hello everyone. i'm chris comb. welcome to a special hour of "prime time" live. from washington d.c. the supreme court choice has been made. brett kavanaugh is the president's pick for the high court. the question is, will he be confirmed? and and really the bigger question is will it happen before the midterm. on the other side of the ball the democrats you'll hear a will the of early and anxious voices about this choice. can they do anything about it? we have one democratic senator who is going to try. oregon senator joins us tonight. there's other big news. after midnight eastern time. tuesday. that means the deadline on that

day tuesday is when the government has to reunite the youngest migrants separated if moms and dads. all indications they'll miss the deadline. the question becomes why. why can't the administration get the kids back to their families? are they really trying. plus, we're awaiting the rescue of the final five kids trapped inside that cave in thailand. we're on scene as crews race to beat a monsoon. what do you say? let's get after it. 12 days after justice kennedy announced his retirement. president trump announced the person he'd like to replace them. he said he'd like to pick a woman. but he didn't. he chose a man named brett kavanaugh. who checks a will the of boxes for the conservative right. democratic are vowing a

relentless confirmation fight. but what can they do? good to have you. >> great to be with you. >> appreciate you coming in. so, let me ask you. the first question is there's the can and the should. can what can you do. god bless senator mccain. hopefully he's fighting back his adversary. if he doesn't vote. it's 50-49. if republicans hold ranks it's over. >> certainly in the end that would be the case. but, so many surprises occur along the way. issue after issue that we have considered including the healthcare bill. that so many people thought couldn't protect healthcare in america we succeeded mostly protecting it. apart from some of the other things going on. sabotage. but in this case there's going to be a lot we'll learn in the coming days.

and some of the issues that are already being identified are massive. this a nominee who believes in an e norm louse e pensive vision of presidential power. appropriate for a wikingdom and king. >> specifically not about the decision. 300 some odd cases he's decided. plenty to comb through. in 2009 he wrote an article for a minnesota law review. piece. where he said president's shouldn't during their term be exposed to legal, civil, criminal any type of process. which would mean something like being compelled to testify by mueller. >> there would have never been water gate for example. he doesn't think the investigation. >> impeach them if you have a problem. >> the remedy for misbehavior lies with congress.

the whole special counsel disappears. and the president should able to fire the special prosecutor and has an expansive belief the president can ignore law that the president doesn't agree with. >> is that why trump picked him? >> it must have been a huge factor. an extraordinary moment in american history. a president under investigation for possible collaboration with an enemy. under mining the foundation of america, election. to have the president at this moment have the conflict of interest and choose who might sit on the bench on issues like can the president pardon himself? can the president fire a special prosecutor. this is a moment that shouldn't happen. we should postpone this consideration of the nominee until he's cleared. until he the president is cleared of this investigation. >> unless mcconnell wants to postpone. is there anyway you can make it

happen? >> well, no. in the end there's things we can certainly be careful with the research. but in make sure that there's as many going on in the judiciary committee as possible. in the end, the majority can control the body. the senator in charge of how much time and how much paper you get to look at is senator grassly. another republican. he can say this is how much time you get this is how much paper we'll allow. so he'll have a strong hand on the reign there. >> that's right. >> it's set up against you. >> it's set up so this if as you put it if the republicans hold rank. there maybe republicans who know that the president has said he would nominate only a justice who would strike down roe v. wade. there maybe republicans concerned about this nominees opinions in terms of airnt worker and anticonsumer. and antiand so forth.

there's a lot of material. there's about the powerful vs. the people. and after all we were founded as a we the people republic. >> when you look at the specific issues. roe v. wade looms large. i don't know that kavanaugh looking at his cases so far has given much to work with. when he was up to be a circuit court judge he said that he respected it as a established precedent and been tested. he would follow it. >> if confirmed to the sir kout i would follow roe v. wade faithfully and fully. it would be binding precedent of the court. i'm saying if i were confirmed to the sir kout, i would follow it. it has been reaffirmed many times. >> what is your opinion? you're not on the bench yet. you have talked about the issues in the past to other people i'm sure. >> the supreme court held

repeatedly. it wouldn't be appropriate to -- >> now the biggest problem with the process with all due respect is this is not about candor and accountability. these men and women say the same thing when you ask the questions. you can try to get them to go on record. they learn if you get out of your skis and say how you feel. you're at risk. you probably won't get it vealed from him. they respect the supreme court. it's once they get a chance to change it, as a supreme court. what would they do. what's your concern. >> once you're on the court you're setting precedent. you're not following. and certainly the president trump has said he would not nominate someone unless they were prepared to strike down roe v. wade. >> leo told me that the head of the federalist society who put this list together for the president. that the president never asked anybody about their feelings on

roe v. wade. let me just listen so you can believe me. >> in all of my dealings with president. and all of the meetings he's had with respective nominees. three i think. during the earlier process. the president never asked to a single nominee about roe v. wade. or abortion or frankly any other case. and never talked about it to me. >> it's often what is not said in the particular process. would he be on the list if he had said to leo or the other people, i tell you what i'd never over turn that case? it's a good law. >> absolutely not. the president asked the federal society to put this list together. and the federal society knows what the president commitment was. so, saying the president has never asked about this is meaningless. the folks were vet td long before they made it in front of

the president. >> otherwise they wouldn't be on the list. fair point. i will tell you at home, seeing how yo stayed up late. read page 15 of the speech that kavanaugh gave about justice rhenquist. he talks about his dissent in roe v. wade. and why he respected it. he may have boxed himself in. i want to talk about something else. these kids are still separated. well over 90% of the ones that the government has stripped from parents. they'll miss the deadline that is court imposed. you can negotiate with the courts. do you believe in your findings that the government has made the strides it needs to to create a process of putting the families back together? >> no. they're in a great state of confusion. tomorrow is the deadline for the children under five. under 100 of the children. hearing maybe half will be reunited with parents tomorrow. at the time they separated the

kids from the parents they called them unaccompanied minors and were sent into hhs. jus as if they arrived without parents. they didn't therefore hhs didn't have the information about parents. they have had great difficulty figuring this out. that's why after here after two weeks of still only 50 kids a few more will be connected. this was really poorly planned. all the way through. here's just the fundamental fact. let's not forget the administration reunifies the kids, they are insisting on a strategy of inflicting trama on children in order to push a policy of deterrence. to deter people from coming to america to assert asylum. that idea of inflicting trama on children is a dark, dark position. no religious tradition. no moral code would allow you to

say i'm going to injure the kids to send a political mess. we'll support the decision. you cannot establish camps for families. that's what the administration wants to do. we're going from family separation to family incarceration. handcuffs for all. >> they're trying to box you in. politically. trump is saying if you care about the kids so much, leave us of the flores decision. you're forcing us to force them. we can't keep the kids as long as the parents. change that law. will you bite? >> not at all. there's no camp future going on here. there is a policy that worked very well. a program that worked well. family case management program. and inspector general of homeland security did it. found 100% not 99 or 98. 100% of the faeps showed up for hearings. >> the administration did something with the program. >> they trashed it. they had a program that kept

families together and until they got the hearing. they trashed that and went to this infliction of harm on children. >> by doing that they set themselves up for the situation. i'm not saying set themselves up for fraailure. i don't know they see this as failure. thank you for being with us. >> thank you. >> all right so, if confirmed. judge kavanaugh what would he do with roe v. wade? i referred you to a speech. we'll go deeper into it. we'll give you a break and do your home work for you. what he said about the law and we have tapes. we have a member of the group that's pouring lots of money into the effort to get this nomination through. and a man who says kavanaugh selection poses a giant conflict of interest. you know what that makes for. great debate. next. if you have medicare

parts a and b

and want more coverage, guess what? you could apply for a medicare supplement insurance plan whenever you want. no enrollment window. no waiting to apply. that means now may be a great time to shop for an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan, insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company. medicare doesn't cover everything. and like all standardized medicare supplement insurance plans, these help cover some of what medicare doesn't pay. so don't wait. call now to request your free decision guide. it could help you find the aarp medicare supplement plan that works for you. these types of plans have no networks, so you get to choose any doctor who accepts medicare patients. rates are competitive, and they're the only plans of their kind endorsed by aarp. remember - these plans let you apply all year round. so call today. because now's the perfect time to learn more. go long.

all right. so. the legal spin is going full speed. started even before we knew that brett kavanaugh would be president trumps nominee. there's a lot to get through. we have the process, we have the cases that kavanaugh has given us to look at and the concerns on both sides. let's get after it. a little episode of cuomo's court. good to have you both. let's start with why you like kavanaugh as the approximatic. >> he's one of the most experienced judges on this list. and someone who is widely recognized as an expert particularly on crucial issues

of the constitutional limits on government. separation of power. the classes he taught at harvard and yale. and the issues that come through the circuit where he sat. major constitutional questions. he has a record of 300 cases he's decided. if there's anyone we have a real clear sense of what the judicial philosophy. it's kavanaugh. he has a solid record. >> what do you not like? >> the decisions on presidential power. concerning, con foining the reasonable balance of the administrative state to respect work lg people. questions about abortion. healthcare. the biggest issue we're facing an unprecedented conflict of interest. in american history. because you have a president who has been named. named a subject in a criminal investigation. those around him with guilty pleas under investigation. and he's naming the judge.

who could decide be the deciding vote on many of the legal issues. that -- >> your argument is. >> conflict of interest. >> specific nominee or any nominee? are you saying he shouldn't pick a judge right now. >> both. one is -- i'm not saying he shouldn't pick a judge. >> it's not both. be clear in my court. thank you. >> your honor. number one, i think there is a conflict of interest. presented for any judge. under the circumstances. but what that means is, that whoever the justice nominee is, he needs to answer questions that they don't normally want to answer. he needs to agree to recuse and if he won't answer i don't think he should be confirmed. this judge kavanaugh is a good man. but he's way outside of the mainstream. he has extreme views on presidential power. that a president shouldn't be subject to criminal prosecution

and questions. >> let's deal with the specifically. it took a while to get to it. that's what he's talking about. in 2009 we're not talking about a judicial system. i saw on twitter about he decided a president can't be subpoenaed. none of that is true. he wrote an article for a law review. where he said he doesn't believe a president should be bothered with any type of legal process during their tenure. if you have a problem with him congress should impeach. are you okay with that position. >> this is something he'll re-examine that based on the arguments brought before him. >> how do you know? >> this is what any judge does. they'll consider that based on the thousands of pages that will be presented to them. in that case. i think the idea that the president couldn't appoint someone they kornt sit on the case. the remedy would be recusal. we had justice breyer and sat on

the clinton jones case. and ruled in the case. which ended up being unanimous. there's the concept he would have to recuse by having been put on the court by this president is without precedent in our history. we have seen again this is happened many times. >> you have different facts here. you would have moul mueller. is mueller says i need you to testify. president says no. he says i'll subpoena you. i'll compel you to testify. you don't think you can subpoena us. that will be fast tracked for reviewed as a question for the supreme court. now you have a guy sitting on the court who has written maybe the only one who has written anything that i know of specifically on the issue who side with the issue going into it. how do you feel about that as a conflict? >> the fact that someone has written on a topic doesn't make it a conflict of interest.

justices have written about cases it doesn't mean they don't get to decide a similar case. because we know their thought process. >> here's what's different. we have never had a president who's been named a subject in a criminal investigation. who has the people around him guilty pleas under investigation. he's talking about self-pardon. subpoena. we have never had a president in that situation name a supreme court justice who could -- president clinton was not a named subject in a criminal investigation. at the time. bob muellerer said president trump you are a subject. that means the investigation is speeding down on trump. he's picking a judge in his own case. it's judge shopping. it is undprentsed. it calls for a unprecedented remedy. contrary to the usual jumbo. and particularly here we have the extreme 2009 views. he disagrees with the unanimous

clinton v jones court. where you have the extreme views he must answer the question. judge kwoech cuomo. >> except they don't have to. >> if he won't answer, conflict recuse. say i don't want to answer the questions i'll agree to recuse. >> he won't. >> if he doesn't do that. he shouldn't be considered. >> he can't answer the question. especially. >> they can. they don't. they could. they choose not to. >> as a legal ethics thing i cannot prejudge a case. i may think -- >> he has. in 2009. this is different. it's answering about his writings. >> he can speak about his writings. that doesn't actually determine what he's going to do in a case before him. all of that aside. you say this is he is the lone justice who would believe that way. wa are you worried about?

it will be 8-1 decision. >> what maybe difficult in reconciling this. this is so different than his posture in 98. working for ken star. he was such a bulldog on the tawdry types of invasion into a president's life. legally during his tenure. and from the right in 2009 he doesn't think that clinton should have been exposed to that. what does that tell you about the man? if he was so willing to do something so wholeheartedly that he thinks is wrong. what does that tell you? >> we don't know in terms of the internal role of crafting the things. >> you see the questions he wrote up for the bill clinton? did you sees questions? i wornt even talk like that in a locker room. which is some type of parallel rules for men. he wrote some of the most tawdry ugly kind of questions to form

perjury traps. which i'm not saying were part of his job. lawyers do dirty work. to say a president shouldn't be exposed to that. it's hypocrisy. >> there will be the opportunity for recusal motion. the question is is this someone who will be confirmed to the court. that's an entirely separate question. he won't be able to comment on what he dwould in the case. no judge can comment on that. >> they can but he won't. we know that. that's become the established tradition. and we never get around to changing the process because it plays to the side of the benefit of those in power. they don't want to stop that. >> we have never had a circumstance like this. we haven't had a president who has been in this situation. we haven't had a president whose lawyers have taken the extreme and bizarre positions that we know -- >> what's the remedy. he won't recuse himself. he won't answer the question.

>> i don't agree the motion should come later. unprecedented circumstances call for unprecedented remedy. >> if he doesn't an to my satisfaction i demand he recuse. if he doesn't recuse, he should agree for the nomination to wait. if it doesn't wait the supreme court which already has a black mark to it. about garland. it was an unconstitutional improper act by the senate majority leader. it was wrong. it already has one strike. this will be a second strike on the supreme court. and when we're in court, we can't argue directly to opposing counsel. i implore that as part of making the garland deback kl right. let this nominee let's all agree

he should answer the questions. or if he doesn't want to he should recuse. >> the reason why in court first of all thank you for spirited debate. is not to each other. it's because it's for the benefit of the jury. this will be for the senator. it will be how they decide to to do their job and elections are have consequences. this president is getting to pick the judges. and they will be measured by what they do in the process. i appreciate you giving your take. thank you very much. best hair in the business. my next guest has been tweeting up a storm. tonight. about the president's supreme court pick. hillary clintons former spokesman. calls brett kavanaugh a wolf in wolves clothing. he don't mean blitzer. he's here with the stop kavanaugh mission. 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. we toent know about the ultimate impact of trumps words or policies. his putting now two judges on the supreme court. will cement his place in

history. this time with brett kavanaugh he chose a man that went after bill clinton with unique zeal. as a pit bull for ken star. one thing is clear. calf gnaw wouldn't have been a pick for hillary clinton had she become president. the national press secretary during the 2016 campaign. good to see you, sir. kavanaugh, biggest concern? >> actually this is somebody that presents a lot of fertile territory in terms of lines of criticism. there are a lot of peep on the lirs that we know would have had the same positions on issues. would have ruled the same way on core issues but don't have the track record or the cases that would sort of evidence their position. brett kavanaugh is on open book. we want to talk about key issues like abortion and the affordable care act. he's explicit on the issues. he's gone out and praised the dissent in the row case. we know his hostility. he doesn't need that standard.

if she's true to the standard. on aca he gave a whole speech blasting john roberts for upholding the law. with know he believes it is unconstitutional to try to ban a assault weapons. he's against the consumer protection bureau. he's against the obama net neutrality policy. take your pick. that doesn't get into the issue about his views on executive power and the belief the president cannot be indicted in office. and should be able to fire a special investigator at any moment for any reason. there's an embarrassment of riches opposing this guy. if democrats were forlorn prior to today and thought there was nothing we can do because we didn't have the majority in the senate. tomorrow they need to wake up. there's a real opportunity to defeat this nominee. pick your reason. we have a good chance of peeling off one or two republicans.

>> on the basis of what other than the speculation of roe v. wade. and maybe murkowski. >> those are two big issues and he's out spoken. kavanaugh and amy coney barrett. these are people that i know i assume the federalist society has vetted them for reason. they would have been loyal antirow votes. they didn't have the record in the cases to prove it. kavanaugh does. he ruled last year to try to help the trump administration block immigrant women that was trying to exercise her right to an abortion. they tried to keep her in custody and not allow an abortion. singling out rhenquist for his dissent in the row case. >> it depends on how you look at the -- i hear what you're saying. we stay out of the weeds. now all we have is the weeds. you have to look at what we have. the process is corrupt as far as i'm concerned.

left and right. when your side gets the people up there they ask the same questions. and the democrats say how great the man or woman is. >> the process is a joke. >> you keep it. they keep that process because it works to when you're in power. and preserve it. however. here's what he said. in the american enterprise institute page. he's talking about rhenquist dissent. this is what he said. rhenquist was doesn't say he's right. he says his dissent was based onto justify an -- in the constitution. you have to show that it is rooted in the tradition and conscience of the people. and it wasn't then. so he couldn't get behind roe v. wade. however if that's what he is so impressed by, you have 45 years sinsz then. where it's been accepted. over 60% of men and women in the country say roe v. wade is good law. if this is what his basis is of

rewarding rhenquist. how does he go against roe v. wade? when it would pass his standard. >> fair question. >> he praises it. for stemming the tide against this flow of rights. this is basically the sort of whole rational for the federalist society existing. this whole conservative movement of which it is now sort of having its climax moment. where it could retake the court and swing the far right for a generation. they believe there was sort of all the efforts to desegregate schools and creating women's rights. and loving vs. virginia. interracial marriage. it's a wink wink. the timing of it came a couple months before he was added to the short list. he was not on the original short list in 2016. these guys including kavanaugh were openly auditioning.

giving speeches on purpose. sending signal to get the attention to get on the list. in many ways the federalist society is a victim of its own success. severino in the last segment trying to argue judge kavanaugh writings on presidential authority and whether the president can be indicted don't tell you anything about how he would rule if there's a show down with mueller. is ridiculous. it's there in plain english. the public will understand it. he'll be asked the questions in a hearing. don't believe our eyes about what he wrote? they created a system they the want the surest thing. he has such a body of work. they know he's going to be a sure thing when the issues come before him. now they have to defend the unpopular stances he's taben. in this confirmation setting. that's the uncomfortable

situation. >> two issues that could be wild cards in the confirmation. there's papers related to work on the star committee. there will be a big effort to get the national ar kooifrs to release the documents and go through them. see what has to be redacted. and e-mails from the bush white house. when it was put forward there was 170,000 some pages that required 6,000 man hours. so mitch mcconnell himself privately urging the trump white house to look away from kavanaugh. because he worried the document production would delay a hearing and throw the schedule off. >> grassly is in charge of what they're allowed to do. >> grass lee has been aggressive to produce everything. he would be a hypocrite if he didn't insist on the same standard. one of kavanaughs mentors in life and career is a judge, is a guy who is a judge on the ninth

circuit who had to resign in disgrace because of the me too movement. accused publicly on the record by a number of female clerks for having behaved inappropriately in chamber. and had to resign in disgrace. kavanaugh is somebody who is friends and a mentor and personally clerked for him. there's going to be senators in the hearing that want to know what he mu and when he knew it. >> what he knew if it were happening when he was there. responsible for other actions. >> not only was he a clerk. in 1990. but brett kavanaugh was a considered in the judicial world as a feeder judge for kennedy. who he clerked for on the supreme court. oftentimes kavanaugh would interview clerks that kennedy might have clerked for him on the court. and he would send clerks to kavanaugh to interview for clerk ships with kennedy. the likelihood kavanaugh knew

what was an open secret about the misbehavior is very high. i think he'll have to answer questions. >> i agree they are questions. we cannot impugn kavanaugh with what he did unless we have knowledge of fact. of what he knew at the time. >> we have the ask the questions. >> you have to give him the ben if the of the doubt until he answers them. i appreciate it. kavanaughs confirmation is not the only battle that trump is fighting. he has an immigration war on his hands. separated families are being kept apart by his administration in defiance of a court deadline that will come and go in hours. what are they doing about it? there's lots for to take on in a great debate. next. it's funny really, nobody ever does it and yet it happens. i didn't do it and of course it's the really tough stains that nobody ever does ready?

really? i didn't do it so when i heard they added ultra oxi to the cleaning power of tide, i knew it was just what we needed so now we can undo all the tough stains that nobody did dad? i didn't do it huh, he didn't do it introducing new tide ultra oxi; it's got to be tide these are the specialists we're proud to call our own. experts from all over the world, working closely together to deliver truly personalized cancer care. expert medicine works here. learn more at cancercenter.com and it's time to get outside. pack in even more adventure with audible. with the largest selection of audiobooks. audible lets you follow plot twists off the beaten track.

or discover magic when you hit the open road. with the free audible app, your stories go wherever you do. and for just $14.95 a month you get a credit, good for any audiobook. if you don't like it exchange it any time. no questions asked. you can also roll your credits to the next month if you don't use them. so take audible with you this summer... on the road... on the trail... or to the beach. start a 30-day trial and your first audiobook is free. cancel anytime, and your books are yours to keep forever. no matter where you go this summer make it better with audible. text summer5 to 500500 to start listening today.

at the marine mammal center, the environment is everything. we want to do our very best for each and every animal, and we want to operate a sustainable facility. and pg&e has been a partner helping us to achieve that. we've helped the marine mammal center go solar, install electric vehicle charging stations, and become more energy efficient. pg&e has allowed us to be the most sustainable organization we can be. any time you help a customer, it's a really good feeling. it's especially so when it's a customer that's doing such good and important work for the environment.

together, we're building a better california. all right. kids have been taken from their parents. overwhelming the american people say this is wrong. the president agreed he backed off which we almost see him do. he put out an executive order that wasn't worth the paper it was written on. in the situation has stayed the

same. in some ways it is worse. why. let's bring in people to debate this right now. we have john fredericks and look at. very good. that's the best french i speak. first of all. john do you disagree with anything i said? what they did was found wrong by the american people. the president backed off and promised to make it better. it hasn't happened. all facts? >> he's making it better. the majority of the infants have been reunited with parents and that continues to happen. >> not true. >> they hard to meet the two week deadline. they have already reunited 100 of them. but the program was made to be a deterrent. they had to fix it. >> you admit. john. john. hold on. so you admit the reason the president separated kids from the parents was to have a

message of deterrence? >> of course it was for deterrence. because catch and release is basically calling for open borders of the united states. >> jeff sessions disagrees with you. >> i'm telling you what the process was designed as a deterrent. basically what the administration said. no tolerance. if you come the border illegally. you'll get apprehended. the way the laws work in the united states if you get apprehended and you're arrested with your children in tow. they take the children. that's how it is happening right now. >> no. because if they're going arrest you for a simple misdemeanor they don't take your kids. it's happening here. they're treating it like a major krip. you said something that was more important. i finally heard a republican say the truth. they're taking the kids away from parn parents to send a

message of deterrence. the harshness is an intention. >> i think it's shocking to hear. but it's true. in the way they were able to do that was by dehumanizing a group of people. the president calling them animals and infestation. that's what you do when you want to dehumanize a group of people. you do these things and you can do whatever you want to them. which is abhorrent and immoral. and set us into a humanitarian crisis. what they have done. they haven't unified hardly any of the children. there's more than 90% of them still somewhere around the country. we don't know where. and haven't been reunified. tomorrow the deadline is renunfy the tender age kids under five. 101 of them. last week, 38 of the them had parents. 19 had been deported.

the other 19 the administration doesn't know where they are. they were released and didn't keep track. when i get a ups package i can track that package. up to the minutes. you get a minute. they cannot tell us where they the these krids. >> that's because the point of the process with the package is for you to know where it is. and to have timely delivery. as you were saying earlier that's not the point here. they don't want an efficient process of the knowing where the kids are. an efficient renunification. that would spoil the message and take away the deterrence. that wouldn't scare people. that's why there's no process. >> you can't confuse incompetence with an act of wrong doing. all right? taking children and flying them 1,000 miles was an incompetent act. they captured so many people they didn't realize the number they would have in the and

didn't have the facility set up. and had to separate them. just like they do again when somebody is arrested tonight in brooklyn for shoplifting. >> not true. >> they have their children and handcuffed. the children are taken. they're not taken to jail. you know that. >> i know that's not true. it's not true. they look for next of kin. who else is in the household. how long they'll hold the person. sometimes a misdemeanor like shoplifting. >> if there's no one there they get taken into child services. >> they know where the kid is. if the kid gets put into the system. you know where they are. here you don't. i wonder why. why isn't it just them not giving a damn. they want it to be a message of deterrence. which is what you said. >> the original intent of zero

tolerance was to stop illegals from coming over the border. >> you said it was to send a message of deterrence. very different mission. >> if you come over the border illegally. you'll be arrested. that's a deterrent. if your children are with you they can't go with you to jail. as a result of that, illegal crossings were down 20% in june. that's the objective of it. >> they had to plan. no plan to reunify the kids. and that's the sad part about this. that's what makes this morally bankrupt. >> we'll see what happens when they miss the deadline. see what happens next. thank you very much for making the case. always a pleasure. big story can't give it short. rescuers in thailand are racing to free the last four boys and their coach. trapped in a flooded cave. just in the last hour, new information on the kids that have made it out. we're live in thailand.

there's a monsoon watch. next. you won't see these folks at the post office

they have businesses to run they have passions to pursue how do they avoid trips to the post office? stamps.com mail letters ship packages all the amazing services of the post office right on your computer get a 4 week trial plus $100 in extras including postage and a digital scale go to stamps.com/tv and never go to the post office again that's a good thing, but it doesn't cover everything. only about 80% of your part b medical expenses. the rest is up to you. so consider an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan, insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company. like any of these types of plans, they could save you in out-of-pocket medical costs. call unitedhealthcare insurance company today to request a free... ...[decision guide.]

with these types of plans... you'll be able to visit any doctor or hospital that accepts medicare patients. join the millions who have already enrolled in the only medicare supplement insurance plans endorsed by aarp... and provided by unitedhealthcare insurance company, which has over 30 years of experience behind it. apply for a medicare supplement insurance plan any time you want. so don't wait. call unitedhealthcare now to request your free [decision guide.] breaking news tonight from thailand. a thai navy official telling cnn the rescue operation has resumed.

four kids and one adult are still in the under ground cave. right now, there is heavy rain rolling in. we keep reminding this is monsoon season. and the amount of water and mud that can fill up in the cave very quickly is a scary prospect. david mckenzie is in thailand with the details. good morning thanks for being there. what do we know? >> what we know is the teams are in the cave system in the mountain behind me. as you can see the rain is falling down on my head. that's a worrying sign. now the next step will be to see if the elite divers and the team of about 18 can get the next boys out. and then the coach. the world is being riveted by the story. the good news the eight boys that have come out are in good spirits. they asked if they could have chocolate in the hospital. and had to get the doctors to cut off the chocolate supply because they are not ready to take on proper food. it shows you how successful the

rescuers have been in getting them out. >> what a story about how they made it for so long in the cave and the big concern is obviously time. because that rain can go from what it is now to wind whipped, funneling of thousands of gallons into the cave. what is it in terms of time? >> the time window is shutting. certainly. over night we were here the rain came pouring down. bucketing down. in the mountain it's a catch man area. the water can stream in to ta cave faster than the water they are pumping out. if that happens, it could complicate the divers rescue mission. because the flow of the water will be stronger. the water will be at higher levels. if they can work quickly, this is the best time to get them out before the rains set in. >> obviously time is of the essence.

god forbid they're in there and something goes wrong. that have a lot to have balance. thank you very much. that's all for us tonight. thank you for watching. . . . . ing. and it's time to get outside. pack in even more adventure with audible. with the largest selection of audiobooks. audible lets you follow plot twists off the beaten track. or discover magic when you hit the open road. with the free audible app, your stories go wherever you do. and for just $14.95 a month you get a credit, good for any audiobook. if you don't like it exchange it any time. no questions asked. you can also roll your credits to the next month if you don't use them. so take audible with you this summer... on the road...

on the trail... or to the beach. start a 30-day trial and your first audiobook is free. cancel anytime, and your books are yours to keep forever. no matter where you go this summer make it better with audible. text summer5 to 500500 to start listening today.

you don't want to live with mom and dad forever, do you? i'm making smoothies! how do i check my credit score? credit karma. don't worry, it's free. credit karma. give yourself some credit.

this is cnn breaking news. >> brett kavanaugh is the president's choice for the supreme court. who is he? what is his legal background? can democrats stand in his way? the administration will miss the deadline to reunite all migrant families with kids under 5. now the judge says the government cannot extend how long it holds migrant children. and the crews racing to bring