welcome to "inside politics." i'm john king. we begin with somewhat bizarre breaking news from the president of the united states. just this morning he said he's inclined to pardon a conservative pundit accused of campaign violations. now on a flight to texas, the president telling reporters after landing there he was also considering pardoning the former governor rodney blagojevich and

considering pardoning martha stewart. jeff zeleny is on the ground. jeff, explain the president's thinking here that he's considering pardoning people who all seem to be those he knows from the world of politics. >> reporter: this certainly is a new development. the president landed here a few moments ago. behind me he is greeting a few military officials at ellington field just outside of houston. we are told by pool reporters on the plane that the president invited reporters up to his office on air force i which is a makeshift oval office, if you will, and he talked to these reporters for about 15 minutes or so. the part he wanted to put on the record was the new specific information about how he is thinking about pardoning former illinois governor rod blagojevich as well as martha stewart. this is certainly coming as the president is giving a lot of

attention to pardons. he's been doing it with more frequency. of course, had an earlier tweet this morning, but it is the rod blagojevich potential pardon that is certainly interesting, john. you can see the president is now waving to a small crowd of supporters here behind me. he's pumping his fist into the air there as he gets into his limousine there. but certainly these pardons are something that are quite unusual. rod blagojevich, of course, a democrat. he is one of a long line of illinois governors who has been sentenced on corruption charges of a variety of matters. he just recently had an op-ed in the "wall street journal" talking about sentencing reform. but one other similarity rod blagojevich has to martha stewart, they were both on "the apprentice." they were both on the president's show, of course, before he came into the white house. so he knows them, he's familiar with them. he said perhaps not a full pardon for rod blagojevich, but he might try and shorten his

sentence. he has an 18-year sentence there. he said this as well. he said an 18-year sentence is unfair. plenty of politicians have said worse things. this is part of a pay for play scandal back in illinois. all of this is coming, john, as the president certainly not focusing on the message of the day, the matter at hand here. he is in texas to raise money as well as meet with victims of that horrible school shooting in nearby santa fe, texas. but the president seems to have criminal justice on his mind as he's deep in the russia investigation. a couple other similarities here. one of the prosecutors in the rod blagojevich case was very close friends with james comey, the former fbi director who he fired more than a year ago. so a lot of news in a three-hour flight from washington here to ellington field outside of houston, john. we'll see what the rest of the day brings. >> jeff, i may be asking you a question you're not able to answer, and i apologize in advance if that's the case. but we know the president in the past, scooter libby is one

example, dick cheney's former chief of staff, got a pardon from the president in which the president emerged from a meeting with lawyers and one of scooter libby's attorneys and decided that was a good thing to do. this is a process that usually takes months and years. the justice department looks into these things, the white house counsel looks into these things, the parties affected by the case get to weigh in on whether this is appropriate or inappropriate. is there any indication whether the president is using a process or simply using his gut? >> reporter: john, i think there is every indication he is using his gut. he is using his relationships, his familiarity, and of course lawyers for a lot of these people, and many others who we're not even thinking of, i'm sure, are indeed reaching out to him because he is sending the signal he is open for business in terms of pardoning people. what we do not know, is he trying to send a bigger signal to people cloeser to him involvd in other investigations? michael cohen, perhaps, his long-time friend and fixer.

is he trying to send a message that he will, indeed, pardon people down the road. perhaps he is. we don't know that, but that is important context we should be pointing out. this is not happening at the end of the registration, this is not happening at the end of a president's time in office when most of these pardons happen. so i think a couple things at play. the one from desouza earlier today, a big critic of barack obama, spread conspiracy theories saying he was not born in america. all untrue, of course. he pleaded guilty to these charges. this is a case of, a, the president trying to appeal to his base, but b, trying to send a legal message perhaps that he's in the mood to party, john. >> it's that last point where we'll continue the conversation. jeff zeleny, keep in touch as you get more information from the president on the ground in texas. katherine lucie with the associated press, politico's johnson and carol with the

"washington post." thls t this is the president's right. this is a unique power for any president of the united states. this president is using it in a way -- very different. we use the words "very different" and disru"disruptive lot when it comes to the president. has he decided, i don't need the justice department, i don't need to go through the process. years long, months long. martha stewart was convicted of securities fraud. some people say yes, also gives voice to others who say no. i understand it would be the president's critics, but they would say he's often, as he does this, trying to send a message to people who are qualifying individuals or into the russian investigation and saying that i have power.

>> normally we see presidents pardon people, even make controversial starrich. he took a lot of flak on that, but he did it his last day in office. >> president trump is doing that -- >> not even the white house day. i'm sorry, i whe was on his way the capitol. >> we've seen trump do this in one year of a four-year term. it seems like he isn't following the typical process, but what else is new. it's not even necessarily political allies, just friends, people he knows and pardons that will please his political supporters. >> some of it seems celebrity-driven. martha stewart, rod blagojevich. the president just had sylvester

stallone to the white house the other day. i want to bring in jeffrey toobin, but is it improper? >> well, it is legal, there's no question about that. as you said earlier, the pardon power is within the institution. there is no check on it, there is no judicial review, there is no congressional review, it is just something the president can do and that is the end of the story. there is always the debate about whether it's appropriate, and that's a political question, that's a moral question. we have -- the blagojevich pardon is actually much more consequential because he's still in prison. whereas martha stewart is long out of prison, john jackson is long dead. rod blagojevich is still looking at a number of years in prison. and that -- you know, so the pardon would have an immediate, very practical benefit for him.

and as to the political issue of his allies awaiting trial or possibly awaiting indictment, you know, they watch the news, too, and they can watch and hope and keep fighting. this could be a message to paul manafort, it could be a message to michael cohen that, hang in there and the cavalry will come sooner or later. >> white house aides, of course, would push back and say, of course not. just based on the idea, jeff, in your experience, i don't recall this ever happening. a president saying i'm considering of pardoning someone. this is a very tightly held process, he's no longer a former politician, he's in prison. makes it more sensitive. people come and make their case to the white house counsel, make their case to the justice department. normally a long process before it gets to the president.

have you ever haired of that in the past? >> certainly not about individuals. you'll recall in president obama's speech saying, i'm going to have to start a program featuring drug offenders in federal court. i believe he did several thousand of them. he tended to do confrontations rather than a pardon which means these guys still have criminal records. if you do a pardon, it really eliminates the existence of the case, the comutation was short. he did sort of preview it but it was a very orderly process and dealt with not only celebrities but mostly african-american people in federal prison who had been charged with non-violent

drug offenses. -- tharlz nthere's now george bush pardoning casper weinberger as he was leaving the presidency. i don't know if that was previewed, but certainly that had a political flavor to it as well. >> we knew people were pushing the president to do that. i don't remember george herbert walker bush ever saying twitter didn't exist in those days, but he did sometimes have conversations with reporters as he traveled the country. i don't remember him saying, i'm considering these things. we do know there was a public campaign to get the former president to do that. i want to set the record straight.

martha stewart was found of charges that were different, not a full set of charges. this president is different in so many ways. what does this tell us about how he thinks, how he communicates, and again, this will be a debate. there will be trump loyalists who will say, how dare you? these are individual cases. and there are others saying this is a wink-nod to other people. >> are you sure this isn't the traditional process, but this shows us the trump process. relationships matter, celebrity relationships matter, "the apprentice" relationships matter. this is real. he sends a message about the fact he wants to wield pardon power, and it also shows that you might try leaning on the relationship. >> and it's serious, the charges each one of these people faces. rod blagojevich was convicted on corruption charges. he tried to sell a senate seat in exchange for political

favors, essentially. >> barack obama sentenced him, didn't he? >> barack obama sentenced him. this was a huge controversy. desouza admitted to wrongdoing and he pleaded guilty. so the president is doing these things presumably because of these relationships, but also you have to think that the people who are talking to the special counsel have this in the back of their mind about whether or not they should cooperate or not or stay on the president's good side. so i don't think there's any other way to sbrerpt that. zmz the president's critics have brought up thematically. you're talking about obstruction of justice, you're talking about people getting rich off influence trading. this is what we've seen for all people surrounding the president who are being scrutinized right now whether it's mueller's probing inquiries. if he's trying to target these celebrities in particular on

those charges in particular, it's a subtle move but not necessarily -- i don't know that's actually what he's doing, but if that's part of it, it's a calculation that makes a lot of sense. but look, also, as we're talking about the trump process versus the regular process, why would this be the one thing where trump and the doj are in lockstep. this is not exactly a relationship that's healthy right now. to have this all of a sudden be the one place where they're holding hands and working in tandem in a harmonious way that's traditional, we talk about trump being at war with the doj. >> you have to be thinking about this right now. stay on the president's good side. it could help you in the long run. >> whether the president means it or not, thinking of mark rich, republicans were harshly critical of that. scooter libby out of government at that time was among the legal team representing mark rich. a lot of republicans harshly

criticized that, listening for the republicans to speak out about what this president does or how he does it, i think we'll have crickets in the meantime. diplomacy cut short. secretary of state and the chief wrapping up discussions right now with north korea. did something go wrong? we'll be right back. tremfya® works differently for adults with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. with tremfya®, you can get clearer and stay clearer. in fact, most patients who saw 90% clearer skin at 28 weeks... stayed clearer through 48 weeks. tremfya® works better than humira® at providing clearer skin and more patients were symptom free with tremfya®. tremfya® may lower your ability to fight infections, and may increase your risk of infections. before treatment, your doctor should check you for infections and tuberculosis. tell your doctor if you have an infection or have symptoms

such as fever, sweats, chills, muscle aches or cough. before starting tremfya®, tell your doctor if you plan to or have recently received a vaccine. ask your doctor about tremfya®. tremfya®, because you deserve to stay clearer. janssen wants to help you explore cost support options for tremfya®. (vo)have to happen?idn't i didn't see it. (vo) what if we could go back? what if our car... could stop itself? in iihs front-end crash prevention testing, nobody beats the subaru impreza. not toyota. not honda. not ford. the subaru impreza. more than a car, it's a subaru.

kim jong-un and the president talked a short time ago, ending before schedule. substantive talks with the team from the summit with the two leaders. we saw some promising images before the day began. what we're waiting to see is if we get promising proposals from these leaders. you see them shaking hands. that's in the manhattan high rise building.

they also dined last nature. steak and cheese on the menu, according to the secretary of state. president trump has been getting constant updates about these meetings. before he left for tecxas, he said things were going well. po pompeo is carrying a letter. >> i believe they'll be coming down from washington on friday and a letter is going to be delivered to me from kim jong-un, so i look forward to seeing what's in the letter, but it's very important to them. hopefully we'll have a meeting on the 12th. it's going along very well, but i want it to be meaningful. it doesn't mean it gets all done at one meeting. maybe you have to have a second or a third, and maybe we'll have none. but it's in good hands. >> that's the key. what the president just said right there, doesn't all have to be done, meaning this is a 10,

15-year process if -- the biggest if in global communications right now -- if kim jong-un agrees to completely denuclearize. what needs to be in that letter to kim jong-un, and what will pompeo say when he comes back. i looked this man in the eye and i believe they are serious about this. what do we need to get a summit in 12 days? >> senior officials tell me that they need to know that denuclearization is going to be the subject of conversations, and not denuclearization meaning americans leaving the korean positi peninsula, but north korea leading to denuclearization. an openness, a willingness to talk about that on the part of the north koreans. >> that's where it gets fascinating. is north korea willing to come

to the table in a written document to commit to denuclearization in a way that's acceptable to the president and a way that the president works out any disagreements between john bolton and mike pompeo? and what does that process look like? does it go to the united nations? who are the inspectors? is it a national or u.s. agency that does that? and i think the key question is what does the president come to the table with? if he gets those assurances and if he trusts them, which is another big if, does he say, we'll give rid of sanctions immediately, or is it a plan? >> is it a phased approach? maybe they get it piece by piece. they do something, we do something. can they come to an agreement that, a, there will be a meeting, and that they can announce some kind of deliverable. the president really want to do the meeting, i think we're all clear on that, but his people want to go into it and be able to come out of it saying he got something. >> that's the real risk, right,

whether they're willing to give him incentives up front or have hard commitments. this is what they criticized the iran nuclear deal about, because they believe they gave all initiatives up front and didn't get all commitments. but north korea, it's easy to believe they would denuclearize without some significant sanctions relief up front, and that's what the big risk is for the president. >> i want to show you these historic photos. this is madeline albright having a toast with the vice marshal of north korea. they viewed it as a historic breakthrough. you have the secretary of state. pompeo has to be aware of this, has to know the history here. you're meeting with these people. everything sounds right, looks right. they had an agreement and i think north korea started cheating before the ink was dry. >> you had six parties involved in those talks eventually, and you're starting this again where the president is calling all the

shots. you don't have this brokered attempt. the north koreans may not just ask for a simple denuclearization in exchange for sanctions. what if they ask for commitments we've made to various allies in the region? that could make this far more complicated as they drill down to what they mean by those terms. >> a state department official talked about high stakes meeting after dinner. they made progress. that from a senior state department official. defining progress is the hard part here. jim clapper is the top u.s. spy chief. and the top korean spy chief.

these two men have studied each other. here's jim clapper's take on what he's seen from the foreign right-hand man. >> he seemed to me to be a bit overwhelmed by what he was experiencing. >> do you trust him? >> well, i think with the north koreans you definitely need to be in the trust but verify mode. >> that's the fascinating part here. i think even the president's fiercest critics have said, if you think there's reason to go forward with this, give it a shot. north korea has nuclear weapons capable of reaching the united states mainland. they've been a developer of those programs. the president says get rid of them completely. a lot of people say if you can even significantly scale them back or get an agreement where they stop testing them or use them, some people think that's good enough. the president says that's not his goal going into this, it's the verification part. a minister traveling to north korea said the russians need to be brought into this. should the united nations be brought in? we don't have any indication from the united states so far if

they can get an agreement that may take a second or third yea.? what does that involve? >> i think the president and his advisers are still hashing that out amongst themselves yet. they're not going in and talking about north koreans in terms of what they want. i think that was clear from the president's pull-back and disengagement from the north koreans. >> this is about, can we trust you. >> i think that's right. on a background briefing call last week shortly after the president sent the letter, a senior administration official cited a series of broken promises on the part of north korean officials. suffice it to say, i think mike pompeo went in skeptical and they're going to need a series of signs from the north koreans that there might be an up side for the president engaging in

this. >> the least the president publicly will interwove a meeting. >> until we know otherwise, i'm going to assume what john bolton has said, i'm glg to deal with the content behind the scenes. they you will do seem to move forward, if you will. up next for us, though, the dow down again as fears of a global trade war ramp up because of a big white house action just this morning. little things can be a big deal. that's why there's otezla. otezla is not an injection or a cream. it's a pill that treats psoriasis differently. with otezla, 75% clearer skin is achievable after just 4 months, ... with reduced redness, thickness, and scaliness of plaques. and the otezla prescribing information has no requirement for routine lab monitoring. don't use if you're allergic to otezla.

otezla may cause severe diarrhea, nausea, or vomiting. tell your doctor if these occur. otezla is associated with an increased risk of depression. tell your doctor if you have a history of depression or suicidal thoughts, or if these feelings develop. some people taking otezla reported weight loss. your doctor should monitor your weight and may stop treatment. other side effects include upper respiratory tract infection and headache. tell your doctor about all the medicines you take and if you're pregnant or planning to be. ♪ otezla. show more of you. bipolar i disorder can make you feel unstoppable. but mania, such as unusual changes in your mood, activity or energy levels, can leave you on shaky ground. help take control by asking about your treatment options. vraylar is approved for the acute treatment of manic or mixed episodes of bipolar i disorder in adults. clinical studies showed that vraylar reduced

overall manic symptoms. vraylar should not be used in elderly patients with dementia due to increased risk of death or stroke. call your doctor about fever, stiff muscles, or confusion, which may mean a life-threatening reaction, or uncontrollable muscle movements, which may be permanent. side effects may not appear for several weeks. high cholesterol and weight gain; high blood sugar, which can lead to coma or death; decreased white blood cells, which can be fatal; dizziness upon standing; falls; seizures; impaired judgment; heat sensitivity; and trouble swallowing may occur. you're more than just your bipolar i. ask your doctor about vraylar.

new tariffs on steel and aluminum in europe and canada kicking in tonight. the german foreign minister slamming this move as, quote,

unlawful. the president saying standing up for american workers is long overdue but trade san issue is issue where the president is clearly at odds. quote, this is dumb. we've been down this road before. blanket protectionism is a big part on why america had a great depression. make america great again shouldn't mean make america 1929 again. you see the trades down again. this is an issue that keeps the president apart from his party and general orthodoxy. it's also an issue where we can talk about the economics. we think the tax cut is about the economic growth. why would you risk that? because the europeans and the chinese have promised

retaliation. >> that's an argument that republican lawmakers have been making to the president for months hoping he would pull back from this idea of imposing tariffs. of course, the president did campaign on, as he said, putting america first, fighting against what he viewed as unfair trade practices. but this is the biggest policy break between republicans and this president. he's probably more in line with democrats on this issue. but i do think one of the significant things here is that it really does also throw into question whether or not we can trust what his cabinet secretaries are saying about this. there is such clear division within his own administration on this. steve mnuchin last week saying the trade war with china was on hold. they weren't going to impose any new tariffs and what does the white house do a week later? they impose new tariffs on china. really, the president is only speaking for himself on this issue and there is clear division within his own administration. >> i would say this is another example of wait for the

president. there clearly is a tug-of-war. you had gary kohn, who is now gone. gary kudlow goes back to the reagan days. steve mnuchin understands the president but he's more of an establishment guy. you have peter navarro telling the president no. the question is, 15 months in, if he's the great deal maker, why hasn't he been able to renegotiate any of these trade deals he thinks is horrible. instead he's doing this. but everybody involved gets the politics. the europeans say they're going to have retaliation. motorcycles made in wisconsin, bourbon made in kentucky, orange juice, to babacco and motor boa. middle america, trump states for the moest part. >> and these are allies, these countries, at a moment when the president is trying to negotiate

with north korea, efforts in the middle east. is this a time when you want to upset allies trade extensions? as we've seen again and again, it's hard to move him away from these promises. >> i think that's important. he views this not only as a campaign promise, he views this as michigan. we're watching it play out this week, trade and immigration. he thinks immigration won him the republican nomination, he thinks trade won him the presidency. we could argue that. that's how he thinks and that's how he acts. >> bringing up immigration is another example of things we've seen. the popular emphasis is not a lack thereof to the country. yet in that one he's saying, fine, the populism won out. this will be a lot more direct experiment because the retaliatory moves are also targeting pretty much the populations and it's up to the people whether they want to vote with their emotions on the

populist front or vote with their emotion when it's hitting them in the gut. it's not a republican thing if you live in the community or around those businesses, but if you don't, it's more at arm's length. it's a lot different when it's your crop or manufactured good that is actually not being sold and maybe you're losing your job as a result of it. >> the prime minister saying he spoke to the president yesterday, he was hoping they could work it out. those negotiations have collapsed as well. this is the story of the next 25, 30 years because of globalization, global trade and everything. next here the president tweets and seems to conveniently forget what he said in a national prime time interview. that's next. neutrogena®. i think, keep going, and make a difference.

at some point, we are going to be able to beat als. because life is amazing. so i am hoping for a cure. i want this, to uh, to be a reality. um, yeah.

...the only eye drop... ...approved for the signs... ...and symptoms of dry eye. because dry eye can mean... ...more than... ...just dryness. xiidra may provide lasting relief... ...starting in two weeks. one drop in each eye, twice a day. don't use if you are allergic to xiidra. common side effects include eye irritation, discomfort or blurred vision when applied to the eye, and unusual taste sensation. don't touch container tip to your eye... ...or any surface. after using xiidra, wait 15 minutes... ...before reinserting contacts. chat with your eye doctor... ...about xiidra.

i support the affordable care act,

and voted against all trump's attempts to repeal it. but we need to do more. i believe in universal health care. in a public health option to compete with private insurance companies. and expanding medicare to everyone over 55. and i believe medicare must be empowered to negotiate the price of drugs. california values senator dianne feinstein

welcome back. today the president of the united states denying his own words. on twitter this morning the president saying, quote, not that it matters, but i never fired james comey because of russia. that does matter, actually, and before we get to the reason by the law, in case you had forgotten -- >> regardless of recommendation, i was going to fire comey knowing there was no good time to do it. and, in fact, when i decided to just do it, i said to myself, i said, you know, this russia thing with trump and russia is a made-up story. it's an excuse by the democrats for having lost an election that they should have won. >> so why is the president now denying his own words? well, we know he reads the "new york times" religiously and it has some important new reading today on the question of comey's

firing and the intent. it is talking about a memo written by director andrew mccabe. they mentioned rosenstein for a reason for firing comey. you can connect the dots. if the mccabe memo was accurate, rosenstein had firsthand knowledge of the president's mindset. when rosenstein decided, after the comey firing, to name a special counsel to take over the russian investigation. meaning, the president says fire him because of russia. rosenstein writes a memo on other grounds. comey is gone. rosenstein thinks, wait a minute. now the pressure is going to be on me to end the russia investigation. i'm going to name a special counsel. that's a fair connecting of the dots, isn't it? >> yeah. and andrew mccabe talked to the special counsel. the special counsel knows what andrew mccabe knows, assuming he

did turn over this memo to the special counsel as "the times" reports, that's one area for the special counsel to investigate further. the president is obviously not speaking the truth here about blaming the media for suggesting that russia was on his mind. even the president's attorney, rudy giuliani, said last week that one of the reasons why he fired james comey was because comey would not say the president was not a target of the russia investigation. so clearly russia was on his mind, and giuliani admitted it himself last week. >> the president, we know he reads "the times." it stirs up the idea that andrew mccabe doesn't like for many reasons. rosenstein doesn't have a reason to do this if jeff sessions hadn't recused himself, so he says, the recusal of jeff sessions was an unforced betrayal of the president of the

united states. again, imagine that's your boss. he went after jeff sessions yesterday. now he's done this in fits and starts for the last year plus. but in the last 48 hours or 24 hours, the president again has decided to make clear to jeff sessions, i wish you would go away. right? you don't tell a key deputy you accuse him of betrayal unless you want him to go away. right? >> i think it's pretty clear that trump wishes that jeff sessions wasn't there, but why is he still there? it's because the president doesn't want to or feels he can't fire him. and that leads me to believe that jeff sessions actually has some leverage in this situation and it's precisely because of the mueller obstruction of justice probe. >> he does have leverage, and listen, this is rudy giuliani yesterday asked this question. he met with reporters. he had a pool of reporters outside the white house. he asked this question, is the president going to fire jeff sessions and rod rosenstein?

>> i don't think the president is going to touch mueller, sessions or rosenstein. i think in the long run, it will be worked out. >> listen to rudy giuliani here. he's the president's lawyer. he worked with bob mueller as a prosecutor first. then when he was the mayor and mueller was the head of the fbi. listen to rudy giuliani's characterization of the mueller prosecution team. >> you got a group there that is a lynching mob, so let them do their job, and boy, we're ready to knock the heck out of you with our report, which will be a authoritative, it will be backed up, it will be backed up with law and facts, and we'll let the american people decide this. >> i can't wait in the sense that much of what the president says has no relationship to the facts. a lot of what rudy giuliani has little relationship to the facts. we'll see if they have a report that runs counter to what they've said so far.

today he said to dana bash, he's drinking the kool-aid. congress has gone on television, said if said i was part of the briefing by the fbi. when the president said they spied improperly in my campaign, the president is not telling the truth. rudy giuliani says, he's drinking the kool-aid. i don't know what he's doing with the benghazi investigation, either. he really screwed that up. i don't know what he was doing. >> giuliani is preparing for an impeachment. he talks about public opinion and let public opinion decide, that means he thinks mueller is not going to indict the president, he's not going to come up with crimes or try the president in court. he thinks congress is going to decide whether or not to impeach the president based on public opinion, and he is running an enormous pr campaign starting now preparing for that prospect. >> they're trying to undermine in every single way they can. >> and they're making clear that they will use a chain saw against anybody who speaks

counter to what they say, including a republican congressman from south carolina who has traditionally been a conservative hero. >> and don't forget devin nunes has said nothing about this so far. mitch mcconnell said there was nothing surprising he heard at the briefing, so there is nothing to suggest that backs up the president's claims. as you said, john, this is probably a sign to others not to speak out against the president. when we come back, a story i wish we didn't have to cover. but ivanka trump is owed an apology.

sometimes a day at the ballpark is more than just a day at the ballpark. [park announcer] all military members stand and be recognized. sometimes fans cheer for those who wear a different uniform. no matter where or when you served, t-mobile stands ready to serve you. that's why we're providing half off family lines to all military.

with tripadvisor, finding your perfect hotel at the lowest price... is as easy as dates, deals, done! simply enter your destination and dates... and see all the hotels for your stay! tripadvisor searches over 200 booking sites... to show you the lowest prices... so you can get the best deal on the right hotel for you. dates, deals, done! tripadvisor. visit tripadvisor.com

i support the affordable care act, and voted against all trump's attempts to repeal it. but we need to do more. i believe in universal health care. in a public health option to compete with private insurance companies. and expanding medicare to everyone over 55. and i believe medicare must be empowered to negotiate the price of drugs. california values senator dianne feinstein

slonly remfresh useseep one in ion-powered melatonin ht. to negotiate the price of drugs. to deliver up to 7 hours of sleep support. number one sleep doctor recommended remfresh -your nightly sleep companion. welcome back. today samantha bee silent 12 hours after she made a reprehensible statement about president trump's daughter. if you have children, you might ask them to turn down the tv or

walk away. bee used a point to try to make the policy about sending families away at the border. the reaction to this should not be controversial, the comedian calling ivanka trump the c word. >> let me just say one mother to another, do something about your dad's immigration practices, you feckless [ bleep ]. he listens to you. >> let me say as one parent to another. no, no, no. don't criticize the daughter, don't criticize the policy. samantha bee using that word is not funny. the white house press secretary just calling it vile and vicious language. i could not agree more. executives at time warner and tbs must demonstrate that such explicit profanity about female members of this administration will not be condoned on its network. i would say explicit profanity

about anybody, but i get the point about female members in that particular word used by samantha bee. she has been silent. this is a family issue, if you will, by time warner. the president's daughter is fair game. everybody involved in politics is fair game. why do you have to use words that should not be spoken about any human being, whether it's the president's daughter or a perfect stranger? why? >> i don't know. she's right -- >> the comedians will say it's comedy. some things aren't funny. >> yes. sarah sanders is right. these are vile and vicious comments and should not have been made. no one should make these comments and the white house is right to condemn those remarks. now, it would be -- it would be good if the white house was consistent and condemned also roseanne barr's tweets in a similar manner. yesterday it deflected and made it more about the president not getting an apology.

while it was unacceptable, it was more about the president not getting an apology. it doesn't matter if you're left or right, he shouldn't be making those kind of comments about anybody. >> we can and should hold the president accountable. the president is demanding an apology from brian ross. abc did an apology on behalf of brian ross. the president is right if he wants to put pressure on disney saying, what about keith olberman? we have to have standing if we're going to make these arguments, and in this case we don't. like it or not for people in our business, sometimes it's fair, sometimes it's grossly unfair. there is this perception of a double standard. eric erickson tweeting this, and i couldn't agree with me more, all the oppressives in the timeline telling me the roseanne situation and samantha bee situation are not comparable will, i'm sure, be fine when trump supporters start calling clinton, warren, pelosi, et cetera the same as what samantha

bee called ivanka trump. >> the trump administration called this vile and vicious. people were saying he created this space in which that's okay. this is a stupid thing for samantha bee to have done because she's not really anti-woman, right? she's just choosing a really vile term to use there and she may be racist. we're talking about terms and apologies and equating things that are, in one case, a really stupid thing to do and in one case, maybe a much deeper problem. there is, generally speaking, a lack of basic dialogue happening in the television space right now which is its own problem as well, but people are kind of losing their message for making these messages. >> samantha bee is not really anti-woman regardless of that term. >> i'm not making excuses, i'm saying you undercut your own message. >> what we're seeing on both sides with the roseanne situation and the samantha bee

situation is the overpersonalization of politics, and i think that's something that existed before trump, it will exist after trump but that he certainly exacerbated. >> apologize. apologize. and the company, forgive me. i work here but the company should say something, too. thank you for joining me on "inside politics." wolf starts right now. any object. any surface.

if you've got a life you gotta swiffer held lorlo, i'm wolf blitze. wherever you're watching from around the world, thank you for joining us. president trump eliciting another pardon from "the apprentice apprentice." he's certain the justice department concocted a story on