tv MSNBC Live With Katy Tur MSNBC June 26, 2018 11:00am-12:00pm PDT
hours ago the supreme court handed president trump a immigration victory, upholding his travel ban on majority muslim nations. the president took the opportunity to take a victory lap. >> today's supreme court ruling, just coming out, a tremendous success, a tremendous victory for the american people, and for our constitution. we have to be tough, and we have to be safe and we have to be secu secure. at a minimum, we have to make sure that we vet people coming into the country. the ruling shows that all of the attacks from the media and the democrat politicians are wrong and they turned out to be very wrong. >> the decision from the supreme court, comes after two earlier attempts by the administration to enforce similar executive orders. this one restricts travel from iran, libya, north korea, somalia, syria, venezuela and
yemen. the ruling a clear win for trump who descended the escalators at trump tower back in june of 2015 promising this. >> donald j. trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of muslims entering the united states until our country's representatives can figure out what the hell is going on. got no choice. >> as the president crosses another campaign promise off that to do list, reaction pouring in on capitol hill where the response has been divided look party lines. >> this is a dark day for anybody in our country who cares about checks and balances? >> this is not a muslim ban, it's not anything that president obama didn't do when he was president. so i'm not surprised the supreme court ruled the way they did. >> we need to keep out every
dangerous person who tries to come to there country, but to categorically brand people because of their religion or their background or what country they come from, is not the way we should do things in america. >> so the big question we are asking today is this, will the president use the travel ban decision to re-enforce is hard line immigration policies? nbc's correspondent pete williams is outside the supreme court and halle jackson is over at the white house. and pete, let me start with you, take us through exactly what the court is saying here. >> reporter: the court is saying, in terms of this third version of the travel ban, that did it make a difference that the administration went through this systematically after the first two were shot down in the supreme court or riddled full of holes. how accurate the investigation was that the country was providing when someone applied for a visa so that the u.s. would know that these people are
who they say they are and based on that they came up with the travel ban list. you noted venezuela and north korea, they're very minor parts of this. it's five of the seven original countries, basically mideastern countries, muslim countries, but what the supreme court said, number one, the president had the legal authority to do this under the immigration laws and secondly, his anti-muslim statements one of which you just played during the campaign and to some extent continuing in the white house, did not fatally infect what he said. in other words what the court said, any president, would have the authority to do what he did in this travel ban and there is a rational basis for it and his comments don't infect it enough. they say they look at the cold, hard language of this third order that came out last september and has been enforced ever since december and they find that it is legal and constitutional. i would say, craig, though, i
don't think you can take much from this to look at the current situation on the southern border. because there are all kinds of different statutes in question there, and the supreme court also said that one of the reasons they were upholding this is because it is in a s a limited use of presidential power. these restrictions on visas from those countries are limiting in the sense that once the countries sufficiently clean up their act on getting information, they can come off the list, indeed one country already has, chad, things this lawsuit was filed and they said there was supposed to be a very robust waiver system that those coin t countries can make a case. for all those reasons it was upheld, but i don't think they easily translate to the situation on the southern border. >> let's take that situation over to halle at the white house. pete's saying, legally league at what the court is doing here,
maybe not much of a direct connection between the travel ban and the immigration agenda that the administration is talking about right now, is that how the administration is understanding it? >> reporter: it seems to be how the president is understanding it or wants to be understanding. and as pete is talking about on the legal piece of it, the president sees this, this specific travel ban and the other two iterations before that, frankly, as a central part of his immigration policies, so there is a sense that he is broadening, this is a great victory based on the constitution. you just heard pete explain that there are other things that the justices are taking under consideration here. the president is feeling vindicated by this, pointing to his haters, for example on the other side of the aisle, on the other side of the media that said this wouldn't happen. the president feeling buy --
bouied today. one of the key things we have heard so far. remember, this is a version, after that first travel ban, the one that was announced right after the inauguration was changed right after the president modified it. the president complained that it was watered down. the president is now saying today that he is not going to go back and try to essentially toughen up or change what is currently in place, saying this is enough, the supreme court has decided this is what it's going to be, steve. >> halle jackson at the white house and pete williams outside the supreme court. thank you to both of you. joining me now, jonathan turley, he's a constitutional law professor at george washington university, he's been following and writing about this case. let me read you some of the dissent of this decision today, this was from sonya sotomayor, she did not agree with this holding up of the travel ban, she said a reasonable observer would conclude that the
proclamation was motivated by an anti-muslim animus. and most people know what she's talking about there, donald trump as a candidate, repeatedly saying it was his intention to ban muslims from entering the united states, until, i think he said, we can figure out what the heck is going on, or some wording like that. when somebody comes to office making a promise that explicit about muslims and issues a travel ban that affects muslim majority nations, does she have a point? >> she certainly has a point about this concern, the tweets of the president were disconcerting, they were reckless, they were alarming, most of us denounced those tweets. but this is moreut the judicial function than it is even the president himself. what the majority is saying, is you can't rely this heavily on these types of political statements during a campaign. because first of all, the president made opposing statements, he actually denied some of the statements he had made earlier so it was a mixed record. but the most important issue for
the majority was that these agencies produced a record that had inspected and bona fide reasons for the policy. and the other issue that existed, that issue was always there from the first travel ban case. the other issue was the argument that immigration laws prohibit a president from barring entry from particular countries. some of us disagreed with the ninth circuit on that, and certainly the majority does, the majority of the supreme court said no, there isn't such a barrier. so those two issues were present in the first round, they ultimately prevailed in this last round. at the end of the day, steve, i don't think this changes that much. presidents have won most immigration cases before the supreme court. the supreme court has always given presidents sweeping authority at the borders. and that's going to continue. >> i guess the broader concern looking ahead that critics might raise coming down to this is, is
there some kind of a precedent that's established here, where if this president or some future president has a similar animus, whether it's about muslims or some other minority groups, some other religious group, whoever it may be, if they can find the right way to dress it up, there's nothing the court can do about it? >> unfortunately, that may be true, there's lots of cases where presidents dress up animus or bias. for the court, though, the question is, what's the record for review, how much derminitive weight can you put on those types of statements, particularly if there's opposing statements as well in the record. the court was very uncomfortable. if you look at the dissent, the question the court regularly asks, what would be enough for you? it seems he has made these statements that no matter what the record would say, you would believe that's the motivation.
and if this was a conservative court, they could say president obama made this statement on the campaign trail, and we're going to ignore what his agencies are saying are the true rationale. so there's a legitimate issue there, and i think people should be careful before they say this is just politics on the court. these justices have solid constitutional views and these pieces are consistent with those views. >> jonathan turley from george washington writing about this, and thank you for taking a few minutes for this. om omar, let me start with you, from the other angle, the majority of this ruling today, they said basically if any other president hadn't made the public statements that donald trump made about muslims and had simply issued the order that was at issue here, the order on immigration, the order on travel, i should say, any other president issuing that order wouldn't have even been an issue. do you agree with that?
if you take the rhetorical context out? >> well, it's an absurd hypothetical because no other president has ever issued order like this. and no other president would. the only genuine explanation for what the president has done here is that he was carrying out his campaign promise to ban muslims and, you know, as i think the clip you played indicates and as halle's description indicates, for the president, this is all of one piece, there's no notion that, you know, suddenly he abandoned his desire to ban muslims, woke up one day, the agencies happened to present him with a plan that exactly matched his desires through the product of completely neutral analysis, and then he put it into effect by signing the order. that's not what happened, everyone knows that's not what happened. and the court, i think, by endorsing the view that maybe
that's what happened, is really not behaving in a credible manner here. >> i'm trying to figure out where exactly you would draw the line here. so let me ask it this way, in terms of the actual ruling, the actual proclamation from donald trump on this travel ban, is there anything in there that you think violates by itself the power of this president, the president of any president? yes, yes absolutely. the statutory argument here is that the president's statutory argument is that despite congress explicitly banning discrimination on the basis of national origin on immigration visas, he could ban people coming here on immigrant visas on the basis of national origin, that's not a complicated argument and it's one reason why
i think you have not seen any other president take an action like this, because it clearly contravenes what in the course of the civil rights era, rewriting of many important statutes, in this country, congress decided to stop imposing national origin quotas in the issuance of visas, and instead, to eliminate that sort of national origin discrimination. now the president comes along and says, no, i can do it anyway. that's not something that any other president could do. again, i disagree with the premise, legally. but i also think it's important to think about, to recognize the fact that no other president has used the authority that president trump is attempting to rely on here, in anything like the way he's tried to do it. and that fact itself dem demonstrates that, you know, there's something going on here
other than a routine, you know, agency action that the president, you know, has signed off on and again, you don't need to be a legal expert to see that, you don't need to be deep in the weeds on what the record shows. you just have to look at the facts that everybody knows. >> all right, omar chadwick from the aclu, thank you for your time. and another reversal of the president's immigration policy on the border. we're going to show you exclusively video from inside a daycare center for migrant children, that is next. and everything into the cloud. it's all so... smart. but how do you work with it? i that's smart for the food we eat. at this port, supply chains are becoming more transparent with blockchain. that's smart for millions of shipments. in this lab, researchers are working with watson
to help them find new treatments. that's smart for medicine. at this bank, the world's most encrypted mainframe is helping prevent cybercrime. that's smart for everyone. and in africa, iot sensors and the ibm cloud are protecting endangered animals. that's smart for rhinos. yeah. rhinos. because smart only really matters, when we put it to work- not just for a few of us, but for all of us. let's put smart to work.
. msnbc has been obtained exclusive video from a migrant daycare center here in new york. this did not come from the government. instead it was sir repetitiously reported by an employee who is -- we cannot confirm the background of each child in the video, but listen to one exchange with a girl who was separated from her mother.
>> and we should note msnbc has not confirmed the circumstances under which the girl and mother were separated. joining me now is msnbc's jacob soberoff, he has been on the front lines, border crisis, i want to ask you where things are going in terms of president trump's immigration policy, because there's been a lot of talk about the so-called store tolerance policy, where the administration announced that they want to prosecute every border crossing and that would result in family separations, and now from the standpoint of this new executive order that the president signed last week, keeping families together while that whole legal process plays out is just not going to be practical with the resources and in essence the zero tolerance policy -- and it's effectively catch and release right now?
>> that's what the administration would l fors to think, that this e order that trump signed will keep families together. they will be released into the can community pending a court hearing to talk about the violence and the horrors they faced in their home country. the whole goal of trump's immigration policy since day one has been to absolutely terrify migrants from trying to come into this country, first it was talk about the wall, talk about what the wall wou mean for people coming into this country, they wouldn't have any opportunity to come into the country, and for a while it worked, and that knocked the immigration numbers to historically low numbers. then he put up a zero tolerance policy, and said if you come here, we're going to rip you apart from your children as a result of your being prosecuted, if you want to come here, that is the future you're going to hold. i cannot believe the trump
administration is going to walk away from what's been effectively their strategy from day one. while we don't know yet, what happens to these families, if they're going to be held indefinitely in detention cen r centers together or if they're going to be split up. i don't think that policy is gone, no way. >> you're outlining a few of the o options -- because i was looking at polling, when you get beyond the issue of family separation that so-called zero tolerance policy, there's a lot more support for hold the families together or send the families back together. are you getting indications that's where the administration is going to land here? >> i think what the administration has always wanted to do was be able to turn the families around and send them back to central america as fast as they possibly could, they're able to do similar things with migrants who come from mexico and canada, in fact the obama
administration didn't want to do something similar d they were trying to avoid the issue of separating families and creating these horrifying conditions and it back fired on the administration, once i was able to get into these facilities with other jrnalists and really show the horrors of what they were doing to these kids, i don't think the goal has changed, i think they want to get these families out of the country as quickly as possible. they're saying we're allowing catch and release, which is more scary than it actually is in ality. so the options that we're looking at right now are creating family detention on military bases. we know that from our own reporting, like the one down in south texas that joy reid got into today, i think that's what the future of immigration detention is going to look like in this country. >> thank you as always for taking a few minutes, and could
an exc-con and an excongressman be headed back to court? that's next. i've always looked forward to what's next. and i'm still going for my best even though i live with a higher risk of stroke due to afib not caused by a heart valve problem. so if there's a better treatment than warfarin, i'm up for that. eliquis. eliquis is proven to reduce stroke risk better than warfarin. plus has significantly less major bleeding than warfarin. eliquis is fda-approved and has both. so what's next? seeing these guys. don't stop taking eliquis unless your doctor tells you to, as stopping increases your risk of having a stroke. eliquis can cause serious and in rare cases fatal bleeding. don't take eliquis if you have an artificial heart valve or abnormal bleeding. while taking eliquis, you may bruise more easily and it may take longer than usual for any bleeding to stop.
seek immediate medical care for sudden signs of bleeding, like unusual bruising. eliquis may increase your bleeding risk if you take certain medicines. tell your doctor about all planned medical or dental procedures. eliquis, the number one cardiologist-prescribed blood thinner. ask your doctor if eliquis is what's next for you. cardiologist-prescribed blood thinner. you're smart,eat you already knew that. but it's also great for finding the perfect used car. you'll see what a fair price is and you can connect with a truecar certified dealer. now you're even smarter.
an eye on, folks are voting in different time zones across the country right now. let's take you on a quick tour of what is happening and what we're going to be looking for tonight, the biggest name on the ballot, him romney, remember this guy, the 2012 republican nominee for president, the republican primary today in utah, romney the overwhelming favorite to win this race today. and mitt romneys like a rock star out there, will go to the senate. a guy, romney who just viciously denounced donald trump in 2016 and was viciously denounced back, he could be in the senate having to deal with president trump and president trump having to deal with him. so keeping an eye on that one. and present trump was in south carolina last night trying to rally support for this guy, henry mcmaster, for governor of south carolina. the sitting governor fell well below the required 50%, john
warren tonight did that last-minute visit from donald trump help? we'll see when the polls close at 7:00. and a lot of action in new york tonight, we have not had a lot of interesting democratic primaries. these are interesting, you have four long tenured democratic members of congress, we're not expecting any of them to lose, but if there's going to be any signs, they're all being challenged from the left, younger opponents from a lot of cases here. we're going to keep an eye on these, it could be interesting, the other place we're keeping an eye on is new york. down here in staten island park, this is one republican part of new york city, the congressman there is a republican, he is being challenged by a former congressman, whose name you probably remember, the incumbent right now is don donovan, he resigned, he went to prison, he's back, he's telling people in his district he was
railroaded by the obama administration. dan donovan has the endorsement of president trump, who's told president trump, don't be intimidated by grim. there's a lot of local pride out there behind michael grimm believe it or not and von hilliard is on staten island, the heart of this district. casey hunt is there on staten island. let's start with you on staten island, are we looking at grimm taking out dan donovan potentially? >> steve, you said it, the local pride is the issue, people across the country, you look at michael grimm, he spent seven months in prison, he was also that individual back in 2014 threatened to throw that reporter off the balcony and told that reporter he was going to break him in half, quote, like a boy.
how can this congressman come back? a lot of folks that we have talked to on the ground have said he was there for them, he passed some legislation that helped them with flood insurance and when it came to the crime he actually committed, it wasn't a big deal. his wife yelled out from the other side of the car, and said who doesn't pay people under the table? that ultimately led the congressman to prison. and now the standard he set trying to take his seat back. >> do you feel like your election would shift the standards that we set for people running for public office? >> again, you like to put the question that way, and i understand why. but the people of staten island and brooklyn understand that. they changed the rules for me because of political corruption, and that's what the people of staten island and brooklyn think and that's one of the reasons they're supporting me. they don't like politics in our
justice system. they don't like that i got prison when i should have only have gotten a fine. next question? >> the interesting part about this, steve, is that the president did endorse dan donov donovan, dan donovan was only one of two republican congressional members who voted against congressional legislation in the house, and tax reform, but the president said in a tweet, he said remember alabama, he doesn't want another similar situation on what happened to roy moore and it cost him a seat. democrats see this as a potential opportunity, essentially they believe if michael grimm can pull it off here today. >> from staten island, we head west to utah. casey hunt is there, and casey, not a lot of suspension when we think about the outcome tonight, but the implications of mitt romney going to the u.s. senate on national politics could be significant? >> reporter: that's right, steve, i think you can see the governor is right here behind
me, he's campaigning in a barbecue joint. this is a little bit of déjà vu, i covered romney's presidential campaign, so this is of course as you point out, his return to the national stage after he lost in 2012, which is a fact that, you know, he's pretty quick to mention here, actually, and he is instead running for a lower office in the united states senate as one of 100 senators and he's campaigning here with his wife and one of his children. as you say, the question here, if mitt romney goes to washington, is how does he handle president trump? you may remember president trump endorsed him in a splashy event back in 2012, but then they proceeded to really go at it. now president trump has insulted romney publicly, romney called him a phony and a fraud. then of course he potentially wanted to be president trump's secretary of state. that didn't end up happening.
and now romney has to walk this careful line between opposing policies he doesn't want to support but also being on board with president's agenda, he gets asked about it all the time on the campaign trail. he did say he supports some of the elements of the travel ban that the president has implem t implemented that the supreme court has upheld, but he decried the president's immigration policy calling it a black eye, take a look. are you surprised that the supreme court upheld the president's travel ban? >> i think the president does have responsibility for securing the country and if he legitimately feels that there's something that's threatening the country, i'm not surprised that the supreme court court would say okay, yeah, that makes sense. >> reporter: steve, sorry about that, i'm having a little bit of trouble hearing. i think the spot you saw was from a little bit earlier. but this is something romney is going to have to consider every
step of the way, because the senate, i'm up on capitol hill every day and we have lost some of the great lions of the senate, john mccain has not been in the hallways, he's been somebody who's been very outspoken and critical of president trump, and for romney, it's going to be a test, he's going to be asked every day about the tweets, he of cour. so a lot of decisions kind of date to day for governor romney, perhaps senator. i'm go to have to decide whether we call him governor or senator, he's been governor romney for those of us who have covered him for many years since he was governor of massachusetts. >> a lot of people having flash backs watching mitt romney campaigning on an election day. but this sets up a former presidential nominee, obviously all that history between romney and trump that kasie is
describing. how do you think that plays out? >> it depends on which mitt romney takes the senate seat, it depends on whether he -- he was out there leading the charge, or is it going to be the mitt romney that frankly crawled to trump's table to try to get secretary of state and ever since then, one day's critical and the next day he praises trump, which mitt romney is going to take that seat? this is his second temple. this will extend through president trump's second term if he gets one. and he'll be governor of a state where trump did quite badly. that state normally delivers 70% plus for a presidential candidate, trump got under 50%. that's what we're all waiting for, which mitt romney will appear in the u.s. senate. >> that's a fascinating point you raise there too, if there's one red state where maybe it's
safe for a governor to criticize president trump it's probably utah. thanks to all of you for joining us, and coming up, a dilemma for democrats, if they think the president is going low, should they go low too? the dividing line in the debate over civility, that's next. your acceptance is guaranteed. it's hard to believe, but i've been talking about the colonial penn life insurance company for almost 25 years. so call now... call now... make the call now. i must have said "call now" hundreds of times. millions of people have already called.
but what about those who haven't? (announcer) isn't it time for you to call about the number one most popular whole life insurance plan available from colonial penn? recently, a friend of mine died, and although his funeral was a modest one, it cost more than the national average, (announcer) the average cost of a funeral today is over $8,500. life insurance can be part of your plan to help make sure you don't leave a financial burden for loved ones. (announcer) coverage options start at just $9.95 a month. that's less than 35 cents a day. if you're 50 to 85, your acceptance is guaranteed for this affordable whole life insurance. you can't be turned down due to health. there are no health questions. no medical exam is required. once you're covered, your rate will never increase. it's locked in for life, guaranteed. so call now for more information and you'll also get this beneficiary planner, now, what would i say to those who haven't called yet? well, as i've said hundreds of times before,
and back pain made it hard to sleep and get up on time. then i found aleve pm. the only one to combine a safe sleep aid, plus the 12 hour pain relieving strength of aleve. i'm back. aleve pm for a better am. this weekend, a member of congress called for people to push back and make clear to those serving their country and this administration that they are not welcome anywhere, any
time for anything. healthy debate on ideas and political fiphilosophy is important but the calls for any trump supporter to avoid the public is unacceptable. >> that's sarah huckabee sanders echoing calls for civility during yesterday's press briefing, she was responding to an incident over the weekend in which she and her family were asked to leave a virginia restaurant, urging activie restaurant, urging acti restaurant, urging activie restaurant, urging act. sanders points seem to be under cut by the president's own tweet about waters in which he called her a, quote, extraordinarily low i.q. person. that question of how to respond or not to respond to the president's taunting rhetoric may be a problem for democrats. nancy pelosi and chuck schumer have chosen to distance
themselves quickly from waters. are they itching to fight trump's fire with fire of their own? we have msnbc political analyst, and opinion writer for "the washington post." and robert, let me just start with you, it was striking to me yesterday that the sense i was getting this was an inexact thing, but there was a lot of resonance with what waters had said, or at least sympathy for why she was saying it from democratic activists, but then you look at their leaders, you looked at pelosi, you looked at chuck schumer and they couldn't distance themselves fast enough. is there a disconnect there at all? >> there is a slight disconnect, if you look at congresswoman waters, her rhetoric against president trump has been pretty edged since the beginning of his administration, that's why she's been cheered by my activists, democratic leaders know that the base of the party is very energized for the midterm elections, at the same time they
don't want to become a political target who keeps tweeting that tru waters is the face of the democratic party. >> and we talk jennifer ruben about a dilemma for democrats and how to respond, what he tweeted an hour from now that he might change two hours from now, michelle obama had this famous line where she seemed basically to be talking about and describing donald trump and how to hand m him, here's what she said back then. >> our motto is when they go low, we go high. >> in the full quote there, i could just read a little bit more of it because i think it is a little apt right now, she talked about when someone is cruel or acts like a bully, you don't stoop to their level, when they go low, we go high, it seemed like a statement of principle back then, do you
think democrats are still thinking that now are has it changed a little bit? >> that's definitely my standpoint and it should have. if you think this is a normal administration and these differences are mere policy differences, then of course you shouldn't bother someone in her their free time in a restaurant or anywhere else. but if you think these people have crossed a moral line, that these people have behaved in a waythat's -- maybe the obligation of individuals to express themselves. i am not talking what maxine waters was suggesting, getting a mob together or anything approaching violence. but if they are going to be behave in a way that's really unprecedented in american polics, people are going to take individual action and we have a long tradition in this country of people or groups acting in ways that make feel uncomfortable. that's what happens in protests
outside of abortion clinics and the like. it might not be smart for the democrats to do it, but that's a different question as to whether society considing the way this administration has conducted itself. >> let me flip this around, robert kcosta, schumer and peloi distanced themselves quickly. to a republican out there, i imagine there might be some frustration that, hey, the leader of our party, donald trump, he's not going to do what chuck schumer did, he's not going to come out and try to cool temperatures at all, he's trying to inflame temperatures. >> the president is seizing on these issues, people in public clashes and that kind of tabloid style of politics, rather than putting an emphasis all the time on the policies that congressional republicans are talking about. i interviewed house ways and means chairman wayne brady here
at the post, and i asked him about the republicans, and he just wanted to talk mostly about the tax law. and that is the tension in the party, in the gop, the president who leads the party welcomes these sorts of fights but many who are up the ballot this fall do not. >> i do wonder having watched all of this that this sort of rhetoric, these sort of tactics, when you pit someone side against the other this sort of aggressively, this is what motivates and fires people up. is there some political calculus here that ends up working to both parties benefit. >> surely we live in polarized times and each side tries to whip up their base. but i think to make a comparison here is faulty, the president uses the full power of his office to go after individuals, to vilify businesses, to call out racial groups, to instigate
violence, that's no way for an individual even in his private life speaking his mind. i do take exception to this false equivalence that they have. that said, i think donald trump has so thoroughly destroyed any pretension of manners, of presidential stature, that republicans at this point are simply abandoning any pretense of calling for civility themselves. how would it look, frankly, if mitt romney called for civility with his own president there creating such havoc. so i think they're in a poor position to complain when a little bit of it comes back. >> jennifer ruben and robert costa thank you both for joining us. and president trump went on the attack on harley davidson, that's next. about geico... (harmonica interrupts)
how they could save 15% or more by... (harmonica interrupts) ...by just calling or going online to geico.com. (harmonica interrupts) (sighs and chuckles) sorry, are you gonna... nica interrupts) everytime. geico. 15 minutes could save you 15% or more on car insurance. gives skin the moisture it needs and keeps it there longer with lock-in moisture technology skin is petal smooth after all, a cleanser's just a cleanser unless it's olay.
for a limited time, save up to $500 plus free home delivery on sleep number 360 smart beds. ends june 30th. you might or joints.hing for your heart... but do you take something for your brain. with an ingredient originally found in jellyfish, prevagen is the number one selling brain-health supplement in drug stores nationwide. prevagen. the name to remember. . some people who are saying your tariff threats are threatening to plunge the -- >> they announced it earlier this year and harley davidson is using it as an excuse and i don't like that, i have been good to harley davidson, and i think -- and i wouldn't be either. >> that was president trump
continuing to express frustrations with harley davidson and joining me now, cnbc ron, and he says it says is a smoke screen. what the is your take on this the situation? >> to is certain extent t is true. harley davidson have been trouble selling in the united states have been for a while. and the -- but it is afraid of the retaliatory tariffs in the country they do sell and it would be more efficient to produce outside of the united states and avoid the retaliation if the trade wars kaes lateesca. >> so what has been right now when you look at the economy, because trump is always talking the economy is doing great, look at the stock market. has there been an impact, the
rhetoric put out there t has there been an impact. >> the ago debrricultural commus feeling t. cost of steel has gone up. steel and aluminum going up and they can't pass the prices onto consumers. that means more inflammation. what would be a problem if we went into a trade war with china and europe and canada and mexico fall awart with respect to nafta, then you run the risk of a 1930s style event that you can drag the economy into recession. china is weakening and europe irrespective of the issue. >> what is your read on the president and administration? do you t they see a distinction between doing smaller things in a full-scale trade war or do you think they
will end up in a situation. >> i don't think they realize the fire they are playing with. i think in this regard, they are misguided on a notion of a trade deficit. the u.s.s is buying more goods because it can't get everything it needs at home. part of it is a part of policy and mistakes over the years of american management and we are growing consistently and reasonably fast and consumers like lower-priced goods. this could change if we were a major exporter of energy products. we can go to trade surplus over night. whether the president prefers that we have manufacturing companies and bring the surplus home or whether it is liquefied gas and crude oil t is sill spli economic i will literate in many
ways. three countries export over a trillion dollars. these are the big three of the world. the fact that they are focused on small elements and misapprehend how the global economy works is the most tro trouble ling. >> donald trump versus jimmy fallon. "one more thing" is next. not cool. freezing away fat cells with coolsculpting? now that's cool. coolsculpting safely freezes and removes fat cells. with little or no downtime. and no surgery. results and patient experience may vary. some rare side effects include temporary numbness, discomfort, and swelling. ask your doctor if coolsculpting is right for you. and visit coolsculpting.com today for your chance to win a free treatment.
yit's hard to believe,ranteed. but i've been talking about the conin life insurance company for almost 25 years. cl now... call now... make the call now. i must have said "call now" hundreds of times. millions of people have already called. but what about those who haven't? (announcer) isn't it time for you to call about the number one most popular whole life insurance plan available from colonial penn? recently, a friend of mine died, and although his funeral was a modest one, it cost more than the national average, (announcer) the average cost of a funeral today is over $8,500. life insurance can be part of your plan to help make sure you don't leave a financial burden for loved ones. (announcer) coverage options start at just $9.95 a month. that's less than 35 cents a day. if you're 50 to 85, your acceptance is guaranteed for this affordable whole life insurance. you can't be turned down due to health. there are no health questions. no medical exam is required.
once you're covered, your rate will never increase. it's locked in for life, guaranteed. so call now for more information and you'll also get this beneficiary planner, both free. now, what would i say to those who haven't called yet? well, as i've said hundreds of times before, call now. (mellow guitar music) ♪ more "doing chores for mom" per roll. more "doing chores for dad" per roll. more "earning something you love" per roll. bounty is more absorbent, so the roll last 50% longer than the leading ordinary brand. so you get more "life" per roll. bounty, the quicker picker upper. now with new prints featuring disney pixar's incredibles 2 - now playing.
i we worked with pg&eof to save energy because wenie. wanted to help the school. they would put these signs on the door to let the teacher know you didn't cut off the light. the teachers, they would call us the energy patrol. so they would be like, here they come, turn off your lights! those three young ladies were teaching the whole school about energy efficiency. we actually saved $50,000. and that's just one school, two semesters, three girls. together, we're building a better california.
. "one more thing" before we go. sunday, when the president tweeted be a man jimmy after regretting the 2016 interview and messed up trump's hair after getting his approval and doing that was a mistake and it humanized donald trump and the president doubled-down on the attack during the rally in south carolina. >> jimmy fallon calls me up and he is like a nice guy. he is lost, he looks like a lost soul. he gets out there, he is a nice guy. i agree to do a show and because i guess i was running at that time, it was he got tremendous ratings, killed everybody.
he should be thankful, not upset and angry. >> and then responded on the "tonight show." >> i never called this human in my life. i have never seen monster ratings. you didn't help my ratings. really, thanks for nothing. >> and then that is going to wrap things up for me, ali velshi is going to pick things up. >> thank you. have a good afternoon. i'm ali velshi and the supreme court handed president trump vindication over the travel ban and looking to convert that win into more money for the wall. backing off from the controversial policies at the border. the supreme court said trump did not violate the law when the united states restricted the number of people coming in from
several muslim countries. came in the form of a tweet, supreme court upholds trump travel ban, wow! >> and then reacted on camera slamming democrats and the media. >> politicians are wrong and turned out to be very wrong. and what we're looking for is republicans i can tell you, strong borders, no crime. what the democrats are looking at is open borders which will bring tremendous crime. ms-13 and lots of others that we don't want in our country. it will bring tremendous crime. >> now, the u.s. customs and border protection said it is no longer turning over parents to prosecutors for illegally entering the country which is a