expression of humanity, and it will always be influential. [cheering and applauding] >> good evening, thanks for joining us. the battle to repeal and replace obamacare is firing up again with a new amendment that could leave people with preexisting conditions out of luck. on that this hour. we begin with the russia-white house watch. today we learned that michael flynn is under yet another investigation, this one from the top watch dog at the pentagon over failing to disclose payments he received for a speech at a russian television event. the house oversight committee says newly revealed documents show that flynn was warned explicitly about taking foreign money years ago. this comes just days after the house oversight committee said that flynn may have broken the law by not disclosing the payments. and as you may or may not remember depending on how closely you follow the

president's twitter feed a month ago, the president was saying this about flynn and the russian investigation as a whole. quote, mike flynn should ask for immunity in that this a witch hunt, excuse for big election loss by media and dems of historic proportion. candidate trump in multiple events, shunning one of the many great generals who supported him. >> general flynn, i met him at a ball room because somebody was being honored. you know who it was? it was me. and from the day i met him i was impressed. he's tough, he's smart, he's grate and we're going to get people like that, very actively involved with us. >> how about general flynn? we love general flynn, right? [cheering and applauding] >> by the way, we have a great general with us, general flynn. where is general flynn? he's around here someplace. incredible guy. i want to thank general flynn for being here. great guy. great man. michael flynn, general flynn

is a wonderful man. i think it's really a sad thing that he was treated so badly. >> well, now as the white house continues to face serious questions about flynn under the spectre of ongoing russia investigations, explaining everything but its own vetting everything including the obama administration, manu raju has details. >> reporter: president donald trump's former national security advisor now under a new investigation. >> we have no evidence, zilch, that he obtained permission from the secretary of the army and the secretary of state to accept any foreign government payments as required by law. >> reporter: new documents show the pentagon warned retired lieutenant general michael flynn in 2014 about accepting any foreign payments. suggesting he failed to get permission to travel to moscow. >> thank you so much for inviting me and having me here. >> reporter: he was paid tens of thousands of dollars in 2015 by the kremlin-backed news station r.t. where he also dined with vladimir putin. now the defense department

inspector general is announcing its own investigation into whether flynn broke the law. this after flynn also allegedly failed to disclose foreign payments on a security clearance form, a potential felony. do you believe that he may have broken the law? >> i don't know whether he did or did not. that's why we have an investigation. >> reporter: but the house oversight committee's investigation is now breaking down along party lines with democrats accusing the white house of stonewalling. >> honestly do not understand why the white house is covering up for michael flynn. i don't get it. after the president fired him for lying. >> reporter: the white house has refused to provide certain records it says are not relevant to the flynn investigation. >> why are they relevant to your investigation? >> they also said they didn't have documents? remember that? come on. these guys are playing games and when you see mr. spicer, you can tell him i said that today. all of these documents are relevant because they go to what his relationship was with the

russians, what his relationship was with turkey. did they vet for the highest security position -- i mean, we don't know. >> reporter: at the white house, spokesman sean spicer said the obama administration was to blame for providing the security clearance for flynn in 2016. and pushed back on cummings' attacks. >> all of that clearance was made by the obama -- during the obama administration and apparently with knowledge of the trip that he took. so, that's how the process works. >> michael flynn. >> reporter: democrats are calling for subpoenas to force the white house to comply. but they are running into resistance from republican chairman jason chaffetz. are you satisfied with chairman chaffetz's attempt to get the documents? >> no, no. >> reporter: today the president regrets that he hired michael flynn. >> do you regret hiring michael flynn? >> thank you very much. >> and manu joins us now. has flynn disclosed why he

didn't disclose the payments? >> anderson, a source familiar with the case tells me that michael flynn did not file the proper paperwork with the state department acknowledging that fact. but says this was not an intentional failure to disclose information. in fact, pointing out that flynn actually did brief the defense intelligence agency before and after his trip. that was paid for by that kremlin-backed network r.t. now, the question is what will happen to michael flynn if the government finds that he did try to conceal this payment. one possibility is his pension could be hit, and that could be, according to this source, quote, very consequential to flynn because he lives off of his pension right now. at the same time, anderson, michael flynn's attorney robert kellner, putting out a statement saying the defense department was well aware that this trip occurred, also occurred through the speaker's bureau. but in that statement, anderson, does not say that he sought

permission for these -- for this trip and got permission for the payments as well. that is a central question in this investigation going forward. anderson? >> all right, manu raju, manu, thank you very much. as you heard in manu's piece, while secretary sean spicer, jim accosta joins us now from the white house. you pressed sean spicer about flynn today. what did he say? what answers did you get? >> anderson, white house officials are offering up a new explanation of vetting of national former security advisor michael flynn pointing out he had a security clearance review under the obama administration last year. i asked white house press secretary sean spicer why flynn did not have an additional review before coming into the trump administration. spicer said that would not have been necessary comparing the security clearance process for flynn to that of white house reporters like yours truly who received their entry passes at the white house every couple years. spicer pushed back on the attack from elijah cummings that the

white house is engaging in a cover up. here's what he had to say. >> congressman cummings accuses this white house of a cover up. you say what? >> i say -- i was frankly taken back by his comments today because they're frankly not true. the department of defense was the issuing agency for general flynn's sf-86. we referred them to the department of defense who owns and issued his security clearance, and they got a copy of it. that's how the system works. the documents that he requested he received. >> there are no other documents that you have at this point that could be turned over to this committee that would be helpful for this investigation? >> not that i'm aware of at this point. >> sure. now, the house oversight committee is making it very clear, anderson, they want to see the vetting documents for michael flynn. i am told by a white house official if the oversight committee wants that information, they should actually seek out the trump transition office here in washington, which is apparently still open according to that white house official.

but an aide with that oversight committee said if that's the case, why can't vice-president mike pence help us with that information. he was, after all, in charge of the transition, anderson. >> jim, would it be normal for transition to do their own vetting? mike flynn was head of the defense intelligence agency. so, i mean, it's clearly he had a security clearance before. i mean, would it really be incumbent on the transition team to kind of reassess everything, repolygraph the guy? >> that is the argument you're getting from the white house. i talked to a white house official earlier today who said michael flynn, in fact, did do a polygraph test during that security clearance review that reupping of the security clearance that was conducted early last year during the obama administration. i guess the question that a lot of reporters had in the room today is that, yes, okay, you went through that process about a year ago. might there be other questions that could potentially surface over the course of a year that might be interesting to ask of a national security advisor before he comes into the white house a

year later? according to the white house they're saying that was not necessary. at the same time, anderson, this one white house official said, look, we're not going to defend that guy. that is a direct kboquote and is a far cry from what we heard from the president who said it was a witch hunt. >> thanks, jim accosta. joining me, general, i want to start with you. you know general flynn. you filled out the same forms he did. you had a security clearance. what do you make of this? a, should he have been re-cleared to go to the transition team, which to me seems a little farfetched, but also i don't quite understand how he could have told the defense intelligence agency he spoke at r.t. and went to this thing, and yet not told them that he got paid for it. >> yeah, it's tough for me to talk about, anderson, to be honest with you. this is a standard form 86. this is the form they're talking about. i filled it out multiple times

in my career as did anybody else who gets a security clearance. it's not run exclusively by the department of defense. it's run by the u.s. office of personnel management. so, it's used by the state department, the treasury, cia, dia, anybody that grants a security clearance. now, the thing is in this file it's very intrusive. you see words like, this is your current and historical record, and they ask all sorts of questions about your personnel background. you fill it out. and when this is filled out, then the u.s. office or personnel management sends people around to talk to your relatives or friends you list on here, the friends of your friends you don't list on here. so, they get a pretty good feel for the kind of person you are, if you have any debts, if you have any drug use, drunken driving anything you don't report on. that's what gets you your security clearance. every couple years it's renewed. whenever you go into a new job, your security clearance is

transferred to that new job. and before you can do anything, that new position vets you. so, when i took command of u.s. army europe, before i could go into my first skiff and get a first briefing, somebody said, hey, has the boss got his top secret security briefing? yeah, here it is right here. here's the form. anything changed on this? no, nothing's changed. okay, great, let's move. that's the way it works. there is also something when you retire that you receive an outbrief, that says if you are going to do any of these kind of things, you might draw on your security clearance, you can't deal with foreign governments. and there is another act called the foreign agent registration act of 1938 which they talk to you about. you fall under the emoluments clause which we talked about with the president. so, all of these things are a part of this. truthfully, i do not understand how michael flynn, who processed these paperworks as an intelligence officer, would have known not to tell somebody that he was going to talk or

represent a foreign government. >> because, i mean, it's been a long time since i applied for a security clearance. i seem to remember one of the main questions is are you an agent of a foreign government, or -- >> yep. >> so, any kind of payment from a foreign government or r.t. or turkish guy, i would think, would be very foremost in michael flynn's mind. >> yeah. not only that, but when i was commanding europe, every year when you had to update, you had to say what countries you traveled to and what happened there. was it business, pleasure, did you get any gifts from anyone, and you had to write all of those things down. so, as i traveled about 48 countries of europe, i had to say every country that i went to the following year to update the form. so, all of these things were a part of it. and especially when you're getting payment from a gofrmt like this -- when i saw mike flynn appear at that banquet on tv, i thought, huh, that's kind of weird, what's he doing there? i never would have suspected he would have been being paid by r.t. when i read --

>> he's sitting next to vladimir putin which is -- >> yeah, right. and getting paid for it. when i saw him do an op-ed in a major newspaper and sign his name lieutenant general flynn, i never would have thought he was representing the government of turkey. this is very, very bizarre to me. >> all right. we're going to take a quick break and continue the discussion with the rest of our panel. also later president trump has said over and over again what a horrible deal he thinks nafta is. now he's decided he won't withdraw at this point from it. the president has changed his mind coming up.

the russian white house watch tonight fired national security advisor michael flynn is even more under the microscope. flynn was warned about accepting foreign payments well before he did just that from r.t. tv, a station widely thought of as a propaganda tool by the russian government. flynn was asked how he was vetted, how he was fired. listen. were you fired by the president for lying to the vice-president, would he still have a job today here at the white house? >> we'll just say i think the president made the right call at the right time and it's clearly paid off. i think the president made the right decision at the right time and he continues to stand by that. >> back now with the panel. reporter for the times, what do you make of what flynn has done? >> i think that, look, i don't

know enough about the intricacies of the laws he might have violated as some democrats claim or the way the security clearance process is supposed to work to be able to speak with clarity about what he should have done. the basics of what i know, though, are that the story keeps getting more complicated for the white house. you have seen the white house distance itself from flynn after, as you noted initially, standing by him pretty firmly through the president's twitter feed. >> right. >> it's hard to understand why it is that he would not have been more declarative about what he was doing in terms of receiving this payment. he clearly knew what the rules were. this issue in terms of being a foreign agent for turkey i think has been enormously complicating. it's tied up or connected to a court case that's going on in federal court in manhattan. all of this is not great for a new administration, certainly. and it does raise questions about as scott asked at the briefing, if this had not come up about the transcript where flynn had not been candid with the vice-president about what he had said to the russian ambassador, would he still be there.

this is going to be an ongoing distraction for the west wing i think for sometime. there is so far no clear explanation that makes sense. the thing that flynn's dee fefes say, look, r.t., american journalists appear there, they get paid. they're not former generals, it's not the same time thing. >> jason, as someone who worked on the campaign with the transition, does it -- i don't get why flynn, i mean, who, you know, seems -- presents himself as a straight shooter stand up guy, wouldn't have said especially when all the russia stuff started swirling around, wouldn't have said to people in transition, oh, by the way, you know, i got paid -- to your knowledge, did he ever do that? did he ever kind of give the details to anybody in the transition team? >> not that i'm aware of. but it's also important to keep in mind that from the campaign's perspective, here was a retired army general who had active and valid top secret clearance. and as sean pointed out today in the press conference, not only did he have that, but after

coming back from his trip, he reported to the department of defense that he had made this trip and his top secret clearance was reauthorized. so from the campaign's perspective, even as they then transitioned into the white house, i don't think that's something that you can put on the trump organization or on the campaign or on the white house because, again, he was -- he did have a top secret clearance in good standing. now, does he have some challenges in front of him? i think so. and i think that he is going to have to come forward and explain what went on here and ultimately it was his not being completely forthright with the vice-president that led him to the exit. but, again, from the president's perspective, from the white house perspective, i don't see where they did anything wrong. >> van, what about that? it wasn't just that he was some guy who had a top secret security clearance. he did run the defense intelligence agency. >> i think there are a couple things happening here. first of all, it is, in fact, understandable that the trump organization would assume the best about this guy. it turns out he's sketchy, it turns out he's terrible. that wasn't his reputation as some sketchy terrible

russian-loving dude. so, we can understand why in the mess of a transition which are always difficult, you may give the guy the benefit of the doubt. i'm trying to be very charitable here. what you cannot explain, though, is why you throw somebody under the bus two-thirds of the way or half of the way and then don't flush the toilet. what they should be doing right now is not what they're doing. they should say, listen, we are going to give you everything about this guy. we are going to walk out here with democrats, arm in arm, and say this sort of behavior from american generals is not acceptable period, point blank. we're coming for him and anybody else. and send a clear signal. the reason that you have this story going on and on and on is because they want to throw him halfway under the bus. it's not -- i'm going to make a lot of people mad tonight. it's not necessarily political malfeasance to have trouble in your transition. what you're seeing right now throws up alarm bells across the political spectrum because if this guy is somebody you're

going to defend even partially -- he has done horrible things, there is something wrong in that white house. >> van, i would push back and disagree with you. i don't think the white house is interfering with any sort of investigation. i mean, if you want his speaker records, go talk to the speaker bureau. if you want his sf-86 form go talk -- >> the white house has stuff. why not just give it out? >> this is how you guys get yourselves in a ton of trouble. why make people walk all around the barn and go to wal-mart, mcdonald's trying to find stuff, just put it all out there so we can move on to the next story. and this is the behavior that creates the level of suspicion and anxiety you see right now. >> here's the important thing. the committee sent these letters to the d.o.d. they sent it to the various different agencies. i mean, if you're sending a letter to the d.o.d. wanting to get -- inside baseball without form is called the sf-86 form. that's up to the d.o.d. to provide. >> if the white house has documents that are germane -- >> the white house has not invoked executive privilege over anything here. they are not stonewalling or

getting away with anything -- >> listen, ee lielijah cummings tough guy, not going to go down field and break with his counterpart unless he's experiencing really serious opposition. what you saw elijah cummings do tonight and the challenge he laid down to sean spicer should let you know there is a big problem going on and it is senseless from the beginning on this whole russia stuff. the white house said look, if we want to have an investigation -- >> they should have an investigation. it has never been, to van's point, we're not going to do anything -- >> again, going back to the earlier point about the president sort of defending flynn early on, i think that there has been -- i'm saying this is why this is happening i don't want to kelkt the two, but i do want to take note that the white house has been -- some in the white house have been concerned about flynn has been around them for a very long time. if flynn feels as if he is being fully thrown under the bus or the toilet flushing whatever metaphor we're using before, that risk coming back possibly

painfully against the president. i think they're mindful of that. >> we have to take a break. thank you. van, maggie. do they have a new strategy on nafta? what president trump is saying about it when we continue. [fbi agent] you're a brave man, mr. stevens. your testimony will save lives. mr. stevens? this is your new name. this is your new house. and a perfectly inconspicuous suv. you must become invisible. [hero] i'll take my chances. as after a dvt blood clot,ital i sure had a lot to think about.

what about the people i care about? ...including this little girl. and what if this happened again? i was given warfarin in the hospital, but wondered, was this the best treatment for me? so i asked my doctor. and he recommended eliquis. eliquis treats dvt and pe blood clots and reduces the risk of them happening again. yes, eliquis treats dvt and pe blood clots. eliquis also had significantly less major bleeding than the standard treatment. both made me turn around my thinking. don't stop eliquis unless your doctor tells you to. eliquis can cause serious and in rare cases fatal bleeding. don't take eliquis if you have an artificial heart valve or abnormal bleeding. if you had a spinal injection while on eliquis call your doctor right away if you have tingling, numbness, or muscle weakness. while taking eliquis, you may bruise more easily ...and it may take longer than usual for bleeding to stop. seek immediate medical care for sudden signs of bleeding, like unusual bruising. eliquis may increase your bleeding risk if you take certain medicines. tell your doctor about all planned medical or dental procedures. eliquis treats dvt and pe blood clots.

plus had less major bleeding. both made eliquis the right treatment for me. ask your doctor if switching to eliquis is right for you. bryan denton: we spent almost the entirety of the next 10 hours under fire. you know, everybody was very focused, looking out the window, scanning for car bombs. being outside of a vehicle was suicide. to say that i wasn't operating at a constant level of fear, i'd be lying to you. if i didn't believe in the importance of journalism, i wouldn't be able to continue to do this work. ( ♪ ) i'm bryan denton, photojournalist for the new york times.

but we've got the get tdigital tools to help. i'm bryan denton, now with xfinity's my account, you can figure things out easily, so you won't even have to call us. change your wifi password to something you can actually remember, instantly. add that premium channel, and watch the show everyone's talking about, tonight. and the bill you need to pay? do it in seconds. because we should fit into your life, not the other way around. go to xfinity.com/myaccount

president trump is tapping deal making skills. u.s. may stick with the north america free trade agreement after all. he was asking to renegotiate nafta rather than terminate. i agreed. subject to the fact we do not reach a fair deal for all we will then terminate nafta. relationships are good. deal very possible. he now says a deal is very possible. not what he said obviously for months on the campaign trail. >> if and when i win, we are going to renegotiate the disaster known as nafta. a trump administration will renegotiate nafta. and if we don't get the deal we want, we will terminate nafta and get a much better deal for our workers. there has never been a trade deal as bad as nafta. nafta has been such a disaster. nafta has been a disaster for this country. we have nafta, it's a

disaster. nafta was a disaster. nafta is probably -- the worst economic trade deal ever signed in history. nafta is one of the worst deals signed by our country. nothing is bad as nafta. nothing can be as bad as nafta. nafta is a bad, bad, bad deal. we are going to renegotiate nafta to make it better. and if they don't agree, we will withdraw. >> so, it is what he is saying now. joining us again jim accosta at the white house. these phone calls to mexico and canada, do we know the details? >> reporter: what we know, anderson, it is important to preface this earlier in the day yesterday white house officials were saying anonymously to the reporters the president was considering signing this executive order to declare his intent to renegotiate or withdraw from nafta and then he had these phone conversations with the leaders from mexico and canada and then came the statement he was not going to terminate nafta at this time. the president was insistent

today he was not softening at all on this issue. here's what he had to say. >> if you check my campaign -- any of my speeches, i said i'll either renegotiate or i'll terminate. so, they asked me to renegotiate, i will, and i think we'll be successful in the renegotiation, which frankly would be good because it would be simpler. but we have to make a deal that's fair for the united states. they understand that. and, so, i decided rather than terminating nafta, which would be a pretty big, you know, shock to the system, we will renegotiate. >> now, anderson, i'm told in addition to the calls from the leaders of canada and mexico he was talking to cabinet and business leaders before making this decision. as you played in that long montage of clips, he gave the impression during the campaign he did not like nafta and it was going to be out the door if the canadians and the mexicans did not agree to his terms during a new round of negotiations. so, if he decides to not

renegotiate or withdraw from nafta, we're going to have a situation where once again the president has a very big policy reversal on his hands. >> but the reality of renegotiating a deal in nafta, how long a process would that be? do we know? >> reporter: it could take several months. it may take a congressional buy-in. that is not clear at this point. however, what we're told by senior administration official is that next week we do expect to see the president take some kind of action on this to begin the process of renegotiating, as he said. but, again, this is one of those processes that it is not clearly laid out in terms of how the president is going to be able to get a better deal from the canadians and the mexicans. and you're hearing from canadian officials north of the border, anderson, saying they are going to be very tough when it comes to these trade deals that they feel perhaps there are some areas where things can be renegotiated. but white house press secretary sean spicer was saying today now

there are other issues, trade issues they want to take about, dairy issues and so on. in has the potential to get complicated for the president to make good on this promise. >> thanks, jim accosta. back to the panel. maggie, i saw people criticizing the president, he's changed again. what he's saying today does sound very much like what he said on the campaign trail, he wants to renegotiate. he's not emphasizing how terrible it is perhaps as much as he did. there is continuity there. >> it is not as dramatic a shift as on some other issues we've seen with the president. on this one, however, he actually took both positions. i'm going to negotiate and then i'm going to scrap it so he can say he's doing both. he is sticking with one now. the bigger question, number one, how incredibly big this all is. we don't really understand by what mechanism they're planning to do this, what this would look like. i was at a background briefing at the white house last night where a senior administration official said two things. nafta as we flow it is dead. again, i don't know what that

will look like. nafta is not zero sum, as this person put it, there are some benefits to the agricultural industry and the president is aware of that. you did not hear the president talk about that on the campaign trail. it was the theme we're getting ripped off trump has been talking about 30 years, but that's not a surprise. i think the confusion here is whether -- and this is a problem with this white house and this is a problem with anonymous sourcing in this white house which we have all relied on -- is it's not clear whether this was some kind of crazy like a fox move to leak this out to bring people to the table, or whether this was a whip saw approach. i know they are saying that the president reached out to the leaders of mexico and canned canada. my understanding is they called him after this word got out and then it was sort of restructured back toward a renegotiation. >> you know, people are very critical of the president when he said that, you know, china's premiere had given him a 10-minute talk about chinese history. after that it was going to be as hard.

it does seem like he is -- he hasn't radically changed on nafta, though clearly he's emphasizing something else. but he's looking to renegotiate. is it fair for the democrats to be kind of hammering him on this? you can argue he's open to changing or he's open to listening to other people. that's the nice way to put it. >> the democrats hammer him on this. the people came out quickly to defend nafta were actually republican senators. the ones that came out the quickest were the border state senators, senator john mccain, jeff flake from arizona and texas. it matters to them. they know the ben filgefits of in their states. i think the point you were making, we see this over and over again from president trump. here's the bottom line. we elected a government neophyte. he had never done this. he's a tv producer and real estate developer and a brand maker. he's an expert in that. but he's learned in the last 100 days that health care is complicated. that nato is not obsolete.

and now he's learning that nafta, getting rid of it would be a shock to the system as he said. so, i think what we're seeing is a guy who is learning as he goes along and who is hearing from a lot of people. that being said, i always come to the table that a lot of what donald trump does is a distraction mode, is a distraction tactic for, you know, a bad press date. he's also very good at that. >> i guess you can look at it charitably, he's somebody who listens to other people and can alter his view, or he should have known that while he was running. >> harry true man was a neophyte, too, but he was not as appallingly like a neophyte as this president allows himself to be. whether it's on north korea or on health care, things where he could know better. and he holds himself out this way. nafta, as i think, i have no problem with the big montage and the fact he was really hard edge in the campaign and he says look, we're going to negotiate if we can get a better deal but this is a principle. i think he's taking a principled

approach. this is an area that he actually has thought about and has railed against for a long time. here's what i don't like. i think this crisis management is ridiculous. this idea of coming out and saying, we're going to scrap this thing and turning around, now it's a negotiation because we had a good -- that's bad and it's bad because even if he gets a good deal out of it, doing that this time, his word starting to be suspect and that starts to apply itself to crises like north korea. that's bad for the presidency. >> we have to take a quick break. i want to get the panel's take on president trump's own report card on the president's first 100 days in the office ahead.

this afternoon president trump signed an executive order aimed at protecting whistle-blowers at the department of veterans affairs. at the same event he mentioned the approaching milestone and touted his team's work on capitol hill. >> during these first 100 days, which as you know i've been saying this, a very extreme emphasis placed on these 100 days, joni. it's not quite as big as they're saying. but we have really laid a foundation. we've had a lot of legislation

passed which nobody understands. i think it's 28 bills as of this moment. somebody said by the time it ends it's 32 bills. and tremendous legislation. >> by the way in case you're wondering who joni is who president trump just mentioned that would be iowa senator joni ernst, a veteran. we're back now with the panel. kiersten, it's easy to point out the discrepancy between president trump saying this is an artificial benchmark which it obviously is and also putting out during the campaign a 100-day plan for what he was going to accomplish much of which has not been done. >> right. he's right, but i think you can place too much emphasis on this and he can still have a successful presidency whether he's successful now or not. but you're right, he did put out this contract, a lot of which has not been accomplished and this was something he was talking about saying even at 90 days he was having a wonderful 90 days. so, it's something he's focused on a lot. and the reality is he got kind of out of the gate, things didn't go very well. but so much focus on the travel

ban. and i think that ate up a lot of their time unnecessarily. and he hasn't had a lot of successes to point to other than the confirmation of gorsuch to the supreme court, which is a big accomplishment, no question about that. but most -- >> right, very rare for a president to get that so early on. >> right. i think -- but most of the things he's done are executive orders and most of them are just undoing things that president obama did, which, you know, i guess is a promise he made. but it's not doing anything really new and he doesn't have any major legislation, he had a huge failure obviously with obamacare. >> and to get gorsuch they had to change the rules of the senate. jason, one place in the interview that president trump gave yesterday, i think it was to the washington examiner, anyway, he grades himself and he talks about his first 100 days. >> i gave us an "a." i would say communication would be a little bit less than an a because i don't think we've gotten the word out what we've done because i think we're so busy getting it done that we're not talking about it. >> i mean, i do think there are

things that they have been able to accomplish, that they haven't been able to get a word out. i think the drop in illegal immigration which obviously predated him as well, but it has been significant, more than -- i mean i've seen anywhere from 40 to 60 % in the last three months of the trump presidency. but a lot of the not getting the message out is lack of message by the president himself. he does step on his own successes at times. >> so, if we take a step back or slow it down and look at really what this 100 days has been about, yes, we're able to get justice neil gorsuch through, very important. i really think the biggest take away something maggie touched on a moment ago is a return to these more populist trade policies the president has been talking about for some 30 years. when coupled with things like the tax cuts, yes, they're being done by executive orders, but again, that's why folks voted for donald trump because they wanted to see these policies put in action. and when he talked about the forgotten men and women of america in his inauguration speech, this is really what he was speaking to.

and i think there's been -- it's been really slow for the media to catch onto this, the fact that these -- bringing these economic populist policies to the front and center, the coupling of economic and security issues as we start talking about canada and mexico. and, look, when you talk about nafta which we talked about just a moment ago, if this wasn't -- if the u.s. wasn't getting screwed in this, you wouldn't have had the leaders of canada and mexico call him so quick. i think that was a great move by the white house. >> jason ignored the whole point about the president stepping on it, though. maggie, to that point, he has had the speech he gave to joint session of congress which was very well received. he stepped on it two days later i think it was. >> i think it is an incontrovert i believe this president has in the first two months had enormous problems staying on track and staying focused. >> do you think it's calming down? >> i do actually. i was going to say two things. his quote about, you know, we've done well messaging or communications, we've done less well, you could close your eyes

and that's barack obama saying the same thing about his own administration which he said versions of that, number one. number two, i do think -- and look, it is subtle because part of the problem with this president in terms of people seeing a change is there is so much frenzy all the time. it's like watching a dust cloud go down the road. but there is actually a change. do not under estimate the degree to which that wiretap tweet of his was a problem for him that he realized was a problem for him and he has been trying to move away from slowly. >> we have to take a break. i want to thank everybody on the panel tonight. house republicans are scrambling to take another swing at owe bham a care. it may be a tough sell for moderate republicans. we'll look at that ahead. ♪ oh no. schwab, again? index investing for that low? that's three times less than fidelity... ...and four times less than vanguard. what's next, no minimums? ...no minimums. schwab has lowered the cost of investing again. introducing the lowest cost

index funds in the industry with no minimums. i bet they're calling about the schwab news. schwab. a modern approach to wealth management.

day 100 for president trump is now a whisper away. one of donald trump's campaign prom sises repealing and replacing obamacare still in process. there is a new bill in play and this time the conservatives who have torpedoed the first version are apparently on board. house speaker paul ryan still needs to nail down 216 votes to pass the legislation. this time the ball is in the moderate's court. phil mattingly has details. >> reporter: tonight republicans renewing their attempt to push through the health care repeal and replace they long promised.

>> we have a moral obligation to prevent people from getting hurt, to stop damage from being continued. >> reporter: now with the backing of the conservative house freedom caucus, who opposed the original health care bill that stalled just hours before heading to a vote. >> i think we're making very good progress. don't have -- we're going to go when we have the votes. but that's the decision we'll make when we have it. i would argue this is a bill that a moderate would more likely want to >> the change a new amendment. a member of the more moderate tuesday group, the amendment would let states apply for waivers that could weaken several key obama insurance forms including price protections for those with preexisting conditions. what benefits and the ban on charging carriers based on a person's background. >> my one and only goal in this has been to try to make this bill something that helps the

health insurance market survive. >> but all eyes now are on the party's moderates who are far from the amendment arguing it will leave more people without coverage. >> it doesn't represent the people i represent. one of the complaints is the affordable care act didn't use it because their deductibles were high and people with preexisting conditions, you're right. we can't deny them coverage. >> democrats are quick seizing on that opposition. >> the new trump camera will allow states to decide whether or not insurers have to cover americans with preexisting conditions. it's hard to come up with a crueller bill. >> in ramping up their efforts to slow down the process altogether now saying they'll oppose stop gap funding measures to keep republicans open. president trump's 100th day in office. >> what you see in the gop haste

to pass the bill and trump trying to cram it down in the last 100 days i think president trump is making fools of the members of congress, of his own party. >> but house speaker paul ryan is pushing back saying the blame for a potential government shutdown will fall squarely on democrats. >> so where does the bill stand? do the republicans have enough vote? >> well, as we speak, house leaders have just walked into house speaker paul ryan's to see if there's enough to vote on this bill. there's been a furious whip effort by the leadership to try and get the votes on board. the reality right now here is up to this point, they have been short and that could be fatal for even this new it ration of the bill going forward. we will find out after this meeting but there's no question there has been a late blitz to

move this quickly, to try to get that underneath that 100 day mark. the big question is can they get there? >> just ahead, we return to a county in texas where nearly everyone voted for donald trump and asked them how they grade his first 100 days. this is your new name. this is your new house. and a perfectly inconspicuous suv. you must become invisible. [hero] i'll take my chances.

as we said day 100 is almost here. he laid out an ambitious to do list. he seemed to embrace the 100 day mark. as you know, we think it's important to hear from as many voices as possible in this divided nation so i want to hear from prison supporters, so we return to a town he visited just a week after the election. >> roberts county in the texas panhandle is one of the most sparsely populated counties in the nation. fewer than 1,000 people live here. but it's number one when it comes to the election of donald trump as president. >> donald trump is now 100 days into his term. >> yes, sir. >> on a 1 to 10 scale what would you give him? >> i would give him a 10. >> 95% picked him to be their president. the highest percentage of any county in the nation, but many voters we talked to in the

county seat are concerned not so much about the president but concerned for him. >> he's been doing his job. congress has not been doing their job. >> concerned because of the establishment. >> one of his promises was he would drain the swamp. do you feel he's draining the swamp? >> the swamp is fighting back. >> many of the voters we talked to here tell us they believe the president won't be able to fulfill many of his promises if he doesn't get help from others. >> both the democrats and the republicans. >> so you think the republican led congress is not helping the president? >> especially the head of the republican congress. i don't think it's helped him. >> you're talking about paul ryan. >> i'm talking about paul ryan. >> you don't put any blame on donald trump? >> no, i put some blame on donald trump but he is trying to do something. it's better than what we had the last eight years. >> the act of trying means a lot here. >> do you feel he's kept his

promises he made for the first 100 days? >> we asked about his contract with american voters where he vowed to work with american voters to fight for their passage in the first 100 days. >> nine of them have not been introduced. only obamacare has been introduced and failed. so he hasn't kept the end of his contract. >> he's had the russian thing throwed at him. he's got a big problem with korea throwed at him. >> if a promise a promise? is that a problem sf. >> a promise is a promise as long as you're working on it. when you throw your hands up and say i can't do it it's no longer a promise. it's a broken promise but he has not throwed his hands up. >> many voters are concerned his presidency hasn't gone as spooutly as they would have hoped but we haven't met anyone

today who wishes they'd voted for hillary clinton instead. >> thanks very much and thanks for watching 360. time to head things over to jake tapper. now know, maybe the fact that obama had fired flynn was all the vetting process trump needed. the lead start right now. a top house democrat and at the first time the pentagon is providing new information that makes it look as cloudy as a bowl of por ridge. >> and how voters feel about commander in chief trump. his military moves and whether those moves have made america more or less safe. the united nations ambassador nikki haley will be here for reaction p and republicans