welcome to "inside politics." i'm john king. thank you for sharing your day with us. congress is wasting its time on immigration. that today from the president, the very same president who earlier this week said it was essential that congress act on immigration. plus the message in a jacket. melania trump stirs the $40 question. back to government, the parents that were separated on the border have now been reunited. whatever your view on immigration, there is power in

this. >> we begin the hour with uncertainty, mixed messages and chaos, words that can be used in places on long the u.s.-mexico border where the shift on the take of family separation takes on the most personal of terms. or words that could be used right here in washington where the immigration impulses of the president are yet again causing policy and political turmoil. now, let's be clear. it is a broken record. hardly breaking news to say republicans can't get their act together on immigration. but it is breaking news when their latest effort in a midterm election year scramble is directly undermined by the president after republican leaders ask him for help. the house leadership wanted the

president to say or tweet that he did not consider terms of a new compromise immigration framework to be amnesty. instead the president tweeted this morning that, quote, republicans should stop wasting their time on immigration until after the midterm elections. now, members of the leadership say their negotiations continue despite that tweet. but that tweet yet again shifts the white house story line, and it gives a green light to conservatives who don't want to protect the dreamers or vote to keep legal immigration at its current levels. abby phillip live at the white house for us with more. abby, the president's shift from congress must act to congress wasting its time. why? >> it seems very much, john, that the president is throwing in the towel on this issue of immigration on the hill, and it could be that from the very beginning this president has never been sold on this particular strategy that's being carried out right now by house republicans. remember, it was just a week ago that he caused his first wave of chaos on this issue by saying that he didn't support these

compromised bills that were being deliberated on the hill. and then earlier this week he went to the meeting to offer support to shore up that support and left lawmakers incredibly confused about where he stood. now, this all possibly has to do with the fact that this white house has calculated from the beginning that the immigration is a key issue for their voters. he wants to look strong on the border, and is not convinced that these proposals will get him there. instead there is this crisis at the border with separating families, and the president is trying to navigate that. but he has also shown on social media, on twitter, that the strategy he would prefer to use is simply to blame democrats. blame democrats for stagnation on the hill, blame democrats for the separations on the border. meanwhile, republicans are left not sure exactly where he stands or whether they can take his word for it when he says he supports something. meanwhile, i'm told republicans

still have plan b, which is doing family separation issues separately in a separate bill. it remains to be seen, however, whether that is something that president trump, in fact, supports. >> abby phillip at the white house where the story keeps shifting and shifting. i appreciate the reporting. with me in the studio, eliana johnson of politico, mary catherine hamm with the federalists. why is the question. congress must act. that was the president of the united states 40 hours ago, maybe 72 hours ago, congress must act. this morning the same president. congress is wasting its time. is he just listening to the right, listening to those who say, mr. president, you don't want to sign a paul ryan bill we call amnesty. i think we can show you breitbart headlines. that's one of the places this is being attacked. is that all this is or is the president tweeting out of frustration? what is it? >> there's been no real policy throughout this, and i think you're seeing that in the

president's herky-jerky moves on this, saying congress has to act to saying he won't sign an executive order to saying congress should do nothing at all. we're just getting the president's guttural responses and in turn has thrown this entire issue in chaos where no one is clear right now what the administration's policy is or whether or how children are going to be reunited with their parents. >> so you have the policy at the border, which we're going to talk about a bit later in the program. what do we know about the numbers? are people going to be reunited? what happens to the children previously separated? here in washington, we have a leadership that says, sir, we'd like to keep our majority. conservatives won't vote on certain things. moderates would like a vote even though it's never going to become a law. they would like a vote to say they tried to protect the dreamers. i know the leadership says we're going to keep at it, we're going to ignore this tweet. steve scalise is saying it's just the president being

frustrated. if there are 10 or 15 conservatives who says the president is with me, vote no, it's a waste of time, it makes it hard, right? >> the bill being considered in the house right now they're going to try to get a deal on to vote on next week doesn't have a chance to get to law. the senator has -- senate has n plans to take it up. people in vulnerable districts, latino voters can say we tried to pass something, particularly dealing with daca, and that's a way to push back against what democrats are doing. there are a lot of conservatives that are not happy with this approach, and the president is saying, what's the point of even voting on this to begin with? i spent all morning on capitol hill talking to members, and they are doing the best they can to just completely ignore what the president says, the leadership in particular, because they just -- they believe everything the president is saying is completely unhelpful to the process. the question is will the rank and file members ignore the

president? that's a different question. >> completely unhelpful to the process but doesn't the leadership look like fools -- forgive me -- spending a rotimea room for hours trying to get a deal. if the president says stop, you're wasting your time, a lot of people are going to say, i agree. >> game over. it takes the wind out of sails in what might have been a fairly productive week in terend in te looking for a compromise. if you look at how intense this situation is, how much emotion there is, without the president being out front, without the president having legislators' backs, there is no way they'll take the risk inherent in a major reform bill. >> you could argue the president is out front. he doesn't have the legislators' backs, but he could be out front saying, i don't want to do this.

isn't that the meaning of the tweet this morning? >> and the question is whether the president really wants to solve immigration. he's used it again and again as a rallying cry for his base. whenever he has a problem, he riles up the base. keeping immigration alive as an issue that he can continue to lead, build the wall chance, helps him politically. i think that's part of his base political instinct, to derail anything actually happening on a policy front. >> absolutely right, that is his reflex, especially when he gets to a crossroads and there is a debate. the president trusts his instincts, trusts his reflexes. the president this morning tweeting, you're wasting your time. then why three weeks ago, #changethelaws? he said, now is the best opportunity ever for congress to change the ridiculous and

obsolete laws on immigration. is this a game to him? >> he's correct on that. if you want a durable solution that is not subject to the whims of a president trump or any other leadership, then you have to do it this way. look, i think it's possible both trump and schumer want an issue instead of a solution up to the midterms. whether that's a good calculation or bad for trump or shoo schumer, i think it's more bad for trump than schumer, but i think that's part of this. and i think he felt the heat for what many in the base said was a cave on the separation of families and then a cave on zero tolerance, which has become part of this as well, and a third one, which they think of as amnesty, was probably the line for him. >> the line for him. it's an interesting point, because a week ago some republicans, the moderates, wanted a vote to protect the dreamers. they said that was absolutely essential. they said they couldn't go home

to their districts without at least trying. it was simply a show vote. >> the one piece of legislation that has become law, it was something all republicans fundamentally agreed on, tax reform, and trump stayed out of the process entirely. you've lost both of those in this issue. >> right, because he's involved. you have families being separated. for those who would have preferred no action at all, that blew up for them. mike coffman, suburban denver, listen to him here. he said this now has reignited this issue the way he believes, coffman believes, hurts those moderate suburban housewives. he blames white house adviser steve miller for pushing the president and says -- >> stephen miller advised him on the border, on this recent

problem, in terms of tearing families apart. i think that lack of understanding of the significance of how that played out has stephen miller's fingerprints on it. i think the president needs a different adviser. >> the president needs a different adviser. i'm sorry, stephen miller does have the excuse, stephen miller does have the president's ear. the president, i think, is is the president, right? >> and the president is in line with stephen miller and mike coffman. coffman represents a more moderate view, represents a swing district for latino voters worried about the daca problem, trying to get that vote on daca separately which the white house and the speaker oppose. stephen miller has a more hard line view that's in line with the president. while the president may think this is a good political issue, perhaps it is to rile up the base, it could hurt republicans like mike coffman who do not want to take this hard line view, particularly in a general

election. >> the lack of consistency, i guess, is what makes it hard to track for me. if you're mike coffman, even if you oppose the president, you kind of want to know where he is. >> i think as hard as the policy itself, you can argue the merits and demerits in the policy. the lack of consistency and the lack of clarity about what the policy actually is after the president signed that executive order is equally problematic. because people in the white house right now are not clear on what the policy is or whether that executive order, which contradicts a court decision of a few years ago, is legal. and that's thrown this entire issue into total chaos inside the white house and on capitol hill. >> remember, john, there is a separate bipartisan effort in the senate. he's just starting to deal with the separation of families. what does the president's positioning, how does that impact that process going forward also that has such significance? especially when we don't know what's going to happen for these

kids. up next the high court hands down a very big win for privacy defenders. nd a safe used car. you could start your search at the all-new carfax.com that might help. show me the carfax? now the car you want and the history you need are easy to find. show me used minivans with no reported accidents. boom. love it. [struggles] show me the carfax. start your used car search and get free carfax reports at the all-new carfax.com. i'm still giving it my best even though i live with a higher risk of stroke due to afib not caused by a heart valve problem. so if there's a better treatment than warfarin, i'm up for that.

eliquis. eliquis is proven to reduce stroke risk better than warfarin. plus has significantly less major bleeding than warfarin. eliquis is fda-approved and has both. so what's next? seeing these guys. don't stop taking eliquis unless your doctor tells you to, as stopping increases your risk of having a stroke. eliquis can cause serious and in rare cases fatal bleeding. don't take eliquis if you have an artificial heart valve or abnormal bleeding. while taking eliquis, you may bruise more easily and it may take longer than usual for any bleeding to stop. seek immediate medical care for sudden signs of bleeding, like unusual bruising. eliquis may increase your bleeding risk if you take certain medicines. tell your doctor about all planned medical or dental procedures. eliquis, the number one cardiologist-prescribed blood thinner. ask your doctor if eliquis is what's next for you. cardiologist-prescribed blood thinner. ♪ ♪ i can do more to lower my a1c. because my body can still make its own insulin. and i take trulicity once a week to activate my body to release it, like it's supposed to.

trulicity is not insulin. it comes in a once-weekly, truly easy-to-use pen. and it works 24/7. trulicity is an injection to improve blood sugar in adults with type 2 diabetes when used with diet and exercise. don't use it as the first medicine to treat diabetes, or if you have type 1 diabetes or diabetic ketoacidosis. don't take trulicity if you or your family have medullary thyroid cancer, you're allergic to trulicity, or have multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2. stop trulicity and call your doctor right away if you have symptoms of a serious allergic reaction, a lump or swelling in your neck, or severe stomach pain. serious side effects may include pancreatitis. taking trulicity with a sulfonylurea or insulin increases your low blood sugar risk. common side effects include nausea, diarrhea, vomiting, abdominal pain, and decreased appetite. these can lead to dehydration, which may worsen kidney problems. to help lower my a1c i choose trulicity to activate my within.

ask your doctor about once-weekly trulicity. if you have moderate to thsevere rheumatoid arthritis, month after month, the clock is ticking on irreversible joint damage. ongoing pain and stiffness are signs of joint erosion. humira can help stop the clock. prescribed for 15 years, humira targets and blocks a source of inflammation that contributes to joint pain and irreversible damage. humira can lower your ability to fight infections, including tuberculosis. serious, sometimes fatal infections and cancers, including lymphoma, have happened; as have blood, liver, and nervous system problems, serious allergic reactions, and new or worsening heart failure. before treatment, get tested for tb. tell your doctor if you've been to areas where certain fungal infections are common, and if you've had tb, hepatitis b, are prone to infections, or have flu-like symptoms or sores. don't start humira if you have an infection. help stop the clock on further irreversible joint damage. talk to your rheumatologist.

right here. right now. humira. welcome back. today a string of eight-year-old robberies in detroit now has new meaning nationwide. the supreme court reading against the government this morning holding that law enforcement agencies generally need warrants to collect location data from cell phone companies. privacy advocates say it's a big win, and in their view, a big check on growing government surveillance. chief justice john roberts writing for the majority argued that the data allows the government to, quote, travel back in time and conduct, quote, near perfect surveillance of suspects. jeff zeleny joins us. a significant decision. walk us through it. >> it's one of those decisions where the constitution, that was written in the 18th century, has to be applied to the world of this. it is not an easy thing to do. it's not surprising that the

courts were 5-4. basically what chief justice roberts said is these phones are essentially parts of our body now. and even though we know in some abstract way that we can be traced, our whereabouts can be traced, it's not fair for the government to do that without a warrant. and he joined with the four liberals. it was an unusual split in terms of the court. you had john roberts with ruth ginsberg, steven bryer and sewn yo so to-mayor saying we're not going to ban the government from tracing people with their phones, but if they're going to do it, they have to get a warrant first. >> they have to get a warrant first. so jeff, this is going to be in legal cases in the next 5, 15, 20 years. privacy will be a huge issue in

tracking of surveillance. does this apply just to government or law enforcement, or is there any implications for business which collects all of this as well? >> reporter: it's not directly addressed in terms of applying it to the private sector, but certainly it's relevant. and it also -- you know, this is a moving target. remember, these cases only come up when the technology existed for -- it's not just -- you know, the law was mostly about phone calls. you know, when the government can trace phone calls, but we've moved beyond phone calls, because the mere fact of carrying a phone is evidence now. the government can track your whereabouts. that technology is only going to get more advanced. and people are -- so, yes, we know what the answer is for cell phones now, but none of us can

predict how exactly the technology will evolve and the court will have to address that. but this certainly is a stop sign or at least a yield sign when it comes to law enforcement saying, you don't get free access to absolutely everything about us. we are going to insist, that is, we, the supreme court, are going to insist you at least have to get a search warrant under these circumstances. that's not a big barrier for law enforcement. it's not difficult to get a search warrant. but it is a way of saying to law enforcement, you can't rummage around without at least involving a judge getting permission. >> at least a pause if not a stop sign to big brother. i'll take that. jeff, i appreciate your insights today. as we go to break here, sad note. a voice in the world of politics has gone silent. columnist and commentator charles cramwell died yesterday of cancer.

he was 68. charles also a psychologist, speechwriter, a best-selling author. ...to give you the protein you need with less of the sugar you don't. i'll take that. [cheers] 30 grams of protein and 1 gram of sugar. new ensure max protein. in two great flavors. new ensure max protein. and we got to know the friends of our friends.r the friends. 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, 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. because when this place does what it was built for, then we all get a little closer. ♪ ♪ i love you baby applebee's 2 for $20, now with steak. now that's eatin' good in the neighborhood.

i'm a fighter. always have been. when i found out i had age-related macular degeneration, amd, i wanted to fight back. my doctor and i came up with a plan. it includes preservision. only preservision areds 2 has the exact nutrient formula recommended by the national eye institute to help reduce the risk of progression of moderate to advanced amd. that's why i fight. because it's my vision. preservision. try areds 2 + multivitamin.

does your business internet provider promise a lot? let's see who delivers more. comcast business gives you gig-speed in more places. the others don't. we offer up to 6 hours of 4g wireless network backup. everyone else, no way. we let calls from any of your devices come from your business number. them, not so much. we let you keep an eye on your business from anywhere. the others? nope! get internet on our gig-speed network and add voice and tv for $34.90 more per month. call or go on line today.

welcome back. some hope today for hundreds of children detained and separated from their families after illegally crossing the u.s.-mexico border. the government now says some 500 children shave been reunited wih their parents or family members. however, the government has not counted the total number of children affected by this process, so we don't know how many the government needs to still reunite with their families. they say it will get done but they're a little skimpy on the details. >> reporter: is there a plan to

reunite children with their parents? >> we are going to do that. we are reuniting as quickly as we can. >> as quickly as we can, she says. but how are they doing it? in some cases caseworkers are going from shelter to shelter, looking for people to reunite families. they're going through the facilities, getting a sense of the condition there, after days of confusion and delay surrounding the new marching orders. our diane gallagher was allowed to go into a shelter in florida today. you were allowed in. you were not allowed to bring a camera but describe what you saw inside. >> reporter: that's right, john, so we should point out any images you see right now were provided by the government. they were shot by them given to us because they would only let us bring a pen and pad inside. it was very brisk. this is a massive facility behind me with several buildings. we weren't allowed to linger very long. i was not allowed to speak to

anyone inside there except the immediate points of contact who were there. children who smiled or said hello to us, we were pushed away from. i can tell you i've been inside one of those processing centers as well where you see the cages everybody sees. that's not what's happening here. this essentially looks like a run-down elementary school with dormitories. about 12 kids per room, two sinks inside there. all the kids walking around with these tags with qr codes on them. they buzz in and out of every single place they go into. there are about 1200 kids in here. two-thirds of them are boys, about a third of them are girls, all ages 13 to 17. i know a lot of people out there are very concerned they haven't seen pictures of teenage girls. i saw them today. there are plenty of them. they're in pink and red shorts they've been issued. the boys are in light blue and dark blue shirts. each kid gets about five outfits when they are a part of this intake process here. as far as what they do here, most kids, we're told, are here

about 25 days in this particular facility. that is less than the average hhs center. that's about 57 days. there are -- of those 1200 kids, according to their director, just under 70 are actually kids who have been separated from their parents because of the zero tolerance policy under the trump administration. now, we had no way to vet those numbers, john, but that's what we were told. they have a really regimented schedule. they wake up at 6:00 a.m. they have six hours of school. they do counseling, individual and group, six days a week. they can do more if they want. and they meet with their case workers to try to meet up with a sponsor or their family, we're told. >> a live report there. let's bring it back to the studio. on the one hand you hear the term intake center and it sounds horrible. on the other hand, there are a lot of people in the united states saying, these families came across the board illegally, therefore, they should be

stopped. it is the separation issue that has turned this into a giant political issue, and now the confusion after the president signed an extraordinary. there is uncertainty whether that will even hold up in court given prior decisions. my question is how do we grade the administration since the president decided to change his mind, do a 180, and say let's get these families back together? how are they doing? >> not good. the customs and border agency is referring to things one way, and the justice department another, health and human services yet another and you get conflicting information from them. i was talking to one official earlier in the week and asking about these kids who have been separated and they keep referring to them as unaccompanied child aliens. of course, they're not unaccompanied. they were accompanied by their parent until we split them up. but they don't have a term for these kids. so they don't have a policy around this because we haven't done it in the past. so it makes it hard when you have different explanations from different agencies over how to even refer to the groups of

children that we're talking about. >> and this has been such a bungled policy from the beginning. the ones who think there is a legal justification to splat ep the children from the kids, they say how did you not have this figured out ahead of time? perhaps even a change in the law to prevent the separation from happening if you thought you were legally bound to do this? and if you were going to implement it, why not have the steps in place to figure this out? clearly they did not have them. now they're suffering as a result of it, and these kids and families are, too. >> it sounds a lot like, why would you have a couple guys at the white house not good constitutional lawyers draw up the travel ban, for example. you see those pictures, or you can't see the pictures but you get accounts of people going in and seeing it. the president signing an executive order doing a 180.

he signed an executive order saying we shouldn't separate the families. we have 2300 in shelters. we don't have an exact number. some of them are being reunited. what about parents charged for a crime? in that case how long can you keep a family together in detention? that would be the test of the extraordinary because in the past it says 20 days is all you can keep a child in detention. then you get to the question of why were they separated in the first place? >> you also have the issue that the border patrol needs to be able to deal with which is the adults who say they are family. you have a couple of these cases that became icons of this policy when, in fact, there was a suspicion of smuggling involved. we want them to be able to do that as well. look, the federal government is somewhere between veep and house of cards on the complex and evil matrix. so whenever they get something very wrong like separating families, getting them back together and fixing that problem

is going to be not a great process. so that's where we are right now, and i'm not sure it's getting any better super fast. >> to that point, when you have a problem -- and everybody makes mistakes, every administration makes mistakes -- this one is a whopper. if you want to have zero tolerance, you have to think of the implications of it. the president campaigned on zero tolerance, it shouldn't be a surprise. if you make mistakes, you better communicate with consistency. the attorney general among those who has not. >> if you are smuggling a child, then we will prosecute you. and that child may be separated from you as required by law. >> and every time somebody gets prosecuted in america for a crime, american citizens, and they go to jail, they're separated from their children. we don't want to do this at all. if people don't want to be separated from their children, they should not bring them with

them. >> the american people don't like the idea that we're separating families. we never really intended to do that. what we intended to do was to make sure that adults who bring children into the country are charged with the crime they've committed. >> huh? >> right. i think sessions has not been the most eloquent defender of this policy, to be generous with that, and in general, i don't think bible versus, which is a clip you didn't show, are a compelling defense of policy in general. but the problem, i think -- and i read his quote to be saying that the intention isn't to separate parents from children, it's an unfortunate by-product with trying to enforce the law. i think that may be the generous reading of what he's trying to say. but look, i heard similar things to what manu said, which is in a normal policy process, you would brief congress about the policy

you're going to enact, but in this administration you announce the policy and then you have congress react. it was created under a tenable situation for the administration where you had public revolt, lawmakers revolting, and ultimately the president's own family revolting against him with ivanka trump, president trump's daughter, and his wife appealing to him privately in the white house and saying, you have to do something about this. >> what was remarkable was he hasn't backed down on so many of his policies. even the muslim ban he was stopped by the courts, not himself. in this case he himself backed down because he was losing so much support from franklin graham, people who defend him all the time were not defending him. >> and he was alone with stephen miller, maybe one or two others, when he flipped. a republican congressman who says speaking up against the president cost him his job.

join t-mobile. and get netflix included. so your family can watch what they love in more places. get an unlimited family plan with netflix on us. and right now, buy one samsung galaxy s9 and get one free. metastatic breast cancer is relentless, but i'm relentless too. mbc doesn't take a day off, and neither will i. and i treat my mbc with new everyday verzenio- the only one of its kind that can be taken every day. in fact, verzenio is a cdk4 & 6 inhibitor for postmenopausal women

with hr+, her2- mbc, approved, with hormonal therapy, as an everyday treatment for a relentless disease. verzenio + an ai is proven to help women have significantly more time without disease progression, and more than half of women saw their tumors shrink vs an ai. diarrhea is common, may be severe, and may cause dehydration or infection. before taking verzenio, tell your doctor if you have fever, chills, or other signs of infection. verzenio may cause low white blood cell counts, which may cause serious infection that can lead to death. serious liver problems can occur. symptoms may include tiredness, loss of appetite, stomach pain, and bleeding or bruising more easily than normal. blood clots that can lead to death have also occurred. talk to your doctor right away if you notice pain or swelling in your arms or legs, shortness of breath, chest pain or rapid breathing or heart rate. tell your doctor if you are pregnant, breastfeeding, or plan to become pregnant. common side effects include nausea, infections, low red and white blood cells and platelets, decreased appetite, headache, abdominal pain, tiredness, vomiting, and hair thinning or loss.

i'm relentless. and my doctor and i choose to treat my mbc with verzenio. be relentless. ask your doctor about everyday verzenio. be relentless. only tylenol® rapid release gels have laser drilled holes. they release medicine fast, for fast pain relief. tylenol®

topping our political radar today, new reporting showing michael cohen was more than just donald trump's lawyer. the "washington post" reporting that cohen got advance copies of trump-related articles from the national enquirer and let michael cohen sign off before they went to print. the president said in a statement those accusations are false. new information today about that young migrant girl on the cover of "time" magazine. the picture shows her crying. but new reporting says she was never alone. in fact, she is with her mother. his almost two-year-old

daughter, her father said, was not separated from her mother. the mother and her mom are in a shelter in mcallen, texas together. an official statement. remember last week when the president made the bold declaration on twitter, the president saying there is no longer a nuclear threat in north korea. flash forward, the president renewing a document, giving the president authority to keep sanctions in place against kim jong-un. a surprising endorsement of the president puttion loyalty. roby had spoken out against the president as well as sanford. sanford lost his fight in south carolina because of his tweet.

sanford this morning on cnn. >> my political sin, if you will, that cost me an election was i spoke out against the president prior to my election, and he came to this chamber, sent a chilling message to my colleagues which is, if you mess with me, i'll mess with you. >> do you regret speaking out about the president? >> not one bit. >> not one bit from mark sanford. yet, martha roby gets a big boost from the president this morning. >> yeah, because she started to show contrition after going after trump in the election year. sanford has just been unloading on the president even after he lost, blaming it on his criticism of the president. i talked to him yesterday and he said, do we give a pass to the highest office holder in the land who constantly says things that aren't true? he's calling on his party to call out trump's lies. >> good luck with that. one thing that's remarkable

about this, not about sanford but about the president, is that for all of his inattention to policy details, he pays extremely close attention to the things that are covered in the media and on twitter, and if you say something negative about him, there is no chance that he's going to miss it. and so he is acutely aware of any slights against him, and mark sanford will know if you say anything about him, martha roby. so these lawmakers are aware he knows what they're saying. >> mark sanford is two things. he's idealogical, more conservative as opposed to the populist version of trump, and he's bold with things that might hold him politically. there's a pattern here. and i would note that roby is a little different because these already faced several more trump-friendly opponents and come out on top. she's in a little bit of danger but less than mark sanford is. >> look at the post-term republican party with the ouster

of people like mark sanford and the reentry of mitt romney who once called him a fake and phony but is much more sympathetic to donald trump. when we come back, six months ago today the president signed that big tax law into effect. the debate continues. still a chance here. it's willingham, edge of the box, willingham shoots... goooooooaaaaaaaallllllll! that...was...magic. willingham tucks it in and puts the championship to bed. sweet dreams, nighty night. as long as soccer players celebrate with a slide, you can count on geico saving folks money. fifteen minutes could save you fifteen percent or more on car insurance. pressure, what pressure?

the players on the... pressure, what pressure? (male friend) thanks for the invite! (anna) front row? nobody puts baby in a corner. yippee ki yay movielovers. (vo) download the atom app and get $5 off your first ticket. if you have moderate to thsevere rheumatoid arthritis, month after month, the clock is ticking on irreversible joint damage. ongoing pain and stiffness are signs of joint erosion. humira can help stop the clock. prescribed for 15 years, humira targets and blocks a source of inflammation that contributes to joint pain and irreversible damage. humira can lower your ability to fight infections, including tuberculosis. serious, sometimes fatal infections and cancers, including lymphoma, have happened; as have blood, liver, and nervous system problems, serious allergic reactions, and new or worsening heart failure. before treatment, get tested for tb. tell your doctor if you've been to areas

where certain fungal infections are common, and if you've had tb, hepatitis b, are prone to infections, or have flu-like symptoms or sores. don't start humira if you have an infection. help stop the clock on further irreversible joint damage. talk to your rheumatologist. right here. right now. humira. i just want to find a used car without getting ripped off. you could start your search at the all-new carfax.com that might help. show me the carfax. now the car you want and the history you need are easy to find. show me used trucks with one owner. pretty cool. [laughs] ah... ahem... show me the carfax. start your used car search and get free carfax reports

at the all-new carfax.com.

it was six months ago today the president signed the big tax cut into law, and the political debate is sharp now as ever. republicans say tax cuts pump more life into the economy, creating more american jobs. democrats are holding an event as we speak up on capitol hill. they're making the case it is

big business, not workers, who benefit from this plant. let's separate the facts from the spin. cnn's alison kosik look at what this means for you six months in. >> six months ago the corporate tax became law. they cut the taxes for companies. in the first quarter, it fell by more than $117 billion. so how are companies spending all their extra cash? they're buying their own stock back, raising shareholder dividends and investing in their businesses. in the first quarter, stock buybacks for s&p 500 companies topped $187 billion. that's a record, the best since right before the recession in 2007. s&p 500 companies also added more than $24 billion in shareholder dividends. dividends are basically a quarter cash benefit for

investors who hold the company stock. finally, investments of things like equipment known as capital expenditures hit $166 billion. that's a first quarter record. now, the trend isn't slowing down, either. in maya loan, buybacks and cash takeovers topped $200 billion. nearly half that total is just from apple. it pledged to buy back $100 billion of its own stock. what about workers? we know that roughly 3 million workers got bonuses and those bonuses were highly reflected in higher wages and salaries in the first quarter of more than $119 billion in the first three months of the year. but that translated and actually has translated in a big jump in consumer spending which rose 1% in the first quarter. overall it's clear the corporate tax cut is a bigger boon to shareholders than workers. check this out. 1.1% of companies tracked by just capital, 57% of their tax

savings is going to shareholders. just 7% is going to workers. john? >> alison kosik, i appreciate your work. you could say families have a couple hundred thousand dollars in their pockets, that's a good thing. democrats will say look at all that money going into stock buybacks to make the companies richer for the rich people or big investments for the average investor. this will go right up to the midterm elections which i think republicans are partly glad to be away from elections, if they can. >> the best election year argument going forward. the question is can the president stay on message to keep that issue. a lot of american workers don't feel an effect from this law, so if -- but they do feel good about the way the economy is going. so that ultimately is going to

be how this election is fought at the end of the day. >> i think in part it depends on where you live, what you are your local economy is like. in the middle of this, retaliation takes effect today. the president said, you're going to do this, i'm going to do more. the president tweeting based on tariffs, he could soon place a 20% tariff on all european cars coming into the united states. in the middle of this, the republicans are caught in an immigration debate they didn't want, thanks to the president. they want to talk about taxes and the economy, but in many places now they have to deal with trade wars and tariffs in what they view as a blanket of economic growth. >> most people won't feel the tax cut, but the trade war stuff is going to undermine the economy. as long as you link the tax reform and the economy and it holds up, that's an okay message until something goes off the rails. >> the poll numbers are down in some key states, like iowa and

even states like south dakota that rely on trade with china with some of the agriculture. there is a lot of worry about what the trade war does there. so there is some concern for president trump as he undergoes this effort on the trade. >> in the debate we hear a lot. if he renews this in 2020, it will be fine. the economy is strong and we'll get through it. if you're from the dakotas or a farm state, you think, please, please. when we come back, the message in a jacket. alright, i brought in new max protein

...to give you the protein you need with less of the sugar you don't. i'll take that. [cheers] 30 grams of protein and 1 gram of sugar. new ensure max protein. in two great flavors. new ensure max protein. i can do more to lower my a1c. and i can do it with what's already within me. because my body can still make its own insulin. and once-weekly trulicity activates my body to release it. trulicity is not insulin. it comes in a once-weekly, truly easy-to-use pen. it works 24/7. trulicity is an injection to improve blood sugar in adults with type 2 diabetes when used with diet and exercise. don't use it as the first medicine to treat diabetes or if you have type 1 diabetes or diabetic ketoacidosis. don't take trulicity if you or your family have medullary thyroid cancer, you're allergic to trulicity, or have multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2. stop trulicity and call your doctor right away if you have symptoms of a serious allergic reaction,

a lump or swelling in your neck, or severe stomach pain. serious side effects may include pancreatitis. taking trulicity with a sulfonylurea or insulin increases your low blood sugar risk. common side effects include nausea, diarrhea, vomiting, abdominal pain, and decreased appetite. these can lead to dehydration, which may worsen kidney problems. i choose once-weekly trulicity to activate my within. if you need help lowering your a1c, ask your doctor about once-weekly trulicity. a hilton getaway means you get more because... you get another day in paradise. get a sunset on a sunday. get more stories to share. get more from your summer getaway with exclusive hilton offers. book yours, only at hilton.com

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? for a limited time, save up to $500 plus free home delivery on sleep number 360 smart beds. ends june 30th. welcome back. the message here at a children's immigrant shelter in texas is unmistakabl unmistakable. melania trump believes her husband's policy of separating families at the u.s.-mexico border was a mistake. >> i'm here to learn about your facility and which i know you house children on a long-term basis. and i also would like to ask you

how i can help these children to reunite with their families as quickly as possible. >> the message here, though, is a huge debate. that's the first lady in the olive green jacket. this message on the back, "i really don't care. do you?" in white lettering. she wore the jacket getting on the plane. she did not wear it when visiting that border facility. still, people took notice. some say perhaps the first lady is going rogue. and on the home page of drudge, this first lady fashion fireworks. just a jacket is what the first lady's office says. sorry. she's making a statement, she knows what she see doing, she knows everything she wears gets watched, so what's the message? >> i think when you're first lady or you're president, whether or not you want there to be a statement in something, there is a statement in everything you wear, everything

is scrutinized. michelle obama would know that, i think, better than anyone. it was the responsibility, i think, of her staff if she wanted to wear that for somebody to pull her aside and say that's not an appropriate thing to wear ask you're going to come under fire for wearing it and to grab it off her back. >> i'm guess they go did everything but the grab it off her back part. this was her decision. >> the president going after the media so the media would talk about it. even if that was the case, the first lady's office said there was no hidden message. if there was a message, that's not appropriate, either. this is supposed to be about separated children. why are they trying to troll the media which it's supposed to be about this plight that's happening on the border. >> even fox news a little confused about this. >> whoever the chief of staff of the first lady is should be fired for allowing her to wear that jacket down to the border. here she had a noble gesture, totally selfless, so important and she wore a coat that gave

critics of the president something else to talk about to deflect the fact that she had gone to see with her own eyes this tragic situation. i think that was a staff error. it was really a rookie mistake -- >> it got us talking about the wrong stuff. >> exactly the wrong stuff. >> for all of you trashing melania trump, nice try. it's not working and you're digging yourself into a deeper hole. >> i think it's a mistake made by the first lady. she said she was trying to deliver two messages yesterday. one was compassion at the border, reunite those families. the other, whatever she meant by the jacket. >> i think it's an attack on someone else. i think she does disagree with the practice at the border. maybe the press. when she went into the hospital she may be a little ill about that. and she's trolled her fashion several times with the gucci blouse, with the white pantsuit,

with the blue outfit at the inauguration which was hearkening back to jackie kennedy. she meant to say something. it's like walking performance art at this point. >> and it was 80 degrees. >> everybody wears jackets on an 80-degree day. thank you for watching "inside politics." wolf starts right now. hello, i'm wolf blitzer. it's 1:00 p.m. in washington. from wherever you're watching from around it is worthe world,u very much for joining us. we start with the chaotic flip-flop of the president on immigration. his intention was to end the bad publicity surrounding the administrations, separating parents from children at the u.s.-mexico border. today serious questions remain about the order and if the administration has any detailed plan to reunite those families