atkins, jonathan lemire. "mtp daily" starts right now. hi, chuck. >> hi, nicolle. happy friday. >> happy friday. >> if it's friday, what's the president's breaking point? tonight, under pressure. president trump backs down on his steadfast support of scott pruitt. so what's the key to get the president to cave on anything else? plus shine on. how former fox news exec bill shine is changing the white house. and reunification delay. why many families separated at the border may be spending even more time apart. this is "mtp daily" and it starts right now. good evening, i'm chuck todd here in washington. welcome to "mtp daily."
we begin tonight
with a simple question. what makes the president, of all presidents, cave to the pressure? here we are some 24 hours after the white house -- actually president trump, i think the white house wanted to yield to this pressure a while ago, but president trump yielded to the pressure on epa chief scott pruitt. we are still dealing with the aftermath from the president's 180 on a zero tolerance policy at the border which separated families. in both cases, the white house or specifically the president hit a breaking point and gave into some pressure. in both cases there were some folks wondering if the white house would ever give in to this pressure. again, i should say trump, not the white house. which begs the question, which are the president's pressure points and where are his breaking points. for instance, is there a breaking point for him on trade? because a war of words with china is now turning into a very real war of trade. china today said it's retaliating against the u.s. after the president imposed $34 billion in tariffs on chinese products. the president told reporters on
air force one last night he's prepared to hit china with additional penalties that could total over half a trillion dollars. yes, half a trillion. so if you're a critic of the president on this issue, which lots of republicans are, what did you learn about the president's pressure points from the pruitt fiasco or the family separations issue, anything? is there anything to be used there on trade? any trade? and trade isn't the only issue where folks are wondering if there's a breaking point. what about our relationships with our closest allies. the president seems ready to threaten to pull the plug on the entire nato alliance ahead of next week's summit. >> i'll see nato and i'm going to tell nato, you've got to start paying your bills. the united states is not going to take care of everything. so we have $151 billion in trade deficits with the eu and on top of that, they kill us with nato. they want to protect against russia, yet they pay billions of dollars to russia and we're the
shmucks paying for the whole thing. almost $33 billion more is projected to be paid by those nato nations, but it's not enough. >> and in case the president's hostility towards nato wasn't clear at last night's rally, after he meets with nato next week, he decided to schedule a summit with nato's biggest critic, vladimir putin. he could have done it before the nato summit. he chose to do it after. speaking of putin, there are some folks wondering if there's a breaking point with the president's constant praise of him. here's the president last night. >> they're going will president trump be prepared. you know, president putin is kgb and this and that. you know what, putin is fine. he's fine. we're all fine. we're people. will i be prepared? totally prepared. i've been preparing for this stuff my whole life. they don't say that. they don't say that. >> also at last night's rally in addition to criticizing the
united states' closest allies and praising putin, praised kim jong-un. he maligned the press corps, mocked the me too movement and made up facts about aspects of his election victory, all of it while at a rally ostensibly about the montana senate race. again, where is the breaking point on those other issues? let's bring in tonight's panel. shawna thomas, alfonso aguilar and ruth marcus is an msnbc contributor and columnist at "the washington post." so we hit a breaking point. alfonso i'll start with you on pruitt. what did you learn from the fact he doesn't cave often and has caved twice in three weeks. one on the immigration policy where the pictures said a lot and pruitt where aparpparentlya six-month drum beat finally worked. >> it's a tall order that you're
asking of us to try to understand, right? i think it's all about himself and the perception that he thinks people have of him. with the separation of families, i frankly don't think that initially that was his idea. i think this is one of those stephen miller, you know, concocted ideas that went wrong, and he had a lot of pressure from inside, from his daughter, from his wife, and i think he realized that he wasn't really looking very well. in the case of pruitt, a lot of conservatives support him. i don't think it was a problem for him initially. he was the only defender of pruitt within the white house. kelly wanted him out, others. >> jim enhoff said he was sort of ready. >> but he doesn't care until you see so many cases an everything is piling up. it gets to a point where he says, wait a second, is this affecting my persona, my
perception, and then he gives in. so it's all about him. that's how i read things. >> all right. so let's take that premise, because i agree that it's all about him. let's start with trade, right. let me put up the full screen of what he said last night on air force one. by the way, i love that this president loves to come back and talk to the press corps on air force one. >> i don't think he gets enough credit for that. >> $34 billion in tariffs against china and then another 16 in two weeks and $200 billion in abeyance and then $300 in abeyance. so 50 billion plus 200 billion plus 300 billion. >> so you're talking about real money. >> the president cares what ceos think of him. i wonder in that same vein how many of them have to tell him, oh, my god, this is what you're doing to us. harley davidson, he's going to have a verbal war with. but what if it's ten harley davidsons? >> the president does care what people think of him. i think -- but i think one of the main things that motivates him and one of the things that
may be the sort of unified theory, i'm not sure i really have one yet, has to do with pictures. for me it was the pictures of the children. it was the pictures maybe to some extent of that mother acosting pruitt at the restaurant, talking to him. but i also look at -- he does not back down. he does not back down easily. he does not back down quickly. he counterpunches. i thought the insight that we got yesterday about pruitt, because the mystery was always why did it take so long. when you saw pruitt's resignation letter, you got some of the answer, is he has been sucking up to the president and talking about how blessed he is to serve him and serve him and serve him for months. >> he basically delayed the firing. >> that's how he did it. >> but i think the television point is correct. i think especially with the kids on the border. once it reached a certain situation, cable was wall to wall. we're still to an extent wall to wall on that. we know he watches a lot of
television and a lot of articles have been written about that in "the washington post." the pruitt situation, there were a lot of articles written about it, but it took a while for that to gear up to like television level. i think he starts to see that and he's like, okay, is this a problem. you also mentioned senator enhoff. i do think there are probably republican senators in congress who are like, dude, this is an election year. our people don't want to have to answer for scott pruitt because there is no good answer. >> i had somebody credit bill shine. >> really? >> i have no idea whether that's true or not but him going, hey, this looks bad. that's how you tell the president, hey, it looks bad. if you just say the phrase "looks bad." >> you mentioned tariffs and in the case of tariffs i think it's different. ideologically, he's been consistent. >> what does that mean to you? >> he likes tariffs. >> he is not caving for some time. that's essentially your point. >> i think he believes that we
can become self-sufficient, that we can go back to before the trade agreements. so i don't see him caving, no. >> it is going to be, i think, a lot easier and more demonstrable and predictable that he would cave on the children than he would cave on tariffs. tariffs do not make for good television. there may be some angry soybean farmers and ceos. >> i'm curious about moms and dads in grocery stores. >> when the prices start to go up. >> especially on food in particular. but anyway, let me bring up another one. what about nato. here's the president last night. about his favorite member of nato these days. take a listen. >> and i said, you know, angela, i can't guarantee it, but we're protecting you and it means a lot more to you than protecting us, because i don't know how much protection we get by protecting you.
>> later in the show we're going to get into a little bit of a history lesson of world war ii. somebody over there might need one. but how do you change his mind on nato? i was with somebody today who said, you know, the policy of the united states hasn't changed, but they acknowledge they don't know what he will do at the meeting. >> yeah. i think it has the same problem that trade has, which is it didn't make for good television to talk about nato. even though people will try to do as many interviews as possible, we'll see pictures from it. the time zones will be a little off when you see those pictures. he does not think his base cares what he does about nato. and so he can do whatever he wants to do. >> his base has a bit of an isolationist streak too. >> his base enjoys hearing him say we've been treated like shmucks and we're not going to take it anymore. >> and other people should pay more money. >> and other people should pay more money. and you know what, he does have
a point that other people should pay more money. i was looking at a chart this morning and germany is not paying its fair share. other presidents have made that point. they have made it without the kind of threatening language. >> there's a subtly. >> and the ambassador to nato came in and did the conference call and she did that subtly too, but she sort of praised some of our partners in nato by saying a lot of people, like 16 countries have increased the amount of money they're spending on nato. >> including germany. >> although germany not at the number president trump wants them at. >> don't forget, germany's economy is larger than everybody else's so in raw dollars it's a huge jump. >> but she was being careful. it was funny to listen to this conference call and have her, number one, dismiss this idea of germany and taking the troops out and is that going to come up with nato and know exactly what the president of the united states has said about it. everyone else around him who does this is careful. >> i'll say this, first of all, it definitely plays with his
base. i don't understand they understand the real importance and impact of nato so it does play to the base very well. however, i must say that having been in italy for a couple of weeks now -- >> nice tan. >> showoff. >> well, but what i'm seeing in europe is some leaders starting to support trump. you see -- >> one government is a pro trump government. >> within nato as well and other countries as well, they may end up agreeing or understanding or supporting trump. so europe is in a very interesting situation where it's not a monolith. there are big divisions in europe. and trump by doing this is also taking advantage of those divisions. >> i think you can bully the eu on tariffs and a lot of things and nato because of those perceived weaknesses. the problem is you can't bully china. let me go to another thing last night that i thought was playing with matches next to kerosene and that was his sort of dismissal of the me too movement in a way that made a lot of
people uncomfortable. take a listen. >> let's say i'm debating pocahontas, right? i promise you i'll do this. i will take -- you know those little kits they sell on television for $2? we will take that little kit and say -- but we have to do it gently. because we're in the me too generation, so we have to be very gentle. and we will very gently take that kit and we will slowly toss it, hoping it doesn't hit her and injure her arm. and we will say i will give you a million dollars to your favorite charity paid for by trump if you take the test and it shows you're an indian, you know. >> i don't want you to get drawn into this. elizabeth warren, she created her own problem. >> you can make that joke without involving me too. >> he didn't have to go there. >> and that's where i'm curious. like is that a bridge too far?
>> i think for a lot of women, it is a bridge too far. i think there are women in suburban enclaves who did vote for him last time who remember the last time they were sexually harassed, the last time they were sexually assaulted, what happened to them in college. that kind of thing, if it actually gets out and they're able to hear it is something that will go to the back of their brain. does that mean they're not going to vote for him again? i don't know, but it is one addition. >> it's very fascinating he said me too generation and it really resonated with me. you look at the polling and you look at the position of millenials and especially millenial women on trump and the enormous deficit he has with them. why did he choose to do that? >> you know that could be a tell. that's how his advisers are telling him -- well, it's the millenials. don't worry about it, it's the millenials that don't like you. >> you think it's an advisor thing? >> somebody handed him. he grabbed that nugget an merged me too and millenials together
somehow. >> but no sane political advisor, maybe i'm limiting it, would have suggested bringing up me too in that context. >> but if you're trying to explain away your gender gap numbers, you say they're the me too generation. >> i think this is the authentic trump. he got off the teleprompter and he starts talking and showing who he is. he's boldly gone where no man has gone before. >> well, no man in the 21st century has gone before. >> no man who has been accused of assaulting and harassing as many women as he has. >> it's about sensitivity, the sensitive liberals don't want to talk about this, i'm going to say that. >> for his base there is concern with the me too movement in the sense that they see that some -- that it's a form to advance political correctness. so he's talking to his base clearly. >> talking to those men. >> in montana. >> in montana. the problem is he's not talking to anybody outside of his coalition. and if you're a republican running for election this year,
and now for the rings. (♪) i'm a four-year-old ring bearer with a bad habit of swallowing stuff. still won't eat my broccoli, though. and if you don't have the right overage, you could be paying for that pricey love band yourself. so get an allstate agent, and be better protected from mayhem. like me.
can a ring bearer get a snack around here? so let's promote our summer travel deal on choicehotels.com like this. surfs up. earn a $50 gift card when you stay just twice this summer. or, badda book. badda boom. book now at choicehotels.com but prevagen helps your brain with an ingredient originally discovered... in jellyfish. in clinical trials, prevagen has been shown to improve short-term memory. prevagen. the name to remember. welcome back. critics of the trump administration say that fox news is helping call the shots in the west wing. well, now they're kind of really right. former long-time fox news producer and executive bill shine is now white house deputy chief of staff for communications. shine's hiring is not only notable because of his former job title, but because of why he left fox news.
according to vanity fair's gabriel sherman, shine was forced out at fox last year, in part for enabling sexual harassment at the company. now, shine has denied knowledge of the behavior of former fox news chairman roger ailes who left after being accused of sexual harassment. sherman also reports that shine's move to the white house came at the urging of one of fox news's personalities and somebody shine is very close with, sean hannity. speaking of gabe sherman, he joins me now as our network's foremost expert on all things bill shine. mr. sherman, welcome back to the show, sir. >> thanks, chuck. >> so let's start with why didn't bill shine get a job after fox and before the white house? >> well, you know, he -- sean hannity has been lobbying the president to bring shine into the white house. it has been something that hannity has pushed for. shine was reluctanreluctant, ac to my sources close to shine.
his family was reluctant about him stepping into the public eye after so publicly leaving fox news under a cloud of scandal. but the president remained determined and courted him and ultimately of course was successful in bringing him in this week. >> this is a relatively new relationship, though. the president's relationship was with rupert and roger. >> yeah. >> how did -- i mean so this was a sean hannity sort of connection here. >> yeah. >> when did they connect? when do you get the sense that the president said, yeah, to borrow a pun, took a shine to bill shine? >> going back to the campaign, of course, trump had a relationship with shine. it wasn't close. his primary relationship was with roger ailes. but through the fox orbit, donald trump was aware of bill shine. and then after the inauguration, sean hannity emerged as trump's biggest booster and de facto spokesperson in the media, that relationship developed.
sean hannity brought bill shine down to the white house, they had a private dinner several months ago and that relationship developed. i think what this is emblematic of, though, chuck, is something that you touched on earlier in the last block. donald trump is doubling down on his base. he's making no effort to broaden the message. sean hannity is speaking almost exclusively for the most diehard of trump supporters, and bill shine, who for years at fox with sean hannity's producer before ascending into the executive ranks, really has an innate understanding of that diehard base. with him becoming deputy chief of staff and communications director is a signal that this white house is going to laser in on that base and try to bring them out in the midterms. >> so this was what you're saying essentially is it was an optics hire more than anything else. let me ask this then about bill shine. first of all, was he hirable outside of this white house,
with all how he was essentially escorted out of fox news, you know, he was -- he wasn't invited to leave. you could say he was truly forced out. no one else was hiring him. i assume he became unhirable in the corporate world. >> of course. he was basically in retirement out on long island where he lives with his family. and really my reporting indicates he did not have any career prospects and we should point out he's entirely new to politics. i mean you could argue that roger ailes ran fox as a communications shop. but yeah, this was really a case where donald trump was the lily pad for bill shine to land on. >> so bill shine is rumored to potentially be the next chief of staff, although i buy the theory that there will be no official new chief, that it will be just sort of the president is his own chief of staff with shine having an important place at the table. >> yeah. >> is he -- i take it he has a reputation -- he got fired for
this arguably, for being too much of an enabler, too much of a yes person. >> of course. >> is that what we should expect that he's been hired to basically say yes to the president's instincts? >> i think that's right, chuck. i think the parallels between donald trump and roger ailes are striking. they're both bombastic, sort of megalomaniacal personalities and the people that thrive around them are yes people. so it's not on some level surprising that bill shine will be working for someone that is very much like his previous boss. he thrived at fox because he was the one person around roger ailes who indulged his impulses, who encouraged him and baited him. that's the kind of surrogates that donald trump likes as well. >> i've been pondering through any scenario with which i would find myself at nbc in a situation where the boss boss or somehow if my former boss ended
up in a situation like this, i have a feeling that there would be a lot of people appalled, a lot of people concerned. what's the attitude over at the fox organization? >> you know, i think it's split from the people i talk to. obviously the opinion side, such that it is, obviously the network has a point of view, but the sean hannitys, laura ingrahams, those people obviously are happy with this development. the news people, you know, shepard smith and others, i think are more aghast at this. and you saw, i think, a very telling quote in a buzzfeed article this week that was very critical. it was an anonymous fox executive being very critical of shine. so i think there is mixed feelings at fox. for those at fox who are trying to do somewhat of real journalism, this is just further proof that fox is state tv. you have the formered in wo ede former network head now running communications at the white house. >> was there anything from fox executives that tried to reassert their independence that
they weren't some arm of the white house, since basically most of fox news' -- most of them still there at one time reported to shine, right? >> no. i have not seen any messaging out of fox news or murdochs or a bit more broad low aboly about a line between the network and the white house. it was fox news that broke the news about shine's hiring. john roberts broke the news so obviously those relationships were helpful in breaking that story. >> it will be a fascinating experiment. mostly i am very curious to see how the fox broadcast organization handles this. i think, you know, in some ways presidents hiring people with media portfolios isn't new, but it is pretty new for an executive this high up to be there. >> without question. i think obviously it's going to make a lot of uncomfortable moments if shine actually becomes the story. but we've seen fox in the past have no trouble basically ignoring news, whether it's the
robert mueller investigation or other scandals, and basically coming up with their own story lines. so i think they'll have no trouble talking about hillary clinton if bill shine becomes the story. >> gabe sherman, i will leave it there. gabe, much appreciate it. thanks very much. up ahead, nearly 3,000 migrant children are still being detained. how the administration that first separated them from their families is now trying to reunite them. you made a promise you agreed to never give up to be a decent neighbor to remember the good people who rise with every challenge to remember their strength when you feel tired to serve with grit and grace you made a promise we did too the all-new ram 1500 but if something happened to you...
you need life insurance! and chances are selectquote can get it for you for under a dollar a day! selectquote found michael, 38, a $500,000 policy for under $23 a month. selectquote found anna, 37, a $750,000 policy for under $22 a month. selectquote's secret? they comparison shop select group of great companies like these for your best rate. give your family the security they need... at a price you can afford. since 1985, selectquote has saved over a million families millions of dollars on life insurance. call the number on your screen. or go to selectquote.com. discover what over a million families know. we shop. you save.
welcome back tonight. i'm obsessed with the fact that president trump apparently missed the day they taught world war ii in school. last night in montana less that a week before the nato summit, the president of the united states of america treated europe like a free-loading parasite, not like the friend of our european allies have been for more than 70 years. since, you know, that world war ii thing happened. here's the president last night. you heard a little of it earlier. on eu countries doing business with russia. >> they want to protect against russia, yet they pay billions of dollars to russia and we're the shmucks that are paying for the whole thing. >> shmucks. how about a quick recap of the day in school the president may have missed. this is what berlin looked like at the end of world war ii. this is what hiroshima looked like, by the way. this is what parts of london looked like. somewhere between 50 and 80 million people died, and after
the war, the eastern half of europe was trapped behind a communist iron curtain that didn't come down for more than 40 years. nato and our european alliances were designed to prevent that from happening again, ever. and you know what, for 70 years it worked. does president trump understand this? "the new york times" reported last july that defense secretary jim mattis, then secretary of state rex tillerson invited mr. trump and 20 others to a meeting at the pentagon. there they explained to him the importance of maintaining the post-war, that's world war ii, by the way, when they say post-war, the post-war international order. according to "the times," matt is said the greatest gift the greatest generation left us was the rules based post j international order. he went on to outline the military side of the alliance structures. so trump listened in silence for a whole hour. when he finally spoke up, the attendee told the author of this article his first words were,
this is exactly what i don't want. please, mr. trump, grab a book on your shelf about world war ii. don't be frightened by the cracking sound it makes when you open it. reacquaint yourself with what happened then and how much the united states and our allies have done to preserve post-war peace. grab the cliff notes of world war i if you can too. we'd all feel a lot better if you did. we'll be right back. underwear that's actually pretty. surprised? it's called always discreet boutique. it looks and fits like my underwear. i know what you're thinking. how can something this pretty protect? hidden inside is a super absorbent core that quickly turns liquid to gel for incredible protection. so i feel protected and pretty. always discreet boutique. new color. new size.
it lets you know where your data lives, down to the very server. it keeps your insights from prying eyes, so they're used by no one else but you. it is... the cloud. the ibm cloud. the cloud that's built for all your apps. ai ready. secure to the core. the ibm cloud is the cloud for smarter business. secure to the core. ♪ south l.a. is very medically underserved. when the old hospital closed people in the community lived with untreated health problems for years. so, with the county's help we built a new hospital from the ground up and having citi as an early investor worked as a signal to others to invest. with citi's help we built a wonderful maternity ward
and we were able to purchase an mri machine. we've made it possible for the people who live here to lead healthier lives and that's invaluable. ♪ welcome back. the trump administration today is asking for more time as they scramble to reunite nearly 3,000 migrant children who were separated from parents while crossing the u.s./mexico border. authorities said today that they will not be able to meet the court-ordered deadline of tuesday for returning children under the age of 5 to their families. only about half of the 100 children under age 5 will be reunited by then. the government cannot locate the parents of 38 of these children. some of them have been deported.
now, the government says the court-imposed deadline is extreme and doesn't account for the time needed to verify the parents. a judge of the southern district of california has said he will agree to delay the deadline if the government could provide a master list of all the children and status of their parents by monday morning. that is a tall order, i'm guessing. msnbc correspondent mariana atencio has been following the story of separated families. she joins us now from new york. the panel is back, by the way, shawna, alfonso, ruth. mariana, let me start with you, though. so i guess the trump administration got some qualified good news from this judge. they have a big homework assignment over the weekend, don't they? >> they need to get to work, chuck. they need to come up with this master list, as you labeled it, and really the judge focused on the tender-age children, the children under 5, because that's the first deadline coming up on tuesday. so the government needs to provide this judge with a list
of the 101 kids under the age of 5 by tomorrow at 5:00 p.m. pacific time. that list will then be reviewed by the plaintiff in this case, the aclu, and then the judge will rule by monday whether or not the government deserves or there's a justification for the extension of this deadline. and he basically said, listen, i need you to comply with the time frame. i need you to move forward with these reunifications. but if you can't reunify a certain group of kids, i need you to put them in a category and tell me why you're not able to do it by tuesday. so as you mentioned, out of the 101 kids under 5, we know there are 19 parents who have already been deported. there are 19 parents that have already been released into the country. so those are going to be sort of the hardest to pair up. but in the case of the other half or the 46 kids, the judge said you need to get these reunifications under way. >> by the way, i was gone for a
couple of days, but it struck me that when the administration came out yesterday with the reunification number and talked about that they're now under 3,000, that was one of those, wait, what? we never -- i never knew it was over 3,000. have they explained why were they not -- i would say they haven't been forthcoming. we don't know that they were misleading but they weren't forthcoming about the number. >> chuck, as somebody who has been following the story for weeks, it was a huge jump. the last number they had given us was 2,047 and all of a sudden it jumped to under 3,000. you know, that's a huge range of children. we don't know why that happened. they also said that that might include kids that were actually separated from their parents before zero tolerance was announced on may 7th. >> all right. let me bring the panel in here. shawna, i know this is -- this is drawing now some bipartisan
complaints. you have congressman carlos curbelo, republican from south florida, he was denied entry into one of these shelters earlier. he says hhs only said he didn't follow protocol. they're not making any -- they're not making any friends here, left or right. >> no, they're not making any friends. i think one of the things that's interesting is hhs secretary azar did a conference call yesterday. that's when this 3,000 number came out when everyone was like, wait a second, that wasn't what we thought the number was. what's really interesting is the guy in charge of the office of refugee resettlement, which is the one who is in charge of these kids who have been separated from parents or kids who come over by themselves, scott lloyd, who has been in the news before but not that much, no one is really asking like how is he doing this? now, i realize hhs is overall, but he is the guy who is in charge of figuring out what to do with these kids. congress has not called to talk to him. he is -- basically he has shown
up on some conference calls but won't take questions. i finding it fascinating that that guy hasn't actually had a conversation. >> alfonso, you worked in the administration. you worked in -- you understand the system pretty well. there was another thing that sort of goes to this point shawna is making. apparently records linking children to their parents have just disappeared. this according to the department of homeland security. i think we have a bureaucratic chain -- there is too many, hhs, dhs. >> and working in silos. i'm actually giving hhs a pass because this is a homeland security department created problem. they received instructions -- >> you mean hhs having to clean up a dhs mess? >> absolutely. they're releasing the parents or removing the parents. how do you put them -- get them together? it's a huge mess. it's a big mess. and again, i have to blame stephen miller. i don't think the president knew exactly what was going on, but stephen miller has been going through regulations, department
of homeland security regulations to toughen up enforcement and this was an idea. >> okay, let's not give anybody a pass here. >> sorry. >> let's not give anybody a pass. let's say the trump administration with president trump at the top, approved a policy of zero tolerance and implemented a policy before zero tolerance of separating children from parents without considering how this was going to work, how they were going to be reunited, what the consequences of this is going to be, and it's real easy to point fingers. i'm very happy to point fingers at stephen miller, but i am pointing my biggest finger at the president. he is ultimately responsible for this. and this is not a matter of bureaucratic silos, this is a matter of presidential inattention. >> we've had this problem before and we have to put it in context. >> we've never had a problem like this before. >> well, we've had it, we just haven't talked about it enough. under the obama administration, we separated families.
we separated father from mother and children and we held mother and children indefinitely. some people complained. but i don't think a lot of people paid attention to it. we've had the same problem. we have a disastrous immigration system and we need to fix it. that's why we need legislation. but i have to say the person that's working on this day-to-day is stephen miller. i put responsibility on the president, absolutely. the buck stops with him. but i think this was conceived by miller. >> i also think there is something to be said for the judge is basically saying give us a list of who you have. we don't have a list? >> it sounds like he's trying to -- look, i'll give you more time but i've got to know you're doing this. >> exactly. we talked about this, we expected the judge to do this, to give them an extension, but they had to prove that they were actually moving forward. >> i thought this is a more stringent reaction than i thought. i thought they would get more leeway. mariana, let me ask you this, so what happens if the government can't produce a list that
satisfies this judge? >> the judge said he would rule on a case-by-case basis, chuck. so if you can't reunify this specific 2-year-old, he needs to know that you're actually moving forward with the other 100 kids, you know what i mean. regarding the dna samples and the fingerprints that they are asking of these parents, i've actually spoken to parents who are having to submit this. i have a mother, maria, who i have been speaking to. she is trying to get reunified with her 7-year-old and her 2-year-old. that is supposed to happen by tuesday. she's being told that these dna samples could take weeks if not months. >> so i guess my question is so they violate this court order, i mean what are we going to do, put hhs in jail? i'm being facetious here, you get my point. like it's not going to make them do it any faster. >> i think what organizations on the ground are also worried about, and it was their basic complaint, is that the fact that they're asking for dna samples and asking for fingerprints now
means that the intake process at the outset wasn't done properly. meaning that there was no real plan to rooeunify these kids wi their parents when this process began and that's why this white house and the administration is scrambling to do this right now under the deadline. >> that's the most important point. apparently nobody thought they should keep track of the kids they're separating. anyway, mariana atencio, i've got to let you go. thank you very much. much appreciate your reporting. panel, you guys are stuck with me for one more segment. coming up, president trump's trade war, and what the ripple effect will be. when we were dating, we used to get excited about things like concert tickets or a new snowboard. matt: whoo! whoo! jen: but that all changed when we bought a house. matt: voilà! jen: matt started turning into his dad. matt: mm. that's some good mulch. ♪ i'm awake. but it was pretty nifty when jen showed me how easy it was to protect our home and auto with progressive. [ wrapper crinkling ] get this butterscotch out of here.
progressive can't protect you from becoming your parents. there's quite a bit of work, 'cause this was all -- this was all stapled. but we can protect your home and auto when you bundle with us. but we can protect your home and auto but how do i know if i'm i'm getting a good deal? i tell truecar my zip and which car i want and truecar shows the range of prices people in my area actually paid for the same car so i know if i'm getting a great price. this is how car buying was always meant to be. this is truecar. with savings on the new sleep number 360 smart bed. it senses your every move and automatically adjusts on both sides to keep you effortlessly comfortable. and snoring.... does your bed do that? don't miss the 4th of july special. save up to $500 on sleep number 360 smart beds. plus 36-month financing. ends sunday. i've been making blades here at gillette for 20 years. there's a lot of innovation that goes into making america's #1 shave. precision machinery and high-quality materials
from around the world. nobody else even comes close. now starting at $7.99. gillette. the best a man can get. welcome back. tonight in meet the midterms, despite democratic senator welcoming the president to mon montana and ike he meant it -- telling the crowd they deserve a senator who actually votes like he's from montana. >> i see jon tester saying such nice things about me. i say, yeah, but he never votes for me. he never votes. it's time to retire liberal democrat jon tester. a vote for jon tester is a vote for chuck schumer, nancy pelosi.
and the new leader of the democrat party, maxine waters. >> i bet you we'll see that last 15 seconds in a republican tv ad in the state of montana pretty soon. anyway, senator tester's response, he tweeted this. i've said it before and i mean it. i'll work with anyone to do what's best for montana and our veterans. i'm proud of my bipartisan bills president trump has signed that will do exactly that. it's pretty clear from that that tester is a red-state democrat, huh? we'll be back with more "mtp daily" after this.
the documentation. they don't comply with the order. then what? >> well, i think -- >> what actually is going to happen? >> i think if the children remain in the country for a long period of time, i think they could have a -- they could sue the government for damages. >> so you think the government could end up being -- that's what i -- if they can't comply with the court order, that seems like there's a lot of -- seems like an easy case to make -- >> continuing to monitor the case, because the settlement may have to be released and then somehow they'll have to come up with a system to identify the parents. and it may take a longer period of time, showing how big of a mess this was. >> as more kids are released though, especially kids under 5 who will then go into foster care, other facilities, because they can't be kept anymore, or relatives if they can find them, you are going to have an even harder time getting people back together. i think one of the things chuck
was getting at, there isn't really a way to punish the government for this by the judge because you can hold the people in contempt, or you could try to fine one of the federal organizations, but you can't really get them to do this any faster. if it's going to take a long time and they have to wait for dna testing, then it's just going to take a long time. >> you can't get them to do it any faster. well, you could get them to do it somewhat faster, but to reconstruction records that have been destroyed, you continue get them to do planning that should have been done before this happened that wasn't done. these are the kind of limits of courts overseeing these sort of complicated cases. it's the -- i mean, i don't -- thinking about the prospects of suits down the road, that is not what we're worried about here. we're worried about -- and appropriately for the judge to be worried about is getting the children back together with their parents. but he or she, we're not sure the gender of the judge, is doing -- there are limits of judicial power. we're confronting them.
>> let's talk about accountability. you want to hold stephen miller accountable. i understand that. >> and the president as well. >> i'm talking about in a situation this messed up, somebody made the decision, yeah don't bother worrying about keeping track of the kids versus the parents. that person should be fired. >> do you really think they made a decision or they didn't think lut consequences? >> yes, whatever it is. >> doj is zero tolerance. >> my point is somebody messed up the rollout, botched this. at a minimum, are they held accountable? that's what i mean here. >> and that is stephen miller. >> you see it as stephen miller. >> he continuously undercuts this president. the problem is, as we said in the first panel, he likes to suck up to the president. so the president really likes stephen miller. but continuously, we've seen it every time we discuss immigration, just in the house they were discussing the different bills, stephen miller was undercut in the process. >> i want to throw out a few
other people you might want to hold responsible. the attorney general. the president might be happy to do that who announced the zero tolerance policy without having figured out the consequences of that. you might want to hold responsible the homeland security secretary who insisted there was no other alternative to the zero tolerance policy. >> behind closed doors she was one of the people -- >> the president is going to -- >> he is the president of the united states, i understand. >> the people who executed the policy. so it's miller, the attorney general, and it's the secretary of -- >> and i'm going to throw out one more, the chief of staff who should have known. >> because this is a fubar situation. >> yes. >> and at some point the president may need a scapegoat. i guess my question is, who's the most likely scapegoat? >> scott pruitt. >> can't blame him now. is nielsen? miller is too close to the president. >> and i think -- he has me
booking a flight at the last minute doesn't have to be expensive. just go to priceline. it's the best place to book a flight a few days before my trip and still save up to 40%. just tap and go... for the best savings on flights, go to priceline. moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis was intense. my mom's pain from i wondered if she could do the stuff she does for us which is kinda, a lot. and if that pain could mean something worse. joint pain could mean joint damage. enbrel helps relieve joint pain, and helps stop further damage
enbrel may lower your ability to fight infections. serious, sometimes fatal events including infections, tuberculosis, lymphoma other cancers, nervous system and blood disorders and allergic reactions have occurred. tell your doctor if you've been someplace where fungal infections are common. or if you're prone to infections, have cuts or sores, have had hepatitis b, have been treated for heart failure or if you have persistent fever, bruising, bleeding or paleness. don't start enbrel if you have an infection like the flu. since enbrel, my mom's back to being my mom. visit enbrel.com... and use the joint damage simulator to see how joint damage could progress. ask about enbrel. enbrel. fda approved for over 18 years.
this wi-fi is fast. i know! i know! i know! i know! when did brian move back in? brian's back? he doesn't get my room. he's only going to be here for like a week. like a month, tops. oh boy. wi-fi fast enough for the whole family is simple, easy, awesome. in many cultures, young men would stay with their families until their 40's. well, in case you missed it, a first class gaffe for the
united states postal service. the judge ordered the post office to pony up $3.5 million for this stamp of the statue of liberty. now why, you ask? well, because this is not the statue of liberty. this is the statue of liberty. so who is that other lady with the minty fresh complexion you might ask? well, it's a lady liberty dopplerle ganger perched outside the new york, new york las vegas baby. the judge -- using the replica without permission. nobody at the post office noticed when they released the stamp in ten. the agency believed it showed the real statue. not quite, post office. second or third cousins, perhaps. look at them. they're not even twins. this did give the mtp daily team a new idea for stamp series. i'll present our new add thesive tribute to the u.s. capitol, or
how about one that pays homage to lincoln? you remember him. he did the thing at the place. something more current perhaps, how about this stamp that honors the national security adviser john bolton. so post office, better luck next time. remember, when it comes to stamps, accuracy should really be a sticking point. 3.5 million, why don't they offer them free postage. that's all for tonight. we'll be back for more. the beat start with ar lee melber. >> we are covering several stories tonight, hours after donald trump attack it had me too movement in a bizarre and negative exchange at that rally. i'm going to speak tonight exclusively with a woman who accused donald trump of sexual misconduct in the campaign. also, the scott pruitt ousting was important, but that's not the only problem in the trump cabinet. i bring to you tonight the