>> join that sunday night at 7:00 p.m. eastern with the van ens jones show. speaking with tim scott about president trump's immigration policy. that's followed by the cnn film american jail at 8:00 p.m. thanks for watching 360 tonight. have a great weekend. time to hand it over to chris cuomo, cuomo primetime. starts now. >> thank you jb have a good weekend. i'm chris cuomo. welcome to primetime. have the democrats found the first rallying and radical cry? abolish i.c.e. what was dismissed as the whim of a bernie ac olate and upstart is echoed by big city mayors and a he sitting senator. you saw kirsten on gillibrand say i.c.e. has to go. but others aren't sure that's the way to go. we have a democrat who has become the face of i.c.e. resistance here ton. the mayor who warned of an a coming i.c.e. raid and drew the

ire of the ag and president. time to test the case by the gop against the deputy ag rosenstein. the capitol hill showdown showed a clear desire to upset and perhaps unseat the trump appointee. one of the main combatants, republican congressman matt gates here to make the case. did you hear this one? just when politics candidate get more bizarre a prank caller gets through to air force one and talks with the president. yes. and we have the tape. and you will laugh or cry when you hear what the president of the united states says to this guy. it's friday night. save me some snacks and let's get after it. >> just into cnn, the justice department is now saying it will comply with a federal judge's order to keep immigrant families together. first, why were they resisting

when trump said this was his intention in signing that executive order to undo the separation. and even thousand it seems they still don't have a plan or perhaps even a sound system to reunite the 2,000 plus families split up in recent weeks when they crossed the border. the issue is sparking protests and pushback from democrats. last night as i said you saw new york democratic senator kirsten gillibrand here on primetime become the first sitting senator to call for the abolishment of i.c.e. and in california, oakland mayor libby schaff is gaining national attention and presidential condemnation for taking a stand against i.c.e. by tipping off her community about impending sweeps. so it's time to test the mayor's position. mayor thank you for joining us. >> thank you, chris for having me. >> all right. so let's start with what seems to be the question of the moment

for your party certainly on the national level. do you believe that i.c.e. as an agency should be abolished? >> i do. i think that it is a failed experiment and that we have to move this country forward in a way that is reflective of our values. we have to ask ourselves, is this america? an administration that is putting children in cages. i know the answer for myself. and that is no. >> now, the former acting head of i.c.e. says, the agency isn't the one that separates the kids from families. that's border patrol that they have a very important job. security is obviously an issue given how much illegal ingress there is. and the idea of getting rid of an agency when we have such a problem seems radical as a notion. help me understand the argument. >> this is a relatively new agency. but let us just admit that it's a failed experiment.

we have criminal enforcement mechanism that are there to protect us from criminal activity. and we have traditionally had a civil system of laws that moderates and monitors the ingress of residents and citizens into our great nation. the fact that we are treating families that come here for opportunity to escape vanls and% cues in their countries and we treat them like criminals. that's not working. that's not america. and we have to do something radical to stop the vilfy indication of immigrants happening in our country and the wrongful persecution of good families. >> so you really have different political perspectives on this with the two parties right now, because the opposite argument is, when you cross the border illegally you are breaking the law. and it seems that the democrats

are okay with people breaking the law and that's why the republicans say you are for open borders. how do you escape that criticism if you call for the end of the agency that does the enforcement on the border along with the border patrol? >> we have a system of laws that recognizes political asylum. that recognizes due process. and that has traditionally recognized immigration as a civil matter, not as a crime. that is what i believe our system needs to respect. and it needs to restore its humanity. it needs to remember that america has always been a country of immigrants. >> let's talk about how you've gotten into the mix here as mayor of oakland. the charge is that you got word that there was going to be a sweep by i.c.e. in one your communities and you put out a tweet that said, this is coming.

>> how dare you needlessly endanger the lives of our law enforcement officers to promote a radical open borders agenda. >> let me ask you, do you believe that what you did was legal and right? >> i do. i am confident that what i did as the mayor of oakland was not just legal, but it was moral. i have a duty to share information with my residents, to inform them of their rights and their responsibilities. and that is what i did. the president has constantly threatened me with prosecution. i take that seriously. but i do remain confident that i was in my legal rights and i will not back down on that position. >> well when you're looking at the situation, the high ground that the attorney general has is is that it is a crime. it's a misdemeanor most of the time. you enter illegal twice now it's

a felony. and as a mayor you're not supposed to make decision base what laws that you agree with and what laws you don't. if it's a law your job is to make sure it's executed within your municipality. you're making a decision nod to do that and help people escape from justice from a legitimate potential criminal prosecution. that's dicey territory, is it not? >> listen, i am protecting my community. i am exercising the legal right that hundreds of cities across the country have exercised with sanctuary policies. and many law enforcement professionals support sanctuary policies because in a city like oakland, where we have so many immigrants, we cannot have public safety if that huge part of our population doesn't feel safe calling our police, doesn't feel safe testifying as a witness to a crime or providing

information to lead to the arrest of actual real criminals. >> right. >> that is public safety. >> right and we've seen that in different big municipalities with immigrant populations. we've seen the municipality has a big due process strain when you wind upholding people for the federal authorities and they wouldn't come or wouldn't come soon enough. and then your municipality or that city was then hit with lawsuits because of habeas corpus. all right so then we get to the strange part of the situation involving you and i.c.e. and the government and the intrigue. the interview with cbs. i want to play this part of the interview for the audience. >> it's a very persistent human being. >> this is confidential okay. >> what was that about? >> they just said they wanted to talk to me about the leak with the oakland mayor. >> were you surprised to see them? >> completely shocked. >> unexpected. >> did you ever contact the oakland mayor's office. >> no i never met her before. i never contacted.

>> you didn't. >> libby schaff. >> you didn't email. >> never. i would never tell her or anyone. they were very serious. she was stern with me. and it was concerning. >> so that man had resigned from i.c.e. he says because he didn't like what he was being asked to do. he was told a lie about the situation with you and what was told and what arrests were made or not made as a result of the information you put out. but the intrigue is, during the interview with cbs, the federal agents showed up to talk to him. what do you make of that situation? >> it was unbelievable. to hear the sound of them pounding on his door, to me was the sound of tyranny. james schwab is a decent, honorable public servant, as is clear by his record of many years serving his country. and the fact that he felt so

strongly that -- what a simple concept, the government should not lie, that he was willing to give up his job and his career. we should all honor that public servant. i have never met james schwab. we have never communicated. but to see dhs compounding on his door, in his home. >> in that moment. >> three months after he resigned his position, that is frightening. >> in the moment, i think is also -- it could have been a coincidence. we don't know but the idea they showed up when giving an interview and asked him specifically about whether or not he contacted you. what message do you think they were trying to send? and do you think it was supposed to be a message to you as well? >> well, clearly there have been plenty of intimidating messages sent by the president, by the attorney general and now by this

intimidation of this god public servant james schwab. but listen, as mayor of oakland, i will not back down. >> even if any say they will put you in jail. >> about what the values of my community are. i'm clear that what i have done has been within my legal right. >> what if they say it isn't. >> i believe it's my patriotic duty. then i have a good lawyer to defend me. and i do take it seriously. i have retained legal counsel, good legal counsel. >> if counsel told you don't do this anymore it may be morally right but it's offensive in the eyes of the law and wind up locked up, would you do it anyway? >> if i believe that it is legally right and morally right i certainly will not hold back my criticism of this government, because that is my democratic right, my right to free speech as an american tories that i want my country to do better, i want it to live up to american

values of welcoming people, of exercising due process, of caring about what justice really means. >> i'm just saying it's an easier stand to make although politically difficult for you, if it's found to be illegal but you still feel morally you have to do it then that will be quite a position. we will keep following the situation. mayor, thank you for joining us. appreciate having you on the show. >> thank you, chris. >> that was pushing that point because this is exactly where this might be headed. where she gets clear instructions don't do it again. what will the mayor do? all right you also heard the mayor say she agree was other democrats calling for the abolishment of i.c.e. but not all in her party agree. congressman seth multien is spear heading the battle to flip the house blue. is this a problem? let's ask him. >> congressman thank you for joining us on primetime. let's talk about the state of the affairs within your party

and the new headline popping up up. i'll put the big question of the moment to you. do you believe that the agency of i.c.e. should be abolished? >> look, i mean, the reality is that we face a lot of problems with what i.c.e. is doing. and there is clearly a leadership and accountability problem here. they're not behaving in a manner that is appropriate for american citizens. at the same time, we recognize that, you know, i.c.e. is the agency that keeps human traffickers in check. i.c.e. does important work for our country. i don't think that just going out and defunding them is necessarily the right approach. but should congress threaten the power of its oversight, the power of the purse? absolutely. it's our job to reform them. and in some ways calling for defunding i.c.e. or eliminating i.c.e. is just giving up our daut as congress to make the organization work. that's our responsibility. if we can't take that responsibility you need to look

at who is in congress right now. >> it's a strong argument you make. the problem is for you is that it's against a lot of people with a d after their name. i have this flood of people -- not just, you know, ocasio, the upstart, the new by maybe has more aggressive positions. gillibrand, mayor de blasio. mayor schaff from oklahoma. take a listen. >> i believe that it has become a deportation force. that's why i believe you should get rid of it, start over, reimagine it and build something that works. >> and that was just one of them busy only play what happens on my show. but you have a lot of democrats saying it's got to go. aren't you playing into the the political criticism that you guys are open borders? >> no, look, i'm not afraid to stand up to party establishment. i want to fix the problem. i don't want to make the problems go away. i don't want to give up the responsibility and duties of congress to actually make these organizations work.

we all want secure borders. we all want to stop human traffickers. we want i.c.e. to do its job properly, not doing its job recklessly. but the answer to reform i.c.e. fix it. do our jobs as members of congress not just call for it to be abolished. >> there is a theory because trump argues for things seen as extreme that it will bring out extreme resistance within your own party. and now that we see with -- whether it's the election of the upstart here in new york, or gillibrand or now you see it have spread through other progress he was? are you concerned for your party that you will adopt positions more extreme in retaliation and what that might mean for you. >> well the bottom line is i don't think we should be trying to outtrump trump. the answer to trump is to do the right thing. it's to elect leaders with the courage to be honest about the problems that we face, willing to bring a new approach to the

problems because for too long washington has been trying to do the same old thing, trying to take the same old approach to a new world. and that's why i'm supporting so many service veterans running for congress who are going to try -- take back the house. restore some value in washington and fundamentally committed to serving the country. i have amazing veterans across the country. amy mcgrath in kentucky. the first woman to fly an fa 18 in combat. she is someone people look to as a leader that can get things done for the american people and fix problems rather than just complaint about them. >> so which drive is stronger do you think in the party right now? because there is a number of -- there are a number of of military people who are entering and running, even in the democratic party. you do have women entering it also. then you have a little bit of overlap with this more hyperprogressive left that is entering the party.

which will win out and become the soul of the democratic group? >> well, look, i am in some ways hope they both win. because i think it's time for an entire new generation of leadership in the democratic party. we have to look at ourselves in mirror and realize that trump may be terrible but if we can't bet him and we are literally in the worst position as a party since the the 1920s which is where we are today, then we have to make reforms ourselves. i think a new generation of leaders will come from many different corners of the party. the folks i'm supporting, i initially started with veterans and not just military veterans but national service veterans, people who have been willing to put the country first, willing to put people before politics, and in many cases literally put lives on the line for the country before. but now we expand beyond that because we have come to realize that this movement is even bigger. and while veterans have literally had the experience of putting the country before their personal interests, there are other people who have done that as well. and we also need democrats great

new leaders to run not just for congress and the house of representatives but the state and local level too. i was out in michigan with joe tape, an extraordinary leader, someone who serve the country in the marines, also an nfl player. he doesn't need to be serving the country again. he has done his time. he has certainly earned his keep. . he has had tremendous opportunities in the nfl. yet because of trump, because of the threat to our country he wants to serve the country again. and i'm proud to be endorsing him as well. he is the kind of new leader we need in our party at all levels. he runs for the michigan state house and i think he is going to win. >> interesting to see who wins out. you got nancy pelosi saying i'm part of the future i'm a woman and progressive. i'm not going anywhere. you got people like you calling for new leadership ship. and the people on the far left saying free everything, free college, right to housing, medicare for all, big ticket items. it's interesting to see where you settle and what you head on

to in the mid-terms. while i i have you let's talk international politics. it's happening. we're going to have a trump-putin summit meeting, whatever you want to call it. it's happening in finland. the president was asked what he will discuss. here is what he said. >> you're meeting with president putin. will you talk to him about crimea? >> i'll talk to him about everything. >> do you believe that? >> i mean, sadly, chris i think we have learned we can't believe anything the president says. all we can go off of is the last meeting that he had with a dictator. that of course was with. >> kim jong un. >> the despot of north korea. and look at what the president did. he went into a meeting with a brutal dictator who holds -- who holds a hammer over the head of one of our most important allies, south korea. and he gave up exercises,

military exercises with the single ally of ours in the entire world that is unthe greatest daily threat of annihilation. and what did he give it up for? a piece of paper. a piece of paper. it's the worst foreign policy deal on record. it's the worst diplomacy i've seen in in my life. if that's what he do with the dictator in charge of russia, then that's very dangerous for our national security. what he should be doing is going in and actually holding russia accountable for the way that they've tried to influence our elections, challenge our democracy. i don't care whether you're a exact, republican or independent you should want free and fair elections here in the united states. putin obviously doesn't want that. he has every intelligence agency in the united states has agreed. he tried to influence the 2016 elections and he did. our commander in chief should have actually have the courage to stand up to putin rather than cower to him and make sure that never happens.

i don't have confidence he will do that. >> the counterargument is that he has done more to hurt russia hand the obama administration. given different arms and intelligence to ukraine. he sanctioned them. >> where did that come from? trump? it's ridiculous. we in congress pushed the trump administration to sanction him. and it's only under great pressure from congress that trump has finally agreed to do so. he held back on the sanctions to try to protect putin. we can't even explain why he is cozying up to the greatest enemy of the united states for the last 50 joo. >> what do you think it is? what do you think -- why do you think -- why do you think that he is so gentle when discussing vladimir putin when he really spares nobody his negativity, ali or foe alike? why him? >> i don't know. i don't know, chris. but that's a question that every american should be asking. fundamentally of course that's the question that robert mueller is asking in his investigation.

we don't understand why trump continues to cozy up to in dictator. it's like he completely faith about the cold war. and i understand our commander in chief is someone who took five draft deferments to avoid serving in the miller during the cold war and to get out of vietnam. but we ought to ask why he rchzs to have the courage to stand up to the greatest threat to the united states that exists right now. vladimir putin. he is a tremendous enemy of the united states. he has tried to challenge our democracy, to basically undermine the fundamental precepts of our election. we ought to have a commander in chief we trust to stand up to that and i'm not sure we do. >> we'll get to see it first hand. i'll be there. there will be a face-to-face meeting and we'll see if the president talks the talk and walks the walk. seth molten thank you for taking time ton to be on this show. be well. >> thank you, chris take care. >> for all the meddling that

putin and russia did in our election they didn't pull off what this comedian did. have you heard the president get punning. wait until you hear this. the security concerns, how did they get through to air force one? you have to listen to the dialogue that they have with the president and this man he thinks is a senator. we're going to play that for you next as part of our great debate. stay with us. smile guys. it's friday night. there you go. there you go. ♪ he's your home and auto man ♪ big jim, he's got you covered ♪ ♪ great big jim, there ain't no other ♪ -so, this is covered, right? -yes, ma'am. take care of it for you right now. giddyup! hi! this is jamie. we need some help.

-i think it'll look really good without the stripes. behr marquee presents: it's got potential. margo and sam had a vision, brought to life in one coat. whatever your home may hand you, behr through it, in one coat. behr marquee, #1 rated interior paint. guaranteed in 1,000 plus colors. right now, get incredible savings on behr paints, stains and primers. exclusively at the home depot. ♪ (electronic dance music)♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

the first survivor of ais out there.sease and the alzheimer's association is going to make it happen. but we won't get there without you. visit alz.org to join the fight.

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. . something for you to watch throughout the weekend. the protests planned in all 50 states tomorrow to fight the trump administrations zero tolerance immigration policy. the politics of the heart are very powerful here. are they matched by the politics of the head with these calls by a growing number of democrats to abolish i.c.e., the agency tasked with detaining and deporting the undocumented and deal with drugs and customs issues on the border. let's bring in guests or a great debate. catherine rampell and john

fredricks. thank you for being available on a friday night that's the main course with the i.c.e. move. but start with dessert. the prank phone call with the comedian working with howard stern got through to air force one and had a long conversation with the president, posing as new jersey senator bob menendez. here a taste. >> sir your call is connected. >> hi, bob. >> hey, how are you? >> how are you. congratulations on everything. we're proud of you. congratulations. great job. you went through a tough, tough situation. and i don't think a very fair situation. but congratulations. >> thank you so much. and you know i'm sorry to bother you, mr. president, but my constituents are giving me a lot of feed about this immigration thing. i did something noble by getting them back with the families but i have to answer them what can i

tell them you're going to do in moving forward? >> bob, let me -- let me just have you -- i want to take care of the situation. every bit as much as anybody else. at the top level. i'd like to do the larger solution rather than the smaller solution. we do -- they're doing them step by step. i think we can do the whole thing. i have a good relationship with the party. you have a good relationship with the party. and i think we can do a real immigration bill. we have to have security at the border. we have to have it. i mean, look, you got 60% of the country says they got to have security at the border. and that's a issue for the democrats too, bob. it's not like it's good for you or for me it's good for both of us. >> i. >> you know. >> no, i understand that. but -- no, but i am -- "i" hispanic. i have to -- you know i have

to -- i'm -- so i have to -- you know i have to look into my, you know, i have to look to my people as well, you understand. >> i agree. >> how did this happen, brother fredricks how did this comedian get through to air force one. >> i can't comment on the security issues going on at air force one. i have to hand it to john the stutter are. . let me tell you two things the president will talk to anybody. that's why he is so popular. he will talk to anybody. secondly, he probably figured bob menendez because it was john the stutterer. i stutter. i stuttered my whole life. i've known the president forever. he talks to me all the time. i stutter. i stutter on the air. he probably said so this is like fredricks he stuters. but he will talk to anybody. i tell what you, the security issues certainly have to get worked out.

coupled with the fact that you know like me menendez he is from new jersey. and so, it's part of the sh tick. somebody somebody from new jersey calls you up you take the call. >> apparently so, but rampell oh hear the president say to menendez caught up in the corruption trial and he did beat the case but certainly republicans critical of him for him to start the call saying congratulations, bob, we're proud of you. >> bizarre. >> it's unfair i don't know he was following the case but how bizarre. >> incredibly bizarre. what else was bizarre about this call was how banal the questioning was was what's happening with immigration policy and your supreme court pick it's the closest we get to a press conference with the president for a while. i mean, i guess, good for him for asking some questions that were related to substantive policy issues. you know, i'm not a professional

prank caller. i would have guessed that the questions are usually about how is your love life these days, that kind of thing. >> he didn't want to blow it, you know, he didn't want to blow it. he knew he had a good thing going, this guy. >> i guess. the whole thing is bizarre. it raises questions about the quality of the people trump surrounded himself with, what kinds of security issues there might be with the other communications. lots of questions raised here. but the whole thing is mostly just bizarre. >> i'll tell what you i thought was interesting also. so stuttering job decides to ask him about roe v wade. and please be careful on roe v wade maybe i'll give you my vote which i can't believe he would expect bob menendez, the exact from new jersey to say that but whatever. but the president had a pretty measured response about it. do you think that was a real response, john? do you think that the president is going to say that roe v wade is not a litmus test for him?

and that his nominee does not have to be willing to overturn that law? >> yes, i think he was being very honest even though the call was with stutering john. i think the president was honest. i don't think there is a litmus test in the selection for a nominee. look, we've had roe v wade since 1973. this is going to be very railroad difficult now to even think about overturning. i don't think this is the president's top agenda. and i don't think there is a litmus test. >> he said it was. >> yeah, i think pence's top agenda. and this is the agenda of the evangelical base supporting trump. >> but mike pence is not the president. >> but others care about this so much. >> trump said process. pence lived it but the president said it. john, you know that. >> the president is pro alive but if you're asking me the question is this the litmus test of anybody he selects? absolutely not. he is looking for somebody that's going to interpret the

constitution and rule in the way that does not legislate from the bench. >> they all say that but then they want people who do that when they put them on which is why you're happy about the decisions this kim on this week. that was dessert. let's get to the main course here. we have an odd situation here where you two are on the same page. neither of you think it's a smart move for the democrats to say they want to abolish i.c.e. i will provoke the conversation with both of you rampell here is the main reason. politics of the heart. what's going on with the separating families is wrong. the american people have echoed that sentimentment. a pew poll came out after we heard about the separation saying that people believe that democrats are more likely to handle immigration well versus republicans. and they're doubling down on that and saying let's get rid of this de facto round up deportation force of goons and let's do it with humanity. that's the sell. what's your take. >> first of all, the border separations are not being done

by i.c.e. they're done by customs. >> bad fact, true. continue. >> border protection. look, i think abolish i.c.e. is one of these sort of catchy maybe ka that is rightic slogans and reflects the fact that many immigration facing agencies including i.c.e. and customs and border protection have done a lot of bad things. playinged by policy problems, cultural problems and institutional problems, many of which pre-date the administration, we should be clear. a lot of bad things happened under obama. but that said, the way to tackle these issues is not necessarily to just, like, blow uppen an agency. i mean that's -- that's the republican agency for a -- >> unless. >> addressing things like well we just blow up the agency and no plan for reorganization. >> annapolis -- unless the sell is strong but then the buy. >> but i don't think it's strong. i don't think it's strong for a couple of reasons.

one is i.c.e. does a bunch of other things. >> yes. >> that are unrelated to these cruel and inhumane round up all the brown people raids and things like that. you know they deal with human trafficking, dealing with other issues. you could argue that maybe the bundle of responsibilities that they have doesn't make sense. >> that's what i'm saying the sell is abolish ice o i.c.e. but what they say is abolish the mandate and this will turn into fix mode where they are not sows just rounding up people, we're not going to demonize, play the politics of the right and pretend all migrants are ms 13 opinion. and this is our metaphor for that we are making i.c.e. apgts do what they were supposesed unthe patriot act and not just be a round up force does that work. >> no chris and kathryn what the president has done is pulled the skap off the scam of catch appear release which is not a policy it's a phoney fares that both parties et go because there is police on flumgs to let

people come in. >> that's not true. >> if you get rid of i.c.e. you have no deportation process. basically if you are -- if juror senator gillibrand and calling for the abolition of i.c.e. here is what you are saying. i don't want a country, no borders, anybody can come in. >> that's what it plays into but catherine you disagree you were disagreeing catherine. >> she is saying erase the country. no country. >> i don't think it's true that we have an open border policy. and i don't think it's true that people on the left are predominantly calling for an open border policy. which is another reason why i think the abolish i.c.e. slowing isn't misguided in that you alienate a lot of people moderate, center-left who believe we should have borderings and enforce immigration policy -- immigration law. but you can do that in a very different way from the way that we have now, including by prioritizing felons rather than

families. right now it's something like only 5%. >> that's where you guys went wrong. you say he pulled off the scab but how he pulled it off create add bigger wound. and he backed off with the family separations. the problem is i think he is exposed right now for not having really understood the lesson. that executive order was for gazing. he didn't have a plan and still no plan. they are not reunifies they are fighting the court decree by the judge saying they had to do it in a certain time. now they are abading by it. that's inconsistent and hypocritical. it doesn't seem you care yet. that could hurt with voters. we saw that in the polls. >> let me respond to catherine. catherine you said this is not the main stream democratic ponce. the protesters are saying right ton. they are saying no nation, no borders no deportation. so >> that's not the mainstream view. there are some protesters on the left who say that.

>> that's what they are saying. >> there some on the right saying comport owl people who are not white or whatever. so like just because there are some -- some vocal minority of people does not mean that they represent of the parties' view or people or moderates in general or people on the lester. >> is your whole party john the good people the president talked about march was the nazi attention in charlotte is that your whole party. >> let me answer chris's questions. >> go ahead. >> anybody that deals with people -- with tiki torchsss or white supremacists shouldn't be in the republican party or part of the trump president. >> the president said they were good people. >> you know what. >> he said they were good people. >> what the president -- what the president said is a lot of the people in charlottesville were good people. >> no he said the people there were good people and there just to protest. >> any case. >> they need to disavowed but let me answer the question. >> ens the question and you get last word catherine. >> you're absolutely correct

when the president implemented no tolerance policy i don't think they thought through -- they thought through the ramifications of it. the separation of families, shipping them a thousand miles away. none of that made sense. they thought it would be a deterrent and people would stop. but the history of immigration has been people come over the border, there is no consequences. never thoughted we would do anything. and then they were caught unprepared. monday morning quarterback, if i could have run this i would have prepared the american people for this for one month. >> you should have have prepared your system and accommodations for it to show the humanity last point to rampell. >> both the system both the system. >> so the president i was going to make. >> the pinpoint i was going to make is to show you how outside the mainstream is to say abolish i.c.e. as opposed to reform i.c.e. and the immigration system. the congressional hispanic caucus i believe said today they

are not behind this proposal. just to give you a taste of how divisive this is even within people on the left. >> that's on my element sheet i was going to bring it up you beat me to it we have to go out of time. john, catherine thank you for making us better tonight. >> thank you. >> all right. so he is one of president trump's most loyal allies in congress. one of the loudest critics of the mueller investigation. he is matt ge o atez cochems from florida here on the heels of the heated hearing with the man overseeing the russia probe. the kmds wants to make the case about what he wants to do to rod rosenstein. friday night, next. with only a kite, a house key and a wet hemp string, benjamin franklin captured lightening in a bottle. over 260 years later, with a little resourcefulness, ingenuity, and grit, we're not only capturing energy from the sun and wind, we're storing it.

as the nation's leader in energy storage, we're ensuring americans have the energy they need, whenever they need it. this is our era. this is america's energy era. nextera energy. this one's below market price and has bluetooth. same here, but this one has leather seats! use the cars.com app to compare price, features and value. it all started when donald trump tore thousands of immigrant children away from their parents. we the people challenged him in court and in the streets. then trump was forced to admit that his policy was wrong. and he caved. the court just ruled that trump must reunite every family he broke apart. (clock ticking rapidly) time is ticking. these children must see their parents again, and they're counting on us to act quickly. these children must see their parents again, ♪

(laughing) (screaming) ♪ come here! oh my... (applause) ♪ (vocalizing) (dad, over phone) just like that? (vocalizing continues) hey, i'm curious about your social security alerts. oh! just sign up online and we'll alert you if we find your social security number on any one of thousands of risky sites. that sounds super helpful. how much is it? well, if you have a discover card, it's free. no way! yes way! we just think it's important for you to be in the know. all right! hey... ewww! everything ok? being in the know is very good. yeah, it is. ooo don't shake! don't shake! ahhh! know if your social security number is found on risky sites. free from discover.

the president's allies demanding the mueller investigation be shut down. two main arguments. one it's been going on too long. point of fact it hasn't lasted asset long as white water, iran contra or certainly benghazi. the second argument is they don't how it's run, specifically by the head of who was the

deputy ag of rod rosenstein, a trump appointee. and of course the head of the fbi is also on the menu. they both testified and it got hot. the next guest has been leading the charge for change. florida republican matt gaetz. thank you for being here on a friday night. >> honored to be with you chris. >> i have three of the high points of your discussion. but as a general assessment is it true you believe that rosenstein should be impeached. >> well if i thought he should be impeached i'll go file articles of impeachment and take votes on it. i would like him to stop frustrating the production of documents we think are essential to understand why so much bias was able to enter the blood stream at the fbi with the hillary clinton investigation then those same people my grate over to the trump russia investigation. and then they're the same people working with the special counsel. i asked the inspector general, a democrat if that was typical. and he said given his long history of working public

corruption cases it is not wise. it's not appropriate. to have people who investigated one party kind of to an election or a transaction then my grate over to the other functionaries. rod rosenstein is responsible for staffing decisions mueller made. the public has been critical of those. it's the reasons why the latest cbs poll shows more than half the country disapproves of the way robert mueller is handling the investigation. >> but we've had a real hate campaign going on from trump and certain surrogates to attack the probe. that may have impact on polls as well. >> but that's on both sides, it like in the marketplace of ideas there are people like you and democrat making the case that bob mueller has done everything right and by the book and appropriate and there are people holding my viewpoint that it's a biased team, that they have collected evidence from people who have dominatesed by as, that there is a sufficient cloud over the impression. >> that's not what the inspector general said. >> if you lack at chapter 12 of his report it's the area where he says he can't rule out bias was the reason why. >> in someone specific aspect he

says he can't, the prioritization of the wiener emails versus what was going on with trump. he doesn't say it overall. overall he says there was no proof of bias. >> that was in the hillary clinton investigation. yes. but, chris i think it's important to distinguish the findings of the inspector general as it relates to the hillary clinton email investigation and those that deal with the opening up of the trump russia investigation which the doj told us gone july 31st but rod rosenstein wouldn't answer questions about the investigative active which occurred before july 31st. >> he said he didn't know anything. >> oenga i don't think that's what he said. >> we'll play it and then you can have at it. >> all right. >> are you aware as you sit here today of any payments that were made to any person to collect intelligence on the trump campaign prior to july 31st? 2016. >> no keep in mind i wasn't there. i only know the information that we have obtained from the fbi records. >> are you as you sit here today aware of any efforts to contact

roger stone that occurred prior to july 31st, 2016. >> i don't have any personal knowledge, congressman. >> and now there were several other iterations. he kept saying i don't know i wasn't there. >> the question right before is the operative question directly before the question about payments i asked whether or not he was aware of any investigative activity which occurred prior to the 31st of july. and he said that was classified which is precisely the response that peter strzok. >> didn't he say he was working to working on the nunes assertions of what documents he wanted in that regard. they are working with the intel sides. >> the nunes member and the dynamicic memo both conclude that the department of justice indicated that it was the 31st of july. >> right. >> what do you know matt, what do you know that happened before it? because you were really insistent. >> i'd like to get the documents. no one can be certain until we get the production that we need. but we haven't received any of that information. >> but how do you know there is anything before it? if he says he doesn't know they have turned over like you know a

ton of pages. >> i don't know that, chris. i've never claimed to know that. but if nothing happened before the 31st of july and if previously the department of justice is represented that nothing happened before the 31st of july, why would that not be the same answer that they would give both in the strzok testimony and in the rosenstein testimony. >> rosenstein was consistent he says he doesn't know about anything else you can't ask him to prove the non-existent of the fact. >> the question i asked before the one you played was whether or not there were any investigative activities. >> and he said i'm working with the intel guys on that. >> right. >> he didn't say i won't tell. >> you but that is an odd answer >> -- ths /* /- -- this is why more than half the country believes there's a particular

thing with the mueller probe -- >> -- there was testimony that these were personal movements of intimates. if you're going to push him so hard about something you may want to know something -- >> here's what we know. right after he made that statement about stopping a trump presidency. it was only six days later he was rrching an insurance policy in andy mccabe's office. >> that's -- >> the ininspector general said he's seen nothing like this. never before in his career has he seen the entire leadership team of the fbi removed, demoted. reassigned -- >> it shows swift action even though the guy didn't say bias. i want to get to another -- >> that was swift action by the president to fire comey. >> that's because of why he did it. but i don't want to go into that rabbit hole right now.

i want to play something else you did with the fisa application. it goes into what's motivating the question here. >> did you read the fisa application before you signed it in>> not going to comment about any fisa police vehicle. >> so you won't say to this committee whether or not you read the document you signed that authorizes spying on people with the trump's campaign? >> i dispute your interpretation of what that fisa application is about, sir. they are sworn under oath career federal agent, i'm not the after yant. >> but you signed it? >> well, i explained the process to you -- >> did you thoroughly verify it yes or no? >> i want to explain the process to you -- >> i'm out of time. >> you did a good mat lock deal on that guy. that was an intense lune of questioning. the first thing is, you used the word spying. you know that's a dirty worth in the intelligence community, it

suggests something wrong. you know the tray gowdy and speaker ryan looked into what was offered up by the community, by the doj about what was done, they said there was no spying, everything was done right. >> is that a fair characterization for you to use? >> yeah. >> i think tray gowdy is upset right now because of what they may have said to him and the public that's not true -- >> tha not spying. >> i used the term intelligence collection more frequently -- >> spying too -- >> it's a dirty word for him. >> i should have used the word intelligence collection, because that's what i'm worried about. the question is whether or not they were running informants in the trump campaign. wouldn't you think it's weird that rod rosenstein hadn't read it or not -->> this was the only thing i thought was fair.

you know what this procedure is, at least i think you know. when he gave the full answer -- which we don't have time to play, the people should go and look and do their own home work -- this is a very detailed process that has a lot of players. he's not the guy that can vouch for all the reporting that goes into the application -- >> ifrpt just want to know if read it. >> but the way the procedure works, which he told you, which is 100% accurate. all these lawyers go into this, they go to him, rosenstein, he signs off on what they tell him was done. that's what he signs off on. i don't think that was a fair question for you to ask him. t not his job to go through every nook and cranny. >> you don't think it's fair to ask the deputy attorney general of the united states whether or not he read something that was bearing his signature regarding intelligence collection against the campaign of the -- >> yeah, i don't think it was

fair, because i think the right question is to say were you briefed on this. that would be deceptive because the american people don't know the process -- >> i asked about briefings as well. i also wanted to know if he read it. i have reason to believe he told speaker ryan and tray gowdy that he did not further review these thing. >> you should have produced proof of that and that would have been a different conversation. >> i didn't have proof which is why i asked the question. the fact that he didn't answer the question is really darn suspicious. >> i got it. matt gates thank you for being on the show tonight. >> thanks for having me. >> enjoy your weekend. >> you as well. >> congressman matt gates. yesterday, five more americans were killed in violence. we heard their signs and they went on for years. police new about the suspect's threats, unfortunately this is not uncommon in a situation like this. we have a story that will hammer

this home in a her roeing way. next.

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 to friday "cuomo prime time." so we're learning details about the suspect that killed five people in maryland. the 38-year-old has a long-running vendetta against the newspaper, you heard about that. his obsession reportedly started with a facebook friend request. he initially sent friendly messages about how she was the on person that said hello to him or was nice to him in school. when he was rebuffed he started calling her ugly names, told her to kill herself. she was eventually was forced to change her name, leave the state. she warned the police he would be quote, your next mass shooting. the next installment of our original