VALERIE CASTILE SITS DOWN TEN YEARS AFTER THE POLICE KILLING OF HER SON.

>> Eric: WE'RE STARTING TONIGHT WITH D.C.

AND ABROAD, THE CEASEFIRE IN THE MIDDLE EAST HAS COLLAPSED AFTER RENEWED U.S.

STRIKES ON IRAN AND TODAY THE PRESIDENT REFUSED TO SIGN A BIPARTISAN HOUSING BILL FROM CONGRESS.

HE DID NOT OWEVER ISSUE A VETO, IT MEANS IT GOES INTO LAW WITHOUT HIS SIGNATURE.

LET'S TURN TO DAVID SCHULTZ, TEACHES POLITICAL SCIENCE HAMLINE UNIVERSITY AND IS ALSO AN ADJUNCT PROFESSOR AT THE UNIVERSITY OF ST.

THOMAS.

I WANT TO TALK ABOUT MITCH MCCONNELL.

>> THERE IS A GOOD CASE TO BE MADE AT THIS POINT, THIS IS NOT THE FIRST SENATOR OR ELECTED OFFICIAL IN THE LEGISLATURE IN, CONGRESS THAT'S HAD A PROBLEM LIKE THIS.

MITCH MCCONNELL, I MEAN, YOU'RE RIGHT AT LEAST FOR A MONTH, GO BACK FOR AT LEAST A YEAR IF NOT MORE HE'S HAD -- WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY ARE, WHETHER THEY'VE BEEN STROKES, TIAs OR WHATEVER LIKE THAT BUT CLEARLY WE'VE GOT A PROBLEM THERE.

AND WE HAVE THE 25TH AMENDMENT, 25TH I THINK IT IS FOR THE PRESIDENT, NEVER BEEN -- ACTUALLY BEEN INVOKED A COUPLE OF TIMES BUT WE PROBABLY NEED SOMETHING FOR LEGISLATORS WHETHER OR NOT IT'S TERM LIMITS, AGE LIMITS OR SOMETHING TO REMOVE THEM FOR INCAPACITATION, I THINK THAT DEBATE IS OUT THERE.

>> Cathy: WHERE'S THE LINE BETWEEN TRANSPARENCY AND PRIVACY FOR ELECTED OFFICIALS?

>> BOY, THAT IS A REALLY TOUGH QUESTION HERE.

IS THAT DOES THE PUBLIC HAVE A RIGHT TO KNOW THE HEALTH OF ITS ELECTED OFFICIALS.

>> Cathy: ALTHOUGH I REMEMBER HUBERT HUMPHREY WHEN HE WAS SENATOR, HE WAS VERY OPEN ABOUT HIS BLADDER CANCER.

>> THAT'S RIGHT.

>> Cathy: HE WAS VERY OPEN ABOUT TREATMENTS AND PROGNOSIS, HE EVEN SPOKE BEFORE THE JOINT SESSION OF CONGRESS ABOUT IT.

SO YOU CAN BE REALLY OPEN, OR.

>> YEAH, OR YOU COULD HAVE OPEN IN THE SENSE WHEN LYNDON JOHNSON WAS PRESIDENT LIFTING UP HIS SHIRT AND SHOWING, WHAT, HIS APPENDECTOMY SCAR?

THAT'S PROBABLY TOO MUCH INFORMATION.

BUT, NO THIS GETS TO QUESTIONS ABOUT HOW MUCH IS THE PUBLIC ENTITLED TO FOR THE PRESIDENT'S ANNUAL PHYSICALS IN TERMS OF INFORMATION AND SO FORTH.

SO YOU'RE RIGHT, WE'RE REALLY LOOKING AT SOMETHING DIFFERENT BECAUSE THESE ARE NOT PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS, CLEARLY BUT IS THE PUBLIC ENTITLED TO KNOW IF THEY'RE IN GOOD HEALTH OR NOT?

I THINK SO, MAYBE THE BETTER QUESTION IS IS THE PUBLIC ENTITLED TO KNOW THAT THE INDIVIDUALS ARE UP AND CAPABLE OF PERFORMING THEIR WORK.

NOW, HOW WE MAKE THAT JUDGMENT AGAIN I'M NOT SMART ENOUGH TO FIGURE THAT OUT.

BUT I THINK WE NEED TO HAVE SOMETHING IN PLACE TO ADDRESS THE MITCH MCCONNELL PROBLEMS AND I'M FORGETTING HER NAME NOW, THE CALIFORNIA SENATOR FROM A FEW YEARS AGO.

>> DIANNE FEINSTEIN?

>> I MEAN, I DON'T WANT TO SAY THEY WERE WHEELING HER IN ON A GURNEY BUT THEY WERE PRETTY CLOSE TO WHEELING HER IN ON A GURNEY ALSO.

>> Eric: HOW DOES THE PRESIDENT HAVE ANOTHER -- HOW LIKELY DOES THE PRESIDENT HAVE ANOTHER SHOT AT THE BIRTH RIGHT CITIZENSHIP?

>> IT IS INCREDIBLY RARE FOR THE SUPREME COURT TO REVISIT A QUESTION AND SAY, WELL, WE MIGHT HAVE GOTTEN IT WRONG, LET'S GO BACK AND LOOK AT IT AGAIN.

THE CLOSEST ANALOGY TO THIS, DOESN'T REALLY FIT, ONE IS BROWN V. BOARD OF EDUCATION, 1954 WHICH IS ALL ABOUT SEGREGATION WHERE THE COURT ASKED FOR IT TO BE REARGUED BUT NOT BEFORE THEY RENDERED AND A DECISION AND THERE'S BEEN A COUPLE OF OTHER CASES OUT THERE WHERE THE COURT CHANGED ITS MIND BUT NOT WITH THE PRESIDENT ASKING IT TO RETHINK IT.

WHEN THE DECISION CAME DOWN ON BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP, BOUT A WEEK AGO, TEN DAYS AGO SOMETHING LIKE THAT, SOMEONE SAID TO ME, WELL, THAT ISSUE IS DEAD.

I SAID THAT ISSUE IS NOT DEAD.

THERE'S GOING TO BE EFFORTS IN CONGRESS TO TRY AND PASS A LAW EVEN THOUGH YOU NEED AMENDMENT FOR IT, THE PRESIDENT'S GOING TO KEEP PUSHING ON IT.

IT'S NOT A DEAD ISSUE.

>> Cathy: IF YOU THINK BIRTHRIGHT IS NOT A DEAD ISSUE I'M WONDERING ABOUT THIS REALLY STRICT VOTER I.D.

BILL THAT THE PRESIDENT REALLY WANTS.

AND HE SAID HE WASN'T GOING TO SIGN THE BIPARTISAN HOUSING BILL BECAUSE THERE'S BEEN NO MOVEMENT ON THAT VOTER I.D.

BILL.

BUT IT'S GOING TO BECOME LAW WITHOUT HIS SIGNATURE ANYWAY.

I'M JUST WONDERING IS IT MUST ADO ABOUT NOTHING?

OR IS THERE SOMETHING IN THE WEEDS THAT WE HAVE TO WATCH OUT FOR WHEN IT COMES TO VOTER I.D.

ISSUES HEADING INTO THE GENERAL.

>> I DON'T THINK WE'RE GOING TO SEE ANYTHING FOR A COUPLE OF REASONS.

FIRST I THINK THE REPUBLICANS DON'T HAVE THE VOTES TO OVERRIDE THE FILIBUSTER IN THE SENATE.

TWO, AS MUCH AS HE KEEPS TALKING ABOUT VOTER RAUD AND AGAIN WE CAN BE HONEST AND SAY IT'S REALLY NEGLIGIBLE, THERE'S A LOT OF REPUBLICANS ALSO UPSET WITH THAT IDEA AND DON'T ANT TO HAVE VOTER I.D., BECAUSE WHY?

A LOT OF THEIR CONSTITUENTS ARE VOTING BY MAIL, VOTING REMOTELY AND THIS COULD HAVE A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT IN TERMS OF ALSO AFFECTING REPUBLICANS.

ON TOP OF WHICH NOW NOBODY LIKES TO CHANGE THE RULES SO CLOSE TO AN ELECTION.

ELECTED OFFICIALS WHEN IT COMES TO VOTING RULES ARE GENERALLY THE MOST CONSERVATIVE PEOPLE IN THE WORLD BECAUSE THEY'VE WON BY THE EXISTING RULES, WHY CHANGE SOMETHING LIKE THAT?

SO I THINK AT THIS POINT IT'S PROBABLY DEAD.

LAST POINT I SHOULD MAKE HERE IS REMEMBER, AT THE END OF THE DAY, THE CONSTITUTION LEAVES TO THE STATES THE AUTHORITY TO RUN THE ELECTIONS.

SO TO A LARGE EXTENT THIS IS A GREAT TALKING POINTS ISSUE FOR BOTH SIDES BUT SUBSTANTIVELY MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING.

>> Eric: WE'LL HAVE MORE ON