kristen welker is at the white house. general mccaffrey is here with me. kristen, what are you expecting? >> president trump signed an executive order, essentially putting new sanctions in motion against iran, describing those as hard hitting. the president also telling pool reporters, who were hastily gathered in the oval office moments ago that iran can never have a nuclear weapon. he added, andrea, he does not seek conflict with iran and looks forward to whatever he has to discuss with whomever agrees to speak with the u.s. the president adding he believes the u.s. has shown a lot of restraint but it doesn't mean we won't show that in the future. that's significant, andrea. putting this into broader context, of course, last week president trump walked right up to the brink of military action against iran in retaliation for iran shooting down that unmanned u.s. drone but then, of course, he told chuck todd on "meet the

press" over the weekend that he decided not to take that action because 150 lives could be at risk. so the action of the administration has decided upon tougher, what he has described as hard-hitting sanctions, sanctions that he says will impact the supreme leader directly. now, andrea, what's happening at the white house right now, we're waiting for the tape to be played out. this executive order based on the pool reports, and that's where i'm reading from, has been signed so presumably we will be able to see president trump signing that executive order and talking in more detail about these sanctions. the key questions are, how hard are these sanctions going to hit? how many top officials will they impact and how will they specifically impact the supreme leader? i can tell you i spoke to a number of senior administration officials over the weekend who said look, the key concern here is that iran has been so heavily sanctioned through this maximum pressure campaign that the trump campaign has -- that the trump administration has waged that

will new sanctions make a difference? of course the president has said he wants to bring iran to the negotiating table. bottom line he doesn't want iran to get a nuclear weapon. we are waiting for that tape to play out of president trump making that announcement of new sanctions against iran from the oval office moments ago, andrea. >> kristen, with me is general barry mccaffrey. as you both know, the president backed out unilaterally of the iran nuclear deal a year ago, may. iran was complying, according to u.n. weapons inspectors and all the other countries, complying with the nuclear deal that would prevent them from getting a nuclear weapon. now iran, countering these sanctions, threatening, barry mccaffery, to enrich uranium to higher levels, to potentially break out of one part of that deal. for the president to say we're not going to let iran have a

nuclear weapon, he seems to be motivated by their countering his breakout with a partial breakout themselves. >> pretty complex, dangerous situation. the iranians, to my surprise, are actually being strangled by the economic sanctions. they're desperate. the population is blaming their leadership, not president trump. on the other hand, it's hard to imagine why belligerent public language and apparent military readiness to go to war with one another will reach anybody's goals. i would like to know what the saudis and israelis and the gulf coast states think about this, and the iraqis. >> pompeo and bolton are in those very areas. pompeo was with the saudi leaders today, heading to the uae and bolton and has been with netanyahu. >> the coalition has to include the people that benefit from the oil that comes out of the persian gulf. one-third of oil goes to that

strait every day and it's going to the europeans and the scrap knees, among other. >> and the chinese. >> and the chinese. if you consider oil a tangible commodity, all of them have a stake. >> so do we. a choke point such as the strait of hormuz, for the president to say it doesn't affect us because we only take 10% of our oil from the gulf, we're self sufficient, is frankly not accurate, because we're affected by the way the price of oil is set. we'll hear from the president himself. we'll stand by and talk on the other side. the president in the oval offic office. >> okay. thank you very much. in a matter of moments i'll be signing sanctions on the supreme leader of iran, the office of the supreme leader of iran and many others. it follows a series of aggressive behaviors by the

iranian regime in recent weeks, including shooting down of u.s. drones, shot down the drone. i guess everyone saw that one. and many other things. they've done many other things aside from the individual drone. you saw the tankers and we know of other things that were done also which were not good and not appropriate. the supreme leader is ultimately responsible for the hostile conduct of the regime. he is respected within his country. his office oversees the most brutal instruments, including the islamic revolutionary guard corps. sanctions imposed through the executive order that i'm about to sign will deny the supreme leader and the supreme leader's office and those closely affiliated with him and the office access to key resources and support. the assets of ayatollah khomeini and his office will not be

spared by the sanctions. a strong response to iran's increasingly provocative actions. we will continue to increase pressure on tehran until the regime abandons its dangerous pursuits, including nuclear weapons, enrichment of uranium, engagement in and support for terrorism, fueling of foreign conflicts, and belligerent acts against the united states and its allies. the agreement that was signed was a disaster. it was not doing what it was supposed to do. many bad things were taking place and most importantly it was so short term that within a short number of years they would be able to make nuclear weapons and that's unacceptable. never can iran have a nuclear weapon.

also included in this, we want immediately the stopping of sponsorship of terrorism. they've sponsored terrorism and taken all that money given to them by the past administration and much of it was given out to terrorist organizations. in fact, i remember when john kerry was asked a question about whether or not this money will be spent for terror, he said yes. at least he was referring to some of it, but he said yes, it will be used for terror. we're giving them money and saying yes, it could be used for terror. that was not a good answer, but that was the least of it, frankly. america is a peace-loving nation. we do not seek conflict with iran or any other country. i look forward to the day when sanctions can be finally lifted and iran can become a peaceful, prosperous and productive nation. that can go very quickly. it could be tomorrow. it could also be years from now. i look forward to discussing

whatever i have to discuss. who knows what will happen in the meantime but i can tell that you we can never let iran have a nuclear weapon. it will never happen. secondly, most importantly, we don't want money going out to sponsor terror. they are the number one sponsor of terror anywhere in the world. i'll sign this order right now and i want to thank our military and all the people that have been working with me. i think a lot of restraint has been shown by us. a lot of restraint. that doesn't mean we'll show it in the future. but i felt we want to give this a good chance. iran, potentially, has a phenomenal future i say that about north korea, too. i've said it about north korea. i think north korea has a phenomenal future.

and i think iran also has a phenomenal future. and i think a lot of people would like to see them get to work on that great future. so i'll sign this now. and i appreciate you all being here. thank you. >> thank you very much, everybody. >> mr. president, is your goal to negotiate a new deal with

iran? >> we would love to be able to negotiate a deal, if they want to. if they don't want to, that's fine, too. we would love to be able to. frankly, they might as well do it soon. obviously the people of iran are great people. i haven't lived there much in new york the past couple of years but i know many iranians living in new york and they're fantastic people. i have many friends who are iranian and it's very sad what's happening to that country. it wasn't ratified by congress. it wasn't properly done as a treaty, as you know. it was incorrectly done. we'll get it properly done. we'll see what happens. i hope it will be for the good. the people of iran are great people and all the people i know, so many i know, new yorkers, are great people. anything else? >> sir, just to be clear, is this the u.s. response to the

iranians shooting down the drone? >> this, you could probably, steve, add that into it. this is basically something that was going to happen anyway. >> okay. >> okay? >> reached the uranium limits, will you take additional action? >> i won't say what i'll do, but i don't think they should do it. >> what's your message for the supreme leader? do you want to meet with him one on one? >> my only message is that he has the potential to have a great country and quickly, very quickly. and i think they should do that rather than going along this very destructive path. destructive for everybody. destructive for everybody. we can't let them have a nuclear weapon. he said he doesn't want nuclear weapons. a great thing to say but a lot of things have been said over the years and turns out not to be so. he said openly and plainply for everyone to hear he does not want nuclear weapons. if that's the case, we can do something very quickly. thank you very much, everybody. >> thank you, mr. president.

>> mr. president -- >> thank you. >> you saw the president signing an order, imposing new sanctions against iran, as general mccaffery was saying the economy in iran is virtually all but strangled by these sanctions and iran has been acting out as well. rhode island democratic senator is the top democrat on the arms committee and joins me now. your immediate rack, sir? >> i think the sanctions are more symbolic than substantive because the sanctions in place have already crippled their economy. it's driven them now to be much more provocative. i think the president made a mistake leaving the jcpoa. they were complying and now they're going to increase enrichment of uranium, cutting

down the time that it could take to create a nuclear weapon, putting us on a collision course if the president decides to use military action to stop them from developing a nuclear weapon, the capability of a nuclear weapon. i think the president indicated these sanctions were planned before the shootdown of the drone. this is a pressure campaign that's creating not negotiations but a much more hostile environment in the region and resistance by the iranians. we have to get off this escalatory situation. >> secretary pomp deo vigorousl denied as he left washington yesterday that there are secret talks or messages being passed through oman, which in the past has been a mediator between the u.s., leading up to the agreement that led to the nuclear deal.

you were in with the president last week with the bipartisan leaders. what did you hear from him about diplomacy? >> well, he repeatedly said, as he said moments ago, that he would like to talk to people but you have to establish ground rules, use intermediates. you have to have essentially a process, and the president doesn't have a process. it's all sort of willy nilly. his reaction over the weekend canceling the strike, i think, was appropriate but at the last minute, that should have been thought out before they even launched the aircraft. this ad hoc, last person to speak to him carries the day is not suring to anyone, particularly the american people. again with this pressure campaign, this lack of negotiations and the reaction by the iranians, not submission but

defiance, particularly on the nuclear access, could lead us to a situation where the president feels he has to take military action. once again that would engage us in a major, major conflict, in an area of the world which is very, very sensitive. >> and, senator, we know from the meeting there was a strong argument made by the democrats at least that the president needs to come back to the hill for authority. they can't keep relying on the post 9/11 authority that enabled them to go into afghanistan. did you get any traction at all on that argument, especially since the last person who seems to talk to the president is often a fox news anchor person rather than the chairman of the joint chiefs. >> it was made repeatedly that it was never designed to deal with the iranians. ironically, in some respects,

the iranians were fighting in parallel with us in iraq to destroy isis, which is the al qaeda derivative. you have a country that has no real significance to al qaeda. to use the justification, i think, is preposterous. yes, the president would have to come back. you can criticize president bush on a lot of things but he, in fact, came to congress when he wanted authority to go in and disrupt the iraqi nuclear program. i opposed that and thought it would lead to the problems we're seeing today. nevertheless he did seek authority and i think that rule should be followed. >> senator jack reed from the armed services committee, thank you very much, sir. >> thank you, andrea. >> we're about to talk more about this. i just want to mention treasury secretary steve mnuchin is

detailing about the details of these sanctions. as we pointed out at this stage, at least senator reed says it's symbolic. joining us now, general barry mccaffrey is still with me and joining me as well is msnbc senior foreign affairs analyst brett mcgirk, secretary of state for iraq and iran. brett, you've been on both sides, military and diplomatic. let's talk about how iran and the rest of the region is reacting to the president, first of all, proposing and then pulling back for military action and then today saying he wants the regional players, the persian gulf countries to be escorting or observing ships and it's not really the job of the united states. >> thanks, andrea. there's a fundamental incoherence in the policy. not just the last 96 hours but the last five hours. secretary pompeo met with the king of saudi arabia, king

salman and he said freedom of navigation in the strait of hormuz. president trump tweeted that's not really our job. that everybody should come protect their own ships and then in president trump's own statement just now, clearly reading a statement, he said iran must do a number of things. and in the question/answer, he went back to what he consistently says, all he cares about is the nuclear issue. in terms of what iran is thinking, they don't know what washington is asking of them. so, in response to this economic strangulation, they're becoming more reckless, more aggressive and i think this is on a very dangerous course. there's a key assumption to the policy. every foreign policy has an assumption because humans can't predict the future. you make an assumption based upon intelligence and history. the key assumption to this policy is that maximum economic pressure will bring iran back to the table, the table that we

left on our terms. and i think that assumption is highly questionable. if that assumption is false, president trump is soon going to find himself exactly where he found himself the other night, either having to back down or resort to military force. >> and i just wanted to point out the actual tweet from the president today, brett mcgurk and barry mccaffrey, why are we protecting shipping lanes for many countries for zero compensation? all these other countries should be protecting their own ships in what's a dangerous part of the country. we don't even need to be there in that the u.s. has just become, by far, the largest producer of energy anywhere in the world. we have always been protecting these lanes. pompeo is asking the saudis, uae and others to join in. what do you expect them to do? >> the notion that the japanese

self-defense force is going to put maritime capability in the persian gulf is laughable. senator jack reed made the main point. i spent hundreds of hours under two administrations working on the national security council. there's no process left where we get options, we get full discussion, we bring together all the elements of national power and ask the president to make the decision where he understands the downside. that whole thing on striking and response of the global hawk was impulsivity. the notion he called it off because it was going to kill 150 people was laughable. he could have told the site we're going to attack at 10:00 a.m. pull your people back. we could have gone after ten aircraft on the ground. we just made it up on the spot. >> in fact, i've been told by other military people and you are the best expert to me on that, that he would have gotten

all of these opgs. >> of course. >> from the jcs. >> as part of the target pag package. legal sign-off on all these strikes. are they in accordance with the international rules of law, what's expected, collateral damage and casualties, et cetera. there's a degree of inexperience going on. right now, essentially, there's no dod, presidentially -- >> and a lame duck. >> right. >> because the president replaced him, announcing that at the army/navy game. >> and a lot of cell phone calls to an unsecure phone in the president's hand. that's where a lot of our policy process is occurring. >> brett mcgurk, very briefly let's talk about the kind of information the president is taking in, because it does seem that that explanation to chuck todd and the world was basically

made up. >> i agree with general mccaffrey. process is critical. it's up to the national security adviser, john bolt nen this case, to collect the best information from the agencies of the government and present the president with options and that has to include all the downside risks. a president should never be in a position ten minutes before a strike learning that there will be significant collateral damage to civilian casualties. it's just unbelievable. >> brett mcgurk, general barry mccaffrey, good to see you here. no apologies. joe biden one on one with reverend al sharpton. we'll talk to the rev here only on andrea mitchell reports on msnbc. ndrea mitchell reports on msnbc. has 20 grams of protein, along with 26 essential vitamins and minerals. boost® high protein. be up for life.

here are even more reasons to join t-mobile. 1. do you like netflix? sure you do. that's why it's on us. 2. unlimited data. use as much as you want, when you want. 3. no surprises on your bill. taxes and fees included. still think you have a better deal? bring in your discount, and we'll match it.

that's right. t-mobile will match your discount. in his first television interview since describing working with racist senators in the past to illustrate his ability to get things done, joe biden was still standing his ground, insisting his remarks had been taken out of context. in south carolina this weekend, the reverend al sharpton gave biden every opportunity to explain himself. and to, perhaps, even apologize for seeming to accept the language used by those segregationist senators, such as the racist term "boy" for adult black men. >> it hurts when you talk about "boy." it means something different to us. it hurts when you call a racist, like you normalize -- that's not the biden i got to know.

don't you understand? >> i do fully understand. that's not what i said, though. they didn't print the whole deal. do you know what i mean? the context of this was totally different. by the way, the fact of the matter is that i ran against all of those folks. i do understand the consequence of the word "boy" but it wasn't said in any of that context at all. >> but you understand -- >> no, no, no, no. >> they would never call me son. they would only call me boy. >> they called teddy kennedy boy. that was a distinction. >> reverend al sharpton is president, of course, of the national action network and host of "politics nation" here on msnbc and joins me now after a busy weekend in south carolina. reverend al, thank you very much. >> thank you. >> well, that was the most extraordinary interview because i have known joe biden perhaps as long as you, from being a local reporter in pennsylvania in the '70s, when he was first elected to the senate. i have never seen him quite this way. unwilling to acknowledge the

hurt that he had caused. and when i ask you about that, your reaction -- there seems to be a generational divide. john lewis, jim clyburn and others understanding or excusing it. younger people, white and black, having a lot of problems with it. >> well, i think that many of us that not are maybe as old as john lewis and them but not as young or others just don't understand why he just cannot say that i didn't intend that, but i apologize to those that were hurt, because it is very sensitive. to normalize and act like there's some kind of civil engagement with people that were advocating outright racist and bigoted views, you must remember even for younger people, people my age, our parents grew up with these people demanding they couldn't sit in the front of the bus or buy a cup of coffee. and to civilize or normalize that is painful. he says he didn't intend that.

from the joe biden i got to know, i believe that. i quarrelled with him over the crime bill. i was opposed to it in the '90s but got to know him and felt he was not a racist. but you can't give comfort to racism and you've got to admit and own when you say something that may be insensitive to others. i've had to do it. mrs. coretta scott king reprimanded me once saying al you may not have intended to offend people but that's offensive and you have to guard your language. i think that's what we were really trying to see if he would do in this interview and if he could understand the pain. nobody is saying the intent but the cause of the pain is something that i think he has to grapple with. >> a lot of older voters, this may not be hurtful to him in south carolina. but does it feed into a narrative already that joe biden is not sensitive by the way

things are perceive bid younger people? >> i think it could feed into it, if he does not grasp it and deal with it right away. he has people around him, former congressional black chair richmond and symone sanders, young activist, that can help him understand this is not about joe biden. this is about racism. this is about people feeling decades of abuse. people that were raised by people that suffered at the hands of eastland and others that he talked about. i think when you personalize it and not look at the bigger picture, you can err. this is not about showing you're tough but that you're sensitive and you regard and respect the feelings of people that you want to govern. and that's what we're talking about. who is going to be the president? we do not mean if you're going to have an alternative to donald trump, people that are going to be like donald trump rather than unlike him and say, you know, i

can grow and i can learn that if i make a mistake, even if it's unintentional i can say that's a mistake, i'm sorry if i hurt somebody there but let's move on and bring the country together in another direction. >> on another front mayor pete buttigieg being off the trail and missing debates with his own problem and a problem that blew up in his face with the way he handled it, with the death of an african-american man at the hands of a white policeman. the police were wearing body cams but they were turned off. extraordinary town hall meeting just yesterday. >> yes. >> let's play it. >> i spoke, andrea. >> okay. >> with the which hidow of the that was killed and mayor pete called me and i think you hit it right on the head. the real issue here is body

cameras. we never, ever could imagine they would allow body cameras where the police could turn them off which makes it useless to have the body cam. that's what mayor pete has to deal with. he has an opportunity to set a national model on how you deal with policing and hold them accountable, including this policeman and how this camera was cut off. whatever led to that. they ought to be immediately dealt with or it can hurt his campaign and future governing. he is really at a point that this could really, in many ways, raise him above the crowd of candidates or he could sink. it's according to how he handles this as mayor in south bend. >> and he has called for an independent investigation. there's a lack of trust here. let me play a little bit of that town hall meeting. >> get the racists off the streets. it's disrespectful that i wake up every day scared. it's disrespectful that i have three boys that i have to teach today what to do.

get them off the streets! >> i will say that if anyone who is on patrol is shown to be a racist or to do something racist in a way that is substantiated, that is their last day on the street. >> yet there's a lack of diversity on his police corps. >> that is the issue, lack of diversity given the makeup of the populous of the city, the fact that he had problem with demoting a black police chief. this all comes back to the surface that he's going to have to deal with. and i think it's a challenge that he's going to have to rise to the occasion or the whole nation is going to see that he did not. and i told him that. i think it's a good step for him to be transparent, but being transparent also means you must take action.

and i think the body camera turned off and the fact that there is such a disproportionate amount of white police in a town that is not, the populous does not reflect that is something that he has to take immediate executive action on. otherwise, i think he becomes politically in very dangerous territory. >> reverend al sharpton, i know you're so busy. thanks for taking time out today. >> never too busy for you, andrea. >> thank you so much. >> thank you. >> only two days until the first presidential debate. a special two-night event this wednesday and thursday, live from miami. prime time events will be broadcast live against nbc, msnbc, telemundo and on digital properties. up next, miami advice. how should the 2020 contenders be prepping for their first debates? we'll talk to two strategists from both parties next on andrea mitchell reports on msnbc. mitchell reports on msnbc.

woman: (on phone) discover. hi. do you have a travel card? yep. our miles card. earn unlimited 1.5 miles and we'll match it at the end of your first year. nice! i'm thinking about a scuba diving trip. woman: ooh! (gasp) or not. you okay? yeah, no, i'm good. earn miles. we'll match 'em at the end of your first year. a cockroach can survive submergede guy. underwater for 30 minutes. wow. yeah, wow.

not getting in today. not on my watch. pests never stop trying to get in. we never stop working to keep them out. terminix. defenders of home. terminix. defenders of home. what is that? uh mine, why? it's just that it's... lavender. yes it is, it's for men but i like the smell of it laughs ♪

you should be mad at tech that makes things worse. but you're not, because you have e*trade whose tech makes life easier by automatically adding technical patterns on charts and helping you understand what they mean. don't get mad, get e*trade. with just two days to go until the first presidential depates here on msnbc, nbc and

telemundo, 2020 democrats are hoping to gain advantage over the field of competitors by rolling out new proposals. bernie sanders proposed free college tuition in 2016 unveiled a new plan aimed at younger voters and millennials to erase student debt. >> everyone who has the desire and ability to get a higher education, that's not just college but trade schools so people can learn to be sheet metal workers and do the kind of crafts they can earn a decent living for. that should be a right. that's what we're fighting for. >> joining me now is mike murphy, former senior adviser to john mccain. and former senior adviser to president obama and president and ceo of the center for american progress. welcome back. mira, how does this policy proposal from bernie sanders and we're seeing them from different

candidates now going up to the debate, how does this help him gain some advantage on the debate platform? >> you see a range of candidates, senator sanders is one today, that are working on a policy. you're seeing a range of candidates, governor ainsley has another proposal on climate, putting forward ideas that they definitely want to highlight. this week in the debates. i think these are policies that we should -- we'll hear about today. maybe some new ones tomorrow and you'll definitely hear about them wednesday and thursday. i think they are trying to accentuate how they are different from other candidates with their bold ideas. >> and, actually, elizabeth warren was certainly the first to gain traction for the i have a plan for that. that gave her the first big push to start climbing up in the polls in houston. mike murphy, how do you come up with a debate strategy?

how do you come up with a game plan when you're going to have, you know, six to eight to ten minutes, maybe, in such a large field? >> yeah. >> and you've got so many people and don't want to beat up on them. you want to beat up on trump but maybe you go after biden now, the front-runners. what do you do? >> well, it's really tough because it's a mob scene. you have these ham and eggers at 1% who are desperate to get attention so they'll be over ka of nated and then you have people who have something to lose, who want to be defensive and score in others. it will be an elizabeth warren night, night one. she's rising. she has energy behind her campaign. klobuchar and cory booker will try to get into it. everybody is going to laugh in new york. i would keep an eye on mayor diblasio. he is used to being media savage and has nothing to lose. joe biden versus the world.

kamala harris will steal cory booker's act and getting into lecturing him on racial insensitivity. bernie will be swinging there and mayor pete, who has had a rough week and looking to turn it into the young/old contrast with biden. lot of people with stuff to gain and frankly, knowing there are a lot of debates and they want to make incremental progress without any big gafs. that's the risk. >> neera, mike just talked about mayor deblasio. he was on our show last week with a really honed performance. the fact is that the rest of the country hasn't seen him that much. he's very tall. he could dominate the stage. there could be interesting little twists and turns here. >> yeah. i mean, i actually helped prep hillary 12 years ago now for the debates, which had, i think, seven or eight people then. so, i think that there's a lot of challenges with this kind of format. first for a person like

deblasio. it is his first impression. a lot of people don't know bill deblasio around the country. for candidates at 1, 2%, those candidates have to make their first impression. going on the attack in a democratic primary where really what everyone is judging, every single candidate, what the public is really judging, is how you're going to go toe to toe against donald trump. and i don't think people are really looking to set -- to a candidate who can savage other people. it's not a republican electorate, democratic electorate, very focused on someone emerging from this process who can win and beat trump. people are going to measure people, each of these candidates, almost as how they would do up against trump. they're not looking for them to savage each other. that's a hard balancing line for candidates, particularly the ones who are polling at 1% or 2% right now.

>> to that point, what is the advantage in going after biden, the front-runner, if people have a certain amount of affection for him? can you overdo it, mike? >> yes, you can. though the problem is if you're one of the one, two, three percenters, you want to claw your way into the news coverage of the debate past the others. conflict always sells and attacking will get you that. i think deblasio has nothing to lose and is comfortable on the attack, trying to get that moment. bernie is somebody you can attack generationally and i think mayor pete could go that route. we just have to see. the other problem is with all these people on stage, it's not cle clean. somebody said something. you think you can attack, but then marianne williamson does something and the audience forgot about the person you want to attack.

the best 40 seconds, 50-second pitches about them out which may make it a little dull but people are watching for risk aside here, particularly the big candidates. >> mike murphy, neera, thank you very much. we're learning more about the shocking conditions in which some migrant children are being held in federal facilities. new yorker spoke to lawyers who interviewed more than 50 of those kids who describe facilities as dirty, neglectful and dangerous with an appalling lack of bare necessities, according to these lawyers. quote, flu and lice outbreaks were going untreated. children were filthy, sleeping on cold floors, taking care of each other because of lack of attention from guards. after a justice department lawyer was seen arguing with 9th circuit guard that they shouldn't be dealing with providing everybody with soap and toothbrushes.

>> it's in everybody's common understanding if you don't have toothbrush, soap, blanket, it's not safe and sanitary. wouldn't everybody agree to that? do you agree to that? >> well, i think it's -- i think those are -- there's fair reason to find that those things may be part of -- >> not may be. are a part. why are you saying may be? there are certain circumstances where a person doesn't need to have toothbrush, toothpaste and soap for days? >> well, i think in vcp custody it's frequently intended to be much shorter terms. shorter term stay in custody that some of those things may not be required. >> some of those things may not be required. joining me now, julia ainsley, who has been all over this story for months, in particular these new developments and msnbc contributor jeremy peters. julia, we were shocked two months ago, five months ago.

this is the most appalling reporting that i've seen yet. >> it's shocking. it's easy to pk numb but you're right, it is appalling. we're talking about the most vulnerable population. they're considered unaccompanied but often they come here with a family member, grandparent, adult sibling and they expect to stay with them. in fact, under u.s. law they're considered unaccompanied and are supposed to be sent to health and human services where they get better care because of this backlog, because there's not enough space in those hhs facilities, they are now living in this squall or. we go and say are you not taking urgent action? they say the inspector general is looking into it but we need more funding from congress. they're making it a capacity issue. if they're not getting their basic needs met it's a management issue. it doesn't take an act of congress to provide a child with a toothbrush. >> exactly. we know they have money to

appropriate. the president did it himself, when he wanted money for the wall. listen to this exchange with chuck todd exclusively with the president on "meet the press." >> i inherited separation from president obama. president obama built -- they call them jail cells. they were built -- >> let's talk about what's happening now. >> i'm just telling you. >> not recreation, schooling kids anymore. you got rid of all that stuff. >> we're doing a fantastic job under the circumstances. democrats aren't approving giving us money. where is the money? you know what? the democrats are holding up the humanitarian aid. >> jeremy, he wants a change in the asylum laws. in two weeks, we can get this done. it hasn't been done in years and years. >> yeah. >> we all know the history there. but to say that you're holding up these kids and not even providing some emergency, this is petty cash in the hhs or the dhs budget. >> right. >> for a toothbrush and something other than a mylar

aluminum foil blaventh on a cold cement floor. >> politically, andrea, it's dangerous for the president on two fronts. number one, most americans find these policies, conditions they're reading and watching about on the border to be absolutely reprehensible and really unamerican. you have that. and the idea that president trump, as we saw in the 2018 mid term elections isn't adding to his base right now. he's subtracting from it. on the other hand he's worried about what will happen to his base, his hard-core, right wing immigrant base that wants to see instructor policies at the border, that looks at increased numbers of apprehensions and says this isn't what the president promised. this isn't stopping the flow of illegal immigration. and there is some, i would say, at this point -- some but not enough yet, but some cracks forming in that foundation of his hard right base. >> what about congress? you know, the president keeps coming back and saying it's the

democrats' fault. there's no way that these two sides are going to get together on this issue if wall money isn't thrown in and they don't have some control over what happen. >> and if he tuns to use children as a pawn. children as a pawn, he's funding for more capacity and it could very well -- >> he wants to get rid of it. >> these are things existed under the obama administration, we did not see the same conditions. it is a hard argument to follow. also when he's talking about congress, very likely we could get that funding, that capacity to be expanded but it does not change fundamental ways this is being handled and the fact that there is a hair on fire right now. >> he's delaying the deportation plan. >> they were thnot ready and the were some push back from his own dhs akisecretary.

>> acting secretary. >> they're all acting now. especially because if you have a detention space problem and trying to get more money from congress, why is that detention space to hold immigrant families who's living in the united states in detention before you deport them. >> he feels that is good reelect issues. >> he wants credit for things he does not want done. he thinks it will rev up the base like he did when he was leading them in courses of building the wall. he knows he did not deliver what he's promised. he's quite nervous about this. this is why you saw him leap out in front of the news and announced deportation and he pulled back. he's jittery. >> i think the whole country is jittery now. >> sorrowful for these kids. >> coming up, writer e. jean

carrol is accusing president trump for sexual assault years ago. stay with us on "andrea mitchell" on msnbc. bc mom! maria! maria ramirez... mcdonald's is committing 150 million dollars in tuition assistance, education, and career advising programs... prof: maria ramirez mom and dad: maria ramirez!!! to help more employees achieve their dreams.

mom and dad: maria ramirez!!! so chantix can help you quit slow turkey.rkey. along with support, chantix is proven to help you quit. with chantix you can keep smoking at first and ease into quitting. chantix reduces the urge so when the day arrives, you'll be more ready to kiss cigarettes goodbye. when you try to quit smoking, with or without chantix, you may have nicotine withdrawal symptoms. stop chantix and get help right away if you have changes in behavior or thinking, aggression, hostility, depressed mood, suicidal thoughts or actions, seizures, new or worse heart or blood vessel problems, sleepwalking, or life-threatening allergic and skin reactions. decrease alcohol use. use caution driving or operating machinery. tell your doctor if you've had mental health problems. the most common side effect is nausea. quit smoking slow turkey. talk to your doctor about chantix.

president trump is strongly denying a new sexual assault allegation from e. jean carrol. she writes in graphic details that the president attacked her nearly three decades ago. the exposure she's making in her

book in new york magazine. carrol is the 16th woman accusing donald trump with actual misconduct. she talked about it in an interview. >> that's when it became a fight. it hurts. it was against my will. and, i don't know where i got the strength. he was big, i was stomping my foot. >> president trump denied the allegation while leaving the white house over the weekend. >> i have no idea who this woman is. this is a woman who also accused other men of things as you know. it is a totally false accusation. people have to be careful. because they are playing dangerous territory. when they do that it is

happening more and more. when you look at what happened to justice brett kavanaugh and you look at what's happening to others, you can't do that for the sake of publicity. >> our senior correspondent for wbur, msnbc analyst, kimberly atkin. this does not a traction of other previous allegations. this went well beyond in inappropriate touching. she spoke to two friends the next day. she didn't report it and fearful of the consequences of reporting it. yeah, it is the actual allegation itself. it is far more serious than any of the other 15 women have come forward with allegations against president trump. one thing that's the same is that she felt she could not come forward because she knew that

donald trump was rich and powerful and it would be even she was advised by some of her friends that it would be devastating for her to go up against that and it would be better to keep quiet. she seems equivocal even if new york city laws were changed to remove that statute of limitations about whether she will come forward and cooperate. this is what a lot of women who make these allegations against the powerful people face and not the same time donald trump digging in. he always denied it and always having an affinity towards brett kavanaugh who denied these claims and politically they have not harmed him the way they would decimated the political career of any politicians. >> i should provide a picture by far of her then husband, donald trump and his then wife.

this is happening in the middle of war talks with iran and a lot of other things and it is not getting much attention. >> it is also happening of the "access hollywood" tape before. the election. we are three years later and the views about this have baked in and how his supporters don't believe these women or don't really care about this and you have people who believe them and thinks he committed these crimes and that's going to solidify their opposition to him. it has been media attention. there is so many other things that's happening so many other crisis. >> i think that's absolutely right. >> kimberly atkins, thank you so much. remember to follow the show online and on facebook and twitter, here is "velshi &

ruhle," ali and velshi. >> in any other world, this would be a much bigger story than today but because of all that we have got going on. thank you, andrea. >> it is monday, june 24th. race issues are two of t2020 candidates. two presidential hopefuls speak out on big new policies they just unveiled. until the first democratic debate. president trump's immigration raids are now on hold. we'll dig into the new lines coming from the white house. ignore red flags to vetting documents for several top trump officials. we are talking about ties to white supreme sis and discriminatory comments towards transgender people.