tv The Last Word With Lawrence O Donnell MSNBC June 26, 2018 7:00pm-8:00pm PDT
illegal, they are distasteful. the judge says in another footnote, the wisdom of allowing all links between individuals associated with president trump's campaign and the russian government to be subject to investigation irrespective of how stale those connections might be is seriously in doubt. so this is interesting. legally speaking, this is probably the last filing between paul manafort in a decision on whether or not he is going to stand trial or seek a plea deal. the clock probably starts ticking on that decision now pretty loudly. but if manafort chooses to stand trial, this same full minuminat judge will be overseeing his case. and he'll be the one hearing it when prosecutors from the special counsel's office approach the bar as they're trying paul manafort. i don't know if that's going to be a problem for the mueller prosecution going forward, but i am newly committed to reading all of the footnotes in all of these rulings after seeing these red-hot ones in this ruling today from virginia that does it
for us tonight. we'll see you again tomorrow. now it's time for "the last word with lawrence o'donnell." good evening, lawrence, good evening, rachel. those really are strange comments from that judge. it's as if he is running for a supreme court seat that could open at some point. >> at one point he edit would have been better to handle this matter with a bipartisan commission in congress rather than appointing a special counsel. really? who asked you. >> but the important thing is he ruled in favor of the special prosecutor. >> yes. >> that's the important thing. >> unequivocally. >> i think what lawyers will tell you is when they encounter a judge who is clearly leaning against them, it just means they have to be so much better in court. >> yeah. >> they know that if the ball is on the corner of the plate, the judge is not going to call it a strike. he is always going to lean one way. so they just have to be perfect. >> and that is a performative judge. we noerve says he really likes to show off. he likes to get headlines. he likes to get his name in the
paper. he has gotten all this praise from president trump for previous critical remarks he made in court against robert mueller and the government's case. in this case, though, you're absolutely right. the ruling is squarely against manafort, squarely for mueller, but he throws in these potshots at mueller just sort of for effect. it will be very interesting to see what that means for the next round in this case. >> thank you, rachel. >> thanks, lawrence. today the majority of the supreme court confirmed what they indicated at the end of last year they were very likely to do. in december of last year, the court allowed the third addition of the trump travel ban to remain in force while the supreme court considered the case. today in a 5-4 decision, the court said the travel ban is constitutional because it does conform to a law which since 1952 has given every president the broad authority to restrict entry to this country that the president finds -- and these interest words of the law -- would be detrimental to the
interests of the united states. and they leave that finding up to the president. the majority of the court said it didn't matter that the president campaigned on the idea of banning muslims because the executive order that the white house wrote does not mention religion. the minority on the court believes that the ban is in efkt a disguised muslim ban. and we will discuss the law and the politics of that ruling later in this hour. also today was the day when trump voters were hit very hard with another shocking disappointment that most of them have not yet heard about because of the news created by the supreme court ruling and the crisis at our southern boarder where twhere the president stil hasn't found the babies, and the endless stream of angry and irrational presidential tweets that an every day. none of those tweets, though, mention what we learned about the national debt today, which is, of course, skyrocketing. to levels only seen during the
last world war. and trump voters don't know that. they have not heard about that today. and so we can add fiscal crisis to the list of crises created by the trump presidency. but still tonight, none is more pressing, more urgently in need of attention and action, immediate action than the humanitarian crisis on our southern border. and so we begin once again tonight with the babies. where are the babies? we still don't know. where are their parents? the trump government arrested over 3,000 children and babies at the southern border before the president announced a change in that policy last week. and today according to health and human services secretary alex azar, there are still 2,047 migrant children in federal custody after being separated from their parents. secretary azar was scheduled to testify at a senate finance committee hearing on the urgent issue of prescription drug prices today.
but the top democrat on the finance committee, ron wyden wanted to talk about something even more urgent. >> how many have been reunified? >> so they would be unified with either parents or other relatives under our policy. so, of course, ift remains in detention, unfortunately, under rules that are set by congress and the courts, they can't be reunified while they're in detention. >> so is the answer? >> no. we've had hundreds of children who had been separated who are now with -- for instance, if there was a another parent who is here in the country. >> i want to know about the children in your department's custody. how many of them have been reunionified? >> well, that's exactly what i'm saying. they have been placed with a parent or other relative who is in the united states. >> how many? >> several hundred. >> of the -- >> 300 plus that came into our care, we probably have 2047. >> 2,047. okay. so that means so far this week
health and human services have held in some unknown way exactly six children. because this weekend health and human services department said they had 2,053 migrant children in custody. this morning the secretary said they had only six less than that, 2,047. today 17 states in the district of columbia asked a federal judge to bar the trump administration from separae ini children and then parents who cross the southern border. the "washington post" reports that the state's attorneys general are asserting in a lawsuit that the practice was an affront to states' sovereign interests in enforcing their laws governing minimum standards of care for children. leading off our discussion, jacob soboroff, msnbc correspondent, and hillary bass, president of the american bar association. she observed immigration court proceedings today in mcall, texas and met with parents
separated from their children in port isabel. jacob, your assessment from what you heard from the secretary of human services today and what it means about what's going on the southern b >> well, w don't know, lawrence. if six isctlly the right number of children reunited by hhs. we had an absolutely bizarre conference call with hhs today where lisa desjardins asked repeatedly three times in a row of hhs officials are you still receiving separated kids? and hhs refused three times in a row to answer that question. so we don'tnow if six means those are the only number of kids that w.h.o. have been reunited. we don't know if they are actually receiving new children and more children are being reunited than only six. lawrence, i just want to read you something i got in my e-mail 30 seconds before we went on the air. this is new from hhs. they're confirming to me that we received separated kids when there is credible jeopardy or criminality.
so yes, we will still receive separated kids. this is not the circumstance under which the trump administration was separating children. but hhs has just confirmed to me separated kids are still coming in, which is why there is some confusion with the number of kids they still have in their custody. they say it's 2,047 as of tonight. >> so jacob, just to clarify, even if the trump policy has been stopped, even if they've stopped doing that, there would still be in the normal course of business as there was in the past, some separated children at the border if the parent is found to have a criminal record that indicates that that parent needs to be separated from the e child or some other reason. >> that's exactly right. that's what they are telling me tonight. another fascinating thing that we heard on this call is that energy 522 kids who have been reunited so far. it was confirmed, again, to us tonight, that number of children that have been reunited were not actually reunited by hhs.
they were reunited by cbp. so that means the number, again, of children reunited with their parents that were taken away from their parents by this policy may be onl a handful by hhs. they may not have reunited any as far as we know until we get this number sorted out with the children that are still being separated coming in versus the children that are going out. still so many questions that they haven't answered. >> and hillary bass, reunited is being used now but it doesn't necessarily mean reunited with a parent. in some cases, they're talking about having these children go to some other relative in the ed stas. >> that's correct, lawrence. and we also spoke to a number of women today who indicated that they had provided information about sponsors in the u.s. for their separated children. one had a husband who was documented and lived in the united states, and she indicated from the first day that she was brought into detention.
she informed them that she had a husband in the united states and that her children should be given to the husband. and yet despite that, after four weeks of being in detention, there has been no effort to reunite the children with their father. so there are all kinds of stories that we heard today that really reflect the lack of transparency in this process. these women who are in detention, many of them have not heard from their children. they don't know where their children are. and no one is telling them what the process will be to allow them to be reunified. some went so far as to tell us we know we have legitimate asylum claims. we would give it all up if you will just return us to our children. and that's a scary thought, because that would seem to te that people with legitimate bases to be in the united states legally are going to give up those rights just to be prevented just so that they can be back with their children. >> we have a graphic on the
bottom of the screen, hhs 2,047 separated children still in custody. i would say hhs says 2,047 separated children still in custody, buzz hillary bass, we still don't know. we can't trust the numbers coming out. we can report what they say and attribute to them that they have said it. but hilarie bass, is there a legal way, do lawyers have a strategy for trying to amass case data from around the country and figure out an independent source of real numbers? >> well, as i told these sobbing women today, american lawyers will not rest until every one of them is reunified with their children. and so we are seeking volunteer attorneys both to represent the parents in south texas as well as the children in whatever city in the united states they are to evaluate their legal claims and
to ensure that there is someone who will be their advocate, to do everything possible to ensure that they will be reunified with their parents. >> what did you see in immigration court today? does it look like a changed policy is in sflas place? >> immigration court, there were 75 people, each of got to spend about two minutes with a public defender to tell them the rights they were waiving by virtue of going through this criminal process and admitting guilt for having illegally crossed the border. but mind you, this is a direct result of a zero tolerance policy. previously, many of these people would have been immediately deported if they didn't have a basis for an asylum claim without going through this kangaroo court of 75 people walking in and raising their right hand and all saying, yes, they were guilty of illegally crossing the border. it didn't accomplish anything. >> jacob, do we have a total?
do we have a real total number? because the media has been using this number, 2, -- low end of the 2,000s that was a june 9th number. and the policy went on for another two weeks after that. have the federal government ever released a total number of children who they separated? >> no. and actually, lawrence, it's not just on the back end, it's on the front end as well. we have been told that that policy before it was announced was sort of unofficially in place. parents were getting separated from their children for the simple act of the misdemeanor of crossing over the border before the official policy actually was enacted. i want to say something about what you said earlier, about independent verification. i'm back in los angeles. i spent the day on the phone here with immigrants rights groups on the ground. i think the biggest central american population in the country, if i'm not mistaken, is hear in los angeles. and those groups are not able to independently verify the numbers of separated children that are on the ground in orr facilities
here, even the ones that have their numbers on the wall in those facilities in order for those grimes to be able to make a call to those groups if they need them that is still being worked out here on the back end by the groups that are supposed to be the ones looking out for these folks. >> and hilarie bass, at what point might these parents lose their parental rights and lose their children to an adoption process that they cannot control? >> the big concern is that these parents get deported while their children are in some distant city. and since we have reason to believe that these records are not accurate, some of those children may have been identified as unaccompanied when in fact they were accompanied with a parent, but they were separated at the border. and it's unclear that any of the documentation that the government bureaucracies currently have is accurate in really telling us which parent goes with which child. >> and jacob, when i was in
texas, i saw a sheet handed out by local community organizers who were trying to track this. and the sheet indicated the kind of children who they believe were held at various facilities, the name of the facility, and it would say boys, ages 12 to 17, something like that, or girls. has the government handed out any official document of that some kind and indicated where within that kind of outline where babies, infant babies and nursing babies are? >> no, absolutely not. in fact, really, the only way or one of the only ways we're able to suss out where folks are and who they are and how old is through the local jurisdictions responsible for licensing these operation. just like the texas department of public health had issued the license to operate casa padre, the giant shelter i went into that was in a former walmart with 1500 boys. for instance, if there is one of those shelters or more of them
here in the city or county of los angeles, the county or the city health department or some other department would have to license thoseilities to operate. if you really want the figure it out, you have to call up all of these local jurisdictions, see what these facilities are licensed for and dig deeper based on that limited information we're able to get at this point. >> well, some observers told me at casa presidente in brownsville that they saw diapers that. >> saw a large delivery of diapers going, in and they believed that they saw soiled diapers coming out. and that's the kind of evidence they're working with down there trying to piece this together. jacob soboroff, hilary bass, thank you both for joining us. really appreciate it. >> thank you, lawrence. coming up, the trump tax cuts aren't just unpopular, they are pushing the country towards bankruptcy. the biggest story that donald trump does not want you to hear tonight is what donald trump has done to the national debt. and we will have some breaking
okay. we are about to talk about the most important story of the day that donald trump doesn't want us to talk about. every day there are stories that donald trump doesn't want us to talk about, and he is lucky because we often don't get to many of the stories, like for example, the rampant corruption in his cabinet from scott pruitt to wilbur ross. but tonight there is one story
above all others that is by far the most important story that donald trump doesn't want us to talk about, the biggest story. remember the $19 trillion? >> we have $19 trillion in debt going very s to $21 trillion because we made a bad budget deal. now we're going to have $21 trillion in debt. well don't have any money. >> we have got a mess in this country. we owe $19 trillion, soon to be $21 trillion. >> we have right now $19 trillion in debt. so i built some of the great assets, low debt, great cash flow, and i say it for a different reason, because that's the kind of thinking we need in our country now or we're not going have a country left. we're not going to have literally, we're not going to have a country left. >> i thought we weren't going to have a country left if we didn't
arrest enough babies at the southern borders. but okay. we're not going to literally, we're not going to have a country left because of the national debt. so tonight donald trump has done everything he can to make sure that as he puts it, we are not going have a country left because as president, he has pushed us up to that $21 trillion in national debt, and he is now on track to reach new record debt levels way, way, way above that. the latest congressional budget office projections of the debt made public today for the first time show that during the trump administration, the debt will dramatically increase every day, every week, every year with no end in sight. the trump tax cuts have significantly accelerated what is now donald trump's rush to a fiscal crisis, much worse than anything he encountered in his atlantic city casino bankruptcies. the trump tariffs are doing their part too. they are already costing jobs in
the united states, even though donald trump believed that the tariffs would save jobs. the trump tariffs have actually created an incentive for american manufacturers like harley-davidson to move production to foreign countries because the european union has announced retaliatory tariffs against the trump tariffs on products sold in europe that are made in the usa. no surprise that they were going to do that. and so harley-davidson quite logically cannot continue to sell harley-davidsons made in the usa in europe thanks to donald trump. so they will make them in some other country. and then sell them in europe. the trump response to that, of course, is a series of angry and utterly incoherent and economically illiterate tweets. the harley-davidson story has been a bad one for president trump, but at least, at least no one's talking about the national debt. joining us now to talk about the national debt, ron klain, the
former chief of staff to vpts joe biden and al gore and former senior aide to obama and david corn, washington bureau chief for mother jones and the co-author of the best-selling book "russian roulette." he is also an msnbc political analyst. ron, it's not easy every day to ck what' the biggest story that donald trump doesn't want us to talk about. but the national debt is it. and it is going to be fascinating to try to see how the republican party turns around, as it has on russia and so many things and decides that debt is good, a higher and higher national debt is a good thing because that seems to be the only way for donald trump to address it. because there is nothing they're going to do to bring it down. >> yeah. i mean, they're not only not going to bring it down, as you said, lawrence, they're skyrocketing it up. this is the story of a promise broken and an odd promise kept trump promise head would get rid of all the national debt, total,
wipe it out while he was president. instead he is going to raise to it a record level. that's a big promise broken. the promise he has kept is he said his deficit would be nowhere near obama's deficit of $400 million. he has kept that promise. they're going run a trillion llar deficit this year. that's nowhere near what obama did in his last year. i agree. they're going have to turn and run. but in the end, right, the bill will come due. and the horrible thing about this is just last week, the house of representatives, the republican house passed a so-called farm bill that cut food stamps, because we don't have enough money to put food on the table of the people in this country who lack it. but we had a trillion dollars for tax cuts that are rung up the federal debt. that's just a horrible set of choice. >> and david, the largest foreign holder of our national debt, which you can hold simply by buying treasury bonds is of course china. so this -- as this debt goes up, as it becomes more burdensome here in the united states, china
gains more and more leverage and control over the president. >> this is donald trump's big con. you played it over and over again. he made a promise, and he caught the headlines. he will get rid of the debt and have smaller deficits. well, you know, the bill will come due. but we're living in a time now where there will be no acknowledgment of that. trump will never acknowledge the real numbers. the republicans will never acknowledge the real numbers. where are doles of the world? they've gone away. no republican cares about the deficit anymore. and even now, the house republicans have said that come the fall, they are going to pass or try to pass another tax bill that would make permanent some of the tax cuts in the previous tax bill, and that would even explode the deficit and the debt much more than in the numbers that came out today.
so they are not doing anything except complaining about spending, because that's the whole goal here. they're going to use this debt to say, well, we can't spend money on the food stamps that you just mentioned. we're going have to squeeze medicare and social security because we're going to have to be paying for servicing the debt. >> and anyone up there hwho has had credit card debt, this behaves like credit card debt. it's the most expensive kind of debt you can encounter. as this debt goes up, the interest on the debt goes up dramatically. and, ron, that interest on the debt eats up in the budget every year. no one mentions it, but it is one of the largest piece of the budget, getting bigger and bigger every year. and it's on track to become the largest spending item in the budget, dwarfing all of the discretionary spending in the budget. and what that means is it wipes out that spending on education, on all sorts of problems, all sorts of issues out there that
all have to go into basically zero spending modes just in order to pay your debt. >> yeah. it seems like trump is running a contest between trying to run up the pentagon budget and run up the debt to see which number can be larger in our budget. interest payments on the debt or increasingly large payments to the pentagon. but look, lawrence, i think the scariest thing of all is we're seeing these kinds of numbers at a time of relative prosperity. sooner or later, the business cycle will turn. and if trump keeps pressing these tariffs, it will turn sooner rather than later. and that means that the deficit will just explode even more. we'll see the trump recession. it will come. and then these numbers will look worse and worse and worse. and the government will be out of dry fiscal powder to try to stimulate the economy or do something about it. tonight's news is bad. but the future news is even worse. >> it's a very difficult subject to run campaigns on because the public does not easily grasp it. and it doesn't have any of the
excitement of some of the other things that come out in the course of a day, especially the stream of trump tweets. david, sorry, we're going have to leave there it for now. we're going to have to go to some breaking news that we have on the campaign tralts tonigils on the primaries. david corn, ron klain, thank you. we have a supreme court case of some real import to consider when we come back. but the utah primary has just been called. it's an important primary. steve kornacki is going to join us now. steve, what do you have on it? >> that's right, lawrence. it's official, if not surprising. mitt romney, the 2012 republican nominee for president making his political comeback. he has won the nomination for the u.s. senate in utah defeating mike kennedy. this makes romney immediately the prohibitive favorite to win this seat, utah state that he won by 50 points, setting up the scenario next january of a senator romney and a president trump and that dynamic. so this result now official.
if this one wasn't unexpected, there was another shocker w tell yut in a little bit here in other party as well. a very busy night all of the sudden, lawrence. >> steve, quickly, before we take a break here, mitt romney has been on a tightrope in this campaign. he has a history of saying very harsh things, accurate things about donald trump, yet he is running in a party that supports donald trump. during the primary, he has had to be kind of careful. does this win tonight liberate mitt romney to say what he really thinks about donald trump? >> it's interesting. potentially. and the other element with utah, don't forget we say republican state. as red states go, this one did not like donald trump. when donald trump ran in the republican primaries, he got 13% in utah. remember, ted cruz beat him by more than 50 points. in the general election, evan mcmullin, the third party candidate who ran as sort of a non-trump guy got 25% of the vote in utah. this is still a very conservative state there are a lot of republicans who do not
like trump. if there is one red state in the country where it is politically safe for a republican office holder to come out and express some problems with donald trump, it's utah. >> all right, steve. we're coming back to you after a break. when we come back, we're going have more from steve kornacki and more about that supreme court decision today. l be rig back. soriasis, little things can be a big deal. that's why there's otezla. otezla is not an injection or a cream. it's a pill that treats psoriasis differently. with otezla, 75% clearer skin is achievable after just 4 months, ... with reduced redness, thickness, and scaliness of plaques. and the otezla prescribing information has no requirement for routine lab monitoring. don't use if you're allergic to otezla. otezla may cause severe diarrhea, nausea, or vomiting. tell your doctor if these occur. otezla is associated with an increased risk of depression. tell your doctor if you have a history of depression or suicidal thoughts, or if these feelings develop. some people taking otezla reported weight loss. your doctor should monitor your weight and may stop treatment.
other side effects include upper respiratory tract infection and headache. tell your doctor about all the medicines you take and if you're pregnant or planning to be. ♪ otezla. show more of you. is it to carry cargo... greatness of an suv? or to carry on a legacy? its show of strength... or its sign of intelligence? in crossing harsh terrain... or breaking new ground?
this is the time to get an exceptional offer on the mercedes of your midsummer dreams at the mercedes-benz summer event, going on now. receive up to a $1,250 summer event bonus on select suvs. mercedes-benz. the best or nothing. 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. it is primary night in seven states, including new york state where we have breaking news. democratic congressman joe crowley who is the chairman of the house democrati caucus has lost the primary to 28-year-old
activist alexandria ocasio cortez. steve kornacki joins us now. this is a big upset. >> this is truly shocking. gwen you say crowley, the chair of the house democratic caucus, crowley, a 20-year veteran of congress. crowley was thought to be the next democratic leader. if and when nancy pelosi steps down, crowley is thought to be the guy who had the votes, who had the relationships who was in position to replace her. and w, just like that, in his home district in queens in a little piece of the bronx in new york, he has been defeated soundly in this primary tonight, as you say by a 28-year-old upstart, alexandria ocasio-cortex. she is a member of democratic socialists of america. she campaigned in particular on an issue we've been talking about a lot over the last week, the issue of immigration, the issue of how to handle the situation at the border. she wants to abolish i.c.e. that is an issue on the left side of the party that may be getting traction.
a victory like this tonight will hasten making its way into the conversation a bit. crowley again was thought to be maybe next year ther of the democrats in congress, maybe a speaker of the house. he goes down in his home district. absolutely shocking upset here. nearly a second upset. yvette clarke is a 12-year incumbent in new york. she is barely hanging on. the race has not been called. she does have the lead right now. that would be two democratic incumbents going down though the scale wouldn't be quite as much. well thought this was going to be the biggest story tonight, michael grimm, the ex-congress man trying to win back his seat against dan donovan, the republican there on staten island. actually, donovan ended up winning this thing soundly done. grimm will not be going back to congress that turns out not to be the big story. it really is, lawrence. this is going to be talked about for a long time about the future of the democratic party. joe crowley not just a long serving congress, he was party boss in the old sense, the chair
of the queens county democratic committee. 20 years ago didn't have to have an open primary there was a back room maneuver that put him on the ballot. he was party boss. he got reelected. look at this. he gets opposition. there is low turnout. there is energy on this side and that is it for joe crowley. >> steve, i have to say having been around new york politics a long time, i am not at all surprised that somebody who has actually never faced a challenge -- if you don't have a democratic primary in that district, you don't have a challenge. no republican is going to even bother to show up on the ballot in movement so joe crowley never faced a challenge. he was never actually tested at the ballot band you have a shifting demographic in a district that includes the queens in bronx. this is old ethnic politics. the irish are on their way to giving up that seat, and they give it up tonight. i don't think they're going to be getting it back. >> this is the district where
"all in the family" was set. it is now 75% non-white. there is the changing demographics in this area, changing demographics in the party, changing demographics in the country. that's a big part of the story. the famous line for joe crowley in new york politics, political folks nationally remember this. when he got the seat 20 years ago, it was his mentor, the former congressman who retired after the deadline, got the committee party to put crowley on the ballot request with no crowley. they asked crowley, the reporters came to him and said is that the right way to really do this? shouldn't you have the election? and he said you know what? they offered me an ice cream cone and i took it. >> that's the way they used to do it, but you can't do that anymore and the demographic change in that district is what you're seeing in that vote tonight. steve kornacki, thanks for joining us. really appreciate that. when we come back, today's supreme court ruling is yet another lesson in how republican voters have been focusing so intently on the united states supreme court and the importance
(vo) you can never have too many faithful companions. that's why i got a subaru crosstrek. love is out there. find it in a subaru crosstrek. ahoy! gotcha! nooooo... noooooo... quick, the quicker picker upper! bounty picks up messes quicker and is 2x more absorbent. bounty, the quicker picker upper. billions of problems. sore gums? bleeding gums? painful flossing? there's a therabreath for you. therabreath healthy gums oral rinse fights gingivitis and plaque for 24 hours. so you can... breathe easy, there's therabreath at walmart.
supreme court ruling is yet alexandria ocasio-corte mine's way better. this one's below market price and has bluetooth. same here, but this one has leather seats! use the cars.com app to compare price, features and value. say goodbye to the one-size-fits-all family unlimited plan. starting now, everyone gets the plan they want, without paying for things they don't want.
mom gets the unlimited she needs, dad gets the unlimited he needs, the kids get the unlimited they need. it's big news from verizon. (shoes squeaking) and you could save some money. (scattered applause) wow. all this for us? yeah, and every other family in america. i think the kowalskis are next. (vo) one family, different unlimited plans on the network you deserve. starting at $40 per line. for my constipation, my doctor recommended i switch to miralax. stimulant laxatives forcefully stimulate the nerves in your colon. miralax is different. it works with the water in your body. unblocking your system naturally. miralax. now available in convenient single-serve mix-in pax. we have more on our breaking news in the new york state primary election tonight. congressman joe crowley has lost his seat in congress tonight in new york city in queens and the bronx, and he has now immediately endorsed alexandria
ocasio-cortez, the 28-year-old activist who defeated the incumbent democrat tonight in the primary. a very, very low turnout primary here in new york city. 57% to 42%. congressman crowley just tweeted i want to congratulate ocasio 2018. i look forward to supporting her and all democrats this november. the trump administration is a threat to everything we stand for here in queens and the bronx, and if we don't win back the house this november, we will lose the nation we love. joining us now this part of our discussion, maya wiley, a former counsel to the mayor of new york. eugene robinson, opinion writer for the past post and msnbc political analyst. maya, you know the critics here in this city. that doesn't strike me as that big a surprise, that the demographic change eventually caught up with the representation. >> i think that's right. if you watched ocasio, she
actually had the most impressive video. and in her video piece introducing herself to the district and really to all of new york, because many of us watched it even if we weren't in her district, she starts it by saying "women like me aren't supposed to run for office." and then she talks about zip codes being determinative of what your opportunities are. she talked about her personal life story of having a puerto rican mother and a father from the south bronx. she was clearly signaling in that video that she was representing what that district really is now, and she also said very explicitly in that video who is this new york changing for? so she had these very clear messages that were really about whether or not the city and joe crowley by extension was actually serving the population that really is representative of that district now.
>> and gene, joe crowley had the kinds of problems that people who have hung around these offices for too long sometimes pick up, stories about a relative who is a lobbyist and perhaps gaining some benefits in his lobbying activity buzz ecauf that. whenever you have a fresh challenger to an incumbent who hasn't even had to get in the boxing ring. >> right. >> right. >> in a couple of decades, it's always ripe for an upset. >> right. it has to be sort of a perfect storm, and it was. obviously, one element of this has to be that crowley didn't pay enough attention to this race. but nonetheless, he raised a lot of money and he certainly outraised and outspent ocasio-cortez. look, she talked about issues that resonated with the voters of that district, or certainly with those who bothered to vote. she talked about universal health care.
she talked about abolishing i.c.e. she talked about the crushing puerto rican debt. you know, in a district that is now about 50% hispanic. and otherwise, incredibly diverse. those are issues that resonated. and joe crowley didn't, frankly, connect with voters the way she did. and i think that's a healthy thing for democratic party. it's a kind of renewal. >> it feels inevitable, if you've been watching new york city politics for a while. mile maya wiley, gene robinson, thanks for joining us in this conversation. when we come back, the supreme court decision that has allowed the president to continue his travel ban. d we gos of our friends. and we found others just like us. and just like that we felt a little less alone. but then something happened. we had to deal with spam, fake news, and data misuse.
that's going to change. from now on, facebook will do more to keep you safe and protect your privacy. because when this place does what it was built for, then we all get a little closer. i mwell, what are youe to take care odoing tomorrow -10am? staff meeting. noon? eating. 3:45? uh, compliance training. 6:30? sam's baseball practice. 8:30? tai chi. yeah, so sounds relaxing. alright, 9:53? i usually make their lunches then, and i have a little vegan so wow, you are busy. wouldn't it be great if you had vestments that worked as hard as you do? yeah. introducing essential portfolios. the automated investing solution that lets you focus on your life.
1952, over president harry truman's veto, congress enacted a new immigration law that gave the president very broad authority to restrict entry to this country that the president finds -- and these are the words of the law -- would be detrimental to the interests of the united states. today a majority of the supreme court said that the president used that authority properly in the third edition of his travel ban executive order because the third edition of the travel ban exit order does not mention religion. that was not good enough for the
minority on the court. in a dissent written by justice sonia sotomayor, she said ultimately what began as a policy. >> explicitly calling for a tal and complete shutdown of the united states has since morphed unit a proclamation putatively based on nional security concerns. but this window dressing cannot conceal an unassailable fact. the words of the president and his advisers create the strong perception that the proclamation is contaminated by impermissible discriminatory animus against islam and its followers. maya wile are and gene robinson are back with us. maya, i think everyone agrees that if a president had put in this kind of restrictive travel regulation and ban on these countries for national security reasons, without ever mentioning anything about religion at any time during the campaign or at any other time, that it would be constitutional. it would conform to the 1952 law. it's that question of what does
the candidate's statements mean when the candidate becomes president and that president issues an executive order. >> and the executive order is consistent with the president's campaign pledge to ban muslims. so i think this is the thing about supreme court precedent is thatave a long history in this country of saying if you intend to discriminate, if it's your intent, then it's not constitutional. now, i'm oversimplifying a bit because of course there were several issues in the case. but this is what's so upsetting about this case is we actually have evidence of intentional discrimination. as a civil rights lawyer, these are the kinds of statements that we would use all the time to establish intentional discrimination. so the fact -- and generally, by the way, when there's intentional discrimination, there's still efforts to hide that it's intentional, which is i think to justice sotomayor's point. so you can try to dress up dirt and make it look clean, but it's
still dirt. so throwing in a few countries that are not in the islamic world in your third iteration, saying that there are national security concerns when two appellate courts said that you didn't really demonstrate that you had sufficient concern, and you promised to do it. you promised to do it, and you had someone after you were inaugurated saying you were going to ban muslims. i think we really have to understand it from that sta standpnt and uerstand that this is really not normal. >> gene robinson, this is another one of those demonstrations of how republican voters seem to be so concentrated on the supreme court, both when it comes to senate elections so that they can -- the republicans can control the confirmation process of justices and on republican presidents, who nominate those justices. and i have many times on this program tried to say that, you know, if nothing else interests you in a presidential election, there is always the supreme
court. there's always the supreme court. i find it a tough sell, but ever since the 1973 roe v. wade decision when the republicans who are anti-abortion discovered that the power over abortion resided in the united states supreme court, they have never, never lost their focus on the supreme court, which is to say the senate and the presidency. >> no, they haven't lost that focus. and if you think about it, i mean for people who are against abortion, who believe that abortion is murder -- i do not share that view, but for people who do believe that, then obviously the supreme court is of supreme importance because that's where abortion rights were recognizedn this country. and that extends to other conservative issues as well. but i think they're all, you know, in a sense riding that
wave that began with roe v. wade. this latest decision as maya pointed out also, seems to be wildly inconsistent with the gay rights decision recently from colorado in which case they specifically looked at the intent of one of the commissioners who decided the case against the plaintiff, discriminatory intent, and said there the baker doesn't have to make the cake. and in this case they refused to look at the president's clear intent to discriminate against muslims, which he proclaimed time and time again. so, maya, to your point about the rewriting of your executive order three times does not remove the original intent. it seems to have removed it for the majority of the justices. >> well, this is what's interesting and important about the dissent from justice fryer
and justice kagan, which they were saying, look, there's a question here that we think the courts have to look more closely at in terms of whether the president established a national security concern. we think there's actually a question here that hasn't been sufficiently vetted by the court. and so therefore we think we should send it back. that would change it obviously if they had come forward with evidence that, in fact, there was some national security concern. part of what the lower court said is you haven't demonstrated it. you have not shown it. >> yeah. it's the case we're going to be talking about long time. maya wiley, gene robinson, thank you for joining us tonight. really appreciate it. tonight's last word is next. before you and your rheumatologist move to another treatment, ask if xeljanz xr is right for you. xeljanz xr is a once-daily pill for adults wrate to severe ra for whom
methotrexate did not work well enough it can reduce pain, swelling and further joint damage, even without methotrexate. xeljanz xr can lower your ability to fight infections, including tuberculosis. serious, sometimes fatal infections, lymphoma and other cancers have happened. don't start xeljanz xr if you have an infection. tears in the stomach or intestines, low blood cell counts, and higher liver tests and cholesterol levels have happened. your doctor should perform blood tests before you start and while taking xeljanz xr, and monitor certain liver tests. tell your doctor if you were in a region where fungal infectionsre common and if you have had tb, hepatitis b or c, or are prone to infections. don't let another morning go by without talking to your rheumatologist about xeljanz xr. don't let another morning go by without talking to and the nx hybridhe 2018 lexus nx with a class-leading 31 mpg combined estimate. lease the 2018 nx 300 for $339 a month for 36 months. experience amazing at your lexus dealer.
new york city politics has a new star tonight. alexandria ocasio-cortez. it's a name we're all going to be learning. she is a 28-year-old activist running for a congressional seat held by joe crowley in queens and the bronx, and she upset the incumbent tonight. the incumbent crowley outspent her 18 to 1 in this race. here is one of the ways she won. here is one of her campaign videos that you can see online during the campaign. >> it's time to fight for a new york that working families can afford. that's why i'm running for
congress. this race is about people versus money. we've got people. they've got money. it's time we acknowledge that not all democrats are the same, that a democrat who takes corporate money, profits off foreclosure, doesn't live her, doesn't send his kids to our schools, doesn't drink our water or breathe our air cannot possibly represent us. >> winning the democratic primary in a new york city congressional race basically means winning the congressional election. that is tonight's last word. "the 11th hour" with brian williams starts now. the breaking news tonight, voters in seven states went to the polls today. there has been a major upset tonight in a big democratic primary. steve kornacki with us at the big board with results. also donald trump scores a victory at the supreme court while critics insist his travel ban remains everything from bigoted to designer racism.