tv MSNBC Live With Ali Velshi MSNBC May 1, 2018 12:00pm-1:00pm PDT
percolating about james shaw junior and the president. the president has -- has he called him? is he planning on meeting with him? he's talking to people. he had the heros of the southwest flight today. you said something about james shaw john jor last week. is the president going to reach out to him? will he come to the white house? >> my understanding is there has been an outreach effort to bring him here to the white house, and i'll keep you updated on that as i have more information. >> okay. second question. payoffs, russia, comey e-mail investigations on the eve of the election, allegations of collusion. do these issues give support to those who say, offer questions about the president's legitimacy? >> i'm not sure i follow the question, but i think the fact that millions of americans came out and voted for and continue to support this presidency makes him pretty legitimate.
>> how is the announcement yesterday affecting the president's thinking about what to do about the iran's nuclear deal? >> certainly the fact the deal was made under false pretenses is problematic. the president has been clear. he thinks the deal is one of the worst we've seen and we'll keep you posted when he's made a final decision on that front. >> when did the president first hear of this? was it in early march when he spoke to the prime minister? >> i'm not aware of the exact date that the president was made aware, but we were -- the white house and the president were made aware prior to israel's announcement yesterday. >> lastly, was this coordinated yesterday with the white house? did netanyahu say give you a heads up and say this is coming? >> this was something that the israelis did. however, they did give us a heads up that it was going to take place prior to the announcement. >> the president said this morning there was no question on collusion, but when you look at the specific questions about outreach by the campaign to russia, aren't these questions about collusion?
>> once again, i'm not going to get into a back and forth about questions leaked. or anything having to do with the special counsel. >> does this list factor at all into whether or not the president will or will not speak with the special counsel? >> once again, i would refer you to the president's outside counsel. >> the president has said before several times he would like to sit down with the special counsel. do you believe he's made up his mind on that? >> again, i would refer you to the president's outside counsel to -- >> what -- >> again, i'm not going to get in back and forth on any matter related to -- >> let me try a different topic. on the nfc, they say it was a clerical error, but how does a mistake like this get made and do you believe the white house has a credibility problem around the world with the statements like this? do you take this seriously? >> absolutely. that's why we immediately corrected it. i think the biggest mistake is the fact that the united states ever entered into the iran deal
in the first place. that to me seems to be the biggest mistake in this process, not a simple typo that was immediately corrected. and notified individuals as soon as we knew that it had happened. >> the white house never sent out a corrected statement. they put it on the white house -- >> we responded to every journalist inquiry that we received that we're aware of or to the pest that we could responded to each person that asked about that. >> sarah, the president yesterday talked about holding the meeting with kim jong-un and in the dmz. he said there are some people who don't like the look of it. has the location in doing it in the dmz been the subject of some debate internally and what calms might some members of the staff have about holding the meeting? >> i'm not going to get into the deliberations on this at this point. but the list has been narrowed as the president said. and we expect to have an announcement on that soon. >> can i ask one more followup on iran? you said twice now that the
iranian nuclear deal was made under false pretenses. as is clear from the historical record, the u.s. and the partners made this deal with iran precisely because they knew iran wasn't truthful about the military nuclear program. are you suggesting back in 2014, we believed iran? >> i'm suggesting that the deal never should have been made in the first place and even the fact that they had been known to be bad actors to some degree, the degree to which they were not being honest was not fully known at the time the iran deal was made is our understanding. >> two questions. one is about the lawsuit filed today by california and 17 other states over their right to have epa fuel standards in cars. they're fighting the administration on this. i wanted to know your response to the lawsuit, and also the broader question that this administration seems to be on the other side of the
traditional republican argument on state's rights on a number of cases. is there any apprehension internally about having such a heavy hand with the states? >> certainly the administration supports state rights. in regard to the specific lawsuit, we're reviewing that and we'll let you know when we have a statement out. >> and the second was about the nra meeting this week. there are a lot of americans who say this is an insensitive time to speak to the nra given the epidemic of gun violence which the president has talked about. what's the administration's response? why make the decision to speak at the nra now as the president said before a lot of presidents have not spoken before the nra at the convention? >> certainly as we have indicated on many occasions, safety is a big priority. security is a big priority for the administration. but we also support the second amendment, and strongly support it. and don't see there to be a problem with speaking at the national rifle association's meeting. >> you mentioned earlier where
you were asked about the va secretary. where does the white house stand in that decision-making process in are you talking to potential candidates now about that position? >> we are and the president will be meeting with a number of individuals over the next couple of weeks and we'll keep you posted as we get further in the process. >> in the recent appearance on "fox and friends," the president offered a vague criticism of the electoral college and suggested reform was in order. several pundits after interpreted this as support for the controversial national popular vote plan in which states give their electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote nationally. is that what the president meant? could you offer a more -- a
different definition? >> i don't have any policy announcements on that front or something that we're looking to do. but certainly want to always look for the best way to preserve the integrity of our elections. >> well, also, was he aware that the republican national committee in may of 2011 had a resolution condemning that national popular vote plan? >> i'm not sure if he was aware, but i am pretty sure that the president is more than happy at times to say what he thinks is right, whether or not that there was a statement made many years ago, contrary to that. >> thank you. i have a couple on foreign policy. you mentioned the afghan attack. when senator rand paul said he was going to support mike pompeo for secretary of state he said he was doing so because mike pompeo now agreed with the president that the time is now to withdraw from afghanistan. does the president agree with that characterization of his views? >> i don't have any updated policy guidance on that front.
we laid out our afghanistan strategy just a few months ago, and there is no change to that policy at this point. >> and on iran, the question of what it means to withdraw from the iran nuclear deal has come up a couple of times. in the president's mind, does that mean immediately reimposing sanctions doing snapback or does he mean something else? >> i'm not going to get ahead of anything the president may or may not do, and once he makes the final decision, he'll make that announcement. >> last question. >> thank you. when the president spoke with the israeli prime minister, benjamin netanyahu on saturday, did the israeli trove of documents about iran's nuclear program come up and did the president encourage israel to release the documents on monday? >> i'm not sure beyond the readout to the call, but i know we had discussions with israel
about their roleout and we were notified prior to their announcement being made yesterday. >> did the white house have a -- encourage israel on the timing of the release? >> i'm not sure of the timing but we supported their announcement and efforts. >> was there an effort to have israel release the documents to influence it in the united states to paint the deal in a different light? >> i think there was a desire to make sure people understood the truth and had all the information that was out there. thank you so much, guys. >> white house press secretary sarah huckabee sanders wrapping up her briefing for the day. let me get back to what we're talking about here. there are a lot of headlines at the white house, including the issue of whether or not john kelly and the president are on good terms. the white house is dealing with havoc at this hour. she's in the defensive in the
press conference. many pressing questions over the news. president trump's personal doctor said he felt, quote, raped, frightened, and sad after trump's director of oval office operations and a lawyer raided his office and took off the president's medical records. also in the spotlight is another report this time featuring john kelly. according to eight current and former white house officials, kelly referred to the president as an idiot. multiple times casting himself as the savior of the country, kelly calls the allegations total b.s. and there's open ended questions robert mueller reportedly wants to ask trump in the russia probe. sanders was asked if the white house was concerned about the questions particularly suggesting obstruction of justice. >> is the white house concerned that so many of the questions point to obstruction of justice? >> we here at the white house try never to be concerned with anything dealing with adam
schiff. >> all right. following it all for us is our chief white house correspondent, hallie jackson. what did you take away from that conversation? >> a couple of things, and let's start sort of from the news that nbc news broke in the last hour or so that relates to the president's personal doctor sharing with us us how he felt like he was raided. the head of the security, the president's long time body guard entered his office, took the president's medical records. this is something that anna and her team reached out to the white house about earlier in the day. no response until a couple of minutes ago. >> why did keith shiller who was a white house employee at the time go and take medical records from the president's personal doctor last year? >> as is standard operating procedure for a new president, the white house medical unit took possession of the president's medical records. >> it was characterized as a
raid. is that your understanding of what happened? the doctor seemed to be pretty upset. >> that is not my understanding. >> reporter: and sanders continued to dispute the characterization that this was any kind of similarity to a burglary or that kind of thing saying it was standard operating procedure, if you will. obviously the doctor has disputed that. you tell me what you want to talk about after a couple of headlines. one was on the repeated questions related to that overnight explosive report from the new york times indicating roughly 45, 49 questions that the special counsel has apparently compiled and wants to ask donald trump. wants to ask the president. sanders repeatedly dodged the questions saying that she would leave that to the president's outside attorney who in my conversations with the inside and outside counsel, they are not commenting on this. neither is the office of the special counsel. even when the questions didn't directly relate to, for example, the special counsel if it
related, for example, to the president's thinking or strategy, sanders did not engage with the many reporter who is pressed her on that. and then the other piece, and if you're sprupting me, i'm sorry. it's a busy day and there's a lot of people talking in here. the v.a. and john kelly and what's happening in the relationship between the president and the chief of staff after our reporting roughly 24 hours ago that morale is eroding and that the president and the chief of staff are not happy with each other. sanders from the podium disputed that and interestingly said that kelly is not being considered to lead the v.a. that is interesting only because that bubbled up. some of our sources in and around the white house said to us that might just be floated as somebody's idea to make mischief. that was confirmed here today. >> very comprehensive. i always appreciate that. always great to see you nature have yourself a great afternoon. we'll pick up where you left off on the story of dr. bornstein. i president trump's long time
doctor, the one he went to before he became president is speaking about what he describes as a raid on his office. he says the president's long-time -- this is a doctor. he says the president's long-time body guard keith shiller showed up at his office last february after trump became president. he was with two other men. here's how he describes it. >> reporter: what exactly were they looking for? >> all his medical records. his pictures. anything they could find. they must have been here for 25 or 30 minutes. it created a lot of chaos. i feel raped. that's how i feel. raped. frightened. and sad. >> he says the incident took place two days after he told "the new york times" he
prescribed a hair growth medicine to the president. joining us is anna who broke the exclusive story as well as danny cevallos. i want to talk about this allegation that this happened because or maybe connected to a conversation he had with the new york times about having prescribed the president a hair growth medication. let's listen to what he said about that. >> i couldn't believe anybody was making a big deal about a drug that's to grow his hair which seemed to be so important. and it certainly is not a breach of medical trust. what's the matter with that? never in 30 years have i ever talked about donald trump without -- with anybody who didn't work in this facility. never. i was very ultra careful to lock the charts and lock the labs. >> so is that what he thinks
this is that. >> yes. he does think that's what this is about. it was two days after the story broke. he was alternating between contrition. he said to me it was a mistake, and what you just saw there where he's defending himself. i think he feels defensive. he feels cut off from the president. he was his doctor for 35 years. >> this is the doctor who put out the first report on his health, saying this is the healthiest guy who's ever run for president? >> that's right. and yesterday he told me it was trump who dictated it to him. he told us a couple of years ago he wrote that letter in five minutes, and there was a limo outside of the office sent by president trump. >> it looks like a letter that was written in five minutes. he talks about getting a phone call from donald trump's long-time assistant after "the new york times" story on the president's prescription was published. let's listen to that. >> i was completely surprised the morning or two after the story about his hair ran.
she said so you wanted to be the white house doctor? forget it. you're out. >> was his expectation that he would be the white house doctor? >> well, last year in february it was already decided. ronny jackson had the job. i think in the few days after the election, he would have hoped to at least be invited. yesterday he told me that why would anyone want the white house job? it sounds like a big headache. so he's going back and forth, but i do think that given who he is and his personality, he would have liked that invitation to be the white house doctor. >> danny, he said to anna that it's not a big deal talking about the hair medicine. is it? >> respectfully, the doctor's wrong. when it comes to hipaa and privacy laws, discussing prescription information is a big no, no, and people get into real trouble for this whether it's at the pharmacy or it's a pharmacy tech. >> when i go to the pharmacy, i've had the same pharmacy for a
long time. they always ask for my driver's license. they always want identifying information before they'll even talk to me. >> they want to know your name and your birth date. why? because there's the possibility that there are two ali velshis and if they give the wrong information to the other ali velshi, they can be liable. that's what this is. hipaa created such a system of liability for these providers and pharmacists that they have to be careful, and disclosing information about a hair growth prescription because you think it's no big deal ignores hipaa. >> he knows he's violated hipaa. i think at this point, he's already codone it, so he doesn' care. >> he also told me he used pseudonyms in some of the laboratories for trump. >> is that allowed? >> can you use pseudonyms for a lab test? hipaa protects someone's
privacy. i guess it's okay. >> as far as i know, there's no law against pseudonyms. often times dna testing and other things conducted by law enforcement don't over vn a name attached to them. it's a number. so i don't think there's any rule against that that i'm aware of. i'm sure people on twitter may know of one and they'll jump on board -- >> that's true. okay. let me ask you this. if he says that -- 2015 letter he wrote about donald trump where he called him astonishingly healthy. bottom line here is he now claims that they came in, took his stuff right after the election. is that a raid? i mean, if somebody goes in on your behalf and takes your stuff from your doctor, what is that? >> i wouldn't call it a raid. i associate a raid with the dog or fbi. assuming for the moment that they were not deputized and acting on behalf of the government which is kind of a
possibility because they were probably sent if they were sent, by the president or at least someone close to him. so prosecutor moment, assume they're private citizens. private citizens coming into your home or office and taking things is a crime. if you're present, that's robbery. if you're not, it's generally burglaries. if it's true, it implicates serious crimes, and the fact that they didn't have a hipaa form if anyone is -- if you're going to release to your provider, your patient's medical history, you can release copies if they give you a signed hipaa form. that's what hipaa requires. we should talk about the fact that generally speaking in most states a provider owns the original med records. you as a patient have the right to the information contained in the medical records. you can visit them. you can copy them. you can look at them, but many state laws require physicians and hospitals to hold onto original medical records at least for a certain number of years. >> what a remarkably interesting
story. anna, thank you for the interview and your reporting on that. danny, thank you for your analysis. >> as a producer with nbc news, danny is your msnbc legal analyst. more on the story that hallie referenced. john kelly is pushing back against a new nbc report saying in recent months kelly has eroded morale inside the west wing with insulting comments about the president. according to the report, the chief of staff referred to trump as an idiot multiple times. kelly released a statement saying in part i spend more time with the president than anyone else and we have an incredibly candid and strong relationship. he always knows where i stand, and he and i both know this story is total b.s. moments ago sarah huckabee sanders responded to questions about the president's confidence in general kelly and denied a report that the president was considering kelly to lead the veterans affairs department. >> can you tell us the
president's confidence in chief kelly, and is he under serious consideration for the v.a. secretary? >> he's not being considered for the v.a. secretary. both the president and the chief of staff are very happy with his position that he currently holds which is chief of staff to the president at the white house. and i would refer you back to general kelly's statement that he put out yesterday specific to the comments that allegations about comments that he'd made. >> okay. john kelly is not the first member of trump's administration to call him names. i want to walk through this with you. in october of last year, nbc news responded to then reported that then secretary of state rex tillerson vented to colleagues month before calling president trump a moron and threatening to resign. tillerson has never confirmed or fully denied that he said this. in november buzz feed reported h.r. mcmaster said at a private dinner that trump was an idiot,
a dope with the intelligence of a kindergartner. a spokesperson denied mcmaster made the comments. sparks really flew when a tell all book fire and fury came out in january. it quotes the president's top economic adviser calling the president dumb as something that starts with an "s". the white house said it was ridiculous. it quotes others as calling their boss an idiot. priebus claimed he never said it. mnuchin called the book a fake. joining me now is my co-host on velshi and ruhle, stephanie ruh ruhle. earlier today she said i remind her of brad pitt. >> i said to me you're my brad pitt. while i have reported on john kelly calling the president an idiot and rex tillerson calling him a moron, i cannot speak to the other claims out there.
>> right. with the moron from rex tillerson, the president, again, tweeted that nbc is lying and the reporting is fake. >> the president can tweet that all he wants. we've spoken to eight people who through the course of our reporting and we've been working on this for weeks have been speaking about the erosion between president trump and john kelly. john kelly can say he's around the president more than anyone else, sure, maybe he still is. the president has isolated himself, and it's not like he's around anyone. but general kelly is not around the president on a day today basis. we know he has told people on a regular basis on the staff if it wasn't for me, we would all be in so much trouble. i'm saving the country. without me, he would be impeached or we would be at war. and to an extent -- >> that's a role a lot of presidential historians say is important when you have a president that makes decisions irrationally like president trump does. >> listen, the chief of staff of many, not just presidents, but
founders, extraordinarily successful people, may have to play that role. what they don't do is then articulate that to the general public or at least to their staff. >> or call the bosses names. >> john kelly has told people inside the white house when i'm one on one or in a small group in the oval office, i tell the president how it is. and other people who are in the small meetings are going, what are you talking about? you're a yes man like anyone else. and to say that -- for the president to say things are running smoothly like a tight ship, you know they're not. >> right. you spoke to eight people who say they're not. there are people who went on the record at the white house to say this is not true. then you have eight people you spoke to who said it is true and then you have the president talking about how smoothly everything is running. those three things cannot all be true. >> yes. and we've been hearing for months that john kelly's sensibility or his mannerisms might not be fit for prime time. you know, the way he talked
about frederica wilson. what he said about women maybe being more emotional than men. people in the white house say he's dismissive to women. you can put it on one side, but to then be dismissive of the president verbally, that's going to leave a mark. one that the president, you know how sensitive he is. might not get over. >> great reporting. thank you. we'll see you tomorrow morning at 11:00 a.m. >> and 9:00 a.m. >> and 9:00 a.m. on stephanie's show. >> see you, friend. brad pitt. what the reported questions robert mueller wants to ask president trump reveals about the scope and the depth of the russia probe. you're watching msnbc. it'll connect us to everything that's going on in the company. get it for jean who's always cold. for the sales team, it and the warehouse crew. give us the data we need. in one place, anywhere we need it.
help us do our jobs better. with domo we can run this place together. well that's that's your job i guess. ♪ let's do an ad of a man eating free waffles at comfort inn. they taste like victory because he always gets the lowest price on our rooms, guaranteed, when he books direct at choicehotels.com. or just say, badda book. badda boom. book now at choicehotels.com and i recently had hi, ia heart attack.
it changed my life. but i'm a survivor. after my heart attack, my doctor prescribed brilinta. it's for people who have been hospitalized for a heart attack. brilinta is taken with a low-dose aspirin. no more than 100 milligrams as it affects how well brilinta works. brilinta helps keep platelets from sticking together and forming a clot. in a clinical study, brilinta worked better than plavix. brilinta reduced the chance of having another heart attack... ...or dying from one. don't stop taking brilinta without talking to your doctor, since stopping it too soon increases your risk of clots in your stent, heart attack, stroke, and even death. brilinta may cause bruising or bleeding more easily, or serious, sometimes fatal bleeding. don't take brilinta if you have bleeding, like stomach ulcers, a history of bleeding in the brain, or severe liver problems. slow heart rhythm has been reported. tell your doctor about bleeding new or unexpected shortness of breath any planned surgery, and all medicines you take. if you recently had a heart attack, ask your doctor if brilinta is right for you. my heart is worth brilinta. if you can't afford your medication, astrazeneca may be able to help.
>> tech: don't wait for a chip like this to crack your whole windshield. with safelite's exclusive resin, you get a strong repair that you can trust. plus, with most insurance a safelite repair is no cost to you. >> customer: really?! >> singers: safelite repair, safelite replace. the leaks just keep coming from the white house. "the new york times" reports it has 49 questions that robert mueller would like to ask president trump. the questions were given to the president's legal team by mueller's office and someone outside the president's legal team leaked them. the deputy press secretary was asked about that possibility earlier. >> is there a concern that that's leaking within his own country of allies. >> leaking from anywhere of confidential information is a problem. >> let's look at the four topics the special counsel wants to talk about with the president. first up, mike flynn. the special counsel wants to know whether the president knew
about flynn's phone calls with then russian ambassador and if they discussed sanctions during the transition. all right. the decision to fire flynn was never fully explained by the white house if he was fired for lying, why did it take donald trump two weeks to oust him. and in more recent memory, the alleged offer of a pardon by john doud is going to be investigated. the next topic is james comey. some key questions about comey. the january 27th, 2017, dinner at the white house when comey says the president asked him to take a loyalty preblej. and the dinner when comey says the president effectively asked him to drop the investigation into michael flynn. he wants to know what the president meant during the interview with lester holt when he said this. >> and, in fact, when i decided to just do it, i said to myself, i said, you know, this russia thing with trump and russia is a made up story.
>> mueller also wants to know about trump's claim that firing comey, quote, took the pressure off during a meeting with russian government officials in the oval office. okay. next topic. attorney general jeff sessions. the special counsel wants to get the president's reaction to this announcement that sessions made last march. >> i have now decided to recuse myself from any existing or future investigations of any matter relating in any way to the campaigns for president of the united states. >> mueller also wants the president to answer questions about all the reports that he wants to fire the special counsel, and finally, the final topic is russia. the special counsel is interested in everything the president knows about that june 2016 meeting at trump tower, and the president's role in donald trump junior's response to the news of that meeting. and there are also questions about the president's former campaign manager paul manafort and any outreach he made to
russia during the campaign. this is key. as well as trump's long time adviser roger stone and contacts that he's had with wikileaks founder. and finally what trump might know about erik prince's meeting set up by george nader. now, a cooperating witness, by the way, with the special counsel. what do all of these questions, those weren't all the questions. those were just some of the questions and the four topics that the special counsel wants to talk about. what do the questions mean for donald trump? i'm joined by stanley potten jer. he was deeply involved in the water gate investigation. his son works in the trump administration at the national security counsel. the president tweeted this morning. it was a bit of a nonsensical tweet. he said so disgraceful the questions concerning the russian witch hunt were leaked to the media. no questions on collusion. i see. you have a made up phony crime. collusion that never existed and an investigation begun with
illegally leaked classified information. nice. first, there's a lot wrong with that. the investigation it turns out was not triggered by leaked information. i says no questions on collusion. this is the way the president lies to his base on a consistent basis. those questions are all about collusion. many of them are questions about these various people and how they have likely colluded with the russians. >> i don't know if it's likely, but it's a question of whether it existed at all, yes, that's right. collusion is one part of it. one of the things that i think bothers the president so much is that as all investigations of this kind happen, all of them, they bleed outward. they do not stay contained to the original mandate that may have caused the appointment of the special prosecuter. >> that gets under the president's skin. right? as far as he's concerned he wants a narrow investigation. >> it got under nixon's skin. it got under bill clinton's
skin. it gets under everybody. i mean, inevitably. it would get under ours. >> of the 49 questions, five about michael flynn. 11 about comey. 9 about sessions. 14 are about coordination with russia. that's for a total of 49 questions. does that breakdown tell you anything about where robert muler is going? >> i don't think so. i think it's -- you could argue the volume might give you more interest in it, but it's possible that one big question is much more important than five little questions. if you're asking a question directly about, for instance, the kislyak meetings, and i'm now talking about things that relate to russia, not financial stuff. not campaign things or unrelated. that question would be directly related to the mandate that the special prosecuter has. >> yeah. >> so here's the issue. mueller has interviewed a lot of
people. he's checked people's phones. he has all sorts of stuff. he knows answers to many of the 49 questions. >> that's the danger to the president. . that's it. that's it. >> he needs to know if the president is lying. >> you cannot go, in my opinion, and i think most counsel believe this. you cannot go into that meeting easily not knowing what the other side knows and then remember -- even if you're trying to remember things genuinely, you could be easily contradicting yourself. >> all right. stan, thank you very much. a former assistant attorney general in the civil rights division. up next, we're taking you to the mexican border with about a dozen members of the migrant caravan have been allowed to apply for asylum. plus a major announcement about a lawsuit against scott pruitt. y cause trouble with recall.
- learning from him is great... when i can keep up! - anncr: thankfully, prevagen helps your brain and improves memory. - dad's got all the answers. - anncr: prevagen is now the number-one-selling brain health supplement in drug stores nationwide. - she outsmarts me every single time. - checkmate! you wanna play again? - anncr: prevagen. healthier brain. better life. i've got a nice long life ahead. big plans. so when i found out medicare doesn't pay all my medical expenses, i looked at my options. then i got a medicare supplement insurance plan. [ male announcer ] if you're eligible for medicare, you may know it only covers about 80% of your part b medical expenses. the rest is up to you. call now and find out about an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan, insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company. like all standardized medicare supplement insurance plans, it helps pick up some of what medicare doesn't pay.
and could save you in out-of-pocket medical costs. to me, relationships matter. i've been with my doctor for 12 years. now i know i'll be able to stick with him. [ male announcer ] with these types of plans, you'll be able to visit any doctor or hospital that accepts medicare patients. plus, there are no networks, and virtually no referrals needed. so don't wait. call now and request this free decision guide to help you better understand medicare... and which aarp medicare supplement plan might be best for you. there's a wide range to choose from. we love to travel - and there's so much more to see. so we found a plan that can travel with us. anywhere in the country. [ male announcer ] join the millions of people who have already enrolled in the only medicare supplement insurance plans endorsed by aarp, an organization serving the needs of people 50 and over for generations.
remember, all medicare supplement insurance plans help cover what medicare doesn't pay. and could save you in out-of-pocket medical costs. call now to request your free decision guide. and learn more about the kinds of plans that will be here for you now - and down the road. i have a lifetime of experience. so i know how important that is.
many with young children have set up temporary shelter on the con careen. only 14 people from the caravan have been admitted into the united states to have their claims processed. miguel almaguer is in tijuana joining me now. miguel, how are things going over there? >> reporter: these are the migrants here who have not been able to get processed. there's roughly about 140 of them waiting for their chance to surrender at border patrol. they've been waiting here for over 24 hours. right now the conditions are somewhat ideal. it's about 60 degrees. overnight it dips into the 40s. we've had light rain. set up tents. all the families say they're coming from central america. you'll see this young family here. they have slept on this cold concrete overnight and been here going on two days. they say after making this four-week journey across central
america and finally into the u.s., they say they really don't have any other options. they're willing to stay here and wait as long as it takes to get asylum. they say they're ready to turn themselves in to border patrol. when they'll be able to do so remains unclear. they say they'll optimistic they'll have that opportunity in the comes days. >> some fear they'll not going to. some fear the plan on the part of the administration is to have them sit there. >> reporter: that's right. when they first got here, they were shut out from the border crossing which is pretty rare for at least 24 hours. and because of the rhetoric from president trump, many feared they would never even get the chance, the opportunity to surrender to border patrol. they were finally at least, a select group of them were able to do so in the last couple of hours. many were worried they would never get the opportunity. imagine making that four-week journey, 3,000 miles throwing
corruption in the country to get here and have no opportunity to even turn yourself in. it's the basic hupen right they say they deserve and apparently now some of them are slowly beginning to get it. >> it is a u.n. convention to which the use is a cig tory that refugees are at least be granted a hearing for asylum. thank you. we'll continue to stay on that sor story. another lawsuit, this one aimed at the epa. the state of california is leading the charge against scoot pruitt and his calls to roll back auto emissions standards. this is actually why scott pruitt is there. remember that. for all the other stuff we're talking about the spending and the security, scott pruitt in his mind, his job is to roll back regulations on the environment. california is one of 18 states as well as district of columbia suing for the recommendation that standards on emissions be
revised and likely lowered. auto makers appealed to the trump administration saying the fuel standards for new cars and trucks of 36 miles per gallon by 2025 was too high. to talk more about this, i'm joined by the california attorney general. good to see you. thank you for being with us. >> thank you. >> let's start with the fact that this is -- i want to be clear -- this is what scott pruitt believes his job is. the epa is a job killing, business killing, profit killing place, and he's said he's there to roll back regulations and that's why donald trump is sticking with him through all the criticisms about him through his misdeeds in office. >> the misdeeds, i think are going to catch up with him, but while he's the administrator, he's not above the law. and one of the things he's supposed to do if he's doing his job right is to enforce the law, and he has chosen not to. that's why he's being sued by
california and 17 other states and the district of columbia. >> he says in light of recent information, the current standards imposed by the obama administration are not appropriate and should be revised. you're saying that's a vital of the law for him -- vital of the law for him to do that. >> it's not up to just him to say that. there's a process in the democracy to determine if a law is inappropriate. he doesn't have power to say it's inappropriate because he's the inmin stray or tadministrat. the same way the standards were put in place as a result of a process. the science was used to get us to the point where we are today. simply because scott pruitt doesn't like the standards doesn't mean he gets to say i won't enforce it. >> this is what people worry about it. they believe the auto industry which has not enjoyed the standards, has put pressure on this administration and that
this administration despite the claims of draining the swamp, is listening to industry over the needs of americans as it relates to the environment. >> well, one thing that's been proven is that the standards can be met by the auto manufactures. a second item we should note is the auto manufacturers agreed to the standards some seven years. we know we can get there. we are building cars now that get far more than just 36 miles per gallon. but i'll remind you that there was a time when auto manufacturers were balking at the idea of putting seat belts in vehicles. they were against the notion that we should have air bags in vehicles and today you wouldn't find an auto maker that would build a vehicle that doesn't either one because they know consumers wouldn't buy them. can we do this? absolutely. must we do it? certainly if we want to have clean air for our kids to breathe in the future. i don't think there is any doubt
that what was done by establishing the national standards is not only right but it's legal, and we intend to go to court to make sure that's the case. >> attorney general, i want to get your comments on what's going on on the southern border of california. it feels inhumane that we're making people sit outside without intitling them to a hearing. >> well, we have laws and we have a process. due process. and if you are an asylum seeker, you go through a process. these individuals at the border are trying to go through the regular legal process. the federal government at some point is going to have to give them a chance. there the individuals will have to prove they have a valid case for asylum. the federal government doesn't have a right to deny them a chance to submit their claim for asylum. this effort by the trump administration to not abide by the law is just another case of overreach by them. ultimately, the process has to work its way. due process will work its
course. the trump administration or no trump administration. >> attorney general of california, thank you for joining us, sir. >> thank you. coming up, mark zuckerberg announces a major policy change that will soon allow users to wipe clean their browsing histories and prevent feature ad targeting. a facebook investor joins me after the break to weigh in. you're watching msnbc. ♪ ♪ (baby crying) ♪ ♪ don't juggle your home life and work life without it. ♪ ♪
mr. elliot, what'sking your wiwifi?ssword?. wifi's ordinary. basic. do i look basic? nope! which is why i have xfinity xfi. it's super fast and you can control every device in the house. [ child offscreen ] hey! let's basement. and thanks to these xfi pods, the signal reaches down here, too. so sophie, i have an xfi password, and it's "daditude". simple. easy. awesome. xfinity. the future of awesome. this just in, deputy attorney general rod rosenstein has strong words for lawmakers
who drafted articles of impeachment against him. rosenstein oversees the ongoing special counsel investigation because the attorney general has recused himself. in an event, rosenstein joked about the lawmakers. they can't even resist leaking their own drafts. then he said this. >> i just don't have anything to say about documents like that that nobody has the courage to put their name on and that they leak in that way. but i can tell you that there were people who have been making threats, privately and publicly against me for quite some time. and i think they should understand by now the department of justice is not going to be extorted. >> the articles were drafted by trump allies in congress. the spokesman for congressman mark meadows called them a last resort should the department continue to slow walk production of documents to congress. steve mnuchin will lead a
delegation this week. according to analysis, the european union will be caught in the cross fire. joining me is elizabeth economy. it is a very necessary read, regardless of whether you're concerned about tariffs. the whole concept of what's going on in china is a bigger and more important conversation than the very specific one we are having. as it relates to china and its behavior as a trade partner in the world, there are real criticisms. >> right. the european union, the united states, japan, all of our allies are concerned about the same set of interests when they look at china today. they have to do with
intellectual property theft, barriers to market access, china's big state industrial man, made in china 2025 that is quite significant. all of these are things that everybody agrees on and we should be working with our allies to try to get at these issues. >> they are things that require focused approaches. and it feels like we've taken this very big sledge hammer approach to it. what are the mechanisms to deal with intellectual property theft? what are the mechanisms to deal with china not letting everybody else have the same access to its growing consumer base that it has with everyone else? are there mechanisms in place? >> let me say one positive thing about the approach that president trump has taken, at least initially. i think the threat of tariffs at the very beginning put the chinese on their back foot, and that was necessary. the chinese have become very complacent about the united states talking and talking,
pushing and pushing but not getting any real change. >> some say that's a valid complaint. >> it is valid. you could ask any business person who does business in china, that is a valid complaint. the issue is how do you get at things like intellectual property rights protection. how do you get them to place a priority on that, not just do a few sweeps and make cosmetic things to make it look good. >> mnuchin is going there. is he going to go in with suggestions? are there people like you at the council on foreign relations -- is there a road we should go down with china that is worth discussing? >> there's a road. but i think with this administration there are at least three roads. unfortunately the delegation that's going does not speak with one voice. i heard china's top economic official came to visit the united states back in february. he heard literally three different asks out of three
different parts of the administration. what i've heard they're going to ask for, the $100 billion cut in the bilateral trade deficit and they're going to ask for some significant shift in the made in china 2025 program. they're not going to get either one of those things. >> but a lot of people don't know the basic details of it which is why i recommend this book "the third revolution." there is no margin for error for not understanding the growth of the chinese economy and the influence its has over our world. thank you so much for being with us. >> thank you. mark zuckerberg promised big steps to give user more control over their personal information today. >> we're going to keep investing heavily in security and privacy. but security isn't a problem that you ever fully solve. this is an arms race.
we're going to be working to stay ahead of our adversaries forever. >> i like that dramatic pause thing. the social media platform also unveiled a feature that will allow users to delete information it collects as it follows you through the web. this, i think, is huge. joining me to take about this is the cofounder of the private equity firm elevation partners and the center for humane technology. he's an early and current investor in facebook. he was an early mentor to mark zuckerberg and he's been our friend on this show. what do you think? is this a big deal? >> it is a big deal. i'm really glad they're doing this. clear history, which is the name of the new feature that they're going to offer, will allow you to get rid of whatever search history facebook has collected on you as well as to prevent advertisers from searching your stuff. here's the problem. facebook has been creating an
artificial intelligence and training it with all of this data they're been collecting on us for years. you've heard the stories of people who say something out loud like i want to buy a certain kind of shoes and suddenly they see an ad on facebook for the exact brand they're talking about. they think facebook is listening. they've been taking all this data and creating a model of human behavior that can anticipate what each of us things. one of the reasons they're open to getting rid of your browsing history is they don't actually need it anymore. i'm really glad they did this, but no one should pretend this is a solution. >> zuckerberg said today they were slow to identify russian interference and they will never be unprepared again. the idea is it sounded a bit like they were owning up to it.
>> the part that bothers me is that they had an opportunity to cooperate with the investigators and to cooperate with the 126 million people on facebook who are touched by the russian interference, and they still haven't done that. their view is a little bit like trump. we alone can take care of this problem. i don't think that's how it works. as he said, it's a large, long-term battle with really fierce adversaries. i think they should be getting everybody and their grandmother involved and cooperating much more fully with investigators. >> good to have you. thank you so much for being with us through what is really one of the big issues of our time, trying to get to the bottom of how we fix our privacy issues. r i'm out of time. that's it for me. i will see you back here 11:00 tomorrow morning with stephanie rule and then 3:00 tomorrow afternoon. catch me on social media. for now, i'm going to hand it
over to my friend nicole wallace with "deadline white house." ♪ it's 4:00 in new york. big huge giant scoop in today's "new york times," a story that offers us the widest view yet of what special counsel robert mueller wants to know if and when he interviewed the president of the united states as part of his investigation into collusion with russia and whether the president has obstructed justice since he's been in office. the questions for the president shared with "new york times" reporter mike schmitt run the gamut from what the president knew about discussions during the campaign about easing russian sanctions to what he knew about his son-in-law's efforts to establish a back channel to russia. first, the reaction this morning from the president after the times story first broke. it was swift and it was