good afternoon to you, i'm richard lui live at msnbc headquarters. new details coming out today about the fbi's investigation into possible russian interference in the u.s. election. "the new york times" saying the probe was launched and according to the report, papadopoulos revealed in a discussion that russia had illegally accessed thousands of rival candidate, hillary clinton's e-mails. the report suggesting that u.s. intelligence officials took the australian tip seriously enough to start investigating then. no response so far from papadopoulos. president trump has claimed the investigation was launched in response to a salacious dossier that you probably remember, compiled by christopher steel.

the president tweeting on tuesday, the fbi, quote, used this crooked hillary pile of garbage as the basis for going after the trump campaign, mentioning the dossier, and that just happening this week. garrett hague is traveling with the president in west palm beach, florida. fill this in and how important this report coming from "the new york times" is. >> reporter: well, this report does a number of things. number one, it explains why robert mueller was so interested in george papadopoulos in the first place. remember, when papadopoulos's plea deal came out, it was the first time a lot of people who followed the investigation or followed this campaign had even heard his name used. and now we have a much clearer sense of what he was doing behind the scenes during the campaign, meeting with russian intermediaries, trying to set up foreign meetings, and it turns out, bragging to an australian

diplomat at a bar in london about the fact that russia had obtained these damages e-mails about hillary clinton. it also casts into some doubt the white house's claim that papadopoulos was just a bit player in the campaign and that when they told him to knock it off essentially, or when jeff sessions told him not to be representing himself as part of the campaign in such a way, he didn't do it. the white house is responding to this report today with a statement from the president's outside legal counsel, who writes in part, out of respect for the special counsel and his process, we're not commenting on matters such as this. we are continuing to fully cooperate with the special counsel in order to help complete their inquiry expeditiously. and richard, it's been interesting, as a reporter, to follow when the white house chooses to engage in stories about the special counsel's work and the white house's defense against it, and when they don't. remember, it was just a few days ago, that a different white house lawyer pushed back pretty

hard on a different report in "the washington post" that the white house was preparing themselves to cast michael flynn as a liar and a lower level person, should he provide interesting evidence to the special counsel about the president. with that in mind, consider if you would, this tweet from the president, shortly after papadopoulos's name became public in the special counsel's investigation. he said at the end of october, few people knew the young, low-level volunteer named george, who has already proven to be a liar. check the dems. so you see some of that strategy that was discussed about flynn used right there in the president's twitter page several months ago about papadopoulos, hanging their defense on the fact that this person, in this case papadopoulos, had admitted to being a liar. i suspect we'll hear much more about this when congress, the senate gets back to session next

week. i have a lo >> thank you, garrett, there in florida with the president. joining me now, ned price, msnbc national security analyst and former cia analyst. and danny sefalas. you heard the report from "the new york times." what was your take after reading it? >> well, richard, what i found just interesting about this report was the fact that this information was given to the trump campaign, and rather than -- it actually was a foreign government, the australians, that ultimately went to the fbi, rather than the trump campaign. instead, what the trump campaign did was, they asked for more information. when a government lawyer made an approach to them in june, they set up a meeting seeking more information. so never did the trump campaign go to the fbi. it was actually a foreign

government that did so. which underscores what we've been seeing this whole time. >> is there anything legal here, a campaign withholding information such as this? anything criminal related to this? >> it's so hard to analyze these. because reasonable minds could look at these facts and go one way or the other. for example, we start with the idea that mere presence or knowledge of a crime is not a crime. so if papadopoulos merely knew that criminal hacking was going on by the russians, that alone might not be enough, unless he had some special legal duty as part of the administration. but as a campaign member, at what level do we start seeing his interest in the e-mails, his glee in receiving them, his planning to receive them? when does he cross the line into becoming complicit with russian hackers? that is really a factual inquiry. and people could disagree on both sides. you also look at election law. it's illegal for anyone, any

american, any campaign person, to receive anything of value or solicit anything of value from a foreign national or a foreign government. so the question becomes whether or not receiving that information, those e-mails, even if they weren't hacked, becomes itself illegal. and reasonable minds can differ. it's been ruled before that even receiving campaign information from canada would be illegal. so that gives you an idea. >> what's some of the major criteria to determine whether this is something of value, these e-mails? >> it doesn't have to be money. it doesn't have to be a concrete thing. some of the opinions indicate that anything of value can be as broad as polling data. it can be, like i said, campaign materials received from another country. and so with that broad of a definition, then the inquiry becomes, well, on the other hand, don't we all have a first

amendment right to speak to people, or even get opposition research from anybody, even including possibly foreign nationals. does that violate the law? and i think reasonable legal minds and citizens could come to different answers, depending on these facts and the law. >> and where is that line that you bring up, danny. ned, to you on this. thinking about papadopoulos and his role, clearly not necessarily the definition that the president has described him having. and in this report, clearly not the coffee boy, shall we say, that has been said of papadopoulos, that he knew much more, if this reporting is true. >> well, that's right. and i think the president's attempts to distance himself from papadopoulos have faltered from the start. when candidate trump was actually going through his foreign policy advisers during the height of the campaign, george papadopoulos's name was the second or third name he mentioned. george papadopoulos was an early

joyner joiner of the campaign, he's pictured at the table with the security cabinet, with jeff sessions at the head. so clearly this was not just a cou coffee boy. this is someone who was really at the core of a very small foreign policy team. and something that we've learned recently, someone who was instrumental, so he claims, in setting up a meeting between then candidate trump and the egyptian president in new york. so this is not someone who is a coffee boy, who was relegated to errands. he seems to be very central to what was at the time, a very small operation. >> and it also realigns the time span. what does this mean to what mueller is doing, the fact that we're in may 2016? >> it's critical. the farther back you go in time,

if campaign persons like papadopoulos knew about crimes that were about to be committed or were in the process of being committed, in terms of being hai -- anything else by russia or anyone, that-- because knowledg a crime beforehand, that's a very risky thing. anything that can be perceived as participation, encouragement, assistance, incitement, could make you a participant in the criminal activity. that's just a fundamental notion of criminal law. if, on the other hand, papadopoulos comes in at the very end, long after everything has been hacked, and maybe the person offering the information didn't do the hacking and it's just this stolen data property, then we get a little farther away from the notion of him participating in the crime, if it just sort of appears in an inbox someday. but the fact that this all came

out because he was drinking and talking to someone that was apparently not really close enough to him, such that he couldn't trust him to go talk to other people and report him, gives us an idea, a little indicator into papadopoulos's character. >> and that's a very good point made there. ned, to you. is the protocol that was used or not used in this case by papadopoulos, does that say that potentially who else did he speak with? what more might he have said? >> that's the core question. it doesn't look like he had a whole lot of operational security if he was out bragging about this, it seems, over beers in a london pub to this australian diplomat. so the question then becomes, who else on the trump campaign was apprised of this. so i think when you look at what happened in the subsequent weeks, when the trump camp was approached by tom goldstone, by this coordinator who introduced

the trump camp to the russian government lawyer, why they were so eager to meet with her. it was almost as if they had received word, advanced word that something like this could be coming their way. so when don trump jr. says, if it's what you say it is, i love it. i could be because he had been briefed on this by papadopoulos, who had been in this for some time. now, papadopoulos, i understand, in the trump campaign, claims that they were unwitting of some of the details of what papadopoulos had been briefed upon, but that doesn't seem to hold water, if you look at what happened in the subsequent weeks. >> loose lips sink ships. ned, danny, sorry for my, shall i say, bad choice of words. thank you, appreciate it. fall-out from president trump's "new york times" interview, what is being challenged and why some in the white house are reportedly embarrassed by what the president had to say. get awesomely fast wifi

that gives you coverage here, hee. and it even let's you take a timeout.

nooooooo! yes! amazing speed, coverage and control. all with an xfi gateway. some new fall-out today to that unfiltered, unsanctioned, wide ranging interview president trump held with "the new york times" at his gold club in florida. let's start with this, "the washington post" reporting no white house staff had knowledge of the interview. sarah, the president, he rarely does he's one-on-one interviews.

but schmidt got in there, he knew what to ask, and the president riffed. >> exactly. by all accounts this was a tale of a reporter being in the right place at the right time. this reporter was lunching with a friend of the president's at mar-a-lago. the president happened to be lunching at the same time. it was very fortuitous for that reporter. i think there were some elements of that interview that the white house staff probably was a little bit unhappy about. the fact that they talked so much about collusion during that interview, for example, means that we've spent the past few days analyzing what he said in regards to collusion and about his power to interfere in justice department investigations. that's probably a topic that white house aides would rather him steer clear of, but they didn't have a heads-up and couldn't warn him off it. >> charlie, the question might be, when he is away from the white house, when he is at places where he is right now, in mar-a-lago in florida, when he is not staffed, he can say

various things, not on the talking points, for instance, "the washington post" pointing out that of the statements that he made in that 30 minutes, 24 false or misleading claims in the interview itself. does this mean that chief of staff general kelly is going to have to baton down the hatches here, charlie, in a way that he hasn't so far? >> well, i'm sure that john kelly would like to, with you there's a certain limit to what they can do with president trump, and how many limits they can place on him, especially when he's on vacation at his golf resort in florida. i think he genuinely doesn't want to be managed. he enjoys having a freer flow of information and more interaction with guests that's spontaneous than he's allowed to have in the white house and that's the president being the president. this is an unusual president and there's a limit to how much his staff can manage up. >> what stood out to you in the interview, arthur? >> what stands out to me most

and what i think has gotten lost in some of the coverage of this interview is that, people who are rich enough to afford memberships at trump's private club in florida can apparently just walk right up to him and start talking to him about whatever they want. i'm not an expert on government ethics, but this strikes me as possibly corrupt. and i think it's very strange that it's allowed to happen. >> sarah, there have been reporting, a third of his time on trump properties. in this case, buying access to the president, you know this being there at the white house, when you are trying to get a word from the president, that is a golden moment. in this case, if you are a member of any of these clubs, you have access. >> absolutely. that's certainly an ethics concern that i think a lot of reporters and watchdog organizations have scrutinized. the fact that president trump is sort of a home body, he prefers to stay in or to go to

properties that bear his name, he hasn't been anywhere in d.c. that doesn't have the trump label on it, that creates a situation where people could, in theory, frequent those locations, with the hope of having some one-on-one time with the president. that's something his staff could mitigate potentially by controlling his time and access to him better. but clearly as arthur mentioned, he's sort of a free agent in the dining room, apparently he can be easily accessed, something that i think is worthy of scrutiny. >> and charlie, please do comment on this topic, but another piece of reporting in this past week coming from "the daily beast." according to the director of revenue management for the trump hotel in d.c., quoted as saying, and i'll read straight from "the daily beast" itself. djt is supposed to be out of the business and passed on to his sons, but he's definitely still involved. i had a brief meeting with him a few weeks ago and he asked if his presidency hurt the

businesses. charlie? >> well, this has been the issue that's been dogging the trump white house since he was elected. the emol yu ments issue that foreign governments should not be able to send money to the president. in this case, we have a president who has a business empire from which he's chosen not to divest. regardless, he still owns it and the profits that are made from those businesses ultimately are going into his pocket. so this is another way in which this presidency and this administration is like nothing we've seen before. >> and so arthur then asked the question, all of us here, who is watching this? who's policing this activity that's happening outside of the white house? >> well, it's weird that it happens. on the other hand, it's

beneficial in certain ways, from the perspective of a journalist, that we have unfiltered access to trump himself and through these chance meetings at his properties and also his twitter account. it's like we know what he's thinking all the time. even though he never divulged his tax returns. in certain ways, he's like the most transparent president we've ever had. >> but there's two sides of the coin here, and that he is, as has been written, where he's accessible in these places, the mol yu ments clause, and how do we draw the fuzzy line? >> there may also be diminishing returns on this kind of access. in "the new york times" interview, he repeatedly said that he believes democrats agreed that there was no collusion with russia and his campaign. and that's just not true at all. we already sort of know that he

can be delusional in that way. and i'm not sure how much more it helps after a whole year of this. >> sarah, a whole year of this. if this were to be called a reality tv show, as has been written by many, is year two going to be -- season two going to be still watchable? >> it depends on which side of the fence you're on, i guess. but certainly 2018 is shaping up to be an exciting year for the trump administration. they still have high hopes to get some more legislative items through. there are congressional leaders that want to tackle welfare reform. president trump was bullish on his chances for a trillion dollar infrastructure package, which actually doesn't look that likely to gain traction in congress. and then you have this amazing battle for control of congress, because on the one hand, you have really strong economic growth right that typically

would benefit republicans because they're in control of government. but you also see the makings of a potential democratic wave and how those forces will interact, will be interesting to watch. >> thanks so much, everyone. have a good weekend. coming up, after days of protests over declining economic conditions in iran, thousands are now taking to the streets in tehran, in support of the iranian government. we have the latest. plus, ringo starr given a very special honor as part of queen elizabeth's new year's honours list.

and welcome back. here are some of the stories we're following for you on msnbc. iranian police confronted anti-government protesters. other rallies are being held in support of iran's clerical leaders. president trump tweeted, the world is watching. the anti-government protests appear to be fueled by rising food prices. north korea warning the u.s. today, it will not change its nuclear policies in 2018. it says it will not give up nuclear weapons until what it calls blackmail and war drills by the united states come to an end. in new york city, the times square ball, to usher in 2018 is

undergoing tests right now, for the traditional drop at midnight tomorrow. police are enhancing security as we well on the ground. rock n roll royalty getting a taste of royalty. ringo starr will be a knight. sir richard starky has a nice ring to it. more now from matt bradley in london. >> reporter: it's going to be sir ringo starr to you and i from now on. that might be kind of an adjustment for the legions of fans behind me. they're still flocking to abbey road every day to honor the beatles and for them, it's always going to be plain old ringo starr. today a rock hero taking his place in history. the palace announcing former beatles drummer ringo starr will

be knighted in a ceremony next year. an accolade generations of fans say it long overdue. >> i think he obviously deserved it. he did his fair share of work and everyone in america knows about him. he obviously made a good impression. >> reporter: the queen's honor, barry gibb will receive it too but for ringo, it's been a long and winding road to knighthood. the queen made singer paul mccartney into sir paul 20 years ago. and ringo had reportedly given up hope on her majesty. >> the atmosphere ringo, you know it and everybody knows it, peace and love. what could be wrong with that? >> reporter: he was known hefor his wit. >> he clearly was not the musical genius the others were.

he was a human being. we related to him. >> reporter: it's a legacy still alive for fans born long after the band broke up. these cheer leaders came to london for a competition. a trip not complete without a visit to abbey road. >> people say he was the least talented of the beatles. what do you say? >> he's still a beatle. >> being the least talented of a beatle is still more talented than the average person. >> reporter: he's never been less than a hero to his fans. it's not just ringo starr and barry gibb. hundreds of actors, musicians, athletes, and politicians are all going to be honored by the queen. and even hugh laurie, the star of "house" will be upgraded to commander of the british empire. >> one day for you, thank you. coming up, a look ahead to a crucial 2018 for both parties as

the midterm elections approach. what's up for grabs and who has the advantage. with 5 times more ethnic regions... ancestrydna can pinpoint where your ancestors are from... and the paths they took to a new home. could their journey inspire yours? order your kit at ancestrydna.com

thanks for staying with us. in 2018, just days away, multiple new polls suggesting that democrats will start the year with a slight advantage over republicans. or is it slight? democrats are averaging a 13-point lead in polls asking which party voters are most likely to vote for next year, according to a tally by 538. joining me now, kristin hagland,

joel rubin. couple of mid westerners here. let's start with you, my friend, if we can, kirstin. what's your thought of these numbers? are they real? because some folks are saying, look at the polls in 2016, they weren't very solid. >> they're real right now, that's what polls always are, a snapshot in time. we understand that, and they can change quickly. you have a lot of competing factors in 2018. generally a president's party loses 32 seats in the house and 2 senators. that's about the average with the first midterm election after the general. we have that going in. also you have this very low approval rating for the president. on the other hand, the senate map is bad. turn-out is usually better on the republican side.

so it's pretty even right now with both sides very hard to predict who has really the firm advantage. >> yeah, anything is possible. we are learning that. it's reaffirmed each and every cycle. joel, the numbers that are not even, and i was mentioning this last hour, the dnc doing horribly when it comes to fundraising. where were you? >> well, rick, it certainly does worry me, the fundraising needs to be there. but really as kirstin was saying, the fundamentals for democrats are strong for 2018. even just looking at some of the b numbers, 23 house republicans are serving, but they're in districts that hillary clinton carried in 2016. i ran for congress in 2016 as well. it is a very complicated dance to try to figure out how polls will play out. but last cycle was very different and very volatile compared to this one. in particular, the top of the

ticket, in 2016, with the presidential candidates weighing in. in some cases, weighing down members running for congress. that's not going to be the case this year. this year, there's no presidential race. it's purely donald trump at the top of the ticket. that's going to be a motivator for a lot of democrats to come out. >> full disclosure joel, are you running again? >> i'm not running again for congress, but i am going to throw my hat in the ring for a state delegate race in maryland. i think this is the year, really, for democrats to get out and to get out the vote. you see indicators about how republicans feel. two key ones. many senior republicans in the house are choosing to retire rather than compete in 2018. and the second, in the recent tax bill, a dozen republicans from blue states voted against the tax bill out of fear that they're going to lose their seats as well. >> you're watching this, kirstin, and that is from your

side of the aisle, the bannon effect. on the other side of the aisle, it's the bernie effect and how both parties are now trying to find that center of what they might be. what do you think the bannon effect will be in 2018, kirstin? >> well, i think it would have had a much stronger effect had you not see what happens in alabama happen? bannon was down there, constantly, pouring money and pr into that race and it failed miserably. and the republican party said, looking forward to 2018, we have to make sure that we vet these candidates. because that was a deep, deep red state. i mean, they just handed that one to the democrats. so bannon effect is going to be less. and there are actually a lot of groups, small rumbles, you're not seeing it broadcast very loudly, a lot of women and young people generally are being recruited to run in 2018. >> when you look at democrats and the democratic party in 2018, should they get back to economics?

should they get back to what the midwest, where you both have roots to, care about? those swing states? >> yes, these core bread and butter issues, economics in particular, health care, retirement, security, these are ones the democrats can run on and win on. the recent tax bill is a boon for democrats to run on. there are going to be significant targets to point out how taxes will be raised on much of the middle class in order to give a hand-out to billionaires, to write off their second homes. there's significant messaging opportunities that are bread and butter issues for democrats to run on. they can even run on the fact that the obama economy is in many ways, what we're experiencing today. but if democrats don't focus on those issues, it could come back to bite them. that's how they did well in virginia and that's how we did well in alabama. >> as we look to 2018, i've been

watching this, rutgers university center for american women and politics. the number of women that are running for congress, we're at an all-time record here, 369, according to the report, so far this year. 41 for the senate so far. all-time highs, kirstin. >> yeah, it's absolutely incredible. and i think we should be hopeful and i have been a proponent as well as many other young women on the conservative side, saying, we need to get more women to run. it's the future of the party. it helps bring a softer message to republicans who are often characterized as people who only care about the rich and it's an old boys' club. so there needs to be an image and messaging change as well. we encourage more women and minority republicans to run and make sure the republican party reflects america just like the democratic party has been doing for a while. otherwise, they are losing young people and we're not going to have a party in 20 years. >> kirstin, are you going to

run? >> no. i don't think so. >> i had joel. i had to ask you too. kirstin, joel, thank you both. coming up, we reflect on what was a very active year, shall we say, in politics. a look back at the top ten political moments that defined 2017.

i'm ginny and i quit smoking with chantix. i had tried to quit before, i had tried the patch. i tried to go cold turkey; it didn't work for me. i didn't think i could quit until i used chantix. along with support, chantix (varenicline) is proven

to help people quit smoking. chantix reduced my urge to smoke. when you try to quit smoking, with or without chantix, you may have nicotine withdrawal symptoms. some people had changes in behavior or thinking, aggression, hostility, agitation, depressed mood, or suicidal thoughts or actions with chantix. serious side effects may include seizures, new or worse heart or blood vessel problems, sleepwalking or allergic and skin reactions which can be life-threatening. stop chantix and get help right away if you have any of these. tell your healthcare provider if you've had depression or other mental health problems. decrease alcohol use while taking chantix. use caution when driving or operating machinery. the most common side effect is nausea. after 25 years, i walked away from cigarettes. ask your doctor if chantix is right for you. many insurance plans cover chantix for a low or $0 copay.

as we say farewell to 2017, a year that saw a series of new faces come and go from the white house, alternative facts in our vernacular and an investigation into whether another country interfered with our election. nbc's peter alexander has a look at the top ten political moments of 2017. ♪ ♪ >> reporter: kicking off our list, the feud over facts. >> this was the largest audience to ever witness an inauguration, period. >> sean spicer, our press secretary gave alternative facts. >> reporter: a presidential pattern of misrepresenting the facts from unfounded accusations of wiretapping against president obama to revisionist history on electoral college claims. >> we'll have a very strict ban and extreme vetting. >> reporter: trump's executive order sparking nationwide

protests. later scaled back in the courts, but then allowed to partially go in effect. at number eight, the republican civil war. >> i'm very disappointed in mitch. >> reporter: the president on the attack with republicans fighting back. >> i don't know what else there is to say today. >> mr. president, i rise today to say enough. >> reporter: and fighting each other. >> there's a special place in hell for republicans who should know better. >> he looked like some drunk that wandered in off the street. >> reporter: at number seven, racial tensions boiling over. >> this car plowed into a crowd of people, killing at least one person. >> you will not replace us! >> reporter: president trump taking heat for not taking sides. >> i think there's blame on both sides, and i have no doubt about it, and you don't have any doubt about it either. >> reporter: number six, west wing exits. >> michael flynn has resigned. >> priebus becomes the shortest white house chief of staff ever.

>> reporter: a cascade of white house departures. >> i'm grateful for sean's work on behalf the administration people. >> i'm a business person. >> reporter: anthony scaramucci kissing his job goodbye after just ten days. erasing the obama legacy at number five. >> i've been very active in overturning a number of executive actions by my predecessor. the paris climate accord and obama's signature law. >> we're now one step closer to liberating our citizens from this obamacare nightmare. >> reporter: although republicans failed to get that done, they did repeal the individual mandate. >> this is shameful. >> reporter: at number four, trump reshapes the courts. >> i neil m. gorsuch -- >> reporter: conservative neil gorsuch sworn in as a supreme court justice. but it's the lower courts where the president's rapidly reshaping the judiciary. >> the senate has confirmed 12 trump nominees to the federal

appeals court, a record for the president's first year in office. >> that has consequences 40 years out. >> reporter: at number three, massive tax cuts. >> we want to give you, the american people, a giant tax cut for christmas. >> reporter: president trump finally delivered his first major legislative win. >> this is nothing short of extraordinary. >> this is a great day for the country. >> it's the worst bill in the history of the united states congress. >> merry christmas, america. >> reporter: number two, allegations of sexual misconduct rocking the political world. >> at 14, i was not dating. he removed my clothing. he touched me over my clothing. >> i have emphatically denied time and time again. >> reporter: alabama voters delivering a stinging rebuke to roy moore as the me too movement takes his toll on washington. >> his lips were really wet and it was slimy. >> i remember it very differently. i apologize to her and i meant it. >> reporter: republicans and democrats accused, part of a

national reckoning. >> i will be sresigning as a number of the united states senate. >> reporter: and the number one political story of 2017, the russian investigation. >> no collusion, no collusion. >> i take the president at his word that i was fired because of the russia investigation. >> director mueller's remaining. >> i did not collude with russia nor do i know of anyone in the campaign who did so. >> michael flynn has pleaded guilty to a charge of lying to the fbi. >> reporter: the president fuming as the special counsel stw zeros in on his west wing. >> no, russia did not help me. russia. i call it the russian hoax. >> nbc's peter alexander with that great report. thank you, peter. up next, my panel returns with their predictions and what to watch for the new year. stick around.

all right. society year's ending in a day or two and beginning to look ahead at the political wins, if you will, of 2018, and "washington post" op-ed scarboro says, disturbing it is trump's administration's undermining that poses a greater throat our constitution and country. with that, back to our panel. sayrerah westwood, charlie sava

and arthur delany, reporter. i left off with you, charlie. start with you. what are your predictions of 2018? >> i predict that democrats will pick up senate seats in arizona and nevada. that will give them a slim majority in the senate. and then they will use that power to shut down trump's ability to appoint any judges in the last two years of his term echoing what mitch mcconnell did to obama in the last two years of obama's term, and that will make it a new normal we only get judges when the senate and the white house are controlled by the same party. >> hmm. okay. sarah? >> i actually think that the senate map is pretty unfavorable towards democrats. they're undefense in too many places. not to potentially lose one or more seats, and maybe deny them that senate majority there. in a much better position to take control of the house. the party of the president typically loses an average of 32 seats in the first year of the

mid-terms. there are 23 house republicans in districts where hillary clinton won and democrats only need to flip 24 house seats to take control of the house. that looks like the more likely road for democrats taking back some control. >> and raising over $100,000 soar far. money seems to be pointed that way. arthur, 2018, pull out your crystal ball. >> are we keeping an eye on the economy? particularly in the second half of the year. already we're in the third longest economic expansion this country has ever seen. surpass that, become second longest by then and already have the federal reserve tapping the brakes slightly inching of you interest rates with the new tax bill providing a little additional fiscal stimulus, the fed can respond even more aggressively and if it does, and the economy slows as a result, you could -- that would make the political landscape even more favorable for democrats.

>> with the tax plan and with the brakes put on home ownership and some might say the over inflation of home prices as well as, do we have over exuberance in the stock market? might it go the other way? >> sure, it could. i think with things like the crash we saw with bitcoin, there are -- there are signs that maybe there is a little over exuberance out there. >> yeah. >> and you know, the fed has already got a policy of -- reducing the -- the -- raising interest rates. it's possible that they'll accelerate the increases next year even more than they plan to do already. >> opposite of exuberance. the worst moment of the past year politically? >> politically -- well, for me as a reporter, hard to say if this was good or bad. i would say if we define that as what's good for us as a society, in terms of cohesiveness, it's hard to look beyond charlottesville and the racial

violence and the president's reaction to it and all that fallout as being anything but terrible for us as a people. >> sarah, worst or best moment of 2017 for you? >> well, i think the best moment on a lighter note would be the #metoo movement's intersection with politics. a bipartisan movement. we saw members of both parties put pressure on their colleagues when credibly accused of sexual harassment to step down. saw it with senator franken and with trent franks, republican, and notable exception of the president. yitsd, most republicans actually did come out and condemn roy moore when he was credibly accused preying on young women. that was a heartening moment this year to see. >> and elaborate on that as you may have heard in the last couple hours. i brought up the point of, will we see that translate to more women in congress? you know, we only have a 20%, 25% depending on which house you're looking at of women but a record number of women running.

>> both parties are interested in recruiting women. they could definitely explore more and more, maybe to combat some of this pervasive problem exposed this year. >> arthur, best or worst moments of the year? >> the nazis in charlottesville certainly one of the very worst things. another thing that was bad was the republican party coalescing around an accused child predator and it was good, though, that he lost. i thought it was a setback for people who willfully disregard the truth. >> charlie, as you look at the best moment of 2017, you reflected on what you thought was not so good. >> right. sticking with my definition of what sort of helps us as a society be more cohesive and inclusive, i agreed that the sort of rapidly changing norms on sexual harassment and sexual exploitative behavior we saw coalescing around what we call

the #metoo movement, a long overdo movement of reckoning and change. >> not because i'm belly button staring here but sarah also the year of journalists? the year of the reporter? >> certainly political journalism as a ten-year high water mark covering the trump administration. not an entirely better year for reporters. there's been high profile mistakes some allegations of bias in the mainstream immediate yae and requests that reporters may be reflect more on how their biases shaped coverage. certainly amazing feats of journalism that have been done this year, no doubt. also soul searching left to do in the media. >> and arthur, 15 seconds. the year of the word "fake" and the president tweeting that, for instance, just today? >> fake is a great word. i don't think the news is fake. the president is wrong about that. >> wrong about that. okay.

sarah, charlie, arthur, great to finish the year with all three of you. enjoy your monday, if you can. >> thank you. >> that wraps it up for us this here on msnbc. i'm richard lui. stay with us for updates and breaking news. follow me on facebook, instagram and twitter. let me know what you think. "all in with chris hayes" is next. look at chicago. what the hell is going on in chicago? >> i don't know what they're doing in chicago. to have this many shootings. >> what the hell is going on in chicago? >> this is the story of america's third largest city. >> to have this many shootings. >> this is is not like it's the united states of america. >> and how it became a punching bag for a president. >> vote for donald trump. i will fix it! >> for the next hour, our special report on the cycle of violence and trauma in the city of chicago. >> i know i have ptsd. it's just off the, off the charts.