tv Morning Joe MSNBC July 10, 2018 3:00am-6:00am PDT
relationship with president trump. >> nato members must finally contribute their fair share and meet their financial obligations. >> mr. trump -- mr. president -- ♪ keep smiling, keep shining knowing you can always count on me ♪ >> putin's fine. he's fine. ♪ that's what friends are for for good times and bad times ♪ i'll be on your side forever more ♪ >> there's a special place in hell -- >> it's kind of insulting. ♪ that's what friends are for >> and i never asked once what the new nato headquarters cost. ♪ well, you came to me and now
oh, yeah. president trump heads to europe this morning after selecting his nominee last night to the u.s. supreme court. he leaves the senate to battle over judge brett kavanaugh, while nato allies brace for their own confrontations with the american commander in chief, and what a history they already have in such a short time. welcome to "morning joe." it's tuesday, july 10th. with us we have msnbc contributor mike barnicle, former chairman. republican national committee michael steele and nbc news national plit reporter heidi przbyla is with us. a lot to talk about. quite a late night for everybody watching the big announcement. we'll get to the president's supreme court pick and his nato trip in a moment. first, the gallup pool shows president trump's approval
rating slipped into double digit negative territory as 56% disapprove and 41% approve. this just three weeks after trump received the best marks since the first days of his presidency in mid-june only to have his ratings turned back in a negative direction. this was the same time period that his administration's family separation policy at the southern border came into public view. we'll get to developments in that story ahead, but-the numbers are staggering. >> briefly, willie who could have ever imagined ripping children from their mothers breasts at the border. >> and then lying about it. >> and losing the children and then saying you're going to get them back and then you can't get them backened we're still trying to figure out where the children are, who would have ever guessed that would actually hurt a president's approval rating? >> interesting for a guy so obsessed with numbers thought immigration was a winning issue including this issue of separation of families because he believed his base thinks
these people are breaking the law. break the law, there are consequences for it. there have been consequences and his poll numbers tout add couple weeks ago as the gal jum number ticked up is now back where it was. >> and mike, along with the supreme court pick we'll talk about, this is something republicans are all going to have to answer for in every swing district, every district that hillary clinton carried that is now being held by a republican. i mean, this is just a monumentally stupid, immoral and politically short-sighted approach to border security and you can see, there's a direct overlay between when donald trump started having his administration push a policy that ripped children from their mother's arms to his poll numbers going down. >> the numbers are proof of the fact while he can find a potential supreme court justice, he has found a supreme court nominee, he has lost his administration and the
republican party has lost hundreds of children. literally. they don't know where these children are. they can't reunite these children, these infants in cases, with their parents. >> we're talking about children under 5. i think up to 50, literally, they can't find their families. >> actually between 50 and 100 children. >> but the -- the lives that hang in the balance now is up to 2,000. again, no access. again, no answers. again, no process, which shows that when they put this policy in place and said they hoped that people get the message they had no clue as to how they might be able to track these people and bring them families back together which shows such an extreme callousness and lack of humanitiy when it comes to americans values and families. >> that's it. the american people are pretty smart and they can understand, okay. he makes a nomination. brett kavanaugh.
what they can't understand is how do you send parents to honduras and children to new york? >> and leave them here. >> all right. we'll get to that, but certainly those poll numbers are interesting. w we want to get to the supreme court pick. last nime last night in a primetime announcement, the nomination of judge brett kavanaugh to succeed jud judge kennedy. >> no one in america is more qualified and no one more deserving. >> tomorrow i begin meeting with members of the senate, which plays an essential role in this process. i will tell each senator that i revere the constitution. i believe that an independent judiciary is the crown jewel of
our constitutional republic. if confirmed by the senate, i will keep an open mind in every case. and i will always strive to preserve the constitution of the united states and the american rule of law. >> kavanaugh is a graduate of yale law school and clerked for justice kennedy in 1993. he met kenneth starr during a justice department fellowship and became a key staff member when starr was the independent counsel investigating the whitewater and the clinton lewinsky scandals. kavanaugh helped write the final report to cons laying out 11 possible grounds for impeaching president bill clinton. kavanaugh later sherved as geore bush's white house counsel and kavanaugh was confirmed by a vote of 57-36.
meanwhile, a professor at yale law school, an op-ed was penned in support of his colleague's nomination entitled "a liberal's case for brett kavanaugh." he writes in part, "in 2016 i strongly supported hillary clinton for president as well as obama's nominee for the supreme court judge merrick garland, but today it is hard to nominate anyone as strong as him." >> and the actual people that sit on the united states supreme court, he believes kavanaugh is most qualified to sit there, and unlike even -- said unlike justice scalia, kavanaugh is deeply immersed in the history of the court and believes that he's about -- he's as good a
selection as any republican president could make. >> yes. senate democrats will put up a fight whoever this was. we know the fight is coming. they've talked about that last night, but the truth of the matter where there are progressives that will disagree on guns, apportions and presidential power, this is not a wild judge shapiro pick people are fearing, this is a qualified guy, a guy qualified for this job, this is a guy who's been supported by president bush, jeb bush, john mccain. conventional republicans, establishment republicans. not a wild-eyed choice, and probably smart by president trump because it makes it difficult on democrat whose say the world is coming to an end because of his supreme court pick. >> and difficult for dems to paint him as a wild-eyed fanatic. >> oh, absolutely. >> and it also puts the
republicans -- it puts -- it puts the republicans, the two republicans thinking of voting against a nominee in a very difficult position as it does the three or four democrats thinking that they would, might, plausibly vote against him too, because he's such a mainstream pick where you have john mccain and you have jeb bush and you have w. and all of these people saying, and liberal law professors from yale saying he's as good as pick as you would find, other than merrick garland, if is hart to paint him as a wild-eyed -- >> and comfort to susan collins and lisa murkowski. >> yes. >> joe manchin, perhaps, but one of the striking things about judge kavanaugh's selection last night is i don't think, michael steele, the white house could ever have hoped for better optics. this man and his family, a
tremendously appealing group of people. the judge himself was certainly not threatening at all in his appearance, in his brief speech last night. >> didn't have a mustache and beard. remember, hall heflin cut right to the court problem going -- yeah, i don't understand your beard. i think a lot of people have trouble trusting someone that -- has a beard like that. why do you have a beard like that, sir? >> and judge kavanaugh -- >> can you believe a senator said that? >> and talking about coaching his daughter's basketball team. a tremendously appealing pick. >> michael steele. >> and he's a former altar boy. i already identify with him nap was that was a good moment and the mon seen monsignor he referenced was a good friend. and red state democrats, for conservative bases and for this white house. it's a solid pick.
his jurisprudence is one that has been noted 11 times by the supreme court in affirming his decisions, and so this -- this juris, this future supreme court justice, brings a lot to the table. the politics of this, though, is what is the most striking for me in that listening to the wailing and gnashing of teeth, democrats have no one to blame but themselves. mcconnell called their bluff, in executing the supreme court nominee nuclear option with merrick garland, and others along the way, and the reality now is coming home to roost fo them. they don't have the numbers and the only thing, the only recourse outside of the protests and the marches and the grandstanding is to take the senate. because that's the only way this changes, and that's not on the short-term horizon, maybe longer term, but this is going to be a
judicial desert for democrats for quite some time. >> you know, it's so easy for us to go back and say, well, if they had only won the presidency in 2016, and if hillary clinton had only had a message, if comey hadn't written that letter, if -- you can go down the list. if they had visited wisconsin things would be different, but that overlooks the fact that democrats lost senate races in wisconsin, in a presidential election year. something that doesn't happen. in pennsylvania. >> that's right. >> in a presidential election year. the democratic party as they get ready to watch the republican 30, 40, 50-year dream of switching the court conservative, the democratic party needs to look in the mirror and ask not only why they lost the presidency, but why did they get shellacked, as barack obama said, in the house and in the senate?
this is -- there's so many things that have happened over the past couple of years that we've obviously said you can put down to donald trump, his disruptive -- and i would say destructive approach to the presidency. this is not one of them. this is a natural consequence of people going out and voting in elections, and where elections have consequences. now, willie, if you were to follow donald trump's behavior in office, and if you were to look at -- >> at what drives him. >> yeah. what drives donald trump to make decisions? >> yeah. >> then you would say, there is no way, no way, he would select judge kavanaugh. >> uh-huh. >> coral rose boy, they're hugging. the last choice of the hard core conservatives who, of course, wanted the judge out of indiana. >> right.
>> there's no logical -- and i'm dead serious here. anybody that really knows trump knows that this would be the last selection. the last selection he would ever make out of those four, but for one thing -- >> well i mentioned presidential power. judge kavanaugh's view surrounding investigations of a sitting president are drawing renewed attention this morning. in a 2009 article in the minnesota law review, kavanaugh suggested that presidents being exempt from criminal investigations and civil suits while in office. >> huh. >> he wrote that congress should consider passing a law, "exempting a president while in office from criminal prosecution and investigation including from questioning by criminal prosecutors or defense counsel." kavanaugh went on to write "we should not burden a sitting president with criminal prosecutions. the president's job a difficult enough as it is."
some top democrats seizing on that relation to the ongoing russia probe. >> perked the one guy who specifically written that a president in fact should not be the subject of a criminal investigation, which the president is right now. so this seems to me of all the people the most self-serving person he could choose to protect himself from this criminal investigation. >> he's a political animal. he has been for a big part of the formative years of his career, and so he thinks of this, i think, as, wow. we need to make sure that the united states of america stays safe by protecting the president from, what? what investigation. from indictment. from prosecution. that's what troubles me about the whole picture here. >> okay. let's be really clear here. judge kavanaugh, if he's going to be a scourge of liberals.
liberals need to get right. judge kavanaugh wrote that law review article in 2009. at the dawn of the obama administration. so it would be the least self-serving thing for a conservative jurist to write which i think actually speaks given the hysteria over barack obama the presidency, it speaks to the content of the judge's character, but, heidi, there is no doubt that donald trump and his people have admitted to members of the press already that they did know about this article and it was discussed inside the white house. make no mistake of it, that this is the reason -- i mean, i will make no mistake of it. everybody else draw their own conclusion. you can narrow it down, boil it down, donald trump is the most self-serving, self-interested politician of certainly of our time that's ever been in the white house.
that's why he has selected judge kavanaugh, because of this single 2009 article, and why he upset a lot of conservatives along the way. to protect hillmself. the question is, will the senate, will those questioning kavanaugh ask him, will they really go after these lines of questioning and ask if he'll recuse himself on any questions pertaining the invimt dictment donald trump, since there is a possibility that that's why he got this seat if he gets it? >> it can speak to the content of kavanaugh's character and it can also at the same time speak to donald trump's motivations, and that's why it will absolutely be a major line of questioning, and it may even be one of the reasons why, despite all the impeccable credentials we just discussed, brett kavanaugh was not one of the two judges who mcconnell recommended donald trump pick who would be easiest to get through the senate and if you look at the
democrats' messages last night, they absolutely are shifting into high gear on this issue of russia. you have a number of democrats saying even last night before kavanaugh's announcement came out that he should in fact recuse himself. this will be now two judges that this president will have put on the court who could potentially in any number of scenarios in terms of constitutional questions about whether he pardons himself, whether he fires mueller, whether he is subpoenaed, could end in a constitutional question before this court. but look more broadly at the democratic messaging. it's not just about russia. the democrats are saying look at the paper trail here. there are a number of points of attack, whether it is the health care law, whether it is russia or whether it is roe. this judge has a long paper trail. he just came into the cross hairs on the issue of abortion just last fall when it pertained
to an immigrant teenager trying to seek an abortion. his ruling was, he tried to delay that. he was overruled and in his dissent he wrote, he bashed the decision and used some of the trigger words used by the activist anti-abortion crowd in terms of abortion on demand. so there are a number of flash points here that i think are going to make it hard on democrats, but that is where you look for the first cracks as to those red state democrats, donnelly, manchin, heitkamp. >> he is much of a main stream conservative as merritt garland is a main stream, can't really call garlland a liberal, a moderate, but still, mike, it is very intriguing that kavanaugh wrote a 2009 article that said,
presidents should not be indicted and should not be tried, and that even the trump white house, i think it was maggie haberman said that the trump white house admitted that they had seen that and taken note of that in the process. >> even if that remains his strong view today, he would be only one of nine on the supreme court. so, i mean, he could be overruled internally on the supreme court. it could be a 5-4 decision but it's settled law. the democrats have to be very careful. >> yeah n. their approach to this guy. >> they really -- they really do. >> that's the only take away i feel. >> overkill could end up killing them. >> for instance, if they use -- what's doug jones going to do? i think -- doug jones will probably vote against him, but probably be very respectful. >> yes. >> you just can't call this guy
a right wing lunatic. >> that's exactly the point. he is not dangerous in terms of his appearance, his rhetoric. his opinions, his opinions certainly prove the point that this is a generational change in the court. he would be there for a minimum, i assume, given good health for at least 30 years. >> but michael steele, so many people were saying the same thing about john roberts and john voobts conservative, but john roberts is also an institutionalist, somebody unlike donald trump that actually understands the constitution, reveres the institutions in washington, d.c. especially the supreme court of the united states. and -- i just don't know what democrats expect if they keep losing elections. this is actually -- they don't want to hear this, but should probably read the op-ed that was written by the professor, by the liberal yale professor saying, hey, name me three choices that
a republican president could have made that would be better than brett kavanaugh. >> right. >> you can't. >> right. and that's the reality here in a nutshell. they can't. and donald trump has effectively put a nominee in place that boxes out all other options and he's a strong, prudent choice given as mike noted at the beginning, the other choices that he could have put on the table as well. so that's the reality there. but i think the other thing with respect to this article, this law review article, you have to keep in mind. he wrote that article based on his experience dealing with the clinton impeachment. >> right. >> he was very much a part of that. so he learned from that experience what it does to the presidency. so this was a reaction, a response to that. it just happens to now be in play again nine years later, but
you've got to put context here, and a law review article is not an indication how a judge is going to rule with an actual case, because as he's noted in the article, there is no settled law here, because the congress hasn't acted. >> again, also noted, key democrats, again, they don't overreach, and attack him for writing this law review article, this law review article was written in 2009. barack obama's first year, and let me say again. go back to the time, go back to the place, that actually was a less than safe subject for a conservative jurist to write at the beginning of the obama administration. >> and the senate minority leader chuck schumer joins us in a little while to discuss the democrats' strategy for the upcoming supreme court battle. and the president fired off a tweet this norm morning aimed
at nato allies hours before heading to brussels to face them in person. it is so painful. international embarrassment. >> and we'll talk to michael steele more about the deal that republicans have made with donald trump, which is, you give a supreme court justices and tax cuts and we let you do everything else, and we're going to talk about that deal. >> there are ramifications to that deal. is it worth it he's also soon to meet with vladimir putin after reportedly commiserating with the russian leader about the "stupid people" in american government. meanwhile, brexit is tearing apart the british leadership. is the prime minister's job in jeopardy? you're watching "morning joe." we'll be right back. find the remote yet? nah. honey look, your old portable cd player. my high school rethainer. oh don't... it's early 90s sitcom star dave coulier...
are you ready to take your then you need xfinity xfi.? a more powerful way to stay connected. it gives you super fast speeds for all your devices, provides the most wifi coverage for your home, and lets you control your network with the xfi app. it's the ultimate wifi experience. xfinity xfi, simple, easy, awesome. . president trump is set to arrive in belgium later today ahead of the annual nato summit and tweeted before 6:00 a.m.
that the organization is "not fair to the u.s. taxpayer." it comes on the heels of the contentious g7 summit in canada with trade wars with several nato members and the eu along with the presidential continued crusade about nato defense spending. it also comes amid increasing concerns over merkel americmera what he may do and learning more about the private phone calls the president has had with the leader of russia. the "new york times" reports during a march conversation putin complained several trump administration officials tried to prevent the call from happening to which trump responded, "those are stupid people. you shouldn't listen to them." that was the same call where trump reportedly congratulated putin on his election victory despite a clear warning by his top aides in briefing notes, "do not congratulate."
and at this point -- >> so michael steele -- >> you have to ask if he understands what nato is about. i don't think he does. >> yes, he does. >> why does he -- >> vladimir putin does not like nato. russia hates nato. getting back to bargains conservatives and republicans made, people make bargains with themselves, but this deal that republican party has made that the "washington post" writes about this morning talking about how the republican party is now trump's party and people are having to change their, the generational-held views to be in line with donald trump, you know, you get two supreme court picks and you get tax cuts, but you also get the destruction of the u.s. order that made us the most powerful country over the past 50 years, and a huge question mark over what vladimir putin has on donald trump. >> well, it does leave a big question mark on that, but i
think in that bargain, joe, what has been weighed has been the value of the proposition of having for 30, 40 years, supreme court decisions that reaffirm a conservative idea, or maybe even ideal about society and family and marriage and business and things like that. a tax policy that at least in the short term gives some mid relief to those particular constituencies and the offset, in the bargain, is, we can recover from this nato thing, if it blows up in our face. the alliance will come together around the u.s. we will once be leaders down the road. i just don't see that necessarily playing out that way, because there comes a point where our nato allies will see us as an unworthy and not reliable partner and decide to do things a different way. now, the putin piece augments this, as you note, and the reality think is, putin and
trump in a room together with no affirmation of what was said, discussed or promised does not bode well for this alliance longer term in terms of its position with crimea and other things that are important to them. >> and heidi, we've said many times on the show, why don't people like paul ryan, leaders on capitol hill where you work speak out on moments that need speaking out when president trump violates the norm or the country, for moments like last night, the president offering his nominee, the kind of conservative judge they want on the supreme court. it has a the moment that a lot of voters who held their nose and yoesh looverlooked the pers behavior, well, we'll do it for the supreme court justices and now may have two and perhaps more. ruth bader ginsburg is 85. stephen brier will be 80 in a couple of weeks. the nights conservatives and
republicans waited for. >> if you sat down with mitch mcconnell during all of those months when frankly he was being bloodiened and bludgeoned, he would tell you this is why he stuck in and people like him and paul ryan did not speak out. first saw tax cut victories and meantime, not just the supreme court, a lot of lower courts where mitch mcconnell is moving through a high number of judges who they think will remake the courts at that level. on the politics of it, though, i think what we're witnessing is a really interesting paradigm shift. joe, when you showed the poll ratings for instance, and tied them to what's happens in the border kids is right on in terms of the energy shifting on issues that traditionally have been republican issues in terms of the courts, and immigration. right? those have been issues that really energized and animated
the gop base. we are seeing that now transferred over to the democratic side, because despite everything that you say about brett kavanaugh being a more mainstream-type pick, any one of these judges on the list, even if they don't overturn roe, they are very likely to uphold restrictions that are moving through at the state level. we have in 2017 alone 63 different restrictions on abortion that are being passed at the state level. we have a six-week ban on abortion, in iowa, the nation's strictest. all will come to the supreme court at some point. even if not overturning roe versus wade, enough to strike it moot. >> we are correctly covering the nomination of brett kavanaugh last evening, but other things
around the world that are distant from us in america and from most american's priorities every day, we're on the eve of the president of the united states about to go to europe and we have russia led by putin trying to dismantle, disrupt and destroy the european union and lo and behold, the president of the united states is his principal ally in doing this. incredible. >> it really is. if you look at all the concerns that i think so many people have had about him since -- again, go back to the december 2015 interview we had with donald trump on "morning joe," and i think jane nordinger at the "national review" one of most important moments of the 2016 campaign because it flashed a light on to sort of donald trump's views of the world.
and he said that, you know, trump, at that point was saying that putin was a great leader, better leader than obama. he was a strong leader. and he had one thing after another thing after another thing, add more question marks about what does putin have on donald trump? a question we've asked time and time again, and then you look and say what is the one thing that vladimir putin -- what is his number one geopolitical strategic goal? it would be the breaking up of nato. the breaking up of the european union. >> yeah. >> geez. >> both of which stand as a dagger, he believes, in the heart of the old soviet union. which as we all know, you call the breakup of the soviet union, the greatest tragedy of the 20th century. forget the holocaust, forget the 25 million people stalin killed. forget the 40 million people that mall killed. the breakup of the soviet union, he said, was the greatest threat. i do want to say to that point, though, michael steele,
interesting following up to what heidi said. it is ironic, you know, that politics is this way, but a lot of times when you win the battle, when you win the war, a certain war politically. >> yeah. >> your team goes -- your side goes, yeah! and then they go home, and they get distracted. i think speaking of the soviet union's collapse on christmas day of 1991, that should have been the greatest political windfall for the republican party that ever was, because people like you and me grew up as republicans, and there were two things that defined the republican party from, you know, 1947 to 1991. and it was -- it was big government and it was the soviet union. >> the cold war, right. >> the cold war, but the cold war was always first. beat the commies was always first. 1991, america did just that.
>> yeah. >> 1992, people were looking at george bush going, wait. why are we going to vote for him? like, we can vote for a guy who is a pot-smoking, draft dodging altering, all the things republican was calling bill clinton, that would have disqualified him for years ago from being president of the united states when we were in the middle of the cold war. suddenly in 1992 people are like, ah, we won the cold war. let's move on. i do think on the supreme court pick, you're not going to have republicans rushing out to the polls in november going, we won! we won! because that's not how politics works. >> right. >> you have a lot of angry democrats going out saying, we've got to start winning elections so we can start shaping the judiciary again. >> they will. the problem for the democrats is, how do they do that? how do they make that case to the american people?
in a way that will translate to the ballot box, and i think that's been, to your earlier point, joe, one of the biggest stumbling blocks for democrats for a while now is, how do you win in those states where you need to win, and then also pick up in those states where you could, you know, add to your number? they haven't been doing that, and it's been a cycle that they haven't been able to break. republicans, in the meantime, have taken advantage ofularly f matters to their constituencies. donald trump figured that out, made it a main theme while everybody was talking about what he was saying about mexico and the wall, how he was going after muslims, his base was focused on the fact, this brother's going to give us a supreme court. that was the only thing that matter to them and went out and voted on that. does that animate the democrats this fall and beyond, we'll see. >> one other thing that michael
steele and i can tell you is, mika, this -- that our entire lives have also been filled with republican presidents winning elections and selectioning judges that "grew in office" which means they went to the left, and never fulfilled the promises that conservatives expected them to fulfill. >> that's right. >> and i mean, it happened with sandra day o'connor on abortion. happened with justice kennedy on abortion. it happened with souter on just about everything. these were reagan picks, bush picks. so -- and it happened actually with john roberts a lot of conservatives would say on obamacare. so when people are trying to figure out why republicans may be more connected to donald trump now than other republican presidents in the past -- he delivers on the supreme court, he will be doing something that republicans presidents have been promising to do for -- 40 years, and failing, one way or the other.
>> yesterday we told you how republican senator ron johnson is advocating, revising the u.s. sanctions against russia. he also seems to be downplaying the significance of russians meddlesing in the u.s. election. we'll show you that ahead. >> the cia would actually call that -- a useful idiot, actually -- that is actually what the cia would define as a useful idiot. >> yeah. plus the "washington post" eugene robinson joins us with his latest piece about what he says are the two most consequential facts about brett kavanaugh. we'll be right back.
with my bladder leakage, the products i've tried just didn't fit right. they were very saggy. it's getting in the way of our camping trips. but with new sizes, depend fit-flex is made for me. introducing more sizes for better comfort. new depend fit-flex underwear is guaranteed to be your best fit. no matter how much you clean, does your house still smell stuffy? that's because your home is filled with soft surfaces that trap odors and release them back into the room. so, try febreze fabric refresher. febreze finds odors trapped in fabrics and cleans them away as it dries. use febreze every time you tidy up to keep your whole house smelling fresh air clean. fabric refresher even works for clothes you want
joining us now, pollutes pu prize winner eugene robinson and co-founder and ceo of axios jim vandehei joins us. >> jim, since we've known each other on the hill, last night seems to be the culmination for the dream for a lot of conservatives and republicans over the past generation. >> you know, 30 years in the making. conservatives put together a network that was obsessed with
the court and it's paid off. i don't think you can overstate the importance of this pick. truly you'll have a conservative court potentially for 30 years and for trump, 90% of republicans already like him. a lot of them like him and stick with him regardless of what he does and says because of the court. they can say i voted for him because of the court. showed me a list. picked two judges from that list. livered on what he promised and why evangelical like him so much even when he does things that seem not so christian-like. his license with the base is oh much more powerful today than it was a couple of weeks ago and he can pretty much do whatever the hell he wants to do now and republicans will stick with him. it really does illustrate the importance of your vote. flip 80,000 votes in three states and you have a liberal court and everybody can look at this and should be fired up. people on both sides should be voting because this is huge. the court intervenes in your
life, affect your life in meaningful ways in ways bigger than white house and congress does because congress and the white house has such a hard time getting things done in a polarized country. >> 80,000 votes in a couple of states will likely determine the future of the united states supreme court for a generation. >> a generation. >> so when people tell you to go knock on doors, get your neighbors to the poll, that's why you do t. and how many tens of millions of registered voters didn't go out and vote in 2016 who probably wished they had. gene, where you're going with your new piece, the two prost cons kesh facts about kavanaugh are, spoiler alert, from to the social security administration. >> yeah. the two most -- two big facts are the numbers 53 and 27. 53 years old, according to the social security's actuarial
tables, the average 53 american male lives 27 more years. just an average. in good shape, relatively affluent you'll probably live longer. so he's going to have an impact on our lives for more than generations, at least a couple of decades, probably more, two and a half at least, i would say. supreme court justices tend to go into into their 80s. so as i've said before, everybody la said before, but it needs to be beaten into the heads of democrats everywhere. elections have consequences. and guess ma? not just presidential elections. state legislative elections have consequences. elections for congress have consequences. >> so, gene what do democrats do right now? i mean it would be easy to say, and would seem like the prudent thing to say, don't overreach. don't go absolutely crazy where you're going to be painted as
extremists and radicals with this guy that coaches, you know, basketball and is hard to draw horns on. at the same time, the democratic base would say, but wait a second. mitch mcconnell and republicans burned down washington, d.c. over merrick garland. what's the best move for democrats? >> democrats first of all have to wage a fight. and the base, i think, demands a fight right now. they demand -- and also, you know, this is -- this has ban voting issue for republicans, much less so for democrats, and that asymmetry needs to be corrected to the extent that it can. so i think that -- you know, democrats need to be sensitized to the importance of these judicial appointments, especially supreme court appointments. that said, it should not be a fight that --
that costs red state democrats their seats. so if -- look, if something comes out in the hearings or in kavanaugh's paper trail that ca senator like susan collins or lisa murkowski to waiver, to balk, to say, gee, i just don't know about this guy kavanugh, then i think democrats need to be united on this because they potentially could have a chance of winning. but if they don't have a chance to win, and i kind of doubt that they will, because i think kavanugh is a pretty careful guy, and we'll see, but if the battle is already lost, then i think you ought to, you know, people like john tester and
heidi heitkamp and people in deep red states ought to be able to vote the way they need to vote. democrats shouldn't put him over the top, put kavanugh over the top but if the battle is already lost don't lose in the process. >> as expected the theatrics were predictable. who were the key players behind-the-scenes in putting this pick together, this pick judge kavanugh over the top? >> trump. he's the only decider on these things. he had his four finalists. he telegraphed them. some of these activists on the outside who put together these lists over several years had a decisive role in getting to this point. but it was trump. he felt best about this candidate. he told them privately he's got the vote. to your point whether liberals
should fight or not. they would be insane not to fight it. if you go to the predicate the court will be conservative 30 years it's a long shot fight but as a raw political matter they would be nuts not to do everything they can to drag this out and pull him down. >> how long can they drag it out? >> that's the hard part. they can't drag it out that long. they can request these documents. hold things up. they want to pull it past the election. it's going be hard to do unless they get some republicans to come along. their base needs it. if you look at democrats what they have going for them registration super, energy is high, and so they are going to be demanding, they are going to ultimately demand that democrats fight this tooth and nail because they understand the consequences of it. it will be nasty. all these court fights are nasty. >> jim vandehei we'll be reading the axios newsletter this
morning. eugene robinson all your pieces in the "the washington post" including trump's trip to nato, entitled "america will survive trump, the rest of the world might not." still ahead last month hhs secretary said it would be easy to reunite parents and children. well it turns out they can't do it. that's coming up on "morning joe". 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? ayep, and my teeth are yellow.? time for whitestrips. crest glamorous white whitestrips are the only ada-accepted whitening strips proven to be safe and effective. and they whiten 25x better than a leading whitening toothpaste. crest. healthy, beautiful smiles for life. metastatic breast cancer is relentless, but i'm relentless too.
mbc doesn't take a day off, and neither will i. and i treat my mbc with new everyday verzenio- the only one of its kind that can be taken every day. in fact, verzenio is a cdk4 & 6 inhibitor for postmenopausal women with hr+, her2- mbc, approved, with hormonal therapy, as an everyday treatment for a relentless disease. verzenio + an ai is proven to help women have significantly more time without disease progression, and more than half of women saw their tumors shrink vs an ai. diarrhea is common, may be severe, and may cause dehydration or infection. before taking verzenio, tell your doctor if you have fever, chills, or other signs of infection. verzenio may cause low white blood cell counts, which may cause serious infection that can lead to death. serious liver problems can occur. symptoms may include tiredness, loss of appetite, stomach pain, and bleeding or bruising more easily than normal. blood clots that can lead to death have also occurred. talk to your doctor right away if you notice pain or swelling in your arms or legs, shortness of breath, chest pain
or rapid breathing or heart rate. tell your doctor if you are pregnant, breastfeeding, or plan to become pregnant. common side effects include nausea, infections, low red and white blood cells and platelets, decreased appetite, headache, abdominal pain, tiredness, vomiting, and hair thinning or loss. i'm relentless. and my doctor and i choose to treat my mbc with verzenio. be relentless. ask your doctor about everyday verzenio.
coming up, president trump is set to depart the white house at any moment now for the nato summit in brussels. we'll watch to see if he addresses cameras on the way out. plus let the supreme court confirmation fight begin. we'll talk to the leader of senate democrats chuck schumer and on the other side james l langford is our guest. "morning joe" is coming right
booking a flight at the last minute doesn't have to be expensive. just go to priceline. it's the best place to book a flight a few days before my trip and still save up to 40%. just tap and go... for the best savings on flights, go to priceline. i saw my leg did not look right. i landed. i was just finishing a ride. i felt this awful pain in my chest. i had a pe blood clot in my lung. i was scared. i had a dvt blood clot. having one really puts you in danger of having another. my doctor and i chose xarelto®. xarelto®. to help keep me protected. xarelto® is a latest-generation blood thinner that's... proven to treat and reduce the risk of dvt or pe blood clots from happening again. in clinical studies, almost 98% of patients on xarelto® did not experience another dvt or pe.
xarelto® works differently. warfarin interferes with at least 6 of your body's natural blood-clotting factors. xarelto® is selective, targeting just one critical factor. don't stop taking xarelto® without talking to your doctor, as this may increase risk of blood clots. while taking, you may bruise more easily, or take longer for bleeding to stop. xarelto® can cause serious, and in rare cases, fatal bleeding. it may increase your risk of bleeding if you take certain medicines. get help right away for unexpected bleeding or unusual bruising. do not take xarelto® if you have an artificial heart valve or abnormal bleeding. before starting, tell your doctor about all planned medical or dental procedures and any kidney or liver problems. learn all you can... to help protect yourself from another dvt or pe. talk to your doctor about xarelto®. - anncr: as you grow older, -your brain naturally begins to change which may cause trouble with recall. - learning from him is great... when i can keep up! - anncr: thankfully, prevagen helps your brain and improves memory. - dad's got all the answers. - anncr: prevagen is now the number-one-selling brain health supplement in drug stores nationwide.
- she outsmarts me every single time. - checkmate! you wanna play again? - anncr: prevagen. healthier brain. better life. inthe full value oft replace your new car? you'd be better off throwing your money right into the harbor. i'm gonna regret that. with liberty mutual new car replacement, we'll replace the full value of your car. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ any moment now president trump is set to leave the white house en route to europe. to meet with nato allies. already some tough lines are being drawn. the president tweeted over an hour ago, up early, click, click, click, repeating his complaint that member countries of nato aren't paying enough for
mutual defense. >> let us now go to bangladesh -- >> hard to laugh but i'm going to go along with this because i like you're trying to be joyful during difficult times. >> we have a tweet that -- i know it's not a tweet, alex but bangladesh is a step ahead of him. willie is there. he'll read a tweet that the president of the united states -- can you hear me willie? can you hear me? >> yes, i have you now joe. the president of the united states tweeted this. quote, nato countries must pay all caps more, united states must pay all caps less. very unfair. one more interesting development here. after that, the president of the european union, donald tusk, the president of the european union.
>> that's an important position. >> he wrote, quote dear america appreciate your allies. after all you don't have all that many. the president of the european council donald tusk. >> oh, my lord. >> and the band strikes up. happy days are here again. that was some tough news from bangladesh. >> now i'm back. >> he's not smart. welcome back to "morning joe". it's tuesday, july 10th. with us -- >> when you say that could you spin around in your chair. >> no. why? oh, like crazy lady on snl? >> that would be you. [ laughter ] >> have the tables turned? >> i'm joe london. >> all right. >> by the way, that was a great
combination, joan lundon and david hartman. >> i liked everything she's done. somebody else we love, mike barnacle. we do. and his wife ann. national correspondent for "the washington post" phillip bump. republican strategist and msnbc political analyst on day 18 straight up working. editor chief of law fair and msnbc legal analyst and legal affairs correspondent for npr joins us. good to have you all on board this morning. >> by the way, barnacle, i got to give you mad props earlier, off air you brought up festus. not a lot of people breathing air can remember "gunsmoke." >> festus was my favorite character.
reminded me of my father. >> that explains an awful lot. look at that. when did this happen? >> is that new? >> i missed it. >> alex -- >> mike, why -- >> alex, what happened. hold on, hold on, hold on. somebody doesn't just lay a you know what in the middle of our set and doesn't go unexplained. what is this? >> well a couple of months ago i think mike had a good point and we suggested we do something -- >> has he had one since? >> no. first time. >> it took about four months. >> festus is now a hot thing? comparing festus to your father. why don't you compare the guy -- who was the guy that got thrown in jail on "gomer pyle."
>> i know we have a lot of smart people. hello, nina. we were trying to explain the maddening phenomenon of republicans being loyal to donald trump for some of us republicans. it is hard for younger americans to understand how -- >> you're putting me with you? i'm supposed to be as old as you? >> no. nobody is as old as me. >> where's the hot take now? >> from what you read in history books last year in your senior year of college, while writing your thesis on conservatism in the court, it's hard for a lot of americans to understand why this matters so much to republicans. they have seen time and time
again a republican president-elected, and it was in '89 sandra day o'connor making a decision that kept roe on the books, whether it was kennedy later doing the same thing. they felt like they kept electing republican presidents and no one of delivered the goods and now you have donald trump going just that. >> well, we're on the verge, i think, of seeing roe, perhaps, overturned or just simply nickel and dimed away so that the states that to regulate it down to the point where it's inaccessible in those states, abortion may be technically a right but not in those states. you would be unable to get an abortion in probably about half the country, and that particularly affects poor people and people who live in rural areas who have to go a very far distance to get abortions. >> isn't that already the case in quite a few states.
i read stories where there may be one or two abortion providers left in one or two states. >> that's true. there's litigation. at one point there was an attempt to get rid of all the abortion clinics, for example, i think there's one left in mississippi that's being kept open by court order. i think you can imagine whole states where abortion would not be available, and the only thing i can think that might revolutionize this is at least in the early stages of pregnancy, in the first trimester would be medical aborings, not surgical abortions with doctors prescribing by remote operation, you know, like we're sitting here, i'm talking to you from one part of msnbc and you're in another part. you could do that state to state in medicine and they do in lots of other -- for lots of other procedures and medical consults and that's important, i suppose. but, you know, you could imagine
the fights over this. for democrats it's doubly difficult because, you know, having another conservative republican albeit a very distinguished one on the supreme court means many, many other changes that are incredibly significant. but the right that people can most grab on to, that lots of people are scared of losing, if you look in the public opinion polls is the right to have access to an abortion if you want, or if your daughter wants, or if your sister wants, or whatever. and so i'm afraid that these confirmation hearings are going to devolve into a fight that's only about abortion when it probably should be about much more and it's going to be interesting to see how judge kavanugh who, as i said, a very distinguished judge and a very
accomplished judge, who will have, if confirmed, a lot of influence on the court and already has friends on the court like elena kagan is his friend. it's interesting to see how the questioning goes. because there was a study out just this week or last week about how increasingly judicial nominees don't answer questions at all. judge gorsuch now justice gorsuch the least of anyone since 1968, and, you know, the senate has a duty to inquire, but the nominee also has a duty from text his or her independence. it's a very interesting and difficult proposition. i didn't mean to get so serious. >> that must have been a hell of a thesis. i would like to read it sometime. >> you tweeted last night after the announcement quote i had known brett kavanuagh for a long time in a number of different capacities. i'll have a lot to say about i
had nomination in the coming days. for now i'll say he's a colorly and thoughtful j-and an extremely fine person. what else do you want to say about the nomination here of judge kavanugh? >> gosh, look, this is a person with a very extensive record across a lot of different areas. you know, he was -- he was a staffer in the starr investigation and i'm sure, you know, that will give rise to a lot of interesting lines of questioning in the hearings, particularly since he was a significant voice in writing ken starr's report to congress. he also played a very significant role in the bush white house under, you know, in the wake of 9/11 and in bush's own judicial confirmations, and more recently he has been, you know, a d.c. circuit judge in a
period in which this is sort of relevant to my field in which the d.c. circuit has done just an enormous amount of work in shaping the contours of american national security law. this is actually a person -- the fight will definitely be largely over abortion, but this is a person who has done more than most in shaping a lot of areas of contemporary law, and i don't doubt that the fight will be very ugly. i don't doubt that, you know, democrats will make it mostly about roe. they will not be entirely wrong to do so. but, you know, as with a lot of judicial nominations, this is a person of diverse substance, who, you know, will inevitably be more complicated and is more complicated than the sort of parody cartoon version we'll get presented in the confirmation
process. >> phillip, what's the demonstrate's move? >> the democrats don't have a lot of moves. the republicans have this tiny majority in the senate. we saw with the gorsuch nomination mcconnell threw out the filibuster to approve the supreme court justice. that may be enough. the but since gerald ford's nomination there's no occasion in which a supreme court nominee has received no votes from the opposing party. there's always people who cross the line. obviously we'll be watching senators collins and murkowski to see how they come out particularly on the issue of roe v. wade. >> by the way, really quickly, just let me insert here, that things have gotten so bad over the past decade or so, it's hard to believe that it wasn't so long ago that ruth bader ginsberg got over 90 votes. that was the standard.
it's a shame we can't get back to that standard. >> if you look at fdr, his nominations were by voice vote. obviously that was a democratic senate for the most part. you're right. there's been this increased partisanship important, larization. the gap between democrats and republicans on gorsuch was wider than anybody including bo rx. if there are democrats who cross over, again i think if collins and murkowski are able to support him democrats may do so. we'll have to see. >> if republicans support him then democrats do have a tough choice. do we want joe manchin, hide die heitkamp to put their seats in danger by throwing themselves on voting against an extremely popular pick in those three states. >> to phil's point, democrats are in a near impossible position here with what they do. but the republicans, one of the most surprising things -- actually not that surprising
when you think about it, is the fact that donald trump has used the supreme court appointment powers to really seize control, firm control of the base of his party. the shadows of past republican presidents and nominees, start with dwight eisenhower and early warren, but spectre -- brennan and david sutter, specifically his shadow hangs over republican aopponentees. this one and this president has seized firm control of his party. >> the republicans can be very surprised on how this justice acts. let's not forget, donald trump picked him not for a legacy, not for his writings, but through the lens of will this justice be on my side. will he have my back? and that was the number one credential. it is shocking he picked someone so close to the bush administration, because we know that the president is pretty
petty when it comes to that kind of thing. >> except for the fact in 2009 he said that a president should not be indicted. >> that's what he thought was in his best interest. that's the one writing, the one thing that he has said that is in president trump's best interest. so the republicans -- >> he printed it out and put it on his wall in wall paper in the white house. >> he did that as barack obama was taking office. so, i mean, obviously it was something maybe he learned over time from working on the clinton impeachment, what have you, or the investigation. we don't know. all i know is i think republicans are really, you know, from what they are saying we want the republican courts. they may be in a very different situation when they start looking at donald trump. >> given that writing, and when kavanugh wrote it, nina, is it a legitimate question to bring up your earlier point to ask whether given the fact that
there are legitimate questions and a special counsel investigation going on right now with indictments and guilty pleas to ask kavanugh join the confirmation hearings whether or not he would recuse himself from an issue about whether or not a president could be indicted? is that legitimate? >> it's legitimate to ask it but i think under the rules i could be wrong, but i think under the rules just because you write an opinion piece doesn't mean you have to recuse yourself and to be fair in that law review article he seems to suggest that this should all happen by statute, that the congress should pass a statute to immunize presidents from criminal prosecution and civil suits while they are in office. however, it's not entirely clear that it's only by statute that he thinks that and who knows. donald trump has made a lot of people reconsider their views
over a lot of presidential power, and, you know, i'm sure brett kavanuagh is thrilled to be the nominee and grateful to donald trump but once he gets on the court the question is what is the accountability of a president if you were to find serious evidence of malfeasance? >> right. benjamin, because you know this nominee, could you comment on democrats predicting that he's going to be a right-wing stooge for donald trump, that he's going to be extreme on one issue after another, one senator said, i heard being a woman success criminalized. chances are good, not that you can put any justice over another justice, and make predictions,
but just as roberts surprises in the affordable care act and justice kennedy and o'connor surprised many who were against them during their nomination process, isn't kavanugh the sort of judge and the sort of thinker that is not going to be bound strictly to ideology, most likely surprise many of those that are now condemning him? >> so look, there will be a lot of surprises. >> look, i think that he is certainly a genuine conservative. and i wouldn't sit here and say, you know, this is going to be a david sutter character or, you know, urge liberals to, you know, to be complacent about this from their point of view because, you know, kavanugh is what trump thinks he is.
he has spent a great deal of time with a lot of different ideas and as his record shows he is somebody who is more than capable of thinking out of the box, and he's certainly not a rigid idealologue. i have no doubt that you are correct there will be some surprises. i don't think they will be surprises on the big thematic 5-4 nature of the court. so to the extent that people think this will move the court to the right, i think they are almost certainly correct about that. and to the extent that that's the way you think about it as a sort of block vote question, you
know i can't say brett kavanuagh is going to be on the court what anthony kennedy is going to be. >> what is the most important question to you? >> i start with the assumption elections matter and that if you elect republicans who promise to appoint conservative judges, that you're going get conservative judges. and so i don't start with the idea that a judicial confirmation is an opportunity to relitigate the 2016 election. so i start with the question of what's the quality of the conservative involved? what's the quality of the individual involved? and what's the temperament and mind of the person involved? and along those axis i see
nothing not to like about brett kavanaugh. i say that as somebody both who have spent an enormous amount of time with his work over the years because we -- because his work areas and mine have oddly overlapped in a lot of ways. and also just as somebody who knows him very well. so i, you know, i think if you invest too much in the judicial confirmation question and say, you know, this is about the aggregate direction of the court, there's nothing -- there's no argument for a liberal that brett kavanaugh is a good idea. >> so, been gentleman american, nina, thank you both for being on this morning. >> great having you. >> we'll jump to our next guest. joining us from capitol hill, james lankford from oklahoma. >> good to see you. >> senator, so what's your reaction to the president's selection of brett kavanaugh?
>> i think it's a positive reaction from me. let's go through the process and do the rest of the background work what you're doing morning. everyone around the country will do for two months. all of us in the senate will go through the process of evaluating every opinion he's written. let's figure out who he is. it's a serious decision. let's walk through process. >> any immediate concerns come to mind from anything you've read, anything you've seen? >> no, not any immediate concerns. what i'm looking forward is two months about talking about the role of the constitution and the role of the court. is the court all about having another legislature that can kind of pick what the law, what they want to it say or are they really a group that's bound by the law and bound by the constitution to determine here's what it says and if we change it let's go through the legislative process to do that. that's a key aspect of that national conversation. some folks will have a prefer rerns they wish the law said something and want a judge to say what they wish it says.
others will say let's focus on what the law actually says. >> senator lankford, i want to turn the subject to the nato summit. as the president got aboard air force one he tweeted a couple of things. most recent nato countries must pay more, united states must pay less. very unfair. a theme and a point he's made over and over again. do you have concerns about the president of the united states taking this approach and being confrontational with our allies as he enters the summit? >> i'm not concerned about that initially. quite frankly we've seen nato allies step up and say he's right we haven't paid enough. nato has kicked in quite a bit more in the last year and a half. realize this is not a new issue. eisenhower made statements about natural jobs kennedy made statements about nato, nixon. there's a long historic process on united states pushing on nato allies saying you need to step up and meet your commitments. >> you would agree, senator, that relationship between the
united states and some of our western allies, germany, france, the uk has been strained under president trump would you not? >> absolutely, i would. he's pushing them in a way they don't like and pushing them in a financial area they've not done for decades. they will step up their financial obligations for nato. >> you talking about tariffs when you say you're concerned? >> well tariffs is a whole different issue. quite frankly meeting their nato obligations for the international defense what we're doing in nato is important. but i would like to see us be able to solve the tariff issues. one of the prime issues that folks in oklahoma talked to me about last week when i was traveling around the state, people in agriculture are concerned about tariffs and the direction we're going dealing with tariffs because they want to make sure we stay top trade. >> are they being hurt, senator? are they being hurt by the tariffs? >> there's quite a bit of
uncertain. they are putting seed in the ground right now and don't know if they can ship out. individuals are losing money right now because they are being undercut and if our allies, whether it be mexico or canada or in europe or in asia, if they go find other markets that's very difficult to win back. >> can i ask you quickly to follow up on the nato question. attached to that is the president's relationship with vladimir putin. are you uncomfortable with him talking to vladimir putin alone without any american representatives? are you uncomfortable by his relationship with vladimir putin in anyway? >> i don't know what his relationship is. i know they talked on the phone several times. i don't know how much of a relationship is that. that's his role to be able to interact with foreign leaders and foreign policy. he has an exceptionally
different style. that's the understatement of the day, meeting with kim jong-un face-to-face was very anti-t antithetical. we should actually be strong in those conversations. they did mess with our elections in 2016. they are not our friend in world powers. they are trying to undercut western influence. we need to pay attention that. >> senator, another topic, you're in the homeland security committee, if you were to call homeland security today and demand a list of children who have been separated from their parents indicating where they are in this country and where the parents are, could you get a definitive list today i did not but that wouldn't be a list we would ever give out. we don't give out a list of where foster children are located whether it's a state or
federal government. can they provide a list? do they have it? yes, they do. i spoke as recently -- >> have you seen it? >> i have not seen it nor have i asked for that list. quite frankly i don't need a list. i need to know do they know. one of the difficulties they have is some of the parents and adults that brought these children across the border are now saying authors not my kids and walking away it from. those kids will be placed in foster care. the parents are deport pandemic the parents i assume will come make a second trip without their children to try to cross the border illegally to catch up with them later. this is more complicated than it looks. they have a couple of parents that have done background check on and had criminal convictions whether it's rape, child abuse. do we put that adult back with that children. >> definitely a tough situation. but it does not appear that there was a plan in place to
reunite these kids and document them and process them in a way. i mean we're hearing reports, senator, with all due respect that there are children under 5, up to 50, who they cannot find the parents and they are not able to reunite them. you said on the 24th on msnbc we know where every single child is. that these are career people at hhs and dhs and that it will be absolutely possible to connect them with their parents or the relative they came with. can you really say that? >> i can. i feel very confident about these. these are not political appointe appointees. i had a push back there was no plan to reunite them. hhs' responsibility is not reuniting it's to take care of the children. the challenge we had with unaccompanied minors going back two 2014 they were placed in the care of a relative here in the
united states. then that relative often, they were also illegally present in the united states. they would then leave and not show up for a court date. that's created this -- >> under president trump's policy there was no plan to reunite these kids. >> i don't take it that way. i don't nene be unkind, mika, but hhs role is to provide them care, know where they are and dhs process is walking through the prosecutions for these adults to figure out if they qualify for asylum. if so they are reunited. if not they are deported. the challenge that they were never filing an reconnect, this was not the united states taking children away and saying we're going to put them in foster care because you crossed our border we won't to allow to you have your children back. hhs has one responsibility, dhs has another. >> neither has a plan to he unite them. >> they are reuniting. >> they are trying to. there isn't a specific plan to reunite them and some are in
question now because they have been separated. and there's a question as to whether they would of being reunited because there's no plan to reunite them. >> i disagrees with statement. there's no plan. this is not the united states taking children away with no plan to ever give them back to their parents. some of those individuals are not their parents. some of those individuals were traffickers claiming to be their parents. so they are doing dna tests to evaluate are these really relatives. if they are not relative we're not going place them with someone who is not a relative. some adults are saying we don't want to take these children we want to be deported and we'll start all over again. this time it will be easier to travel a month long through mexico with a child. we'll catch up with them later. it's a complicated situation to work through reconnecting. there's 102 of those individuals that are 4 years old or younger. they reconnected half of them. the other half they are trying
to determine if they are a relative. >> senator james lankford, as always, thank you for coming on the show to talk about judge kavanaugh. that was actually at the end of the day the easy part. >> i wish any of this is easy. it's all complicated stuff but we should do it the right way. >> it's all very complicated. thank you very much for being with us as always. so phillip a couple of times you were shake being your head there. one thing, he is exactly right, is it's extraordinarily complicated. it was complicated for the bush administration, it was complicated for the obama administration. they wrung their hands what to do. some people if they think they will get a better break if they have a child with them, will come to the united states that way. and so it's complicated now. >> there are three things that i think are worth adding to
conte contexturalize what the senator said. they instituted this policy as an effort to be a deterrent which i think is important to r- remember. there are two things that the senator said which was inaccurate. there was a statement, department of justice had to go to a court yesterday and say here's the status of these kids to be returned to their parents by today by tuesday. they said of the 102 there was a kid who they didn't know where the parents were. it's a case there are kids who they don't know what that connection is to their parents. that's a group of 102 kids. no plan for it. there may be as many as 3,000 kids. potentially there being dozens of kids. >> so there may be dozens of kids where they don't know who the parents are or they don't know where the parents are. >> could be either. >> both. kids can't speak. >> these are kids under 5. third point i would raise is this idea of the traffickers, something that's been raised by
many people. there's data that was provided to me by the data point of homeland security. less than 1% of people who they have found come to the border with a child who wasn't their own. these kids are coming to the border with their parents. there are cases which can be used to frame this as being toxic for the children. most of these cases are parents with kids seeking asylum. >> just to keep things in perspective, when you hear the argument that this is being done to stop the flow, and senator lankford didn't say this, in general ms-13 gang members coming to the united states out of 330,000 or so of people that came to the united states illegally, something like 24 were gang members. a couple of dozen. very, very small amount. let's go back to capitol hill now and talk to senator leader of the united states senate democrat chuck schumer of new york. senator, always good to talk to
you. >> good morning. good to be back. >> we'll just throw the softball to the senator over the plate for the first pitch and then follow up with maybe some of the pitches that you yankees have had trouble hitting the plate. here's a pitch straight over the plate that david price might pitch to you, which is what do you think about the pick? what do you think about judge kavanaugh? >> well, look, president trump is fulfilling his campaign promises with a nomination of judge kavanaugh. he said in his campaign he would repeal roe. he would send it back to the states. and he said in his campaign he would repeal aca with things very precious to the american people like maintaining pre-existing conditions, and he has now accomplished that. he's had two groups vet these
nominees. one is the federalist society led by leonard leo. it's a certainty that anyone on that list will vote to repeal roe. we have the heritage foundation, which have dedicated -- >> can i stop you on that point. >> i would like to finish. >> i want to go point by point. you can't say it's a certainty, can you, that brett kavanaugh will overturn roe when most of us said it would be a certainty when justice roberts who overturn the affordable care act. you never know exactly how those -- we republicans, as a former republican i find you never know which direction they are going to go. >> look i sure wouldn't bet on leonard leo's hand pick list to keep roe. the other is the heritage foundation. they have dedicated their existence to repealing aca, pulling the government out of the health care.
the president promised that in his campaign as well. so these are two issues broadly popular with the american people. one is reproductive rights, keeping health care particularly pre-existing conditions. i'll oppose this nominee with everything i got and i would make one other point particularly for you guys. which is this -- you are worried about president trump's overreach. so am i. this nominee has stood more both, certainly before he became a judge for presidential overreach. he's said the president shouldn't be investigated. he's gone so far to say a president, if he declares a law unconstitutional doesn't have to obey it. how does he react if mueller needs a subpoena, if mueller needs some other action? for all these reasons this man should not be on the bench and i believe if we can prove these two points to the american people that he will repeal roe and women's reproductive freedom that we'll repeal aca, and the
right to pre-existing conditions or the right to protect pre-existing conditions, that we'll get a majority in the senate to vote against him. i know it's an uphill fight but they said we couldn't do it with health care and we did. >> i understand that, and isn't it also fair to say, senator, this nominee is here because democrats lost the election? voters in 2016, they were looking for conservative judges. and they worked towards this. republicans got what they want. they won. here we are. i guess my question is what fight do you really sniegt do we look forward the mid-terms and try to find a message and try to find a unifying set of leaders, or we going to fight an impossible fight right now because democrats lost? >> i don't believe it's an impossible fight. they said that with aca. i believe that if the american people rise up and we've seen lots of that in the last few
days, we can win this fight, and i would make one other point. the number one issue for our party from the red states to the purple states, to the blue states is health care. particularly pre-existing conditions, protecting them. which is wildly popular and necessary in the reddest of states. this court battle highlights that. so this actually may help us in the mid-terms. any time health care is highlighted democrats win. >> senator, your task right now seems to be centered "today" robertson trying defeat this nomination of judge kavanaugh to the court. how do you balance that fight with the idea of keeping tester, manchin, donnelly, heitkamp in the united states senate? how do you balance that? >> as i said in those states health care is a very important issue. as is in maine, as it is in alaska. obviously we can't win this fight unless we get a republican. but i do believe, if the american people come to believe
this court would overturn women's reproductive freedom, and the aca, we'll get a majority of votes. obviously it would have to be from both parties. >> senator schumer, it's willie geist. do you believe judge kavanaugh is an extremist? >> i believe he is far, far-right on so many issues. the ones i've mentioned and particularly alarming is, of course, the one about presidential power at a time when we have a president who just routinely overreaches and doesn't respect rule of law. but i also on gun rights, on environmental rights, on lgbtq rights he's way, way to the right of the american people. he's not a mainstream judge. and that's why the federalist society and the heritage fujs groups that are not in the mainstream have chosen him, have pre-selected him. if donald trump chose somebody off the list we might be in a different situation. but the fact that the president campaigned on these things and
created his own litmus tests and then the fact that he couldn't let two groups that we he hadment -- strongly believed in these two things this is a a an extreme nominee. >> do you believe pump picked judge kavanaugh because of his views on presidential power and his position in that law review power saying presidents should not be subject to prosecution while in office? >> i certainly believe he was the judge probably of the 25. they all would repeal roe. all repeal aca. on this issue the mueller issue which came up ever the vetting by these two groups, he's probably the most extreme and it wouldn't surprise me if that was very important to donald trump, knowing donald trump and i have no proof. do you think he didn't inquire about this either directly or indirectly? knowing donald trump. what do you think? i told you what i think. so this idea of my dear friend joe that he's a moderate, on the
issue you care most about he's not even close to a moderate. >> first of all, i never said avenues moderate. >> i know. >> i'm trying to push you over, joe. >> you were trying to push a little bit. all i'm saying, i'm just warning everybody, again, republicans as a former republican i can tell you i spent a generation being surprised by what justices that were painted as right-wing lunatics ended up doing with sandra day o'connor or sutter or justice kennedy. >> you have the opposite. you have judges who said they would call balls and strikes like judge roberts who led his court to create citizens united, probably the worst decision in a generation, letting dark money flow into politics. >> he also upheld the affordable care act. >> on a very narrow basis.
now that we have the mandate law change i don't think we'll stick with that either. i don't think judge roberts has called balls and strikes. i don't think judge gorsuch has called balls and strikes. these justices have been far more to the right on the bench than they talked about in their hearings. >> i'm going call a time-out. the president just threat white house. he's heading to the nato summit and he made a few comments. they were a couple of minutes long. senator, do you want to stay and listen with us. >> and respond? >> all right, sure. >> okay. >> take a look. >> well, it's going to be an interesting time in the uk and it certainly going to be an interesting time with nato. nato has not treated us fairly
but i think we'll work something out. we pay far too much and they pay far too little. we'll work it out and all countries will be happy. the uk, that's a situation that's been going on for a long time. so i have nato, i have the uk, which is in somewhat turmoil, and i have putin. frankly putin may tebzyest of them all. who would think? who would think? the uk certainly has a lot of things going on. >> have you talked to theresa may? >> i have not. but boris johnson is a friend of mine. very nice notice. very supportive. maybe i'll speak to him when i get over there. i've always liked boris johnson. >> should theresa may remain in power? >> that's up to the people. that's up to the people not up to me.
>> none nato, about a half hour ago -- [ inaudible ] >> we do have a lot of allies but we cannot be taken advantage of. we're being taken advantage of by the european union. we lost $151 billion last year on trade. on top of that we spend at least 70% for nato and, frankly, it helps them a lot more than it helps us. we'll see what happens. we have a long beautiful week. i'll say also, last night was an incredible evening. brett kavanaugh has gotten rave reviews. rave reviews. actually from both sides. and i think it's going to be a beautiful thing to watch over the next month. he's gotten rave reviews. [ inaudible ] >> i really can't say right now. as far as i'm concerned a
competitor. competitor. i think getting along with russia, getting along with china, getting along with others is a good thing not a bad thing. i said that many times for many years. we'll see. we're meeting with vladimir putin on monday. we'll see how that goes. >> on north korea -- [ inaudible ] >> they didn't give it. i have it for him. they didn't give it. but it will be given at a certain period. i actually do -- [ inaudible ] >> i actually do have a little gift for him but you'll find out what that gift is when i give it. >> mr. president -- [ inaudible ] >> no, i haven't. i really haven't. we haven't discussed. >> mr. president -- [ inaudible ] >> i have a solution. tell people not to come to our country illegally. that's the solution. don't come to our country
illegally. come like other people do, come legally. >> mr. president -- [ inaudible ] >> i'm sthang very simply. we have laws, we have borders. don't come to our country illegally. it's not a good thing. as far as i.c.e. is concerned, the people that are fighting i.c.e., it's a disgrace. these people go into harm's way. nobody under greater danger than the people from i.c.e.. what they do to ms-13 and everything else, so we want to support i.c.e., not do what the democrats are doing. democrats want open borders and they don't mind crime. we want no crime and we want borders where borders mean something. and, remember this, without borders, you do not have a country. thank you everybody. all right. that was donald trump. first of all, why don't we start
at the end. i want to talk about his outrageous comment regarding vladimir putin. but we might as well talk about democrats quote, want open borders and don't mind crime. that would be, obviously, chuck schumer is shocked, bill de blasio now presiding over the safest new york city since the 1950s. >> right. you know his comments are absurd. they are not based on any fact at all. they are totally divisive. they don't mean anything. democrats propose -- let's take our gang of eight bill. bipartisan. four democrats, four republicans. we put in that bill every democrat voted for it, $40 billion on the border. more people on the border than we've ever had before. drones, which are so good they can tell the difference between a deer and a person crossing the border. sensors. it was the toughest border measure ever down far more effective. >> why didn't that pass? >> it didn't pass -- it passed
the senate with 69 votes. and then the hard right tea party which donald trump seems to embrace in the house told paul ryan he would be dead meat as speaker if he went for it. it nerve went anywhere thoins. that bill which was balanced provided long difficult but real path to citizenship for the 11 million, took care of the dreamers, brought new people into this country for jobs we need whether ph.d. or pick the crops had overwhelming support. donald trump has chosen to embrace a narrow anti-immigrant group and has stopped all progress. >> so i want to talk about the putin comments. he said who would have thought putin twoebz the easiest meetil other than nato allies or uk allies. this is the same vladimir putin who invade crimea, who invade georgia, whose fingerprints are all over the poisoning of a british citizen and the killing
of a british citizen on british soil. and apologies for none of that whatsoever. what is your position on the president of the united states suggesting that he has -- he's got the easiest relationship with vladimir putin? >> well, you know, everyone wonders why the president is so nice to this scoundrel, this bully, this breaker of so many laws, international laws and human rights. one wonders about that, and is it related to the russia investigation and everything else. it is a disgrace. i got to tell you something, joe. i am really worried about the president sitting alone in a room with vladimir putin. when he sat in a room with xi, when he sat in a room of kim jong-un, no good came of any of that. i'm worried that the word on the president's lips would be yes to
anything putin says. i don't think he should be in the room alone with him, and i hope the people around him will argue against him being there because you never know what he will promise putin. >> by the way, h.r. mcmaster quoted while he was still in the white house saying, why does this guy think he can be a putin friend? why would anybody want to be putin's friend? >> that's right. that's right. >> and senator schumer raises a legitimate issue. the president of the united states in the room alone with putin without a note taker, a standard -- no note taker here. on another topic, the elections are a little more than 90 days away. what is the democracy' rejoinder or reply to the president's very simple statement -- he just made it again -- don't come to this country illegally, it is not a good thing. that resonates i think out in the country. what is the democrats' reply to
that? >> or response is we should pass something close to comprehensive immigration reform. when you layout what was in the bill -- and we can modify it to adopt it to the new times -- 78% of the american people, a majority of republicans are for it. there is a path to citizenship, you know, which the right wing, rush limbaugh calls amnesty, but those 11 million would have to work, pay back taxes, pay a fine, admit wrong doing, learn english and go to the back of the line before they became citizens. it is overwhelmingly popular. we can solve this problem, but the president chooses to make it a political issue. i daresay it is not going to be as successful as he thinks when the governor of virginia, the candidate, gillespie tried it. it didn't work in virginia. we are finding throughout the country people care far more about their health care that president trump is taking away than this is issue. they care about this issue. they want strong borders, but they don't really believe what trump just always says
rhetorically, except his small base. his base is shrinking. the amount of republicans is shrinking. they still like him, but it is not enough to win elections. >> susan dale? >> you just mentioned health care, senator, and i would like to bring it back to new york, your home state. as we know through aggressive reporting, we have seen hundreds of children exposed to lead paint in new york city housing authorities. the mayor, de blasio, a fellow democrat of yours, has basically been found out one lie after next. today we have four democratic members of congress from new york saying they want federal intervention. what do you have to say about this problem and what solutions can you offer at the federal level? >> it is just awful that these young children by gnawing on window sills, whatever else, which had the paint that came in before lead was abolished, and we should do everything we can to help these kids. we should do everything we can to get lead out of new york housing.
>> do you hold mayor de blasio responsible at this point? >> at this point i'm not going to point fingers of blame. i say let's solve the problem. it has been a long time in the making. i tried to get money at the federal level to undo lead stuff and i was thwarted by colleagues on the other side of the aisle, i was helped by some. we should be all hands on deck to solve the problem quickly. >> senator chuck schumer, thank you. thanks for rolling with us. >> thanks for staying with us. we greatly appreciate it. >> no gym. you know what is on the gym, all of the democrats and republicans, msnbc. they all watch it. >> they get on the bike angry, they get to burn off some of the anger. >> great to have you on. >> take care. >> before you go, it is incredible race in the al east. of course, the sox are up by three but it can be the yankees up by three at the end of august. this is about as good as it gets. >> yes, it is. these are two of the greatest
teams i have ever seen, and, thank god, my yankees instead of drafting 30-year olds and paying them $10 million, have a young group they brought up through the ranks. i once told mr. steinbrenner -- not hal, the old man. hal's doing a great job, too. but when you have 30-year-old millionaires on the field you will never win the series because they're not a team. >> yeah. >> so go yankees! but i admire the red sox. i hate them and i admire them at the same time. >> okay. >> i hate the yankees -- >> thank you, senator. >> and they're a fun team. >> chuck schumer, we're not getting into the new york football giants. >> senator, thank you. >> thank you so much, senator. what are your final thoughts? so much going on right now with the in-box of this president. >> sure. >> well, every week seems to be astronomical, but usually they're self-inflicted wounds. not so this week.
>> yeah, no, that's true. the thing that i'm paying the most attention to here is what actually happens in the run up to november. how does all of this affect november? we heard the senate minority leader there make mention of the fact he thinks it might energize the democratic base. the president's base is enthusiastic about going to the polls and showing support. the democrats don't turn out as much as the republicans do. it will be interesting to see how it shapes the midterm election. >> i will say this about donald trump that, again, some of us get, he is more than a political candidate. mika and i were at an airport this weekend. a kid takes off his shoes. >> oh, yeah. >> he has trump socks on. i pointed at the kid's socks and i say, he's seen outside of, you know, the coast as so much more
than just a politician. it is kind of like i remember when i saw the "w" bumper sticker for reelection, you look at it and laugh. i go, that's actually -- that's a middle finger pointed at the press and at the washington -- at washington elites. it is sort of the same thing that trump's encapsulating right now. >> philip, thank you very much. coming up, rudy guilliani has -- >> and you can't put that on your kid's socks. >> rudy has been bus ooh representing the president, but not too busy apparently to give up foreign clients. we will break down that new reporting from "the washington post." first, of all of brett kavanaugh's legal theories, there's one in particular that may have piqued donald trump's interest. a 2009 article arguing that presidents cannot be prosecuted. "morning joe" is coming right back. until her laptop crashed this morning. you never know what the day's going to bring when you're running a small business, it might even bring a blue screen of death.
having it problems? ask a business advisor how to get virus and spyware removal, and 24/7 tech support. office depot now offers on demand tech support for as little as $15 a month. ♪ right now, save $300 on our hp 2-in-1 laptop bundle at office depot officemax - anncr: as you grow older, -your brain naturally begins to change which may cause trouble with recall. - learning from him is great... when i can keep up! - anncr: thankfully, prevagen helps your brain and improves memory. - dad's got all the answers. - anncr: prevagen is now the number-one-selling brain health supplement in drug stores nationwide. - she outsmarts me every single time. - checkmate! you wanna play again? - anncr: prevagen. healthier brain. better life.
do you enjoy having to work with him? >> we have a very good relationship with president trump. >> nato members must finally contribute their fair share and meet their financial obligations. ♪ keep smiling ♪ keep shining ♪ knowing you can always count on me ♪ >> putin's fine. he's fine. ♪ that's what friends are for
♪ for good times and bad times ♪ i'll be on your side forever more ♪ >> there's a special place in hell -- >> it is kind of insulting. ♪ that's what friends are for >> and i never asked once what the new nato headquarters cost. ♪ well, you cared enough for me ♪ ♪ and now there's so much more to see ♪ >> oh, yeah. president trump heads to europe after selecting his nominee last night to the u.s. supreme court. he leaves the senate to battle over judge brett kavanaugh while nato allies brace for their own confrontations with the american commander in chief, and what a history they already have in such a short time. welcome to "morning joe." it is tuesday, july 10th. with us we have msnbc
contributor mike barnacle. former chairman of the republican national committee, michael steele. and nbc news national political reporter heidi presbella is with us this morning. so a lot to talk about. quite a late night for everybody last night watching the big announcement. we will get to the president's supreme court pick and his nato trip in just a moment, but quickly first, the latest gallup weekly tracking poll sos president trump's job approval rating has slipped back down into double digit negative territory as 56% disapprove and 41% approve. this just three weeks after trump received the best marks since the first days of his presidency in mid-june, only to have his ratings turn back in a negative direction. this was the same time period that his administration's family separation policy at the southern border came into public view. we'll get to developments in that story ahead, but those
numbers are really staggering. >> i mean really briefly, really, who could have ever imagined ripping children from their mother's breasts at the border -- >> and then lying about it. >> -- and then losing the children and saying you're going to get them back and you can't get them back and we're still trying to figure out where they are, who would have guessed it would hurt the president's approval rating? >> including this issue of separation of families, he believed his base thinks the people are breaking the law. you break the law, there are consequences for it. there have been consequences to it, and his poll numbers which he touted a up will of weeks ago as the gallup number picked up into the mid 40s, and now it is back to where it is. >> this is something that the republicans all have to answer for in every swing district and every district that hillary clinton carried that is now being held by a republican. i mean this is just a
monumentally stupid, immoral and politically short-sighted approach to border security. you can see there's a direct overlay between donald trump started having his administration push a policy that ripped children from their mother's arms to his poll numbers going down. >> well, the numbers are proof of the fact while he can find a potential supreme court justice, he's found a supreme court nominee, he has lost -- his administration and the republican party lost hundreds of children literally. they don't know where the children are. they can't reunite these children, these infants in some cases with parents. >> we are talking about children under five, i think up to 50 literally they can't find their families. >> actually, between 50 and 100 children. >> but the lives that hang in the balance right now is up to 2,000. again, no access. again, no answers. again, no process, which shows
that when they put this policy in place and said they hoped that people get the message, they had no clue as to how they might be able to track these people and bring these families back together, which shows such an extreme callousness. >> yes. >> which shows such a lack of humanity when it comes to american values and families. >> well, that's it. american people are pretty smart and they can understand, okay, he makes a nomination, brett kavanaugh. what they can't understand is how do you send parents to honduras and children to new york. >> and leave them here. all right. we'll get to that. but certainly those poll numbers are interesting. we want to get right to the supreme court pick this morning. last night in a prime time announcement, the president nominated 53-year-old federal appeals court judge brett kavanaugh to succeed justice anthony kennedy. >> judge kavanaugh has impeccable credentials, unsurpassed qualifications and a
proven commitment to equal justice under the law. there is no one in america more qualified for this position and no one more deserving. >> tomorrow i begin meeting with members of the senate, which plays an essential role in this process. i will tell each senator that i revere the constitution. i believe that an independent judiciary is the crown jewel of our constitutional republic. if confirmed by the senate, i will keep an open mind in every case and i will always strive to preserve the constitution of the united states and the american rule of law. >> kavanaugh is a graduate of yale law school and clerked for justice kennedy in 1993. he met kenneth starr during a justice department fellowship and became a key staff member
when starr was the independent counsel investigating the white water and the clinton/lieu ensky scandals. kavanaugh helped write the final report to congress that laid out 11 possible grounds for impeaching president bill clinton. he later served as president george w. bush's white house counsel and staff secretary before he was nominated to be a federal judge in 2006. kavanaugh was confirmed at that time by a vote of 57-36. meanwhile, a professor at yale law school penned an op ed in "the new york times" in support of his colleague's nomination. it is entitled "a liberal's case for brett kavanaugh." he writes in part, quote, in 2016 i strongly supported hillary clinton for president as well as obama's nominee for the supreme court, judge merrick garland, but today it is hard to name anyone with judicial credentials as strong as those of judge kavanaugh. >> and he goes on, willie, to
write, other than merrick garland and the actual people that sit on the united states supreme court, he believes kavanaugh is most qualified to sit there. unlike -- said even unlike justice scalia, kavanaugh is deeply immersed in the history of the court and believes that he's about as -- he's as good a selection as any republican president could make. >> yes. senate democrats were going to put up a fight whoever this was. >> right. >> we know that that fight is coming. they've already talked about that last night. but the truth of the matter is where there are places aggressives will disagree on guns, border and abortion, this is not a wild pick that some people were fearing. >> yes. >> this is an imminently qualified guy. again, you can disagree with his positions on certain issues, but this is a guy qualified for the
job. this is a guy who has been supported by president bush, by jeb bush, by john mccain. really, you know, conventional republicans, establishment republicans. he's not a wild-eyed choice, and probably smart by president trump because he makes it difficult on democrats when they say the world is coming to an end because of his supreme court pick. >> right. it does make it more difficult for democrats, mike, to paint him as a wild-eyed fanatic. >> yeah. >> oh, absolutely. >> and it also puts the republican -- he puts the republicans, the two republicans thinking of voting against a nominee, in a very difficult position, as it does the three or four democrats thinking that they would -- might plausibly vote against him, too because he is such a mainstream pick. when you have john mccain, jeb bush, w and all of these people -- and liberal law
professors from yale saying he's as good a pick as you would find other than merrick garland, it is hard to paint him as a wild-eyed i h wild-eyed ideologue. >> and you would have to think this appointment has given comfort to certain people. i don't think michael steele, the white house could ever have hoped for better optics. this man and his family, a tremendously appealing group of people. the judge himself was certainly not threatening at all in his appearance and his brief speech last night. >> didn't have a mustache and beard. remember, coming to the board problem. >> i don't understand the beard. i think a lot of people have trouble trusting someone that has a beard like that. why do you have a beard like that, sir? >> yeah, and judge kavanaugh --
>> can you believe a senator saying that? >> talking about coaching his daughters' basketball team, a tremendously appealing kick. >> michael steele. >> he is a former altar boy so i already identify with him. that was a good moment, and the monsignor that i references a dear friend as well. so kavanaugh brings to the table a lot of boxes that will be checked for red state democrats, for a conservative base, and for this white house. it is a solid pick. his jurisprudence is one that has been noted 11 times by the supreme court in affirming his decisions, and so this jurist, this future supreme court justice brings a lot to the table. the politics of this though is what is the most striking for me in that listening to the wailing and the gnashing of teeth, the democrats have no one to blame but themselvess. you know, mcc -- mcconnell calld
their bluff in executing the nuclear opening with garland and others along the way and the reality is coming home to roost for them. they don't have the numbers. the only recourse outside of the protests, the marches and the grandstanding is to take the senate, because that's the only way this changes. that's not on the short-term horizon, maybe longer term, but this will be a judicial desert for democrats for quite sometime. >> still ahead on "morning joe", judge kavanaugh once wrote that sitting presidents should be exempt from criminal prosecution. that could be music to donald trump's ears. >> actually, that is music to trump tower's ears. >> definitely is. >> that's why he selected him. >> we'll talk about that straight ahead. first, bill karins with a check on the forecast. >> good morning. we are talking about a lot of heat across the country and keeping an eye on what could be a hurricane, still 200 miles off from north carolina, still a
tropical storm but it is showing signs of moving. it likely will become hurricane chris later on today. it moves parallel to the coastline and then out to see. we're not going to deal with winds or waves from chris. also our friends in montana into north dakota, about half a million people with a chance of severe weather. this is where we could see an isolated tornado later today. the forecast, as we mention, still very warm. it is the peak of our summer, you would expect it to be like this. 93 in new york. boston at 93. denver is still having a hot summer at 98. salt lake city at 98 also. it looks like the heat will continue into many areas. the northeast will get some relief. you go from the 90s to the 80s which will feel enjoyable but it doesn't make it into the mid atlantic. we have 94 on wednesday in minneapolis. we continue with our hot summer. by the way, we found out that june was the third warmest june we have ever recorded in our
country. we leave you with this shot. beautiful new york city on a hot summer morning. you are watching "morning joe." we'll be right back. ♪ directv gives you more for your thing. if you've been waiting for a sign to quit cable, then here's some signs. it came from the toaster. now you can quit cable. switch to directv and now get a $100 reward card. more for your quitting cable thing. that's our thing. call 1 800 directv. until her laptop crashed this morning. her salon was booked for weeks, having it problems? ask a business advisor how to get on demand tech support for as little as $15 a month. right now, save $300 on our hp 2-in-1 laptop bundle at office depot officemax
he thinks it smells fine, but his mom smells this... luckily for all your hard-to-wash fabrics... ...there's febreze fabric refresher. febreze doesn't just mask, it eliminates odors you've... ...gone noseblind to. and try febreze unstopables for fabric. with up to twice the fresh scent power, you'll want to try it... ...again and again and maybe just one more time. indulge in irresistible freshness. febreze unstopables. breathe happy. 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? this wi-fi is fast. i know! i know! i know! i know! when did brian move back in? brian's back? he doesn't get my room. he's only going to be here for like a week. like a month, tops.
oh boy. wi-fi fast enough for the whole family is simple, easy, awesome. in many cultures, young men would stay with their families until their 40's. my judicial philosophy is straightforward. a judge must be independent and must interpret the law, not make the law. a judge must interpret statutes as written, and a judge must interpret the constitution as written, informed by history and tradition and precedent. judge kavanaugh's views surrounding investigations of a sitting president are drawing renewed attention this morning. in a 2009 article in the minnesota law review, kavanaugh suggested that presidents be exempt from criminal investigations and civil suits while in office. >> huh. >> he wrote congress should
consider passing a law, quote, exempting a president while in office from criminal prosecution and investigation, including from questioning by criminal prosecutors or defense counsel. kavanaugh went on to write, quote, we should not burden a sitting president with civil suits, criminal investigations or criminal prosecutions. the president's job is difficult enough as it is. some top democrats seizing on that in relation to the on- going russia probe. >> he picked the one guy who has specifically written that a president, in fact, should not be the subject of a criminal investigation, which the president is right now. so this seems to be of all of the people the most self-serving person he could choose in order to protect himself from this criminal investigation. >> he's a political animal. he has been for a big part of the formative years of his career. and so he thinks of this, i think, as, wow, we need to make sure that the united states of
america stays safe by protecting the president from investigation, from indictment, from prosecution. that's what troubles me about the whole picture here. >> let's be really clear here. judge kavanaugh, if he's going to be a scourge of liberals, he wrote the law review article in 2009, at the dawn of the obama administration. so it would be the least self-serving thing for a conservative jurist to write, which i think actually speaks, given the hysteria surrounding barack obama's presidency, i think for a conservative jurist to write that actually speaks to the content of the judge's character. but, heidi, there is no doubt that donald trump and his people have admitted to members of the
press already that they did know about this article and it was discussed inside the white house. make no mistake of it that this is the reason -- i mean i will make no mistake of it, everybody else draw their own conclusion. you can narrow it down. you can boil it down. donald trump is the most self-serving, self-interested politician of certainly our time that's ever been in the white house. that's why he has selected judge kavanaugh, because of this single 2009 article and why he upset a lot of conservatives along the way, to protect himself. the question is, will the senate, will those questioning kavanaugh ask him, will they really go after this line of questioning here and ask him if he will recuse himself on any questions pertaining to the indictment of donald trump since there is a possibility that that's why he got this seat, if he gets it? >> it can speak to the content of kavanaugh's character and it
can also at the same time speak to donald trump's motivations. that's why it will absolutely be a major line of questioning and it may be one of the reasons why, despite all of the impeccable credentials we just discussed, brett kavanaugh was not one of the two judges who mcconnell recommended donald trump pick, who would be easiest to get through the senate. if you look at the democrats' messaging last night, they absolutely are shifting into high gear on this issue of russia. you have a number of democrats saying even last night before kavanaugh's announcement came out that he should, in fact, recuse himself. this will be now two judges that this president will have put on the court who could potentially in any number of scenarios, in terms of constitutional questions about whether he pardons himself, whether he fires mueller, where he is subpoenaed, could end in a constitutional question before this court. but look more broadly at the democratic messaging. it is not just about russia.
the democrats are saying, look at the paper trail here. there are a number of points of attack, whether it is the health care law, whether it is russia, or whether it is roe. this judge has a long paper trail. he just came into the cross hairs on the issue of abortion just last fall when it came -- pertained to an immigrant teenager who was trying to seek an abortion. his ruling was -- he tried to delay that. he was overruled, and in his dissent he wrote -- he bashed the decision and used some of the trigger words used by the activist anti-abortion crowd in terms of abortion on demand. so there are a number of flash points here that i think are going to make it hard on democrats, but that is where you look for the first cracks as to those red state democrats. >> coming up on "morning joe", not only did president trump
congratulate vladimir putin on his election, but he bad mouthed members of his own administration while speaking with the russian leader. we will preview their face-to-face meeting which bizarrely will take place without any other american officials in the room. ♪ it's the ford summer sales event and now is the best time to buy. and check out the all-new ecosport. protect those who matter most, and make the summer go right with ford, america's best-selling brand. now during the ford summer sales event, get 0% financing for 60 months on a huge selection of suv's. and for the first time ever get 0% financing for 60 months plus $1,000 ford bonus cash on the 2018 ecosport.
plus $1,000 ford bonus cash my mom washes the dishes... ...before she puts them in the dishwasher. so what does the dishwasher do? new cascade platinum does the work for you, prewashing and removing stuck-on foods, the first time. wow, that's clean! new cascade platinum. metastatic breast cancer is relentless, but i'm relentless too. mbc doesn't take a day off, and neither will i. and i treat my mbc with new everyday verzenio- the only one of its kind that can be taken every day. in fact, verzenio is a cdk4 & 6 inhibitor for postmenopausal women with hr+, her2- mbc, approved, with hormonal therapy, as an everyday treatment for a relentless disease. verzenio + an ai is proven to help women
have significantly more time without disease progression, and more than half of women saw their tumors shrink vs an ai. diarrhea is common, may be severe, and may cause dehydration or infection. before taking verzenio, tell your doctor if you have fever, chills, or other signs of infection. verzenio may cause low white blood cell counts, which may cause serious infection that can lead to death. serious liver problems can occur. symptoms may include tiredness, loss of appetite, stomach pain, and bleeding or bruising more easily than normal. blood clots that can lead to death have also occurred. talk to your doctor right away if you notice pain or swelling in your arms or legs, shortness of breath, chest pain or rapid breathing or heart rate. tell your doctor if you are pregnant, breastfeeding, or plan to become pregnant. common side effects include nausea, infections, low red and white blood cells and platelets, decreased appetite, headache, abdominal pain, tiredness, vomiting, and hair thinning or loss. i'm relentless. and my doctor and i choose to treat my mbc with verzenio. be relentless. ask your doctor about everyday verzenio.
we are back now with breaking news. mission accomplished in thailand. the final four boys and their 25-year-old soccer coach have been freed from that cave in thailand after 18 days. they're now under quarantine in the hospital. two of the boys are being treated for mild knew moania. there was one loss of life as you remember in this ordeal. former thai navy seal died on friday. again, all 12 boys and their coach safe and recovering in the hospital. considering the circumstances, they're in remarkable physical condition we're told. great news. now to reporting on president trump's personal attorney rudy guilliani. ethics experts are telling "the washington post" that he could be running afoul of federal
ethics laws since he is working for foreign clients while serving on the president's legal team. reading from the paper's article he said, guilliani said in recent interviews with "the washington post" that he is working with clients in brazil and colombia, among other countries, as well as delivering paid speeches from a controversial iranian dissident group. he has never registered with the justice department on behalf of his overseas clients, asserting it is not necessary because he does not directly lobby the u.s. government and is not charging trump for his services. guilliani's decision to continue representing foreign entities also departs from standard practice for presidential attorneys who in the past have generally sought to sever any ties that could create conflicts with their client in the white house. i have never lobbied him on anything, guilliani said. i don't represent foreign government in front of the u.s. government. i've never registered to lobby. but lobbying experts told the
post that some of guilliani's work for overseas clients is likely to require registration under the foreign agent registration act. susan, where do we begin here? i mean it also feels like when guilliani speaks for the president he's not necessarily doing the best bidding for the president. he seems to be tipping the president's hand every step of the way. having said that, where -- is this fair? is it a fair argument that there may be something inappropriate here? >> we have to find out what the facts are. it would be interesting to see if guilliani's firm registered as a lobbyist, maybe not him specifically, and if any of those were holdovers from his previous law firm. but that's what happens when you become a made-for-tv lawyer for the president. >> right. >> and you're not really doing the law aspect of as much as the pr aspect. i think sometimes you forget the lines that are drawn and what you are supposed to be responsible for. >> all right. well, i mean, rudy does what rudy wants to do.
>> i mean should we be surprised, mike? >> i'm not. >> no. >> again, you look at what this president is doing. he's -- i mean there's so many conflicts financially, and we've known there was going to be for a long time. >> no, we should not be surprised. in a way, it is sad because he is so diminished the reputation that was well-earned in the aftermath of september 11th here in new york city, and the demise of that is long gone. now it is just seemingly a lust to be on camera to stay relevant. >> and rudy guilliani has existed in this space for the last few months of, i don't really work at the white house, i'm president trump's friend, i'm a loyal adviser, i'm an attorney at times, i'm a fixer at other times. think he views himself as immune from the other conflict of interest questions that would arise if you were, in fact, working at the white house. all right. president trump is headed to brussels right now amid what many see as a defining moment for nato. ahead we will talk about another defining moment involving nato. this one from back in 1983.
how a military exercise nearly led to nuclear war with the soviet union. "morning joe" will be back in a moment. ♪ this is a story about mail and packages. and it's also a story about people. people who rely on us every day to deliver their dreams they're handing us more than mail they're handing us their business and while we make more e-commerce deliveries to homes than anyone else in the country,
we never forget... that your business is our business the united states postal service. priority: you ♪ after a scratch so small rocket you could fix it with a pen. how about using that pen to sign up for new insurance instead? for drivers with accident forgiveness, liberty mutual won't raise their rates because of their first accident. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ i saw my leg did not look right. i landed.
i was just finishing a ride. i felt this awful pain in my chest. i had a pe blood clot in my lung. i was scared. i had a dvt blood clot. having one really puts you in danger of having another. my doctor and i chose xarelto®. xarelto®. to help keep me protected. xarelto® is a latest-generation blood thinner that's... proven to treat and reduce the risk of dvt or pe blood clots from happening again. in clinical studies, almost 98% of patients on xarelto® did not experience another dvt or pe. xarelto® works differently. warfarin interferes with at least 6 of your body's natural blood-clotting factors. xarelto® is selective, targeting just one critical factor. don't stop taking xarelto® without talking to your doctor, as this may increase risk of blood clots. while taking, you may bruise more easily, or take longer for bleeding to stop. xarelto® can cause serious, and in rare cases, fatal bleeding. it may increase your risk of bleeding if you take certain medicines. get help right away for unexpected bleeding or unusual bruising. do not take xarelto® if you have an artificial heart valve or abnormal bleeding. before starting,
tell your doctor about all planned medical or dental procedures and any kidney or liver problems. learn all you can... to help protect yourself from another dvt or pe. talk to your doctor about xarelto®. are you ready to take your then you need xfinity xfi.? a more powerful way to stay connected. it gives you super fast speeds for all your devices, provides the most wifi coverage for your home,
and lets you control your network with the xfi app. it's the ultimate wifi experience. xfinity xfi, simple, easy, awesome. nato has not treated us fairly but i think we'll work something out. we pay far too much and they pay far too little, but we will work it out and all countries will be happy. in the uk, that's a situation that has been going on for a long time. so i have nato, i have the uk, which has been somewhat turmoil, and i have putin. frankly, putin may be the easiest of them all. who would think? who would think? >> actually, let me answer that one for you. nobody would think that except you. just like in 2015 nobody would have said that vladimir putin
was a great leader, he was a strong leader, except you. so the more things change, the more they stay the same. that leaves us wondering again -- a question we've been asking all along -- >> what does he have. >> -- what does vladimir putin have on donald trump. we will find out. >> we know he has something. >> we will find out at some point, but, my god, when we find out it is going to be something. >> i know. that was president trump moments ago leaving the white house en route to europe. when asked whether vladimir putin was a friend or a foe, the president answered that he really can't say right now adding, quote, as far as i'm concerned he is a competitor. we are also learning more about the private phone calls between the two leaders. "new york times" reports that during a march conversation putin complained that several trump administration officials tried to prevent the call from happening, to which trump respond, quote, those are stupid people, you shouldn't listen to them. >> he is talking about his
national security staff, by the way. >> that was the same call where trump reportedly congratulated putin on his election victory, despite a clear warning from his top aides in his briefing notes in all caps, do not congratulate. should we explain why that's not a good idea, to congratulate putin on his election win? >> yeah, yeah. >> it is not just that his staff didn't want him to do it. it is that it has negative consequences. >> yeah, that he obviously doesn't care anything about. anyway -- >> joining us now adjunct professor at usc and contributor at "the week" mark evander, author of the new book "the brink." which is out today. thanks for okay. congratulations on the book. >> thank you so much. good to be here. >> mark, i was up way too late last night. i did the old man thing of falling asleep early and waking up just in time to see that at 12:09 a.m. your book was at the
top of the charts, not that you were paying attention to that. but, first of all, congratulations, at least on the first nine minutes of the release. >> thank you. >> secondly, you know, we've heard of -- actually mika has heard the story, i heard the story from dr. brzezinski about how he sat in his living room, certainly nuclear annihilation was coming, didn't even wake the kids up because he was sure -- >> what do you do in that situation? >> yeah, he was sure that everybody was about to be obliterated, but you tell a different story. this not only happened during the carter administration, it happened in 1983. tell us about it. >> you know, we like to think of nuclear crises as major political gamesmanship, the cuban missile crisis being one. most of the nuclear crises we have faced have been cases where the nuclear command control system has broken down, intelligence has failed, and leaders have not been able to take the measure of leaders on the other side. in fact, when you were just
watching, it occurs to me that the soviet leader has had no idea what to make of ronald reagan and russian leaders know exactly what to make of donald trump. it is a very eery comparison. that's why tension ran so high in 1983, because ronald reagan was a unique political leader soviet leaders had never seen before. u.s. nuclear doctrine was changing to the point where the u.s. had the technology not only to survive a nuclear first strike, but to end a nuclear war on their own terms. this war game in particular that the book goes through in some detail, was very highly detailed and realistic. it involved the release of nato's nuclear weapons from u.s. control to the german luftwafa who would use them. for the first time the exercise had a degree of realism and it
was held in an environment where there had been in 1983 a series of very scary incidents. take each individually, not really that important, but together they create a snowball effect of fear. that's what happened. >> well, and there was that fear for the soviets towards ronald reagan which, of course, the americans shared for quite sometime. but talk about what happened, how that fear led specifically on that particular date to possible nuclear showdown. >> well, look, some just has to do with the relative status of the two countries. the soviets were in decline and the united states wasn't, and ronald reagan was fairly clear about what he wanted to do. he wanted to end the cold war on his terms, and to russian leaders -- particularly those leaders who were very old and dying, which was most of them at that period, considering their mortality, they felt they had to
hedge. remember, from that period there was a shootdown of the korean airliner that strayed into soviet airspace. there was an icbm launch that turned out to be just blips on a satellite radar screen. there were secret changes to nato communication procedures, the soviets constantly trying to sabotage these procedures, and it got to a point where if you're the soviet leadership the only thing you can do if you really think there's a chance that the other side is going to launch some sort of attack, whether it is in europe, from nato or whether it is an intercontinental ballistic missile attack is to attack first. as crazy as that sounds, that's what almost happened. >> marc, it is wily geist. how close were we to nuclear war? the alarm goes off in the soviet union, they roll their icbms out to launch position on something like a three-minute warning i think it was. >> yeah. >> at what point was it stopped? >> not only that, they disbursed
their nuclear weapons. they sent kgb officers down into the icbm, the holes where they would be launched from because, of course, if the missile operators refused a launch orders, kgb officers would shoot them. we know they were afraid because this was not -- this information was not available to u.s. intelligence at the time. so that's pretty close. that's, you know, a couple of minutes away from a misunderstanding or a miscommunication leading to nuclear catastrophe. so we were close. >> mark, you know, one of the back stories here -- i think it is alluded to, more than alluded to in your book -- is the role that ronald reagan, casper weinberger and the american budget process played in the demise of the soviet union. i mean did we not end up through that decade basically outspending them and them trying to keep up with us, spending
themselves into oblivion? >> something like 70% of what the soviets spent throughout this period was on defense and in trying to keep up with the united states, and certainly they had more troops and more tanks, but the u.s. had a qualitative edge in technology that essentially kept the russians ten years behind where the u.s. was. there is some debate among historians about how much u.s. spending actually pressured the soviet union into collapse. bye-bye the time th bye-bye -- but by the time there was a soviet leader willing to talk to wrr aronald reagan and e time ronald reagan understood what the soviet fears were, there was a match ready to be made. i think that's one lesson that if the current president is inclined to learn lessons -- >> no -- perhaps y
>> perhaps he can take from ronald reagan. as you know, ronald reagan read a lot throughout his entire history. probably read more books on the soviet union than i did in writing this book, and was constantly trying to understand precisely what it was the soviets were afraid of and really questioning people in a way that demonstrated an empathy that i don't think people give him credit for. i do think meaningfully contributed to an enormous reduction in the number of nuclear weapons pointed at the united states. >> susan, go ahead. >> and with reagan, we understood the shared values i think with the west. >> absolutely. >> when you look forward today and we see, you know, this president's only value is dollars and cents and that's how he gauges our whole relationship with nato. can you kind much explain the difference or the relation someplace with nato and the importance of shared values beyond dollars and krebts? >> look, there are a couple of
things that nato wants donald trump to tell to vladimir putin. he wants trump to pressure putin into ending the siege. he wants trump to pressure putin to make peace in eastern ukraine, and he wants trump to very strongly commit to putin that the u.s. stands fully behind its commitment to support nato in the event of any military confrontation. and will donald trump do that or will he make constant noises throughout the summit that if you don't pay your bills, we're not going to support you? in fact, why do we need nato, why not dissolve nato. shared values. more than whatever nuclear deterrent the u.s. has in europe, there's about 150 tactical weapons, shared values and the commitment to respond on behalf of nato if one country is attacked is by far the strongest deterrent to any sort of russian attack on any of its former satellite states. that's what nato wants to hear
from donald trump. that's what they want donald trump to pressure void over, and there's no indication at all that's what donald trump is going to do. kay bailey hutchinson's protestations aside. >> the book is "the brink, president reagan and the nuclear war scare of 1983." mark evander, thank you so much and congratulations on the book. >> my pleasure. president trump doesn't appear worried by the drastically different views held by washington and pyongyang regarding the latest high-level negotiations with north korea. yesterday trump tweeted, quote, i have confidence that kim jong-un will honor the contract we signed and, even more importantly, our handshake. we agreed to the denuclearization of north korea. >> i don't -- actually, i don't think anybody ever agreed to that, mike barnacle. interrupting a trump tweet midstream. >> a signed contract? >> when did donald trump actually honor signed contracts? >> or a handshake. the thing is there was never an
agreement in the north koreans' mind to do that. again, i retweeted a national review article written -- i'm sorry. i wish i could remember the author's names but he is an a.e.i. fellow. just saying that this was going to happen, predicting this several weeks ago. said, we got nothing for it. >> duped. >> that they got everything that they needed, so expect this to unravel. that smart people have been predicting this -- and conservatives for sometime. >> the statement they signed at the conclusion of their summit, i mean, was basically, hey, it was nice meeting you. >> right. >> that was it. >> kim jong-un did not meet with secretary of state mike pompeo during the secretary's latest visit last week. >> he was very busy. did you hear where he was? >> he was at a potato factory or something. north korean state media has revealed kim instead visited a rural potato farm.
>> how would you like to be secretary of state, look at that picture. united states secretary of state flies to north korea, which of course they would have walked over hot coals three months ago to meet the u.s. secretary of state there. >> i'll tell you -- >> and after they get exactly what they want from the united states and from donald trump, who they duped into giving a press conference, he decides to go pick potatoes instead of meeting with the u.s. secretary of state. >> i'll tell you why, because mike pompeo would have given him a hard time and would have actually required a real meeting. so why do that when you can meet with trump publicly and make a fool -- >> again. >> -- of the president of the united states. >> willie, look at this picture. he got everything he wanted from donald trump. he's hanging out in the fields with potato farmers now because what does he want to give up? he got the north korean flag and the united states flag next to each other. >> and the president to shake his hand. >> there's nothing else he wants
to get. >> he's gone to the mountain top. he had the leader of the free world, president trump, at his side. why would he sit down with mike pompeo? he would rather be in summer whites picking potatoes. >> by the way, can we have those again? you know, i have seen that before in nantucket. >> yeah, i can't pull that off. >> no. >> i have a suit like that. >> donny deutsch tried actually at his southampton potato farm. >> this is not good, guys. our next guest says there's a straightforward way to help the neediest americans, give them money. we will dig into that theory ahead on "morning joe."
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? until her laptop crashed this morning. her salon was booked for weeks, having it problems? ask a business advisor how to get on demand tech support for as little as $15 a month. right now, save $300
on our hp 2-in-1 laptop bundle at office depot officemax let us place a forearm on the income of every family in america. that so blight the lives of welfare children today. but let us also establish an effective work incentive, an effective work requirement. let us provide the means by which more can help themselves. this shall be our goal. >> wow. nearly 50 years ago, president nixon wanted a basic income for every family in america. and while nixon's proposal never came to pass, that idea has not gone away. joining us now, contributing editor at "the atlantic," annie lowrey. how a universal basic income
would end poverty, revolutionize work. congratulations on the book. >> thank you so much for having me here. on this very quiet, no news morning. >> exactly. >> there really is nothing to talk about at all. so thank you for coming to fill some space for us. so north korea, potato picking and nato summits and supreme court justices aside, let's talk about your book and talk about your theory, heard there richard nixon talking about it 50 years ago, actually guaranteeing a minimum wage. a minimum income actually is the best way to alleviate poverty. >> this is an idea we really know a lot about. in some ways, it's salient now because republicans are quietly but very effectively remaking the safety net to become more contingent on work, more contingent on circumstance and
harder to use. three things like attaching work requirements to medicaid. we know perfectly well what's that's going to do. it's going to drop people off the rolls. it's likely to increase poverty. that's one bucket of arguments. the other reason you hear about this idea a lot is just this persistent concern that at so many point robots are going to take all of our jobs and, you know, all three of us will be replaced with an artificial intelligence. which is another set of concerns. what are we going to do if that happens? so it's kind of those two strands of ideas that have really come to the fore and kept this very old idea and very blue sky, you know, i don't think this is going to happen any time soon but really kept it relevant. >> annie, i am from the school where i believe -- i firmly believe that being born poor in america is the hardest job anyone can ever have. just being poor in america. that said, where is this money going to come from? >> so there's -- it's a very good question.
if you just wanted to give everybody in the united states $500 or $1,000 a month on top of everything that we already do, obviously that would be quite expensive. but the united states is actually a pretty low-tax country compared to its rich country peers. we just pass aed a tax reform bl that took another $1 trillion and change off the table. it's not impossible to think about ways to finance this. that's a note that, you know, a lot of social scientists have looked at this and basically said if we got rid of programs that didn't work and went to cash programs that did work, it wouldn't necessarily cost anything. you could really eliminate poverty by just kind of shifting money around. although at some point probably to be more effective and to help working poor and lower income families in general, you would want to be putting some more money on the table. >> it's willie geist. good to see you this morning. there are pilot programs as you know under way in finland, for example, kenya, canada.
relatively small groups. i think finland's trying it on 2,000 people who are unemployed. do we have a sense just in those small study groups how this is working? >> absolutely. we know a lot about how this is working from all of those pilots that you discussed. there's actually so many that are ongoing in the united states too. and there's a few things that we know. so one is that it probably does stop some people from working but those people tend to be the parents of young children. they tend to be people who stay in school. they tend to be unemployed people who decide to take a little bit longer looking for a job. it's not necessarily a bad thing that so many folks would leave the labor force or maybe work a little bit less. it's also the issue of people taking care of a parent or taking care of a kid. we know that cash is really effective at ending poverty. where work requirements are really ineffective. adding work requirements doesn't make people get to work any faster. we actually have a lot of evidence on that. we also know that people's
consumption patterns don't change much so it doesn't seem like they're just wasting the money. there's concern that people would just spend it on cigarettes or alcohol or just fritter it away and it wouldn't help them and we know that's not true as well. >> susan. >> how do you actually make this a reality? we know we live in a pretty divisive country right now. besides just saying republicans are wrong on certain issues, how do you get everybody on board? because this would take a tremendous effort, bipartisan effort, to accomplish. >> absolutely. so i think that the idea of doing kind of a full fat big ubi is probably quite far outside the window now. but there are ways you can help make the safety net more effective, less contingent. there's been some talk about doing a universal cash grant for poor children. which there would probably be no better money that the country could spend. we have a very high child poverty rate which has a terrible downstream effect in terms of incarceration rates, issues with health, issues with
housing and income attainment later on. the idea of expanding the earned income tax credit or providing a jobs guarantee or just making programs simpler that i think are actually sort of in the spirit of this idea but are not as radical. >> all right. >> the book is "give people money." annie, thank you so much. thafrgs for being on the show this morning. >> thanks so much for squeezing me in, guys. >> welcome back. final thoughts, joe. >> the big final thought today, more breaking news, billy dee williams coming back for "star wars 9." >> you've been texting with your son again. >> andrew passed that information along to me. that's right up there with potato picking in north korea. final thoughts? >> we had chuck schumer on. he's ready for a fight on this judge kavanaugh, on this nominee. it's going to be tough to get joe manchin, joe tester, democrats, to peel off for this
one. >> i just can't get over the fact that we have a president of the united states who is in collusion with vladimir putin about disrupting and destroying the european union. >> so happy to see those kids and coach out in thailand. it's a great news story. it was the only thing keeping donald trump out of every news story. >> yep. i think also the foreign policy -- on the foreign policy front, this president has been duped and mocked by dictators, but i think the separation policy will be really what this president is remembered for in terms of complete and total incompetence and inhumanity. i think it will linger for a long time. that does it for us this morning. stephanie ruhle picks up the coverage right now. >> thanks mi s mika. thanks, joe. hi there, i'm stephanie ruhle. and we begin this morning with breaking news.