Return to Transcripts main page


Trump Interviews 4 Supreme Court Candidates, Vows to Announce Pick Next Week; White House Refuses to Give Update about Separated Children and Families. Aired 7-7:30a ET

Aired July 3, 2018 - 07:00   ET


JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: Officials flat-out refused to release new numbers for how many of the 2,000-plus children have been reunited with their families. Just think about that for a second here. Why won't the administration tell the public how many children are still in custody?

[07:00:19] Let's begin our coverage with CNN's Abby Phillip live at the White House with the very latest -- Abby.


The search for President Trump's next Supreme Court nominee is really heating up. The president now has less than seven days to announce his pick, which he says he'll do on Monday in primetime. But that's before he leaves for Europe, where he's expected to meet with NATO leaders in what could be a contentious summit.


PHILLIP (voice-over): President Trump interviewing four prospective Supreme Court justices as aides say he's hoping to play up the drama of the selection process.

DONALD TRUMP (R), PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: They are outstanding people. They are really incredible people in so many different ways, academically and every other way.

PHILLIP: CNN has learned that President Trump met with Amy Coney Barrett, Brett Kavanaugh, Raymond Kethledge and Amul Thapar for 45 minutes each on Monday. Sources say that, in recent days, the president has spent considerable time discussing the advantages of a female nominee, suggesting a choice like Barrett could appeal to critical Republican senators Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski.

Barrett is a favorite of religious conservatives, and three Democrats voted to confirm her to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals just last year. But on Monday, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer slammed her possible appointment in a series of tweets, writing, "Judge Barrett has given every indication that she will be an activist judge. If chosen, she will be the deciding vote to overturn Roe v. Wade and to strike down preexisting conditions protections."

The White House continuing to dodge the abortion issue, although all of their candidates have been approved by the conservative Federalist Society.

SARAH SANDERS, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: The president is pro- life, but in terms of the process of selecting a Supreme Court nominee, as the president said last week, he's not going to discuss specific cases with those nominees.

PHILLIP: The president is planning to announce his nominee next Monday night in prime time, ahead of his trip to the NATO summit. "The New York Times" reports that last month President Trump sent, quote, "sharply-worded letters" to the leaders of several NATO allies, criticizing them for underspending on defense and warning that he may be considering a response, including adjusting America's military presence around the world. "The Times" reports that the letter to German Chancellor Angela Merkel was particularly pointed.

JOHN BOLTON, NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR: If you think Russia is a threat, ask yourself this question: Why is Germany spending less than 1.2 percent of its GNP? So when people talk about undermining the NATO alliance, you should look at those who are carrying out steps that make NATO less effective militarily.

PHILLIP: The president stoking tension with America's allies as the controversy over his immigration policies continues to heat up. Senate Democrats demanding answers about the thousands of migrant children who the administration separated from their families.

SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER (D-NY), MINORITY LEADER (via phone): Pick on immigrants. Just demonize them is just one of the worst things I have ever seen in America.

PHILLIP: The government refusing to provide updated information, despite having just one week to reunify all children under the age of 5, according to a federal court order.

President Trump continuing to try to shift the focus toward a push by some Democrats to abolish ICE. The official White House Twitter feed going so far as to target some Senate Democrats by name.


PHILLIP: And President Trump continued this morning to target Democrats on the immigration issue on Twitter in a series of tweets continuing his tough rhetoric on the MS-13 gang. The president not letting the immigration issue get buried underneath this search for his new Supreme Court justice.

Meanwhile, later this afternoon, he's headed back to West Virginia for the fifth time as president, Alisyn.

CAMEROTA: Hey, Abby, thank you very much for all of that background.

Joining us now is former White House communications director Anthony Scaramucci.

Anthony, thanks for being here.


CAMEROTA: OK. Great to have you. You know how it works in the White House, so how did -- let's start with immigration. How did they botch this whole family separation policy so badly?

SCARAMUCCI: Well, I mean, I don't -- I'm not in love with the word "botched," but I think what basically happened is you had laws that were put in place probably during the George W. Bush administration. They were partially prosecuted during the Obama administration.

CAMEROTA: But nobody ever separated families.

SCARAMUCCI: And they made a decision --

CAMEROTA: I mean, I understand that the policy started during the George Bush years --

SCARAMUCCI: I understand. Somebody --

CAMEROTA: -- but nobody separated families. How did they do this?

SCARAMUCCI: Somebody made the decision -- somebody made the decision seven or eight weeks ago that they were going to have a zero-tolerance policy. You could go directly to the NPR interview that John Kelly gave, where he said that they could end up in foster homes or whatever.


[07:05:12] SCARAMUCCI: And I think that was really when it started. And so you could look at that point.

And so, you know, it's a chain of command. You've got many different agencies. You have a lot of cabinet members, I think. When it eventually got into the president's wheelhouse, he corrected the policy.

CAMEROTA: Well, I know that you said that, Anthony. And I hear you. And I know you want to give the president credit for reversing it.

SCARAMUCCI: I don't -- I don't understand why people make a lot of mistakes, Alisyn. I don't understand why we can't -- go ahead.

CAMEROTA: Well, it's that -- you think that John Kelly implemented a policy this draconian without President Trump knowing about it? You think that John Kelly just thought off the top of his head to do this in April --

SCARAMUCCI: I didn't say that.

CAMEROTA: -- or before without the president knowing?

SCARAMUCCI: I didn't say that. No, I didn't say that. You asked me when it started. And I'm going back to that NPR interview, and that's probably about the time that it started. I didn't say that he -- I don't know the answer to that. CAMEROTA: Right. But you said that when it got into the president's wheelhouse then he fixed it. But I don't think that that's right.

SCARAMUCCI: When he realized -- yes. When he realized the -- when he realized the implications of what was going on at the border, and he realized how dramatic it was and, you know, we both agree that this is not a good policy. I said as much on your show two weeks ago.

CAMEROTA: I remember.

SCARAMUCCI: He changed it.

CAMEROTA: So Anthony --

SCARAMUCCI: So what I don't understand is, if he was making a mistake and he corrected it and he changed it, why we're still beating on it. That's something I don't understand.

CAMEROTA: Because 2,000 kids are still apart from their parents.

SCARAMUCCI: OK. Well, that's fair. And then we should talk about that, I think. If you've got 2,000 children -- and I heard some reports as high as 2,300 children are separated from their parents, then that's really where the pressure should be, because I think that's also a ridiculous situation. Doesn't make anybody in the United States look good.

This is really ultimately about American values, who we are as a country, what Lincoln said about us 150 years ago being the last best hope for mankind. We have to fix that problem.

CAMEROTA: For sure.

SCARAMUCCI: I would rather sit here and talk about -- I would rather sit here and talk about how are we going to get those children back together with their parents?

CAMEROTA: Let's do that. Let's do that.

SCARAMUCCI: And how are we going to make sure that we have --

CAMEROTA: We want to talk about that, too.

SCARAMUCCI: -- fail-safe mechanisms and systems so this never happens again.

CAMEROTA: OK, so let's start there.

SCARAMUCCI: I don't -- I don't agree with the policy.

CAMEROTA: I know you don't. And you've been candid about that, which I appreciate. But let's talk about that, because from where we sit, it is hard to see any mechanism or process happening that's going to restore these kids to their parents.

Here's what we've heard. Some of the parents have already been deported, you know, no forwarding address. Some of these kids are 18 months old or infants. How are they going to tell federal officials where their parents are, what the phone number is?

Do you have any faith that, in the next three weeks, which is what the time line is that this federal judge has given, that the Trump administration is going to be able to restore all of these 2,000-plus kids to their families?

SCARAMUCCI: Well, you know, I don't think it's going to happen in three weeks, but what I'm hopeful is, is that they'll make a statement, and they'll develop a protocol where they can start binding the families back together.

CAMEROTA: But how are they going to do it?

SCARAMUCCI: At the end of the day, Alisyn -- I don't know the answer to that. I don't think you do. And maybe there's a lot of people inside the administration that don't know that answer yet but are trying to formulate that answer.

I don't -- I don't think that there are evil people inside the administration, though, that want to split families from each other. I think what they really were trying to do is come up with a policy that would strengthen the border. I think this went over their skis, so to speak. And it's time to bring things back together.

CAMEROTA: I mean, they admitted that it was a deterrent. They admitted that they were trying to to use it as a deterrent. Which, you know, I think that you would agree is a mean-spirited -- I know you don't want to say evil, but a mean-spirited place to start.

SCARAMUCCI: I just -- I just think that nobody fully understood the full implication of it. And so, you separate 2,000 kids. I mean, God forbid if the president didn't reverse this strategy, where we would be today. Would there be 5,000 children separated from their families? And so, he reversed it. We have to put a plan in place now to reconnect those children.

CAMEROTA: I just don't know if it's possible, Anthony. I just don't know. I don't have -- I don't see any evidence that it will be possible to reinstate them.

SCARAMUCCI: I don't --

CAMEROTA: And then what, these kids live in foster care forever? I mean, do you have any evidence that this is actually going to be able to happen in this time frame?

SCARAMUCCI: This -- this could be -- this could be an area of agreement between you and me. I don't like the policy. I don't like the callousness of saying that they can go into foster care or whatever. I don't like that level of callousness. It doesn't represent America the way you and I would like to see America and, frankly, the way most -- a majority of Americans would like to see America.

And so they've got an opportunity to fix the problem. The judge has said that they're -- they need to fix the problem.


SCARAMUCCI: You may be right that out of 2,300 people, they may not be able to fix every single one.


SCARAMUCCI: And that's tragic.

[07:10:00] CAMEROTA: Yes, and just because -- I just want to ask you one thing, because you had --

SCARAMUCCI: But at least it's stopping -- Alisyn, at least it's stopped now.

CAMEROTA: OK. You had Sarah -- you know Sarah Sanders' job. You had that job. Why can't she tell us how many -- what the numbers are? How many families are actually separated?

SCARAMUCCI: OK, so I didn't have that job. I had the communications job, but I did sit in the press box. That's a very tough job. It's arguably one of the toughest jobs in the world.

She probably doesn't have the answer. And so what I don't like about what happens with the press and Sarah is people are calling her a liar. She's definitely not a liar. She's trying to deliver the information as accurately and as consistently as possible, but she's also trying to protect the president and other members of the administration. So it's a very hard, surgical thing she has to do every single day.

CAMEROTA: I get it. Of course. But you think that she doesn't have the answer?

SCARAMUCCI: And listen, she -- I don't think she has the answer at this moment, no. And I think that they need to, pursuant to a court order, to come up with an answer. It's not going to be that easy to do.

But listen, you know, we've done so many different great things in the United States. We can figure out a way to do this, as well.


SCARAMUCCI: And I'm very happy sitting here with you today. I'm more happy today than I was two weeks ago, Alisyn, when we were having the original conversation about this --

CAMEROTA: Yes. I understand.

SCARAMUCCI: -- and trying to explain to your viewers how bad this is. So at least we're here today where it's stopped, and we're in the process of fixing and correcting it and reconnecting these families with their children.

CAMEROTA: OK, got it. Let's talk about the Supreme Court. Do you know who President Trump wants to pick?

SCARAMUCCI: I don't. I mean, it does feel like that the women that are involved -- and by the way, we shouldn't be judging people on their gender. I think every single person in the group is a brilliant jurist, has an unbelievable academic and intellectual record. And if you just look at what happened with Gorsuch, and I think this was important to the president, very few cases have been overturned by justices that are in this Federalist Society list, if you will.

CAMEROTA: Yes, but it's the president who our reporting suggests has become enamored of the idea that he might nominate a woman.

SCARAMUCCI: Uh-huh. Well, listen, I think that would be great. I mean, when Sandra Day O'Connor was nominated, it was a great shock to many liberals that President Reagan was willing to do that. And I think if the president -- I'm all for the diversity of that, and I'm all for people having the same roughly academic standard, roughly records. If he wants to choose one of the two women that are in the running --


SCARAMUCCI: -- I think that would be great. I don't think Roe v. Wade is going to be overturned, though.

CAMEROTA: And why? I mean, why are you talking about that?

SCARAMUCCI: And I know that that's going to be a screeching -- well, it's sedimentary law now. It's 45, 46 years. The polling on this is typically 55/45. I think as recently --


SCARAMUCCI: -- as two weeks ago it was 63/37.

CAMEROTA: Sixty-seven people believe the court --

SCARAMUCCI: OK, so it's 67. I'm talking about, though, for over a 43-, 45-year period of time it's roughly 55-45. It's higher right now. I totally agree with you on that.

In addition to that, I think the court recognizes that there are certain fundamental principles that are in place and certain presidential, precedent-setting principles in place. It's the same way Justice Roberts basically approved Obamacare, because he didn't want to infringe upon the executive branch, and he declared it a tax in order to get it done.

And so the court is a flexible. It's got a lot of neuroplasticity on that court. I do not see Roe v. Wade overturned.


SCARAMUCCI: And I know there's going to be conservatives out there that want it to be overturned, but I just don't see it happening.


SCARAMUCCI: And by the way, 35 years ago when I was in law school, the same argument came up during the Reagan administration. It didn't happen then, and I predict it won't happen now.

CAMEROTA: All right. That's interesting. I mean, obviously, times have changed since then, but let's move on. Because I know you spoke to Michael Cohen yesterday. Michael Cohen --

SCARAMUCCI: Well, things have gotten more -- things have gotten more progressive, Alisyn.

CAMEROTA: Not in terms of abortion they haven't. Not in terms of abortion, they haven't. No. In terms of abortion, do you know that there's something like -- I don't know what we heard yesterday, one Republican member of Congress who says that they're -- or a member of the House who says that they're pro-choice? I think. I could be wrong, but in terms of being able to publicly say that, it has gotten much less progressive in terms of abortion.

But let's move on to the Michael Cohen question.

SCARAMUCCI: Look, the beauty of our conversation is I'm not a politician. I believe in a woman's right to choose, and I believe that that will stay as law in our society. Let's see if I'm right.

CAMEROTA: OK, Michael Cohen, I know you spoke --

SCARAMUCCI: What was the next question?

CAMEROTA: You spoke to Michael Cohen yesterday, who's the president's -- was the president's long-time personal attorney.


CAMEROTA: Did you get the sense that Michael Cohen is feeling in a precarious position and would be willing to cooperate with prosecutors?

SCARAMUCCI: You know, listen, I didn't get the sense that he was going to, quote unquote, "flip" on the president. I think everybody who's in a situation that Michael Cohen is has to have some level of cooperation with prosecutors, but more specifically, is he going to flip on the president or not flip on the president? I think the answer is no.

[07:15:04] But I also think that, you know, I take the president on his word that he didn't do anything wrong, so there's nothing to flip on.

CAMEROTA: Sure, and he's not been charged with anything. But hold on. But why did you get the impression that he's not going to flip when he specifically said to George Stephanopoulos, "I put my family first, my children first, my country first" over -- the question was loyalty to the president? SCARAMUCCI: Well, I think that's always been the case, though. You

know, it's the way people phrase questions that boxes people in. I think that he's always put his country and his family alongside his loyalty to his friends, his friend being the president and now the president.

CAMEROTA: He did say he would take a bullet for the president in the past.

SCARAMUCCI: OK. I -- he has a lot of loyalty and a lot of respect for the president. And you know, I'm sure that he said that, and I'm sure that he meant it.

I do think that he's in a situation right now where he did that interview, because he wants people to know that he's not a villain. One of the things that happens in the media -- and I've experienced this personally -- you get mashed up and brutalized in the media, and then you get mischaracterized by the media. And if you don't come on show's like yours and talk directly to viewers, they can see you very differently than who you actually are.


SCARAMUCCI: And I think Michael is trying to get out there and send a message to people that he's not a demon. "No need to demonize me. I'm not a bad person. I was trying to do my job to serve then-Mr. Trump and then candidate-Trump." And he was for a good period of time a counselor, one of the president's lawyers.


SCARAMUCCI: And so to me, I admire the fact that he went out and talked to George Stephanopoulos, just trying to send a --

CAMEROTA: You think that was a good idea?

SCARAMUCCI: I do, because I think it's sending a humanizing message of who he is. And I think we should all step back from all the mudslinging and throwing and recognize we have families. Although my family is super mad at me right now, because I'm sitting here, you know, talking to you.

CAMEROTA: Waking them up at this hour.

SCARAMUCCI: We should recognize -- yes. Waking them up. They've got the coffee pot going. Everyone is, like, running around in here.

But -- but we're human beings. And people should recognize that and take a step back.

CAMEROTA: Yes. But --

SCARAMUCCI: The president also happens to be a human being.

CAMEROTA: Yes, but what advice -- I'm just curious. What advice would you give Michael Cohen from moving forward? SCARAMUCCI: So I think Michael did the right thing yesterday.

CAMEROTA: Will we hear him speaking out more? What advice did you give him about how to handle the situation he's in?

SCARAMUCCI: So, I gave him -- you know, several of my classmates have worked in the Southern District. One of my best friends is actually there now. He's now a white-collar criminal [SIC] in New York City.

The best advice you can give somebody in this situation is wait to see what the accusations are, wait to see what the indictment is, and then you can develop a strategy.

And so unfortunately, for Michael and his family, there's a lot of anxiety waiting for that shoe to drop. But once that shoe drops, if you invite me back on, I can tell you specifically, in great delineation, what that strategy should be. I think he's got a fantastic lawyer now.


SCARAMUCCI: And I predict that he will have a good outcome in this case.

CAMEROTA: And just to be clear, is one of your best friends a white- collar criminal or a white-collar criminal attorney?

SCARAMUCCI: Lawyer, white-collar criminal lawyer. I've got to talk fast. Because you don't talk over me -- you don't talk over me as much as Chris did, OK, which is very pleasant, by the way.


SCARAMUCCI: But I've got to talk fast here, because you guys are, you know, beating me up a little.

CAMEROTA: It's the satellite that makes the talking --

SCARAMUCCI: Yes, a white-collar criminal lawyer.

CAMEROTA: Yes. When you're here in the studio it's a little easier. Anthony Scaramucci, thank you very much for the insight. We appreciate you taking you from your vacation.

SCARAMUCCI: Great -- great to be here. Happy Fourth of July.

CAMEROTA: You, as well.

SCARAMUCCI: Happy Fourth of July.

CAMEROTA: You, as well. Thanks so much.

BERMAN: All right. Anthony Scaramucci says he is confident that Roe v. Wade will not be overturned. Is that confidence well placed? Much more to discuss, next.


BERMAN: Former White House communications director Anthony Scaramucci moments ago told us that he believes that the president's pick to the Supreme Court will not work to overturn Roe v. Wade. But each one of the candidates that the president met with yesterday are on a list put together by the Federalist Society. We have every reason to believe that every judge on that list would, in fact, work to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Joining me now, CNN chief legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin and CNN political analyst David Gregory.

Jeffrey, you were watching Anthony Scaramucci, who says, by the way, that he supports abortion rights --


BERMAN: -- say that he doesn't think that the president's selection will overturn Roe.

TOOBIN: Well, this is a problem that the Republicans have, because the country doesn't want to see Roe v. Wade overturned, but the president in the most explicit way -- it's not like I'm, like, intuiting something -- in the most explicit way said, "If I have two appointments to the Supreme Court, I will see that Roe v. Wade is overturned."

The base of the Republican Party, which is most of the party at this point, wants Roe v. Wade overturned.

If you look at those four names who are the finalists, all of them will overturn Roe v. Wade. But now it's in their interest to sort of muddy the waters and say, "Well, you know, they respect precedent, blah blah blah."

No, they don't respect that precedent. Roe v. Wade is going to be overturned by one of those four people, along with four other justices on the court. And, you know, that may be a good thing or that may be a bad thing, but we ought to be honest with people about what's actually going on.

CAMEROTA: Eyes wide open, which is what you've been saying about all of this.

TOOBIN: Correct.

CAMEROTA: Anthony Scaramucci may have wishful thinking that they're not going to overturn Roe v. Wade --

TOOBIN: That's right. They're --

CAMEROTA: -- since he supports Roe v. Wade.

TOOBIN: Correct.

CAMEROTA: But you've been pushing eyes wide open. And so David, how do you see it?

DAVID GREGORY, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: I have a slightly different view. I mean, I -- it's not that I'm challenging what Jeffrey thinks, and he could very well be right. I just don't know that it's a slam dunk.

Look, the president says things as a candidate and now as a president that breaks every norm that we've ever heard of in politics or even when it comes to this kind of process, where he's so much different than he normally is, because here he is hewing to the line. He's picking movement conservatives, as he did with Justice Gorsuch and presumably he will do here.

But I don't know that we can say just because that is his intention, just because it is the movement conservatism's intention to overturn Roe v. Wade or believe that it was wrongly decided, to say that when push comes to shove, whatever the case is before them, that that's how they're going to go.

[07:25:00] I mean, look at John Roberts, the chief justice, and the angst that he created among conservatives and, certainly, drew the ire of then-candidate Trump because of his decision to uphold Obamacare.

So I mean, we have a rich history of these -- of Republican-nominated justices who don't do exactly what's expected, especially on issues like abortion.

BERMAN: Yet -- yet, Jeffrey, remind us why this list was put together. This list of 25 justices, Jeffrey, was put together, really, to avoid the past precedent of Republicans not going the way they should.

TOOBIN: Right. By the way, that -- that is -- is more myth than truth. This idea that presidents are surprised by the justices. It mostly dates to the Eisenhower administration and William Brennan and Earl Warren, which was a long time ago.

In the 1970s, the Republican Party was not fixated on abortion the way it is now, so it wasn't surprising that Harry Blackmun, Sandra Day O'Connor turned out to be more liberal than expected. But if you look at the nine justices on the current court, all were pretty much -- there were no surprises there. And there are not going to be any surprises here. We just need to have eyes wide open.

AVLON: To Jeff's point, the past, the Federalist Society would have been consulted by a president. In, this case the process was an outsource --

TOOBIN: Outsourced.

AVLON: -- to the Federalist Society.

And the idea that, you know, back in the day when you'd have a David Souter, whose appointment would outrage conservatives, or even a Justice Stevens, that idea, when there's ideological diversity within the parties, is also far gone. So when Republicans right now are underplaying the possibility of Roe,

it's because they're trying to reduce anxity and the political cost of pushing through a justice.

But if they get the right case and the opportunity to do it, you have to assume they will decide that way. And then the reaction will be, "Well, you know, shrug emoji, you know, who could have seen that coming?"

TOOBIN: And look at Neil Gorsuch. Look at the judge he's put on the Supreme Court. He's to the right of Justice Scalia. He's not voting with Samuel Alito. He's voting with Clarence Thomas all the time, the most right-wing justice on the court.

So, you know, the Federalist Society and the conservative movement is getting what they want out of this president.

CAMEROTA: OK. Next topic l we have to move on, Anthony Scaramucci did not give us any heartening, anything to hang our hat on in terms of this in the next three weeks this 2,000 plus kids will be able to be reunited with their parents, and nobody has.

We've been asking the same question for more than a week now. We can't discern any policy or any process or any mechanism by which the federal government will get -- find these kids and find their parents and reunite them. And by the way, like mum from the White House, though we keep asking every day what the plan is.

GREGORY: Well, and that's the scandalous part of this, is that it's not -- it is an outcome that some within the administration wanted but hadn't thought through the implications of. This is the worst of government bureaucracy that is having a difficult time as are advocates, going through the federal bureaucracy to find where they may have even gone.

I mean, it was so notable to me that Governor Cuomo on NEW DAY had talked about how quickly, because of the foster care system in New York, how many of these -- these young kids were sent to New York, and then the governor of New York couldn't get information about them.

So this is the kind of thing that is -- it's incomprehensible why the Department of Homeland Security, Health and Human Services would not spend all of their time to resolve this issue so they could go on to the next stage of how they want to develop policy around this when the president -- when in a wink blinked on this, said this was a mistake and -- and, you know, sought to go into a different direction. They clearly just don't know what they're doing.

BERMAN: There's no sign.

GREGORY: And unable to figure it out.

BERMAN: There's no sign. There's no sign that the reunifications are happening. There's no sign that the administration has track of these kids at all. We just don't know, because they won't give us a number. They won't give us a number. Jeffrey -- CAMEROTA: Go ahead, John.

BERMAN: Sorry.

CAMEROTA: Go ahead, John.

AVLON: Just look, Anthony Scaramucci was expressing what a lot of White House circuits have, which is personal discomfort and political discomfort with an outcome that their policies created.

We know from a government lawyer's own testimony that there was never a plan to reunite the children, that the deterrent, Alisyn, that you raised, which was part of the reason this policy was put in place, was done with no attempt to reunite children. So they're hoping this issue goes away.

But in the meantime, we've got over 2,000 children living in limbo, living in terror because of Trump administration's policies. And this is not going to go away on its own and the administration shows no ability, let alone gumption to try to reunite.

BERMAN: Can I ask you one Supreme Court question, because you're here? We're lucky to have you here.


BERMAN: Brett Kavanaugh, who has written about presidents not being able to be investigated for criminal purposes right now, is this something that could become an issue here? I mean, obviously, there are cases that could get to the Supreme Court that deal with investigating the president.

TOOBIN: And -- and Brett Kavanaugh is unusually knowledgeable on this subject, because he was -- he worked in the Starr investigation. He wrote the dirty parts of the Starr report.