welcome to "inside politics." i'm john king. thank you for sharing your day with us. a dramatic day on the world stage for president trump, who threatens to cut off aid to the palestinians because he says they don't show him proper respect. big news here at home, too. the president says he's now willing to answer questions under oath from the russia special counsel. his lawyers say not so fast. and just as the white house prepares to take a tough line in new immigration negotiations, the president embraces what many conservatives call amnesty.

>> do you want citizenship for d.r.e.a.m.ers? >> we're going to morph into it. it's going to happen. >> what does that mean? >> morph into it, what's that mean? >> over a period of 10 to 12 years, somebody does a great job. if you do a great job, i think it's a nice thing to have the incentive of after a period of years being able to become a citizen. >> we begin a packed hour of breaking news with president trump in davos, proving once again his way is different and disruptive, meeting with israel's prime minister a short time ago. mr. trump threatened to cut off aid to the palestinians because he said they're not treating him and his administration with respect. the threat came after the president bragged about his decision to move the united states embassy in israel from tel aviv to jerusalem, the biggest reason the palestinians are angry with the trump white house. >> when they disrespected us a week ago by not allowing our

great vice president to see them, and we give them hundreds of millions of dollars in aid and support, tremendous numbers, numbers that nobody understands, that money is on the table. >> cnn's jeff zeleny is live in dave yos. remarkable, it's news anyway, but the point that the president choose a summit meeting where it's usually kumbaya, let's get along, not disrupt things. >> reporter: it may be no surprise, but president trump not mincing words and taking a stand different from other u.s. presidents who tried to broker middle east peace not necessarily by insaergt themselves, but by trying to bring bother sides together. but the president said directly and clearly that he would withhold aid from palestinians if they do not come to the negotiating table. now, this certainly breaks with precedent that the u.s. has had for decades trying to negotiate peace. the trump administration argued that has not worked, so he's trying to take a different approach here, but the whole

point the palestinians are angry at the trump white house, john, as you mentioned, is the decision to move the embassy. so, this appears to be at somewhat of an impasse here. the president has not talked about middle east peace much for a while. he mentioned it here because he was meeting a very friendly meeting with benjamin netanyahu as he begins his day here at the world economic forum in davos, but it certainly raises the question, john, how middle east peace will ever become unfrozen, unstuck here. the president said he has a proposal, did not say what that was, but certainly, outrage across the palestinian leadership, and the arab world about all of this. middle east peace looks more elusive than ever. >> jeff zeleny in davos, thank you for the reporting. the president also met with british prime minister theresa may and delivers a speech tomorrow. the america first president is somewhat of an odd fit at a gathering that extolls global trade and cooperation, but he says his message in davos is

simple. >> peace and prosperity, peace and prosperity. >> with us is maggie haberman with "the new york times," jonathan martin also of "the new york times", and robert italia with "bloomberg." again, just the idea that the president, number one, wants to say this publicly right now, number two, at davos, where people are saying here comes america first, here comes the disrupter, here comes the guy who doesn't go by the normal rules. big deal. >> it is a big deal, and it's also a way for donald trump to do what he likes doing best, which is keep the focus on him. and i honestly think that is basically the formula. as a policy decision, doing this publicly where he is now is curious, suggesting that it is about a lack of respect is another reminder of his tendency to conflate himself with the institution he serves, but it is not a surprise. it is also not a surprise that he wanted to go to davos. so you could make the argument that this is mr. america first and this is going to be an odd thing. a, he's been treated with

adoration and attention. people taking selfies with him, the room was crowded, people were referencing him in their speeches. this is a crowd of elites who represent people who did not accept him as a developer and reality tv star in new york and now they have to, and that, i think, is a huge draw for him. >> that's one of the reasons he's there. sometimes when the president says things, especially on the foreign affairs front, his aides have to clean it up and say that's not exactly what we're doing, that's the president's tweet or view, but our policy is this. but listen to nikki haley at the united nations, putting the administration on notice that from the trump white house perspective, they've had enough. >> in his speech, president abbas declared the landmark oslo peace accords dead. he rejected any american role in peace talks. he insulted the american president. but we will not chase after a palestinian leadership that lacks what is needed to achieve

peace. to get historic results, we need courageous leaders. >> it has always been, as jeff zeleny noted, u.s. policy to at least on paper be the honest broker. of course, past presidents have seen israel as a rock-solid u.s. ally, the u.s. would always lean towards israel, but u.s. presidents pick up the phone and say stop building settlements to the israeli leaders or you're being counterproductive, and try to bring the palestinians in. why this break from the trump white house and what did they expect to get from it, a more happy benjamin netanyahu, or do they actually think by breaking the old framework, they can build a new one? >> i'm not sure that it matters and i'll tell you why. i think what they have been saying is the only way to restart the peace process is to take jerusalem off the table, a lot of other things will fall into place. it sort of suggests that they're going to ask israel to make concessions. they're going to ask israel to make concessions going forward. but i think what seems to be

emerging, it looks like the u.s. putting its thumb on the scale much more than in previous administrations, making the calculus that saudi arabia, egypt, jordan, those being three of the countries, don't care as much anymore. they are not going to rally for the palestinians the way they might have before because they're going to rally more around the anti-iran issue and sort of regional gulf issues, right? and that was part of what mike pence's trip was about, to kind of test the water. of course, publicly you saw egypt and jordan raising issues about the jerusalem decision, but the real test was behind the scenes what kind of conversations were they having and were those countries walking away from intelligence-sharing or that kind of thing, and the answer was no. >> it's personal with this president, too. and you know -- >> says he's great, the palestinians -- >> the palestinians snub pence and beebe is full charm of exhibit. don't forget israel is to name a subway station after president trump. they get the politics here domestically, and they are

full-on flattering. they're obviously not going to do that, especially after moving the u.s. embassy, or the capital to jerusalem. so, it's -- you can't detach trump's impulses from his perception of slights or flatter. everything is through that prism. >> so, u.s. policy dating back decades, through republican and democratic administrations gets flushed with a personal love me. >> a novel approach to middle east peace, to say the least that would make sense that there is a strategy underlining it. the united states' position has been not to prejudge the issue of jerusalem, which president trump has now done because that has been one of the three issues that has hung up middle east peace for decades, throughout attempts by republican and democratic administrations, along with the issue of settlements and along with the issue of -- >> and it's an excellent point, because how he does it, how he talks about jerusalem is fascinating, having covered this issue back to the clinton and george w. bush administration even. listen to the president here describing his decision, again, his criticism around the world for deciding you're officially

going to move the embassy from tel aviv to jerusalem now, which is putting your thumb on the scale, saying jerusalem is the capital of israel, always supposed to be a final status issue in the negotiations. here's how the president describes it. >> there were never any deals that came close because jerusal jerusalem -- you couldn't ever get past jerusalem. so when people say i set it back, i didn't set it back. i helped it, because by taking it off the table, that was the toughest issue. >> number one, i think that's not accurate historically in the sense that there was a deal at camp david in the clinton administration that divided jerusalem. both parties signed on to it, ehud barak and arafat walked back from it at the last minute. deciding to move the embassy, if he said everyone knows israel won't sign a deal that gives it at least part of jerusalem, therefore i'm doing this to be honest and candid about it, that's one way to deal with it. instead, he says i'm taking it

off the table, essentially it's israel's. >> jonathan was mouthing this to you before, but i think we're missing a key name in this, a major donor to the republican party and to this president or certain republican causes, and this is a signature issue, an issue that he has been pressing this president about since the day they took office. they kicked the can down the road for a while and now you are seeing the president talk about it openly. i also think that you can't really -- we all like to think there's some deep criminology going on here. number one, this is his deep impulse control and two, his fear of losing his base and what he constantly says is the evangelicals really care about this issue, his phrase, the evangelicals. i think that is where he's coming at this from. >> let's not forget that israel is one of two countries around the world where president trump's approval hasn't risen since the end of the obama administration. it's crashed everywhere else, the other country is russia. president netanyahu has a way with the president. he talked about the art of the deal and knows how to reach him. world leaders that have been successful in getting through to president trump and getting what they want from him are the ones

that roll out the red carpet and shower him with praise. >> to that point, the president loves to be loved, but he's had to delay and maybe indefinitely, a state visit to the uk because they're afraid of protests, they're afraid people will be in the streets protesting. yet today, with prime minister theresa may, he wants to say everything's great. >> prime minister and myself have had a really great relationship, although some people don't necessarily believe that, but i can tell you, i have a tremendous respect for the prime minister and the job she's doing. i think the feeling is mutual from the standpoint of liking each other a lot. and so, there was a little bit of a false rumor out there. i just wanted to correct it, frankly. >> fake news! >> she sort of managed a shrug there, didn't she some. >> yeah, she didn't exactly jump in there and say i agree. >> no, she did not. a, number one, this president often says something this false when it is true.

it's often become seen as the kiss of death in the white house when he gives a full-throated endorsement to a staff member, because they tend to -- right, john kelly is doing a great job he said yesterday. they tend to know what follows. i think that he is aware of the fact that perceptions are poor about the u.s. now that it has changed dramatically. he is hearing that it is in part because of his rhetoric and in part because of a sense of uncertainty about negotiating partners, certainly something we have heard from the republican congress as well about this white house. he usually can only adjust it, again, when it is in the context of something like that, which is about him personally on a relationships basis. and i think that is why you saw him push back on that -- >> and when the person's sitting right next to him, too, right? he always wants to please the person next to him. i remember when he was sworn in, he had shadowed obama for a year and a half, and after meeting with obama, he said for days, i liked him a lot, i think he liked me, too. so he always wants to be liked in the moment. >> in the moment. and look, lindsey graham had a

really -- graham who's been all over the place with trump, smashing his own cell phone in the campaign because trump was reading the number aloud at a rally, then they became golf partners and then had a falling out over the president's comments about certain nations. he said essentially as long as you're being nice to him, you're his best friend, and that is how he sees this. >> i have to sneak in a quick break. next, the president says, absolutely to a big date, under oath, with the special counsel.

you don't want to live with mom and dad forever, do you? i'm making smoothies! how do i check my credit score? credit karma. don't worry, it's free. credit karma. give yourself some credit.

if yor crohn's symptoms are holding you back, and your current treatment hasn't worked well enough, it may be time for a change. ask your doctor about entyvio, the only biologic developed and approved just for uc and crohn's. entyvio works at the site of inflammation in the gi tract and is clinically proven to help many patients achieve both symptom relief and remission. infusion and serious allergic reactions can happen

during or after treatment. entyvio may increase risk of infection, which can be serious. pml, a rare, serious, potentially fatal brain infection caused by a virus may be possible. this condition has not been reported with entyvio. tell your doctor if you have an infection, experience frequent infections or have flu-like symptoms or sores. liver problems can occur with entyvio. if your uc or crohn's treatment isn't working for you, ask your gastroenterologist about entyvio. entyvio. relief and remission within reach.

president trump laying down an important marker and one his lawyers immediately tried to qualify. >> are you going to talk to mueller? >> i'm looking forward to it, actually. >> you want to? >> here's a start -- listen, there's been no collusion whatsoever. there's no obstruction whatsoever, and i'm looking forward to it.

>> do you have a date set? >> i don't know. yesterday they were talking about two or three weeks, but i would love to do it. again, i have to see, subject to my lawyers and all of that, but i would love to. >> so you would do it under oath? >> oh, i would do it under oath, yeah, absolutely. >> absolutely. the president's lawyers say, though, he was talking hurriedly, off the cuff, and negotiations with the special counsel are ongoing. the state tried to save the president a little wiggle room, the lawyers, the white house is trying to make a case its cooperation with the special counsel has been in the white house view unprecedented. there are 28 pages of white house documents, nearly 50 interviews with white house and former campaign officials and more. suffice to say, many of the president's friends think all this talk of cooperation is, well, nuts! he should treat mueller like a plague, trump friend christopher ruddy told the "washington post." he should assert executive privilege in every opportunity he can. let's start with the president's words, absolutely looking forward to it, even under oath. even in donald trump's america,

can you back away from that? >> no, and they've tried to put it into that's just how he talks genre, which is always sort of this is what he said, but what he meant was. he was pretty clear. and i would say one thing that he seemed -- he was pretty clear except for this point. and he kept raising this issue. i asked the question about under oath. he kept raising the question of hillary clinton and what did she do when she spoke to investigators during the e-mail investigation. she was not under oath, and you want to know why? among other reasons, it was not a grand jury, and if you lie to the fbi, that's a crime, regardless. >> felony. >> correct. and michael flynn could inform him of that, among other people. so i don't think that he fully understands where this falls. but i think he can't help himself, and i do think it is true that he has been saying to people privately, because i've heard this over the last couple weeks, that he really wants to talk to mueller because he believes that he can sell someone.

>> like bill clinton thinks he can avert the devil. >> very good comparison. so, i think it is true that that's where he would like to go, but the under oath thing is -- >> you make a key point, he doesn't need to be under oath. i assume his lawyers will fight that tooth and nail, but if you lie in a conversation with the fbi is a felony. and like you said, if he doesn't understand, after all this time, beginning of the second year in office, this prospect of an interview with bob mueller has loomed over him for months. if he still doesn't get the quicksand of that, that's why people like chris ruddy are saying just do not do this, over your dead body. >> it is not being under oath. it is about the interview, period. there is a big question about whether he will do written questions which some people close to him think makes much more sense. i would be surprised if mueller agrees to that entirely. >> fundamentally, either way, if you're in a deposition type of setting, what you're looking at is not broad strokes, like was there collusion, no, there was no collusion. it's very detailed things, like a timeline, like that lawyers

are prepared for that the investigators are prepared for. like you said in january that you did this, but then you said in march that you never did this, and then you said in may that you did this, so which one is it? and all of this stuff becomes lined up. and whether it's under oath or just with a stenographer and for the record, it becomes a timeline against which any case about obstruction, about testimony that conflicts with itself becomes placed on the record. there is an enormous vulnerability in participating in this. >> and this started, was there collusion, was there cooperation, were there conversations with the russians during the 2016 campaign, and let's look at the bad things the russians did that every intelligence agency says they did during the campaign. now it becomes about presidential behavior once in office. again, among the possibilities, we know the special counsel's looking into for possibilities of obstruction of justice, firing of the former fbi director james comey, the air force one meeting to help donald trump jr. come up with a statement, the initial statement was not truthful about the trump

tower meeting where they discussed dirt on hillary clinton with the russians. conversations with senior administration officials, including two fbi directors about loyalty, and conversations about the michael flynn investigation, michael flynn firing. this is the presidential conduct. here is the president talking again yesterday saying i'm not afraid at all because there's nothing there. >> do you think robert mueller will be fair to you in this larger investigation? >> we're going to find out. we're going to find out. >> are you concerned? >> because here's what we'll say, and everybody says, no collusion. there's no collusion. now they're saying, oh, well, did he fight back? if you fight back, you fight back. john, you fight back. whoa, it's obstruction! so, here's the thing, i hope so. >> so, we know this president and this businessman likes to think of himself as a counterpuncher, somebody raises something against him, he wants to fight back. he says i'm just fighting back. that's one thing with the public arena and news media, it's another thing if it includes firing james comey because he won't pledge loyalty. it's a different thing in the

legal environment, if you keep michael flynn on the staff for a fetch more days and only fire him after it becomes public that he lied. and so, that's the question. that's i think why people have such fear of the president doing this, despite his confidence, because other witnesses have said mueller's staff is so meticulous that they have essentially recreated meetings. you said this at 9:27, you did that at 9:28, you left the meeting and sent that e-mail, and that they have a level of detail that if the president wanders, he's trouble. >> and the timeline is crucial to building any kind of obstruction of justice case where you need a paper trail of thoughts and intentions. the president has not helped himself saying that the comey firing was linked to the investigation, the tweet in december suggesting he knew flynn lied to the fbi. there is that dimension, and i'm sure mueller will want to shake the tree on this, at the least. the idea of prosecuting or nailing a president on obstruction of justice is an extremely high bar. the other thing that i would bet a nickel that mueller wants to look into or poke at is money

laundering. that's the ball game, if he can get there. president trump's knns competences are the one black point of his life -- >> it's the ball game that relates to the president and son-in-law jared kushner and i think that's where mueller will be looking. but you raised a key point. this is a president who turns everything into an up-down referendum on himself, so it becomes obstruction as fighting back. oh, you know, they say you fought back, fighting back, that's obstruction. he has an inability, or at least has demonstrated an inability to understand sort of nuance, gray area, shades of something not -- >> like asking fbi directors for loyalty's different than asking your housing secretary from loyalty. >> correct, and this is, when people close to him will say that is just how he talks, and at times, that is true, when you are confusing different contestants for the vice presidency, when you are making decisions on certain aspects of policy. this is completely different. and he's actually -- he's not

someone who is unfamiliar with legal risk, which is why i find this very surprising. >> but this is the bar-lowering that we hear all the time from folks in his own party. we did a story a few months ago about how last year, the president in at least three different conversations with gop senators tried to get them to end the intelligence inquiry into russia. >> that's right. >> and when we questioned senators about the conversations, at least one of them downplayed it, saying he's just a businessman, he doesn't understand that's inappropriate. well, he's the president of the united states. >> if that happened in january or february of last year, maybe, maybe you give him a little grace. he's getting up to speed. now, sorry, no. sorry. all right, everybody sit tight. up next, president trump throws a curveball and why he supports citizenship for so-called d.r.e.a.m.ers. in i literally say, ahh. america

loves the leesa mattress. we have more five star customer reviews then any other mattress of it's kind. this bed hugs my body. today is gonna to be great. place your order and experience the leesa mattress at home risk free. order now and get $100 off and free shipping too. go to buyleesa.com today. ♪ there's nothing more important than your health. so if you're on medicare or will be soon, you may want more than parts a and b here's why. medicare only covers about 80% of your part b medical expenses. the rest is up to you. you might want to consider an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan, insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company. like any medicare supplement insurance plan, these help pick up some of what medicare doesn't pay. and, these plans let you choose any doctor

or hospital that accepts medicare patients. you could stay with the doctor or specialist you trust... or go with someone new. you're not stuck in a network... because there aren't any. so don't wait. call now to request your free decision guide and find the aarp medicare supplement plan that works for you. there's a range to choose from, depending on your needs and your budget. rates are competitive. and they're the only plans of their kind endorsed by aarp. like any of these types of plans, they let you apply whenever you want. there's no enrollment window... no waiting to apply. so call now. remember, medicare supplement plans help cover some of what medicare doesn't pay.

you'll be able to choose any doctor or hospital that accepts medicare patients. whether you're on medicare now or turning 65 soon, it's a good time to get your ducks in a row. duck: quack! call to request your free decision guide now. because the time to think about tomorrow is today.

>> i think the real message is we want great prosperity and we want great peace, but i think that really is the message. it's been going really well. a lot of people are coming back to the united states. we are seeing tremendous investment, and today's been a very exciting day, very great day, and great for our country. thank you very much. >> mr. president -- >> see the president there at the world economic forum in davos, optimistic about the u.s. economy, optimistic about his agenda in davos. back here on the home front, here's the headline his base never thought they'd see. breitbart giving the president the nickname amnesty don. here's why. chief kelly's goal was to lay

out a tough posture for negotiations with congress, but the president apparently had some other ideas. >> do you want citizenship for d.r.e.a.m.ers? >> we're going to morph into it. it's going to happen. >> what does that mean is this. >> morph into it, what's that mean? >> over a period of 10 to 12 years, somebody does a great job and works hard. it gives incentive to do a great job. but they've worked hard, they've done terrifically, whether they have a little company or whether they work or whatever they're doing, if they do a great job, i think it's a nice thing to have the incentive of after a period of years being able to become a citizen. >> it was announced a short time after that meeting that chief of staff kelly is staying behind in washington and not traveling to davos. the white house said it was best he stay back for immigration talks and house conservatives view what he said as amnesty. what was the president trying to do? he has -- let me be kind, he has not been a straight line in

recent weeks in explaining his views on immigration. well, in the context of the shutdown and this was the biggest issue, and just when his chief of staff is trying to say, sure, we'll have a d.r.e.a.m.ers deal, but we want this, and they wanted that to be the headline, that we have a couple of things we need to give back, the president comes in and says, let's do it. >> o, i think a couple things, to be fair, though, it was made clear prior to the president's impromptu gaggle that john kelly was not going to davos, so i do not think there is a cause and effect there. i think too many people are reading into that, number one. number two, i think what you saw yesterday is about two different things. one is immigration and one is the fact that the president -- there was always going to be in this framework that they released on monday, as i understand it, some reference to a path to citizenship over 10 to 12 years for daca recipients. that coincides, at least partially, with an aspect of the graham/durbin plan. what the president was not supposed to do was emphasize that almost to the exclusion of everything else, and the incenting and wouldn't it be

nice to have incentive for people to do well, and so forth. there is a much harder line than members of the administration and white house were expected to take in a background briefing, but i think the other thing you saw honestly what this was about is not the president wanting to stake his stance on immigration policy, i think it was the president wanting to demonstrate to a chief of staff who he felt one-upped him, essentially, by going on fox news and by telling "the hill" that the president was not fully informed about his opinions on a border wall, he wanted to show who's boss. >> i'm in charge here. >> so, we're back to that. but to your point about the emphasis. of course, there's going to be legal status and perhaps a path to citizenship for the democrats to accept a deal, but that is it beyond an eat your peas moment for a big chunk of house republicans. >> right. >> so for the president to be emphasizing that up front -- >> yes, exactly. >> -- is just anxiety. >> this depends on the definition of the world morph, what the president meant, because there's a crucial distinction to be made here. there is legal status which people like tom cotton and house conservatives want, which allows people to apply for green cards

through the normal channels. it's a high bar. lots of d.r.e.a.m.ers and people in the country illegally now would never be able to meet it. what lindsey graham and dick durbin and democrats want to do is create some sort of guarantee that if you meet these criteria, if you're a d.r.e.a.m.er, that you speak english and so forth, you get a green card. that looks okay to people on the outside, but that is a make-or-break type of thing that will be part of the negotiation. i really think at the end of the day it's less important what president trump says than whether he sticks to it. he has not shown an ability to stick to anything on immigration, and on something this divisive for the republican party, it is very dangerous for speaker ryan or mitch mcconnell to move forward -- >> for the republican party anyway, especially if the republican party in an election year, especially for a republican party in an election year where if you're a republican running for re-election and your primary deadline hasn't passed yet, the last thing you want to do is get too far to the left, if you will, on immigration. listen to marsha blackburn here, a member of the house who's running for senate. >> is that something you'd vote for? >> we do not want to see anyone

get in front of people that have been going through the legal immigration process. and all of us know families and individuals who have spent years and thousands of dollars working through this process. it is not fair to them for someone to jump in the queue in front of them. >> john, that's the exact same rhetoric that we heard covering the immigration debate in 2007, over ten years ago. it's the same talking points and it's the same problem for the senate in '07 and in '13, is the fact that you've got folks in the house, and not just blackburn, who's running for the senate, but folks in the house who politically care more about their primaries than general elections. >> right. >> but doesn't that get back to the point that the president's supposed to move them before he starts emphasizing citizenship? >> and add to the fact that a lot of them saw eric cantor lose his primary in 2014 out of the blue in large part because of this issue, so they have great fear about being seen as too

liberal on this issue and being cantored, to create a verb. so, i think the fact is on trump, yes, they're looking for some kind of cover from trump. he's never going to give that to them because he's going to be here one day and over there the next! so, they can keep waiting for that. it's not going to happen. >> which brings us to the calendar, because it's january 25th, and like the witching day is somewhere around march 5th, and the white house's position up until now has been that that is not a fungible date. i think that is the real question. >> i think the question we'll be talking about, if this continues on the path now, the president said the way obama did it is unconstitutional, issues some temporary action -- >> because it will be constitutional the way trump does it. >> if it comes to that, we will see. oprah has definite anyway wor -- words on running in 2020. it was really easy. easy. that'd be nice. phone: for help with chairs, say "chair." phone: for help with bookcases, say "bookcase."

bookcase. i thought this was the dresser? isn't that the bed? phone: i'm sorry, i didn't understand. phone: for help with chairs, say "chair." does this mean we're not going out? book-case. see how easy renters insurance can be at geico.com. if yorheumatoid arthritisevere and you're talking to your rheumatologist about a medication, this is humira. this is humira helping to relieve my pain and protect my joints from further irreversible damage. this is humira helping me reach for more. humira has been clinically studied for over 20 years. humira works for many adults. it targets and blocks a specific source of inflammation that contributes to ra symptoms. humira can lower your ability to fight infections,

including tuberculosis. serious, sometimes fatal infections and cancers, including lymphoma, have happened, as have blood, liver and nervous system problems, serious allergic reactions, and new or worsening heart failure. before treatment, get tested for tb. tell your doctor if you've been to areas where certain fungal infections are common, and if you've had tb, hepatitis b, are prone to infections, or have flu-like symptoms or sores. don't start humira if you have an infection. talk to your doctor and visit humira.com. this is humira at work.

quick look now at some other stories on our political radar today. turns out oprah has no interest in the oval office, so you might want to rethink your bets on her running for president in 2020. winfrey tells "in touch" magazine "it's not something that interests me. i don't have the dna for it." a top aide for president trump's drug czar will be leaving his senior position by the end of the month. he rose quickly to a senior position at the national office of drug control policy but became a political lightning rod after the "washington post" uncovered inaccuracies and inconsistencies on resume. the civil rights administration is filing a lawsuit against devos's decision for obama guidance on handling

sexual assault under title nine is unconstitutional. devos said the accused also deserves due process. one student survivor says she's the one now being denied her rights. >> administrators have told me more than once that my case just isn't a priority. prior to betsy devos rescinding the title nine protections for survivors, complaints like mine had to be handled promptly. now the trump administration has removed any timelines for completing investigations to allow schools like johns hopkins to continue delaying the process endlessly until one of us graduates or gives up. survivors should not have to spend their college years sharing a campus with their abusers. >> up next, a trump-appointed department of justice official picks a fight with the republican-led house intelligence committee. we'll tell you why.

woman: where are we taking him? i have no clue. we're just tv doctors. if this was a real emergency, i'd be freaking out. we are the tv doctors of america. together with cigna reminding you to go, know, and take control of your health. schedule your annual check-up today.

to go, know, and take control of your health. i use herpecin l.re, it penetrates deep to treat. it soothes, moisturizes, and creates an spf 30 barrier, to protect against flare-ups caused by the sun. herpecin l.

welcome back. what began as a predictable partisan spat has now turned into something far stranger. the point of contention, a memo written by the republican house intelligence committee staff purportedly, emphasis on purportedly, outlining widespread abuse of federal surveillance powers. the debate split democrats and republicans about whether to release it to the public and whether the accusations in it reflect reality. then last night, this twist -- a trump appointee in the justice department, steven boyd, issued a public warning to the republican-led committee -- don't release the memo without first turning it over to us. doing so in the department's view would be extraordinarily reckless. firing back, republican congressman trey gowdy says to his friend, mr. boyd, don't weigh in on something you haven't seen. >> i would say this to my friend, steven boyd -- let's lower the rhetoric. i don't care if you've seen the memo. the memo was derived, distilled from information that the department gave us. so it's not like there's new

information. everything in the memo they already have. what they don't know specifically is what are their complaints? and i'm fine to share them with them, but you can't possibly say a memo is reckless if you haven't read it. >> to me, this is even more proof of the total dysfunction of this town and this process in the sense that if the republicans really believe they have credible evidence of abuses in intelligence services, abuses in surveillance that, dear god, the public should see that, and those responsible should be held accountable. but if this is a devin nunes/trey gowdy, all-republican memo, even if it's right, half the country is going to say it's wrong. why do they do this without -- and why would speaker ryan allow them to do this without saying, if you guys really have something, find some democrats, go behind closed doors, shut up until you have a consensus and then come out? >> i'm not sure they would be able to find democrats, first of all. to be fair -- >> if it's real? >> i think even if it's real at this point -- >> oh, dear god. >> i'm sorry. to your point about the

dysfunction, let's just be honest about this. that having been said, you are i think correct that this is emblematic of exactly what we have seen over a long period of time, a breakdown of essentially what used to be all normal processes and what was considered apolitical and what should be held up as devoid of politics. we have seen this for a very long time. and again, to your point, if there are systemic abuses that are documented here, if there is something real, show it. i mean, this is the problem with this memo, with what ron johnson said about these missing texts between fbi agents, characterizing something before it's actually clear what it is, characterizing something before you are presenting it, that's a problem. >> and to the credit of the trump justice department, it has said, number one, don't release classified information without checking with us. that's our information. and two, stop talking about these texts until the ig fr finishes his report, we'll have a report and debate about it. to the texts, ron johnson, two of them are fbi agents that republicans are saying had a bias. they were trying to protect hillary clinton, trying to hurt donald trump.

they think there's a deep state secret society within the fbi. a partial look at some of the texts, if you only see some of them, sure, like ours, if you see some of them out of context, you could come. now, here's ron johnson today, a republican, chairman of a committee in the senate. this is manu raju, this is take two. >> senator, the text message seems to be a comment about secret society was in jest. do you agree that it appears to be in jest? >> it's a possibility. >> today, today it's a real possibility it's in jest because it was good reporting by abc news first, matched here by cnn, that shows the text in a greater context that it sure sounds, if you read the whole thing, it's some kind of a joke. that was senator johnson today. here's senator johnson yesterday. >> do you really believe that there is a secret society within the fbi plotting to take down the president? >> all i said is when i read those texts, it's, again, we are a committee of jurisdiction that

protects whistleblowers. we have whistleblowers coming to us from across agencies. that didn't surprise me, because i've heard from an individual that there were fbi agents or, you know, management at the fbi holding meetings offsite. >> reporter: offsite to do what exactly? >> i don't know. >> i mean, how can they expect to have credibility? it's the people are saying standard, which -- >> many people are saying. >> many people are saying. [ everyone talking at once ] >> that's what's striking to see a senator -- >> he's doing it. in fact, he's constantly floating conspiracy theories. during the campaign we heard it all the time. why -- >> why not draw the line to rebuild trust in institutions, not contribute to the declining trust in institutions? >> that's the culture. >> as striking as it is, this is revealing of how much pressure there is on republicans in congress to feed this narrative emulating from their echo chamber, from pro trump media that this is a deep state conspiracy. i think that might explain why members including ron johnson got ahead of themselves -- >> this is dangerous.

this is dangerous business. and it is a reminder of why any reporter who gets leaked texts should be very dubious if they don't have the full picture, and it is a reminder of why it's really important that robert mueller is investigating this and we're not relying on -- >> it should also be a lesson to them that should there come a national security crisis or law enforcement crisis, the american people need to be able to trust their elected officials when they engage in this horse pucky to be polite. it undermines confidence in institutions. it is tough in davos, but president trump does have some friends. >> as you finish your first year in office, i want to say that i look forward to continuing our remarkable, tremendous friendship in the years ahead.

some breaking news just in to cnn. the justice department now telling congress it has been able to recover the missing texts of fbi agents, two agents

in particular, texts that were of notice to congress, peter stroke and lisa paige, republicans in congress who say the agents in a personal relationship were texting in a way that proves to what republicans say were biased, that there had been a controversy their texts were missing over a five-month span, other texts also missing over a five-month span. the office of inspector general at the justice department has succeeded in using forensics tools to recover the text messages from fbi devices, the justice department says, including texts between mr. stroke and ms. paige sent and received between december 14th of 2016 and may of 2017. so they have all of the texts and as we discussed earlier, these are caught up in a debate with republicans trying to undermine the credibility of the fbi and other investigations, including the special counsel investigation. >> now we'll see what they are. i think as opposed to speculating and having intense suggestions of impropriety based on a lack of something, now there is something and i guess

we will know more. i think that there are aspects of republicans/trump's complaints about investigations from the fbi that have merit. there are legitimate reasons to be concerned about donations to andrew mccabe's wife from a close ally of hillary clinton. it is perfectly fine to raise questions about that. it's a little curious to do that and then make the person the acting director of the fbi. that would suggest you didn't think it was that big a deal then. but there are legitimate concerns. it's just what ends up hamg happening is people, and this is certainly louder from republicans on these issues, despite their control of government, then it becomes a rush to, and therefore this means something evil. >> amen, amen. and i was hyper venting in the earlier segment, but we need the congress to do good oversight. that's why they're there, democrats and republicans, but they have to have credibility coming forward. and for any conservative saying that's just people on cnn, "the new york times," the fake news, this is the justice department

spokeswoman right here, a trump appointee who works for jeff sessions. she is a conservative saying, everybody, just take a breath. >> i think a lot of americans who saw the initial release of text messages were disturbed by what they saw and understandably so. the inspector general's investigating it and i look forward to their report, at which point we can discuss that further. we wait for an inspector general report, who's investigating this. let the inspector general do their job. >> that's good advice. i should also just note for the record that in the case of peter stroke, when bob mueller found out about these texts, which show, whether they show bias or not, we don't know. they do show bad judgment, but he immediately removed him from the investigation. >> one fast last point. it is not just us talking about how this is a distraction for the gop. this morning the top house gop super pac issued a memo saying to incumbents, please, talk about the tax cut bill. we could not hold the majority if we don't talk about tax cuts. they want to talk about the tax cut bill. that feels like ancient history, guys! it was one month ago.

you know why? because trump wants to keep talking about the fbi and his allies do on the hill, too. the folks who are running the campaign this year, the republicans thought about taxes, it's disappeared. that's bad news for them. >> bad news for them. thanks for joining us on "inside politics." a little breaking news is always good. hope you like the new set. "wolf" starts right now. hello, i'm wolf blitzer, 1:00 p.m. in washington, 7:00 p.m. in davos, switzerland, 9:00 p.m. in moscow. wherever you're watching from around the world, thanks very much for joining us. negotiations under way. the president's legal team trying to clean up his vow to testify under oath with robert mueller as the president comes up with a new definition for obstruction of justice. plus, the secret society theory falling apart quickly. why the republican efforts to undermine the robert mueller investigation may in part be based on a text message that was made in jest. and the u.s. says the