coretta scott king. forced to sit down by a rarely invoked rule not used against republicans. >> senators impugn the motives and conduct of our colleague from alabama. i call the senator to order under the provisions of rule 19. >> mr. president, i am surprised that the words of coretta scott king are not suitable for debate in the united states senate. i ask leave of the senate to continue my remarks. >> is there objection? >> i object. >> a peeled the ruling -- >> objection is heard. the senator will take her seat. >> senator warren speaking out just moments ago to msnbc's kasie hunt. >> i want children to read this speech. i want adults to read this speech. i want all people and particularly i want the republicans who are going to vote tonight on whether or not jeff sessions becomes the next attorney general of the united

states. i want them to read this speech before they vote. >> coming up, we'll talk to senators bernie sanders and tom udahl two democrats who came to the floor to finish what elizabeth warren started last night. separation of poulz the appeals court justice questions lawyers about the controversial travel ban. >> has the government pointed to any evidence connecting these countries with terrorism? >> in 2015 and 2016 both congress and the administration made determinations that these seven countries posed the greatest risk of terrorism. >> and packing heat, president trump today with law enforcement officials tackling the court for questioning his immigration policy, claiming it's a matter of national security. >> they're taking away our weapons, one by one. it's what they're doing. and you know it and we have to allow you to do your jobs and we have to give you the weapons

that you need and this is a weapon that you need. >> good kday i'm andrea mitchel in washington. breaking news from capitol hill. kasie hunt joining me after her interview with senator warren just moments ago. kasie? >> reporter: hi, andrea. we talked to elizabeth warren just now about the dramatic events that have unfolded over the course of the last i guess 12, going on 24 hours, when she went to the senate floor last night to protest against senator jeff sessions nomination to be the attorney general. she gave a lengthy speech. she quoted senator ted kennedy, then when on the to quote coretta scott king in this letter she had written in 1986, opposing the nomination of jeff sessions. now she was warned that she was in violation of this senate rule called rule 19, and it prohibits

a senator from impugning the character of another on the senate floor, but when she continued, mcconnell invoked the rule and said she had been warned but she persisted. this of course democrats immediately seizing on it, arguing that it was sexist to shut her down and as you showed, several male senators on the floor this morning reading that same letter, and being allowed to finish. take a look at a little piece of the conversation we had just moments ago. do you think it impugns the character of jeff sessions this letter? >> yes. the facts may hurt, but we're not in the united states senate to ignore facts. we're in the united states senate to exercise our constitutional responsibility to advise and consent on nominees, and my view is that part of my constitutional responsibility is to consider the facts of what jeff sessions did, when he was the u.s. attorney in alabama.

>> do you thk what senator connell did last night was sexist? >> i think what he did was wr g wrong. >> reporter: but it wasn't sexist? >> i think reading the words of coretta scott king on the floor of the united states senate honors the senate. >> senator schumer, the democratic leader, just spoke on the floor about what happened to elizabeth warren moments ago, pointing out what the democrats claim is an uncertain invocation against warren and not against others. >> senator warren wasn't hurling wild accusations. she was reading a thoughtful and considered letter from a leading civil rights figure. just last week i heard from a friend on the other side -- i heard a friend on the other side of the aisle just last week accuse me of engaging in a "tear-jerking performance" that

belonged at the screen actors guild awards. it was only the second time that week that i had been accused of fake tears on the floor of the senate, but i didn't run to the floor to invoke rule 19. >> in fact the language, kasie, that was used against chuck schumer was very tough from some of his colleagues, some of his republican colleagues. you also had ted cruz calling mitch mcconnell a liar on the floor and they didn't take down ted cruz so thwas certainly real reaction to what elizabeth warren did. i don't know if mitch mcconnell wanted this reading of coretta scott king to get a whole lot more prominence invoking rule 19 against elizabeth warren but it certainly put more attention on it. >> reporter: it sure did put more attention on it, andrea. the question here and the question i'm starting to ask both republicans and democrats is, you know, what's the purpose behind elevating elizabeth warren this way for mitch mcconnell? i do think that there are some in the republican party who

think that they would love to have her as the face of the democratic party, because they think she's too far to the left, they think she won't appeal to a broad base of americans. they think she'll hamper their hopes of taking back the senate, the house, the white house in the coming years. i think for democrats though, it seems as though this has drawn a r lot of attention to something at a time when they frankly have limited tools to oppose donald trump, and so for them, this represents a win from that perspecti perspective. i'm interested to see if senator mcconnell's office at the end, conclusion of all of this thinks that this came out in their favor or not. andrea? >> he might say that the bottom line is that jeff sessions is going to be confirmed tonight. >> reporter: it is the bottom line. >> that remains to be seen, of course. kasie hunt thank you so much. this morning president trump speaking out against the federal appeals court judges who are weighing this legal challenge, who are weighing the legal challenge to his immigration order. >> i listened to a panel of

judges, and i'll comment on th -- will not comment on the statements made by certainly one judge but i have to be honest, that if these judges wanted to, in my opinion, help the court in terms of respect for the court, they'd do what they should be doing. i watched last night in amazement and i heard things that i couldn't believe, things that really had nothing to do with what i just read, and i don't ever want to call a court biased so i won't call it biased, and we haven't had a decision yet, but courts seem to be so political and it would be so great for our justice system if they would be able to read a statement and do what's right.

right now, we are at risk because of what happened. >> joining me now is nbc white house correspondent kristen welker and justice correspondent pete williams. first, pete, to you. the president is basically saying i don't want to call them political but they're putting national security at risk. >> well, the question of course is it going to have any effect on the three-judge panel? the answer is probably no, because here is the reason. the three-judge panel has already voted on what they're going to do. this is the most likely -- i don't know that for a fact but based on how these things usually work, once the conference call was over last night with the lawyers they were dropped off the call and the judges talked among themselves. that would be the normal way these telephone conference call arguments work, and they will have taken initial vote and they'll decide if somebody's going to write an opinion, who is going to write it, if there's a dissent, who is going to write the dissent, what is the order going to say, so i don't think what the president has said here is going to affect them. i'm sure that the justice department isn't pleased with

what the president has said here, because they don't like this sort of outside of the court criticism of courts. they hate to have judges criticized, you know, guess what, they're in it for the long haul. they're going to be before these judges again on something entirely different and so they tend not to be personally critical of judges and courts but i can't imagine that, in the final analysis, it's going to make any difference on what the court does. >> i know that you never predict and it's hard to read signals, i wanted to play a little bit of the colloquy on this conference call last night. so that gets to the fundamental question as the president was saying it's a national security issue. is there a real risk? was the vetting that's taking place that has taken place

before adequate? does it need to be pumped up? do these seven countries need to get special treatment? i mean these are the questions that substantive questions that were being considered. >> the government's argument here is yes they do, because three of them are state sponsors of terrorism and the others are in essence failed states. you can't exactly go to the dmv in those states and look for background and fingerprints for somebody who wants to come here for example as a refugee. and what the government is saying here is, you really can't second-guess the president's decision. that's one of the questions here. do the courts have any business butting in here? the president says no. the government lawyer in essence says no. the states say this is causing us harm, and w believe it's, the president acted beyond what the law allows him to do, in the way that he did it. so that's the ultimate question for the courts. what the ninth circuit has to decide is a very short, a very narrow question. while the courts decide whether it's constitutional and legal, in the meantime, should it be

put on hold while that's pending? the government says no. it would be damaging to national security, the states say yes. their residents are harmed as long as it's in effect. >> and kristen welker the president today also trying to explain the timing of the executive order and giving more insight into his own thinking, raising the question of whether they should have waited, whether they should have given warning to the people in transit. let's play a little bit of that. >> i said let's give a one-month notice, and then law enforcement and general kelly were so great because he said we totally knew about it. we knew about everything. we do things well. we did things right. but the law enforcement people said to me, oh, you can't give a notice, because if you give a notice that you're going to be really tough in one month from now or in one week from now, i suggested a month and i said well what about a week, they said no, you can't do that, because then people will pour in before the toughness goes. >> and kristen, secretary kelly

did acknowledge to the house yesterday to the house homeland committee that in retrospect, they should have briefed the relevant chairs on the hill, they should have taken it a little more slowly. >> reporter: that's right, and he took the blame for that, andrea. he saidlook, this was my assessment. this was my opinion and judgment at the time. but i think what is so striking, andrea, to go back to your conversation with pete, is that you are hearing this very strong language from the president directed at these federal judges, and it's a real departure from what we've heard from past presidents in terms of weighing in on a decision that is pending, and the question becomes, does this president respect and honor the separation between the judicial and executive branches? his press secretary, sean spicer, was pressed on that yesterday during his daily briefing, andrea, and he said he absolutely does, he underscored that point, but i would imagine that he is going to get asked tough questions about that today. his briefing gets under way in

about an hour and a half from now and of course it's a very different tone than we heard from former president obama, for example, who was of course a constitutional law professor. i was in the rose garden once when he was asked about the decision on obamacare, which at that point in time was in the hands of the supreme court. interestingly, he did weigh in. some people thought he went a little bit too far in making the case he thought it was constitutional, but again, this rhetoric different, andrea, because it goes after the judges specifically. >> and remember president obama did blast the supreme court for the citizens united decision during his state of the union speech. >> we saw justice alito saying no, basically that didn't happen, mouthing those words. just briefly, pete, we're not going to get a whole lot of advanced notice. this is the kind of thing that they will post on the website? >> they will give no advanced notice at all. they'll issue their ruling and when they do we'll report it. >> i bet you will.

thank you so much, and joining me now as the senate continues to talk about jeff sessions, democratic senator tom udahl who read coretta scott king's letter on the floor but was not silenced. what do you have that senator warren doesn't when it comes to getting shut down? >> i think it was selective enforcement. my understanding the same letter was read in the judiciary committee by senator coombs earlier and seems like selective enforcement to me. what democrats really want is a full, open, robust debate on the floor of the united states senate and we think that coretta scott king, the wife of the slain civil rights leader, has a right to speak through a letter, and so i just thought the best thing to do is go down, read the letter, read the testimony and put it into the record, and that's where it is today and i hope the american people read it, and i hope our leadership doesn't bring these trump

tactics of shutting people off and shutting debate off into the senate. i mean, the senate is known for robust debate and what we're bringing to all these issues is the fact that we want issues heard, and we want these nominees fully vetted before they go do their job. >> and i know senator sessions is a senator, but how do you debate the pros and cons of a nominee for attorney general, one of the top jobs, you know, other than treasury and state, pentagon, these are the most important jobs in our cabinet. how do you debate the merits of his record without getting personal about his record? >> well, the first thing is that he was working in the justice department as a united states attorney, and so anything he did there is a reflection on what he might do as u.s. attorney general, and that's why it's very relevant to what we're talking about today, when we're going to take this vote at 7:00

this evening. so i think it's very important that we focus on the fact that all the facts be out in the open, that we have a robust debate, and i'm very discouraged about what they did to elizabeth warren. i think these tactics should not be brought into the senate. we should be allowed to debate and allowed to engage our constituents back home and let me tell you, i'm from a majority/minority state where we have native americans and hispanics. they are very worried about this trump administration and the next attorney general, what's going to happen on voting rights, civil rights, all of these kinds of things so i want to make sure that my constituents' voice, heard here in washington in terms of this debate. i'm glad i wasn't shut down. i think it's deplorable that the leadership would shut down elizabeth warren like this. >> senator udall, thank you so much. thanks for being with us today. >> you bet. coming up, bans, borders and business.

the impact of president trump's immigration orders. coming up next, right here on "andrea mitchell reports" only on msnbc. then the chronic, widespread pain drained my energy. my doctor said moving more helps ease fibromyalgia pain. he also prescribed lyrica. fibromyalgia is thought to be the result of overactive nerves. lyrica is believed to calm these nerves. for some, lyrica can significantly relieve fibromyalgia pain and improve function, so i feel better. lyrica may cause serious or suicidal thoughts or actions. tell your doctor right away if you have these, new or worsening depression, or unusual changes in mood or behavior. or swelling, trouble breathing, rash, hives, blisters, muscle pain with fever, tired feeling, or blurry vision. common side effects are dizziness, sleepiness, weight gain and swelling of hands, legs and feet. don't drink alcohol while taking lyrica. don't drive or use machinery until you know how lyrica affects you. those who have had a drug or alcohol problem may be more likely to misuse lyrica. with less pain, i can be more active.

ask your doctor about lyrica. nosy neighbor with a glad bag, full of trash. what happens next? nothing. only glad has febreze to neutralize odors for 5 days. aranteed. even the most perceptive noses won't notice the trash.

be happy. it'slad.

the rollout was disastrous. you know, you wonder what would have happened if there had been notification to the leaders of congress, the usual vetting by the agencies that are involved. >> why do you think congress wasn't consulted? >> i don't know, except that it

seems that the m.o. of this white house is on a shakedown cruise. >> that was john mccain to great greta van susteren. let's talk about the executive order, the rollout and the way this administration is proceeding on foreign policy, congressional notifications. >> well andrea i think this has been unsettling. senator rob portman, republican from ohio said the thing that wasn't vetted was this executive order, this travel ban, rather than the vetting of refugees from seven countries. i'm gravely concerned about what it's doing to weaken our destabilize our partnerships with muslim and arab allies in the region. the assault on mosul is ongoing right now. the assault on raqqah is beginning, and in our fight against isis, i don't think we

can afford to strain our partnership with iraq, and hearing yesterday in front of the foreign relations committee a republican and democratic witness agreed that the way this travel ban was rolled out has frankly put us more at risk in our conduct against terrorist organizations in yemen, in iraq and elsewhere in the region and i question the biz dom of how and why this travel ban was rolled out by this administration. >> also controversy and a lot of conflicting reports about what happened with the raid in yemen. the white house calling it a success, john mccain saying after a briefing apparently to at least the armed services committee "while many of the objectives of the recent raid in yemen were met, i would not describe any operation that results in the loss of american life as success." now there are conflicting reports as to whether or not yemen, because of the loss of life, the civilian life, the children were killed, and you know, domestic concerns there are either asking for a pause, a

halt, or perhaps just nothing at all, but doing something for domestic consumption. what do you think is going on with yemen right now? >> andrea, first, we have to pause and be grateful to the family of s.e.a.l. ryan owens, whose life was lost in that raid in yemen. i had the honor of meeting his entire extended family, his widow, his children, his parents and siblings and i first want to stop and say how grateful we all are as a nation for his service and for their sacrifice, and i do think in the weeks ahead we'll see some strains in the relationship with yemen, as a result of civilian casualties, and i do think the trump administration is going to have to review more closely how they prepare for and plan for raids like this, any time we send men and women in our armed forces into harm's way, we need to make certain that they have the training, the equipment, the planning and the support that they deserve before they go ahead and i think the fact that this executive order, which was

rushed, and this raid, have put some real strain on our partnership with yemen in our fight against aqap, which is one of the most deadly terrorist organizations in the world, is something we should all regret and something the trump administration should consider closely in the weeks ahead. >> do you know if there was any notification to the hill beforehand of the raid in yemen? >> i don't know that. >> and what we know of the way it was decided upon at one stage there was a dinner attended by the chairman of the joint chiefs by the defense secretary, the president and his advisers at the white house, mike flynn but not including the state department, not including any of the other national security agencies. at that stage do you think there needs to be a more inclusive decision-making process before decisions like this are made? >> well, andrea, donald trump as candidate was critical of president obama for having a thorough and detailed and at

times lengthy review process before giving the go-ahead on raids such as this raid into yemen, and my hunch is that the trump administration is now reconsidering that criticism. many of us on the hill were concerned when the national security council was revised in order to include steve bannon, president trump's political adviser, as one of the core members of that national security council, and i do think all of us owe our men and women at arms a thorough and deliberative process before we put h put them into harm's way. it's my hope the tru administration will reconsider their process and take this seriously in the weeks ahead. >> senator coons thanks for being with us. next koes's foreign minister is in washington and meeting with secretary of state rex tillerson this afternoon trying to repair a rocky relationship which went awrite january 26th web president owe ba marx excuse me, president trump tweeted that if mexico is unwilling to pay

for the badly needed wall, then it would be better to cancel the upcoming meeting. the foreign minister was in town that day and turned on his heels and went back to mexico and later mexico's president canceled his meeting with president trump, which was scheduled for the following week. since then, the two leaders have spoken by phone, and that reported phone call was a mixed blessing, some say it put things back on track, some say it went badly awry. join me is ambassador michael from froman, worked with the obama team. let's talk about the relationship first of all with mexico our trade relationship and what went so badly over the wall and the conversation apparently with the mexican president. >> we have a robust relationship with mexico, across trade and so many other irve us and one thing we're seeing how important it is to think about the secondary and the tertiary implications of

actions that are taken. the desire by the trump administration to renegotiat nafta which is something we did during the obama administration through the transpacific partnership, we are waiting to see what they have in mind in terms of what further steps they want to take with mexico to rebalance that relationship. but whatever they do on the trade side we know we need mexico's cooperation when it comes to dealing with migration from central america, to the united states, or when it comes to rounding up druglords or dealing with organized crime, and i think we're coming to the realization that other countries have politics, too, in a longstanding relationship between the u.s. and mexico, it's important to be sensitive to the fact that, for president pena nieto to work on the issues this needs to work for him and if we insult, offend or threaten to send troops in or we raise fundamental questions about our economic relationship it can have spillover effects into other areas as well. >> the white house has denied during that phone call there was any threat to send troops in, saying it was a joking

reference, but can you clear up for our viewers what is the trade deficit between the u.s. and mexico, and is it a bad thing to have a trade deficit, the way president trump seems to claim? repeatedly claims. >> trade balances are the product of a lot of different enactors, including if we're growing faster than our neighbors, we tend to bring in more imports. we tend to demand more imports because we're a very open economy, and so the trade deficit is one metric but it may not be the overwhelming metric. we had a wonderful trade surplus in the midst of the great depression, and we had a growing trade deficit in the 1990s when we added 20 million new jobs to the u.s. so it's a more complicated issue. if the trade deficit is an indication there's some unfair trade going on, or the other country is closing its market to our exports, well sure, then that's an issue we ought to be foe you canning on through our trade negotiations or through our enforcement efforts, but if it's an issue because we're growing faster than the rest of the world, or because people want to buy u.s. assets, then

it's a different kind of question. >> when the press secretary talks about slapping a 20% tariff on anything that comes in from mexico, what would be the domino effect of that? >> i think three risks associated with that. one is retaliation, imitation, and taxation. retaliation because if we violate our obligations to mexico or other trading partners we give them license to raise tariffs on our products. 11 million americans who owe their jobs to exports, we have an integrated production platform across north america, 40% what have we import from mexico is u.s. product that's gone down to mexico to be incorporated in some other products so if we start disrupting that trade we're going to affect jobs here in the united states. similarly, if we violate our international obligations, we give license to other countries to dot same. how easy is it going to be to hold china's feet to the fire if we say we're willing to ignore our international obligations? and then finally when you raise tariffs on imports, it's a tax.

it's a tax on the consumers of those products, and in the united states, it's low income americans who spend a higher proportion of their income on tradable goods, like food, footwear, clothing, so you're imposing a tax on the parts of the american society that are least able to afford it. it's a very regressive approach. >> many of whom were strong supporters of donald trump in the campaign. >> absolutely. >> thank you. coming up, on ice more blowback as president trump compared russian putin's murderous aggression with american policy. you're watching "andrea mitchell reports" on msnbc. i love how usaa gives me the peace of mind and the security just like the marines did. at one point, i did change to a different company with car insurance,

and i was not happy with the customer service. we have switched back over and we feel like we're back home now. the process through usaa is so effortless, that you feel like you're a part of the family. i love that i can pass the membership to my children, and that they can be protected. we're the williams family, and we're usaa members for life. call usaa today to talk about your insurance needs. glad forceflex. extra strong to avoid rips and tears. be happy, it's glad.

[he has a new business teaching lessons. rodney wanted to know how his business was doing... ...so he got quickbooks. it organizes all his accounts, so he knows where he stands. ahhh...that's a profit. way to grow, rodney! visit quickbooks.com. say hi to xiidra, lifitegrast ophthalmic solution. the first eye drop approved for the signs and symptoms of dry eye. one drop in each eye, twice a day. common side effects include eye irritation, discomfort or blurred vision when applied to the eye, and an unusual taste sensation. do not touch the container tip to your eye or any surface. remove contacts before using xiidra and wait for at least 15 minutes before reinserting them. if you have dry eyes, ask your doctor about xiidra.

in short vladimir knew that putin is a killer and he's a killer and he might very well be the next target. vladimir knew there was no moral equivalence between the united states and putin's russia. i repeat, there is no moral equivalent between that butcher and thug and kgb colonel and the united states of america. >> senator john mccain speaking about vladimir putin as a butcher and a thug and a kgb colonel and talking about fld myrrh karamutzi a russian opposition leader once recovered from organ failure after an alleged pies thing? now back in a moscow hospital in a coma because of a second poisoning. professor at johns hopkins university author of "the big stick: the limits of soft power and the necessity of military force. "if we could talk about the putin relationship and the

surprising unwillingness of donald trump to ever criticize vladimir putin and even in his one phone call with him, they did not mention, he didt bring up ukraine, he didn't mention the hacking, the russian hacking. there was sort of no negative lines drawn. >> well, and some ways what's more disturbing is what senator mccain was reacting to, that excerpt just now, that yes, he's a killer, we have killers, too, and it's not even denying that he's a killer. it's saying of course he is and we are as well. i think it's part of a larger picture, it's part of donald trump's conception of the world. it's the world in which the united states doesn't i think stand for any particular principles. his inaugural address didn't mention constitution, didn't mention rule of law, didn't mention the bill of rights, and so you know, if that's your world view, then putin may be a guy you think you can do business with. >> what you're pointing out is that this moral equivalency that he seemed to be suggesting the

other day between vladimir putin and what has been, you know, mistakes or whatever in the past in u.s. foreign policy. talking about a democracy versus vladimir putin. >> of course, and this is such a remarkable departure, i think, from anything we've seen, both president bush and president obama and their different ways wanted to see if they could repair the relationship, that's natural, probably doomed to failure, but it's natural. but i don't think either of them had any illusions that they're dealing with somebody who was like us and i don't think any of either of them had any illusions whatsoever that it's a morally reprehensible regime and is he a dictator and a thug and that that is a problem for us. what's different about trump is he doesn't think that's a problem. >> how much of this is because of michael flynn, do you think, steve bannon, some of the advice that he's getting, which could be altered if he starts listening to his new cabinet secretaries? >> i think a lot of it comes from within. trump does have, doesn't have a foreign policy doctrine and he hasn't really thought these

things through in a deep way but he does have a set of inclinations and views and this has been around for a while, an ethno-nationalist view which denies the key features of what makes this country distinctive and unique. >> so he was elected, elections have consequences, and if steve bannon is to be criticized, he certainly is reflecting really a connection, an ideological and spiritual connection that's very profound between what bannon believes in and what donald trump believes in. >> we don't know a whole lot about bannon in a certain way he's made a bunch of movies and doesn't write books. he's got an affinity for fairly marginal political thinkers and he's got this rather harsh view of the world which is really quite out of the mainstream. i think the main point everybody needs to understand is this is not normal. this is not republican normal. it's not democrat normal. this is outside the norm, and so we should not be surprised by all kinds of things that may happen. >> professor elliott kohn, thank you very much. great to see you.

>> thank you for having me. senator bernie sanders joining the chorus of democratic support for elizabeth warren, demanding an apology from senate majority leader mitch mcconnell for silencing her last night. senator you went on the floor and read some of coretta scott king's letter, so did senator udall, both democrats. i don't understand why you were permitted and elizabeth warren was not. the distinction she had been warned and was violating this rule 19 which doesn't seem to be applied when republicans criticize democrats on the floor. >> andrea, i think that's exactly the right question and it's the question that senator mcconnell has got to answer. i read the entire letter that coretta scott king, one of the leaders of the civil rights movement, wrote to the senate judiciary committee some 30 years ago, read every word of it. there was no objection. i was not told that i could not participate in the debate over

senator sessions' nomination. elizabeth warren was told she could not participate. i think it's very clear senator mcconnell made a mistake. i think he owes elizabeth warren an apology, i think we immediately need to take a revote to make is t clear we'll not allow this to become a precedent. of course elizabeth warren should be participating in this debate, but if we don't do this, i worry when the next time somebody is going to be banned from participating in a u.s. senate debate. the concern now is that we have a president who recently initiated an anti-muslim ban, who has criticized a united states judge for being, for his decision in opposing the ban on immigration, and attacking the entire judiciary. i don't want to see that mentality come into the united states senate. we need free and open debate.

senator warren deserves an apology from senator mcconnell. >> and at this point, you are going to be debating until about 7:00 and then there will be a vote on senator sessions. i'm confused as to how you can, without criticizing senator sessions, you oppose his confirmation, how do you bring up his record without violating this rule 19? >> that is a very good question. i mean, you know, look, it is one thing if somebody gets on to the floor and viciously attacks somebody else. i mean, you know, i don't think we'd want to see that. this is a letter written by coretta scott king to years ago. you may agree with what's in the letter, you may disagree with what's in the letter, but how can that not be part of the debate? what does that mean? that we cannot introduce into the congressional record letters and statements from the past, because people here may disagree with them? i think it is a preposterous

position on the part of senator mcconnell. i did exactly what elizabeth warren did. i was not censured or criticized. i think we need to apologize, again, revote this issue and we need to make sure it never happens again. >> now the democrats talked all night and betsy devos was confirmed and sworn in. now talking all night again on jeff sessions and we understand there's going to be a vote tonight and he'll be likely confirmed and sworn in as the attorney general. what tools do the democrats have coming up with andy pudzer, with other nominees with whom you disagree? >> i think we are seeing whether it's taking place in the senate or not is all over this country, i mean the telephone calls coming in to capitol hill with regard to miss devos were extraordinary. millions of calls came in because the american people said this woman is just not qualified to become secretary of education. i think you're seeing opposition

among workers, the secretary of labor, this is a guy who does not support raising the minimum wage to any significant degree, there are questions about how he has run his own fast food restaurant. so i think what you are seeing now are millions of people becoming engaged in the political process in a way that they have not been before, and i think at a certain point the republicans are going to have to pay attention to that or else they face a real political challenge. >> and we've heard from the president today saying that he thinks the judges are too political and not wanting to attack them but still criticizing them. when he was at centcom, he spoke about his own election, he spoke about their support for him, thanked them for their support, he spoke a lot about politics, and it made a lot of military, not those in the room clearly but a lot of other military were uncomfortable with that, that there's been a fine line where american presidents, republican

and democratic, do not address the troops. this was his first address to the troops, and talk about their own election. do you have concerns about that? >> sure i have concerns about that. what we have, what this country is about is making sure that our military is as nonpolitical as is possible and i think it is true, that democratic/republican presidents have tried to honor that process, but i'll tell you something, what worries me very much about president trump is, when he calls a judge a so-called judge, because that judge disagreed with a position that the president took, when the president lies almost every single day and contradicts things he said during the campaign, you know, he told working people in this country that he was not going to cut social security medicare and medicaid and he's pointed people

who are going to do exactly that. he said he was going to stand up to wall street, and then he appoints the president of goldman sachs to be his main financial adviser. the contradictions, the lies, the not understanding of the division, separation of powers within our government should be of concern to every american no matter what your political persuasion may be. >> senator bernie sanders, thanks very much. we'll be right back.

♪ approaching medicare eligibility? you may think you can put off checking out your medicare options until you're sixty-five, but now is a good time to get the ball rolling. keep in mind, medicare only covers about eighty percent of part b medical costs. the rest is up to you. that's where aarp medicare supplement insurance plans insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company come in. like all standardized medicare supplement insurance plans, they could help pay some of what medicare doesn't, saving you in out-of-pocket medical costs. you've learned that taking informed steps along the way really makes a difference later. that's what it means to go long™. call now and request this free decision guide.

it's full of information on medicare and the range of aarp medicare supplement plans to choose from based on your needs and budget. all plans like these let you choose any doctor or hospital that accepts medicare patients, and there are no network restrictions. unitedhealthcare insurance company has over thirty years experience and the commitment to roll along with you, keeping you on course. so call now and discover how an aarp medicare supplement plan could go long™ for you. these are the only medicare supplement insurance pla endorsed by aarp an organization serving the needs of people 50 and over for generations. plus, nine out of ten plan members surveyed say they would recommend their plan to a friend. remember, medicare doesn't cover everything. the rest is up to you. call now, request your free decision guide and start gathering the information you need to help you keep rolling with confidence.

go long™. ♪ everything your family touches sticks with them. make sure the germs they bring home don't stick around. use clorox disinfecting products. because no one kills germs better than clorox.

and this just in, government sources confirming to nbc's tom costello there was an incident friday involving air force one. as the president was flying to florida, you can see him boarding the plane, a private plane got a little too close to air force one. other media outlets report the private plane got within two nautical miles of the president's plane. planes are required to stay at least three miles apart. air force one adjusted course without incident. we'll be right back. i'm a concrete mason.

i own my own company. i had some severe fatigue, some funny rashes. finally, listening to my wife, went to a doctor. and i became diagnosed with hodgkin's lymphoma ...that diagnosis was tough. i had to put my trust in somebody. when i first met steve, we recommended chemotherapy, and then we did high dose therapy and then autologous stem cell transplant. unfortunately, he went on to have progressive disease i thought that he would be a good candidate for immune therapy. it's an intravenous medicine that is going to make his immune system evade the tumor. with chemotherapy, i felt rough, fatigue, nauseous. and with immune therapy we've had such a positive result. i'm back to working hard.

i've honestly never felt this great. i believe the future of immunotherapy at ctca is very bright. the evolution of cancer care is here. learn more at cancercenter.com appointments available now. come close, come close. i like that. [ all sounds come to a crashing halt ] ah. when your pain reliever stops working, your whole day stops. awww. try this. for minor arthritis pain, only aleve is fda approved to work

for up to 12 straight hours with just one pill. thank you. come on everybody. aleve. live whole. not part.

>> that was from last night's oral argument. justice department attorneys arguing in favor of the president's executive order insist that the travel ban is needed despite extensive vetting measures will are in place. joining me is natasha hall, former department of homeland security imxwrags officer and now a "washington post" contributor. natasha, thank you very much for

joining us. i know from what you have written that you spent years in these refugee camps doing the vetting as a homeland security officer. let's talk about when you were with dhs for four years. how well are these refugees vetted? >> thanks for having me, andrea and for covering the story. i would say that they are under extreme vetting as president trump has already pointed out, and actually very much so from the seven banned countries in particular. syria and iraq and iran for that matter are well documented populations, and they go through extensive interviewing through several different organization, even before it gets to a dhs officer or refugee officer. so i would say that the vetting procedure is fairly extreme for most refugees. >> the president has just tweeted again on the subject and

the subject of the court case, and he's tweeted "big increase in traffic into our country from certain areas while our people are fa are more vulnerable, as we wait for what should be easy d" meaning decision, clearly. he's putting pressure on the court saying the risk is increasing as we wait for this decision. from your, colleagues and now no long we are dhs, but you have this experience over four years there, reporting in from istanbul, is there an increased risk that is perceptible from these refugee camps? >> i think that there's absolutely zero proof of that and we have not been provided with any proof that there's any kind of increased risk at the moment. it does appear that as soon as he took office he put a stop to all refugee resettlement. it also appears he didn't consult with any of the agencies that are pertinent to this resettlement process, amongst them dhs but also the department

of state, department of defense, department of justice. so until we see that proof, and i don't think there is any, i don't see any reason for him to be tweeting that. i think that the judge is just upholding constitutional law. >> and i apologize, i know there's a satellite delay and thanks for helping us work through that, but from your experience we're told that some of these refugees endure 18 months to two years of interviews first from the u.n., hcr, then follow-up from dhs. has that been your experience or is it a more rapid kind of vetting? >> actually in my experience, it's much longer vetting procedure than 18 months to 24 months. that is the average length of time for all refugees, from the countries that are cited and from most people in east africa, some people wait their entire lives in refugee camps, for

syrians and iraqis in particular they can wait many, many years and go through extensive interviews, sometimes more than one interview with a dhs officer for that matter. so i would actually say that the vetting procedures have become even stricter over the years, and we've developed additional vetting questions and additional vetting procedures as time has gone on and there's been absolutely no need to put an entire stop to the resettlement procedure or the program or to take families offiy ies off of which you can imagine would be traumatizing for them. >> natasha hall thank you very much. it's great to have ground truth from the people who are actually working in these refugee camps. thank you again very much for joining us today. much more ahead. we'll be right back. and we came up with a plan to help reduce my risk of progression, including preservision areds 2. my doctor said preservision areds 2 has the exact nutrient formula

the national eye institute recommends to help reduce the risk of progression of moderate to advanced amd after 15 years of clinical studies. preservision areds 2. because my eyes are everything.

[car[clicking of ignition]rt] uh-- wha-- woof! eeh-- woof! wuh-- [silence] [engine roars to life] [dog howls] ♪ dramatic opera music swells from radio ♪ [howling continues] if you're approaching 65, now's the time to get your ducks in a row. to learn about medicare, and the options you have. you see, medicare doesn't cover everything - only about 80% of your part b medical expenses. the rest is up to you. so if 65 is around the corner, think about an

aarp medicare supplement insurance plan, insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company. like all standardized medicare supplement insurance plans, they help cover some of what medicare doesn't pay. and could save you in out-of-pocket medical costs. so don't wait. call to request your free decision guide. and gather the information now to help you choose a plan later. these types of plans let you pick any doctor or hospital that takes medicare patients. and there's a range of plans to choose from, depending onou needs and your budget. if you're turning 65 soon, call now and get started. because the time to think about tomorrow...is today. go long.

thanks for being with us for this edition of "andrea mitchell reports." remember follow the show online on facebook and twitte twitter @mitchellreports. craig melvin is here on msnbc. >> good to see you and good wednesday. busy news day here. we are expecting that white house press briefing later this hour, when it happens we will, of course, take you there live. up first senator silenced. republicans voting to rebuke senator elizabeth warren and stop her from reading a letter about jeff sessions on the senate floor. meanwhile, several other democratic senators were allowed to read that same letter in the chamber today. senator warren t a