that is our broadcast on a thursday night. thank you for being here with us. good night from nbc news headquarters here in new york. it's been a busy news day. the fcc today, as expected, voted to end net neutrality, which in theory will give internet service providers the ability to control what you're allowed to see on the internet and what sort of internet based applications and services you will be allowed to use. they will decide, not you. if internet service providers elect to speed up or slow down certain traffic for commercial purposes, that will put the whole online world, your access to the whole online world in their hands. as i say today's vote was expected. it did end up being a more

controversial vote than the fcc expected for some very specific reasons, including some stuff that has just broken in the last 24 to 48 hours. we'll have more on that vote and it's consequences coming up this hour. also today, republicans appear to have lost control of their big tax bill as senator barbara boxer was just saying to chris hayes moments ago, she praised that they lose this thing and looks like that's possible. yesterday we talked about the fact republicans appeared to be speeding up the approach to the tax bill in the wake of the big loss in the alabama senate race tuesday night. the idea is once the wheels start coming off your car, you should probably make the race your car is in end sooner than you were previously planning. we'll call it a day here. today, though, that effort to get to the finish line sooner than planning appears to have cost them the support of some of their own senators who were previously planning on voting for this thing. this is a very dynamic situation. it's fascinating.

given this is happening right at the very end of the process for a bill that would be the biggest changes to the tax code in 30 years and nobody involved in trying to pass this thing appears to have a complete handle what is in it. so we're going to have more on that including a live update on the very fluid situation tonight. that is still a developing story tonight. if you were one of the people whose been protesting against the tax bill around the country or on capitol hill, you want to see the report on that tonight. it's possible your efforts are paying off more than you might have expected them to. we mentioned last night one of the consequences of not just the republican party's failure in alabama but the president's embarrassment in alabama is the question of what republican senators are willing to do for the president in washington. and whether that may be changing now. if the president is trying to use his own personal political power to bring republican senators along to do things they would be otherwise disinclined to do, that personal power, that

personal influence on his part has just been weakened by what has happened in these last few elections where he has played a role. just in the last couple of months, the president put his name behind and endorsed ed gillespy who lost and endorsed luther strange in the alabama senate primary and lost, and endorsed roy moore for alabama senator who then lost. if the president had never gotten involved in the elections, the outcome would be important for the republican party and the country, but they wouldn't have weakened him in washington. vis-a-vis other republicans. they wouldn't have weakened him in washington on the question of whether other republican lawmakers fear him or hope to benefit from his favor. who fears him or worries about him at this point? he doesn't appear to have much political juice.

there has been this bad run for the president politically. and after that, one of the consequences may have been the yanking of two trump judicial nominations yesterday afternoon, hours after the roy moore results came in, republicans decided they did not want to go to bat for those two particularly embarrassing nominees. after the nominees were yanked, republican senators yanked another major and fairly high-profile trump nominee and whether or not you care about the individual nominations being pulled, this is an important dynamic to watch. as the president loses juice, as he loses popularity in supposedly protrump areas of the country, that will result in republicans on capitol hill not wanting to go to bat for him. not wanting to go to bat for the more embarrassing things the president and his administration are trying to get them to do. we'll have more, that's an important thing going on in washington.

we got word tonight from, where else? the kremlin that our president donald trump and the russian president vladimir putin have had yet another meeting. they had yet another one on one call today. and one thing this means is trump and putin continue to have lots and lots and calls and meetings but this is also at least the fourth time where there has been a meeting or call between our president and russia but we have had to learn about it first from russia. this is such a weird dynamic and it keeps happening. there is a big robust white house communications department we pay for and every day that they give us reams of information who the president will be speaking with, and meeting with, and what the points of his daily schedule and white house briefings and advisers who call and get you data from who let you know when

something isn't to happen. that's all true about this white house but none of that apparently applies when it comes to trump talking to russia. in that case, notification comes from moscow. the last time trump talked to putin, which -- well, at least as far as i know, was november 21st. the first notification there was of that in the english language that trump would be speaking to putin that day, first english language notification is when reuters translated a notice from a russian based news agency that reported trump and putin would be speaking that day and it was the first any of us in this country heard of it. two weeks before that the big asia trip where the people of united states of america learned the president would be meeting on the sidelines of the asian summit with vladamir putin, and we learned that from a kremlin staffer and american reporters took that information and asked and before that the oval office meeting with president trump and russian foreign minister and russian ambassador and not only informed us in our country that event took place

and russian and and he got our record of those meetings. american media was banned from that event, while a russian state media photographer was invited into the oval office to snap happy pictures, and then distribute them. so that's how we got our record of those meetings. and then again today. we got a nice readout from vladimir putin about a conversation that took place between donald trump and vladamir putin. thereafter, the white house confirmed that, oh, yeah, that happened. why does this keep happening? why do we consistently have to get news about the behavior and the meetings and the conversations of the american president from the russian government? it is very strange. and while we're on the subject, we also got late word tonight from a new report in the washington post that right after trump announced he was running for president, he announced in june 2015 this happened in july

2015, there was yet another instance when he was offered a one on one meeting with vladimir putin, according to "the washington post" tonight, the same russia connected publicist who later set up the trump tower meeting where he promised russian government dirt on hillary clinton to the top levels of the trump campaign, a year before the meeting happened, he made a direct offer via e-mail to donald trump's assistant at trump tower telling her that he would be happy to set up a putin meeting for this new presidential candidate donald trump. trump's assistant is a woman named rona graft, i have spoken with her in the process of trying to set up trump interviews. she's very, very nice. she's very efficient. we had known that graph is on the witness list for the house intelligence committee looking into the russia scandal. "the wall street journal" reported tonight that for the house intelligence committee interview with her, trump's assistant and also and house intelligence interview with

felix sater, a russian born and part of the trump organization, who worked on the secret trump tower moscow project during the trump campaign. republicans for some reason decided that for those who interviews for graph and satyr, they would not do them on capitol hill and decided to send their staffers to new york city to do those interviews in the setting that would be more convenient for ms. graft and apparently also for mr. satyr. having staff conduct the interviews in new york, while actual members of congress are stuck back in washington for votes, i'm sure that is very convenient for those witnesses, but it has the knock-on effect of preventing any members of congress, including democrats, from sitting in on any of that questioning. democrats on the intelligence committee are reportedly not that happy about it. and you've got to imagine donald

trump, jr. being like, wait a second, i run the trump organization. my dad's assistant gets them to come here and i have to go down -- i can imagine it's awkward. a lot going on tonight. one thing we have to keep track of on the show, who works at the white house? this administration is 328 days old. in that time there has been an unusually large number of people who have turned over, who have served in the trump white house for sometime, some of them in very senior roles but got fired or chose to leave for some reason or another and i'm sure that we have missed some but just in terms of high profile jobs, we try to keep a running tally of notable officials that fled or been fired from the trump white house. the vice president's chief of staff for example has left as has the white house chief of staff, as has the deputy white house chief of staff, as has the first white house communications director and second and the white house press secretary and

vice president's press secretary and the deputy national security advisor, the deputy chief of staff on the security counsel and head of the office of government ethics, the white house chief strategists and we found out the deputy assistant to the president that goes on fox news all the time, and we found out he couldn't get a security clearance, he left, too. and also, the secretary of health and human services, he left. that's not even counting the high-profile law enforcement people that have been flung out like acting attorney general sally yates. and the fbi director james comey and the dozens of u.s. attorneys they fired on no notice, get out by midnight tonight. it's a long list of people that served in significant roles who are already gone. well, this week we got two more names to add to the list. one of whom got a lot of media attention for her departure.

her name is omarosa manigault newman. she was the communications director for the office of public liaison, which reminds me the director of the office of public liaison, that's another person that left. can we add that guy to the list, too? thank you. mrs. manigault newman was the communications director for the office of public liaison, which is not a high-profile office, let alone is that a high profile job in that office. the beef with her among white house reporters is that nobody was quite sure what she did at all but she is personally a high-profile person because of her reality show career. her departure this week attracted a lot of attention but there's been one other departure from the white house this week that's attracted very little attention.

but it's for somebody with a much bigger job. her name is dina powell. before her appointment to the white house, she was working at goldman sachs. gary cohen was previously the president of goldman sachs, so when she came on board, it was thought that maybe she would be in gary cohen's orbit. she was named the deputy seek security advisor for strategy demand that role, a lot of normal republicans or even like never-trump republicans, they put faith in her thinking she might be a potentially moderating influence in the administration more broadly but in the national security council specifically. and the national security counsel and policy making in this administration is of particular concern. remember the national security counsel initially was set up by mike flynn and we all know how well that worked out. and remember, after flynn got

appointed, after flynn being appointed national security advisor, the next shutter of fear that went through national security circles is when trump campaign ceo and white house -- the trump campaign ceo arranged to get himself a seat on the national security counsel, as well. remember that? people are like really, steve bannon has a permanent seat on the national security counsel? this is a guy that run as right wing website and makes movies how the "duck dynasty" guy looks like jesus. really? permanent seat on the national security counsel alongside michael flynn running it? i mean, i don't mean to pick on mr. bannon. i know he has had a bad week. alabama was as much his humiliation as the president's. remember, the whole point of bannon stoking the roy moore candidacy was to flex his steve bannon muscles and prepare for a global domination plan to run against every sitting republican

senator like he did with roy moore. well, given how that worked out, the only people that may want to pay steve bannon to enact that plan now are probably democrats. steve bannon is having a bad week. everybody thought he might be this fierce spector in trump era politics in some continuing way. but, you know, if you think before this disastrous failure he had in alabama this week, the last big round of attention he got was when he was fired from the white house. before that, it was the time he was fired not from the white house but security counsel. they demoted him from the national security counsel then fired him from the white house. flynn and bannon were a weird idea for the national security council. both of them. flynn ended up resigning in the russia scandal for things that resulted in him pleading guilty and now he's looking at a potential prison sentence.

bannon left not that long after but those guys had really set up the national security counsel in the first place and once they were gone, it raised the question of what would happen to the people they installed, forgive me, not kind. what would happen to the odd balls that they had installed? what would happen to the free thinkers they had installed at very senior levels of the national security counsel, which is a very important thing. in particular, when it came to dena powell, there was speculation on the national security counsel she might replace this guy. dena powell's title was deputy national security advisor for strategy. his title wasd deputy assistant to the president for strategic planning. that would be like if i came to work every day and i was the host of "the rachel maddow show," but there was somebody

else on staff who was the host of "rachel maddow show." basically we have the same show. i expect there would be a fight to death and only one of us would keep the job in the long run. dena powell was expected to replace this man kevin harrington, one of the original let's call them free thinkers installed in a very important national security position back when steve bannon and mike flynn were in charge of that sort of thing. he came to this very senior job at the national security counsel with zero experience in foreign policy. zero. now he's supposed to be directing strategy for national security for the united states of america? never worked in foreign policy a day in his life, however, he had worked at one of peter teal's hedge funds. peter teal, the anti democracy german born billionaire who made his money at paypal, who bankrupted the gawker website for printing things about him he did not like.

his work experience for running strategy at the national security counsel is he worked at a peter teal hedge fund and before that worked at a different peter teal hedge fund. well, this week we learned that not only did dena powell not end up replacing him, she is now leaving the administration, and he is still at the national security counsel. and we know that in part because "the washington post" reports today in the remarkable epic 50-source story that he, kevin harrington is one of the prorussia officials remaining in the white house who actually supports president trump's compulsive submistiveness toward russia and putin in particular. for kevin harrington, though, his motivation for his pro russia positions is reportedly a little -- it's free thinking. is that the word we're using?

i can't believe this guy is still there. i remember being amazed at peter teal people being considered at the beginning for high level jobs. they were reportedly going to put a guy in charge of the fda and the reason he wanted the job running the fda is because he believe we could all become immortal. or at least some of us could and he was working on that. that's why he wanted to run the fda. this guy is from the same crisper drawer in the same fridge and still there and dena powell is leaving. as dena powell leaves, the person left running strategy at the national security counsel is

somebody that believes the end is near and only putin can save us. and this is like point 34 that we learn today out of 100 pieces of information the washington broke with this big story. according to the post and this remarkable story, there is an important national security story to tell about the consequences of trump refusing to admit to or grapple with in any meaningful way the fact that russia interfered meaningful in the election that made him president. according to the post's reporting, these are just some of the other important pieces of news they break today. according to the post, the president's daily intelligence

brief is structured by the briefers to avoid upsetting him with any information he might not like to hear about russia. and i have to say this is a piece of reporting that raises troubling concerns whether or not the president actually reads, whether he reads intelligence briefings. quote, a former senior intelligence official familiar with the matter says russia related intelligence that might draw trump's ire is in some cases included in the written assessment and not raised orally because then you can be sure he won't see it because it's written? the post also in this new piece today describes an extraordinary, what they call extraordinary cia intelligence that captured putin's specific instructions to attack the election. the stream of post election intelligence about putin apparently has given the intelligence community information that putin believes the operation to go after the election last year was quote more than worth the effort. that would suggest russia will

keep trying to do more of it but the post reports that trump has never convened a cabinet level meeting on russian interference or what to do about it. in terms of the national security counsel, one official said there is an unspoken understanding within the nsc that to raise the matter of russia is to acknowledge its validity, which the president would see as an affront. after the new national security adviser, h.r. mcmaster brought in an expert, trump demeaned and insulted her in a way hard to believe for what we know about this president and his white house quote in one of her first encounters with the president, an oval office meeting in preparation for a call with putin on syria, trump appeared to mistake fiona hill for a member of the clerical staff. handing her a memo and instructing her to rewrite it.

when hill responded with a perplexed look, trump became intimidated for not listening and mcmaster followed her. she's the russian expert on the national security counsel a legit russian expert who was brought into the national security counsel post the flynn and bannon debacle. just remarkable. we've got greg miller here to talk about remarkable reporting including the damming and brand-new revelation even though they got caught planning to unilaterally lift sanctions and congress got alerted to that fact and blocked them from doing it, even after those efforts were exposed by congress and press and became a subject of great scandal in washington, after that, the administration and secretary of state rex tillerson continued to offer the russians in secret that the

trump administration would help them out on sanctions. that they were happy to give them back some of what obama had taken away in punishment for them hacking the election. remarkable, remarkable reporting from "the washington post." greg miller joins us next. ♪ give ancestrydna, the only dna test that can trace your origins to over 150 ethnic regions- and open up a world of possibilities. ♪ save 30% for the holidays at ancestrydna.com turn up your swagger game with one a day men's. ♪ a complete multivitamin with key nutrients plus b vitamins for heart health. your one a day is showing.

here is the great dan rather talking about his time covering the lbj presidency. s >> there was a story that lyndon johnson, he was a very earthy guy, and he was very comfortable talking to aides and reporters sometimes in the oval office while using the bathroom while they were physically there. is that true?

>> that is true and i can bear eyewitness testimony. [ laughter ] >> bathroom diplomacy and thanks to extraordinary fly on the wall, fly on the wall, reporting from "the washington post" we know lbj is not the only american president known to mix business with bathroom. this is a section from today's reporting that's about the president's negativity toward nato and our nato allies particularly german chancellor angela merkel. quote, his demeanor with the german leader was in striking contrast with the encounters with putin and authoritarian figures. who were the three guys in the world he most admires? president xi of china, the president of turkey, and putin, said one trump adviser. they're all the same guy. merkel has never fit into that trump pantheon. before her arrival, senior white house aids witnessed an odd scene that some saw for the visit.

that is not the most important revelation from this new reporting by boy, it is the thing i can't get out of my head. i wasn't hungry all day. didn't eat lunch. didn't eat dinner. i'm fine. they interviewed 50 officials for this piece. mr. miller joins us now. greg, thank you for joining us. congratulations on this reporting. >> thank you very much. >> i'm not going to ask you about the bathroom thing. i just want people to know it's there. i'm going to ask you about the presidents' daily briefs. you report they are basically jerry rigged so as not to upset him with russia intel he won't like.

russia news is not put in the oral briefing, only the written brief or buried so it won't upset him. are the briefers concerned about this? intelligence agencies concerned about this in terms of the president not having access to this information? >> i mean, so the answer is sort of yes and no, i guess. the intelligence officials we talked to emphasize they are not holding important developments out of the briefing. they are professionals. the daily brief is written by career expert staff. they aren't going to do that. this is their job and mission and a sworn duty one official told us but the way it's structured undergoes -- they think that through to avoid upsetting trump, to avoid getting the briefing off as you just read as one of the people voted off the rails by raising something that's going to upset him directly. they do this in a couple ways. one is to put sensitive stuff in

print so that they can say yes, we delivered this to the white house and not withholding but not calling it out orally in his presence but adjusting the order or adjusting areas of emphasis and rachel, this is not the only example in our story today of how senior aides or senior advisors tiptoe around and our story talks about what one advisor calls the five and a half foot rule on really sensitive stuff likely to upset him where you have a consensus among lower aides to avoid carrying those decisions into the oval office out of fear you'll get an interruption from him or an overrule of something that others already agree is sensible policy. >> greg, let me ask you about another type of sensitivity in terms of the president and russia information.

back in june, i think you were one of the reporters in the washington post story about an intelligence bombshell that was delivered to then president obama that included sourcing deep inside the russian government that detailed vladamir putin's direct involvement in the campaign to disrupt and discredit the u.s. presidential race, and that intel included putin's specific instructions. the overarching theme of your story is about the president being unwilling to engage with this information that russia interfered in the election. do we know if president trump seen that bombshell intelligence reporting detailing specific orders from putin? >> absolutely. that's one of the things we reported today is is that when the senior intelligence officials travel to new york after trump won the election but before he was inaugurated on january 6th this year, they laid out for him all of the most highly classified components of

that intelligence case. this was one of the most critical pieces of evidence that they put on the table for the president. and as we wrote, these officials included former director of national intelligence jim clapper were worried that they were going to be thrown out of the room. they were prepared for a blowup and that ends up being a very subdued meeting and trump seems to go along with this and seems oddy acquiescent on this. they regard this as progress. he's coming around to accept this but as they over a period of several days continue to try to lock that in with him, he gets very agitated, starts railing how the intelligence can't be trusted and for him to admit this would be to fall into a trap and there forward, they never recover what they felt they had in that moment.

that acceptance of the case. >> can i ask you just one follow up question on that particular point about that very sensitive intel, obviously, there is a lot of drama around the idea the cia has information that reflects putin's words and instructions in terms of ordering this campaign or discussing this campaign. is there any concern among the intelligence community that discussing sources and methods like that about somebody close enough to putin to get that information that there might be a concern in a security concern for that source in giving that information to the president, given his relationship with putin? >> you know, that's a really difficult question. we've asked intelligence officials about that. i heard officials say they do have those concerns and there is that hesitation but that the president is the president and it's not -- and their job is to inform the president, the elected president.

that is their duty. >> very difficult stuff. compelling, compelling reporting. these are difficult issues. the heart in your throat stuff. greg miller, again, congratulations on this piece today. thanks for being here. >> thank you very much. >> a lot more to get to. busy night. stay with us. ♪shostakovich playing ♪

from our family to yours... may all your wishes come true this holiday season. aleve direct therapy. the only remote controlled tens device that's drug free, wire free for deep penetrating lower back pain relief. get aleve direct therapy with $10 back and extra bucks rewards at cvs pharmacy.

3 toddlers won't stop him.. and neither will lower back pain. because at a dr. scholl's kiosk he got a recommendation for our custom fit orthotic to relieve his foot, knee, or lower back pain, from being on his feet. dr. scholl's. born to move. why did you take credit card debt on? second kid. private school. medical bills. moving costs. solid ground. a personal loan from sofi is a smart way to consolidate

credit card debt. certain borrowers cut their credit card interest rates 42% and increased credit scores 17 points on average. borrow up to $100,000 with low rates and no hidden fees. find your rate in just two minutes, and take on your debt at sofi.com. chart imitates life. this is what we call the horse shoe graph.

republicans control the house with 239 seats shown in red. democrats have 193 seats shown here in blue. there are three vacancies, those are little gray ones down front. of the 239 red seats in the house right now, a chunk of the red squares are republicans that are nervous about last year's elections because a chunk of the red squares represent districts where hillary clinton beat trump. they picked the democrat for president that happened in 23 districts across the country and is that must have been exciting on election night. if you're one of the growing red squares thinking about election, that has to be worrying. anyone can concede in the 23 districts, the political wins are blowing in the democrat's direction for next year. those are places that supported hillary clinton. republicans are worried about those seats. but here is the chart part.

come election time, if the wins continue to blow in democrats direction the way they are right now, those 23 will not be the only vulnerable seats that are keeping republicans up at night. since the 2016 election, there have been 68 contested special elections across the country for seats in state legislatures, in -- there has been a few u.s. house races and the senate race in alabama and watching the races play out is fascinating on the individual level but also fascinating in terms of the trend they represent. turns out it's not just alabama. if you look at the presidential results, a lot of races all across the country show democrats making really big gains. if you look at the results in the special elections since november, on average, democrats have improved margins by ten points. so compared to november, if that ten-point swing means if they won by two points in november, they're winning by 12 now.

if they lost by 15, they are within five points on average. put the chart back up there. come election time in 2018 when every single one of these squares is up for reelection because the house is up every two years. if the winds keep blowing the democrat's direction the way they are now, democrats would grab not just the 23 red sheets where voters went for hillary clinton. a ten-point swing would have democrats flipping another 39 seats, as well. if you apply the average ten-point swing democrats have been enjoying in special elections since november, if that momentum still applies to races next year, that swing will have nancy pelosi measuring the drapes in paul ryan's office. a ten-point swing would cut republicans in washington off at the knees. so if you are a republican in congress right now, what these special elections are doing to you, they are giving you a horseshoe size lump in your stomach now. if republicans lose the house

next year, it would be a huge deal for their party. but we might not have to wait for 2018 for a preview for that. hold that thought. ♪ ♪ it feels good to be back. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

i am totally blind. and non-24 can make me show up too early... or too late. or make me feel like i'm not really "there." talk to your doctor, and call 844-234-2424. going somewhere? whoooo. here's some advice. tripadvisor now searches more... ...than 200 booking sites - to find the hotel you want and save you up to 30%.

trust this bird's words. tripadvisor.

when you have a cold, stuff happens. ♪ { sneezing ] shut down cold symptoms fast [ coughing ] with maximum strength alka seltzer plus liquid gels. if you've been in politics as long as senator chuck grassley has, you get good at reading the political weather. the same night the democrats did the impossible and walked away with a senate seat in alabama. the home state of iowa had a special election for a legislative seat there and it presented a 31-point swing to the democrats.

in a very conservative corner of iowa. if you're chuck grassley, that counts as a change in the weather. the day after those elections, chuck grassley announced that he would no longer support two of president trump's most controversial nominees for judgeships. after that announcement from grassley, those nominees got pulled by the white house. then a similar dynamic played out last night with another trump nominee. this time at the epa. the president's nominee to lead chemical safety at the epa spent his career fighting against chemical safety rules on behalf of companies bound by them. he's gone now, too. he withdrew last night after two republican senators came forward, something changed their minds. they decided they were no longer going to support him. outright rejection of the president's nominees of the president's own party is a new thing in the trump era.

turns out alabama senate elections have consequences. if you're a lawmaker and the president can make or break you by offering or with holding support that might factor into your decisions for supporting some of his embarrassing nominees. but now that they keep getting solidly rejected at the ballot box by the voters in red states, maybe the president's opinion doesn't matter to you as much. tonight, republicans are racing toward a vote on the big tax bill that the president is very much behind in theory they should be able to get this thing passed with just their own votes. tonight, that's looking wobbly. senator marco rubio announced he'll oppose the republican tax bill unless it's expanded -- unless it expands a child tax credit and followed by utah senator mike lee who is undecided on the bill, too. senator bob corker voted against the bill the last time. a no from rubio and lee would be it. it would be done. whether rubio and lee are ready to torpedo the bill remains unclear.

it doesn't seem like they are the only republican senators ready to balk. could this week's republican disaster in alabama lead to furtherer bleeding among republicans on capitol hill for a very, very unpopular piece of legislation that the president nevertheless wants? hold that thought. remember how the economic crash was supposed to be a wake up call for our government? people all across the country lost their savings, their pensions and their jobs. i'm tom steyer and it turned out that the system that had benefited people like me who are well off, was, in fact, stacked against everyone else. it's why i left my investment firm and resolved to use my savings for the public good. but here we are nine years later and this president and the republican congress are making a bad situation even worse. they won't tell you that their so called "tax reform" plan is really for the wealthy and big corporations, while hurting the middle class. it blows up the deficit and that means fewer investments in education, health care and job creation.

it's up to all of us to stand up to this president. not just for impeachable offenses, but also to demand a country where everyone has a real chance to succeed. join us. your voice matters. anyone ever have occasional y! constipation,diarrhea, gas or bloating? she does. she does. help defend against those digestive issues. take phillips' colon health probiotic caps daily with three types of good bacteria. 400 likes? wow! try phillips' colon health.

liberty st eight hundred dollars when we switched our auto and home insurance. with liberty, we could afford a real babysitter instead of your brother. hey. oh. that's my robe. is it? you could save seven hundred eighty two dollars when liberty stands with you. liberty mutual insurance.

[ chanting ] if you have been one of the people protesting against the

republican tax bill, either out at your representative's office in the district or capitol hill, today brought news that the republicans may have lost the votes among their own senators to get this thing passed. senator marco rubio and senator mike lee both republicans said they will be no votes on the tax bill unless it's changed in ways they like. is this thing potentially really at risk? joining us now is reporter siobhan hughes. she's within covering this on the hill. i appreciate your time. >> happy to be here. >> i'm trying to do the republican math here. we have questions of rubio and lee. three others as far as i know, corker, collins and flake haven't committed to supporting it and then cochran and mccain with health issues and seems like a lot of wiggle room in terms of whether the republicans will have the votes. do you think they have the votes? >> the most likely scenario is that republicans pass the bill but today what we saw is that it is no longer impossible for this

bill to be sunk. the math you described is a problem for republicans because they can lose no more than two votes and still pass this bill. you have listed far more than two republicans who can potentially be against this bill. >> in terms of the timing here, one of the things that i think has frustrated people who are against the bill or worry about the implications is they're going fast with it, a huge change to the tax code. they didn't spend time debating it and there's no external constraint that forces them to pass it so quickly. is it possible that they're going to have to spend more time either waiting for a score on this or horse trading on this that it might push it into the new year where the math would change against them after doug jones is sworn in? >> it's highly unlikely, but again, you can't say. so far, the senate we expected to vote on monday no longer has that on the schedule. vice president mike pence delayed a trip to the middle east to be here to cast a

tiebreaking vote. there is the delicate issue of the health of senators john mccain and thad cochran. they're wild cards, x-factors and then the question of how you come up with the money for the extent of the changes senators lee and rubio want. that's $80 billion, not easy to find. >> they $80 billion change and the whole thing scored to add trillion and a half dollars to the deficit anyway. are they constrained fiscally they can't add more to the debt without changing something else fundamental about the bill or couldn't they just put that on the tab? >> no. you are right. they're constraint is 1.5 trillion and held themselves to that and now stuck with that number so they have to take something away from somebody else and you can imagine it ruffles feathers and don't know where they'll get the money to appease people. >> we've been watching protesters and constituents making heartfelt, very compelling to my mind at least

personal cases to senators like lisa murkowski in alaska, susan collins in maine, a lot of senators who might conceivably be on the bubble about this with personal pressure. is there a sign they're being moved by those kinds of appeals by constituents? >> so far there isn't a sign there would be a move, because these republicans are dedicated to the notion that on balance what they are doing is going to be better for people. one little wrinkle today is rod blum a member of the freedom caucus, an iowa republican, put out a tweet saying he was listening to his constituents and trying to make recommendations about what should be in the tax bill. seats are like that are looking at risk. mimi walters of california has had jitters and there's some of that but maybe not enough in the senate to change minds. >> siobhan hughes, thank you. appreciate it. >> thank you. >> all right. we'll be right back. lower back pain has met its match

aleve direct therapy. the only remote controlled tens device

that's drug free, wire free for deep penetrating lower back pain relief. get aleve direct therapy with $10 back and extra bucks rewards at cvs pharmacy.

today the federal communications commission voted to repeal net neutrality regulations prohibiting internet service providers picking and choosing which traffic is fast online and which traffic slow online. if providers choose to do this, restrict things, it will put in their hands what content you have access to online. and what internet based services you can see and use. think about how much of your life is online. it will be up to internet service providers not up to you what you can see and what you can do online.

that vote today was strange for a couple of reasons. one is that it directly overturned a decision that same commission made under three years ago. the fcc reversed itself on a huge, huge issue with implications for every internet user which is almost every american. and huge implications for every telecom company in the united states. reversed itself in a span of less than 36 months. the other reason this decision today was weird is because what they did today is wildly unpopular. like, toenail fungus unpopular. i should mention here that msnbc's parent company comcast is one of the nation's largest internet service providers and when we're talking about human beings, there are no human beings in favor of what the fcc did today. corporations are standing to profit for it, sure. actual humans, very few. the fcc made the decision despite the massive unpopularity and despite the fact that yesterday 19 states attorneys general asked them not to do it

after the documented revelation that in the public comment period about this decision, millions of fake comments were submitted to the fcc in favor of getting rid of net neutrality. millions. >> good evening, rachel. i'm here completing my notes. toenail fungus unpopular. >> sorry. >> this is stuff i'm stealing. i sit here and write down the phrases for later recycling. >> i was going t