wanting to sit down with robert mueller against the advice of his team. >> i've heard him say i want to be interviewed if my lawyers can reach an agreement on what the ground rules will be. we've had a hard time doing that. we're still -- i'm not going to give you a lot of hope it's going to happen. but we're still negotiating. fashion faux pas? the judge in the paul manafort trial denying the mueller team's request to show pictures of paul manafort's designer suits and other examples of the former trump campaign chairman's high flying lifestyle. >> all these expenditures were made with money wired from foreign bank accounts in sicypr that the prosecution says were set up for the express purpose of manafort evading taxes. and changing lanes. the trump administration reversing obama-era fuel standards, also taking aim at obamacare. both moves could have major impacts on americans' health.

and good day, everyone, i'm andrea mitchell in washington where president trump is reportedly pressuring his legal team to secure a sit-down with the special counsel. robert mueller has a new interview offer on the table for the president. what personal attorney rudy giuliani calls slight improvement by investigators in their offer. three sources briefed on the matter are telling "the new york times" that the mueller team wants to discuss possible coordination with trump associates and russians and whether president trump tried to obstruct adjustmenjustice. the special counsel is willing to accept some written answers from the president but wants the ability to ask followup questions of the president. peter alexander is at the white house. bob bauer is here with me. peter, what do we know so far about this possible interview offer? it appears from this that as of now mueller is not really

considering the possibility of pushing it all the way to a subpoena for an unwilling president, which could be months of litigation all the way to the supreme court. >> reporter: andrea, we're not hearing from the special counsel's side, obviously, most of the information coming from the president's legal team. rudy giuliani saying there was some slight movement, referring to a letter that the president's legal team received on tuesday. the reason that was notable is it was just the next morning, yesterday morning, that the president went off on the mueller investigation and called on jeff sessions in his most explicit, direct call to this point, effectively to shut down the mueller investigation. guiliani says, and you were talking about the idea there would be some written questions and some oral questions as part of this potential interview, according to our sources. giuliani says the focus, according to him, remains on collusion and obstruction, as he describes it, pre-presidency and post-presidency, andrea.

the bottom line here, the president, as you indicated, in that "new york times" reporting, he says, at least according to people close to him, he wants to do this. effectively he says, let me at 'em, i alone can convince these guys this is a witch hunt. it gets to what we've heard from the president on multiple occasions, that he views himself as his best diplomat, his best lawyer, his best advocate. in this position i guess the person he thinks can let him off the hook. >> bob bauer, as a former white house counsel, if you can put that hat on, what are the risks here potentially to let the president sit down with the special counsel? >> i think we can all see from the experience we've had, certainly reading his tweets, he's the worst of all possible witnesses. he tends to go to outrageous statements that don't conform to fact. he free-forms, says whatever comes to mind that might suit him at the moment. i think this is a version that

the president's lawyers are putting out that he really wants to do it. i think that's part of a public narrative. he doesn't want to seem to be shying away from this interview. i don't think he wants to do it and i don't think his lawyers think he should do it. >> there's some reporting that he, according to "the new york times," believes he is uniquely capable of persuading mueller that this is a witch hunt. how could he persuade bob mueller and his prosecutors that they are engaged in a witch hunt? >> well, you can't. and i think somewhere he clearly knows that. which is why i really think this is a bit of public posturing on his part. if at the end of the day what he wants to say is i really wanted to do it but my lawyers held me back because the mueller team was so stubborn and unreasonable, that may be where he wants to be. i would still be very surprised if he submits to an interview. >> he has said, peter alexander, over months that he wants to do it. that is potentially his posturing. newt gingrich on fox had this to

say today. >> i think the president is very unwise to walk into a perjury trap against a group of smart guys who spent a year's time getting ready to try to kill him. and i think no one is smart enough to take on all of mueller's team. >> so that seems like a direct message, peter, to the president, you know, you may think you're smart but nobody is smart enough to take on these guys and it would be stacked against you. >> there are a lot of ways to deliver direct messages to the president. one is in person, behind closed doors either here at the west wing or at the residence, the other is by going on fox news. gingrich there obviously choosing the latter. we know the president spends time each day watching. he was watching yesterday's coverage of the trial of paul manafort, that specific case about his former campaign chairman was described by the president as a hoax.

this is sort of the way he likes to cast himself, hey, you know, i'm the tough guy here, i can handle this, i can do it all by myself. but what i'm told by people in the west wing and others close to this president on the outside that he speaks to frequently is that they all consistently have said to him, we're telling you, it's a bad idea, but you're the boss, andrea. >> i mean, bob, someone like bill clinton was not only a yale-trained lawyer but a former yale professor before he became a politician. and he walked into the perjury trap and ended up being impeached for it. >> yes. that's right. there is no way that the lawyers here think that he's the sort of person who can go into this and survive. even if he can't persuade mueller it's a witch hunt, there's no chance that he's not taking a risk with a perjury charge. i disagree that mueller will be looking for a perjury charge. i think the giuliani statement can be read one of two ways. mueller is very smart, and the president is the worst possible witness and will make mueller's case for perjury that much

easier just because of the way he simply cannot control what he says. >> when we talk about mueller, according to the giuliani team, the president's team, somewhat narrowing their request to focus on the meetings with the russians, which is conspiracy to commit election fraud or whatever, to meddle, to hack, whatever you want to call it, and then also separately the obstruction, going back to comey and a lot of the other sort of nexus of comments, statements, pressure. most recently, this extraordinary tweet storm yesterday against both jeff sessions and mueller. what do you make of that, if those are the things that mueller is really zeroing in on? >> i think the negotiation is very much in mueller's interest. if this comes to a fight over a subpoena, mueller wants to present to the court his effort to accommodate the president any way he can. in the same way, trump saying i really want to do this but my

lawyers won't allow me, mueller wants to show that he's trying to avoid a confrontation. i don't think mueller will give in on the obstruction charge which the president's lawyers don't want included at all, either written or oral, although now they're saying them entertain a couple of questions, they probably won't agree to followup questions on that topic. >> is it your read that mueller knows at the end of the day, it may have been 8-0 in the nixon supreme court, but this is a different supreme court, a different era, and different facts of the case? >> i actually don't agree with that. i think mueller is prepared to battle that out. i think mueller would have a high confidence of winning. >> bob bauer, thank you so much for your expertise. peter alexander, before you go, a quick question about ivanka trump being asked by axios if she agrees with her father and her boss, because she is a white house staffer. the president of the united states repeatedly calling the

press the enemy of the people. let's watch. >> do you think the word, enemy of the people? >> sorry? >> is the enemy of the people? >> no, i do not. >> that's not a view that's shared by your family? >> are you looking for me to elaborate? >> sure. >> ivanka and the worthy mike allen, great question. she has carefully separated herself from some of her father's statements in the past. this one really noteworthy since the president has not backed off on that at all. >> andrea, i think you're right, it's noteworthy that she says that. i think the frustration of ivanka trump's critics here and outside this white house is that she doesn't wield more power inside this west wing to convince her father to sort of dial back some of that fierce rhetoric, notably there as it relates to the media, but

broadly on some of the other policies, more importantly, that he has been putting in place, including the family separation policy. she noted today that that was a low point of her time at the white house, and people who are upset with the way the white house has conducted things say there are still families separated, still children who are not with their parents, she should be fighting actively for family reunification. >> peter alexander, there's supposed to be a press briefing in an hour or so, we'll see how that goes. bob bauer, thank you so much. in the paul manafort trial, the defense won a small victory over their client's big ticket performance. rick gates is now expected to take the stand against him. joining me from outside the alexandria courthouse, ken dilanian and barbara mcquaid, a former u.s. attorney. barbara, from inside the courtroom, tell us what happened

today. we know the judge here is taking a very prominent role in denying those prosecution requests to show the photos of whatever an ostrich vest looks like, and other luxuries that are part of their bank and tax evasion case. >> yes, yesterday the government seemed surprised that the judge would not allow evidence or photographs of some of the expenditures that paul manafort made, an important part of the case to show he's living beyond his declared income, things like luxury vehicles and homes all over the country. he allowed the amounts of money but not photographs of these items. overnight, the government filed a brief setting out the case law that shows it is generally accepted that this evidence comes in because the government has the burden of proving there was this unexplained income and that paul manafort news about--t knew about it. nonetheless, the judge continued down that same path today, he said he's allowing the amounts of money to come in so the jury

has all it needs but he's not going to allow the government to, he used the phrase gild the lily, to show these photographs which he worried may be overly prejudicial to paul manafort. >> this could be very complicated for a jury, it's a long paper trail. does this materially weaken the case of the prosecution? >> it's hard to tell, andrea. just to be clear so our viewers understand, there are pictures of suit jackets that were admitted into evidence. but there are many more pictures that the judge has blocked, including pictures of manafort's entire closet filled with hundreds of suits and also pictures of lavish renovations at his home in the hamptons. we just heard testimony about nearly a million dollars he spent on landscaping including a flower bed in the shape of an "m." the prosecution would like to illustrate that but judge ellis

is arguing, manafort is not on trial for being rich or for spending lavishly. he thought this would unfairly besmirch manafort. it's absolutely true that while we in the audience may think the prosecution is being too meticulous and is hammering too much evidence home, the jury is not always paying attention. it's sometimes hard for juries to follow things. and what the prosecution does not want is the jury to fail to convict because they didn't understand the evidence, andrea. >> and as a former prosecutor, how important do you think is this decision that they're now signaling, barbara, that rick gates will in fact be on the witness stand, the former deputy chairman of the campaign? >> i think they did make it pretty clear, greg andres, the lead prosecutor said today they fully intend to call rick gates as a witness. today they said that they weren't sure whether they would or would not call him. today they made it pretty clear

it is their intent to do so. his value as a narrator, in many ways they could make their case without him, based on documents and transactions. but one defense theory that seems to have emerged is that it was rick gates who was the one manufacturing fake invoices in an effort to steal money from paul manafort. it may be necessary now to put rick gates on the stand to refute that theory and explain the government's theory of the case. >> barbara and ken, thank you both so much, a beautiful day out there in alexandria, virginia. thanks for being with us. coming up, slamming on the brakes. president trump moving to roll back president obama's auto emissions standards. this really matters, it's important. we'll have a report coming up in our inside scoop, right here on "andrea mitchell reports" on msnbc. come here, babe.

ok. nasty nighttime heartburn? try new alka-seltzer pm gummies. the only fast, powerful heartburn relief plus melatonin so you can fall asleep quickly. ♪ oh, what a relief it is!

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.

are you ready to take your then you need xfinity xfi.? a more powerful way to stay connected. it gives you super fast speeds for all your devices, provides the most wifi coverage for your home, and lets you control your network with the xfi app. it's the ultimate wifi experience. xfinity xfi, simple, easy, awesome.

president trump is again taking direct aim at his predecessor's legacy, launching a direct attack against key obama initiatives. the trump administration today moving to reverse federal fuel economy standards aimed at getting cars and trucks to average more than 50 miles per gallon by 2025, one of the most effective actions to fight pollution, to save money, to reduce oil consumption, to improve health. at the same time the administration is proposing a scaled back health care plan that would not cover preexisting conditions, aimed at undermining the affordable care act through executive action. four major cities are already

going to court to challenge that new health care plan, claiming it is unconstitutional. let's get the inside scoop on all of this from nbc chief environmental affairs correspondent anne thompson. heidi przybyla. >> in effect, the obama administration put these standards in place in order to increase fuel efficiency to reduce the impact of climate change. and so by stopping the increase in fuel efficiency standards at 2020 today, in effect the trump administration has set off an

environmental civil war in this country. california governor jerry brown says he will everything to fight what he called this stupidity on every level, because along with rolling back the fuel efficiency standards, the administration also wants to revoke california's waiver to regulate its own pollution standards, its own tailpipe standards. california has set the bar for the country for decades now on that issue. and 19 attorneys general and the attorney general of washington, d.c. have said they're going to file a lawsuit against the administration to stop the rollback of these standards, because they say the country needs to do more to protect the nation from the impact of climate change. >> just to put an exclamation point on this, we both remember when los angeles was always covered in smog. >> right. >> the change in the air quality in california over the last decade or so has been really

noteworthy. >> it has been absolutely dramatic. and the trump administration acknowledges that. what they say is there is no evidence that california is more impacted by climate change than any other state. i think you might get an argument from californians who have gone through drought and who are currently going through a season of wildfires, who are watching the impacts of sea level rise. but that's the trump administration's argument, that look, california had a pollution problem, no question about that, but as far as when it comes to climate change and the regulation of greenhouse gas emissions, it's no more effective than kansas, and so therefore it should not get an exception. >> and heidi, you've been writing about the affordable care act, obamacare. so the president lost that battle because of john mccain's vote, something he repeats frequently on the campaign trail as recently as this week. and now they're doing something by executive order. you could call it a skinny health care plan.

if i recall the data from when they first were proposing to undercut obamacare legislatively, 20 million people are affected by preexisting conditions. if you have a health care plan that is short term, doesn't cover preexisting conditions, and has a lot of other, you know, things that are eliminated from obamacare, you're really undercutting the whole premise of national health care. >> this is the latest iteration of what the president promised to do when he didn't get that vote through in congress which is to undercut the entire law. this is a number of bites that the president is taking at this to try and rip it apart. that's why you're seeing this separate lawsuit that i'm reporting on today by major cities, who say what you're doing here in effectively undercutting this law is leaving us holding the bag, because there's fewer insured people, more people who are uninsured visiting emergency rooms, we're having to pay for that, we can prove damages, and that you're

doing this intentionally, andrea. there's been a lot of dispute about this take care clause in the constitution that says the president must faithfully uphold the laws of the land. this is different, you've never before had a president who said this is the law of the land but i'm sabotaging it. he just said yesterday on rush limbaugh, "i think i'm almost done with tearing up obamacare." >> jeff, as we've been absorbed with the mueller probe, the presidential tweets, there's a lot happening at the regulatory level that we don't see as much of at evaluate pa, ryan zinke in interior. and only last week, i think, they first nominated a white house science adviser, the longest they've gone without having a science adviser in the white house. >> the one thing i was thinking today, looking at both these stories, it reflects again the impact of elections. we spend a lot of time talking

about the controversies, about the palace intrigue going on at the white house. but real policy things are happening as well, not just a rollback of obama-era issues but things that will affect this country for years and years to come. the environmental piece is interesting a interesting, that we were talking about earlier. yes, president trump and his administration have tried to be very industry-friendly. but one interesting aspect to changing these rules for car companies is it forces them as well to have to deal with different sets of standards in different parts of the country. that's not always easy for car companies or industry as well. environmentalists are also taking issue, not surprisingly, with the trump administration's suggestion that doing this will lead to fewer accidents and healthier people. >> that's a very strange claim as well. anne, you also cover the vatican, so brilliantly.

the pope spoke out against the death penalty today. i know it's been part of the vatican's position on this, a long time. is today's statement more definitive, if you will, about the death penalty? >> it is. in effect what pope francis did today was to change the teaching of the catholic church on the death penalty, to say that the death penalty is inadmissible because it's an attack on the dignity of the person. this builds on statements that were made by st. pope john paul ii and benedict xvi. pope francis has long been a foe of the death penalty. he's now made its inadmissibility a teaching of the catholic church. that's what's significant today. >> thank you all so much. coming up, call to action.

a democratic member of homeland security and house judiciary now pushing to protect the mueller probe, that's next. capital one and hotels.com are giving venture cardholders 10 miles on every dollar they spend at thousands of hotels. brrrr! i have the chills. because of all those miles? and because ice... is cold. what's in your wallet?

with pg&e in the sierras. and i'm an arborist and because ice... is cold. since the onset of the drought, more than 129 million trees have died in california. pg&e prunes and removes over a million trees every year to ensure that hazardous trees can't impact power lines. and since the onset of the drought we've doubled our efforts. i grew up in the forests out in this area and honestly

it's heartbreaking to see all these trees dying. what guides me is ensuring that the public is going to be safer and that these forests can be sustained and enjoyed by the community in the future.

it's not an order. it's the president's opinion. and it's ridiculous that all of the corruption and dishonesty that's gone on with the launching of the witch hunt, the president is not obstructing, he's fighting back. the president is restating his opinion. he's stating it clearly. there's a reason that the president is angry and frankly most of america is angry as well and there's no reason he shouldn't be able to voice that opinion. >> white house press secretary sarah huckabee sanders trying to explain the president's twitter tirade, threatening both his attorney general and the mueller probe. joining me now is democratic congresswoman sheila jackson lee who serves on the judiciary committee, also homeland security. thank you, congresswoman, thanks for being with us today. i know we're getting ready for another sarah sanders interaction with the press, as brief as it may be. i wanted to get your reaction first of all to the president's threats, basically. he really upped the ante yesterday against both jeff

sessions, who is recused and so cannot fire bob mueller, but also, most importantly, against the mueller investigation. do you think we're reaching some kind of really dangerous inflection point here? >> first of all, congratulations to a powerful woman with knowledge for 40 years. >> oh, thank you. >> thank you for your service very much. >> thank you very much. >> we're seeing a breach of the rule of law of historic proportions. anyone who is an historian, political scientist, average voter, knows as they watched the presidencies through the decades, last ten, 15 years, they've never seen a president of the united states, not their operatives or their staff or their press people, go so squarely against democracy and the rule of law, as evidenced by the shenanigans of this administration and particularly the president. as a senior member of judiciary and homeland security, i've

never seen it. many presidents were investigated, nixon had his midnight massacre, which looks like small potatoes now. clinton had his episode and people were attacked the special prosecutor at that time. but never directly by the president of the united states. george w. bush, president obama, everyone has had their share of reviews of their tactics and policies. in this instance, this president has gone directly and squarely against the rule of law. he is on the brink, he is on the precipice. he is clearly touching upon constitutional violations that no president should cross. >> i want to ask you about the fact that the republican leaders certainly in the house side on the various committees but now on the senate side as well, senator chuck grassley today about the mueller investigation, saying that he thinks that mueller ought to proceed and get it over with and that he in fact should have gotten it over with yesterday but if he can't get it over with yesterday, maybe friday, tomorrow, it can be over, because it's going on for

15 months. when you have the chairman of the senate judiciary committee coming out that strongly and telling mueller to hurry up and finish your investigation, what does that pressure tell you? >> well, let me say this. individual members certainly have their right to comment. i'm going to be as strong as i possibly can. the committee of senator grassley has passed out the special counsel protection act led by him, and democrats, a bipartisan legislation to protect the special counsel, director mueller. i would say that i hope that the majority leader, who has refused, put the bill on the floor. in the house we have over 150 members of congress who have signed on to protect director mueller so he cannot be removed while he is continuing his work, which has been stunning in its preciseness and its secrecy, unless it is a dereliction of duty and misconduct. so i go by your actions and not by your words.

the special counsel is a fixture of the democracy of this nation. he is legislately authorized, if you -- legitimately authorized, if you will. the deputy attorney general has not indicated any lack of confidence in the director's work. iran-contra went on for eight years. the special prosecutor in watergate went on for almost two years. and so the work that has to be done is work that has to be done fairly. and i would imagine at this point in time, none of the other special prosecutors had this number of indictments. we're now in a full trial of paul manafort. the first campaign manager of any president of the united states, presidential candidate, that is now on trial. i think special counsel mueller needs to continue his work. >> and finally, i want to ask you about the violence against women act. you and nancy pelosi, steny hoyer, other members of the house democratic leadership, have introduced a bill to extend it.

it's going to expire september 30th. it was first passed in 1994. now it's going to expire. the house is going off for the august recess. >> well, thank you very much. and you're absolutely right. and democrats who enconcernuragd invited republicans to join us, we're the get it done party. democrats work. what we decided to do is we couldn't allow on our watch for the violence against women act to expire without not only a reauthorization, andrea, but a freshen-up. we're excited about the fact that native american women, we have expanded their rights for protection. 84% of them suffer some kind of abuse. we're good because we have immigrant women protected. and we've done something that advocacy groups have begged us to do, and that is not to force victims through a bench warrant. i saw that tragedy happen in my own hometown of houston when

they put a victim in jail, not to force victims through bench warrant or court order to testify. it only results in horrible situations, and as well to strengthen law enforcement tools to help them find the perpetrator. there are victimization of women and men, of course, we expanded it to people across the nation. they can't wait. and republicans need to stop playing politics. we hope that they will join us. this happened in 2010. it took three years before we could finally get a bill. we hope when we get back, we'll move this legislation to protect not only women but children and the american people in this time. it is right for now, and it is a bill that has drawn bipartisan support of the decades-long relationship that the groups, the advocacy groups have had with members of congress to pass serious legislation. we hope it get done just like we hope director mueller continues his work without the intrusion of naysayers and fake news. >> thank you, again, thanks for

your advocacy. we appreciate your coming on today. thanks very much, congresswoman. coming up, the kremlin crackdown. republican and democratic senators wanting to push russia for continuing their election meddling, that's ahead. stay with us right here. rning, pins and needles of diabetic nerve pain, these feet... ...grew up the youngest of three kids... ...raised a good sport... ...and became a second-generation firefighter. but i couldn't bear my diabetic nerve pain any longer. so i talked to my doctor, and he prescribed lyrica. nerve damage from diabetes cause diabetic nerve pain. lyrica is fda approved to treat this pain from moderate to even severe diabetic nerve pain. lyrica may cause serious allergic reactions, suicidal thoughts or actions. tell your doctor right away if you have these, new or worse depression, unusual changes in mood or behavior, swelling, trouble breathing, rash, hives, blisters, muscle pain with fever, tired feeling, or blurry vision. common side effects: dizziness, sleepiness, weight gain and swelling of hands, legs, and feet. don't drink alcohol while taking lyrica. don't drive or use machinery

until you know how lyrica affects you. those who have had a drug or alcohol problem may be more likely to misuse lyrica. now i have less diabetic nerve pain. and i love helping the future generation step into our shoes. ask your doctor about lyrica.

a new bipartisan group of lawmakers now introducing hard-hitting sanctions against russia. senator lindsey graham saying

that the current measures have failed to deter russia from meddling in the upcoming 2018 elections. joining me is "washington post" columnist david ignatius, and john kelly, ceo and co-founder of graphica, a social media analysis company. thank you very much. the other john kelly, or you're the real john kelly. someone is the real john kelly. you were testifying yesterday and we were all watching as you were making clear that what we're seeing in the social media space is from russia, because there's been so much quickbblin and from the white house, from the first national security meeting last friday, less than an hour, that was devoted to this and the statement afterwards did not even acknowledge that russia was the main actor here. but dan coats has acknowledged that. >> yes. it's clearly russia. there's a lot of data from the internet research agency that's making its way into the public and a lot of folks are into it, including us, and it's pretty

incontrovertible. >> what are you seeing that shows this is fancy bear or whatever? >> fancy bear is a middle government part of the russian government. this is from a contract shop that was for years conditioning the russian public and most of their output was actually russian language output for the russian public. at some point they got the contract to boot up their american contacts. >> david ignatius, you've been following this in your work. as they contract out, spewing this propaganda, basically infecting our political dialogue to exacerbate preexisting tensions, to get on the side of black lives matter during 2016 or on the other side, and to get people to come to rallies and to bring helmets, to bring placards, making it much more

argumentive before the elections. >> if you look at the russian strategy as it was outlined in the mueller indictment that named the internet research agency, its personnel, and produced a lot of evidence of the specific facebook ads they placed, messages they were putting on social media, it's playing both sides of the polarized situation in america. you just can see transparently what the russian strategy is. they'll hit pro-kkk, right wing activity, support it. they'll support black lives matter activists. they just want to churn anger and division in the country. and there's every evidence, as your guest has said, that this effort by russia is continuing. >> and david, you were in aspen, among all of us listening to

homeland secretary kirstjen nielsen. she seemed to be going out of her way not to blame russia. >> she did seem to be going out of her way. that was in the immediate post-helsinki i want to say confusion, nobody quite knew which way things were going. your interview with director of national intelligence dan coats was a breath of fresh air in that. i've sensed, andrea, in the last week, an effort to kind of steady the ship, to reverse some of the positions the president seemed to have taken or at least discussed with vladimir putin in helsinki. i've noted a more assertive posture from secretary massive, more assertive posture from secretary pompeo in the state department. i think they're pushing back to try to get the policy within what we think of as normal, vigilant parameters.

>> john kelly, what needs to be done and would happen if the president doesn't show direct leadership? >> well, i'm a network analyst, and i work on the data side of these kinds of problems. so i think there are two key components to defending the country from this. the first is a technical component, which is how do you get access to the data and just run the math, the computation, the algorithms, to detect these things before they happen or when they just start to happen. and the second piece is more political, which means that if you can definitively attribute these actions to a foreign government, you have to have the normal kind of carrots and sticks of foreign policy environment to take up and deal with that. >> and the bottom line, is facebook in whatever they turned over to the senate committees before this hearing, are they being proactive enough? are these i.t. companies now finally stepping up? >> i think what facebook did the other day is actually essential,

the proactive transparency, when you discover something, go out there and tell the public. that is absolutely essential to people understanding that the problem is real and that the platforms are taking measures to deal with it. i would say they showed leadership in that. >> thank you so much. thanks for your expertise. and david ignatius, as always, thank you. coming up, warning signs. new testimony that top government officials warned the administration about the long term health effects of separating kids from their parents. you're watching "andrea mitchell reports" right here on msnbc. tt geico... (harmonica interrupts) how they could save 15% or more by... (harmonica interrupts) ...by just calling or going online to geico.com. (harmonica interrupts) (sighs and chuckles) sorry, are you gonna... (harmonica interrupts) everytime. geico. 15 minutes could save you 15% or more on car insurance.

you always get the lowest price on our rooms, guaranteed? let's say it in a really low voice. carl? lowest price, guaranteed. just stick with badda book. badda boom. book now at choicehotels.com

trump administration officials face tough questions this week on the border crisis during a tense senate hearing on capitol hill. one top immigration and customs enforcement official sparked criticism after comparing the agency's family detention centers to summer camp. >> with regard to the frcs, i think the best way to describe them is to be more like a sum ircamp. these individuals have access to 24/7 food and water. they have educational opportunities. they have recreational opportunities, both structured,

as well as unstructured. there's basketball courts. they're exercise classes. there's soccer fields that we put in there. >> but the ordeal has hardly been fun and games for hundreds of families that have yet to be reunited. as one senior hhs official revealed during the hearing, rerepeatedly warned the trump administration about the lasting effects of separating children from their parents before they initiated the policy. >> who thinks that family separation policy has been a success? raise your hand. did anyone -- any member of this panel say to anyone, maybe this isn't such a good idea? commander? >> during the deliberative process over the previous year, we raised a number of concerns in the program about any policy which would result in family separation. due to concerns we had about the best interest of the child. there's no question that separation of children from

parents entails significant potential for traumatic psychological injury to the child. >> joining me now is jean guerrero, author of "crux" a cross border memoir. thank you for being with us. all of your reporting, and we've had you on, following how closely you have followed this whole case. to hear from a health official that they argued against separation only validates suspicions that what the attorney general did in announcing this was to propose a deterrent policy. >> right. >> they just wanted to stop people from coming a cross and seeking refuge. >> even before the zero tolerance policy there was talk of separating families. former homeland security secretary said they were going to consider separating families as a deterrence strategy. this was initially envisioned as a strategy to scare families from coming to the united states in the first place. >> as we've seen, it evolved now

and you've been following a critical hearing in san diego where the judge is saying you've ignored the families in all of this. you're talking about everyone else but the families. and is demanding some action on reuniting families including those who have been sent back voluntarily, quote/unquote, signing their rights to their kids and to a sigh lum without even knowing the language they were reading. >> exactly. there are more than 400 parents who were removed from the united states their children, many of them assigned to these forms that they didn't understand and was prechecked, that i agree to be deported without my child. the difficulty is finding -- finding these parents that were deported without their children so they could be reunited because there are still hundreds of families that have not yet been reunited. and the judge in san diego has ordered the government to submit a plan today to explain how it plans to reunify these families,

and the challenge is first of all going to be locating them. pause most of them didn't go back to their hometowns. th they left their hometowns because they feared for their lives. some are on the way back to the united states because they want to recover their children so this could be anywhere in mexico. >> while we've been here, ivanka trump was being interviewed. a number of things. we've showed one of her responses earlier. this is what she had to say when asked about the separation policy. >> that was a low point for me as well. i feel very strongly about that. and i am very vehemently against family separation. and the separating of parents and children. >> it's very interesting that she would say that because the next follow-up question would be, what have you done to argue against it inside the white house.

>> right. exactly. then also what is being done now that these famililess being reunited. there's this idea that, okay, we did our job, that the trump administration, you know, met the goal of reuniting families. but in reality, there are still hundreds of people who haven't been reunited. and also once these families are reunited, they underwent such significance traumas. these children -- the children of families that i'm speaking with, you know, they're having fight mares. they're crying all the time. they're fraid that they're going to be separated from their parented again. not to mention the trauma inflicted on the parents. so these are lasting psychological injuries to these families that the government has acknowledged. the health and human services officer said he told the trump administration this was going to happen, and that they, you know, they did it anyway. and nothing -- nothing so far is being done to address the psychological impact that has been had on these families, you know, mental health services

being provided. that's something that the american civil liberties union is proposing in san diego but we don't have any kind of statement from the government that they plan on doing this. >> i know you're following this for pbs, for kpbs and i hope you'll contribute to our reporting. sarah huckabee sanders scheduled to hold a white house press briefing. we'll bring that to you live. stay with us. i found my tresiba® reason. now i'm doing more to lower my a1c. i take tresiba® once a day. tresiba® controls blood sugar for 24 hours for powerful a1c reduction. (woman) we'd been counting down to his retirement. it was our tresiba® reason. he needs insulin to control his high blood sugar and, at his age, he's at greater risk for low blood sugar. tresiba® releases slow and steady and works all day and night like the body's insulin.

(vo) tresiba® is a long-acting insulin 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. (man) i found my tresiba® reason. find yours. (vo) ask your health care provider about tresiba®. covered by most commercial health insurance and medicare part d plans.

and that's all for today. follow us online, on facebook, on twitter, @mitchellreports. chris jansing takes over. >> good afternoon from msnbc headquarters in new york. i'm chris janising, in for crai melvin. president trump itching to defy the advice of lawyers and sit down with special counsel robert mueller. why he think he's the only one who can convince investigators he's done nothing wrong. the white house press briefing should start any minute now. this is going to be the second briefing in two days. we're going to watch to see how they answered questions about this. and trouble with the truth. the president ready to rally tonight in pennsylvania. last time he went before a friendly audience, the facts were not always on his side. but it doesn't seem to matter. plus, trump versus obama. president trump dismantling his