i'll see you tomorrow at 1:00 p.m. right now on "andrea mitchell reports," crunching the numbers. the white house is expected to pass the largest tax reform in decades. will it spark job creation, as republicans claim? >> this tax reform is about growing paychecks for middle class families. it's about growing jobs in america and about our jobs stopping leaving the united states. >> this piece of legislation is the single worst piece of legislation i've seen in my time in the senate, and it will take a decade for us to undo some of the damage. putin's play. the former director of national intelligence says the one-time kgb officer's phone flattering of the president proves he's got mr. trump's number. >> i think this past weekend is illustrative of what a great

case officer vladimir putin is. he knows how to handle an asset, and that's what he's doing with the president. >> he seems to imply the president is being manipulated. >> it's just not true. what the president has asked us to do with russia as well is to make sure we can deter conflict. you see that with peace through strength, pillar in the national security strategy, but also to try to find areas of cooperation. >> and judge not. a viral video tanks a trump administration judicial nominee, the third to be deemed unqualified after the nominee flunked law school 101. >> just because you've seen "my cousin vinny" doesn't qualify you to be a federal judge. and he has no litigation experience. and good day. i'm andrea mitchell in washington. as the president's tax cuts race toward final passage today in both houses, right now the action is in the house of representatives where we will

see more debate this hour ahead of the first big votes coming up on this bill. joining me now, nbc's garrett haake on capitol hill and national correspondent peter alexander at the white house. garrett, first the timing on this and the likelihood of some reflections of white house states, this is going to pass? >> it will be some two hours to pass this bill. they will see defections from states that have objections to this bill, continue to have them, and their objections won't be met. the house will vote. they'll move it to the senate. then it's a bit of a guessing game exactly when they'll vote. they could vote later this evening or early tomorrow, but i think the feel of this thing talking to folks this morning is they would like to see this pass tonight. as you know, speed kills and

delay can be a problem. they don't want to introduce any additional risk. republicans in the senate know they have the votes. they have the bodies they need here. they're missing john mccain who is back home in arizona. they want this thing done today, if at all possible. >> and mike pence, the vice president, was supposed to leave for the middle east, but for a number of reasons, including how close this senate bill is, they have nomar engine f more engine he's staying here. they voted 14-1 to their middle egypt policy yesterday. being banned from the palestinian territories is not welcome at all for the vice president. but the white house is expecting a big victory this week. >> reporter: dreenandrea, i thi you're exactly right. they think they may get 51 votes even with john mccain not making it. this is the moment the president has been waiting for the

entirety of his first year in office, despite all the questions whether they should have started on some bipartisan issue like infrastructure instead of health care reform. it's now the end of the year, and finally on taxes, the president is getting the win he was looking for. notably last night he hosted about 35 lawmakers for what the press secretary, sarah huckabee sanders, describes as a relaxed time. among them a couple democrats, dick durmin and joe mansion of west virginia. they were watching a private version of "the darkest hour," a film about winston churchill, but this really is the brightest moment for this white house right now. they feel they have something to celebrate heading into the holidays, giving that gift, as the president describes it, to the american people. it's likely there will be some form of a signing ceremony this week, and most likely there will be a news conference with this president before he heads off to mar-a-lago mar-a-lago until the end of the year. they feel like they had significant accomplishments on

the economy all the way to cracking down on security with isis. >> garrett, there is a couple more things they have to do before they finish up. they have to do the short-term bill on the budget. what are they going to do about the dreamers, kick that down the road, and also a major defeat on nominations, scott garrett, to be bank president rejected in committee because he was eager to just take apart an agency that is supported by republicans. >> reporter: right, andrea, it's worth pointing out nominations get pulled all the time. we've seen three judicial nominations get pulled in the last ten days or so. it's extremely rare to see a president's nominee essentially defeated by his own party. usually the white house sees the writing on the wall and pulls that nominee. but mr. garrett today defeated near a party line vote but two republicans. tim scott and mike rounds said his past comments saying he didn't want this import-export

bank to exist, that led against him and they set it aside. but congress has to come up with some kind of plan to fund the government by friday. they would like to come up with some idea on chip, the children's insurance program, sometime this week. susan collins has been promise that had her bill with bill nelson to stabilize governments will be dealt with. i think the outstanding one will be daca. the president has said all along they would like to see that wait until january, and it's unclear whether the democrats will try to force their hand in the three and a half days we've got left here to get it figured out. >> let me just say, though, something about the rejection in committee on exiom bank, he wanted to destroy the agency for which he was being nominated. how about scott pruitt for the apa who was confirmed for that agency head even though he's

taking it apart piece by piece. and the fact is that's because republicans don't support the epa. >> right, and an interesting contrast. different committees, different sets of senators. you could argue also a different time frame. i think you're seeing republican senators feeling a little bit more comfortable pushing back on their own priorities now that this president has been in office for the better part of a year, saying -- senator round said to me, this is a case in which we felt we had to advise and not consent. this was the senate doing its job and maybe finding a little more secure footing to do that even with a president of their own party. >> thank you so much for setting the table for us, garrett haake and peter alexander at the white house. joining me now is michael steele, senior adviser to jeb bush and press secretary to house speaker john boehner. jeremy peters, political reporter at the "new york times." let's talk about this tax bill. winners and losers. according to the joint committee on taxation, look at this distribution table.

what we have is that if you earn between $67,000 and $112,000, one in twelve americans are going to see a tax increase even short term. we're not even talking about down the road after the individual tax cuts expire. so how is that a middle class tax cut? >> look, facts are stubborn things, and the fact is middle class families are going to start seeing more money in their paycheck starting in february if we pass this law by christmastime. the joint committee does not account for -- it's a cockamamie that actually scores eliminating the original mandate as a tax increase, because if you don't require people to buy health care coverage, you don't have to then give them a subsidy to do that. >> okay, let's talk about the fact that 13 million people are going to lose their health insurance. sdp . >> they will no longer be required to buy health insurance, which is a different thing, but that will cause other problems.

>> and premiums will go up. >> it's not people who don't want to spend money on health care, now the people who want to buy health care on their own will have to pay a higher price for that. and middle class families who live in states like new york, new jersey, virginia, california, are going to see their taxes go up. this is not a tax bill that is equitable by any stretch of the imagination. >> i think it's important we unpack that a little bit. the idea that people in high-tax states will lose the ability to itemize their state tax deduction does have an impact. however, there are also lower rates for those families. most people in those states actually wind up much better off. >> i would just argue with the increase in economic activity, because i think that is emotional but it has never provd to -- proved to be the fact. this just does not happen. >> we have the highest tax rate in the developmental world.

if you lower that substantially, we will see more jobs come into this country, more economic activity, higher wages and more jobs here in the united states. that's the point of this legislation in addition to generous middle class benefits like lower rates, expanded tax deduction and a massively expanded child tax credit. >> when they hosted a panel of host executives from top companies and polled them in front of gary cohn and said, how many of you are going to invest and hire people and expand your businesses when you get this new 25% rate? there were maybe five hands in the whole room. >> historically they have not reinvested. they bought back stock. they have not hired more workers. it's a question that we don't know the answer to right now, exactly what the economic benefits of this will be. the economy has been chugging along at a pretty decent rate of

growth. the stock market has, too. i think the question is how much more room is there left to grow? we don't know the answer to that. we also don't know a lot of other things like what the impact on home values will be in states where -- that are really going to take a hit because they're no longer able to deduct their state and local property taxes. >> let me ask you, michael steele, about the n brks krrbc question. we don't see this kind of jump preference for democrats to a double-digit, 11-point preference. it was 50 to 39. this was post alabama, this is post a lot of things that have happened. is that concerning, or is there enough time between now and the midterms for republicans to regain their strength? >> we're looking at headwinds facing the house republican conferences next year. at the same time we have achievements like this tax

package that will help make people's lives better, help middle class, help american families, and they'll have a great campaign next year. >> we also know today the speaker paul ryan pushed back strong the against any suggestion there was a politico story that he's thinking of quitting at the end of the year and not running for reelection. your read on that? >> this is an incredibly exciting day for the speaker. he's literally worked his entire life to get tax reform done for the american people. this is a day of celebration. and i don't think there is any chance that is followed by dropping the mike and heading out the door. >> if you look at what this bill is, you know, michael, this is not the bill paul ryan wanted. this is not necessarily even the bill donald trump wanted to the extent he was deeply engaged and committed to this as an issue. but i do think that republicans looking on down the road, michael is right. you can't write them off right now. just because they had a bad race in alabama -- >> and virginia. >> -- and virginia and new jersey. yes, things look bad and there

are private discussions taking place on capitol hill where they're saying, oh, my god, we might lose 55 seats. >> a year is a long time. >> a year is a long time, and we think we're putting points on the board today and will continue doing that. congressman leonard lance opposes the tax package and joins me now. thank you, congressman, for being with us. i know you have procedural votes and you're running back and forth on the floor. we're very grateful you had a minute for us. why are you against it? i assume you're from new jersey and it is a high-tax state and your constituents are going to lose their deduction. >> i favor the taxes, andrea, that have been in our tax code since the moderate of the tax code years ago in 1913. i was a no vote because of soft. i wanted to stay as is.

also i'm concerned about adding to the deficit. >> the other point that we were just talking about from the joint committee on taxation is people earning between 67,000 and 112,000 will actually have a tax increase. and that's 1 in 12 taxpayers. >> i want to look at that analysis and i don't want to raise taxes on anybody, and i also don't want there to be winner states and loser states. new jersey is a state that contributes a lot more from washington than it receives back. i think there could have been a better job. i favor some portions of it. but on balance, andrea, i think soft should remain as is. >> do you have any doubt, though, that it is going to continue to win the house votes and the senate leader if not tonight but tomorrow morning? >> there were 13 of us on the republican side who voted against it when it came to the house on the first round, and i would imagine there would be that number now and perhaps a

few more. but i would imagine it's likely to pass today. >> where do you stand on the dreamers and what to do about, you know, getting past the deadline coming up this week to keep the government open. is the dreamers a must-pass piece of legislation for you? >> i think that we should resolve that issue as quickly as possible, and i was one of those who signed a letter to our leadership indicating that we would like to see that resolved by the end of this year, in the next week or so. if that does not occur, then obviously i favor its being resolved by the first week in march, which is the six-month anniversary of the decision by the president. so i hope we can do it as quickly as possible, but certainly no later than the first week in march. regarding the continuing resolution, i will be voting for that. i want to make sure that government remains open, andrea. we'll be sending a bill to the senate and we should stay here until that issue is resolved.

>> congressman, bottom line on the tax bill. i know you oppose it, it's not good for your constituents, but do you think it is better for the party as a whole to have some accomplishment legislatively before christmas, something to run on for the midterms? >> i think that we should run on where we have been successful, but on the tax bill, i will indicate to my constituency that i think we could have done a better job in that regard. i do compliment the president on what's happening regarding isis. there was a piece over the weekend in the "new york times" on this, and i think we're doing a better job in the middle east. but on the tax issue, i think soft should have remained in the code as is. >> we really appreciate your taking the time to talk to us today. thank you, congressman, and a very happy holiday to you. merry christmas. >> happy holiday and merry christmas to everyone in your audience. >> thank you. and coming up, deadly derailment.

officials say the amtrak train was traveling at three times the speed limit for that stretch of track. what else might have contributed to the fatal accident? details coming up. this is "andrea mitchell reports" on msnbc. we're on a mission to show drip coffee drinkers, it's time to wake up to keurig. wakey! wakey! rise and shine! oh my gosh! how are you? well watch this. i pop that in there. press brew. that's it. so rich. i love it. that's why you should be a keurig man! full-bodied. are you sure you're describing the coffee and not me?

full-bodied. 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.

and there are new details on that deadly amtrak train derailment in washington state. officials confirming the train was going nearly three times the speed limit when it veered off the tracks, killing three people, injuring dozens more, several of them critically. one couple that was looking forward to the inaugural run of high-speed train service says they're grateful to be alive. >> squealing and rattling the train, it kind of got dark. i found myself on the floor. >> count your blessings, yep. try to live day to day, keep out

of trouble. and probably stay off trains. >> joining me now, nbc's blake mccoy in dupont, washington, and former chair of the ntsb. blake, first to you. what are they learning? what else besides the speed could have been a factor? >> reporter: andrea, one of the train's two black boxes have now been recovered and that's why we know the train's speed, 80 miles per hour in this 30-mile-per-hour zone. the train was supposed to be going 80 miles per hour but ano at this point in the trip. there was a curve here, but were there other factors? was there something they potentially hit, was there a mechanical failure? they don't know. at this point they haven't been able to interview the train's engineer yet. he was taken to the hospital and

is still recovering. they are waiting to speak with them as well as look at this track to see what else they can learn. andrea? >> and to you. what about positive train control. we knew it was not available in philadelphia on that curve and was then put in. isn't it supposed to be required? wasn't it congressionally mandated? >> that's right. in 2008 after the crash involving a metrolink train and a union pacific freight train that killed 25, congressmandated the pbc be implemented and they gave them seven years. when it came to the window they weren't going to get it done, they extended the deadline, essentially kicking the can down the road and leaving those train lines vulnerable. positive train control can prevent overspeed and train-to-train collisions. >> this is a newly upgraded track for this new rail run. so why wouldn't it have been put

in when you're upgrading the track? >> so that's a really important question. the track owner is sound transit. the trains are owned by kind of a consortium of oregon and washington state and the train track is the operator. what were the plans? what technology was implemented? and really update this to safety standards that should be existing today. >> and debra, when thoradeborah that speed, three times the speed limit on that stretch of the track on that curve, there could be distraction? i assume they're looking at the engineer, assuming it was a man's, devices, whether there was some other distraction going on? they would be looking at the brakes. what else might they be looking at? >> sure. they want to make sure there were no equipment or mechanical failures, no track defects or anything failing the track and making sure everything on the track was working.

the brakes were working and all the mechanical devices were functioning effectively. if they rule those things out, then they're left with human factors, so looking at things like fatigue and a spiral derailment, they were going too fast for conditions around a curve, and so that was a fati e fatigue-related. metrolink was distraction. so they are going to be looking at who else was in the cab with that engineer, if anyone was, what was going on, and that interview with him will be very important. but also preserving those cell phone records and any other materials. >> deborah hershman, thank you for those details. we appreciate it. >> thank you. and trump's judicial nominees, the third forced to withdraw after flunking questions from the senator. this montage courtesy of our friends at "morning joe." >> what are you telling me? >> again, my background is not

in litigation. >> i don't want to hear explanations. >> just for the record, do you know what motion in limine is? >> there are only two ways to answer. >> i cannot give you a definition. >> all i ask is a very simple answer to a very simple question. >> i've heard it, but again -- >> there seems to be a great deal of confusion here. >> you see that a lot in federal court. (avo) when you have type 2 diabetes, you manage your a1c,

but you also have a higher risk of heart attack or stroke. non-insulin victoza® lowers a1c, and now reduces cardiovascular risk. victoza® lowers my a1c and blood sugar better than the leading branded pill. (avo) and for people with type 2 diabetes treating cardiovascular disease, victoza® is now approved to lower the risk of major cardiovascular events such as heart attack, stroke, or death. and while it isn't for weight loss, victoza® may help you lose some weight. (avo) victoza® is not for people with type 1 diabetes or diabetic ketoacidosis.

do not take victoza® if you have a personal or family history of medullary thyroid cancer, multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, or if you are allergic to victoza® or any of its ingredients. stop taking victoza® and get medical help right away if you get symptoms of a serious allergic reaction such as rash, swelling, difficulty breathing or swallowing. serious side effects may happen, including pancreatitis. so, stop taking victoza® and call your doctor right away if you have severe pain in your stomach area. tell your doctor your medical history. gallbladder problems have happened in some people. tell your doctor right away if you get symptoms. taking victoza® with a sulfonylurea or insulin may cause low blood sugar. common side effects are nausea, diarrhea, vomiting, decreased appetite, indigestion, and constipation. side effects can lead to dehydration, which may cause kidney problems. ask your doctor about victoza®.

one of president trump's nominees for a lifetime appointment as a federal judge has withdrawn from consideration just days after a video clip went viral, showing him struggling with basics of the law with the senate. >> have you tried a civil case? >> no. >> criminal? >> no. berc benc . >> bench? >> no. >> do you know what motion in limine is? >> again, my background is not in litigation. >> do you know what the pullman extension doctrine is? you'll see that a lot in federal court. >> matthew petersen, a member of the federal election commission, is the third trump judicial pick

to withdraw in the past week alone amid criticism of democrats and others about their qualifications or lack thereof. petersen served on the ftc with don mcgann, the current white house counsel, who has the final say over picks. joining me now is nick akerman, former u.s. attorney. nick, thanks for being with us. >> thank you. >> it's embarrassing in the extreme. it looks like something out of a comedy routine and ready made for "snl." how did he get past this in the senate? >> he's never tried a case before, he's never been in a courtroom. a federal judicial court judge who is appointed for life is a very important position, and it's not a job for a rookie. somebody who gets appointed that position has to be an expert in trial practice and has to know both civil and criminal law,

because a federal judge hears a whole variety of cases over a spectrum of different issues that are extremely important. >> and, you know, in this case, he was so unprepared, he came from the fec. the fec has been described by many people as a toothless agency that gets, you know, gridlocked by politics all the time. don mcgann served there, and that seems to be his only qualification for having been nominated. >> i think that's right. the problem here is, though, a federal district court judge, it doesn't make any difference whether they're a democrat or a republican, a conservative or a liberal. what really counts here is competence. i've appeared before hundreds of federal court judges. it is so extremely important to have competent judges that know what they're doing, know how the process works. it makes a huge difference to litigants. if you're accused of a criminal case, you want to have a fair shake. the public, if you have the

wrong judge in there and he allows into evidence or doesn't allow in the right evidence, somebody can be acquitted and there is no double jeopardy. if he's acquitted that's the end of the case. on the other hand, if you're innocent, you want to make sure that the proper evidence gets in before a jury. and the same goes on a civil case where it's very important where there is money at stake, there are issues at stake, for example, in a sex discrimination case. this is not a situation where somebody can come in just because they have the right politics. that doesn't cut it being a federal court judge. >> and then there's the case of breath tai. his wife worked in the white house. he didn't even disclose that, which was a clear conflict. allegations he once supported the kkk. that helped sink his nomination. and then jeff clear. the white house gave up on him. he called transgender children "proof of satan's plan."

the president did call senator kennedy from louisiana, the republican senator you saw just grilling him, and said, you're right, basically. my nominees have to be qualified. up until these three, the president has had a perfect record on getting these confirmations. in fact, according to senator grassley, the judiciary chairman, he has had more judges confirmed in the first year of his presidency than any other president in the history -- 228 years of history of the united states. >> two points there. first of all, the problem is in the vetting of the judges. i mean, there is more vetting to be a counter clerk at mcdonald's than there appears to be vetting for this federal district court judge job, which is a lifetime appointment. secondly, the reason why you had so many appointments this year is because the republicans decided at the end of obama's last year that they wouldn't confirm any of these judges.

so they simply held them all up, and that's why you have so many more judges being appointed this year than you did during the last year of the obama administration. but the bottom line is, anybody who applies for this job has to be expected to go through a very thorough vetting as to their experience, their background, what they've done and said out on the social media. everyone has to feel competent and confident that these people can go in, be unbiased and provide justice to the american people. >> now, nick, there is barely a speech goes by without the president bragging about the confirmation of justice gorsuch to the supreme court as one of his big achievements. yet the "washington post" reported today that he was close to rescinding that nomination because justice gorsuch had acknowledged in a pre-confirmation meeting with senator blumenthal, the

connecticut democrat, that he wasn't comfortable with the attacks on the federal judiciary, which would be understandable. this is a pre-confirmation process and he is trying to be as compliant as he can be. but apparently the president was so offended by that that he was thinking, or at least complaining out loud to his staff. the president tweeted today, rejecting that "washington post" story saying he was not thinking of rescinding it. he said it is fake news. i've never even wavered and i'm very proud of him and the job he is doing as a justice of the use u supre-- u.s. supreme court. >> donald trump is a serial liar. everything that comes out of his mouth you have to take with a grain of salt. secondly, what was reported in the post today was pretty

consistent with the way donald trump deals with the justice in this country. he has absolutely no respect for the rule of law. he has no respect for the way the department of justice works. he goes after robert mueller on the most ridiculous information relating to an fbi agent who makes statements on a tax before he was even part of the mueller team and was then moved over once they found out about it. anything relating to justice or the way our justice system works, i wouldn't trust donald trump for a second. >> we're going to have to leave it there. nick ackerman, thank you for being with us. >> thank you. coming up, behind the hack. north korea being blamed for the cyber attack last spring. is the u.s. going to retaliate? you're watching "andrea mitchell reports" on msnbc.

but on the inside, i feel like chronic, widespread pain. fibromyalgia may be invisible to others, but my pain is real. fibromyalgia is thought to be caused by overactive nerves. lyrica is believed to calm these nerves. i'm glad my doctor prescribed lyrica. for some, lyrica delivers effective relief for moderate to even severe fibromyalgia pain. and improves function. lyrica may cause serious allergic reactions, suicidal thoughts or actions. tell your doctor right away if you have these, new or worse depression, unusual changes in mood or behavior, swelling, trouble breathing, rash, hives, blisters, muscle pain with fever, tired feeling, or blurry vision. common side effects: dizziness, sleepiness, weight gain, 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've had a drug or alcohol problem may be more likely to misuse lyrica. with less pain, i can do more with my family. talk to your doctor today. see if lyrica can help.

i hope that they decide to stop behaving badly on line, but i think at some point they're going to realize this president in this country and the allies he's rallied unanimously around this cause will bring them to change their behavior. if they don't, the president will act around the united states and its national security incidents. >> tom bossert threatening to

retaliate against pyongyang after they claim they were responsible for the global cyberattacks last may known as wannacry. joining us, former nato supreme ally commander. thank you for being with us. not a big surprise that wannacry is being attributed to pyongyang. but how can we retaliate? they're not as internet dependent as china, say, and others who are cyber actors? >> we've seen this pattern of behavior for quite a while from north korea, andrea, really going back to the sony picture attack which was after the film "the interview" came out in 2014. we've been building up toward a larger level of retaliation. i think it's time we did two things. one is we don't have to respond strictly in the cyber world.

there are additional sanctions we can levy, there are military options, needing to be very careful about escalation, of course, so we don't have to retaliate in cyber and we ought to look at what our options are on that side of the case. then secondly, in the cyber world, although north korea is somewhat isolated from the internet, we do have the ability to go into their circuits and plant various code. we can change things. this is also an option in dealing with the nuclear program short of a kinetic war. finally i'll say, on both of those paths, andrea, the electrical grid is the high end of the targets in terms of retaliation. we do have some options. i agree it's time to retaliate. >> h.r. mcmaster, the national security adviser, on cbs this morning was asked about what we're willing to tolerate. there is a lot of back and forth

between secretary tillerson's red lines and the president's, and obviously the president's holds weight over whether we're willing to tolerate a nuclear north korea. let's watch. >> is there any way in which the u.s. can coexist with a nuclear north korea? >> i don't think we can tolerate that risk. the world can't tolerate that risk. if north korea has a nuclear weapon, who are you going to try to prevent getting one? look at the hater of this regime, the hostility of this regime to the whole world. >> so what's the bottom line there? they don't have a nuclear weapon that can fit on a missile yet, but they have made such progress, and it is progress that we haven't spotted as quickly as the intelligence community would like. are we talking about preemption now? >> first of all, we have to get the white house and foggy bottom, the state department, on the same sheet of music. >> good luck on that. >> exactly. i asked for the really hard

things, and it's christmas. can't i get that as a present? can't we just get them talking together? in any event, i don't think it's time for a preventative attack as yet. we need to figure out how to get china for strongly in the game, which we've talked about for a couple years. we still have a little bit of time before jong-un has time to militarize that nuclear weapon. i would say the next step, andrea, is a maritime blockade, actually shutting down the sea coasts of north korea. that will force thchina to real put pressure. i think that's the next step, some type of cyberactivity with the blockade. >> can we do any of that without russia or china?

>> naethat's a great question. we can do choking off of the country, but if china or russia chose to override that blockade and would provide materials coming in and exports going out, it would be much less effective. but andrea, the point is, if we did it, it would force china and russia to pick a side. i think in the end they'll pick our side. they're not going to allow this rogue regime to lead the world into war. >> thank you again. always good to see you, sir. thanks for being with us. >> great seeing you. you bet. and coming up, rush to judgment. president trump's lawyers trying to rush the russia probe. the potential fallout coming up next in our "inside scoop." stay with us. you're watching "andrea mitchell reports" on msnbc. thankfully, the breakthrough in prevagen helps your brain and actually improves memory. the secret is an ingredient originally discovered...

in jellyfish. in clinical trials, prevagen has been shown to improve short-term memory. prevagen. the name to remember. just serve classy snacks and bew a gracious host,iday party. no matter who shows up. do you like nuts?

your body was made for better things than rheumatiod arthritis. before you and your rheumatologist move to another treatment, ask if xeljanz xr is right for you. xeljanz xr is a once-daily pill for adults with moderate to severe ra

for whom methotrexate did not work well. it can reduce pain, swelling and further joint damage, even without methotrexate. xeljanz xr can lower your ability to fight infections, including tuberculosis. serious, sometimes fatal infections, lymphoma and other cancers have happened. don't start xeljanz xr if you have an infection. tears in the stomach or intestines, low blood cell counts and higher liver tests and cholesterol levels have happened. your doctor should perform blood tests before you start and while taking xeljanz xr, and monitor certain liver tests. tell your doctor if you were in a region where fungal infections are common and if you have had tb, hepatitis b or c, or are prone to infections. xeljanz xr can reduce the symptoms of ra, even without methotrexate. ask your rheumatologist about xeljanz xr.

welcome back. white house lawyers are expected to meet with special counsel robert mueller's team this week. they're signalling that they think they'll be told the probe with the president's role in all of this will be wrapped up shortly. is that a case of just telling the president what he wants to hear? the "washington post" is reporting that mueller's team has been told that their work could take a year or longer. let's get the inside scoop on this and a lot more from "washington post's" white house correspondent, ann gearen and julia ainsley. welcome both. do you think the reality is that mueller is going to wrap up the

president's role? it seems hard to believe given the fact that flynn has only just begun to be processed through after having talked a lot to them after his guilty plea. >> know a great deal about the inner workings of the mueller investigation. it's remarkably leak proof. but just what we with can see from outside, it certainly doesn't seem like it's going to be over any time soon. you don't secure two guilty pleas with promises of cooperation unless you plan to go further is the conventional wisdom. it could, however, be the case that now that we think that the main part of the interviews and the document production that involves the current white house, that that phase appears to be over. that, you know, there could be a decision or, you know, a communication to the white house from the mueller team that says, okay, you know, this segmented part of the investigation is concluded and now we are -- we are moving ahead.

i think, you know, that would be extraordinarily welcome news obviously at the white house, but the white house lawyers have apparently told the president that they expect him to be cleared by three different dates so far, you know, thanksgiving, christmas and it hasn't happened. >> a couple of theories here, julia, that first of all, that they are just telling him what he wants to hear, which is typically the case with his staff. or they are trying to set the stage for the narrative that why isn't he finished, it's expensive, let's get it over with, with what you're hearing from republican partisans on capitol hill, to try to build a case to try to cut the legs out from under mueller down the road. >> right, we've seen a lot of efforts from this administration and trump's legal team to try to undermine the mueller investigation. we know from the very beginning they were looking at whether or not they could investigate members of the administration based on the law firm he came from. then they started looking at the

political leanings of people he hired. now they want to use this setting to really kind of bring these two sides together and in what must be a pretty intense exchange. i think we would all want to be a fly on the wall at this meeting. to try to in some way, i don't know if it's to pressure mueller, but if it is, i think they're going to have a really hard time doing that. what we know about him, he is an investigator who is not easily pressured and has not bent to political whims. >> how likely is it do either of you think they would actually get an affirmative all clear signal at this relatively early stage from mueller, telling the white house lawyers you can tell the president of the united states that he's not going to be a target? >> it appears unlikely. >> yes, it appears unlikely, just based on what we've seen so far and the fact that lawyers working for mueller have already told their law firms places where they cannot expect to go back until the end of 2018. >> now, at the same time that we're talking about mueller in this context, there's, you know,

the whole question of whether or not these committees are even going to continue. the house intelligence committee, huge pressure to wrap it up. >> they're indicating they are close to wrapping it up. and that is part of the pressure campaign julia refers to, where there appears to be an effort to triangulate around the mueller investigation by congressional republicans to say well, you know, nothing to see here, folks, we're all done, what's he doing over there. >> right, to paint the whole thing as a witch-hunt. >> we've just got a readout from downing street of the theresa may conversation to date with the president of the united states. she told parliament that she was going to raise the issue of jerusalem. yesterday, there was the vote, 14-1, against the president's position on jerusalem and, in fact, we're told by her spokesman, downing street, that she did raise this question with the president. so this was probably not a friendly conversation. >> at least that part of it. i mean, this follows with

exactly the way the british diplomats in several different ways have confronted this issue, which is make a rather extraordinary and public break with the united states, britain's closest ally, and usually even in this administration with which many in british government do not fully agree, they make an effort whenever possible, they bend over backwards to be on the same page, to present as much of a united front as they can until the point at which in any given policy they can't. here, they just said look, we disagree with this completely, this is the wrong approach. >> she also raised the humanitarian crisis in yemen which has not gotten a lot of attention here in the u.s. as this civil war continues into its now been two years and the crisis is just looming and there's been a saudi blockade and at times of any kind of aid. >> that's exactly right. this is something we know u.s.

efforts in yemen sort of clouded the beginning of this presidency. it's not something that we hear the president talk very much about. it's sort of not -- we certainly didn't hear it addressed in the national security speech, as much as a lot of people would have expected or hoped for. >> in terms of the special relationship, they did talk about a u.s./uk trade agreement, because post brexit, once europe shuts its doors in many ways to the uk, they need the united states. so there's still the economic ties, there's still certainly the intelligence ties, ann. >> absolutely, the uk right now is having a bit of a difficult divorce, from the european union, particularly on trade and financial matters. i mean, we've got european trade ministers basically saying you do not get the benefits of the eu unless you're in the eu and of course to that knowledge, trump would raise his hand and say, well, we can have our own

trade relationship, forget the eu. >> well, great to at least wrap up this day with you guys. thanks so much, ann guerin, julia ainsley. we'll be right back. just about half an hour away from the house vote. much more coming ahead. patrick woke up with back pain. but he has work to do. so he took aleve. if he'd taken tylenol, he'd be stopping for more pills right now. only aleve has the strength to stop tough pain

for up to 12 hours with just one pill. aleve. all day strong. was supposed to be a wake reup call for our government?sh 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.

thanks for being with us. remember, follow the show online

and on facebook and twitter @mitchellreports. chris jansing is up next. >> thank you, andrea mitchell. good afternoon. historic vote. republicans are confident as they get ready to cast their votes on the tax bill. it should all start this hour. we'll be live to watch it all unfold, break down what it means for the average american and look at how it could affect republicans running in 2018. and it's an unpopular plan. the polls show that most people think this tax bill is meant to help the rich more than the middle class. plus, deadly derailment. the big safety questions investigators are trying to answer right now after a train flew off the tracks in washington state, going 50 miles an hour over the speed limit. but let's start with that republican tax plan. take a live look at the house floor. the plan is scheduled for a vote perhaps later this hour. and it is expected to pass before moving on to the sena.