Confirm or deny the existence of an Ongoing Investigation, whether there is one or isnt one. One of the main lessons of this report the only reason i raise it is it was an open hearing. Former director comey said there was an internal investigation. There were a number of things i probably would have done differently. George . Do you want to take a stab at that . Im certainly not going to comment on whether or not there is an open or Ongoing Investigation one way or the other. We have, over the years, refused to do that and im not going to change the policy now. You and i have known each other a long time. I assume thats the answer you give. But here we know about mr. Strzoks private life and we know about his Text Messages, but we know nothing about the leaks from fbi personnel who are actively taking steps to sway the election to mr. Trump. You did not include investigation of those leaks in your report, is that correct . Thats correct for the reasons that we noted, that were not able to speak to work we might have ongoing. I would hope that the investigation is ongoing and at some point you report to us. Because it was generally accepted around here that leaks were going to mr. Giuliani during the campaign. In fact, mr. Giuliani basically said so on tv. Now, the president says that this report totally exonerates him and says there is no collusion with the russians. Inspector general horowitz, did your report even consider the question of collusion . Our report consisted of the departments handling of the clinton investigation. It touched on the Text Messages in that julyaugust time period, and then the decision that was made in october about whether to proceed or not proceed with the weiner laptop. That was the sum and total. But there was nothing in the report that exonerates the president from any question of collusion with the russians. This says nothing one way or the other, is that correct . We did not look into collusion questions. So i just note that the president says this totally exonerates him even though there is no conclusion one way or the other about the question of collusion with the russians. Now, director wray, after learning that the fbi utilized a confidential source during the early stages of the russia investigation, the president described as a scandal bigger than watergate. Im one of the few people here that in fact, the only person in the senate that remembers directly knowledge of watergate. I tend to disagree with him. I would say the Confidential Sources are a routine investigative tool. Ive got a document that is publicly available in the fbis online foyer library. Its a redacted interview summary from the clinton investigation. It shows that the fbi used a confidential human source in september 2015 well into secretary Clintons Campaign for president. So director, there is a possible use of Confidential Sources in either the clinton or russia investigation and does it show any collusion by the fbi . As you know, we use Confidential Sources covering the waterfront, and its a very important tool in that mission. Prosecutors know you probably dont have a sufficient prosecution of Confidential Sources. Now, director wray, the president said on friday that the Mueller Investigation has been totally discredited by the Inspector Generals report. I asked you last month before the Appropriations Committee about the russia investigation. You confirmed at that time you do not believe it is a witch hunt. Now, the special counsel investigation has already resolved the indictment of 20 individuals, three russia companies. Do you have any reason to believe that this investigation has been discredited . Senator, as i said to you last month, and as i said before, i did not believe special counsel mueller is on a witch hunt. Thank you, and i appreciate that. And you were very direct in both occasions. Now, the mistakes made by director comey during the Hillary Clinton investigation didnt exist in a vacuum. Republicans in congress relentlessly pressured the fbi to release details concerning the clinton investigation, and im deeply concerned that were repeating these mistakes today. The white houseworking with wo allies in congress have been sufficiently working on the investigation. General wray in pushback has been threatened with impeachment. Thats outrageous, obviously something that will never happen. But some accommodations have been made, and members of congress eager to politicize any details, review of the fisa application and learn the confide identity of a confidential source. Are you confident that will not jeopardize the fbi in the future . Senator, i think we have two competing entities we have to balance. We have congressional oversight. Thats part of our job. But we also have an obligation to protect sources and methods, to protect Ongoing Investigations, to respect things like grand jury secrecy. Its a challenge at times to do both, but im confident we can do both as long as both sides are willing to Work Together on it and im committed to trying to do both. Thank you very much. Senator cornyn . General horowitz, i believe your report summarizes as regards to former director comey, that he concealed from the attorney general his intention to make a unilateral declaration or declination of intent to pursue charges against secretary clinton. He made inappropriate comments on uncharged conduct. He erred when he said that he usurped the role of the attorney general in the department of justice when he said no rule would bring charges under the facts and he undermined the department of justices norms, is that correct . Thats correct. I think your position was certainly reinforced by oped pieces, by general holder when he wrote an oped in the Washington Post and by jamie gurrilik and James Thompson who wrote james comey is damaging our democracy. The rosenstein memo that was written by the Deputy Attorney general, forwarded to the attorney general and then attached, i think, to a letter whereby the president informed mr. Comey that his services as director of the fbi were being terminated are substantially similar to what you found in your report. Correct . I havent gone back recently and read the letter. I think its a straightforward comparison that could be made about it. Ill leave it at that. The way i read it, it looks to me like you validated what Deputy Attorney rosenstein said in his memorandum. Would you dispute that or do you agree with it . I wouldnt dispute it but i havent gone back recently and reread it. I think whats so disturbing about this era in the fbi leadership is it just seemed to be a culture of impunity where the rules did not apply to the director and his Leadership Team, but obviously were designed to apply to everybody else. By the way, i agree with director wray wihen he talks about rank and file professionals. Were not talking about them. Were talking about a group that somehow went terribly awry in the Leadership Team of director comey. General horowitz, you mentioned that you found no evidence of bias in the investigation, but you qualify that in talking about documentary and testimonial evidence. Are you discounting the Text Messages from mr. Strzok and ms. Page, for example . No, what we were trying to do was be clear that we were focused on the very specific investigative decisions that we looked at, and what was significant about the im now talking about the prejuly 5 announcement decisions was that strzok, page and others were not the sole Decision Makers there, they were team decisions, and in many cases prosecutors decisions as opposed to the individuals who wrote the emails. We made very clear that we were not saying as to every single decision. As you know from doing these kinds of cases, there are hundreds of decisions to be made, and, in fact, we did not find no bias with regard to the october events. Well, director comey was pretty clear that he expected Hillary Clinton to be the next president of the United States, correct . He described that with regard to, yes, the october events, the weiner laptop. And sometime in the spring of 2016, he already decided that there would be no recommendation to prosecute Hillary Clinton, correct . Yes. He started drafting his statement on may 2nd. And it wasnt until july 5th when he made his initial press conference where he said that the evidence did not rise to the point where any reasonable prosecutor, basically, would prosecute ms. Clinton, correct . Thats correct. Do you think its possible let me just ask you, is it a fair interference to draw that director comey expected mrs. Clinton to win the presidency and he was thinking about his future as fbi director . I think that was the concern we had even where its clear in that october time period, because we have testimony that indicated when he explained through his chief of staff why he was going to do what he did on october 28, he was concerned about his survivability. And when, for example, he used the word grossly negligent, which are the words of the statute in describing ms. Clintons conduct, later on it was changed to extremely careless. Right. Do you feel like he was riding toward a preordained result or that this was a genuine process to think through what the evidence was and try to apply the applicable law . I think that would be hard to say and probably would be speculation in terms of what he was thinking at the time. We try and lay out in great detail various places including that, how it changed, how it evolved and why. But im not sure i can sit here and say precisely what was his thinking on the time. Were you shocked to learn that director comey had his own private Gmail Account at a time he was investigating a possible prosecution for mrs. Clinton for using a private email server. It surprised us that he would have been sending emails, although they were classified, but nonetheless using a personal Gmail Account. Director wray, direct comey has talked about a higher loyalty to his own sense of justice and his belief that that was required in order to protect the reputation of the fbi rather than to follow established policies and guidelines and the law. I believe that that hubris that director comey was demonstrating and suggesting that the rules did not apply to him that applied to everybody else has brought this firestorm down on the fbi. Do you think its appropriate for any director of the fbi to attribute their actions to a higher loyalty to some other cause other than the rule of law and the policies and guidelines of the department of justice . Well, senator, i dont want to speak to what director comey mayor may not have been thinking, but what i can tell you is that my own view was that the rules, the policies, the guidelines, the longestablished norms as the Inspector Generals report refers to them, those things are there for a reason and its important that we track those. And thats why, when im going around from field office to field office doing town halls with over 30 offices, the point i keep making everywhere is that its not enough to say that youre going to do the right thing for the right reason. That pretty quickly can become the ends justify the means. What we need to be doing is doing the right thing in the right way so as not to let the ends justify the means but let our means justify our ends. Well, general horowitz, i believe your report, as comprehensive as it was, and i commend you on the great care that youve undertaken, i dont necessarily agree with every word of it, especially the no finding and no bias. But i think your findings call into question the credibility of the whole clinton email investigation and cast a cloud ov over the same people leading the clinton investigation were leading the russia investigation during the same time special counsel mueller terminated their services. Do you share their concerns . I do share their concerns and it did cast a cloud over the entire clinton email investigation. And the russia investigation . Im not entirely clear about that, but we laid out a concern when the choice was made in october, whether to move in the case of mr. Strzok in particular, the Russia Organization versus the weiner laptop matter, the result was to make that a higher priority, the russia matter over the clinton matter, and we were not convinced that was not a biased decision. Senator durbin. Thanks, mr. Chairman. Thank you very much for your testimony. The communication with which you go into detail describing between peter strzok and lisa page includes some damning statements. And you make that very clear in your conclusion about their possibly using their Governmental Authority to achieve a political result. Is that correct . Thats correct. I felt that was a very serious error. That should not be downplayed by anyone . That should not be downplayed by anybody. I cannot think of something more concerning than a Law Enforcement officer suggesting theyre going to try and use or may use their powers to affect an election. What did special counsel mueller do when he learned about the statements by mr. Strzok . We informed him on july 27 of the last year of our first findings of these texts. We subsequently gained more. But my understanding is within a week or two of that, he had been removed from the investigation. Which was the right thing to do. And i want to make it clear based on previous questioning here, no one is making excuses for these things. Mr. Strzok said something that was inappropriate and unacceptable for a person in his position. Mr. Mueller responded professionally and terminated him as soon as he learned that. I hope thats on the record and clear. You spent a lot of time, and i want to echo the comments made earlier in this work reviewing all these documents, texts, interviewing all these witnesses. I know you and ive heard your testimony and theres no doubt you know this Inspector Generals report in detail. Lots of people reacted to it. Politicians, individuals, news commentators and others. Im going to ask you for the record specifically your thoughts on one reaction. Last friday President Trump said, and i quote, i think that the report yesterday, maybe more importantly than anything, it toel totally exonerates me. There was no collusion, there was no obstruction, and if you read the report youll see that, the president said. He went on to say, i did nothing wrong. There was no collusion, there was no obstruction. The ig report went a long way to show that, end of quote. General horowitz, does your report totally exonerate President Trump . Im going to stick, senator, to what our report does speak to, which is the handling of the clinton email investigation, and to the extent it touches on the russia investigation, it does it as we lay out here. Wh when the weiner laptop comes out in october, and i cant speak beyond that, as to how this report might impact the russia investigation or what individuals think how it may impact the rest of the russia investigation. I ask you to clarify that. You cant speak to whether your report exonerates because it does or it doesnt . What are you saying . We did not investigate as we laid out here, when we saw those Text Messages, many of which are in that julyaugust time period, we made it quite clear here that this review does not touch on the russia investigation with the exception of what occurred in october with the reasonweiner laptop. Does it say anything on the issue of obstruction and collusion in that russia investigation . We dont go into any issues related to the russia investigation beyond what i mentioned. Last friday when he was talking about the ig report, President Donald Trump said the special counsel investigation led by Robert Mueller, quote, has been totally discredited. Mr. Horowitz, does your report show any reason to devalue or discredit any opinions he has made . Im not going to make a judgment on special counsel muellers investigation. Im going to stick to what i here i want to stick to the four corners of your investigation. Did you address the credibility of the special Counsel Robert Mueller . We laid out what occurred and we laid out what individuals did in october where it touches the russia investigation. Last thursday Senate Majority leader Mitch Mcconnell said in an interview with the Washington Examiner he wanted the Mueller Investigation to conclude. He said, quote, if the ig is through, why cant the Mueller Investigation finally wrap up . Was there any connection in substance or duration between what you were tasked in doing and what Robert Mueller is tasked in doing . Again, other than the issues we talked about where we identify Text Messages and brought them to his attention, we do not have any connections, interactions in that regard. Director wray, my colleague, senator leahy and others, have raised the question about the new York Field Office and leaks in that field office. And there are quotes in the report relative to mr. Comeys concern that new York Field Office would leak information, and thats one of the reasons why he made certain decisions. As senator leahy said, former mayor giuliani has bragged publicly about information that hes received from that office. What are we to make of this . Is this being investigated . Is this a problem thats acknowledged and accepted . Senator, i think leaks are unacceptable. I think they have a pernicious effect on our ability to conduct investigations to protect sources and methods, to retain our foreign liaison partner relationships. They damage the privacy of individuals under investigation. I could go on and on. So i have a very strong view about it and were doing a number of things to try to make sure we crack down on it. What are we doing about it . I cant comment on any specific investigation, but we have, as i think i mentioned earlier, we have a dedicated unit specifically focused on leak investigations. Thats new. We have a policy that we issued in november that makes the rules Crystal Clear so that there cant be any ambiguity for any of our employees in any office what their obligations are, and when there is conduct found, we will report them to the appropriate office and when its criminal, we will pursue them criminally. There was a question raised earlier about mr. Comey having a separate personal phone that he was using and whether or not that was an unusual thing for a person in his position. Reportedly, the president uses two White Houseissued cell phones. One allows him to make calls, the second is for his twitter habit. According to politico, the president has, quote, resisted his aides insistence at switching out at phones because its too inconvenient. Supposedly he has given kim jongun his direct phone number. If he was giving his phone number, this raises specific security concerns. Are you concerned about whether or not Sensitive Information from those devices may be intercepted by our adversaries . Senator, im not aware of the particulars of the president s phone usage. Would it be a matter of concern if anyone who has access to such information was using a device that could be intercepted by our enemies . I think its important for all of us to recognize that Device Security is a particularly important part of our security, and its something that we emphasize heavily in the intelligence community. And, of course, weve gone to Great Lengths when it comes to Hillary Clinton to make that point. Thank you very much. Senator lee. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thanks to both of you for being here. I want to point out one clarifying matter at the outset. The report did, in fact, find bias. Insofar as anyone is suggesting, that there was no bias found here, thats not true. What wasnt found was a smoking gun indicating that that bias translated to and admitted to translating to how anybody did their job. But the absence of evidence on that point is not the same as evidence of absence. So i think we need to keep that in mind as we have this discussion. Mr. Reyes, id like to start with you on that point. Lets assume that these Text Messages is. These came about earlier in the discussion, and you just swap out the name trump for the name hillary. The Text Messages said, shes not ever going to become president , is she . No, no, well stop it. What if that had been the exchange occurring earlier in the investigation. In that circumstance, in that hypothetical, could she, as a practical matter, have been prosecuted, assuming that the facts warranted it, and assuming that people making the charging decision concluded many that there was a good reason to charge her . Im hesitant to engage in hypotheticals. Were lawyers. We talk about hypotheticals, right . Im no longer practicing as a lawyer. Now i get to blame the lawyers. Its a wonderful experience. So im not going to try to engage in specific hypotheticals. What i would tell you is that i expect all of our employees, all of our employees to engage in professional conduct, including on how they communicate with each other by text message. I get that, and that didnt happen here. So lets make it more of a hypothetical, then. Lets take it a step back. Could that be a complicating factor if you had Text Messages between agents involved in a case indicating bias against the target of that investigation. Can that be a complicating factor in deciding whether to bring charges . I think any time that agents conduct themselves in a way that doesnt have not just object t objectivi objectivity, but the appearance of objectivity, that can have an impact on the viability of the case. Thank you. Mr. Horowitz, lets talk about these Text Messages for a minute. Was it easy for you to get them . The initial batch was easy. They were with the fbi. We requested them. The latter part of this over the last six months or so was challenging. When you say challenging, tell me what you mean by that. So when they were produced by the fbi, it turned out there was a period during which, about four to six months, i dont recall the exact time, when there were no Text Messages produced to us. It turned out there was a flaw in their Collection Software or a failure in their Collection Software. We then went out and seized and obtained their phones from the fbi. These are now fbi devices were talking about. And our cyber Forensic Team actually took a series of steps to seek to extract the missing Text Messages from the phones. That was step 1. We then went to a contractor that we use, a vendor that we had and they gained more Text Messages. We then went to the department of defense and asked them if they had additional tools that those first two steps didnt use. They said they did and they gave us those tools and we used that and extracted more Text Messages. We then went to the fbi and said, okay, here are the steps weve taken, did we miss anything . Would you do anything differently . They said they wouldnt. We then did a Quality Control check as youre supposed to do, again following the rules. Our forensic examiners. And they discovered in that last search which occurred last month in may that the phone had a database on it that was actually also doing a collection of Text Messages. They extracted those messages from the phone and found the second part of the august 8th text. No, no, well stop it. That was found in early may because of that fourth effort to extract information from the foi phones. It turned out the fbi wasnt aware that that database on there, which was supposed to be an operating function, was actually collecting data. They werent aware of that and hadnt given it to you, but if they had gone through the same steps you had gone through, they would have found it. Correct. Does that give you confidence that you have all the evidence you need, all the evidence you requested . Clearly as a result of that effort, and were going to issue a report of the technological efforts we undertook, and ill be careful on how i describe them. Good afternoon, im kasie hunt in for ali velshi. You have been listening to the senators judiciary hearing. Well continue monitoring the meeting and give you any news you need. The Inspector General and fbi director are talking about the handling of Hillary Clintons private email server. We found the implication that senior fbi employees would be willing to teo fishl action to impact a president ial candidates Electoral Prospects to be deeply troubling and antithetical to the core values of the fbi and the justice department. We found no evidence that the conclusions by the prosecutors were the result of improper considerations including political bias but rather were exercises of prosecutorial discretion and their practices. Im joined by clint watts. Hes a National Security analyst and author of the new book messing with the enemy surviving in a world of hackers, russians and fake news. Im also with glen hirschner. He spent 30 years in washington, d. C. And worked for bob mueller. Clint, i want to start with you with what weve been learning throughout the course of this hearing, and particularly those Text Messages that have come to light as part of this Inspector Generals report. Specially peter strzok, one of the agents involved, suggesting via text that he would do something to prevent President Trump from being elected in the course of his back and forth as these investigations were ongoing. Obviously, republicans have seized on this, even democrats in that hearing. You heard senator dick durbin there saying, no one is defending what he did. He was trying instead to make clear that this didnt ultimately impact the investigation, but how damaging is this revelation to the fbi and their credibility . I think it hurts, and it has for basically most of the last year. Weve been talking about these Text Messages back and forth. I think ultimately what were going to find out is fbi agents arent going to be sending Text Messages anymore, and theyre definitely aware of the implications that could come from this. But overall i think the process that occurred either between the ig report you heard the questions there just a few minutes ago what happened after these texts were revealed, special counsel mueller was notified about it and quickly strzok was removed from the investigation. But it also gives this impression that everything that the fbi does is decided by one fbi agent. I think thats deeply misleading. My experience there, and just watching lots of investigations unfold, is that it is very much a largescale decision. There are lots of inputs that are put forth in this. And i dont think its really good for the American People to think that everything is decided by one fbi agent or one prosecutor. Ultimately its a collective decision and it has lots of checks and balances in it. Whenever these things come up, i think we saw the process is there to correct those. So i was glad that it was sort of pushed back from the ig there that once this came to light, he was quickly removed from the investigation. And glen kirschner, you and i were talking about that very point, actually, as we were watching that hearing here behind the scenes. Im interested to hear you weigh in on that. And also, as somebody who worked with mr. Mueller, clearly the tussle that was going on there politically, republicans now willing more than ever questioning muellers russia investigation in a way they havent been able to before and democrats trying to defend it. That was a bad email, like marquee bad. Youre talking about the text message. The text message from agent strzok. I agree with clint that this is a large organization. It is an organization populated by terrific, honest, ethical, patriotic people. But one or two bad apples can really undermine the credibility of an entire institution. I think its unfair but i think its also a reality. When agent strzok said a text message that said, we will stop trumpl from. Heres what ill say. I think we have reason to be heartened. We could use a little bit of it. Were swimming in the sea of pessimism, understandably, because of some of what the igs report found. The job of the ig could investigate the fbi which falls under the doj and issue a report that really could have been more critical of, for example, what director comey chose to do, sort of contrary to all fbi policies and procedures. And chris wray said, i would do a lot of things differently. Absolutely. I think we should be heartened heroically to make sure he shown a light on the population on the consequential mistakes made by the fbi. Glen kirschner, thank you very much. Were watching several headlines as the Trump Administration is being judged across the world. Senator capito is in charge of funding for trumps border wall. Its images like these released from a facility in mcallen, texas that is enraging democrats and republicans alike. How can it not . Images of small Migrant Children behind barbed wire. The department now has 11,785 minors in its custody. At this rate the number of Migrant Children held by hhs would be more than 20,000 by august 1st. The president remains defiant and continues to deflect blame on to democrats for policies le lets be clear that are his. Immigration is the fault in all of the problems that were having, because we cannot get them to sign legislation, we cannot get them even to the negotiating table. And i say its very strongly the democrats fault. The United States will not be eye migrant camp. And it will not be a refugee holding facility. President trump is saying things that are not written into law. If he wanted to stop the separation of children from their parents, he could do it immediately with a single phone call. We expect to hear the White House Press secretarys take regarding this policy next hour when she briefs. So i want to start in mcallen, texas, what one official of the department of Homeland Security called the epicenter of trumps policy. That is where we find msnbcs mariana a tenten cio in mcallen. She has spoken to families who have been released. I know youve talked to many families make ting this terribl choice. Theyve made this horrible journey here and now theyre being separated from their children. What have you heard . Reporter i want to give you a context of where i am now. This is the epicenter of this policy because here in mcallen, texas you have the courthouse across the street where they are being prosecuted. I saw 100 prosecutions in one day alone. And then you have the migrants who crossed the border illegally. Its not at 100 capacity yet, so the folks who do make it here, who get welcomed by these nuns and volunteers, they call themselves the lucky few. The lucky few that have been reunited with their children. But their stories inside these facilities, even for a couple of days, five, six days at a time, they give us a glimpse at the trauma that those 2,000 children and possibly 20,000, as you said, toward the end of the summer, could possibly be facing. It is stories of separation inside detention, especially mothers and children over eight. That is something new to this administration. It is not something we saw during the obama administration. And i asked one mother from el salvador and her family, if she would have known that the zero tolerance policy was in place, if there was even the possibility that she would be separated from her children, if she would have come to the United States. I want to play that part of our conversation for you now. I wouldnt have come. Its ugly to be separated from your kids without knowing what is going to become of them. Many times what we do is for the good of your children but you really have to think about it. Because you suffer a lot on the journey here and you think that its over when you get here. But once you are detained here, thats where the most painful part of the journey begins. Reporter that mother was separated from her two children ages 10 and 16 for five days inside one of these facilities. And as she explained, the trauma for these families doesnt begin when they get here to the epicenter of this tolerance policy, but it begins before in their home countries. Kacie . Mariana aten cio in mcallen, texas, those stories so important to bring to light. Thank you. The Trump Administration maintained that separating children from their families is simply a byproduct in an attempt to stop illegal Border Crossings. But msnbc has learned that the idea of the policy was developed over quite a bit of time. Julia ainsley joins us now with more on this. Julia, i think this piece just posted, so i want you to give us a chance to walk through what youve learned. I would be happy to, kacie. These are notes from a town hall of federal officers on february 2018. That was the early days of the Trump Administration, but they were not discussing how can we crack down on illegal Border Crossings, they wanted to specifically crack down on families claiming asylum. They came up with a number of policies and some of those are already enacted. One of those, of course, is separating women and children. They also wanted to hold people indefinitely. They found out they couldnt logistically do that. They also wanted to raise the bar to pass the initial asylum interview. That is something the attorney general Just Announced last week. So were seeing the from you ui all the numbers now, and its because over the summer the president was not comfortable, he wanted a crackdown. But all of this was brought to the beginning not to break the law, but some came to assert their International Law and that is to create asylum. The administration now is saying, we cant help it, we have to separate these children because were enforcing the law. Actually, separating the children was the primary goal from the beginning to get asylum numbers down. Thats absolutely stunning. They were behind the scenes at the white house. They were talking then about the travel ban, but do you have a sense of whether stephen millers fingers are on that . Its very possible in considering his role throughout the transition and in the very early days of immigration policy, its very possible his fingerprints were here, kacie. Thats great extinct. Coming up, President Trump is using his policy of tearing apart families at the border, separating thousands of children from their smarnts as a negotiating tactic in his fight for the border wall. Why hes digging his heels in. The line between work and life hasnt just blurred. Its gone. Thats why you need someone behind you. Not just a card. An entire support system. Whether visiting the airport lounge to catch up on whats really important. Or even using those hardearned points to squeeze in a Little Family time. No one has your back like american express. So no matter where youre going. Were right there with you. The powerful backing of american express. Dont do business without it. Dont live life without it. And the wolf huffed and puffed. Like you do sometimes, grandpa . Well, when you have copd, it can be hard to breathe. So my doctor said. Symbicort can help you breathe better. Starting within 5 minutes. It doesnt replace a rescue inhaler for sudden symptoms. Doctor symbicort helps provide significant improvement of your lung function. Symbicort is for copd, including chronic bronchitis and emphysema. It should not be taken more than twice a day. It may increase your risk of lung infections, osteoporosis, and some eye problems. Tell your doctor if you have a heart condition or high Blood Pressure before taking it. Grandpa symbicort could mean a day with better breathing. Watch out, piggy giggles get symbicort free at saveonsymbicort. Com. If you cant afford your medication, astrazeneca may be able to help. President trump has falsely blamed democrats for the policy of separating undocumented children from their parents at the border. But is this part of an effort to get democrats back to the negotiating table and to get his funding for the wall . The president seems to suggest so on friday. The democrats gave us the laws. Now, i want the laws to be beautiful, humane but strong. I dont want bad people coming in, i dont want drugs coming in, and we can solve that problem in one meeting. Tell the democrats, your friend, to call me. The president once again attacked democrats over the policy during a meeting of the National Space council. He also went after them on twitter. The president said democrats were weak and ineffective on Border Security and crime, using the wrong spelling of the word border. He accused them of being unwilling to work with republicans to fix immigration laws. Joining us to talk about this is National Political reporter michael shear who wrote about this issue after the president spoke on friday. You wrote in your piece, quote, democrats have latched onto the issue and vowed to fight in the court of public opinion, with harsh treatment of children a centerpiece of their campaigns. Donald trump, of course, made immigration the centerpiece of his campaign. Is there a point, though, where clearly hes still playing to that hard base, but heading into these midterm elections, whats the Tipping Point . We dont know. Were too far away to see how this issue plays. Were in news cycles where everything seems like a crisis and then we forget about it two weeks later and were in the middle of a midterm election. If you have 20,000 kids in detention by augustseptember, this could be a issue. And it does shift the focus in a way that democrats feel and some republicans ive talked to feel is beneficial for them. Previously when we talked about immigration, it was framed by the president around questions of ms13 and Central American gangs, sanctuary cities. Those are issues that are sort of beneficial for republicans to be playing on. If youre talking about kids behind chain link fences, you know, the quinnipiac poll out today says its 31 the American People dont want this policy to be in place. So, its not a place where republicans have the upper hand. And you saw joe manchin come out today, the senator from west virginia, to join all of his other Senate Democratic colleagues in signing on to a bill by feinstein that would just narrowly change this policy. Its the first time this year really that democrats in the senate have been united on an issue of immigration. They divided on funding the boarder wall. They divided on shutting down the government owe r over the dreamers. You do see this evidence that democrats are content to be playing on this issue. One thing ive noticed, too, on this, michael, is the way republicans are talking about this, its quite different. I mean, they are clearly having a difficult time in some ways defending the president on this and they are saying this is not a policy that we want. They are willing to say, you know, maybe not outright say oh, yes, this is President Trumps fault and he can fix it. But Lindsey Graham went so far and said, hey, he can fix this with one phone call. He can fix it with one phone call. Most republicans will defend it but say were looking for a fix. We want to look forward to a time when we dont have to deal with this any more. There are a couple governors, rick scott running for senate down there, saying hes against it. Dean heller has a tough reelection fight. This year also said hes against this policy. So, its a divided republican coalition. I think most of them are very happy to stay out of the limelight. Theyre hoping this goes away in a couple weeks and they dont have to be caught commenting on the record. Im going to wish them good luck with that. I for one will be up on capitol hill and i know my colleagues are already trying to make sure that people are on the record on this. Michael sharer, political reporter on the Washington Post. Thanks for your time. Thanks, kasie. The controversy on separation of families comes as the house is set to vote on immigration. They will vote on two bills this coming thursday. One is a conservative bill put forward by House Judiciary CommitteeBob Goodlatte and another crafted by republican leaders. President trump is expected to meet with gop lawmakers tomorrow, days after suggesting he would not support the compromise bill. The white house later clarified that he did, in fact, support the legislation. Joining us now to talk about this is new York Democratic congresswoman Carolyn Maloney. She was part of a group of lawmakers that visited a new jersey detention facility on sunday. Congressman congresswoman, its good to see you. Thanks for joining us. I want to start with your visit to that detention facility. What did you see . Who was there . Well, we, we had authorization both from five of the fathers that were in the facility and their lawyers, that we could speak to them. When we arrived, they would not let us in. At one point they started putting paper on the window in front of us. They finally removed that. They made us wait 90 minutes, and then finally they allowed us to go in and we spoke in a, sort of a lawyers room, a small room with five of the fathers on fathers day. Of the five, four of them came legally to the country. They came through the Immigration Centers and pled asylum. One came in illegally because he said there was violence at the border and he immediately turned himself in to immigration officials. They told heart breaking stories. Two of them broke down and cried over the experience. One told about his daughter, 7 years old, being taken away from him at 3 00 in the morning. Can you imagine how traumatic that was to the child and to the father . And he had no idea where she was. Congresswoman, was this one of the people you mentioned who crossed through a normal Border Crossing and pled asylum, who followed those rules and was still separated from his daughter . Yes, yes. Four of them followed the asylum rules, so they told us. We cannot mention their names or their countries. One of them did not, but he immediately turned himself in to the authorities, the immigration authorities. All of them had their families either children or Young Brothers or taken from them, and what was really horrible, kasie, they had no idea where they were. When we asked i. C. E. , they said theyd look into it, theyd get back to us, but they had no idea where their children or their siblings were being held. And this is just outrageous, the trauma that thats causing. So, they have no they had no idea where their children were and our Law Enforcement agents couldnt tell them where they were . They couldnt tell them where they were. They said theyd look into it and theyd get back to them. But, but it was interesting, all of them came because of violence, seeking escaping from violence in their country. One had his Business Partner was murdered and he felt he was going to be next, so he fled. And theres just a lot of violence in a lot of places in the world, demanding payments, persecuting people. One was there for religious persecution. So, they fled for asylum and that was the reason that they came to america. Right. And i just want to underscore, too, one thing i hear from my sources and its an argument the administration is i can making public, if these immigrants go to legal points of entry and ask for asylum as they legally are able to do, that they will not be separated from their children. What im hearing from you is even some immigrants who are going through the Legal Process of applying for asylum at legal points of entry are still being separated, which is significant to me. Congresswoman, while i have you, i do want to ask you about this compromise, quoteunquote, legislation that is coming to the floor. We should be clear it is a compromise within the republican party. It has not been a compromise that is worked out between democrats and republicans. But i am interested in your argument. They say there are provisions in this bill that would change this family separation policy. Have you seen the language on that yet, and do you think its something that you could potentially support if, in fact, it would end these family separations . We have to see, kasie, what the language is. The Republican Leadership yesterday on sunday i was checking all their statements, and they were not saying that they supported legislation to end this practice. I hope that they do. You have to see what it says, and its in flux. Its almost like mercury in your hand. It can be changed, i think it will possibly be changed when we go back to congress tomorrow. But we will be democrats will be holding a shadow hearing. Ranking member cummings and i called for hearings. They never provided them so were holding our own hearing on this practice. And we are supporting legislation that will be introduced similar to senator feinsteins to end this practice of separation and cut off all funding that would be used to separate families. It is inhumane, outrageous, unamerican, unjust. Its an incredible practice that is against the values and traditions of this country. And you can see first lady bush speaking out and first lady trump speaking out against this inhumane process. As a mother of two, i cant imagine them draking yogging yo children from your arms, the horror of the whole thing. I hope this practice is ended immediately and we will see what comes to the floor. We are putting forward our own legislation to counter theirs. And if they adopted our legislation, then we would have a more serious conversation. Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney of new york, thanks very much for your time today. Really appreciate it. Thank you, kasie, for focusing on this heart breaking issues. Of course. We were expecting a White House Briefing at 3 30. It has been delayed to the top of the hour. One thing is for sure, i dont know if interesting is going to be the right word, but Something Like that. Nbc news Kristen Welker is standing by in the Briefing Room right now. Kristen, whats on your mind . Whats your first question for Sarah Sanders . Well, kasie, i think this briefing is going to focus broadly on everything youve been talking about throughout the hour, this zero tolerance policy. The fact you have mounting calls from democrats and republicans for the president to end it immediately. But the administration, the president digging in. Take a listen to what d. H. S. Secretary Kiersten Nielsen had to say. We have to do our job. We will not apologize for doing our job. We have sworn to do this job. This message is simple. If you cross illegally, we will prosecute you. If you make a false claim, we will prosecute you. 0 e so, kasie, a little bit of preview of what were going to hear from Sarah Sanders when she does, in fact, come to the podium. But bougttom line, i think she going to get pressed on why 9 president doesnt do what Lindsey Graham says he can do which is end the policy now. The president says he hates the fact kids are getting separated from their parents, kasie. If he hates it so much, he could, as Lindsey Graham said, just pickup the phone. Kristen welker at the white house for us. Thank you very much. That brings this hour to a close for me. Thank you for watching as always. Deadline white house with my friend Nicolle Wallace starts right now. Hi, everyone. Its 4 00 in new york. Donald trump may finally be reaping what he has sowed by reducing every debate to black and white. Good versus evil. Today he finds himself on the wrong side of history, and at odds with former first lady laura bush, former fir