here's the good news. in two months we have the chance, not the certainty, but the chance to restore some resemblance of sanity to our politics. >> good morning and welcome to a.m. joy. he's back. on friday, president barack obama delivered the moment democrats and let's face it, many in the world have been clambering for. coming off the sidelines to take on his successor by name. donald trump, the man who rose to political prominence with a racist lie about obama's birth. the man who has made it his mission to dismantle every policy obama put in place, including your health care and a man seen as so unstable, so erratic and so dangerous, members of his own administration are secretly working against him. the man who in every word and deed is the diametric opposite of the 44th president. here's a bit more of president obama's speech. >> i complained plenty about fox

news, but you never heard me threaten to shut them down or call them enemies of the people. it shouldn't be democratic or republican to say we don't target certain groups of people based on what they look like or how they pray. we are americans. we're supposed to stand up to bullies. not follow them. we're expertised to stand up to discrimination. and we're sure as heck supposed to stand up clearly and unequivocally to nazi sympathizers. how hard can that be? saying that nazis are bad. >> just minutes after that speech, trump offered this

response. >> i'm sorry i watched it, but i fell asleep. i found he's very good, very good for sleeping. >> round two is set for campaign today. battle is on. joining me now dean host of the dean show on series xm. business and political marketing consulta consultant. republican stat gist and terry john pierre. senior adviser for move on. great to be here. start at the table. for a lot of people just good so tee president obama and hear him. also seemed like a seminar on how to be president. laying out things that should not be controversial. you should condemn nazis. one should not say the media is

enemy of the people. >> obama is the hero that got the means right now. donald trump is literally and i'm not the first person to make this observation. he's like bang in the dark night rises. he's like vein dividing people, pitting people against one another. there's no starker contrast between a person that contracted donald trump than president barack obama. there's no better contrast. i think that contrast is what is going to make him most potent. people may have forgotten we had a president who was centered, who was balanced, who was rational. who was sane and appealed to higher and better morals. i think that was important. the other important from just a purely campaign perspective. purely political perspective. president obama has the ability to command the news cycle. and democrats needed a voice that could command the news cycle that could deliver a clear and concise message through

that -- that could cut through the noise that goes at the choice that people have in 2018. and president obama was the light messa right messenger for that. >> paranoia, has unfortunately found a home. none of this is conservative. it's not conservative. it sure isn't normal. it's radical. it's a vision that says the protection of our power and those who backed us is all that matters even when it hurts the country. >> this is a campaign speech. he was designed to lash donald trump to the republican party. let's face it. they want to be tied to him. follow him absolutely no matter what he does. this is a speech intended to tell people, hey, if you have a

problem with trump, you better look at that whole party. >> can i just first say watching president obama brought my blood pressure down like 20 points. it was calming. like a happy place. in contrast, trump is aging me. i'm 23. look what he's done to me. the contrast is there's another contrast too. not just that. the bay before donald trump did the speech in montana and tells supporters why he should vote for him. why, you don't vote i'm going to get impeached. president obama said our democracy depends on you voting. donald trump all about him. even why you should vote for president obama. and no doubt donald trump is the gop. the gop is donald trump. i love the fact president obama laid out those key issues and plus the economy. which is such the big thing the right runs on. what economic miracle does the 96 months of job growth. two quick stats. unemployment came down six

points in the last ten years. five under president obama. african-american trump loves to claim responsibility. ten points in the last year. 90% under president obama. one point under trump. yet he wants to claim the responsibility in all the accomplishments of the black president president. >> he wants to co-op president obama's legacy and at the same time demeanize the man. that's been his mo. it's like his first lady who is a brilliant line at the republican convention was michelle obama's line. do you think this kind of a speech during the obama presidency, particularly on the issue dean mentioned on the economy, tauting the economic comeback, do you wish president obama had done that then so that people in their minds would always be crediting him rather than donald trump being able to sell them on the idea that ten points of unemployment coming

down, he gets credit for all ten rather than one. >> let me just first say it was nice to see a president who can give a speech using complete sentences and not lie every third word. nice to be reminded by that watching president obama. and the other part too when you were talking about donald trump saying or showing that clip that donald trump didn't pay attention to the speech or fell asleep wlahatever it was he was saying. donald trump is obsessed with obama. irvi everybody he has done as a president was to undue what obama has done. obama is a complete direct rebuke of trump and trumpism. i wish we would have talked about the economy a lot more. during his presidency. he actually did. i remember early on in the presidency we talked about where we were with the economy and what obama was able to do with the stimulus package and how we were trying to move the economy forward. that's not what folks wanted to

talk about. remember what republicans were doing, they were blocking everything trying to obstruct. there was a tea party. that really all of that was what was being brought out there so now he's able to come back and do something that is abnormal. right. no president does this, talks about the predecessor in this way, but president obama saw what was going on and he needed to say something. the symbolism behind what we saw yesterday, 60 days to the election. he's in university of iowa. at university of iowa. 100 miles. where he announced ten years ago. and he was receiving an ethics in government award. couldn't be anymore of a contrast to a president donald trump who bear hugs a dictators and wants to have authoritarianism part of his administration. >> to that very point. it's true. president obama didn't do this. i was surprised he did it in a way. he is the person who believes in institution.

former president to come out swinging against the current president. i want to let you in here. just made the point about hugging dictators which president obama made that point in his speech. let's listen to a bit of that. >> they're undermining our alliances. koez cozying up to russia. what happened to the republican party? it's central organizing principle in foreign policy was the fight against communism and now they're cozying up to the former head of the kgb. actively blocking legislation that would defend our elections from russian attack. what happened? >> you want to answer that question? >> well, i'll certainly let the president answer most of those questions. what i'll tell you is the president trump ran against 15

prequalified republican con tes terror contest terrs for the presidenc. we wanted someone who was not a politician. won the majority of counties in america and now he's governoring. the president coming off the bench, interesting for us and fairly thrilled about it. red states we've got seats to lose, president trump will be a moetd s motivator for the republican party to come out. much like the democrat party is already energized. they're going to vote against donald trump. so right now, to have a president come out and do what he's doing and talk about legacy, he's leaving that $10 trillion worth of debt he left the president with. >> you realize that donald trump and the republican just put a trillion in tax cut debt on the books. before we go any further, you said something in answer to the question what happened to the republican party, well, donald trump won. isn't that kind of a damming, right? republicans are elected as

leaders in theory. you have a congressional leaders. you have leaders in the house and senate. so what you're saying is that when a certain person wins the presidency, right. even if that person is extreme and doesn't follow any of the mantras that the party supposedly believes in, they're supposed to just dutifully fall in line. all of the elected republicans are simply. doesn't sound like leadership. why should people vote for republicans if they're just followers. >> the difference is i wouldn't say just followers. when anybody wins the presidency, they do get the apparatus. they get the. >> they don't get the congress. they don't own the congress. >> they get the apparatus of the executive branch. the legislative branch is a co-equal branch of government. you're saying essentially they must as if they're employees of trump because he won. they have the right to governor in their own right. >> they do and a lot of them are. >> are they? >> my senior senator lindsey graham does what he can to help

the president when he can. and you'll never find the republican party all get along much like the democratic party is not going to get along, but these times there is so much going on. so much news. we got a very important election coming up. we've got all the investigations and all the confusion. so now that obama is coming out, certainly he is a fresh face. the democrats need to see because they have been leaderless. if they follow bernie sanders and elizabeth warren down the progressive trail they're going with some of these nominations. i mean, if i was a democrat, i would be really happy to see the president out there delivering the message. >> i'm going to play what president obama said about the department of justice. >> this should not be a partisan issue. to say we do not pressure the attorney general or the fbi to use the criminal justice system

as a cut to punish our political opponents or to explicitly call on the attorney general to protect members of our own party from prosecution. >> you know, dean, i heard on another network donald trump's desire to use the department of justice is on another network described as he thinks he has his own kgb. you have people like lindsey graham who do absolutely nothing. say if he wants to fire the attorney general, i guess he wants to. i am confused as to how it is that because donald trump because he is president, why the co-equal branch of government, must then fall on their knees and put on butler uniforms and serve him tee. i don't understand it. >> you shouldn't understand it. no one should. it's wrong. it's not political. it's not normal. it's wrong. congress is mandated by the constitution to be a check on the president and they're not. the answer is 59 days from today

is judgments day for our nation. judgment day when our election is. if you want a congress that's going to do their job and be a check on donald trump, not worst instincts like a few people in the white house. on his policies, there's only one thing to do. vote democratic on november 6. get out there and win the house. forget impeachment. we can have congressional chairs. self dealing into corruption and abuse of power by this president. if we get the senate, that ends anymore nominees of donald trump and the right might want. there's only one way. get out and vote. >> by the way, latest op-ed is about the fact the senate used to be not in the position of having to bow to whatever the base of the party is. they are now just a -- in a sense, made point they are essentially just the house. whatever trump wants, yes, sir, yes, sir, yes, sir. >> they're the first branch of government. why vote for them. >> the other issue is the republicans in this many ways are lock stepped with donald trump. the race baiting that's going

on. that didn't start at -- president obama laid out, that did not start with donald trump. there was race baiting way before donald trump. donald trump tapped into it because he saw it as a pathway for himself to leverage. the other thing is, breaking the back of obama and affordable care act, sabotaging it: taking away health care from people. taking away ability to not be discriminated against because they have a preexisting condition, like being pregnant. all of those things the republicans want. giving tax cuts, disproportionately in massive numbers to wealthy americans are things that republicans want. so i think that a lot of what donald trump is doing is actually in conflict to what he campaigned on. he campaigned on being for the workers and the only people that benefitted under this administration are wealthy people and donald trump and his family and republican donors. >> and maybe then what he's exposed at the end of the day is that the republican party and he are in absolute lock step. if you like donald trump, members of the house and senate,

he's not doing anything they don't like. >> they don't like what he's saying. they don't like his manners, but they like -- other than that, the abuse of power. they're okay with that. >> up next, supreme court confirmation hearing. oh! oh! ♪ ozempic®! ♪ (vo) people with type 2 diabetes 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.

vnch . have you discussed mueller with anyone the law firm founded by president trump's personal lawyer. >> are you sure about your answer, sir? >> well, i'm not remembering, but if you have something you want to -- are you certain you have not had a conversation with anyone at that law firm. >> yes or no. >> i need to know the -- i'm not sure i know everyone that works at that law firm. >> brett kavanaugh response with the questions about the mueller investigation are very important. considering that if confirmed, he could soon be weighing in on whether the president has to sign the subpoena by mueller. on wednesday kavanaugh couldn't or wouldn't answer the very simple question about whether he discussed the mueller probe with anyone at the law firm founded

by mark. a lawyer that represented trump for more than 15 years. by the next day, kavanaugh remembered he does know of him. and his attorney partner, but still flatly denied discussing mueller with anyone at the firm. back with me, joining me now, assistant watergate special prosecutor and msnbc contributor. a little bit on this point. there's a great piece by john store at the editorial board on friday. says looks like kavanaugh did not want to say under oath that he has a close friendship with a attorney working at the firm who given him one and a million chance to rise in law. saying that he had a close relationship with the attorney working in the firm representing the man who given him a one in a million chance would look bad. speaking of looking bad, go to one part. finally answered did you ever talk to anyone in this firm.

here it is. >> a simple yes or no would suffice. >> about his investigation and are you referring to specific person? >> i'm referring to a specific subject and the specific person i'm referring to is you. >> who is the conversation with? >> you said you had information. >> that is not the subject of the question, sir. the subject of the question is you and whether you were part of a conversation regarding special counsel mueller's investigation. >> the answer is no. >> what did you make of this struggle that kavanaugh had for two days to answer that question? >> obviously it's very suspicious. and it does not look good for him as a lawyer i would love to see the evidence that kamala harris has and confront him with it. and make him answer it in light of the evidence. that way you really have a proofable caproo provable case against him. there are a number of clues that

have been provided throughout the hearings by cory booker, by senator harris, and by many others and just by his writings and other issues about which he has had to testify, and his opinions to me on executive powers is of the most concern based on background in watergate. >> let me listen to kamala harris talking to reporters about the exchanges with brett kavanaugh. >> do you know of a conversation that brett kavanaugh had with the law firm. >> i have good reason to believe there was a conversation. >> are you basing -- what will you basing that on. >> information that i've received that reliable and i asked him a clear question and he couldn't give a clear answer. >> malcolm, kamala harris is a prosecutor. interesting the way she questioned him. seemed to try to get him to be equivocal about whether he had this conversation. it's important because the law firm is representing the

president in a case that could come before the supreme court. is there now a genuine concern that what we're seeing is donald trump attempting to seat his own jury essentially on the supreme court as a prelude to defying a subpoena knowing he put a man in place who will defend him on that matter on the supreme court. >> i think rushing the kavanaugh hearings is a good example of donald trump trying to rig the system to be quite honest. i find it fascinating, senator harris's questions as jill noted just a moment ago, she has something in her pocket. she is very, very well aware of some sort of conversation. so people who have that intelligence, they don't bother to ask the question unless they know the answer, right. she also knows what the stakes are and the stakes are donald trump is trying to create a supreme court that will get him off. he has always operated this way. rigging the system, you know,

packing the supreme court with someone who won't recuse himself if the question of trump and russia comes up. that's absolutely fascinating and the worst part is it is the beginning of the destruction of the third branch of government. we've already seen the executive has been corrupted. the congress has been corrupted. and now if the supreme court is done, we're just a third world potent. >> the firm, the firm represented trump. doesn't represent him now. went to that very point. here is senator booker making another point that kind of amplifies what you heard from mall couple. which is when brett kavanaugh got on donald trump's supreme court list. >> in may of 2016, then candidate trump put out his first list of potential supreme court nominees. you weren't on that list. then in may 2017, something incredible happened, robert mueller was appointed by the special counsel to investigate any links in coordination

between the russian government and the trump campaign. then president trump puts out a third list of nominees and your name is on that list. >> does it trouble you at least the appearance of it, the appearance is that donald trump is trying to stack the court in such a way as to ensure that he cannot be held accountable if robert mueller finds him guilty or finds him -- finds there's evidence that he colluded with russia or committed obstruction of justice. >> i'm not sure, joy that certainly judge kavanaugh is going to be confirmed. we have the numbers. they're there. i'm not sure that two justices are going to be able to control the supreme court that have been appointed by donald trump. what about five. >> you have some. you can assume we've always been able to guess most of the time how four of the justices would vote. right. the only swing vote was kennedy. you know, you can assume what's going to happen a lot of the time. the court has become quite partisan. you can make the assumption that if you have four that are

probably going to go donald trump's way. he only needs one more. that's kavanaugh. isn't that a logical assumption. >> i can't make that assumption. i mean i've got to give the supreme court justices some of their dues. they are justices. you take them at their words. certainly maybe it seems partisan and as republicans, we are all in favor of these nominees, especially judge kavanaugh. so if hillary clinton were president, we might be having the same conversation on the other side. >> hold on one second. i'm going to let you finish. if hillary clinton were president, members of your party, i want to say maybe including lindsey graham, said they would hold a senate supreme court seat open indefinitely to prevent her from ever being able to seat a justice. we don't have the same thing happening on the other side. when president obama was still in office with a year left to go on his term, mitch mcconnell said he's not allowed to seat a supreme court justice. wouldn't even talk to merrick garland. republicans have not applied the same standard. they have decided they seek the justices and democrats may not.

>> well, i agree with that point. we did hold up that point. election was looming. i agree with that. i also have to tell you both them got republican votes. and especially my senator lindsey graham who really drew five or six qualified primary people to run against him because of his statement that he could not vote against them because they were qualified. and he went that way. certainly he didn't agree politically with them. if we're going to talk about stacking the supreme court, president obama put two pretty solid liberals on there also. so i mean, let's do a wide brush across what the supreme court looks like now and where the nominees and justices are coming from. >> you know, i think a lot of people are very concerned about kavanaugh because there is some indication that he might not have always been truthful in previous hearings before congress. this is from senator patrick

leahy. this is from "the washington post" on friday. kavanaugh was not truthful about democratic documents. leahy said friday that kavanaugh was not truthful when he denied knowing that he had received documents that leahy said had been stolen from him and other democrats. kav knanaugh knew or should hav known. took from a computer. jointly shared with democrats. there were numerous e-mails sent to him that made it clear it was stolen information. including a draft letter from me. mr. kavanaugh denied previously that he believed row versus waited is settwade is settled law. w it's republicans who are always going to vote r and democrats that vote d. why should they trust kavanaugh is any different. >> they might be able to draw

that conclusion. we should stop them from having the power to allow that to happen. first of all, we do not have supreme court justices who have lied or dissembled and that is what this looks like here. also his refusal to recuse himself if a case comes before him. on the subject of russia gate or trump gate. not only because he was appointed by the president, but because he has expressed opinions on it. and if kamala harris is correct. then he is also had conversations with the president's lawyers about it. all of them are working to recuse themselves. that is really a problem. the discussion you had about whether it would be a 5-4 vote is actually important, but it's important if we just have one vote against because in the nixon case, it was a unanimous decision and it is wildly believed that one of the only

reasons the president obeyed the order of the court to turnover the tapes was because it was unanimous. if it wasn't a unanimous decision, if kavanaugh were the single vote against it, the president now might use that as an excuse not to comply with any supreme court decision. and that is a danger. >> give us your view, malcolm, on what is the danger here. if in fact donald trump is end game is he is not going to comply with subpoenas. in his mind believing that kavanaugh will back him up. >> it's just terrifying to ponder. i'm sitting here in philadelphia where all of this started. where all of these systems were put into place. the belief that we are a nation of law and no man is above the law. now we have to consider whether a president of the united states is putting in a supreme court justice in order to fix the system. it's just imponderable. if this is the case, then we may have to consider that we might have a supreme court where

justices in the future who work for a corrupt president might have to be impeached, but let's hope to god we never go there. >> i feel like i'm going to stick with this. thank you very much. appreciate your time this morning. showdown over documents at kavanaugh's confirmation hearing. don't forget that the past can speak to the future. ♪ ♪ i'm going to be your substitute teacher. don't assume the substitute teacher has nothing to offer... same goes for a neighborhood. don't forget that friendships last longer than any broadway run. mr. president. (laughing) don't settle for your first draft. or your 10th draft. ♪ ♪ you get to create the room where it happens. ♪ ♪ just don't think you have to do it alone. ♪ ♪ the powerful backing of american express. don't live life without it.

ahoy! gotcha! nooooo... noooooo... quick, the quicker picker upper! bounty picks up messes quicker and is 2x more absorbent. bounty, the quicker picker upper.

essential for the cactus, but maybe not for people with rheumatoid arthritis. because there are options. like an "unjection™". xeljanz xr. a once-daily pill for adults with moderate to severe ra for whom methotrexate did not work well enough. xeljanz xr can reduce pain, swelling and further joint damage, even without methotrexate. xeljanz xr can lower your ability to fight infections, including tuberculosis. serious, sometimes fatal infections, lymphoma and other cancers have happened. don't start xeljanz xr if you have an infection. tears in the stomach or intestines, low blood cell counts and higher liver tests and cholesterol levels have happened. your doctor should perform blood tests before you start and while taking xeljanz xr, and monitor certain liver tests. tell you doctor if you were in a region where fungal infections are common and if you have had tb, hepatitis b or c, or are prone to infections. needles. fine for some things. but for you, one pill a day may provide symptom relief. ask your doctor about xeljanz xr. an "unjection™".

- ( phone ringing )es offers - big button,lized phones... and volume-enhanced phones. get details on this state program. visit right now or call during business hours. and accessoriesphones for your mobile phone. like this device to increase volume on your cell phone. - ( phone ringing ) - get details on this state program visit right now or call during business hours.

all over washington. and with senior trump official. the anonymous "new york times" op-ed claiming to be part of the resistance inside if white house. which insider believes the route of the problem is the president's problem and searched the president's authoriwhenever see fit. so far come forward in fashion. we need to write anonymous editorial. an extraordinary leadership to this country. should not be working for this administration. anymore do the honorable thing. >> the question directly. he didn't want to answer the

question. >> i'll give you my thoughts in our next hour. up next, republicans feeling the heat over their strong armed tactics to seat a supreme court justice. trip back to the doctor's office just for a shot. but why go back there... when you can stay home with neulasta onpro? strong chemo can put you at risk of serious infection. in a key study neulasta reduced the risk of infection from 17% to 1%, a 94% decrease. neulasta onpro is designed to deliver neulasta the day after chemo and is used by most patients today. neulasta is for certain cancer patients receiving strong chemotherapy. do not take neulasta if you're allergic to it or neupogen (filgrastim). an incomplete dose could increase infection risk. ruptured spleen, sometimes fatal as well as serious lung problems, allergic reactions, kidney injuries and capillary leak syndrome have occurred. report abdominal or shoulder tip pain, trouble breathing or allergic reactions to your doctor right away. in patients with sickle cell disorders, serious, sometimes fatal crises can occur.

the most common side effect is bone and muscle ache. if you'd rather be home ask your doctor about neulasta onpro. pay no more than $5 per dose with copay card. ♪ 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. p3 it's meat, cheese and nuts. i keep my protein interesting. oh yea, me too. i have cheese and uh these herbs. p3 snacks. the more interesting way to get your protein. if your adventure... ...keeps turning into unexpected bathroom trips...

...you may have overactive bladder, or oab. ohhhh...enough already! we need to see a doctor. ask your doctor about myrbetriq® (mirabegron). it treats oab symptoms of urgency, frequency, and leakage. it's the first and only oab treatment in its class. myrbetriq may increase blood pressure. tell your doctor right away if you have trouble emptying your bladder or have a weak urine stream. myrbetriq may cause serious allergic reactions... ...like swelling of the face, lips, throat or tongue, or trouble breathing. if experienced, stop taking and tell your doctor right away. myrbetriq may interact with other medicines. tell your doctor if you have liver or kidney problems. common side effects include increased blood pressure, common cold or flu symptoms,... ...sinus irritation, dry mouth, urinary tract infection, bladder inflammation,... ...back or joint pain, constipation, dizziness, and headache. need some help managing your oab symptoms along the way? ask your doctor if myrbetriq is right for you, and visit myrbetriq.com to learn more.

u.s. is supreme court nominee and waging a battle of republicans over access to

documents. >> proceed the just last night. review and agree or analyze. we'll proceed. what is the rush. what are we trying to hide not having the document out front. what are we hiding not lets the documents come out? >> kate lynn are back with me. i have to say this was in a sense, a lot of people getting first good look. even though she's done it before, she came out strong. sh shelton white house was tremendous too. did anyone equip themselves so quell to put themselves in a good position. >> get the policies out of the acquitted herself well. so precise in questioning.

and also her framing. when she talked about abortion and she talked about and she asked the question, what laws do you know of that regulate a man's body. that is how they issue should be framed. this is about a woman's bodily autonomy. in 2018, the fact that we are still in jeopardy of not having full control as women of our own bodies, and our own reproductive health and whether or not we want to have an abortion is extremely problematic and i think her framing of the issue was just so spot on. and i think that moment was to good for her. in terms of just elevating her and i think that it was good for her and i think it was good for the country. she called out a lot of the shenanigans and the nonsense which they're clearly making the effort, the republicans, to try to force kavanaugh quickly through the moss and wouldn't do that if you department have something to hide. >> very quickly.

anybody make your nervous picturing him on debate stand on 2020 that you saw. >> any time you get a professional prosecutor who has been elected and the state of california, you've got real talent. you also got senator booker who delivers a different message with a lot of passion and now you've got the president back on the stage, joy. i contended earlier and i'll be quick that bernie sanders and elizabeth warren i don't think are reflective of the democratic party. i don't. i think you're seeing i was a democratic i would be pretty happy to see some new talent coming to and that's what this hearing will be about with them. you get a lot of points with the base when you start holding people or trying to hold people accountable to what you believe. >> it definitely showed. let's go back to substance here. views on presidents and investigations. "washington post" july 9 article argued should not be distracted by investigation 6789 the president should be free of such legal inquiries until after they leave office. puts him on the record.

giuliani, who tells the associated press, trump won't answer mueller's questions and backtracked a little bit saying if it's a no go, not going to happen. not ruled out. does seem that this is going to become a huge issue probably in the midterms. whether or not you're going to allow president trump to get away with it if he seats kavanaugh. >> exactly. we know and this doesn't get talked about as much. we know why kavanaugh came to be the nominee. it was clearly a deal. and when you cut a deal you usually have parameters around what you're going to get in exchange for what you're going to give. we know that kavanaugh has extremely problem matdatic viewr presidential power. the thing and point of democrats we need to continue to make. no nobody in this country should be above the law. whether it be the president or anyone else at the moment when we do not adhere to the rule of law for this country, we are no

longer this country. >> yes. let me play a couple of pieces to amplify that point. here's senator feinstein about whether or not president should follow a subpoena. take a listen. >> can a sitting president be required to respond to a subpoena. >> so that's a hypothetical question about what would be an elaboration or a difference from u.s. v nixon precise holding. i can't give you an answer on that hypothetical question. here's senator pat leahy on whether or not they can pardon don. >> it's a question i haven't analy analyzed. it's a hypothetical question that i can't begin to answer in this context as a sitting judge and as a nominee to the supreme court. >> other half of that is the obvious one, does the president

have the ability to pardon don somebody in exchange for a promise for that person they wouldn't testify against them. >> sir, i'm not going to answer hypothetical questions of that sort. >> building turned base doesn't care what donald trump does. he can do what he wants. their fine with it. front to the future. donald trump does pardon himself. would there be any fallout for republicans if that were to happen? >> long their own base. >> i think that it would be tremendous fallout. i mean, that's one that is a step too far and i think the president did that, he would end up in the ash heap of politicians. and i don't foresee that coming. nice conversation and table talk, but you know, i just -- that would be one of the largest mistakes and the fallout would be huge. >> let me ask you one more question. we know in the past. not all of donald trump's nominees have gone through. even though there has been a process that was combination of

mitch mcconnell holding seats open. not letting president obama fill them. waiting for republican president and ramming through what he put up. in one case, mitch mcconnell had to pull the nomination of a guy called ryan bounds to serve on the ninth circuit court of appeals after it became clear the number of republicans would oppose him. the move came after senator tim scott of your home state of south carolina flagged the past commentary and he and senator marco rubio indicated he wouldn't vote for him. is there a chance somebody like a tim scott principled on that nomination could do the same. now hearing racial views on affirmative action, racial spoil systems from kavanaugh. >> i have nod had a conversation with him senator scott about this. i won't be speaking on his behalf. i don't see any of the similarities in this versus the other. and i think that we have the votes to nominate judge kavanaugh. i think it's going to happen. >> we shall see.

we'll be back. we're going to talk more about those racial views and other stuff we heard in those hearings and our next hour. anonymous op-ed reeking havoc in the white house. another trump campaign adviser goes to jail.

you wouldn't accept an incomplete job from any one else. why accept it from your allergy pills? flonase sensimist relieves your worst symptoms, including nasal congestion, which most pills don't. it helps block six key inflammatory substances. most pills block one. flonase sensimist. discover.o.pills block one. i like your card, but i'm absolutely not paying an annual fee.

discover has no annual fees. really? yeah. we just don't believe in them. oh nice. you would not believe how long i've been rehearsing that. no annual fee on any card. only from discover. your society was dearled by a woman, who governed thousands... commanded armies... yielded to no one. when i found you in my dna, i learned where my strength comes from. my name is courtney mckinney, and this is my ancestrydna story. now with 2 times more geographic detail than other dna tests. order your kit at ancestrydna.com

did you tell anyone on the campaign? >> as far as i remember, i absolutely did not. >> you didn't tell corey lewandows lewandowski. >> as far as i remember, i didn't share this information with anyone on the campaign. >> claiborne. >> anyone. >> waleed farris, any of them? >> i might have but i have no recollection of doing so. i can't guarantee it. my memory is telling me i never shared it with anyone on the campaign. >> in his first interview since being indicted in robert mueller's russia probe, former campaign adviser george papadopoulos couldn't completely shut down the possibility that he may have told the campaign about a trip he received on the -- a tip, i'm sorry, on the russians having thousands of hillary clinton e-mails. papadopoulos was sentenced to 14 days in prison on friday for lying to the fbi about his contacts with people connected to russia. former watergate prosecutor jill

weinbanks is back with me. this is george papadopoulos on donald trump and the possible -- and also on jeff sessions and his pitching this idea of a putin meeting. take a listen. >> i looked at candidate trump directly in his eyes and said, i can do this for you if it's in your interest and the campaign's interest. and the collective energy in the room, of course, there were some dissenters, but the collective energy in the room seemed to be interested. in a -- >> collective energy. was donald trump interested? >> the candidate, you know, he gave me sort of a nod. he wasn't committed either way. >> senator jeff sessions was there, too. >> yes. >> at the table. what was his response? >> my recollection was that the senator was actually enthusiastic. >> jill, i have two questions for you. number one, does that constitute collusion in the sense he's offering up something from a foreign government and he's getting nods in the room?

number two, jeff sessions being enthusiastic. what do you make of that? >> i think the part about jeff sessions being enthusiastic is not surprising. his meetings he concealed when he testified at his confirmation is another indication that he knew that there was something going on and didn't want congress to know about it. as far as whether it constitutes a conspiracy because, remember, i have this hashtag, say this, not that. we don't say collusion, which isn't a crime, we say con firspy to defraud the united states. there is so many indicators that there was a conspiracy going on. this is one piece of it where you have someone who actually had knowledge, was willing to share it and willing to set up a meeting. it doesn't take carrying out that meeting for it to be a conspiracy. just being willing to receive the information in the same way that the don junior and jared

and manafort were willing to receive information from the trump tower meeting in june. those are acts of people who are actually engaged in conspireing with the russians to affect the impact -- to affect the outcome of the election. that's a danger to democracy. >> let me play you an interesting response by donald trump about papadopoulos and the things he's now saying about trump. take a listen. >> i see papadopoulos today is going to be -- i don't know papadopoulos. don't know him. i saw him sitting in one picture at a table with me. that's the only thing i know about him. but they got him on, i guess, a couple of lies, is what they're saying. flynn, when the fbi said he didn't lie but mueller's people said he did lie, so i don't want to be set up with a perjury trap, number one. >> this is a prelude to not testifying. here's that foet tote he's talking about, which is donald

trump with his senior advisory team. this is his senior advisory team. there's papadopoulos sitting with donald trump and his senior advisory team. he named in either "the new york times" or washington post, your thoughts of, i don't want to be set up with a perjury trap? >> there are so many things in the comments of the president's that deserve some sort of comment. in terms of saying, i don't want to be set up with a perjury trap, in be one, there is no such thing. he's not being called in to testify about irrelevant information that is not related to the russia probe. he would be talking about the russia probe. and if he tells the truth, there's no perjury. if he's intending to lie, then, of course he has a problem. if he's claiming the fifth amendment privilege, it would be politically embarrassing but legally and constitutionally allowed. that wouldn't be a perjury trap. so, it's just wrong for him to

say that, to deny the american people to have his under oath testimony about a subject that is of great concern to the majority of americans. >> very quickly, what's your pin? i can't see. i'm squinting. >> it's really teeny but it's an rbg, ruth bader ginsburg's dissent color, ets for her and what a supreme court justice should be and also i dissent from a man i do not think is a neutr neutral arbitor of decisions. >> the notorious rbg makes her way onto "a.m. joy."

number one, "the times" never should have done that because what they've done -- it's treason. you can call it a lot of things. people came forward, writing editorials. they're all saying, you know, it's got to be at a fairly low level because so many people today, i was just coming out. i see all the people that are saying such great things. we have a lot of love in the administration. and the white house is truly, as you would say, a well-oiled machine. it is working so well. >> welcome back to "a.m. joy." donald trump is fuming over that

anonymous "new york times" op-ed and demanding to know who wrote it. so far more than two dozen mechani members of the administration have come forward to assure their leader with all the fervor they can muster that they are absolutely loyal. no, sir, it was not me who betrayed you. of course, that's not good enough for donald trump. he now wants to use the full power of the federal government to find the writer, taking a break from humiliating his attorney general to demand that he get it done. >> do you think jeff sessions should be investigating who the author of the op-ed piece was? >> i think so because i think it's national security. i would say jeff should be investigating who the author of that piece was. because i really believe it's national security. >> trump says finding the writer is a matter of national security, though he didn't specify what time he thinks has been committed. what is clear is the writer is describing what you could call an actual deep state within the

government. an unelected bureaucracy, hired by the president, which is nonetheless working to run the executive branch in his place. what the writer euphemistically calls the work of a steady state. adding that they, whoever they are, will do whatever we can to steer the administration in the right direction until one way or another it's over. of course, steering the administration in the right direction didn't involve stopping the separation and caging of immigrant children or using the constitutional option of removing trump by the 25th amendment. no, the right direction is apparently the one where the resistor gets to preserve the things they like. you know, tax cuts for the rich and deregulation of big business. yet the writer is basically every republican in washington. not sure that's what the resistance means. back with me, tara, dean, moveon.org and joining the

conversation, former chief spokesperson for the justice department under president obama, matthew miller. thank you for being here. a piece captures my kind of concerns about this, matt. the piece in the new yorker talks about this anop mouser. thinking they're saving the country and says, while thwarting donald trump's short-term, extreme parts of his agenda, it's also -- it also plainly signals the demise of some of its most cherished ideals and constitutional norms. an anonymous person or persons cannot govern for the people because the people do not know who is governing. does it concern you -- i mean, you know, far be it for me to agree with sarah huckabee sanders on this, now they don't even want us to know who they are. they say, trust us, we've got this. >> i think it's evidence of the permanent crisis we live in. this is a very imperfect and flawed solution to it. one i think ultimately is not the right solution.

the solution to having a president who is -- who as the author writes is immoral, acts recklessly, acts incompetently, acts in times in contradiction with our law and rule of law. the solution to that problem is not to try to undermine that president from the inside, through undemocratic actions, as she wrote, someone who's not elected. the answer is to remove that person from office. so, i think, you know, i've struggled with this question for a long time. what should people who work inside the administration do? if you're someone like jim mattis, do you better serve the country by staying and trying to constrain the president, or do you better serve the country by leaving? i think there was a time when you could make the argument, especially for national security positions, you're better serving the country by staying inside. at this point in time, when you see the president under direct assault, you see his poll numbers moving in a way we haven't before, where he's down around 36%, 37%. i think the much more

responsible course of action would be for people to come forward in high-profile resignations and say what they've seen on the inside. if one person does it, you might see other people come forward and you might see other people who left the administration, like h.r. mcmaster and gary cohen, who know how unfit this president is, you might see them come forward and that might make a difference. >> she's claiming people are being asked to sign ndas so they can't speak out afterwards. even if they agree with this writer, they can't say anything. i want to play former president obama on this very point about president "new york times" op-ed in that epic speech he did on friday. >> the claim that everything will turn out okay because there are people inside the white house who secretly aren't following the president's ord s orders, that support a check. i'm bes serious here. that's not how our democracy is supposed to work. these people aren't elected.

they're not accountable. they're not doing us a service by actively promoting 90% of the crazy stuff that's coming out of this white house. and then saying, don't worry, we're preventing the other 10%. >> this person clearly wants to be seen as a hero and be fitted for their superman cape but who elected this person to run the government? by the way, they're like, but we're making sure the rich people get their tax cuts, don't worry. >> yeah, yeah, which is kind of like -- yeah, it's -- it tells you exactly where they really are in all of this. but, look, it's self-serving. they're not a hero at all. what they're trying to do is rewrite history so it's favorable to them. and, i mean, these are the same person, and he talks about other people, the person talks about other people being part of the quote/unquote resistance that stood by the president, who put babies in cages, who refused to denounce neo-nazis marching on charlottesville a year ago, who

signed the muslim ban. and if they truly, truly wanted to save this country, i agree with matt. they should come out in a very public way, in front of congress, in front of the american public and say exactly what's going on. but this is completely self-serving. and it's like i say, covering their behinds. that's all this is about. >> you know, tara, in a lot of ways it's exacerbating trump's most authoritarian instincts. there's talk of purges, talk of him going in and trying to use the department of justice to investigate. here's donald trump literally equating an op-ed, someone writing an op-ed to a national security emergency. here he is. >> we're going to take a look at what he had, what he gave, what he's talking about. also where he is right now. supposing i have a high-level national security meeting and he has got a clearance. you know, we talked about clearances a lot recently. and he goes into a high-level meeting concerning china or

russia or north korea or something, and this guy goes in. i don't want him in those meetings. >> "the new york times" response to that was the president's threats both underscore why we must safeguard the identity of this writer of the op-ed and reminder of a free and independent press to american democracy. what do you make of the idea that now donald trump -- again, i'm quoting someone on cnn this morning saying he wants to essentially turn the doj into the kgb to find this person because he claims writing op-eds that are mean about him is a national security emergency. >> exactly. we know donald trump has authoritarian instincts. obviously, i'm a captain obvious here right in in moment, but on a serious note, we know what authoritarians do when they think that people within the administration who are actively trying to sabotage them. or if they want to pretend there are people in their administration actively sabotaging them to do what they want to do. we know if you look at erdogan

in turkey, he used the coup to clamp down on turkey, which was becoming a much more democratic country. he used that coup to seize more power, to clamp down. and donald trump is had has been watching these autocrats, he watches them, admires them, so he's emulating their behavior. it's more damaging for this person to behave in a way that they're behaving by being anonymous because it gives him something to kind of latch onto to then to start to do these things. and, unfortunately, there are a lot of americans that see donald trump and buy into this deep state. i'm not just talking about his base. there are people who have problems with the fbi for their own reasons. i mean, i have issues with the fbi. i don't espouse trump's thinking, but there are people in this country that see that and it can -- if you're loosely paying attention to the news, you're not somebody that's engaged that much politically, and you see some of this behavior, you might buy into some of the rhetoric. so, i think that this -- the way

this person approached it, i agree with careen john pierre, i think it's completely self-serving and further make trump more dangerous. >> you see the dictator in saudi arabia doing the same thing, disloyalty to me personally is disloyalty to the state and i'm going to investigate you. she implicates in "the new york times" in helping this authoritarian process going on. she says the thing about atock racys is they present citizens with only bad choices. by publishing the anonymous op-ed, "the times" became complicit in its own corruption. your thoughts? >> i don't agree with that view that they're complicit in their own corruption. i think donald trump is spinni spinning. he couldn't even pronounce anonymous. >> anonymous. >> over and over and over. i think about "the untouchables"

where he's walking around with a bat. "the new york times" vet it, they find out who the person is, it's true, you print it. that's fine. things fall where they go. but the idea that this person is in the resistance is a joke. we are the resistance. if euro posed to 10% of donald trump's plans, you're not doing any resistance. you're putting up the window shades to make things look good so it's palatable. if you're in the resistance you oat pose everything donald trump has done. putting corporations over people, not denouncing nazis and the list goes on and on and on. to me, my greatest pushback on this article is the idea they're the resistance. no, we're the resistance. we oppose everything this man has done. >> to the point, the american people now do not know who is essentially, effectively, governing the country, but they do. now we have a couple editors

know who is making policy that they were not elected to make and the rest of us don't know who that is. you know, just to take her point. but i want to play what i think is the most damning piece of sound is republicans' response to the idea that donald trump is seen as so unstable by senior members of his own administration that they thought about 25th amending him and now governing in his place. take a listen. >> there wasn't much new information there. i hope more will come out publicly. >> i think this is what all of us have understood to be the situation from day one. >> it's just so similar to what so many of us hear from senior people around the white house, you know, three times a week. so it's really troubling and yet in a way not surprising. >> matt miller, i would say the only thing more troubling than donald trump hiring his own deep state is a republican party that literally doesn't care. >> it's amazing to watch those

clips. it's like watching someone say, look, i don't need you to tell me the house is on fire. i already knew the house is on fire. i can see the claims all around me. yet they don't call the fire department. they don't grab a hose and try to put anything out. they don't do anything about it. it's this reaction we see to donald trump over and over again. we saw it in the reaction to his call for sessions to investigate and prosecute the author of this op-ed. a complete, you know, it would be a complete abuse of power and you see people kind of shrug and say, he calls for this abuse of power all the time. the fact he does it all the time is not evidence that this is an acceptable status quo. it's evidence of the crisis we live in every day and the response to that crisis is not to shrug your shoulders and act like, well, we've been seeing it for a year and a half. the response to that crisis is to do something about it. >> and i think the scariest prospect is jeff sessions beleaguered and under fire decides to do it. that's the thing -- we don't know. we just don't know the answer to whether he would do. dean, matthew miller, thank you very much. enjoy the rest of your day. up next, the guessing game

over who wrote that anonymous op-ed. you wouldn't accept an incomplete job from any one else. why accept it from your allergy pills? flonase sensimist relieves all your worst symptoms, including nasal congestion, which most pills don't. and all from a gentle mist you can barely feel. flonase sensimist. you might or joints.hing. for your heart... but do you take something for 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. since joining ninehahi, ubmonths ago,o. my priority has been to listen to you... to cities and communities, and to my own employees. i've seen a lot of good. we've changed the way people get around. we've provided new opportunities. but moving forward, it's time to move in a new direction. and i want you to know just how excited i am, to write uber's next chapter, with you. one of our core values as a company, is to always do the right thing. and if there are times when we fall short, we commit to being open, taking responsibility for the problem, and fixing it. this begins with new leadership, and a new culture. and you're going to see improvements to our service. like enhanced background checks, 24/7 customer support, better pickups, and ride quality, for both riders, and drivers. you've got my word, that we're charting an even better road for uber,

and for those that rely on us every day. ♪

it probably won't take too long for us to wrote it. who's denied it already, the vice president. that was my first thought. >> he suggested it was kellyanne

conway. the more you think about it -- >> the reason i think it's her. >> it makes sense. >> she's very cagey. she's the kind of person that would find out that mike pez used the word a lot. >> my guess, my educated guess is that the author of "the new york times" op-ed piece is john mccain's old friend, dan coates. >> lots of denials and speculation on who wrote that anonymous "new york times" op-ed that has the white house in its latest version of tatters. is the writer a pence booster or someone using the word lodestar to frame him. or someone from the press operation given the piece includes a quote. unusual for an op-ed. and almost reads like a press release. why did they include tax cuts but not immigration among the good things worth preserving? could that mean the writer has immigrant roots? it's fun and games to speculate, but in the white house not so

fun. white house aides are already using the speculation to knife their enemies. ba we were talking about erdogan. you brought up erdogan so let me read this "daily beast" article. it could motivate trump to pursue the erdogan urge to bureaucracy. some of the trump-appointed u.s. attorneys are serious people committed to law enforcement. what if trump were to replace them with loyalist hacks. we would like to think the senate wouldn't allow it. we are on such a slippery slope that doesn't even matter at this point who did it. >> right. i agree with you 100%. first of all, the trump administration is a snake pit. sna trump is a snake. that's where we are.

first of all, theirs a few things people need to let go of. the republicans are not going to hold donald trump accountable. and the people in his administration, whoever wrote this article, and maybe it was a multiplicity of people that came together to pen this. we don't know. >> that's more risky if you do it in a group. someone could talk. >> they all talk. the administration is leaking like crazy. they spill their goats to bob woodward and now they're denying as he has them on tape. but they all talk. but i think that this administration and what is -- if the people in it were going to hold trump accountable, they would hold trump accountable. the fact that people thinking there's going to be any kind of leadership from the senate or the house or even within that administration, those people are staying because as careen said earlier, they're self-serving and they're staying for themselves. they're not staying or doing anything in the interest of the american people. >> isn't that true?

these people are trying to cast themselves as rebels and the resistance, trying to look good in history. they aren't going to do anything to donald trump. they said they thought about the sort of constitutional baker act that they thought about 25th amendmenting him but they said, let's not have a constitutional crisis. we want our tax cuts. isn't it true that whoever this is, they're not going to do anything about donald trump? >> they're not. and, joy, this won't surprise you, having been a political operative most of my life. i capital tell you how many times i've tried to get anonymous op-eds printed in newspapers. i can't tell you how many times. how many times i've tried to get them printed with real names on this em. when i first saw this, nothing surprised me in the memo -- the op-ed. most of this has been reported and the dysfunction has been reported. but i thought, this is absolutely politically brilliant. we have now changed the conversation from judge kavanaugh to an op-ed. we are now talking about something different. we're now not talking about russia. so, i said, well, maybe they did

me a favor here. i will tell you this op-ed was written by a speechwriter and it wasn't written by anybody who on has been a former politician nor a governor or somebody who has held office and been elected. it's written by a bureaucrat somewhere, maybe in the administration, maybe out. i'm not sure i trust "the new york times" telling me their source is asenior administration level or if they're in the joint chiefs of staff or wherever it is. you're right. not a whole lot's going to be done. will we probably find the person? when you start putting the weight of the government in this investigation, somebody's going to talk. and all white houses leak like a sieve. all of them leak. we'll see. the conversation is we're now talking about op-ed. we're not talking about judge kavanaugh. >> believe me, i tried. the obama administration didn't leak really a lot at all. not like this one. i have to say as a former press secretary myself, we worked on the same campaign in '08, you a much higher level than i was,

but i agree with kate on one thing. as someone who did write press releases before, you don't put quotes in op-eds, number one. number two, politicians don't write their own op eds. i used to them them. it's not a politician. these are not senior administration people, in my view, because they don't write their own work, unless they had an aide do it. i thought of i a rod shaw, someone in the press operation, somebody who's -- who comes from a mccain allied background, somebody who is a tax cuts and deregulation republican, somebody like that. it is someone more of a press b. omarosa hinted who it is, if you read between the lines and she rest assured there's an army of people opposing his policies. they're working tirelessly to make sure he doesn't cause harm to the public.

many are in his administration, even in his family. here's omarosa speculating on the writer on the hill podcast. >> i suspected -- i put johnny de stefano up and also bill stepian, the political direct irfor the trump white house and i put up nick ayers. everyone who chose nick ayers, out of vice president pence's office. i went through my e-mails and documents that came out of the vice president's office. i have to tell you that this op-ed is very similar to the style and the communication that comes out of his shop. >> and the reason i put up that speculation is that it does feel like the other alternative explanation for why now is that this person may actually also be trying to present to republicans an alternate version of reality that they could have later, right? that maybe the end game is to have all of trump's policies, tax cuts, deregulation mentioned

in the op-ed but maybe move trump out and get a mike pence. set up more rivalry between trump and pence. make trump distrust mike pence. you know, use lodestar a lot. that's the speculation, too. we are already seeing per axios, white house aides are using this op-ed to throw people under the bus, to create a purge. am i thinking two, three-dimensional chess that this could be someone trying to help his party by presenting an opportunity to purge people they don't like and be left with just the tax cut people? >> yeah, the problem with that, joy, and i understand what you're saying because from the beginning of this administration there's been this purging, right, when steve bannon was around, when priebus was around, they were telling on each other and trying to purge each other out. those two are gone now. it makes a lot of sense that that was definitely happening. it's been happening in the donald trump administration. the problem is there is no distance between the trump and

the republican party. there truly isn't. this is -- donald trump is the modern day republican party. that's is, full stop. they own donald trump. there's something -- one thing i wanted to bring up and why i say that they own donald trump. in 2011 when donald trump came out and supported birtherism and went around and talking about the president -- president barack obama, a year later in 2012, mitt romney practically begged for donald trump's, you know, endorsement. so, they own him. they didn't -- birtherism is inherently racist and they did not -- they did not kick him out. they welcomed him. they wanted his endorsement then in 2012. so, they own everything. they own trumpism. trumpism is the heart and soul and the brain of the republican party. >> and to that very point, birtherism is the policy on the southern border where they're taking away people's passports and making them show their midwife papers to show they were born in the united states.

these are united states citizens. to extricate the trumpist or purge the party and cleanse it, is you would have to cleanse the party itself. trump just saw -- we talk, trump saw what the republican party was and caught onto it. he didn't create the party. >> exactly. >> i'm wondering if even a purge would fundamentally change what the party is. >> no. we could go back even further than just when people sought trump's endorsement from -- after he was an established spokesperson for birtherism in ronald reagan's administration, when ronald reagan ran, he ran with the welfare queen. the whole message around welfare queen. we've seen it in campaign after campaign. in the willie horton ad. these ads that were designed by consultants within the republican party. many of whom are still around to stoke fear and paranoia about the other. whether the other is black, whether the other is hispanic, whether the other is muslim, jewish, asian. this is a long-standing policy and you made this point.

you said, donald trump saw the republican party for what it was, not for what it is marketed as. that's your quote. and you're absolutely right. and what donald trump is good at, and this is way i say -- people say i give him stoo much credit, but i don't think you should ever underestimate anyone, particularly in a political campaign setting is that what he is good at is reading the tea leaves and tapping into things that already exist. >> and marketing things that already exist. i'll give you the last word on this. at the end of the day, there isn't a thing called trump. he just fits the republican base. the intellectual class are being trumpers or being sidelined. trumpism is the republican party. >> he's the president. he won the election. and you inherit the party. now, whether the party stays together or whether it fractionalizes, we had the tea party movement come in that cost us a lot of seats. friends there, too. so we'll see how it all plays

out, joy. 2018's going to be the first snapshot, but 2020's going to be the big snapshot. then i'll turn it on you. we want to see what the democratic party's going to look like. it's as fractionalized as we are. >> no, it's not. >> i have to say -- i don't agree with you there. listen, trying to craft a sort of -- the marketing version of the republican party again after trump, i don't see how you do it because trump has proved he knew what the party was more than a marco rubio is. we can debate that another time. thank you all for being here. appreciate talking to you. coming up, a new rule which would have migrant children, get this, and their parents detained indefinitely. more on that next.

♪ girls are not in school because of economic issues and they have to work. at the malala fund, we help girls stay in school. the malala fund invests in education champions who work in the community and pave the way so that girls can actually go to school. to have our financial partner guiding us is very important.

the fact that citi is in countries where girls are vulnerable ensures that we're able to get funds to the people that we're working with. when girls go to school, we're going to maximize their talents. we could have a solution for climate change in that girl. that girl could be the next nobel peace prize winner. ♪ there's nothing small about your business. with dell small business technology advisors, you get the one-on-one partnership to grow your business. the dell vostro 14 laptop. get up to 40% off on select pcs. call 877-buy-dell today. ( ♪ ) call 877-buy-dell today.

but some give their clients cookie cutter portfolios. fisher investments tailors portfolios to your goals and needs. some only call when they have something to sell. fisher calls regularly so you stay informed. and while some advisors are happy to earn commissions whether you do well or not. fisher investments fees are structured so we do better when you do better. maybe that's why most of our clients come from other money managers. fisher investments. clearly better money management.

in bob woodward's new book "fear" he writes top officials inside the trump white house e routinely went behind the president's backs. when trump wanted to sign a letter to withdraw from nafta, gary cohen said, i can stop this. i'll just take the paper off his

desk. if someone had thought to do that with trump's needlessly cruel policy on migrant children. details on that when we come back. else. why accept it from your allergy pills? flonase sensimist relieves your worst symptoms, including nasal congestion, which most pills don't. it helps block six key inflammatory substances. most pills block one. flonase sensimist.

most pills block one. your digestive system has billions of bacteria but life can throw them off balance. re-align yourself with align probiotic.

and try new align gummies with prebiotics and probiotics to help support digestive health. we're sitting here in your orange jumpsuit, you know, in your prison clothes with your wristband. what is it like to be here? how do you feel to have been here all summer? >> translator: i feel like, why did they deceive me with this paperwork? they didn't explain exactly what

it was. i wouldn't have suffered all this time being separated from my son. >> 416 migrant children still remain in government custody and separated from their families, with some parents unaware they have waived their right to ever get their kids back. me meanwhile, the trump administration has announced a new rule that would allow them to detain migrant children, up-ending a 20-year of my long court order. thank you both for being here. we want to start with the fact, how could it be legal to detain migrant families indefinitely? >> we don't think it is. there will be court challenges. everyone is focusing on the children, rightly so, but it's not even legal to detain parents indefinitely. we believe the constitution is clear that you can detain someone only if they're a flight risk or a danger and they're determined through fair process. you can't simply throw people in immigration jail indefinitely.

>> what does this mean on the ground, having indefinite detention. where, where are they going to put people? >> there's only three facilities now, the largest is carnsdilly. they're at capacity. are we going to see expansion of these facilities? cities where they hold children and parents? when you follow the money trail, you realize that before these new rules, it was up to states to determine who would get the license to operate these facilities. now as of this week that's going to be up to the federal government. and if you look at the stocks for geogroup, for core civic, they have gone up 20%, 16% since april, which is when jeff sessions announced this family separation policy. >> surprise, surprise, someone's going to make a lot of money on this policy. i cannot believe -- june was the executive order -- the judge's order to give the children back. 416 children remain separated.

14 still separated kids are under 5 years old. little kids who need their parents. the number of parents no longer in the u.s. 304 parents already deported and the number of parents who didn't know they did it but waived their right to get their kids back, 109. how, how, how and what is -- >> that's a bad situation. i just got back from guatemala this week talking to families. they signed things they had no idea they were signing, giving up their rights. it's bad. now they're faced with this unbelievable choice. are they going to keep their children in the u.s. to pursue asylum or have their children come back and have their children give up asylum rights? the parents we spoke with there are just ago nizing because if they bring their children back, the children may be killed. on the other hand, if they leave them in the united states, maybe they don't see them the rest of their life. it's a bad situation. the whole thing is bad. there's no way to fix it completely because the children are so traumatized. the families -- these children are never going to be right again. >> we've seen the videos of even with reunions, the children not

wanting to go to their moms. >> they push their parents away, some of them, because they're like, you abandoned me. it's hard for a child to understand that. i spoke with a mom in houston still fighting to get her two boys back. she says when they speak with her on the phone, they say, you said tomorrow, you said the day after, where are you? why are you not trying hard enough? it's like a plot out of "the handmaid's tale." and even the tension we'll see with these new rules put in place, you cannot underestimate what that does to a child as well. many that were held withthy parents still have a tough time verbalizing. i've had to stop interviews cold because they have a tough time describing the mylar blankets, the cages, having people speak to them in a language they don't understand. >> this goes around the inner webs a lot. these under-5 children, does that mean if the parents inadvertently gave up their

rights, these children could be adopted out and without the parent ever having say, their children given to another family? >> that's a possibility. that's very scary. that's why we've asked the judge and he agree that we get to speak to all these parents now and make sure that they understood their rights and be able to revoke what they've done before because we have parents who were given forms they couldn't read, they were coerced, they said, here's two minutes, make up your mind whether you want your child or not. some spoke indigenous languages, not even english or spanish. >> when we were down in tore o kn torneo, the hhs representative told us we can find these kids instantly. why can't they get 416 kids back to their families? >> it was very easy to tear them apart. it's been incredibly challenging to put them back together. if it wasn't for lee's work representing these families in the courtroom week after week, going to guatemala -- i've spoken to parents in guatemala

who still don't have their kids. you have to contact them through wha whatsup. many of these cities are completely taken over by gangs. there are curfews. it's hard to get to an embassy and say, i'm still not with my child. how can you help me. >> you just came back from guatemala because i don't think people are grasping or maybe we're not doing a good job where i sit in these anchor chairs of explaining, why are people leaving? what's happening at home that is causing people to, in some cases these children are unaccompanied but in most times they're unaccompanied because of us. what's going on? >> the gang violence is unfathomable crisis. the u.s. has really left a power vacuum in the region and instead of addressing the root causes, we're just saying, we're not going to let theets people who are essentially refugees and have an international right to

seek asylum come to our borders. i spoke to jose antonio and his mother maria. they're from guatemala. i spoke to them in illinois after they were reunified after a month. this boy told me, i witnessed my own uncle be murdered in front much my very own eyes. five months later i reached the united states thinking, i'm going to get help. this is refuge, finally. and then he says, i experienced a second, more deeper trauma which is detention, which is essentially -- >> jail. >> -- being incarcerated. >> we hopefully ended family separation, but now the administration is starting over with family detention. >> can we confirm we ended family separation? do you believe they're not separating kids anymore? >> that's a great question. we'll be monitoring it. at least now we have a court order saying it's unconstitutional, so if we catch them doing it again, we'll go right back to this judge. that's better than where we were six months ago. >> i have to say, when you say you're going to the judge, and i hate to seem -- sound cynical, but a judge said in june they have to give the kids back and

they haven't done it. they're not doing what the judge said in june, why should we have any confidence they'll do what any judge says? >> also, they wanted this to be a deterrent. when you look at the numbers on our southern border, there's been a spike in precisely children and family units coming over. i've been speaking to the border patrol in the yuma, arizona, sector. he says, i never saw family units coming this way. what you're seeing now, there's a 78% spike of families crossing over in that area. you're seeing a reshuffling of these desperate people trying to cross through in the desert and, unfortunately, i think we'll see a lot of people trying to come in illegally, not make it through the desert because they can't turn themselves in anymore. >> let me play quickly, jacob soboroff -- a little more of his interview with a migrant father why he signed these papers signing away his parental rights. >> what they say is, look, you signed these papers. these papers say, i know that i'm requesting to return to my country of citizenship without my child and i understand he's

going to stay here to pursue the claims of relief. explain to me, why would you sign this if you wanted to get back together with your son? >> translator: because they told me i would not be reunited with my son. that if i wanted to be reunited, they would have deported me. >> you thought the only options were be reunited and deported or you be deported and he stays here. you thought, that's the better option? >> yes. >> is that considered fraud, if you lie to people to get them to sign deportation orders on themselves, saying you'll get your child back if you do it, is there legal recourse for someone tricked in that way? >> we're going back to the judge. that's one reason i went to guatemala to talk to these families, what were the circumstances surrounding. maybe some understood but we know many, many were either coerced or misled into signing these forms. we will try to get them back with their children or get them asylum or whatever it takes, but we know these were not knowing waivers in many, many cases. >> it's scary and it's actually

constructive to find out the limits of a judge's order. it's frightening. it's so great to have you. stay on this and we'll bring you back to talk about it. and i want us to come back and talk about what's happening in venezuela as well because we're missing that story as well. >> thank you. coming up at the top of the hour, stormy daniels says she has even more damning evidence against donald trump. but up next, evangelicals and the supreme court battle. and it's also a story about people. people who rely on us every day to deliver their dreams they're handing us more than mail they're handing us their business and while we make more e-commerce deliveries to homes than anyone else in the country, we never forget... that your business is our business the united states postal service. priority: you ♪ if his denture can cope with... a steak. luckily for him, he uses super poligrip. it helps give him 65% more chewing power.

leaving brad to dig in and enjoy. super poligrip. tailored recommendations, tax-efficient investing strategies, and a dedicated advisor to help you grow and protect your wealth. fidelity wealth management. the doctor just for a shot. with neulasta onpro patients get their day back... to be with family, or just to sleep in. strong chemo can put you at risk of serious infection. in a key study neulasta reduced the risk of infection from 17% to 1%, a 94% decrease. neulasta onpro is designed to deliver neulasta the day after chemo and is used by most patients today. neulasta is for certain cancer patients receiving strong chemotherapy. do not take neulasta if you're allergic to it or neupogen (filgrastim). an incomplete dose could increase infection risk. ruptured spleen, sometimes fatal as well as

serious lung problems, allergic reactions, kidney injuries and capillary leak syndrome have occurred. report abdominal or shoulder tip pain, trouble breathing or allergic reactions to your doctor right away. in patients with sickle cell disorders, serious, sometimes fatal crises can occur. the most common side effect is bone and muscle ache. ask your doctor about neulasta onpro. pay no more than $5 per dose with copay card. it was always our singular focus, a distinct determination. to do whatever it takes, use every possible resource. to fight cancer. and never lose sight of the patients we're fighting for. our cancer treatment specialists share the same vision. experts from all over the world, working closely together to deliver

truly personalized cancer care. specialists focused on treating cancer. using advanced technologies. and more precise treatments than before. working as hard as we can- doing all that we can- for everyone who walks through our doors. this is cancer treatment centers of america. and these are the specialists we're proud to call our own. treating cancer isn't one thing we do. it's the only thing we do. expert medicine works here. learn more at cancercenter.com cancer treatment centers of america. appointments available now.

♪ you can think of any laws that give the government the power to make decisions about the female body? >> i'm not thinking of any right now, senator. >> the fear that brett kavanaugh would overturn roe is a main driver of the democratic nomination and a main driver of evangelical support. not just for kavanaugh. joining me the author of "reinstructing the gospel." we know that it is the driver for support of donald trump. does that mean that evangelical voters will tolerate literally anything from this president or from this nominee to the court? >> i don't think so, joy.

and i think it's really important to remember that the religious right that is so excited about kavanaugh's nomination is really a minority movement within christianity. so, one of the things i'm trying to point to is the history of this movement really needs to be needs to be made clear, because it was not initially roe v. wade that energized this movement that is so excited about the potential of kavanaugh being on the court. what originally energized this movement was resistance to segregation academies, you know, this effort to -- had independent schools that would allow white children to go to school when they didn't want their kids to go to school with black children and recivility tans to the e.r.a., the equal rights amendment. that is what is so resistant about this movement for other federal court justices on the supreme court. and i think it's incredibly important for more voices to be

speaking out to say that's not the concern of the bible. >> i think it was pretty powerful income by daysry horan know who questioned the racial views of this nominee. let's take a listen. >> i think you have a problem here. your view that they don't deserve protections as indigenous people under the constitution. and your argue raises a serious question on how you would rule on the constitutionality of programs benefitting alaska natives. i think my colleagues from alaska should be deeply troubled by your views. >> both she and the senator harris talked about the racial spoils system that kavanaugh used. should voters of faith, even not of faith, be more troubled by that? >> i think we should be very troubled because what has been called traditional family value has too often been cover for white values. and precisely, these sorts of issues that have been raised at

the hearing are the ways that we've tried -- that this religious right move has tried to put a religious veneer over the real latent racism of this movement. i think we see that kind of exploding in trumpism. it's incredibly important to say that has been there from the beginning of the religious right. >> i wonder sometimes down in the history of the trump administration is written, if white evangelicals of religious right will come to regret the price of getting gorsuch on the court if that is too high? >> i think sister lisa sharon harper has held this cause for pause. let's look at what the bible says about who god is most concerned about. the most vulnerable women,

infants, children, that you were just talking about separated from their families at the border. wasn't an issue then but issues that have been consistent through heim history and addressed in ancient times brand us today are matters that concern the most vulnerable. and that's where the bible and jesus always point us to. >> jonathan wilson-hardgrove. a piece i hope edge will read it. thank you, sir. >> thank you. >> more "am joy" after the break. another trip, neil. we have serious problems. do you think you're coming back? five... four... three... two... first man. rated pg-13. i've been making blades here at gillette for 20 years.

there's a lot of innovation that goes into making america's #1 shave. precision machinery and high-quality materials from around the world. nobody else even comes close. now starting at $7.99. gillette. the best a man can get.

heartburn and gas? ♪ now fight both fast new tums chewy bites with gas relief all in one relief of heartburn and gas ♪ ♪ tum tum tum tums new tums chewy bites with gas relief uhp. i didn't believe it. again. ♪ ooh, baby, do you know what that's worth? ♪ i want to believe it. [ claps hands ] ♪ ooh i'm not hearing the confidence. okay, hold the name your price tool. power of options based on your budget! and! ♪ we'll make heaven a place on earth ♪ yeah! oh, my angels! ♪ ooh, heaven is a place on earth ♪ [ sobs quietly ]

that is our show, "am joy" will be back at 10:00 a.m. eastern tomorrow. she's back! hello friend. >> yes, i'm back. never leave again. i've got a lot of gearing up to do. good day to all of you, i'm alex whilt at msnbc headquarters. right here on the nose in the east. dueling presidents. the current and former in an epic public battle. it will renew itself in the next few hours. >> isn't this much -- isn't this much more excited than listening to president obama? >> it not start with trump. he is a symptom, not the cause. >> you're going to hear more from both as they deliver sharply different