probably the biggest illegality so far, the biggest collusion so far. >> or conspiracy. >> completely made up, completely made up. led to nothing. except several fraudulent fisa wires. and now we have mueller who doesn't seem to care that he's sitting on top of a totally illegitimate investigation. >> but the thing about the dossier that she paid for and the fact that the fbi paid steele, it was designed to misinform the american people with russian lies, to influence the election. >> yes. >> there is a great irony here if it wasn't -- >> maybe if mueller and his band of whatever they are, democrats, right? were fair minded, maybe they'd investigate -- maybe that's the collusion. maybe that's the collusion. >> oh, my god. rudy needs to check his carbon monoxide monitors. the sure sign team trump knows there are problems. look over there, the collusion, the obstruction, they're The latest political developments of the day and interviews with top newsmakers are featured. that is sort of what is at the core of all of this. >> chuck, the tone and tenor as ashley is saying are wacky. the substance is fascinating to me. they have reupped and the tell in the conversation around flynn goes to the heart of the obstruction of justice investigation, it would seem. rudy giuliani saying that he can't take questions about flynn and i guess by extension about the request to former fbi director comey to see to it to let flynn go. that was the question that rudy said he could not answer, the president could not answer. here's giuliani answering the question and telling us exactly his understanding of what happened with george stephanopoulous. let's watch. >> how is he a good witness for the president if he's saying that the president was asking, directing him in his words, to let the michael flynn investigation go? >> he didn't direct him to do that. what he said to him was, can you -- >> comey said he took it as direction. >> that's okay. by that time he had been fired. he said a lot of other things, some of which have turned out to and if you have nothing to hide, then hide nothing. but this has been going on and on and on, nicolle, to the point it seems pretty clear to me that if mueller wants to hear from the president, it's going to have to be pursuant to a subpoena under oath and in a grand jury. now, of course, there is another question, which is would he be permit today do that. would the deputy attorney general who is overseeing this investigation permit that. my guess is that he would. i hope they do. the mueller team, the investigators and the prosecutors, are entitled to all the lawful evidence they can acquire. >> and, paul butler, rod rosenstein has shown himself and deputy, on the side of the facts here. they have showcased, i guess, the indictments when mueller has had indictments. rod rosenstein did that last press conference with some very, very, thinly veiled swipes at the circus atmosphere among the president's allies in congress. the attacks on the probe and whatnot. i wonder if you agree with chuck's belief or thesis that rosenstein would sign off on a subpoena for the president. >> i do. what the deputy attorney general has been doing is following the rule of law and the guidelines of the department of justice. so it is an unsettled issue with regard to the supreme court whether the president could be forced to testify in a criminal case. but if trump is subpoenaed by the president -- i'm sorry, if trump is subpoenaed by mueller, i think that rosenstein would enforce that subpoena. you know, giuliani says that he's concerned about >> perjury trap. well, a, as chuck said, the way to get around that is for the client, in this case the president, to tell the truth. what mueller wants to ask is questions, say, with regard to flynn. mr. president, when you told mueller to go easy -- >> comey. >> when you told comey to go easy on comey, did you know that flynn had lied about his contacts with the russians? and if he did, that's not a perjury trap. that's a legitimate investigative question. classic perjury trap is when you ask about something extra that doesn't have anything to do with it to try to trick the guy into lying. classic example there, ken starr, he's investigating this failed real estate transaction and he asks president clinton, did you have sex with monica lewinsky. he knows he's going to lie. that's a trap. asking questions about obstruction of justice and perjury in the mueller investigation is not a trap. >> and they have all the questions. they know the areas. the flash points in the obstruction of justice investigation are known knowns to the trump legal team. it's the effort to get jeff session s to unrecuse. the efforts to get comey to see to it to let mike flynn go. the flash points are known to them. so why is there so much anxiety all of a sudden now around these obstruction of justice questions? i've heard in the last week from people who have either been around this legal effort or witnesses themselves that there are questions in the air about whether or not the president engaged in witness tampering, about whether he carried out or conducted himself in a way that suggested he has or may suborn perjury. there is question about the conduct in office around investigation of witnesses. >> the legal team is very aware of these things and very nervous about these things. that is being born out in the goal post being moved on a daily basis by rudy giuliani and jay sekulow about what would need to be required to have this interview occur. and their proposals are ones they know the special counsel is not going to agree to. it is an effort to in some ways, someone close to the white house said to me just today, the idea that we're in a stall tactic now. they want to keep this going shall >> does that help mueller? he's not racing the clock. he's not up for midterms. >> they believe that mueller will adhere to the 60-day rule or guideline. he doesn't have to, but he -day rule, not in the colder memo. it is clear to prosecutors around the country there is some rule, some guideline to which they must adhere. in my mind it was post-labor day. jonathan is right. the day after the election, you hit the pause bulltton again, y restart the clock, you restart the investigation. >> and what do you think he meant by stay tuned? what is the president talking about? is he bored in bedminster? >> that's one of his phrases. i'm sure he's not had a lot of structured time. >> that's a good euphemism for the president watching tv and tweeting, structured time. >> executive time. at mar-a-lago, aides get nervous. he's not as well staffed. friends come and go and makes suggestions. he gets revved up. it was bedminster he made the decision to fire james comey. it was bedminster when we heard about fire and fury, he bashed mitch mcconnell. stay tuned, it does seem like it's one of those either -- for him, someone said it's him perhaps suggesting again he could get involved and interfere, or at the very least, another distraction tactic and there will be some other uranium one style messaging muddle that will come up in the next couple weeks. >> let me ask you about donald trump, jr., another flashing yellow light around him in the president's circle and in legal circles is donald trump, jr. i believe this is your reporting, jonathan, that don junior's approach seems to mirror the father's combative defiance. the enthusiastic reception he receives in republican strong holds. they are rallying around the president's criticism of the probe. donald trump, jr. can be subpoenaed, donald trump, jr., can be indicted and donald trump, jr. could also be pardoned by his father the president. that seems to be the possible path for his near future. >> it's easy to have a lot of bravado about the prosecution when daddy has pardon power. >> how many people can say ha? >> so i hope if i'm ever involved in a federal investigation, i not only am i allowed to see the questions they want to ask, negotiate over my potential interview, but also have the option of being pardoned by my dad. i hope that i am given those opportunities. i suspect i will not be. >> your reporting? >> certainly don junior is forging forward. he embraced the idea. he's the more maga friendly of the trumps. he is particularly very conservative districts is seen as a big draw. privately despite the president's bravado on twitter he's not concerned about don junior, all reporting suggests he is. so much of what we've seen from him the erratic tweets have been triggered by watching the coverage of the manafort trial and telling people around him that he's afraid that that could be don junior next. even though he's saying i don't think he did anything wrong, but he thinks he could be the victim of overzealous prosecution and he could face jeopardy. >> certainly the victim of a prosecution. so while don junior is getting his swag on, robert mueller is trying to decide whether to charge him with perjury for saying that his father didn't know about that meeting with the russian lawyer in advance. right now mueller, we can assume, has that phone record which tells whether trump junior was calling his dad while trying to set up this meeting. if he's got that evidence, trump junior has big-time exposure for perjury. >> ashley parker, if stay tuned in the president's tweet this morning is one book end, your reporting last weekend about the president brooding and steaming and about to blow in part over his anxiety about his son is the other, and that's sort of the week in which we're existing, what are your white house sources telling you about the president's state of mind as he's now sort of de-camped in bedminster and sort of fuming and stewing all day long between golf games? >> it's interesting. to take the manafort trial, aides say they're not particularly bothered or concerned about that. they're kind of tuning in the way the rest of us are to see what the judge is going to do next. and you know, the latest drama with rick gates. but they do say it is affecting the president differently. he thinks it's tied to him. he thinks it's mueller's attempt to embarrass him. it's something that makes him, you know, more skeptical of mueller and believe that they're operating in poor faith. and the original story we did that seemed to prompt that tweet that all aides acknowledge was frankly helpful for no one except maybe mueller was that the president is, again, worried about his son. family comes first. he loves him. he likes the fact that his -- jonathan wrote he's out on the campaign trail. he's a good surrogate in the western states, some of the second amendment rights states. but he's worried about him. he recognizes his son has been drawn into this probe wittingly or unwittingly. he believes it's only happening because he is the president's son, which is and is not quite true. he's the president's son who took that meeting at trump tower and he's upset. >> if he was just his son and hadn't met with russians to get dirt on hillary my hunch is he'd be fine. thank you for starting us off. the closest ally in congress when it comes to bashing him, the secret tape based on mueller's report if republicans don't stand in the way. also ahead the trump echo chamber goes there. remarkable comments from one of the president's highest profile supporters, an anti-immigrant rant that thrilled exkkk leader david duke. and the judge in the manafort trial says he's sorry for the kind of conduct we first reported on yesterday that isn't too late? all those stories are coming up. let's begin. yes or no? do you want the same tools and seamless experience across web and tablet? do you want $4.95 commissions for stocks, $0.50 options contracts? $1.50 futures contracts? what about a dedicated service team of trading specialists? did you say yes? good, then it's time for power e*trade. the platform, price and service that gives you the edge you need. looks like we have a couple seconds left. let's do some card twirling twirling cards e*trade. the original place to invest online. when it comes to strong bones, are you on the right path? we have postmenopausal osteoporosis and a high risk for fracture, so with our doctors we chose prolia® to help make our bones stronger. only prolia® helps strengthen bones by stopping cells that damage them with 1 shot every 6 months. do not take prolia® if you have low blood calcium, are pregnant, are allergic to it, or take xgeva®. serious allergic reactions, like low blood pressure; trouble breathing; throat tightness; face, lip or tongue swelling, rash, itching or hives have happened. tell your doctor about dental problems, as severe jaw bone problems may happen or new or unusual pain in your hip, groin, or thigh, as unusual thigh bone fractures have occurred. speak to your doctor before stopping prolia®, as spine and other bone fractures have occurred. prolia® can cause serious side effects, like low blood calcium; serious infections, which could need hospitalization; skin problems; and severe bone, joint, or muscle pain. if your bones aren't getting stronger isn't it time for a new direction? why wait? ask your doctor about prolia. but one blows them all out of the water. hydro boost from neutrogena®. with hyaluronic acid to plump skin cells so it bounces back. neutrogena® mueller won't clear the president, we're the only ones. which is really the danger. that's why i keep -- and thank you for saying it, we have to keep our seats. we have to keep the majority. if we do not keep the majority, all of this goes away. >> all this goes away. there is so much to unpack there, including the apparent assumption by nunes that trump's hold on the presidency is hanging in the balance. let's start, though, by zeroing in on these four words. quote, if sessions won't unrecuse. that's a statement that's bound to be of interest to the special counsel. according to a list of questions mueller wants to ask trump compiled by trump's own lawyers, two questions apply. what did you think and do regarding the recusal of mr. sessions and what efforts did you make to try to get him to change his mind? it sounds like devin nunes might be able to shed some light. chuck rosenberg and the panel are still here. paul butler, it's remarkable to me that this -- it has been reported, president president's lawyers are aware of the fact that donald trump's desire for jeff sessions to unrecuse -- i don't even know if that's a thing. is this to get his a.g. to unrecuse himself is one of the flash points in the investigation into the president. >> it's crazy. especially when we remember what this investigation is about, is whether republican campaign operatives conspired with the russians to try to subvert our democracy and what chairman nunes is saying is i don't care if the russians installed donald trump as president. we need to keep him in office. so i've been reluctant to use the phrase constitutional crisis to describe what's going on. but if what he's saying is no matter what kind of evidence mueller turns in to congress, he's not looking at it, all he's trying to do is keep donald trump president. then we have a situation in which the congress is not doing its constitutional responsibilities of checks and balances. that's a big problem. >> chuck rosenberg, i leave the actual crimes to people like you. but political crimes are ones where you debase an institution for sort of craven political motives and that's what devin nunes has done to the house intelligence committee which in times of war and peace have served important bipartisan check, really, on presidential powers. he has thrown that down the garbage disposal. he's done it, aided and abetted by paul ryan. but now we have the why. now we know why. because without trump, all this goes away. what goes away? and what does that sound like to a prosecutor? >> well, trying to make something go away when you're a prosecutor sounds like trying to tamper with witnesses, obstruct justice, do something to undermine the investigation. just think about what he said, nicolle, if we can get sessions to unrecuse, first of all, i'm with you and paul. i don't even know what that means. sessions recused himself because he had been a part of the campaign. he had met with russians, and he may have misled the senate judiciary committee during his confirmation hearings. so those facts don't evaporate. they don't sort of go away over time. those are facts and they remain, stubborn as they may be. i will say this one thing for mr. nunes. what he said in private doesn't seem all that much crazier than what he says in public. >> fair enough. let me just say i'm in good company not knowing what unrecuse means. paul, we know where it came, from it came from donald trump. nick, now you have a real synergy once again. you had it on unmasking, on uranium one. you have it on every corrupt smear campaign, every play that's being run against the republicans running the justice department. it all has its roots and its birth in this nexus between the minds of donald trump and devin nunes. >> look, it's fascinating and you have to give the president credit on some level. he is a master brander. he has been able to make the entire party talk the way he does. it's seeped down from the white house to kevin mccarthy, to devin nunes. it's actually quite striking and shows it's the party of trump. i was struck by two things. >> like they're zombies and pathetic, isn't it? he a was struck by two things. as paul was saying, he doesn't care what the results of the investigation are. he said in front of a roomful of donors, it doesn't matter. >> correct. >> number two, he was echoed by the number four house republican kathy mcmorris rogers who seems to be on board with this. and that makes me wonder if paul ryan is on board with it and the rest of house leadership. >> paul ryan has picked a side. he had the republican running the fbi come to his office and he said, no, do what devin nunes says. let me run something else. nunes thinks collusion is a crime. let's watch. >> now, if somebody thinks that my campaign or kathy's campaign is colluding with the chinese or you name the country, hey, could happen. it would be a very bad thing if kathy was getting secrets from the portuguese -- just because i'm portuguese. she had secret relations with the portuguese. ultimately if there is stolen e-mail and she decided to release those, now we have a crime, right? if somebody stole e-mail, kathy released them. well, if that's the case, then that's criminal. >> so, if i replace portuguese for russians, i've got the trump campaign in e-mail scandal. >> is there a trump tower in lisbon? >> what's he talking about? >> this is a break from the talking points we've heard recently. we have heard both giuliani and trump and others on the hill, but i guess not nunes, not when this recording was made, suggest that collusion is not a crime. that this was sort of -- they took a meeting, it's a standard meeting to get damaging information about your opponent. none was provided t wasn't acted upon, nothing was done wrong. i'll defer to the lawyers, but it is conspiracy, not collusion. collusion is the term. this is striking he's laying out why this could be a problem for the president and perhaps what we were just talking about why this needs to go away before it comes to a conclusion about collusion. >> especially when we remember that nunes knows things that we don't know because he was privy to all kinds of top-secret information when he was overseeing the congressional investigation of the russian matters. or the fact that with this interesting information that, you know, he knows and mueller knows, he's saying, a, collusion is a crime, and b, he thinks that the president is in danger of being removed from office if objective fact finders get to look at it. that suggests that he thinks that trump is in trouble when the truth comes out. >> very good point. >> chuck, it makes it more devastating that he says all this goes away if we don't protect it. he actually in this recording acknowledges that trump may have committed crimes, that it may be a criminal act to have coordinated and colluded with the russians. i'm assuming portuguese is whatever, fund raidser code for russians. he's calling that kind of criminal. but in the same remarks talks about how it is imperative, the most important strategic imperative for republicans is to get elected to make sure this doesn't all go away. >> i think that's exactly right, nicolle. we have to circle the wagons. we have to do what we can. we have to throw our bodies in front of this investigation to make sure that they don't get to the president. look, this may sound really corny, and perhaps trite, but there are objective facts. there is still such a thing as the truth. and my guess is that the mueller team is getting closer and closer to it every day which is why you're seeing some of the behavior, not just from nunes, but also in the president's tweets. something is coming and they have a pretty good idea what it is because they did it. and they're doing everything in their power, including trying to rally their base and hold onto the house in november to make sure something bad doesn't happen to the president. >> do you hear them describing the imperative to sort of gird themselves for a cover up? >> is that to me? nicolle? >> yes, is that what you hear when you listen to the tape in its entirety, he acknowledges collusion is a crime, but we have to icircle the wagons as yu just said, or all this goes away. it seems like he's green lighting in plain sight, engaging in a cover up to cover up what the president has done or is doing. >> it's at least a political cover up. i think the more interesting question is whether it's an actual legal or i should say unlawful cover up. you know, it reminds me of the fact that the president recently met with hope hicks on air force one. it's crazy to meet with a witness. we've discussed this before. and it only prolongs the investigation and gives the investigators more people to talk to. every time you try and cover something up, you create some kind of trail whether it's digital or physical. you create some sort of trail for investigators. so to the extent that the trump team is complaining that the mueller investigation are taking too long, as i've said before, they ought to stop creating new evidence at every turn. >> if they could just get the president to stop talking, tweeting, texting and giving rally speeches. laura ingraham had another shut up and dribble moment. we'll play for you what she said and get the stunned reaction of our panel. that's next. (man) managing my type 2 diabetes wasn't my top priority. until i held her. i found my tresiba® reason. now i'm doing more to lower my a1c. i take tresiba® once a day. tresiba® controls blood sugar for 24 hours for powerful a1c reduction. (woman) we'd been counting down to his retirement. it was our tresiba® reason. he needs insulin to control his high blood sugar and, at his age, he's at greater risk for low blood sugar. tresiba® releases slow and steady and works all day and night like the body's insulin. (vo) tresiba® is a long-acting insulin used to control high blood sugar in adults with diabetes. don't use tresiba® to treat diabetic ketoacidosis, during episodes of low blood sugar, or if you are allergic to any of its ingredients. don't share needles or insulin pens. don't reuse needles. the most common side effect is low blood sugar, which may cause dizziness, sweating, confusion, and headache. check your blood sugar. low blood sugar can be serious and may be life-threatening. injection site reactions may occur. tell your prescriber about all medicines you take and all your medical conditions. taking tzds with insulins like tresiba® may cause serious side effects like heart failure. your insulin dose shouldn't be changed without asking your prescriber. get medical help right away if you have trouble breathing, fast heartbeat, extreme drowsiness, swelling of your face, tongue or throat, dizziness or confusion. (man) i found my tresiba® reason. find yours. (vo) ask your health care provider about tresiba®. covered by most commercial health insurance and medicare part d plans. stay at la quinta. where we're changing with stylish make-overs. then at your next meeting, set your seat height to its maximum level. bravo, tall meeting man. start winning today. book now at lq.com laura ingraham's lead story called the left's effort to remake america. and guess who enjoyed it a lot? david duke, the former leader of the kkk. he tweeted then deleted this, but we found it. one of the most important truthful monologues of the history of the mainstream media. do we still call them that? charlie sykes, the weekly standard. both msnbc political analysts. i have to start with you, charlie sykes. who is going to call the whistle, blow the whistle, call balls and strikes at a network that even while it had its sort of over the top commentators and opinion shows never served as a platform for the ideology of david duke in such a blatant, flagrant proud way? >> well, that's right. we've heard this before. this is basically the kind of nativism, the no nothing -- >> this is racism, charlie sykes, this isn't nativism. >> this is also the essence of trumpism. i mean, she's articulated what donald trump is talking about, what he talked about when he came down that escalator. >> she's a more articulate racist? >> well, exactly. and, you know, look. this has been a recesssive gene on the right for many years. you remember the way people like ronald reagan and the bushes and john mccain thought about this country, understood that america is not about demography, it is about ideas. we are a country founded on the idea that all men are created equal, and yet this, this tradition is now being rejected. laura ingraham put it in the rawest terms. let's be honest about it. she is articulating the dominant ideology of this administration. >> charlie sykes, you know what needs to happen, a republican with a body party won't say should find a body party will say, a spine, and call on all republicans to boycott laura ingraham's program until she apologizes for articulating and embracing a racist ideology like disparaging legal immigration. that is a bridge i have never heard championed by republicans, never. john mccain say candidate, attacked one of his own supporters for calling barack obama a muslim. again, i agree. it's a recesssive gene in the republican party. those that won elections, they celebrated legal immigrants and illegal immigrants. jeb bush was run out of the republican primary for saying immigration is an act of love. now you have a prime host at another network articulating something cheered on by david duke. what's happening? >> what's happened over the last several years. compare what ronald reagan said in his shining city on a hill speech. his vision of america to what we're having right now. this has been happening over there for sometime. tucker carlson has been engaging in this kind of nativist rhetoric. again, the president of the united states, it's not just steve bannon. look, this is one of the animating ideas now that we have to take america back from people who have like distorted what we were -- what, the country that we were back in the 1950s. and, yes, republicans need to push back on it -- >> made great by legal immigration. i don't know when tucker carlson is on or what he does, i know laura ingraham to be very close to the president. and so to see someone who is in conduct with this white house, who champions -- she had the president's son on yesterday. she is as close to someone like sean hannity is. what does it say to see republicans -- i imagine tonight she'll have a full run down of republicans as guests. >> it means the republican party, at least right now, racism is perfectly fine. i've said this -- >> did anyone disavow that today, david duke? >> no, but they're not going to because one of the things that happened in 2016 is racism was normalized. it was seen as something that people could be in public and it was perfectly acceptable in polite company to express racist views or what was traditionally thought of as racist views and you can still be accepted in polite society. and i think that, you know, hillary clinton talked specifically about when steve bannon was hired that it was, you know t wasn't the alt-right. we're talking about white nationalism. don't rebrand it as something that sounds softer. talk about it as racism. i appreciate that you say, no, it's racism. you know, i understand what charlie is saying in terms of calling it nativism. we always try to be measured when calling things racist. but this is the moment where we need to do it because it couldn't be more clear. she is basically saying, we want a country that is white. it used to be white and the demographic shifts that are happening in this country to make it a more brown country is something that makes people who watch laura ingraham very uncomfortable. and there is a meme on the internet that says when you're used to privilege equality feels like oppression. the grievances that white working class or at least what we like to call the white working class because working class is black people, people of all colors. the grievances that they're feeling, it has to do with the fact they have to compete with women and people of color and economic advancement. that feels like oppression when it shouldn't. >> i remember watching the right celebrate hill billy elogy. this is a book about white pain. never see them showcase the volumes of books of african-american pain. there was one book written by a compelling guy i'm sure he'll end up in politics or really rich in silicon valley. nothing against him, it was a wonderful book. but it was celebrated by a lot of hosts on fox news because it was just this very, oh, wow, you know, it was really an articulation of white pain. this seems to be the extension of that, the extension of the grievance, the grievances and this strain as charlie said, this recesssive gene. but to add legal immigration to it is new and i wonder, sometimes fox news puts up a trial run for the president. stephen mill stephen miller trotted out some restrictions. should we be scared? >> you made the point stephen miller has been talking privately to float ideas along this line. it was a staple of the audience we'd see at trump rallies in 2016. i'd like to point out david duke keeps making interesting cameos during the trump era. he didn't disavow him right away. we have this. remember a year ago, almost exactly a year ago charlottesville, david duke saluted what president trump said on both sides. we're at the anniversary. this administration, we're seeing hosts on fox news, lisa swan, has done little to address that. and the feelings so much this country has about what president trump, how he responded to that moment. by blaming both sides. and there's been very little effort there for any sort of outreach, any sort of trying to suggest like this is a country we should try to bring things together. instead it is more division. >> it is a winning issue for republicans because a lot of their base is concerned about 2040. in 2040 white people will no longer be the majority. we won't have any one majority race. and that scares a lot of trump's base. they have nothing to worry about. it's already the case in california and texas, white people are not the majority there, but white folks are doing fine in california and texas. so chill. there is a legitimate conversation to be had, but that's not the one that we're having. just fact checking, legal immigrants, undocumented workers, both have lower rates of crime to people who were born here. >> as do legal immigrants. related topic this hour, a federal judge in washington today discovered the government deported an immigrant mother and daughter, both of them are plaintiffs in the asylum case the judge was overseeing. so the judge demanded, demanded that the administration turn the plane around and threaten that the attorney general be held in contempt -- wow, wow --. judge soboroff has been following them. tell us where is the family, how are they and are they coming back? >> they could be, nicolle, be in the air from texas to el salvador. and when this family lands in el salvador, the plane will literally be turned around per the judge's orders and head back to the united states. the larger story here, the context is this was a case that was brought by the aclu with eight plaintiffs in washington, d.c. challenging the attorney general. we talked a lot about this with the family separations, challenging the attorney general's much stricter rules and regulations for actually claiming asylum now if you want to stay in the united states. and that involves no longer being able to bring claims as you once were with regard to domestic violence and gang violence. some of the main drivers that people flee places like he will valve door and honduras and guatemala to come to the united states for. and so to hear this judge today, i didn't actually listen in to the case, but to read the transcript and read what he said -- i want to read a little of it. in its rush to deport as many immigrants as possible, the trump administration is putting these women and children in grave danger of being raped, beaten, or killed. and he quite literally said to the government, get these people back here as soon as you can. you can't deport plaintiffs in the middle of a case when we're adjudicating this rule in the first place. >> tell us if this judge -- is this the first time -- i was reading from the transcript as well. he said this is pretty outrageous. his name is u.s. district judge emmet g. sullivan. >> that's right. >> and just to pick up on his personal reaction, i'm not happy about this at all. this is not acceptable. is this, is he an outlier? has this been the reaction in other cases that have ended up before federal judges? >> no, actually it hasn't, nicolle. it's a great request. dana sabra adjudicating the case about family separations here in california just last week called the government's plan or lack of a plan, i guess we should say, to reunite the remaining 572 kids that were separated from their parents by the trump administration, quote-unquote, unacceptable and quite literally in an hour and 15 minutes from now we're expecting the government to file -- because the judge ordered them in a separate case, a new point person to reunite the remaining 572 kids that are still out there over two months after we first got inside the facilities in south texas and got a look at what the separated kids have gone through. i just want to be really clear. these eight plaintiffs in this case were not separated from their parents, but ultimately when the judge decides whether or not the asylum claims, the new asylum claim and guidelines jeff sessions put through are suitable, it could affect everybody, everybody that claims asylum including separated families. >> they all face deportation whether they're separated or not. let me ask you one more question, jacob. these are disproportionately women and children who are escaping the two things that were eliminated. gang violence and domestic violence, domestic abuse. >> yeah, 100% correct. and historically the people that would come to this country seeking asylum were unaccompanied minors like we've talked a lot about and women and children with their families. and the case that jeff sessions actually hand picked involved a woman and her child fleeing one of these exact circumstances. basically overturn it and say we're not going to accept cases lie like that any more. >> nick, going back to the muslim ban incompetently carried out in the trump presidency, if the through line is being disparaged by federal judges, i'm sure some appointed by republicans, incompetence has a pretty hefty price on the lives of the most vulnerable. these are just incompetently carried out policies of people in studios they can talk about and poke holes in. these are people whose lives are literally on the line based on the cruelty of the trump administration policies. >> well, it's hard to know if it's incompetence or deliberate choice sometimes. they certainly designed some of these policies to be cruel with the expressed purpose of making it a deterrent. i can't fathom the level of cruelty of send thing woman back given the known facts of the case. it's easier for us to talk about here as you point out. but to some extent they have embraced cruelty as a deterrent which itself is striking. >> they've embraced cruelty as a policy driver. >> tool. >> again, these are not liberal judges. these are judges, jacob, who are pointing to the policy problem -- i mean, these judges aren't using their platforms to talk about -- make the points i'm making about the cruelty of the policies. these are not feasible from a logistical standpoint. this hearing was underway and this woman and her child were on an airplane. >> let me just say to nick's point, nicolle, about deterrence, we know the u.s. government knows the trump administration knows the border patrol knows that deterrence as a policy has unintended consequence. dangerous, unintended consequence. in this case this family is stulk in the stuck in the middle and they're bounced back and forth between this country and el salvador. in the '90s the clinton administration put in an official policy prevention through deterrence. it did reduce border crossings but result ed in a huge strike of people dying in the desert people trying to get around existing infrastructure to make it here. it's no secret deterrence has horrible unintended consequence that during the trump administration will lead to a generation of young migrants with traumatic experiences they'll be living with the rest of their lives. >> jacob soboroff, thank you for bringing us this story. we'll stay on it. the judge in the manafort trial back peddles on his own favor for behavior which seems to favor the defendant. that's next. caesar in his own rome, but the federal judge in paul manafort's trial today realized he may have gone too far. for days, t.s. ellis has berated, interrupted and criticized robert mueller's prosecutors but this morning he began the day with an apology, referencing a tense exchange he had yesterday with the lead prosecutor over a witness in front of the jury. ellis committed he, quote, may have been wrong. wow. and added that he makes mistakes like any human, and, quote, this robe doesn't make me any more of a human. chuck rosenberg is back and has appeared before judge ellis. has he ever apologized before as far as you know? >> look, in court, nicolle, particularly in trial, you're stressed, you're tired, you're cranky, everyone makes mistakes. i've been in front of judge ellis a whole bunch of times and he's admitted when he's wrong. but i can tell you this too, you don't have to berate counsel from the bench. i can give you a small example but i remember once with another judge in the eastern district of virginia coming back from lunch with chewing gum in my mouth. not a crime against humanity. but the judge was upset with me and called me to the bench. at the bench out of the earshot of the jury asked me to get rid of the gum, handed me a tissue and discreetly and politely took care of the, quote unquote, problem. judge ellis can do that. every time he is concerned about something one of the counsel does, he can call them to the bench. he doesn't have to berate people in front of the jury. that's the problem here. >> chuck, this is a nonlawyer who's never appeared in front of judge ellis. what seemed weird to me is that all of his conduct seemed to be in one direction. it was all hostile from the prosecution. so from the outside looking in, he accused of lead prosecutor of having tears in his eyes. he banned the word "oligarch." the clients that paul manafort have are all oligarchs. the conduct didn't just seem grouchy or cantankerous just to push back a little bit on your thesis, it seemed all in the direction of being against the prosecutors and helpful to the defense. >> in this case it did. i've seen it go both ways. i've seen him, you know, sort of take out his bad day on defense counsel, on prosecutors, on whoever happens to be standing in front of him at the time. so i am a little bit troubled because i think if there's too much on one side it can tilt that scale of justice, and i sure as heck hope that doesn't happen here. but i've seen him give it to both sides. again, there's a middle path. you can call counsel to the bench if you're confused about something they're doing or angry with them for something that they're doing. it doesn't have to be within the earshot of the jury. >> and i guess that's it. you can't put the toothpaste back in the tube. the jury heard him berate the prosecutors, paul butler. >> now in the judge's defense, there is a little bit of bling bling in the case with the million dollar antique rug and $15,000 ostrich jacket. >> it's an ugly jacket too. >> a nice rug. >> you've never seen nick in november. >> hey, at the end of the day, this is a long, boring documents case. as a prosecutor, what you're concerned about is the jury going to sleep of the and so what the judge is doing is trying to move the case along. but nicolle, you're right, the question will be the defense starts its case today. is the judge as impatient with the defense as he was with the prosecution. >> i've got a judge ellis who wants us to wrap this. chuck rosenberg, thank you for your time. we're going to sneak in a break and be right back. it's pretty amazing out there. the world is full of more possibilities than ever before. and american express has your back every step of the way- whether it's the comfort of knowing help is just a call away with global assist. or getting financing to fund your business. no one has your back like american express. so where ever you go. we're right there with you. the powerful backing of american express. don't do business without it. don't live life without it. i saw my leg did not look right. i landed. i was just finishing a ride. i felt this awful pain in my chest. i had a pe blood clot in my lung. i was scared. i had a dvt blood clot. having one really puts you in danger of having another. my doctor and i chose xarelto®. xarelto®. to help keep me protected. xarelto® is a latest-generation blood thinner that's... proven to treat and reduce the risk of dvt or pe blood clots from happening again. in clinical studies, almost 98% of patients on xarelto® did not experience another dvt or pe. xarelto® works differently. warfarin interferes with at least 6 of your body's natural blood-clotting factors. xarelto® is selective, targeting just one critical factor. don't stop taking xarelto® without talking to your doctor, as this may increase risk of blood clots. while taking, you may bruise more easily, or take longer for bleeding to stop. xarelto® can cause serious, and in rare cases, fatal bleeding. it may increase your risk of bleeding if you take certain medicines. get help right away for unexpected bleeding or unusual bruising. do not take xarelto® if you have an artificial heart valve or abnormal bleeding. before starting, tell your doctor about all planned medical or dental procedures and any kidney or liver problems. learn all you can... to help protect yourself from another dvt or pe. talk to your doctor about xarelto®. charlie sykes, i need you to wrap up this magic carpet ride for us. where are we? >> well, i keep thinking about what is our time going to be