. straight to the white house here. welcome to "inside politics." i'm john king. i believe we have tape of egyptian military leadering at the white house. president abdel el-sisi at the white house. this is moments ago. heading into the white house. high stakes conversation. beginning of a high stakes diplom diplomatic week for the president. he faces decisions about isis, north korea and more. >> no. china has to cooperate. this is now down to do we want to continue to see these ballistic missile attacks or does china want to do something

about it. >> right now the senate committee is deciding whether to push neil gorsuch one step closer to the supreme court. if it does, that will set up one more step to the final confirmation. >> based on his record, i have concerns about his views and concerns about he would brigng partisan agenda to the court. judge gorsuch did nothing to allay those fears. >> talk about mixed signals. the president launches tweet wars against house conservatives who defied him on the health care plan. >> tweets and statements and blame don't change facts. let start over. let's get this thing done right and let's keep our promises with the american people. >> with us to share the reporting and their insights this mond, carrien of the "washington post," cnn manu r

raju. a live look here. a big moment of truth ahead. this event the senate judiciary commit on the vote of judge neil gorsuch. as committee members began speaking this morning, two senior democrats on that committee made their intentions clear. pat leahy of vermont and dianne feinstein of california said they will oppose judge gorsuch. >> our job is to assess whether the nominee will protect the legal and constitutional rights of all americans. and whether the nominee recognizes the humanity and justice required when evaluating the cases before him. unfortunately, based on judge gorsuch's record at the department of justice, his tenure on the bench, his appearance before the senate,

and his written questions for the record, i cannot support this nomination. >> follow along here. the math can be a bit confusing. democratic senate mark warner also announced his no vote. three democrats have said they will vote yes. here's where it gets confusing. one democrat michael bennett of colorado says he will vote yes on the procedural vote. still undetermined how he will vote at the end. assuming all republicans vote yes, that means there are now 56 votes to close debate on gorsuch. there are only three democrats and one independent left who have not declared their intention on that first vote. a culture vote as they call it. in other words, judge gorsuch needs all the remaining votes to get to 60. that's high drama. as democrats voice confidence he will not get to 60, they are prepared to pull in the nuclear option. >> what i'm telling you is that judge gorsuch is going to be

confirmed. the way in which that occurs is in the hands of the democratic minority. and i think during the course of the week we'll find out exactly how this will end. but it will end with his confirmation. >> you're shaking your head listening to leader mcconnell there. you've covered the hill for a long time. there are two huge stories here. number one is does donald trump get a legacy pick. a very young judge on the supreme court. number two, to get that legacy pick, does leader mcconnell decide i'm going to change the rules? it looks like democrats have the rules to force him. we still have a few to come in. leader schumer sure sounds confident that as they say in washington, people out there in america, but go nuclear. >> yeah. that's precisely what mitch mcconnell was saying, that one way or another, judge gorsuch will be confirmed and he will be on the supreme court. okay. so what does that mean? that means as you set up that if democrats are successful in

their filibuster, mitch mcconnell will change the rules. once you change the rules on a filibuster for the supreme court, it's already been changed for other executive nominations, thanks to harry reed when he was a democratic leader several years ago. and other lower courts as well. but this is obviously kind of the mother of all fights. so, so important when you're talking about the supreme court. so okay. let's just talk short term. what does it mean? it means that they can -- that they fought a fight, the democrats and that republicans are going to get their nominee. but to me it is the democratic leadership kp these senators who are voting no listen the very angry base understandable because of what happened with judge garland, but not taking the longview and thinking okay, this is not a swing seat on the supreme court. the next one that donald trump

will likely have will be a swing seat and the democrats are effectively -- not effectively. they are by doing this denying themselves the ability to stop the next person that donald trump puts up who will, if he has a free pass, will be somebody who they think is even more conservative than gorsuch. >> depending on who retires at that point or if somebody leaves the court. right now you're getting gorsuch for scalia which most people view as an equal trade. the next one, will it be kennedy? depends if he decides to retire. we'll see what happens. when you get to this option f we can bring the graphic back up, right now to get to 60, neil gorsuch essentially has to draw an inside straight. chuck schumer has been out there publicly saying he's not going to get to 60. he must know. the one of his first tests, health care was number one. this is number two, his test as leader. we assume he can do the math. >> they're not going to get to 60. everyone is expecting the nuclear option to happen.

to dana's point of what happened over the weekend, we saw two senators up for reelection announced their plans to filibuster the nomination. and interestingly so, they chose their base which wants to fight this war brutally, go as far as possible, even though they know they're going to lose over more moderate voters in their conservative states because they don't want to face the wrath of their base. they don't want to worry about potentially losing money from donors to depressing their base in their election, but the larger impact is what will happen to the filibuster. the nominees are all gone. you can confirm anybody in any position after this is changed on executive level. what about on legislation? where the 60 vote flesh hold still exists? the concern is it creates a slippery slope and all of a sudden that rule is gone and the

majority can do whatever it wants in the senate. that's treal danger. >> the democrats who have said they vote yes, donald trump carried all of those states by huge margins. then you vt othhave the other democrats who are up in 2018. how strong will donald trump be? how strong will this energy be in my state not today and tomorrow but next september and november. >> i think this is a culmination of a trend going on for decades. you can argue going back to the defeat of robert bork during the 80s. these supreme court nominations have got increasingly partisan. both nominees are saying they had litmus tests.

these decisions on the part of the senate which are supposed to be made with a historical lens look at decades ahead of you have with everything else in washington become a product of the passions of the moment. >> totally. >> but after the health care debacle, there's been a lot of talk about we're not tired of winning yet. yes, it's bloody, yes we don't know if the hangover effect could be going forward, but it does look like the president is going to get a win and a pretty big one. >> exactly. and i think kind of a key study of the thought process that went into this for some democrats is claire mccaskill of mi sou-- go was kind of seen as one of the better picks off of that list. and worries of what could come later down the line. there was a huge backlash once those comments got out and you

see her doing a post to explain why she will not be going with it. >> this is beyond the nomination. i think what people at home who are watching listening to culture and filly busters and nuclear options -- >> after a week of reconciliation. >> exactly. what they need to understand is what this is going to do is make washington, if you can imagine, even more part son. what you said, manu, was so important, the only ability to filibuster will be on legislation. if that goes away, what that means f you only need 51 votes in the senate, it has absolutely -- it does away with the notion of needing to compromise across the aisle. >> this is a double whammy for the democratic base. you were out in san francisco and you weren't surprised by what feinstein said. number one they think that trump one. it's a trump pick. if trump says it's a nice sun

rise democratic base says no it isn't. also the stolen seat. obama had 11 months. a democrat from rhode island said this is a bit rich to us from the party that not only denied garland, but from the party who is the beneficiary of all these partisan decisions. i feel like i'm watching ca casa blanca. bad blood from the democrats who when you talk to them privately, he's a nice guy. sure, he's more conservative, but hawes highly qualified. he actually said when you ask him about apportion rights that i respect precedent. >> most of them have voted in the past to put him on the bench. >> he's not doing to tilt the ideological balance on the court. when ruth bader ginsburg steps aside. what happens when kennedy steps aside and they move in a more conservative direction. but democrats who are pushing

this hard line position are saying the republicans are going to change the rule then so we might as well fight it now. >> the senate judiciary committee still in session. the president welcoming a strong man at the white house and laying a marker down ahead of a big meeting with the chinese president. people confuse nice and kind but they're different... nice tells you what you want to hear. but kind is honest. this bar is made with cranberries and almonds. so, guess what? we call it cranberry almond. give kind a try.

the following ad for your viewing convenience. so i just switched to geico. what took you so long? i know, i saved a ton of money on car insurance. that's what i'm talking about! geico also gives you 24/7 access to licensed agents! booooyah. good game, you really crushed it. no son, geico crushed it. ♪ ♪ i'm raph. my name is anne. i'm one of the real live attorneys you can talk to through legalzoom. don't let unanswered legal questions hold you up, because we're here, we're here, and we've got your back. legalzoom. legal help is here. legal help is here. after becoming one of the largest broadband companies in the country. after expanding our fiber network coast to coast. these are the places we call home.

we are centurylink. we believe in the power of the digital world. the power to connect. and that's what drives us everyday. but shouldn't it be about firsts?d in zeros. and seconds... how about adding a third? we think there's a bajillion ways to measure success. and whether you have hundreds or millions... we think you deserve the financial freedom to sleep like this at night. this is the new success story. and at t-i-a-a, we're with you. start today at t-i-a-a dot org.

welcome back. straight to the white house just moments ago the president meeting with the president of egypt in the oval office.

let's listen. >> it's great to be with the president of egypt and i will tell you president el-sisi has been somebody that's been close to me since the first time i met him. i met during the campaign and at that time there were two of us and we both met and hopefully you liked me a lot more. but it was a very long -- it was supposed to be a quick brief meeting and we were with each other for a lon period of time. we agree on so many things. i want to let everybody know in case there was any doubt that we are very much behind president el-sisi. he's done a fantastic job in a very difficult situation. we are very much behind egypt and the people of egypt and the united states has, believe me, back in and we have strong backing. we are very much and as you and i will be soon talking, we're

building up our military to a level that will be the highest -- probably the highest that we've ever had, plane orders, ship orders, aircraft carrier orders. we are rejuvenating our military to the highest level. i think in these times, probably more than ever before or certainly almost more than ever before, that's what we need. and i just want to say to you, mr. president, that you have a great friend and ally in the united states and in me. >> thank you very much. { speaking foreign language }

>> translator: allow me to extend my thanks and appreciation for your kind invitation. this is my first visit to the united states and immigration office. as a matter of fact, this is the first visit in eight years from an egyptian president to the united states. { speaking foreign language }

>> translator: since we met last september, i've had a deep appreciation and admiration of your unique personality, especially as you are standing very strong in the field. to counter this evil ideology that is claiming innocent lives, that is bringing devastation to communities and nations and that is terrorizing the innocent people. very strongly and openly you will find egypt and myself always behind you in this -- in bringing about an effective strategy in counter terrorism. { speaking foreign }

excellen . >> translator: you will findly supporting you in finding a solution to the problem of the century. i am quite confident you will be able to bring a solution to this issue. >> we will. that i tell you. we will. thank you very much. we will do that together. we will fight terrorism and other things and we're going to be friends for a long, long period of time. we have a great bond with the people of egypt. and i look forward to working with the president and we have some interesting conversations going to start effectively immediately and then we're going into the cabinet room and we're going to meet with your representatives. so again, thank you very much for coming. i look forward to a very long and strong relationship. >> just the fact that that happened there, a handshake in

the oval office part of the news. the egyptian president meeting with president trump in the orkoval office just moments ago both wanting to cooperate on terrorism. says president el-sisi is doing a fantastic job. president obama would not let him into the white house. number one, he took power in the military coup. so is the obama administration said it was a bad thing. they didn't scream so loudlily about. human rights groups say president el-sisi jails his political opponents, has cracked down against free speech. the president of the united states sits next to him in the oval office and says he's doing a fantastic job. >> that's also one of his standard lines when he wants to play nice. that's the classic trumpism

diplomat diplomdip diplomatically. it's also president trump -- it's also countries in the middle east you that wouldn't necessarily think -- i mean, the isreallies, egypt is a linchpin to try to figure things out if at all possible with the palestinians and even more broadly. it is a fine line. human rights groups want to and rightly so are demanding that president trump be more aggressive. let's say this there's a readout and he did so in private. >> that's one of the points u.s. officials say privately. the -- that's where the united states would say they have had

cooperation from el-sisi. it was the idea of giving the platform of the oval office to a president. that's this president's choice. we've seen this. them publicly acknowledging. the obama -- president trump publicly saying kind things and in this case inviting him to the oval office, something that human rights groups would say is -- >> something he is bringing to the oval office as well is this administration has talked about turning a lot of military aid clodi cl including a lot of aid that egypt gets into loans instead of outright aid. beyond this sort of down sais playi -- downplaying of human rights where things go. >> foreign aid especially expect to a current whack in light of

the significant cuts they're talking about from the state department. it will be interesting to see on the human rights front how much he did does push el-sisi privately and what he does to xi jinping when he comes later this week. the white house is putting out word this is not going to be in the top of the janagenda, but w they even talk about this privately? how much will he focus on that or will he worry about the other things on the agenda. that is something that krcertaiy will be a difficult thing. >> if you go back to his inaugural address, he didn't feel it is his place to lecture leaders. about to vote on the nomination of neil gorsuch to the supreme court. the president trashes some of his critics. takes another one golfing. your insurance company raises your rates. maybe you should've done more research on them. for drivers with accident forgiveness,

liberty mutual won't raise your rates due to your first accident. and if you do have an accident, our claims centers are available to assist you 24/7. call for a free quote today. liberty stands with you™. liberty mutual insurance. israeli. israeli. acce

. welcome back. this is day 74 of the trump presidency. if you've been keeping close watch, you know the president's morning routine is pretty set. he gets up very early. checks in with his echo chamber. lauc launches a few tweets. here's one this morning.

such amazing reporting on unmasking on the crooked scheme against us. spied on before nomination. the real story. for the record, back here in the real world, there are some questions about what intelligence professionals call unmasking. there are lejgitimate questions. but there are no evidence as the president of the united states alleges of a crooked scheme or improper spying. back to that in a moment. but by real story the president means he thinks you should pay no attention to the fbi or congressional investigations into russian election meddling and the question of whether the president's own associates were in touch with the kremlin. coverage of those issues the president says, it's all fake news. >> it certainly is an attempt to distract and to hide the origin of the materials, to hide the white house hand. the question is of course why? i would tell people whenever they see the president use the word "fake "it ought to set off alarm bells. i think that's really what's gone on here.

>> this is a conversation, an issue that has consumed washington. cast a giant cloud over the new administration. we were talking during the break about conversations i've had with trump voters and what is relevant to the russia investigation, what does the president mean by unmasking. you spent a lot of time chasing every hallway known in the capitol complex, devin nunes, the house intelligence committee chairman. he's caused a lot of controversy. he went to the white house for a mysterious briefing. came back the next day and briefed the president on documents shared with him by people who worked for the president. the president says that's the smoking gun. in his view we still don't know much about this, but there was some unmasking by obama administration officials. ad adam schiff finally got down to see those documents. he didn't say there's nothing

there. >> it's confusing because a lot of this is classified, so they can't disclose who they choose to disclose or give selective information to the press to shape their own narratives. and i'm talking about both sides of the aisle on this. what devin nunes said initially was that some information was picked up incidentally through legal u.s. surveillance that suggested that perhaps some trump communications appeared in intelligence reports of trump team communications. it's not even clear if people were -- the people who are in these reports are actually their phone calls are being listened to. we don't know that really at all. nunes has been unclear about that. but what we do know is that some of these identities were, quote, unmasked. that means the people who the surveillance was made looking at person a, person b who was a trump -- maybe a trump official, pra pr perhaps their dieridentities we revealed in these private

reports and then presumably leaked to the media. that's probably what whe saw happen with michael flynn that led to michael flynn's firing. >> i need to stop you for one second. this is the president again with his larger group of advisers. let's listen. >> we're going to start right now. we have many things in common. we have a few things that we don't agree on. and i think that this is going to be a very productive day and it's a great honor. and a great honor to meet you folks. thank you very much for coming. appreciate it very much. { speaking foreign language }

>> thank you, everybody. thank you very much. >> all right. just a glimpse there. we're still getting to thn administratiknow this administration and how it conducts his business. the commerce secretary also at the table. chief strategist steve bannon. this is the u.s. team sitting across the table from an egyptian delegation, talking national security, talking military cooperation. we'll get more readouts on those meetings. let's come back to where we were to the point of this unmasking. there's no question the president is trying to distract us and steer away from the investigation, two committees on capitol hill at least looking into, a, what did russia do and b, were trump people somehow in

collusion with them. here's my point about the president. if there's something to these dou do documents where they think there was political handling, there's one person in the united states of america who has the power to declassify these documents. if it was real, if it was nefarious, if it was big, couldn't the president of the united states end this today? or do it more responsibly? call in past from past administrations, redact the sensitive say and say yes, there was some mischief going ochn. that's my take. >> yeah. i think that could lead to a slippery slope. it could be backfire in a lot of ways. i think the important thing is there are two investigations that are happening or one that's including the russia issue, the russia collusion and then this separate issue of unmasking. the unmasking part is what the

house intelligence committee chairman devin nunes is pushing on pretty aggressively because he believes there's something alarming. that's what the white house wants everybody to focus on. but again i just want to emphasize nunes said that everything that happened was legal. there was nothing illegal in what he found. >> can you imagine if the parties were reversed? can you imagine if let's say hillary clinton or if she were elected or barack obama were in the white house and a democratic chair of the house intelligence committee got a source who we now know is inside the white house to tell him something and then goes back to brief the democratic president? the republicans would be going bonkers. absolutely bonkers. >> that's why no matter how this comes out, half the country is not going to believe it. >> because it's been handled miserably. when you talk to trump voters, the president has done a pretty effective job of distracting them. we think we in the media are not

covering the huge scandal. on the bigger question, has anyone seen any evidence that the former president of the united states did anything illegal or untoward? don't believe the democrats. here's the senate's leading republican. >> have you gotten any intelligence information that indicates the obama administration somehow applied, asked for surveillance of the trump transition, the trump team, any trump associates? >> no. not even a hint of this? not anything? >> not yet. >> do you believe that these allegations are worthy of investigation that the president made, or that they are side track? >> i don't know how many times i have to say it. the committee is going to conduct this investigation. you asked me if i knew anything about alleged wire tapping by the previous president. the answer is no.

>> i think the answer is no. >> i wish his answers would be longer. >> but bleeding republicans are annoyed and they keep getting them because the president keeps tweeting stuff. >> when u.s. citizens get caught up in surveillance, are there identities being protected? is their privacy being protected? all of that has gotten lost because the president fired off an early morning tweet very authoritatively saying that the previous administration had wire tapped him and setting off this whole scharade with the white house and pulling in all of these other investigations that are going on. people are confused. even covering this every day, i have to, like, sit down and really think through what we know and what we don't know and just all of these different things that are happening at the same time. >> it's good to know i'm not

alone. i want to get to one other thing. michael flynn has said he wants an immunicipality deal. so far they have said no thank you. listen to this morning. jason -- michael flynn has to answer to the fbi. he wants the house and senate intelligence committee likely talk to him. listen to this. >> i don't think he should get immunity. for what first of all? if there's an active open investigation by the fbi, they shouldn't do that. our committee has actually been looking at something that we have paperwork that's due from the house, the pentagon and the state department today, but we may be doing something later this week related to his payments that he received from not only russia but turkey as well. you're just not allowed to accept these types of payments as a former military officer. >> so we're adding chapters, not closing chapters when it comes

to michael flynn it appears. >> michael flynn is the big focus on both sides right now. it would be really surprising to see any immunity. the fbi is resisting this. the house and senate republicans are resisting this. and interesting to see jason using his committee to look into his role with working with turkey as well. >> call me skeptical. the idea that republicans don't want michael flynn to have immunity is not that surprising given the fact that what it usually means is that they're going to rat other people out and could make it a lot worse for the administration. i'm not saying that he's not doing his job legitimately. he obviously is being aggressive in other fronts. >> he's got to have something to offer them. specifically he's got to have information about a bigger fish than he was. >> exactly. >> we'll see how that one plays out. michael flynn, if you don't know those pages the chairman talks about, he worked as a lobbyist for the turkey government. we'll see hugh that one plays. love strength, and unity or a party trying to eat its own. it depends on which of president

trump's tweets you pay attention to. sis, and a team of experienced traders ready to help if you need it. it's like having the power of a trading floor, wherever you are. it's your trade. e*trade

don't let dust and allergens and life's beautiful moments. flonase allergy relief delivers more complete relief. flonase helps block 6 key inflammatory substances that cause all your symptoms, including nasal congestion and itchy, watery eyes. flonase is an allergy nasal spray that works even beyond the nose. so you can enjoy every beautiful moment to the fullest. flonase. 6>1 changes everything.

. welcome back. we want to take i straight up to capitol hill. >> the president told me several times he's going to name a moderate to fill the vacancy, but i don't believe him. obama could easily name merit garland. who is a fine man. he probably won't do that because this appointment is about the election. so i'm pretty sure he'll name someone the democratic base wants, unquote. as it turns outs in recognition of the forthcoming election and the republican senate, president obama about name a moderate. now, part of what made merit garland a moderate pack was the

fact that he had a reputation for working with his colleagues on the d.c. circuit to identify areas of agreement. the senator mentioned this. and to craft strong consensus decisions. when i met with chief judge gar lan, i asked him how he does that. he told me that part of how he reaches consensus is by deciding a case on the narrowest grounds possible. by contrast, president trump's nominee, judge gorsuch, doesn't seem quite as interested in reaching consensus or deciding cases narrowly. also the senator talked about this. even when judge gorsuch agrees with a majority in a case, and joins their decision, he frequently writes his own concurring opinion setting out his own views. judge gorsuch has done this 31

times including writing two concurring opinions to two majority decisions that he himself wrote. that's not seeking out consensus. that's holding his nose to join a consensus opinion. and then writing separately to make clear that the decision would have been different if he could have persuaded his colleagues and sees things his way or perhaps to point the way to broader more sweeping rulings in future cases. that kind of thinking gives me concern. particularly in light of what president trump and his staff have been saying about judge gorsuch. white house chief of staff reince priebus along with chief strategist chief on bannon interviewed judge gorsuch before he was nominated by president trump. they later appeared before right wing activists and told the crowd that a justice gorsuch

would bring about, quote, a change of potentially 40 years of law, unquote. so that's what this is about. this isn't about finding a consensus nominee who only calls balls and strikes, a nominee like merit garland. this is about confirming a nominee who will guarantee 40 years, 40 more years of 5-4 decisions favoring corporations over workers and consumers, of prevents americans from getting access to the courts, of favoring big dark money in our election and of giving states a permission slip to target certain people, quote, with almost surgical precision, unquote. in order to make it as difficult

as possible for them to vote. now, judge gorsuch took great pains to paint himself as a mainstream nominee. he said that the tenth circuit ruled unanimously 97% of the time and he was in the majority 99% of the time. that's about right. it was actually a little less, but it doesn't matter. but that's not unusual. it doesn't really provide any insight into his approach of being a judge. after all, courts of appeals are required to follow supreme court precedent and the vast majority of the cases all over the country in courts of appeals are decided unanimously. so while some of our colleagues on the other side a accuse democrats of cherry picking, those writings offer the

clearest window into his judicial fill ones on fe judicial philosophy. those are the cases that show us how he really thinks. i'm afraid this underscores a pattern of siding with corporate interests against everyday americans. i was particularly struck by j gorsuch's dissent in trans am trucking. because in that case he seemed to bend himself into a pretzel in order to side with a trucking company against a truck driver. you've all heard the stories and senate feinstein described it again today and the situation the driver was in. i just want to review the two choices that the truck driver was given by the trucking company presented by his boss

after he had waited three hours in 14 below temperature in a cab that had no heat. he had fallen asleep at one point only to be woken by a phone call from his cousin, thank god. his cousin reported later that he sounded woozy and that he wasn't tracking. that his torso hurt. he couldn't feel his feet. he had trouble breathing. all of these are signs of hypo thermia according to the mayo clinic. his boss after three hours gives him two choices. he can wait there with the

trailer and his cab, the trailer has his load and the brakes are frozen, literally frozen. he can wait there, maybe freeze to death, or he can go on the interstate at 2:00 in the morning with frozen brakes. the fastest you can go then is maybe 15 miles per hour. this is 2:00 in the morning tch. it's dark. it's icy. people are traveling on an interstate 80, 85 miles an hour this time of night. you go 85 miles up a hill, you come over the hill, and suddenly you're coming down on a semi

that's going 10, 15 miles an hour. that's like going 70 miles an hour into a semi that is stopped. >> senate al franken of minnesota explaining why he will vote against neil gorsuch. a case he repeatedly asked the judge about during the confirmation hearing. let me bring back in the panel. a lot of this is theater in the sense that we know how most of the senators are going to vote. next to him is senate chris kunz of delaware. he's one of the four outstanding votes. senator franken was one of the lead democrats going after, prosecuting if you will judge gorsuch's record. this is a -- this part is theater for the most part. there are a couple votes in the committee. at the end of the day each member gets a chance to speak. at the end of the day judge gorsuch will be pushed out of the committee.

most of these saerpenators are taking a full amount of time. some of being quite brief. one said the thing he has learned is the september is not a healthy institution. >> he just learned that now? i'm sbriurprised he didn't know that before he was sworn in. >> i think he has said that before. >> that's right. i will say since we were able to listen to senator franken, i think what that underscored is that it's not just opposition among democrats because they feel they had -- that this is a stolen seat because merit garland was not given a hearing and so on and so forth. that there is genuine concern about judge gorsuch's record as a judge. and that that's sort of the key illustration, that particular case about the truck driver. having said that, you know,

that's one thing. the democrats can vote against him all they want. the issue on the table is the process, the filibuster, and the fact that the way that democrats have decided to go about this will make it, i will say it again, even though i'm getting mean tweets on my twitter, i'm standing by this. i actually feel passionately about this because like both of you guys covered the congress for so long, it is yet another example, and there's blame to go around, another example of the not evolution, the devolution. >> the senate used to be a special place. when yi first came to washingto. let me try to not get too nostalgic. but in the sense of what does this tell snus? the president says maybe i'll work with democrats on health care or this.

sometimes you have a fight and you set it aside when you move on to that. but this town is pretty toxic right now. is there any reason to believe as this fight goes on through the end of the week that bipartisan ship can spring up out of the ground after when we've seen in the first 74 days of the administration? >> the president certainly thinks so. he's always had this mentality of i can go after someone in business and then the next day with them on a project. on the campaign trail we saw him say such cruel terrible things about a lot of his opponents and now they're working in his administration. so he has this operating way of, you know, bringing the enemy in. washington usually doesn't work like that. with him going after not just democrats, but also members of his own party, it's hard to foresee everyone getting along. >> it's going to be so much more complicated as we get closer to midterms, especially democrats thinking they have to cut a deal with the president. that's not going to happen.

>> the fact that there are at least two big things on his agenda that he needs the democrats. structure and tax reform. >> and keeping the government open at the end of the month. busy day here. sorry for the rock and roll. we'll be back tomorrow. wolf blitzer in the chair after a quick break. umbrellas!!

you need one of these. you wouldn't put up with an umbrella that covers you part way, so when it comes to pain relievers, why put up with just part of a day? aleve, live whole not part. tell you what, i'll give it to you for half off.

but they're different.d kind it's nice to remove artificial ingredients. kind never had to. we've used real ingredients, whole nuts, and natural flavors from the very beginning. give kind a try.

hello. i'm wolf blitzer in washington. wherever you're watching from around the world, thanks very much for joining us. we begin with breaking news out of russia. 11 people were killed and at least 39 others were injured in a subway explosion in st. peterbupete petersburg. the entire metro system has now been shut dow