>> doing good. >> sean: all right, samaritan's purse, reverend graham, i don't play your hate mail tonight, but the m m m m mt now. >> martha: on november 8th, 2016, and a stunning upset, republicans swept into a powered triumvirate in the white house, the senate, and house. >> to all republicans or democrats and independents across this nation, i say it is time for us to come together as one united people. [cheers and applause] >> martha: now, 69 days into that huge g.o.p. win, are they leveraging that position or exceeding it to the democrats? ♪

that is the question tonight. we welcome you to "the first 100 days." i am martha maccallum. it is a uniquely d.c. game of chess that is going on right now for you to the trump white house is plotting a course correction. who is leading that? inside the trump team, and what exactly is their plan? there is no short of it of advice out there. the wall street "the wall stree" editorial calls for bipartisanship. you must build the collation from the center out, they say. on the other hand, "the new york post" argues the only way forward is for trump to unite the republican party behind him. informal advisor to the president, new -- newt gingrich, lays blame at the feet of the democrats. >> i think it is very strange that both the house and senate intelligence committees are chaired by republicans and yet, all the noise is about phony

charges involving donald trump. frankly, i am mystified why the republican leadership in both the house and the senate have been so timid and so unwilling to just open up with a straight on investigation. >> martha: we thought so, too. a great question. the former speaker, newt gingrich, joys us now. richard burr called the russia case that they are now undertaking with 20 witnesses the biggest investigation of his tenure. i want to get back to the question we posed. win, win will come a win by they try on parental power that the g.o.p. has. yet, what we have seen is the extreme putting a overcome of the health care proposition go down, all across the board, it seems the g.o.p. is having a tough time keeping their head above the water. >> first of all, the extreme vetting order is being knocked down by liberal judges. that is a standard fight between conservative president and a liberal judge. that is almost to be expected.

the health bill was mishandled. you don't set an artificial deadline for defeat. it took us eight months to pass reagan's tax cut in 1981 and we were giving away money. it took us 18 months to pass welfare reform when i was speaker and 90% of the country favored the bill. it took nancy pelosi and barack obama h months to pass obamacare. they were giving away health care. the idea that we will rush in, set an artificial deadline, allow the senate very strange rules to defend the bill, then, allow the totally phony congressional budget office to miss report with fake numbers. the whole project makes no sense to me. >> martha: the reasons you point out for why these things take time, but in terms of the white house right now, who do you think needs to take the lead? are you confident with the team that the president has around him, that they can turn the narrative? that is what needs to be done on their side.

>> first of all, the white house team is pretty solid. with reince priebus and steve bannon, with vice president pence, with jared kushner, and with kellyanne conway, the president has a pretty good set of key players working on this. i think that they are in the process of rethinking where they are going. the president had a very, very good event last night. he is doing much better, frankly, that the house republican leadership. trump last night had 67 senators down there, very bipartisan. very well handled. i must say, mrs. trump did a very elegant job as first lady last night and a great job today giving a speech on courage and women. i think trump has an opportunity, i am urging him, start with the bill in order to build infrastructure because you can talk to all 100 senators in all 435 house members. you can build a bipartisan good

feeling. second, make it a tax cut bill and make sure that places like north dakota are going to do so well that democratic senator is a pressure to vote for you. make sure missouri will do so well that senator mccaskill will be pressured. >> martha: >> martha: i want tok with what you started with. when you lay that out, do you think he needs to look for bipartisan support? is there any hope that can happen when you look at the resistance that is out there? do you think you'd be better off putting his arms around the freedom caucus? >> absolutely. i have zero doubt, you can build an infrastructure bill that will get 65 or 70 votes in the senate and get 300 votes in the house. >> martha: take a lesson last night. you mentioned last night. we want to show you a moment from that that was kind of funny. watch. >> nobody ever told me that politics was going to be so much fun. hopefully, it will start being

bipartisan because everybody really wants the same thing. we want greatness for this country that we love. so, i think we are going to have some very good relationships. right, chuck? hello, chuck. >> martha: i think he is doing -- how do you think he is doing amidst all this? >> oh, i think he is fine. he was very frustrated on friday and saturday and understandably so. he is very frustrated by the one-sided nature of these investigations, the degree to which they refused to deal with clear facts about the democrats come about the clintons, et cetera. i think overall, he said the time was right, it turns out that he likes to work seven days a week. he likes to work 12 or 15 hours a day. >> martha: we noticed. >> he's been having great meetings. he is a tremendous team in the cabinet. may be as dry cabinet as we have ever seen. i think that he is basically

enjoying being president. i think he knows there are some tough things. he once wrote a book called "the art of the comeback," you read the opening chapter of that, when he almost went broke in the early '90s, he has been through some tough times. he will do fine. i think he is having a better time right now than the congressional republicans are. >> martha: he is not a quitter. that is very clear if you look at the history of president trump. let me play this from today and i will get your thoughts on this from richard burr and mark warner. >> we weren't given a free pass to do a witch hunt. we were asked to do a real investigation. >> i am confident that we coming together, with the members of our committee, will get to the bottom of this. >> martha: richard burr says this is the biggest investigation he had seen in his time on capitol hill. this russia thing. >> i am very disturbed by the way they are defining this. the fact is, john podesta was chairman of the clinton

campaign. his brother took a great deal of money from a russian bank. we just learned that yesterday. his brother took a great deal of money from a chinese company with was breaking the sanctions of iran. why isn't that part of that? we know that bill clinton got a $500,000 speech from a russian bank out about the time that secretary clinton was allowing 20% of the uranium production to be taken over by a russian company. i am for a deep investigation of foreign influence, foreign purchases, but i also remember that in 1996, there was a chinese donor illegally helping bill clinton. i just think that it is a very one-sided right now. both of the news media and frankly, from what i can tell so far, from senator burr , oh the way they are instructing this. they should be looking at both parties, they should be looking at all the relationships. i think to not do that is to do a great disservice to the american people. >> martha: interesting to note that today in the course of a

news conference, there was not one question that was asked by the media about whether or not the obama administration was a was essentially spying on the trump transition team, not one single question about that. newt gingrich, thank you very much. always good to see you. >> thank you. >> martha: tonight , oh backlash across the country are sanctuary cities fight the trump administration. dallas mayor of mike rawlings brought his message all the way to washington today and he brings a tear to "the first 100 days" live tonight. then, andrew napolitano on the very latest action against the white house which is just breaking as we speak. he joins us on that. and democrats warning that a filibuster is coming for judge gorsuch. wait until you hear what chuck schumer said when the shoe was on the other foot. later, remember this, controversial professor called trump selection an act of terror in her classroom in front of her students? what did she get for that? and award, of course.

♪

>> we want to focus on the serious violent criminals. we want them to do our job and

we want to do our job. i think the rhetoric is in the way. >> martha: that was l.a. mayor eric garcetti with tough talk earlier as the sanctuary fight heats up across the country. today, he and other major players made their case was 48 8 hours after attorney general sessions threatened to pull federal dollars from sanctuary cities if they refuse to play ball with the feds. democratic dallas mayor mike rawlings was in that meeting. he will join us in it moment to talk about what went beyond by the close doors. first, we turn to doug mckelway with news that just broke on this front. >> that involves the seattle, washington, mayor who is suing the trump administration for its proposed crackdown on sanctuary cities. it accuses the administration of using coercion and funding threats to enforce federal law. that occurring just hours after several other big-city mayors met here in d.c. with homeland security secretary john kelly, who briefed them behind closed doors on what this policy

entails. he promised them no sweeping roundup of illegals but many have other concerns. it threats threaten cities by hitting them or at most hurts, by threatening withdrawal of funding. >> we are opposed to any funding being taken away, as a punitive measure. >> but complicating this policy, no one can say what sanctuary technically means. the center for immigration study defines it as a "policy that is not cooperative and obstruction immigration enforcement" for the center front 306 to restrict strings across the united states made that definition. but the leaders of those jurisdictions deny they provide sanctuary. >> nothing could be further from the truth. we work every single day with i.c.e. >> trump administration officials disagree and so does texas governor greg abbott. he has already targetedand surry

with a punitive withdrawal of state money. >> i withdrew $1.5 million of funding to travis county eight. on top of that, what the state of texas is seeking to do is to make it so punishing for cities and counties that they simply cannot have sanctuary cities. >> dhs has said it is not making any decisions on withholding funding until a clearer definition of sanctuary is reached and we are told that there is no timetable for that decision. martha. >> martha: thank you. joining me now, a democrat inside the meeting with secretary kelly today, dallas mayor mike rawlings. good to have you with us. how would you characterize what went on in that meeting today? >> i think it was a good meeting. a first meeting. we are starting to understand how we work with the administration. so, it is just the first date. we don't have a long-term relationship yet and we are trying to figure that out. i was very impressed with secretary kelly. he has run a lot of great operations.

i think he wants the same things that we, as mayors and chief of police, want. that is our citizens to be safe. we want the bad guys to be arrested. nobody wants those murderers and rapists to live on the streets of their cities. we are aligned to helping them. we are pushing to make sure that we depoliticize this and focus on what exactly we are talking about here. let's get it down to dotting the is and crossing the ts, so, we can be aligned and make america safe again. >> martha: one of the big questions, what is a bad guy? when you get into these debates, what always comes up, you can't pull someone over at a traffic stop for running a red light necessarily. then, remove them from their car and kick them out of the country. did you get any clearer definition on who falls into the bad guy category, as far as the administration is concerned? >> not yet. i think he heard us loud and clear. that his work he has got to do.

there are 11 million undocumented residents in our country. the lion's of them are very, very safe, if you well. and there are some bad guys. we got to make sure we focus on that. when you change things and the trump administration is definitely trying to change things in a market way. at the way you got to do it is with precision and clarity. that is what we as mayors and chief of police are trying to figure out. >> martha: you have said after the travel ban, which i know you disagreed with vehemently, use of the time is come to open an office in dallas city hall that will serve refugees and immigrants, who admitted rumors of further threats of travel ban don't know where to turn. have you up in that office welcome refugees and immigrants at dallas city hall? >> yes, we have. we have hired a former i.c.e. employee, somebody that knows how to work with a federal government. >> martha: how are you not harboring that many sanctuary

way? >> by working with the federal government. we think working with the federal government is the right thing to do. >> martha: i know that greg abbott is cracking down on austin. he said he will do the same with you about this office. >> i haven't talked to the governor about this. i talk to them about some other issues yesterday. look, we both want to dallas safe. we both want texas safe. we both want the bad guys gone. let's focus on that and we'll accomplish a lot, i think is a country. >> martha: thank you for your time. good to have you here tonight. here with reaction, judge andrew napolitano. always good to see you. >> likewise. >> martha: first of all, let's talk about with mr. rawlings said. it is federal law, as i understand that, if you take somebody into custody who is an illegal, it is your obligation to alert i.c.e. correct? >> yes. it is but there is really no sanction for not doing that

unless you have agreed to that sanction. looking back up a little better. the the secretary of homeland security, general kelly, would like to take back the money that had been given to the cities that are not cooperating with i.c.e. >> martha: if he can prove they are not cooperating. >> correct. but the agreement to cooperate in return for the receipt of funds must precede the funds. in other words, if the congress, the new budget with starts october 1st, says to dallas for example, here is $100 million, in return, you have to cooperate with the enforcement of all federal law. and if dallas is the accepted under those terms, than -- >> martha: if they violated, it will be taken back. >> but without that agreement preceding the receipt of funds -- crispy when there is no ability to take money back. >> you talked earlier about the seattle loss, that is without is about. given to us a few minutes ago. seattle argues, quite properly, that the federal government can't cloth the money back because they never agreed to

help i.c.e. before they agreed -- crispy wanted and they agree to uphold the law just by being a municipality? >> you are right. the mayor of dallas, seattle, the mayor of every city in the country has taken an oath to uphold both state and federal laws. they did not agree to the condition of "we will help enforce federal laws unless that condition is in the money at the time it is given." the short answer is, president trump and the congress can get their way but only with the money that starts with next october. knock with the money that has started last october. >> martha: we heard attorney general sessions saying about clogging the money back, it won't happen. coming up, two filmmakers caught planned parenthood to staffers talking in horrific ways about harvesting organs from the unborn. now, the california attorney general has brought felony charges against the filmmakers. can you guess who funded the

campaign about attorney general and his predecessor emma who is now in the senate? don't miss this coming up. plus, judge neil gorsuch facing unprecedented opposition from democrats. but is there hypocrisy in their opposition? what do you think? marc thiessen, michele jawando join us next. >> the answer is not to change the rules. it is to change that nominee. and if a nuclear option is invoked, it is because our republicans in the senate chose to do so. ♪ when you have digestive sensitivities, life can feel like a never ending search for food that won't cause bloating, gas, or inner turmoil. try pronourish. a delicious nutritional drink that makes a great mini meal or snack that has protein and fiber. and pronourish has no gluten or high fructose corn syrup. and is low in fodmap ingredients that can trigger digestive sensitivities. the search is over. pronourish. nutrition you can feel good about.

>> martha: breaking tonight, the neil gorsuch gamesmanship is heating up in what would be an unprecedented active obstruction, democrats are threatening to filibuster his confirmation. that includes chuck schumer. >> if judge gorsuch fails to earn 60 votes and fails to demonstrate he is mainstream enough to sit on the highest court, we should change the nominee, not rules. they are acting as if the role change is inevitable, like it's the only choice of 60 senators don't agree that judge gorsuch should be confirmed, they are wrong. >> martha: the declaration, a far cry from what senator schumer said about the act of obstructionism just four years ago when the shoe was on

the other foot. watch this. >> we would much prefer the risk of up or down votes and majority rule then the risk of continued total obstruction. that is the bottom line. no matter who is in power. >> martha: let's go to peter doocy at the capitol. hi, peter. peter. >> one of the senators really pushing for gorsuch to be confirmed, speculating that democrats who oppose him right now are just worried about upsetting deep-pocketed liberal groups from the outside who may try to run them out of town. that is how senator ted cruz from texas explains the difference between 2006, when democrats overwhelmingly supported gorsuch and 2017, where democrats don't. speak with question anyone should ask, if they supported his being on the court of appeals a decade ago, what has changed? and the only thing that has changed is our energized activist friends that have democratic senators terrified they will get primary aid from

the left and the democratic primary. that is the only thing that has changed. >> but democrats counter it is conservative special interests having the more pervasive impact on the confirmation process. there has been a multimillion dollar ad campaign backing president trump's pick for the high court. if democratic detractors want to know who paid for all of that airtime... >> the appalling unacceptable fact is that american justice is being bought. we want to know who is paying. and they bought the ads against merrick garland, now, they buying the ads for judge gorsuch. carefully targeted to have maximum political impact. >> so, the democratic leader chuck schumer is urging the g.o.p. to think about nominating someone else who can get through the senate without a role change but his counterpart, majority leader mitch mcconnell, says gorsuch will be confirmed next friday, not that he will be

considered, not that he could be confirmed, that he will be confirmed next friday. only that kind of certainty if the nuclear option is still a possibility. martha. >> martha: thank you. here with more, marc thiessen, and michele jawando. welcome to both of you. michelle, let me start with both of you. do you expect the democrats will filibuster this nomination? >> martha, it is great to be with you. i think the point is this. most americans agreed that whoever a nominee should be, particularly during the divided partisan time, they should be able to cross a 60 vote threshold that says a few things, they are mainstream, they are fair, they are impartial. if a nominee can't do that, then, you change the nominee. you don't have to blow up years, over 100 years of tradition for one nominee. >> martha: marc.

>> [laughs] first of all, there is no 60 vote threshold for a nominee. samuel alito was confirmed 58-42. clarence thomas was confirmed 52-48. the lean times you need 60 votes as of the other party filibusters and there has never, in the history of the republican come up in a filibuster of an associate justice for the supreme court. the democrats would be doing something unprecedented in terms of filibustering judge gorsuch. this attachment to 60 votes and super majority and all of the rest of it is kind of unique because in 2013, they didn't care so much about that. they were very happy to invoke the nuclear option for live tempo to the federal bench of the circuit and district level. the reason for that, they were trying to help barack obama stack the course of liberal judges who couldn't be the 60 vote threshold. back then, 60 votes wasn't important. today, it is sacrosanct. >> martha: what do you make of ted cruz said in that introduction? so many of the senators voted in

favor of judge gorsuch on the federal appeals court. why would they vote for him then and then, as chuck schumer says, find him so reprehensible and not qualified now? >> i don't think it is a matter of background. i think this is about the supreme court. everyone recognizes this as a lifetime appointment on the most important court in the land. actually, justice alito received 60 votes on closure. there is a difference there. seven of the eight current sitting supreme court justices received over 60 votes. >> martha: that means that they proved that you should have a vote. >> they didn't filibuster. >> martha: >> it is actually ve. if you look at where we are, if we look historically, 125 years,

every supreme court nominee, since the eisenhower administration, with the exception of clarence thomas, was able to receive a threshold of more than 60 votes. >> i don't think anybody could get that. if gorsuch, who is considered to be someone that both sides could find quite palatable can't pass, i just don't see an environment where you will ever get to 60 votes or you will never have anyone fill the spot or you will go nuclear. marc, that look like where we are. >> unless president trump had renominated to merrick garland, they would filibuster any form that donald trump brought. >> we would love merrick garland. >> i'm sorry, this judge -- [laughs] judge gorsuch is such a boy scout. there is no ethical problems. the only time there has been a filibuster was back in 1968, an associate justice and was nominated by lyndon johnson to

be chief justice and that was democrats filibustering a democrat because of ethics problems. it never happened. what would be unprecedented with a filibuster. >> martha: this process reminds me of justice roberts when he was nominated. everybody agreed that he was a very down the middle person, that both sides could agree on. he was the person who upheld obamacare. you have to wonder if democrats are going get the right route here because they might get someone who is with them some of the time. next time around, that might not be true. marc and michele, great to see you both. >> thanks. >> martha: coming up next, felony charges against two antiabortion activists because they did a secret filming of a conversation in an open environment in a public place with planned parenthood. critics say that it's a violation of their first amendment. tonight, we are learning something much more nefarious could be behind these charges. and students are concerned after

their college rewards that the school's most infamous school's most infamous anti-trump professor.ntelligibl] various: (shouting) heigh! ho! ( ♪ ) it's off to work we go! woman: on the gulf coast, new exxonmobil projects are expected to create over 45,000 jobs. and each job created by the energy industry supports two others in the community. altogether, the industry supports over 9 million jobs nationwide. these are jobs that natural gas is helping make happen, all while reducing america's emissions. energy lives here.

incr...think it wouldotection in a pwork, but it does.dn't... it's called always discreet for bladder leaks, the super... ...absorbent core turns liquid to gel. i know i'm wearing it but no one else will. always discreet for bladder leaks.

>> martha: we are now learning more about a horrible tragedy that has taken place outside of san antonio, texas, . 12 people were killed, at least three others were injured, when a pickup truck sled head on into a van that was carrying senior t church group. the back of the bus and ended up on the rail. the victims were returning, we are told, from a church retreat. governor abbott has talked about his prayers and his thoughts who are with the families of those who are lost in this tonight. hours are certainly with them all as well. more information on that as we get it.

♪ >> if you know what is expected or what we need -- >> i would say a lot of people want livers. for that reason... >> martha: that is still hard to watch. it is just a sample of the hours of undercover video that was shot of planned parenthood to leaders that show them discussing fetal tissue. by that woman, who you heard speaking there, she is not the one who is facing charges tonight. two pro-life activists who shot that video for the center for medical progress are, however, to the tune of 15 felony counts against them in california. what makes this case even more

shocking is the political ties between the charging attorney general and planned parenthood's pack, and , and advocacy arm ths given the former congressman more than $5,000 in campaign contributions over the years. mercedes schlapp is a fox news contributor. crystal ball, the author of "reversing the apocalypse." good to have you with us tonigh tonight. mercedes, let me start with you on this. your reaction to the charges that have been brought in this case? >> these criminal charges were clearly a political attack on free speech. these are pro-life filmmakers. individuals that are undercover journalists, trying to expose the atrocities of planned parenthood. it is very clear that we saw this in houston when charges were brought against them, and those charges were dropped. we will accept the same results in california. there is that very cozy

relationship between planned parenthood giving donations to the attorney general, as well as colluding with the former attorney general of california, in terms of crafting legislation to basically go after these pro-life filmmakers. >> martha: crystal, what is your reaction? 15 felony counts, is not extreme or did they have a right to bring them against them? for the performing filming that was against the law in the state of california? >> first of all, a little bit of background. keep in mind that 13 states looked into these videos and found that there was nothing there in terms of planned parenthood having violated the law. on the other hand, i think it is pretty clear that if these filmmakers did what they are alleged to have done, which is to bake their identities and surreptitiously record what we were supposed to be confidential conversations, then it is inappropriate for this indictment to be brought. keep in mind that this law isn't designed to protect planned parenthood, whatever you think

about this organization. this is put in place to protect individuals and make sure that they are able to keep their privacy. so, regardless -- >> martha: you have to apply tht is found. i think this is appropriate. they will have their day in court where they can present their side of the story. to look into this, to have an indictment, it seems to be to be appropriate. >> martha: i want to point out that kemal harris, who is now a senator, began this relationshie charges, or the beginning of this process. she also got a fair amount of donations to her campaign from planned parenthood, which many, mostly democrats, do. >> also, it is important to note that in a congressional hearing said that this was nonconfidential conversations that were happening. they did not break privacy laws. they didn't break hippo laws, public conversations that were happening between dave and lisa and a abortion providers.

when you look at the fact that some planned parenthood officials believe that they could have broken the federal law for selling baby parts for profit, the fact that the comments they made it, want a lamborghini -- they are still investigating it -- they are having an ongoing investigation on this issue. these are investigations that are happening across the country. i don't think this -- >> in addition to the 13 -- another eight states considered investigation and found that there was nothing there and it wasn't worth going forward. >> martha: we need to leave it there. thank you very much. gotta leave it there. still ahead tonight, we will take you back to the nation's

capital. chris stirewalt are standing by a lovely evening. there he is. day 69 in washington and across the country of the trump presidency. day 70 as i had, though, folks. chris knows what you need to work tomorrow. plus, the college professor who called president trump's election "an act of terrorism, she was just named faculty member of the year. she would like a safe space of her own. they join us

♪ >> martha: growing fears among students at a publicly funded community college, is a controversial professor gets a top award just one semester after bashing president trump and a classroom rant that went viral. remember this?

>> martha: president of the orange coast college republicans joins us tonight. joshua, good to have you here tonight. >> grade to be here. >> martha: what'd you think when you first heard that? >> when i first heard what she said on that video, i was outraged. what i heard that she had accepted and was nominated for the faculty member of the year award by a committee of just ten faculty staff and administrative officials at our college, not by any students, i was outraged. i still am. >> martha: what kind of recourse did you ask for from the college?

how did you express your feelings on this? >> for the video, what we have done, we have asked specifically for her to have an apology letter. go to an anger management class, and also to have our complaint filed interpersonal record. however, we found out after having submitted that, she had also asked trump supporters to stand in her classroom and was targeting them in that way. because of that, we pushed for her to be fired. now, after all of this, she still remains at orange coast college, state, actually still teaching the same amount of classes, but with close to 200 student drop-off in enrollment . it is obvious that students want faculty members that they can feel they'll receive a quality education from, not indoctrination. >> martha: this has been tough for you. you stuck your neck out and you have received death threats? >> yeah.

i have received numerous death threats throughout this entire incident. i have been called a coconut once, that was pretty interesting. >> martha: looking at your name that is across these windows. these windows are on your college campus, where you had to face this? >> i have also had graffiti recently on my campus where both myself and the club has been targeted, calling us fascists, calling for fascists to be punched, and to kill the alt-right. this was by supporters of the group antifa, which we see has been doing craziness at uc berkeley and other schools in california and the united states. they mean business. they will do physical harm. >> martha: i can only imagine how you feel, having paid for this education, then cap meant to so vilified and to experience such a limited amount, really, no first amendment rights on your own college campus where you are supposed to be learning about these things.

>> absolutely. that is one of the things of the orange coast college republicans have been around for and continue to be around four. we want to protect students first amendment rights. we want to protect students rights that are outlined in our student code of conduct. we want to make sure that professors like this professor do not get to teach at our school. we wanted education we do not want indoctrination. >> martha: thank you, josh. go have you here tonight. ♪ there's nothing more important than your health. so if you're on medicare or will be soon, you may want more than parts a and b here's why. medicare only covers about 80% of your part b medical expenses. the rest is up to you. you might want to consider an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan, insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company. like any medicare supplement insurance plan,

these help pick up some of what medicare doesn't pay. and, these plans let you choose any doctor or hospital that accepts medicare patients. you could stay with the doctor or specialist you trust... or go with someone new. you're not stuck in a network... because there aren't any. so don't wait. call now to request your free decision guide ... ... ... like any of these types of plans, they let you apply whenever you want. there's no enrollment window... no waiting to apply. so call now.

remember, medicare supplement plans help cover some of what medicare doesn't pay. you'll be able to choose any doctor or hospital that accepts medicare patients. whether you're on medicare now or turning 65 soon, it's a good time to get your ducks in a row. duck: quack! call to request your free decision guide now. because the time to think about tomorrow is today.

>> martha: earlier in the show, newt gingrich stressed bipartisanship as a way for trump to rebound, noting that a project like infrastructure could garner support of all 1000 senators and 435 house members. chris stirewalt is here. he thinks that's hilarious. >> aim high, i guess. why not?

60 is good, 100 is better, get them all. why not? >> i don't know what you do when you get to the part about who pays the bill and how. that is when you will run into trouble. >> borrowing and spending a trillion dollars to fix america's infrastructure, obvious infrastructural problems, and prepare a marker for the rest of the 21st century, something that you can get every democrat or almost every democrat on board with, whether or not you could get most republicans on board with that is another question. that is a kind of stuff they voted against under obama. the trump administration reportedly said maybe we will do tax reform concurrent with that so they can sweeten the deal for republicans. spend a bunch of money you don't have but fix the tax code, simultaneously increase growth and may be put together a path for you >> martha: a sweet little something for everybody in every state the way. in terms of devin nunes, you say he in some ways is showing

republicans how to take one for the team. >> he sure is taking one. this michael scott impersonation that he has been doing over the last several days has not in his career any favors. but he has helped president trump substantially because he has made it pretty much a guarantee because the house intelligence committee won't be able to complete its inquest into the allegations of russian interference. that is a dead letter now. whether he set out to do that or not, the net effect of what he has done has been that it is a dead letter. that is not going to happen. but, now the bill most of the senates. >> martha: i would imagine, if you let this investigation see the light of day, as you pointed out, it will. no matter how it may exonerate, if that is the case, people at the white house, there will be something something in there and it will just go on and on and o on. >> that is why democrats wants this because they know that even

if they don't get to yacht see, even if they don't get vladimir putin and a bathrobe m, even if that is not they are, what they could end up with is just enough to besmirch the administration and diminish credibility further and nunes, knowing that, basically jumps on the grenade and said we will shut it down. the administration needs to be worried about what will happen in the senate because they will be affected. they have a good track record for bipartisanship and there's two groups of people who ought to be worried. anyone in the trump administration who had the alleged problem or if there is mischief in the obama side, if there was inappropriate at masking, et cetera, those people ought to be worried, too. the senate will probably get to an answer. >> martha: thank you. see you soon. with all of this talk of attempted bipartisanship in coalition, it we leave you with something to ponder tonight. wise words from bob marley. "your worst enemy could be our best friend. your best friend could be our

worst enemy." think about that, republicans or democrats. don't worry, every little thing is going to be all right. thanks for watching, everybody. i am martha maccallum. we will see ♪ >> tom: welcome to "red eye," hello everyone, i am tom shillue. andy levy is off tonight, let's check in with michael malice at the right eye tease deck. >> resident trump refuses to throw out the first pitch for the washington nationals, plus john mccain calls kim jong-un a crazy fat kid. back to you, tom. >> tom: let's welcome our