and his son, david caroa jr. filing last week to run for that seat. the father as a republican, the son as an independent. they're going to join me tomorrow right here on "the beat" to debate the issue and answer the big question everybody wants to know. how will mom vote? we'll tell you tomorrow. that does it for me. you can catch me on social media and tomorrow at 5:00 a.m. on "morning joe's first look." "hardball" starts right now. holding court. let's play "hardball." good evening. i'm steve kornacki in for chris matthews. an epic political battle now shaping up over the president's choice to replace retiring spleekt justice anthony kennedy. today we learned more about how president trump is narrowing his list of candidates. he told reporters he's already interviewed four potential

replacements. >> i'll be meeting with two or three more, and we'll make a decision on the united states supreme court, the new justice. that'll be made over the next few days. and we'll be announcing it on monday. and i look forward to that. i think the person that is chosen will be outstanding. >> talking to fox news over the weekend, trump expressed confidence that he can install his pick before the midterm elections. >> i think we will go very quickly. i actually believe that. a lot of people think it's going to be a very -- it's probably going to be vicious because the other side all they can do is obstruct and resist. you know their whole thing is resist. >> but it's not just the other side the president may have to worry about. this weekend a key moderate senator, maine republican susan collins, said she would not support a candidate who expressed what she sees as hostility to roe versus wade.

>> a candidate for this important position who would overturn roe v. wade would not be acceptable to me because that would indicate an activist agenda that i don't want to see a judge have. >> president trump will announce his pick a week from today on july 9th. nbc news has learned that trump is said to be leaning toward a nominee who went to harvard or yale according to individuals familiar with his thinking. so far at least five names, all of them federal appeals court judges, have emerged from the president's short list. for more i'm joined by robert costa, national political reporter for the "washington post." zurlina maxwell, director of progressive programming for sirius xm. and susan del perezio, a republican strategist. all are nbc political analysts. robert, let me start with you. we got reporting the president wants harvard or yale perhaps. but there's a number of names that are out there. what is your sense of this? is this a pick where the white house kind of knows where it wants to go?

how much of this is potential for a surprise here? >> there's still potential for surprise. the process is fluid. talking to white house officials and senior republicans all day, it's evidence that at this point, end of day monday, that judge kavanaugh and judge kony barrett are widely seen in the president's circle as probably the top two candidates. but judge keflidge and judge steppar and several others are still in the mix. the president wants to meet them, see if they have a rapport and also see the public's response to these reported meetings. >> you mentioned brett kavanaugh, amy kony barrett. those are the two robert costa suggesting may be getting most conversation. susan, let me ask you. if this were going to go down a republican would have to vote against this. susan collins has stepped forward and suggested she could be that republican and the issue in that case would be roe versus wade. if somebody suggests hostility

she could be a no vote. i'm looking at i senator that's voted for sam alito. she voted for john roberts. and she voted for neil gorsuch. so if that's the standard of who she's willing to find acceptable, are any of these names we're talking about now going to plausibly be unacceptable to her? >> probably not. because if it's party line votes she doesn't want her legacy to be that of something she cares about the woman who led to the overturn of roe v. wade. that being said, however, i don't think it's going to fall strictly on party lines. think we'll see a couple of democrats probably go over like joe manchin or o'donnell -- or donnelley. excuse me. sorry about that. and maybe even jones from alabama. >> sure. those are the democrats from the democratic standpoint -- >> that will end up giving her cov cover. just to follow up on what robert said i think it's completely o'possible to see a wild card that we never saw coming.

trump has really been out there kind of running his own shop lately and the idea he would look for someone who would be a loyalist to him knowing that mueller's coming down the pike i think is very much in the realm of possibility. >> zurlina, from the standpoint of democrats looking to stop this thing and looking to find a republican vote there, how much hope do you think they can or should take from what susan collins is saying? >> i don't think we've got to pin our hopes on hope. just for lack of a better expression. because i think in this particular moment with so many things on the line, voting rights, women's rights, workers' rights, affirmative action, you have to fight even if you know you ultimately will lose. it's not just about getting that one republican. it's about calling those democrats. they're in moderate states like doug jones and joe manchin. and also make sure to call susan collins and lisa murkowski and ensure they are going to vote against this particular person or at least delay it until after the midterm elections going

based on the mitch mcconnell rule. and not just because mitch mcconnell set this precedent but also because there are two additional arguments that i think are pretty persuasive. one, you are replacing kennedy, who is the swing vote. it's not antonin scalia like previously when you had merrick garland sitting there and mitch mcconnell not even having a hearing. you're not replacing a conservative with a conservative. you're replacing a swing vote who is conservative with potentially a very extreme or conservative person. his list is all people who we have an understanding or an opposition to row. amy barnett went to notre dame. she is very catholic. she had a famous moment with former senator al franken during her hearings about how she spoke essentially to a hate group without really understanding the full context there. but additionally as robert said the president is under investigation. so this particular judge that he is nominating to have a hearing in the senate is someone that's

going to determine his fate in the legal context. and so i think democrats are not just fighting about all the different rights. workers' rights, gay rights, women's rights, they also need focus on the fact this is replacing the swing vote and the president is under investigation and this person is going to determine his fate. >> well, in terms of the emerging democratic opposition or the strategy at least, in an op-ed in today's "new york times" chuck schumer, the minority leader in the senate, made the democratic case against a potential trump nominee. "if you do not want a supreme court justice who will overturn roe versus wade and undot affordable care act, tell your senators they should not vote for a candidate from mr. trump's preordained list." meanwhile, on sunday senator maria cantwell of washington state warned her colleagues about the stakes of the supreme court vote. >> i think that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle know that this vote could be one of the key votes of their entire

career, and they know that no matter what spin comes out of the white house if they vote for somebody who's going to change precedent it could be a career-ending move. >> susan, i'm trying to figure out how the democratic base -- we've heard in the clips there, we heard zerlina go through the issues that most animate the democratic base now, and i think it's logical to assume are going to lead the vast majority of senate democrats to vote against this. but then you've got that group of democrats, and you were mentioning them before. joe manchin in west virginia. donnalley in indiana. heitkamp in north dakota. the incentives, the political incentives for them might work differently. >> well, that's true. and they may also realize it's an interesting problem for those democrats. because yes, they want to keep their jobs. but they're also supposed to represent their constituency. many of the ones you just mentioned are red states that donald trump won. so that will be -- that's also something to take into

consideration and any chance the democrats have of taking the senate relies on those three getting re-elected. so it depends really how the democrats kind of treat each other. they're going to have to duke this out. >> robert costa, what is your sense of in terms of what the white house is ultimately looking here, the consideration driving this? i've seen suggestions, you know, that trump thinks of the evangelical christian base that stuck with him in 2016, thinks of this as an issue of particular importance to them, wants to deliver to them. we've talked about the possibility of some kind of wild card. where is his mind? is it on how easy it would be to confirm the person and make sure you get susan collins in line for this? where do you think the priority falls there? >> you're looking at someone with an extensive judicial record because they want to make sure that this nominee could be confirmed before the midterm elections. important news today to pay attention to, the white house announced it's going to set up a war room. don mcgahn, the white house counsel. raj shah, a spokesman. they're starting to already assemble the coming political war over this confirmation. and you have don mcgahn reaching

out to people like senator mike lee on capitol hill who's another possible wild card pick. but really when you look at kavanaugh, coney barrett, those federal judges are the kind of people the white house believes could both excite the base because of their judicial positions but also be able to sail through relatively easy. but as i was reporting today, steve, senator rand paul of kentucky has expressed concerns to his associates privately and his advisers that kavanaugh may not win his support. he hasn't taken a public position. but because of kavanaugh's writings on the affordable care act, these kinds of issues are already coming up beyond just the issue with senator collins. >> senator mitch mcconnell, meanwhile, the republican leader in the senate, he is calling for a vote on trump's yet unnamed pick by this fall. last week politico reported the senate's number 2 republican, john cornyn, was calling for a vote after labor day. the article noted that "the supreme court nominees since the ford administration spent an average of 67 days between their nomination and final confirmation." and i think it was somewhere in

the 60s for gorsuch last year. republicans ended up killing off the filibuster to get him through. but zerlino, in terms of an outcome, if republicans have the votes on paper and they've got the democrats in those trump state seats who voted for gorsuch, we already saw three of them vote for gorsuch last year, is the best case in your mind for democrats here if they're not going to get republicans to flip over, is the best case that it fires up their base enough to help them in november to somehow flip the senate after that? >> yes, absolutely. and i think that that's the calculation. i think you fight even if you don't win. and the base is with you. what we saw eefr the weekend it's not getting as much attention as i thought it would but there were massive protests over the weekend. the base keeps coming out into the streets, and they're going to continue to do that. i think it's a good predictor in terms of them going out and voting. if you're willing to whatever is going on in your life, your kids, your job, but you're taking the time on a saturday, a sunday to go outside and express

your opposition to this administration, then you're very likely to also go outside and vote in november. >> just one thing to add is millennials have never seen this as an issue in their lifetime, especially roe v. wade. we don't know what they're going to do. we know they're definitely going to have a horrible view of the republican party. so if there's a way of tapping into that. and actually, if they are as motivated as we think they are, that could prove -- >> what about the conservative base that we talk so much about the enthusiasm gap or we've seen democrats coming out in these elections, we've seen democrats protesting, we know the administration was actually hoping democrats would start talking about impeachment, why, to get that conservative base mobilized. if you've got a court fight here, could it have that same mobilizing effect? >> here's the problem when you look at that argument. the republican base turns out. they know what the numbers are. republicans have been focused on this is the number i need to win. on the democratic side, and we saw this in new york in the primaries, more than one seat, when you don't know who's

showing up to vote, it doesn't poll the same and you can get a much wider diverse turnout than you can ever expect. we've seen it in 2017. we've seen numbers 30%, 40% in districts. counting exec. races here in new york. increase on the democratic side. so that's what's the unpredictable part. the republican side is very predictable. they're not going to appeal to anybody else. >> all right. thank you, robert costa, zerlina maxwell, susan del percio. coming up, the president's long-term fixer michael cohen speaks out saying family and country come first, not trump. cohen used to say he would take a bullet for the president. not necessarily looking that way anymore. plus just two weeks ago president trump was bragging that we could all sleep well at night because the north korea situation no longer posed a nuclear threat. bay stunning new report shows that kim jong un may be defying trump and ramping up his country's nuclear program. and trump tries to rewrite history when it comes to immigration reform. the "hardball" round table is going to weigh in on that. plus national security adviser

john bolton's attempt at explaining the president's foreign policy. a very interesting piece of tape. and finally, the round table is going o'tell us three things we might not know. this is "hardball," where the action is. the chili pepper sweat-out. not cool. freezing away fat cells with coolsculpting? now that's cool! coolsculpting safely freezes and removes fat cells with little or no downtime. and no surgery. results and patient experience may vary. some common side effects include temporary numbness, discomfort,and swelling. ask your doctor if coolsculpting is right for you and visit coolsculpting.com today for your chance to win a free treatment.

(burke) so we know how to seen cover almost anything. even a "cactus calamity". (man 1) i read that the saguaro can live to be two hundred years old. (woman) how old do you think that one is? (man 1) my guess would be, about... (man 2) i'd say about two hundred. (man 1) yeah... (burke) gives houseplant a whole new meaning. and we covered it.

talk to farmers. we know a thing or two because we've seen a thing or two. ♪ we are farmers. bum-pa-dum, bum-bum-bum-bum ♪

this wi-fi is fast. i know! i know! i know! i know! when did brian move back in? brian's back? he doesn't get my room. he's only going to be here for like a week. like a month, tops. oh boy. wi-fi fast enough for the whole family is simple, easy, awesome. in many cultures, young men would stay with their families until their 40's. welcome back to "hardball." donald trump's long-time personal lawyer and self-described fixer is sounding less inclined to fix things these days. michael cohen, who famously told a reporter he would take a bullet for trump, told abc's

george stephanopoulos this weekend, "my wife, my daughter, and my son have my first loyalty and always will. i put family and country first." this is quite an about-face for a man who has spent years defending president trump. according to "vanity fair," cohen has been feeling frustrated. he reportedly told a friend, "nobody is watching my back." cohen was asked by abc how he would respond to an attack by the president or his legal team. he told stephanopoulos, "i will not be a punching bag as part of anyone's defense strategy. i am not a villain of this toir and i will not allow others to try to depict me that way." cohen has not been charged with any crime, but he is under criminal investigation related to the $130,000 hush money payment to adult film star stormy daniels. for more i'm joined by ken vogel, political reporter for the "new york times," and caroline polici, a federal and white-collar criminal defense attorney. ken, let me start with you. when you're in the legal situation michael cohen is in, you don't just randomly give

sit-down interviews to national television networks. there had to be a purpose here. what do we think that was? >> well, there are a couple possibilities. number one is he is signaling his willingness to strike a deal with prosecutors. possibly to cooperate, to give them something on trump. this would be an unusual way to do that. typically those types of deals are reached in private and prosecutors don't like you going out and talking a lot when you're either cooperating with them or you are in the process of reaching a deal under which you would cooperate with them. that leads us to the second possibility that he might be sending a signal to none other than his former boss donald trump suggesting either that -- as we said, more than suggesting that he would not sort of sit idly by if the trump folks tried to roll on him and throw him under the bus either in the media or through legal proceedings. or the possibility that he may be signaling that he wants donald trump to pay more, foot

for of the bill, the burden for his legal bills. we know from our reporting that he is unhappy with the president's lack of effort on that front. the campaign did pay for some of his legal bills but that was only in the russia investigation. this of course is a separate investigation by the southern district of new york. and then possibly the furthest reaches of this might be sending a signal to the president, hey, if i do get indicted and convicted i might be interested in a pardon from you. >> we have a criminal defense attorney here. caroline, you're the perfect one to ask this. if you had a client who has been through what michael cohen has been through, under what circumstances or for what purpose would you say good idea to do this interview? >> in no circumstances would i say it's a good idea to do this interview, which is why i think the pardon theory has gained more steam on the twittersphere as of late. because the question is why, if you really were interested in the cooperation agreement, ken's right, that would be something that his lawyer would pick up the phone and call the southern

district prosecutors. i tend to think that the pardon theory gives michael cohen a little bit too much credit. i don't think he's overthinking this. the distinction between the courtroom and the media has been blurred from day one in this case. i don't think michael cohen knows where the distinction is at this point. look, this is a 180. as you said, he said he was willing to take a bullet for president trump. but it's one thing to say you'll take a bullet. it's another thing when the gun is locked and loaded. and here the ammunition is clearly the threat of a criminal indictment from the southern district. attorneys were finishing up in the sdny case, in the privilege review of those materials. that's coming to a close. there's a deadline looming this thursday, which means this case is moving apace. and if there's a time at which michael cohen wants to be thinking about his strategy at this point now is the time. now is the time he needs to be entering into proffer agreements with multiple potentially jurisdictions, with special counsel robert mueller's office, with southern district prosecutors. so i think it's more of an indication that he wants a deal as opposed to a pardon. >> and along those lines michael

cohen recently retained attorney guy petrillo would to replace his current lawyer. petrillo is a federal prosecutor with significant experience in the southern district of new york. that's the office that's investigate michael cohen. abc news is also reporting that petrillo -- once petrillo takes over a joint defense agreement cohen shared with the president which allowed their lawyers to share information in documents with each other will come to an end. what does that mean? >> this is a huge deal. the reason you enter into a joint defense agreement with a co-defendant usually is because you want to share attorney-client privileged material because you're presenting a combined defense. your interests are aligned. once your interests are no longer aligned and you have antagonistic defenses as we call, it which is just legal jargon for you want to throw the other guy under the bus, that's when you break a joint defense agreement. heretofore the defense has been nothing to see here, we did nothing wrong. now it looks like the defense is going to be that guy did it. and that's exactly when you stop

abiding by the terms of this agreement. i think that's more of an indicator he's going to cooperate as opposed to this interview. >> also of note here, this interview with abc cohen made a point to distance himself from the president. told george stephanopoulos, "i don't agree with those who demonize or vilify the fbi. i respect the fbi as an institution as well as their agents." he also said, "as an american i repudiate russia's or any other foreign government's attempt to interfere or med until our democratic process and i would call on all americans to do the same. simply accepting the denial of mr. putin is unsustainable." cohen also said he doesn't like the term witch hunt. last week president trump, who likes to call the mueller investigation a witch hunt, tweeted "russia continues to say they had nothing to do with meddling in our election." so ken, on multiple fronts here, clearly creating some distance, michael cohen is, between himself and the president. do we have any sense how donald trump is interpreting this, how he sees, this how he's reacting

to this? >> well, it can't be well, steve. and let's not forget this comes after michael cohen stepped down from his post at the republican national committee. i believe it was last month. because he said he disagreed with the administration's policy on separating children from their parents, migrant children from their parents at the border. now, it sort of begs the question, why was he still in this leadership post at the republican national committee when he was under criminal investigation? nonetheless, it's part of a pattern of him distancing himself from the president. it may just be part of this signaling we're talking about where he's saying hey, boss, or former boss, you can't necessarily take for granted that i'm on your team, you need to show me a little something, a little more of that loyalty that i've shown you for so long. in reciprocity. thus far we haven't seen that, but we also haven't seen the patented trump sort of distancing stiff-arming, you know, stiff-arming former allies

who played an integral role as he has done repeatedly with other folks who have come under fire or have come under scrutiny or even indictment in the mueller investigation such as paul manafort, who the white house famously said had played a limited role for a limited period of time. that sort of defied credulity. this is a guy who's integral to the campaign. it would really defy credulity if they tried to dot same thing with michael cohen, who played an integral role not just in the campaign but in president trump's business affairs for more than a decade before the campaign. >> and caroline, how would mueller, how would the special prosecutor watching all of this, seeing this interview, seeing it, how would he read this? how would he react to this? >> remember, it's very important to remember that this was actually a referral by the special counsel's office to the southern district of new york, which the indication there is that mueller didn't see this as part of his ambit to begin with. likely it's my opinion, we don't know this for sure, but it's that $130,000 hush money payment which raised eyebrows about campaign finance violations, potentially that raised eyebrows

here. mueller said look, this really doesn't fall within my mandate to prosecute potential russian meddling. but now we know he's gotten a little bit farther down the line in his investigation and now we're hearing reports that, well, michael cohen actually was involved in some of this russia stuff. you know, he dangled the possibility of president trump's knowledge about that fateful trump tower meeting in summer of 2016 saying that he wasn't going to answer that on advice of counsel. it sounds like he knows a lot about potentially russia collusion. i think bob mueller's going to be less nice. >> caroline polisi, ken vogel, thanks to both of you. up next trump says there's no longer a nuclear threat from north korea thanks to his self-proclaimed great success with kim jong un. this of course flies in the face of new evidence that north korea may be trying to ramp up its nuclear capability and not surrender it. this is "hardball," where the action is. (vo) this is not a video game. this is not a screensaver. this is the destruction of a cancer cell by the body's

own immune system, thanks to medicine that didn't exist until now. and today can save your life. ♪ ♪ crisp leaves of lettuce. freshly made dressing. clean food that looks this good. delivered to your desk. now delivering to home or office. panera. food as it should be.

panera. with i get rewarded explowherever i go. going out for a bite. rewarded! going new places. rewarded! learn more at theexplorercard.com my dai need my blood sugar to stay in control. i need to shave my a1c. weekends are my time. i need an insulin that fits my schedule.

♪ tresiba® ready ♪ (announcer) tresiba® is used to control high blood sugar in adults with diabetes. don't use tresiba® to treat diabetic ketoacidosis, during episodes of low blood sugar, or if you are allergic to any of its ingredients. don't share needles or insulin pens. don't reuse needles. the most common side effect is low blood sugar, which may cause dizziness, sweating, confusion, and headache. check your blood sugar. low blood sugar can be serious and may be life-threatening. injection site reactions may occur. tell your prescriber about all medicines you take and all your medical conditions. taking tzds with insulins, like tresiba®, may cause serious side effects like heart failure. your insulin dose shouldn't be changed without asking your prescriber. get medical help right away if you have trouble breathing, fast heartbeat, extreme drowsiness, swelling of your face, tongue or throat, dizziness, or confusion. ask your health care provider if you're tresiba® ready. covered by most insurance and medicare plans. ♪ tresiba® ready ♪

welcome back to "hardball." secretary of state mike pompeo is heading to pyongyang this week to resume negotiations. but new reports suggest north korea may be trying to deceive the u.s. about its nuclear efforts. according to nbc, u.s. intelligence agencies believe the north korean leader kim jong un may be trying to hide multiple nuclear facilities and has stepped up production of fuel for nuclear weapons at multiple secret sites. one u.s. official said, "there

is no evidence that they are decreasing stockpiles or that they have stopped their production and there is absolutely unequivocal evidence that they are trying to deceive the u.s." meanwhile, according to the "wall street journal," north korea has moved forward with a major expansion of a key missile manufacturing plant. reports come -- just three weeks after president trump returned from his singapore summit with kim jong un and boasted, "there is no longer a nuclear threat from north korea and we can all sleep well tonight." as recently as this weekend the president was showing the utmost confidence in the north korean leader. let's watch. >> i got along really well with chairman kim. we had a great chemistry. we really had. >> but do we believe him, mr. president? >> i made a deal with him. i shook hands with him. i really believe he means it. >> joining me now, nbc news intelligence and national security reporter ken delaney. ken, what is the scope of what you're learning north korea is

doing here? >> well, steve, these latest u.s. intelligence assessments tell the american government that north korea is secretly enriching uranium and other nuclear fuel at multiple secret undeclared sites. one of which the u.s. may have only found out about recently. and even more importantly than that, steve, is that the u.s. intelligence community has picked up evidence that the north intends to deceive the trump administration and the united states about this. in other words, it's not prepared to come clean about its nuclear program. and not only the enrichment, about the number of missiles, number of warheads and other key factors it would have to declare as part of any denuclearization effort. this kind of cat and mouse game is not uncommon in nuclear negotiations. we saw it with the iran deal. the u.s. intelligence community tries to catch the adversary country. the adversary country tries to hide stuff. what's interesting here is donald trump does not appear to acknowledge any of this. and even today when white house press secretary sarah sanders was asked about our reporting and other reporting she just basically blew it off and said

look, there's possible momentum for change and we're moving forward. john bolton yesterday on television, the national security adviser, said yes, we understand north korea plays cat and mouse games but he suggested that they were on track to denuclearize within a year, which no expert thinks is possible. so it's really hard to understand what the trump administration's strategy is here, steve. >> in terms of where this stands, too when they left that, when trump and kim jong un left that summit in singapore, there was no formal agreement with specific terms. this would be a violation of goodwill for a future more comprehensive agreement, is that right? >> that's absolutely right. and that's the confusing thing about this because donald trump essentially told the american public that there was a deal. but there is no deal. north korea has not agreed to denuclearize. they've agreed to less than they've agreed to in the past. they essentially agreed to get on a path toward denuclearization without defining what that term means. and so it's absolutely true that none of this that the u.s. has found they are doing vielths any

deal. but analysts have looked at it and said this does not look like a country that is even moving in the direction of denuclearizing. they are still working on their nuclear program, their missile program. they're still expanding facilities both in open source reporting and in u.s. intelligence reporting, steve. >> as ken alluded to a minute ago, despite these reports of deception by north korea there are those in the white house who are remaining publicly optimistic about the negotiations. according to axios, some white house officials hope a round two with president trump can be held in new york in september when world leaders pour into trump's home town for the u.n. general assembly. and before that, ken, secretary of state mike pompeo is supposed to sit down with north korean officials much more -- much closer to right now. what is the sense, though, in terms of how forthcoming north korea's going to be in that sit-down with pompeo? >> well, that is exactly what u.s. officials for, steve. they know things. they would rather this hadn't leaked out. but there are still some things that they know that the north koreans don't know they know.

and so they're going to look at this -- if mike pompeo gets a declaration from the north korea about here's our nuclear program, here are the facilities, here's how many weapons we have, they will look to see whether that matches what they understand about the program. that will be the first indication of good faith. and look, this is a negotiation and it's a much better situation than threatening war, but at the same time analysts are concerned that donald trump is being duped, is being played and at some point he's going to realize that and then become angered, walk away and then we're in a worse situation than when we began these talks, steve. >> all right. ken dilanian, thank you for that. and up next, protests around the country this weekend. some called to abolish the immigration and customs enforcement agency. trump's response that without i.c.e., "people will be afraid to walk out of their house." the "hardball" round table digds into the debate over immigration and more after the break. you're watching "hardball."

the line between work and life hasn't just blurred. it's gone. that's why you need someone behind you. not just a card. an entire support system. whether visiting the airport lounge to catch up on what's really important. or even using those hard-earned points to squeeze in a little family time. no one has your back like american express. so no matter where you're going... we're right there with you. the powerful backing of american express. don't do business without it. don't live life without it. gives skin the moisture it needs and keeps it there longer with lock-in moisture technology skin is petal smooth after all, a cleanser's just a cleanser

unless it's olay. with my bladder leakage, the products i've tried just didn't fit right. they were very saggy. it's getting in the way of our camping trips. but with new sizes, depend fit-flex is made for me. introducing more sizes for better comfort. new depend fit-flex underwear is guaranteed to be your best fit.

and i am a senior public safety my namspecialist for pg&e. my job is to help educate our first responders on how to deal with natural gas and electric emergencies. everyday when we go to work we want everyone to work safely and come home safely. i live right here in auburn, i absolutely love this community. once i moved here i didn't want to live anywhere else. i love that people in this community are willing to come together to make a difference for other people's lives. together, we're building a better california. welcome back to "hardball."

after multiple attempts by house republicans to pass an immigration bill, with the latest failing by a whopping 121-301 margin, president trump this weekend claimed that he "never pushed the republicans in the house to vote for the immigration bill." that is probably clearly revisionist history on trump's part. just three days earlier on the day of the immigration vote he tweeted, "house republicans should pass the strong but fair immigration bill." politico's rachel bay points out that "trump may enjoy campaigning on immigration but it's far from what republican leaders want to highlight as they battle to keep their majorities this fall. gop lawmakers have repeatedly shown an inability to unite behind any sort of immigration plan, and trump has failed to lead on the matter as well, creating a constant whiplash as he changes his position from day to day." let's bring in tonight's "hardball" round table. beth fu is a senior editor for nbc news. laura bass is a sirn politicalor reporter for the huffing-ton post and emily bay is a

political reporter for "news day." the president has been all over the map. he was saying republicans shouldn't do thinking anything, then he was saying they shouldn't pass this bill then he said he wasn't advocating for any bill. heading into the mid-terms a republican party that had the white house and the congress for the last two years that has not passed anything on immigration, is there a political price for that in the midterm? >> i see two things going on here. specifically with trump. number one, the policy of separating kids from their parents was a complete debacle. it failed. he knows it. it was a black eye for the president. second is he believes there are plenty of people out there who are still very uncomfortable with illegal immigration and he's going to go all in on that topic. it's certainly one of the many things that helped him win in 2016. so he's just made a decision, let's go with fear. he really likes to set people up as an enemy or an adversary. in this case it's immigrants who are causing crime even though there's no evidence they cause crime. in fact, they cause less crime

than native born americans. that they bring drugs, they threaten neighborhoods. all of those things he reinforces beliefs that perhaps other people have and strengthens the view of the people already right there around him. he's not reaching out to anybody else but let's face it he's always been the president of his base. he's not the president of the broader community. >> and it is, laura, striking that the republican party two years into the trump era you look at what was happening in the house there last week, you cannot find, you cannot appar t apparently craft a piece of legislation that you're going to get 218 republicans to say yes, this is what i'm for. >> i think that's true. and i think the reason is because this debate is not actually about enforcing the border. it's not actually about illegal immigration. i think what it's about is for republicans this sort of white anxiety about changing demographics in this country. i think it's actually more about legal immigration than illegal immigration. i think one of the reasons -- if you look at what obama -- he was extremely tough on immigration at the border. and the democrats still lost to the republicans. and so i think republicans, there is no actual legislative

fix that can accomplish what they're trying to accomplish, which is to stop the flow of foreign nationals into this country. they can't do it. >> it seems you do have this sort of divide in the republican party. you look at the front line, the most vulnerable republicans this november are in districts hillary clinton won in 2016. you have voters who didn't like trump necessarily, didn't like his message, didn't like his tone on immigration, and republicans trying to hold on to their seats, unwilling to play ball with steve king and that side on immigration. >> the debate when it comes to elections over immigration reminds me much of the debate over trump, people are scrambling to be on the right side of the message, scrambling to be on the right side of the issue, on the right side of history. it's all over the map. and they're trying to avoid answering the questions, the hard questions, including whether they support abolishing i.c.e. until they really have to because they don't know what the chips are growing to fall. >> speaking of that issue, this

w50ekd hundreds of marches took place across the country calling on the trump administration to reunite families separated at the border. it comes also as that movement to abolish i.c.e. has suddenly built. just over the past week or so. with many democrats including possible presidential candidates voicing support for that initiative. no one seems happier about the democratic messaging than president trump. let's watch. >> you get rid of i.c.e., you're going to have a country that you're going to be afraid to walk out of your house. i love that issue if they're going to actually do that. they're seriously talking about that? >> i do wonder about this, laura. we looked at the polling on family separation, and just poisonously unpopular. 3-1 even among republicans you weren't seeing a groundswell of support there. but when you start polling broader attitudes about immigration, illegal border crossings and what do you do you see folks, and this cuts across party lines, you see folks siding with the idea of hey, if you detain folks, you detain families together and you send them back together, you don't bring people in, wait for

correlate dates, that sort of thing, you see folks, their instinct on this seems to be to take border security, to take the idea of having i.c.e. pretty seriously. is there a risk there for democrats, that hey, the politics of family separation were overwhelmingly favorable to them but the broader politics of immigration were dicier? >> i do think it is a political risk for democrats. actually, at huff post we did some polling today that showed that a lot of people in the country don't really -- haven't heard of this abolish ice hashtag campaign, they don't know what it means, and a majority of people aren't actually in favor of it. and i think a lot of the reason for that is because when you have -- with hashtag politics in general you can't really get into the nuanced conversation about what it really means to abolish i.c.e. people think it just means chaos on the border, and trump is seizing on that and saying they want open borders, she want ms-13 to just flood into this country when in fact the democrats need to talk about an actual solution, either a way to repair i.c.e. or to talk about what's going to happen when i.c.e. is gone, what are we going to replace it with?

i.c.e. is relatively young. before 9/11 we didn't have it around. it is possible to enforce the border security without it. but i think the democrats have not done a great job of explaining what they mean. >> the flip side of it i guess, beth, would be you could make the argument democrats are walking into a political trap on this if they were to sort of accelerate their rhetoric and accelerate the move to that position, maybe that would be the case we would see. but the flip side would be was the coverage, were the emotions around, were the pictures around this issue of family separation so uniquely strong that if you're assessing political fallout that's where it is? >> that's where it is. i very much ago with you that there's a huge risk for democrats to take it into being the abolishment of i.c.e. most haven't heardar i.c.e. of i.c.e., they don't know what it is. it allows trump and the republicans to define it. those are the people that are keeping you safe and democrats want to get rid of those folks. so it sets up a trap. and number two, why not keep the focus on family separation? saying instead of abolish i.c.e., abolish putting babies in cages.

abolish baby jails. there's much stronger messages the democrats could go on, which has widespread approval as you pointed out from all of this polling. they're on the right side of that issue in this case. they go down the rabbit hole of abolishing i.c.e. i don't see where that goes. >> emily, it is interesting. this is an issue that was getting basically zero traction among major sort of mainstream figures in the democratic party. and then suddenly in the last week you've had potential presidential candidates endorsing this move. is this something where by the end of the summer we're going to see a bunch of democrats out there behind it or does it lose steam? >> it does feel like it's losing steam. there are a number of senate democrats who haven't exactly signed on to that call. i'm sthig of richard blumenthal, tammy duckworth. not everyone wants to be part of that message. and even those who are calling for the abolishment of i.c.e. are trying to add that nuance. it's difficult after a hashtag where they're trying to say we don't want to get rid of u.s. poureder patrol, we want to replace it with something more humane, we're not trying to leave a void. it's difficult -- it's a difficult message to project

properly. >> round table is staying with us. up next, in the wake of that red hen controversy, president trump has a warning for democrats. we'll get to that next. you're watching "hardball." -♪ he's got legs of lumber and arms of steel ♪ ♪ he eats a bowl of hammers at every meal ♪ ♪ he holds your house in the palm of his hand ♪ ♪ he's your home and auto man ♪ big jim, he's got you covered ♪ ♪ great big jim, there ain't no other ♪ -so, this is covered, right? -yes, ma'am. take care of it for you right now. giddyup! hi! this is jamie. we need some help. but prevagen helps your brain with an ingredient originally discovered... in jellyfish. in clinical trials, prevagen has been shown to improve short-term memory. prevagen. the name to remember.

your hair is so soft! did you use head and shoulders two in one? i did mom. wanna try it? yes. it intensely moisturizes your hair and scalp and keeps you flake free. manolo? look at my soft hair. i should be in the shot now too. try head and shoulders two in one.

my response was we're going to have to agree to disagree. >> but that's not up for negotiation? >> that's not the position of the united states. >> right. but saying we'll see suggests it

might be. >> well, we'll see. >> we'll be right back.

welcome back to "hardball." in an interview with fox news president trump warned his critics to, quote, take it easy.

asked about celebrities like robert de niro who publicly attacked trump and the owner of that virginia restaurant who kicked out press secretary sarah huckabee sanders, trump had this to say. >> i hope the other side realizes that they better just take it easy. they better just take it easy. because some of the language used, some of the words, even some of the radical ideas i really think they're very bad for the country. i think they're actually very dangerous for the country. >> we're back with our "hardball" round table. beth, laura, emily. emily, based on donald trump's political style, i kind of think he doesn't want his opponents to take it easy. >> it could be perceived as a veiled threat. but everything that representative -- could also be perceived as a veiled threat and i think there's ramped up rhetoric all around. it doesn't help the general national discourse but it certainly helps say the president and the congresswoman with their bases because it fires up their supporters. >> what do you make of it,

laura? fully think it's really rich for trump to encourage civility on either side. he has a history of encouraging violence at his own rallies, and he's been the least civil president we've ever had. on twitter and in speeches and elsewhere. he's called women horrible things, talked about people's bleeding faces. i mean, i don't think that this is a veiled threat from trump. i think it's a threat from trump. and i think the fact that he kind of cozies up to these authoritarian dictators who do suppress anyone their countries who oppose them i think we should be alarmed at trump starting to talk this way. >> it seems, beth, his political model, and i don't know if he set out with a premeditated view of this or it just sort of evolved this way but it relies on tension. it relies on tribalism. we look at the polling numbers on this. there's never been a president who's been elected with more of the people who voted for him having a lower opinion of him. and to get that many people to do that they need to have an even lower opinion of the other side. it just seems like that is the model here. >> right.

and he also wants to be a tough guy. he actually doesn't go around doing physical violence to people but he certainly threatens it all the time. i just did a little quick search when we were discussing the segment. i found him threatening be careful, maxine waters, john mccain, bernie sanders and to ted cruz he said i may spill the beans on your wife. so this is what he does. he likes to threaten. he likes to stand up. he likes to look like the tough guy. his folks really like to see him looking tough. they don't necessarily want to see him physically go after anybody. but he says i'm not going to take any guff from anybody. i'm the guy who's going to be standing up. if there's a fight to be had i'll be the one standing at the end. clearly that's worked for him on some level with a lot of voters. >> and we know the trump side has certainly encouraged democrats, for instance, to go forward with the impeachment talk. so there certainly does seem to be some political calculation there, hey, can we ratchet up the rhetoric on the other side in the interest of motivating on this side, that whole polarization, tribalism thing we've been talking about for so long? the round table's staying with us. up next these three are going to

tell me something i don't know. you're watching "hardball." metastatic breast cancer is relentless, but i'm relentless too. mbc doesn't take a day off, and neither will i. and i treat my mbc with new everyday verzenio- the only one of its kind that can be taken every day. in fact, verzenio is a cdk4 & 6 inhibitor for postmenopausal women with hr+, her2- mbc, approved, with hormonal therapy, as an everyday treatment

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

ask your doctor about everyday verzenio.

and we're back with the "hardball" round table. beth, tell me something i don't know. >> the hottest place to be on july 4th, steve, is going to be the eastport, maine parade. the biggest parade in maine. and that's where susan collins is going to be marching and that's where she's going to hear from constituents from across the state who are going to be flocking into maine, into that little town, eastport, to know

susan collins know what they think you how she should vote on trump's supreme court nominee. >> i think the sunrises in eastport, maine. >> most easterly place in the united states. >> added inducement to go there. laura. >> there's a 33-point gender gap leading into the mid-terms, which is the biggest gender gap we've ever seen leading into a midterm. women are favoring democrats by 25 points. men favoring republicans by eight points. so we'll see how that shakes out in november. >> it is a huge swing. and emily. >> trying to replicate the success of alexandria ocasio courtez is a woman named julia salazar. she's a democratic socialist. similar profiles, similar districts. sxheez rung against a long-term incumbent. today she was endorsed by cynthia nixon just as ocasio cortez was endorsed by singtsia nixon zblup try to figure out what the indreents were in that new york 14th district and where could they be replicated. there's one up in massachusetts i'm keeping an eye on. congressional primary mike capuano is the incumbent.

the district has changed a little bit. he's got a challenger who's endorsed by ocasio cortez. we'll see if that develops into anything this summer. beth fouhy, laura basset, emily ngo. "hardball." "all in" with chris hayes starts right now. tonight on "all in" -- >> is the president worried after his comments this morning that michael cohen is going to flip? >> trump's fixer flips his priority. >> i'll do anything to protect mr. trump. >> i put family and country first. >> tonight, why michael cohen is publicly breaking with the president. and just how worried should donald trump be? >> the substance of what he told abc if it's true should cause the president sleepless nights. then yea top republican fund-raiser suddenly ended hush payments to a "playboy" model. plus, as the president meets with potential nominees -- >> would the president like to see roe v. wade overturned? >> why republicans keep hiding from the abortion question. and in the wake of massive