tv MSNBC Live With Ali Velshi MSNBC July 10, 2018 12:00pm-1:00pm PDT
any of the allegations. that will wrap things up for me this hour. ali velshi, i had the france/belgium game on for you, and they took it off. >> who did that? >> you have requested to talk to congressman jordan? >> we have a request in. we hope he decides to come on and talk about this. >> got it. have a good afternoon. good afternoon, everybody. it's going to be thorough and done right. that's how the republican chairman of the senate judiciary committee is characterizing the confirmation process for the trump nominee for the supreme court. judge brett kavanaugh is considered part of washington's conservative legal establishment but his familiarity in navigating the beltway is not going to guarantee him a smooth confirmation in the senate with many democrats openly declaring their opposition. kavanaugh spent the day making the rounds on capitol hill to galvanize support. as the process is under way in
washington, puresident trump is preparing for a fight of his own. he's expected to arrive in brussels. he railed against european allies against defense spending in tweets. these are the same allies he's expected to meet with face to face. and they're reportedly on edge with the fresh round of attacks ahead of the meeting. listen to a warning to the united states. >> the america, appreciate your allies. after all, you don't have that many. >> after all, you don't have that many. joining us is jeff bennett. let's reset this. we talk about this a lot. there are a lot of americans who don't quite understand why we're having a fight with nato. and if you have a long memory, you remember why nato was set up to be a bulwark against the then-expanding soviet union. if you have a short memory, you remember the only time article five of nato was ever called to
action was after 9/11 when all the other countries came to the defense of the united states. so it's quite puzzling that this fight continues. >> ali, you said it. i would just add to that. people also make the point that nato works based on the strengths of the member nations and the leaders within it. so the president's rhetoric, his testy tweets, the statements he's been making on the south lawn before he set off on this trip, his potential actions really risk undoing. seven decades of global world order and seven decades of a common defense policy. you mentioned a couple of the tweets in the last few minutes the president fired off another one. he says this. the european union makes it impossible for our farmers and workers and companies to do business in europe. u.s. has a $150 billion trade deficit, and then they want us to happily defend them through nato and nicely pay for it. the president has previously
warned we may not be willing to intervene on behalf of the nato countries that haven't met the 2 %. >> the only way nato has worked so far is that other nato member countries have had their armed services, members of their armed services shed blood because of an attack on the united states. let's be clear about that. now, jeff, all of this is extra troubling because nato was a bulwark against the former soviet union when it was trying to expand. now we have an expansionist russia and right after all of these endless criticisms of our allies at nato, president trump is heading for a meeting with putin, someone he rarely cite siz -- criticizes. >> the president is set to meet one on one with vladimir putin next monday. we're told that the president will bring up the issue of
russia's election meddling and syria and ukraine. but you're right. the president has really had this curious deference to vladimir putin. and based on his public statements there's nothing to suggest that will change. one of the questions we've been putting to white house officials is what is the goal of this meeting? is it just a handshake and a photo op or will there be some sort of deliverable? will june huntsman, the u.s. ambassador to russia says the meeting in itself is a deliverable. we'll have to wait and see what if anything results from the meeting with vladimir putin. >> as you were speaking, air force one just touched down in brussels. the president has arrived for the nato summit. jeff, thank you very much. jeff bennett in brussels. let's look at where judge kavanaugh stands on a number of issues back here at home. on abortion he's written a couple of opinions. there's some evidence which we'll look at later that suggests where he stands on the issue. for now it's important to keep in mind that kavanaugh was one of the candidates that the federalist society short listed
and sent to trump. democrats argue the strong stamp of approval implies that he would vote if given the opportunity to overturn roe v. wade, but we're going to talk about that in detail later on in the show. kavanaugh's record on lgbtq rights is similarly thin, but his previous defense of religious concern has raised concern. he said a rule requiring religious employers to notify the government they were opting out of providing birth control violated their religious freedom, however, he said they were not required even if they were not required to offer contraception. that's an opinion that may be most kwons sensual to president trump. he authored another article in 2009 arguing a sitting president should not be burdened with civil lawsuits or criminal investigations. although he added that it would take an act of congress to provide that kind of immunity.
this is an important point which we're going to discuss. it's that point i want to dig into with my guests. liz holtman is a former member of congress who voted to impreach president nixon during water gate. also with us is steven benhak. he was on ken star's team during the investigation into president clinton. he has worked previously with kavanaugh in the u.s. office of independent counsel. welcome to both of you. thank you for being here. liz, i want to go back to water gate. there were a number of supreme court justices who at the time had been appointed by richard nixon. but because they were appointed prior to nixon allegedly having committed any crimes or having been investigated, they didn't recuse themselves. only one did. william rehnquist on the basis he had worked in the nixon administration. at the time rehnquist saw fit because he had tied to the administration to step out. nobody has stepped out because
the president is under investigation. >> no. and i think the remarkable thing about the supreme court decision in water gate was it was a unanimous opinion from people appointed by republicans as well as democrats. people who had been appointed by richard nixon. they decided that the rule of law was more important than a president and they said the president had to comply with the grand jury subpoena and turn documents over to the grand jury. >> stoeven, let's talk about th interpretations of what a president has to do with respect to criminal or other investigations. having been part of the ken star investigation, what's the legal thought? >> well, if there's a subpoena for a criminal case that the president would have to turn over the tapes. and the client versus jones tells us at least in a civil case the president would have to make himself available with due deference to the fact that he is
an incredibly busy man. so the wisdom i think is that the president is subject to judicial process as a general matter, but the president can raise executive privilege in the right circumstance and what the court says is that's a sliding scale, and the president will get much more derch in the issues of national security and in the issue of diplomatic issues. >> the kavanaugh wrote in an article in the minnesota law review in 2009 about this. liz, the indictment and trial of a sitting president would cripple the federal government rendering it unable to function in the domestic or international arenas. even the lesser burdens of an investigation are time consuming and distracting. the good news is we know in 2009 he doesn't talking about donald trump, but this has got to have
been influential in donald trump's nomination. >> we know the white house was considering that. the fact of the matter is that his point is just nonsense. that's the same argument they made during the impeachment inkw inquiry into the nixon. the republicans were saying you can't do that. the president is busy. it's going to interfere with the country and the congress. the fact of the matter is that congress was capable of handling an impeachment inquiry and doing their business and richard nixon was capable of handling it. we can't disrupt the rule of law on the idea that presidents are just wimps. they're not. they can do their jobs. they can handle a lot of difficult matters. we've had presidents who have had to handle a war on two fronts like franklin roosevelt. they can handle this war on two fronts. a war from a prosecutor and the war of dealing with all the aggressive business of the united states. >> steven, how does this work in
the confirmation process? judges cannot answer certain questions. here's an opinion today that was in the new york times entitled will kavanaugh provide cover for trump. the usual practice that the supreme court confirmation hearings is for the nominee to refuse to answer questions before him or her but we've never had one chosen by a president identified as the subject of a criminal inquiry, one already result -- in some way senators will ask kavanaugh about this. how's he supposed to respond? >> i'm sure they will. and remember, the confirmation process is a lit cal one. the senate has the right to confirm or not confirm a presidential selection for any court, but including the supreme court. so all the senators will have the right to ask. and judge kavanaugh will have the right to refuse, and in
recent history most candidates have refused to answer specific questions about cases that may come before the court, but they would answer questions about their judicial philosophy. i think brett kavanaugh has been clear in a number of speeches and articles. one at the notre dame law review about his judicial clos if i. he says i want to read the statute. i want to read the constitution. i want to see what it says and i'm going to follow that. he says in a number of opinions that even when he doesn't like a law or the outcome from a policy perspective, he is willing to follow that based on what the constitution or the relevant statute indicates he has to do. so i think he'll probably talk about that. i think with regard to the minnesota law review, it's important to understand what he's exactly saying. >> yep. >> what he said in that law review article in 2009 is i'm making a bunch of different policy prescriptions. one of the ones he says is i want to take the president from two four-year terms to a single
six-year term. these are policy suggestions. he says with regard to the investigation that congress should pass a law that would stop the president from -- >> that's an important distinction. >> i think what's important is in jones v clinton, the supreme court said the same thing. they said we're going to give the president protection. we're not going to give the president blanket protection from being sued in a civil case. we'll give him the deference in scheduling and then the court says if the congress deems it appropriate, it may respond with appropriate legislation. so brett kavanaugh is not saying anything more than our supreme court has said already. >> all right. thank you to both of you for your analysis. liz is an attorney and former u.s. congressman who voted to impeach president nixon. ben hack is a former associate counsel during the ken star investigation into president clinton. here you're looking at president
trump who has landed in brussels. he's gotten off of air force one. it appears he's about to get in a car headed to the planning stages. it's now late evening in brussels. he will be meeting with nato leaders over the course of the next two days. we'll keep on eye on that for you as things develop. brett kavanaugh is making his rounds. he can only afford to lose one republican vote if all democrats vote to oppose his confirmation. democrats seem hopeful of swinging one vote. >> do you think there's any chance a republican votes with you on this? >> i do. they said no one would vote with us on aca, and there were a number of people. there are others in a real pickle. >> all right. that was schumer. garrett haake is here. he's just spoken to senator lisa murkowski. a lot of eyes on her as somebody who could have a lot of concerns
about where kavanaugh falls on roe v. wade. >> yeah. that's right. look, i've spoken to both susan collins and lisa murkowski. i think you'd probably rather be mitch mcconnell than. both of them voted for kavanaugh back in 2006 when he was before the senate for confirmation for his current role. again, he's issued several opinions since then on that topic and on other controversial topics. both women said they plan to do their due diligence in digging into his record, particularly since the last confirmation vote. here's a little bit of what lisa murkowski told me about kavanaugh and how she'll look into his record just a few minutes ago. >> again, i'll have an opportunity to ask for questions myself. i'll have an opportunity to review some of the writings that he has made since the time he gave those statements to the
senate back in 2006. and just confirm, again, or confirm for the first time in other areas that are also very, very important. so there's some work to be done, and i think we're ready to go to work. >> reporter: are there specific issues you want to make sure you personally ask him about? >> i'll learn that as i dig more into it. up until last evening at 9:0 -- what? 9:15, whatever it was, yeah, before we all knew who it was, i had not really dug into judge kavanaugh's record. i was going to wait until the president made clear who his pick was going to be. and so now that i know, i've got my team doing the digging and we'll be jumping into it along with the rest of the country. >> great. >> looking to see who the judge is. >> i took more than
thirty-seconds. thank you. ali, that's pretty typical lisa murkowski. she keeps her card close to the vest. i need to set the scene. this is what we're going to hear over the next month and a half or so. none of these senators who are on the fence, i don't think we should expect them to say one way or the other how they're going to vote. really before the full committee hearings take place, there's no up side to it. there will be enormous pressure on those two female senators i talked about, collins and murkowski and the red state democrats. we need to settle into the idea that this is going to be a long process before we know how they're going to vote. >> it is interesting. you have interviewed a number of senators and the number of ways in which they don't commit to what they're going to do, but there's a similarity in saying i'm going to research it. there people researching. and there's code words about rigorous and strenuous research. thank you. >> reporter: it's a constitutional prerogative for
the senators to advise and consent. they take it seriously. >> i agree. up next, breathing a huge sigh of relief with the 12 thai soccer team members and the coach all rescued from the cave where they waited trapped for two weeks before divers could complete the unimaginable task of getting them all out alive. we're going live to thailand after the break to see how they're doing. and this is a look at president trump arriving in brussels moments ago. baby boomers, here's something you should know. there's a serious virus out there that 1 in 30 boomers has, yet most don't even know it. a virus that's been almost forgotten. it's hepatitis c. hep c can hide in the body for years without symptoms. left untreated it can lead to liver damage, even liver cancer. the only way to know if you have hep c is to ask your healthcare provider for the simple blood test. if you have hep c, it can be cured. for us, it's time to get tested. it's the only way to know for sure.
in thailand joy and relief as all 12 poboys and their socc coach are freed from the cave save been stuck in for 17 days. they went missing after venturing into the cave after practice. they were trapped underground without food and water before they were found by british divers. h they had to wait about a week before the 6 hour trek could begin. after three days of extractions with a team of expert divers, they were able to successfully get every one of them out including the doctors and navy s.e.a.l. s in the gave with the boys helping them stay safe and healthy. there was a tragedy. a tie former navy s.e.a.l. did die in part of the efforts.
all of the boys and the coach are in the hospital. we're told they're able to see their anxious families through a glass window. they're in isolation. matt is with us. tell me what we know now. >> reporter: well, ali, it's hard to say. what we know is from the previous groups there were three groups of boys in rounds of four. the first two groups what we know from the press conference this morning from thai officials, they said the boys are doing remarkably well. that's because they showed very little signs of any serious medical conditions. they had some signs of high po therm ya. there were two boys with signs of pneumonia. everything else, they seemed to avoid serious tragedy. they've been quarantined. the reason why is because it's both the officials are worried that they might transmit diseases to the population at
large because of fungal materials inside the cave, or their immune systems might be compromised after so much time in the cave without food or water. >> we'll keep a close eye on it. we're happy they're out. matt bradley in thailand for us. coming up from abortion rights to medicaid work requirements, how replacing than kennedy with brett kavanaugh could redefine things for decades to come. before you and your rheumatologist move to another treatment, ask if xeljanz xr is right for you. xeljanz xr is a once-daily pill for adults with moderate to severe ra for whom methotrexate did not work well enough it can reduce pain, swelling and further joint damage, even without methotrexate. xeljanz xr can lower your ability to fight infections, including tuberculosis. serious, sometimes fatal infections,
lymphoma and other cancers have happened. don't start xeljanz xr if you have an infection. tears in the stomach or intestines, low blood cell counts, and higher liver tests and cholesterol levels have happened. your doctor should perform blood tests before you start and while taking xeljanz xr, and monitor certain liver tests. tell your doctor if you were in a region where fungal infections are common and if you have had tb, hepatitis b or c, or are prone to infections. don't let another morning go by without talking to your rheumatologist about xeljanz xr.
don't let another morning go by without talking to booking a flight 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. douglas! we're running dangerously low on beans. people love your beans, doug. they love 'em. doooooooooug! you want to go sell some tacos? progressive knows small business makes big demands. doug, where do we get a replacement chili pepper bulb? so we'll design the insurance solution
health care is going to be a major issue in the fight over brett kavanaugh. he has a paper trail when it comes to cases involving the affordable care act, also known as paobama care. in 2011 he wrote the individual mandate was a tax. it was used to uphold the mandate. in 2015 kavanaugh wrote obama care's mandate for contraception coverage infringed on the rights of religious beliefs.
the trump administration is joined a lawsuit by 20 states to end the requirement that preexisting conditions are cover covered. they plan to block kentucky from imposing work requirements on medicaid recipients. another controversial topic he could rule on is abortion. he's written few opinions on it so far. he was asked his thoughts on roe v. wade back in 2006 during confirmation hearings to be a federal appeals court judge in d.c. >> do you consider roe v. wade to be an abomination? >> senator, on the question of roe v. wade if confirmed to the d.c. circuit, i would follow roe v. wade faithfully and fully. that would be binding precedent in the court. it's been decided by the supreme court. >> but in 2017 kavanaugh heard the case of a 17-year-old undocumented immigrant. she wanted an abortion while immigration authorities had her in custody. after a legal battle the appeals
court allowed the girl to obtain the procedure but kavanaugh said disputing her right to what he called, quote, immediate abortion on dmantd. he wrote she should be transferred to her immigration sponsor before the abortion. i'm joined by jeff rosen, the president and ceo of the national constitution center and a law professor at george washington university. jeff, good to see you again. thank you. we're leaning on you heavily to understand the implications of this supreme court nomination. you have written one thing that's interesting. whatever brings roe v. wade or abortion to the constitution -- to the supreme yourt court, if it were overturned, it wouldn't on that day become illegal, but it would allow the federal and state governments to regulate it
differently. >> that's right. the day after roe overturned, every state would be free to protect or restrict abortion where it liked. in the blue states like new york and california things wouldn't change at all. in the red states there might be some efforts to restrict it more than the law currently allows. in those states it's hard for women and especially for poor women in practice to get abortions because there's not a lot of abortion clinics. justice ginsberg said the biggest effect would be to restrict access for poor women in red states. that would increase the pressure to fund it. >> the reference we just made, we just played kavanaugh's response to being questioned for his nomination to a federal court. that's different. the idea that a federal court judge says i respect established precedent as established law is
a little bit different when you're a supreme court justice. you're looking at different things? >> it's completely different. lower court judges are required to respect federal precedence by the supreme court whether or not they agree. the real is what do they do as roe as a precedent. when the justices faced a choice about whether to overturn it, three justices joined the liberals in affirming re for three reasons. they said firsts the accepted by society and people came to rely on it and organize their lives around it. second, it wasn't unworkable and nothing changed on those scores and third, there was no facts or underlieings society changes that called the premises under question. those are the criterias courts spend to use in deciding to overturn precedence. >> we've heard about things that kavanaugh has said in public. here's what he said about being a judge.
i want you to weigh in on this. >> a judge must interpret statutes as written. and a judge must interpret the constitution as written. informed by history and tradition and precedent. >> is there anything one can read into that? is that the wise two sentences any nominee would utter right after being nominate bd by the president of the united states? >> i thought it was interesting. he didn't say i believe it's interpreted in light of the original understanding. he's less of an originalist than gorsuch. he might be eclectic more like justice roberts. nevertheless, that doesn't tell us anything about how if push came to shove he would actually overturn a president has momentous as roe. the question of how they would weigh what's ultimately a question about the legitimacy of the court. the court appearing to be
political if by a 5-4 vote it overturned a precedent reaffirmed so many times, eve an justice who thinks roe is wrongly decided, and we can assume most if not all conservatives believe that, might decide to up hold it like in 1992 because they think the legitimacy of the court would suffer. the real question is how much does he care about how much the court appears to be above politics. that's something that should be a focus of the hearings. >> in context of being an institution allist, let's put up a poll in terms of public support for opposition to abortion rights. there's 52% support and 29% opposition. there are a lot of ways to look at the polls. the bottom line is to what degree in important rulings has the court said that public
opinion plays a role in a ruling that's different from the way the ruling might have gone 50 years ago. >> that's a great question. the justices never say we follow the opinion polls or the court follows the election returns as the sayings go. in practice scholars have found that the court has tended to follow the broad currents of public opinion over time and when it's tried to buck public opinion, it's been a backlash. when casey reaffirmed roe in 1992, almost two-thirds of the country supported the right to choose early in pregnancy and two-thirds supported restrictions later in pregnancy. the poll numbers are similar today. if the court were to overturn roe v. wade, there's only about 22% for that extreme ban. even in the most conservative state. that would be against national public opinion. the courts will have to know about the tremendous backlash
that might follow if they overturn roe. >> jeffrey, every time i talk to you it's like reading a book. you don't even have to read a book. go to his constitution center. it's one of my favorite museums. he's the president and ceo of the national constitution center. he's a professor at the george washington university law school. i want to keep going with the supreme court conversation. i want to turn to health care. joining us to talk about what the nomination could mean to the future of health care is kathleen asbelias. she's served as the governor of kansas and the insurance commissioner. she's now the president and ceo of her own company. let's talk about this. there are a few strands of information that we have on brett kavanaugh and how he feels about things having to do with health care. some are process oriented.
some say justice roberts' opinion on the aca which sayed it, came in part or at least might have been influenced by the type of thinking that kavanaugh had on this. that the congress can't impose an individual mandate or a tax on people to underwrite universal health care. >> well, hi, ali. nice to be with you. sorry about the camera glitch. >> no worries. >> but happy to weigh in. i think that what we have seen in the 12 years that justice kavanaugh has been on the d.c. dou court of appeals is he has had a limited number of opinions on health care. he did -- he was part of the group that seemed to assume that the individual mandate was okay, but basically said a taxpayer couldn't bring a lawsuit until they had harm. that seemed to indicate that you
could have a mandate. although, he did not specifically weigh in on that. he also was part of the large group who said that what people regarded as a somewhat give louse bill to strike down the law, because the senate wrote most of it, and the house did not originate the language about revenue raising. should be dismissed. and he was part of that group. but he has had some key dissents in the aca he was in the dissenting opinion suggesting that even if the law were upheld, a future president could enforce the aca and refuse to enforce health care. to me that's a fairly bizarre stance to take that a president could unilaterally just ignore con depressionly passed law.
he also dissented in a very critical birth control decision which was a portion of the affordable care act where 55 million women received access to no cost co-pays in birth control and he sided with employers saying that the employers' religious views really should determine that kind of benefit in an employee package, and that, i think, also could be very, very danger for women. you know, what's pending in the court right now or working it through is this case brought by attorneys general saying that if the mandate is struck, the whole law should go down. and as i say, he hasn't really grueled on the mandate specifically, but that would eliminate the rights to ban
preexisting discrimination by insurance companies. it would put women right back in the situation where they did not have access to preventive care and health plans. they could be subject to gender discrimination once again which was frequent in individual plans. and the trump administration has made it clear they do not intend to defend against that litigation by state attorneys general. they flipped the position that had been in place, so i think the entire affordable care act could very well be on shaky grounds not just with litigation but with a new justy coming on to the supreme court who has said clearly that even let's assume the litigation fails as did the attempt in congress to repeal it, he feels that the president doesn't have to follow the law. >> kathleen, thank you for your incites into this. he's a former governor of
kansas. coming up, the deadline has come and gone to reunite children separated from their parents at the mexico border. will the extra time granted by a judge to bring the families back together be enough? we have a heart brenwrenching s of one of the families after the break. just like us. and just like that we felt a little less alone. but then something happened. we had to deal with spam, fake news, and data misuse. that's going to change. from now on, facebook will do more to keep you safe and protect your privacy. because when this place does what it was built for, then we all get a little closer.
about medicare and supplemental insurance. medicare is great, but it doesn't cover everything - only about 80% of your part b medicare costs, which means you may have to pay for the rest. that's where medicare supplement insurance comes in: to help pay for some of what medicare doesn't. learn how an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan, insured by united healthcare insurance company might be the right choice for you. a free decision guide is a great place to start. call today to request yours. so what makes an aarp medicare supplement plan unique? well, these are the only medicare supplement plans endorsed by aarp and that's because they meet aarp's high standards of quality and service. you're also getting the great features that any medicare supplement plan provides. for example, with any medicare supplement plan
you may choose any doctor or hospital that accepts medicare patients. you can even visit a specialist. with this type of plan, there are no networks or referrals needed. also, a medicare supplement plan goes with you when you travel anywhere in the u.s. a free decision guide will provide a breakdown of aarp medicare supplement plans, and help you determine the plan that works best for your needs and budget. call today to request yours. let's recap. there are 3 key things you should keep in mind. one: if you're turning 65, you may be eligible for medicare - but it only covers about 80% of your medicare part b costs. a medicare supplement plan may help pay for some of the rest. two: this type of plan allows you to keep your doctor - as long as he or she accepts medicare patients. and three: these are the only medicare supplement plans endorsed by aarp. learn more about why you should choose an aarp medicare supplement plan.
call today for a free guide. medicare supplement plan. 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 today's the first deadline to reunite the youngest
immigrant children separated from their parents at the border. more than half the families are still apart. here's the latest information from the government. of the 102 children under the age of five separated, 38 will be reunited by the end of the day. we've been following one of the parents released into the united states. a woman named maria who came to the u.s. legally, but her two young boys were still taken from her. we've been following her story. >> reporter: ali, maria was one of these desperate parents hoping to get reunified at least with her two-year-old boy nelson or two get a sense as to when this would happen. she didn't hear anything today. i want to give our audience more context as to who she is. she came with her two boys ages seven and two. when you hear president trump even this morning saying a solution to this is for immigrants to do this legally,
maria did it the right way. her kids were still taken from her. he was taken to a detention facility in san diego. the boys were sent to a shelter in new york. it was last week that she was even able to face time with them for the first time. she actually sent us a screen shot of that conversation. i hope we can show it. >> we have it up. >> reporter: when you look at the boys' faces you can get a sense of what it means for two did that age to not see their parents or their mother for two months. and today i caught up with maria to see what her expectations are on a day that was supposed to be reunification day. this is part of our conversation. >> reporter: do you know today is the deadline for the kids younger than five to be reuni reunified? have they told you anything about your two-year-old? >> translator: i know today is the deadline. but they haven't told me
anything. it worries me. because the youngest one is only two. he is one of the kids that should be reunified. but i'm very concerned because i don't know anything. >> reporter: so, ali, we did ask i.c.e. why her kids were taken to begin with. he was an asylum seeker. they said she had a criminal history in el salvador. at the same time maria says she was exonerated. she wasn't charged with anything. and what is bewildering to me is why was she released with an ankle monitor. she's out and about and the kids are in a shelter with nobody they know, but themselves. nobody to keep them company that they know of. >> unbelievable. to be clear, she crossed over at a boarder crossing and sought
asylum. there's zero crime in that whatsoever. >> reporter: ice alleges there's a criminal history in her case. we don't understand why she was released and why the boys are in the shelter. i think the way the case is emblematic is she's having to prove she is these children's mother. she's submitting dna testing, fingerprinting for everyone in the household. that's a process she's being told can take weeks if not months. it's a situation that many other are going through. only 38 families getting reunified on this day. >> thank you for your continued reporting on this in washington for us. still to come, how cranberry farmers in america are facing the consequences of china, mexico and the eu's tariffs. we are in massachusetts with the story. we'll be right back. you're watching msnbc. w you kno. jardiance is the only type 2 diabetes pill proven to both reduce the risk of cardiovascular death
for adults who have type 2 diabetes and heart disease... ...and lower a1c, with diet and exercise. jardiance can cause serious side effects including dehydration. this may cause you to feel dizzy, faint, or lightheaded, or weak upon standing. ketoacidosis is a serious side effect that may be fatal. symptoms include nausea, vomiting, stomach pain, tiredness, and trouble breathing. stop taking jardiance and call your doctor right away if you have symptoms of ketoacidosis or an allergic reaction. symptoms of an allergic reaction include rash, swelling, and difficulty breathing or swallowing. do not take jardiance if you are on dialysis or have severe kidney problems. other side effects are sudden kidney problems, genital yeast infections, increased bad cholesterol, and urinary tract infections, which may be serious. taking jardiance with a sulfonylurea or insulin may cause low blood sugar. tell your doctor about all the medicines you take and if you have any medical conditions. isn't it time to rethink your type 2 diabetes medication? ask your doctor about jardiance- and get to the heart of what matters. i never thought i'd say this... ...but i found bladder leak underwear... ...that's actually pretty. always discreet boutique. hidden inside...
...is a super absorbent core that quickly turns liquid to gel. [snap!] so i feel protected... ...and pretty. always discreet boutique. today's senior living communities have never been better, with amazing amenities like movie theaters, exercise rooms and swimming pools, public cafes, bars and bistros even pet care services. and there's never been an easier way to get great advice. a place for mom is a free service that pairs you with a local advisor to help you sort through your options
china imports $50 million in u.s. cranberries every year. i wonder how big that is? the european union imports $130 million worth of american cranberries every year, nearly 40% of american exports. you can see between the two of them, that's a lot of cranberries. china and the eu, along with mexico, have all imposed tariffs on millions in dried cranberries and cranberry juice. the eu plans to impose more tariffs. massachusetts is the oldest cranberry growing region in the country. with the harvest around the country, farmers say they are getting worried. nbc's vaughn hillyard joins us now from carver, massachusetts, in the heart of the state's cranberry growing region. vaughn? >> reporter: ali, what we are looking at here is cranberry boggs. the farmers will fill these with water and the cranberries float
to the top. it's at that time, that the farmers will be looking for markets. you just heard it there, $130 million worth of cranberries go to the eu. we just saw the president said -- we're talking am real impacts here in massachusetts. in the cape cod area, 7,000 workers rely on the cranberry industry. this is a fundamental part of the community here. the interesting part that we wanted to know it was different. we've been traveling to different industries around the country. when we were making calls into wisconsin and massachusetts looking for cranberry farmers to talk to, it's interesting, we had a very difficult time, because ocean spray is really the major player in the cranberry industry here. they are the ones that really work to open up the export markets and work with the farmers here. what we are hearing from farmers is this hesitancy to speak out, because ocean spray urged them not to, because we have seen in the past what has happened.
the likes of carrier air conditioning or amazon. the president has been willing to take them on. we caught up with one farmer who pushed ocean spray, who he works for aside, and said he wanted to speak out and asked why is the industry hesitant. this is what he told us. >> people honestly are afraid of the bully stepping on their necks, that they think there's a guy who is not afraid to punish people who he -- who cross him. >> reporter: the bully is? >> the guy in the white house. there's a guy in the white house who operates like a bully and everybody is afraid to call him out on that. >> your message to president trump right now would be what? >> well, to think about the big picture, that, you know, the american farmer needs the excess
to foreign markets on a level playing field. >> reporter: david ross has 80 acres of boggs. and what david was telling us is that there's hope, he was hoping the president could help on the trading front, but he called himself the devil in the deal in this process. 30% of cranberries are exported. and you close out china and the eu, he said they have to look for countries that are not with the tariffs. he threw out india, and i said how long does that process take? it's years. the likes of these big countries have to go in and develop those relationships, and you're talking about food. you have to introtus theduce th countries to cranberries. do they like them in the dry version, or juices? this is a process, not just for cranberries but across the country, there are markets that are there. when you take $130 million out of massachusetts, that's going to have a ripple effect. the farmer here, this is a
fourth generation farm. i was talking to a young man here working in the business. the question is, over the next 60, 70 years, is this going to be a profitable business for them? the tariffs are just an additional hurdle to keeping these businesses alive. >> ron, i'm loving your reporting from farms across america. ly say, though, from that 2008 ocean spray commercial where the two farmers are in the bog, i was kind of hoping for that. i was hoping to see you in a cranberry bog. vaughn hillyard is our chief agricultural spomt correspondent apparent apparently. we'll be right back after this break. - 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?
thank you very much for watching. "deadline: white house" starts right now. everybody, it is 4:00 in washington. i'm peter alexander in again for my friend nicolle wallace. president trump touching down in brussels ahead of the nato summit. it's now the latest background in the president's war of words with long standing american allies. president trump spending much of this day enroute to nato, attacking nato countries. calling them delinquent for many years, complaining the u.s. is spending many times more than any other country in order to protect them.