've got to wait something out, they're more than willing to do this. but coming from a state like texas and you talked about importers, our farmers are going crazy. i mean, they have to go to the bank and make a decision. am i going to borrow money so that i can plant crops, hopefully that i'm going to export to market instead of now closed off to us. and i know i'm going to sound like a broken record, because every time i come on, i remind you, you know, side to this is the fact that now we have the transpacific partnership that's been put in place. >> without us.

>> that u.s. exporters are locked out of. so i think it's critically important, we back off some of the bluster, get to the table, do the hard negotiations that it's going to take to get us a deal. >> sir, always good to talk to you. ron kirk is former u.s. trade representative. >> ali, thanks for having me. >> coming up next, president trump and the white house have ordered a former white house lawyer not to comply with a subpoena by congress. who is it? why it matters, coming up. you know what you're watching, this is vels"velshi & ruhle." this is vels"velshi & ruhle." r . every chip will crack. this daughter was home visiting when mom saw a chip in her windshield. >> mom: honey is that a chip? >> tech: they wanted it fixed fast so they brought it to us. >> mom: hi. >> tech: with our in-shop chip repair service, we can fix it the same day... guaranteed. plus with most insurance a safelite chip repair is no cost to you. >> mom: really? drive safely. all right. ♪ acoustic music >> singers: ♪ safelite repair,

♪ safelite replace.

this year, ancestry isn't celebrating mother's day. we're celebrating colleen's day. julia's day. marie's day. and all the one-of-a-kind women we call "mom." ancestrydna tells a story as unique as she is... ...with an engaging new experience that can help her uncover rich family details. give her ancestrydna for ...denise's day... . and at just $59, grab one for jeff's day, too. order a kit at ancestry.com

we're keeping an eye on markets, because that's what we do around here. we do watch them very closely. we just dipped below 500 points lower. we're not at session lows for the day, but within a few points of it. the relevance here is to tell you, that's 1.88%. stephanie and i tend to look at the left side of that board more than the right side of it, because the percentage drop, it's not nothing, but it's not massive. if we get 2% a day for a week, then you've lost a lot. >> let's just point to a different percentage. this is based on the percentage, the probability that investors are placing on whether or not the president will place tariffs on $200 billion worth of goods come friday night. morgan stanley earlier today took it from a 10% probability, meaning like, so you're saying there's a chance, to a 25%. so they're on their map, we're

obviously not at 50, but they're saying, this thing is real. and remember, in many instances, the markets have largely shrugged off the president's rhetoric, because over the last two years, a fantastic trade deal with china. by 10:30 this morning, whether it's mick mulvaney or larry kudlow, different members of his administration, walking that back. and here, we haven't heard anything walking anything back. so the markets are suddenly waking up. on the weekend, the president is saying, guess what, i'm doubling down. it's a different tune. >> the chinese are also saying, we're showing up. we know what their soft spots are. so that's why it's not a thousand-point drop or something else. there's some sense that everybody didn't walk away and say, we're not coming back. >> and you could say good or bad. the one thing that the president is is unpredictable. and in the last administration, president obama was a very deliberate person, so it's much

easier for the chinese or any counterpart to know where it was going. you're living in the house of trump, who makes policies, decrees or declaration via the twitter. >> we'll stay on top of markets for you, but we have other breaking news. the white house has ordered the former white house counsel, don mcgahn, to not comply with a congressional subpoena. the subpoena is for documents related to special counsel robert mueller's investigation. mcgahn played a key role in the mueller investigation. >> that's an underestimate. his name was in the report over 100 times. in a letter to house judiciary committee chairman, jerry nadler, white house counsel, pat cipollone, said this in part. tacting chief of staff to the president, mick mulvaney, has directed mr. mcgahn not to produce these white house records in response to the committee's april 22nd subpoena. the department of justice is a aware of and concurs with this position. >> joining us now, hands nichols and christine lucius who woshs

for the senate judiciary committee democrats for 14 years. welcome to both of you. hans, what's the update on this? >> reporter: the update is, we've heard from two of the three parties. we've heard from mcgahn's lawyer, who basically said they're going to let the white house and congress duke this out. they're not going to hand over any documents. we've heard from the white house basically saying, we want to preserve our options and don't want to hand over or have don mcgahn hand over all of these documents to capitol hill, to congressional committees. why don't they want the documents handed over? you can take the documents and reverse engineer what mcgahn's testimony was, those 30 hours was, and get pretty close to knowing what mcgahn told the executive privilege. if you have to preserve your privilege to invoke executive privilege, you have to preserve those documents. we haven't heard from jerry nadler yet. >> legally, can don mcgahn ignore a congressional subpoena? we know that the president has already basically called don mcgahn a liar, saying, oh, what

don mcgahn reportedly said in that report, i never did that. this would be a chance for don mcgahn to clear his name, because it makes no sense, why would don mcgahn lie to robert mueller and risk criminal indictment against him, ruining his reputation, when we know the president has lied over and over, and he also let don mcgahn speak to bob mueller, which he did for hundreds of hours. >> so, i do think that don mcgahn will make the decision. and i absolutely think that he cannot ignore a congressional subpoena. the president can order don mcgahn all he wants. he's no longer an employee of the president's. and that is an important legal distinction. what i remember from my time on the senate judiciary committee is we were investigating the firing of u.s. attorneys in 2007 and 2008, and the bush administration didn't want to produce harriette myers, a former white house counsel, to testify. it went to court.

and the court found that she should not be shielded from having to testify in front of congress. i think the same precedent would apply here, when you're talking about former officials, it's very different than being able to direct a current employee not to testify. >> so, hands, let's just be clear about this. because there's a distinction between a private employee and a private citizen. an executive employee, and someone who has access to documents in the executive. so where does the executive privilege line stop and the private citizen don mcgahn line start if, as christine says, he's able to make this distinction? >> i suspect a lot of lawyers in town will be charging $1,000 an hour to litigate that very point, right? and i think that's why the harriette myers precedent is really interesting here. one thing we don't quite know, we got a hint of it from the letter from bill gurk, mcgahn's lawyer. we don't know how cooperative mcgahn wants to be. mcgahn could not decline to testify on his own volition.

he could invoke the fifth. if mcgahn isn't a willing witness, and i guess this is a question for your other guests, what can compel him to testify and what options does he have to say, i'm not going to testify? >> christine, can you answer that? at this point, don mcgahn could take the position, he did provide an enormous amount of information and documentation to bob mueller. if congress or anyone else wants to see it, he could say, let it be their fight. i don't want to put myself in harm's way. >> well, i do think what the house judiciary committee will be talking about tomorrow is getting the documents that were subpoenaed. and what they really -- their priority is, is to get this unredacted mueller report and also to have mueller himself testify. and so i think that is their top priority. don mcgahn is absolutely featured, heavily, in that report, especially on the obstruction of justice, that

this president engaged in over the course of this investigation. and let's just be clear that that's what's at stake in this whole issue. sometimes we get mired down in the politics of it, and mitch mcconnell saying somehow it's over, but the reality is, congress is a co-equal branch of government to the presidency, to the executive branch, and we are -- the american people deserve to see full transparency of allegations of foreign interference in our elections. i mean, it strikes to the heart of our very democracy. so it's important not to lose sight of it, as we're debating various issues of executive privilege. >> so, it's a slightly different issue, christine, but we've got attorney general bill barr on the verge of being held in contempt if he doesn't hand over the unredacted mueller report to congress. what are the consequences of that? >> well, i think he lost a lot of confidence, both of members of congress and the american people giving his testimony last week -- >> okay, but hold on. real quick, can't bill barr say, who cares about confidence, i'm

the attorney general? >> he absolutely can. but he will certainly have trouble getting his agenda done as he wishes to, but i also think there will be increased pressure on republicans in congress to raise concerns about what it means when the attorney general lies to congress, what it means when the attorney general acts as the president's defense attorney, rather than the attorney general of the united states. >> and hans, on the mueller probe, mitch mcconnell, we just played this at the beginning of the show says, case closed. it's over. >> he said it twice. >> yeah, what do you think that means? does that have any effect? >> i think that's one senator from the florida senate. there's another senator from the florida senate calling for impeachment. you can have these legal conversations. it's clear that this will end up in the courts on who can testify where, what they're allowed to say. one thing we haven't heard clearly from the white house is whether or not they will prevent mueller from testifying. the president says he shouldn't testify. kellyanne conway said something similar throughout the day, but

they haven't affirmatively said they will block mueller's testimony, that they will prevent him from doing that, and they haven't let out any sort of legal rationale, if they did do that, what the rationale would be. so i think we should watch mueller and what the response is going to be from nadler and listen carefully whether there's any indication from mcgahn that he wants to testify and whether or not he will go rogue all the or whether he'll continue to comply with what appear to be the white house wishes, which i was basically to stonewall. >> thanks to both of you, hans nichols and christine lucius. >> bill barr will have a tough time getting his agenda done, but what if his agenda -- >> is to protect the president? just keeping a quick eye on those markets, by the way. we're almost getting to 2% lower on the dow. i think it was 1.99% a second ago. we're watching that for you. the shape of that chart on the top is what always concerns us. as you can see, it's been going down gradually. i would say we have another 90 minutes or so before we need to get worried about it.

usually, when markets go down, people see it as a buying opportunity at the end of the day. so are people buying more or unloading. >> people are also not used to volatility. over the last nine years -- >> we have not had a lot -- >> volatility is normal in a normal market. >> we don't -- everybody doesn't love it. people would rather things go up in a relatively straight line, but that's not life. >> investors, those who buy stocks don't love it. but it's a normal part of the market. next, president trump's tax returns. we are now looking at a possible constitutional crisis. find out why, coming up. this is "velshi & ruhle." , comi. this is "velshi & ruhle. woman: this is your wake-up call. if you have moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis, month after month, the clock is ticking on irreversible joint damage.

ongoing pain and stiffness are signs of joint erosion. humira can help stop the clock. prescribed for 15 years, humira targets and blocks a source of inflammation that contributes to joint pain and irreversible damage. vo: humira can lower your ability to fight infections. serious and sometimes fatal infections including tuberculosis, and cancers, including lymphoma, have happened, as have blood, liver, and nervous system problems, serious allergic reactions, and new or worsening heart failure. tell your doctor if you've been to areas where certain fungal infections are common, and if you've had tb, hepatitis b, are prone to infections, or have flu-like symptoms or sores. don't start humira if you have an infection. woman: help stop the clock on further irreversible joint damage. talk to your rheumatologist. right here. right now. humira.

right here. right now. (kickstart my heart by motley crue)) (truck honks) (wheels screeching) (clapping) (sound of can hitting bag and bowl) (clapping) always there in crunch time.

welcome back to "velshi & ruhle." we are now below 2%. we are at session lows for the day. >> and we're going to keep an eye on those markets and bring you updates throughout the hour. but now let's turn to a fight. a fight over president trump's tax returns. it rages on. treasury secretary steve mnuchin has informed congress that his department will not turn over the president's tax returns, despite monday's deadline to do just that. >> in a letter, mnuchin told the house ways and means committee

that it lacks a purpose. this could lead to a battle that would have to support by the supreme court. richard, previous presidents were not legally obligated to submit their taxes. it was the right thing to do, and morally they said, i'm going to do this. i want to be sure i offer full transparency to people know i have no conflicts of interest. the president was elected with no one ever believing he was a moral guy. so why should we believe that steve mnuchin is going to turn over those taxes unless he's legally bound to do so? >> well, i think we'll see what he determines legally bound means. there's a clear statute that says if the ways and means chairman asks for any tax returns, anyone's tax returns, the treasury secretary has to turn them over. shall furnish is the words in the statute. but mnuchin says that's bounded by the constitution's limits on what congress can do.

that congress needs a legitimate legislative purpose. that's a phrase that's come out of case law. and he said that that threshold hasn't been met here. so now what's likely to happen is the house is likely to start taking that into the federal courts to get some judge, and like you said, maybe all the way up to the supreme court to rule on whether this is a legitimate -- >> so is that the next arbiter, the supreme court? because that's interesting. the treasury secretary says no legitimate purpose. the law says "shall furnish," so who decides? >> do you think adequa"shall" i clear, directive word? >> "shall" is a clear, directive word. but you can imagine circumstances where there wouldn't be legitimate purposes. imagine that they asked for a celebrity's tax returns, other than the president, obviously. so this is different from that. but there are questions, there are areas where you can imagine a ways and means chairman going that wouldn't be legitimate.

so they're going to take this, one side or the other will take this into court and try to get judges and we presume it will be all the way up. >> so that's the argument that people have been using against it, right? the slippery slope argument that it's politicized, you want donald trump's tax returns, what happens when you start wanting journalist's tax returns or celebrities or ex-spouses. >> but it's not one of those, ali. >> how do you know it's not? how do you tell the ways and means committee that they can get people's tax returns without providing a legitimate purpose, what happens when they comes for yours? >> spo one of the reasons michael cohen is in jail is because he lied to congress about plans for trump tower moscow. >> mm-hmm. >> the president has yet to address that. he's lied about it for years and michael cohen is sitting in jail. the president might not have lied to congress, but the president lied about it. that is not saying, can i have a celebrity's tax returns? that is, hey, president trump, you've been lying about this forever. we know that russia -- that they

interfered -- >> does that constitute a legitimate purpose, richard? >> and that's going to be part of the ways and means' committee argument. look, this is not political fishing. there's a whole range of things they've looked at. the thing they're focused on is the irs audits the president every year so they should be able to check up on those au audits. that's clearly within the orbit. there's other realm. the ways and means committee have a really broad jurisdiction. so lots of things that we do our are legitimate and who are you administration to second guess us. so i think you'll have the first guessing and the second guessing and you'll have a court to try to sort through that. >> any chance that happens in the next two years? >> maybe. i think it depends on how quickly things start moving. you saw, you know, this has taken us basically a month to get from the ways and means chairman requesting the returns to this point of impasse. and so we'll see how quickly they start moving from here and

the legal issues aren't all that complicated. it's just about getting it before an arbiter and a federal judge. >> richard, good to see you, as always. thank you for joining us. richard ruben is a tax reporter for the "wall street journal". >> he's great. >> yeah. next, tensions between the united states and iran have spe spiked this month. how it got to this point and what both countries are threatening now. >> you're watching "velshi & ruhle" live on msnbc. e watching& ruhle" live on msnbc i didn't have to run for help.

i didn't have to call 911. and i didn't have to come get you. because you didn't have another heart attack. not today. you took our conversation about your chronic coronary artery disease to heart. even with a stent procedure, your condition can get worse over time and keep you at risk of blood clots. so you added xarelto® to help keep you protected. xarelto® - a blood thinner approved by the fda - when taken with low-dose aspirin is proven to further reduce the risk of blood clots that can cause heart attack, stroke, or cardiovascular death in people with chronic cad.

that's because while aspirin can help, a recent study showed it may not be enough to manage your underlying risk of blood clots. in a clinical trial, almost 96% of people taking xarelto® did not have a cardiovascular event. don't stop taking xarelto® without talking to your doctor, as this may increase your risk of heart attack, stroke, or cardiovascular death. while taking, you may bruise more easily or take longer for bleeding to stop. xarelto® can cause serious, and in rare cases, fatal bleeding. it may increase your risk of bleeding if you take certain medicines. get help right away for unexpected bleeding or unusual bruising. do not take xarelto® if you have an artificial heart valve or abnormal bleeding. before starting, tell your doctor about all planned medical or dental procedures and any kidney or liver problems. enjoy every moment - and help protect yourself from an unexpected one like a serious cardiovascular event. are you doing enough? ask your doctor if it's time for xarelto®. to learn more about cost and how janssen can help, visit xarelto.com.

tensions are escalating between the united states and iran. tomorrow marks one year since the united states announced that it would exit from the iran nuclear deal and now iran is threatening to scale back its nuclear pledges. how did we get to this point? well, let's go back to july of 2015. that's when the deal was signed, under president barack obama after years of negotiations, it put limits on iran's nuclear activities. in return, the united states, along with other nuclear powers, eased financial sanctions, financial and oil sanctions, on iran. but the deal didn't last too long. on may 8th of 2018, president trump, who was an avid opponent of the deal scrapped it just 16 months after taking office. trump had frequently called it the worst deal ever negotiated. the tense relationship between the two countries has gotten worse, particularly in the last month. fast forward to april 8th, 2019. that's when the president

designated a powerful arm of the iranian military as a foreign terrorist group. this was the first time the united states had ever named part of another country's government as that type of threat. iran immediately retaliated against the united states, calling it the same thing. then on april 21st, the trump administration announced that it will not renew waivers that allow countries to buy iranian oil without facing u.s. sanctions themselves. that's a move that completely rattled global energy markets. and it brings us up to may 5th, just two days ago when the national security adviser john bolton said that the united states will deploy a carrier strike group to the middle east to send, quote, a clear and unmistakable message to iran. bolton did not mention what specific action the u.s. was responding to. more specifically, the united states wants to deploy the "uss abraham lincoln" carrier strike group and a bomber task force ahead of schedule to the persian gulf. now, that brings us to tomorrow,

when multiple reports say that iran is expected to announce it's going to scale back commitments made during the iran nuclear deal. and that's not all. any day now, the white house is set to impose even more sanctions on iran. >> joining us now, bloomberg opinion editor and columnist, bobby ghosh. do you want to kick it off? >> yeah, bobby, when we got the news of the sanctions that america was imposing on the -- on what we call the revolutionary guard in iran, sanctions experts said to us, this is what's going to happen. it's going to allow iran to do the same thing and say that any american representatives and american military are also terrorists, and that takes militaries out of the scope of the normal rules we use, which puts american members of the military in peril anywhere in the middle east. >> yes, it is. i mean, the irgc is not quite the same thing as the american military. >> no, of course not. >> the american military, the military arm of the regime, rather than the military of the

government. the name tells you what you need to know. it's there to protect the regime, to protect the revolution. it's laterally become an element of iran's larger security apparatus, but that's not its original function. but this may be too small a point. i take your point that there's been tit for tat rhetoric and what we are likely to see tomorrow, though, is an escalation from just rhetoric and just empty gestures to something much more. >> what does something much more look like? >> well, something much more looks like the iran withdrawing from the nuclear deal. they've been talking about it withdrawing to some parts of the nuclear deal and not all of it. to me, that seems like being a little bit pregnant. i think if iran begins to withdraw from the nuclear deal, the deal is already dead. >> that puts the iranians directly in conflict with the europeans. they've been trying to -- >> trying to c'est tsave the de.

>> beg your pardon, trying to keep the deal alive, that's right. if you want to put it that way, they've opinion on iran's side over this disagreement with the united states. but if iran now says it's no longer part of the deal, the europeans have to impose their own sanctions on the iranians. and if iran walks away from the deal, it effectively puts the europeans and the americans in the same camp. it would still leave the trump administration with a lot of diplomatic work to do to get the europeans completely on side, but at least notionally, it puts both of them pack on the same side of the table with iran on the outside. >> so bobby, we've been talking for years about this. i think you are one of those people who never thought it was a fantastic deal, but the fact is, it sort of lowered the transporter between iran and the rest of the world. we're now seeing the temperature rise. what are the consequences of that? >> well, the consequences are very unpredictable in a part of the world that is already pretty unpredictable, as things go.

i mean, right now, if you can think about it, there's a war in iran. there's a conflict between the israelis and the palestinians. there's a blockade between the saudis and the uae on one side and qatar on the other. so this is already a region where a vast proportion of the world's oil comes from. this is already a region under quite a lot of duress. and now if you through another essentially hand grenade into the room with tensions with iran, then oil prices go up, humanitarian crisis involved, and even -- this is even if we don't go into an actual world. and neither the american side or the iranians want an actual war, don't want to be shooting at each other, that serves nobody's purpose. but bewell before we get to tha point, there's a lot of damage being done to the region and the global economy. >> bobby ghosh, thank you pmp. t next, some 2020 candidates

taking on gun violence. we're comparing proposals to see which plans could be most effective. this is "velshi & ruhle." be mos effective. this is "velshi & ruhle. if you have moderate to severe psoriasis

or psoriatic arthritis, little things can be a big deal. that's why there's otezla. otezla is not an injection or a cream. it's a pill that treats differently. for psoriasis, 75% clearer skin is achievable, with reduced redness, thickness, and scaliness of plaques. for psoriatic arthritis, otezla is proven to reduce joint swelling, tenderness, and pain. and the otezla prescribing information has no requirement

for routine lab monitoring. don't use if you're allergic to otezla. it may cause severe diarrhea, nausea, or vomiting. otezla is associated with an increased risk of depression. tell your doctor if you have a history of depression or suicidal thoughts or if these feelings develop. some people taking otezla reported weight loss. your doctor should monitor your weight and may stop treatment. upper respiratory tract infection and headache may occur. tell your doctor about your medicines and if you're pregnant or planning to be. ready to treat differently with a pill? otezla. show more of you. but dad, you've got allstate. with accident forgiveness they guarantee your rates won't go up just because of an accident. smart kid. indeed.

are you in good hands? you should be mad at airports. excuse me, where is gate 87? you should be mad at non-seasoned travelers. and they took my toothpaste away. and you should be mad at people who take unnecessary risks. how dare you, he's my emotional support snake. but you're not mad, because you have e*trade, whose tech helps you understand the risk and reward potential on an options trade it's a paste. it's not liquid or a gel. and even explore what-if scenarios. where's gate 87? don't get mad. get e*trade and start trading today. days after a shooter claimed

the lives of two people at the university of north carolina, bet toe o'rou beto o'rourke faced tough questions. >> i'm afraid that one day i'll go to school and never come out. i'm sorry. what actions will you take to protect us from this. i apologize. >> no, you're good. thank you. i'm glad that we're talking about this in the most personal powerful terms possible. it's the only way that we can make a change that you want and you deserve and we need as a country. you're right, there's no reason, no explained reason that we lose more than 30,000 of our fellow americans to gun violence every year. that we have these mass shootings in schools. those states that have adopted

universal background checks have seen a near 50% reduction in gun violence many as president, i want to make sure we do this for every state, every single person within -- >> she should not be sorry. that should not be her reality. o'rourke mentioned universal background checks. two ideas, backed by most democrats in the 2020 field. a number of candidates have put out specific details about how they would curb gun violence. they have released gun control proposals, they all call for universal background checks and an assault weapons ban, there are key differences. in booker's 14 point plan, he includes a federal gun licensing program, where a person seeking to buy say gun would need to apply for license in the same way people apply for driver's license or passport. harris is the only candidate who has vowed to take executive action on guns. she would take that step if congress failed to pass

legislation in the first 100 days of her presidency. eric swal well says people who own assault weapons would have to sell those weapons back to the government oar face prosecution if he were elected prepz. he proposes the government offer $1,000 for every banned weapon. >> joining us now, the co president in the brady center for gun violence chris brown. thanks for joining us. you've had a chance to evaluate them, whose do you think is the best so far? >> it's a pleasure to be here, yes, we've looked at each of the candidates very closely, and i guess first i'd have to say what a difference a few years make. in 2012 we were in a situation where we were thrilled to get a single question asked in a presidential debate about the issues of guns. and frank i lrks both candidates in both parties danced around the issue. we're in a situation where the presidential candidate on the democratic side are competing

against each other to provide more comprehensive approaches to the issue. that's what we need. we're looking at this issue as it should be, a public health ep dimmic with more than 40,000 people killed each year, due to gun violence and more than 100,000 injured. if you look at the proposals that are offered here, by senator booker, for example, there's no question that among the candidates, his plan is the most comprehensive, it addresses from our perspective almost every aspect of the gun violence prevention problem from the lack of appropriate regulatory oversight to the loopholes that have existed in law because they haven't been corrected at the federal level for a quarter century. the plan while very ambitious we believe is achievable. again, i think in contrast to that, what senator harris is focusing on, and she obviously

has a great record on this issue in terms of being in the senate, is really what the president can do within the first 100 days to address this issue many there are a number of things the president can undertake, even if congress is unwilling to act that she specifies in her plan. just to name one. some of this is reversing some of the backwards steps we've taken under president trump, where he changed the interpretation of fugitive from justice, such that we don't include individuals under the define ed term of certain kinds of people who are fleeing charges against them in the background check system any more. >> you're right, we've come a long way with bold proposals. if congress is not prepared to go along with these things, how far from the president go? >> i think the president can go

pretty far. we look at senator harris' proposal to see some of those areas, some of this quite frankly is the interpretation that's given by prosecutors and others of regulations that we have. and i'll just use one example. one of the provisions in senator harris' plan says that if congress does not pass an expanded background check act which currently has passed the house, but is pending in the senate. she will ensure that any seller of guns who are selling five or more guns is required to conduct a backgrounds check. she's going to do that, by basically telling doj and enforcement agencies who are looking at gun sales to ensure that any gun sales more than five by a particular dealer are subject to background checks. there's a lot of influence and interpretation that a president can give both directly by changing, by ordering agencies looking at this and having

oversite to change the regulations and also by using the bully pulpit to say this is a top priority issue. >> good to see you, thank you for joining us. chris brown is with the brady center for gun violence. other candidates have vowed they will take executive action. we were laying out the plans we are able to interpret. there's likely more to come. we're watching markets all this hour, let's take a look at the dow right now. >> an improvement. >> just a bit. like.. pnc easy lock, so you can easily lock your credit card when its maximum limit differs from its vertical limit. and clover flex, for when you need to take credit cards when no one carries cash. or requesting a call to help get a new credit card- one that hasn't followed the family goldfish. pnc - make today the day.

when i needed to create a better visitor experience. improve our workflow. attract new customers. that's when fastsigns recommended fleet graphics. yeah, and now business is rolling in. get started at fastsigns.com.

listen to your mom, knuckleheads. hand em over. hand what over? video games, whatever you got. let's go. you can watch videos of people playing video games in the morning. is that everything? i can see who's online. i'm gonna sweep the sofa fort. well, look what i found. take control of your wifi with xfinity xfi. let's roll! now that's simple, easy, awesome. xfinity xfi gives you the speed, coverage and control you need. manage your wifi network from anywhere when you download the xfi app today. alas i spoke too soon on the markets. we were saying they were recovering, we're down a little less than 2%. we're not staying. >> guess what, they can go back. keeping our eye on those markets like we do every day. >> i'll be back with you at 3:00 iron for president trump's

nominee stephen moore. >> look who's here with us, kristen welker. >> i'm in for katy tur, today the white house is once again flexing its executive muscle to block a congressional subpoena. the trump administration has instructs former white house counsel don mcgahn not to comply with the request for documents related to the mueller investigation. jerry nadler says in part, the acting chief of staff to the president mick mulvaney has directed mr. mcgahn not to produce these white house records in response to the committee's april 22nd subpoena. the department of justice is aware of this legal position. mcgahn emerged as a central witness in the investigation.