is it possible, have i been in deals and you been in things where people didn't work out? it's possible. >> justice for all democrats deliver a message to president trump about the supreme court, a little more than a week before he announces his nominee to replace justice anthony kennedy. >> the president should be sitting down with moderates on that advise and consent and say, what would be good for america? >> begin this hour with president trump defending i.c.e. amid calls for some lawmakers to abolish the agency. the liberal left also known as the democrats want to get rid of i.c.e. who do a fantastic job and want open borders. crime would be ram pant and uncontrollable. >> abolish i.c.e. >> shots of the protest on capitol hill earlier this week. the president doubling down against a rallying cry to eliminate the agency in an interview on fox news that aired today. >> you know, i.c.e., these are the guys that go in and take ms-13 and take them out because they are tougher by ms-13 by a factor of like ten. you get rid of i.c.e., you'll have a country you'll be afraid to walk out of your house. >> i.c.e. was created in 2003. i.c.e. stands for immigrations and customs enforcement and according to the mission statement, supposed to protect america from the cross border crime and illegal immigration that threaten national security and public safety. congress would have to pass legislation to get rid of it and jobs distributed to other government agencies. joining us now the congressional reporter with the daily beast and janet johnson for the "washington post" and caitlin didderson for the "new york times." let me start with you. we've seen the outcry over last many weeks about what's been happening at the border, the separation of children with their families there's question how the outrage will lead to change in policy. talk a bit if you would about how this focus on i.c.e. has come about? >> well, look, i think a lot of it is meant to rev up the baes, the democratic base ahead of the mid-term elections and maybe even looking farther beyond that to the 2020 presidential election. you sigh many of these potential contenders like kamal aharris and elizabeth warren saying the agency should be abolished outright and you're seeing a xis m is notable. we've reported at the daily beast that the congressional hispanic caucus, preeminent coalition of hispanic lawmakers on capitol hill, all democrats, distributing talking points saying that abolish i.c.e. not so fast. the reasons why are because they know that the agency also deals with things like narcotics enforcement and cyber crimes and counter terrorism things like that. so they think it would be a step too far to go forward with something that would abolish i.c.e. you see the president already taking advantage of it for political purposes. i'll read a quick line from the talking points here. it says abolishing i.c.e. without changing the disastrous immigration policies will not solve the problem of the that's from the congressional hispanic caucus. you're seeing a divide within the democratic party on this issue. >> let me turn to you and ask about the case that those who are advocating for this are making. let me play a tape of kirsten gillibrand. >> i don't think i.c.e. today is working as intended. >> you think you should get rid of the agency. >> i believe that it has become a deportation force. you should get rid of it, start over, reimagine it and build something that actually works. >> let me ask a version of the question i asked to you, that is there's a desire to do something, i think on part of many lawmakers in light of what we've seen, you have the call there. what's the rationale behind it when you look at lawmakers calling for this. why are they saying this needs to happen? >> well, i mean, one reason they are doing this, they are echoing what they are hearing from their constituents across the country. we had a lot of protests this week. if you look in the crowds at the protests, you saw people holding signs calling for i.c.e. to be abolished. and basically when it comes to actually what this would look like and what sort of policy this would be, a lot of times it's saying, you know, the responsibilities that i.c.e. has should be redistributed or they should come at their jobs differently. even lawmakers who do not want to abolish i.c.e. say we really need to hold them more accountable and need to ask more questions about how they do things. i think if one thing is clear, after the last couple of weeks and all of the news that we've seen about migrant families at the borders and how they are being detained and how they are being treated while they are detained, that's raised a lot of questions and for a lot of democrats, along with a lot of americans of all political persuasions. they've been wondering why are we doing things this way. they want to see some changes. >> i was thinking back on the article you wrote in april and you reported on the separations taken place at that point fewer that 1,700 of them. what's changed since under lying this whole conversation, the policy uncertainty that still exists. now that we have this injunction that these families have to be reunified. talk about what's changed since then and what hasn't when it comes to uncertainty and how all of this is unfolding? >> sure, i think what we see happening now in family separations are just the latest example, it's the trump administration throwing every possible policy idea they can at the idea of cracking down on the bordered and ultimately lowering the number of people who come here not just illegally but seeking asylum. we've seen a massive increase in arrests and people lining up at the border, you'll have to wait a couple of days or couple of weeks and then we see families being separated from one another. there are all of these different policies and even more that are being considered by the administration right now and we'll see those pop up. but then there's sort of this balancing act that has to happen afterward where there's only so much as we've learned that the american public will go along with as we've noted. both republicans and democrats and everybody has a red line and i think the administration right now is trying to balance appealing to president trump's base with this message of cracking down on border crossers which a lot of people are in favor of but also trying to figure out, how can we do that without upsetting our base. >> you cover this day in and day out and i want to get a sense of how much our understanding of this issue has changed over the last few months. there was the math tearial piece by your colleague out of mexico city, tracking a migrant's journey over months and thousands of miles, the difficulties he faced and money that had been spent to get to the united states. do most americans do you think have a better understanding of all that's involved about the push factors that led people to come here? >> i think we're getting there. it's kind of amazing as somebody paying close attention to this since at least 2014. the whole country's eyes seem to be on the issues of immigration right now and a lot of these things just aren't new. you mentioned my colleague's piece about human smuggling and the thousands of dollars and incredible danger that almost every single person encounters, this isn't where somebody encounters violence and murder. this is very, very common. even things like family operation, like children being held by themselves in the government's custody. this is not a new issue and not even new to this administration, a lot of the stuff was around under president obama and he struggled as much as president trump has how to curtail these issues and it comes down to the violence in central america that persists and i think maybe for first time more than before, the country is really looking at and grappling with in an honest way. >> we have heard from the president a few times over the weekend on this issue. he talked about the legislation that was put forward in the house over the last couple of weeks and both of those republican bills were voted down. where do lawmakers go from here? you cover congress and you're keenly aware what they are thinking when it comes to how to translate this. where do we go from here? >> as you mentioned, congress went home on friday for a week long july 4th recess without solving this problem. senate republicans are crafting a bill right now. it's pretty much finished but it's in the guise of what ted cruz proposed, the idea of allocating more funds for more immigration judges to expedite the aasylum pieces. and the problem is they don't have democrats on board yet. they are engaged in talks with senator dianne feinstein sort of leading the democratic charge on this but they do not have any democratic co-sponsors yet which you are going to need in order to sort of clear that 60 vote threshold. in the house as you just mentioned, the two immigration bills failed miserably, both of them. they would have on sentencively dealt with the issue but there isn't a path forward in the house. we don't even know if speaker ryan would consider the bill if it ever comes to fruition or even passes. we also know the president tweeted he doesn't want more immigration judges. i mentioned thags a core tenant of the senate bill which likely gets all republicans on board. they are really at the stalemate here and i mentioned they went home for a week. >> last question to you, you cover the white house. we've seen this price in talking an awful lot about immigration and being disengaged from the legislative process. have you noticed any change over the last many weeks in him or his engagement with the issue. he tweeted he wasn't backing either of the two bills even though he did back one of the two bills. what level of engagement does the president have with this issue at this point. how much has this backlash led to him becoming more engaged with it perhaps? >> well, i mean, immigration has always been a big issue for the president. i mean, it's something that he talked about when he was announcing that he was running for office several years ago. and it's something that he always kind of keeps going back to when he needs to get his base excited or needs to focus attention somewhere else. you know, the last couple of weeks while there was a lot of attention on families being separated at the border, that didn't match what he was looking to do. he was very excited to see some democrats calling for i.c.e. to be abolished and loves that issue. the thing to keep in mind with president trump and immigration, at the end of the day, it's not -- it doesn't really come down to legislation. it's not really like he came into office with a very clear plan of what exactly he wants to see done. he sees immigration is very much an election issue. and he talks about that very openly. quite often in his tweets he'll say, you know, republicans should do this if they want to win if the fall and wait until after the election to do this. he sees all of these issues through the prism of the election and how it's playing across the country and playing with his base and playing with voters. you know he's watching every little twist and turn and just how it's playing. >> and he sees it with that win loss binary, thanks to you. be sure to catch "date line", reporting ofrn lin life along t u.s.-mexico border and sat down with the homeland security secretary tonight at 11:00 p.m. eastern here on msnbc. did president trump tweet too soon when he declared there is no longer a nuclear threat from north korea. north korea has increased nuclear production at secret sites and one of my colleagues would broke the story will join me next. - i love my grandma. - anncr: as you grow older, your brain naturally begins to change which may cause trouble with recall. - learning from him is great... when i can keep up! - anncr: thankfully, prevagen helps your brain and improves memory. - dad's got all the answers. - anncr: prevagen is now the number-one-selling brain health supplement in drug stores nationwide. - she outsmarts me every single time. - checkmate! you wanna play again? - anncr: prevagen. healthier brain. better life. >> she says it's horrible, they wouldn't let them say a few words of good-bye. welcome back. what is north korea hiding? after that june 12th summit with kim jong-un, president trump claimed there was no longer a nuclear threat from north korea. but u.s. intelligence disputes that. sources tell nbc news north korea has increased its production of fuel for nuclear weapons at multiple secret sites in recent months. the "washington post" echoing that report and nbc's national security reporter helped break the story and joins me now. what have you and your colleagues learn? the president saying we reached a point where north korea is scaling back if not stopping the nuclear program. what was the intelligence assessment tell you. >> the intelligence assessment shows exactly the opposite of that, in that rather than decreasing the uranium enrichment in north korea, they've increased it at least one location. and not just that, the intelligence assessment is now saying that north korea is trying to actively deceive the united states on not only the scope of their nuclear program but the number of facilities that they have, the number of missiles that they may have. things that presumably we -- kim jong-un and donald trump spoke about in the june singapore summit. the reality is we don't know what else they talked about. we know the communicate okayed that came out that was very light on details and comments president trump has made in the aftermath. as of now looking at this, it doesn't necessarily seem that north korea has actually violated anything that was agreed to in the summit. what they do seem to be violating is potentially the spirit of the agreement and it seems they are violating what president trump is under the impress they are working to do right now, david. >> courtney, i want to play tape from this morning. john bolton who has been outspoken on this issue for many years, on cbs's "face the nation." >> we're going to try to proceed to implement what the two leaders agreed to in singapore but rather than have a series of reports, things are going better, not going well, they are concealing this, not concealing that, it doesn't serve the purpose of advancing the negotiations but there's not any starry eyed feeling among the group doing this that we're well aware of what the north koreans have done in the past. >> something extraordinary in that interview was that he said they still have not jet verified what weapons north korea has. margaret brennan taken aback by that. many people would be as well. you're looking at intelligence estimate. there are particular difficulties with conducting intelligence assessments of what's going on in north korea. a huge issue here, we don't know a lot about the size and scope of this program. >> absolutely. but one thing that was really interesting in the course of our reporting, my colleagues and i found out that in fact u.s. intelligence collection in north korea has already ramped up significantly in the last year or so. and that -- an intelligence official said that is paying dividends. so for years now, i've been covering national security for more than a decade. we've been -- we consistently hear that north korea is the her met kingdom and so hard to find something. the u.s. doesn't have a ton of detail what's going on there. it seems as if that has changed. the cia has opened in north korea mission center for instance. that was one thing that was really fascinating. another thing, john bolton talking about how the u.s. doesn't really have a good sense of the scope. you know, that belies one of the issues that we're disclosing here, is that if north korea is already trying to deceive the united states before they've reached the nitty-gritty of this agreement and of the -- any potential benchmarks and what not. how is this going to go forward? how can the united states continue to trust them? of course they have a history of deceiving the united states but if they are already doing it this early in the process, what does that mean for diplomacy going forward? >> courtney on the block buster piece she helped for nbc news. appreciate the time. >> thanks. >> some democrats are promising to fight whomever president trump picks to succeed justice kennedy but with republicans in control, what options do democrats have? our bait hoefen of the big board, steve kornacki will break it down when we come back. dear future us, we have a mission: to help hand everyone a better world. that's why we, at the coca-cola company, make shore breaks with actual coconuts. tea, organically. treats for celebrations. water with added minerals for taste. dear future us, that's why we're striving to do good. and help our communities get the education they deserve. we're doing this today... ...so you can do even more. the coca-cola company ...so you can do even more. with my bladder leakage, the products i've tried just didn't fit right. they were very saggy. it's getting in the way of our camping trips. but with new sizes, depend fit-flex is made for me. introducing more sizes for better comfort. new depend fit-flex underwear is guaranteed to be your best fit. president trump spent part of the weekend thinking about the supreme court vacancy. justice anthony kennedy will retire at the end of the month. the "washington post" reporting president trump's process is the same as it was when he picked justice neil gorsuch. he anticipates it will move quickly but not be without challenges. >> it's probably going to be vicious because the other side all they can do is obstruct and resist the whole thing is resist. >> the politics of this, my colleague steve kornacki will break it all down for us. steve? >> all right, david. democrats certainly activists are saying they want to stop this trump supreme court pick, whoever it is, the question do they have any power to do that? the math is the math in the senate democrats have 49 votes right now. used to be in the old days you had something called a filibuster and had to keep the other side under 60 and do what you wanted. no more filibuster. 49, not enough for democrats. that means they need a majority and got to basically hold their side together and they have too get hope from republicans. is that possible, if democrats want to achieve the goal here? first of all they have to hold their side together. these are all democratic senators that represent states donald trump won, some by big margins and all up for re-election and doug jones down here in alabama, he's up in 2020. that's rapidly approaching and that's a very pro-trump state. it took very strange con flew ens of circumstances to get jones in there. we'll throw him in here too. look, manchin, west virginia, trump won it by 42. heitkamp, trump won and 20-point state, maybe it will be weeks and days away when the vote is held. will they side with the democrats trying to fight trump's supreme court pick? when trump had that gorsuch nomination, three democrats did defect their party. so first of all democrats could be facing some defections here possibly multiple defections. that would bring the 49 even less but then again, they are going to need at least one republican defection on this thing. they've got some bad news this week. jeff flake is retiring and had his differences with the administration and publicly said he threw cold water on the idea that he would be joining any kind of blockade here. the conversation is focused on susan collins and lisa murkowski, both pro-choice and sending signals that don't automatically mark me down as for this whether they are actually going to develop into actual opposition on this. that's a bigger step and remains to be seen. the best case for democrats maybe is looking at these two right here if you can get collins mur could you ski and somehow then that would give you 51 and somehow minimize, really minimize one or less defections here from your own side. that is a very tall order. when republicans say they think they are getting it through before the midterms, you know why they are pretty confident. >> joining me now, matt lemke, he was a clerk for anthony kennedy. darrel miller a professor at duke law. let me start with you if i could here, matt. you worked in the chamber and i spoke with dan epgs, a kennedy clark yesterday and he was a bit surprised that the retirement happened. how about you? how off guard were you caught by this? >> i wasn't surprised at all. justice kennedy has widely reported talking to young lawyers he met with, interviewed for potential clerkships and told them he was thinking about retirement. he's going to be 82 years old this month. and i think justice kennedy is so devoted to the court as an institution, i suspect he would never want to leave the court later than he really should. so i wasn't surprised. it just seems like it's a very personal decision for a justice to make and he decided it was time. >> matt, a lot of ink has been spilled over the last few days about the brand of jurs pruns that justice kennedy espoused. working in the chamber, how aware of that were you? was it a thing that was talked about, the way he viewed the law? >> justice kennedy really, more than anything what he did is took each case, one by one and very carefully looked at it from every perspective possible so he could come to the decision that he feltwise compelled by the law. and there wasn't a lot of high minded talk about particular ideology, what he was trying to do was to get to the answer that he thought was the right answer in every case. >> darrel, i want to turn to you and ask you about roe versus wade in particular. let me play the president in conversation on fox news today talking about this decision in particular. >> are you going to ask your nominees beforehand how they might vote on roe versus wade? >> that's a big one. and probably not. they were saying don't do that. you shouldn't do that. but i'm putting conservative people on -- >> darrel miller saying it's a big one. wonder how you see that precedent, that one issue as a litmus here for candidates for this bench. there are a host of things we've talked about with regard to the decisions that justice kennedy made. this is the one that always comes up. how big a litmus is it at this point? >> well, i think the answer to that really is it's already been made. the vetting, list of 25 potential justices that was put forward by the federal society, it's hard for me to imagine that that organization has not already vetted the list based on how they predict a future nominee to the supreme court and in some senses the need for the president of the united states to ask is really a moot point. as long as none of the potential nominees end up during their hearing saying outright that their sole goal is to overturn expressly roe versus wade. it really seems difficult for me to imagine an ability to sort of blockade a nominee who simply says what most nominees say which is they respect precedent and they'll apply what the law requires. >> matt, i read a piece centering on the roberts court indicating it was the kennedy court more so than the roberts court in light of the influence that he had while he was on the court. it did talk about justice roberts and his disinterest in making sweeping decisions to change the way things are with broad sweeping gestures. is that something that justice kennedy favored as well? >> i think if you look at justice kennedy's jurs pruns, he was very much an incrementalist and often wanted to leave the door open a crack for future cases so even if he said no on a particular point of law on one set of facts, he didn't want to foreclose it in the future and thus, a lot of times whether it was the conservatives or liberals, they had to trim their sales some in order to get his vote because he didn't want to speak in sweeping statements. chief justice roberts has some of the same tend entcys, it will be interesting to see with justice kennedy gone, does that continue or does the conservative majority become more emboldened to take stronger steps and less caution in a case by case basis. >> darrel miller, a lot of people are wondering what this means for roe versus wade with the precedent. walk us through what it would mean here if we get a more conservative justice approved by the u.s. senate and sits onts bench, and what does it mean for this issue of abortion rights? >> right, well, i think not only for abortion rights but for all of injujurs pruns, there's goin be a battle on the conservative side of three different models, an institutionalist model best represented by the chief justice, something that doesn't want to upset precedent, even if they might disagree with it. then there are those in the cone sirve tif movement who basically see everything from the warren court onward as i will legitimate and want to role back constitutional law to before that. then there are some that are just in for the partisan points and if the liberals are against it, they are for it and vice-versa. i think the way it will play out is who and what kind of alliances are made on those dimensions, that is i can imagine a scenario in which a an abortion rights case comes up to the supreme court and roe versus wade is not expressly overturned but the kind of limitations that we saw in states like texas where it is incredibly difficult to actually be able to find a provider, are upheld and that becomes kind of stealth overruling of roe versus wade without its actual statement that it was wrongly decided. >> my thanks to both of you, darrel miller, thank you both for your time. the woman who won the week, alexandria ortasio-cortez, she stunned the primary on tuesday. her own stunned reaction to the victory became a viral gif and here's another anecdote, she responded on twitter to questions about the brand and color of lipstick she wore during the debate last month. now according to the site, that l lipstick sold out on website as well as -- her sudden rise one of the takeaways from the last week primaries and what else we learned when we come back. welcome back, as we focus on the feature of the democratic party in the era trump. claiming democrats could never win another election if they -- the awould ligs of i.c.e. in maryland ben jealous won and in new york city where alexandria o koes toshio cortez, let's start look if we could. this is the big story about this young woman in new york city, younger than 30, going up against this incumbent who had a senior leadership position in the democratic caucus. what's your takeaway from that victory? >> a couple of things, you don't want to overstate the national significance of one district in new york city but at the same time, i think there's a recognition that there's a sort of earthquake here that has happened and already people who didn't necessarily endorse o kas tosh o kas toshio cortez, there's a broad recognition it will be decided in large measure by people like her and her supporters. >> what does it mean for nancy pelosi, we had that conversation for a long time as well and some members of the leadership suggested maybe there needs to be new leadership, noting there's a separation between the editorial board of your paper and you and fellow reporters, reading at this point the caucus leadership has gone from stale to downright oscy fied. how does this change her future in the democratic party do you think? >> look, joe crowley was 56 years old and considered the sort of rising star of house leadership who might succeed her. i think there's a recognition that having a 28-year-old defeat him signals a very different kind of democratic caucus and in the coming years. nancy pelosi has to be nervous about what that foretells. >> let me look at the republican side of things, there was a primary on staten island as well, still hoop in new york city, michael grim who was a congressman convicted felon, had run-ins with the law and reporters as well, trying to get his seat back from dan done no van. what does that tell you about the republican side of things when you look at that caucus? >> it tells you president trump holds a lot of sway. in many republican primaries this year a kind of scramble from both candidates to prove they are the trumpiest in the lost and donovan got the endorsement, seemed to make a huge difference. michael grimm was leading in a couple of polls and trump endorsed him in a tweet and rudy giuliani also popular still on staten island come in for donovan and it wasn't that close. i think we're talking about one district but we've seen a trend across primaries throughout the country that the president's support is para mount at this point in the party. >> we talked about the idealogical divisions within democratic party. let's turn to republicans and challenges they face in that regard as well. mitt romney won a primary in nevada. and in utah -- excuse me, what does that say to you what kind of senator he might be? what kind of light will that shine in the divisions in the republican party? >> this is a huge question. are we going to get the mitt romney of 2016 who said the president was a fraud and phony and danger to the republic if he was elected or will he get the mitt romney of this year who has been pretty defer ent shal and criticize the president here and there and told this network he was not necessarily somebody who romney considered a role model for his grandchildren but embraced the agenda and supportive of the president on policy. it's hard to say. a couple of senators you've flagged earlier, jeff flake, bob corker on their way out of the senate does mitt romney fill the void as somebody of considerable standing within the party willing to criticize this president and that remains to be seen. there are not be a lot of voices next year. >> the big stories over the last few weeks, how they might be affecting the electorate as they move to the mid-terms, are we beginning to see that change for voters? is it having an impact who they are voting for in the prit mary snz xbl i don't know we've seen necessarily enough evidence to suggest one way or the other. the supreme court court as well, even though they have no say at all over the supreme court process that goes on in the senate, i think there's a galvanizing source on both sides for the supreme court pick. i think democrats see that as a galvanizing force. you've seen the protest on the hill. both sides see reason for optimism as firing up the base in the last several days. >> thank you very much for your time with the "new york times" joining me from d.c. the one on one meeting between president trump and vladimir putin in helsinki is two weeks away. he'll talk to him about quote everything begs the question if that includes election interference, all of this as pressure mounts on robert mueller's team to wrap up into the investigation whether or not they colluded with russia and according to president trump before the summit takes place we'll learn who will be the president's pick to replace anthony kennedy. an assistant u.s. attorney in the southern district of new york and nbc legal analyst. i know foreign policy, let's put the legal lens on it. do you think this is something that they'll discuss? how does what we've seen play out domesticically affect how you'll see the meeting unfold? >> i don't think trump will talk to him about it. if he is, it's not going to be in a confrontational don't interfere in elections anymore, trump has said on twitter just preently and previously, that he doesn't think that the russians interfered. you're not going to confront something about something happened. you know, and it's just preposterous he is continuing to say that in the face of what every leading u.s. intel agency has said. and just recently the director of the fbi reaffirmed that in his testimony last week. so he's just either again in denial or lying to the american public, which i think is more likely. and so i don't think he's going to confront putin on it. and i thnk he's really thumbing his nose at mueller and the american public by having this meeting and i've said this before, i don't think just because trump does something out in the open we can assume that that means it doesn't have a nefarious aspect to it. he says things in tweets and on television and in public that you know, i think certainly could contribute to a case for an obstruction of justice. i think having this meeting, he very well could be continuing to talk about if there's proof that he talked before with putin and talked with people in russia about campaign interference, this could be a continuation of that. i don't think we should assume just because he's doing it under the guise of foreign policy, that it does not have something more nefarious going on with it. >> it seems perilous to have the meeting in light of what you just said. why do it? why do you think he is wanting to have this when this is circling around him? >> i don't know how perilous it is who's going to be the witness to it? if i'm mueller i would like to have someone in the room that i trust to hear what was said in the meeting but there's nothing mueller can't do that. you know, there's no other force to make that happen. trump and putin get to talk about whatever they want and whatever they tell us about it. so i'm not sur how much peril there really is and i think the question of why they are having it now gets back to that point of is it so that he can confront him on the elections interfering elections which he didn't think happened or to continue some more nefarious agreement they might have. i'm not saying criminal or not but an agreement to work together in ways that may be counter productive to american policy. >> you mentioned that hearing on capitol hill this week. and there were some extraordinary exchanges between jim yor dan and congressman from ohio and christopher wray and rod rosenstein and memorable exchange with trey gowdy in which he said, wrap this thing up, tell bob mueller to wrap this thing up. from your experience, how long do the things usually take? trey gowdy we associate with the benghazi inquiry that went on year after year after year. >> special counsel investigations take -- seem to have taken longer than even regular criminal investigations which in and of themselves which normally an investigation of this scope would take longer than the time mueller has been doing this with very productive results. so you know, these calls to wrap it up, to put pressure on them to try to make rosenstein look bad and mueller look bad. it's political. it's not based on the sort of reality of how these investigations actually go. on the one hand, i think mueller is not going to be swayed by the pressure. he's a real investigator and he's going to keep pursuing the case until he's done with it. on other hand, my sense is -- by all accounts also a realist and he understands that he should not keep doing this if there's nothing -- if there's no trail to keep following. and so my sense is that there is something there still. there's a there there. or he wouldn't keep pursuing this. >> last question is about the supreme court pick. when you look at it in concert with the russia investigation, could that influence the president's pick? i was looking at brett kavanaugh rumored to be on short list and written about what legal challenges a president should face in out versus out of office. do you think that's something the president might be considering at this point? >> it shouldn't be. let's say that first. it should not be a consideration if the president quaz going to pick a supreme court jurist the way one should be picked, not on the views of presidential immunities and pardons and all of that. but i don't put it past this president to consider that, obviously there's a similar debate going on about is he going to consider views on abortion and not going to ask. i don't think he's going to come out and ask someone but he has those writings out there already about some views about a sitting president should not be indicted. but you know, i think that the democrats need to really do a better job of driving home the message that if the mcconnell rule was -- or is as he stated it, basically a lame duck president the term he used for obama, doesn't get to pick a supreme court nominee, then many would consider donald trump a lame duck president until this investigation is over. forget about the november electi elections, which is another argument. until he is cleared of very serious allegations in a credible criminal investigation that has already turned up so much, why does that person get a pick? and i think that's important. >> always good to talk to you. thank you very much. it is election day in mexico, more than 18,000 seats in that country up for in that country up for grabs today. why many are calling this the biggest election in mexican history. that's coming up next. who governed thousands... ...commanded armies... ...yielded to no one. when i found you in my dna, i learned where my strength comes from. my name is courtney mckinney, and this is my ancestrydna story. now with 2 times more geographic detail than other dna tests. order your kit at ancestrydna.com. let someone else do the heavy lifting. tripadvisor compares prices from over 200 booking sites to find the right hotel for you at the lowest price. so you barely have to lift a finger. or a wing. tripadvisor. 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. what does life look like during your period? it's up to you, with tampax pearl. you get ultimate protection on your heaviest days and smooth removal for your lightest. tampax pearl and pocket pearl for on the go. happening right now votes cast in mexico, perhaps the biggest and most consequential elections in the country's history, a change election. mexicans say they want to stop violence and put an end to government corruption. the outcry comes as more than 130 politicians and political operatives killed ahead of the elections. joining me to discuss is nbc's kerry sanders on the ground in mexico city. 18,000 seats up for grabs. what are you hearing from those heading to the polls today? >> reporter: i mean, everything from local politicians, mayors, members of congress, all the way up to the president here, of course, all eyes are on the presidential election. but this is the second largest country in latin america. mexico behind brazil and there are a lot of eyes because, of course, this is a country that is on our border to the united states. and so, issues like the immigration crisis that we have seen, those leaving from central america making the way up transiting through the country coming up to our border is as much a mexico problem as it is a problem for the united states. also, on the agenda, of course, has been nafta. president trump made it very clear about his feelings on the relationship between trading between not only the united states and canada but also the united states and mexico. these are all issues that whoever gets elected here is going to have to deal with. leading in the polls is manuel lopez obrador. folks here have taken the first letter of each of the names and just called him amlo. he is leading in the polls and while he leans to the left, his style of campaigning is somewhat interesting. he's been somewhat anti-establishment. he's very much speaking with bravado and promises to make here and without a lot of specifics. that is a campaign style that sounds very familiar to many people, to that of our president donald trump. >> tell us a bit about us, kerry. he was the mayor of mexico. this is a country for so long in the grips of one political party. a pri. how's that changed? and what role is traditional parties playing in this election? >> reporter: well, you know, this has -- a country that had one party for so long and so to have multiple parties here has been somewhat a shift and the idea of seeing multiple parties means that perhaps to people that they feel that they will have a voice because for a long time in this democracy those who lived here said, sure, we vote but we don't feel we have a voice. >> thank you very much. appreciate it. ahead in the next hour, president trump weighing in on the growing incivility in american politics. what he is saying about the increasingly heated tone on both sides of the aisle. rs are pretty much the same. but while some push high commission investment products, fisher investments avoids them. some advisers have hidden and layered fees. fisher investments never does. and while some advisers are happy to earn commissions from you whether you do well or not, fisher investments fees are structured so we do better when you do better. maybe that's why most of our clients come from other money managers. fisher investments. clearly better money management. red lobster's lobster & shrimp hesummerfest is back! with lobster and shrimp together in so many new ways. like new cedar plank seafood bake, roasted to perfection. or new caribbean lobster and shrimp. but hurry in. this event ends july 8th. you shouldn't be rushed into booking a hotel. with expedia's add-on advantage, booking a flight unlocks discounts on select hotels until the day you leave for your trip. add-on advantage. only when you book with expedia. (honking) when your craving strikes, you need your wing nut. ( ♪ ) no one can totally satisfy a craving, quite like your wing nut. and we got to know the friends of our friends.r the friends. then our old friends from middle school, our mom, our ex and our boss joined forces to wish us happy birthday. then we discovered our uncle use to play in a band. and realized he was young once too. and we found others just like us. and just like that we felt a little less alone. but then something happened. we had to deal with spam, clickbait, fake news, and data misuse. that's going to change. from now on, facebook will do more to keep you safe and protect your privacy. so we can all get back to what made facebook good in the first place. friends. because when this place does what it was built for, we all get a little closer. hey, everybody. i'm david gura at nbc headquarters in new york. it is noon out west. ice storm. president trump goes after democrats calling for i.c.e. to be abolished claiming that would lead to crime rampant and uncontrollable in his words. a civil action -- what if anything can be done to damp down the volatile rhetoric in today's politicians. continue confronting put

Related Keywords

Mexico , West Virginia , United States , South Korea , Alabama , Staten Island , New York , Southern District , Utah , Russia , North Korea , Maryland , Washington , Helsinki , , Finland , Capitol Hill , District Of Columbia , Brazil , Alexandria , Al Iskandariyah , Egypt , Canada , Mexicans , America , Korea , Americans , Alex Witt , Courtney Mckinney , Dianne Feinstein , Janet Johnson , Toshio Cortez , Kerry Sanders , Trey Gowdy , Elizabeth Warren , Anthony Kennedy , Doug Jones , John Bolton , Margaret Brennan , Bob Mueller , Darrel Miller , Matt Lemke , Mitt Romney , Kim Jong , Joe Crowley , Nancy Pelosi , Jeff Flake , Michael Grimm , Neil Gorsuch , Christopher Wray , David Courtney ,