that immigration policy is what would have been our lead had it not been for the hearing with michael horowitz and wray. melissa: lots to go around they need to all sit down and get something done on immigration, everyone is at fault here that does it for us. david: evening edit starts right now. >> the public trust is negative ly impacted when law enforcement officials make statements reflecting bias. we did not have confidence for the decision of deputy assistant director strzok to prioritize the russia investigation, we're following up on the weiner laptop was free from bias in light of his text message. we also found that in key moment s, then fbi director comey departed from fbi and department and his decision to negatively impacted the perception of the fbi and the justice department as their administrator's justice liz: okay, we're going to bring you the fireworks of what

happened on capitol hill with that ig report and testimony there you're looking at a live shot of the white house homeland security secretary kristen nielsen about to speak at the white house press briefing about the controversy of parents and children, the migrants being separated at the border the illegal immigrants there and this as doj inspector general michael horowitz and fbi director christopher wray they did testify on capitol hill and they were getting hammered about james comey's conduct during the clinton e-mail probe and the overwhelming evidence of bias at the fbi. we're going to bring you those fireworks and also meantime, fbi official peter strzok whose anti -trump and hillary texts were revealed in the ig's report now says he is willing to voluntarily testify for the house judiciary committee, so will he talk away his bias there money, politics, we deliver the debate behind tomorrow's headlines, i'm elizabeth macdonald, the evening edit

starts right now. the dow did slip down 103 points to end the day at 24, 987 more on that in just a moment but first senator orrin hatch really ripping into the doj inspector general michael horowitz as well as fbi director christopher wray they were both testifying on capitol hill today about the ig's report on the fbi 's conduct during the hillary clinton e-mail probe. >> you emphasized that the report focused on a small number of fbi employees. well let's remember who that small number of employees was. the director of the fbi, the deputy director of the fbi, and the clinton e-mail investigation , and the russia investigation. these were not junior field

agents. these were senior agency officials. they were running two of the most important investigations in the bureau's history and they were insubordinate, grossly unprofessional in their communications and even untruthful, so let's not pretend like this was some one off problem. liz: let's bring in former special assist about to president trump mark ladder. overall evidence of bias but then the ig withheld judgment on how it affected other investigations including a russia probe. it seems like most of the time when you read it. the inspector general spent a lot of his report discounting what would happen with respect to individual investigative decisions. do you think he spent enough time here because i'll tell you peter strzok did according to his text have a relationship with a fisa court judge and could have been in the fisa court waivers, rather the warrants, with the russia probe. he was running that probe too. >> well and i think it's very

important to point out that the ig has a separate investigation reportedly into the fisa court, and into the russia investigation under mueller, so this specifically looked at the clinton e-mail probe and it's clear, there was absolutely clear that there was bias throughout that probe. what the inspector general took great pains today to say was that it didn't influence any of the decisions but it's really hard to see how that didn't happen. liz: but let me back up. here is the point, peter strzok was on the clinton e-mail probe and then also on the mueller probe into russia we have two more bombshell text messages between peter strzok and lisa page. and watch this, mark on the fbi 's formal launch of the russia probe here is peter strzok texting fbi attorney lisa page back in july of 2016. "and dam this feels momentous because this matters, the other one did too but that was to ensure we didn't f something up this matters because it matters" and now mark, strzok was

basically referring to the other one about the clinton investigation and he also noted there was criminal activity there it was limited. they judged this from the get go what was going on the clinton e-mail probe, mark. >> you're absolutely right. this ig report is just the first of many that will come out and i think it's going to get worse and worse for the fbi and for those top level people that made those decisions. they are now neck deep into it and the ig is going to find it. liz: watch this text message with peter strzok. again, he initially was on the mueller probe, and the clinton e-mail probe as well he worked on it here is peter strzok in may of 2017 writing to lisa page again on whether or not he should join the mueller probe. for me and this case i personal ly have a sense of unfinished business. i unleashed it with the clinton probe called the mid-year exam and now i need to fix it and finish it. who gets about being assistant director versus an investigation

leading to impeachment, mark and that's what peter strzok was texting. so how could the ig say there's no bias that didn't affect the investigation? >> well he was referring to the russia probe which is only beginning to scratch the surface that's a separate report, but you're absolutely right. the bias was rampant and they are up to their necks in it and peter strzok is going to come out on the losing end of that i think. this is the same person who talked about the insurance policy, and making sure that they took action to keep president trump. liz: so again, peter strzok had a relationship with a fisa court judge. could it be that the insurance policy is getting the fisa warrants to do surveillance on carter page? see, there's connections here. we don't just, you're right, starting to scratch the surface with the ig report and watch senator hatch really tearing into the fbi leaking to the media today. watch him in action. >> the fbi has a policy that

strictly limits the employees who are authorized to the speak to the media. the inspector general found that this policy was widely ignored by employees at all levels of the fbi. the report goes so far as to describe the culture of unauthorized media contacts, including instances where fbi employees improperly received tickets, golf outings, drinks and other benefits from reporter s. now, as you know, this is totally inappropriate. director wray attachments to the report identify more than 50 fbi employees. 50 who apparently had unauthorized contact with members of the media. liz: did you hear that mark more than four dozen fbi officials working the messaging with the media and now breaking news, ig michael horowitz right now, mark, is saying we did not look at every decision made by peter strzok. what's going on here? >> well i think they need to

start doing that and i have a feeling that director wray needs to take on some serious personnel action as it relates to peter strzok because the level of bias, the level that he shows in those text messages and exchanges are not one of a non- partisan impartial investigator. they're one of a partisan hack, and as it relates to the leak the fbi is taking on more water than the boat on gilligan's island. they need to get it plugged and i have a feeling director wray is starting that process but we've got a long way to go. liz: here is the other thing too , mark. from the get go you remember it looks like the obama white house was never going to charge hillary with the crime. we've been on this story for over a year. you remember james comey was even drafting his exoneration remarks, months before critical evidence was obtained before clinton and other key witnesses were interviewed, and loretta lynch calling it a matter, the clinton investigation was just a matter and the joke was the fbi

is now called the federal bureau of matters and now chairman grassley is saying that the clinton e-mail case called for a special counsel because it was a double standard, an it clinton aid got immunity but trump's aid got prosecuted that's the mess you're talking about right, mark >> you're absolutely right and really director comey's integrity, his legacy is gone from this investigation and this report. i mean, they spared neither side was very kind on director comey 's actions today in the united states senate. it comes off very poorly and i think we're just beginning again to see the beginning of it because the next investigation, when it gets into fisa. when it gets into the mueller probes, all of those things are eventually going to be connected together and it's going to leave a mess for director wray to try to clean-up. liz: yeah, nobody with the russia meddling and the hack into the dnc server allegedly by russia, that was the context of all of this but this is about

the integrity of the institution , and if you swap out the name trump and you put in a democrat name, there would be outrage about the need for transparency that's the issue. let's move on to this next story because the firestorm is now erupting in d.c., homeland secretary kristen nielsen will join press secretary sarah sanders at the white house press briefing. president trump is meeting with house republicans tonight to talk about his support for a compromised immigration bill. while this is also going on, house minority leader nancy pelosi visited the border touring migrant children shelter s in san diego. take a listen to some of the outraged democrats on this issue >> the zero tolerance policy means zero humanity and it makes zero sense. >> it's a disgrace, shameful and unamerican. >> president trump cease and assist because you are moving the art of justice to the heap of despair that is appalling and

it is unamerican. liz: the white house responding this morning let's take a listen >> democrats are saying you can't deport them. you can't detain them. you can't prosecute them. the only thing you can do per a democrat is to release them into the interior without any ramification for what they've done by breaking our laws. it's absolutely incredible. they are only one of two things that can happen when they come here. you have to either release them into the interior of the united states as a family unit or separate the families. that's what the law says. this is up to the democrats they could fix this right now. the democrats decided to stand with people who are here illegally and unlawfully by the hundreds of thousands as opposed to hundreds of millions of american citizens. liz: all right, that is just flat out wrong. the law doesn't say that. there is no law that says this. it's discretionary. it only started two months ago choosing to criminally prosecute these illegal immigrant families coming in and prior to that they were turning them away.

we are again awaiting a white house briefing right now where the homeland security secretary is about to speak. you know, the problem is that there are common sense solutions to border security, both sides of the aisle are not moving on it. isn't that the problem? nancy pelosi has been around since the reagan administration. >> well, and there is a very real problem, the department of homeland security, because there was a story just a few months ago in january of 2016 where the obama administration was getting accused of just releasing these kids without proper background to who they were going to and then allegations of trafficking and sweat shops, just very difficult situation we need congress to work with us to get it fixed. liz: okay former first lady laura bush, the first lady weigh ing in they don't like this let's listen to the homeland security secretary. >> it is my pleasure to be here because i would love to see if i can help explain some of what's going on and give you some of the facts. i know there have been a lot put

out there that hopefully can clarify some things today. i just wanted to start by thanking the sheriffs of the united states. i had the privilege of speaking to them this morning at the national sheriff's association conference. we're so thankful for their partnership at dhs, and all they do to protect our communities so i thank them. so i want to provide you an update on the illegal immigration crisis on our southern border and the efforts the administration is taking to solve this crisis, and to stop the flood of illegal immigrants, drugs, contraband and crime coming across-the-boarder so let's start with a few numbers and facts. so in the last three months we've seen illegal immigration on our southern border exceed 50,000 people each month. multiples over each month last year. since this time last year, there has been a 325% increase in un accompanied alien children and a 435% increase in family units entering the country

illegally. over the last 10 years there has been a 1,700 increase in asylum claims resulting in asylum backlog today in our country of 600,000 cases. since 2013 the united states has admitted more than half a million illegal immigrant minors and family units from central america, most of whom today are at large in the united states. at the same time, large criminal organizations such as ms-13 have violated our borders and gained a deadly foothold within the united states. this entire crisis just to be clear is not new. its been occurring and expanded over many decades, but currently , it is the exclusive product of loopholes in our federal immigration laws that prevent illegal immigrant minors and family members from being detained and removed to their home countries. in other words these loopholes create a functionally open border. apprehension without detention

and removal is not border security. we have repeatedly called on congress to close these loopholes. i myself have met with as many members have been willing to meet with me. i've testified seven times, i will continue to make myself available to ask that they work with us to solve this crisis. yet the voices most loudly criticizing our current laws are those whose policies created this crisis and whose policies people etrait it. in particular, we need to reform three major loopholes let me quickly walk you through them. first, we need to amend the 200s prevention reauthorization act or tvpr, which is much easier to say. this law encourages families to put children in the hands of smugglers to bring them alone on this dangerous treck northward, and make no mistake, we've talked about this before. this treck is dangerous and deadly. second, we need to reform our a seem you'll laws to end the

systemic abuse of our asylum system and stop fraud. right now our asylum system fails to assist asylum seekers who legitimately need it. we are a country of compassion. a country of heart. we must fix the system so that those who truly need asylum can in fact receive it. third, we need to amend the flores settlement agreement and recent expansions which currently allow, which would allow for family detention during the removal process, and we need congress to fully fund our ability to hold families together through the immigration process. until these loopholes are closed by congress it is not possible as a matter of law to detain and remove whole family units who arrive illegally in the united states. congress and the courts created this problem and congress alone can fix it. until then, we will enforce every law we have on the books to defend the sovereignty and security of the united states. those who criticize the

enforcement of our laws have offered only one countermeasure. open borders. the quick release of all illegal alien families and the decision not to enforce our laws. this policy would be disastrous. its prime beneficiaries would be the smuggling organizations themselves and the prime victims would be the children who would be plunged into the smuggling machines and gain recruitment on the trip north. there's a lot of misinformation about what dhs is and is not doing as it relates to families at the border and i want to correct the record here are the facts. first this administration did not create a policy of separating families at the border. we have a statutory responsibility that we take seriously to protect alien children from human smuggling, trafficking, and other criminal actions while enforcing our immigration laws. we have a long-existing policy multiple administrations have followed that outline when we

may take action to protect children. we will separate those who claim to be a parent and child if we cannot determine a familiar relationship exists. for example, if there's no documentation to confirm the relationship between an adult and a child. we do so if the parent is a national security public safety risk including when there are criminal charges at issue and it may not be appropriate to maintain the family in detention together. we also separate a parent and child if the adult is suspected of human trafficking. there have been cases where minors have been used and trafficked by unrelated adults in an effort to avoid detention, and i'll stop here to say in the last five months we have a 314% increase in adults and children arriving at the border fraudulently claiming to be a family unit. this is obviously of concern. and separation can occur when the parent is charged with human

smuggling. under those circumstances we would detain the parent in an appropriate secure detention facility separate from the child what has changed is that we no longer exempt entire classes of people who break the law. everyone is subject to prosecution. when dhs refers a case against a parent or legal guardian for criminal prosecution, the parent or legal guardian will be placed into the u.s. marshall service custody for pre-trial determination pursuant to an order by a federal judge and any accompanying child will be transferred to the department of health and human services and will be reclassified as an un accompanied alien child. that is in accordance with the t vpra. ally that was passed by congress , and a following court order neither of which are actions the trump adminitration has taken, and let's be clear, if an american were to commit a crime anywhere in the united states, they would go to jail and they would be separated from their family. this is not a controversial idea

second, children in dhs and hhs custody are being el taken care of. the department of health and human services offices of refugee provides meals, medical care and educational services to these children. they are provided temporary shelter and hhs works hard to find a parent, relative or foster home to care for these children. parents can still communicate with their children through phone calls and video conferencing. and a parent whose released from custody can be a sponsor and ask hhs to release the child back into their care. further, these minors can still apply for asylum and other protections under u.s. immigration law, if eligible. we take allegations of mistreatment seriously and i want to stress this point. we investigate, we hold those accountable when and if it should occur. we have some of the highest detention standards in the country, claiming these children and their parents are treated in

humanely is not true and completely disrespects the hard working men and women at the office of refugee. third, parents who entered illegally are, by definition, criminals. illegal entry is a crime as determined by congress. by entering our country illegally, often in dangerous circumstances, illegal immigrant s have put their children at risk. fourth, cvp and i.c.e. officers are properly trained to care for minors in their custody. dhs and hhs treats all individuals in its custody with dignity and respect and complies with all laws and policy. this reinforces and reiterates the need to consider the best interest of the children and mandates adherence to establish protocols to protect at risk populations, to include standard s for the transport and treatment of minors in dhs and h hs custody. additionally, all u.s. border patrol personnel in the

southwest border are bilingual. every last one of them. they are directed to clearly explain the relevant process to apprehended individuals and provide detainees with written documentation in both spanish and english that lays out the process and appropriate phone numbers to contact and finally, dhs is not separating families legitimately seeking asylum at ports of entry. if an adult enters at a port of entry and claims asylum they will not face prosecutions for illegal entry. they have not committed a crime by coming to the port of entry. as i mentioned dhs does have responsibility to protect minors and in that case as well we will only separate the family if we cannot determine there is a familiar relationship, if the child may be at risk with the parent or legal guardian or if the parent or legal guardian is referred for prosecution. we have a duty to protect the american people and it's one that i take very seriously.

here is the bottom line. dhs is no longer ignoring the law. we are enforcing the laws as they exist on the books. as long as illegal entry remains a criminal offense, dhs will not look the other way. dhs will faithfully execute the laws enacted by congress as we are sworn to do. as i've said earlier today, surely, it is the beginning of the unraveling of democracy when the body who makes the laws instead of changing them tells the enforcement body not to enforce the law. i ask congress to ask this week so that we can secure our borders and uphold our humanitarian ideas. these two missions should not be pitted against each other. if we close the loopholes we can accomplish both. before i take questions, i just want to ask that in your reporting, please consider the men and women of can dhs who

often put their lives at risk. let's remember their sacrifice and commitment to this country and with that i'll take some questions. yes? >> secretary nielsen, you talked about the dhs no longer ignoring the law. members of congress of the democratic side say you're using children as a lever to try to get them to take legislative action. what do you say to that? >> i say it's a very cowardly response. it's clearly within their power to make the laws and change the laws they should do so. >> have you seen the photos of children in cages? have you heard the audio clip of these children crying that just came out today? >> i have not seen, it's something that came out today but i've been to detention centers and again, i would reference you to our standards. i would reference you to the care provided not just by the department of homeland security but by the department of health and human services when they get to hhs. >> but is that what you want

out there, children the image? >> the image i want of this country is an immigration system that secures our borders and upholds our humanitarian ideals. congress needs to fix that. yes. >> i wanted to give you a chance to respond to laura bush an op-ed she says it's cruel and she supports an application of the law even the current first lady melania trump said we should be a nation of laws and do so with heart. do you have anything you want to tell them do you believe they're misunderstanding the situation or do you believe there's anything in this policy which as you've outlined other administrations have done but you're using it in a way that is more intense and creates the separation issue. >> what my response would be is calling attention to this matter is important. this is a very serious issue that has resulted after years and years of congress not taking action, so i would thank them both for their comments, i would

thank them both for their concerns. i share their concerns but congress is the one that needs to fix it. >> the policy is not by your definition in any way cruel? >> it's not a policy. our policy at dhs is to do what we're sworn to do which is to enforce the law. >> following up on the question there, former first lady laura bush compared this to japanese during world war ii in history. do you believe that the effect of this policy on separating children from families is moral, is ethical, is american? >> what i believe is that we should exercise our democratic rights as americans and fix the problem. it's a problem let's fix it. yes? >> how is this not child abuse? >> which, be more specific please. >> the images that cecelia was talking about and the sounds we've seen from the big box stores wal-mart and other stores how is this not specifically

child abuse for these innocent children who are indeed being separated from their parents? >> so i want to be clear on a couple other things. the vast majority, vast vast majority of children who are in the care of hhs right now, 10,000 of the 12,000 were sent here alone by their parents. that's when they were separated so somehow we've conflated everything but there's two separate issues. 10,000 of those currently in custody were sent by their parents with strangers to undertake a completely dangerous and deadly travel alone. we now care for them. we have high standards, we give them meals, we give them education, we give them medical care, there is videos, tv's i visited the detention centers myself. that would be my answer to that question. yes? >> if i could follow-up the hundreds not included in that you said 10,000 but for the hundreds that we've seen, perhaps up to 2,000, is there,

are there any examples of child abuse you believe and how could this not be child abuse for the people who are taken from their parents, not the ones sent here with their parents blessing with the smuggling, people who are taken from their parents. >> unfortunately, i'm not in any position to deal with here say stories if someone has a specific allegation as i always do when i testify, i ask if they provide that information to the department of homeland security. we will look into it. of course we do not want any situation where a child is not completely adequately taken care of. yes? >> a couple of questions. [indiscernible] where are the girls? >> i don't know. i'm not familiar with those particular images. >> would you argue that you know where the girls are? >> we have children in dhs care that most are transferred to hhs , so i don't know what

pictures you're referencing. >> we just haven't seen any of the girls, being toddlers and you're saying that they are being well cared for. how can you make that claim if you don't know where they are? >> it's not that i don't know where they are. i'm saying the vast majority of children are held by health and human services. we transfer them after 72 hours. i don't know what pictures you're speaking about but perhaps -- >> they have been aired all over national television. >> sorry dhs or hhs? >> hhs. >> okay so let's find out i don't think there's anything other than -- >> your department has been aired all over national television the kids were being held in cages. >> i will look into that. i'm not aware of that. >> is it you continue to insist that this is something that congress can change? >> yes. >> and yet this was something enacted after the attorney general announced the zero tolerance that this never happened before the announcement >> that's actually not true so the last administration, the obama administration and the

bush administration all separated families, they absolutely did. they did, their rate was less than ours but they absolutely did do this. this is not new. >> but for minors there's no doubt about that but -- >> they separated families. >> keep kids at this rate from their parents is something new and specific to this administration. once the attorney general announced the zero tolerance policy. why doesn't the president pick-up the phone and change the policy. he said he hates it. >> i think what the president is trying to do is find a long term fix so why don't we have congress change the laws. >> well then do it tomorrow. >> i think you were next, right >> president trump has had a lot to say the last few days about immigration but he's offer ed no compassion to the families being separated at the border. do you know why that is and why won't you simply call your department enforcement of this administration policy until congress reaches that long term fix so these families can be re

united? >> he has been attempting work with congress since he's been in office. he's made it very clear that we will enforce the laws as the united states, as long as this administration is here. as part of that, he has continually reached out to congress to fix this and i think what you've seen him do in the last few days is that, is continue to tell congress, please work with us, the system is broken. the only people that benefit from the system right now are the smugglers, the traffickers, those who are pedaling drugs and terrorists so let's fix the system. yes? >> i have a question i'm getting the feeling and compassion for the families being separated he's talked about the parents being possible criminals and blamed it on democrats. >> i think he has said in tweet s that he would like congress to act to end the underlying laws that require the separation. yes? >> secretary, a couple days ago

, both the president and the main posture is saying that this is not the administrations policy but it seems liked to that the message is a little bit different as to say well this is our policy but it's our policy because we don't believe we can move families entirely and i'm just wondering i want to make sure we get the report right. which of those is the most precise way to describe how the administration feels and given the blow back by a number of republicans as well as democrats are you considering rethinking this based on feedback or is this the administrations position going forward? >> the laws prohibit us from detaining families while they go through prosecution for illegally entering the border and while they go through prosecutions formation proceedings, if we close the loopholes we can keep the families together, which is what they did in the last administration until a court

ruled that we can no longer do that. after 20 days, we have to release both unaccompanied children and accompanied children which means that we cannot detain families together. the only option is not enforce the law at all. yes? >> okay, going back to these two questions from kristin and margaret, you said that you want congress to close the loopholes, and you also said that you want to make this work. now are these kids being used as pawns and many people are asking that and democrats are saying this is your discretion and there is no law that says that this white house can separate parents from children. >> the kids are being used like pawns by the smugglers and traffickers. let's just pause to think about this. 314% increase in adults showing up with kids that are not a family unit. those are traffickers, those are smugglers, those are criminals,

those are abusers. >> all i'm trying to say, the closing that loophole will enable us to detain families together, as the proceeding as they've done in previous administrations. >> are the children being used as pawns, yes or no? can you say yes or no to that? >> the children are not being used as a pawn. we're trying to protect the children which is why i'm asking congress to act. >> as the legal framework for the decision that your administration makes, the pictures, the audio, the stories , are they an intended consequence of the administration or an unintended consequence? >> i think that they reflect the focus of those who post such pictures and narrative. the narratives we don't see are the narratives of the crime, of

the opioids of the smugglers of people who are killed by gang members of american children who are recruited and then when they lose the drugs they are beaten so we don't have a balanced view of what's happening but what's happening at the border is that the border is being overrun by those who have no right to cross it. as i said before, if you're seeking asylum go to a port of entry. you do not need to break the law of the united states to seek asylum. >> that is incorrect. we have limited resources. we have multiple missions at cbp and what we do is based on the very high standards we have, if we do not have enough bed space, if we do not have enough medical personnel on staff, if we do not have enough caretakers on staff, then we will tell people to come to the border they need to come back. we are not turning them away. we're saying we want to take

care of you in the right way, right now we do not have the resources at this particular moment in time. come back. >> [overlapping speakers] >> thank you very much. are you intending for this to play out as it is playing out? are you intending for parents to be separated from their children are you intending to send a message? >> i find that offensive. no, because why would i ever create a policy that purposely does that? no. the way that it works, that's not the question that you asked me but the answer is it's a law, passed by the united states congress, rather than fixing the law, congress is askings of us who enforce the law to turn our backs on the law and not enforce the law. it's not an answer. the answer is to fix the law. >> will the administration

refrain from its current policy if congress were to pass something that's close to what you want? or will it continue to require the separation of parents and their children until the president gets exactly what he wants? >> if congress closes the loopholes some of which many of which are closed in the two bills that we hope are taken up this week by the house, then they close loopholes and the families will stay together throughout the proceedings. thank you. liz: okay let's get right to david ward, he's former immigration and customs agent. david, fiery questions taken in by the homeland security secretary kristin nielsen. you were listening in what's your first reaction? >> she did an outstanding job explaining the situation on the border and unfortunately she had a bunch of journalists down there asking questions that were unsupported and based on innuendo and false information.

liz: so here is the issue. a couple months ago, the white house and jeff sessions said do you know what? zero tolerance we're going to criminally prosecute people who illegally cross our border. that means when you criminally prosecute, you separate the parents from the child because you can not hold a child beyond 20 days. it's being called discretionary that the white house did not need to criminally prosecute these families and separate these children. your reaction to that? >> well it is a criminal violation coming across-the-boarder. usc-1,325 is very clear about when you enter the united states you've committed a crime. the attorney general is prosecuting people that commit the crime of entering the united states illegally. unfortunately, children are a consequence of this. just like any american citizen that gets arrested in the united states, the children of those people are going to be a consequence. they're going to be in child protective services just like these children are.

liz: but the issue is and let me back up. the context is neglect on our border security policies and laws. the obama administration we know that they had unaccompanied minors in similar situations that you're looking at right now there. the obama white house did not criminally prosecute. there's a difference here. here is homeland secretary nielsen just moments ago let's take a listen to what she said. >> dhs is not separating families legitimately seeking asylum at ports of entry. if an adult enters at a port of entry and claims asylum they will not face prosecutions for illegal entry. they have not committed a crime by coming to the port of entry. as i mentioned dhs does have responsibility to protect minors and in that case as well we will only separate the family if we cannot determine there is a familial relationship, if the child may be at risk with a parent or legal guardian or if

the parent or legal guardian is referred for prosecution. liz: okay in the past it was ultimately the families would be deported and not jailed, so the white house has chosen to criminally prosecute causing triggering the separation of the parent with a child and that's a thing, sorry secretary nielsen just said we will not separate at the port of entry if you are seeking asylum. that's the point she's trying to get across right, david? >> exactly. they're not making a criminal entry into the united states. they're asking for asylum which the family will not be separated we're talking about between the ports of entry when people come in illegally and they are caught by the border patrol there's a consequence that they are going to be detained. now this is not the first time people coming into the united states have been prosecuted. this is several programs in the past administrations have done the same thing for different periods of time they would prosecute everybody that came in illegally for a 30 day period of

time. liz: not everybody but they did. i hear your point david ward we love your expertise and having you on the show come back soon please. >> i will. thank you. liz: wrapping up a fiery press conference at the white house with homeland security secretary talking about the policies of separating families and children at the border. liberal silicon valley company google recently saying it will not give its artificial intelligence technology to use by the pentagon and now look at this amazon shareholders calling on their company to stop selling facial recognition software to america's law enforcement. tonight we've got a guest whose saying what's going on in silicon valley but first we're going to get back to that justice department inspector general's testimony and fbi director christopher wray they both face senate grilling on the bombshell ig report we bring in the daily caller executive editor reacting to the highlights after this. they appear out of nowhere.

my secret visitors. hallucinations and delusions. the unknown parts of living with parkinson's. what plots they unfold, but only in my mind. over 50% of people with parkinson's will experience hallucinations or delusions during the course of their disease. if your loved one is experiencing these symptoms, talk to your parkinson's specialist. there are treatment options that can help. my visitors should be the ones i want to see.

liz: let's get back to the ig report about bias at the fbi. look at this fbi official peter strzok now says he is willing to voluntarily testify before the house judiciary committee. harvard law professor alan dershowitz, he's now saying strzok did show bias. >> fbi agents are allowed to be bias. they're allowed to support political candidates that's part of the law. where i draw the line is when an fbi agent says we'll stop him, that's not an expression of bias that's not saying who we're going to vote for. that sends a message to the american people that the federal bureau of investigation is going to interfere in an election in an effort to try to stop the election of one candidate rather than the other. i don't understand how strzok can remain an fbi agent after saying we'll stop that. we'll stop him from being

president. that to me is where the red line was crossed. liz: let's bring in the daily caller executive editor vince coglianese. good to see you. >> nice to see you thank you. liz: overwhelming evidence of bias at the fbi but then the ig stopped short on whether it affected the investigation, key points and now this, the ig michael horowitz just telling the senate moments ago, senate panel moments ago, vince that he did not listen to everything that peter strzok did in terms of his investigation and his choices. your response to that? >> well it's hard to come to a conclusion if you don't look at all of the facts and boy is this guy asking to have a deep look into everything he did at the fbi. let's not forget like despite what christopher wray may say the fbi director about how this was just a small group of people this was a powerful group of people implicated in having heavy bias in the investigation into hillary clinton. peter strzok himself is one of the top, was one of the top counter intelligence officials at the entire federal bureau of investigation and he was pivotal

in a leadership role on both the trump and hillary clinton investigations. this warrants scrutiny definitely a lot more aggression from fbi director wray and i think michael horowitz has done his service but based on what you just said, i think he could have went a whole lot further into looking into how a guy peter strzok could be in charge of any investigation at the fbi. liz: and the texts show that peter strzok had a relationship with one of the fisa court judges, judge rudolph contreras and here is another bombshell text that shows bias on the part of peter strzok. this is at the launch of the russia probe. peter strzok is texting lisa page in july of 2016. "this feels momentous meaning the russia probe" because this matters. the other one did too but that was to ensure we didn't f something up. this matters because it matters. now the other one he's referring to vince is the clinton investigation. peter strzok also said if there is criminal activity there, the

clinton matter, it is comparatively limited your response to that? >> well there's tremendous treatment of course in the way the entire hillary team was treated versus the trump team and we've seen that including the way all of her lawyers were granted immunity the statement that james comey wrote about her exoneration written well in advance of her actual interview with the fbi. moment after moment hillary clinton was given by the federal bureau of investigation that thus far has never been afforded to the president of the united states and lastly on this thing about peter strzok and the timing, the anthony weiner laptop was discovered michael horowitz the inspector general said here that peter strzok was definitely heading in the direction of ignoring the evidence in favor of the russia investigation. liz: now watch this look at the end game that peter strzok revealed when it came to the russia probe. he's talking watch this, impeachment. this is strzok texting for me in this case i personally have a sense of unfinished business. i unleashed it he's talking

about the clinton probe that's what that stands for and now they need to fix it and finish it. who gives an f about being an assistant director, versus an investigation leading to impeachment, that's peter strzok talking about the russia probe again he had to step down, go ahead, vince. >> yes and he's one of two agents by the way whose assigned to the robert mueller team to do this very thing to look into president trump and was eventually fired by that team because of their opinions only discovered after they were already members of the team already gathering this information. liz: but the end game is impeachment. >> that's right. liz: the fbi official talking about impeachment. go ahead. >> and i want to know this. why did not, why did we not hear questions today with any intensity about why peter strzok still has a job at the fbi? it shocked me. liz: here is california democrat congressman adam schiff asked the same question. he talked over the weekend about that let's take a quick listen and quick response go ahead. >> peter strzok should still be

with the fbi at this point? >> i don't know. i imagine that the office of professional responsibility will have to make that decision. certainly these text messages are very troubling the fact they were on work e-mail, the fact that they were co-mingled with e-mails discussing business, all that's problematic. again, the ig concluded that none of this affected decision-making but nonetheless that was completely inappropriate. liz: so comey sets the tone and the law unto himself, and the other fbi officials also act like laws unto themselves? >> well this is, yeah and this is precisely why comey's behavior matters whether or not he intended to tilt the scales in anybody's favor the idea that he could just sort of execute anyway he wanted and in the end meant senior leadership like peter strzok were doing the same thing. adam schiff by the way he's a partisan hack. if that's a guy whose going to come out and say maybe peter strzok shouldn't be at the fbi, then there are deep problems at the fbi. liz: vince coglianese great to see you. >> thank you. liz: let's get to this story in

silicon valley google recently saying it will not, will not work on any u.s. military contracts involving its own artificial intelligence as part of its evil strategy, now look at this, amazon investors calling on its ceo jeff bezos to stop selling amazon facial recognition software to law enforcement across the country. my next guest is asking what's going on at silicon valley more on that story we're bringing in weekly standard executive editor fred barnes that's after the break. don't go b away. e changing with stylish make-overs. then at your next meeting, set your seat height to its maximum level. bravo, tall meeting man. start winning today. book now at lq.com start winning today. if his denture can cope with... a steak. luckily for him, he uses super poligrip. it helps give him 65% more chewing power. leaving brad to dig in and enjoy.

super poligrip. i'm 85 years old in a job where. i have to wear a giant hot dog suit. what? where's that coming from? i don't know. i started my 401k early, i diversified... i'm not a big spender. sounds like you're doing a lot. but i still feel like

i'm not gonna have enough for retirement. like there's something else i should be doing. with the right conversation, you might find you're doing okay. so, no hot dog suit? not unless you want to. no. schedule a complimentary goal planning session today with td ameritrade®.

liz: let's get to this fight breaking out in silicon valley tech giant google remember we brought you that story, that it won't investor work with the military when it comes to pentagon contracts and now this.

google is investing more than a half a billion bucks into a chinese online shopping site called jd.com going after alibaba's business. it's a double standard here it looks like let's get executive editor of the weekly standard fred barnes to figure it out. fred your take on this? >> well i wonder about silicon valley, whose side are they on? they will use none of their artificial intelligence information or technology on military weapons. well why not? other governments are going to probably do that we want to be able to determine rather deter what they're doing and we can do it by matching the kind of artificial intelligence that they may use in their weapons. that's not that they're going to be used to attack other countries. it's to deter other countries

who may be not peace loving. liz: fred we have a department of homeland security, we're running out of time and what do you think of amazon saying we're not going to allow our facial recognition software to be sold to law enforcement your reaction to that? >> well that's hurting law enforcement. i mean, what that does is it makes it easier to identify criminal suspects and deter crimes as a result and then prosecute things. look, all this facial recognition is in identifying people is just an advancement on fingerprinting. are we going to go back and say oh, that's too tough on people to do fingerprinting? i don't think so. liz: that's a great point fred i'm so sorry we ran out of time. we have to take that homeland security pressure but we want to have you on again good to see you fred. we're going to be back right after the break. don't go away. rs are pretty much the same. but while some push high commission investment products, fisher investments avoids them.

some advisers have hidden and layered fees. fisher investments never does. and while some advisers are happy to earn commissions .. ybe that's why most of our clients come from other money managers. fisher investments. clearly better money management.

the nation's largest senior-living referral service. for the past five years, i've spoken with hundreds of families and visited senior-care communities around the country. and i've got to tell you, today's senior-living communities are better than ever. these days, there are amazing amenities, like movie theaters, exercise rooms and swimming pools, public cafes, bars, and bistros, even pet-care services. and nobody understands your options like the advisers at a place for mom. these are local, expert advisers that will partner with you to find the perfect place and determine the right level of care, whether that's just a helping hand

or full-time memory care. best of all, it's a free service. there is never any cost to you. senior living has never been better, and there's never been an easier way to get great advice. call today. a place for mom -- you know your family, we know senior living. together we'll make the right choice. you know your family, we know senior living. with tripadvisor, finding your perfect hotel at the lowest price... is as easy as dates, deals, done! simply enter your destination and dates... and see all the hotels for your stay! tripadvisor searches over 200 booking sites... to show you the lowest prices... so you can get the best deal on the right hotel for you. dates, deals, done! tripadvisor. visit tripadvisor.com

liz: president trump will be talking to the fashion federation of business tomorrow. thanks for watching. look who's going to pick it up now with "making money." charles: good evening. the big story is the immigration battle escalating. the department of homeland security secretary kirstjen nielsen commenting on the recent policy of separating children from their parents at the border. she says congress should change the law on i am immigration.