but i am watching over everybody, jerry. you're in good hands, okay? >> thank you. >> you're in good hands, believe me. you can tell the people of new york. even though i didn't win new york state. i should have won new york state, but i didn't. >> mr. president, cathy. i want to return to a conversation we had with ivanka, dean and wilbur on jobs, the work force of the future. as we think about that and think about our skillsets, in new york city alone, our public high school graduation rate is at 70%. but the readiness of our students for college and careers is only assessed at 37%. as we look at the pace of change, we look at the digital transformation we all see in business in the marketplace, and look at the skills, this disconnect between what employers need and what our students are coming into our work forces are prepared to deliver. it would be great to get your

thoughts on the priorities of the administration around education, around, again, what i like to call not the future of work but the work of the future. because the future of work sounds a little ominous. the work of the future sounds visionary. if you could give us the priorities and how -- >> before you -- so you're giving me numbers from new york. you're a proud new yorker. but you're giving me numbers. why is it doing so badly? tell me. why are the numbers so horrific in terms of education and what happens when somebody goes through school and then they can't read after the, you know -- they graduate from high school and can barely read. what's the answer? >> yeah. first, i would say that as we look at new york, new york has made enormous progress in a decade. the 70% was 50%. a 40% increase. we're making enormous progress. >> see how quickly she's changing? >> enormous progress but we have a lot of work to do. i think we talked earlier about

public/private partnerships, apprenticeship models, which we have a beautiful model that works and brings our next generation of leaders. i do think there is a lot we can do through re-looking at funding programs. we talked earlier about consolidating the many programs that are out there. we're all trying to make our individual impact. we can make a huge impact together. >> sure. i know you work very hard on it, and you have made progress. charter schools are another thing that people are talking about a lot. some of the charter schools of new york have been amazing. they've done incredibly well. people can't get in. you can't get in. it's been -- i don't call it an experiment anymore. it is far beyond an experiment. if you look at so many elements of education, and so sad to see what's happening in the country. even the numbers, as good as you say we're doing better, but the numbers in new york, the numbers in chicago are very rough. the numbers in los angeles.

the cities, it's a very rough situation. common core, i mean, we have to bring education more local. we can't be managing education from washington. when i go out to iowa, when i go out to the different states and talk, they want to run their school programs locally. they'll do a much better job than somebody -- and, look, these are some very good people in washington. but you also have bureaucrats that make a lot of money and don't really care that much about what they're doing or about the community that they have never seen and they'll never meet and they never will see. i like the fact of getting rid of common -- common core to me is, we have to end it. we have to bring education local. to me, i've always said it. i've been saying it during the campaign. we're doing it. betsy devos is doing a terrific job. highly respected. tremendous track record. but she's got one of the toughest jobs of any of our secretaries, to me. she's got one of the toughest jobs.

it there are tough jobs out there, but she's got one of the toughest jobs. we're going to spend a lot of money and expertise. we're going to have great talent dealing with education. there is nothing more important than education. we've got to get the numbers in new york better. i think they will be better. a lot of people -- a lot of the greatest people i know in new york, they're totally in love -- including ivanka and jared. they're so much involved, and it is so important to them, the word education. it is happening. i see it happening in new york very much. but it is happening elsewhere, too. i think we're going to have a great four years. >> mr. president, i know you have a pressing issue to deal with. steve and mike, i think, just wanted to thank you for attending today, and maybe make a final comment on behalf of that, too. >> thanks a lot for being here. and thanks for everybody, for

being here. it's been really interesting. you've had everybody of importance at the event. i think it's terrific, in terms of the stuff you're trying to do to modernize the government, educate and so forth. i think we have to keep a focus on that. the outside world doesn't always get the message, that that's really what's going on. because you're doing profound things. u're taking on enormous, embe issues, and i think with the kind of effort that can be marshalled, you can do amazing things. that's on behalf of mike and myself, who chair the partnership. it is sort of a trust.

gets rotated from person to person every two years. i want to wish you really good luck with the chinese. that's an important thing, as we all know. and i think there's a real opportunity to make progress with them. you should have a good time in florida. i hope the weather is good. >> the weather will be beautiful. thank you, steve. i just want to finish by saying that we are absolutely destroying these horrible regulations that have been placed on your heads. over not eight years. over the last 20 and 25 years. you have regulations that are horrendous. dodd/frank is an example of what we're working on, and we're working on it right now. we're going to be coming out with some very strong -- far beyond recommendations. we're going to be doing things that are going to be good for the banking industry, so banks can loan money to people who need it. i speak to people all the time. they used to borrow money to

open up -- there's one in nevada -- to open a pizza shop, three shops, had a bank. at the time, he called me mr. trump because i hadn't won yet. he said, mr. trump, i can't open up anything. i can't do anything. the banks don't even -- i had a bank for 20 years. now they don't take my phone call. i was always a very good customer. so i haven't been able to do what i do. they can't do it. the banks got so restricted. i've always said -- and some people get insulted -- but it is not necessarily the man that's making a lot of money that's running the bank. you look at the folks from government that are running all of the banks. they're running the banks. and the people that are really, you know, the head people, they're petrified of the regulators. they're petrified. they can't move. the regulators are running the banks. we're going to do a major haircut on dodd/frank. we want strong restrictions and regulation, but not regulation that makes it impossible for the banks to loan to people that are

going to create jobs. but we're doing -- that's just one example. we're doing so many cuts on regulations. we have a book on regulations, and if you add them all up, it goes up to the ceiling three times over. it is just one after another after another. it's just like that chart. i thought the chart was so descriptive. every industry is just like that chart. that's to build a simple roadway or highway. that's what you have to go through. and we're going to be able to get rid of 90%, 95% of that and still have the same kind of protection. we want safety and we want environmental. we want environmental protection. i mean, i've won awards on environmental protection. i'm a big believer, believe it or not, but we want that kind of protection. we want clean air, and we want clean water. but we shouldn't have to get the approvals from 16 different agencies for almost the same thing. so we have a country with

tremendous tension. we have the greatest people on earth, but we have to use their potential. we have to let those people do their thing. with that, i just want to thank you all. i think you're going to see a very much different environment than you've been used to over the last, again, 20, 25 years. we're going to unleash the country, and i'm willing to take the heat. that's okay. i've been taking the heat my whole life. but in the end, i know it is the right thing to do. we're going to create a lot of jobs. we have a hundred million people if you look. the real number isn't 4.6%. they told me i had 4.6% last month. i'm doing great. i said, what about the 100 million people? a lot of the people came outnd vod for me. i call them the forgotten n, the forgotten woman. a lot of those people, a good percentage of them, would like to have jobs and they don't. one of the statistics that, to me, is just ridiculous. so the 4.6% sounds good, but

when you look for a job, you can't find it and you give up. you are now considered statistically employed. but i don't consider those people employed. if you look at what's happened with ford and with general motors and with fiat chrysler and so many other companies, see what they're doing in michigan and ohio, they were leaving. they were going to mexico and many other places. they're now staying here. now, i did say -- you know this well because i've said it many times at meetings -- it's okay. enjoy your new plant. send me a picture. i'm sure it is going to be lovely. but when you make your car or make your air conditioner, and you think you're going to fire all of our workers and open up a new place in another country, and you're going to come through our -- what will be a very strong border -- which you see what's happened. 61% down now in terms of illegal people coming in.

way, way down in terms of drugs pouring into our country and poisoning our youth. general kelly has done a great job. when you think you're going to sell that car or air-conditi c r conditioner, it is not going to happen. you'll have a tax. the tax may be 35%. you know what? every single major company that i've had that conversation with had said, you know, we've decided to stay in the united states. it is amazing. and you would have thought they would have said this, frankly, for years, but nobody ever said it. we've lost close to 70,000 factories over a relatively short period of time. 70,000. you wouldn't believe it is possible, to lose 70,000 factories. 70,000. you look at a map of the united states. how many factories can you list? we lost almost 70,000 factories. and i will tell you, that's not happening because now, they're all staying here and they're all expanding here. ford announced last week a

massive expansion of three of its plants. that was not going to happen, believe me, if i didn't win. so good luck, everybody. enjoy yourselves. you're my iends. you're amazing people. we're going to putou to work. thank you. [ applause ] good morning, everybody. i'm in washington. you've been listening to president trump taking questions during a very interesting ceo town hall. just set the stage for you, it was donald trump. it was the director of the national economic counsel, gary cohn. the department of labor secretary. majority leader mccarthy. it was wilbur ross, the department of commerce secretary. ivanka trump was there. dina powell was there. then there were 24 business leaders, ceos of major companies like mastercard, general electric, the new york stock exchange, jet blue. it was a town hall with these business leaders. i have a special treat this morning. i'm joined by my buddy, stephanie ruhle, who agreed to

help sort of make sense of this thing. he was doing okay until he got to the end, telling you the unemployment rigate is not righ and the 70,000 factories that closed. all over the world, factories closed in some part because of automation. we don't need as many people to make things. in some part because of trade and offshoring. but the thing at the end is something donald trump has gotten used to saying. that things were really terrible. he showed up in town, and now everybody is creating new jobs everywhere you look. >> he's gotten used to saying it because those points, the narrative, he had written sticks. the problem is the narrative isn't true. when he mentioned -- he speaks to ceos. we're going to be building here. he says, i'm going to come see you then. the question is, is he going to see them while he is wearing a trump tie or a trump suit made in the united states? they're not currently made there. to his point that all of the ceos are saying, president

trump, no one ever told me before i should have the plants here and i should -- >> right. >> that isn't true. there aren't the many, many examples of ford, gm, that are moving thousands of jobs. so many of these jobs were always going to stay. >> they were planned. the same companies are still doing things overseas. that said, this is an interesting construct, right? the idea that he sat there. a lot of americans will say, you're sitting there in a meeting with the biggest of businesses. that's not real america. but they are businesses that employ people. by the way, a lot of them are businesses in which many of our viewers have stock. they have a 401(k). >> and those businses do employ people all over the country. the point he was making about regulation is heard around the country. small business sentiment has gone up since president trump has won because people feel bound and constrained by overregulation. >> they hear -- when he says, you pile up the regulations, it is three stacks to the ceiling. whether or not that's true, what

a small business owner feels or hears in this country is you roll out the red carpet for big companies to come in, but you don't do anything for little companies. little companies seem to be set back all the time. part of the problem, stephanie, is a lot of the regulations that little companies feel have nothing to do with the federal government or dodd/frank. >> that is correct. the ceo of zillow was on president obama's entrepreneurship council. he himself tweeted, we need to see regulation pulled back so more upstart companies will have less regulation to go public. there is an argument to be made that it is time to dial it back. the devil is in the details. simply the blanket statement, we have to wipe out what regulations? why are they there, and who do they protect? >> american small and medium businesses create a lot of jobs. that's where you want the juice. you want entrepreneurs who come here -- and some are immigrants, coming from india and china, and

some are homegrown in america -- but this is the best place to start a business. if he keeps the sentiment, we have something interesting happening. >> people are saying, the way presidt obama dissects what constites being rich or wealthy is keeping them from king their businesses any larger. if you're making $250,000 or more getting taxed, like those who are making $10 million or more, you ain't in the same business. >> maybe we'll have stephanie for small business administrator or something like that. >> maybe. >> i know why you're here, when you were anchoring, it was lo looking rainy. >> it was. >> now the sun is out. stephanie, you can see her every morning at 9:00. this morning, a new court document shows that carter page, a former foreign policy adviser to trudonald trump's presidenti campaign, seen here, met with and gave documents to a man he

says he doesn't know was a russian spy in new york city four years ago. page was targeted and did not initiate the meeting, he says. this adding fuel to the controversy about possible russian connections to trump associates. this morning also, two intelligence sources confirm that top trump campaign contributor, prince, founder of the giant defense contractor, formerly blackwater, held a secret meeting just before the inauguration with a close associate of vladimir putin. nbc news white house correspondent kristen welker joins us live. what can you tell us about the developments and whether or not the white house had anything to say about it? >> digging deeper into what you said, let's start with carter page. this morning, a new court document newly revealed shows page, a former foreign policy adviser to donald trump's presidential campaign, met with and gave documents to a russian spy in new york city in 2013.

he's an energy industry consultant. he confirmed to nbc news that he is the unnamed man identified in the federal complaint, who was targeted by and met with a russian intelligence agent, posing as a bank executive in new york four year ago. page, who is not a defendant in the complaint and was unaware the man was a spy, he says, was first identified by the online media company buzzfeed. he says he gave only basic and material information and publicly available documents. in a statement released overnight, page denied any wrongdoing to nbc news and called the entire episode a result of a political hit job by the former obama administration. to your second point, this all comes as two intelligence sources confirm to nbc a big contributor to the trump campaign held a secret meeting just before the inauguration in the islands north of madagascar. that meeting first reported by the "washington post" took place between prince, founder of the defense contractor, formerly called blackwater, and an associate of russian president

vladimirputin. the "post" reported the meeting was arranged by the united arab emirates and wanted a trump/putin back channel. devos was also a major donor, now in the cabinet as secretary of education. sean spicer saying, we are not aware of any meetings, and erik prince had no role in the transition. a second source i spoke to at the white house tells me any suggestion of a trump/putin back channel is, quote, ridiculous. clearly, this is something that the trump administration wants to turn the page on very quickly. >> right. here's the problem, kristen. sean spicer said erik prince had no role in the administration or the transition. when conversations about carter page were coming up, that's almost the same language that sean spicer used. first, they say nobody has any connection to the russians. as soon as somebody establishes connection to the russians, the

response from the administration and the trump team tends to be, well, they had no role with us at all. carter page did have a role with the trump campaign. >> he did. we're going to have an off camera briefing today. undoubtedly, we will press the administration on that very point because, of course, as you point out, he did have a role. the administration will likely say it was a limited role and it was only for a certain amount of time. but still, these are questions that continue to over shadow this administration. as we've been talking about, what they want to be focused on is their legislative agenda. but these mounting questions about russia continue to make it tough for them to focus on that. >> kristen, noatteat happens, i'm not going to deny knowing you. >> thank you. i will not deny knowing you. thanks for having me on. >> kristen welker at the white house. there are calls this morning for president obama's former national security adviser, susan rice, to be called in by congress for questioning.

now, this follows reports by multiple outlets that she sought on dozens of occasions to unmask or reveal the identities of trump transition officials whose conversations with foreign officials were incidentally collected by u.s. intelligence. now, the reports suggest that her calls for unmasking were allowed under law. republican senators john mccain and rand paul reacted this morning. >> i believe susan rice abused the system, and she did it for political purposes. she needs to be brought in and questioned under oath. this was a witch hunt that began with the obama administration. sour grapes on the way out the door. they were going to use the intelligence apparatus to attack trump, and i think they did. >> i think the circumstances indicate that there is a possibility that that request could have been politically motivated, but we need to get to the bottom of it. >> nbc news intelligence and

national security reporter ken joins us now. ken, i think there are two things i want to get clear. unmasking and leaking are two very different things. there are a handful of people in the government who have the ability to request the unmasking of names of u.s. citizens who are picked up in incidental, you know -- in surveillance. >> that's absolutely right. more importantly, there are a handful of people who can request, but there is a smaller group of people who can actually grant the request. that is not susan rice. susan rice could have requested this unmasking, but the people who have to grant the request would be nsa director mike rogers or fbi director james comey, depending on where the surveillance resided. those are non-political people. it is hard to imagine them participating in political spying, which is the allegation here from republicans. the other thing to understand here is it is perfectly routine and has happened during past

administrations for the national security adviser to request the unmasking when it isequid to understand the intelligence. i'llreak dn what we're talking about here. if a feigner is talking to a foreigner, and the people are under surveillance and they mention an american, say the incoming president, donald trump, the name of the american would be blacked out, unless the people looking at the intelligence decide they need the name to better understand. what if two chinese officials were talking about how they wanted to try to influence some incoming commerce secretary? this is hypothetical. you might want to know the name of the person so you can better understand what the chinese are trying to do. go warn the person. take steps to prevent. this is routine stuff. >> and in that case, yesterday i heard something interesting. susan rice would have requested these names and left them lying around for somebody to figure out and leak to the press. no other names other than michael flynn have been leaked to the press. am i correct? we don't know anything that

susan rice unmasked. we don't know any of the names. >> as far as we can tell. there's a lot of mystery around this. nunes said none of the information he saw even related to the russia investigation. there's been no leaks of surveillance unrelated to the russia investigation. that's exactly right. >> thanks, ken. this is a confusing issue. joining me now is republican congressman taylor from virginia. good to talk to you. thank you so much for being with us. >> thanks for having me. scott taylor. not rick. >> i apologize. scott taylor, good to see you, sir. >> good to see you. >> let's begin with the russia investigation right now. paul ryan, again today, expressed his confidence in chairman devin nunes. yoursenator, m mccain, had this to say this weekend. listen. >> if we're really going to get

to the bottom of these things, it's got to be done in a bipartisan fashion. as far as i can tell, congressman nunes killed that. >> all right. let's talk about this. do you think the house intelligence committee is going to be able to get to the truth, or is this devin nunes thing muddying the waters too much? >> at this moment, i still believe that the house intelligence committee, as well as the senate, too, are still perfectly able to perform the duties they're supposed to be doing. i'm not ready to call for a special investigation. i think there's been partisanship on both sidesof course. i watch adam schiff and others on your program all the time. it is partisan. the russia thing, it is serious when you have potential interference into our elections from russia. but i think the bigger thing for us as a nation, because now for espionage and interference and

problem beg propaganda, it is kpexacerbated. we have to determine what is an act of war. i'm concerned about -- you had someone on speaking about susan rice and the finite amount of people who are able to request or unmask this information with u.s. citizens. i think everyone out there should be a little concerned about any potential political attempts to use intelligence apparatus to hurt folks. >> we haven't gotten to the point, right, with the susan rice thing. >> okay. >> let's say you believe that susan rice requested the names to be unmasked. you heard ken describe why that would be impossible. >> it is not impossible. it is not impossible for her to request that. >> it is not remotely illegal. >> agreed. i'm not even saying that there's something to that. i don't know yet. but what i will say is it is not routine for someone to ask for

detailed spreadsheets on specific people from an opposite political party and their associates. i'm not saying it is completely wrong. i think she should testify before the house and the senate. >> i think the part of the issue here is all of us get ahead of ourselves on these things. we don't know she was askin for information on people for any political reason, right? we're guessing now. you and i are guessing. >> i think -- >> you don't have this information? >> i think what you're asking is a legitimate, valid point. what i'm saying to you is there are multiple sources, as you said yourself in the last segment, that are reporting that. reporting that she asked for detailed spreadsheets from the intelligence community on president trump and associates. i'm not saying that there's wrongdoing there or not. i don't know that. >> right. >> what i'm saying is it is important she come in and testify for the american people. there has to be a wall between our national security and potentially going after folks for political reasons. again, not saying that that happened. but i think it is concerning for -- it should be concerning for democrats and republicans. she should come in and testify. >> i don't know why you trust

anything i said. i called you rick. >> good point. >> let's clear up the difference. say the susan rice stuff is more nefarious than we have any evidence that it is. is that -- does that come anywhere near as serious as the russians possibly trying to interfere with the u.s. electoral process? >> okay. there are two separate issues. the russians trying to interfere with an electoral process is serious business, and we should make sure we understand the whole -- if that is, in fact, the case, the problem with it. as i told ya, i think we lack as a nation an overall cyber policy in this day and age when they're able to use propaganda and influence elections in a broader sense. because historically, of course they've tried to influence elections in other countries. we should get a handle on that. but, yes, do i think it is serious that we have a potential -- someone potentially -- again werks do, know the facts -- trying to use the intelligence community to attack the opposite political

party? that's very serious. >> right. we still don't know that. >> yeah. but we also -- just to be clear, we also don't know about the extent or if the russians were interfering in the election. both of those things are equally serious, and both of them should be investigated. >> you really don't think enough has happened, enough has come out that indicates there was deliberate interference by the russians in some way to influence this election? are you really -- you don't think it is true ? >> what i'm saying, again, is i think they tried to, to the extent and to the partisan politics that's going on in terms of if the trump administration is in cahoots with them or anything like that, i don't agree with that. i don't. but i support both the house intelligence investigation, as well as the senate one, to really find the facts. i don't like the partisanship in it. it is important for the american people to get a full handle on potential russian interference here, and to have the ability to react in case. we need an overall national policy, cyber wise, that says what is an act of aggression, what is an act of war?

at the same time, just like i said with -- i think it is important they exercise oversight in that, they need to do the same thing for what, you know, has been reported, as you said, by multiple sources, of the potential of targeting political folks using the intelligence apparatus. the people doing intelligence, collecting intelligence from the communities every single day are great people. we're talking about at the top levels. again, no facts here, but i think it is something that warrants oversight and warrants her coming in and testifies. >> congressman, i appreciate you being with us. i hope the people don't think because i called you rick that it was fake news. it was a mistake. >> i won't say that, of course. >> congressman scott taylor of the second district in california. thank you f -- virginia. thank you. >> thank you and have a wonderful day. >> next hour, andrea mitchell will have an exclusive interview with susan rice. i'd like to bring in a former fbi special agent who served on a joint terrorism task force and

is now a senior fellow for the center of homeland security at george washington university. and the vice chairman of open russia, a russian pro-democracy movement. he joins me on set. gentlemen, welcome to both of you. clint, good to see you. i'll start with you. you were very blunt about your assessments of russia's role in interfering with the election when you testified in front of the senate intelligence committee last week. i want our viewers to hear a little of what you said. >> part of the reason active measures have worked in the u.s. election is because the commander in chief has used russian active measures at time against his opponents. he denies the intel from the united states about russia. he claimed the election could be rigged. that was the number one theme pushed by rt sputnik news outlets all the way up to the

election. >> clint, now we have this "whington st" story that the blackwater founder, erik prince, a trump supporter, met secretly overseas with a russian close to president putin to establish a backwater channel between the u.s. and moscow. a senior administration official called this ridiculous. they told kristen welker, ridiculous. tell me based on what you know, is it possible that prince, russia and the united arab emirates, all acted on their own? >> i guess it is possible, but it is just curious how every day, there's some sort of connection or meeting that emerges that connects russia and the trump administration. i'm baffled by why there was such aggression, whether it was through former nsa director general flynn, in this case, erik prince, why they need to do these meetings before the inauguration. it undermines their mandate. i don't understand the

aggression. the only issue that was really pressing on this was iran, it seems like. it was focused on iraq. why make deals with russia, especially at a time when the administration is under scrutiny? >> i'll ask you what you make of this. when you hear about these various places and times and people who may have been used, any of them could be wrong, but it is a little strange when the reports keep coming up that people with contact with the trump administration seem to have an unnatural amount of contact with people related to the russian administration. >> right. thank you for clarifying that. russian administration. i take offense when people say russia and russians. it is vladimir putin, which is not an elected product. everybody is talking about the behavior of the regime, the operatives and the people around it. frankly, it shouldn't be surprising that four officers of the kgb are involved in the measures. they've been doing it for

decades. back in the soviet times, they tried to do the same things, interfere in other country's affairs. it is now easier in many ways to do it. the methods are much more varied and diverse. back in the soviet times, everybody was basically driven by the state. there was state entities, the government. there was no private property, of course, in the soviet union. now, we have these kind of shadowy figures, shadowy organizations that are not directly related to the russian government. >> it might be hard for a civilian to know the difference. in other words, i might be having a conversation with the russian business owner, not knowing that that has anything to do with the russian administration. >> absolutely. there's no -- for example, there is no large scale business in russia today that is independent of the putin regime. i'm sure you've heard of the ceo of russia's largest oil company. he was imprisoned for behaving in opposition to the kremlin.

after he was imprisoned, it was a signal to everybody else to fall in line. all of the big business in russia today is connected to or dependent on the putin regime. this, of course, gives much more l leeway to the government of mr. putin to do these things. they can do it through entities or through people not directly related to the kremlin. in a way, that can be deniable, if i could use the term. >> let me ask you something. carter page says he was a subject of this particular approach by somebody he didn't know was a russian spy. that's possible. i imagine that's entirely possible. why -- what's the way around this for the trump administration? to come out and talk to everybody involved in the trump administration and say whom they met with and leave it up to the intelligence committees or whomever to determine whether they were talking to spies or

not? it does seem that the coverup is getting them wound up around an axle right now. >> i believe carter page's account. he may not have known that he was being targeted for influence. what they're developing, essentially, is assets. the way the russians would do this is to bring somebody in, play to the business interests and hope they'll do influence on their behalf back in the united states. what i don't understand and what continues to show up is the trump campaign last year clearly didn't know who was in their camp. they never did the vetting that is expected of more traditional campaigns. now, all these loose ends are coming back to haunt them. weather them addressing them and dealing with them, they're denying things that already happened. >> in the end, the denials don't work because somehow, it all gets uncovered. what's the strategy? what's the best thing nay cthey do? >> they need to support an investigation and put it to bed. the denials just continue. these protracted campaigns and investigations to undermine their ability to do other

things, including domestic policy and foreign policy. as long as they keep talking about it, denying things that are immediately refuted and proven false, they're going to get bogged down in this. it will destroy their ability to govern. >> clint watts is a fellow at the foreign research institute. former fbi special agent. and vladimir is a former vice president of open russia. coming up, health care resurrected. president trump says the fight for health care reform is not dead. we'll have more on the white house strategy in congress and why republicans are pushing the battle to change things up on health care. remember here at ally, nothing stops us from doing right by our customers. who's with me? we're like a basketball team here at ally. if a basketball team had over 7... i'm in. 7,000 players. our plays are a little unorthodox. but to beat the big boys, you need smarter ways to save people money. we know what you want from a financial company and we'll stop at... nothing to make sure you get it.

one, two... and we mean nothing. ♪ ♪ and we mean nothing. over hereno!ver here! (dog barking) whoever threw it has to go get it.

not me! somebody will get it... ♪ (dog barking) anyone can dream. making it a reality is the hard part. from the b-2 to the upcoming b-21, northrop grumman stealth bombers give america an advantage in a turbulent world. and we're looking for a few dreamers to join us. i don't know why i didn't get screened a long time ago. i kept putting it off... what was i thinking? ok, mr. jones... we're all done. i told you it was easy. with life line screening, getting screened for unknown health conditions is so quick, painless and affordable, you'll wonder why you hadn't done it before. so if you're over age 50, call now and schedule an appointment near you. for just $149- a savings of over 50%- you'll receive a package of five screenings that go beyond your doctor's annual check-up. ultrasound technology looks inside your arteries for plaque

that builds up as you age and increases your risk of stroke and heart disease. after all, 4 out of 5 people who have a stroke, their first symptom is a stroke. so call today and start with a free health assessment to understand your best plan of action. so why didn't we do this earlier? life line screening. the power of prevention. call now to learn more. with e*trade you see things your way. you have access to the right information at the right moment. and when you filter out the noise, it's easy to turn your vision into action. it's your trade. e*trade. why pause a spontaneous moment? cialis for daily use treats ed and the urinary symptoms of bph. tell ydoctor about your medicines, and ask your heart is healthy enough for sex. do not take cialis if you take nitrates for chest pain, or adempas® for pulmonary hypertension, as this may cause an unsafe drop in blood pressure. do not drink alcohol in excess. to avoid long-term injury, get medical help right away for an erection lasting more than four hours.

if you have a sudden decrease or loss of hearing or vision, or an allergic reaction, stop taking cialis and get medical help right away. ask your doctor about cialis. this morning, president trump is expressing a new willingness to compromise, to reach a deal on health care. he talked one on one about that with our kristen welker, who is back with us now. no cameras, no audio. you were talking to the president and health care came up. what'd he tell you? >> this was an impromptu meeting that only lasted a few minutes, but there were key take aways. one, he says the effort to repeal and replace obamacare is not dead. he said, look, this is a part of a broader negotiation. we are still talking to our republican colleagues to try to get something done. he struck a note of optimism. i asked him if he thought he could work with democrats, if that would be a part of the consensus he might build. he said, he doesn't think so at

this point in time. he feels as though relations are just too raw, and he cited the fight over the confirmation of his pick for the supreme court, judge neil gorsuch. he thinks he can get something done by working with conservative and moderate republicans. we know the vice psident met with both groups sterday. according to one source on capitol hill, there are talks around a compromise that would include allowing states to waive certain regulations if they can prove they're lowering the costs of premiums and other costs to consumers. that is a part of the discussion that's going on. of course, house speaker paul ryan threw a little cold water on the notion that something is going to get done this week, for example. he said, we're still in talks. there isn't any language that's actually been written out. he also indicated that the talks are real and that they're going on in earnest.

the president is engaged in the nuance. he knows exactly what was in the first piece of legislation and he is certainly, he says, part of trying to hammer out the fine details of what could be a new piece of ledgelatigislation to and replace obamacare. >> interesting new development that maybe health care is coming back. thanks for that. >> thank you. another topic the white house is looking to push is the supreme court and the nomination of judge neil gorsuch. joining me now is washington state congresswoman. thank you for being with me. >> thank you so much. >> you tweeted after the nomination was announced. a scotus nominee was blocked all last year. now a president who lost the popular vote wants his pick approved. let's talk about this. clearly, democrats, we heard it yesterday in the judiciary committee, they're bitter about what happened with their nominee, merrick garland, but does it make sense to you to

block this nomination, which is going to happen in the end, by forcing the so-called nuclear option? shouldn't democrats save this for a possible next nomination, which could affect the balance of the court? gorsuch's nomination doesn't change what was the balance of the court. >> i really think that every single supreme court justice is critical to this country. and we need to make sure that there is not an idealogical supreme court justice, which is why the 60 vote threshold has been so important. i think republicans have a real problem here. if they say we're going to go nuclear and just go with 51 votes, i think they have to answer to the american people about the kind of court they're se setting up and the justice system we're ensuring in this country. i can tell you we have looked to the senate to try to keep at least some balance there and to make sure that we are preserving a justice system that works for everybody. this isn't just about the fight

for merrick garland. i think the fight around garland comes up because we're sort of le ludicrous that someone would expect their nominee to go through without any problems. the senate has a responsibility to the american people to make sure they're selecting somebody who answers their questions. something that this nominee did not do. and i think we're going to continue to see resistance. republicans are going to have to make sure that they want to move in the direction that they're talking about moving. i think it is a bad move for the american people. we deserve to have a 60-vote flesh ho threshold, as we've always done for every other nominee on the supreme court. >> you also announced a bill. a college for all act. on monday with senator bernie sanders. what are you looking for and, importantly, how does it get paid for? >> we're really excited about this. this is taking on one of the biggest crises for young people and, really, frankly, for our economy today.

we have $1.3 trillion in college loan debt. most students, 82% of students who go to public universities and colleges come out with tens of thousands of dollars in debt. they can't have families. they can't get a good job if they're paying off the loans all the time. and they can't get a good job if they don't go to college. we put them in this terrible position. we're saying, let's go back to the time when the united states was number one in the world. we were first in the world for graduating people out of college. this allows us to get back to that time where we invest through a federal/state partnership. we make sure we're making college tuition free and fee free for families earning up to $125,000. the second big part of the bill is we restructure student loans and interest rates by cutting interest rates in half and allowing anybody who has existing student loan debt to refinance at that lower rate. this is going to be a boom for people across this country who are deeply struggling with the

broken pieces of an american dream that we said was available and then simply don't provide the opportunity for people to go and get affordable college. >> all right. we'll watch closely to see how at proceeds. congresswoman, from washington, thank you for being with us. >> thank you. coming up next, breaking news. new details about a disturbing report from syria. a possible chemical attack on civilians. military tensions between the u.s. and russia. the u.s. ramped up its military presence in poland and the baltic states along russia's border. both nato and russia have been hosting war games in the black sea. why that region is heating up now and what it means for america and its allies. time for your business entrepreneur of the week. the owner of this space in

alexandria, virginia, doesn't want to process web orders. she wants to connect with customers at her store. usie inine ining social media, people to come in and buy. >> announcer: brought by american express open. elf? american express open cards 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 befi was active.gia, i was energetic. 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 allergic reactions 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. the following ad for your viewing convenience. so i just switched to geico. what took you so long? i know, i saved a ton of money on car insurance. that's what i'm talking about! geico also gives you 24/7 access to licensed agents! booooyah.

good game, you really crushed it. no son, geico crushed it. ♪ ♪

breaking news now in syria, reports of a suspected chemical attack in the northern province of idlib that borders turkey. eyewitnesss claim it may have been a chemical attack and dozens may have been killed. amen is live inew york with more and with new video that you may find disturbing. >> we got these reports early in the morning of a expected chemical attack and we reached out to various charity groups and eyewitnesss on the ground

there. be were in touch with syria charity. they are helping groups across syria there. and they described a very horrific situation. this is something our viewers may find disturbing. according to the activists and eyewitnesss they have been describing, one of those they have been speaking to put the number of those killed at about 115 people killed as a result of this chemical attack. they're describing it as a gas attack. one of the eyewitnesss again through the groups said that they say syrian and russian fighter jets circling in the area before the attack happened. they say now according to those aid workers on the ground, 400 people are injured. one of the hospitals treating the victims was bombed in a

separate strike. they say they're not responsible for this, but this is a dire situation. some of the pictures are horrific. one of the individuals in the back of an ambulance, trying to perform chest compressions throwing his hands in the air saying this man is dead. he is dead. so we're seeing bodies taken to makeshi makeshift morgues by the dozens. we know the u.n. security council is expected to hold a meeting today about this. no claim of responsibility for the syrian or the russian government who are denying their responsibility for this. this certainly would not be the first time that chemical weapons have been used in the war. or rebels in other parts of the country. >> own worth noting the united nations have not been able to

find it in themselves to issue meaningful declarations. we'll have to see how it plays out. thank you so much. new article published today is titled "this is how the next world war starts." it draws a sobering picture between the united states and russia and how the slightest mishap in routine surveillance operations could set off aggressions and lead to wash. joining me now is david wood, and from seattle, our military analyst and former gulf war division commander barry mccaffrey. i want to start with you, david. the article points out something very simple. you're not talking about big strategic reasons why war would star. you hone in on poland, a nato member.

aircraft are firing around, in some places u.s. air draft, in poland there is a russian territory rounded by poland and the russians fly aircraft from there. and you're saying a small mishap could set off something more serio serious. the problem is that putin is pushing his military to be a little more aggressive, to be under tacking harrassing action, so if you're driving a big u.s. surveillance plane in international airspace, and a russian fighter pops up to harass you, there is nothing you

can do about it. there is not those crisis mechanisms that kept us out of war. >> i was up at the forward operates base in the arctic circle operates in and sometimes they do barrel rolls around a nato air shipt -- ship. do we have the ability to call up a russian at a high level and say stand down. a lot of these control measures, i scrolled through the treaties that we had operative with the soviets, many of them no longer

apply, or the russians have walked away from them. it is concerning, but look the larger issue here in my judgment is that we expanded nato significantly, but we took overwhelmingly the u.s. combat power out of europe. and then the germans disarmed. minus the real combat power. so we're putting token elements on the ground. an army brigade. they're right next to significant amounts of remodernized so we have a miscap collation he says this wasn't

the agreement. when they made peace with russia in the west, and nato had agreements they would not go right up to russia's border and do things that felt aggressive to russia. is nato pushing his luck. >> look, these are two big powerful forces. russia on the other hand. the problem is no that the there are not grievances on both sides, they're grinding up against each other. now, we have one factor that is really important in crisis management that we didn't have before. the time to make a decision has been compressed by social media and the 24/7 news cycle. so leaders don't have the time they used to have to make a sober calculation to talk it out, to figure out what to do, that's all gone.

they have an idea that we're de-emphasizing soft power and policy to play a roll here. the acts say they're going to rush to judgment, but we have to keep in context but they have minimal strategic power. the only think they make that anyone values is oil and natural gas. so i think what we have is a very clever aggressive man who is, and his neighbors, is batting above his average. he is definitely confronting nato in many ways quite sque successfully. >> gentleman, a good conversation we could have for a

lot longer, i hope you will come back and do that. david wood, his article is well worth the read, and barry mccaffrey. thank you for watching this hour of msnbc. find me on twitter, facebook, instagram. i will not start any wars with anyone, on snapchat at velshi. right now on "andrea mitchell resportr reports" she speaks to susan rice. >> smoke and mirrors. president trump accusing president obama of wiretapping. then the chairman of the house intelligence committee and aide open a new charge of surveillance, also discredited. now the former national security advisor is accused of unmasking