i work at the network operations center for comcast. we're working to make things simple, easy and awesome. welcome to "inside politics." i'm john king. thank you for sharing your day with us. democrats begin their aggressive new oversight with the president and his policies, and the president complains he is being harassed. plus negotiators report progress as they try to beef up security and prevent another government shutdown. but they cannot answer the biggest question. if they do make a deal, will the president sign it? the governor and attorney general face demands to resign. the governor is said to have

assaulted a woman in 2004. >> i think there should be an investigation to determine what happened, but certainly her letter reads as quite detailed and suggests that there is credibility there, but there needs to be an investigation to determine what exactly happened. >> back to the virginia drama in a few moments. we begin with what you might call investigations, inc, and with the president making clear he is not happy. house democrats have sweeping power, and today offers a glimpse of how they intend to use it to investigate the president and question his cabinet. today some of the policy on the president's tax returns and the question of whether congress can compel their release. but the big marker comes from the intelligence committee and its newly reconstituted probe into the president's link to

russia. they are laying out five areas of interest. they are broad, and they include if any foreign actors, not just russians, hold leverage over the president and his associates. the president this morning taking to twitter saying schiff and democrats are guilty of, quote, presidential harassment. the chair says it's incumbent on democrats to find the facts. public critics say this proves they have formed a verdict. >> we would be negligent in not looking into the president. >> with me -- i'm sorry, i was getting ahead of myself. with me to share their reporting and insights, mj lee, michael sheer with the "new york times" and michael o'keefe with npr. i was so excited to get to that, i didn't introduce my guests.

it's on me. for two years devin nunez was off the rails, not pursuing facts. is there now a risk the democrats are doing the same thing if russia still has leverage over the president? where is evidence that russia has leverage over the president? why get to the end of the score before we play the game? >> there is a lot of tension between the pressure on democrats from their base, from the partisans who are so angry with what trump has done over the last couple of years who want them to finally take the power that they have and use it in a political way, and the pressure from the other side, which, you know, compels or would try to compel a sense of bipartisanship, especially in the intelligence community, which historically has operated prior to this administration, as operated in a bipartisan way, and i think the people who are

in power on those committees understand that at the end of the day, those investigations are more effective if they are bipartisan because when they're not, you end up having the result of the nunez committee or other committees where, when they've taken a partisan view, it doesn't go anywhere. it doesn't produce anything that has any lasting political impact. and i think that's the tension that they're trying to work out. >> and i think it's tension that's felt by leadership without question. when you talk to members of leadership, talk to their staff, they want you to strike a balance and take some time to do this the right way. it's important that you can lay out the top lines of what you want an investigation to reach for or try to uncover, but the reality is it takes time. it takes time to get documents, it takes time to staff up, it takes time to do a lot of things. so the fact it might come with subpoena power isn't going to be reality. probably a better way of looking at how democrats are using techniques is what's going on in the president's tax returns right now. they're holding a hearing where they're going to be making a public case for the tax return.

they won't be voting to try to get the tax returns, they'll be bringing up people to vote. there's just a lot of pressure to deliver immediately. >> we'll have different committees doing different investigations. some of them are about democratic questions about the president himself. why don't we see his taxes? we've seen every other president's? about the russia probe, other foreign players. elijah cummings is the chairman of the oversight committee. he's a little bit more careful with his public comments than chairman schiff in the intelligence committee. listen to schiff. we'll do it right. he says here, we're going to do our homework first. what republicans would do is they would go out and make headlines a week or two before the hearing and then look for some facts to prove the headlines. we're not doing that. can democrats stick to that standard? >> the chairmen of these committees certainly want to try. the president has demonstrated that he's willing to go to the

well of the house and criticize the investigations, he's willing to go to twitter to criticize the investigations, and they want to be able to push back and say, look, we're being deliberate. we're going through this in a step-by-step manner, and so that's where they are. the reality is that although we're very focused on the tax returns, we're focused on the russia investigation, some of the investigations and oversight that the house is likely to do which will be significantly more painful for the trump administration is policy oversight, looking at family separation, some of the things that aren't going to get big headlines in the same way in which they hit pay dirt which could be a big problem. >> it is clear there are certain issues that are clearly going to be much more personal for the president, particularly when you look at issues for pertaining to his company, issues related to his tax returns and how he himself and his family have conducted business in the past. i think he is learning the lesson right now just how different the world is when your party does not control both

chambers in congress. democrats are forging ahead with what they said they would always do, conducting investigations, launching probes, holding hearings. this is what they always made clear they wanted to do, but i think this balancing act of making clear to the public, too, that this is not just going to be all partisan, that there are important policy issues we want to look at as well. it is not just sort of the shiny optics out there and particularly the salient ones we are looking for. it's going to be a balancing act for the democrats. >> now that the democrats have the power, will they conduct credible investigations, follow the facts, take it slow, sometimes keep your mouth shut and be quiet until you get to the end, or will they look to generate cable tv, fundraising letters and the like? and the flip side is how does the administration adjust to this new order. two years ago there were hearings but not direct oversights. there was not putting cabinets

in the seats. the cabinet relative to that wouldn't come today. so the deputy is here today. he said, sorry, your boss should be in the chair. this is him going after adam schiff. they have sparred for a long time. the president says, now adam schiff announces that he'll be looking at every aspect of my life, both financial and personal, even though there's no reason to do it, never happened before, unlimited dpresidential harassment. the dems and their committees are going nuts. the republicans never did this to president obama, there would be no time left to run government. i hear other committee heads will do the same thing. even stealing people who work at white house. a continuation of witch hunt! >> the intelligence committee hasn't pursued a similar type of investigation, i'm paraphrasing,

saying we want hearings seven days a week for 40 weeks, and the white house had to staff up and basically form a response team to address what they saw coming and what did end upcominupcomin kom up coming. there is historical precedence for this, when you get out a little too far ahead of your skis or when you try to release information before you complete a full investigation, you lose what you are trying to pursue. >> just to follow up on tamara's point about the policy, one of the things that really aggressive oversight from congress on the policy decisions does is it pushes down the message to the bureaucracy that when you're sending e-mails, when you're writing memos to each other, when you're having meetings and discussing some of these really controversial policies whether it's the travel ban or the family separation policy or the transgender ban, those are all of a sudden not going to be protected by a friendly congress, right?

you're going -- you're under -- at risk of having that deliberative process exposed to the public, which for the first two years of the administration, he really didn't have much threat. there was reporters having to do that, but they had congress kind of steadfastly blocking those requests and not letting that stuff come out, and that won't happen anymore. >> the question is does it get saddled a month from now or are we in combat the next two years in the sense that the acting attorney general did pushback to try to get him to testify. they have the subpoenas in their back pocket just in case he doesn't show up. sarah sanders wants mnuchin to come up in her committee to talk about sanctions. they keep getting pushed back to the delays. some of this has been the government shutdown. oh, we need more time. okay, when will we get to a place where we know if this will work or not?

>> going to the tweet, the word harassment similar to the term witch hunt which the president uses all the time, i think, is very telling when it comes to his mindset and how he views all this. he has spent the last two years not getting used to the idea of political reality, and he thinks of washington that congress is there to conduct oversight and he hasn't really had to confront that until this moment. i think the starting point for the president, he is constantly ticked off at the democrats. that doesn't bode well in terms of what we can see in the next two years with democrats and republicans coming together and trying to get things done legislatively. >> it's the president's effort to tell his supporters, whatever you hear don't believe. the next attorney general faces a key vote in just a little bit. but first, the former attorney general jeff sessions, remember? this is him talking about how he lost his job.

>> usually these things work out! you're lucky if they don't shoot y you. with the latest safety system standard, best-in-class turn radius and best-in-class mpg. experience amazing at your lexus dealer. got it. ran out of ink and i have a big meeting today. and 2 boxes of twizzlers... yeah, uh...for the team. the team? gooo team... order online pickup in an hour.

and, now save big at the buy 2 get 1 free event. at office depot officemax.

and, now save big at the buy 2 get 1 free event. tremfya® is for adults with remoderate. 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.

just minutes away from a vote for president trump's nominee for attorney general, william barr. listening to democrats in "the lead" this morning, it's pretty clear this vote will be along party lines. >> i'll be voting against william barr. i hope i'm wrong. i hope if he is the next attorney general, and he's likely to be, that what i saw in his family, what i saw in his resume, what i've seen to his commitment to the issue of justice will come through clearly and he'll stand up for this constitution even if it's

against the wishes of this president. >> i can't think of an assertion of executive power where he's found any real limits. i will not be able to vote for him. >> sheldon whitehouse live on capitol hill. manu raju, what did he say? >> reporter: he didn't say much. these nominees come through the halls while meeting members. bill barr didn't answer. i tried asking him if he's confident he'll have the votes and if he's spoken to the president. here's his response. >> do you think you'll get the votes today? yeah? have you talked to the president at all? >> so shaking his head no, he did not speak to the president. of course, his conversations with the president of interest to the committee because it's the democrats who are particularly concerned about how he'll handle the mueller report

when it comes out. he has said both privately and publicly that he will agree to release a report consistent with judiciary guidelines, but that doesn't satisfy the democrats that he'll let the report come out and not redact anything. barr told him the white house will not assert executive privilege to hide wrongdoing, and the mueller report, he said he would hold barr to that. democrats not going for that, john. >> we'll see when it gets to the vote. manu raju on the hill. if you talk to democrats privately, especially the old democrats who remember bill barr from the bush administration, they say he's an adult, they say they disagree with him. he's conservative and they're more liberal. but he does a good job, and

they're surprised that the president nominated someone with so much experience, but yet almost all the democrats will be voting no. >> getting him to say anything in the hallway is a big accomplishment. you might not think a nod is much, but it's a lot for bill barr. they will be opposing any trump nomination, particularly for a cabinet seat or judicial nominations. i think the sound you played from senator durbin was really important where he listed through all the reasons why this is probably a great pick. i think if you talk to democrats in a more candid setting, they will acknowledge, we probably couldn't have asked for a better pick. the executive power concerns are real. obviously there are a lot of concerns about the ambiguity about his response to the mueller report. he was answering kind of to the best of his ability. i think it's more reflective of the fact if you're a cabinet

nominee or a circuit court judge or whoever you are from the trump administration, obviously you will be opposed by most, if not all, of democrats. >> the president said -- amy klobuchar fashions herself as less partisan, more centrist, but even her on the committee today saying, no. >> the attorney general doesn't just have great powers but has great responsibilities. and that is why we must look not only to this nominee's qualifications and his family and his work in the past, which is impressive, but we must look at his judgment to see if he can be the kind of attorney general that we need right now in this nation's history. his 19-page memo to me tells it

all. >> that memo was questioning some of the mueller investigation. bill barr at the hearing said he was acting on press reports, it was monday morning quarterbacking, he didn't have any facts. he gave assurances he would let mueller do his job. he gave assurances he would release as much as he could, but he's not going against president trump, and therefore democrats are voting no. >> that memo pretty much guaranteed that democrats would not be able to support him. it was seen as projecting to president trump about what kind of attorney general he could potentially get. barr insists that's not what he was doing, he was just a guy on the sidelines offering some advice, but that is a big problem for democrats and something they can't go for. i think it was durbin who said, he reminds me of jim mattis, the former defense secretary who he felt was doing the job to do good for the country. but that still, durbin and the others, are not going to be able to support him. >> what's interesting is if you

think back to the early days of this administration when president trump and people around him didn't understand the long-lasting implications of the russia probe, right, and all the decisions of firing comey, firing flynn and everything, and i think there was a sense then because they didn't understand washington politics and they were new to it. i don't think they had any idea. especially in this day and age when the new cycle is 13 seconds, right, and nothing is lasting, this shows just how lasting if you understafundameng is viewed through. >> they essentially treat bill barr as an adult, but they look to president trump to say, it's been 92 days now since jeff sessions was fired. he thinks the attorney general is supposed to be a lackey and a lap dog, not follow the constitution but protect the president. our new poll last hour, here's

some pressure on bill barr and the congress. 87% of americans, which means most republicans, too, think the mueller report should be made public. the democratic concerns that it won't have some legitimacy. in actions taken by the president and a new filing by his legal team, the loyalists in the trump campaign are following court because they are asking about the dirty money in the trump campaign. what happened to that money? are they protected from the transition act? are they protected by an evidenciary privilege? the trump team saying we may fight this. >> the democrats are putting up flares on this issue that it's so important to have clarity on whether as ag he would fully disclose to the public and congress the full mueller investigation, that they have the public's backing on this, right? the polls showing 87% of all americans, and actually this was

across party lines. the majority of democrats, independents and republicans saying, yes, we would like to see this, too. i think that is going to be important in terms of how democrats think of their political capitulations. especially when it comes to this aging population, this position has become so synonymous with the russian investigation and the sticking points for the democrats is almost entirely about that. how are you going to handle the investigation? are you going to be supportive of mueller finishing it? the fact they have public support is a big deal. >> we'll keep track of that vote later in the hour. up next, turmoil in virginia, especially in the democratic party. can all three top officials hang onto their jobs? only genuine idaho potatoes have the

perfect taste and texture to get your meal started right. means they won't hike your rates over one mistake. see, liberty mutual doesn't hold grudges. for drivers with accident forgiveness, liberty mutual won't raise their rates because of their first accident. switch and you could save $782 on home and auto insurance. call for a free quote today. liberty mutual insurance. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪

means they won't hike your rates over one mistake. see, liberty mutual doesn't hold grudges. for drivers with accident forgiveness, liberty mutual won't raise their rates because of their first accident. switch and you could save $782 on home and auto insurance. call for a free quote today. liberty mutual insurance. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪

time. that was the one-word answer from a top virginia democrat today when asked how party elders hoped to resolve the commonwealth leadership crisis. all three top officials are faced with threatening career scandals. today there is a massive list added to the demands for the

resignation of virginia's governor, ralph northam. and now the attorney general has admitted he dressed in blackface. and now a woman told them about an attack of sexual harrasment she had with lieutenant governor justin fairfax. >> robby scott, serving since 1993, he had a prior relationship and sources tell us it was a romantic relationship with fairfax' accuser, maya tyson. they spoke numerous times between 2013 and 2018, and she told tyson she had an issue with fairfax, but it wasn't until

late 2018 that robby was aware of the fact that tyson had a me too allegation against justin fairfax. he said allegations of sexual assault need to be taken seriously. i have known professor tyson for approximately a decade and she is a friend. she deserves the opportunity to have her story heard. all of this comes as we have a trio of scandals here. there is a standoff between ralph northam the governor, justin fairfax, lieutenant governor, and the attorney general. they're all kind of staring at each other waiting for the other to make a move. we were told by justin fairfax that he spoke to governor northam this morning. it was the first time they had spoken since the bizarre press conference on saturday when he denied that it was him in the photo after admitting to it on

friday. after ralph northam was called to resign, here's what they said about justin fairfax. all allegations of sexual assault deserve to be taken with profound gravity. we will continue to evaluate the situation regarding lieutenant governor fairfax. they are not asking for the same from fairfax as they are northam, his resignation. those who asked for the resignation of northam have held their fire on the issue of fairfax. >> let's bring in julie grahufsky. fairfax said tyson said this happened in 2004. the statute there, if she wanted to press charges, is about to run out. yesterday she gave an indication she wants to do that. is that the only -- is that the best option -- i can't find the

right word -- to have this investigated thoroughly, or did you see another way? >> well, i think if you're the lieutenant governor, that might be the best option, because the criminal case carries with it the burden of proof of beyond a reasonable doubt, which is a much higher standard than the burden of proof in the court of public opinion. >> let's come back to public opinion. he says after this alleged incident in 2004 -- there were no other witnesses in the hotel -- he said there was a phone call, and he gave unclear answers about whether there were texts. her answer was emphatic. she said there was communication in 2004, she has not spoken to him since. this was 14 years ago, 15 years ago. in your experience, could we find those phone records if they exist? >> probably. it depends if it's a cell phone, it might be easier to find the phone records. they may exist and the lieutenant governor could ask

for them. >> although the lieutenant governor is the one who put this out there. put the burden on him. >> i would think he would want to. >> the question is what now? i talked to one of the elders in the virginia department saying they need more time. everything is changing every day, we need to get a couple days of consistency and figure out what to do here. their principle is racism shouldn't have your job. women should be taken credibly. what is the consistency challenge for democrats now? >> that is the consistency challenge, is whether to abide by the same standard that they were demanding in cases like the kavanaugh case which, you know, the consistency flips the other direction, too, right? there were a lot of republicans during the kavanaugh case who were making the case that it was far back in his past and it shouldn't be a disqualifying factor. people on both sides have this issue. for the democratic party, this

is a state that a decade ago, when i was a reporter there, the republicans had absolute firm lock on this legislature, 67 out of the 100 seats in the house of delegates. there was a republican speaker at the house at the time. he was ousted because of a sexual harrasment scandal. democrats have consistently taken power back in the state where now it's 51-48. they had hopes of cementing power in virginia over the course of the next couple election cycles, and this is, from a political perspective, really damaging to that. it's hard to see how the party solidifies its control in the state when uf gyou've got all t scandals going on. that's a problem for them. >> in the case of the lieutenant governor, can there be a vehicle to air this out in the sense that, again, first with respect to the victim. she said she has a statement, that's it. maybe she doesn't want there to be anything. but in the case of kavanaugh efrkavanaugh, he was i nominee for the state

house, there was a hearing. they had negotiations over other witnesses but there was a process. he's lieutenant governor. there is no process here. what do you do? >> it's really tough, too, because the parallels between this woman who is accusing the lieutenant governor of sexual assault years ago and what blasey ford was saying about kavanaugh, both are hard to deal with. both women said they intentionally didn't tell family or friends right away, so that often makes it difficult when there is a potentially intimate exchange between two people. the whole point is it's not necessarily going to be seen by others, if any. and also just the aspect of these women seeing these men who they're accusing of terrible behavior, seeing them rise in public office, they are triggered by that, at least that's what they're saying, and the reasons for them saying they're speaking out now has so much to do with the fact that

they are seeing these men in public rise in their careers, and something about that really doesn't sit well with them. but i think it's a really, really difficult thing to confront because they're not going to be sort of right answers that satisf everybody. you cannot go back in time, you cannot play a video clip, because none of that exists, right? >> again, for the democrats, you can be consistent if you want to be. freshman congresswoman jennifer westin from north virginia says, i believe doctor tyson. here at cnn writing in vanity fair, and at the confirmation process they demand that it be paused and that kavanaugh confront the charges. there are no democrats standing up for what's right at a moment

when it's really, really hard. national democrats can claim that this fairfax story is none of their business, because they aren't immersed in the details. and when he admitted he was in blackface, the democrats said, you have to stand down. >> if you're not confronting a senator or member of the flohou from virginia, they're not going to say anything. compare that to where they were a couple months ago during the kavanaugh nomination and it's a complete reversal. i think part of it underscores there's politics about this, no question about it. people are trying to navigate what the line of succession would be. to mj's point, there is nothing clean here. just like kavanaugh where you can say definitively, this is what happened. we know this is what happened and we know this is how it ends.

to the point peter made and the point you're hearing from a lot of republicans right now is, we told you this would eventually come back and bite you. this is biting right now, and you need to figure out how to respond, and right now they haven't figured it out. >> someone with a fafact-findin experience. >> the democrats could ask for the hearing to be stayed so they could look at the facts. there is no pending investigation here, and i don't know if there is a history of the state legislature investigating these kinds of cases. so it does put the democrats in a little bit of a trickier situation. all of these cases are so fact-based, and so they're going to have to come up with something, and maybe the virginia democratic party itself is going to have to investigate. >> i appreciate your coming in. a big speech from the former starbuck's ceo. he's flirting running for president as an independent. do the american people want him

to do it? ♪ ♪ ♪ and everywhere i go ♪ there's always something to remind me ♪ ♪ of another place and time ♪ ♪

every day, people are fighting type 2 diabetes with food, family and farxiga, the pill that starts with f. farxiga, along with diet and exercise, helps lower a1c in adults with type 2 diabetes. it's one pill a day. and although it's not a weight loss drug, it may help you lose weight. do not take if allergic to farxiga. if you experience symptoms of a serious allergic reaction such as rash, swelling, difficulty breathing or swallowing, stop taking and seek medical help right away. do not take farxiga if you have severe kidney problems, are on dialysis, or have bladder cancer. tell your doctor right away

if you have blood or red color in your urine or pain while you urinate. farxiga can cause serious side effects, including dehydration, genital yeast infections in women and men, serious urinary tract infections, low blood sugar and kidney problems. stop taking farxiga and call your doctor right away if you have signs of ketoacidosis, which is serious and may lead to death. ask your doctor about the pill that starts with f and visit farxiga.com for savings. if you can't afford your medication, astrazeneca may be able to help. if you can't afford your medication, ♪ ♪ ♪

the one with the designer dog collar.(sashimi) psst. hey, you! wondering how i upgraded to this sweet pad? a 1,200-square-foot bathroom, and my very own spa. all i had to do was give my human "the look". with wells fargo's 3% down payment on a fixed-rate loan and a simpler online application, getting into my dream home was easier than ever. get your human to visit wellsfargo.com/woof. what would she do without me?

former starbuck's ceo howard schultz about to make his first big speech announcing he might run for president as an independent. it's happening a few minutes from now excer. excerpts talk like a campaign speech. 20% of americans describe themselves as likely to support schultz, 20%. that's a ross perot-like number. 15% of democrats say interest in schultz at this moment. 22% of independents, 22% of

republicans say they would likely back schultz. we also asked poll respondents if they view schultz favorably. about half of them say they k w never heard of him. early numbers i lay down here just as a benchmark. they mean nothing about 2020, they mean nothing about does he actually run, but is it interesting to see to say, are you open to supporting him? he gets 20%. that's ross perot's number. that's a big deal. >> say what he's been saying to national democrats about the people outraged by a schultz run, they're saying, whoa, whoa, whoa, it's not clear that a schultz run necessarily takes away from the democratic candidate and helps trump win, this suggests that maybe it might go the other direction. >> he would have some republican

support and independent support, but the democrats would argue on the flip side, yeah, but if they're never trump votes they would go to the democratic nominee. if you're giving them a place to go, it's like ohio. they think ross perot cost them ohio. >> i think the freakout from national democrats was merited because everyone is so concerned about what they can take away. however, it's early. but once you start getting a better sense of where the democratic field is going to end up, the numbers will start moving and shifting and it's early. i know we're supposed to make definitive predictions now, but it's early. >> i won't make any predictions until the day after the 2020 election. here's your baseline. here's where you started. do you improve as people hear more from you or do you drop as

people hear more from you? >> democrats and republicans start with a baseline of 35 or more, at least, so he's starting with a lower baseline. the battle over getting matthew whitaker, the acting attorney general, to testify? he's taking another term. and looking to buy life insurance on a fixed budget, remember the three p's. what are the three p's? the three p's of life insurance on a fixed budget are price, price, and price. a price you can afford, a price that can't increase, and a price that fits your budget. i'm 65 and take medications. what's my price? you can get coverage for $9.95 a month. i just turned 80. what's my price? $9.95 a month for you, too. if you're age 50 to 85, call now about the number one most popular whole life insurance plan available through the colonial penn program. it has an affordable rate starting at $9.95 a month.

no medical exam, no health questions. your acceptance is guaranteed, and this plan has a guaranteed lifetime rate lock, so your rate can never go up for any reason. and with this plan, you can pick your payment date, so you can time your premium due date to work with your budget. so call now for free information. and you'll also get this free beneficiary planner, and it's yours just for calling. so call now. we all make excuses for the things we don't want to do. but when it comes to colon cancer screening... i'm not doin' that. i eat plenty of kale. ahem, as i was saying... ...with cologuard, you don't need an excuse... all that prep? no thanks. that drink tastes horrible!

but...there's no prep with cologuard... i can't take the time off work. who has two days? and i feel fine - no symptoms! everybody, listen! all you need is a trip to the bathroom. if you're 50 or older and at average risk, cologuard is the noninvasive option that finds 92% of colon cancers. you just get the kit in the mail, go to the bathroom, collect your sample, then ship it to the lab! this is your year! own it! cologuard is not right for everyone. it is not for high risk individuals, including those with a history of colon cancer or precancer, ibd, certain hereditary cancer syndromes, or a family history of colon cancer. ask your doctor if cologuard is right for you. covered by medicare and most major insurers.

just now the acting attorney general responding angerrily to the house committee after they voted to not use the subpoena. they want a guarantee that the subpoena will stay in nadler's back pocket. what does it say and what does it tell us? >> well, john, no shortage of drama here between the justice department and capitol hill over this closely watched testimony that was supposed to happen. matthew whitaker's first

oversight hearing on capitol hill set for tomorrow morning now in jeopardy over this whole issue of a subpoena, the one that jerry nadler's committee authorized this morning in case he doesn't answer questions on the grounds of executive privilege. but the justice department now pushing back very hard, saying this was a breach of the agreement, that he voluntarily wanted to testify, and now saying if they don't get an assurance frin the first place from the committee at 6:00 that they will not use that subpoena, t then he will not show up for that hearing tomorrow. they said if they can work it out, he will answer some questions. the government really keyed in on comments about the russia investigation. i want to read to you a little bit, john, about what the justice department is saying he would be willing to testify to. they say the acting attorney general will testify that at no time did the white house ask for or did the acting attorney general provide any promises or

commitments concerning the special counsel's investigation. obviously that's a hot topic as many of the democrats have been sort of suspicious about what whitaker was doing here in the first place, wondering if he was supposed to be the eyes and ears of president trump over here at the justice department as he's been the acting attorney general since early november. but he's saying he would be willing to talk about that, but he goes on to say, john, we do not believe, however, that the committee may legitimately expect the acting attorney general to discuss his communications with the president. so that's a bright line that they're drawing here, and whitaker saying based upon today's action, it's apparent that the committee's true intention is not to discuss the great work of the department of justice but, rather, to create a public spectacle. so now he has his ultimatum. if he doesn't get reassurance by 6:00 p.m. tonight that they will not use that back pocket subpoena, he's not coming. >> we'll see how this plays out. i appreciate the breaking news from the justice department. let's quickly go around the table here. this gets back to the question we had at the top of the show.

number one, will the administration comply? number two, when officials do say i'm willing to sit in the chair decide to play a little tarzan. we have a subpoena for you when he says he's willing to come. is that the right way or did the democrats fear they needed that power? what's with the subpoena? >> i think we can say with certainty that the justice department's goal is not to talk about the great work the justice department has been doing. they are sending a warning shot to whitaker saying, it's all well and good that you're testifying tomorrow, but we're not going to be satisfied unless you answer specific questions about the mueller investigation, particularly pertaining to any conversations you might have had with the president. and in terms of the recusal process, why you decided not to recuse yourself from the mueller investigation. they don't want him sitting there answering questions vaguely, they want specifics, and i don't know if this letter is going to satisfy democrats who want him sitting in that

chair behind that table answering very, very specific questions. >> we are off to a testy start, shall we say? >> this seems a little clumsy to have done the subpoena before the guy gets there. they can always subpoena him after. >> that's the way it used to work. >> it gave barr -- it gave whitaker in the justice department an opening. >> democrats always say the president blows through the norms in this town. they're blowing through a norm with that one. the senate committee has just agreed to vote the acceptance of william barr for attorney general. the vote was 12-10 along party lines. lean brianna keilar starts a quick break. have a good afternoon. sometimes,

bipolar i disorder can make you feel like you have no limits. but mania, such as unusual changes in your mood, activity or energy levels, can leave you on... shaky ground. help take control by asking your healthcare provider about vraylar. vraylar treats acute mania of bipolar i disorder. vraylar significantly reduces overall manic symptoms, and was proven in adults with mixed episodes who have both mania and depression. 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 judgement; heat sensitivity; and trouble swallowing may occur. you're more than just your bipolar i. ask about vraylar.

just your bipolar i. the company who invented car vending machines and buying a car 100% online. now we've created a brand new way for you to sell your car. whether it's a few years old or dinosaur old, we want to buy your car. so go to carvana and enter your license plate, answer a few questions, and our techno-wizardry calculates your car's value and gives you a real offer in seconds. when you're ready, we'll come to you, pay you on the spot, and pick up your car. that's it. so ditch the old way of selling your car and say hello to the new way... at carvana. the aarp auto insurance program from the hartford? let's take a ride with some actual customers and find out. - well, tell me about your experience when you switched to the hartford. - when i switched to the hartford, i'm sitting there thinking, "man, i should have "turned 50 years ago." they saved me a bunch of money. you can't beat that. - what blows me away about the hartford is their lifetime renewability benefit. now this is their promise not to drop you even if you have an accident.

- i know when i'm driving, i'm covered. - [narrator] drivers 50 and over can save hundreds of dollars when they switch to the aarp auto insurance program from the hartford and get other incredible benefits like lifetime renewability. not an aarp member? the hartford can help you join in minutes. call the hartford to request your free quote at... or go to... (coughing) need a change of scenery? kayak searches hundreds of travel sites and filters by cabin class, wi-fi and more. so you can be confident you're getting the right flight at the best price. kayak. search one and done. oh! oh! oh! ♪ ozempic®! ♪ (announcer) people with type 2 diabetes are excited about the potential of once-weekly ozempic®. in a study with ozempic®, a majority of adults lowered their blood sugar and reached an a1c of less than seven and maintained it. oh! under seven?

and you may lose weight. in the same one-year study, adults lost on average up to 12 pounds. oh! up to 12 pounds? a two-year study showed that ozempic® does not increase the risk of major cardiovascular events like heart attack, stroke, or death. oh! no increased risk? ♪ oh, oh, oh, ozempic®! ♪ ozempic® should not be the first medicine for treating diabetes, or for people with type 1 diabetes or diabetic ketoacidosis. do not share needles or pens. don't reuse needles. do not take ozempic® if you have a personal or family history of medullary thyroid cancer, multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, or if you are allergic to ozempic®. stop taking ozempic® and get medical help right away if you get a lump or swelling in your neck, severe stomach pain, itching, rash, or trouble breathing. serious side effects may happen, including pancreatitis. tell your doctor if you have diabetic retinopathy or vision changes. taking ozempic® with a sulfonylurea or insulin may increase the risk for low blood sugar. common side effects are nausea, vomiting, diarrhea,

stomach pain, and constipation. some side effects can lead to dehydration, which may worsen kidney problems. i discovered the potential with ozempic®. ♪ oh! oh! oh! ozempic®! ♪ ask your healthcare provider if ozempic® is right for you. i'm brianna keilar live from cnn's washington headquarters. underway right now, the president's red line about to be crossed by democrats, from his finances to family separations at the border, the oversight of president trump begins. plus, new details on the president's carefully guarded tax returns. we now know where they are and how desperate some are to get them. the controversial acting attorney general set to testify and democrats already have a subpoena waiting if he refuses to answer questions. and jurors deciding the fate of one of the world's most