tv MSNBC Live With Katy Tur MSNBC May 2, 2019 11:00am-12:01pm PDT
deserves, mr. barr's moment of accountability will come soon enough. >> meanwhile, house speaker nancy pelosi came out swinging against barr during her weekly press conference this morning, going so far as to say the attorney general committed a crime. >> madam speaker, did the attorney general commit a crime? >> he lied to congress. he lied to congress. if anybody else did that, it would be considered a crime. nobody is above the law. >> should he go to jail for it? >> there's a process involved here. and, as i said, i'll say it again, the committee will act upon how we will proceed. >> nadler has threatened to hold barr in contempt, but as the head of the justice department, that may be difficult to enforce. while the judiciary committee could subpoena him to testify, the white house has already
shown a willingness to ignore basically all of it. so today's big question is how far are chairman nadler and speaker pelosi willing to go to hold attorney general barr accountable? joining me, nbc news justice correspondent pete williams, white house correspondent and msnbc political analyst gentleman moosh alcindor, sahill kapur, former deputy assistant attorney general at the doj elliot williams and editor-in-chief and msnbc legal analyst ben wittist. >> i want to start with you this letter that we're getting a chance to read, seems to lay out some rationale from the white house as to why they don't consider -- why they would like to be able to en voc executive privilege. what should we be focused on in this letter? >> they don't exert executive privilege over the report. barr has said that. this is a letter sent the day
after the report was made public, sent april 19th. it is a letter from white house counsel emmitt flood saying he wants to, in the words of the letter, memorialize his concerns. it's basically a letter for the record. what they're saying is we hope this doesn't serve as a blueprint for how these special counsel investigations are carried on in the future because we think a number of things were done wrong. mainly they say, they take issue with the special counsel language that says we can't exonerate the president. they say something that, frankly, many other people have said as well, prosecutors aren't in the exoneration business. quote, prosecutors simply are not in the business of establishing innocence anymore than they are in the business of exonerati exonerating investigated persons. that's their main concern in the letter. as for privilege, they make this point. they say just because the president allowed white house staff to talk to mueller and his
investigative team, that doesn't mean that they waive executive privilege for the same people to testify before congress. so he's basically going on the record about that and making a point that they would object or they might assert executive privilege if these people are asked to testify. the general rule, of course, is if you testify about something, you've waived your privilege. i don't know enough about privilege to know whether that apply appli applies if you testify before a grand jury, whether that same rule would apply if you're asked to testify before congress. that's their argument in the letter. >> elliot williams, former deputy assistant attorney general, do you have an answer to pete's question there? how much protection did the president give up in allowing these witnesses to talk to the special counsel? can he now exert that executive privilege to prevent them from
coming before congress? >> certainly they gave up some protection. but this will be a very complicated legal question about separation of powers for the courts to sort out. it's going to take some time. it's hard to view this attempt to exert executive privilege outside the context of how the president and the administration have behaved with respect to congressional oversight and, frankly, any law enforcement oversight from the beginning of the administration. everything yesterday was an object lesson in an administration that has seemed committed to frustrating congress and obviously fros straightening, to some extent, the special counsel. the president said he's committed to fighting every subpoena. i don't remember exactly what the words were. i guess what i'm getting at is this whole executive privilege fight that they're picking seems like an engineered one as a means of trying to get out of compliance with lawful legal
process and to get out of having witnesses testify and having to get out of meaningful oversight from the special counsel or congress which i know we'll be talking about today as well. >> ben, pete mentioned they seemed to be sending this letter forward to enter it into the public record. how do you see this particular puzzle piece fitting in the broad overall context? do you think this is an important piece of the puzzle or something a little bit smaller? >> so i think the claim of privilege is pretty tenuous, and the reason is not just that these witnesses were allowed to give interviews to mueller, which could be said to be all within the executive branch family, and i think there is a legitimate argument that that's very different than letting them go before congress. however, the attorney general then turned around and gave the entire report to congress. including the witness statements by all these witnesses insofar
as mueller reported them. he said publicly when he did so, he had given the president a chance to exert executive privilege and the president hadn't done so so nothing was being redacted for executive privilege reasons. that seems to me to be an unambiguous waiver of executive privilege, vis-a-vis congress and the general public to whom it was all released. so i don't see how an executive privilege claim here can be sustained. i think the significance of it is as a delaying tactic, not as a substantive legal issues that will prevail at the end of the day. there's not that much time before you get deep into the election season and, you know, running out the clock is part of the goal. the more time you can suck up with any privilege claim,
however trivial it may be, the better. >> let's talk on that point about the broader kind of political context here. we had bar not showing up today to the department of justice, and nancy pelosi and jerry nadler really escalating pressure on the attorney general. the house speaker going so far yamiche, as to say she thinks the attorney general committed a crime. this is from somebody who has been very careful in how she has talked about and framed these investigations into the president. this seemed like a real warning shot, but at the same time their options may be relatively limited. how do you, yamiche, see this playing out between the hill and the attorney general? >> i think what we're going to see is an escalation of this issue. nancy pelosi said pretty clearly, we're going to leave it up to the committees, but the committees and other lawmakers have been saying they think attorney general barr should be held in contempt. this idea he may have lied to congressional members of
congress is in some ways really i think at the root of a lot of the frustrations of lawmakers. i think what we see here is the attorney general is going to see even more scrutiny. we might see this escalate into court hearings. i want to point back to the idea that the president and white house aides have been saying that there was no obstruction, no collusion. and what we've seen now in this white house letter is a white house lawyer saying actually we understand this might not be over after reading this 448-page report. this white house lawyer said robert mueller obviously was leaving roadmaps for congress committees. attorney general barr has been keeping this narrative that this is, in fact, done and tied with a bow. in reality white house lawyers read this report and were in some ways worried about where this could go next. >> pete williams, what are the realistic repercussions for the attorney general in the wake of all of this back and forth and what pelosi had to say about him
committing a congress? we know congress had limited options to try and enforce a subpoena. but at the same time the justice department hit back pretty quickly at her. what could we realistically see play out here? >> politically there's a lot to say. legally, not much i think. here is the reason. sure, congress can find the attorney general in contempt of court. and then what? they can go to the u.s. attorney here in d.c. and say please refer this to a grand jury and charge him with a crime. under both republican and democratic administrations, u.s. attorneys almost never do that. or they can sue the attorney general, file their own lawsuit. that can be successful when you're trying to get documents because it often leads to a sort of negotiation and a little is turned over and a little more. when you're just trying to compel someone to show up, you either do or you don't. there's no negotiating a little bit and a little bit later. by the time that works with the courts, we'll have a new congress.
the lawsuit would be dissolved. frankly, there's not a lot congress can do do compel somebody to show up when they're a cabinet member. >> sahill, with all that in mind, there are members of congress calling for barr to be impeached. impeachment proceedings are a judicial proceeding that congress can undertake. do you see that as a potential place we could end up, maybe even a release valve, politically speaking, for the house leadership? >> it's possible down the road. i actually put this question to democratic staffers. there are no plans to go there at this point. the reason is the same as impeaching president trump which a lot of people want to do. you need two-thirds majority in the senate. they don't have anything close to that. the next step is, as chairman nadler threatened, to hold barr in contempt if he doesn't cooperate on the hearing, on testifying before congress and submitting the full mueller report and underlying materials. as pete was talking about, this
is difficult to support especially with the attorney general. contempt of congress is a referral for the justice department to prosecute. you're practically asking william barr to prosecute william barr. it's very difficult to do that. republicans tried this with eric holder, completely different context. did not happen. >> what do you see happening next in terms of their attempting to hold them in contempt? what kind of leverage do they have over barr to get what they ultimately want which is that completely unredacted version of the report. >> completely unredacted. they want him to testify and take questions from committee counsel. this seems to be the issue that is the red line for the attorney general. he doesn't want to take questions from lawyers. democrats argue there's precedent for doing that. he made a legal decision to not charge the president, to clear the president. as a result they should have lawyers question him on that legal decision. what can they do? they can hold him in contempt.
impeachment is unlikely to happen. nuclear option of inherent contempt which is a statute that hasn't been used in almost a century, where they can by pass the courts and have the sergeant in arms arrest the attorney general. imagine that. so they're out of options. >> yamiche, quickly big picture here, does the white house -- i realize in public, they're saying this should be all wrapped up and done. do they feel like yesterday was a good day or bad day from bill barr when they're being honest? >> i think when they're being honest they think it's in some ways problematic that attorney general barr is being accused of lying to congress and he could have put himself in a position to at least make the administration look bad because he wasn't having information that was as forthcoming as it could have been. but i think over all the white house aides i've been talking to are happy with the idea that he came to congress, that he
defended the president's reputation, that he defended his own reputation. i think the president has been telling people, look, this was an attorney general i wanted in jeff sessions and in matt whitaker. the president has been looking for an attorney general who would be loyal to him. he feels he's found that in attorney general william barr. we'll see the president continue to back the attorney general. >> thank you all very much for being here today. great to have all of you. coming up next, another fed pick bites the dust. stephen moore's controversial comments about women met resistance from both parties on capitol hill. polling showing joe biden surging and it's gotten donald trump's attention. first, 2020 democrats versus william barr. what do voters think about it? of once-weekly ozempic®. in a study with ozempic®, a majority of adults lowered their blood sugar and reached an a1c of less than seven and maintained it.
oh! under seven? and you may lose weight. in the same one-year study, adults lost on average up to 12 pounds. oh! up to 12 pounds? a two-year study showed that ozempic® does not increase the risk of major cardiovascular events like heart attack, stroke, or death. oh! no increased risk? ♪ oh, oh, oh, ozempic®! ♪ ozempic® should not be the first medicine for treating diabetes, or for people with type 1 diabetes or diabetic ketoacidosis. do not share needles or pens. don't reuse needles. do not take ozempic® if you have a personal or family history of medullary thyroid cancer, multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, or if you are allergic to ozempic®. stop taking ozempic® and get medical help right away if you get a lump or swelling in your neck, severe stomach pain, itching, rash, or trouble breathing. serious side effects may happen, including pancreatitis. tell your doctor if you have diabetic retinopathy or vision changes. taking ozempic® with a sulfonylurea or insulin may increase the risk for low blood sugar.
we have a document that shows over 200 connections between a presidential campaign and a foreign adversary, sharing information that would be illegal if you did it with a super pac. >> what information was shared? >> polling data was shared, sir. it's in the report. i can cite you the page. >> has the president or anyone at the white house ever asked or suggested that you open an investigation of anyone? yes or no, please, sir. >> um, the president or anybody else? >> seems you'd remember something like that and be able to tell us.
>> i'm trying to grapple with the word suggest. >> the report found after manafort was convicted, the president himself called him a brave man for refusing to break. >> yes, and that is not obstruction. >> among the senators who questioned attorney general william barr on the mueller report were democratic 2020 contenders. even those not in the room yesterday were weighing in, most calling on barr to resign. among them is former vice president joe biden. >> i really am disappointed in attorney general barr. i think he's lost the confide e confidence. >> do you think the attorney general should resign? >> yes, i do. he's not the president's lawyer. he's the people's lawyer. >> joining me now, former clinton campaign senior adviser and msnbc contributor adrian el rod and founder strategies
co-founder and republican strategist rick tyler. thank you, both. great to have you. too bad you're not here on this beautiful day at the capitol. thanks for being on the program. rick, i want to start with you. you're still a republican i think. but as somebody who has worked in the past for republican presidential campaigns and looked at your potential opponents very carefully, what's your assessment of how it went yesterday for these 2020 candidates, who stood out? if you're looking at running against one of these potential nominees, who are you most concerned about based on that? >> if you're on the judiciary committee and conducting the people's business, you have to do it from a political standpoint of view, you have to do it well without looking like you're trying to do it well. i think andy klobuchar did a fine job, and i think kamala harris did an equally fine job. they were tough and asked tough
questions. attorney general barr was a little playing jeopardy, kept answering a question with a question. but i think they did fine. >> adrian, same question to you. who stood out to you in these performances as this campaign unfolds? >> well, first of all, kasey, i think being on the judiciary commit me has never been more important and useful. in my opinion the three candidates, i would say kamala harris stood out yesterday. she basically got a.g. barr to admit he determined there was not obstruction without reading the report and without looking at the evidence. that was significant. she put her prosecuting skills to work and i think she really signed yesterday. >> it seems as though the president may have thought so, too, based on what he had to say during a fox business interview last night. take a look. >> kamala harris --
>> she was probably very nasty. how about these three people, three of them running -- they're not doing very well, but three of them are running for a particular office. i think maybe you're talking to the person right now -- you have three of them running against me and you have three of hem ranting and raving like lun ticks, frankly. >> rick tyler, what do you make of the president's comments based on what he saw yesterday about these three potential rivals? >> well, he's trying to make it look like they're using it for political objectives. they have to be careful they're not using it for political objectives. i think the hearing yesterday was actually well done, but i think barr did a good job from a republican perspective. i think this morning, frankly, was a clown show. the whole stunt -- if you want to be a serious party and you make it so the attorney general can't appear, which he didn't, and then turn around and show up
with buckets of chicken and calling him chicken, that's not a serious party. i think people are looking -- if you want contrast from this president, then conduct yourselves like a serious party. this morning i thought it was just -- frankly, i just thought it was a stunt. >> adrienne, potentially fair point. your take? >> i'll agree with rick. i think democrats under pelosi's lead cherri shership have done far. being above these political tactics oftentimes used during presidential cycles, i thought today was a little silly. it made the point. we're talking about it, right? i think to a lot of democrats, especially those that are progressive and who are very akive in the democratic party base, they subscribed to this tactic and thought it made sense. >> we're obviously all focused on it here in washington yesterday because it was unfolding in the hallways, certainly right in front of me.
but do voters in the democratic party care -- is this what is going to be -- the kind of thing that's going to be deciding their votes in 2020, or should we be careful about reading too much into this? >> well, we do have to be really careful, casey. this is where congress's function of being the oversight, the body that conducts oversight, part of their constitutional responsibility is to conduct oversight. that's where congress has to remain laser focused to make sure they are holding the trump administration accountable. at the same time, candidates running in 2020, democratic candidates have to be very careful not to snowfall into this trap. look, trump wants democrats to be talking about russia. he wants the mueller report to be driving the news. even though voters don't care as much about the mueller report as they do the kitchen table issues, health care, the economy, democrats have to be careful not to fall into trump's trap and remain laser focused on
the issues that matter to everyday americans. that's how democrats won back the house and won record numbers of down ballot seats in the midterms. that's exactly how they will win in 2020 if they do defeat donald trump. >> adrienne el rod, rick tyler, stilk with me. tonight senator michael bennet sits down with mother nature raich /* /- rachel maddow. coming up, how we should read the joe biden surge. ould read the joe biden surge.
woman: this is your wake-up call. if you have moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis, month 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. vo: 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. woman: help stop the clock on further irreversible joint damage. talk to your rheumatologist. right here. right now. humira. right here. right now. sure, there are advantagesns and natural talents, but they won't teach patience or discipline. or get you back on the court after a heartbreaker. let this game be your spark. pursue your passions with relentless ferocity. because the only way to get that trophy, is to take it. tennis teaches kids to dream, compete, and succeed. sign up with net generation.
since entering the race joe biden has surged to the top of democratic polls. it hasn't gone unnoticed by, you guessed it, president trump who retweeted nearly 60 anti biden posts in less than an hour. >> folks, you know i understand the president has been tweeting about me this morning for a while. i wonder why the hell he's doing that? i'm going to be the object of his attention for a while, folks. >> but with the democratic primary only in its very beginning stages, can biden sustain this polling surge? joining me, msnbc innocent
political correspondent steve kornacki. steve, we seem to have an unambiguous front-runner. what does history tell you about how likely it is that we can actually trust these polls that we're seeing in may of 2019 to give us a sense of what's going to start happening in january of 2020? >> that's always the question with these. folks who may not like where the polls are right now, they'll always tell you it's early. it's just name recognition. they don't count for anything. it is an interesting thing to do, to go back and look and hee how these have held up in the past. we'll look at a particular type of primary race here. we're looking at parties in the past that have been in the same position democrats are in right now. an incumbent president of the other party, and they've got to come up with a challenger. that's what democrats are looking to do in 2020. as you mentioned, the polling this week shows joe biden clear, unambiguous front-runner. let's go back to 1980. republicans needed to come up with a challenger to run against
president jimmy carter. what did the poll look like when ronald reagan got in the race? reagan was running at 41%. howard baker in second. reagan won the republican nomination in 1980. he had a couple of hiccups along the way. ronald reagan started as the front-runner and stayed as the front-runner. reagan gets elected, democrats need a challenger in '84. there it is. walter mondale, carter's vice president, runs in '84, starts at the front of the pack. again, he lost some primaries along the way, but he got the nomination. he started in front and finished in front. fast forward to 1996. republicans needed a challenger to go up against brin. bob dole t senate leader started out in front. lost a few states, but won most of them, won the nomination. more recently, 2012, mitt romney started in front. we talked about what a weak
front-runner he was in 2012, but he still won the nomination. we've seen that happen a number of times. it doesn't always happen. 2004 this was a jumble. lieberman had been the vp nominee in 2000, started a tenuous front-runner. we know john kerry ended up the nominee. howard dean surged at one point. it doesn't always happen that way. plenty of counterexamples out there. hey, you look at history here, a number of times in this type of race, first place at the beginning is first place at the end. >> it's pretty compelling. steve kornacki, thank you very much as always. back with me to break all this down is former campaign adviser adrienne elrod and rick tyler. we always want to caveat it, in 2016 everybody thought one thing was going to happen. that was an open field, so not on steve's list. you didn't have an incumbent
president. but donald trump stayed at the top of the polls and was written off and won the nomination. you think the same thing could happen for biden here? >> you're right, kasie. time will tell. establishment candidates in our party don't always hold out and don't always hold their lead. i think what's different about this year, and this is what is important to keep in mind is when you poll voters no matter what state, some of the super tuesday states, the number one issue important to them in terms of who they're going to support as a candidate for the democratic nomination is electability. time and time again the person they cite as the most electable against donald trump is joe biden. that's something to watch. is there somebody else who after the first few debates might come forward as somebody who could -- in their eyes might be more electable? we'll see. that might be the difference here. the economy is going well, but people still want to see donald trump defeated for a litany of reasons in the democratic
primary. >> rick tyler, what's your take on how durable this lead might be for joe biden? >> i think it's very durable. as adrienne has said, electability is the most important component. strategically joe biden is set up to win the voters that donald trump can't afford to lose, minnesota, wisconsin, michigan, ohio, pennsylvania. if he can cut into donald trump's popularity there, then joe biden will defeat donald trump in a general election. >> adrienne, "the atlantic" has written about something that was part of the conversation in the leadup to joe biden getting in the race and that is potential attacks on his family. quite frankly, we saw in 2016 this president was willing to make attacks on political candidates that were previously considered beyond the pale. "the atlantic" talks about the trump orbits focus on
hunter-biden. trump's children has sustained plenty of criticism and joe biden's family is fair game. how much concern is there that this is going to be a problem or do democrats feel this is something that voters will simply not be willing to put up with? >> kasie, your latter point that voters won't be willing to put up with this is where we're heading here. joe biden, weathered a couple weeks ago -- when he was under criticism for being too close to some women. he weathered that storm. his polls stayed the same. he is resilient. the same applies here. obviously joe biden, people know he's been through very difficult times losing his son, obviously losing his first wife and his daughter a car accident. people know he's had some very tough times in his family. i think this is actually something that people see --
they have sympathy for him and i think that's his strength he has going into this. again, i just don't see dealing with his family in this situation as being a major issue that will affect him in any way. i think his voting record, the anita hill hearings, issues like that have far more of an impact on him potentially than his family issues. >> certainly many americans mourned with him as they watched him lose his son beau very publicly. thank you both very much. >> thanks, kasie. still ahead, new reporting on how the trump administration had no clear plan to reunite families that had separated at the border. at the border -to-severe eczema, -to-severe eczema, or atopic dermatitis, you feel like you're itching all the time. and you never know how your skin will look. because deep within your skin an overly sensitive immune system could be the cause. so help heal your skin from within,
with dupixent. dupixent is not a steroid, and it continuously treats your eczema even when you can't see it. at 16 weeks, nearly four times more patients taking dupixent saw clear or almost clear skin compared to those not taking it, and patients saw a significant reduction in itch. do not use if you are allergic to dupixent. serious allergic reactions can occur, including anaphylaxis, a severe reaction. tell your doctor if you have new or worsening eye problems, including eye pain or changes in vision. if you are taking asthma medicines, do not change or stop your asthma medicine without talking to your doctor. help heal your skin from within. ask your eczema specialist about dupixent.
openturning 50 opens theuard. door to a lot of new things... like now your doctor may be talking to you about screening for colon cancer. luckily there's me, cologuard. the noninvasive test you use at home. it all starts when your doctor orders me. then it's as easy as get, go, gone. you get me when i'm delivered... right to your front door and in the privacy of your own home. there's no prep or special diet needed. you just go to the bathroom, to collect your sample. after that, i'm gone, shipped to the lab for dna testing that finds colon cancer and precancer. cologuard is not right for everyone. it is not for high risk individuals, including those with a history of colon cancer or precancer. ibd, certain hereditary cancer syndromes, or a family history of colon cancer. maybe i'll be at your door soon!
ask your doctor if cologuard is right for you. covered by medicare and most major insurers. breaking news out of silicon valley. facebook has banned a number of prominent conspiracy theorists and alt right figures from both its site and the instagram platform including alex jones and media outlet info wars. ben collins joins me from our new york newsroom. ben, this is -- i think for those of us who have been following the story, why are they doing this now? >> a good question as to why they waited this long. >> yes, exactly. >> alex jones has been banned from facebook for a long period of time, but now they banned limb, banned his little underling, paul joseph watson
who is an anti muslim conspiracy theerist, even banned louis farrakhan for his anti-semitism. that's the what about from the alt right, why not ban louis farrakhan. so they banned them both. they are taking down what they call organized hate group or hate against specific religions, specific -- like sexuality, things like that. this is sort of taking the lead of its parent company, facebook, from a while back. had a hard time enforcing this. going further on twitter. all these people not banned from twitter, but they are banned from instagram now. >> is this a decision that's rooted in the policy that facebook has had all the way along, or is this essentially.
>> some say this is a censorship to take people down, even though they're effectively over and over again railing against specific religions, people contributing to targeted harassment of sometimes private figures. really what they're trying to do here is clamp down on the really bad stuff so they have fewer pr disasters. this is a company that has abetted, unfortunately, accidentally abetted genocide in myanmar. they're trying to stop the bad stuff on the platform from getting too big. alex jones, while banned from facebook, was still on instagram. we did some internal data on this. if you looked up joe biden, one of the top 20 posts on all of facebook and instagram came from alex jones' instagram account. that's gone. not there for him anymore. >> nbc's ben collins, thanks for the update. we appreciate it. meanwhile, acting dhs
secretary kevin mcaleenan was updating centers on the number of migrant children who still remain separated from their families. >> i'm asking you about previous separations and how many children are in the system that we're aware of that have been separated and we don't know what their current status is. i understand you to say that you don't know. >> i'm saying it's a very small number as provided to the court and they'll be updated -- >> what was the number in the court filings? >> it's around a dozen that are still remaining to identify a parent. >> that number may come as a surprise given the internal emails that nbc news obtained between officials at i.c.e. and hhs. they reveal that on the same day the trump administration said it would reunite thousands of migrant families it had separated at the border, officials actually had no way of linking those children to their parents, even as the white house insisted that there was a
database to keep track of all of it. this as nbc news is being given an exclusive first look at a new tent city in texas that customs and border protection is about to open to house 500 migrants at the border. joining me from mission, texas, nbc news correspondent gabe gutierrez and from our los angeles news room, msnbc correspondent jacob soboroff. jacob, explain the discrepancy here between what you have learned for us from these emails and what the administration has been saying in public? >> well, in particular with regard to what kevin mcaleenan said today, the only reason we're on the situation in the first place -- he said around a dozen. the actual number is about 55, plus potentially thousands more that haven't been identified yet. the only reason we're in that situation today is because of absolutely horrendous recordkeeping by the trump administration when they systematically separated these throw thousands of kids from
their parents. they literally didn't have a plan to put them together and didn't have the technological infrastructure to track those children despite the fact the administration was saying, okay, we're going to reunite them with a centralized database. these emails we obtained through house judiciary committee are just unbelievable to read. let me read one of them from health and human services that was going to matt al bans, the acting head of i.c.e. this hhs official says we do not have any linkages from parents to unaccompanied children save for a handful, about 60. we have a list of parent alien numbers, but no way to link them to children. this is as the administration, after the president ended the policy that he started with that executive order, is assuring everybody don't worry, we'll reunite all these parents. behind the scene it was an absolute scramble to even figure out how to add names to a spreadsheet because they
couldn't connect children to parents. it's why we are where we are today. >> jacob, what you've just laid out seems to directly contradict this fact sheet the dhs sent out in june of 2018. they said the department of home lant secured and health and human services have a process established to ensure family members know the location of their children. were they straightup lying about this? >> if you ask me, there's no doubt about it they were lying about it. if you ask the department of homeland security, they will tell you it was careful wording. the database existed, so they were perfectly within their right to say they had a centralized database. but how can you say there's a database if you don't have the data within the database to effectuate what the database is supposed to do, reunite parents and children. that's nice they had a database that had a bunch of children, but the idea they had children and no parents in it, makes it completely useless. >> just really remarkable. gabe, you are down in texas taking a look at this new tent
city. what do things look like out there? what's the plan and purpose for all this? >> hi there, kasie. right now we're in mission, texas. earlier today we were in donna, texas. we got an inside tour. this is the reason customs and border protection saying that tent city is necessary. they're having this influx of migrants they eve been seeing for the last couple months, saying they're seeing 1,200 just in this part of texas alone. we had spoken with this woman from el salvador. [ speaking foreign language ]. >> she said it took eight days to get her. she said her son is 2 years old, came here from el salvador. she just told us she came from el salvador because her father
was killed. [ speaking foreign language ]. >> kasie, she says she's one of many people that says they're fleeing violence in central america. she told us a gang killed her father in el salvador. [ speaking foreign language ]. >> kasie, she says it lapd two years ago. she says the situation has gotten worse and she thought she needed to get to the united states. she says it's the first time for her trying to get to the u.s. you see u.s. customs and border protection. this is something we see over and over. the difference is the numbers seem to be getting higher. they have been over the last weeks and months. customs and border protection have said human smugglers are taking advantage of loopholes and the u.s. immigration system to encourage this. others said part of the trump administration's policies have contributed to this by cudding
off aid to central america. this is encouraging some of these -- the violence to get worse and the poverty to get worse. back to those tent cities, the one here in donna, texas, opening later today, will house about 500 people. one of the border patrol stations in the mcallen area, yesterday our team was there and they were at 1,200 inside. a big question about what happens going forward here. border patrol telling us they're simply overwhelmed. acting def deputy chief says tent city is a band-aid solution. right now they need more manpower and need something to fix the situation here. kasie? >> gabe, we know that the florez settlement and some other legal precedents have essentially said the government can't hold children for a certain amount of time. how long -- that overcrowding is absolutely stunning, those numbers. how long are people who are
going to be in these tent cities going to actually have to stay there as these claims are processed. >> reporter: that was the controversy of the tent city near el paso that was shut down a couple months ago. we asked the border patrol how long the migrants are expected to be there. they say not long, 24, 48 hours. that's what they say at this point. when the parents or people come here with their children or unaccompanied minors going here, they are supposed to be released. the thinking is this tent city is a temporary solution, a band-aid solution and they're only supposed to be there a day or two. it remains to be seen what's going to happen if these numbers continue to get worse. kasie. >> gabe gutierrez, jacob soboroff, thank you both for your reporting on this incredibly important story. thanks for staying on it. stephen moore read the writing on the wall. another fed pick bows out before he's even formally nominated.
that's next. - anncr: thankfully, prevagen helps your brain and improves memory. - dad's got all the answers. - anncr: prevagen is now the number-one-selling brain health supplement in drug stores nationwide. - she outsmarts me every single time. - checkmate! you wanna play again? - anncr: prevagen. healthier brain. better life. but i can tell you liberty mutual customized my car insurance so i only pay for what i need. oh no, no, no, no, no, no, no... only pay for what you need. liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ can we talk? we used to play so beautifully together. now we can barely play anything... even cards with the girls. if you have bent fingers, and can't lay your hand flat, talk to your doctor. it may be dupuytren's contracture. your hand is talking. isn't it time you listened?
president trump announced today that conservative economic commentator stephen moore is officially out of the running for the fed board. quote, steve moore, a great pro-growth economist and a truly fine person hasty sided to withdraw from the fed process. moore apologized this week for some his past remarks, which include demeaning comments about women and a joke about trump kicking a black family out of the white house. in a letter to the president today, moore said, quote, the
unrelenting attacks on my character have become untenable for me and my family and three more months of this would be too hard on us. but literally just minutes before trump's announcement today, multiple outlets were reporting that moore wasn't backing down, that his nomination was still, quote, full speed ahead. so what changed? joining me the "new york times" congressional correspondent cheryl stolberg. i'll kick it over to you. let's talk about something that has given some republican women senators cause for concern. >> this one really is the one that rankles the most. what is the implications of a society in which women earn more than men. we don't know really but it could be disruptive to family stability. divorce rates go up when men lose their jobs.
i want to add something. so stephen moore is 59 years old. this was written in 2000. or thereabouts. he was 40. it's not a college kid -- >> it's not ancient history. >> it's not the college kid writing in his college newspaper. this is a fully formed adult. >> even in the course of this nomination fight, this is somebody we expected the president to nominate who, you know, had been having these writings examined over the course of weeks. he went on cnbc and he was talking about the problem with declining male wages. so this is clearly something that still is affecting his thinking. and we do know that it was largely republican women in senate who were looking at this stuff and saying no way. >> that's right. i think in a way stephen moore was mabybe the last person in washington to know that stephen moore was not going to get a seat on the fed. when congress came back from its recess on monday, i talked to
joanie ernst, the republican senator from iowa, she's running for reelection. she said she found moore's writings ridiculous, she was not enthusiastic. then in the days to follow, senator john thune said it would be a leheavy lift to nominate h. republicans don't have that big of a majority in the senate. >> susan collins was very vocal. >> and susan collins is running for reelection. she's facing a lot of criticism in maine, her home state, for voting to approve justice kauf gn -- kavanaugh. she couldn't afford this kind of a vote. >> let's also show you stephen
moore was just on fox business just a few minutes ago. let's take a look at what he had to say. >> god'shonest truth, i thought it would be a one-day story. if i had any sense this would happen that people would being looking at my writings from 20, 25 years ago, i would have told the president, i wouldn't have told the president i couldn't do that. >> if he had known he was going to be vetted is what he's saying, he wouldn't have done it. >> this isn't the only problem with stephen moore. he had a tax leen against hien a judge found he failed to pay child support money . it raises questions about what kind of vet doing the white
house do. granted he wasn't officially nominated. this isn't the first time with the white house with this position. we just saw herman cain a couple of weeks ago had to withdraw from consideration for the fed over past allegations or accusations of sexual harassment. >> and we haven't even talked about stephen moore's economic qualifications or lack thereof. thanks so much for being here. >> one more thing before we go. >> chuck and nancy go back to the white house because it turns out this time it really infrastructure week. >> guess what? it is actually infrastructure week for real! mike steele, jake sherman, thank you both. always fun to talk to you. >> happy infrastructure week. >> indeed. >> that was tuesday. in is thursday. yes, for a brief fleeting moment it was finally infrastructure week. the real infrastructure week was there waiting for us all along. even chuck and nancy, as the president calls them, said they were hopeful we could reach a
big, bold, beautiful deal with the president on infrastructure. it was a ray of bipartisan opportunity that lasted a few shining optimistic hours. until the president's own party said a deal would have to be fully paid for. by i digress. soon after, "the washington post" reports that robert mueller told william barr his sum rich letter did not capture the context of the special counsel's findings, only to be followed by contentious senate team by william barr and then barr refusing to appear at today's house judiciary meeting. we herald the week that finally was and then abrupt lily wasn'td reflect again on just how quickly the news cycle can change in president trump's washington. i'm kasie hunt. please catch me every sunday night on kasie d.c.
a ali velshi picks things up. >> i am respectfully asking that you withdraw my name from consideration." that is what stephen moore asked the president. that means the president just lost his second would-be appointee after herman cain withdraw after facing claims of lack of experience and sexual harassment claims, which he denied. and stephen moore came under scrutiny after several of his columns published in the early 2000s showed him making disparaging remarks about women. moore went on fox business to talk about his decision to