because we're in the me too generation. we have to be very gentle. we will say i will give you a million dollars to your favorite charity. paid for by trump. if you take the test and it shows your an idiot. >> welcome to a.m. joy. not the first time i've seen trump hold unhinged rally. today i'm going to talk about senator elizabeth warren. skills to dunk on him on twitter. she has that presidential exfactor that could actually boot him for office. she also happens to be a woman. trump does what trump does. diminishing her with a racialized nickname and calling into authenticity her roots. which sounds a lot like what he did to another political
exfactor which whom he seems to have a negative obsession. barack obama. spent years challenging he was born in the united states. >> if barack obama opens up and gives his college records and applications, and if he gives his passport applications and records, i will give to a charity of his choice inner city children in chicago, american cancer society, aids research, anything he wants, a check immediately for $5 million. >> that tactic, birtherism, served trump so well that it helped to solidify him as a right wing icon. he's doing it all over again to women, people of color, immigrants, painted him as frauds who are trying to pull a fast one on america. while also taking over america.
and in doing so, he's stoking the ultimate fears of his base. >> a vote for the democrats in november is a vote to let ms-13 run wild in our communities. to let drugs pour into our cities and to take jobs and benefits away from our hard working americans. and we're not letting it happen. >> joining me now, film maker whitney dow. robert jones of the public constitute research. and maria kumar. this is a multifaceted discussion we want to have. donald trump is doing a particular thing where he's demonizing immigrants. casting all immigrants as ms-13 gangsters streaming the across the border. then at the same time, compartmentizing that. you have the reality that americans make up to every
morning where there are children being housed away from their parents, in cages in some cases alone, toddlers, babies. i want to compartmentize that in two pieces. you were on a call that gives us an update of what is going on. what's the update on that. >> so going back a little bit. government basically this week i was on an hhs call. they said we will comply with the deadline to reunify these kids and the first deadline coming up tuesday is the tender age kids. kids under five. they said we have every intent to comply. that same afternoon, just a couple of hours later, they filed paperwork to ask for an extension saying there's some procedures that are going to take more time. yesterday this judge in san diego said you have to comply with the time frame unless you give me a reason to give you an extension. you have to do your due diligence and tell me why you need more time. by 5:00 p.m. today specific
time, the government has to come up with a master list of the tender age babies and basically tell this judge we can reunite this bunch, but we're having trouble reuniting this other category because guess what we deported their parents and now we can't find them. yesterday at the status hearing we heard out of the 101 tender age kids, 19 parents deported without them and 19 parents released to the country and don't know where they are. >> you have been covering immigration a long time. have you ever seen a set of circumstances like this and b the reaction it's getting from the majority of the public, the revolt you're seeing. >> absolutely not. this is unique time in this course. in latinos, of immigrants of all backgrounds. i worked the spanish network before for years. this is not new. we saw the child crisis in 2013. obama deported more than 2
million people. our community has been struggling with this for years, but the images of kids in cages, the public audio really hit a nerve with people of all backgrounds. covering those where are the children rallies, the families belong together rallies, last weekend. i had never seen so many people. asian americans, white american, africans, chanting don't criminalize immigrants. for the first time, i think that americans said we can't not stand for this. it was the administration that gave the optics. >> absolutely. the idea of deliberately separating infants, breast-feeding infants from parents. >> it was too much for americans. holding a show they support some immigration policies. i think with the separation policies, the latest washington poll yesterday. 69% of americans say they can't stand for the separation policies. >> yet, one of the reasons i wanted to have you here today
and robrobby, for the vast majoy of people who heard that audio, it is hard to hear little kids crying for their mammas and papas, but there is a still hardened part of the country that is not moved by the images. you heard them on fox news saying they were on summer camp. you've seen some polling. who you do trust to handle the him graduation overall. 30% trust trump. 38% trust demes in congress. on border security, it is the other way around. who you do trust on border security. trump. 37. democrats, 27. so trump is ahead. there we go. and then one more. who do you trust to do a better job of ensuring immigration doesn't hurt american workers. again, donald trump is winning on that.
he's got 32% trust him to make sure immigration doesn't hurt american workers. the theme here being that around the same% that prefer him period, don't react that way to these images. why? >> i think the immigration is immigration is not a real issue. right. if we look at the historical data, i think we're down from apprehensions of 2000 something like 300,000. immigration is not a real issue. that clip that you played earlier about we have a speech and talks about the things that are driving the immigration debate, this idea of crime, dugs, employment. those aren't real issues either. we're at a historic low level of crime and everybody has been saying is over and over and over immigrants commit crimes at a much lower level. it talks about drugs pouring over the border. our drug problem is a homegrown problem. it's an opioid crisis. we're talking about employment. we're historic low levels of employment. we need immigrants to power our
economy. that's what we need. why is he saying all these things. we're also seeing the it's going to be an issue in this election. i think there's a recent pew poll that said people consider illegal immigration a bigger issue than health care. to me that's pretty astounding in this particular universe. that's really he says it because it works. he's playing on the racial anxieties of a certain segment of this country that is really, really anxious about the fact that our country is becoming browner and we had this conversation the other day. that now with white birthrates declining, with the immigration that i think it's been recently downgraded from 2042 being the country. now it's going to be 2034. real anxiety about it and that's what's driving. >> this is the crux of your
research. you do this really incredible annual survey. you wrote a book called the end of white christian america where it talks about specifically explain for people who are kind of freaks out about the fact that people aren't all universally repelled by the idea of separating migrant parents and children. what is declining immigration. >> i agree with what's largely been said already here. recent pir polling shows 71% opposes policies of separating kids from parents at the border. however, half of republicans do support this policy. i think that's where we're at. even on a policy that's really as an outlier policy from typical u.s. immigration policy. half of republicans are still with the president on this issue. and part of what's going on is there a much bigger issue here that really is a battle over
american identity. and who gets to be in america and what american identity is all about. that's what the 2016 election was really framed over. you have to remember when the country become majority nonwhite. this identity issue is really about a kind of white anglo s saxt saxton. last year was the last year america was white majority. in the last ten years we've gone from being majority christian company to minority white. the change is being felt. bigger battle is being fought out on policy issues that are really rapped up in race and religion and american identity. >> we talked about this a lot. you have this rising brown population, but that politically is still not as powerful as the numbers would suggest.
talk about latino voters who have the potential. in terms of political power, still not really represented. right. so the fear is not just that the numbers will get bigger, but that people will start to realize, wait a minute, i have this much power and that people will start to vote in their numbers. right. so you're seeing this sort of pushback that's pretty broad for you and just looking at it and from voter latinos perspective. is the backlash getting stronger and in your view is this because of trump or is he tapping into something that was already happening. >> i think he's been tapping into something that was already happening. i think the first person that actually started putting this very much on display was sarah palin when she was later flashing this red meet. the base really attracted to it. donald trump took her messaging in spades. i would actually argue what we're seeing right now in the rest of the country with the election of donald trump, is exacerbation of what happened in
california under pete wilson. folks remember in 1993, he created the very first blueprint of exaggerated demonization of immigrants. tried to create that as a platform when he ran for governor, but also to run for president. squashed by the majority of californians. when he was elected into the governorship. he basically create add proposition called 187. i can tell you that shortly after that, they basically were going to deny undocumented immigrants access to medical care, to schools, you name it. this huge backlash monk's californians because they were a rising latino base that didn't exist before. basically what they did is republicans solidified that california was once a swing state to solidly blue state. i can share right now i'm here in el paso texas. you're seeing a whole group of texans registering to vote. you would never guess we're on
the eve of possibly flipping texas, but we are. i can share with you that ted cruz won texas last time, but almost 22 points. running for against him in the senate. basically within striking distance of less than 3%. that is the margin of error. that actually creates an opportunity. what the republicans are trying to do is hold back the future. everything from disproportion natalie trying to purge voter files. those are disproportionately people of color. young people. when you're talking about whether you're going to revoke citizenship from naturalized citizens. most people of color. when you're trying to create arkansas cayarchaic methods. the mean age of a white voter is 54. the mean age of latino voter is 18 years old. the next three years you're
going to see a tsunami of young latinos and potential is untapped. the administration is mobilizings them. they have to have hard conversations every single day with their families where they're being racially profiled. are they going to come home. are their parents going to be there. when they voted in 2016. there is this magnet. that's presented to immigrants around the world. when you're talking to families at ta bordhe border. do they perceive the shift when they're coming and trying to get asylum. they are so traumatized at the violence they're freeing from. they see the united states at the freedom and democracy in the undocumented immigrant will send his child to school.
to achieve and from a personal standpoint, we touched on a little bit last week last year in my home country of venezuela, i had to go down there to get my sister out to give her a chance at life because there's a humanitarian crisis down there. to pick up your childhood bedroom, to put all of your belongings in one suitcase and come here and start from scratch. and seek asylum. and be told there's a four year backlog and you have to somehow survive here until you're told you're able to get asylum or not. >> or america is full. >> absolutely. >> and we were lucky because we were able to come here on a plane ticket. we're able to go to congress woman's office and ask about asylum. these families that are coming, it's almost like what haunts them from the very beginning is they come here by foot. they're poor and fleeing extreme levels of violence. that haunts them and puts them in this never ending cycle that
they aren't able to escape. >> why does that story not move someone. >> i think again, it comes back to incredible, incredible anxiety. they're looking for something outside of themselves to blame it on. it's very hard to say this -- your world changing and the reality is that the united states is always changing. constantly changing and evolving. we've been doing it since we were founded. and, you know, it's also one of the things that's really striking to me. the people in my work, the interviews i've been doing. the people that are most anxiety about immigration, most anxiety about the ship, live in communities that are largely without people of color. i just came back from wyoming where i did a lot of interviews with people. wyoming is one of the whitest states in the country, and there was incredible anxiety around not just immigrants, but black people as well.
and it's really -- that's partially from -- i think it's from the media we consume. not just the news media, but all media. they're seeing a world as fundamentally different from their experience. being shown this world is coming and this is the way it's going to be. it's very very scary. >> we are out of time. you do see signs in your research that is changing and shifting at all or are we just going down sort of the road that western europe is going down. there's a hardened anti-immigrant sentiment in places there are no people of color. >> we do see that pattern that was just described. here's what's interesting. we actually see support dropping for some of trump tease k's key immigration policy. we also see things like preventing refugees coming from the down trichcountry. that has dropped as well. we are seeing outliers.
democrats and independents are actually closer together. republicans are increasingly out on their own with president trump on this issue. the public is really closer to independence and democrats on these issues than it is on republicans. >> i really wish we had more time. we're going have to have it again. this is what's happening. i don't think it's being addressed directly in parts of the country. trump certainly isn't. thank you both very much. up next, shocking new report about an unusual place where migrant children are being held. stay with us.
a disturbing location where some immigrant children are apparently being held. according to the report, a major u.s. defense contractor has contained dozens of immigrant children inside this vacant office building. the building with dark windows, no kitchen and only a few toilets. the building is not actually licensed to hold children. you have to contractor to house migrant children during donald trump's selection. joining me now the piece of reveal from the center for
informationi investigative reporting. thank you for being here. i want to start by letting you quickly walk us through this story. apparently a neighbor spotted this building and what did this person see? give us that story if you could. >> it's great to be here with you, joy. we broke this story yesterday as part of our continuing coverage with what's happening with families separated at the border. this story came to us from a tip. there's a neighbor named leanne d dunlap. she noticed about a month ago, children were being ushered into this unmarked, unmapped office building right next door to her. she started asking questions and shooting video and trying to get attention to what was happening. she sent us the tip and video. we found it so disturbing here at our offices in oakland i got on the next flight the following
morning to phoenix to see what was happening there for myself. i spent time with her. i spent time with her neighbors. they all explained the same thing. over the course of three weeks, they saw dozens of children entering this building which had just been vacant a month before. and coincides with the exact time that we know that children were being separated from their families. the video that we've seen and the accounts that we've heard from neighbors. all tell us that children including toddlers that weren't young enough -- that weren't old enough to walk were being ushered in there and weren't seen leaving for as long as three weeks. >> wow. >> i want to read a statement from mvm, the contractor that was using this phoenix office building. one reveal and this is what they said. one asked about the phoenix office building initially pointed to earlier statement it does not operate housing for immigrant children after learning that neighbors had reported videos of children
entering the building and mvm spokesperson said the building is not a shelter or a child care facility. it's a temporary holding place for children being flown out of the phoenix airport to other locations. did the neighbor have any sense that this was some place that children were being placed while they were waiting to get on a flight somewhere else? what was her sense of how long the kids were in there at a time. >> i looked at the neighbor's cell phone text to her husband on the date of june 4. and she tells her husband something really weird is going on next door. i think kids are being trafficked in there. she didn't -- hadn't heard about the zero tolerance policy, family separation. it wasn't a news item to her at that time. she thought literally kids were being trafficked instead for and really worried about what was happening. she had no idea it had anything to do with immigration at all
whatsoever. as news about this became more and more popular, she connected the two and that's when she realized, oh, this may have something to do with immigration. to be clear, what she saw were just groups of huddledushered b no connection to the kids. what else went in were fruit snacks and water. she had no idea what was happening and water. >> you said the children all look dressed alike. another neighbor per your story asked a worker reportedly what kind of business the employees were conducting. the business of transportation they were told. >> transportation of what, humans the worker added. part of the building was leased in march by mvm virginia based fence contractor received contracts up to $248 million to transport immigrant children since 2014. to your knowledge, is mvm a
company that has any experience in child care or child welfare. >> no. that's not what they do. that's not what their contract is for. their contract specifically is for transporting children. confirmed to us by ice. and as you mentioned. mvm had one version of what it was doing at the beginning. once they knew we had video and had a better idea of what was actually going on, i called it a temporary holding place. we can get into the smaemanticsf what's what, holding place, detention center, housing area, we can call it different things. what we know is children and including these toddlers, i mean, i've looked through the window myself and saw a box marked baby shampoo. i saw a booster seat on the floor. i've seen the videos. i personally have talked to the witnesses, the neighbors, and children were there for a while. whether they could walk out or
no, i don't know. ice told us that it was a waiting area. waiting area as i've experienced is right in front of a train. not an in between place where i'm being detained before i then border a flight. >> we know the building confirmed the building is not allowed to be used for sleeping or cooking, but just for general office purposes, but we just showed thad video. this is a still photo, i believe taken by you guys, the reporter. you can see something labeled baby shampoo and child booster seat there. i hope you'll come back as you update the story. thank you very much for your reporting. >> thank you for having me, joy. coming up. trump wants to meet with vladimir putin alone. what could possibly go wrong? that's next.
conversation conversations. >> conversations in the locker room are different than someone coming up and talking about abuse. >> deploying the locker room defense. denying mounting allegations that when he was an assistant wrestling coach at ohio state university, he ignored sexual misconduct allegations against the team doctor. back in the 1990s. five former wresters have come forward to contradict him. one of the committee to defend the house of the president. worked hard to try to derail the mueller probe is getting a vote of confidence from the president. who told reporters regarding the accusers, quote, i don't believe them. at all. i believe him. jim jordan is one of the most outstanding people i've met since i've been in washington. i believe him 100%. no question in my mind. i believe jim jordan 100%. he's an outstanding man. unsurprising response from a president who faced multiple
allegations himself and wouldn't likely miss an opportunity to defend someone. coming up next, surprising way 8 republicans spent the fourth of july. ask if xeljanz xr is right for you. xeljanz xr is a once-daily pill for psoriatic arthritis. taken with methotrexate or similar medicines, it can reduce joint pain, swelling, and significantly improve physical function. 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 infections are common, and if you have had tb, hepatitis b or c, or are prone to infections. xeljanz xr can reduce the symptoms of psoriatic arthritis.
kgb and this and that. putin is fine. he's fine. we're all fine. we're people. will i be prepared. totally prepared. i've been preparing for this stuff my whole life. >> unlike most of the thing donald trump said, that last bit is true. donald trump has been preparing for this moment for a very ronald reagan long timvery long time. back in the 1980s. trump sold himself in the press as the man who could strike a nuclear deal with the soviets. the u.s. never took him up on the offer, of course. he did meet with soviet leader in july 1987 to discuss what else real estate. fun fact, the other guy on that with trump and first wife was ross pero. he took out full ads.
it's an argument he made many, many times since then and one that happens to serve russia's primary policy goal. disrupting the global order. author of the new best selling book the plot to destroy democracy, how putin and his spies are undermining america and dismantling the west. michael former u.s. ambassador to russia. thank you both for being here. malcolm, my friend. congratulations on the book and success of it. >> you know, the trump 1980s era is kind of fascinating because he had this fixation with russia to the point he got fooled by a fake imposter who showed up at trump tower and he was so eager, he's shoving his way through the crowd. he shoves his way through crowd to get to him to talk to him in 1988. there he is like pushing his way. can we hear it.
here comes trump. >> how are you. >> great how are yo. >> just come down very briefly. we were on our way. only a couple of minutes. >> i like your tie. >> thank you. >> great honor. >> glad we didn't disturb your schedule. it was beautiful. i couldn't have been happier. >> malcolm, if you look. go back to that donald trump. the person who was really fix e fixated on laurussia and saw himself, would russians have paid attention to him from then all the way to now? >> yes. and there are documented soviet era intelligence reports and intelligence evaluations of donald trump from the czech republic, which at that time was check la slovakia. check slackia.
feeder agents to the kgb. they would have known about donald trump. they would have evaluated him as potentially an asset to see whether he could be used and place of course their russian at that time, soviet men in there. and if around him, that trump is for what they are for. that wouldn't actually take place. i think what really took place is by the time the post soviet union, led by the ex-kgb director, vladimir putin. he would still use that information, that background to develop his own picture around donald trump and then craft a narrative around trump using his oligarchs that trump would adopt to the point where trump would think it's all his own idea. and that's how we got to the where we are today. >> it's interesting that vladimir putin was a case officer i believe in east germany. at the time that donald trump was getting fooled by the fake nobody talks about idea of trump
and the russian narrative of the world. here's an example of what seems to be exactly that. i want you to tell me. if you heard an american talk like this. here's an donald trump criticizing nato. >> i said you know angela, i can't guarantee it, but we're protecting you and it means a lot more to you than protecting us because i don't know how much protection we get by protecting you. and then they go out and they make a gas deal, oil and gas, from russia where they pay billions and billions of dollars to russia. okay. so they want to protect against russia. yet they pay billions of dollars to russia and we're the smucks that are paying for the whole thing. >> he's doing it in his sort of comic sans font version of his speeches. it is the way russia views the
world, no? well, yes and no, but let's just be clear that many things that he just said were not true. and when he said in that first clip that he's been preparing all his life for his meeting with vladimir putin, he's got to do a little bit more homework to understand what nato is. first of all, we're not paying for that pipeline that germany is negotiating with russia. i think it's a bad deal personally. the united states is not paying for it. two when he says they've never defended us. that is not true. we were attacked on september 11 and then our nay to alies, including germany, went to afghanistan with us tens of thousands of soldiers to fight with america. they weren't attacked. we were attacked. if i'm not mistaken, joy, i think 54 german soldiers died in afghanistan. i would like president trump to go talk to those families and say you don't do anything for us. and then number three, he's leaving out a very important
fact. we have a national security interest in peace in europe. europe is one of our greatest trading partners. as a whole, our greatest trading partner. we again fit from peace. if we don't have nato in place, there could be war. we know what that looks like. world war one and world war ii. peace through strength an idea that ronald reagan talked about is in america's national interest irrespective of how much germany spends on defense budget. i'm for increasing the spending, president trump just doesn't understand what alliances are about and he demonstrated that in that speech in montana. >> on top of that, malcolm, he seems to view vladimir putin as a, a potential friend of his personally, and almost someone he would take advice on. this is donald trump on fox news june 14 how he would speak with putin if he met with him
one-on-one at the g7. >> as an example, if vladimir putin were sitting next to me at a table instead of one of the others, and we were having dinner the other night in canada d i could say would you do me a favor. would you do me a favor would you get out of syria, get out of ukraine, you shouldn't be there. >> this on top of the fact he also apparently gives out his personal cell phone number to any leader he meets. aids a aides are alarmed he gives out personal cell phone number and says give me a call on my cell. the idea he would view putin as someone for advice on foreign policy. your thoughts. >> donald trump sees vladimir putin as not a competitor, not an adversary, but possibly a mentor to be quite honest. we do not know the extent of donald trump's clandestine communications with vladimir putin.
let's be honest. there have been indicators he has speak espoken to putin behi backs of the entirety of the united states. example, that secret or not so secret meeting between mike pompeo then director of the cia. dan coats director of national intelligence and three members of russian intelligence, two of whom were on the sanctions list, did not materialize out of nowhere. that materialized out of a communication between donald trump and vladimir putin where donald trump invited those russianss to the united states. there is no other way that meeting took place without that. we learned trump spoke to putin in january and putin told him that if the united states were to cancel war games with south korea, that would go a long way to getting kim jong-un to the table. donald trump did that. i think when he goes and meets with vladimir putin, he is going there for counseling. he is going there to get the advice on what he thinks is going to be the great real
alignment of the world. and that realignment is moving america out of the atlantic alliance and away from the united states or washington to great european capitals poll as it's exited since world war ii to a moscow driven poll where moscow will be the leader and donald trump will be his subordinate. >> scary times. sorry. wish we had more time. we will have to bridge you both back. coming back in next hour. turns supreme court into another reality show. dire implications for many americans. progressi iive female joins me after the break. (vo) what if this didn't have to happen? i didn't see it. (vo) what if we could go back? what if our car... could stop itself? in iihs front-end crash prevention testing,
clean food that looks this good. delivered to your desk. now delivering to home or office. panera. food as it should be. . scott pruitt is doing a great job within the walls of the e. we're setting records outside, he is being attacked very viciously by the press. i'm not saying he's blameless, but we'll see what happens. >> we know what happened, scott pruitt is out after months of scandals, most of which to enrich himself and his family.
bad headlines is why he was gone, by trump and others, he was doing a good job, rolling back clean water to fuel economy standards for cars. pruitt leaves an agency gutted by staffing and budget cuts to his second in deman, a former coal lobbyist and one time staffer, who once used a snowball to prove once and for all that climate change isn't real. >> we keep hearing that 2014 has been the warmest year on record. i ask the chair, you know what this is? its a snowball and that just from outside here. so it's very very cold out, very unseasonable. so, mr. president, catch this. mm-hmm. >> joining me now is to him stire, the existence of a snowball doesn't mean there is no climate change. just not true. we've now seen scott pruitt go
bot of the scandals. they say scott pruitt replacing will not be better. it's the worst heavy agency in its worst 48-year history. do you have an issue that weaver could be worse? >> well, joy, to be fair, it's hard to be worse tan scott pruitt. scott pruitt was as bad as it can be in protecting the health and protecting the american people. what what we can tell, it's not that he's worst, he is the same. he has no interest in making this country run based on scientific principles, in fact, he is a paid liar for the fossil fuel industry. >> we know the last thing he did out the door is to grant a loophole in a diesel freight
struck that provides 55 times as much as the emission control. he's changed the way reporting takes place, essentially the e can't report on climate change and its effects on human beings. why would an industry purportedly have families and have to breathe, why would industries want more pollution, i guess, is a blunt way to put nit. >> joy, it's pretty simple. money. the reason that mr. pruitt lied the reason that mr. wheeler lies. and the reason that these corporations are pushing for no pollution controls is they want to make more money, because to actually operate in a clean fashion would mean reducing their pollution. either they have old technologies that can't compete if they reduce their pollution or they don't want to protect, it is not important for them to protect the health of americans. >> when you think about -- >> it's very simple about mouloff. >> money is great.
you think of the people like koch brothers that work so hard, do not burn my industry. if i want to burn fossil fushlgs i'll do it. if 45 -- fuels, i'll do it. in private conversation, do you think they have so much money they can protect their own family against dirty water and be fouled air? >> joy, everybody knows the climate is changing. everybody knows that pollution makes people sick or kills them. so this is a question of them believing that i are more important than the american people. that their income is more important than the health of americans. when the time comes as you said, they'll have so much money, they can move to some place to have purified water, the heck with everybody else. that's what they're doing. >> what can the american people do about it? i can't admit we will breathe dirty water and foul air.
what can the american people do? >> i don't think there is anything that will work other than voting these people out. as we can see, scott pruitt was a liar in every phase of his lie. he was a liar as a head of the e. he was a liar in feathering his own nest. you get rid of scott pruitt through pressure and exposure, they bring in andrew wheeler. so really for americans who want to be healthy, drink clean air, we got to vote these people out or they're going to make us sick so they can be richer. >> wow, dire words. i know you have been an environmentalist for a long time. >> thank you. great to see you. >> more after the break. then our old friends from middle school, our mom, our ex and our boss joined forces to wish us happy birthday. then we discovered our uncle use to play in a band. and realized he was young once too.
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, clickbait, 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. so we can all get back to what made facebook good in the first place. friends. because when this place does what it was built for, we all get a little closer.
as you know, there is now a vacancy on the supreme court. and if you tune in mon at 9:00, i think you will be extremely happy? right? >> after days of teasing a brilliant supreme court pick, donald trump has reportedly narrowed his list to three circuit court judges. well, a planned reality-show style prime time reveal on monday, because, show biz aside, trump's pick will likely shift the supreme court to the right. like roe v. wade the 1973 ruling that extended a woman's constitutional right to privacy
to the right to make her own medical decisions, including about abortion. supreme court nominees vying for nomination tends to tout their respect for precedent at hearings. in an attempt to ease concerns about the landmark rulings, with saw this hat kneel goneil gorsu hearing last year. >> press accidence like family history as judges, it deserves our respect. roe versus wade, i was a president of the united states supreme court. a good judge will decide worthy of treatment like any other. >> that idea respecting press dent will likely be deployed again, as people seek to keep that enthusiasm in check publicly, so as not to lose the vote of key senators in the confirm agency process. in reality, precedent has not always been a deter rent for
justices in ruling against upheld landmark case, once trump's pick is confirmed, make no mistake about it. a majority court would have the vote to overturn roe. which if it happened would instantly affect reproductive rights in dozens of states across the country. including my is senior vice president at the new school and analyst and writer and director and a former assistant watergate special prosecutor. thank you all for being here. i know you are at a disadvantage on remote. i want to first start playing trump in 2016 running for president is asked about directly overturning roe. here's what he says. >> do you want to see the court overturn roe v. wade? >> if we put another two or three justices on, that's really what will happen and that will happen automatically in my penalties, because i am putting
pro-life justices on the court. >> well, that's the promise that he made. we now have some dualing headline the washington examiner goes all in, overturn roe, just do it. get a justice on there. the "wall street journal" calls that sphere a scare campaign. the "wall street journal" saying, no, it will not happen. people are being his terrical about it. dan? i, you have a piece up on msnbc.com. you say the magic words, stare dede seiss is. . . -- stare decisis why it won't happen in. >> first, the idea whether or not roe is not overturned is a show of hands of current justices and a poll whether they like abortion or are anti-abortion, that's where stare decisis comes in.
it's the idea the court follows precedent. everybody agree the reasoning behind roe stands on shaky ground. it rests on the idea that the radio it to privacy inherent in an abortion emnates, that it glows from the rights of the constitution, even though i not explicitly in the text. but the reality, over the last several decades, people have to rely upon that right. it is a right created by the court. these are things courts decide whether or not to overrule precedent. it considers the fact that people have relied on this right. it would be taking away a constitutional right if it overturned roe. >> you have a different penalties. go. >> i do have a different penalties. not in danny's primary point. which is unlike trump's statement, justices can't just wake up one morning and say, oh, that's not the law of the land anymore. right now i no longer think the constitution protects a woman's right to choose him it has to
come through cases that come to the supreme court that accepts the case to be heard. >> right. >> then it has to go through a lengthy argument, receiving briefs, making a decision. but what it does do we have sonar rowed. we have 29 states in this country have have restricted women's access to making reproductive health choices. mississippi literally has said it's 15 weeks now. 15 weeks you have to get an abortion. there is one and the supreme court said now it is whether there is an undue burden of your right to access an abortion, what we've essentially created is a way for the court to so greatly narrow to support state laws that basically make it near impossible in mississippi, 91% of women do not have an abortion clinic in their county. there is one provider in the entire state. >> yes. >> essentially you can make it so burdensome, call it
constitutional. say you didn't overturn roe v. wade and essentially have women not able to make choices over their bodies. >> danny, on the question of beyond the different ways, that you know the courts could be used and legislations used to restrict o'borgs rightabortion talk about stare decisis the magic word, they have turn it out. he repeatedly rejected and called into question long standing supreme court president, most honestly justice gorsuch joined other conservatives to overrule a 41-year-old precedent upholding state laws to acquire now members to pay their fair share, he threw it out. you have seen the conservative majority, bush v. gore. he will make this ruling which will give a republican in our
party the white house, don't ever do it again. iflts not like they are krin consistent. they kind of do what they want. >> janice is one example of one instance where they overrule and other than janice, the reality is other than janice, this does not happen very often. it's hard to find precedence overruled, the reality is that case just came down. a lot of people are pointing to it as an example the people security will overrule precedence, yes, it will. >> does it do it when it is the ideal logical bent of that majority? clarence thomas is very clear, he wants roe gone. he is not shy about it. maybe the courts now seem to be another extension of politics. >> that a lot of americans don't trust them to do what the courts
typically does, their five conservative republicans will do what they want. >> i think this is the point, we have come to a place where the supreme court has become as poll zant and they nominated fairly centrist jurists. merritt garland being a prime example. >> that didn't work. >> so we have so politicized the process now people see it as another version of what's broken inside the beltway. i will aanother priority is not stare decisis not hearing a case not to hear can essentially 81 mine rights and privileges that people have currently protected. take the death penalty, the court turned down two death
penalty cases that will call in question the constitutionality. that's a part of the power of the majority that doesn't overrule the president but can impact literally people's lives. >> i'm going to you first, one of the front runners, amy coney barrett, religious conservative personally. this is how she responded when asked if roe v. wade can be overturned. >> i think the question is how much will the states allow in abortion. i don't think the core case that women have a right to abortion. i don't think that would change. the question of whether people can get late term abortions, how many restrictions can be put on clinic, i think that will change. >> does that make you believe as danny does, it's unlikely this court, even if you put another
gorsuch on would overrule roe? >> well, the issue is really what amy barrett just said. you know, roe has existed in name only for so many women in this country for so many years. there have been on a state-by-state basis over a thousand restrictions put in place since roe was handed down. and when the casey versus pennsylvania decision came about in '92, it said the measure was an undue burden, no one defines what the undue burden was. so the reality is that the incursion and erosion of reproductive rights has been occurring all across the country. i think there is only nine or ten states where that right is secure. because if you do not have access. if you do not have health care
that will cover an abortion and as a result of the ban on medicaid covering that, you do not have the opportunity to exercise those rights. so in many ways the debate over the constitutionality and precedence is not going to fess the majority of the women in this country who do not have access and for whom the undue burden does prevent the exercising of their rights. >> i think it's an important point. the politics of this jill winebanks is there as well the restrictions are happening regardless of whether they get to the supreme court. they're already happening. four women republican senators, the politics are very dicey right now. susan collins and lisa murkowski of alaska and susan collins of maine are really under the gun to not approve a justice who would overturn roe. here is how susan collins responded of how she would react
to a supreme court pick who might jeopardize the right to abortion. take a listen. >> i think i've made it pretty clear that if a nominee has demonstrated hostility to roe v. wade and has said that they're not going to abide by that longstanding precedent, that i could not support that nominee. >> so doesn't that mean as long as the person says stare decisis, sui soon collins says they can vote for that person, it means press dent? >> it does mean that. you are correct. that's the wrong question the question is how much whittling away will susan collins and others allow? how much of a new justice be able to narrowly define the undue burden. sydney is correct. that's where we are at. roe has been limited by this
concept of it's okay to regulate it as long as it doesn't present an undue burden on the rights granted by rowe, what is an undue burden can be defined, for example, ohio has passed a law that says six weeks is the limit on when you can get an abortion. most pooim women do not know they're pregnant during that period of time. so, of course, to me that is a clear undue burden. but to amy conand barrett, it may not be and that's why this choice is so important and there is another important issue we need to look at in what is happening at the supreme court and the nominee. >> that will be that there is a lot of other issues that threaten our rights that need to be taken into account and the question of how this justice will be able to vote or whether he'll have to repeat or she will have to recuse themselves on issues of can the president be
indicted? because that's likely to come up. it's a reason why they should not have the vote right now. we need the investigation of president trump completed before it ever happens. >> jill winebanks, expertly teased, very quickly, what's your penalties today, jill? >> today is a swamp creature, we've gotten rid of one of them. there is a lot more to do. the swatch is not drained. >> if you are not following jill's instagram. great debate. our panel, penalties wise, you were outnumbered. >> it was lively debate. >> we appreciate. we love having danny on. great to meet you. a friend of the show. up next.
roe v. wade. we'll tell you the other ways the supreme court pick could damage america. yay, stay with us. and now for the rings. (♪) i'm a four-year-old ring bearer with a bad habit of swallowing stuff. still won't eat my broccoli, though. and if you don't have the right overage, you could be paying for that pricey love band yourself. so get an allstate agent, and be better protected from mayhem. like me. can a ring bearer get a snack around here?
>> women's autonomy over their own bodies and reproduction are not the only rights hanging in the balance as donald trump gets ready to nominate his second nomination to the supreme court. a reliably conservative justice could arrange affirmative action, labor rights and voting rights, too, just to name a few. the new justice could very well be called upon to weigh in on the mueller investigation, deciding, for example, whether the president could be subpoenaed or whether he could be pardoned, himself. thank you all. i'm going to go if reverse order of those issues and start with you, paul butler. this next justice, one of them, kavanaugh has already given an penalties on the criminal prosecution of presidents. back in 2009, kavanaugh written in the past that congress should consider granting a president
definitely from criminal proceedings while in office. no single prosecutor, judge or jury for the congress he wrote. kavanaugh wrote for ken starr on his investigation into bill clinton and said that work shaped his views on this, he said congress can and should impeach presidents that complete dastardly acts. the possibility that trump could put that person on the court, how worried are you about that? >> so kavanaugh is the establishment candidate. he is preferred by the dc types as judge barrett, the young woman from ohio, preferred by the social conservatives. so kavanaugh, he served for ken starr. he worked on the committee, or the prosecution that investigated bill checkpoint, so he had the one hand based on that experience, he doesn't think the president should be subject to civil lawsuits or criminal investigations while in office, but, joy, on the other hand, he joined that starr
report that tells that bill clinton should be impeached for lying to congress or lying to his staff and lying to the american people. so if that's the bar for impeachment, trump would have been out of here a long time ago. >> that certainly with come up in the confirmation hearing. >> he seems to be the front-runner. >> that seems who donald trump cares more about, getting rid of abortion rights or prosecution. point/counterpoint. here first and richard blumenthal last sunday on what the issue the president should be able to put on the court to protect himself. >> the president should not be permitted to appoint a justice who will decide whether or not he complies with a subpoena to testify before a grand jury or pardons himself. i believe that whoever is appointed ought to recuse himself and commit from those kind of decision that affect the special prosecutor
investigation. >> oh, no, says the best friend of lindsey graham, one of his chief opoints, he says, oh, no, no, no, that's not true. >> the idea that you can't judge somebody who picks you is probably not a grounds for recuse am. a conflict of interest in the law is different than just again you can't judge anything trump did because he chose you. that's not a conflict of interest under the law. >> does that worry you, matthew? >> lindsey graham's views on this and other issues have been malleable is the best way to describe it. look, no one in this country is allowed to pick the person that prosecutors or investigates them or the judge and jury that sits in judgment of them. it would be a break with that principle for donald trump to pick someone who would weigh in on these very important questions we know are live, a report last night about the fact that the president is leaning towards, we can use, take
they're leaning to mean concluded. he's not going to do an interview with the special count sell, i don't know if that means mueller will subpoena or not. if he does subpoena him. >> that will be decided by the supreme court. donald trump, you know, it's not really a theoretical question here, you have cavanaugh's writing out there in black and white. trump can look at these writings and see what he thinks and know how he will rule or is likely to rule on the question in making that decision, whether to appoint him or someone who hasn't opined on this question. so i think the question of whether he should have to recuse himself is a real one. that's something the senate ought to expect him to do. >> beyond this issue of whether or not donald trump could inoculate him. what else worries you potentially about this new 5-4 majority can do? >> there is a lot we should all
be worried about. we are looking at everything from access to higher education and where and how colleges and universities can decide how to create the educational environment that will make us competitive as a country. >> didn't a michigan judge rule that students don't have the constitutional right to read? go on. >> we are debating whether we should have social studies in michigan. putting that aside. we have the issues of voting rights. we have seen a dramatic kur tamement and baring of people from the ballot who have a constitutional right to vote. >> that kind of question will continue to come up u up as states challenge people's right to vote. we will see issues related to criminal justice coming up regular and the one i don't want us to forget because it's so important to our democracy is what corporations can do as people. so we have the 14th amendment of
the u.s. constitution, which was created to ensure former slaves would have the full rights of citizenship in the country has turned into a tool to protect corporations' about to drive our decision-making as a country over citizens. >> yeah. >> and whereby have more case leak th like this, which decide how they can essentially direct our democracy. >> palm. >> so many crucial issues, what the court reversed that. what about the right of our transgender, people in the transgender community, labor rights, the court dramatically reduced the power of labor unions. it can go further in that direction. the year i want everyone to think of is 2050. the president is appointing or nominating young people in their 40s or 50s who could easily serve to join, you and i can be here, can you believe what justice barrett did today?
>> i'll give you the same question. what are you most worried about? >> it's the durability on the supreme court we are about to see. one of the things we hear about is destiny the merging of sort of the obama coalition. you know, all we need to do is for democratic voters to vote. if we have a five seat majority to strike down the laws for years to come, we will look at this with a lot of regret. thank you all for being here and still to come, vote on the court. you think the court has a voting issue. it isn't for democrats, it is for conservatives. democrats are getting all this advice. we'll sort out the good from the bad and a rising star will be here leave. stay with us.
my name is cynthia haynes and i am a senior public safety specialist for pg&e. my job is to help educate our first responders on how to deal with natural gas and electric emergencies. everyday when we go to work we want everyone to work safely and come home safely. i live right here in auburn, i absolutely love this community. once i moved here i didn't want to live anywhere else. i love that people in this community are willing to come together to make a difference for other people's lives. together, we're building a better california.
long time msnbc ed schultz passed away. he will be learned for his fiery technique and his devotion to his wife wendy and his family. he was literally a member of this show and someone who offered me the up thet to fill in for him on the weekends. he had a few hidden talents. take a look at this moment, literally from five years ago to today. >> let's do the cuban shuffle. >> five, six, to the right, to the right. to the right. to the left, to the left. to the left, the left now kick, now kick. now kick. common baby, kick. to the right to the right.
two motorcycles, a boat, and an r.v. i would not want to pay that insurance bill. [ ding ] -oh, i have progressive, so i just bundled everything with my home insurance. saved me a ton of money. -love you, gary! -you don't have to buzz in. it's not a question, gary. on march 1, 1810 -- [ ding ] -frédéric chopin. -collapsing in 226 -- [ ding ] -the colossus of rhodes. -[ sighs ] louise dustmann -- [ ding ] -brahms' "lullaby," or "wiegenlied." -when will it end? [ ding ] -not today, ron.
the administration fought back against this idea that children are kept in cages at detention facilities. here at the border control facility, that is exactly what we saw. she says it's horrible. they didn't let them say a few word of good-bye. >> we need to work every day from now until the election. for your family, for your community. for your country. for your constitution. and this november i need you to get your friends, get your colleagues, get your neighbors and get your [ bleep ] out to
vot vote. >> it's easy to say democrats must heed that message as well. they need to net two to take over the senate. the party is at a krocrossroads get there. the another camp believes it's the group hostile to trump in style and agenda. joining me now, a former african outreach director is running for office himself in arizona. former znc chair howard dean and jimmy williams. a power panel. so let's start with the numbers. washington post-abc poll. who would you vote for?
generically. however, of course, the caveat be being terror citing the grand center for justice, reports due to gerrymandering. democrats would need to win the popular vote by 11 points. they need to win by 11 points. can democrats do it? i think democrats have a real opportunity. if they continue do it. we will have probabilities the enthusiasm is on the democratic side. what's different is this energy, activism and enthusiasm has been sustained. i do think there are a few risks. number one the secret trump voters, those are the people who are more affluent, more educated. we den know if they're necessarily saying when they're polled whether or not they support trump. we don't know, they privately
support trump, publicly, he's an embarrassment to them. so that's a problem the other group democrats need to be concerned about, democratic voters, we have a tendency they are paying attention to cable news, reading voraciously about the different candidates and their policy positions. that's not the case. we have to reach out to those people who may not vote in each election, maybe in presidential, or not every presidentials. we have to make sure we are actively reaching out to those groups as well and keep in mind they may not be paying attention to every trump horrible policy initiatives and things that trump is saying. those are the risc, with women the dependser, plus 55 in recent polling that's unheard of. democrats can a not fight over
certain things. that's got to be addressed. democrats need to address the districts based on the needs of those districts. >> let me break those down him i want to first go to howard deny. the used to be your job to figure this out. let's start with the question of the secret trump voters and that ron brownstein question. this idea of spending money to go and try to convert suburban white voters who voted for donald trump, is that a worthwhile spend on the part of democrats rather than registering younger voters, voters of color who would naturally be democrat in. >> it really depends on the district the biggest success have been in trump district, plus 11, plus 15 even in the state senate races and the
congressional by-elections. so that is not a strategy that's ridiculous. i think the most impressive thing is the stacy abrams victory. the two stacy, they were great candidates. one, stacy evans is a great person. let's get enough whites over to our side and energize the african-american base, stacy abrams believes in the new way, which is to get your base out there and move people towards you by being a candidate of conviction, conviction politics is what they have lacked other than president obama in his races in the mid-term. so i think that you need to do boat. i don't think there is an either or, or infighting in the democratic party. it's inside the beltway. it gets all the headlines. it's bs. what is going on on the ground is young people taking over the party, running good candidates,
whether it be conor lamb, a moderate. or the young lady we are about to have on, which is smart we can win both ways. >> you are running yourself. which is it? when you are running? is it more about trying to convert white suburban women and spending money on that? >> right. >> or about getting new voters, young voters of color in. >> i'm looking at voters of color. look at the trend in america right now. you have been jealous and just won the governor's race. >> primary. >> you have a david garcia over in arizona right now who is literally leading the polls over there, they are reaching out to young folks of color. this is the way the narrative goes. also, they are saying something. there is a big difference. we have ran moderate races in the past, the party decided we will be non-trump. that's what we can do anymore.
we have to say things. so if you notice medicare is an issue folks are galvanizing around. i.c.e., people are having a good reaction to when it comes down it to. state house races, making sure the education is fully fund, saying it, than assuming voters will vote for you because they're mad at donald trump. how do we do it? we galvanize the youngest parties. the 18 to 24-year-olds, they are progressive they don't vote for regular mid-terms. we seen in this cycle. >> that they are voting. if we actually give them reason to vote. >> jimmy williams. is the spend smarter to try to convert trump voters into democrats or try to register new voters who already lean democrat? >> the first rule in politics is
asking people to vote for you. if you don't, why should you? so i guess mied a 52 is to a conor lamb or a young woman or anybody else running for office is few don't ask people, human beings to vote for you, why should they get off their [ bleep ] and have someone vote for you. it doesn't mean have you to be a liberal democrat or a conservative democrat. in the end, i don't care what your mr. clintons are. i care you care about other people. you know how to get off your butt and vote. trump is right about this. this idea that the democratic party is divided is simply not true. there is a lot of buyers remorse in america. i'm in south cloivenl i've seen plenty of it down here. people that voted for donald trump who now regret that vote and want to have an alternative. there's the problem. the election of donald trump is not until 2020 we have four
months until we have the next election where all these people are running. my onlied a voice would be get off your butt. go vote. if you are a candidate, get someone out there, say, hey, knock on doors. will you vote for me? joe crawley is a friend of mine. he lost that race for several reasons. the first and foremost, he wanted the machine and thought it was going to turn out for him. what did she do is this she knocked on doors and had a cadre of people asking for their vote. she won. >> she'll win. she will. >> my point is this. is for the vote. >> i'm giving you $100 for your next campaign. how do you spends on conversion, new voters? tearing that down? >> the bulk of my money goes on getting my base out. >> base gets how much? >> base probably gets about 70%. new voters i'd try to convert
are not necessarily trump supporters, i try i to speak to people based on locally in a district that people care about. >> super voting democrats will vote for democrats no matter who comes out of the primaries. >> how much money are you giving to the base? >> how are you spinning the big budget? >> exactly that way. 20 bucks to new voters. >> jimmy williams. >> 80-20, old-new. >> marcus farrell howard dean spent $400 before your eyes. coming up at the top of the hour, why north korea is calling the latest talks of the u.s. talks regrettable. up next the star of progressive politics, everybody is talking about her. we will be talking to her. she joins me live.
should have access to dignified health care, should be able to see a doctor would you tell going broke, which means you should be able to send your kids to college and trade school if they so choose, no person should feel precarious or as our econ. >> it may wind up being the biggest political upset of the year. alexandria ocasio-cortez. stunning defeat of long-time new york congressman joe crowley in the democratic primary. a 28-year-old democratic socialist beating a man who some saw as the next speaker of the house if democrats retake control. her victory is sparking the perennial political media debate about the future of the democratic party. republicans say it proves democrats are moving too far to the left. >> the energy in the democratic party is self-avowed socialists. open borders? i think the democrats are going hard left. >> the party has been drifting leftward for quite a while. now just have candidates prevailing in primaries. >> he spent $3 million. had much more in the bank and he
just flat-out lost. meanwhile let's talk about -- >> to a socialist. did i mention that? >> joining me now is the democratic nominee for new york's 14th congressional district, alexandria ocasio-cortez, congratulations. >> thank you so much. >> i think there's a bit of a phony debate about democratic socialism right? do you feel that the debate is phony? >> i do believe it's a phony debate. because at the end of the day, this campaign and what this movement is about is about the core issues impacting working-class americans across this country and it resonates and we know that it does. >> one of my favorite facts about the 14th district is that it's literally where they shot to open all of the families, archie bunker's district, had he been a real person. in the '90s, the white population was even, by 02002, redistricting was 28% in 2012 is merged with the seventh. so there's 35% of the district
is the bronx. 25% white. and more like, more affluent white voters. among that, it's a much less white, much more minority district what do you think resonated among those voters? why did they pick you over crowley? >> i think it was a lot of things. one i think we were speaking to a lot of issues here locally in new york that aren't being discussed i think with the candor that they need to be. families can't afford to stay in new york. >> gentrification. >> gentrification, and it's gentrification and cost of living. because people can't afford their rent and nobody is talking about it. so when we talk about how the corrupting role of new york city money in politics in particular, when we speak to these truths and talk about health care and talk about housing, that resonates with voters. and we won across demographics, we won with 57% of the vote. we won with white voters, black voters, latino voters, south asian voters. we voted across, won the vote across elect rats, i think it's
important to communicate that. >> we've been talking about the immigration issues at the border, what would you see, you ran on an abolish i.c.e. campaign if i.c.e. went away what would replace it? >> a lot of what we need to talk about, is what values our immigration system has been legislated on. the original roots of the immigration system was the chinese you can collusion act and our immigration system is built on a premise of exclusion. it's built on a premise of choosing who we want out instead of who we want in. and i think that really we need to reexamine the values on which and values of inclusion and values of what this country is about when we talk about our immigration policy. >> i want to show you, a video from chicago. there's an taint violence march shutting down right now. father flagler, one of the mentors to president barack obama is leading a huge rally on
gun violence. >> i think we need to be unafraid to take a strong, clear stance on gun reform. i'm supportive of reinstating the ban on assault weapons. i think that many members of our military need to go through years of training in order to have access to these weapons, and the idea that a 17-year-old can walk into a shop and get one i think is completely unacceptable. >> what are the most important things that you would want to do if you get -- it's like, it's a very democratic seat. >> i got to work for it. >> as a matter of fact, you're already using the star power that you gained to help other candidates. which means you've got to be pretty confident that you're going to win. >> i think what it is is that we need to show a movement. even before the win in this race, i communicated to voters that this and my candidacy and my campaign was a movement campaign. a movement candidacy. and i believe that the strength of my individual candidacy has to do with the fact that i'm one of many. there's 68 congressional races nationwide that are refusing corporate and lobbyist money in the democratic party.
i don't think that it's, this zero-sum understanding of political capital is correct in this day and age. by supporting other candidates, i myself get stronger and vice-versa. >> what do you want to do most importantly in congress? >> i think we need to address these bread-and-butter issues, i hope that my role within the party is hopefully to be a voice of clarity on, on housing, on health care, on education. and climate change. and i hope that i can really push some of those issues forward. >> should new york reform its voting system in terms of maybe having one primary instead of two? >> of course, new york is one of the most, is one of the worst offenders in voter suppression. we don't think about it because we vote blue in presidential elections. we're one of the only states that doesn't have mail-in voting. early voting. you have to register for your party a year before the primary in some circumstances. and if we're going to have, if we're going to talk the talk, we need to walk the walk and we need tone franchise every new yorker in this state.
>> alexandria ocasio-cortez, the very likely next congressperson from the 14th district. the democratic district. a new political star in the democratic party. congratulations. >> thank you so much. more a.m. joy after the break. (vo) what if this didn't have to happen? i didn't see it. (vo) what if we could go back? what if our car... could stop itself? in iihs front-end crash prevention testing, nobody beats the subaru impreza. not toyota. not honda. not ford. the subaru impreza. more than a car, it's a subaru.
studio. you know why i first noticed her. is because her name is alexandria. and my name is alexa. >> now so that everybody else. good to know. let's go with all this. >> a good day to all of you, i'm alexandra witt. north korean officials call nuclear deal talks with the u.s. regrettable. >> it's truly predictable. even the criticism that many people were expressing in and after singapore, that there were no details in the very vague pronouncements and declarations from both pump and kim jong un. >> less than a month after president trump met with kim jong un, questions about whether the deal to denuclearize is about to implode. plus, prove it -- a new report