zip opera house tomorrow at 1:00 p.m. eastern with stephanie ruhle and then again 3:00 p.m. eastern. you can find me on social media, twitter, facebook, instagram, twitter, snapchat and, indeed, linkedin. thank you for watching. "deadline: white house" with nicolle wallace starts right now. >> hi, everyone, it's 4:00 in new york. we are looking at the debate stage in miami, florida, where in just a few hours ten candidates will take their places for the fist first democratic debate. like everything else will kick off against a president mired in controversy. back in washington, back at the white house, it's about to get ugly. really, really, really ugly. the reaction from the president, his allies to news special counsel robert s. mueller will testify publicly before the house intel and judiciary committee is any indication, the president is now running scared of the moment that could be created by wall-to-wall

testimony from mueller about donald trump's efforts to obstruct the fbi investigation into russian meddling and his associates nearly 150 contacts with russians. the president reacting to the news today with his standard lies about what the mueller investigation actually concluded. >> the mueller thing never stops. there was no collusion. there was no obstruction. there was no nothing. how many times do we have to hear it? it never ends. it just keeps going on and on. >> and while we've heard that before, it's important to point out that robert mueller did not say there was no obstruction. nor did he say there was no collusion. here's what mueller did say -- >> if we had, had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so. the longstanding department policy, a president cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office. that is unconstitutional. >> but trump's rambling attacks

did not stop there. he introduced a new line of attack that seemed to confound even the ultra my friendly fox business interviewer. >> he terminated the emails. he terminated all of the stuff between strok and paige. robert mueller terminated their text messages together. he terminated them. they're gone. and that's illegal. that's a crime. >> someone should call and tell him what terminated actually means. donald trump there still reeling from his public display of instability on the world stage in the confrontation with iran last week. donald trump, who denied an allegation of sexual assault by saying the accuser wasn't his type. donald trump, who rolls over and plays impotent and powerless as his cruel and incompetent immigration policies victimize children at our borders. donald trump in learning robert mueller will testify in an open

hearing, he slanders the former fbi director and accuses him of committing a crime. that is where we start with some of our most favorite reporters and friends. with us at the table former chief spokesman for the department of justice, matt miller, who never terminated anything. frank figliuzzi, former assistant director for counterintelligence, he might have terminated a thing or two. and former democratic congresswoman and "the washington post" columnist donna edwards. with us in washington senior fbi official and host of msnbc "the oath" podcast, chuck rosenberg. chuck, let me start with you, it's an earthquake robert mueller will testify but for the wrong reasons that i think are being discussed. robert mueller is not limited by the four corners of the mueller report. robert mueller speaking to anything inside those four corners is the political earthquake. robert mueller testifying in a public hearing -- and you flip to any page of this document, any single page, and you read

that out loud on live television in what will be roadblock coverage, which means no matter what channel you turn to, you will see and hear robert mueller, that could be a cataclysmic political undertaking for the president. don't believe me. just look at the president. the president in his bones knows the last thing his presidency could handle is robert mueller reading a paragraph from this report on television. >> the president doesn't seem particularly pleased with the fact bob mueller's going to testify but i think you're right, nicolle, this is theater. substantively, those of us who read the report, all seven of us, and those members -- >> plus my viewers. >> plus your viewers, of course. but members of congress who took the time to figure out what happened, already know the roadmap. they already know the details. but it is the difference we discuss between the book and movie. i prefer books. some people prefer movies. this will be the movie.

so there is a value at least politically it not substantively of hearing bob mueller breathe life into the written word. now, i don't expect him to stray from the report but again just talking about it publicly and talking about it on a day, as you say, there will be wall-to-wall coverage will help bring this report to life and there's a value in that. >> not only is there value, there's -- i mean, that's the strength of the mueller testimony to me. everything's already in here. there's no gotcha moment for donald trump, matt miller. there's nothing the president -- i have to say the president isn't among the seven of us that's read it but i think there's a false limiting sense in some of the commentary already, and this news is barely 15 hours old and people are saying, i don't know if he will stray from the report. the paralysis politically has been no one got through everything in this report. people wanted to move past it. mueller testifying about its

contents gives democrats the alleged standoff. >> i think that's right and one thing the president understands is television. you can see he's rightlily concerned because he gets the power of speaking on television about a report a lot of people haven't read. i think there are three inflection points since this investigation ended. the first is mueller deciding not to make a call on obstruction, the second was the way bob barr mislead the public about the report and gave a head start spin -- >> five, five appearances or public statements before we got this. >> exactly. the third the decision by democrats in the house to treat this exercise as a fact-finding mission when the facts were known. this is a fourth big inflection point. the first have all gone the president's way and i think they led him to the point where the end of this investigation was not the expensistential threat the presidency that it might be. this changes things.

if mueller gets up and talks about this report and democrats are skilled in the way they question him, he's not going to i think go beyond the report but there are ways to drou he him o and say things which are very, very damaging to the president. >> he already said these things. he said if i could say the president did not commit a crime, would i have. they already said he's an investigative office that could not charged him at the ends of the probe. the credibility is gained by the fact that they've already made all of these assertions and assurances to the white house, but the piece -- and i go back to dr. christine blasey ford, who testified the same day as donald trump's last supreme court nominee brett kavanaugh. in between blasey ford's testimony and brett kavanaugh's testimony, donald trump blinked. he saw her testimony and he wasn't so sure about brett kavanaugh anymore. he watched her the way a

television viewer -- i don't know if we can call it charming but one of the things he does get, he gets the power of television and he got the power of christine blasey ford that morning. >> this is why i'm concerned about the period of time between now and july 17th. i think it's going to get ugly. we already heard people say the hearing's going to get ugly. we're going to see an american hero denigrated by certain members of congress. and that is going to be really, really disgusting to see happening with a man like mueller. but i'm predicting it's going to get ugly before that. i don't think the white house can constrain themselves. look what happened with just hope hicks, someone who was a friend to the white house. and look at how many times they asserted bizarre and immunity privileges that don't exist. i think we will see this white house try to constrain mueller as tightly as they can and i think the pressure is going to be very, very strong on this attorney general to try and assert a privilege or constrain his former employee. >> let me press you on that.

there's already sort of a low rumble, quiet ding if you will in washington around these questions. i checked the fox news website before i came out here just to know what that's going to look like. it's a good place. they don't hide their ugly plans very well. and there on the fox news website is the plan for the hearing the president's alliless go after the fbi and go after the oranges of the investigation as donald trump calls them. >> we're going to see it. it's going to be ugly, and it's all going to play out on our tv screens. but here's what people should focus in on. the bottom line is even if mueller sticks to the four corners of his report and simply recites passages of them in response to questions as ugly as questioning gets and as much as they try to disparage him and his former agency and the whole investigation and the origins of the investigation for the first time, most americans are going to be hearing things like, on a ride to laguardia airport, trump

turned to gates and said more information's going to be released by wikileaks. they never heard that before. they never heard that before. but it's in the report. we're going to hear about over 100 meeting between trump campaign officials and russia. 100 contexts, over 30 different meetings by over 30 trump campaign officials, they never heard that before and that alone makes mueller's testimony valuable. >> some of what they will hear, and again i hate this phrase he's somehow limited by the four corners. the four corners of the report are sort of the gold he will hold in his handed that people need to hear. here's something that might sort of call into question donald trump's credibility when he says no collusion. the mueller report says the investigation established that the russian government perceived it would benefit from a trump presidency and worked to security that outcome and that the campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through russian efforts.

now, you might have the public saying i don't know what collusion is but that sure sounds like dancing the tango together. this is not -- this is going to let people use their own intelligence and their own gut check on whether something unseemly happened between vladimir putin's governor and donald trump's campaign. >> i have been advocating for actually since the mueller report came out that the importance of having mueller deliver that information because i think it's really true, the american public hasn't focused on it in a way that they will with the power of television, with mueller and his voice, his calm demeanor and his decisiveness saying these words. and even if he just repeats the word that he wrote in the report, and i think there's going to be value to that, donald trump understands that clearly. and anybody who says donald trump is getting the president, getting the congress into impeachment, pushing the congress to investigate in this

kind of way, and that he's doing that on purpose because it will work against democrats, they're dead wrong about that. and donald trump's response to the announcement that mueller would testify is absolute evidence of it. >> chuck, i don't want to gloss over what the president said. i really -- we're not -- no one's nu one's numb, no one that watches is show is, but we're inundated. anyone who heard robert mueller and accused him of terminating emails -- it stakes a bit of a pocket translator to hear what he's trying to say. i want to play that again and bring into sharp focus what the president is doing with this smear. >> he terminated the emails, he term mated all of the stuff between strzok and paige. some you won't see. robert mueller terminated their

text messages together. he terminated them. they're gone and it's illegal. that's a crime. >> i think the word he's groping for in his jammies before all of this coffee or maybe before his ambien wore off is deleted but he's accusing robert mueller of a crime. now talk about how many people investigated the conduct -- haven't strzk and page's been inspected by the director of the fbi? >> yes, and in fact they've been provided by the congress and made public. he may be searching for the word deleted. the word terminated makes absolutely no sense there. but the whole thing is really just a smear campaign, nicolle. bob mueller didn't break the law. bob mueller didn't terminate or delete emails. in fact the only person bob mueller terminated was pete strozk when he removed him from the special counsel's team

interfering russian interference in the election. when it came to light he was removed at his assistance. i'm sure that was not a long meeting. i'm sure bob mueller didn't deliberate about whether pete strozk had to be removed. this is a part of what matt miller is referring to and part of the smear campaign of the july 17th testimony. this particular charge makes absolutely no sense. not only are the words wrong but the underlying thing that the president is trying to describe never happened. >> i want to also though sort of dig deep and i know it's always a dark place and we all try to get into donald trump's mind and i think i'll leave it to the medical professionals to try to understand why he landed on the word terminated when he was looking for the kwoword deleted. i'm not a friend or ally but i'm worried about him landing on that word, honestly. but he's accusing robert mueller of a crime when robert mueller found conduct around obstruction

that could very easily be construed as a crime. in fact, if he wasn't the president, i think, chuck, you've said -- matt, i think all of you have said, he might have been charged with a crime let us put up the seemingly -- again, tv viewer, they may debate at home around the kitchen table whether these are crimes or not. but the mueller reports, if he just sticks to those four corners, here's what he might testify to on live television. mcghan decided he to resign. this is the president's sitting white house counsel. he called his personal lawyer and then he called his chief of staff eddie donaldson to inform her of his decision. he then drove to the office to pack his belongings and submit his resignation letter. that evening mcghan called both previous, that was four chief of staffs ago and bannon about four political advisers ago, and told him he intended to resign. he recalled mcghan said he should do crazy bleep but he did not tell him of the specific request because mcghan was trying to protect priebus of

what he did not know. the mueller report goes on for many, many pages with a half a dozen other witnesses to robert s. mueller who for some reason have not appeared on capitol hill yet. but one narrator, robert s. mueller, can bring to life the testimony of at least six witnesses who testified to donald trump's designs on firing robert mueller which to a normal viewer of "the sopranos" or "ray donovan" sounds a whole lot like mob conduct, as is described by jim comey or anyone who examined donald trump's efforts to fire and investigate the investigators. >> in fact mob conduct was described by president trump. remember, i said he had been around flippers his entire life. he also said he would never pick up the phone to call the fbi. who does that, nicolle? and so you don't need others to describe the president engaging in mob conduct because the president has described it for you. but to your point, mueller can breathe life into this. even if he does nothing more

than read those excerpts. the obstruction of justice section of volume two is replete of instances of conduct that would earn for anybody else on the planet a trip to federal court and ultimately prison. so i agree, i don't -- i'm a little bit worried about one thing. i'm a little worried about with political debates people are looking for a quip or a gaff or a moment as opposed just soaking it all in. this is not a 30-second hearing. it's a four, five, six-hour hearing and you have to take what mueller says in sum and substance. i worry that you -- not you, you wouldn't do this, but we the body politic, will reduce this to a moment. and i think it's so important for everyone to just take in the whole thing. the sweep of the president's conduct. >> i'm not worried that the tv viewer will miss the sweep of the conduct. i think my concern about mueller is around what we're all getting at, the ugliness that will precede it. >> there will be ugliness

preceding it. there will be ugliness there. it's one thing for republicans on the committee to attack foreign people in the fbi, some of the mueller's team in the private sector but another thing to attack a lifelong republican like bob mueller. they don't land the way they would against watchithose watch. and bringing the concept alive in his words, but the question we all want him to answer, this open question, if he wasn't the president of the united states, would you have charged him with a crime? he is not going to answer that question. but it would be great if someone said special counsel mueller, is it illegal to direct wais in a proceeding to create a false document that contradicts his sworn testimony? the answer is yes. has the justice department

prosecuted people for that in the past? the answer is yes. that is bombshell testimony. >> absolutely. we're all going to watch it together. we're all going to watch it together when it comes. when we come back, former acting director of the fbi andrew mccabe will join us to discuss the impact of seeing robert mueller on capitol hill. also ahead, how do democrats get the brushes with criminality, insensitivity and incompetence to stick in a while his 2016 rivals in both parties could not? they have a chance tonight. we'll pull back the curtain. and breaking news in the immigration crisis and youngest and most innocent victims. all of those stories coming up. . small things. big things. too hard to do alone things. day after day, you need to get it all done. and here to listen and help you through it all is bank of america.

with the expertise and know-how you need to reach that blissful state of done-ness. so let's get after it. ♪ everything is all right what would you like the power to do?® ♪ all right what would you like the power to do?® can we talk?

we used to play so beautifully together. now we can barely play anything... even cards with the girls. if you have bent fingers, and can't lay your hand flat, talk to your doctor. it may be dupuytren's contracture. your hand is talking. isn't it time you listened? there are nonsurgical options. take the first step. and learn more about dupuytren's. at factsonhand.com ♪ when you start with a better that's no way to treat a dog... ...you can do no wrong. where did you learn that? the internet... yeah? mmm! with no artificial preservatives or added nitrates or nitrites, it's all for the love of hot dogs.

mno kidding.rd. but moving your internet and tv? that's easy. easy?! easy? easy. because now xfinity lets you transfer your service online in just about a minute with a few simple steps. really? really. that was easy. yup. plus, with two-hour appointment windows, it's all on your schedule. awesome. now all you have to do is move...that thing. [ sigh ] introducing an easier way to move with xfinity. it's just another way we're working to make your life simple, easy, awesome. go to xfinity.com/moving to get started.

the indictments allege and the other activities in our report describe efforts to interfere in our political system, they needed to be investigated and understood that there were multiple systematic efforts to interfere in our election. and that allegation deserves the attention of every american. >> that was robert mueller's warning to every american, that included the president too, about the threat the russian attack posed to our country. when testifies in a few weeks to two house committees mueller is sure to be acts by the finding into the investigation whether trump himself may have been compromised. joining our conversation, the man who first launched the full-scale investigation into the president, former acting director and deputy director of the fbi, our friend andrew

mccabe. frank, donna and chuck are all still with us. frank, i want to ask you, your reaction to the fact not just that mueller will appear on capitol hill but the impact. you were targeted by this president, attacked by this president. you kept going and wrote a big book and had a big impact after this investigation and your reasons for opening that full-field investigation into the president. robert mueller was investigating this president, was on the is scene longer than you got to stay, unfortunately, for our country. what do you think the impact will be of hearing his voice on this report? >> nicolle, i think it will be extraordinary. i think you only have to look back as far as the very limited nine-minute statement director mueller gave just a few weeks ago, completely changed the conversation around the report, around the investigative findings and the impact that, that report has had on people in congress and i think on the

general public. so if you extrapolate out from that very brief statement to think about director mueller sitting behind the witness stand answering questions from both sides, i do agree with your panelist he will likely stay within the four corners of his report but there's incredible ground to cover there, and i think there are revelations that many, many people have not heard before, have not read in the report. so i think you can't underestimate the significance of the director's upcoming testimony. >> i want to ask you about time that robert mueller may spend on capitol hill behind closed doors in a closed session, because it would appear it's possible some of the most sensitive parts of his probe maying discussed that. is that a safe assumption? >> absolutely. i think that's an accurate assumption. i think the fact that his senior staffers will participate in what sounds like those debriefings that will take place certainly behind closed doors in

classified settings i think is another indication that those sessions will go much deeper into the details that the investigators uncornered during the course of their work. >> let me put you on the spot. if you're robert mueller or one of his investigators that picked up the ball that you handed them from the investigation you opened into whether or not the firing of comey was just an attempt to obstruct the investigation or whether that was part of coordinating or conducting itself in a way rush would have wanted it to do, do you think the special counsel's office will brief out the way that concluded what they found? and should they if people like devin nunes are in the room? >> yeah, that's a great question, nicolle. it reads as a whole host of very sensitive issues. first, i think it's critically important always to return to the team's most significant conclusion, which is, of course, they firmly establish beyond a shadow of a doubt the impact and

fact that the russians did in fact meddle in our campaign. they then narrowed the scope of their inquiry to whether or not they can prove a criminal conspiracy between the trump campaign and russian actors and, of course, concluded they did not have evidence to prove such a conspiracy. that is a far cry from resolving counterintelligence concerns that may arise from any number of facts they uncover during the course of their work. so we often refer to the fact the report cites over 100. i think it's more in the neighborhood of 140 different interactions between people associated with the campaign and the president and russians or individuals associated with russian intelligence. that is a -- that is a feast for counterintelligence investigators to feed upon, to investigate, to peel back the cover on for years and years to come.

there's our counterintelligence professionals are frequently confronted by this dilemma of how and what of their work to share with congress. he's obligated to share some of his work with congress, obligated to keep the intelligence communities obligated of significant developments and significant intelligence problems or failures as they're defined in the statute. but there is a great sensitivity involved there and ongoing work as well. so i would expect that would be an issue that kind of remnants of the special counsel's team will coordinate very closely with the fbi folks who may be continuing that work. >> so two former senior republican policymakers said to me that the way to do the equivalent of sort of waking the republican body politic up might be what you're describing, the national security implications of the russian attack.

and to present to men who -- at least on some level have a conscience, have a reputation that they value national security circles, people like senator bur, that if robert mueller is able to lay out the kinds of things that had you concerned before you left, the conduct that was inexplicably precisely what putin would have orchestrated if he were pulling donald trump's strings as though he were a puppet, that really could sort of be the equivalent of shaking up this conversation in a way the criminal probe couldn't be because republicans felt like they had to circle the wagon around the republican figurehead at least, leader of their party. do you agree with that announcement? >> i do. i do. i think it gets to really the heart of your first question, and that is what is the significance of having these hearings and having these briefings? for me really the answer to that question is exactly what you just referred to. it's not just about political theater or one side pursuing a

goal or agenda with respect to the president's prospects for impeachment and that sort of thing. the most important function we're trying to serve here is that congress has a responsibility to conduct oversight and that information should be heard by the congress and to the greatest extent possible by the american public so that people can consider these things as they make their own decisions, as they proceed through their own political -- the decisions they make according to their own political preferences. people have a right to know what the team uncovered in the same way congress has a right and responsibility to understand the counterintelligence concerns that the special counsel effort may have uncovered and how those concerns are being addressed now. >> i want to bring you in, frank. this to me feels like the defroster, that this debate is so locked and so broken, so paralyzed right and left. but if you can make this case,

if robert mueller behind closed doors can articulate what andy's talking about, that russia attacked us, wake up. we have to make sure, we have an obligation to make sure christopher wray and i remember add memori admiral rogers slumped over his desk, do you have what you need to protect us from russia? he's like i don't know. if there's a way to wake him up with the counterintelligence investigation, findings of the russian threat and donald trump's ambivalence about protecting this country, it could be significant in terms of not repairing but waking people up to the threat russia presents and getting people back to being on the side of our country. i don't think that anyone will ever really understand, i don't think it's understandable, how donald trump got away with having 150 contacts with russians and it feels like there's no consequences. but there's still a national

security conversation to be had around the mueller probe. >> the unanswered counterintelligence questions will be the elephant in the room, in the closed-door sessions. there's no question about that. even though the mueller team might have to defer the counterintelligence decision at fbi headquarters, because it appeared they still have that case, just asking them the questions, what did you find? what were the intelligence nuggets that came out as you were exploring the motivation for this president to align himself with russia? what do you think he did it? what's the data showing that compromised that exist or vulnerabilities might exist? how many time was the campaign briefed on a threat from russia and did you receive any word from them that they were concerned? all of that plus the incitement of over two dozen russians for interfering with our election could actually cause the dpgop d democrats to coalesce around a common issue, the threat to our

security. >> and now people will accuse us of having something other than water in our cups. chuck, i want to ask you a question on this front. could robert mueller be asked to explain if the in fact manafort blew up the agreement, if that got in the way of getting to the bottom of whether or not there was a conspiracy between the russians and trump agents in the orbit? >> sure. the fact in the report itself, nicolle, the report talks about things they couldn't get. there's information from overseas they couldn't get. some people chose not to cooperate. or lied to them. so the fact that manafort or others withheld information or lied to the fbi certainly undermined the team's own confidence in its report. i don't mean in the sense they didn't find russian interference. they certainly did. i don't mean in the sense the president didn't obstruct the investigation. he certainly did. but that there are other pieces

of information that the team would have uncovered if people like manafort and others had been truthful. >> andy, i i want to give you the last question in this block. i want to pick this up every time we get to talk to you. do you feel like mueller going to capitol hill, to me it feels like for a man who spent his life as a public servant, who did more for this country than just about anyone i can think of still on this stage, is this asking too much from him? he said in his press conference, this is the last time you will hear from me. adam schiff has described him as not uncooperative but unwilling witness. what do you think is going through his mind right now? >> well, i think i have a pretty good idea what's going through his mind having seen him approach these sort of opportunities in the past. you know, nicolle, i would remind myself at this point that there are many things in the court of robert mueller's life he did not want to do but he did because he felt his country needed him to do it.

and i think this is -- this will be an experience he adds to that list. he's a reluctant witness. he's kind of a fofrosty guy to begin with. and i don't mind if he hears that. but look nobody looks forward to testifying. i had to do it myself many times. it's intense and arduous, you go through intense preparations for days and days, make weeks before you appear, which i'm sure he will do. your focus is entirely on keeping your testimony within the guardrails of the lawyers and the agency has provided with you and being perfectly accurate. you want to be as open and as complete and accurate in your answers as possible, and you would, of course, prefer not to get caught up in the preliminary gamesmanship. so you have to do that in an environment where both sides are really pushing you in one direction or another, trying to

kind of elicit the next soundbite that supports their perspective. so it's an incredibly tough situation to walk into. it's not one that the director enjoys. so i'm sure he's looking forward to it about like getting a root canal. nevertheless, he's robert mueller. he's an american hero. there's really never too much to ask from an american hero. that's why we any of them as here yes and i'm confident we will rise to the occasion this time. >> and the most credible witnesses are always the most reluctant ones in terms of public opinion. my thanks to frank figliuzzi, andrew mccabe and chuck rosenberg. thank you so much for spending so much time with us. chuck's podcast "the oath" is required listening. this week's guest is jim comey. when we come back, we go to the miami to look at the democrats and their plan attack. that's next. sis.

you see clear skin. cosentyx can help people with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis find clear skin that can last. don't use if you're allergic to cosentyx. before starting, get checked for tuberculosis. an increased risk of infections and lowered ability to fight them may occur. tell your doctor about an infection or symptoms, if your inflammatory bowel disease symptoms develop or worsen, or if you've had a vaccine or plan to. serious allergic reactions may occur. how sexy are these elbows? ask your dermatologist about cosentyx. with moderate to severe ulceratiyour plans... crohn's, can change in minutes. your head wants to do one thing... but your gut says not today. if your current treatment isn't working... ask your doctor about entyvio®. entyvio® acts specifically in the gi tract,

to prevent an excess of white blood cells from entering and causing damaging inflammation. entyvio® has helped many patients achieve long-term relief and remission. infusion and serious allergic reactions can happen during or after treatment. entyvio® may increase risk of infection, which can be serious. pml, a rare, serious, potentially fatal brain infection caused by a virus may be possible. tell your doctor if you have an infection experience frequent infections or have flu-like symptoms, or sores. liver problems can occur with entyvio®. ask your doctor about the only gi-focused biologic just for ulcerative colitis and crohn's. entyvio®. relief and remission within reach. but prevagen helps your brain with an ingredient originally discovered... in jellyfish. in clinical trials, prevagen has been shown to improve short-term memory. prevagen. healthier brain. better life.

the latest charter school scandals are piling up. leaders of one san diego charter network? indicted for conspiracy and grand theft. thankfully, the governor's charter school policy task force just made important recommendations for reform: more accountability on charter school spending. and giving local school districts more control over the authorization of charter schools. reforms we need to pass now. so call your state senator. ask them to support ab 1505 and ab 1507.

this is a chance to be able to talk to people all across this country. >> my goal is to reflect back what i have listened to and heard from people. >> i'm going to be pointing out the fact that i know about the promise of america. >> i think we have to have a very, very thorough discussion about these important issues. >> what i really want the american people to understand is i'm a serious person who has real solutions. >> tonight's first democratic primary debate now less than five hours away certainly isn't happening in a vacuum, a crisis in the southern border, worries we may be on the brink of war with iran and makings of a constitutional crisis. there's no doubt the word feels like it's on fire. so the first, last and only goal for many democrats tonight is convincing people that their the ones who can put out the fire and remove the arsonist from the scene of the crimes. oh, and by the way, he's going to be watching. >> what about the dems, are you going to watch the debate

tonight? i know you will be on a plane on your way to japan. >> yes, everyone said i will be tweeting but i will actually be on a plane. it seems very boring but i'm going to watch it because i have to. that's part of my life. do i want to watch it? do i want to watch these people? that's a very unexciting group of people. >> there's such a long list of things you do that you don't want to do. joining us is an aide to george w. bush and the state department and with us in miami where it's all going down, national affairs analyst john heilemann. what's the vibe? what are you picking up down there? >> man, it's hot here, nicolle. >> so hot in miami. >> the main vibe is one of wilting, a lot of sweat. a lot of equipment people looking for ice tea at every unt. and a l opportunity. and a lot of anticipation and excite the. this is the moment where in some sense we had six months of

prologue and now starting to write chapter one of this book in the democratic race. so even though everyone recognizes the notion of ten candidates on stage over the course of two hours, there are certain limitations that that forum is going to place on what can happen, the kind of debates where people argue with each other and there's a lot of spontaneity are restricted by how crowded the stage is. i think for a lot of democrats in the country the press that are here, people recognize this is the first time for a lot of these candidates to get up in front of a big international audience and get known in even way. whether they're trying to have a moment, contrast to donald trump, osh contrast their front-runners here, everyone recognizes this debate and one in july before the criteria for qualifying for debates gets tougher, these are crucial. and at least seven, eight of the people on the stage are largely unknown to a national audience.

this is big moment for them. >> how much are the rolling tragedies at the border, donald trump's on again/off again strikes against iran, the mueller testimony? >> yes, i think hanging over them a lot in the sense the dominant figure in the democratic nomination fight is donald trump. that's been true from the very beginning. the question of who would be the best person to take on donald trump? who's the likeliest to defeat him? that is the ultimate sale every democratic candidate has to make. that's the thing all democrats are telling pollsters and everybody else most of all, who can beat the president? it's imperative democrats win from their point of spru so every democrat recognizes they very to come across as a credible general election opponent to the president. so all of the things that are happening in trump world, all of the things that are happening across the world, all of the things that are happening on the border, anything that's happening right now that can be connected to donald trump's chaotic governing style is a prime topic for this debate and

is on everyone's mind because there are the things everyone is going to try in some ways score points and talk about in some way over the course of the two hours tonight. >> i don't believe in horse race analysis at this point because i think voters look at debate performances as cumulative. the first one i saw one answer i liked. and what the voters do is string together these different nights. what do you think of these early debates? >> i have been thinking of this in the same vein and kind of like a beauty pageant. growing newspaper mississip gr growing up in mississippi, loved to watch that beauty pageant. but there would be swimsuit and one question. this will be a sound bite. candidates will not have much time to talk. elizabeth warren might get a little more time because she's clearly t

clearly the forerunner tonight. >> i thought about it a lot of trying to come up with a handful of roses if you want but you go to the beauty pageant. i think most candidates on the stage, god bless them, but they will not be around very long and tonight will be the make or break for them. from some of them that's almost an impossibility to climb from 1% to 2% and become a front-runner. elizabeth warren i think has a big stage and she'll have a big presence on this stage and i think she's going to do what she's been doing this entire campaign season, talking about her policy and plans, connecting that to order people, and the others have to rise to the challenge. >> i think you're right to think about it the way voters approached the debates. the difference is when one i think is a spot on the stage tonight and tomorrow night doesn't guarantee you a spot the next time. the next debate will be harder. we will see some of the

candidates here tonight, if they don't perform well enough to raise their standings in the poll, both tonight and aftermath of the debate, they will not be around for the next one. i think what i'm going to be looking for, which candidates can talk not just about the trees but the forest. it's always the thing you look for in a presidential candidate. which is the one when they get an answer about health care and climate change doesn't just give their answer or plan on health care but a message whereof the country stands and vision where they're going to take the country that encompasses all of these different questions. there are some candidates who have a very clear philosophy and some that don't. i think that will be made clear. >> want to name some names for me? who is this die or die? >> i think there are particular categories, tonight in particular you have elizabeth warren the only candidate on stage with north 56% in any stint way in the polling. she's in a different place than i think everybody else. and then there's two sets within the others, right?

there are candidates who are -- i look at the list right in front of me. you've got candidates like delaney, de blasio, inslee. these are candidates very close to zero now. to donna's point, i think those are candidates given the time constraints on them will have a very hard time to use this debate to cat catapult into serious consideration. and there are people like amy klobuchar, beto o'rouke, people who have sometimes been in the mid-single digits and have a national name because they're in the u.s. senate or more obvious constituency, they've been good at fund-raising. for those candidates in the middle, in some ways i think the debate is most important for them because they're the ones who start somewhere above zero or above 1% and because they're already known to some extent, they can capitalize on this moment. for them the strategic challenge of talking about some of the

things i was talking about earlier, which is do you want to, a, show personality? of course you do. do you want to contrast yourself then, is your game to contrast yourself about donald trump or are you going to contrast yourself against another democratic candidate? that is given limits on your time, that's a pretty major fork in the road. i think more will try to contrast with trump but you never know. >> no one's going anywhere. when we come back, the humanitarian crisis at the border getting worse by the hour. we'll bring you the latest reporting and legal setback for the youngest victims. we'll also look at the democratic candidates approach the tragedy differently. stay with us.

the humanitarian crisis at our southern border provides the 2020 democratic candidates with a chance to show voters just how they would handle a time of crisis. we saw both elizabeth warren and amy klobuchar hours before they appear on the debate stage,

visit a shelter holding thousands of immigrant children in homestead, florida. >> this president has put us into this situation with an inhumane policy, starting with the separation of parent and kids at the border. to me, there is a reason that we're seeing these high numbers and it is because of the chaos of their system. >> we need -- [ inaudible ] what has happened at the border if texas, doesn't make our country safer. it makes our country more at risk and it's a moral stain on the united states of america afflicted by donald trump. >> at least half a dozen more candidates plan to visit the shelter this week. everyone is still with us. i want to start with you. there are some, we were talking over the break about beto o'rourke. he comes into this immigration border state, coming from a congressman. this seems like an issue where i

think voters are going to be particularly interested in how democrats would solve this and approach this differently. you can't do any worse than donald trump. >> i think it's a real opportunity for him tonight. because he has the opportunity to talk about something he knows very well. he talked about it a lot in his 2018 senate campaign. you know, he talked about immigration extensively in a state that some of trump's policies are a lot of popular with people if texas. in that campaign, o'rourke was able to talk about immigration in a way that was compassionate and comprehensive. the thing for the candidates here when addressing this issue is there is not an easy answer. it's just not enough to say you disagree with the way trump is handling it. that's the minimum. the minimum is we will not separate them from families and put them in cages and the candidates that show they can be president. this is where i think beto has more experience because of living on the border has ideas

beyond that, what they would do to solve this crisis. >> democrats need to show they aren't for open borders. quite frankly, they need to show there the sa plan that isn't this dra kron conyan hellscape donald trump has going on where children are being tortured. a system as to make it fung again. that's one of the strongest point of attacks president trump has is oh, they're all for open borders. >> it's a lie. the last democratic administration was actually in some ways more aggressive on the deportation than the last republican administration. so again, it's doing what matt said, donna, it's also combating the life. i view the democrats' mission at juggling free fireballs at once. combat the hellscape as elyse says and present your plans. >> i think that's true. tonight, though, democrats have to show they can do more than talk about the issue. they actually do have to present

their position on what they would do on the border. how would they secure the border? how are they going to straighten out final proceedings? how are they going to make sure that people are able to present themselves and also move their cases through the system so there is not this backlog. then at a minimum, how do we get, how do we stop actually having children who are detained without their parents being separated. so it's not going to be just words tonight. they actually have to put some meat to the bone. >> you around i haven't talked since this image emerged yesterday this horrifically tragic image of a father and his very young daughter. this isn't just a political problem that needs a solution. this isn't just a news cycle that's an incredible stain on the trump presidency. this is owe -- even the words fall short. this is a humanitarian crisis. this is a tragedy of undiminishing proportions. this is one of those sort of

problems crying out for a real leader. i don't know. do you have any sense of being there who is the most sort of touched and focused on this? >> reporter: well, i don't know about touched and focused nicole. i'll say, beto o'rourke is going down to homestead tomorrow and i just want to come back to that. i think that you know the him we talk a lot. at least i do and the importance of the non-white vote and often appropriately we focus on the african-american vote. it's a huge important constituency. we talked a lot last week around joe biden and corey booker. the hispanic vote is important, too. if you are a candidate like beto o'rourke who lives in acy in el paso that has this incredible racial balance there between whites and latinos, hispanic americans, you have a kind of ability to talk about this, a fluency, a connection to it that's really different. i think she a person that can make some ground if he talks

about this issue in the way i've heard him do it before. >> all right. we have to sneak in a break. don't go anywhere. we'll be right back. get started at fastsigns.com.

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.

yeah, no, i'm good. 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. . i could talk to these friends all day, i'm out of time. my thanks, to john heilemann, to matt miller, elyse jordan, dawn efrs and most of you to you for kwauching. i'll be back here all night, pre debate 7:00 to 9:00 and post-debate and who knows what else they have for me. but first, mtp daily with chuck todd starts right now. [ music playing ] if it's wednesday, it's "meet the press daily" live from the spin room of the zip opera house in the adrian arch center for the performing arts of miami-dade county ahead of the first primary debate of the 2020 election