tv MSNBC Live With Hallie Jackson MSNBC June 18, 2018 7:00am-8:00am PDT
stephanie ruhle. i will see you again at 11:00 a.m. and all day long on twitter. right now, more news with my friend and colleague hallie jackson. >> thank you very much. i'm hallie jackson in washington and if you woke up under a blanket and not a foil sheet surround by the wall of your bedroom and not by wire fencing knowinghere the members of your family members, then you had a better morning than the hundred of kids waking up in detention centers this morning. this morning we have hit a boiling point on the border. you're looking at the video inside one facility in texas. this is from the government. they didn't let our cameras inside as you have protests protests blowing up in texas. we're taking you inside one of those centers and talk live with somebody who tried to visit this weekend. all of it part of more intolerance for that zero tolerance policy in place. one that donald trump could stop in a second. we'll tell you why he's not. and also on the hill, the head of the fbi who's probably going to face tough questions
from lawmakers. and so might somebody else at some point. the controversial fbi agent who's now a household name. what peter struck's lawyer is telling us today. plus, that new headle in the special counsel investigation, roger stone now admits to meeting with a russian national during the 2016 campaign, somebody who promised dirt on hillary clinton and who offered up 2 million bucks just for the sit-down. we have our team of reporters set up and ready to go on this monday morning, but we want to start with that border battle boiling over. more protests are expected to happen today aimed at that white house poll city to separate migrant children from parents when families gross the border illegally. those children are being kept at government facilities while their parents are criminally prosecuted. people have seen where these kids are being held. some of them describe them as inside cages. our jacob sober rauf got a look inside. and back here you have president trump still blaming the whomg thing on democrats incorrectly saying they are responsible for
the law. that is not true. there's not a law that forces kids to be separated from parents. so in a second we're going to explain the argument the administration might be trying to make, and then tomorrow you have the president heading to the hill to meet with republicans on immigration. there were two bills floating around, one considered a more moderate version provides a pathway to citizenship for dreamers and billions of dollars for a border wall. here's the bottom line wall of this back and forth. the white house created this. president could stop it if he wanted to. he's not. his administration is backing him up and republican leaders on the hill don't seem to have much to say about it. any minute we expect to here from kirsten kneel seijen niels. i want to go to jacob who's in texas. jacob, i've been seeing you all weekend talking about what you have seen at some of these detention facilities and now we're getting a look at that first video released from the government, right? because you weren't allowed to shoot any video inside. >> reporter: no cameras inside
what is effectively and described to me as the epicenter for operations in the entire country. it's all going down in that building, more than 1100 kids silicy started been separated from their parents. let's roll that video right now. we weren't allowed to bring cameras inside, but the government, cbp, customs and border protection, gave out -- you see me on the left-hand side of the screen, those are adult males. that's what's going on right now. this center and people being in cages. let's be really clear, there are people in cages. it's not described as cages, there are cages inside and people are inside and detained inside those cages. this has been here for a long time, since the obama administration and it was a big deal then. what's different now as you have laid out at the fwining of the show as is that is a conscious poly by the trump administration to systematically separate children from their parents. what's happening in there now, what wasn't happening before is
that parents are taken away and charged by the federal government with a crime of entering the country illegally and you have hundred of over a thousand in the case of this sector that are taken away from their parents. and it is- it's -- it's gut wrenching to see and to understa knew answers of this that you could have young kids, as young as 1 or 2 sitting there waiting to be picked up by the department of health and human services for up to 22 hours while their parents are off in court, might end up in federal prison and they don't know when they'll see each other ever again. >> it's disturbing to look at, it's disturbing to listen to. i'm sure it was disturbing to be there in person as you've described. we want to get to the politics of this for a second. and while we do, we want to lay out this kind of fact check that we have. part of it seems to be intentional on the part of the president and the white house, so the president saying things like, he's just tweeted a moment ago, change the law, for example, there doesn't need to
be a law changed. >> there is no law. >> there's no law that requires kids to be separated from their parents. so, jacob, i'm going to ask you to hang out. i know you'll come back with any new reporting for us. let's talk about that for a second because as jacob's been saying, there's no law requiring families to be separated at the border. president trump is wrong when he says there is. there is a law against entering the united states illegally. title 8, section 13 to 25. that's a law. there's also a 1997 court statute signed by president george w. bush, not a democrat, that both dictate high migrant kids are to be treated, where they can be held, for how long, okay. none of this means children must be taken from their families, none of it. this administration is choosin to criminally prosecute, criminally, every instance in which an undocumented immigrant crosses the border illegally. other administrations made exceptions for those prosecutions for adults traveling with kids, but not this one. and that is what is triggering the breakup of families.
so, nbc's geoff bennett, when the president tweets things like change the law, cochange kwhaes happening in a vekd, all he has to do is pick up the phone, right? >> reporter: that's right. the white house has been all over the map with this. the president refusing to take full ober ship of this policy falsely suggesting that democrats are to blame. even as his own attorney general has defended it citing scripture and chief of john kelly referred to it as a strong deterrent. but today the president made clear that he thinks this policy gives him a strong hand in negotiations with congress over a new immigration bill suggesting that these child detainees are, in fact, leverage. here's the tweet. why don't the democrats give up the votes to fix the world's worst immigration laws? where's the outcry for the killings and crime being caused by the gangs and thugs including ms-13 coming into our country illegally? well, the argument could be made that the white house lost the narrative, lost the political argument on ms-13 with these
pictures emerging of children being held in these metal security pens. we also heard in just the last hour as to why the white house is electively enforcing this policy. take a look. >> it is absolutely wrong to do what we have to do. there are two things you can do in this particular situation. you can release the entire family unit or you can separate th that's it. there is no third option of taking them together, keeping them together, and then sending them back to their home country. >> reporter: so this is all coming to a head politically because you have this strange coalition ofple now,lace politician, pediatrician, even a former first lady laura bush all condemning the white house policy of separating children from parents at the border. >> what we have now are two top members of administration, department of homel security kirstjen neilson defending the position this weekend as well as attorney general jeff sessions both of them are down in new orleans at the national
sheriff's association annual conference. it's my understanding that secretary nielsen is about to speak or is just about to speak. she is speaking live there, she is talking about the boarder and border policy. is significant and this is really the first time wee have heard -- we've heard from her on twitter. she's tweeted. she's talked about thousand is up to echoing her boss here, democrats to change the law, as she says, and as the administration has been argue and as we've been fact checking. but this is the first time that we are hearing from her in person. we are waiting to see what she says specifically about this. we're going to bring that to you the second that we hear it. and, again, attorney general jeff sessions is set to speak as well. first i want to bring in the congressman from new york. thank you for joining us. good morning. >> morning. >> i don't know if you had had a chance to here jacob at the top of the show describe what he saw. i'd like you to describe what you saw and kpart two experiences. >> we only -- we didn't see the
living facilities. we were just taken into a little room where we were able to meet with five of the detainees that we had prior legal authorization from their attorneys to meet with. and we spoke to them about their experience dollars. -- experiences. we didn't see any part of the facility other than the interrogation om. >> why did you go? >> we went to talk to e people and to find out about their experiences and to drama advertisi -- ties. thee of the five people had thr children forcibly taken away from them. one at 3:00 in the mong, 4 or 5-year-old child, the two were sleeping and they come in and tear the child away from them. the other interestingly enough presented himself legally at the port of entry to claim asylum, he did nothing illegal as far as i can tell and yet he was arrest and his child 12-year-old taken
away from him. in all three cases that we talked to, they have no idea where their children are, when they're ever going to talk to them again, if ever. and this is the horror here. and the president, i must say, the president's excuse, what he's doing is like a 1930s thug in a ganserig ter mo. he's saying if you don't pay the ransom i'm going to throw it out. that's what he's saying. >> i'm going to ask you to stand by because kirstjen kneel seine is speaking live. we want to give her an opportunity to address this. let's listen. >> it is important to note that these minors are very well taken care of. don't believe the press. they are very well taken care of. you know this as many of you have detention facility of your own. we operate according to some of the highest standards in the
country. we provide food, medical, education, and all needs that the child requests. let's be honest, there's some who would like to us look the other way when dealing with families at the border and not enforce the law passed by congress, including, unfortunately, some members of congress. past administrations may have done so, but we will not. we do not have the luxury of pretending that all individuals coming to this country as a family unit are, in fact, a family. we have to do our job. we will not apologize for doing our job. we have sworn to do this job. this administration has a simple message. if you cross the border illegally, we will prosecute you. if you make a false immigration claim, we will prosecute you. if you smuggle illegal aliens across an extraordinarily dangerous journey, we will prosecute you. but i have also made clear you do not need to break the law of this country by entering
illegally to claim asylum. if you are seeking asylum, go to a port of entry. for months staff at cbp, i.c.e. have been briefing members about the threat posed by these loopholes and discussing ways to close them and to fix our broken immigration system, so let me take just a couple minutes to walk joao you tgh a few of these legal loopholes that dhs and you in your communities confront every day. and the solutions that we have requested from congress. first, under existing law certain unaccompanied alien children from mexico and canada who enter illegally and have no valid claim to stay can be quickly returned home. but unaccompanied children from every other country in the world must be transferred to the department of health and human services within 72 hours and then released to parents or guardians within the united states. this is a significant poll
factor that enkratcourages thes children to make the dangerous journey north and it belies the dangers of the system. we should be treating those from countries the same. why is our system built on treating people from mexico and canada different than any other country coming to the united states for various reasons? additionally, when a hield is apprehended with their parents, dhs is required due to various court rulings to release the child within 20 days. as i mentioned earlier, this get out of jail jail free card for families in group who pose as families has spr the word of this has spread. the smugglers and traffickers know these leap holes better than our members of congress. i'm sad to say that from october, 2017, to this february we have seen a staggering 315% increase in illegal aliens fraudulently children to
pose as family units to gain entry into this country. this must stop. all this does is put the children at risk. to address these issues, we've asked congress to change the law to allow for the expeditious return of unaccompanied alien children regardless of their can't of origin. we are als asking allow to us keep families together whi detained. these fixes would go a long way toward discouraging families from sending children on the harrowing journey to the u.s. resulting in fewer children in the hands of gangs such as ms-13 and more adults facing the consequences of their actions. second, our system for asylum is broken. we are a compassionate country that hassic taken in millions of refugees and granted asylum to hundreds of thousands over the last few decades or assisted them near their home countries. since 1975, the united states has welcomed more than 3 million
refugees from all over the world and each year typically admits nearly 2/3 of the world's that's more than all other countries combined. so unfortunately because we have an incredi low standard for claiming credible fear as part of the alum process, our generosity is being abused. as a result, over the last seven years we've seen the number of individuals claiming asylum sky rocket. before 2011, approximately 1 out of every 100 people arriving illegally claid credible fear and sought asylum in the united states. today that number is 1 out of every 10. the result of such a low threshold for an initial credible fear screening is an as backl of 600,000 cases. these applicants sit in limbo for years waiting for resolution. after passing the unnecessarily
low standard of initial screening, applicants can live and work in the united states for years. this is true even for the 80% who are ultimately rejected for ylum at their final adjudication after multiple appe for 20% who truly need asylum, they are mired in the year's long backlog and remain in limbo. to address this issue we've asked congress to adjust the standard of proof to prevent well-coached april dprants uttering the magic words indicating a fear of returning home. this change would ensure that those who deserve asylum find it quickly so that they can begin their new lives in our country. finally -- >> you have been listening to secretary kirstjen neilson from the department of homeland security in her first extensive comments since the boiling point along the border has been reached by in many this country. she's defending the position of separating children from
families argue, she says, that it is mandated by law as we have been reminding you the trump administration, donald trump, the president himself, would have discretion to end this separation five minutes fr now, tomorrow if he wanted to. jacob is standing by along with congressman jerry nadler who is still with us. the congressman who went to visit a detention facility up in the northeast. i want to start with jacob, if you don't mind, because i know you've been doing a lot of recording from along the border. and when secretary nielsen talks about ports of entry, they're talk about migrants looking for a better life can come legally to ports of entry and come into the u.s. there, right? talk about that. >> reporter: that you get from the border patrol or from the secretary herself who have sat down with and talked to about this is why don't you just go to the port of entry and declare asylum? why are you illegally crossing the bder in between those places where you could present a passport or drive newspaper a car and say i'd like to come in
and declare asylum. there's plenty of wonderful reporting about this, i've seen it first hand myself, there are massive backlogs at parts of entry that sometimes last not days but weeks. you have people sitting on the floor essentially as homeless people waiting to try to get there have even been some reports that customs and border protection officials have suggested that people don't enter the united states, we're too busy or turn back. we all saw the migrant caravan and what happens when you get a large number of people coming in. it's not always when there's a group that that's larng. so it's din disingenuous to say go to a port of entry and you'll get into the country. they cite this figure that 80% of the people pass the first credible fear screening but you have to get in the united states to be able to claim credible fear in the first place and that's not always happening. >> jacob, stand by. i want t bring back in congressman nadlero get your response from what you're hearing at one point saying that
the united states does not apologize separating children from parents. we talked about how they drew the comparison to what happens here in the united states, if a parent breaks the law, she says the parent goes to prison without their family and they are separated from their family here in this. talk about whether you believe the administration should apologize for separating kids from families or if you believe that secretary neilson has a point. >> the administration should apologize, it should apologize for the cruelties that it is wreaking and for its dishonesty. yes, if someone is arrested and goes to jail they cannot take the kids with them. but the normal policy of the united states has been for multiple administrations that if you cross the border illegally you are subject to a civil action for deportation. you can be charged criminally, but normally we're not unless there was some aggravating factor. what this administration has done, the zero tolerance policy
say that everybody they think cross the board e illegally will be arrested and that means that they'll kids will be removed from them. so you go from a situation where people are generally civilly subject to deportation and maybe they make a valid political asylum claim and maybe not. meanwhile they're with their kids and they're not in jail. suddenly you get a policy that everyone who enters the country allegedly illegally is going to be arrested and their kids taken from them. that's what the president decided, that's the zero tolerance policy and that's what's causing all these kids to be separated from their families. >> speak to -- speak to the idea, if you can, of the backlog along the border when it comes to the ports of entry. because that's a critical point here. that's what the argument hinges on is if these migrants want to come to this country, come to a pofrt entry. as jacob talked about there's a big backlog, a long wait, but the administration seems to be arcing that's at least not breaking the law. >> it's not breaking the law. but, the law is impossible when
you have a large backlog, when you can't -- remember, these families almost all of them are fleeing violence. they've been attacked, some of the p tha we're dealing with have had family members murdered. they're taking their 12-year-old kid with them because the 12-year-old has been told if he doesn't join a gang he'll be murdered. his older brother already has been murdered for failing to join a gang. so their desperate. and then they come t a port of entry and in some cases there's a long waiting list, in some cases they're told come back again, we can't deal with you now. and then they cross the border a mile away. so that's just disingenuous. and for her to say tha -- that we're going to raise the standard of asylum, make it even more difficult to get asylum for people who are desperate, instead of saying let's have more asylum judges, more due process, let's process these desperate people who are
fleeing. again, remember, 95% of them are fleeing from violence. >> is there an argument, congressman, that you think that you could make that would be ald trump, so to this administration on this? because it sms as though both sides of this here, the administration has dug in. democrats and many other, including some conservatives are furious about the images that we've been seeing, these, as jacob calls them, cage where's there are kids inside these detention facilities. is there a message that you could give to donald trump to convince him to change course on this? because as this administration argues, we've got have zero tolerance, you have to follow the law. there are others who say you have to have some compassion. where's the morality in this? >> you don't have to have zero tolerance, we never did until the middle of april. that's an administrative discretionary decision they made. is there anything that we can say? i suppose if we could guarantee him through a look at the future that he's going to lose the election over this, yes. other than that, the man has no
conscience and lies about everything. i don't know if you could make any appeal. look at his tactic here. he's saying i'm going to do these terrible things, we're going to separate these kids and it's your fault because you won't give me $25 billion for the border wall and you want cut off illegal immigration from brothers and sisters from american citizens if the if you won't do these things i'm going to do these terrible things and it's your fault. it's like a gangster movie, if you don't pay me the ransom i'll blow up your restaurant and it's your fault. >> thanks for coming on. i appreciate you being on. i want to bring in heancy cook sitting with me on set. guys, this is something that, again, we've started talking about this, the zero tolerance policy was announced, it has built and built and built especially over the last week or so as this has gotten the attention of advocates and lawmaker as well. and the question becomes and where does this go? because you heard from sara sanders, you heard from
president trump, they're not moving on this. they don't want to be budging here. >> they're not budging at all on it. i think that actually they've been planning sort of much more aggressive immigration things to roll out this summer ahead of the midterm. i don't think this is the last we're going to see. >> as sometimes happens at this hour, we have a lot of breaking news. i want to get over to the supreme court. that's because we have a new decision that is in. nbc's pete williams is joining us now on a case that could have nationwide implications for how we vote across the country. the ruling is focussed on 2 different cases, one in wisconsin and one in michigan. pete, breakdown what the ruling is and what it means. >> reporter: one in wisconsin, one in maryland, and this was the claim. >> sorry. >> reporter: that when state ledge late stoours tures redraw the boundaries for state legislative districts, is it possible to be so partisan that is violates the constitution? today theupreme court declined to answer that question. so for at least 15 or 20 years opponents of what they call
partisan gerrymandering have been trying to get the supreme court to say that just as it's possibletor racially discriminatory and violate the constitution in redirecting, so it's possibletor unconstitutional if you're accessibly partisan and you rig the game so that the minority party can never get a majority and never get a seat or in the congress or the state legislature beyond those that they already have safely. and once again today the supreme court in two separate decisions, one involving a statewide challenge to redistricting in wisconsin, one involving a challenge to a specific congressional direct in maryland, the court has declined to answer that question. now, for different reasons. in the wisconsin case they say that the challengers here don't meet the legal test for being able to bring a case in federal court because they're vote frrs all over the state and they don't necessarily live in the districts that they're challenging. so for that reason they say they just don't have the standing.
in the maryland case they basically declined to engage on the merits of the case. they simply say that an injunction issued by the lower court will stand. so it's a big defeat for people who were hoping that this time, this term would be the where the supreme court would actually engage on this issue of partisan gary mannedering. now, why is it important? because the challengers saying with the use of computers and sociological scientific technology we've got tont point now where people elected to congress and legislatures are choosing their voters instead of voters choosing their lec triv representatives. a that they engineered the directs so they remain permanently safe for the majority party. they jam all the minority party opponents into a small number of districts as they can and spread the rest out so they can never get a critical mass. this is important because number
one we don't know whether justice anthony kennedy who has been among the conservatives, the most potentially receptive to this claim, whether he's going to stay on the court for another term when the challengers could perhaps try this again. but, clearly it was obvious from when both these cases were argued that the justices are just not comfortable that -- you know, gerrymandering is an essentially partisan task and the courts don't like to second guess political partisan issues. so the challenge for the challengers was to come up with a test that the justices could apply. well, it's obvious that they didn't find a test that a majority of the justices are comfortable with. now, in the wisconsin case, the dissenters say -- suggest some ideas that could be used in the future. but for now, the supreme court is not going to engage on this issue of heart spartisan gerrymg
and for the next couple years state legislatures will be free in how they draw the lines. >> pete, quickly before i let you go, we're getting to mid-jurn june, the supreme court term, there's big outstanding case regarding the president's travel ban. timing could be sometime in the next week and a half, right? >> my guess is because it was the last case argued this term we'll get it on the last day. >> got it. >> and my guess will be that will be sometime maybe tuesday or wednesday of next ek. >> pete williams there outside the supreme court. thank you for breaking down what can be a complicated case, much appreciated. i have kaitlyn and nancy with me here. indicate lynn, your reaction to the ruling we just heard from pete. >> i think what pete said at the very end about how legislatures are going to deal with this i think is critically important because we're in a midterm election year and we've seen democrats start to -- and president obama and eric holder start to focus on this redirecting effort.
these legislatures that have -- democrats have hemorrhaged seats over the past several elections not being able to control the drawing of state lines. i'm wondering if this starts to become a midterm election issue because, as we know, the house is in play, a lot of seats at the local level are also in play. so whether democrats start t see this as something of a motivating tool to look at the way in which a lot of these directs are so entrench and what kind of effect that has in terms of what the midterms can provide. >> nancy. >> because of the change. >> i agree with that. i think it's going to be sort of another focal point for midterms for the democrats this season. i think this immigration issue will be another one. the supreme court case, you know, perhaps the trade issues that the president has been going to. there's so much ammunition for democrats to fire up the base for the midterms and this is just another instance of it. and i think it will be interesting to see, you know, do republicans feel that same passion to go to the polls? that's going to be important to see if republicans can hold the
house and senate in the fall. >> we've got this issue, the ruling that has come down now of the supreme court and that developing news. we have the other piece of this which you just referenced nancy that probably be a motivating factor at midterms onoth sides of the aisles which is s happening when it comes to immigration. live to hour ow have seen kirstjen nielsen speak together national association of sheriffs. shooes she's still at the podium. at the top of those remarks she addressed the thing we've all been talking about, this idea of separation of kids and families. the admistration has been defending its position in at times what has been an incorrect and misleading way, particularly coming from president trump himself. in a second after secretary n l nielsen who came and rolled out what they described as i zero tolerance policy. the chief of staff who used to have kirstjen neilson's job
described this as a possible deterrent. this was over in the spring. john kelly said this may be a way to stop families, stop adults and children from crossing the border illegally. kaitlyn and nancy, that's where we are at this moment in time. expected at the briefing in about 2 1/2 hours now we'll be there as you see secretary nielsen walk off of stage. i expect that sara and issers will have another frankly pretty heated discussioning with reporters in that room just like we saw at the end of last week. >> it was a very tense brief on this where sara and is assers was asked and had to fall back on the idea that the bible does allow this and this is a morality issue. i think that we'll see, as you said, another tense briefing. one of the things that, you know, i think is important to point out is that while the administration has been really going after democrats on this, this line about loopholes, internally there's not total agreement on this. kirstjen nielsen has been fighting with stephen miller on
sort of how agress safe stance to take on immigration. that's been sort of an internal backdrop there. there's not total agreement on this policy in these white house meets. >> but what there seemsbe agreement on is we are not going to bwn. show i've been getting text from an administration official wh watching and making their case live via text message about sort of the things that we've been hearing from secretary nielsen and others about why they believe this is something that democrats can get on board and change. again, the president could choose, he could choose not to criminally prosecute these families across the country, athat cross the border illegally together and instead seek civil case has has been didn't you last two administrations. >> exactly. we know this is a president who also relevant lin sishes the po things by executive order. we saw this with daca that the president has kicked this to congress in order to blame congress for whatever is happening. but i think it's important to note that nielsen was defending
the policies saying this is not our policy. so the white house is trying to kind of have it multiple ways here in terms of saying, look, we are the toughest administration on immigration if you cross the border we're going to prosecute you. as soon as the argument comes back saying, well that results -- that policy that you put forth results in children being separated from their families, they say, well, this is the democrats fault, right? so there's also this issue of lawmakers on capitol hill don't know exactly what the administration wants because of these confing messages. so that will matter -- >> well, they want a wall, right? that's what this administration wants. that's what this president wants. >> he has been tweeting as much which shows the political nature of how he's thinking about this. but republicans even on capitol hill are saying, look, we don't even know what the policy is and what they're trying to do about it. so still questions among republicans. >> let'salk about what's happening on capitol hill, because it's not just this issue. as usual it's it's an avalanche
of news including what's happening later on this afternoon. lay makers will get their first grau at digging into the inspector general report, the one that criticize james comey report. and took aim at peter struck, he's the one that sent some of those antump messages that we will stop it line, remember that? current fbi director for christopher ray and justice inspector michael horowitz, the guy who wrote that report could face tough queions in front of the judicial committee. that's set to haen in about three 1/2 hours from now. i spoke with peter truck's lawyer. he told me through his lawyer that his sclient willing to answer questions openly not pleading the fifeth. if that happens, struck's comments could give us a new window into the thinking of some of the people and this person in particular could give us a look into the high stakes in the white house in years. >> he's ready to tell all and
tell everything, peter struc putting no restrictions on any testimony to lawmakers after the head of the house judiciary committee reportedly began the process to subpoena the agent. >> i think is he eager to tell the truth. and, you know, hopefully it will be an open session in congress. >> struck wlor was part of e fbi's investigation into hillary clinton's e-mail server was also involved in a now infamous text message exchange from august 2016 recently revealed in an inspector general report. an fbi lawyer, lisa page, wrote about donald trump. he's not ever going to become president, right? right? struck then a senior agent working on the russia investigation and romantically linked to page texted back, no, no, he's not. we'll stop it. the president's allies, like steve bannon, pouncing. >> their hatred of trump, they weaponize the fbi against
president trump. >> the president called struck who was removed from the special counsel investigation a sick loser. as some republicans suggest struck's conduct casts a cloud over the entire fbi. his lawyer tells nbc news. >> the idea that he would have done something to effect an investigation because of his own personal political opinions is false. >> and that went on to say that he believes the text messages from struck have been weaponized. i want to bring in former u.s. attorney barbara mcquade back with me "politico's" nancy cook and caitlin hui burns. barbara, let me start with you and pick up where his lawyer left off. if we do hear from pete struck in this open setting getting questions from democrats and republicans on the house judiciary committee at some point, why should that matter? why should people pay attention to that? >> i think the ig report leaves one with perhaps the ability to draw inferences whichever way you want that maybe peter struck
was trying to tailor the investigation in such a way that's adverse to president trump. he was also involve in the russia investigation. i think he could do a public service by bearing all and tell the world what was really going on if he did not haveh motives and didn't take any action in that way. but one really important thing that i think i've not read about is that he doesn't get to decide whether he gets to testify just himself. he may want to, but because he's still an employee of the fbi, fbi leadership gets to decide whether he does. because it could be used as an opportunity by people to dig into investigative facts that are not publicly known. so at the very least they would restrict the scope about what can he testify to. >> is that sort of standard operating procedure when it comes to that kind of thing? when i spoke with struck's attorney, he indicated that is the process by which they've been following is that the members of congress reach out to the fbi and the office that handles that reach out to the attorney, it's a little bit removed when you look at the process. >> it is. when i was u.s. attorney we used
to get these requests all the time when fbi acts were called to testify, say, in a state court and they were subpoenaed to testify. we were typically review it in the interest of full information but we would restrict the scope of what they could talk about just in this case so they gotten on a fishing extradition to they couldn't talk about unrelated case dollars. at the end of the day it will be up to the fbi leadership to decide what he can testify to. >> including of course chris wray who will be on the hill later this afternoon. so far to our understand nothing date has been set by house jaw di -- judiciary. do they take this what they want to hear much of the same way that they picked pieces from the inspector general report that supports their arguments? >> i absolutely think that we'll just troib what democrats and republicans have already seen. we saw with the ig report people highlighted totally different things and so i think it will just sort of feed more content
into this very polarized environment, even though it could be very illuminating for to us hear from someone. and it also may be an opportunity for the fbi to try to put a better foot forward and, you know, try to reinvent itself as slightly more credible institution because the ig report, regardless of how you came down upon it was critical of the fbi. >> it does conclude there's no evidence of pitical motivation inside the agency to help or hurt hillary clinton or donald trump during the 2016 campaign. despite that, some including rudy giuliani have said, well, struck's conduct casts a cloud over everybody. here's what he said. >> so how much did he infect that ph his own very, very extreme positions? i don't know. but i sure want to find out before i go forward. this is a case where it's crying out for someone to investigate the investigators. >> but struck's lawyer says, listen, this is a guy, ask anybody who knew him, this is a guy who's a consummate professional. does he regret the text?
sure, there's a lot he wishes he hadn't said. the lawyer said he said bad things about everybody, not just donald trump, but hillary clinton, bernie sanders and loretta lynch too. where do you find the truth in this? >> that's the question. i think there's a lot of confirmation but about this going on.i dohinks important fo everybody involved in this to, you know, offer f transparency at this point because on one hand you have the president continuing as he has been for the past several months disparaging the fbi and his own justice department and that's driving down public opinion about the justice department and faith in investigations like this. >> barbara, if you're one of the lawmakers in 1/2 hours from now, what are is the question you want to ask to chris wray or the author of this ig report mr. morrow wits? >> i think what i would be most interested in is going forward. they've done a good job summarizing what's happened in the past but how do we prevent this from occurring in the future? there's a lot of documentation
ableaks come oug new york fbi office. a lot of talk about the text messaging going back and noorth undermines the credibility of the fbi. there's the month-long gap between the time they got the anthony weiner laptop and looked at it. what processes are you going to put in place at the fbi to ensure that these problems don't occur in the future? it's a huge bureaucracy so it's easy for there to be problems by individuals at lower levels. how do you hold people accountable and ensure that the rules are enforced so that we get the kind of law enforcement that we all deserve and want and can be seen credible by the public? >> barbara mcweighed, i'm going to ask all of you to stay right where you are because we want to talk more about family separation at the borderer. we'll hear from one mother who was taken away fromer 10-year-old daughter and how they were forced to talk to each other through a fence. that's coming up.
i was just excited for it to be over. harvoni is a revolutionary treatment for the most common type of chronic hepatitis c. it's been prescribed to more than a quarter million people and is proven to cure up to 99% of patients who have had no prior treatment with 12 weeks. certain patients can be cured with just 8 weeks of harvoni. before starting harvoni your doctor will test to see if you've ever had hepatitis b which may flare up and cause serious liver problems during and after harvoni treatment. tell your doctor if you've ever had hepatitis b, a liver transplant, other liver or kidney problems, hiv or any other medical conditions and about all the medicines you take including herbal supplements. taking amiodarone with harvoni can cause a serious slowing of your heart rate. common side effects of harvoni include tiredness, headache and weakness. ready to let go of hep c? ask your hep c specialist about harvoni.
there's nothing more important than your health. so if you're on medicare or will be soon, you may want more than parts a and b ask all of you to stay right medicare only covers about 80% of your part b medical expenses. the rest is up to you. you might want to consider ask all of you to stay right insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company. like any medicare supplement insurance plan, these help pick up some of what medicare doesn't pay. and, these plans let you choose any doctor or hospital that accepts medicare patients. you could stay with the doctor or specialist you trust... or go with someone new. you're not stuck in a network... because there aren't any.
so don't wait. call now to request your free decision guide and find the aarp medicare supplement plan that works for you. there's a range to choose from, depending on your needs and your budget. rates are competitive. and they're the only plans of their kind endorsed by aarp. like any of these types of plans, they let you apply whenever you want. there's no enrollment window... no waiting to apply. so call now. remember, medicare supplement plans help cover some of what medicare doesn't pay. you'll be able to choose any doctor or hospital that accepts medicare patients. whether you're on medicare now or turning 65 soon, it's a good time to get your ducks in a row. ask all of you to stay right call to request your free decision guide now.
because the time to think about tomorrow is today. there has been much outcry, consternation and frankly misinformation for many in the press, inress, and advocacy groups over the last feweeks that we at dhs are intentionally doing things that are unhumanitarian, that are cruel, immoral, and disgraceful. we are doing none of those things. we are enforcing the laws passed by congress and we are doing all that we can in the expectatiecu
branch to protect our communities. it's now time that congress asks to fix our broken immigration system. >> that was dhs secretary kirstjen nielsen just in the last couple minutes talking about the separation of children and parents at the border. she was speaking at an event in new orleans. we expect to see attorney general jeff sessions there' as well. we hear from first lady melania trump, former first laid lady laura bush, both of them speaking out. the first lady saying she haetsds hates to see children separated from their families. laura bush saying this breaks my heart, a blistering op said calling the policy cruel and immoral. we have been speaking with some of the parents who are living through this right now. we're live in texas for us. interested to hear what you found, what you heard, who you talked to. >> reporter: hallie, i've been here at the border for several days talking to families who have been reunited with their
children after crossing the border illegally because they were not prosecuted. so they've been released by i.c.e., they're wearing ankle monitors and they come to this shelter where i am now that offers them the first relief, the first connection with the outside world that they have had in days. now, their stories give ace glimpse -- us a glimpse as to what's happening inside these facilities. i spoke to two mothers who tell me that their kids, those older than 8 years old, were taken from them by agents at the border for several days at a time. and i've heard, you know, your show throughout the morning talking about kearse continue neilson saying we don't need to bapgs because we're doing our job. these mothers weren't apologized to. they weren't told why their kids were being taken or for how long. i want to play a little bit of my interview from christina, a mother from el salvador who was separated from her 10-year-old and her 16-year-old.
let's listen. [ speaking foreign language ] >> translator: many times what we do is for the good of our children, but we really have to think about it. and thu you think th and you think that it's over when you get here. and you think that it's over when you get here, but once you are detained here, that's where the most painful part of the journey begins. >> reporter: so kristine says she didn't even know, she says about zero tolerance or the possibility of her kids being taken away when she left her native country fleeing this hor risk gang violence. and, hallie, ts separation of mothers and children inside the facilities for several days is something new that did not happen during the obama administration. this is something new to this administration and we're trying to understand why, because clearly these mothers weren't
even prosecuted. and now are having to deal with just that emotional trauma that he whaerd the-- we heard from t >> thank you. i know we will have you back on this show to talk through this. we also know that the medical community has been really frustrated with this new zero tolerance policy, the policy that's responsible for separating parents from their kids after those parents are detained at the board. i want to bring in dr. colleen kraft. the president of the american academy of pediatrics. she's joining us via skype. doctor, i know you've been to a detention center that how's some of these kids and you are being very frank. you say this is a form child abuse. why? >> this is. so when parents and kids are separated, the effect on the ch. these very, very young children, and i've been to one office refugee resettlement shelter where i saw children who were under the age of 2 years old who were crying and sobbing and they
weren't allowed to be consoled or held by the staff workers there, for these young children, the amount of stress hormones that buildsystem, it actually destructs their brain structure. it limits the emotional support, language, gross motor support, d is devastating toir overall development. >> secretary nielsen takes exception to some of the comments like those we've heard. she said a couple of minutes ago -- i'm not going to play it because i think jeff sessions might speak any minute -- but she says, it is important to note these minors are very well-taken care of. she says, don't believe the ess. in fact, they operate to some of the highest standards in the country, providing food, medical attention, education, things kids need. is that not sufficient to you? >> when you walk into a shelter and you see a tiny child who
can't speak yet, who doesn't know what's happening to her, it doesn't matter that she is being fed and clothed and given toys. she needs her mother. every adult who is in the room with that child can tell you how devastated they felt because they couldn't give her what she needed. she needed her mother. she needed her parent. that is really the key to helping her buffer some of these very traumatic experiences. everything from fleeing their homeland to crossing the border. when we take their parents away, we are not treating these children well. >> you talk about some of the kids you've seen. you talked about that little girl who was 2 or 4 years old. flash forward to when she's 12 or 14. what are the long-term impacts of what happened -- what's happening right now for these kids? >> the long-term impacts of this type of trauma can affect their
ability to learn. they could drop out of school. they could not do well at all in school. it puts them at risk for substance abuse. it puts them at risk for heart disease, cancer, other chronic, long-term diseases. >> what do you say to the administration officials who will say, the blame for this, for those issues, lies not with the administration but with the parents, with the adults, who chose to bring those kids with them when they did something illegal and crossed the border illegally, which is the argument the administration is making? what do you say to that argument? >> these parents are facing an untenable situation. they are fleeing for their lives. they are not choosing to move because it is convenient for them. nobody wants to leave homeland. people do so for their own lives and for the lives of their children. they need our help and deserve our compassion. >> doctor, is there one particular moment or one particular image that sticks with you, from your time
visiting some of these facilities? >> i think the toddler room has been the biggest mimage in my mind. besides this little girl, who was just sobbing and wailing and couldn't be consoled, there w several other toddlers in the room. i been told they had been brought there between 11:00 p.m. and 1:00 a.m. the night before. they were all crying and calling for their mommy. in this room, everybody else was silent. where else do you see a group of toddlers who are quiet? >> what went through your mind, as you're watching that? >> what went through my mind was that i wish i could do something as a pediatrician, as a human being, to help these children now. but i know that what they need are their parents. they need their mothers, their fathers, those adults who can care for them and love them. >> dr. colleen craft, thank you
for coming on and sharing those stories. i want to bring in our latino and attorney, along with julia, who covers the dhs. you've been talking with dhs for daysnd weeks about this policy. can you describe, based on your reporting over the last 48, 72 hours or so, where dhs seems to be? again, i've heard from administration officials this hour, while we've been on the air, who were saying, hey, you guys have to go. media is wrong on this. media isn't painting the whole picture. you're not telling the full context of what these actions are all about. >> that's right. i mean, it seems on one hand, hallie, they are spending a lot of their time just running an anti-messaging campaign. we had a conference call last week with reporters, where dhs tried to go through story by story, anecdote by anecdote, and say it wasn't true. they weren't getting enough information out there. we had the secretary of homeland security, kirstjen nielsen,
tweet out yesterday that there was no policy for separating women and children. this was just a product of having to prosecute them and carry out u.s. law. on other hand, we just saw secretary nielsen say these children are being cared for. they are being separated. we also see that they are freely sharing the numbers. 2,000 children were separated over six weeks. they are allowing journalists into some facilities to see, mainly, older boys, probably older than 12, behind cages. it seems like, on one hand, they want to counter this message, but on the other hand, they want us to know what's happening because they want to use this really more politically than as a deterrent for the children. >> we may hear from attorney general jeff sessions. he is speaking down in new orleans. he is at a national associations of sheriffs conference, at a convention center there. so far, he has been thanking folks in the audience for the award he's received. if he starts to talk about the
border or this policy, we'll bring it to you live. in the meantime, picking up where julia left off, neekirstj nielsen tweeted, there is no policy saying you have to separate. that is correct. the effect of the policies the trump administration put into effect, it separates kids from their parents. we are getting into a matter of semantics at this point. >> the fact is, with any political considerations aside, the family separations are a result of the zero tolerance policy. when i watch kirstjen nielsen's speech, she spoke about the misinformation out this about the policies. a couple things jumped out at me. one is she cited the increase that she hadeen in alleged cases of fraud, where people were coming across the border with children who allegedly were not their own. we have the statistics from last year about those cases. for fiscal year 2017 were 303,000 illegal apprehensions at the southern border.
out of those cases, there were only 46 suspected cases fraud. of those 46, we don't even know how many actually resulted in convictions. that's one thing. the other th ithink, when we look at this policy, it speaks to the administration's unease that they are just unwilling to own it co. we see them on one hand defending it. on the other hand, trying to blame it on the democrats. as you poi out, there is no mandateis policy. the other thing that kirstjen nielsen pointed out, she talked about the legal loopholes. i believe she's referencing the 2008 anti-trafficking law, saying we can't return children from countries other than c and mexico directly back. that's because congress just decided there was too much danger. when you do it immediately, of them falling into the hands of smugglers, cartels, and traffickers. that was signed by president bush. there is misinformation from dhs
secretary nielsen herself. >> julia, talk about the 2008 law reinterpreted or put forth again in 2016 here. that is something you hear cited from administration officials. now, as pointed out, that was a republican-led policy during the administration at the time, former president george bush. julia, there is -- when secretary nielsen and others in the administration seize on what they call misinformation, there are, at times, information put out that isn't giving the full context. give the full context when it comes to the 2008 rule that is meant to protect children. that was why the rule was put in place, to prevent kids getting trafficked. that is something that, obviously, as i'm looking to my guests on set, everybody can get behind. explain why the administration is using that now to say, hey, see, our hands are tied. >> right. this rule -- there are rules put in place about how long a child can be held in detention. i.c.e. detention, which is where
parents and children were held together, there was a ruling in the '90s, a court ruling, that said they could only be held there for a smaller period of time. it was reinterpreted under the obama administration, that it could only be about 20 days. the obama administration started to release people from the facilities. now, the way it is being interpreted, is that they have to be separated in order to follow the policy, which is something the obama administration never did before. >> exactly. we'll have to leave it there. we are continuing for the rest of the morning, keeping an eye on attorney general jeff sessions as he makes his remarks. i want to thank nancy and julia, barbara, who all stuck around, as well as jacob soboroff, who have been doing important reporting from the border. we'll end with today's big picture. for it, we'll head to outer space. check it out. german astronaut is watching the world cup from out of this world. he doesn't need a chair. he's chilling.
watching his german team from the international space station 250 miles above earth. bad news. your team lost. tough one to mexico. he said the first game is just a dress rehearsal. he'll watch the team try and bounce back. good luck to him. good luck to team mexico. our white house producers cheering for them. love to hear your thoughts on facebook, twitter, snapchat, and up s insta. good to be back in the chair. i'll be with you all week. i want to turn it over to ali velshi a stephanie ruhle. just steph? i haven't seen ali in months. >> i haven't seen him either. >> since 2014 really. >> it's been a while. it'll have to be a girl party. >> i like that. good morning. i'm stephanie ruhle. my partner, ali velshi, off today. it is monday, june 18th, with a lot to cover. let's get smarter. growing fury in the face of child migrants being forcibly separated from their parents at the border. >> this is the border patrol's central