if you didn't say it, you can say you didn't say it, you don't have to say mark burnett called. >> kellyanne conway is weaving around, making it only about that. you don't have to make it only about that. you can look at the lineup of what the president has done historically. even today, the lack of decency from the white house. can you imagine if an employee with an axe to grind and the ceo made eight plus public statements attacking that person's character? when you're the person on top, you sett the bar. >> thanks for watching this hour at "velshi & ruhle." i'll see you back at 3:00 and 8:00 p.m. >> i'm stephanie ruhle. i'll see you at 8:00 and 9:00 a.m. >> now it's time for andrea mitchell with "andrea mitchell reports." good day, everyone. i'm andrea mitchell in washington. breaking news, the defense in

the paul manafort trial has closed its case. joining us, julia ainsley. >> reporter: the defense has rested, andrea. they didn't bring any witnesses. it's important to remember they don't have to bring any witnesses, it's the burden of the government to show that beyond a reasonable doubt what paul manafort did was criminal. the defense does not have to show anything, to the contrary, he's presumed innocent. if they tried to bring forth character witnesses, it wouldn't do enough for the jury. what they want to do is plant a seed of doubt on every one of these counts, so the bank fraud or tax evasion, they want enough for the jury to say on each of these 16 counts, perhaps that's not the full story, maybe what the prosecution is saying shouldn't be believed because of the way the defense conducted their cross-examination. yesterday they were somewhat successful in how they cross-examined some people, putting some doubt on whether

paul manafort actually committed bank fraud, for example. but another key piece of this, andrea, is this is coming after a 2 1/2 hour recess, another time when the judge met privately with the jury and we don't know what he said. we don't know if there are issues with the jury that could send this entire thing into a mistrial and to make this conversation i'm having you a moot point. >> daniel goldman, former assistant district attorney for the southern district of new york who is at the courthouse in alexandria, virginia. also nbc white house correspondent geoff bennett, reporter ashley parker, and chuck rosenberg, former senior attorney and fbi official. chuck, you were in the courtroom. what do you think led to the defense decision to rest, and would the mistrial motion have already been ruled on by the judge before we heard that the

defense had rested? >> i'll answer your second question first. it does not seem that the judge has ruled on the mistrial motion, only because at some point, while the judge was figuring out scheduling issues, just a couple of minutes ago, he indicated that he needed to receive a further brief from the government before he can resolve an outstanding issue. and my suspicion is the only outstanding issue that remains is this sealed motion that julia was just talking about, that we believe is related to some issues with the jury, given that the judge had held a lengthy sealed hearing this morning where he interviewed the jurors. as to the defense's decision, it is not that surprising in a case where the defense has set up the main culprit and most of their defense around the cooperating witness. if the defense decides to put on its own case, they lose a little bit of the luster of their

argument that this was all the government's witness and that the government did not meet its burden to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. so in cases like this, they may call character witnesses to say that paul manafort was a good guy, they may call other sort of technical witnesses. but the thrust of those witnesses does not really support what their theory of the case is, so it's really not too much of a surprise that they are not calling any witnesses. >> and before i move on, i wanted to just ask you also about what we thought was a defense motion to dismiss some of the charges, some of the bank fraud charges based on the argument that the head of the bank, steven calk, understood and agreed with this bank loan request so that it was not a defrauding of the bank. has that materialized or been resolved? >> yes, the judge did ultimately deny that motion. but before doing so, he said

that he thought that there was a decent argument from the defense that the misrepresentations to the bank were not material, which is one element of the crime, because ultimately the ceo decided for unrelated reasons -- unrelated to the misrepresentations, i should say, to grant the loan. but the judge correctly said this is really an issue for the jury to decide, it's a factual issue, you can make this argument but it's not for the judge to step into the shoes of the jury and throw out the counts. >> now, chuck, as a former prosecutor in this district who knows the judge very well, and we know that there is a lot of debate over whether he was putting his finger on the scale, you then, before you get to closing arguments, there would be a charging conference with both sides, which could get

complicated in this case because there could be objections to the way the judge is planning to charge the jury. >> typically the charging conferences, in which the judge sits down and figures out what instruction to give the jury, are complicated and dull. the jury is not there for that. the press is of course invited to watch, as is the public, but the jury is sent to their jury room. it's important step in the process, andrea. both sides are going to want to argue the facts as they adduce them at trial, but they're also going to want to peg those facts to the law. and that's where they will find out precisely what law judge ellis will instruct the jury on. >> and when they have had a charging conference with him, can they argue back and forth to him? or will he be preemptory in saying, this is the way i see it? >> yes and yes. they can try. i've been in front of judge ellis, he is often not in the mood to hear much about the law from others. and so he can be preemptory and

say this is my view, i'll hear you for a short time or i'll hear you on this charge but not on this other one. in the end, he will decide how to charge, how to instruct the charge on the law. >> ashley parker, how much do we think the president of the united states is watching this trial? >> i think the president is watching it fairly closely. it's interesting, there's sort of a divide. his white house aides are generally watching it the way we are, kind of as viewers and voyeurs taking part in this dra drama, but they don't believe it affects them and they actually don't believe it will affect president trump simhimself. having said that, the president has been watching closely, and he alternates, believing paul manafort is being treated far more harshly because of his connection to the president and feeling deeply upset the way his

own name, "trump," is tied to every single aspect of this trial, and he believes it's the government and mueller trying to send a warning signal to him, and that puts him in a dark mood and very angry, when he's not feeling a little sympathy for manafort. >> julia, i was struck by a couple of other things that came out in light filings, including calk's wish list, if you will. this is such an insight into the way manafort and the campaign were operating. his wish list of what jobs this bank leader from a small bank that was loaning $16 million. first of all, check out the spelling, "perspective" misspelled, roles, "r-o-l-l-s." he wanted very high -- cabinet positions, subcabinet positions.

and ambassadorships, starting with the court of st. james, which is the most prestigious, most recently given to the biggest donors rather than the most experienced diplomats, but then france, germany, italy, spain, japan, ireland, australia, china, the united nations. can you imagine this banker from chicago who is loaning $16 million with no collateral to a dead broke paul manafort, becoming our ambassador to the united nations? >> i mean, andrea, you know more than anyone how prestigious these jobs are and how difficult they can be. if you look at the wish list of the secretary positions, it really runs the gamut, it kind of seems like he just wanted anything. it didn't really matter where his subject area expertise might lend itself, primarily because he didn't have a lot of subject matter expertise in a lot of these areas. but it is clear from the exhibits that we've seen from the special counsel, steven calk was using this position. he knew he was giving a loan to

manafort that he would be unable to get anywhere else, a total of $16 million. he knew that he would have not had ranked that loan as one that should pass but he had people under him rank it that way anyway. he knew he was giving him a favor and expected one in return. we even saw last night in exhibits submitted, they're not yet discussed in court, that paul manafort did e-mail jared kushner during the campaign and say, here are three resumes from stephen calk and others of people i would like to see get positions in the trump administration. that hasn't come up yet. it may come up in closing arguments. it underscores why this trial is so important, because someone like paul manafort, who isn't even in the administration, never entered the administration, that kind of style, this quid pro quo, this using people who gave them a leg up in personal relationships and financial relationships outside of government, using that to bring people into government, really underscores the style that we're seeing play out

throughout the people under investigation by mueller. and it really counteracts what trump said, that he was coming in to drain the swamp. >> what we're going to have now is no defense witnesses, that's the breaking news today. then we're going to have this charging conference which is, as chuck has explained, rather boring but important because it's how the judge, who is the arbiter of all things, and in the jury's mind, the one believable person in this courtroom most likely, that's how he's going to charge the jury. and a judge's charge can be so critical. all of that, depending on what we hear, dan, about a possible mistrial, that is going to be the next thing before we have closing arguments. and enwe understand those are going to be tomorrow morning. the judge has already said, dan, as you know better than i, the closing arguments have to be two hours apiece. he's been quite the timekeeper, he wants them both the same day,

leaving time for breaks and lunch and whatever. this case will go to the jury most likely by tomorrow night, dan. >> yes, that's right. it sounds like the judge is going to spend the afternoon with the parties to determine what the jury instructions will be. and because he wants to have all the closing arguments on one day, which is four hours plus breaks, he's going to put it over to tomorrow morning, begin at 9:30. and the jury will have the case by tomorrow afternoon when they will start deliberations. >> and also, what we know is also the president has been on quite a tweet storm. we'll talk about some of his other tweets. let's talk about peter strzok for a moment. geoff, the president going after the mueller probe, so-called witch hunt, and peter strzok, who we know was fired yesterday. >> that's right, andrea. and look, the president has gone over peter strzok for months on

twitter. and his congressional allies have done the same thing. they've been asking department of justice officials to turn over paperwork having to do with the start of the russia investigation. of course we know that strzok was fired for sending anti-trump texts during the course of the work that he did with the mueller investigation. peter strzok's lawyer aitan goelman told us that his client being fired, that made an end run around the department of justice's own recommendation that he be suspended but not fired. the question is has the president ever leaned on department of justice officials privately to reach that same result, andrea. >> and what we now know also from the court, chuck rosenberg, is the charging conference will be this afternoon. this has really been kept to such a timetable, to the

disadvantage of the prosecution more than the defense. >> well, if you're going to litigate in the eastern district of virginia, you know that judges -- >> be ready. >> be ready, it's going to move, it's going to move fast, and this thing that you see in other parts of the country, continuances and delays, isn't part of the fabric in alexandria. closing arguments will be tomorrow, the government will go first because they have the burden of proof. the defense will present its closing argument and the government will get a brief rebuttal argument and then the case is what we call submitted. >> i imagine when you say brief, you mean brief. >> the two hours for the government will be divided up as the government sees fit between its closing argument and its rebuttal, they have two hours total between them. >> very briefly, was the fact of

judge ellis and his unusual trial leadership, if you will, procedurally, is that why mueller did use a local eastern district prosecutor? >> yes. so the eastern district of virginia assistant u.s. attorney, is well-versed in sort of the rhythms of that court. it's always good for someone coming from another court, even close by, to have somebody who knows the local rules and the judge and who the judge knows, so there's a level of comfort there and a level of knowledge. we call that local counsel. in this case it was a sitting ausa in the eastern district of virginia. it makes perfect sense. >> okay. well, you guys all stay, we'll have a lot more coming up on a lot of other issues. but the breaking news, as we've been reporting, is that the defense has rested without presenting a single witness. that is their strategy. and a lot of that was telegraphed, but now it is the reality. this case is rapidly coming to a close, the first paul manafort trial, the first mueller trial

with paul manafort of course on trial for bank fraud and tax evasion charges. and coming up, reality bites. donald trump's former "apprentice" star turning on the president. and now he calls her a dog on twitter and takes legal action in new york as omarosa releases another secretly recorded tape today, promising more to come. stay with us on "andrea mitchell reports" on msnbc. for your heart... your joints... or your digestion... so why wouldn't you take something for the most important part of you... your brain. with an ingredient originally discovered in jellyfish, prevagen has been shown in clinical trials

to improve short-term memory. prevagen. healthier brain. better life. and i don't add up the years. but what i do count on is boost®. delicious boost® high protein nuritional drink now has 33% more protein, along with 26 essential vitamins and minerals boost® high protein. be up for life.

and back pain made it hard to sleep and get up on time.

then i found aleve pm. the only one to combine a safe sleep aid, plus the 12 hour pain relieving strength of aleve. i'm back. aleve pm for a better am. 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. the war of words between president trump and on me he row -- and omarosa manigault newman is escalating by the hour. he tweeted, "i guess it just didn't work out. good work by general kelly for quickly firing that dog." now the trump campaign says it is taking legal action against the former white house aide for alleged breach of her campaign nondisclosure agreement. omarosa is refusing to back down, on a book tour taking the fight to the president and her former colleagues by releasing

new audio of what she says is a conversation during 2016, during the campaign, with top campaign staffers about the possibility of a tape of mr. trump using the "n" word becoming public, with a former campaign spokesperson asking what context the word was used. >> i said, well, sir, can you this of any time this might have happened, and he said no. >> well, that's not true, so -- >> and how do you think i should handle it. i told him exactly what you said, omarosa, which is, well, it depends on what scenario you are talking about. and he said, well, why don't you go ahead and put it to bed. >> he said, no, he said it. >> lynne patton is a long time

campaign associate now at hud. geoff bennett, ashley parker, and chuck rosenberg are all still with us. first to you, geoff. the whole issue of them taking legal action, apparently in arbitration in new york to try to stop omarosa from releasing more tapes that relate to the campaign, because she did sign a nondisclosure agreement relating to the campaign work, if not, as she claims, to her white house work. >> you're absolutely right, andrea. and a trump campaign official says they view the release of this latest tape that you just played, they view that as an egregious violation of the nondisclosure agreement that omarosa signed with the trump campaign where they pledged to hold proprietary information confidential and to not disparage the trump family. so in that tape you just heard, you heard former trump campaign spokeswoman katrina pierson say of this alleged tape of the president using the "n" word, "he said it, he said it, he's

embarrassed about it." i reached out to katrina pierson about omarosa's other allegations involving her, and she said it was a total fabrication. after cbs released that tape i then reached out to katrina pierson again, around 7:30, 8:00 this morning. she's given us an updated statement where, andrea, she says that she said that, the reason she said what they said on the tape was that it was one of the many times she would placate omarosa to move the discussion along "because i was wea weary at her obsession over this alleged tape." so it appears katrina pierson and other campaign advisers are sticking by their assertion that this alleged tape does not exist. but the american people can make up their own minds on where he stands on crucial issues of race and ethnicity. >> we should point out omarosa was the only high level

african-american in the entire administration, in the white house staff, and has not been replaced. she was fired in december. ashley parker, you've been writing on these nondisclosure agreements as they apply to white house officials. and omarosa says she did not sign one, despite what was said. but the fact is that this is a very unusual practice. and i'm not even sure what the legality would be. >> it's an incredibly unusual practice. and these nondisclosure agreements are largely unenforceable, which is one of the reasons they're not widely used in government. there are exceptions, sometimes during a transition period when a new white house is coming in, you have people from the private sector, from the public sector, all working together, they may be more common. but we've talked to officials in previous administrations and this is not common at all. that said, this is incredibly common in the world that president trump hails from. he has often forced associates to sign them in the business world, then into the campaign.

and he tried to bring this practice into his white house. and the important thing to keep in mind is the reason why, which is that president trump himself has long fostered a culture of sort of controlled chaos, of leaks, of infighting, of a work environment where people think recording someone surreptitiously is an acceptable form of behavior. and if you have a bunch of underlings behaving as you are or as they believe you want them to be behaving and engaging in this type of behavior, you can understand why he might want some of them to sign nondisclosure agreements. >> and let's also talk about peter strzok, because the president has been on a tear today, on a twitter tear. he said, or wrote today, fired fbi agent peter strzok is a fraud as is the rigged investigation he started. there was no collusion or obstruction with russia and everybody including the democrats know it. and in fact chuck todd was tweeting, un-democratic for president to run down a civil

servant like this. chuck rosenberg, let's talk about peter strzok. and we know about those e-mails and the embarrassment to the fbi over those e-mails. i've seen several former fbi officials saying that his being fired despite the recommendation of the investigators within the internal investigation that he be suspended for 60 days. >> 60, i think. >> 60-day suspension i think it was, and demoted, but not fired, that that was overruled by the deputy fbi director. and some were on tv last night saying that is appropriate, that he be fired, because he embarrassed the nonpartisan nature of the fbi and called that into disrepute. what say you? you were with the fbi. >> i was, and i know the fbi director, david bowditch. i know him to be a good, decent man. >> and he made the decision. >> he made the decision.

dave bowditch is the senior most official, not a political appointment, a career guy who came up through the ranks. secondly, i like peter strzok but he exhibited remarkably bad judgment. so when you go through the factors of whether someone is suspended, demoted, or fired, one of the factors is whether you bring disrepute to the agency, whether you bring shame to the fbi. sxher and he did. so it's not a crazy decision. in fact i understand why dave bowditch did what he did. >> he had become a poster child for the president, for everything that he hates about the alleged, so-called witch hunt. and given his experience of decades of service as the leading counterintelligence expert at a time when america is again under attack from russia in the upcoming midterms, what's the balance here? >> that's what pains me, because he's a good man and a good agent and he does really important

work. on the other hand, dave bowditch had to make a decision in the end about what's best for the fbi, not what's best for pete strzok. that's why difficult decisions go to the deputy director. i don't envy dobowditch. i can tell you it wasn't made for political reasons. it was made because bowditch thought it was in the best interests of the fbi. it's painful. i hate to see this happen. >> thanks to you, chuck rosenberg, and of course to our colleagues, geoff bennett at the white house and ashley parker, thanks to you at "the washington post." coming up, indefensible. president trump fails to mention senator john mccain while signing a bill named for john mccain. you're watching "andrea mitchell reports" on msnbc. you're turning onto the street when you barely clip a passing car.

minor accident - no big deal, right? wrong. your insurance company is gonna raise your rate after the other car got a scratch so small you coulda fixed it with a pen. maybe you should take that pen and use it to sign up with a different insurance company. for drivers with accident forgiveness liberty mutual won't raise their rates because of their first accident. liberty mutual insurance. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty ♪

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. the national defense authorization act is the most significant investment in our military and our war fighters in modern history. and i am very proud to be a big, big part of it. we would not be here for today's signing ceremony without the dedicated efforts of the members of congress who worked so hard to pass the national defense

authorization act. >> except that it's not called the national defense authorization act. it's called the john s. mccain defense authorization act. president trump all but jumping through hoops to avoid even mentioning john mccain by name, shunning the armed services chairman, former p.o.w. who is of course struggling with his battle against brain cancer. extraordinary. joining me now, democratic senator chris van hollen who serves on the appropriations committee. i mean, have you ever seen a president of the united states fly to a military base to sign a defense authorization bill, so a lot of fanfare, he's leaving his working vacation to do this, and he will not even mention the name of the bill that he's signing? >> it was disgraceful. it was another example about how for donald trump, everything is about donald trump. it's not about anything bigger, it's not about the country, it's not about an american hero who is chairman of the senate armed

services committee who, as you said, is very ill now and who we named the bill after on a bipartisan basis. >> were there any votes against it? >> sure, there are votes on different issues. >> but not against the name. >> no, everyone was united on naming in after an american hero. again, just a disgraceful moment for the president, another one, unfortunately. >> and where is the grace? i'm thinking back, there was a tweet from john kerry about how disgraceful this was. john kerry and john mccain were on opposite sides of a very bitter political dispute over the war, after the vietnam war, yet they came together in the 1990s and helped give political cover to a president of the united states who had been accused of being a draft dodger, frankly, so he could normalize relations with vietnam. if not for john mccain and john kerry, two veterans of vietnam, we could not have taken that

step because bill clinton could not have done it. >> well, that's right. i obviously didn't agree with john mccain on all the positions he took. but there is no denying that he's played an incredible important role, not just in the senate but in our history. and that's why there was no objections, it was unanimous in the senate and the house, to name this bill after him. and again, shame on the president of the united states for not being able to even utter his name before folks from the military, who owe so much to john mccain. >> i did not know until we chatted during the break that you spent part of your childhood in turkey. >> i did. my father was in the foreign service. so we were in the embassy in ankara, there for many years. >> as such, you certainly must feel a connection to what is going on in turkey right now. they're currency is collapsing, their economy is collapsing. erdogan, the strong mman, after

this last election was hardly a free and fair election, has most people behind him for an anti-american posture. he's a nato member. they have the largest military in nato second only to the united states, and a big force in afghanistan. and of course all of our relationships along the syrian border. so what are our issues now? we've sanctioned them because they're holding prisoners, notably pastor andrew brunson. >> what's happening in turkey is very troubling. it's been getting worse and worse over the years as president erdogan has become more and more authoritarian, locked up a lot of folks in turkey arbitrarily, a lot of members of the press, anybody who speaks out, totally lawlessly on trumped-up charges, is holding pastor brunson and other americans. >> one of whom you know. >> one of the turkish nationals, who worked at our embassy and consulate, is also being held on trumped-up charges. as you indicated, this is an issue that goes beyond even his

detention, this illegal detention of these individuals. erdogan really has a choice to make. we would like him to remain a good nato partner. but he clearly is veering off in different directions. he's talking about purchasing the advanced s-400 russian defense, missile defense system. >> foreign minister lavrov is in turkey today. >> that's right. which is why i offered an amendment in committee, it was successful in committee and will be debated on the floor, which is turkey can either have the advanced f-35 americanfighter, the american plane, or the s-400, but not both. we want him to be a partner but he is veering off toward putin, toward the russians, and toward authoritarian rule. >> very briefly, you and marco rubio have co-sponsored sanction

legislation, tough legislation against russia for electoral interference. >> this is the deter act. we need to academy urgently because elections are in november. all the intelligence agencies have said they expect russia to interfere again. this bill doesn't impose new sanctions right now. it's very clear. if we catch you again, vladimir putin, messing around in our elections in 2018, there will be very automatic, severe penalties and sanctions that would really have an impact on their economy, not just a couple of oligarchs, but real pain. if you're putin and thinking about the costs and benefits of messing around, we want to make sure the costs are much higher than any perceived benefit. and we need to act on this so people are serious about preventing interference. >> senator, thank you so much on all s topics, great to see you. voters in wisconsin could test democratic enthusiasm. in wisconsin, tammy baldwin has pulled way ahead of her

republican challengers for november. and two-term republican governor scott walker is seeking the nomination for a third term, facing the most challenging political environment in his career. in minnesota, former republican governor tim pawlenty is trying to get back his old job. joining me now, nbc news national political correspondent steve kornacki at the big border. and swrer jeremy peters from "t york times." let's talk about wisconsin, jeremy, and paul ryan's seat, an open seat. >> that's right, paul ryan is stepping down, that will be an open seat. republicans have a pretty good chance of holding onto it because of a weak democratic challenger who is favored to get the nomination there. i think the bigger story, though, andrea, is the republican senate race, which

really is kind of a microcosm of the larger divide taking place in the republican party right now. you have one candidate, kevin nicholson, who is an upstart. he's new to the scene, he's young, he's only 40 years old. he's a former marine. he's never held elected office before. and he's really portrayed himself as the most unabashed, pure supporter of president trump, as he challenges a known quantity of milwaukee area politician named leah vukmir. vukmir has all the institutional advantages, the backing of scott walker, the republican governor, reince priebus, who is from wisconsin, and speaker ryan. i think it's a question of whether or not voters will punish her for that and seek something new and fresh as a lot of conservatives have in these primaries, which have really

come down to a question of how loyally and faithfully can you defend president trump. >> and steve, what are we seeing in some of these key house races? >> you mentioned the one we got here, after wisconsin, you mentioned the paul ryan seat. there was a lot of talk about this one before paul ryan announced his retirement, because obviously paul ryan, a national figure, and there was a democrat, randy bryce, an iron worker, union activist, he had a viral video a year ago, raised millions of dollars, challenging paul ryan to trade jobs with him. ryan now stepping off the scene, a former ryan aide now favored to get that republican nomination to run. randy bryce facing a democratic prior challenge from a woman named gabby meyers, a teacher in the district. there are some indications that randy bryce, despite that viral video and all the money he raised, he may be in a tough fight in the democratic primary.

it's like wisconsin itself, in 2012, romney barely won this thing, of course he lost wisconsin. in 2016 it swung to donald trump. this was a trump by 10 district in 2016. the speaker retiring, we'll see who is nominated to face the former ryan aide in november. >> and minnesota? >> let me see if i can get minnesota up on the screen here. minnesota is a fascinating state, maybe the only state in the country where you've got multiple districts were the republicans could actually pick up democratic seats. we talk everywhere about republicans on defense. democrats can win here, democrats can win there. minnesota, look at this, this is the interesting thing, these three sort of geographically giant districts that ring the state, all of them represented by democrats right now. all of these districts voted for donald trump by double digits in 2016. 15 points for trump down here, 15 points for trump up here, 31

points for trump out here. so republicans actually, certainly in 8, certainly in 1, maybe 7, maybe not, peterson survived a lot out there. but republicans have a couple of pickup opportunities in minnesota. and meanwhile, of course, the two republicans, paulson and lewis, they're in districts that were a lot more friendly to hillary clinton. in paulson's case, hillary clinton won that one by 10, in lewis' case, won by 2. you get outside into the rural areas, the democrats are on defense. that's something we don't see in many places around the country. >> steve kornacki, we'll be watching tonight. and jeremy peters, thank you. coming up, stephen miller, the president's adviser, getting a public lambasting from his cull uncle. are excited about the potential of once-weekly ozempic®. in a study with ozempic®, a majority of adults

lowered their blood sugar and reached an a1c of less than seven and maintained it. oh! under seven? (vo) and you may lose weight. in the same one-year study, adults lost on average up to 12 pounds. oh! up to 12 pounds? (vo) a two-year study showed that ozempic® does not increase the risk of major cardiovascular events like heart attack, stroke, or death. oh! no increased risk? ♪ ozempic®! ♪ ozempic® should not be the first medicine for treating diabetes, or for people with type 1 diabetes or diabetic ketoacidosis. do not share needles or pens. don't reuse needles. do not take ozempic® if you have a personal or family history of medullary thyroid cancer, multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, or if you are allergic to ozempic®. stop taking ozempic® and get medical help right away if you get a lump or swelling in your neck, severe stomach pain, itching, rash, or trouble breathing. serious side effects may happen, including pancreatitis. tell your doctor if you have diabetic retinopathy or vision changes. taking ozempic® with a sulfonylurea or insulin

may increase the risk for low blood sugar. common side effects are nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, stomach pain, and constipation. some side effects can lead to dehydration, which may worsen kidney problems. i discovered the potential with ozempic®. ♪ oh! oh! oh! ozempic®! ♪ (vo) ask your healthcare provider if ozempic® is right for you.

where we're changing withs? contemporary make-overs. then, use the ultimate power handshake, the upper hander with a double palm grab. who has the upper hand now? start winning today. book now at lq.com. white house senior policy adviser stephen miller, a leading proponent of president trump's anti-immigration agenda, is facing scathing criticism from one of his own family members. in an essay for politico,

miller's uncle, david glosser, calls miller an immigration hypocri hypocrite, saying his family fled pogroms to come to the united states and would have been turned away under the trump administration's current immigration policies. david glosser joins me now from new york city. welcome, sir, thank you very much for being with us. >> thank you for having interest in this important topic, i appreciate it. >> immigration has been such an important political issue. but as someone whose grandparents came from that same little village that you write about in your essay, i feel this very strongly. >> yes, i understand we're

lansmen. >> yes, we are lansmen indeed. that period, around 1901 to 1906, 1907, there were horrendous attacks against jews in that area, which isn't well-understood. we always thought of it as russia but i guess it's really ukraine or other related countries as borders changing. >> yes, borders changing. in those days it was part of the russian empire. it's now located in the nation of belarus. >> i'm wondering what motivated you to tell this story now. >> i've been interested in the fate of my ancestors that didn't make it over for a long time. and i have been posting on facebook my dissatisfactions with trump immigration policy and the treatment of refugees. since my retirement as a

practicing clinical neuroscienti neuroscientist, i've engaged in a lot of volunteer work with various immigrant aid organizations and et cetera, an a lot of these folks trying to get into the country. in particularly, those who have been victims of severe persecution, torture, abduction of their children, et cetera. >> what does your nephew not understand about what happens to children separated from parents? what happens to the children and what happens to the parents? >> i'm unable to speculate about what he understands and what he doesn't understand. okay. what would you like people to know about the emotional physical effects of this policy? >> you know, you really don't have to be a physician or scientist or psychologist to understand the consequences of separating children from their parents. everybody knows this. prior to world war ii, britain had to make terrible decisions with regard to preserving the safety of the decision that they were expecting to be subject to

bombardment in the blitz. so they started a voluntary program of taking the children to displace them into the countryside. some thought it was a good idea. some thought it wasn't. but they really were in a terrible bind. these children were often taken to loving environments. not often of course but often. and they were followed up after the war for a great many years. it's been studied and published. the general fate of these children compared to others within the british community has not been good. they've suffered. they've had consequences of personal emotional family and difficulties ever since. not all of them of course but as a group. brits had very little choice in making this decision. we appear to have made this decision, done in our name as a population without our consent. and without extreme duress.

it seems to have been done thoughtlessly. >> what would you like to see happen now at our southern border regarding reuniting these children with their parents and -- >> it's essential the children be returned to their parents as quickly as possible to try to mitigate the harm. in a larger sense, american immigration policy and management of -- and management of refugees and asylum seekers has to be thought inchof in a compassionate thoughtful way based on facts, based on our nation's resources and based on the demonstrated national expertise in settling refugees. if you take a look, it's not just you and me that are the children or the grandchildren of refugees desperately seeking escape from danger. almost all of my friend, all the people i talk to, pretty much anybody you can speak of in the united states, they ended up here for that reason too. the only people who don't have a story like that are native americans and black americans, all of whom have their own

tragic stories about immigration, be it forced or forced upon them. >> thank you so much for your insights. it's very good of you to speak out. thanks for joining us today. >> thank you, i appreciate it. it's important we discuss these subjects. >> thank you again, sir. breaking news right now, from italy. where officials are describing an apocalyptic scene after a massive bridge connecting the port city of genoa with france collapsed. some 30 cars and several large trucks plunging about 150 feet into a heap of rubble below. italian officials say at least 22 people were killed. more than a dozen others injured. as rescue teams continue to search for survivors. the section is said to be about 80 yards long. inspectors still trying to figure out the reason for this collapse. coming up, terror in london. the city on high alert after a

car plows into a crowd near parliament. we'll get the latest live from london next. this is not a bed.

it's a revolution in sleep. the new sleep number 360 smart bed, from $999, intelligently senses your movement and automatically adjusts. so you wake up ready to train for that marathon. and now, save up to $500 on select sleep number 360 smart beds. ends wednesday. when it comes to strong bones, are you on the right path? we have postmenopausal osteoporosis and a high risk for fracture, so with our doctors we chose prolia® to help make our bones stronger. only prolia® helps strengthen bones by stopping cells that damage them with 1 shot every 6 months. do not take prolia® if you have low blood calcium, are pregnant, are allergic to it, or take xgeva®. serious allergic reactions, like low blood pressure; trouble breathing; throat tightness; face, lip or tongue swelling, rash, itching or hives have happened. tell your doctor about dental problems, as severe jaw bone problems may happen or new or unusual pain in your hip, groin, or thigh, as unusual thigh bone fractures have occurred. speak to your doctor before stopping prolia®, as spine and other bone fractures have occurred.

prolia® can cause serious side effects, like low blood calcium; serious infections, which could need hospitalization; skin problems; and severe bone, joint, or muscle pain. if your bones aren't getting stronger isn't it time for a new direction? why wait? ask your doctor about prolia. is not a marathon. it's a series of smart choices. and when you replace one meal or snack a day with glucerna made with carbsteady to help minimize blood sugar spikes you can really feel it. glucerna. everyday progress.

london police are questioning the man responsible for steering a car into a crowd of pedestrians and cyclists near the house of commons. they're treating the act as a terrorist incident. nbc chief global correspondent

bill neely joins me now. >> reporter: the heart of british democracy still sealed off behind me. the very latest is that the suspect is not cooperating with police. he is 29 years o s old. a british national, though born overseas. police say he traveled last night from birmingham, england's second city, in his car to london, and at 7:37 this morning, cctv captured him driving towards the houses of parliament and he suddenly swerves left. he goes across a pedestrian zone and straight into a group of cyclists and pedestrians. he then carries on and crashes into a security barrier. i've talked to several e eyewitnesss who say there's no question he was driving at speed and that it was a very deliberate maneuver. one of the men actually got off the ground and started to chase the man, thinking, you know, he was just a drunk driver or he'd lost control. now, police say he's not cooperating with them. they are serving three

properties in the english midlands. we do know that obviously he has no known terror links. he's not on any british terror watch list. and he was alone at the time. but that doesn't mean he doesn't have accomplices. it doesn't mean there aren't other people who knew he was going to carry out this act. obviously, it has painful echoes of an attack in march last year, when a 52-year-old man did almost exactly the same thing. drove his car into a group of people. he hit four people, then he got out and stabbed and killed a police officer. so painful echoes of that incident. the police here are taking this one, as you can imagine, very seriously indeed. andrea. >> thank you, bill neely. of course, the barricades around westminster were enhanced after

that incident. thankfully no one kill eed toda. remember, follow the show online on facebook and on tw twitter, @mitchellreports. good afternoon. i'm chris jansing, in for craig melvin. no defense. breaking news on former trump campaign chair paul manafort's trial. manafort's lawyers just passed on their chance to call witnesses to defend their client. not a single person called to the stand. why? and decline of dignity. the president of the united states just called his longtime friend and former adviser omarosa a dog. and now his campaign is taking legal action against her. plus, ladies night. a record number of women are running for office. but not necessarily republican women. why some potential candidates are skipping 2018. but let's begin with that high drama today at the paul manafort