tv The Last Word With Lawrence O Donnell MSNBC June 5, 2018 7:00pm-7:59pm PDT
right now. polls close at 11:00 p.m. eastern, 8:00 p.m. local in lifornia. here is a pickle already. almost 119,000 voters were, quote, accidentally left off l.a. county polling place rosters. los angeles unty, more than 5 million voters there the county registrar says 100,000 plus names were left off the roster due to a printing error. this mistake has reportedly affected about 35% of precincts in the county. voters whose names are inexplicably missing from the voting rolls when they turn up to vote are told not to worry. they're told to file a provisional ballot which officials say will be counted. but that is obviously setting some nerves on edge in continue watch results roll in around the country that does it for now, but lots of primary coverage to come tonight. now it's time for "the last word with lawrence o'donnell." good evening, lawrence. >> good evening, rachel. i couldn't watch ever minute of your show tonight because i do have to do some homework for
this hour. so i'm not sure. how much time -- how much of your hour was spent onin others the supl and e president and the national anthem, which i believe the president thinks is the biggest story of the day? >> you know, where does the time go? >> so what, so what, zero, nothing? >> i don't always cover things that are the things that the president is doing. ever. >> oh, that's a choice. that's a choice we can make. we can actually make that choice. >> i believe the presidency is a very important thing, and the president by virtue of the fact that he is the inhabiter of the presidency is important. but you also -- you know earn your place in the news by being newsworthy. and when you do stuff that is designed to attract attention that is not actually newsworthy,
you end up getting a chit against you in terms of whether or not people do what you want them to do. >> and once again we agree, and once again you've put it better than i could. >> well, we'll s thank you, my friend. thanks. >> thank you, rachel. >> thanks, lawrence. robert mueller once again made donald trump's life a bit more difficult and possibly even miserable. an sooday the president once again tried to change the subject to what has become his favorite subject, football and gener genuflection. two things it seems the president is incapable of doing, play football or genuflect. two things that have absolutely nothing to do with the american presidency. if donald trump had his way, we would spend the entire hour discussing football and kneeling and the star spangled banner. but this is not one of news cables where donald trump gets
to have his way. and so we are going to turn to the latest details of the special prosecutor's investigation while at the same time trying to keep an eye on the big picture o sometimes we lose that focus on the big picture. the big picture that is always, always about the money. 15th. june 15th could b the last time paul manafort wakes up in his own bed at home. june 15th is a friday. it's a week from this friday, and that is the day that federal judge amy berman jackson has scheduled to have a hearing to decide whether to revoke paul manafort's bail and put him in jail while he waits to go to trial on charges of moneylaundering and other federal crimes. the crimes paul manafos currently charged with all involve things paul rt d
before he got involved with the trump presidential campaign. and so if the prosecutors right, paul manafort was a criminal before he joined the trump campaign. now why would a criminal want to join a presidential campaign? when you pull back and you look at the big picture of paul manafort's life and work, it's very easyee that erythingeverything paul manafort did, everything was about the money, which brings us to tonight's big picture reminder about trump world and ne in it's money, stupid. and that of course is a paraphrase of james carville's famous clinton campaign rule of 1992. it's the economy, stupid. thatt jamesarlle wanted everyone on the clinton campaign to remember, no matter how bogged down they might get in different day to day details of the campaign and day to day controversies. the one thing they always needed to remember is it's the economy,
stupid. and as we d deeply every night into every twist and turn of the special prosecutor's investigation, the one thing you should hold on to because you cannot hold on to all of these details, no one can do it, the one t y should hold on to is it's the money, stupid. that's why paul manafort volunteered to work on the trump paheck from the campaign.r no manaforwas doing that for the money, the big money that he hoped to get from his international moneylaundering partners because of his association with the trump presidential campaign. and reliefr some ofebt the hith some of those people. and the reason donald trump wanted paul manafort to take over his campaign was the y, the money that donald trump didn't have to pay paul manafort because paul manafort was going to do it for free. and the money that paul manafort might be able toelp donald trump line up for financing of his various projects around the
world, financing that paul manafort might be able to help arrange through a russian oligarch or two. that decision by paul manafort and donald trump, to put paul manafort in charge of the trump campaign, that decision made both o them for money m turn outo be t worst decision eithem has ever made in their lives because it could put paul manafort in jail on june 15th. and every hour in jail is going to increase the pressure on a man like paul manafort to tell the special prosecutor everything he knows about donald trump, includi everything paul manafort might know about how donald trump has obtained financing after america banks stopped doing business with him, and whether donald trump might be guilty of the kinds of tax evasion that paul manafort is charged with. the prosecutors care about paul manafort because they believe he's guilty of federal crimes. we care about paul manafort
because he might be guilty of federacrimes, and even more importantly, he might reveal important information about the president of the united states. paul manafort doesn't want anyone revealing important information about him, and that's what prosecutors told judge amy berman jackson in eir motion, which says that, quote, mafort has violated federal law by attempting to tamper with potential witnesses while on pretrial lease. paul manaft is charged with violating the foreign agents registration act by creating a team of lobbyists cald the hapsburg group which included a group of former senior european politicians who acted as prosecutors quoted manafort's stated goal of the program, quote, to educate western media, expand theedia awareness of what is really happening and
establish mechanisms to maintain a constant flow of information into europe and the united states, including washington. paul manafort did this without registering himself or anyone else involved as foreigngents in the united states. prosecutors did not reveal the identities of the other people involved in the hapsburg group, but told the judge that earlier this year, while manafort was under indictment, quote, manafort and person a, who is a longtime associate of manafort's repeatedly contacted persons d1 and d2 in an effort to secure materially false testimony concerning the activities of the hapsburg group. prosecutors detailed manafort's attempt tonfluence these witnesses. manafort called person d1 person phone. person d1 sought to avoid manafort, to person d1 ended the call. manafort also sent person d1 a
text message on encrypted application stating this is paul. manafort used the same encrypted application to send person d1 a news article describing the superseding allegations concerning the hapsburg group which included the statement that two european politicians were secretly paid around two million euros by manafort in order to take positions favorable to ukraine, including by lobbying in the united states. ws article manafort wrote he should talk. i have made clear that they worked in europe. person d1 has told the government that he understood manafort outreach to be an effort to subor perjury because person d1 knew that the hapsburg group worked in the united states, not just europe. leading off our discussion now, natasha bertrand, staff wrar at the atlantic and paul butler and a former federal prosecutor. matt miller, spokesp for
attorney gener ld all are msnbc contributors. and matt miller, i want to start with you on your reading of the possibility that we may now have a new crime. this is not just about possibly revoking the bail of paul manafort because of this, but very likely it seems charging him with ts new crime of trying to suborn perjury. >> yeah, i think it's quite ible yillther superseding indictment. i think it will be the fourth time that paul manafort has been indicted by the special counsel. of course been indicted in two separate districts. but in advance of that it's clear they wanted to get this information in front of the judge as quickly as they could because they want to put paul manafort behind bars. i think they want to do that for two reasons. one, this is the type of conduct that would offen any prosecutor, where you have somebody who is already under indictment, who sought awaiting trial and is actively contacting potential witnesses in that trial and trying to get them to lie when they come before court
when that tr takes place. it's the kind of thing that really drives prosecutors crazy, and they want to stop immediately. the other thing i think you see is the latest step in this continuing trend of robert mueller ping every bit of pressure he can on paul manafort. i mention that he has already been indicted three times. look, he is wearing two ankle bracelets aly. he has not been able to fully make bail. he is under supervised release at home. he is facing 20 to 30 years in jail if he is convicted, and it's likely he will be convicted. he is under annormousmo of pressure, and mueller has tried ever step of the way to 10 grip on him, make him eventually cave and come in and tell him everything he know. >> paul butler, as a former prosecutor i'm sure you've seen people under indictment try to affect possible witnesses in their case. but whhat appears to be the case h is that that these witnesses were either immediately in contact with the government about this
or had already been in contact with the government. so it seems as if these unnamed witnesses knew exactly who to tell as soon as this happened. >> yeah. so the very day that manafort is indicted, he starts reaching out to potential witnesses by text and calls, , let's get our story together. they're saying that we should have registered because we are a lobby in the united states, but you know we were really lobbying in europe. so we didn't have to register, right? right. they hung up on him. they said i'm not going to have this conversation, and some of them actually called the prosecutor. one, because they don't wan that kind of exposure, and b, this is so blatant. it's so obviously wrong, it really ticks judges off because it goes to the integrity of the judicial process. so i think mueller wants to get this in front of judge jackson because it's going to make her think very seriously about having manafort sit in jail until the trial. that gives mueller more
bargaining power. the other thing, lawrence, is this is evidence of consciousness of guilt for the actual trial. because you don't try to suborn perjury, you don't t to shade witness testimony unless you think they're going to incriminate you at the trial. >> what do tnk i going happen on june 15 snth wi? will she revoke the bail? >> judges take very seriously. i expect that the judge is going to is already seriously c agai h sit in jail until his trial. the ankle bracelets didn't work. the gag order didn't work. so this is the next most severe penalty. you've got to sit in jail. >> and is it conceivable to you that paul manafort has criminal defense attorneys who did not say to him under no circumstances should you try to reach anyone. the surveillance is complete and the possibility that the special prosecutor already has access to those people who you might try
to reach is very high. don't do anything like this. it is possible they didn't warn him? >> it's virtually impossible. it's something any criminal defense attorney would do this. is a 70-year-old man looking at 20-year felonies. mueller seems to think he has the goods on the president. so they know they're interested in trying to get him to cop a deal, to cooperate. he hasn't done that. the lawyers know what time it is. so, yeah that. >> told him, don't do it. sometimes clients just don't listen. >> natasha, what strikes me about the way this story unfolds is apparently in the reading of people paul manafort called and tried to contact immediately told what they knew to the special prosecutor. >> yeah, it's really interesting, because this doesn't seem the ng pt the allegations against paul manafort at this point. i mean, this was a lobbying group that he set. it was in violation, of course, of the foreign agents registration act. but the fact tt seems so
concerned about the idea that there were news articles floating around saying that this group did in fact lobby in the u.s. instead of in europe raises questions about whether he thought there was something more serious at play the. and this of course is not out of character for paul manafort either. he is just generally a reckless person. he has operate kind of at the margins of the law for decades, and he was operating without informing the justice department that he was acting as a foreign agent over the last decade in ukraine. this is something where paul manafort and his allies actually say interestingly that they don't believe that these allegations are true, that paul manafort would have done something like this. but anyone who has observed pl manafort's behavior over the last few decades can tell that this is exactly something that he would have done immediately because he feels like he is above the law, and he has felt that way for a very long time. >> matt, natasha makes a really important point. the failure to register as a foreign agent when lobbying or
appearing to lobby for a foreign country is something that is literally the least of the charges that manafort is facing, and it's something that happens all the time in washington, and people try to correct retroactively, and they get sort and it seems like a really big overreaction to that charge. >> yeah, it is, but it's probably the one place where he thought he could have some impact with the witnesses. if you look at the money launder charges, those are paper cases. those are transactions that the special counsel has evidence of there. is not much he can do to contradict that. one of the things that makes what he did just so stupid is he had to know that in the months leading up to his indictment, mueller had gone around and interviewed every one of the people at every one of the firms he had hired. he was trying to make their case. and you to think one of the things mueller was implying to the people, the firms he hired, the lobbying and pr, if you
don't talk to me, you'll get fired with your own allegation. all thespeople had been lking to mueller before he was indicted, they're going to be nervous. imagine being this person. manafort has been indicted the day before. his business partner rick gates has just agreed to plead guilty you. get a call from paul manafort trying to sunshine born mergery. you immediately are going to do nothing but pick up the phone and have your lawyer call the special counsel to make sure if he was listening to that conversation that you get right with him right away so there is no chance that you get charged. >> go ahead. >> there is also an overlooked part of this, which is that paul manafort was actually still communicating with his longtime politic russian ukrainian friend continue assistant teen kilimnik. he was identified as somne with ongoing ties russian intelligence. not only was paul manafort trying to tamper with witnesses and influence their testimony, he was using this, you know, long-time associate of his who he should be trying to distance
himself from in order to do that. >> and while jeff sessions was busy today justifying the relationshiping children out of the arms of their parents at the dorn border, president trump tweeted this. the russian witch-hunt folks continues all because jeff sessions didn't tell me he was going to recuse himself. i would have quickly picked someone else. so much time and money wasted, so many lives ruined, and sessions knew better than most that there was no collusion. and paul butler, here is a president who is being investigated for obstruction of justice, and he is saying if i knew that jeff sessions was not going to protect me from that investigation, he would n my attorney. >> the only way this is not smoking gun evidence of the presiden criminal intent or corrupt intent to impede the investigation is if you take the extremely expansive view that his legal team floated that nothing the president can do would be obstruction.
otherwise, it's very time the president tweets, most time he tweets, he provides the most compelling evidence of his own criminal intent. >> yeah, matt, to that point, we're talking about lawyers representing cl surely, the president's lawy lawyers -- not rudy giuliani, because he is just the take tv lawyer, but real lawyers working for the president must have told him don't say things like this because thes this kind of tweet supports to some degree the concept of obstruction of justice. >> sure. if you look at the memo that his lawyers wrote to the special counsel in january that we got a look at over the weekend, they went to great lengths to say that the president never tried to shut down this investigation. they didn't want it shut down, that that's not what he meant whenwas talking to lester holt, that's not what he meant, that he wanted this investigation to proceed all the time, and he knew when he jim comey that it wouldn't go
away. two davis we see that memo, the president makes very clear in a tweet that, no, no, no, forget what my lawyer said, i very much wanted this investigation to go away, and that's why i wanted the attorney general to either not recuse himself in the first place, or as we know he did on or four occasions rdwent to jeff session and asked him to unrecuse or withdraw his recusal. it's a really damning moment from the president, and it's not the first time he has done this on twitter. he has stumbled into these arguments before about obstruction of justice that kind of give away his motive and show that whatever his lawyers try to isntent is clear a >> natasha, the prede tweete in that tweet so many lives ruined by this investigation. now the lives ruined by investigations are criminals. at's whose lives get ruined by these investigations. does he mean paul manafort? who does he mean? >> i really don't know. it might be -- it might be people like george papadopoulos, the former trump campaign aide who pleaded guilty to lying to the fbi.
it might b fks leope hicks, the former communications director who ultimately the pressure of the russia investigation along with the chaos of the white house ultimately just got her. but of course these are people o ogege papaos, paul manafort, rick gates, these are people like you said who committed crimes. the fact that the president is now trying to reframe this as me kin oort by mueller is just completely disingenuous and false. >> and lives ruined is what the president is doing on the southern border, ordering babies riedeir mothers and fathers' arms. >> natasha bertrand, matt miller, thank you for joining us. today jeff sessions was very busily defending their new policy on the southern border, which the united nations has called a violation of human rights. andha does barack obama think of vladimir putin? the inside answer to that is next.
investigation is actually about. and i will paraphrase david's elegant summary t simply this. russia launched informa warfare against the united states during o presidential election with the intention of hurting the democratic candidate and helping the republican candidate. the republican candidate's campaign then tried to collude secretly with russia in a meeting at trump tower while the candidate himself was publicly trying to collude with russia by publicly begging russia to steal and pub democra candid e-mails. the republican presidential candidate and his campaign aligned themselves with the country that invaded the united states, invaded the election of the american president. as david corn put it, the trump team, e,is foreign adversary as it was attacking the united states. the evidence is rocklid. theyed a profound act of
betrayal. that is the scandal. and that is what we should never lose sight of when we examine the details scandal, the dozens of scandals that exist within and under that scandal, the scandal of the trump campaign's deliberate alignment with russia in attacking the united states. with that in mind, it i n rprising than a new interview with austrian television, vladimir putin brags about his close relationship with donald trump and about how oftenhe two men speak on the phone, including something we've never heard before, quote, indeed, donald trump and he firstly, met more than once at various international venues, over thephone.we regularly talk our foreign affairs departments and special services are working fairly well together in areas of mutual interest, above all in the fight against international terrorism. this work is ongoing.
we've learned something new about president barack obama's view of vladimir putin from ben rhodes' extraordinarw book. itay that president obama neither liked nor loathed putin, nor did he subscribe to the view that putin was all that tough. if he was that sure of himself, obama said, he wouldn't have his picture taken riding around with his shirt off. joining us now ben rh former deputy national security adviser and speech writer for president obama and now an msnbc political contributor. his new book is "the world as it is: a memoir of the obama white house." and ben, you have rave reviews for this book. it is not theal inside the white house memoir. you are not trying to show how right you were about everything while everyone else was wr bu take us into president obama's view of vladimir putin. it seems lik such a clear and simple form of analysis looking
at putin's public grandiosity and obama, who didn't have that, wondering what's that about? >> yeah. well, part of it that is missed, lawrence is the first time putin met the president he was flush with oil revenues, hcould stay in power by seading money around. the second time he didn't have that. russia was kind of on its back foot. so what did he do? he reached for this brand of politics rooted in tribalism, racism, nativism, make russia great again really, look back to the soviet union. and photograph riding around with his shirt off. and obama didn't have a lot of patience with that kind of posturing. frankly, he thought in the long view all putin was doing was hurting russia. but obviously he has caused a lot of damage in the short-term. >> what do you make of this report in the austrian tv interview where vladimir putin is saying that he and donald trump ta on the phone a lot. >> yeah. >> now, it is -- we have to now say i guess traditional from that previous pre-trump world.
whenever those kinds of conversations occur they'd were made public by the previous presidents. >> i describe in the book lots of 90 minute phone conversations with putin and obama. they must be talking and not reading those calls out publicly. because there has only been a handful. it does beg the question how much is donald trump talking to vladimir putin, what are they talking about? and by the way, why not read it out? what are they trying to hide? >> let's go to the other side of that. wh the president of the united states have private phone calls with foreign l th ny rerted? >> well, put hit the way. there is a from interest in knowing if the president of the united states is talking to russia or another maj foreign power. we generally read out all conversations unless they were about something secret and sensitive. in the book i describe i had lots of meetings with ts that were secret. we didn't wan to read those out
because we didn't want people to me we had a diplomatic track going with cuba. the only times we would shoes to not read something out and be confidential if there was a reason to keep that secret. and again, it makes you think what is the reason that they might have to think to keep conversations secret. >> there is no telling what else they keep secret since they don't publicly release who even visits the white house, which, again is a break with the previous -- >> they changed that. >> what do you see at stake in information like that? we don't know the way we used to know who has been visiting the white house. >> well, it gives you aicre ofas influence that n that white house. are they meeting with lobbyists? are they meeting with the type of people who have financial interests in what they're doing? because the democrats don't have control of congress, too, there is not oversight of these issues. what is the foreign corruption that is taking place? how often are certain foreign interests, are there people with foreign financial interests that might intersect with the trump family meeting the white house.
we don't have that. >> you were with president obama for the full eight years, the full ride. what's getting a lot of attention in your book is obama's reaction to the election night of donald trump. there is a lot of interpretation of what your book has to say and the quotes of president obama reflecting, wondering how this happened, wondering what h might have misread about the american voter, about the american public. do you want to set anything straight? are you hearing people misinterpret what you've reported the predent to have said? >> well, just one thing. i think what it paints is a picture of him going through the same process that a lot of us did. he called me on election night, well, that happened. and over the course of the next several days, how much did russia influence the outcome of election but al we get something fundamentally wrong here? did people want a different brand of politics from obama or did they want to fall back into the politics and grievance that trump had. he did say was i ten or 20 years
too early? >> what did he mean by that? that is the quote that's getting all the attention. >> frankly, there is is a democratic tipping point that's going to happen in the country where more like you're going to have me people that look like barack obama or an asian barack obama or latino barack obama. what was misinterpreted is somehow arrogant. in fact he was secondguessing some of the things he had done and he was wrestling with it like everybody else. in tend, though, i do believe frankly 10 or 20 years from now america is going to look more like baracobama's america and hibrand of politics than ld trump. this effort to turn back the clock is kind of the last gasp of a certain kind of politics just like putin represents that in russia. the fact that those two forces converged in our election, putin and trump, is i think part of the same story, two sides of the same coin. people who don't have a vision for the future, so all they can do is stoke up grievance and look to the past. >> ben rhodes. the book is "the world as it ." it's the world you had to learn
that it is. >> yes. >> you started off with a view of the world that is very different are than the one you ended with, ben rhodes. >> thanks a lot. i really appreciate it. when we come back, why the united nations today says that the trump administration is violating human rights. that's next. at the marine mammal center, the environment is everything.
and become more energy efficient. pg&e has allowed us to be the most sustainable organization we can be. any time you help a customer, it's a really good feeling. it's especially so when it's a custhe environment.ngsuch r together, we're building a better california. the united states of america at the order of the president of the united states and the attorney general is putting children in cages tonight. that is the country we now live in. today attorney general jeff sessions was busy defending the trump administration's policy that has now been condemned by
the united nations. the u.n. high commissioner for human rights said this today about the united states' new practice of separating parents and children at the southern border, including some who have broken no law, who have just presented themselves at the border seeking asylum. the u.n. said it amounts to arbitrary and unlawful interference in family life and is a serious violation of the rights of the child. past presidential administrations have to varying degrees tried to be international champions of human rights, pressing regimes around the world to improve their records on human rights. but the trump administration, more than any other in history, simplyores the subject hu rights. human rights is not even on the agenda with the world's greatest human rights violator, north korea, the president actually intends to have the first ever presidential summit meeting with
north korea's dictator without ever mentioning human rights. and now the united nations, to america's great shame, has turned its human rights focus to our southern border, and this is what the attorney general of the united states had to say about it today. >> yes. what is happening is we're having more people coming, bringing children with them, enteetween the ports of entry, between the pts of entry illegally, and they're not -- you cannot give them immunity. that's an offense. we believe every person that enters the country illegally like that should be prosecuted, and you can't be given immunity to people who bring children with them, recklessly and improperly and illegally. they should never do that. >> there is not a new surge of
parents and children coming to the southern border. there is no new surge, as the attorney general is trying to suggest that there is. what is new is this trump policy. the president of the united is d today tweeting angrily about his attorney general, not because his attorney general's lack of sympathy for children at our southern border, but because of the attorney general's lack of sympathy pour the president, the lack of sympathy that allowed jeff sessions to recuse himself from the investigation of the resindreventing d of not any investofhe president. the president saw some children today. he saw them on the south lawn of the white house where he was trying to get the country to think about football and the national anthem. and even though he himself does not know the words of the national anthem, that is how the president spent his day. the president, who has ordered american government workers to
rip children from their mothers' andfathers' arms. the president who is literally, coing to senator jeff merkley's report, putting those children in cages. the pre ws n according to the united nations a human rights violator. we will have more on the president who has decided to put kids in ces next.
on the day when the united nations high commissioneor human rights said that the united states is violating the human rights of children on the southern border, the attorney general said this. >> it's certainly not our goal to separate children, but i do think it's cle it's legitimate to warn people who come to the country la bringing children with them that they can't expect that they'll always be kept together. >> joining our discussion now, mara teresa kumar, president and ceo of voto latino and an msnbc contributor. and maria thereeresa, the first point i want to make here, and please feel cree to make any point you want, this is a new policy. this is not forced on the trump administration by law. there is no law that has to be changed, new change to thi policy. this is a choice of donald trump and jeff sessions. >> that's exactly right. and this was actually an idea
that chief of staff secretary kelly when he was homeland security secretary f floated to do so. the aclu immediately went into play saying that that was going to be unlawful. and what the u.n. did today was basically marking what the united states is doing as violating the rights of children. on may 7th, jeff sessis stood bere the american people and decided that he was going to separate parents from children because he felt that it was a way to detour people from coming to the border. and what myelw amerins need to understand are the children and the families that are coming right now on the border. they're not normal immigrants. they're actually refugees. most of them are fleeing violence, and they're fleeing extreme poverty, and they are traversing three to four countries to get to the border. and by law, we are supposed to be able to process them when they are seeking asylum. under this new policy, that is not happening. instead, what they are saying, the department of homeland security is processing them as criminals and separating the parents from families under that
auspices. but it's actually contrary to the law. >> when the president has tweeted about this, he has of course blamed democraho have absolutely nothing to do with . but what you see in that is the president implicitly agreeing that this is a bad policy. that's why he's trying to blame it on the law and blame it on democrats. >> it's completely obfuscating his responsibility. again, this came directly from his white house. the new policy to separate children from parents at the border is not law. it's not legislation. it was not passed by congress. it was coming equivalent of an executive order coming out of the white house out of his directive. that jeff sessions is implementing and secretary nielsen is acting against. >> the idea that the white house could -- has no power to stop this tomorrow. >> nonsense, lawrence. that's absolutely -- that's not
nonsense. he literally woke up on may 6th and decided on may 7th that he was going to implement this policy. he phoned up jeff sessions and basically said jeff, you have to implement this. so this is completely out of the discretion of the white house. this has nothing to do with congress. and if anything, this should be signaling to members of congress on the rubn and democratic side that theye pass some sort of comprehensive immigration reform because what is coming out of the white house because of a lack of unified voice on immigration is a de facto immigration policy that is basically not only separating children from parents and putting them into cages, children as young as 2, the aclu has notified and basically alerted authorities that they have witnessed children as young as 53 week, lawrence, actually facing court and a judge without a parent. can you imagine that this is happening in modern day america? and the fact that there is not more outrage. where is the republican leadership on this? by allowing the trump administration to create not only these type of policies but also converting documented
immigration -- excuse me, documented immigrants such as temporary protected status people and rescinding daca, the trump is right now on a journey to create close to a million people that are currently documented, undocumented overnight by 2020. by de facto he is creating a whole new class of undocumented people. he is also creating a whole class of trauma among children. the united nations had it absolutely right. this is a violation of children's rights. this is not who we are. we are thenes, if anything, on the global war -- on the global stage oftentimes telling people what we expect on how you treat minorities, how you treat the most vulnerable among us. this is not leadership. >> and jeff merkley is the one in the united states senate who really has shown leadership on this by going down there to the border to try to find out exactly what's going on. we're going to have to leave there . mara teresa kumar, thank you very much for joining us tonight. we really appreciate it. >> thank you, lnce, for covering this. >> and as you know, as you can tell on the screen, it is election night in america
steve, wt should we be watching? >> well, look, california in ten minutes, that's the bigg. before we get to that, let's tell you what's happened tonight and what's happening now becaus are going to talk about an awful lot this fall. leme put this in perspective. we know democrats need to pick up 23 house seats to get the majority in the house wre er four what they think are very ripe potential targets for them in new jersey. these are republican held seats they think they can flip. distctutrn new jersey., his he's not running for election. it's an open seat. the question tonight for democrats was would they get through their candidate in a primary, their candidate who is probably the most popular politician in thi region of new jersey. we canou democra g what they're looking for in this district tonight. in this district, the third, that matchup was already set unopposed. bo candidates in the primary. same here in the seventh district and in the 11th district, democrats als got their preferrandidate through. here's the interesting stat i
want to tell you. we're going to talk aut this one a lot this fall. the turnout tonight. competite primaries in both parties. right now the democratic turnout is running 3,000 higher than the republican turnout in this district. by comparisen, in 2016, same district, it was republicans who led by 9,000. 4, the republicans led in turnout by 14,000. so a major shift there in tuout for democrats in a top target district. quickly, another thing to keep an eye on. we talk so much about senate elections. we have not talked about new jersey. bob menendez. he had a hung jury in a federal bribery trial. he was reprimanded by the senate. a democratic primary opponent, name regnition, no dorsements, no money. a lot of discontent on the democratic side. menendez will be the democratic candidate. would this translate into problems for democrats in a state they should not have to worry about? that is something to keep an eye on going forward. also there is this. in alabama you think of a very
pro-trump state. how about this for a story line. republican congresswoman martha roby. she refused to endor tmp in 2016. she refused to vote for him in the election. well, she got primary challenges from pro-trump challengers. one of them, bobby bright, is a former democratic congressman. he switched parties, aligned himself with looks like's going short of that 50% for a runoff. looks lik you got a runoff coming here. pro-trump former democrat against republican who refused to support trump. that could be coming in alabama. and as we say, iowa, we've got results coming in. i know we're running short on time here, but we are counting down a few minutes. in californ,here are republican held districts in california that hillary clinton carried. we are going to find out. the question of the hour starting atpen primary, that wild system. do democrats get a candidate on the ballot in the fall in all of those? not a given. we're going to start to find out at1:00, lawrence. >> and the governor's race in california, you're going to seet
the president can commit any crime he wants. he's a one-man purge, whichill make a great new campaign slogan. trump 2020. i could kill you in your sleep. it's true. he could. i could do it. these hands. these hands. >> stephen colbert gets tonight's last word. "the 11th hour" with brian williams starts w. the breaking news news we're covering tonight. election returns. this is the biggest primary before the midterms. the polls now closed in california, the last of eight states voting today. steve kornackitanding by the big board with the numbers. plus the president comes in after his attorney general again. another attack on jeff sessions today, and the a.p. reports the president and others have stopped saying sessions' name out loud in the west wing. and the trump communications staffer who joked about senator john mccain's fightit