>> donald trump hits the 100-day benchmark. what does some interesting new polling out of chester county tell us about how he's doing? let's get the inside story. ♪ good sunday morning, and welcome to "inside story." i'm tamala edwards. let's introduce you to the panel. we'll start with attorney jim eisenhower. good morning. >> good morning, tamala. >> foreign policy analyst ed turzanski. >> morning, tam. >> nonprofit exec sharmain matlock-turner. >> good morning, tamala. >> good morning. and documentarian sam katz. >> good morning. >> we're starting off talking about some brown university polling that comes to us about chester county. they found it to be the most partisan county of all places. they call it an exurban county, pretty well-to-do, pretty well educated, lots of different business firms. but listen to some of these figures -- 49% think donald trump is doing an

excellent to a good job, 44% have participated in some form of protest -- they've given money. they've actually marched. they've signed a petition. still 100 days in on the line -- what does this tell us about where we are? >> it tells us more about chester county than it does about donald trump or anyone else. it just happens to be a very divided place, and, look, this is a vast continental nation. if you go through it, you will see tremendous cleavages. when you look at the way in which congress is organized... >> mm-hmm. >> ...and they've managed to vacuum up votes for each side of the political aisle, so you've got a very partisan divided institution, and what's happening in chester county is just a reflection of a very divided culture right now. >> it's interesting that you say it's just chester county, 'cause i feel like whenever i watch congresspeople or senators go back to their districts right now, you've got auditoriums packed full of people yelling at each other. it sounds to me like

chester county is pretty typical at the moment of what we're seeing. >> i think it is, but i think you have to put it into context. i think hillary won chester county. don't quote me, although i'm gonna quote this number. but i think it was in the 20,000-vote range. so, if you think about how a republican county -- by the way, the county that produces the new chairman of the republican state committee, val digiorgio -- a county in the five-county southeastern pennsylvania that was the most republican, and only -- and that hillary own, and 49% of the people are happy with trump? i would say that's an improvement for trump, 'cause he didn't lose with 49% of the vote. >> it's interesting you point that out, because it said that they thought some republican voters who were maybe put off during the election, they called it "coming home." they come back to him. but the pollster said, "but he hasn't expanded." so i wonder what that meant for the future. he's pulled back republicans. is that enough, or does he need to work on expanding? >> i think there's a question of -- if you ask a general question, "what do you think?"

"how do you like him?" and the number seems to be a lot higher at 49%, once you start getting into some of the questions around job performance, that's where you see that the numbers are lower. so i think, again, how people are reacting to him in general may answer that question that people are coming home to support their party. but i think when you look at some of the individual issues, you're still seeing a huge divide. >> it's funny that she says "issues," because on issues, the people were not necessarily happy with policies like building the wall, changing healthcare, getting out of trade deals. he barely eked over with people saying they were open-mined about the travel ban. but it doesn't feel as though the policies are necessarily pushing them toward him. >> right. i think a lot of it is personality, and trump himself said during the election he could shoot someone in times square and wouldn't lose a vote. i think there's something to be said for that. i think there are people that -- and there's a core, hard-core group of people that just like his style, and they like his pugnacious way, and they like the way he takes on the media.

but they don't necessarily agree with him on the specifics of his program. you know, you have to go back to reagan, i think, to see that kind of a disconnect, and reagan of course was, in my opinion, much more charming than donald trump, but he always polled higher in terms of just "do you like the guy?" as opposed to his actual policies. >> well, you know, jim, i think you could say the same about barack obama. barack obama was personally popular, but when you got into the question, "do you like obamacare?" "do you like the policy vis-à-vis iran?" when you got into those things -- on policy, he did not do well, but personally there's a certain charm and magnetism that was appealing to people, and he wound up doing much better. >> if you see chester county as a microcosm of -- well, it used to be called rockefeller republicanism -- it's sort of the east coast republican -- and obviously chester -- >> we call them "eisenhower republicans." >> eisenhower republicans -- james eisenhower. >> is that why you're a

democrat? [ laughter ] >> what you see is that over the last two or three weeks, as this poll was probably conducted, trump has come more to the centrist, traditional republican -- foreign policy, healthcare's complicated. there's just a lot of change from that rhetorical bombast and outrageousness. we've seen less tweets, so that may be alluring to chester county republicans. >> the press likes the 100-day benchmark. people this weekend are hearing about it over and over again. is it a fair benchmark? >> no. >> it's three months. >> i don't think it's really difficult to sort of say, whether it's 100 days or 120 days, but i think people believe that you have a lot of political capital the first couple months that you're in. this is the opportunity for you to really bring big ideas to the fore and be able to get some action on those ideas. and unfortunately, i think this administration has started slow. we continue to hear about all the positions that haven't been

filled, and so i don't think that the 100-day mark is gonna mean a lot for this administration. >> i think the 100 days never mattered before franklin roosevelt. i may be wrong, but i'm a student of history. and in that situation, you had the country on the brink of economic collapse -- i mean, the worst disaster other than the civil war. so you had -- and a president wanting some action to at least let's try to stem this tide. and then every president after that has felt he or she -- or he, only he... >> mm-hmm. >> ...had to match it. i'm not sure it is something you have to match. it is an artificial deadline. nevertheless, i agree that it does seem like the administration's off to a very slow start. other than executive actions, the president's really accomplished very little. >> let's talk about this -- let's turn to immigration. the chief justice, stuart rabner, of new jersey sending a letter following up from the chief justices of california and washington state saying, "immigration agents, i.c.e. agents, in the courthouse," he said, "is causing a chilling effect." they're worried that people won't come to court, they won't

get the help they need, or they won't help with cases. moving forward on it a little bit, there's certain sensitive places that agents tend to try not to go -- hospitals, schools, places of worship. is it worth thinking about whether or not the courthouse should be one of those? >> it's complicated. the courthouse is ultimately the center of law enforcement and justice, and to say that you cannot apply law enforcement in a center of law enforcement is a tough position to take. on the other hand, the center of law enforcement ought to be a place where a defendant can come unburdened emotionally beyond the case that they're dealing with, and the thought that you could go into a court and you'd be arrested for something would be an inducement, i think, to stay home. >> yeah, and i think, as a lawyer, officer of the court -- i think you're looking at just the functioning of the system, and there seems to be some evidence of not just defendants, but victims, witnesses, people

who are owed restitution are declining to participate because they're concerned that somehow they'll be vetted, and while they're doing their duty to testify in a case or testify against someone because they've been attacked or stolen money from them, that somehow they'll get in trouble because they don't have their papers in order, and i think that's why you've had a number of judges make this kind of comment. >> and i think this is why you continue to hear the argument that trying to figure out a common-sense way of dealing with this issue makes sense. i mean, when you think about the fact that we're talking about parents who have children who are citizens here. you have law enforcement officials, law enforcement chiefs who are saying, "we're really concerned about our towns and cities," that people aren't gonna come forward when there's a crime, when they need to be a witness, and so the idea that we are just sort of vilifying a whole group of people and not really trying to come up with a good solution doesn't make sense. >> to be fair, i.c.e. will say "look, we're trying to get them

where we can get them. in many cases, we've tried other places, and we know they've got to go through magnetometers here. we know they don't have a gun. this may be the safest place to get them." is there bearing for that argument? >> well, no. i would argue that police are going after and finding people who are committing serious crimes. the idea here is that we're trying to now find anyone who's not legal, even if they haven't done anything serious to cause trouble in our society. >> let's quickly try to get through a couple of other -- ed! you sighed. you were sighing. is there something you want to say? >> i've come loaded for this. >> okay. >> very quickly -- the g.a.o., government accounting office, did two studies that are sort of the benchmark on the question of the tie between those who are here illegally and crimes committed. they found in 2005 that 27% of all federal prisoners were here either illegally or they were

foreign-born. now, the percentage of foreign-born in the country is 9%, so that's three times as many as basis of population. but the 2011 report found -- they looked at 55,322 illegals -- 459,614 arrests, an average of 8.3 per individual, almost 700,000 criminal offenses. here's the takeaway -- >> yes, because my head is swimming with numbers. >> yeah, that's a lot of numbers, and i'm the numbers guy. >> here's the takeaway -- well, this is the government accounting office. >> okay, well, do we trust those numbers? >> but they're saying that there's a strong correlation between those who are here illegally committing crimes in larger numbers. to jim's point, you do want to protect those who are stepping forward to testify, but the problem is we do have a problem with illegals committing crimes

in larger proportions. >> but if the chief judge of a state is saying, "look, this is a problem. i have people who are not dealing with domestic issues, criminal cases, children." do you have to take that into account? >> yes, you do, but you can't lose these mind-numbing numbers. >> and i can't lose -- >> that doesn't speak to the question of whether this location, a courtroom, a courthouse, is the place where you know you're gonna lure people, and then you're going to arrest them, because you will undermine criminal justice in this country if you do that, and you can expand that to virtually anything. >> let's quickly talk about some other races that are going on, because we got the primaries coming up next month. ed rendell has come out for rebecca rhynhart against alan butkovitz to be controller of the city. how important is that? before he had backed up alan butkovitz, now he's saying "i'm throwing my hat over here." that's a big endorsement. >> you mean the high-turnout city controller p.a. race? >> for the 10 people who will

come vote, does it make a difference? >> they do watch this show. >> yes, they all do. >> i think it is significant in this regard -- >> money. >> it is a low-turnout race and not a lot of attention is focused on it. ed rendell still remains a formidable fundraising individual, and he has a whole group of people around him that look to him to, you know, "who is a good candidate for us to support here?" so for him to sort of give her the seal of approval i think is a tremendous plus for her campaign. >> absolutely, but the fact of the matter remains that this is a committeeman's election. it has been, and it will be, and the question will be are enough people in the democratic infrastructure upset with the choices of auditing targets that alan butkovitz has chosen, and i would venture to say that most of them haven't given it a second thought. >> katie mcginty signed on this week with a life-sciences venture firm. do we feel like she's done with public life, or this is just a

holding spot till she figures out the next thing to run for? >> i don't think she's done with public life, and i don't think she has to be done with public life, but she does have to become a better candidate if she's gonna have a public life. i think she's a really smart lady, and she obviously has an incredible background in technology with the environment. the transition from environmental science to life science is not easy, but it's certainly navigable, and i'm sure her assets to a company will be considerable. but the winning strategy in my opinion for a democrat in pennsylvania is bob casey. it's a centrist democrat. it's not what we now call the "progressive democrat." you know, if you look at josh shaprio and joe torsella, both of them hugged the center, and that's where you win elections in pennsylvania. >> let's talk about delaware for a moment. we had the prison riot back in february. the family of the slain guard, five other guards who were involved have come forward to put in a lawsuit, and they are suing former governors, they're

suing former budget directors, and also the current and former corrections commissioners saying, "you created this situation. it was unsafe. we couldn't make this work. we want a jury to come up with how much money we get." does this have legs as it goes forward? >> well, legally very difficult hurdles to get over because there's a standard immunity. individuals who are holding public office -- normally, the law does not allow them to be sued for things that are within their official actions, 'cause otherwise you'd be having constant lawsuits brought against the mayor because somebody tripped on the sidewalk. there are ways to get over that, but the way to get over it is an extremely high standard of recklessness. and i don't know enough about this case specifically, but i think that official immunity will be a major issue in it. >> but when they make the case that the governor said, "we'd rather you'd enforce overtime rather than hire people" -- is there any sort of workplace case that's able to be made? >> i don't see that as -- i may disagree with that decision, but i don't see it as

reckless... >> no. >> ...as a reckless decision. >> but i do think bringing the issue to the public, and i'm certainly not a lawyer, so i step aside on the legal questions. but i think if you look at the story and you look at the issues that have been brought to the fore, whether or not there were enough people there, whether or not the facility itself was getting the kind of investment that it needed in order to be safe, i think those are really serious questions, and i'm hoping that the attention that is brought here by the families in this very tragic situation will help to make sure that people improve. when you create these rules and regulations and arrest and put people in jail, you still have to take the responsibility of making sure it's a safe place for everyone. >> all right, we'll take a break, and on the other side of the break, we'll talk about committing crimes on facebook. are people doing performance crimes, and so what should happen to it for other people who just want to do regular facebook livestreaming? we'll be right back. >> "inside story" is presented by temple university. remarkable change isn't easy,

but for those who take charge, it comes naturally. explore temple's impact. visit temple.edu/impact.

♪ >> welcome back to "inside story." this week, we saw a terrible, tragic story on easter morning. a man in cleveland decided he wanted to execute somebody, found an older man named robert goodwin, and did so on facebook live. it took the social-media company

two hours to figure out what was going on and remove that video. it has created a lot of debate around what's called "performance crime." are we having more and more people do things because they know they will be seen in real time on facebook, and have we gotten to a moment where something that was meant for us to be ourselves in the moment has to be changed? tv and radio have fcc rules. do we need some sort of rule for facebook? >> that's a really good -- that last statement is really important, because what facebook has become is a media outlet. and unlike wpvi or abc, this is a media outlet that operates without regulatory oversight. so if you're going to be a broadcaster or a broadbander and you're gonna operate without the same set of rules as everyone else who is presenting media material, then you have a economic advantage, but you also have a responsibly to oversee what would not be eligible to be broadcast, 'cause there's a

seven-second delay, because somebody's watching it. who's watching this stuff? obviously, the size and girth of facebook would make an editorial oversight board interior to facebook, hundreds of people would have to be on it. but it has reached a point where they've overstepped the boundaries that we've allowed them to have. >> is it possible, and would it be censorship? people like facebook because i can just post whatever. would they want to go through a gatekeeper? >> but you can't yell "fire" in a movie theater. there will have to be some boundaries between what my expression is and how i'm ultimately hurting other people. i mean, this is an absolutely horrible situation, but they've had situations where they've actually had someone raped... >> yeah. >> ...on facebook, or a young person who has been actually taken and tortured for hours that has gotten posted. no, i really do think -- and i'm the last one to say that i know what the answer is, but i don't

think we can just say, "oh, it's just okay," and we just have to sort of live with this. >> they've also been criticized for the fake-news phenomenon during the election itself, and i think zuckerberg came out after the election and said they were gonna try to police that, because i don't get my news off of facebook, but a lot of people do, and with no regulation, some people put up things on facebook like, "obama has outlawed the flag," and people believe that, and they form opinions based upon that. >> or someone's running a ring in someone's pizza parlor somewhere, okay, where they're actually trafficking human trafficking. >> but people might say, "i have a right to say things, and you can sue me for libel later, but i have a right to say them, and can you legally take away that place for me to say it?" >> yes, but back to sam's point, you have a right to say it, but it doesn't mean that we have to allow the infrastructure that is public space to be employed to allow you to do reckless things. >> to amplify it, right. >> zuckerberg has said, "we've got a.i., we've got human teams,

and people flag things. we may just have to beef these up." but he thinks the company itself can get ahold of that. is he right, or does the government kind of need to step in and say, "we think there's a regulatory agency role"? >> they're in the communications business. they're in the fcc business, and as much i do not want to see the internet become so overly policed that it loses its value or it stifles innovation, the fact that they can broadcast stuff that you can't and wouldn't think to makes them subject to oversight that they don't now have. there should be some level of federal intervention, because this is only gonna proliferate. this is gonna be copycatted, this is what crazy people do, and crazy people have a right to be -- and murderers have a right to be on facebook -- but we have to limit that, because this is going to create, i think -- well, it already has created a storm of protest and anger. >> quickly, sam, we got a minute. i want to come back to something

that was your inside story last week. you were talking about the gpcc and trying to shut down maybe the levy-sweeney rule. they're trying to get an injunction on the pay -- equal pay between men and women. they're supposed to be there to kind of make the city a better business environment. are they taking the right actions if you want women to make more money, if you want taxes to come down for business and wage? is this the right thing to do? >> what bothered me about the chamber's position against the constitutional amendment to change the way that property taxes and all taxes are administered, which is a requirement that they be equalized. what's the word i'm looking for? in any case, there was a plan to make commercial properties accessed and taxed at a higher rate. >> mm-hmm. >> and this already moved through the legislature. this has got one more pass through the legislature before it goes on the ballot, and the chamber came out against it. we have lost jobs in the city. the growth in other cities has

been phenomenal. philadelphia's flat. we have the highest poverty rate. we need jobs, and to take an action that appears at the moment not to be perfect, but to be a means to create an environment in which philadelphia can compete more effectively for employment gains and try to kill it? that's not the way i see -- >> they say they're working out something in the backroom with jim kenney that's better. is that a good argument? >> well, they can't work it out with jim kenney. it has to be worked out with the state legislature, and they've already approved it. so if we lose this, because we did it to ourselves, we have no one to blame but ourselves. >> and i've got no one to blame when you have no time for inside stories, 'cause we got to take a break. we went long. we'll be right back. ♪ it's blinds to go's sheer savings event. right now take 25% off all sheer shades, our fastest-growing collection. classic. modern. beautiful. the latest in window decor... now 25% off. sheer savings. sheer limited time. blinds to go. blinds for life.

fios is not cable. we're wired differently. maybe that's why we've been ranked highest in customer satisfaction by jd power 4 years in a row.

and now you can love fios too. get 150 meg internet, tv and phone. all for $79.99 per month onlinefor the first year with a two-year agreement. it's the only internet with equal upload and download speeds. cable only offers upload speeds that are a fraction of their download speeds. plus get hbo for a year and free multi-room dvr service for two years. and verizon wireless customers can stream tv on the fios mobile app, data-free. get the best. go to getfios.com it's blinds to go's sheer savings event. right now take 25% off all sheer shades, our fastest-growing collection. classic. modern. beautiful. the latest in window decor... now 25% off. sheer savings. sheer limited time. blinds to go. blinds for life. >> "inside story" is presented by temple university. remarkable change isn't easy, but for those who take charge, it comes naturally. explore temple's impact. visit temple.edu/impact. >> welcome back to "inside story." time for our inside stories of the week. jim, we'll start with you. >> tamala, last year the department of labor passed a very simple rule. it said that if you're an

investment adviser and you're giving advice to someone, you have to give the advice that's in their best interest, not in your best interest to make money. that rule went through the department of labor, and the trump administration is stalling its implementation and foot-dragging it. attorney general josh shaprio and a number of others around the united states have taken action to try and get the administration off their hands and get this common-sense rule put into effect. >> ed. >> tam, this week, paris suffered its sixth terror attack in the last three years. the man responsible was on a watch list. question is, why didn't they do anything about it? there are 10,000 people on the french terror watch list. there aren't enough police to do what they need to, and even when they catch them, as they did with this man, the law doesn't have the teeth it needs to hold them back from violence. >> sharmain. >> this week, we celebrated 25 years of the philadelphia association of community development corporations. there are still people in

communities that are creating affordable housing and wonderful places for people to shop. >> all right. sam, 30 seconds. >> phillies owner john middleton went on the radio, the first time i think he's ever done a radio interview -- was an hour long -- and at the very beginning of the show, he said, "i expect to win a world series, and i'm gonna die trying," and i couldn't tell you how excited i think most phillies fans were to hear from an owner who was saying, "we're gonna do what it takes," and middleton's a very successful and bright guy, but i got a big shine on my face, and >> i'm nydia han along with gray hall. >> come up next on "action news," the countdown to the nfl draft is on, that means more road closures are coming. it was a sea of red shots see how dozens paid tribute to a beloved runner in wilmington. >> a new museum brings live to the american revolution.

we'll take you inside. >> those stories and more next on "action news." congressman macarthur promised to protect our health care. but when right-wing politicians tried to pass a disastrous health care repeal bill that raises costs and cuts coverage, macarthur wouldn't oppose them. macarthur wouldn't protect us from a bill that raises premiums

and causes 24 million to lose their insurance. wouldn't oppose a massive "age tax" on people over 50. but supported a 600 billion tax break for the wealthy. tell tom macarthur - stop trying to repeal our health care. aich 23. >> 23 -- april 23. >> here's some of the stories we're followingen "action news," septa begins new regional