tv The Rachel Maddow Show MSNBC July 30, 2018 9:00pm-10:00pm PDT
>> thanks for joining thus hour. rachel has the night off. we begin with one of the more telling admissions from trump's criminal defense team. one of those nights where you wonder who rudolph giuliani is really trying to help. one way to understand this absurdity is with the absurd camera work that blessed the internet this weekend when this dog got ahold of a go pro camera. the video fits a little of how giuliani is an unreliable narrator. twists and turns have definitely benefited from his telling. so our thanks tonight to the dog who grabbed that camera in his mouth and ran it all over the place this weekend.
it is something worth seeing. as for giuliani, he is claiming collusion is not a crime. this point first arose last may after trump fired director james comey said that he was asked to tend investigation into the recently fired national security adviser mike flynn. boom. then doj appointed bob mueller the special counsel the next day. trump's colossal mistake, taking the one and only possible action that could launch that probe into his white house. it changed the whole arc of his presidency. it spawned the cottage industry of trump legal actions and discussion from former prosecutors explaining this probe into his conduct. we'll have that in a moment. to his allies experimenting on tv with all kinds of defenses and some are better than others. if you say trump was a rookie and he didn't know what his campaign was up to, if true, that's a decent legal defense. if you say trump did collude and
that's not a crime, that is not a decent legal defense because it's not true and it makes you sound guilty. so here's how that one got started on fox news. >> i've said it before and i'll say the again, collusion is not a crime. only in anti-trust law. you can collude all you want with a foreign government in an election. there's no such statute. >> but what crime? can anyone identify the crime? >> collusion, while alarming and highly inappropriate for the trump campaign of which there is no evidence, by the way colluded with the russians, it is not a crime. >> we'll get to that fact checking. then you have allies going back to the claim collusion is not a crime and it seems like a weird defense rather than just denying it. then it made more sense when "the new york times" would say that many trump close aides already knew. that there was this trump tower
meeting. that trump's own son took it explicitly being promised damaging information on clinton and then the "times" gave the actual information. the meeting, if it is what you say, i love it. if you did that, you might need a wider defense than denial. in october came the multiple denials. october 30, the special counsel announcing the indictments against paul manafort who goes on trial tomorrow, plus his deputy, campaign manager rick gates. mueller also announced guilty pleas of george papadopoulos who admitted contacts with who? russian nationals. who he thought were tied to the russian government. who offered him what? yes. information about the possible release of hillary clinton's e-mails. so following those indictments we then saw allies of the president including now and this is key, the president's own lawyers, picking up the argument like go pro camera, collusion is
not a crime and running around with it. >> you just had all this conversation about collusion. there is no crime of collusion. >> that's not just a pundit. that's the president's lawyer, jay sekulow. he would return to that, he would pick up that bone in his mouth and whip it around. following the guilty plea a month later, he said for something to be a crime, there has to be a statute that you say is being violated. there's not a statute that refers to criminal collusion. there's no crime of collusion. the president jumped in on this and said the argument that he heard on tv from alan dershowitz. the president brought it up saying i watched dershowitz. he said collusion is not a criminal but even if it was a crime there is no collusion. that's the combining of the denial with the collusion is not a crime narrative.
it went away for a few months. the president was focusing on just the straight up no collusion point. you see it in all the tweets. now it is roaring back because of the thursday night bombshell that the president's own former lawyer and fixer cohen is claiming despite all the denials, the president did know about the russia/trump tower meeting in advance. when that report drop, you know what happens next, they picked it up and whipped it around and began running with it again. >> it's hard to see the point of all of this hysteria. what would the crime be? it is not illegal to talk to foreigners. nobody is claiming that any information changed hands. even if did it, so what? >> i don't think it is bad if campaigns are turning to foreign governments for dirt. it's not collusion. it is not something that's impeachable.
>> as they say in court, hey, dude, no one cares if you think it is wad. is question is whether it is an illegal conspiracy. this was carried on through weekend by the president's surrogates on sunday shows. >> so we don't even know if the information we're being given by another outlet is accurate. if it is and we've discussed this before. collusion is not a crime. so the fact is, we're a long way away from having anything to talk about here. >> and today it got stranger with the president's own lawyer, rudolph giuliani, going further. >> i've been sitting here looking in the federal code trying to find collusion as a crime. collusion is not a crime. i don't even know if it is a crime. collusion about russians. you start analyzing the crime. the hacking is the crime. >> that's the original, yes. >> the president didn't hack. he didn't pay them for hacking. >> he didn't pay them for hacking. donald trump famously doesn't pay his own contractors and his own long time lawyers?
even if his opponents were accusing him of anything, it wouldn't be of paying vladimir putin for the hack. but big picture, we are as all of this voluminous record shows, a long way from any kind of straight denial and we're getting closer to people who work for the president right now saying that even an alleged knowing election congress conspiracy quid pro quo ought to be legal. mueller is probing how trump used the july 26, 2016 speech that we all remember to weirdly address russia in the second person on the very criminal activity that it has now been indicted for saying, russia, if you're listening, i hope you're able to find the 30,000 e-mails that are missing. we know this time line. it was from the first time they attempted on spear fish accounts used by clinton's personal office.
is that just history? odd timing? did mueller just indict and now getting ready to wrap things up? to be fair, we don't know. we haven't said. what we're seeing amidst this collusion is not a crime hysteria is the people closest to this, people like rudolph giuliani and the president himself, they're not acting like mueller is wrapping this up. they're acting like something is about to get much hotter and like it is somehow for some reason important to them to get at least their supporters, at least some people in this nation tonight to believe that crimes are not crimes. i turn now to a former federal prosecutor, a u.s. attorney in the southern district of new york. a fellow at nyu law school. thanks for being here tonight. >> thanks for having me. >> collusion is not a word that
figures importantly into the federal statutes. but the reference to a reference conspiracy is the type of crime that is in the statutes. walk us through what to make of this defense. >> if you were to sit on television every night and every time you talk about this investigation, you would have to say, let's talk about the investigation into a conspiracy to defraud the united states from impeding the proper functions of the government, people would turn the channel off. collusion is just shorthand for potentially several crimes that are in the federal code. and so this shift in strategy when rudolph giuliani unquestionably knows that, means to me there is something else up. it is just too simplistic and too incorrect even for someone like rudolph giuliani who mass made a number of misleading and incorrect statements over the past couple months, even for him, it is a clear change in strategy.
>> what does it suggest that he's worried about? >> you mentioned the cohen piece. follow me here for a second. giuliani introduced the notion of this preceding meeting to that june 9 meeting. that was not out there before. today on one of his many interviews, he said that one of the people at that meeting was rick gates. rick gates is the star cooperating witness in the paul manafort trial set to begin tomorrow. and before a trial, the government has to provide every prior statement of any of their witnesses. so now manafort's attorneys have rick gates' prior statements, all of his interview with mueller and the team. what sticks out to me is that gates was at that meeting and it would not surprise me, this is pure conjecture and there may be limitations on whether manafort's lawyers can disclose
this. but it wouldn't surprise me at all if rudolph giuliani learned from manafort's lawyers a little bit about what rick gates is going to say about collusion. and they're now trying to get out in front of this by not denying there is collusion but by saying it is not a crime. >> that is a fascinating theory that would explain the chain of potential information. given what he is charged with, why would the trump tower meeting come up at all? >> it will likely not come up at the trial. because of the federal statutes that require the government to disclose all of his prior statements, they can know used on cross-examination to impeach him, manafort's lawyers will have known about it. so don't expect i in the trial that's coming but in potential back channels, giuliani could learn, and he was not able to speak to rick gates.
when he says, i've spoken to everybody at those meetings, it is not true that giuliani at least has spoken to rick gates, since gates cooperated. >> and you're referring to how, rudy giuliani said, well, let's talk about a pre meeting which could make them look bad if they were all geared up and prepping for getting bad stuff on clinton and the russians. what is he doing? >> covering his tracks. i think he spoke too much. i think he realized this is first time anyone had heard of this pre meeting and everyone is focused on it now. for him to say there was a pre meeting but the president was not there and didn't know about it. thou dost protest too much. of course the president didn't pay vladimir putin for hacking.
of course he didn't speak to putin on the phone and say can you interfere on my behalf. >> and there is no fundamental understanding of a conspiracy which does not require direct contact. you can build evidence through all sorts of direct or circumstantial evidence. >> right and giuliani knows even accepting a thing of value is illegal. it doesn't require the actual transaction. thank you for being here tonight. >> thank you for having me. >> we appreciate it. i want to turn to another guest of ours who has been all over this probe from the start. thank you for being here. where do you come down on rudy, secret genius or bumbling incompetent spokesperson or bumbling incompetent spokesperson that is hiding a genius? >> well, i think it is really, really difficult to be a lawyer for a client who is notoriously
unreliable. it seems like rudolph giuliani does not know the facts in any given situation. his own client is not being completely honest with him. donald trump has changed his story on so many things related to the russian interference and his own role in them that it is really hard even for giuliani to keep up with it. so it seems like he's just making up his own facts as he goes along, as evidenced today when he gave two separate accounts of what actually happened in that meeting on june 9. he claimed there was a pre meeting, meeting on june 7 that rick gates and jared kushner and paul manafort attended. and then claimed that meeting never happened and he said it was leaked but it hadn't yet been made public. so it is a lot of whip lash and it seems like giuliani is trying to muddy the waters and confuse as much as possible because that's their only strategy at
this point. to make people really, really confused about what actually happens so they can look at the next sheeny thing and move on. >> and we haven't reached his other defense that is remarkable and looks like bad news for people who are not at the highest levels of the white house. i guess we could call at this time vip defense. the back of the club where you have the special vip section. he basically says, and i'm quoting, when i say no collusion between the trump campaign and russia, i'm only speaking about the top four or five people in the campaign. which appears to be him narrowing the circle of, he is denying collusion only in the vip section. not the rest of the club. >> i don't know what that means. it is really hard to decipher rudolph giuliani's comments. i think maybe what he is referring to is people like george papadopoulos who was offered dirt by the russians in the form of thousands of e-mails
stolen from clinton's inbox. it doesn't make much sense. paul manafort was the campaign chairman for roughly four months at the most pivotal moment. he is directly at the center of knees questions of whether or not the campaign colluded with moscow. he was the highest ranking member of that campaign with the closest ties to russia. and it is important to remember that he was heavily in debt by the time he came on as chairman and he decided to do the campaign for free. he offered campaign access to a russian old garg in exchange for debt relief. these are all things that won't be addressed in the upcoming trial due to begin tomorrow with jury selection because it will focus mostly on his tax and bank fraud crimes. there will be a reckoning and will it be in his d.c. trial which will focus on his efforts as an unregistered foreign agent.
>> it is especially notable in a campaign as thenally staffed as the trump campaign. we know that from the requirements and they often bragged about how few people there were. thank you so much tonight. >> thanks. whether or not the president's attorneys believe collusion is a crime or not, the first real live trial in the mueller probe does begin tomorrow. that and much more ahead tonight. ? yeah, wow..this must be for one of our new unlimited wireless plans. it comes with a ton of entertainment options. great, can you sign for this? yeah. hey, uh.. what's in that one? that's a shark. new and only with at&t, you can get unlimited data, 30+ channels of live tv, and your choice of things like hbo or pandora premium. more for your thing. that's our thing. visit att dot com. crisp leaves of lettuce. freshly made dressing. clean food that looks this good.
delivered to your desk. now delivering to home or office. panera. food as it should be. ♪ it is such a good time to dance ♪ ♪ it is such a good time to [ laughing ] ♪ scoobidoo doobidoo ♪ scoobidoo doobidoo [ goose honking ] ♪ [ laughing ] a bad day on the road still beats a good one off it. ♪ progressive helps keep you out there.
♪now i'm gonna tell my momma ♪that i'm a traveller ♪i'm gonna follow the sun♪ ♪now i'm gonna tell my momma ♪that i'm a traveller ♪i'm gonna follow the sun transitions™ light under control™ for my constipation, my doctor recommended i switch to miralax. transitions™ stimulant laxatives forcefully stimulate the nerves in your colon. miralax is different. it works with the water in your body. unblocking your system naturally. miralax. now available in convenient single-serve mix-in pax.
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.
the trial of the campaign chair starts tomorrow. jury selection and u.s. v paul manafort begins at 10:00 a.m. tomorrow. lawyers for the prosecution ordered to show up tomorrow at 9:00 and that includes manafort's last-ditch effort to get some evidence tossed. he is the first to go on trial from the mueller probe but this trial as many of the president's defenders have been emphasizing, is not about russia and conspiracy. the prosecutors have been saying
they don't anticipate that a government witness will utter the word russia. instead the trial is about what prosecutors allege is manafort's lavish lifestyle financed with money that he kept in secret accounts, all while evading taxes. the prosecution's witness list includes the guy who sold him the fancy suits and the mercedes dealer and even the landscaper on his mansion. so on the one hand we are looking at true his, to moment. the president of the united states campaign chair going on trial for multiple felonies. on the other hand there's a lot of reason to tamp down any expectations that this trial, no matter how important to the rule of law, will ultimately connect in any way to the larger debate around collusion. to help us understand where it fits in and paul manafort, we are joined by jeff horwitz. an associated press reporter. thank you for your time. >> thanks for having me. >> you have done a lot of reporting and investigation of what manafort's work meant.
the work in ukraine, in russia, the link to this oligarch that we've heard so much about. because of this trial, because we've learned that it is not explicitly about that, what do you think we'll be important that we will learn through it? >> so it may not be as much of what we're going to learn here. a lot of it is cut and dry. it is a step and something that robert mueller's team needs to get done successfully. they are going to be approaching -- this is not about collusion. this is about a guy who allegedly made $60 million overseas, didn't want to pay taxes but did want to spend it on fancy suits and yankee season ticket passes and time in the hamptons. there's a box in your tax return that says if you have any
overseas bank accounts, you're supposed to disclose them. manafort didn't click that one. so we'll see what the bank component is. the closer we get to the campaign is the suggestion that manafort's gave a campaign job and potentially some encouragement for a white house or a government job to a banker who was providing allegedly fraudulent loans to him. >> and that would reveal more than a tax evasion? it would look like an attempt to use the campaign? the question of why this person was so greedy that he didn't want to pay taxes but was so benevolent that he worked for free on this campaign. >> i think those of us who have written about him for a while know that he was quite a freelancer. he was cutting deals. he viewed himself as an entrepreneur. a big question in terms of overall gist of manafort and his case will be to what degree he
was doing anything, his motives and what he was up to had anything to do with the campaign at all. we've seen from e-mails that have been released from his correspondence that they were trying to figure out how to get more money out of oleg. and obviously, paul manafort was allegedly interested in trying to use his position to get something out of a bank. the question of whether it has anything to do with it. >> when you say free lancer, another word that arises is hustler. the question is whether he was hustling in a way that might reflect on management. it would make they will look more like victims handle the co-conspirators. >> i'm not sure that it is a question given his history. i think it is cut and dry without a court case.
the question is, what was he trying to sell and how does any of this relate to the campaign. there's no reason it has to. a guy had $60 million can't go on trial in america for hiding $60 million. >> the $60 million, what will jurors take from this? it is very hard to wrap anyone's head around the idea that the most brilliant in the world could be worth that much. >> it is having seen some of the documents and the financial transcripts, i have a hard time imagining it myself. i would say they're very good at selling their open services. the money came in weird dribs and drabs and large lump sums. and as i said, the sort of, what work he did to he were it is almost extraneous.
in fact it is extraneous to this trial. the important thing was whether or not he disclosed it without letting the government know that he had it. that's a felony. >> do you see anything that could happen that would make him flip? >> i think the question that you're asking would depend on him having something to flip about. i don't know that i view him as being a loyalist and that's an open question. >> people cut deal all the time just for leniency. most people never go to trial. for some reason, he won't do anything. >> i think when people cut those deals, and those deals are very good when you can get them. rick gates is presumably taking one against paul manafort right now. they cut deals because prosecutors have figured out that they have something they really want. and it is unclear whether the special counsel's office has a sense of whether manafort does have that sort of thing. it does seem like if there is not, if there is some bargaining
to be done, that would be the time to do it. >> yeah. as it approaches. thank you very much. >> thank you. up next, we've seen it happen. a politician takes a stand and then folds. what happens when a politician does that every single time he claims to take a stand? we have a knew word for it. stay with us. and now is the best time to buy. man: (on tablet) preparing classic campfire trout. say what? trout. trout. alright. you don't think i need both? why does he have that axe? make summer go right with ford, america's best-selling brand. now get 0% financing for 72 months plus $1,000 ford credit bonus cash on a great selection of suvs. during the ford summer sales event, get our best offer of the season: 0% financing for 72 months plus $1,000 ford credit bonus cash. it's a high-tech sleep revolution. the sleep number 360 smart bed intelligently senses your movement and automatically adjusts. so you wake up ready to run the world.
the new sleep number 360 smart bed, from $999. wmust have cost a lot. a fancy hotel. actually, i got a great deal. priceline saves you up to 60% on hotels, but that's something the hotels don't really want other guests to know. i saved about 120 dollars a night! did you say you saved 120 dollars a night on a room? 120 a night on a hotel room... that's a lot of savings! i saved even more on my flight. save up to 60% on hotels with priceline. ♪ call on me brother ♪ when you need a hand ♪ lean on me, when you're not strong ♪ ♪ and i'll be your friend ♪ ♪ i'll help you carry on ♪ ♪ lean on me ♪ mmm... ♪ lean on me... ♪ mmm...
♪ lean on me. when you bundle your auto and hwith esurance, you could save with their single deductible. so if you confused the brake with the gas, or if your lamp post jumped out of nowhere, or if you forgot your bike was on the roof rack, you only pay one deductible -instead of two- for a claim involving both your auto and home. and when you save that much, it's almost like it... never even happened. that's auto and home insurance for the modern world. esurance. an allstate company. click or call. your digestive system has billions of bacteria but life can throw them off balance. re-align yourself with align probiotic. and try new align gummies with prebiotics and probiotics to help support digestive health.
really important people if they're in the middle of a big he story, they go on all of them. it is called the full ginsburg named after monica lewinsky's lawyer. another is the bradley effect. the situation where voters tell pollsters they'll go one way, only because they don't want to admit their real choice and that's named after tom bradley who lost despite the big lead in the polls before hand. or supreme court fans know what it means to get bourqued and every one knows john hancock. that's what the founding father with the largest signature had and that conveyed his courage at a time when rebellion was punishable by death. jon stewart once tried to make the term mcconnelling catch on with mcconnell smiling into the camera with a song. that was because the campaign put the video out there attempting to evade a campaign finance rule. let's be fair. it didn't exactly catch on. neither did fetch and that's why they say stop trying to make fetch happen.
tonight maybe we can make rand pauling happen. it is definitely a political thing for the trump era. a time when many have rolled over or surrendered to trump actions they once claimed to oppose. the leaders on the religious right or paul ryan enrolling his speakership in something like a witness protection program. there are other republican who's make more of a show opposing trump. the question is whether that's posturing over actions. so consider how rand paul vowed to oppose mike pompeo for his nomination as secretary of state. rand paul said he would do whatever it takes to stop it. forget filibustering. rand paul voted for him. that's classic rand paul. or last summer, rand paul declared himself a no vote repeatedly. he put in it writing with much fanfair.
when it came for the final vote, he voted yes. classic rand pauling. or take one bill that trump has actually signed. rand will stand and wave tax cuts, white house fearsest did not. so let's take all of that context together and take it to the bank for rand paul's latest withdrawal of political capital. he has been deliberating over trump's supreme court pick. one defection there could stop trump in his tracks and paul said i'm very undecided. this is not a small deal for me. this is a big deal. i'm sure you can feel suspense on this one. what will he do? will he use this moment to buck the president or hold out to press the issues?
you know, i've seen more up predictable episodes of the road runner show. and today, rand paul announced he will vote yes to confirm judge kavanaugh. now that is a shocker. beep, beep. so whatever rand paul decides at the end of the show, we actually have a report on the factors that really can impact kavanaugh's chance to get on the supreme court.
the day after chemo shouldn't mean going back to the doctor just for a shot. with neulasta onpro patients get their day back to be with family, or just to sleep in. strong chemo can put you at risk of serious infection. in a key study neulasta reduced the risk of infection from 17% to 1%, a 94% decrease. neulasta onpro is designed to deliver neulasta
the day after chemo and is used by most patients today. neulasta is for certain cancer patients receiving strong chemotherapy. do not take neulasta if you're allergic to it or neupogen (filgrastim). an incomplete dose could increase infection risk. ruptured spleen, sometimes fatal as well as serious lung problems allergic reactions, kidney injuries and capillary leak syndrome have occurred. report abdominal or shoulder tip pain, trouble breathing or allergic reactions to your doctor right away. in patients with sickle cell disorders, serious, sometimes fatal crises can occur. the most common side effect is bone and muscle ache. ask your doctor about neulasta onpro. pay no more than $25 per dose with copay card.
with our largest variety of crab all year! like new crabfest combo. your one chance to have new jumbo snow crab with tender dungeness crab. or try crab lover's dream. but hurry in. 'cause crabfest will be gone in a snap. we did turn a corner last night. maybe not as sharp a corner as the dog with the go pro camera in the yard west did want to play that again since the dog might be something of a catharsis for our weird times. the corner we turned was actually on the calendar. we are inside 100 days until the mid-term. so yes, trump gets plenty of attention and scrutiny is a type of attention. the fight for control of the house and the senate seats up this cycle, 35 in total, is
drawing attention for good reason. in fact, we can start with the history as rachel often does. historically we do know any first term president is vulnerable in their first mid-term. the american political system tends to bounce between two parties and it is corrected a little by the other party gaining seats in the next congressional race. that alone may be part of why democrats are up in the generic ballot that asks people to choose between a nameless person from both parties. and pollsters believe bits an 8-point margin to take back the house. and holding the lead from 7.3. that is a rough ballpark. it does not account for this unusual president or the actual democrats running for office who range from some familiar faces in leadership.
some say too familiar, to some other new and young faces in other races. that includes a record number of women candidates running. mostly on the democratic side. then there are the issues people are running on. the clues from material races, like next week's special election in ohio features a gop candidate running away from trump's. tax cuts. and a democrat using the issue to happen order health care and the safety net. heidi is facing a challenge from a conservative cran.
then look at charles koch. he is putting muscle behind her as the democrat thinking senator heitkamp for voting against banking regulations they didn't like. and now the group says they won't help the republicans unseat her. if that sounds like another wild turn in the yard, it is something different. koch saying he is actually speaking out about all this beyond parties. quote, i don't care what initials are after her name. i would like there to be many more politicians who have the courage to run on a platform like this. for more on exactly what this conservative funder is doing, we go to someone who has been covering this latest koch network summit. i am joined by political reporter with nbc news. so nice to have you tonight. >> great to see you. when you look at this unusual move, does it reflect heitkamp and certain democrats getting closer to the kochs?
or them taking a step away from the republican party? >> i think it is the latter. them taking a step away from the trump republican party and that's because the kochs, which are libertarian in their back ground, they think that the trump republican party is moving away from them. and this i believe is then taking a stand saying, we do not want the republican party to move in to this other direction, this direction that doesn't support free trade. we're going to take a stand and if you republicans do not come on board and support the same things the kochs support, absolute free trade, reduced size of government, they oppose corporate welfare, if you don't get behind these things, we won't support you. and they stay heidi heitkamp's
challenger, a current member of congress who represents north dakota. they say, look, he has not stand his ground on all of these issues. they say on immigration, criminal justice reform, these other issues the kochs also agree on. so this is a warning shot to republicans. do not travel far off the reservation here. >> fairly or not, in large swaths of the democratic party, the koch name has become synonymous with right wing money and politics. are there really that many democratic candidates that even want this association, do you think? >> yeah, i think that the koch association is not going to be a winning issue for many of these democrats on the campaign trail. heidi heitkamp's campaign, they sent may response after the news
about kevin kramer say. in the statement they sent, it didn't mention this at all. it didn't mention the koch pros. it said heidi heitkamp is here and she'll fight for north dakota and put them first. so that was an indication that she won't tout the nomination by the kochs. she will say, i won't do what the kochs say, doyle what you the voters say. >> what is her position in a trump state? >> she is doing pretty well. i think some of the things the koch network, they like about her, the reason they thanked her, she rolled back some of these dodd frank banking regulations. she was a leader on that. she was a co-sponsor of the bill. and that's something that she's touted. she said that it supports community bankers. that's something that got the koches attention and that's what they thanked her for.
donald trump likes heidi heitkamp, too. yes, vice president pence was out last week in support of kevin kramer but heidi heitkamp shows up at the white house in these photo ops with donald trump. but in the state, she is saying i'm going to support the president when it is appropriate for north dakotans and i'll oppose them when it is appropriate. one of the big votes she has coming up is the supreme court nominee, kavanaugh. and she's going to get a lot of pressure from the right and probably including the kochs who announced today they will likely run advertisements in her state to pressure her to vote for kavanaugh. the timing could be really, really important for democrats who are trying to maintain their seats in the states that trump won in 2016. >> and everybody will be tracking where these senators
land on the future of the supreme court. nbc news capitol hill reporter, thanks for joining us tonight. >> thank you. stay with us, we'll be right back. in the u.s. it's america's most popular street name. but allstate agents know that's where the similarity stops. if you're on park street in reno, nevada, the high winds of the washoe zephyr could damage your siding. and that's very different than living on park ave in sheboygan, wisconsin, where ice dams could cause water damage. but no matter what park you live on, one of 10,000 local allstate agents knows yours. now that you know the truth, are you in good hands? 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 to wear another day. make febreze part of your clean routine for whole home freshness.
♪now i'm gonna tell my momma ♪that i'm a traveller ♪i'm gonna follow the sun♪ ♪now i'm gonna tell my momma ♪that i'm a traveller ♪i'm gonna follow the sun transitions™ light under control™ we really pride ourselves on making it easy for you >> tech: at safelite autoglass, to get your windshield fixed. with safelite, you can see exactly when we'll be there. saving you time for what you love most. >> kids: whoa! >> kids vo: ♪ safelite repair, safelite replace ♪
telling the judge overseeing that case on family separation that's it either reunified or appropriately discharged 1820 of the children that it separated. about four unof those are people in families whose parents were deported basically without the children. now, the aclu is asking the government to hand over a list of the 400 plus deported parents. the civil rights group wants to see if it could help them. after hearing on friday, the trump gave the administration has to submit a list of the deported parents by wednesday. before any of that, the judge is expected to rule on whether the trump administration has to stop deported the families. the aclu asked the judge to make the government wait seven days before deporting any families because of rumors that mass deportations may be carried out
upon reunification. so there may have been something to those rumors. there's new testimony now from four fathers who were reunited with their teenage children last wednesday which suggests that ice agents pressure parents to be deported with their children and then separated them when they refused. the fathers telling aclu attorneys, after they were reunited, they were asked to sign a form with options, including the choice to be deported with their children or alone while their children stay in the u.s. to pursue asylum. the fathers say there was nothing like a real choice. someone checked the box that would send them and their kids back. they were told just sign them. one of the fathers saying when he refused to sign, the ice officers said to him words to the effect of, what do you think you are, a lawyer. the administration says there are about 1,000 families with these orders that they could face what many are calling this
false choice that face those four fathers unless, unless the judge orders the government to wait this week before enforcing the deportation orders. and that important ruling on this important issue, it's expected any day now. i turn to the senior reporter at fox.com who has been reporting on all of this. it is a real mess. immigration asylum cases are messy to begin with. this is more complicated by the policy. when you look at what's being called this false choice, walk us through how this works and what victory would look like if the aclu could prevent it. >> when you mention those 1,000 parents who have already gotten orders of deportation, that means they have run out of options to pursue their own asylum. their claims have been rejected. they have been denied review.
they are on the verge of being deported. their children, when they were separated from them, that legal case got broken out and children have a better chance of getting asylum. so by choosing to be deported with their child, the parent would be saying, i'm going to withdraw my child's case, even if he could ultimately stay in the country so we could go back as a family. maybe the parent of a 16 or 17 year old doesn't want to do that. then maybe they would be willing to allow their child to stay in the u.s. and pursue an asylum claim. but as this testimony indicates, they may be not being allowed to do that and instead being forced to withdraw the claims of children who might be able to stay ultimately and get legal status. >> and what do they say to allies of the administration who argue in that case, which is
really a small subset, in that case it would seem the parents are seeking to actually self-break up the family. >> that is something that the aclu, the government and the judge in this case and the separate case over family detention have said is a choice the parents should be allowed to make, that it is perfectly acceptable for a parent to say i would rather be deported without my child than force my child to go through this. it's not, you know -- the judge in this case has been very skeptical that any parent would willingly make that choice. he's told the government to back in the case of the parents that have officially waived any reunification rights to make sure that choice wasn't coerced. but we have seen over the weekend that sometimes the alternative might be true. and the -- no one in the government has maintained that the government should be making decisions about what happens to these families after reunification. the question theoretically ought to be who has options within due
process and whether that outcome ultimately ends in their deportation. this is the first indication we have that the government is trying to curtail the process for people who are still going through it. >> right. as your reporting reflects, there is an individualized assessment when the system works it is supposed to be provided to individuals because each family and the threats they facebook home in the asylum context will inform what they do on an individualized basis. thank you for your reporting. >> thank you. >> up next, what has made liberals across the country rejoice new this weekend. we'll be right back. friends, colleagues,
gathered here are the world's finest insurance experts. rodney -- mastermind of discounts like safe driver, paperless. the list goes on. how about a discount for long lists? gold. mara, you save our customers hundreds for switching almost effortlessly. it's a gift. and jamie. -present. -together we are unstoppable. so, what are we gonna do? ♪ insurance. that's kind of what we do here. ♪
i love you, basement bathroom of solitude, but sometimes you stink. febreze air effects doesn't just mask, it cleans away odors. because the things you love can stink. gacan start in the colon, n, and diarrhea and may be signs of an imbalance of good bacteria. only phillips' colon health has this unique combination of probiotics. it helps replenish good bacteria. get four-in-one symptom defense.
liberals have been quite pessimistic about recent supreme court news until this weekend when many cheered this headline. ginsburg suggests she has at least five more years on the supreme court. saying now i'm 85. justice john paul stevens stepped down when he was about 90, so i think i have about five more years. that would put us all in summer 2023 or focused in until 2024, presidential election year to retire and of course if you wanted to use it, there is the logic republicans had against obama saying that a second term lame duck shouldn't nominate the replacement. the battle is now over kennedy's seat and judge brett kavanaugh.
he's been touring capitol hill. he's been meeting senators, breaking ranks to become the first democrat to do such a meeting. called his two-hour sit down today productive. but said i think it is irresponsible to noun your position minutes after the nominee is announced. that's how the party leadership actually wants it. there is a new report that's interesting in "politico" that chuck schumer is telling the democratic caucus stay as neutral as you can as long as you can. the belief is that if others remain on the fence it boosts schumer's long odds of finding a way to beat back this confirmation. the x factor is how it unfolds. americans who are starting to make up their mind about brett kavanaugh are going to have a role here. his net support is now negative. many opposing more than supporting. we will keep you posted on this
story as it develops. there is the relevant fact that the supreme court nominees as unpopular as brett kavanaugh it says have never been successfully confirmed. as the saying goes around here, watch this space. and that does it for this show tonight. i can mention at 6:00 p.m. eastern, i will be doing my show, the beat, and i have the congressman and former republican governor joining me. she now says she's determined donald trump is unfit for office. that is our show. i want to hand it over to the last word with lawrence o'donnell. good evening, lawrence. >> good evening. thank you very much. there are exactly two people publically defending donald trump on the possibility that he might have committed obstruction of justice. just two. those two public defenders of donald trump are rudy giuliani and donald trump. that's it.