tv MSNBC Live With Velshi and Ruhle MSNBC October 2, 2018 10:00am-11:00am PDT
here's ali and stephanie. >> i so long for a day where we finish a show and say, that wasn't very busy. there wasn't that much to talk about. >> yes, we love breaking news, come on. >> andrea, good to see you, thank you. good afternoon, i'm ali velshi. >> and i'm stephanie ruhle. it is tuesday, october 2nd. let's get smarter. >> no, the fbi, they should take -- by the way, if we took ten years, they'd want more time. let's see how it all works out. they're trying to destroy a very fine person and we can't let it happen. >> the white house has given the fbi the official green light to expand its background investigation into judge kavanaugh. we know four people have been interviewed. two high school friends of kavanaugh's including mark judge. a friend of christine blasey ford. and the second woman who has accused him of misconduct, ramirez. >> nbc news has obtained this
photo over a decade after the alleged incident. text messages a mutual friend appears to show kavanaugh directly communicating with friends he hoped would refute ramirez's claims before the new yorker story became public. >> i can unequivocally say that in denying the possibility that he ever blacked out from drinking and downplaying the degree and frequency of his drinking, brett has not told the truth. >> i have seen brett to the point where he could easily be passed out. >> but you never saw him passed out? >> i never saw him passed out but i saw him quite drunk. >> we need them to do their investigation. i'm going to wait to see what comes back. >> we both hope and have been pushing the white house to make sure it's a full investigation and not duly unlimited. my hope is they'll immediately
follow up on other leads they might have. >> once again, once again, to release in writing what white house counsel don mcgahn has instructed the fbi to pursue. >> one thing for sure, the senate will vote on judge kavanaugh here on this floor this week. >> all right. well, if you take mitch mcconnell at his work, the fbi has just a handful of days left until the senate's deadline to submit a report on the expanded probe into this man. the supreme court nominee brett kavanaugh. there have been accusations by senate democrats that the white house is guiding the fbi in an investigation that's actually a background check. while the president claims agents have free rein within reason. let's look at who is being interviewed and who is not. the white house originally directed the fbi to interview these three people about professor christine blasey ford's allegations. the first two, mark judge and patrick p.j. smyth were friends
of kavanaugh's that ford identified as being at the party when she was allegedly assaulted. the third person is leyland keyser, professor ford's friend, who also is alleged to have been at the house when the assault took place. all right, senate judiciary committee, democrats, want kavanaugh and ford interviewed, along with four other boys identified on kavanaugh's calendar being at that july 1st gathering with kavanaugh, smyth and judge. also the man who administer professor ford's polygraph, as well as ford's husband, and her three friends, all of whom signed declarations that she discussed this assault with them between 2012 and 2017, well before kavanaugh's nomination. as for the allegation from his freshman year at college, the white house director only wanted to interview the accuser, deborah ramirez. but democrats are also urging
agents to interview others. both ramirez and kavanaugh's roommates, who at the time both commented on kavanaugh's heavy drinking. and three more classmates who say they either heard about the incident, discussed kavanaugh's behavior in general or witnessed kavanaugh's drinking habits. and there are five other yale classmates of kavanaugh's and ramirez's not on the list. "the new york times" points out that two of them, charles ludington and daniel lavon say they saw kavanaugh extremely intoxicated. and three others who say they never saw him get excessively drunk. and this is where the problem lies. there are a bunch of witnesses. and they have different things to say. >> the problem lies with the fact this is an unforced error. on thursday, judge kavanaugh brought this upon himself. >> by talking about his
drinking. >> yes, possibly a partier, i was just a great student who loved faith and basketball. maybe it was more than that. which it was more than high school students. the issue is why wasn't he straight forward about it? joining us now, nbc news national political reporter who has got some really important stuff. i want you to pay attention to this story. our colleague heidi prisbila. and michael german. heidi, you have got some extraordinary reporting on judge kavanaugh and this ramirez allegation, which he claimed he knew nothing about until the new yorker piece came out, what was it, september 23rd? >> correct. and to add to your narrative about people not being interviewed, my source, the woman whose text messages i obtained to that list. she is a mutual friend of debby ramirez and was familiar with brett kavanaugh. but the information that she
has, she says, should be looked at by the fbi and at this hour is not. she's made several attempts to reach the fbi, to send them her memo, to get some kind of a response and she's not. >> and her claim is what? >> so she has text messages with the wife of one of the men who was allegedly a witness to the incident, who may have been egging on brett company during the incident, and these text messages show, she says that brett kavanaugh or his team -- she called him by his name, brett, was doing things behind the scenes in the advance of the new yorker article. now, it's important to say, stef, we don't know specifically when brett kavanaugh became aware of the new yorker article and if this was just like a last-minute effort to try and quash the article. or if his knowledge of debby ramirez's allegations well predates the new yorker article. that is why carrie bircham, who is the woman whose memo i obtained, wants the fbi to look into. secondly, her text messages with the wife of one of the men who
may have witnessed this incident, she says they were all at a wedding together about ten years after the incident and she calls her friend out and she says, you know, i noticed that debby was really uncomfortable during the wedding and she was clinging to me, even though she was friends with you guys. so now it all makes sense to me. she was avoiding brett. she was acting weird. and now it makes sense to me. and then she also kind of calls her friend out for allowing herself to be used as an anonymous source, basically negating debby's claims. and the woman, her friend, replies back to her and says i never said that. i just said i didn't know. and so kind of walking back what was in that statement from the new yorker. so all of this, to not lose the main point here, is there are more people who are, i would say, desperately trying to get their information to the fbi to be reviewed. >> that's just a weird -- that final sentence is just a weird one. people are trying desperately to get their information to the fbi. in the case of the woman you
interviewed, she sent it to the fbi. >> several times. she was referred to a field office where she was told they don't do that, they don't intake that kind of information. >> a former classmate from yale of brett kavanaugh's reached out to me, you know, anonymously, but he said he called the fbi himself in the last few days to say it was only one incident, but on one specific incident, while at yale, he saw brett kavanaugh belligerent drunk. we know for a fact there are yale students calling them, saying his story, clean cut, huh-uh, not true. >> so michael, let's talk about this. maybe there are restrictions on the fbi. sounds like the white house said interview whoever you need to. it would be odd that the fbi is not able to take information. is that unusual? >> quite troubling. one of the things that assuaged
my concerns about the short time period was i assumed over the last eight weeks, as this has been the top of the news, that the fbi was receiving all kinds of allegations. and perhaps not chasing them to ground, but at least having a road map for where this week-long investigation could go. so to hear they're actually turning people away and not accepting their statements is hard for me to believe. i mean, the fbi is in the information business, right? they take anything from anyone. much less somebody talking about a sitting federal judge. somebody talking about somebody who has made repeated statements in sworn hearings. and confirmation hearings. so that part of it is very strange to me. and particularly that we're having so many witnesses come forward saying that the fbi would either redirect them or simply not take their statement, suggest that the fbi itself is not necessarily handling this the way they would a normal investigation.
>> barbara, let's talk about what heidi's talking about, that maybe brett kavanaugh knew about this new yorker article and was trying to derail it or do whatever the case is. there are a lot of critics, particularly conservative critics, who say now everybody's going after kavanaugh for things that aren't about a sexual assault but about things that he may not be all that forthcoming about. what in your mind as a former u.s. attorney stands out if brett kavanaugh was texting people ahead of the publication of this new yorker article? maybe he knew it was coming out or they were looking into it to try to get people to corroborate his story or not corroborate deborah ramirez's story, what does it mean to you? >> well, it depends on the facts. one thing that would be inadmissible would be if he were trying to reach out to friends to get them to falsely deny this happened. that would constitute a crime of obstruction of justice. obstructing a matter before congress could be considered obstruction of justice. that would be the worst case scenario. i don't think the facts get us
there. it may simply be that he was trying to encourage them that -- to tell what he remembers is the truth. remember this is how it happened. we've got pictures. we were friends. you need to help support that story and refute these false allegations. that's a different matter. there's two problems with that though. one is that candidates are often told don't work on your own investigation, you know, a person who represents himself has a fool for a client. let us, the professionals at the white house and the justice department, take care of your background and dealing with all those. involving himself is a mistake. the other thing is, by opening the door, by refuting that he was a blackout drunk and all of these other things, i think he has put his credibility on the line. so even if you wouldn't charge him with a crime for lying about these things, i think it goes to his integrity as an officer of the court and the biggest problem with integrity when you have a background clearance is it leaves you open to blackmail. if there are people who know the truth, that he's trying to keep secret, then that could leave him vulnerable to blackmail
which is not a position you want to be in for someone who has a top secret security clearance as judges do. >> michael, it's hard to say any group of politicians or any one politician is the good guy. but clearly, politics are being played in all of that. it's the fbi's job to separate things. can the fbi get the amount of information they need in the time frame that's been put upon them? we know chuck schumer and others have already asked for more time. but then we do get into getting dangerously close to the midterms. is a week enough to get the job done? >> in normal circumstances, i would say where it's very limited additional inquiry, you remember this person has been through at least six background investigations. so there should have been a wealth of information already available. but the idea that they were required to go back to the white house to ask to take the next step of the investigation would obviously delay their ability to move from one lead to another very quickly.
and made that week long period much harder to meet with any kind of integrity. >> barbara, judiciary committee chairman chuck grassley says he doesn't expect the fbi's report to be made public. assess that for us, given this entire proceeding, writely or wrongly, is in public. >> we're in such an odd place. ordinarily background investigations are not done publicly but they're done before the person even gets nominated, much less confirmed. if there's a problem, they can be permitted to kind of quietly go away and be told, well, you made short list but you weren't the nominee. instead what we have is this very odd scenario where we've had a very public hearing. a demand for fbi investigation. i think there's going to be some desire for accountability and transparency in this. it would be very unusual. ordinarily, that is not made public. i think in this situation, there's so much public interest in what the fbi found it's going to be very difficult for them to
keep it hidden. >> it's also difficult because think about all the families that are involved here. this has been brutal across the board. >> all right, thanks to all three of you. heidi, barbara mcquaid and michael german. >> we now have two breaking news pieces for you. two packages meant to be sent to the pentagon were intercepted by mail screeners because of suspected poisoning inside. >> the cdc says the poison, ricin, can be deadly and cause respiratory distress, nausea or vomiting. joining us now is nbc news courtney kube. what's the story? >> as you said, the fbi now is in possession of two envelopes that tested -- and we should point out here in the very early field testing. they tested positive for some sort of poison, potentially ricin. we should point out our colleague pete williams, who got a statement from the fbi about this, points out these field tests are not always 100%
reliable. these two made their way into the mail processing facilities here on monday, yesterday. they were tested in this initial field testing. they popped positive. now the finn has them in possession. we don't know some of these critical questions. where any of the employees there exposed to any of this poison? is anyone undergoing individual testing. and of course what do secondary and tertiary tests show. we're in the very early stage right now but we'll keep you posted, from the pentagon. >> thank you, courtney. next, hundreds of thousands of american workers are getting a pay raise. that is good news. amazon raising its minimum wage to 15 bucks an hour for all, that's right, all u.s. employees. what it means for workers, shareholders, inflation and the future of minimum wage in america. ica. geico has over 75 years ica. of great savings and service.
with such a long history, it's easy to trust geico! thank you todd. it's not just easy. it's-being-a-master-of-hypnotism easy. hey, i got your text- sleep! doug, when i snap my fingers you're going to clean my gutters. ooh i should clean your gutters! great idea. it's not just easy. it's geico easy. todd, you will go make me a frittata.
breaking news. the president just spoke on the white house on his way to philadelphia, where he discussed trade and his supreme court nominee, brett kavanaugh. we're going to be hearing from the president in about two minutes. our reporters will tell us it's loud because he was getting -- a helicopter, so it wasn't all that -- >> ali, think about the last week and a half, whether it's the president, a number of health conferences. and now he's been relatively
restrained and/or tame on twitter. he has really stuck to messaging. he seems to be focused on the midterms ahead. >> right. >> if you think about what he's trying to focus on, trade and the economy, and sort of ticking down his campaign promise list, that's really important. given what these midterms mean to him and his future. >> take a look, let's put that up as we can. ever since yesterday, the trade deal, having been announced, the markets were very positive about that all day today. just at the beginning of the day, we saw a slight downtick. that's probably a trading anomaly. we've seen another strong day. another half a percent. so what a lot of people have been concerned about, despite all the noise going on, is whether or not the president was dragging us into a trade war that was going to be inextricable. certainly starting a fight with kavanaugh is, wow, he's prepared for anyone. >> knowing the relationship with these important allies, now
good, bad or otherwise, that uncertainty is off the table. for sure, there's one thing that china had yesterday, that will be a bad day. the alliance between the u.s., canada and mexico, working in force, tightening up the new nafta to really go after intellectual property. which is far more important than a lot of the other tit-for-tat tariffs. that's a positive for our alliance. a negative for china. >> right, while china was worried while the u.s. was fighting with everyone else, china had a little less to worry about.
this is the president before he gotten the helicopter speaking to reporters on the south lawn. let's listen in. >> the deal we made with canada and mexico has gotten tremendous reviews as you see. it's been very well received by farmers and ranchers and industrialists and workers generally and it's been really something. i think it's also going to be a very good deal for mexico. i believe it's going to be a very good deal for canada. it's gotten tremendous reviews. it's going through the process.
even many of the democrats, including chuck schumer, came out and said nice things. so that's very nice to hear that. so it's nice to see a little bit of a bipartisan approach. but the trade deal, the big trade deal, the largest deal ever made so far in trade, i expect to top it with china or eu or something. but this is the largest ever made. and as you know, now we're working on china. we're working on japan. we're working on eu. but these are great deals for our nation and great deals for our workers. so -- say it. [ inaudible reporter question ] oh, i think the democrats will like the trade deal. they already do. have already said positive things about it. we seem to have great support for the trade bill. it covers just about everybody. [ inaudible reporter question ]
i don't even know what you're talking about. [ inaudible reporter comment ] i'd have to read the story. i don't know what story -- [ inaudible off camera reporter speaking ] i don't think he should lie to congress. there have been a lot of people over the last year that have lied to congress. to me, that would not be acceptable. [ off camera reporters shouting questions ] say it? >> are you concerned now more about kavanaugh -- [ inaudible reporter question ] >> i think that judge kavanaugh is doing pretty well, it seems to me, over the last 24 hours. a lot is going to depend on what comes back from the fbi in terms of their -- their additional number seven investigation. but i think that judge kavanaugh's doing very well right now. we spoke.
that's moving along nicely. but i don't want to interrupt what's going on with judge kavanaugh. i don't want to do anything to interrupt what's happening with judge kavanaugh. i think the process -- i must say, i think -- hopefully, as mitch said, they'll have a vote by the end of the week. and it will be a positive vote. but it will be dependent on what comes back from the fbi. the fbi -- the fbi is working. they're working very hard. and let's see what happens. >> -- about the tone by judge kavanaugh, does that concern you? >> i think he was fighting people that were making very tough charges against him. and i thought he did very well. i really did. i thought he did very well. he's fighting very hard. for his reputation, for his family. i thought what happened was really tough. it was tough stuff. i've been watching this stuff
for a long time. i've never seen anything like going on with respect to judge kavanaugh. who's a high quality person. this is a number one student, a top intellect. he's never gone through anything like this. i think he did very well. i think he'll be totally impartial. i think he's a great judge. he's known as a great judge. if there's one disappointment, i don't think that you people covered an aspect that's very important. very, very important. that's what he's done over the last 30 years. you know, you're going back to high school, you're going back to college. what has he done over last 30 years? he has been spectacular. he has been a tremendous success. i heard -- certainly it's interesting. people love him. i was in tennessee last night. i want to say those people, we
had a soldout arena where it's thousands of people outside. everywhere i go, i'm going to pennsylvania. it's the same thing. they are so in favor of judge kavanaugh. you've never seen anything like it. i actually think it's like a rallying cry for the republicans. they are so in favor of judge kavanaugh. so melania's in africa. i just saw on television her walking out of the plane. it was beautiful. and saying hello to the kids. doing a great job as first lady. i want to see what happens with the fbi. they're come back with the reports. they'll be back very soon. are you talking about a second time? i mean, this was behilindsey's . lindsey's a friend of mine. at least for the last six months as you know. lindsey's a friend of mine.
he's doing really a great thing, great service. lindsey graham. i have to say i really think that judge kavanaugh's going to be accepted and voted on and positively voted on. we're going to have to see what the fbi says. they'll come back with the report. [ inaudible reporter question ] well, it's a tough thing going on. if you canemplary person for 35 years and somebody comes and say you did this or that and they give three witnesses and the three witnesses at this point do not cooperate what she was saying, it's a very scary situation where you're guilty until proven innocent. my whole life, my whole life, i've heard you're innocent until proven guilty. but now you're guilty until
proven innocent. that is a very difficult standard. say it. well, i say it's a very scary time for young men in america when you can be guilty of something they may not be guilty of. this is a very, very -- this is a very difficult time. what's happening here has much more to do than even the appointment of the supreme court justice. it really does. you can be perfect your entire life and somebody could accuse you of something. somebody could accuse you of something. you're automatically guilty. but in this realm, you are truly guilty until proven innocent. that's one of the very, very bad things that's taking place right now.
[ inaudible reporter question ] >> -- in our cultural -- >> there's not a message now, but you may have a message by the end of the week. you're going to see. he's an outstanding person. he's an outstanding man. and for his sake, for the sake of his family, i hope he does well. i think he's been very -- i think he's been very brutally treated. i've been speaking to people. i've been speaking to people. we're going to talk later. i don't want to do anything to interrupt what's happening, this process. that's fine. i don't want to do anything to interrupt the process. [ inaudible reporter question ] >> for judge kavanaugh's -- >> well, i don't drink. i've never had a drink. i don't drink beer. i've never had a beer. i'm not saying good or bad. so many people like it. i just chose not to do that for a lot of reasons.
i think that -- i remember my college days, everybody was drinking. it was, like, normal. i was abnormal. it was totally normal. and there was nothing wrong. i just didn't choose to do that. so i don't see anything wrong. i don't try anything else. thank you. >> there you have it. the president speaking on the south lawn. i
have to share this in case anyone missed it from the pool report. trump expressed support for brent kavanaugh and said he's an exemplary person. he also suggested the current climate is difficult for young men. if he had a message for young women, trump said women are doing great. >> his specific words about young men, he said it's a very scary time for young men in america. he said he grew up in america where you were innocent until
proven guilty. and now you're guilty until proven innocent. and he, again, reiterated. donald trump jr. had said something similar to this. he had indicated he's scared for his -- his boys. >> ali, you and i both have kids. i have sons. i have a daughter. surely, as we watch all that's unfolding with brett kavanaugh and other things that have happened in the last year, we think a lot about how we raise our boys in this climate. but we also think as much, if not more. i'm going to lean on the if not more how we raise our girls. while these are accusations at this point against brett kavanaugh -- >> separate from that. >> the amount of women who come forward with false accusations pales, pales in comparison to those who come forward with true ones. the amount of women who are too scared or because of their circumstances don't come forward, it's stunning to me that the president could say, girls, they're doing just fine. >> i think we have a lot of
evidence to the contrary. an interesting comment. very scary time for young men in america. >> 20% of members of congress, 20%, are women. 51% of college graduates are women. look at that leadership disparity. >> although a lot of women running in this particular election. record numbers of women. we have another big story we've been following from the country's biggest online retailer. amazon is raising the minimum wage for all of its workers across the united states. including part-time, temporary, seasonal, employees. it's $15 an hour. and it goes into effect november 1st. it's going to benefit 250,000 employees and an additional 100,000 seasonal workers this holiday season. >> you know, amazon had long been criticized. we've done it right here. for very low wages in warehouses and other facilities where some employees who are working for amazon are relying on food stamps and other government programs to make ends meet. ceo and founder jeff bezos, who is the wealthiest man in modern
history, did say this was a response to critics. and he hopes that this change will push competitors to raise the minimum wage for more employees. now, other companies -- we saw this happen already with walmart. it was really one big critic. it was bernie sanders out there. >> for walmart. although it's convenient when the market dictates you have to raise your wages to be able to assuage your critics an s and them the credit. there may be more to this. they were actually having difficulty with the numbers of people they had to hire. let's bring in jared bernstein to figure this out. he's a senior fellow at the center on budget priority policies. he's a progressive liberal economist who probably likes the idea of the $15 minimum wage. the question is, is it critics or is it the market, why did they do it? >> i think it's both. thanks for giving me the opportunity to talk about good news for once. >> we're quite pleased about it too.
>> it's not only they're raising the wages for 350,000 walmart workers, amazon -- >> amazon workers. >> exactly, amazon has announced they're going to push for a higher federal minimum wage of $15 an hour. they're going to put their significant political weight behind that too. remember, the federal minimum wage has been stuck at $7.25 an hour since 2009. now, lots of states about 30 states have raised their own. but especially southern states, which, by the way, getting to ali's question, is where this is going to make a big difference. if you look at washington state, it's not that big a deal because amazon workers there are already paid close to this wage. if you look at texas, kentucky, indiana, florida, it is a big deal. it's not just the market. it's also the policy. >> one of the issues though is what and who incentivizes corporate america. a ceo today, the stakeholders they have to answer to are their
shareholders and their customers. it is not their employees. so when you look at how the stock -- you know, we're celebrating saying this is good news, it's good news for amazon, it's good news for the economy. think about this, 350,000 people now have more money to spend. the stock goes down. because shareholders see no reason to pay people more than the absolute minimum. so is one of the issues that we face a bit of a twisted incentive schedule for ceos today? >> i think you actually just described the way wage setting works in this market pretty well. it's twisted, it's complicated. it has a ton to do with bargaining power and bargaining clout. ali was very correctly going on about the supply and demand and if labor markets are really tight it should be pushing up wages. we just don't see enough of it. which is why a wage policy like this is so important. the market by itself simply isn't paying low-wage workers
what they need to get ahead. now, that's why we have a federal minimum wage. of course congress has ignored that for, you know, about a decade now. so i think that given the weak bargaining clout of workers, you really need political movements like the one that has ultimately pressured jeff bezos into making this change. >> okay -- >> jeff bezos thanked bernie sanders on twitter. >> i'm a little puzzled because bernie sanders is a senator from vermont. is bernie sanders just shorthand for a progressive movement that has led certain states, certain cities, to increase their minimum wages because the market demands it? >> i think that's right. bernie sanders, along with lots of other democrats. also behind this push. but these democrats have been long trying to amplify the message i just was talking about. the idea that, left to its own devices, the market will simply not return wages to low and
middle wage workers commensurate with their productivity, with their contribution to the economy. >> except bezos had pressure. but he wasn't forced. ali and i, we have sat here and i've cyriticized the tax cut, saying unless you are putting some sort of lever to force companies to increase wages, they won't do it. i was wrong. jeff bezos did it right here. >> you also made a point earlier i think is worth underscoring, that is actually good for amazon, okay. amazon workers, just like any other consumer, if their pay is higher, they're probably going to buy more stuff at amazon. some of this is going to come back. think of this as henry ford, many decades ago, deciding, if i wa want my workers to be able to afford cars, i have to pay them more. a service sector analogy. now, $15 an hour in some places is still not a living wage for a family, but it definitely helps. i do think there is a positive
here for the economy, for the economy. made this decision himself. it's also good pr for the company. >> we're talking about it aren't we? good to see you as always. we've talked about amazon, when the news isn't all that great. we should be fair and say this is a good decision. >> also today, the president's zero tolerance immigration policy that ripped children from their parents at the border. we all know it had flaws from the beginning. that's an understatement. a report from the department of homeland security's inspector general. >> the review found at least 860 children were held in cells by border patrol for more than 72 hours with one child being held for 12 days. another was in custody for nearly a month. the president ended the separation policy in late june. the administration has missed several deadlines to reunite separated minors with their families. >> now we want to bring in nbc news justice correspondent pete williams. pete, i was speaking to
administration officials just a week ago and he said, oh, the zero tolerance policy, it wasn't president trump's, it was jeff sessions'. jeff sessions as attorney general doesn't have the power to have a policy. this is trump's. he owns it. the inspector general points out what a lot of critics have been saying since the beginning. the policy was never organized. it was never put in place with anything thoughtful. never any process. so what's the significance of this report? >> what it says, i think it's in keeping with that criticism, it says the department simply wasn't the department of security. simply wasn't ready to carry out this program. and it goes through specifics. it notes the fact that children were held in short-term facilities for long terms. these facilities didn't have the proper kind of bedding. the ability to keep children away from adults. so that's a problem. secondly it says the government, despite a claim by the department of homeland security, that there was a central database for tracking children
that were separated from their parents, this report says the government lacked the ability to do that because various databases weren't communicating with each other. that it failed in many cases to adequately inform parents about what the policy was, how to communicate with their children, how to get the children back. and it also says that some of the department's policies actually made the program worse. for example, it notes that parents were urged to come with their children to try to legitimately enter the country and claim asylum by doing so at ports of entry. those ports of entry were quickly overwhelmed. inspection agents would basically say wait or come back tomorrow. and that these delays, this backlog, probably forced many parents or led many parents to enter the country illegally. >> pete, the inspector general report changes for the future. any of them meaningful? >> well, they don't make any recommendations here. that's an unusual thing.
because you're right, ig reports normally do make recommendati recommendations. this one did not. the only thing that the department responded to, they said that their basic claim was you didn't give us enough credit for the work that we actually did do. despite the short comings to try to reunify parents. the latest figures from the government show about the 20 -- of the roughly 2,700 children who were separated from their parents as of now, 2,300 have been reunified or reclassified. >> pete, thanks very much for your reporting on this. pete williams, nbc's justice correspondent. >> people are giving you and i a hard time on social media for not correcting the president when they called kavanaugh number one in his class. >> they don't rank them. >> that makes no sense. i think it's more important to talk about the kids and the zero tolerance immigration policy that cover every silly little misstatement from the president. >> that would be a different job. that would be a full-time -- as
i often say, we could just be full-time fact checkers and that would be quite satisfactory to some people but then you'd have no other news. >> next, we are digging into president trump's new trade deal. it addresses a longtime battle between the u.s. and canada over dairy products. ali knows quite a bit about that. remember, he's from canada. >> i am, however, lactose intolerant. >> he is that too. we're going to be live at the world dairy expose. >> do i have to recuse myself from the conversation because of that? >> we'll break down what the usmca means for both countries. s
we'll be with you every step of the way. let's start today. the united states, mexico and canada agreement, or usmca, settles a long-simmering fight the president talked with our neighbors largely over milk. trump largely lambasted the policies, making dairy a major sticking point in the negotiations. in the end, most of the system stays in place but a few concessions give a greater market share to u.s. dairy farmers. american producers will have access to an expanded 3.6% share of canada's domestic market. that's up from 3.2%. under the original northern american free trade agreement, nafta, canada set limits on how much milmilk, cheese and other dairy products. there were some ways around this. with the updated agreement,
canada is upping the quotas on some dairy products as well as poultry and eggs coming from america's farmers. also the pricing system for so-called class 7 products. which means u.s. dairy farmers can send a lot more infant formula and other milk protein products to canada. products that happen to be easier to transport and to store. >> joining us now from the world dairy expo in madison, wisconsin, is msnbc's vaughn hillyard and a cow named fabulous. first of all, how does a cow get a name like that? i love it. vaughn, walk us through this. you've been talking to dairy farmers all day long from both the u.s. and canada and tell us what you're hearing. because definitely the ones on the wisconsin side are pretty happy. >> exactly. these negotiations took a while, because of the contentious issue, particularly around dairy. we've got -- this is david. the canadian farmer up from quebec. this is dan. about eight miles from here in western wisconsin. i want to start off with you.
yesterday, when this news came out for you, you have about 200 cows, fourth generation. what was your takeaway? >> it was a breath of fresh air. we liked it in terms of raising our price maybe up to 70 cents a hundred weight. it gives us an opportunity. we're an open market society. we're on scale to lose maybe 600 dairy farms here in wisconsin. now we look at it as an opportunity to export more and raise our private to profitability. >> and emotions on the other side, your takeaway? >> for us in canada, being a can n canadian producer, we have a quota system and we go in debt to produce our milk. costs us about $30,000 per cow -- >> you have 200 cows. you're expanding? >> i'm expanding 200 cows so it's a $500 million investment for me to produce that milk and now we give away a percentage for free to a society where we
don't have to pay the right to produce that milk. >> frustrated, concerned? >> frustrated, fear. i actually didn't call home and say i have to get a different job because it's going to be a different situation in our country. don't forget, we have less cows actually in the state of wisconsin so for us it's a lot. for a huge country, it's a drop. >> dan, real fast, i want to ask you, does this save u.s. dairy? >> it won't save it but it will give us the chance, the next stepping stone, which i hope is china or somewhere else. because we're an open market society, we're looking for a next opportunity. >> stephanie, ali. >> a really interesting discussion to get both perspectives on the changes. what seems to be such a small part of this new deal. but so influential on these deals. >> also so influential. president trump, wisconsin was really important state for him. he won there. he goes through this, ticking through campaign promise. he said to his farmer, he rallied there, i'm thinking about you, i care about you. is this good in the broader term for united states/canada
relations? that remains to be seen. at this moment, it's certainly a win. >> all right, and this new trade deal is widely considered a win for the president. we're going to break down as you were just talking about, his other campaign promises that he said he's delivered on so far. who wins in them or who doesn't? you're watching "velshi & ruhle." "velshi & ruhle. h after month, the clock is ticking on irreversible joint damage. ongoing pain and stiffness are signs of joint erosion. humira can help stop the clock. prescribed for 15 years, humira targets and blocks a source of inflammation that contributes to joint pain and irreversible damage. humira can lower your ability to fight infections. serious and sometimes fatal infections including tuberculosis, and cancers, including lymphoma, have happened; as have blood, liver, and nervous system problems, serious allergic reactions, and new or worsening heart failure.
tell your doctor if you've been to areas where certain fungal infections are common, and if you've had tb, hepatitis b, are prone to infections, or have flu-like symptoms or sores. don't start humira if you have an infection. help stop the clock on further irreversible joint damage. talk to your rheumatologist. right here. right now. humira. 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.
president trump is scoring a big win with his successful renegotiation of the trade deal formerly known as nafta. while his methods may be unpopular, he is delivering on some of his biggest campaign promises. on trade, not only has trump renegotiated nafta, he's revised the u.s. trade deal with south korea and is in the process of renegotiating the current deal with japan. trump promised to pull out of other so-called bad deals for the u.s., and he has. since he took office, the u.s. has left the trans-pacific partnership, or tpp, the paris climate accord, and the iran nuclear deal, making good on his promise to cut taxes for businesses and workers, he signed a trillion-dollar tax overhaul back in december, which cuts the corporate tax rate to 21%, lowers individual rate, and
doubles the standard deduction. as for trump's promise to slash regulations, the administration says it has withdrawn or delayed more than 1500 obama rule proposals and it has also taken 67 deregulatory actions while imposing only three new regulations. trump is following through on his promise to reshape the judiciary. he's appointed neil gorsuch to the supreme court and has another nomination, of course, waiting in the wings. he's also gotten, get your head around this, 68 judges confirmed to the federal courts. finally, trump is cracking down on immigration. he fought for it and got a revised travel ban, put a zero tolerance policy in place at the border, and limits the amount of refugee asylum seekers. joining us now is republican strategist rick tyler. okay, rick, when you take that list, the president can tick through it for a campaign ad. some people could say, well, look, he kept his promises.
but those promises that he kept are not only not just a win for many republicans, for most americans. so are they really a win? >> it's a bit of a mixed bag, stephanie. i'd say, look, on the nafta, the changes were marginal. nafta was being renegotiated anyway. it needed to be updated. it was. it's essentially taking a 2,000-page document, ripping off the cover, putting a new name on t adding a new chapter, and doing some editing. what's amazing is donald trump has now joined the globalists and has convinced his base he's ripped you have nafta. what he's done is embraced nafta and embraced substantially what nafta was because most of it remains in place. on taxes, i would say that i think he got a big win there, but it remains to be seen if most americans will feel that. corporations got it. people who own investments saw a big bump in the stock market, and that's good. i think in the long run, it's
going to deregulate. i support all those things. whether it's a political win this november remains to be seen. big taxes -- the tax cut hasn't worked in terms of polling because it shows that most people don't believe -- they still think the fix is only with the elite and the people at the top, which is largely true. they still think the whole tax system is a rigged game. >> rick, i guess the question is, if you take -- use nafta as an example. take something that maybe required some fixing, you claim to rip it up or -- >> you also claim it's a disaster. >> you claim it's a disaster. you decide you're going to destroy it. then, as you say, you clean it up, put a new cover on, present t and tick it off as a success. for people not involved in the news as much as the three of us are, it's a talking point. it may be a successful one in some corners. >> it's going to be very successful. the elections are coming up in five weeks. people are not going to go through and read nafta, feel the
implications of change. take, for instance, on the automobile industry. who really benefitted was the mexican auto worker. they got a big huge raise. that's going to result in higher prices most likely for most americans on cars, but it will also leave american producers of automobiles to search for ways to automate. they have to compete with lower prices. they need to get those prices down. how are they going to do that? the workers are the most expensive thing. it's a rush to automation. look, i don't believe in planned economies from the central office. we talked years ago about would amazon ever become profitable. now they're so profitable, they just gave all their employees a minimum of -- double the minimum wage. they're rolling in cash. no one would have predicted that about google. apple, we used to joke it was not going to make it because it was a small niche company that couldn't compete with microsoft. look at apple now. i don't believe in these big,
broad brush, oh, we're going to save the economy. i don't know exactly what's going to happen with nafta. the dairy farmers got something marginal, but as the canadians said, they can be really hurt by this. the american farmer, they're getting 3.5% of the canadian market, and it's a small market. >> that was definitely an issue that the president made larger than it might have been. >> ali, i say to you, it's a cheesy win, but it's a win just the same. >> it's a cheesy win. >> on that note, rick, thanks very much. rick tyler is a republican strategist and msnbc political analyst. you know that was a pun, right? >> oh, it wasn't. but there you go. >> she didn't mean it. >> i just meant it was totally cheesy. >> what a great way to end the show, with a pun. >> yes, but no cheese for ali. don't forget. he's lactose intolerant. >> a lot of information. this is too much information. >> he's not stephanie intolerant yet. >> not going to happen. that can't happen. >> you build up a tolerance. >> didn't even need to. on that note, i will see you guys in an hour, before i get
into trouble. i'll be back. >> this is going to go well. >> i have to go. >> i'm katy tur, by the way. >> thank you for watching. i'm stephanie ruhle. see you tomorrow at 9:00 a.m. now i hand you off to my dear, dear friend and colleague. >> i'm glad you did the nafta segment again. it's a cheesy win, but it is a win. it's something the president can use when he hits the campaign trail for republicans. it's a win that even some democrats will acknowledge. chuck schumer was one. >> it's a win with his protectionist base where he said, i'm going to tear it up. then it's a win with moderates who are globalists who say, let's just improve nafta, which they did. >> yeah, i think if you go out saying, oh, it's just a rebranding, it's not really a change, you look like a spoil sport. >> guess what, he's really good at branding. love him or hate him, that's his jam. >> stephanie ruhle. >> adios. >> see you later. it's 11:00 a.m. out west and 2:00 p.m. in washington, where mitch mcconnell is digging in he