the most -- our presidents generally come into the oval office and they think this job is bigger than i am. he has been making the job as small as he is. this state of the union might be an opportunity to do better. that's all. he's going to be president at least another three years. we can't afford for him to be dragging us down. this is an opportunity to move us forward and upward. >> tim and david, we appreciate it so much. our special coverage begins 5:00 tomorrow night. thanks to our international viewers for watching. if you cnn "newsroom" is next. for our viewers in the united states, stay right here. "new day" continues right now. >> it is pretty clear to me everybody in the white house knows the end of the presidency if he fired mr. mueller. >> people in new york have a different way of talking. we blew off about some things. we can act right now and put in legislation that would require oversight. >> i think the president would be best served by never discussing the investigation,

ever. >> i appreciate the president putting his plan forward and narrowing what he would like to see in awe bipartisan solution. >> to solve this problem, we're going to have to have compromise. no one is going to get 100% of what they want. >> that plan say campaign to make america white again. >> we don't need that rhetoric on either side. >> he has spoken leadership to finally get it done. >> this is "new day" with chris cuomo and alisyn camerota. >> good morning. welcome to your "new day". alisyn is off. poppy harlow joining me. thank you so much. >> good to be here. >> always good to have you. >> president trump looking to reset his presidency in his first state of the union address tomorrow night. the president expected to tout tax cuts and the strong u.s. economy, while pitching the american people on an immigration plan. this comes after reports that president trump tried to fire

bob mueller last june. >> on top of that, the president's frustration with the russia investigation may have deputy attorney general rod rosenstein in the crosshairs. a house intel committee memo shows he approved an application to extend survey answer of carter page while the president was just beginning in office. the president wants that memo released. this set up a big showdown between the president and those republicans and his own justice department who is against this release. we have it all covered. let's begin with caitlkaitlan cs at the white house. >> reporter: good morning, poppy. president trump spent his weekend preparing for the state of the union address tomorrow night. aides say he will focus on a stronger, safer, prouder america. and the same aides also say that the president is going to set aside his typically combative tone for one of bipartisan ship and compromise. if we learned anything from president trump's first year in

office, it's that this is a president who rarely sticks to the script. president trump gearing up for his first state of the union address where he is expected to tout the economic progress of his first year in office while rallying support behind key initiatives like infrastructure and immigration. >> i think the president talked about how america is back. >> reporter: the plan unveiled by the white house last week would provide a pathway to citizenship for nearly two million undocumented immigrants in exchange for $25 billion to fund the president's border wall. the plan would also make major changes to legal immigration, a key sticking point that democrats have called dead on arrival. >> that plan is a campaign to make america white again. >> we don't need that type of rhetoric on either side. the president has laid out what he wants.

that's a good starting point. >> reporter: the president's high-profile speech coming amid controversy over mr. trump answer reported attempt to fire special counsel robert mueller last june. >> the president has never intimated in any way wanting to fire robert mueller. >> everybody knows at the white house it will be the end of president trump's presidency if he fired mr. mueller. >> reporter: but showing little urgency to take action on two bipartisan bills that would protect special counsel. >> it certainly wouldn't hurt to put that extra safeguard in place given the latest stories. but, again, i have faith in the deputy attorney general. >> i don't think there's a need for legislation. right now there is not an issue. why create one when there isn't a place for it. >> reporter: the majority of democrats are hearing democrats congress must take action. >> there is a case of obstruction of justice against the president of the united states. >> reporter: mr. trump has been complaining about wanting to fire rod rosenstein as well. he oversees mueller in the investigation 37.

the "new york times" reports that the controversial memo spearheaded by house chair devin nunes indicated that republicans may be moving to seize on rosenstein's role as they seek to undermine special counsel. now, questions over what the president's moments in the sun will be overshadowed by the russia investigation as the president is facing a major deadline today to use the russia sanctions power that congress overwhelmingly voted to give him last fall. chris and poppy? >> let's discuss. we have david gregory and john avlon. do you think that there is going to be any legislation to protect bob mueller? >> there should be. >> go, gentlemen, go. >> i don't see it right now. you see this division among house and senate leadership already. you heard kevin mccarthy saying there is not much appetite to do it in the house.

and lindsey graham made clear it is his view it would be the end of the trump presidency were he to try to fire mueller say there is no momentum to do it. i think john's point about an unwillingness to take on trump is still there. it's been there throughout. i don't see them acting on it. >> gutless wonder rg a native species to capitol hill. the thing that the president's lawyers assured everyone would never happen, the president would never think or dream of firing robert mueller, it was contemplated and had to be blocked by white house counsel. and the president wanting to fire rod rosenstein. why would he do that? this could lead to constitutional crisis. congress has the ability to get ahead of it and do something. they backed it in the past. even tom toil his seems to be backing away from it.

that is wishing awe deeper problem. step up, do the right thing, pass the legislation, and then we can all sleep easy. otherwise, it's a fool's being masked by expediency. >> if he were to make a move and fire mueller, look at the chain reaction. you have an attorney general recused from the russia investigation. rosenstein selected mueller in the first place, would resign. who else would step up in that role? to the john's point, are you going to have congressional leadership go to the white house and say this can't stand, this is unacceptable. that's going to be an incredibly reactive step if that's ever taken. >> and they have hurt themselves because they have never done it before. the idea of ryan and mcconnell and the leadership getting on their horse. he knows he has been able to beat them time and again. why respect them? >> just do it now. david gregory, just to you on one more beat.

we are learning more and more about this memo from devin nunes, alleging abuse of surveillance laws to monitor some trump campaign associates. carter page is reporting that rod rosenstein, while the president had just taken office, extended the surveillance of carter page, believing there was concern there tied to russia. the president wants this memo out. nunes wants this memo out there. the justice department said it would be reckless to do that. where does this go? >> i don't see the white house backing down on this. because inside washington, we're looking at this every day. we know how extraordinary it is that you would have is a white house arguing to have this released when the trump justice department is saying, no on, you can't do this and fighting with capitol hill. but i don't see the white house he letting down on this. the effort has been to undermine this investigation to suggest there is a deeper conspiracy

withen trenched forces in the government that are out to get him. and there's enough people to think there is nothing to the investigation that will cotton to that side. i don't see that strategy being abandoned at all. this is why whatever is happening in congress, however that moves forward, look at the real game in town to see what he is able to come up with if anything. >> this is just a little fishy with the memo, though. because, one, i hop it comes out. you don't want to see sources and methods. but they do this all the time were where they allow us to have information without compromising people. they redact, selectively put things out. you read the memo but not the supporting information. if they were so righteous about this, john, members of congress get immunity. they go and read the memo. in categories of complete power,

this is really up there, classification and declassification. yes, there are procedures. if they want to box out the justice department, they could declassify parts of this. why hasn't it come out yet? we want it out. i want to see who was unmasked. who were they looking at? what do they have? >> unless it is utterly specious document. but you're right. the president could do this. nunes could do this. instead, they're waiting on it. why? i think this is a counter to any acceleration to the mueller probe. again, you can't say enough. it is extraordinary to have the president's own justice department say that it would be reckless to release this and still there's no sharing of information. that is stunning. even in a surreal era like ours. >> david gregory, to chris's point, do you think it is more politically advantageous for the republicans, for the president, for republicans like nunes, to dangle and leak things like this than to put the whole thing out

there? >> i don't know how to argue the political heads and tails on this. either way, whether it is leaked selectively or he released and argued selectiveness, we are in a morass of what they're talking about. he won't even rely on allies to do it. he will do it himself to trash everybody associated with looking into russia. and that's the sad reality. it makes it that much hard tore get to whatever the bottom is. >> look at the b.s. about the secret society and why the texts were missing. an empty suggestion of the unknown. you can go anywhere with it. when actual reasons and facts come out, you wind up being much more limited. >> it is the root of most of our problems right now as a culture. but that is a separate conversation. >> hence, why we need to be here all the more in these types of situations. so sanctions is a great example of this. so the white house came out with

some definition of what they should do with respect to the moves on ukraine by russia. but this is something different. this is the deadline today to do the white house part of figuring out to whom the sanctions should apply. they have been slow in the regard to sanctions. it fuels speculation. what do we think is happening here? >> first of all, this was a 98-2 vote. that does not happen in today's world. >> sanctions for interference. >> in the election. and the president was grousing about it since he signed it. now the deadline. are they going to punt? are they going to execute it the day before the state of the union? it is explicitly about focussing on russia in retaliation for trying to influence our election. >> so in a comical -- pretty comical response this morning. the mouthpiece for the kremlin this morning, i had to read it

twice to make sure i was reading correctly. they said if the u.s. does this, we think it is them directly timing this and interfering in our election. what do you think? >> i think you talked about it a little bit earlier at the end of last hour whether the president can see the office as bigger than himself. and on russia, he has not seen that. this is a threat to democracy. this was an attempt to influence and interfere. we don't know that it was decisive in any way. it is not undermining the legitimacy of president trump. it was an attack on the country. and it can happen again with different results that could somehow put trump on the wrong side of it that he would want to retaliate. highway tosd the right thing to get to the bottom of it. >> it goes to upholding the oath.

this is basic. >> we will know by your show tonight whether treasury implemented sanctions. you have to watch. i'll try not to be in bed. >> you have a good accuse. >> and then tomorrow "new day" will be live from washington ahead of the president's state of the union. all right. so republicans in congress, do they believe that they need to protect bob mueller? there's a split. so what are we going to do? we're going to test it. we have a gop congressman next. whoooo. looking for a hotel that fits... ...your budget? tripadvisor now searches over... ...200 sites to find you the... ...hotel you want at the lowest price. grazi, gino! find a price that fits.

tripadvisor. luckily, office depot®not officemax® is hereeart. to take care of you. ♪ taking care of business with print services done right. on time. guaranteed! expert tech support. and this week all dell pcs are up to twenty five percent off! save even more when you purchase a dell monitor. and make sure you protect your investment. office depot® officemax. officedepot.com ♪ taking care of business

you know what's not awesome? gig-speed internet. when only certain people can get it. let's fix that. let's give this guy gig- really? and these kids, and these guys, him, ah. oh hello. that lady, these houses! yes, yes and yes. and don't forget about them. uh huh, sure. still yes! xfinity delivers gig speed to more homes than anyone. now you can get it, too. welcome to the party.

all right. two bipartisan bills aimed at protecting special counsel bob mueller are being debated. joining us is republican congressman scott taylor of virginia. always a pleasure to see you, sir. >> good morning, chris. how are you? >> what do you think, do you have to protect the special counsel? >> you know, i think if people have is a lawmakers politically calling for the fire of mueller,

they should have it equally for trying to protect him. the president hasn't fired him. let it take its course. >> how do you know it's not going to happen? if he did make a move on special counsel, it would then be too late. >> well, look, it's been over a year now. look, if i was the president, i'd be pissed too. it has been a political hammarby democrats on this. it didn't happen in over a year. let it take its course. there's political folks on both sides. some people calling to protect him. let him take its course. >> do you think if you just let it go now, everything will be fine? the answer seems to be yes. >> yes. >> do you think releasing the memo similarly, because that is another point of intrigue right now. do you think that memo should get out there so the hype can stop? >> i do think it should get out there. i'm not into hyperbole.

it is important whether republican or democrat not to overpoliticize this. there are facts in there that are very troubling. >> you have seen the memo, congressman? >> yes, i have read it. i'm not into trying to release top secret information. i think the need for the public, the need for you to see this, to see the facts and report out, outweigh any national security implications that you can release what i say, and i heard the last editor-in-chief of "the daily beast", has no idea what he's talking about in terms of what actually in there. what i saw was not i political document. it has facts who does what. i don't think it should be overpoliticized. >> especially after what we saw last week. one minute you had all big shot members of your party saying there is a shadow organization inside the fbi that is trying to undermine justice and we see the proof of a conspiracy.

and there is a hiding of tech messages. literally in 24 hours they all had to eat their hat and say, yeah, there's no secret organization. yeah, they found a text. that's the scary stuff. where the feelings that meet the facts and they don't line up. that's why this memo needs to come out. >> well, one second now. the memo obviously doesn't have the text message in it. that was a separate thing. >> yeah. it's the same dynamic. >> sure. i would caution folks in my own party to not overpoliticize this. to let the facts, the text messages speak for themselves. just like adam schiff who gets on tv all the time with all of this hyperbole with zero facts. let the facts come out and let the american people see it. i will tell you personally, me reading this, i think it is very troubling. i think you should see the facts. >> congressman, one of the reasons we have you on the show is we respect what you have to say. if you say with need to see it, that means something to us. hopefully we'll dig into it and

see what happens. one other political point and then i want to get to immigration. i will not talk about the state of the union. after he comes out and gives a message, we will talk about that. when harvey weinstein, the allegations came out and they wound up being vetted and seemed to be plenty true enough, the rnc came out and members of the political party said, hey, you democrats should give the money back. you know what, there was a back and forth about it, but it was the right message to spend. steve wynn, who actually held a title, whether it's mcdaniel or other leaders, they're quiet. he stepped away after a couple days. nobody is saying you should give that money back. is that hypocrisy? >> well, the only thing i have seen is the reporting that he stepped away. i haven't seen any further details on it. >> that's the point. >> harvey weinstein, things were way out there of course. >> they spoke to 100 people and he hasn't denied it. an employee letter is saying he's being unfairly attacked.

but we haven't heard anything from the gop. >> so what i'm saying is i don't know the details personally. so i'm not going to speak out on it. sure, if it's the same exact thing and you said one thing about harvey weinstein, it should be the same for mr. wynn. i just saw the breaking story. >> i got you. there is no question that allegations need to be vetted. there's no question about that. there's no reason to start chopping people's heads off before you know the facts. i'm saying this seems to line up. let me ask you about immigration. do you back the president's plan as we understand it today? >> the white house has laid out a pretty serious plan. obviously it's going to come to congress and we're going to look at it and figure out what we want to see in there. i've been on the record. i've had a statement since september that talks about getting more border security, but also protecting this

population. i think he will. what he laid out is serious. we look at the democrats willing to cause pain for the american people shutting down the government. if they don't step up and say let's look at negotiation because he has a willingness to protect the population, then they have a big problem with their base and d.r.e.a.m.ers because it shows they're not seriously. >> if you would get down there and cut deals we wouldn't be dealing with this brinksmanship. would you back a deal for d.r.e.a.m.ers? >> i understand it is broader than this daca population. i'm a national security guy. we'll see. i'll see what comes out of this thing. >> what is not conservative or contrary to american security interests to have a pathway to citizenship for people who have been here their whole lives and in many cases contributed more to their country than i have? >> well, as i said, i'm on the record for this daca population which, yeah, i think there are folks who have been here since they were 2 or 5 and they're

just as american as you or i. i can't imagine someone who is from somalia a that speaks like you and i do and we spend them back to somalia. so obviously i would be in favor of that. >> always a pleasure to have you on the show. be well. >> thanks for having me as well. >> is tonight in "primetime" we're going to know whether or not the administration acted on the sanctions and we are going to take that on in depth. >> all right. so the white house is going to sell big time its economic accomplishments in the state of the union tomorrow. a lot of numbers out there. we're going to break down what is fact, what is not in facts first next.

i tried hard to quit smoking. but when we brought our daughter home, that was it. now i have nicoderm cq. the nicoderm cq patch with unique extended release technology helps prevent your urge to smoke all day. it's the best thing that ever happened to me. every great why needs a great how.

you wouldn't feel good not knowing the price here. don't let it happen when you buy your diabetes test strips. with the accu-chek guide simplepay program, you pay the same low price. all without having to go through insurance. plus, they come in a spill-resistant vial along with a free meter. skip the guessing game and focus on your health. not the cost. make saving simple today at simplepaysaves.com. waysthe roasted core wrap. fat. (robotic voice) 3, 2, 1... not cool. freezing away fat cell with coolsculpting? now that's cool! only coolsculpting is fda-cleared to treat and freeze fat cells, non-surgically. diet and exercise alone just shrink those cells. coolsculpting gradually eliminates them, with little or no downtime. visit coolsculpting.com today... for a chance to win a free treatment.

all right. how about a little monday morning dose of facts first. as caffeinated as coffee. so president trump loves to point to the economy, specifically the stock market, as proof of his performance. and he says that the recent success is all because of him. his director of legislative affairs mark schwart took that to the sunday show. >> a lot of people said the

president couldn't create 2 million jobs in the first year, who said we wouldn't see gdp at 3%. and after the tax package in one month, 3.1 million workers have either received a pay increase or a bonus. >> all right. beautiful example. let's take it point by point. the economy added 2 million jobs in 2017. is that through? yes. but that's not a great number. in fact, 2017 sticks out as a low point. take a look at the facts. 2014, 3 million jobs. 2015, 2.7 million jobs. 2016, 2.2 million jobs. notice how they're going down? it comes off a boosted economy. you can't sell it as earth shattering. gdp 3%. this is not true. how do we know that?

economic analysis. how does that line up? average. 2017, 11th in gdp growth out of the past 20 years. next point. 3.1 million americans have either received a pay increase or bonus all thanks to the tax cut. let's look at it this way. some of the companies boosted pay. they d. look at walmart. they also laid off 8,000 workers around the same time. comcast, another big company granted $1,000 bonuses to 100,000 employees. but it did fire 500 managers across multiple states. at&t, the same thing $1,000 to 200,000 employees but 4,000 layoffs at the same time. in one case, wells fargo thanked trump for its tax cut and for its wage hike. but then it flip-flopped whether

it was because of the tax cut or pre-existing plan. what we need to know there is what percentage of the tax savings are the companies getting are they passing on to labor as opposed to shareholders. that will be an important stat. when i get it, you'll get it. unemployment, 17-year low of 4.1%. true. but remember this. >> the phony unemployment rate. the unemployment rate is probably 20%. they say 5.3% unemployment. the number is probably 32%. when you hear 4.9 and 5% unemployment, the number is probably 28%, 29, as high as 35 -- >> you know what, i agree with the president. every economist would. why? he is referring to what is a little bit of deception when it comes to unemployment. christi christine romans is so good at this. he is talking about the u 6.

tech workers. they're working but they have less hours, less money. the work market has shifted. so if you just look at this one unemployment factor is often misleading. all right. so he was right about that. now he is owning it. it is so interesting. every white house for as long as we can remember says we're responsible for everything that we get. but when obama did that, trump said the numbers were phony. now he is using the same numbers, making the case same. i thought he was supposed to be different. economists say this level of unemployment, what we see with this level of unemployment versus the wage growth of 2.5%, it's not where it should be. the wages should be more. not just wall street, main street. those are the facts. poppy. >> appreciate them as ever, chris. thank you. so also this this morning. a fitness tracking app may pose a security risk for forces around the world, security forces around the world.

this app released a global heat map. it shows the location and movement of its users. a conflict analyst note odd twitter the update makes u.s. bases clearly identifiable and mappable. a pentagon spokeswoman said they are looking into this situation. all right. celebrity chef jose andres is an outspoken critic, former legal foe of president trump. he spent amount of time in puerto rico feeding people, including first responders. now there are claims that ivanka trump slammed him. he slammed the first daughter saying she had him thrown out of an elite party at a d.c. restaurant. ivanka saying she had nothing to do with him getting the boot. it turned out that the restaurant said andres wasn't on the guest list. on sunday he said ivanka reached

out to him personally. class move. he then tweeted he believed that she had nothing to do with the incident. i'll tell you what, i know this guy. i met him in connection with what he was doing in puerto rico. he is a stand-up guy. if something happened -- it's odd that he wouldn't be on a guest list like this. he did the right thing. ivanka reached out to him. he is taking the high road. and good for her for doing that. >> the northeast and mid atlantic bracing for a one-two punch. meteorologist chad myers has your forecast. good morning, my friend. >> good morning, guys. the good news is that the punches now are lighter because we're not in such a cold period here. temperatures will be in the 30s. okay, we'll take that. green mountain coffee roasters is bringing you this weather today. green mountain coffee roasters is packed with goodness. here's what we have for you. the storm goes by. it brings a little bit of light snow to the mountains of west

virginia and maybe even into new england. but the skiers will take that. that's kind of the one-two thing. let's get some snow back on these mountains because it has been a rough season for many of these guys. here comes the colder air. it will be cold in minnesota for the super bowl. the high is going to be eight super bowl sunday. yes, the cold air is here. it is not so much in the northeast. wednesday the coldest day of the week, is 35. chris? >> the game is played at the dome. it will stink getting there. once you get there, it will be fine. appreciate the information, my friend. all right. new sanctions against russia for election interference. they are not new. they are supposed to go into effect today. is the white house dragging its feet? why would they do that? we're going to ask a senator who wants the same answer from the white house next. first, we head to vermont. and go to our coffee shop. and meet dave. hey. why is dark magic so spell-bindingly good, he asks? let me show you. let's go.

so we climb. hike. see a bear. woah. reach the top. dave says dark magic is a bold blend of coffee with rich flavors of uganda, sumatra, colombia and other parts of south america. like these mountains, each amazing on their own. but together? magical. all, for a smoother tasting cup of coffee. green mountain coffee roasters packed with goodness. on thousands of hotels, cars and things to do. like the royalton riviera cancun for 54% off. everything you need to go.

expedia. won't replace the full value of your totaled new car. the guy says you picked the wrong insurance plan. no, i picked the wrong insurance company. with liberty mutual new car replacement™, you won't have to worry about replacing your car because you'll get the full value back including depreciation. switch and you could save $782 on home and auto insurance. call for a free quote today. liberty stands with you™. liberty mutual insurance.

we use so why do we pay touters thave a phone connected. when we're already paying for internet? shouldn't it all just be one thing? that's why xfinity mobile comes with your internet. you can get 5 lines of talk and text included at no extra cost. so all you pay for is data. choose by the gig or unlimited. and now, get a $200 prepaid card when you buy an iphone. it's a new kind of network designed to save you money. call, visit, or go to xfnitymobile.com. all right. today matters. today is the deadline to implement sanctions passed 98-2 against russia for its election interference. that's called unanimous basically.

so that happened last summer. why is the trump white house dragging its feet and is that a fair characteration. joining us is chris coons of delaware. is that a fair character skwraeugz? has the white house been dragging its feet? >> it is really striking that on an action taken so broadly by the senate like the 98-2 vote last summer, the president, the white house, the administration hasn't taken up the new sanction authorities and used them aggressively. it raises the question what possible reason the administration has for not imposing real costs on the russians for interference in our last election. >> when you ask the white house, with where is the direction? when is this going to take effect? what do you get? >> so far sanctioning authorities against other countries against north korea, against iran. they were slow to act.

there hasn't been any satisfactory ear explanation. it continues to be puzzling. all the way back to the campaign, candidate trump made repeated unprecedented statements that were positive, glowing about putin, russia and were negative or even attacking our western european allies. as president trump, he has continued the puzzling practice of not taking decisive action against russia. so this would be an important moment for the national security leadership and the trump administration to press the president to take stronger action against russia. >> all right. we will see what they do on that today. the second item of business, the memo the republicans were touting, specifically devin nunes and his staffers, that the american people need to see this. democrats don't want people to see it. are you okay with this being released and do you believe it has any importance to the american people? >> i don't know anything about the contents.

it has been shared with members young the house intelligence committee. i believe they still haven't seen it. and president trump's own department of justice, the u.s. department of justice, has been strenuously objecting to a public release of it. i trust congressman adam schiff, who says it is a thinly veiled attack piece designed to undermine the credibility of the fbi and the investigation of rocket mueller. and i think before releasing something like this, it should be carefully and thoroughly reviewed and the doj given a chance to respond in a classified setting. >> don't you think -- obviously you have to do it with safeguards. you don't want any methods that you don't want to detail to people to be out there. but you do that on a regular basis. things are qualified in their declassification. don't you think it would be better to let the american people and the media see what's in it, chew on it, debate it. because mystery is so powerful

in this environment right now. the unknown. like we saw with the secret organization within the fbi because the missing texts. the unknown is salacious and powerful. often the truth, not so much. >> salacious, powerful, and distracting and intentionally so, chris. but i'm concerned about a steady drum beat of efforts by republicans particularly in the house to undermine the credibility of federal law enforcement, the fbi, and in particular special counsel robert mueller. the bombshell revelation by the "new york times" on thursday night that president trump attempted to fire mueller last june reinforces the past legislation in the senate that would protect special counsel from an unwarranted or abrupt firing. the consequences would be significant. i do think to get back to your question, if there is a thorough review and there is not much to harm sources or methods, it should be released.

i don't know why it is considered to be so damaging by the doj to their opposition about it being released. >> we'll see. but on the protecting the special counsel, the republicans, we just had congressman scott taylor. he didn't fire mueller. it's been a long time since june. he said he won't fire mueller. why waste time with legislation that's not necessary? >> because we see now a president who has no clear sense of his boundaries and of the law. he follows lawyers's advice, the outcome has been positive. and on occasions he hasn't, he has done things that atlantaeded the rule of law. from firing comey to a number of other abrupt actions he's taken. let me just get to the point. this is a small legislative matter that would take current

regulations and make them law. if removed without cause, counsel could find his way to be rein stated through a three-judge panel. would it be a big deal if the president abruptly fired robert mueller? they all say absolutely. it would be a constitutional crisis. when asked what would you do, they don't have a clear answer. we don't know what the next steps would be as a body. if we could put a speed bump in place from the president taking a rash and unwarranted act, it would strengthen our constitutional order and protect our country from an unnecessary moment should the president go off the rails on this issue again. >> it doesn't seem likely you would get a majority vote. we will see if you can get it to the floor. i want to ask a question about immigration. the dialogue is standard, all right, well, here's what the president is offering.

let's see if the republicans will swallow this. are any members of your party saying, wow, we're giving up a lot just to get the d.r.e.a.m.ers helped here. we are getting this wall we all say we don't need. allowing them to stem the tide of legal immigration, redefining the parameters of who we are. totally throw the lottery under the bus. totally throw family reunification under the bus under a name they are calling the anti-migration policies. are any of you stepping up to say why are we giving up so much for the republicans doing what they say is a matter of morality? >> chris, there are vigorous debates on exactly those grounds. there is very strong opposition to ending the diversity lottery. they used it as the strength of our country not as a challenge to be dealt with or minimized.

we use immigration to reunify families oss one of our great positives not as a challenge or weakness. we would like to find an appropriate balance between skill based immigration and family based immigration. some of the proposals put out by the white house are really extreme in terms of attacking both family-based migration and diversity as one of the goals of migration. there is an overall difference in our views. i think there is a shared compassion by the american people for the d.r.e.a.m.ers who were brought here through no fault of their own by their parents. our broader view as a democratic party is it's part of the strength of america. it brings the energy and the talent and skills around the world from different cultures to help strengthen america going forward. there is clearly folks on the other side of this debate from us who have an exact opposite view. and i think this should be looked at not as a zero sum game where we make concessions to our

core values but i think where we should be proceeding is to start with the smallest narrowest deal on border security and d.r.e.a.m.ers and see if we can build out from there in a way that doesn't compromise our core values is as democrats. that may be very difficult to do, but we will get to it this week. >> let's see. this week, huh? i guess you don't have much of a choice. we'll see. we'll be watching. thank you very much, senator. appreciate it. >> thank you. all right. several members of congress willing not be at the state of the union tomorrow night. they are boycotting the president's first big address. i'll talk to one of them next. ♪

when heartburn hits fight back fast with tums chewy bites. fast relief in every bite. crunchy outside. chewy inside. tum tum tum tum tums chewy bites. going somewhere? whoooo. here's some advice. tripadvisor now searches more... ...than 200 booking sites - to find the hotel you want and save you up to 30%. trust this bird's words.

tripadvisor.

need a change of scenery? kayak searches hundreds of travel and hotel sites so you can be confident you're getting the perfect hotel at the best price. soak it in. kayak. search one and done. wiback like it could used to? neutrogena hydro boost water gel. with hyaluronic acid it plumps skin cells with intense hydration and locks it in. for supple, hydrated skin. hydro boost. from neutrogena president trump will deliver his first state of the union address tomorrow night. several democrats in congress are planning to boycott the big speech. they're not going to be there. what message are they hoping to attend by not attending. let's ask one of them it's nice to have you. thanks for joining us this

morning. >> thank you. thank you so much. it's a pleasure. good morning. >> dworng. so you're not going tomorrow night, why? >> well, i'm not going because to go would be to honor the president and i don't think he deserves to be honored at this time after being so hateful towards black people and then black countries, haiti and the whole continent of africa, it hurts. it hurts and he has brought the white house to the lowest and i don't think he needs to be honored with my presence. >> so congresswoman, what about those who argue, okay, that's your perspective, but he is the president of the united states of america, this is a speech we're told by the white house will be a unifying speech, we'll see what we get, but that you

are placing politics over unifying this country, that perhaps even in your disagreement with the president on so many levels show respect for the office by being there. what do you say to those critics? >> well, it hurts. it hurts me. my father was a civil rights icon and i cannot find it in my heart to sit through this. i -- africa is my anseftry home and i feel a real closeness to haiti where thousands of my constituents emanated from, so i would rather skip this than listen to the rhetoric coming from a white house that has done away with decency and i will be watching the state of the union with my local constituents, with my local muslims and d.r.e.a.m.ers and local mexicans and local haitians and victims

of sexual abuse and local gold star families and local africans who are -- so we will be watching the state of the union but i will not enter the chamber. >> okay. on mission, you said recently the president in your words is holding d.r.e.a.m.ers hostage. now he pinned it on you guys over the weekend in a tweet we'll get to in a moment on democrats, but you know this white house proposal that officially comes out today does create a path for citizenship to 1.8 million not only d.r.e.a.m.ers but would be d.r.e.a.m.ers who just didn't apply to the program promptly enough. are you encouraged to see that from this white house? >> well, i have seen this president waffle back and forth on every promise he's made regarding d.r.e.a.m.ers. >> you don't buy it? >> i have a huge d.r.e.a.m.er supporter and i don't believe anything he says.

>> all right. >> or proposes. >> okay. so we'll see what happens with this, but even though this is in there, i'm not sure this is what's going to happen. let's turn to the nigerian investigation. sergeant david johnson was killed along with his three green beret colleagues. you were a mentor. has the family received any updates because the pentagon has not concluded its investigation yet? >> no, not that i though of and today is the due date of the new baby in the johnson family. so we're all on pins and needles but we're still concerned about what happened to sergeant david johnson and we hear leaks and we see leaks and every day there's a new reporter who has a body

camera that they saw, videos are showing up on youtube and we're real concerned because it's not a good time for the family to hear all of this with the new baby coming. >> of course. his widow pregnant, his child, of course, please keep us posted on all of that. on this investigation, you called for congressional investigation, not just the pentagon but you said congress needs to investigate this. i understand that has not started yet. why is that? >> i'm not sure, but i think the senate plans to investigate and the house of representatives. the foreign affairs committee and the congressional black caucus under the leadership of mr. cedric richmond has asked for an investigation by the pentagon and we feel that they

aren't investigating. we've gotten lots of, you know, intel that they are investigating, when that investigation will be completed i'm not sure but i'm waiting because i have my own intelligence. >> okay. so you do hope there's a congressional investigation it sounds like on top of what the pentagon is investigating at this point. please keep us posted on any movement on that front. while i have you, i want you to weigh in on how hillary clinton chose to act during the 2008 presidential campaign. we've now learned because of the "the new york times" story that her faith adviser during the 2008 campaign sexually harassed a young woman on the team and she was reassigned, the victim in this but he was docked a few weeks pay, told to go to counseling which he didn't go to. her two of top advisers told her you got to let this guy go, she

saw it different, she didn't. fast-forward five years, he goes to run and correct the record in support of hillary clinton, does something similar to a staffer then gets fired, was her response in 2008 appropriate? do you believe she should have said, okay, advisers, i trust you, this guy's out of my team? >> well, that's a lot. i think so. are you sure hillary clinton was aware of all of that? >> she said she was aware. she said she was aware of it. she was in her words dismayed at the time. this is the "the new york times" breaking this reporting according to multiple sources and, yes, over the weekend she did not deny it. she said she called the woman up recently, was glad the woman was heard but she did not apologize for not firing this man. should she have?