"mtp daily" starts right now with katy tur in for chuck. i've watched one hour. isle watch another. >> lucky you. secretary nielsen is coming up. mariana atencio has been doing an incredible job of talking to families and talking to mothers and children and translating in real time. >> amazing. >> their stories and what they're running from. i said this at 2:00. isle say it again to you right now. nobody puts their kid on a boat unless the water is safer than the land. >> gave me chills, my friend. >> nicole wallace, thanks so much. if it's monday, the trump administration is about to speak about their controversial immigration policy that's separating families at the border.

good evening. i'm katy tur in for chuck todd. we begin with breaking news. kirsten nielsen will be speaking to reporters about the trump administration's zero-tolerance policy at the border. once she comes to the podium, we might abrupt lly stop what we'r doing, so bear with us. it is a policy that's received intense and escalating criticism from democrats and republicans, independents, psychologists, human rights watch dogs, you name it, for breaking up families. we've even heard some democrats calling for secretary nielsen to resign. we'll take you the this briefing when it begins. the trump administration is touting that policy while also decrying it. in fact, the trump administration is touting it, decrying it, taking credit for it, blaming democrats for it, calling it a bargaining chip, and denying it exists all together. we've soon this policy slammed

by numerous politicians, religious figures, and other leaders, but the overarching response from the administration today was -- too bad. >> the united states will not be a migrant camp and it will not be a refugee holding facility. it won't be. we want a safe country. and it starts with the borders. and that's the way it is. >> we cannot and will not encourage people to bring their children or other children to the country unlawfully by giving them immunity in the process. why would you bring ching wildr with you? >> if you cross the border illegally, we will prosecute you. if you make a false immigration claim, we will prosecute you. if you smuggle illegal aliens across an extraordinarily dangerous journey, we will prosecute you. >> but if you think the

president is going to own his own policy, for better or worse, think again. >> what's happening is so sad. it's so sad. when i say it's very strongly the democrats' fault. >> you just heard the administration defend the policy then in the same breath blame democrats for it and call it sad. so it only makes sense the administration won't change this sad policy brought to you by the democrats unless they get a wall? >> we do not want to separate parents from their children. you can be sure of that. if we build a wall, we pass some legislation, we close some loopholes, we won't face these terrible choices. the numbers will end. >> i hate it. i hate to see separation of parents and children. we need a wall. we need border security. we have to get rid of catch and release. >> perhaps only fitting the

administration is also arguing this policy that they're trying to use as a bargaining chip doesn't even exist. as the homeland security secretary fweeted yesterd tweet do not have a policy of separating families at the border, preerd. but guys, partly as a consequence of this administration's policy of separating families at the border, there are now nearly 12,000 kids under the department of thealth and human services ad it is rising. at current pace, it would hit 20,000 by august 1st. let that sink in. let's bring in tonight's panel. jonathan lamer a white house reporter, zerlina maxwell from sirius xm and former clinton campaign adviseer, and susan delpersio is a political analyst. this briefing has been moved back multiple times today, jonathan. why is sarah huckabee sanders not holding the briefing?

she's the secretary. why is kirsten nielsen getting flown in from new orleans? >> it seems like secretary nielsen is about to be the public face of this contentious policy. this morning in new orleans she acknowledged it was something the white house was doing. >> do they think we're idiots? i'm asking. how d they go out and own all sides of the issue, say, this policy doesn't exist, oh, but we are doing this policy that we're going to blame the democrats for it, oh, it's working. do they think we're dumb? >> whether they think we're dumb or idiots, they want to muddy the waters. this is what they do. the biggest offender is president donald trump, who, again, we see him pushing the idea it's the democrats, the democrats. he's playing solely to his base. he's playing to those watching on fox news. he's playing to those who are inclined to believe him despite what the actual facts are. and this is a bridge too far for a lot of even moderate republicans. >> right now they're coming out

and saying this needs to end, but what are they doing about it? >> that's the question. rephrase it. will this be a bridge too far? to this point it hasn't been, but that audiotape nbc started playing that propublica released in the last hour or so, it's heartwrenching. it's children wailing in this detention center in these cages. that will move lot of people. >> let's listen to it again. initially released by propublic a. we got it from the aclu lawyer, but nbc news has not been able to verify it. still, listen to this audio. >> children crying for their parents at a detention center. children who have been separated from their parents, don't know

where their parents are. if you've ever heard a kid cry like that, you know where that comes from -- fear. what is going on with the republican party? last time the republican party was empowered, this was something they wouldn't do. why now is it okay? >> because they or afraid of donald trump. they're afraid of one tweet from donald trump and it really hurting them getting re-elected. it's that simple. we're still in primary season for a couple more months, so it's going to be difficult for those republicans to come out who are up for re-election in the house. but this is going to continue to be a problem. if we're at 20,000 children like you said by august, the stories are going to grow, and which's worse is i think that we're probably going to have some kind of real tragedy while these kids are being traumatized. if there's any type of tragedy, which the odds unfortunately are, i think that will lead to a radical change in policy. but that's about it. >> is the administration banking on donald trump's base being okay with this? >> the administration is banking on the fact that they can talk

to a certain group of people who are always going to be anti-immigrants no matter what you say. that's all they're talking to and that's what they're hoping to keep up, and, yes, they're muddying the waters. >> donald trump ran on this, right, so people voted for him knowing there would be deportation forces. the you look at the videotape of the third debate, hillary clinton was wearing white, that's how you know it was the third debate, red, white, and blue, and she says in that debate there will be deportation forces and she did not want to be in the business of ripping children from their mothers. she says that verbatim. she is shaking his head as if she's making it all up. we were shaking everyone, wake up, we're going to be separating babies from their parents, is that something you support, don't vote for donald trump if you don't want to see that. >> not just the third debate. he announced for president by saying criminals will be sent back over the border and there were bad people coming and

holding kids even though they're ms-13 gang members. he talked about building a wall and keeping all the others out. he wanted to institute a muslim ban. this played with a lot of the republican party. >> it did. it played with the republican party, and we know the president is singularly focused on his base. he feels like they're the one who is got him here. every policy this white house creates is delivered for that base. over the weekend it seemed there might have been some bipartisan pressure to end this. we saw laura bush speak out in her comments echoed by michelle obama today. we had mitt romney speak out. some republicans have said this should stop, this is not what we stand for, but all the administration has done today is double down in order. unless there's been a remarkable sea change in the last few hours i think we'll see nielsen step to that podium and do the same. it will be an extremely contentious briefing. that audio, some reporters had it playing aloud in that briefing room a few minutes ago.

those reporters have heard this audio. those questions will be asked of sarah sanders and secretary nielsen. >> they're characterizing all those people as criminals. are those babies criminals? >> that's the message coming across. >> you can't punish the children for the actions of the parents. that is wrong. >> let's bring in texas republican congressman will hurd who visited a facility for teenage boys at the border who arrived there as unaccompanied minors. what did you see? >> a manifestation of a flawed policy. i've said this before in the land of the free and the home of the brave we shouldn't be using kids as a deterrence. this is unacceptable and this is a policy this administration could change today. it doesn't require legislation in order to do this, and it's unfortunate that we're at a place we're having to talk about

passing legislation to say you shouldn't be ripping kids out of their mommys' arms. >> why does this administration think this policy is good for them? >> i don't know is the short answer, katy. this is not a new problem. this is a problem that we've seen in previous administrations, something that we should have been prepared for. there's alternatives to detention. this is an outcome from a larger problem. we should be working well salvador and nicaragua and honduras addressing some of the root causes in those countries that's causing this migration to come up here. we should be helping them with rule of law and economic development. we should have a border security strategy that is smart, that relies on technology. you've heard me say it a billion times. building a 30-feet-high concrete structure from sea to shining sea won't solve this problem and it won't prevent the problem we're having right now.

and we also need more immigration judges so that we can administer consequences to people that are breaking the law. and you don't have to detain them as long. so these are some of the solutions. there's actually bipartisan support for all these things that i've said. the only way we're going to solve this problem of securing our border and making sure that we have an immigration policy that makes sense is by doing this in a bipartisan way. i know there's a few of us that are trying to do it, but i don't know if the partisanship is too strong to overcome right now. >> congressman, hold on. stick with us if we can. we want to get to sarah huckabee sanders in the briefing. >> -- and border protection commissioner kevin mcaileen to the podium. as always, i'll be back afterwards to take questions on other news of the day. >> well, good afternoon. 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, but hopefully we can clarify some things today. i wanted to start by thanking the sheriffs of the united states. i had the privilege of speaking to them this morning at the national sheriffs association conference. we are so thankful for their partnership at dhs and all they do love to protect our communities. i thank them. so i wanted to provide you an update on the immigration crisis and the efforts the administration is taking to stop this crisis and the flood of illegal immigrants, contraband, and crime coming across the border. let's start with some numbers and facts. in the last three months we have een 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 unaccompanied alien children and a 435% increase in family units entering the country illegally.

over the last ten 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. it's been occurring and expanded over many decades, but currently it is the exclusive product of loopholes in our federal immigration laws that prevent 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 as 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 the enforcement of our current laws are those whose policies created this crisis and kwhoz -- whose policies perpetrate it. first, we need to amend the 2008 trafficking victims prevention reauthorization act, or tdpr, 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 trek northward. and make no mistake, we have talked about this before. this trek is dangerous and deadly. secondly, we need to reform our

assaylum laws to end the system abuse of our system and stop fraud. right now, our system fails to assist asylum seeker who is legitimately need it. we are a country of compassion. we are a country of heart. we must fix this system so that those who truly need asylum can, in fact, receive it. third, we need to amend the florida settlement agreement and recent expansions 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 organization 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 or custodial relationship exists. for example, if there's no documentation to confirm the claimed relationship between an adult and a child. we do so if the parent is a national security, public or 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 case where is minors have been used and trafficked by unrelated adults in an effort to avoid detention. and i 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 a concern. and separation can occur when a 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 to against a parent or legal guardian for criminal prosecution, the parent or legal guardian will be placed into the u.s. marshal service custody for pretrial determination pursuant to an order by a federal judge, and any accompanied child will be transferred to the department of health and human services and will be reclassified as an unaccompanied alien child. that is in accordance with the tdpra, a law that was passed by congress. and a following court order, neither of which are actions the trump administration has taken. if an american were to commit a crime anywhere in the united states, they would go to jail and be separated from their family. this is not a controversial

idea. second, children in dhs and hhs custody are being well taken care of. the department of health and human services office of refugee resettlement provides meals, medical care, and educational services to these children. they are provided temporary shelter and hachs works hard to find a parent, relative, or foster home to care for these children. parents can still communicate with their children via phone calls and video conferencing. a parent who is released from custody can be a sponsor and ask hhs to release the child back into their care. these minors can apply for asylum and protection 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 parents and children are treated inhumanely is not true. it completely disrespects the employees working at the settlement. third, parent who is 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 immigrants have put their children at risk. fourth, cbp 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 established protocols to protect at-risk populations to include standards for the transport and treatment of minors in dhs and hhs custody. additionally, all u.s. border patrol personnel on 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 prosecution 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 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 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 act this week so 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 dhs who are dedicated law enforcement officers and 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, if you could, you talked about dhs is no longer ignoring the law. you're calling on congress to change the law. >> yes. >> that is the big essence here. members of congress on the democratic side say you are using children as a lever to try to get them to take legislative action. what do you say to that? >> i say that is a very cowardly response. it's clearly within their power to make the laws and change the laws. they should do so. yes. >> have you seen the photos of children in cages? have you heard the audio clip of these children wailing that just came out today? >> i have not seen something that came out today, but i have been to detention centers. again, i would reference you to our standards. i would reference you to the care provide not just by the department of homeland security but by the department of health and human services when they get to hhs. >> is that the image of this

country you want out there, children -- >> the image i want of this country is an immigration system that secures our borders and upholds our humanitarian ideals. congress needs to fix it. yes. >> i wanted to give you a chance to respond to laura bush. she said this is cruel. she supports an application of the law, even the current first lady, melania trump, has said we should be a nation of law, we should 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 component of this policy which as you've outlined other administrations have done, but you're using in a way that is more intense and creates the separation issue? >> my response would be 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 this. >> -- 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. yes. >> following up on major's question there, former first lady laura bush compared this to japanese internment during world war ii. do you believe that the effect of this policy, so not the law, but the effect of it on separating children from families in those specific instances is moral, ethical, 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? >> be more specific, please. enforcing the law? >> what cecilia was talking about and the sounds we've soon from these big box stores, the walmart and other stores, when you see this, 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 to 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's videos. there's tvs. i visited the detention centers myself. that would be my answer to that question. >> if i could follow up, for the hundreds not included, you said 10,000, for hundreds we have seen, perhaps up to 2,000, are

there any examples of child abuse, do you believe, and how could this not be child abuse for the people who are taken from their parents, not the ones who were sent here with their parents' blessing with the smuggle smugglers, people who are taken from their parents. >> unfortunately, i'm not in a position to deal with hearsay stories. if someone has a specific allegation, as i always do when i testify, i ask they provide that information to the department of holmemeland secur. we will look into it. we do not want any situation where a child is not completely taken care of. >> why is the government only releasing images of the boys who are being held? where are the girls? where are the young toddlers? >> i don't know i'm not familiar with those particular images so i have to -- >> do you know where the girls are? do you know where the toddlers are? >> we have children in dhs' care both, but as you know, most of the children after 72 hours are transferred to hhs. so i don't know what pictures you're referencing, but --

>> we've seen the boys but we haven't seen any of the girls. the young toddlers. you're saying they're 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. 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've been aired all over national television. >> by dhs or hhs? >> hhs. >> let's find out from hhs. i don't think there's anything other than -- >> your department even aired all over national television throughout the day the kids being held in the cages. we've only seen the boys. >> i will look into that. i'm not aware there's a picture. >> let me ask everyone -- >> can you please follow up? >> yes. >> this is something that happened after the attorney general announced the zero-tolerance policy. >> that's not true. the last administration, the

bush administration, the obama administration, all separated families at the border. their rate was less than ours but they absolutely did this. this is not new. >> minor, no doubt, but -- >> they separated families. >> kid 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 to -- i think you were next. >> madam secretary, president trump has had a lot to say the last few days about immigration, but he's offer nod compassied n to the families separated at the border. do you know why that is? why won't we pause this policy until congress reach that long-term fix so these families

can be united? >> he has been attempting to work with congress since he's been in office. he's made it very clear that we will enforce the laws of 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 peddling drugs, and terrorists. so let's fix the system. yes. >> does he feel any compassion for the families that are being separated? he's talked about the parenting -- possible criminals, blamed it on democrats, offered no words of compassion. >> i think he has said in tweets he would like congress to act to end the underlying laws that require the separation. yes. >> madam secretary, it seemed like a couple days ago both the

president -- the main posture was to say this was not the administration's policy. but it seems like today that the message was a little bit different to say this is our policy but it's our policy because either we believe it's a deterrent or we don't have the resources to move families entirely. i want to make sure we get it right. which of those is the most precise way to describe how to the administration feels? and given the blowback by a number of republicans as well as democrats, are you considering rethinking this based on feedback? or is this the administration's position going forward, period, paragraph? >> the laws prohibit us from detaining families while they go through prosecution for illegally entering the border and while they go through prosecutions for immigration 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 other option is tho to not enforce the law at puall. >> you said you want congress to close some loopholes. you also said that you want to make this work. are these kids being used as pawns? many people are asking that. and democrats are saying, this is your discretion and there is no law that says this white house can separate parents from the children. >> the kids are being used by pawns by the smugglers and the traffickers. again, let's just pause to think about this statistic. 314% increase in adults showing up with kids that are not a family unit. those are traffickers.

those are smugglers. that is ms-13. those are criminals. those are abusers. >> let her finish. >> thank you. all i'm trying to say is closing that loophole will enable us to detain families together throughout the proceeding as they've done in previous administrations. >> are the children being used as a pawn? >> we are trying to protect the children, which is why i'm asking congress to act. [ inaudible question ] from what we're seeing, the picture, the audio, the stories, are they an intended consequence of the administration? or are they an unintended consequence? >> i think they reflect the focus of those who post pictures and narratives. 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're tased and beaten. so we don't have a balanced view of what's happening, but what's happening a tt boa ining at 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. >> they're turned away from points of entry, madam secretary. >> that is incorrect. we have limited resources. 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, we will tell people that come to the border they need to come back. we are not turning them away. we are 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. >> 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 find a message? >> i find that offensive. no. because why would i ever create a policy that purposely does that? >> perhaps as a deterrence. >> no. the way that it works -- >> -- deterrent. >> that's not question you asked me. but the answer is it's a law passed by the united states congress. rather than fixing the law, congress is akking tho iak acti us who enforce the law to turn

our back on the law. that's not the answer. >> will the administration refrain from its policy if congress were able to pass something close to what you want or will it continue to separate parents from their children until the president gets exactly what he wants? >> if the loopholes are closed, then they close the loopholes and the families will stay together throughout the proceedings. thank you. >> madam secretary, do you believe the policy is a deterrent? >> thank you, secretary nielsen. i'll jump right in and go to other questions, news of the day. steve. >> the president said he would talk with north korean leader kim yesterday. do you know if that happened? >> i know the president has spoken with a number of administration officials that are working on the details following the north korean

summit. and we'll keep you posted on -- >> we'll keep an eye on this, but if sarah huckabee sanders is not going to be talking more about family separations we'll go to the panel and just chew over what secretary nielsen just said. she refused to say the family separations are being used as leverage. but she basically said in the language and the words she used that, yeah, they are being used as leverage. she said that she is looking far long-term fix, and until that long-term fix happens, families will be separated at the border. semantics. that's leverage. >> it seems that she's suggesting this administration is using this policy, creating these heartbreaking images, to make an immigration deal with congress, particularly to get their border wall. >> close the loopholes. let me remind people what their loopholes are. reform allowing to bring kids on dangerous journey.

amend the flores settlement agreement. >> she objected to the idea that children were being used as pawns. she said she was insulted by that suggestion. but that is clear there is some sort of negotiating tactic at play here. it was also just so striking the demeanor, the lack of sympathy. when asked repeatedly if the president has any sympathy for these children, these families where children are being ripped from the arms of their parents, she sort of fumbles an answer and said in his tweets he's suggested congress should fix this. zero sympathy. she's out there defending his policy. this is something that is a national moment of reflection and crisis where people are really upbet set by this. she claims she has not heard the audio of the -- >> was it being played there? is that what we heard? >> it seemed to be played by one of the reporters during the prefecturing. but she said she hadn't heard it. she appeared to suggest she wasn't aware of the images of

the children in cages, a thought that sort of defies logic. >> how can you not turn on a television? she's clearly upset about the way this is framed by the media, so obviously she's been watching and seeing these images if she's upset about what they're saying. former first lady laura bush came out and said this is cruel, immoral, compares it to the japanese-american internment camps of world war ii. nielsen just dismissed that. >> she went right past it. it's interesting that when asked about the toddlers and girls and where are they, she immediately kicked it right over to hhs. she doesn't know. had no idea. >> we haven't seen a single image of the girls or toddler, only the boys. and these are the images that the government is releasing. these are what the government is releasing. i can only imagine, and maybe it won't be different, maybe it will, what it would look like if they allowed reporters with their own cameras to get true,

honest access to this. these again are the images that the government has decided they will let the american public see. >> i just want to follow up on the fact that she kicked it over to hhs. they are in the custody of homeland security for 72 hours. so there's no excuse for her not to have the answer. she can't just say we gave it to another agency. she will not provide it. i don't think it's that she cannot. it's that she will not. >> julia ainsley, you covered the department of justice. you cover homeland security. give us a sense of where secretary nielsen was telling the truth and where she was not. >> so first i thought it was pretty incredible they doubled down on talking points here. i was talking to some people today kwhowho were in these mees at dhs, see everything around them, know the stories, see the implosion, and instead of having sympathy for the situation, they or doubling down and seem to

think if they can just explain to people what's going on, we might have a more sympathetic view of their side. but i did start tweeting out some false claims as i heard them. one is that parents are allowed to call their children. we know from our reporting on the ground that is very rare if it ever happens. two is that parents can claim custody of their children after they've been released themselves. that is very hard to do because a lot of these parents are being deported or they're released and they're still undocumented in this country. they don't want to come forward and claim children if they themselves may also be deported. also she said that illegal entry is a crime. it is true it's a crime, but it's a misdemeanor. and previously, these immigrants were able to present themselves to border patrol. they would actually run up to them between the ports of entry and turn themselves in to claim asylum. they have changed the rules on that. the forty thiurth thing, they a enforcing the laws that congress wrote. that is not true.

there is no law that dictates separation of mothers and children, and if anything these are court decisions that said that you can't hold children longer than 20 days an that is what they're enacting as sort of a by-product of working around court decisions. that is not a law. >> she said the kids coming in, there's been an increase in smugglers bringing children in and claiming that they are their own. was her intention to say that every kid we're seeing crying and listening crying, asking for their mother or their father, the kids are lying there, that the kids are trying to say that these smugglers are their parents when they're not? >> right. i think there's a lot of kind of overreacting on a small number of cases. we've soon the same thieen the talking abms-t talking abmsalk ing about ms-13, which is not nearly as president as this administration would have you think. there are times they say they are with a parent and after

investigation, it turns out that person is not related to them, but a part of that doesn't necessarily mean there's anything nefarious going on. a parent has had to risk everything they've had, pulled together all their financial resources, and pay someone else to take their child across the border. that doesn't mean that child has any less of a right to asylum or that they should be splitting apart parents who can verify through birth certificates very often that these are, in fact, their children. it's a pretty low rate of fraud at the border from what i understand. >> let's also bring in -- guys, stick around for me -- senator amy klobucar, a member of the senate judiciary committee. we were going to have you on to talk about something else, but i want your take on the border and that news conference from secretary nielsen. >> well, i listened to parts of it, and of course this is a major priority right now, the thought that kids are being ripped from their mothers' arms

is just beyond belief. and there is evidence of this. we have seen this. i myself have been at the border on the human trafficking issue with cindy mccain and senator highcamp. i led a trip down there. so i'm very aware of this issue. but what's happening now, that was a few years ago, is different. you have families coming together and they're separating parents from their children. and that's why you see all 49 senate democrats on a bill to stop this. so contrary to what the homeland security secretary was saying, they could change the policy. they're just choosing not to. >> she says this is not leverage. she says that if congress closes the loopholes, what she calls loopholes, that this will stop. you say there's 49 democrats who have signed on to a bill. are any republicans who are willing to sign on to that and would that be enough for the administration to stop separating families? >> well, we have to get to 60,

but you have heard a number of republicans express concern about this policy, whether that turns into support or not, we will see. but the point is in one breath she was saying we're not holding them hostage, but in the other she was saying maybe they can pass some of the stuff we want. and we had a very good bipartisan bill in the senate involving the dreamers, which also included money for the border, including some of the money for the start of the wall. it had all democrats except three on it, and it also had a bunch of republicans including senator rounds, who led it, of south dakota, and they got punched on that bill on the very last day and said they weren't for it, and so we weren't able to muster the support. we were almost there, trying to get to 60. we would love comprehensive immigration reform, which we have passed when president obama was in office with 68 votes out of the senate. they have not shown any interest in that at all. so i am tired of hearing about how this is somehow the democrats that are doing this

when one party controls the presidency and both houses of congress. >> do you think the president, this administration, believes that ultimately the democrats will back down in order to stop this, the democrats will give him his border wall and will amend the visa lottery program, et cetera? >> i don't think people are going to do anything while he's holding children hostage. we are always willing to talk with him about immigration and -- >> do you think this is holding them hostage? >> i believe that's what's happening. i believe it's leverage, yes. leverage, hostage, you can call it what it is. >> how do you believe it's going to end? >> i don't know. i'm right now just hoping that they will start changing some of their policies, that we will keep pushing, that we will build support with some republicans to get a change. but right now, the whole issue of immigration reform is not just about the border. it is also about professors at a college in minnesota who have been there for decades getting

deported. it is about refugees being turned away who were going to come to this country. it's about the economics of it when we have 3% unemployment rate in many of our states and we're starting to lose business in rural areas because we don't have seasonal workers and don't have people that used to do those jobs. that is happening right now. so it is a moral issue, yes, but it is also an economic issue. you look at the arc here. we need workforce training, but we also need immigrant workers to fill some of the jobs that are available right now in our country. >> let me ask you a question on the hearing today, the ig report. how did you feel about how it went? >> well, i hope people have a chance to at least read this summary, because the inspector general did a very thorough job and found at the end of this, while there were some inappropriate texts going back and forth, the director, director wray, has pledged there will be disciplinary action, that there's investigations going on that will be released to the public about those individuals. overall, the inspector general firmly found that there was no

political bias in terms of the investigation with hillary clinton's e-mails or the decisions that were made. what he did find was that director comey made in his words ad hoc decisions that weren't in keeping with the department's policies when he disparaged her when announcing that he wasn't going to bring charges in july and then when he made the decision to come forward before the investigation had even been completed about the additional e-mails in the fall right before the election. so i think it's really a good moment to step back and look at it. and while my republican colleagues were describing some of the scene, i don't think they were honest about describing who was the one that was really hurt by all this, and it wasn't donald trump. it was hillary clinton. >> senator amy klobucar. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> still with me as we're following the breaking news on immigration, the separations of families, the secretary nielsen

news conference, is julia ainsley and my panel. guys, how does this play out? what happens next, politically? >> stalemate.stalemate. i think donald trump is going to speak to the republicans in congress tomorrow. and there will be a lot of talk. they're going to blame the democrats. we know that even if we got something through the house, it's not going to make it through the senate. it's not going to happen. so we're going to see thousands of more children being torn apart from their parents and nothing being done. because this administration won't do it. >> politically, where is this going to be a problem for him? swing states? >> i think right now more -- look, donald trump is not on the ballot in 2018 even though the policies are in a lot of ways. and so in swing districts, congressional districts that were very close, they will be -- i think this could potentially be a significant issue. >> potentially. >> i would say though that while the base is going to stick with

donald trump, i think i'm thinking about evangelical voters. what do they think when they see the images? they're ignoring a lot of things they wouldn't disagree with. >> franklin graham broke with them. >> the sight of a baby crying and ploernlg being put in handcuffs is something that people that support trum. >> reporter: disturbed by. >> the briefing just ended. sarah huckabee sanders has now left. what did we miss? >> well, it was a very spirited briefing, obviously. >> whether you sn you say spiriu mean contentious? >> contentious is a fair word as well with the dhs secretary. she was asked a range of questions including is she comfortable with the images, kids in cages that we all saw today. the sounds of children crying. she went back to the talking point which we expected which is that the president wants to see broader immigration reform and, therefore, make the separation

of parents and children unnecessary. however, i pressed her over and over again on the fact that, look this stemmed from the zero tolerance policy. she tried to make the case that this is nothing new. but the reality is, of course, the rate at which we're seeing parents being separated from their children is much greater than we've ever witnessed. and therefore, is a result of the zero tolerance policy. again, she firmly pushed back on that and said the only way to resolve this is through broad immigration reform. now, of course, there are potentially two pieces of legislation that are going to move through the house this week. but they're both facing very steep hurdles. it's not clear that they're really going to address the issue. i also thought it was striking, katie, she was asked to respond to former first lady laura bush who, of course, compared what we're seeing now to japanese inturnment camps. secretary neilson rejected that comparison and went back to that point that if there is immigration reform this issue would go away.

sarah sanders took a number of questions at the end as well. mostly about this issue, katie. really underscoring this is a political crisis for the administration that isn't going away any time soon. >> all right. tell me if if we heard this correctly. i thought i could hear somebody in the room potentially playing that audio as secretary neilson was answering questions. >> i thought that as well. it wasn't entirely clear where that audio is coming from or that it was intentional. it is possible that someone had that on a phone or device and it started playing. a number of us looked around the room to identify the source of where that was coming from. it's no the clear that was intentional. a lot of us did have it on our phones and have been listening to it ever since that broke about an hour or so ago. and really tried to ask her about the very disturbing noises, the children crying. but again, those images as well, katie, which we have seen and she went back to her talking points. really dug in. i think there was a question about whether she was going to perhaps announce a new policy that clearly did not happen here

today. the trump administration continues to stick by this controversial policy, continues to fight. >> why was secretary neilson flown back from new orleans? >> she was asked about that at the end. was she trying to evade our questions? she dismissed that. she rejected that idea. she said, look, i'm here answering your questions tend of secretary neilson's briefing. she made the point that secretary neilson is more briefed on this issue than she is. which would stand to reason, of course, she is the dhs secretary. but it was quite dramatic to have her flown back from new orleans essentially to be here to answer our questions. this is a briefing that was pushed back about four different times today, katie. remember, whether we started the day, the briefing was supposed to happen just after 1:00. so this is pretty remarkable and to have her here at the podium. >> you know they're trying to get their -- i don't know, the stories straight or get their talking points alined or figure out how they're going to deal with tough questions from the

white house press corps when they continue moving it back over and over and over again. thank you so much. >> thanks. >> i want to bring you back in, julia. this is a question hanging out there. where are the girls? where are the toddlers? where are the babies? >> that's a great question. i mean, as we understand the youngest age that they can be separated from their parent unless there is another crime committed, if there's an aggravated assault or if there is history of re-entry into the united states over and over, the youngest age you can separate just for illegal entry is 4 years old. that still means that 4-year-olds are kept somewhere. we haven't had that access. as you've seen from what my colleague has been doing, he's been able to see boys facilities. he's been able to see kind of older ones. i think it's 10 and older. there are younger children that are toddlers and girls are not allowed to see which raises the question why is the administration picking these particular places to allow journalists access?

is it because they think that somehow they'll be able to win a messaging war if they can show older boys who may be look like they're almost 18, presenting them as almost adults rather than them more vulnerable population? but we know that they're out there. >> that's a really good point. again, these are the images that the administration, that the government is releasing. these are not image that's we were able to gather independently. we were not able to gather the images alone. these are the sanitized versions that the government thinks it's okay for the public to see. obviously, they think won't hurt them that much if these are what they're releasing. >> there is a reason it's all boys as julie said. they're talking about ms 13 and talking about gangs and so if you show add less enolescent tes that are brown that, is an image portrayed to the public and it is sickening. >> do you think that's what is going on? >> i think it's in part. the other question is what about

the children who are sick and receiving medical attention? are they letting the parents then see them at that point? i mean, what's the care for them? i think there is a lot of unanswered questions. and the administration is really doing itself a lot of harm by not answering. >> the secretary was asked, you know, does stle consider it child abuse? she kept saying, well, if it we hear about krild chooichild abue to know about it. is it child abuse, period, to separate children from their parents. >> and there's been -- there's a lot of research that shows that the separation can cause long term damage for kids especially that young. cardiovascular issues later on in life, anxiety issues, substance abuse issues. and the apa, the american pediatric association has released a statement outlining all of those. and they're calling on the administration to shut this off, to stop doing this. they say as the administration's

policy of separating children from their families as they attempt to cross the border is not only needless and cruel, it threatens the mental and physical health of the children and caregivers. they experience unique stressors that led them to flee the home countries in the first place. the longer that children and parents are separated, the greater the reported symptoms and anxiety and depression for their kids. negative outcomes for children include psychological distress, academic difficulties, and disruptions in their development. >> right. she was talking about -- the secretary close to answer the question as if there was a singular case reported of abuse and not the idea that this policy in itself is inherently abusive. i would also like to add that my colleague in the briefing room said that a reporter a few rows back was playing the audio, whether the secretary heard it or not is unclear. but it was deliberately being played. it was audible for a lot of reporters in the room. despite secretary neilson, this is an important point.

despite the attempts to, again, point fingers to the democrats and suggest this is a congressional issue, her administration has owned this several times. secretary -- at the time, secretary kelly when he was homeland security chief suggested there is something he is going to do. jeff sessions earlier today said this is something they're looking to do. stephen miller in an interview the last couple days at the "new york times" said this is the deliberate choice that this administration is doing. >> they said that a moment ago -- over the weekend on one of the sunday shows. >> that's right. >> it's very clearly deliberate. i want to leave everybody with this. we just got this from senator richard shelby who was interviewed live in d.c. on capitol hill. he met with the president today along with senator kapito. mostly they talked about funding the wall. he said it was not in the context of a broader immigration deal but that the president wants a "down payment" on fundg the wall." separation of families at the border did not come up.

interesting. guys, thank you so much. jonathan, julia and my friend susan. guys, thank you very much. thanks for hashing this out with us. we appreciate it. and we'll be back tomorrow with more "mtp daily." >> thank you very much. always good to see you. tonight's show, i will be joined live by senator harris on this breaking news including new audio of crying kids inside one of the trump detention centers and her call to end this policy. also ahead, trump adviser roger stone exposed for a previously never disclosed meeting with a new russian, one we never heard about before offering, yes, dirt on hillary clinton. we also have an update later in the show on what it was like for paul manafort in his first week in jail and a new album from beyonce and jay-z. before we get to any of that and before we even look at the battle in wto