today is probably the key question. >> what we're trying to do is what we pledged we'd do, not pull the rug out from anybody. four days and counting, still no evidence of president trump's startling claim that president obama tapped his phones, fueling democratic demands to hand the russia investigation over to a special prosecutor. the man taking over that investigation and who would appoint that special prosecuteor was aske aut that at his confirmation hearing today. >> i'm trying to figure out what your bottom line is. i interpret that as a no. is that fair? >> i don't know, senator. i think the answer is i'm simply not in position to answer the question because i don't know the information that they know, the folks who are in the position to make that decision. >> i think that the president of the united states, who has stated categorically that trump tower was wiretapped, that he should come forward with the information ta led him to that

conclusion. it's a very serious charge against the previous president of the united states. and testing trump. as north korea fires missiles, vladimir putin tries to expand his reach, and the immigration ban alienates allies, we have yet to hear from the nation's top diplomat. >> reporter: mr. secretary, china said there would be consequences for the aen tie missile defenses in south korea. can you respond? >> thank you, press. press. >> reporter: can you respond -- >> thank you. we're leaving. >> reporter: excuse me mr. secretary, can you respond to the press from china? >> thank you, press. thank you. >> thank you. >> reporter: mr. minister, are you sure the trump administration will be strong against vladimir putin? >> thank you, guys. we're leaving. thank you. thank you. thank you andrea. >> reporter: can you assure us that russia will will not be able to move further in ukraine?

we haven't had any time in here. >> i'm sorry, you need to go. let's go, guys. >> reporter: that was only moments ago only the seventh floor of the state department, still no answers from secretary of state rex tillerson. good day i'm andrea mitchell at the state department taking a back seat on national security and faces massive budget cuts. this afternoon i'll be at the first state department briefing in six weeks since the inaugural, an absence of public diplomacy not seen since 1953 when dwight eisenhower was president, when this tradition started of speaking out from the platform here at the state department to the rest of the world. more on that in a moment. >> first to capitol hill and the first big step for republicans to repeal and replace obamacare. the new house plan would strip the health insurance mandate but keep two popular provisions, coverage for people with preexisting conditions and coverage for young adults up to age 26 under their parents plan. obama cair's medicaid expansion would end in 2020, a major

sticking point even for key republican senators. it calls for a 30% premium on individuals who let their insurance lapse and establishes tax credits based on age. joining me is peter alexander and kasie hunt. kasie, first to you as this is being unveiled today. the reactions coming from republicans and democrats >> it's hard to see that this bill doesn't already feel like it's on life support. you have a goal number of conservative groups opposed to this, the heritage action put out a statement that conservative group that had given john bain sore many headaches. they said this doesn't repeal obamacare. you have the freedom caucus, group of republicans in the house saying we need toe straight up repeal obama kaye, not replace it. this isn't conservative enough a replacement. in the senate side four moderate

republicans saying we can't repeal the medicaid expansion. it would be difficult for our states and so many people would lose coverage. today i pressed the two chairmen who he written this bill whether fewer or more americans would be covered and they essentially said well we think more americans will have affordable health insurance. there is acknowledgment it will cover less people. in the first 24 hours of life incredible road blocks being thrown up to this bill. this is as the president acknowledged very complicated. we were covering the affordable care act as it wound its way through congress eight years ago there were plenty of times that bill was never going to move forward but ultimately moved forward. nancy pelosi democrat incredibly strong leader. at obama at the height of his popularity.

this is a test for president trump and house speaker paul ryan. >> peter alexander the president is busy on twitter on a lot of subjects. you've been trying to keep up fact checking in real time for instance on guantanamo. why don't you take it from there and bring us up to date. >> reporter: start specifically on the issue of health care, part of what the president tweeted, the white house specifically their new health secretary tom price writing a letter to leading republicans officially endorsing this new replacement plan. the president himself on twitter this morning said our wonderful new health care bill is now out for review and negotiation. by ma cair is a complete and total disaster, is imploding fast. the president this afternoon will meet with key republican lawmakers here scheduled to take place at about 3:30 this afternoon, where it's certain that the issue of the obamacare replacement plan will be among the topics they discuss today. that letter written by tom price

referred to this new plan as opinion centered in terms of solutions that provide all americans with access to affordable quality health care. it's the word access already causing some of the controversy about the differences between this and what preexisted with obamacare, but i think andrea what we'll be watching specifically at the white house and around this country is how much energy, how much muscle the president puts behind this plan. already his tweet says that the bill is up for review and negotiation. will he campaign on this or will he basically just put out some tweets and support it from a distance? >> casey, the judiciary committee questioning rod rosenstein, the nominee to be the deputy attorney general a critical condition with the recusal of the attorney general on all investigations of the campaign potential or possible collusion, the russia engagement in the campaign. that means that rod rosenstein would be in charge of it and i

guess the questions today are, would he agree to a special prosecutor if there is no confidence that the attorney general and the department of justice can be independent of white house pressure? >> reporter: i imagine mr. rosenstein was looking forward to a relatively behind the scenes innocuous anonymous type hearing and confirmation but as it turns out, not the case in the wake of that recusal, as you point out, jeff sessions last week recusing himself from any inquiries into the trump campaign and that leaves mr. rosenstein as the person who will make prosecutorial decisions in light or in the event that investigation that nbc news has been reporting that the fbi is doing into any contacts between the trump campaign and russia were to end up recommending criminal prosecution. he'd be the one who would make a decision around that, and what democrats have been frying to get him to do all morning is commit to taking this a step further, taking it into the

realm of a special prosecutor that of course a little different from we've talked about a 9/11 style commission for example to investigate russia's meddling. this would be a criminal inquiry, and that's what democrats want him to say he'll do. so far he's answered those questions by saying i haven't had a chance to look at a lot of this classified information that i'll have access to once i'm confirmed into this position and something he hasn't made a decision about. we will esee if that's good for enough for democrats who senator blumenthal of connecticut said he'd hold it up, if he doesn't get the commitments that he wants from mr. rosenstein. >> finally, peter let's go over that tweet this morning about guantanamo, because you did some real time fact checking on that. >> let's put that tweet up if you can. this camout about 7:00 this morning, the president trump tweet the 122 vicious prisoners released by the obama administration from gitmo have returned to the battlefield, just another terrible decision.

that was what he tweeted, it appeared to be based on a "fox&friends" segment posted on twitter about a half hour earlier but the facts are very different than what president trump suggested. it's true that 122 detainees, as the military prefers to refer to it, have returned to the battlefield according to the director of national intelligence his most recent report but what the difference is, that of those 122, 113 of them were actually released during the bush administration, andrea, just nine of them released under president obama. >> thanks so much for all the fact checking, thanks to you and kasie for the latest from the white house and capitol hill. another development that we're following today and this is a big one. wikileaks has struck again, claiming that their latest document released today reveals important cia hacking secrets. nbc news has not verified the authenticity of these documents and cia spokesman is declining

to comment. retired four star general and former cia director michael hayden, former head of the nsa, principal of the chertoff group now and author of "playing to the edge: american intelligence in the age of terror," now out in paperback. well, general hayden it's great to see you. we could not have a more perfect guest today to talk about all of this. we are not going to go into the details of what wikileaks is revealing out of caution, and because we have not authenticated them but in general let me ask you how damaging is it? if they appear to be what they are, what about this continual leakage from wikileaks, this document dump and this could be, could be depending on what assessment we make, could bne of the most dangerous and damagingf them all. >> y'r right, but andrea, i just know what i'm reading and reading quickly and frankly not a whole lot of detail, and i do reflect the agency's comment that they aren't going to talk

about this and this has not been confirmed, but if it is what it pretends to be, it looks like a very extensive file of the tactics, techniques, procedures, targets and political rules under which the central intelligence agency conducts its computer network exploitation and other activities. so if it is that, it would be very, very damaging, and andrea, i just got to off an editorial comment here. >> please do. >> this is about foreign intelligence collection. it doesn't invoke the privacy rights of americans, and isn't it surprising that wikileaks, this transparency engine, seems to be focused on transparency only about the united states of america and its friends, not totalitarian regimes around the world. >> certainly would indicate something about their motives indeed. let's move on to the president's tweet from saturday,

because it's still not substantiated in any regard. i want you to share, with you and all of our viewers and listeners what lindsey graham just was asked about, or asked rod rosenstein about at the judiciary committee hearing on the nominee to be acting, rather deputy attorney general. he was asking what it would take to wiretap or easedrop the president-elect or nominee or trump tower. how could president obama d this? this is ho it went. >> you could haveotten a warrant through the normal criminal process. number two, you could have a fisa court which say little bit different but it's still the court overseeing someone's reque request. the third president obama on his own decided to waretap trump

tower or the campaign, do you know of any bagsis he would have the ability to do that without a fisa warrant or without a warrant from a federal judge in a criminal investigation? >> no, i do not. >> as a matter of fact, he could not? no president can unilaterally say wiretap that person. >> the nominee says that's just not possible. how do we understand, how do you explain if you can what the president of the united states was talking about? >> letconsensus here, andrea, that's just not possible and senator graham laid it out perfectly, in order to get a fisa warrant, it's either for foreign intelligence purposes or counter intelligence and law enforcement purposes, the president can't do it, and each case a judge has to believe there's probable cause, talking about a crime or agent of a foreign power. foreign intelligence was run by

jim clapper. this lane over here law enforcement and counter intelligence run by jim comey. in the last 36 hours both jims have said not me. wrong there's any there there when it comes to this claim the president put out. >> president obama would have been breaking the law if he did it without going through either of those two paths, and he couldn't do it anyway, it would have to be someone from the fbi, someone from intelligence, someone from the justice department. it wouldn't be up to the president. >> let's just assume a scenario here, from some late night thriller the president decides to break the law. he's not going to put the alligator climz on the wires himself. he has to use an agency of the united states government. this president is complaining about the bureaucracy being unresponsive to his guidance. andrea, i can only imagine the response when the bureaucracy is

told in this so-called theater i'm creating here to do this in clear violation of the fisa statutes. the american governments agents and fbi, nsa, cia, just wouldn't do that. >> from your long experience, what is the damage to the u.s. abroad with our allies to have the president making these unsubstantiated allegations, this one in quick laparticular egregious but the others as well, guantanamo to our foreign partners, intelligence partners who need to trust us and on whom we rely for sharing their intelligence. >> let me just bring mr. putin on stage here just for a moment, andrea. >> thanks. >> his narrative is that we aren't what we pretend to be. we aren't this stable, mature transparent responsible democracy. and i fear an awful lot of tweets from the president of the

united states reinforce the narrative that mr. putin would like the rest of the world to believe about us. >> i want to ask about north korea, four more missile launches. they haven't as far as we know the joint chiefs are saying the latest one did not include as they claim an icbm, a long range missile that could reach the continental united states but they are clearly advancing. >> yes. >> and while they haven't figured out how to put a nuclear warhead on top of these missiles, that could be down the road. what do wedo? >> if there is an easy what do we do, we would have done it. this is a genuinely wicked problem. i don't envy the trump administration this issue, because frankly, andrea, because of the limited successes of all this predecessors, we're getting to crunch time. probably within his first administration the north korean also have a rudimentary indigenously produced icbm with a rudimentary indigenously produced nuclear warhead,

probably capable of reaching the american pacific northwest. it won't be a high confidence weapon. they're going to have lots of problems with launch, separation fusing, hardening, miniaturization and so on but then again andrea, if you're living in seattle or vancouver, what kind of odds are you comfortable with? this is really coming to a very, very difficult choice. >> and there's reporting from david sanger and his colleagues, william broad and others at the "new york times" that among the options being considered by this new administration are helping south korea become nuclear armed. it's something that the president talked about during the campaign. is that a good idea to renuclearize the peninsula? >> it's an idea. i don't know if it's a good idea but then again andrea, we're running out of good ideas. my sense is, a threat, even a suggestion that we would return our weapons to south korea, that we would allow the south koreans to develop their own weaponry, that's a carom shot.

that's not meant to influence the north koreans, probably have a negative effect on them, they'd want their weapons even more. what that's designeded to do is point out to the chinese, if you don't put pressure on these guys, we're going to go do what we got to go do and i don't think you're going to like it. maybe then we get the chinese to exert the kind of pressure that to date theve just refused to exert. >> and today, china threatened consequences because of our beginning to deploy the anti-missile defenses in south korea, the so-called t.h.a.d. program. how much do we need to worry about that? >> look, i'm fully in the lane of with regard to the t.h.a.d., this is we got to go do what we have to do. sorry, china, not meant for you. as long as the crazy people up here keep doing this, we're going to take necessary measures. i'd put t.h.a.d. in japan as well and that certainly would get the chinese attention. >> and finally, do we have a military option against north korea, some sort of preemptive strike or any kind of other military option? >> you referenced david's really

wonderful article, david sanger, about what defense is doing. they're talking about doing stuff left of launch, do something to the north koreans before the thing's on its way to north america. one left of launch activity is actually a preemptive strike, but andrea, like i said, no good options. you're right. i've had two tours in korea, my last one was in seoul. when i stretched my legs i'd hit my chem, gear, kevlar and weapon, and my office in downtown seoul was within range of thousands of tubes of north korean artillery, seoul is a city of 14 million people. >> and the last time i left north korea a couple, just a couple of years ago when i left the dmz and hit south korea, all that area that used to be mountain range is now populated. >> right, all city. >> now part of the suburbs of seoul. >> you bet. >> it's always great to see you. thank you again. >> thank you. >> thanks and of course, the book is out in paperback. moments ago on capitol hill,

senator al franken grilling rod rosenstein, the nominee to be deputy attorney general. >> my questions are not answered honestly. i asked then senator sessions the following question, if there is any evidence that anyone afailiated with the trump campaign commune indicated with the russian government in the course of this campaign, what will you do? i didn't ask who had communicated with the russian government. i asked how the man positioned to become the nation's top law enforcement individual, a man who had served as chairman of the trump campaign's national security adviser, advisory committee would conduct himself if circumstances required that the department of justice investigate members of that same campaign. here's what then senator sessions said, and i quote, "senator franken i'm not aware of any of those actities. i have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign, and i did not have communications with the russians." let me repeat that. "i did not have communications

with the russians." as we all know now, that wasn't true. attorney general sessions met at least twice with the russian ambassador in 2016, once in july, at an event during the republican national convention, and once in september in a private meeting in his senate office. the attorney general sessions did not acknowledge the fact that his testimony misrespected the truth until "the washington post" published an article exposing his meetings with russian ambassador. in the seven weeks, seven weeks between his appearance before this committee and the publication of that article, attorney general sessions had ample opportunity to come clean and correct the record, but that's not what he did. so after an embarrassing story in "the post," describing undisclosed meeting with the very same russian official whose communications forced the president's national security

adviser to resign, attorney general sessions hastily called a press conference and announced that he would recuse himself from overseeing any justice department investigation into russian interference with the election. so mr. rosenstein, now that the attorney general has recused himself, it's your turn to answer my question. the very same question. again, here is the question i asked then senator sessions, and that i would like you to answer now. if there is any evidence that anyone affiliated with the trump campaign communicated with the russian government in the course of this campaign, what will you do? >> if there is predication to believe such communication was in violation of federal law, senator, i would ensure an appropriate investigation. >> now, mr. rosenstein, do y understand that you have an ongoing obligation to update your testimony and correct any

inaccuracies or mistakes that you discover after you leave the hearing today? >> you're making me very self-conscious, senator, but yes i believe i do. i'm trying to be as careful as i can. >> good. i must have just taken it for granted that witnesses understood their obligation to correct inaccuracies in their testimony, but evidently that obligation was not known to attorney general sessions. yesterday four days after the press conference at which he announced his recusal and 55 days after his hearing, attorney general sessions finally wrote to the committee to update his testimony. in that updated testimony, the attorney general references a letter written by the democratic members of this committee on march 3rd, attorney general sessions said, and i quote, "the letter asks why i did not supplement the record to note any contact with the russian ambassador before its disclos e disclosure. having considered my answer

responsive and no one having suggested otherwise, there was no need for a supplemented answer." so it would seem that, in the attorney general's view, unless this committee has reason to believe that a witness provided false testimony or unless this committee suggests that a witness's answer is grossly misleading or unresponsive, that that witness is relieved of his or her sworn duty to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. but i don't think that's how it works, and in light of attney general sessions' failure to recognize his obligation to this body, i thought it was important for me to make sure that you clearly understand this obligation, and you do understand this obligation, right? >> i believe i do, senator. >> okay. i think senator sessions should

come back. i think he owes it to this committee to come back and to explain himself, because he also says in his letter, may i just -- [ inaudible comment ] >> this will be very short. he says "i did not mention communications i had with the russian ambassador over the years because the question did not ask about them." i asked him what he would do as attorney general if it was true that members of the campaign had met with the russians. so he says i did not mention

communications i had with the russian ambassador over the years because the question did not ask about them. he answered a question i didn't ask, and for him to put this in his letter as a response is insulting, and he should come back and explain himself, mr. chairman. i think he owes that to us. because this appears to me like he was -- and i have been, i've bent over backward not to say that he lied. he needs to come back. i've bent over backward. i've given him the benefit of the doubt, but he has to come back. >> mr. chairman, may i -- sorry, may i just make one clarification? i apologize, but senator franken's comments i think make it important for me to make this

point, that is that i want to make sure i didn't misspeak earlier asked about whether or not i would announce an investigation was ending regarding russia. i want to make sure you're all clear on this, i do not know if there is an investigation. i don't know anything but what i read in the newspapers at this point. >> i actually find it very disturbing that you did not read the declassified report on russia's activities. i find that very, i have disturbing. . >> i read the newspaper story and i was sorry to hear that, senator. >> i would like to comment on what senator franken just said and i don't expect senator franken to act like i would towards our witnesses, but as i remember senator franken asking his question of senator sessions, he referred to something that there had just been something come on cnn that obviously, and franken said that

senator sessions wouldn't know what it was and he was going to take that into consideration that it would have been all right for you to ask your question, and you probably should have given him a chance to get the information you had and reflect on it, and give an answer in writing. now the way i tend to, and you both of you know that i said this to you when you were in the privacy of my office. if i was going to ask you a gotcha question, i was going to tell you about it ahead of time and i consider what senator franken asked sessions at that late moment that that story just come out is a gotcha question. >> it was not a gotcha question, sir. >> it was, from the standpoint that he didn't know what you were asking about. >> but i said that as i was asking the question. >> senator, no. >> you haven't heard this and i don't expect you have heard it. >> senator tillis? >> look at the tape mr. chairman, please. >> thank you, mr. chair. >> a rare moment at the senate judiciary keg between senator grassley the chairman and al

franken, the democratic member of the minority over the nomination of the deputy attorney general with russia and the russian investigation of course front and center, and the recusal of attorney general sessions. let's go right now to nbc news justice correspondent pete williams. they've got the votes to confirm him but they can slow it down, although there's got to be some desire to get him in faster among some democrats because he is known as an honest broker. >> just to be clear, that was a tussle between al franken and chuck grassley about the testimony of jeff sessions. it had little if anything to do with the confirmation hearing for rod rosenstein to be deputy attorney general. there have been no challenges to him by members of either party. both of them have asked you're going to be the deputy attorney general. the attorney general recused. would you be willing to appoint a special council and he says i'll look at it and keep an even

mind. i don't think they can expect him to say much more than that but he does appear to be helded for confirmation and i think there's a general feeling that he'd be a welcome addition to the justice department. he served under bothresident of both parties. but of course there is a lot of concern about efforts by the white house in the last couple of weeks to reach out to the fbi director, questions about how to shape the news conferenceage of the russia investigation, so there are a lot of issues as to whether the justice department can in fact really be independent especially because of the testimony at his confirmation of then senator sessions. >> well of course sessions now is recused from any russian investigation, and what mr. rosenstein said is he doesn't know figure about the russian investigation because he's been the u.s. attorney in baltimore, but his answers are that he will be as independent as possible, and that if he thinks it's the right thing to do and the career people think it's the right people to do, i'd appoint a special council but he didn't

tip his hand one way or the other whether he thought that's the right thing to do because he said he doesn't know enough about what's going on there now. >> pete williams thanks for that. we turn to the showdown over the affordable care act revealed late yesterday. house republicans unveiling their much anticipated plan to repeal and replace it. it will be a tough sell as democrats and some republicans are raising concerns about key provisions within the bill, which could kick millions of americans off their health care. joining me is silvia matthews burwell, former secretary of health and human services and president of american university. very good to have you with us. thanks so much. of course we're interviewing you in the context of your prior job as overseer of all of health care under president obama. >> thanks for having me. >> in your initial look at what they are revealing, how would it affect americans, how would it affect those who are less able to afford health insurance under the new plan? >> so in the initial look, which is a cplicated and difficult

one, because i think as most folks know, this was a bill that was done in secret, and even republicans weren't able to see it before it appeared but in the initial look at it, what it does is it's disappointing, because instead of taking us forward on the issues of making sure that people have health coverage, on issues of making health care more affordable, and making sure that quality of benefits are maintained, on all three of those fronts, this takes us the other direction. with regard to the issue of affordability, because they have taken away many of the tax issues that were for upper income americans as well as corporations, money goes away, and then money is taken away from the subsidies and tax credits that people already received. so their health care will become more expensive. we know that getting rid of the individual mandate, the only part of this bill that has been previously analyzed by the congressional budget office, the nonpart sal congressional budget office, it said that that would

increase premiums by 25%. so this is something that's moving us in the wrong direction with regard to coverage. it gets rid of medicaid expansion, with regard to affordability, it increases duc with regard to making sure that you maintain the benefits, we know the medicaid changes it pro poses would take away the enforcement of certain essential health benefits, things like making sure maternity is covered or things like making sure that there is help for people with behavioral health issues like opioids. >> what about the freeze on medicaid expansion in 2020? how many people would be affected by that? >> you know, we'll have to see what the analysis shows. this was a bill usually bills are analyzed and what is called scored or it helps us understand the actual impact on both money and people. by the congressional budget office. that has not happened yet. that impact would be great

because the way they have done the medicaid changes in terms of expansion it will result in the expansion going away for many people and fair to say millions and we'll see how high that number goes as the analysis gets done. members on both sides of the aisle, the house and the senate as well as republicans and democrat democrats need to understand what this bill would mean for folks at home. >> republicans say they'll have a cba score before it goes to the floor before easter so we'll wait to see how the numbers add up. the cbo, the congressional budget office, is the nonpartisan scorekeeper of what the costs are and what the benefits are and who is would cover. i want to ask but planned parenthood, there's also a measure to strip funding for planned parenthood, given women's health benefits in planned parenthood funded because separately and nonfederal funding planned

parenthood provides a portion coverage for women. can you analyze how that would impact women in many states? >> focusing on most folks talked about, affordability, access and quality. the funding does not go for, there is no federal funding that goes for abortion and what planned parenthood when they receive funding they receive funding for preventative care services that they have provided to people in low income communities. and the idea that we are going to not fund one of the providers that provides services in terms of prentative care, wel women visits, kinds of cancer screenings for women, that's contraception and other types of care that they will not be funded is something that i think is concerning to many folks especially women. >> and i know that there is a great mobilization against this already, but given the fact that the republicans are in the majority, what are the prospects politically of dealing with

this? coming up with some compromise? >> i think it comes back to a conversation we've had the chance to have before, which is making sure that this debate is about the substance, not rhetoric. it's the actual what impact will this have on people in districts and states across the country. already we've seen concerns expressed in different parts of the republican party in the house and senate in terms of different types of concerns as has been said, this is a very complicated issue. it's important what we've been hearing from the american people and making sure that we hear them and we listen to them in terms of what we're trying to do here in washington, to move the ball forward and make improvements to access, making sure people have access to health insurance, affordability and quality. >> thank you so much, former health and human services secretary silvia burwell thank you. coming up, the new deputy

chair of the democratic party, congressman keith ellison, his reaction to the revised travel ban and the republican's health care plan. you're watching "andrea mitchell reports" only on msnbc. that had built his house out of straw. one day a big bad wolf huffed and he puffed and blew the house down. luckily the geico insurance agency had helped the pig with homeowners insurance. he had replacement cost coverage, so his house was rebuilt, good as new. the big bad wolf now has a job on a wind farm. call geico and see how easy it is to switch and save on homeowners insurance. i'm phil mickelson, pro golfer. my psoriatic arthritis caused joint pain. just like my moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis. and i was worried about joint damage. my doctor said joint pain from ra... can be a sign of existing joint damage... that could only get worse. he prescribed enbrel to help relieve pain and help stop further damage.

enbrel may lower your ability to fight infections. serious, sometimes fatal, events including infections, tuberculosis, lymphoma, other cancers, nervous system and blood disorders, and allergic reactions have occurred. tell your doctor if you've been someplace where fungal infections are common or if you're prone to infections, have cuts or sores, have had hepatitis b, have been treated for... heart failure, or if you have persistent... fever, bruising, bleeding, or paleness. don't start enbrel if you have an infection like the flu. joint pain and damage... can go side by side. ask how enbrel can help relieve joint pain and help stop joint damage. enbrel, the number one rheumatologist-prescribed biologic.

that goes beyond assuming beingredies are safe... food to knowing they are. going beyond expectations... because our pets deserve it. beyond. natural pet food.

i just want to find a used car start at the new carfax.com show me used trucks with one owner. pretty cool. [laughs] ah... ahem... show me the carfax. start your used car search at the all-new carfax.com. what do you make of the new immigration executive order? >> i have problems with some of it but i'm certainly glad they left iraq out of the number of

countries, because iraq, equa equating iraq and iran in the same kind of order is just ridiculous. >> the refugee program isn't just people from the middle east. it's people coming from places of terrorism. it's also political dissidents. we want to make sure that the waivers are used in a manner that allows us to help those who are dissidents. >> john mccain and marco rubio responding to the president's revised immigration order. joining me is democratic minnesota congressman keith ellison, first muslim elected to congress in the newly appointed deputy chairman of the democratic national committee. congressman, thanks very much for joining us. you've seen -- >> thanks for having me, andrea. >> thank you for being here. i'd love to get to you react to the new order. is this a big improvement? what is your response to the immigration ban 2.0? >> it's the same old muslim ban lawyered up a little bit but the intent is the same, the basic impact on people will be very

similar. it takes off one country. interestingly enough, if you look at acts of terrorism committed in the you state and the country of origin, of the people who committed those acts, the top ones are saudi arabia, uae and egypt. none of them are on that pan but you do have somalia, a lot of my constituents hail from there, a massive famine and drought. people will die, are dying and yet they are being excluded. it doesn't make any sense. it's cruel. it's wrong, and it's the same beef stew warmed over. i expect the same effect will happen in the courts because he said he campaigned on a muslim ban, within days after his inauguration, he went forward on that muslim ban and he made a few tweaks but it's still the same thing. >> i know we've had reporting that rachel maddow did exclusively last week which showed that from the intelligence unit inside

homeland security, there is evidence that the children of refugees and of other immigrants come here and are not radicalized, that in fact -- >> right. >> the parents are not radic radicaliz radicalized. people get radicalized it's more than a decade later from their experiences here in the united states. so there's no intelligence justification for so-called extreme vetting according to these documents. >> that's right. well people are vetted pretty extremely already. people wait in refugee camps for 18 months, 24 months. this is not the problem. this really is a political move designed to satiate his base who believes that there's things to fear out there from refugees. the truth is that this is nothing but demagoguery by the president, and it's sad, and i hope people use their first amendment right to express their opposition by protesting in the

streets and writing letters and talking to their members of congress. i hope that people really do stand up and say this is not what we believe our america is, and we believe in an inclusive america that welcomes immigrants and refugees, and that of course we're going to be as safe, but at the same time there's no reason to whip up unnecessary fears as the president's trying to do. >> now also i wanted to ask you about the new hud secretary ben carson, who in his first appearance after being confirmed -- >> oh, boy. >> -- at the agency yesterday and seemed, well he equated the people who came here as slaves with other immigrants, saying that they also came here, the quote was "there were other immigrants who came here at the bottom of slave ships." let's play it for you and get you to react on the other side. >> sure. >> this story is about a land of dreams and opportunity. there were other immigrants who came here in the bottom of slave

ships, worked even longer, even harder for less, but they, too, had a dream that one day their sons daughters, grandsons, granddaughters, great grandsons, great granddaughters might pursue prosperity and happiness in this land. >> and he later clarified there was a lot of stir over this and reaction to it. he later posted on facebook last night that he was not meaning that there's no equivalency between immigrants who come here voluntarily and slaves who came here as slaves involuntarily. he also tried to clarify with his friend armstrong williams on sirius radio today, but just the instinct to have said what he said is disturbing to a lot of people. >> well it's disturbing to me, and it should be to every american. not just black americans.

look, you know, other than the removal of native americans of their land, slavery is one of america's twin original sins and for him, the hud secretary to have a stunning misunderstanding of history like that is really, really striking. i mean the fact is, how could we really ever create racial healing and inclusion in our country if people are operating under myths like african-americans you know, are somehow equivalent to voluntary immigrants, and it's just absolutely wrong, and it will display itself in his policy choices, because he's under this impression that you know, maybe somehow we don't have discrimination. this is just a matter of individual will andard work like him, and that everything can just be fine, but you got to understand 250 years of slavery, another 100 years of jim crow after that, we've only had about 50, 06 yea60 years of anything . for the hud secretary not to get

that means that he doesn't know how urgent it is to confront racism and discrimination in housing, which is a very scary thing for the hud secretary to not understand. >> congressman ellison, thanks for being with us today. thank you very much. >> thank you. and turning now to the scandal that's rocking the u.s. military, the marines an investigation under way into potentially hundreds of marines who allegedly shared nude photos of more than a dozen female servicemembers on a private facebook page called marines united. one of the marines whose pictures were posted told "the washington post" "being sexually harassed online ruined the marine corps for me." defense secretary jim mattis says he's troubled by the alleged behavior. marine leadership said there is no place for this demeaning or degrading behavior in our corps, this includes our actions online. joined me is rachel van landingham, former judge advocate now an associate professor at southwestern law school in los angeles. i apologize for butchering your

name but i'm glad you are here with us. please tell us about the impact on women in the marine corps and the men, on the entire corps of this kind of behavior. >> thanks so much for having me this morning. or this afternoon, might still be morning here in california. this is really the scandal is, represents a gross failure of leadership of leadership at the top of the marine corps, and if it's true, if truly hundreds of active dutyine corps members have shared and made lewd and degrading and demeaning and sometimes abusive comments regarding fellow active duty female marines on social media, then secretary mattis should be more than troubled. secretary mattis shoe fire the command jnt ant comma commandant of the marine corps because the commandant and the marine corps leadership has been on notice for this type of behavior for over four years and

the commandant has been derelict in his duties for failing to protect his servicemembers from this type of troubling and xroeive behavior. he's allowed conduct that is prejudicial to good order and discipline and this is really beyond troubling. >> as a former j.a.g. officer, not only what punishments might be possible, but what kind of redress might some of these women who have been so abused have? >> well as you know, the military has a robust military justice system, but that military justice system, the military's criminal system depends on commanders. it depends on leadership to actually use it, and not sweep these type of incidents under the rug which apparently the marine corps has done before. in fact, the marine court was told by congress by congress by congressman jackie spear here in california that these websites were operating, there were facebook sites showing pictures of active duty female marines with comments by other marines, and the marine corps frankly did

very little. they responded and said this is troubling, there isn't that much we can do. but the uniform code of military justice does allow for punishment for general disorders that are service discrediting or prejudicial to good order and discipline. it's a catch-all article 134 offense. the marine cill be able to if it wants to bring to justice and court-martial, that is prosecute individuals that have uploaded these photos of women who had no idea that these photos would be shared in this manner. furthermore, if there are photos nonconsensually taken, the military, congress in 2012 added an additional provision, additional crime that carries a seven year punishment, seven years of a sentence in jail for distributing such nonconsensually taken photographs. >> rachel vanlandingham, former lieutenant colonel in the marine corps thanks for being about us. >> air force, thank you. >> in the air force, excuse me.

more ahead on "andrea mitchell reports" from the state department. we'll be right back. can help you take on a new job, or fill a big order or expand your office and take on whatever comes next. find out how american express cards and services can help prepare you for growth at open.com. find out how american express cards and services "how to win at business." step one: point decisively with the arm of your glasses. abracadabra. the stage is yours. step two: choose la quinta. the only hotel where you can redeem loyalty points for a free night-instantly and win at business. i've got a nice long life ahead. big plans. i'veso wi found outg life ahead. medicare doesn't pay all medical expses, i looked at my options. then i got a medicare supplement insurance plan.

[ male announcer ] if you're eligible for medicare, you may know it only covers about 80% of your part b medical expenses. the rest is up to you. call now and find out about an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan, insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company. like all standardized medicare supplement insurance plans, it helps pick up some of what medicare doesn't pay. and could save you in out-of-pocket medical costs. to me, relationships matter. i've been with my doctor for 12 years. now i know i'll be able to stick with him. [ male announcer ] with these types of plans, you'll be able to visit any doctor or hospital that accepts medicare patients. plus, there are no networks, and virtually no referrals needed. so don't wait. call now and request this free decision guide to help you better understand medicare... and which aarp medicare supplement plan might be best for you. there's a wide range to choose from.

we love to travel - and there's so much more to see. so we found a plan that can travel with us. anywhere in the country. [ male announcer ] join the millions of people who have already enrolled in the only medicare supplement insurance plans endorsed by aarp, an organization serving the needs of people 50 and over for generations. remember, all medicare supplement insurance plans help cover what medicare doesn't pay. and could save you in out-of-pocket medical costs. call now to request your free decision guide. and learn more about the kinds of plans that will be here for you now - and down the road. i have a lifetime of experience. so i know how important that is.

veteran federal prosecutor rod rosenstein in the hot seat today during his confirmation hearing for deputy attorney general. if confirmed he would oversee

investigations into any connections between the trump campaign and russia. after attorney general sessions recused himself last week. joining me now for our daily fix on this and other subjects chris cillizza, founder of "the washington post" fix blog and karen tumulty of "the washington post." welcome both. chris, first to you. sessions of course has not satisfied the committee and you saw the dust-up between chairman grassley and al franken wanting him back. that's not going to happen. rosenstein said he's not read the report of the intelligence committee, community rather on the russia investigation, so he's coming to this cold. but he has a great reputation and it's unlikely he's going to be blocked. so it's all going to be on him. >> yes. i mean i think that's right. look, andrea, it's important to remember that for significant chunk of the morning, both networks were taking the deputy attorney general confirmation hearing live, which speaks to where we are in this process,

and this is not typically a terribly high profile role, but given what happened last week with jeff sessions, suddenly this is a central role. i think you're right. i think it is -- he's in many ways being used sort of as a cipher for democrats' frustrations with jeff sessions, but at the end of the day he goes through. but this is someone, this is not your typical deputy attorney general. this is someone who is going to have in his hands a critically important investigation, both for donald trump and for the country more broadly. >> and this as of course, karen, president trump has continued a barrage of tweets, but still has not substantiated in any fashion the extraordinary may i say bizarre allegations from saturday morning's tweet at 6:35 a.m. >> i think the question, one question in his, in rosenstein's

nomination here is whether the democrats are going to extract some price, some additional price, whether it is the appointment of some kind of outside special counsel to handle this or something to take it out of the purview of jeff sessions' justice department even though sessions himself as recused himself on it. but in the meantime, we do have the president continuing to just, you know, throw more wood on the fire here. it seems like at every opportunity, and this thing is just taken so many bizarre turns that it is really hard to see how the actual normal mechanisms of government can handle this. >> speaking of the normal mechanisms of government, today about an hour from now we will have the first state department briefing we're told, the first time since this new administration took over. there's never been a break like

this, six weeks without a briefing, this is the podium by which the u.s. speaks to the rest of the world, a lot of foreign press come every day as well. and then there are photo opportunities, and so far we have yet to hear from the secretary of state. there was another one this morning, i can show you the tape. we tried, we had about 30 seconds' worth in there. it's a lot of news, you know, china reacting, threatening consequences against the u.s. for deploying missile defense in south korea, the first deployments landing today. >> reporter: missile defenses in south korea, can you respond to our -- >> thank you, press. >> reporter: excuse me mr. secretary can you respond to the threats from china? >> thank you. >> reporter: >> that's what happens when you go to a photo opportunity at the state department these days. it's really a critical time, chris cillizza, with the president's outline showing a 37% cut in the money for development in diplomacy for this state department budget and

and we don't know the priorities of this secretary. >> you've seen this across the trump government, a lot of changes being made, but not explained all that well. people say well why do you have to request ask questions at a photo opportunity? because that's our opportunity. we're not getting lots of other access to the folks. i'll add sean spicer the white house press secretary is going to do his first press briefing on camera in a week later today. so this is a change with the way things have been done in the past. it's absolutely worth noting. >> and karen, particularly at the state department there's no deputy nor defense, no deputy no, undersecretary, no assistant secretaries, no one's been nominated so this is not the democrats dragging their feet on comations. >> yes. rex tillerson though really is kind of the blue chip cabinet member here. you think that one of the questions is how is trump going to use his cabinet, because the administration views much of the federal bureaucracy as almost the enemy, as they say, the deep

state. >> could almost say let rex be rex. we have yet to hear from him. thank you both so much, that does it for this edition of "andrea mitchell reports" live from the state department. stay with msnbc for coverage of that first briefing here in about an hour and remember follow us online, on facebook and on twitter @mitchellreports. craig melvin is up next here on msnbc. >> andrea, good to see you and good day to you as well. craig melvin here new york city following another busy news day in our nation's capitol. trumpcare, the president throwing his support behind the gop's plan to replace the affordable care act, not all republicans share the president's exuberance for the new legislation though. is it a legislative starting point or is it dead on arrival? plus in the hot seat, the man who could lead the justice department's investigations into trump campaign ties to russia facing some hard questions at his confirmation hearings to become deputy attorney general. i'll talk to one democrat prepared to block his no