welcome to "inside politics." i'm john king. president trump takes aim add a major obama administration initiative. rolling back an order that the new president's ep achieve says smothers job creation. >> for too long over the last several years you had certain industries, certain sectors of our economy within the cross hairs of the epa. these industries like the coal sector were under assault and so that is not going to happen anymore. we're going to have a very focused pro growth pro environment message. >> democrats disagree with that. also stoking the partisan divide, the white house vows to choke off federal funds to so-called sanctuary cities. >> that is a big day you had

yesterday, too, in sanctuary cities. that was a very, veryy importan thing you did and frankly a very popular thing. so congratulations. >> a new tensions today over russia's election meddling. senators want to question the president's son-in-law about a post election meeting with a russian banker close to vladimir putin. call for the leader of the investigation to step aside. >> do you trust nunes? >> i don't trust him. i mean, i think he's a very nice man. i think he is frankly over his head. i think he used very poor judgment and i think he has tainted the committee. i actually think there is an effort under way to shut this committee down. >> with us to share the reporting and their insight, jonathan martin, lauren meckler. in a bit a -- after an upbeat

talk but no timetable of somehow revisiting obamacare repeal. let's begin a very busy hour with a brief but important vote of confidence in the man leading the house investigation into russian election meddling. chairman devin nunes too cozy with president trump. they say he should recuse himself but nunes says he is moving on with the investigation special his boss house speaker paul ryan just moments ago brushed a size calls for the chairman to step aside. >> should devin nunes recuse himself from the russia vf investigation and do you know the source of his investigation? >> no and no. >> it isn't just democrats raising question s about how hes conducting things. he went to the white house complex one day last week to review classified intelligence reports and then returned to the oval office the next day to brief the president without looping anyone else on the

committee. >> this was done because the white house wanted it to be done. this is what a cover up to a crime looks like. we are watching it play outright now. >> nunes says that's not true. he says he had no choice. he says he was tipped off members of the trump transition team were mentioned in intelligence reports and he wanted to review those documents to see if privacy guidelines were violated. >> i've been working this for a long time with many different sources and needed a place that i could actually finally go because i knew what i was looking for and i could actually get access to what i needed to see. i'm quite sure that people in the west wing had no idea that i was there. look, i go over there a lot. i go over there often for meetings and briefings. >> the details of this can be confusing and we don't know a lot. we don't know what exactly he's talking about. he thinks that's an outrage that the intelligence agencies are too quick to put the names in these documents.

let's for a moem talk about the trust factor. the speaker answered quickly that devin nunes keeps his job. does that shut this down? >> not even close. i mean, no. the democrats smell blood in the water here. i think that actually speaker ryan understands his endorsement of him was important but not exactly unthus exactly enthusiastic. >> he'd rather talk about health care. >> right. giving a two letter answer is about as brief as it gets. i think that democrats are really think that they have something here. they think that he may -- first of all, i think they may be genuinely concerned about the v investigation and they think there may be something underlying and they want to get to that. they also are kind of on the offense with republicans having one problem after the next and this is another example of them going -- i don't think the fact that the speaker ryan said no is going to put an end to it. >> they're getting a lot of

support and that's another reason it's not going away t.'s not purely a partisan divide. there was an undercurrent from the likes of john mccain that we need to get to the bottom of this. >> the more he talks about it the less sense it makes t.. it's really beginning to sound like a giant game of clue. the idea that he'd been working on this a long time and investigating it himself. then why didn't the other members of the committee know about that? the idea that, you know, a congressman just drops in all the time at the white house is also something that simply does not make sense. somebody has to keep a record of his entry. somebody has to let him in. again, there's so many details of this and as he piles on more details, his story makes -- it seems less and less coherent. >> he says this is very

sensitive private information and he'll be proven right in the end. we shall see toch. to your point about the white house, you can't get on the grounds. i guess you could jump the fence. we've had a few of those. he's not just getting on the grounds. he's going into one of the most sensitive places in the executive office. >> so no one at the white house knew that he was on the grounds in a sensitive facility looking at a classified computer system? i think maybe the white house has other problems if that's true. >> here's the chairman this morning. he says he'll be proven right and for now the republicans are standing by him, but the spectacle of this has a lot of people wroorried in decision to the substance. >> are you going to stay as chairman and run this investigation? >> why would i not? you guys need to go ask them why these things are being said. >> can this investigation continue as you as chairman? >> why would it not? aren't i briefing you guys continuously? keeping you up to speed?

>> but they're saying that it cannot run as you as chair -- >> you're got to go talk to them. my colleagues are perfectly fine. they know we're doing an investigation and that will continue. >> it's like a riddle. he's answering questions with questions. go ask the democrats. but he says he's staying on. to your point, yes, it's democrats in the house are saying he has to go including the ranking member of the committee. republicans in the house, publicly they support him. privately they're mumbling about what is he doing. on the senate side, a lot of leading republicans saying this looks bad. >> following the house investigation is like following a mystery novel. you never know what's going to happen next. i have a great deal of confidence in the senate investigation because it is bipartisan. >> well, i think there needs to be a lot of explaining to do.

i've been around for quite a while and i've never heard of any such thing. something's got to change. otherwise, the whole effort in the house of representatives will lose credibility. i mean, that's just obvious. >> it reminds me of the line they often throw around in the house where if you're a republican in the house you say, you know, the democrats are the opposition, but the senate is the enemy. there's not a lot of love in chambers and especially when it comes to sensitive national security matters. i mean, the sort of senate snobbery is barely hidden. they feel like this is sort of their purview and they're a more bipartisan body. they are a more serious minded body in some respects and the sort of house -- >> they have actually managed to keep most of this behind closed doors on the senate side and the chairman and the ranking member largely get along. >> yeah. >> it has been a more adult -- i get the rivalry between the two chambers, but it has been more

adult on the senate side. devin nunes showing up going into the executive office building, getting into one of the most secure rooms in the united states of america, getting on to a computer and the white house press secretary sean spicer said he had no idea he was there. >> i don't know why he would brief the speaker and then come down here to brief us on something that we would have briefed him on. it doesn't really seem to make a ton of sense. i'm not aware of it, but it doesn't really pass the smell test. >> correct, sir. you are correct, sir, it doesn't really pass the smell test. >> what under lies all of this is the suspicion or the acsi accusation that he is too tight with the white house to conduct this investigation. that's the heart of this. the question becomes well, if he is getting his information from the white house which is supposedly helping the white house or just coincidentally helping the house, the question becomes can he actually investigate the people that he's so close to that he just kind of

drops by. >> he has to understand the gravity of his job and the politics of the moment. even if he's doing the right thing, democrats are going to look at this politically. even if you have a trust issue, you have to take the ranking democrat with you. if you said i got something i can't really tell you about it, but you've got to come with me, we wouldn't be in this mess. >> there's a lot of main streak folks in the republican party asking what's going on here. they know the chairman. he was a mainstream member. he's really sort of falling for trump in a lot of ways. and it's puzzling to a lot of folks on the hill. real fast, john, taking a step back looking at this politically, every story about this investigation is just creates a distraction for trump. it's a cloud over his head. >> an additional cloud. >> he can't help himself, he responds. >> an additional cloud is that the chairman canceled the hearings this week including one today in which the former deputy attorney general sally yates.

she was told she couldn't testify. the trump yagz toadministration her she was covered under executive communication therefore you can't testify. the white house is denying it had anything to do with blocking her from testifying but it muddies the water. >> there are letters, there are black and white words on paper or how they received them, maybe electronically saying they were trying to assert this privilege and then the chairman conveniently coincidentally -- >> canceled the meeting so they didn't have to. >> so they don't have to push the issue and go public with it. >> the odd nunes behavior bubbled up, but served under george b. bush e-mailed me. >> where does this go? can the democrats now because this is embarrassing, can the democrats say we have to have this hearing? we're going to bring james clapper back in who by the time

he left had seen no evidence of collusion. they wanted him back to see if he would pull that back. they were going to bring in john brennan who was the cia director who you know he was going to get asked how did it feel to have the president call you a nazi and sally yates. >> i expect sally testifies before this is over for sure. >> and if the house won't do it, probably the senate will. >> exactly. but because you now have the white house rather than responding to the story by saying -- >> exactly right, she shouldn't be testifying. they're saying that's not true. then is there no problem here or what? i think this is not going to just get shut down. there's too many avenues, too much going on, too much public information. this is all eventually going to come out. >> the other thing is -- >> but how does the chairman make it right? can he make it right? >> at this point, you know, at this point i think that the house intelligence committee, whatever the results of it are, are going to have very little

credibility. in fact, this is sort of putting more pressure on for this to be just taken out of the purview of congress and given to some kind of independent body. >> the senators certainly don't want that. you speptnt a lot of time doing reporting on the democratic member. he's the one that came out yesterday and said i think the chairman has to go. >> his accusations have been nunes has to step aside, we have to have something more independent. i would say the relationship over time can be repaired, but on this particular mission it cannot. >> it cannot. it's a very primportant commission. from the chairman's position that the intelligence agency is interesting sloppy and that's a length issue too. you just need to handle it more professionally shall we say? next, come together or else. an emotional meeting for house republicans and a potential reset on repealing obamacare. really? that's next.

with the proven power of retinol. reduces wrinkles in just one week. neutrogena® ♪ ♪ wanna get away? now you can with southwest fares as low as 59 dollars one-way. yes to low fares with nothing to hide. that's transfarency.

are you one sneeze away from being voted out of the carpool? try zyrtec® it's starts working hard at hour one and works twice as hard when you take it again the next day. stick with zyrtec® and muddle no more®.

. welcome back. today was get back to workday for house republicans. they had an emotional meeting. remember we're just days after their attempt to repeal obamacare and deliver on seven years worth of promises crumbled. inside the meeting cnn reporters say the message was uniify or die. outside the meeting republicans are saying all was well. if you listen to house speaker paul ryan you may think the republican caucus learned a few lessons, maybe making another run at repeal. >> we had a very constructive meeting with your members. some of those who were in the no camp expressed a willingness to work to getting to yes and making this work. we want to get it right.

we're going to keep talking to each other until we get it right. i'm not going to put a timeline on it because this is too important to not get right and to put an artificial timeline on it. >> so help me. it's too important to not get right to put an artificial timeline on it, so why did they try to rush it through? they knew their differences. i guess they thought they could get it through. how much of that what we just heard is real and how much of that is just a public effort that oh, we'll be fine. >> well, i think that the interesting question is you have essentially two opposite messages happening at the same time. some of these nos may get to yes and we're going to maybe make this work, then you have the white house saying maybe we'll work democrats when it completely implodes. that is -- satisfying the freedom caucus is different than working with democrats. >> those are not hand in glove. they've been talking a lot about hand in glove. >> exactly. how real is this? who knows.

i have no idea. i think they certainly want to -- i'm sure that paul ryan does not want to give up on making any changes to the health care system. >> they promise d for seven yeas and he wanted to go first on repeal and replace. but does he want to take that car out of the garage and put it on the track knowing what happened to him last week? >> if he doesn't, next year could be pretty rough for the republicans and it could be rough for a lot of republican incumbents. >> i have a story on this very question. good plug there. but this is the key question now. which is the riskier political move? do you not bring up the bill and go into 2018 with a republican president, house and senate funding obamacare and keeping it going and risk prime raearies te of your incumbents or closer to 2018 do you bring the bill to the floor and make some of your

more endangered members walk the plank and vote for a bill that will potentially strip thousands of votes of health care. it's a hell of a question. they're struggling with that right now. which is more of a political risk. >> and as they struggle with trk t , the speaker is trying -- who forced changes out of the president and then still said they were going to vote no after making the bill a tougher vote for the moderates. the speak ser is trying to keept calm. he's being nice publicly. the president last night even though the staff said the president wants to turn the page, doesn't want to pick fights, 9:41 p.m., the republican house freedom caucus was able to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. so he is now, the president is going after conservative members of his own party. >> one thing we know about donald trump is he's not really good at moving on and turning the page and letting bygones be

bygones. >> this is another contradictory message. right after it failed he's blaming democrats. maybe he will want to work with democrats. that was the whole message. now it's the freedom caucus's fault. >> and you forgot sean spicer in between it wasn't such a good bill anyway. >> most watchdogs think children should run the business and let the president run the country and not cross the two. here's eric trump saying -- >> he's also a person who knows how to walk away from a deal. sometimes the deal you walk away from end up being your best deal. i commend him. i commend him for saying listen, you guys don't have your act together, you're not going to get it done. we're either going to vote or we're not. if we're not, we're moving on to something else. >> this isn't going down the

street to find another plot of land to build a building on. >> they walked away from him. >> trump was dying to sign a bill, any bill. he was not aware of any of the actual policy. >> it was the speaker who convinced him -- >> we don't want -- >> this is them saying this is bill or not repealing and replacing. it's a bad messaging strategy. so when they said fine, that's it, then, we're going to walk away or we're going to help it collapse and democrats will have to work with us, they got a bad response. this is like the one thing we voted -- we elected you to do. you can't move on. >> so it's a number one priority. it has been the signature promise they have made. they also want to get to tax reform. in this moment of dysfunction and distrust, how will it play on capitol hill when tax reform comes up and the white house secretary says this? >> obviously we're driving the train on this.

we're going to work with congress on this, but i think that the president as you've heard through multiple times the president will be very clear, this is a huge priority for him, something he feels very passionately about, so we'll have more on that later. >> we're driving the train on this. >> by the way, this is something where i think sean spice ser right. if you look at the last time major tax overhaul got done, a generation ago with ronald reagan, it was, in fact, originally driven by the treasury department. they calm ome out with a very specific proposal. when it didn't work, they resurrected it with a second specific proposal. i do think it is so sweeping that congress does need some kind of guidance as to what the president's bottom lines are. >> the problem with that, nobody even knows in the administration who it is who's pulling this together. they don't have a proposal. they don't have a detailed set of guidance. maybe he should -- maybe spicer

says we are the ones who should be driving the train but that's different than actually driving it. it hasn't really gone anywhere. congress is warksy ahead of whe they are. >> that train is not even on the track yet, not at the station and they keep saying they want to get this done by august. good luck. trump's son-in-law under scrutiny. jared kushner refuses to face questions with rauussians including a banker who is a key ally of vladimir putin. so, guess what? we call it cranberry almond. give kind a try. i've got a nice long life ahead. big plans. so when i found out medicare doesn't pay all my medical expenses, i got a medicare supplement insurance plan. [ male announcer ] if you're eligible for medicare, you may know it only covers about 80%

of your part b medical expenses. the rest is up to you. call now and find out about an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan, insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company. like all standardized medicare supplement insurance plans, it could save you in out-of-pocket medical costs. call now to request your free decision guide. i've been with my doctor for 12 years. pelosi. pelo ed. see why millions of people have already enrolled in the only medicare supplement insurance plans endorsed by aarp. don't wait. call now. sean spic

wrinkles? your time is up! new neutrogena® rapid wrinkle repair with the proven power of retinol. reduces wrinkles in just one week. neutrogena®

so you'rhow nice.a party? i'll be right there. and the butchery begins. what am i gonna wear? this party is super fancy. let's go. i'm ready. are you my uber? [ horn honks ] hold on.

the biggest week in tv is back. [ doorbell rings ] par-tay! xfinity watchathon week starts april 3. get unlimited access to all of netflix and more, free with xfinity on demand. . welcome back. at the top of the white house briefing yesterday, the press secretary sean spicer read a forceful statement condemning the arrest of anti-putin demonstrators in russia. >> the russian people like people everywhere deserve a government that's an open marketplace of ideas, tra transparent, accountable and the idea to exercise their rights without fear of retribution. >> amen. but that transparent part, that's a giant question here at

home and in the white house where sean spicer works. the president's top advisor and son-in-law jared kushner has a date -- kushner disclosed that meeting took place despite mo s months of reports detail -- the ambassador meeting isn't the biggest curiosity. that would would be the meeting kushner disclosed yesterday after he realized the committee new about it. a russian banker close to vladimir putin and by the way a man whose bank was under u.s. sanctions when he met with the president-elect's powerful son-in-law. >> that was part of his job. that was part of his role. he executed it completely as he was supposed to. >> so he doesn't believe he owes the american public an explanation? >> for what? doing his job. >> one problem, the white house says the meeting was official transition business.

the russian bank however issued a statement saying he met with cu kushner in his capacity as the ceo of the really family empire. we have competing stories and potentially a collision between working with the west wing but also keeping your eye on your business. this was during the transition. he knew where he was coming into. if the russian bank is telling the truth, we've got a problem. >> why is the son-in-law of the president working in the west wing anyway? >> but if he's going to make that choice, the president should be able to bring his own people in. >> it's extraordinary that folks on capitol hill are okay with that. i mean, i guess because there are a bigger fish to fry, but the willingness to sort of tolerate that, again, from both parties i think is notable. >> to me it goes back to what sean spicer said in condemning the russian government. if you're going to do something you know is going to be controversial, you have to have a giant bar of openness and transparency and that we only

find out about these meetings, maybe they're all innocent meetings, but if they are, why did you wait? >> instead story after story leaks ouand it keeps ongoing like this. >> i just -- to me there is a story in the first place, but on top of that the point you made with just this mingling of business interests. to me that is a huge issue that just keeps coming back and back and back. and you start -- you said in your opening to the segment something to the fact that well -- or earlier that his son is supposed to be dealing with family business. here he was weighing on this. but you can't have a line. you can't have a line between these two because it's constantly being blurred. and when you have something dealing with the russians, i think then it's serious. >> russian sanctions because that's the linchpin of this. there was a michael flynn, the president's ousted fired security adviser got in trouble

because he talked about the sanctions with the russian ambassador and then misled people about it. the sanction thing is important. jared kushner met with a bunch of ambassadors. set that aside. campaigns meet with them all the time. the question is whether there was decision making going on related to the sanctions. >> and the ambassadors want to refer to have this meeting with the banker. again, it looks bad. and if you're in an environment where you know you're being watched closely, why not be hope and transparent about it? >> i think, too, the fact that so many people in this administration are coming straight from the business world is showing on the transparency issues as well. you see it everywhere, whether it's the state department not giving briefings and the secretary not traveling with reporters. they come from an environment where you basically don't have to be transparent about what you do. you don't have to report to anyone but your shareholders if you have shareholders. the trump business was a family

business. and so this is in many ways the procedures and the ethic used in a family business sort of being brought in to washington. >> but the other thing is they view all of these as being in large part driven bipartisan zrie zrito re du-- any question asked is sn as an attack on him. by the way, for a bunch of people that's completely true. they are using this to undermine the president's legitimacy. that's why they get to defensive and i think that's why they don't disclose these things so quickly. >> but they make it worse though. >> i'm not arguing they make it worse. >> by letting it leak and having to respond to it. if you have contacts with the russian, why wouldn't you put e everything out there immediately. >> someone who agrees with you is the former vice president of the united states. we don't get to hear from him that often. listen to dick cheney overseas

saying the election meddling is a big deal. >> there was a very serious effort made by mr. putin and his government, his organization to interfere in major ways with our basic fundamental democratic processes. in some quarters that would considered an act of war. >> tough words. there are a lot of things that dick cheney thinks are acts of war, though. keep it in perspective. >> this is the thing that's been bothering them on capitol hill. there are a lot of angry republicans who are angry about what happened in 2016. >> and worried trump will get too close to russia. everybody sit tight. up next, four years in a world of difference. the new president is about to undo his predecessor a policies on climate change and in the process maybe tanking any post health care talk of

bipartisanship. oneur and works twice as hard when you take it again the next day. stick with zyrtec® and muddle no more®.

jared kushn

it's realizing beauty doesn't stop at my chin. roc®'s formula adapts to delicate skin areas. my fine lines here? visibly reduced in 4 weeks. chest, neck, and face cream from roc®. methods, not miracles.™

. welcome back. very busy day in washington. president trump later today will sign an order rolling back the obama administration's biggest

domestic vie domestic climate change nir -- initiative. the former president called his actions u actions urgent and overdue. >> as a president, as a father and as an american, i am here to say we need to act. but this is a challenge that does not pause for partisan gridlock. it demands our attention now. and this is my plan to meet them. a plan to cut carbon pollution, a plan to protect our country from the impacts of climate change, and a plan to lead the world in a coordinated assault on a changing climate. >> now, that was then. this is now. if you need proof elections have sque consequences, today we will get another. the collapse the health care

being the shining example, they do have executive powers to do what they promised in the campaign and this is a big deal. >> absolutely. president obama kind of lived by the sword, die by the word. when he couldn't get his agenda through congress, he turned to executive power in a much more aggressive way and now we're seeing the undoing of it. he can get a lot done using executive authority and rolling back what's happened. that said, however, there are some basic economics of energy that are not going to change. we're not going to see a roaring back of the coal industry because of natural gas is much cheaper and it's taken over. fundamental things that are not going to just be able to undo this and there's a lot more awareness to climate change in many circles, so i don't think you can completely turn back time. that said, he has a lot of authority. >> his point person is a climate

chang change -- >> it gets it back to the core theme of jobs. at the margin at least it's good on the jobs front which is what he ran on and why a lot of folks elected him. secondly, this is the kind of thing that keeps the donor community, the business class okay with trump. and a lot of those same people are also the one whose fund campaigns for the hughouse and senate. they like this kind of action in a business community that's good politics on two fronts. >> it's also interesting outright of the health care debacle there was talk about being bipartisan. we know that was talk in the sense they have huge policy divides, climate change being one of them. plus we're in this environment where they fight over whether the apple pie on good or not. he's going to sign an executive stripping away one of the signature environmental initiatives. yesterday when you have this conversation, you know, what happened to the president, they bring jeff sessions the attorney

general over to the white house. if you're a so-called sanctuary city out there, undocumented worker gets brought in and arrested, is held in your jail, and then you let him or her go, jeff sessions says we might cut your federal funding. >> duis, assaults, burglaries, drug crimes, gang rapes, countless loved ones would not be grieving today if these policies of sanctuary cities were ended. >> big city mayors and liberals are going to disagree with what i'm about to say because those places are controversial, but back to the environmental thing, politics. they did this for a reason. >> yes, they did. they are headed for a clash in the court eventually with not just big city mayors, a lot of small city mayors. there's a lot of people who are in the cities that who disagree with this and i think there will

be a show down with this federal funding. that said i think it's important to know what they actually did yesterday was almost nothing. all he did was reaffirm a policy that obama had put in place last july. so there actually was a lot of rhetoric and a teeny tiny amount of substance there. that wasn't the purpose, most likely. they wanted to get out there. kind of rattle the drum and put people on notice and get people talking about something that is, again, closer to his core message, anti-immigration. >> he ran on a campaign that was largely you've been betrayed by the elites and they need to show that they are fulfilling his campaign promises. this comes across as a tough on illegal immigration. >> enforcing immigration law is popular. >> all of this makes sense as a good marketing and branding strategy except for the fact that they keep stepping on their own message. it's guaranteed in this administration it seems like every time they get a message, a

narrative out there, something bizarre happens that has everybody talking about something else. >> in this environment the show of hands i guess is the best way to do this, anybody here who thinks that the republicans can get 60 votes meaning get eight democrats to support neil gorsuch or will they have to change the rules and go with the so-called nuclear option? no one thinks so. >> my hand is not raised. >> more partisanship on all this talk of by paipartisanship. the lego batman movie creating a headache of sorts. ♪

wanna get away? now you can with southwest fares as low as 59 dollars one-way. yes to low fares with nothing to hide. that's transfarency. le [vo] quickbooks introduces jeanette.

and her new business: i do, to go. jeanette was excellent at marrying people. but had trouble getting paid. not a good time, jeanette. even worse. now i'm uncomfortable. but here's the good news, jeanette got quickbooks. send that invoice, jeanette. looks like they viewed it. and, ta-da! paid twice as fast.

oh, she's an efficient officiant. way to grow, jeanette. new. get paid twice as fast for free. visit quickbooks-dot-com.

. welcome back. i hope by now you know who is steve -- his name will soon

grace every green saback you pu out of your pocket. he dabbled in film financing. he paid so you could see tom cruise die over and over and over again in the edge of tomorrow. he even made a cameo in rules don't apply, a great film about howard hughes. but today democrats aren't complaining about his acting. they're complaining about this. >> what's a movie that we should see? >> well, i'm not allowed to promote anything that i'm involved in, so i just want to have the legal disclosure. you've asked me the question and i am not promoting any product. but you should send all your kids to "lego batman." >> he helped finance that movie. democrats say everything is not awesome. kids, you get that. but this could be an ethics violation. but come on now, right? democrats say it's an ethics violation.

he did find this -- >> think putin crony is a bit more serious. >> in 2017 is that going to be the top concern for the american public? >> you know what? a lot of people get their news from for lack of a better word entertainment shows. they process politics through that. a guarantee you a hit on "lego batman" hits a completely different audience than something on this program for example. >> have you seen it? >> but i do think that if we get to the point where people can't even joke, it's -- i think he was asked and he was joking. >> and he did the disclosure up front when trying to ask him that question. they're trying to lead him into the trap. do we have the movie? treasury department i sag it was a lighthearted moment. he understood the ethics law involved. my little guy love td this movi.

i thought it could have used an editor. it's a lot of fun. so i'm doing him a favor. i'm saying if you haven't seen the lego batman movie, don't worry. >> do you have any financial interest in this movie? >> i have zero financial interest. >> how much are you making off that movie? >> i make nothing off that movie. we're just trying to have a little fun. >> tomorrow in politics we'll be done with lego figures. >> that would be nice. inside politics lego version. just trying to have a little fun. fun is allowed, isn't it? >> all right. good. we'll see you tomorrow right back here at the same time. we'll show you live pks insiict inside the white house briefing room. you can guess there's a long list. my colleague wolf blitzer picks it up here right after the break. we'll see you tomorrow. it's not an anti-aging face cream. it's realizing beauty doesn't stop at my chin. roc®'s formula adapts to delicate skin areas.

my fine lines here? visibly reduced in 4 weeks. chest, neck, and face cream from roc®. methods, not miracles.™ are you one sneeze away from being voted out of the carpool? try zyrtec® it's starts working hard at hour one and works twice as hard when you take it again the next day. stick with zyrtec® and muddle no more®. won't replace the full value of your totaled new car. the guy says you picked the wrong insurance plan. no, i picked the wrong insurance company. with liberty mutual new car replacement™, you won't have to worry about replacing your car because you'll get the full value back including depreciation. and if you have more than one liberty mutual policy, you qualify for a multi-policy discount, saving you money on your car and home coverage. call for a free quote today. liberty stands with you™. liberty mutual insurance. you didn't know we had over 26,000 local activities listed on our app.

or that you could book them right from your phone. a few weeks ago, you still didn't know if you were gonna go. now the only thing you don't know, is why it took you so long to come here. expedia. everything in one place, so you can travel the world better. we can't stay here! why? terrible toilet paper! i'll never get clean! way ahead of you. charmin ultra strong. it cleans better. it's four times stronger... ...and you can use less. enjoy the go with charmin.

. i'm wolf blitzer. it's 1:00 p.m. here in washington. wherever you're watching from around the world thafrpgs fnks joining us. russia is likely to be a dominant topic in the white house briefing. we've already got some pictures coming in from the briefing room, white house press secretary sean spicer expected to come out any moment. we'll have live coverage. that's coming up. our senior white house correspondent is in the briefing room. our senior congressional reporter is manu raju is up on capitol hill. trying to block sally yates from testifying in the russia probe. that hearing was supposed to take place today. that in response to a report in today's "washington post." what are you hearing from white house sources? >> wolf, the white house is denying that "washington post" report saying that simply is not how it transpired, but the timing certainly is interesting, because these letters going back and forth from sally yates's

lawyers to the department of justice and to the committee, the last one was written on friday and of course that hearing was supposed to be scheduled for this afternoon. but the white house said this in a statement a short time ago. they said the white house has taken no action to prevent sally yates from testifying and the department of justice specifically told her it would not stop her and suggests -- and anything to suggest otherwise is completely irresponsible. that was a comment from deputy press secretary sarah sanders. wolf, there are still many, many questions about why this testimony didn't happen, if the white house had any involvement into the reschedule are or canceling of this hearing. that's something we simply don't know at this hour. i can promise you sean spicer will be asked about it at the briefing. >> i'm sure he will be. manu, you're on capitol hill. democrats now calling for the chairman of the house intelligence committee to step down from the overall russia investigation, but congressman devin nunes, the chairman is ignoring those calls. you caught up with him. tell our viewers what he's

saying. >> that's right. he said that he's going to stay as chairman of the committee really pushing back at those criticisms from democrats saying -- really chalking it up to partisan politics and saying he has not heard those same criticisms from has fellow republicans. getting very contentious in a back and noorgt forth that we h earlier today not just about this issue but also about the issue of sally yates, her testimony that was supposed to happen today not denying that the white house asked him not to cancel today's hearing. take a listen. >> are you going to stay as chairman and run this investigation? >> well, why would i not? >> you guys need to go ask them why these things are being said. >> can this investigation continue with you as chairman? >> why would it not? aren't i briefing you guys continuously? keeping you up to speed? >> but they're saying that it cannot run as you as chair. >> you've got to go talk to them. that sounds like their problem. my colleagues are perfectly

fine. they know we're doing an investigation and that will continue. >> did the trump administration seek to have sally yates not testify before your committee? >> look, you guys are just speculating. whenever there's time, we'll do a -- >> did they ask you to cancel the hearing today? >> come on, guys. >> mr. nunes saying that well, the hearing today was not canceled, but in fact it was. on friday he actually went out publicly and said the hearing today was not going to take place. not just sally yates, her testimony, but also john brennan. we were supposed to hear from him as well as another intelligence official at this hearing. john bren onan former obama intelligence official. that not happening. but they wanted to hear in a private briefing from james comey the fbi director and mike rogers the nsa director. also that private classified briefing will cancel today as