tv The Rachel Maddow Show MSNBC June 5, 2018 9:00pm-9:59pm PDT
'll be bridging the next hour because of the results coming into us, especially but not limited to the state of california. gh states in all with elections. for now that's our broadcast for tonight. thank you for being here with us. good night from nbc news headquarters in new york. and just like that, welcome back. we are back again. good evening once again from our nbc news headquarters here in new york. it's midnight here on the east coast, 9 p.m. on the west coast. we will join the rachel maddow show in a moment, but first we are watchinghese results come in fro the b primary day of the year so far, what will b th busiest single day of primaries until the mid-term elections in november. polls in california just closed an hour ago, where all eyes are on a number of big house races
there. we're also tracking results from seven other states where ver decided on candidates who will face off in this year's mid terms. for more and for the very latest, to the big board we go. steve kornacki has all of the big returns. >> cafornia, can we get 48th district of california on the screen? dana rohrabacher, can we get it on the screen? the question is for democrats, can they get into the top two in some of these districts? this is one hillary clinton won this district, dana rohrabacher a very controversial incumbent. democrats think they're going to take back the house. they need to win this in the fall. you can see we're wting for some more votes to come in here. this is all orange county. used to be very republican. there is sort of a dissident faction of the republican party
lined up behind scott baugh. if baugh is able to catapult past keirstead, if the two of them go on in november, either way a republican wins this seat and democrats blocked out so this one the democrats are very worried about. can i go to the 39th district? this is one democrats looking at again from that standpoint of the lockout, maybeeeng a little better, they got their candidate up there, he spent a lot of money in this thing. kim, the republicans happy with her. again, southern california, the good news for democrats here from their standpoint is if you kept goingeyond first two, four or five democratic names there, you have a
republican, diane harkey, ll out in front, the district pill hillary clinton won, a district republicans feel they can so democrats encouraged what they're seeing the but we also flagged this one before. this one was not ons' radar heading into tonight. it is now. this is the central valley. this is a republican who has separated himself from donald trump in the national party a bit on the issue of immigration. he's got a challenger here from the right, ted howze is here. you see him threatening for that second space spot. we can show you why this is now suddenly trouble for democrats. you've got josh harder, a venture capitalist running, leading -- that democratic vote
adds up to more than what ted howze is getting. but it's very spread out. it's created danger we didn't expect tonight. this a district that hillary clinton carried. if democrats fail to get a candidate here, if they were to fail as well in 48, that looks like their worst case scenario in california. if they were to fail to get two candidates in two races on the ballot in clinton's districts, we can show you the governor's race in california, you can see gavin newsome -- the former san francisco mayor has been declared the winner, he's the lieutenant governor now. who will face him? you see here john cox to the extent republicans were coalescing around a candidate, it was cox. he moved from illinois just a few years ago. he'd run for office about half a dozen times in illinois. didn't win, was becoming a perennial candidate out there, he's moved out to california and established his own political
base out there. for lack of any other candidate, republicans decided in the last fuse week few weeks, we need a candidate, let's put him up there. let's see what happens when more democratic areas come in. one of the other candidates, there are so many this race, one of the other candidates is the former mayor of l.a., so let's see what happens when those numbersstart coming in again. there really are four districts in terms of that lockout sctwo hem now, 10 and 48 in california, two of them right now looking very close from that. again, these are districts that hillary clinton carried that republicans represent and that democrats looking for that path to 23 in the house to picking up 23, they need them all, brian. >> steve, at the risk of making our graphics explode or those in charge of our graphics, take us on a tour to the east.
we've got folks all the way east to new jersey watching a senate race. we've got interesting races, y pick 'em as we go west to east. >> i want to show you an interesting story if i can get it up on the map here. do we have new jersey? do we have the menendez number? >> i'm calling the control room ght now. >> while you dhat -- okay, we got new jersey right here. the story is this -- bob menendez was on trial on bribery charges in federal court. it was a hung jury. prosecutors declined to go after him. then the senate ethics committee just a month ago, democrat and republican severely admonished him for his relationship with a donor, for the gifts he accepted, for what he did for that donor, they gave him a former rebuke. the entire democratic establishment in new jersey nationally rallied behind him.
no serious opponent emerged. so menendez's name was on the ballot in the democratic primary in new jersey tonight. there was another name, nobody knew much about her, lis mccormack. bob menendez, not all the votes are in, last i saw 61-39. this i a name nobody knew getting nearly four in ten democrats to check her name off again. we talk about senate control, democrats in those trump states trying to hang on to get a chance in the senate. this is a state in new jersey that donald trump lost by 14 points. menendez is relying on the national cle. he is relying on traditionally democratic voters in new jersey saying president, i can't vote forican, i voortrump's party no matter what and they would be willing to vote for bob menen z menendez. this is showing us, though, even within his own party there is a tremendous amount of
disgruntlement at the ass roots level with the idea of getting behind menendez. the question going to the fall, how many of these democratic voters in the falloing to be able to hold their n and say i'm voting for menendez because i can't vote for a republican or will some of them say i'm not voting for menendez at all, i'm going to pick a republican in thisace orit out this race. new jersey not on anybody's radar right now but you look at a result like this, the republicans tonight nominated a businessman who has got a lot of money, philadelphia, new york airways, expensive state, all string, a spring, all summer, all fall, they'll be reminding every men. new jersey was in the same position. 16 years ago they had a candidate with ethical problems, federal investigation, senate reprimand. the polls collapsed a month before the election, they pulled
him out, got a state supreme court ruling, allowed a new candidate go-to-get in and thto. menend menendez, this is not a great night for him in the democratic primary. we better keep an eye on new jersey. >> and i'm looking at the big montana. you have john tester, the incumbent democrat just got a flurry of press attention during the hub-bub over the president's noom knee to withdr-- nominee t withdraw, the v.a. >> this is a state we have been saying kee a e on for senate control. democrats trying those ten states where democrats are re-elected for senate. tester so far you look at those
ten democrats in trump states, he has looked little safer than the other ones. it's going to get more serious after tonigh this a very close race. you have the state rosendale. he trailed earlier. russell fagg was in the lead earlier. there still is some to come. biggest county of state, billings. this is fagg's base. his statewide fortunes and ability to win the primary tied to how many votes he can see out of this area. theinner of this g a shot at tester. montana is one of the states we say trump state, red state. certainly is. this is a state donald trump won by 21. it's a funky state politically you loo back over the last 20 years. this is a state bill clinton managed to carry once and barack obama was within a couple point of carrying as recently as2008
av elected democrats. max baucus was the u.s. senator from here, democrat, up until a coup oyearago. tester, there is a little different political tradition in i think he's relying on that. let's see when republicans get a nominee tonight if that race becomes a little more itive than loodo far. >> steve kornacki, thank u. we'll leave you at th big board to watch the numbers. we want to shift over to the headquarters of the california ican john cox, one of, as he you heard steve kornacki say, one of the interesting stories tonight. that's why steverson is there for us tonight. steve, how is anyone -- how close is anyone coming to putting the kind of realistic chances of a red success in a beg blue state tonight?
>> reporter: ll, i think the line we've heard all day long and now all night long and rning in you case is cautiously apartment mystic. that is certainly what the cagop is saying here. this is a very packed ballroom, a lot of nervous energy in my room. they've got their big board. any time one of tir people ev ge lead, the whole room kind of explodes. but the big story line tonight kornacki has been telling you about is the california top two primary system says anybody in the top two in any of the races moves on to the general, on to the primary, regardless of party affiliation. for the democrats that's a worry in those congress an races because there's just man players in the pool soaking up the mine chair. for the republicans, it's a little bit differ it's much more big picture here. they're simply trying to get one of their people into the top of the ticket come the primaries in november. that means somebody in the u.s.
senate race or somebody in the governor's race. that is where they're putting all their eggs in this basket and the basket is john cox, a businessman from illinois. we spoke to cox just before the polls closed. again, the line here cautiously optimistic. listen to this. >> how do you feel about the possibility of coming in number two tonight and why? >> i think it's the right thing. frankly, if i were better known, i'de number one. governorin n gavin newsome andhe democrats are going to have to take responsibility of what they've done to this done. this state can hardly live anymore. it's unaffordable. there's poverty. we're going to make that the issue in this campaign. >> since we've been on with you, we just added a checkmark, it looks like a democrat/republican finish in the state of
california. we had already told you that gavin newsome was the lead vote getter tonight but cox indeed right now at 27%. looks like that will be your top two. for some analysis on wt we've seen so far tonight, we are joined by jeremy peters, political reporter for "the new york times." he's out on the west coast tonight. and lahnee chen. >> on the one side you have the democrats who are trying to overcome tremendous division and
strife. on the republican side, is the party's ma laze going to hurt it going into november? president trump, while he remains very popular, is not on the ballot. that could very well drive a lot of republicans to sit on their hand and stay home. now, i will say that one dynamic that i've picked up here in california is an enthusiasm on necessarily for president trump but in opposition to democrats. there's a real sense that democrats, especially in this state, this hotbed of the resistance, have gone too far, have kind of lost their minds almost in opposing trump. that's provided a little bit of energy on their side. i don't know that it's enough, frankly, to get some of these candidates over th top, but that should prove to be an interesting dynamic as the ruts come in tonight. >> lahnee, there you are in
washington, a kind of traditional conservative from california. i imagine trying to feel good about the two slot in the one-two finish in california tonight. but what else? >> well, certainly i think the -- what's going on in the house races in southern california is very interesting because for a long time now the democrats have said that the root to the majority runs through orange county. and if they do indeed end up getting locked out of those two races in orange county and northern california, that would be a significant problem. that's got a lot of other places to go to get the places they need, california was a point of optimism. john cox coming in second in that governor's race is really important because there are a number of other stronger democratic candidates, candidates that people had talked about, the mor of los angeles, people thought he was going to be formidable and have
appeal to thatino vote. that did not come to pass. he finished a distant third and there were a few other democrats in that race as well. i think john cox will give gavin newsome an interesting fight. he will force him to defend some of these progressive values. i think republicans are charged up in california because they believe there's an opportunity to go after some independent voters who believe the democrats have gone too far. >> jeremy, going back to your last point, democrats almost have that unique ability to lose their minds. we've seen it over and over again. it's either overreaching or overlabelling or trying to be too much to too large a constituency, but it's almost anticipatable in some of these races. >> that's exactly right. there's a name for it, brian. they call it trump derangmeemen
sindryndrom syndrome. and this urge to take on trump at every step is goingo h them with independent voters. look at what's happened in california. you have lawsuits against this administration on everything from environmental policy to immigration policy. and you have the state declaring itself virtually a sanctuary state that does not have to cooperate with federal investigation -- federal immigration officials. you know, that's charged up the left to a certain extent because there is anwful lot of energy on the left to oppose president trump, but i do think that there are a lot of voters who look at it as just a little bit overheated. >> lanhee, i am reminded the president of the united states
is apparently up and watching television coverage tonight. he just wrote on twitter, "mitch mcconnell announced he will cancel the senate's august recess. great, maybe the democra will finally get something done other than their acceptance of high crime and high taxes. we need border security." lanhee, just this morning he said the border wall was under way, which it is not. you pick 'em. >> a lot of staffers were upset today they're not going to get an august recess. part of the challenge here is the more that congress is in, the more that the democra -- that president trump is able to paint the democrats as obstructionists, the more he feels this helps him going into the mid-tem election psyrm elec. it's an election year and you
have a lot of members who need to go back and campaign. this is an opportunity for the president to drive this core message, that the democrats are obstructing all these issues he feels are priorities. whether that's actually the case or not, we'll see. but it is certainly the case to jeremy's point again on california and what's going on here, i wonder if we're not seeing a preview of the 2020 presidential campaign in this sense -- is it possible that the things that drive the progressive base, the kinds of things thatecome popular in california, suing the president, opposing him at every turn, that dynamic going t be front and center in 2020. i wonder if that's going to result in democrats potentially snatchingt from the jaws of victory? are we seeing coming attractions? >> jeremy, i'll let y answer with thatoviso. there are a number of people saying even that word progressive, if it going to be used by the national party, it
could be a branding mistake. it fuzzes up the cause, it's something other than democrat. not everyone fluent in it. it gives candidates a reason, an excuse to sprinter off. but having said that, which what i'm reading more and more of, jeremy, go ahead to lanhee's point. >> i think he's right and that points to larger problem to the democratic party's message right now. what isit? what reason has it given voters to support it? it can't just be an anti-trump party. if you were to sum up right now what exactly the party has done, the major feat hn oppose and resist president trump. now, i think that it's p that's good for mobilizing your hard core base. that's really not enough to get you over the finish line and it's really a point of ss and concern for a lot of democrats as they look toward
november because they realize that it's not going to be enough solely just to say no to president trump. >> and, indeed, a good number of very good people in both of these political parties, the democrats are still in the breakdown lane, as it was not jent live put following the election they lost. after that all the coverage you have watched these many months, day 502 of the trum of presidency. our thanks to on the west coast jeremy peters who is normally here on the east coast and on the east coast is a veteran of the west coast, lanhee chen. gentlemen, thank you both for staying up with us to cover at least this first wave of returns in. eight states voting tonight, california almost chief monk them, the latest returns of the night and we urge you to stay with msnbc all through the night for the latest election results.
okay. imagine you're in this guy's shoes. first at the end of october, special counsel dictment agains manafort and rick gates. that's the end of october. then in february robert mueller's team adds on a whole bunch of new felony charges, tax fraud, bank fraud. they charge manafort and gates on top of the charges thewe already facing. and the very next day, rick gates, money laundering, hiding money offshore, the guy alleged to have done all of this part and parcel with paul manafort, he flips. rick gates pleads guilty to just two counts and has all of his other troubles dry up and fly away because he agrees finally he'll start cooperating with
prosecutors. then last month manafort's son-in-law also flips. his son-in-law was being investigated over real estate deals that he invested in with manafort. he, too, agrees to cooperate with federal prosecutors. imagine what that must feel like if you're paul manafort. it's been a rou re these past eight months, right? now it's getting significantly rougher for him. he's looking for two trials on fell any chargony charges andi primary alleged co-conspirator is giving evidence against him as is his ex-son-in-law. how has your been so far? his as sucked. his is getting worse. the special counsel presents new allegations and evidence to the federal judge that's hearing manafort's case in washington, d.c., new allegations and evidence that manafort has been trying to tamper with witnesses in his case.
the day after rick gates pled guilty in february and agreed to start cooperating with prosecutors, prosecutors now say that paul manafort started trying to contact two witnesses to the scheme outlined in that indictment. the witnesses have told the special counsel that they think paul manafort was trying to s suborn perjury. tampering with witness sezes is crime. so these new serious criminal allegations against paul manafort create a whole new series of problems and pressures for him, as he considers his circumstances, as he considers whether he really wants to do this orhether he like
everybody else involved in this case thus far who has been charged in the united states, whether maybe he, too, might want to start cooperating with prosecutors in that broader investigation. as he considers that right now, opf the other pressure he was otherwise facing, now there's all this new leverage on him. number one, prosecutors are saying the allegations of witness tampering, the extensive evidence, they say that's reason enough for the judge to summarily order manafort to go to jail now. he's thus r out on jail with an ankle bracelet or two, awaiting the start of these federal criminal trials. next week there's going to be a new hearing in his case and at that hearing manafort could be going to jail to await trial, rather than enjoying being out on house arrest, as h has been last year. prosecutors may decide whether or not the judge concludes that
these new allegations are enough to revoke bail and lock him um immediately, prosecutors may decide they want to add this witness tampering charge in a superseding indictment. tampering with a witness is not just a violation of yr bail terms. it is also a separate, serious crime. these witness tampering allegations, evidence against him on witness tampering could be a third round of felonies on manafort, could bring a third indictment against him. in addition, this may further create problems for pau manafort in terms of his existing legal representation. that's already a source of stress we know or at least we think we know because of this super sketching web site that went live last week begging for money for paul manafort to pay his legal expenses, that shows that manafort is facing strain with
launching his defense. they're saying they, the prosecutors, got this evidence about the witness tampering very recently, that manafort was trying to tamper with these tnesse they got t evidence in may, which means they could have received this evidence like last week, right? but the alleged tampering didn't happen last week. that's just when they got news that it had happened. that's just when they got the evidence. according to what prosecutors filed in court last night, the wiess tampering actually started in february and it extended on for weeks into march and april. could that now be a problem in terms of paul manafort's lawyers? if paul manafort's knew he was contacting witnesses and they knew their client was witness tampering and didn't tell the court about it, the lawyers could be in trouble potentially themselves. if they were aware their client was committing that crime and
they kept it covered up, they themselves could be in trouble. if, more likely, they didn't know that paul manafort was doing that, if he was trying to tamper with witnesses and suborn perjury as alleged in the filing, if he was contacting witnesses and cog ees and doin tilling his lawyers, well, in that case the lawyers wouldn't be in trouble themselves. but even if this was happening and theyt know about it, that also is a problem because then would arise the possibility that they couldn't stay on as his lawyers anymore. we may have already see this play out months earlier with rick gates. rick gates pled not guilty ultimately. he stood alongside paul manafort for a long time, right, before he finally decided he was going to flip and plead guilty. in that time rick gates went through a number of different legal teams. one of his legal teams petitioned the court to withdraw from representing him for
reasons that are still publicly unknown. the lawyers cited irreconcilable differences with their client rick gates but said we vealing more than that could being prejudice and embarrassing to rick gates. it appeared at rick gates' legal team had to with draws becauses they found out gates was doing stuff they didn't know about. they said, okay, we can't be your lawyers anymore. is there a possibility that paul manafort is going to be up against that as well? if he was tampering with witnesses and his lawyer knew, big problem for them. if he was tampering for witnesses and his lawyers didn't know, might that b a problem in terms of them continuing to represent him? and whether or not you care about paul mafrt, whether or not you lie awake at night worrying about paul manafort's stress levels. the thing that prosecutors want from him clearly is for him to
cooperate against them. he's now standed alone as everybody else has decided to cooperate, including against him. there's the new threat he'll be in jail next week, before he goes to trial and there's now a new criminal allegation making all of those prospects worse. the only way he could alleviate that pressure is to ride it out or he can cooperate, tell prosecutors he'll help them with their case as they continue to investigate the trump campaign and its ties with russia. what are his options? how is he going to choose? hold that thought.
post office boxes come in five different sizes. we think the one we made a field trip to see, the one in the middle -- do you have that? is a size 2, a size small, with room, according to the post office for 10 to 15 letters or up to five magazines as long as the magazines are rolled. this is a size 2 small p.o. box. specifically the one we were there to see was 2402 in the clifton, new jersey, post office. and that exact p.o. box, 2402 is where potential donors have been encouraged to send checks or money orders to the paul manafort lal defense fund. as we reported last week this mysterious fund was set up anonymously by self-proclaimed longtime friends of the trump campaign chairman but it does
seem to be just paul manafort's wife and family who are associated with this size 2 small p.o. box in clifton. whoever is collecting the checks and money orders on however many rolled magazines can fit inside it would appear paul manafort might increasingly need help. he was facing 23 felony charges and two separate federal jurisdictions. that was before prosecutors last night unveiled new accusations of him attempting to tamper with witnesses in his case. joining us now is barbara mcquade, former u.s. attorney in the great state of michigan. it's great to have you with us. thank you for being here. >> always my pleasure. >> so witness tampering is it just something prosecutors complain about for somebody who is out on bail? witness tampering is a crime. can you explain just in layman's terms what witness tampering is and why it's a crime? >> yeah, and it's considered a crime punishable by up to 20 years in prison because it goes to the very integrity of the court system.
it means that someone has to induce or threaten or peuade a witness to change their story, to tell a story that's not truthful. so it's a serious crime that prutors have a lot of discretion to charge which crimes they will and won't charge. witness tampering is one they almost always charge because it goes to the very heart of what the criminal justice system is all about. >> and that goes directly to my next question which is why isn't thisht in th of a superseding indictment, a new set of criminal charges against paul manafort or is this, in effect, a new set of charges against manafort? the way the prosecutors brought was in a filing in which they asked the judge in the case to essentially revoke his bail to not let him be out on supervised release to put him in jail while new allegations and the evidence they gave to the court to support it. should we effectively see that as them charging him with witness tampering, or is this a different way of handling it?
>> it is a different way of handling it, but it's not exclusive. it doesn't mean they won't charge a superseding indictment. but strategically they might not here. my only concern with charging a superseding indictment at this stage is it could lead to a delay in the trial. thrt team might say we ed additl time to prepare for these new charges. and my guess is one of the things this prosecution team wants to do is to keep the heat on paul manafort tknow that trial date is getting ever closer so that he is forced to make that decision as to whether to go to trial or to work out a cooperation deal. so we still might see a perseding inct down the road. as i sai a very serious charge prosecutors usually don't let go but maybe they consider this a different way to deal wi it bringing it to the court's attention because one of the things you definitely want to do is get this in front of a jury at some point because it is evidence of what's known as consciousness of guilt. that is i only needed to interfere with these witnesses because i was afraid that if they told the truth i would be convicted. i think the prosecutors want
lasthte had a senior aclu lawyer on the show talking about the new policy of the trump administration where the federal government is now forcibly taking babies and kids away from their parents and locking them up if the family is caught crossing the border without papers. one of the ways we've been grappling with the implications of this new policy is that we've been trying to figure out what our government is doing with the babies and the kids once they take them away. on sunday senator merkley went to brownsville, texas, where he said a disused walmart super center is being used to house about 1,000 kids. he doesn't know for sure because they wouldn't let him in to see the facility and called the cops on him. they told him to leave.
that facility was in brownsville, texas. the old walmart. 1,000 kids. the same senator, says that on that same trip he also saw kids being kept in cages at a border processing facility in mcallen, texaut an hour west of brownsville also right on the border. >> the first room had a series of cages that look like dog kennels in which people had recently arrived and been put in them, very crowded. they had space blankets so you had all these silver space blankets, no mattresses. people looking distressed and upset. a number of women holding children in their arms. adjacent to that a larger wearhouse with larger cages. the children had already been separated away from the parents. one cage had young boys being lined up for food, and they started with the smallest in front so you had a little toddler, i don't know, 4 or 5
years old, up through youth that are 16 or 17. >> so here is what we thk is ds and babies have never been ripped away from their moms and dads at the border. this is a new policy put in place by the trump administration. in the past obviously there have been kids who have cross border illegally alone and so the u.s. has had facilities to handle those young people, mostly teenagers. but babies and toddlers with their parents until the government stepped in to take them of eir mother's arms? that is new. the first place we think they are taking them is to these border stations where nobody is supposed to be kept more than 72 hours. that's the place senator merkley says he saw them in cages with space blankets and that's it. after 72 hours at the most they're supposed to be moved out of places like that at the border to shelters like the one he went to at the old walmart.
they're theoretically supposed stob ab to be able to hold people for longer periods of time. those facilities were never supposed to be taking in unaccompanied babies and toddlers. well, now nbc news has a new exclusive report that gives us two important new pieces of information when it comes to finding these kids. nbc reports that hundreds of kids are being kept at facilities on the borders with the cagers for longer than 72 hours. supposed to be 72 hours max. kids are staying there longer than that and we're talking about hundreds of kids younger than 12. second thing that nbc is reporting these kids are not being moved out of the cages and into the bigger shelters because they don't have any more room. there are over 11,000 kids being held alone in those bigger shelters.
and now the backlog is apparently resulting in kids being kept locked up at the cages at the border waiting for a place. nbc ay that the trump administration's plan to solve this is at least for now to have officials start touring goodfellow air force base, dyess air force base and fort bliss, to see if the babies and little kids can be put there. so that's your tax dollars at work now, on orders from the president. it's now the job of some federal government employees to forcibly take babies away from their mothers where they are first locked up in cages at the border with space blankets for comfort. if they're lucky, they might eventually get moved to a giant disused walmart with a thousand other kids. and since that system is breaking down, maybe military bases next?
when i was at the center at the mcallen border station, this is a processing center earlier, and i was admitted there, and i did see people, hundreds of children locked up in cages there at that facility. >> you recently saw children being kept in cages? >> yes. >> when? >> yesterday morning at the mcallen border station at the processing center. they have big cages made out of fencing, and wire and nets stretched across the top of them so people can't climb out of them. >> cages first then shelters like at old walmart, but those are filling up. more than 11,000 kids so far. now nbc news reports that the trump administration next wants to put the kids in military
facilities. joining us now is nbc news reporter courtney kube. thanks for joining us. this is a distuooyou guys had today. >>hanks, rachel. >> the administration seems to be pursuing this military base option simplyecause they space andy need it fast? >> yes. they need federal facility, and there are a couple of military bases that they' doing site surveys on because they just may have the space. we don't know what it would look like. would it be some large auditorium, would it be barracks that aren't being used, would it be fields where they would set up tents? we don't really know. but they just need the space. and of course this comes as you mention because there has been a backlog of children. more than 11,000 because of this new trump administration policy which is called zero tolerance. and basically, that says that anyone who comes across the border illegally will be referred for prosecution to the department of justice. well, many othe people are coming across the border with children. the kids can't go to jail.
so the department of health and human services takesustody of them, of their care and feeding there has been a big influx, thousands of them. and now the border facilities where they're temporarily held, everything is filling up. they're at or near capacity. so now the federal government has to find a new place to take care of all these kids. >> if they are going to put these kids in military bases, what kind of time frame for how long they can keep kids at military sites? >> so it would be while they're being held and the government is figuring out where ty can send them next, whether it's foster care, whether they have relatives here in the united states. the average time is about 45 days. but it will really depend on what exactly the facility is like. they're looking at places mainly within a couple hundred miles of the border with mexico. so down in texas with the idea that it's -- there is proximity. if they do have to send them back across the border, they don't have far to transport them. cause there is such a backlog,
the timeline for how long these kids are going to be held is only likely to be extended as more and more kids are sent into this processing system. >> nbc news national security reporter courtney kube. as i say, a disturng scoop. congratulations on getting it, courtney. >> thanks. >> glad to have you. stay with us.
here's a pickle already. almost 119,000 vers were, quote, accidentally left off l.a. county polling place rosters. los angeles county, 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 california as we continue to watch results roll in around the country that does it for now, but lots of primary coverage to come tonight.