at msnbc headquarters in new york. we start this hour at camp david with president trump defending his mental stability during a weekend strategy session with republican leaders. this morning the president responded to reporting about his mental fitness in michael wolff's book "fire and fury," with a series of angry tweets. when asked by a reporter why he felt the need to address the book's claims, the president said this. >> well, only because i went to the best colleges, or college. i went to a -- i had a situation where i was a very excellent student. >> let's go to nbc news white house correspondent jeff bennett. the president took on a wide range of topics today. tell us more about this q & a session he had. >> that's right. the president is huddled at camp david with members of his cabinet, top congressional leaders, really trying to hash out a legislative and political agenda for the rest of the year. as you pointed out, i think it was the fourth question the president got from one of the reporters about his tweet storm

this morning, in which he tried to push back against the narratives contained in "fire and fury" by michael wolff, which at best paint a picture of the president being emotionally erratic. at worst, paint him as being mentally unfit for the job. so the president gave voice to the stream of tweets he sent this morning. i'll read a couple of them to you. starts with this. now that russian collusion after one year of intense study has proven to be a total hoax on the american public, the democrats and their lap dogs, the fake news mainstream media are taking out the ronald reagan playbook and screaming mental stability and intelligence. throughout my life, my two greatest assets have been mental stability and being, like, really smart. crooked hillary clinton played these cards very hard and went down in flames. i went from very successful businessman to top tv star to president of the united states on my first try. i think that would qualify as not smart, but genius and a very

stable genius at that. i can tell you there are people in the president's orbit who wanted him to ignore this book, to let it go. the thing we know about the president's character, we cannot let any slight, real or perceived, go unaddressed. the concern amongst the president's advisers was that to undercut the author of this book, to excoriate steve bannon, who had a role in this book, would just drive more publicity to the book itself. that seems to have been the case. >> jeff bennett for us at the white house, thank you. >> want to break it down with our panel. jonathan allen, aufted herndon and melanie zinnona. jonathan, i'll start with you. the president distanced himself from the author of "fire and fury" during this news conference today. take a listen.

>> we can tell you that the president said that he had never had a long interview, long conversation with michael wolff and sort of implied that he didn't even know who he was on some level, that he was never in the oval office either. michael wolff told savannah guthrie he spent three hours with the president. seems to be a battle of credibility here. who do you think is more credible? >> well, look, i think if the author said he spent a few hours with trump, he probably spent a few hours with trump. remember, there are multiple audiences here. the president doesn't care whether the reporters who are gathered around him were, or even the people who watch our network 24 hours, he doesn't care as much about communicating to them as he does to his base and trying to distance himself. i think he believes his mega phone is big enough that he can sort of twist what the truth is, that is believed by his base. so that they don't abandon him among concerns that he is, as

steve bannon puts it in this book, losing it. or has lost it. >> aufted, the hollywood reporter published an interview with wolff. he said, i just wrote what i thought and what i heard. that's one thing about the book, there really aren't any politics in the book. i have no side here. did this catch the white house off guard? >> i think that there's a lot going on here. certainly the book has some salacious details in it that took members of the white house by surprise. but i really think that it's something more simple. we have a president who has a history of taking these perceived slights very personally. and this is what we are seeing here. in the book, quotes former close advisers and other people close to the white house as saying some kind of mean or mean-spirited things about the president. so whether or not true or false, he's not going to let those

things go. remember, this is a person that holds people's loyalty to him very closely. ask that means a lot to him. so we are seeing -- what's happening here is not just a matter of the book and checking to see whether the book is true or not. but it's about the president testing those around him and making sure that they're staying loyal to him. >> and melanie, this book has raised some new questions. if not new questions, certainly it's extended the conversation about the president's mental fitness. there are some lawmakers who met last month. is there real concern on the hill about this issue? >> the white house came into this year fresh off a victory from tax reform. this is absolutely the last thing that they want to be talking about. trump is adding some fuel to the fire here, i think. they could have let it go. but instead he's not only tweeted all week about it, but today at camp david, when they're supposed to be talking about the 2018 agenda, how they're going to use this momentum heading into the new

year. instead, he spent most of the time talking about this book, bringing up accusations about mental fitness. it's just really astonishing to see that the president of the united states even has to address claims about whether he's mentally fit to serve in the united states presidency. but, look, i would say that the white house has been mired in controversy almost its entire presidency, since trump has been president. so i think they can turn the page. it's just going to take some discipline. and maybe a little bit of turning the phone off and the twitter off for the president. >> melanie makes a good point about the president going so far to address the mentality capacity points. is the president hurting himself by engaging on this topic? is he hurting the party by engaging on this topic? >> it's a tough question for him strategically. let the book go, don't talk about it, don't address it and allow that narrative to take hold, or come back and bash the book and address this issue of whether he's mentally stable and

fit for the office and risk conditions to have that be a story. he obviously decided as he often does, that he wanted to fight about it. this is so outside the realm of normal. you could not imagine abraham lincoln giving remarks in which he tried to convince people that he was mentally stable. and so we're really sort of in uncharted territory here, but it's not surprising to me that the president decided that given the choice of shrinking away from this story or fighting back on it, that he decided he wanted to throw some punches. >> austed, what do you think about this. if the vice president went to the president, if sarah sanders went to the president and said don't talk about this, is it in his ability to not talk about it? or is this just trump being trump by taking it head on? >> this is who he is, this is a pattern of behavior. when he perceives someone to undercut him, he's often

attacked them publicly, used vicious and personal terms against them, ousing his twitte account to turn his followers onto that person. so while it would be a tough question about whether to let this go or attack the book's claims, there was only one choice for him. he was always going to attack the book and the author and the claims in the book, especially when you have such salacious details that were -- that were in the book by people who were very close to him. and so when you have those advisers coming to him and saying, maybe we should hold off on that, with normal times, with a different president, that may be advice that would be heeded. with president trump, that was never going to be an option. >> melanie, i want to ask you about bipartisanship. we heard some talk about that going forward from the president and senator mitch mcconnell today. listen to this. >> we hope that 2018 will be a year of more bipartisan cooperation and the president's agenda, much of which he just

referred to, are things that we believe would be a significant number of democrats interested in helping us accomplish. >> i think we're going to go bipartisan. i think we're going to have some really great bipartisan bills. but we need more republicans so that we can really get the rest of the make america great again agenda passed. >> melanie, in 2018, what's the reality on this? what's the reality of bipartisanship actually happening? >> well, the reality is the republicans need democratic votes in the senate. they need that magic number, and now their majority is even smaller with doug jones, a senate democrat, on their side. so really, they're going to have to be reaching out to democrats and after a year of partisan fights over health care and taxes, i'm not sure that the democrats are going to be willing to play along. and now with the new questions about mental fitness, they're also not going to be eager to hand trump a victory heading into the 2018 midterm elections when you talk about things like infrastructure. so the one exception, i would

say, is that perhaps the red-state democrats, or even purple-state democrats might be more willing to play along. you certainly should expect to see trump, mcconnell and ryan reaching out to those potential swing votes in this year. >> we'll be keeping an eye on that. thank you all. some breaking news now from the world of entertainment. actor jerry van dyke has died, according to his manager. van dyke was nominated for four emmy awards for his role in the 1990s comedy series coach. jerry's widow said he passed away on friday at their arkansas ranch. he was 86 years old.

there's been no collusion between us and the russians. now, there has been collusion between hillary clinton, the dnc, and the russians. unfortunately, you people don't cover that very much. but the only collusion is between hillary and the russians and the dnc and the russians and one of those things. >> president trump deflecting a question about the fbi's russia investigation back to former campaign rival hillary clinton and the dnc. the president's accusations follow a letter that two republican members of the senate judiciary committee sent to the justice department on friday. lindsey graham and charles grassley asked the doj to consider charges against former british intelligence operative christopher steele, saying he

may have misled federal law enforcement. steele is the author of the dossier on trump's alleged russia connections. diane feinstein called the recommendation of charges another effort to deflect attention from what should be the committee's top priority. determining whether there was collusion between the trump campaign and russia to influence the election. barbara mcquade, eastern district of michigan and navid jamali, author of the book "how to catch a russian spy." >> when you have two committee members recommending charges against someone, how does that impact the investigation? >> well, the fbi will receive that recommendation. they get referrals like that all the time from various sources. and they'll look at it on its own merits and decide whether it merits any consideration at all. what's odd about this, they say that there's this potential crime, but the evidence of it is contained in a classified

document. so the world can't see what it is they're even talking about. the fbi will look at it. they get calls all the time from all kinds of sources. some of them are frivolous, some have merit. they'll take it for what they believe it's worth. >> navid, republicans seem to be focused on the steele dossier more than ever before. there was a "new york times" report that said it was not the dossier but a tip from an australian diplomat who spent the night drinking with george papadopoulos that caused the fbi to launch the investigation. do you sense that republicans are focused in the right place here? >> no. i mean, well, let's take that back for a second. if you're a republican and you want to take shade or direction away from donald trump and his potential criminal actions, then, yeah, this is the right move. but everyone else is looking at this saying it makes no sense. it's nothing more than a partisan move. and a poor one at that. look, what my panelist is saying is true. if michael steele lied to the fbi, then the fbi investigators, if they felt that it was serious

enough, would have brought charges themselves. to have a republican who wasn't directly involved in talking to michael steele, to bring this forward, it's ridiculous. nothing more than partisanship. simple as that. >> the president has repeatedly insisted that he's not under investigation by mueller's team. if you have an investigation that is looking into a presidential campaign, is it really possible that the person at the center of that campaign wouldn't be a part of the probe? >> well, i think it's really important to remember the early facts of all of this. we've seen the memos from jim comey where he talked about -- president trump asked comey whether the president was under investigation way back in january. what comey told him was no, but i don't want to say that publicly, because i'm concerned if that status should change, then i will have a duty to correct that publicly and announce to the world that you are under investigation. so it seems quite possible and maybe even likely that that status has changed in light of all of the things that we have

learned since that time. and at no time did comey say, you've been cleared, just that at the moment, you are not a target of the investigation. so i think it's quite probable that he is a target of the investigation. >> and paul manafort filed a lawsuit against the justice department this week. saying the charges against him had nothing to do with alleged russian election hacking. does he have a case here? >> no. i think that he filed it as a separate civil case is a sign that he knows it doesn't have merit. if he did, he would have filed to dismiss there. so he filed it as a separate civil lawsuit. but if you look at the mandate that was given to robert mueller and the regs under which he looks at it, there's nothing wrong with charging him with things that are illegal, that are within the scope of that mandate, even though they don't relate to russia, it's sort ever li of of like the plain-view

doctrine, if a law enforcement agent is somewhere he's allowed to be, he's allowed to pursue that. similarly, if he's looking into the russia matter and discovers criminal activity, he doesn't have to ignore that. he's allowed to pursue it and that's what he's done. >> what do you think the point is for manafort in filing this suit? does he think it might be a distraction for the team doing the investigation? what do you think he's doing? barbara? >> yeah, i think that could be. i also think it may be a strategy to make know end run around the gag order the judge issued in the criminal case. if you look at the civil case, he talks about how he went to the fbi, he was questioned about these transactions a few years ago and no charges were brought then. only now that he's under the scrutiny of the russia investigation have they chosen to bring charges. i think he's trying to throw out in the public some sort of idea that this is politically

motivated. he couldn't do it because of the gag order. so by filing this lawsuit, he's able to get his story in the public. >> and the president has been saying no collusion. collusion isn't necessarily a crime. so what legal jeopardy, if any, could the president ultimately be in here? >> well, he's right. collusion is not even a term of art in legal circles, as i understand. it's not a tactic that intelligence agencies use when they're recruiting people. but to piggy back on barbara's point, when it comes to the mandate that mueller has, that's the answer to the question here. this investigation may very well start and did start with investigating to see whether any russians not only had contact, but we would call in spy world, tafts in the american. what that means, were they given direction to collect information for money. you investigate that person. there have been numerous people with contacts with russians. you're going to check cell phone

records, text messages, bank records. and in the course of checking those things for the primary investigation, it is completely plausible that you may find evidence of another crime that has nothing to do with russia. and i think that when it comes to president trump, a man who as a private citizen has gone through numerous bankruptcy, the subject of numerous lawsuits, has not released his tax returns, i think he's rightfully so, very nervous that the primary investigation into russia, which will look at his tax returns and his business dealings, is going to possibly result in discovering criminal activity, which is all fair game. >> are we looking at months more of this investigation? >> i think that -- go ahead. >> i was going to say, i think we have many months to go in an investigation like this. it's so complex, the idea that it would be over by thanksgiving and then by christmas was always fanciful. i think robert mueller works

with incredible urgency. i'm sure he's working as quickly as possible. but when you have facts and evidence all over the world in a case as complex as this, i think we can expect it to continue for many more months. >> naveed, your thought? >> i agree. i there are parts of this that will certainly come to a head. i, at the end of the day, i fall back on the idea that impeachment is a political process. if we are going to go down that road, i am very convinced that the republicans are not going to push that through, and it's probably that donald trump will serve out his term and perhaps decide not to run to re-election. but i think mueller will come to a conclusion. i think the house and senate investigations will come to a conclusion. i think barbara's timeline is probably on the money. >> barbara, naveed, appreciate your perspective. thank you. next up, an investigation is launched after the home of one of roy moore's accusers goes up in flames.

afi sure had a lot on my mind. my 30-year marriage... ...my 3-month old business... plus...what if this happened again? i was given warfarin in the hospital, but wondered, was this the best treatment for me? so i made a point to talk to my doctor. he told me about eliquis. eliquis treats dvt and pe blood clots and reduces the risk of them happening again. not only does eliquis treat dvt and pe blood clots. eliquis also had significantly less major bleeding than the standard treatment. eliquis had both... ...and that turned around my thinking. don't stop eliquis unless your doctor tells you to. eliquis can cause serious and in rare cases fatal bleeding. don't take eliquis if you have an artificial heart valve or abnormal bleeding. if you had a spinal injection while on eliquis call your doctor right away if you have tingling, numbness, or muscle weakness. while taking eliquis, you may bruise more easily... and it may take longer than usual for bleeding to stop.

seek immediate medical care for sudden signs of bleeding, like unusual bruising. eliquis may increase your bleeding risk if you take certain medicines. tell your doctor about all planned medical or dental procedures. eliquis treats dvt and pe blood clots. plus had less major bleeding. both made eliquis right for me. ask your doctor if switching to eliquis is right for you.

i'm aaron gilchrist at msnbc headquarters in new york. here are some of the stories we're watching at this hour. dangerously cold temperatures are gripping the northeast. the windchill in some parts expected to drop to 45 below zero. the navy has found the u.s. transport plane that crashed

into the philippines sea back in november. the pilot and two sailors were declared dead after a three-day search failed to recover their bodies. alabama officials suspect arson in the fire that destroyed the home of tina johnson. she accused roy moore of sexual misconduct. police do not believe the fire was connected to the accusations she made against moore. and a mega millions winner, a single lottery ticket worth $450 million. it was sold in florida. it's the tenth largest jackpot in u.s. history. next up, where is jeff sessions? the attorney general missing in action at this weekend's republican retreat at camp david. could he be on the way out? about a medication, this is humira. this is humira helping to relieve my pain and protect my joints from further irreversible damage. this is humira helping me reach for more. humira has been clinically studied for over 20 years. humira works for many adults. it targets and blocks a specific source of inflammation

that contributes to ra symptoms. humira can lower your ability to fight infections, including tuberculosis. serious, sometimes fatal infections and cancers, including lymphoma, have happened, as have blood, liver and nervous system problems, serious allergic reactions, and new or worsening heart failure. before treatment, get tested for tb. tell your doctor if you've been to areas where certain fungal infections are common, and if you've had tb, hepatitis b, are prone to infections, or have flu-like symptoms or sores. don't start humira if you have an infection. talk to your doctor and visit humira.com. this is humira at work. and when youod sugar is a replace one meal... choices. ...or snack a day with glucerna... ...made with carbsteady... ...to help minimize blood sugar spikes... ...you can really feel it. now with 30% less carbs and sugars. glucerna. trust #1 doctor recommended dulcolax. use dulcolax tablets for gentle dependable relief. suppositories for relief in minutes.

and dulcoease for comfortable relief of hard stools. dulcolax. designed for dependable relief. but when we brought our daughter home, that was it. now i have nicoderm cq. the nicoderm cq patch with unique extended release

technology helps prevent your urge to smoke all day. it's the best thing that ever happened to me. every great why needs a great how. amanda's mom's appointment hello mom. just got rescheduled - for today. amanda needs right at home. our customized care plans provide as much - or as little help - as her mom requires. whether it's a ride to the doctor or help around the house. oh, of course! tom, i am really sorry. i've gotta go. look, call right at home. get the right care. right at home.

no invite, attorney general jeff sessions was left out of this weekend's camp david meeting with the president, cabinet members and republican congressional leaders. scrutiny over his absence intensified after the "new york times" reported the president instructed a white house lawyer to top the attorney general from recusing himself from the russia investigation last march. this afternoon the president responded to that report. >> everything i've done is 100% proper. the story in the times was way off, or at least off. everything i've done is 100% proper. that's what i do, i do thing proper. >> back with me now, astead,

melanie and josh. the president said the report was off. what do you make of what the president said? >> i think what's going on here, jeff sessions is under fire from a lot of places. people know that the president was unhappy with him for deciding to recuse himself. and that's been a sticking point all along. you had a couple of high profile house conservatives call for his resignation this week. you have the epa director apparently grooming himself for the justice department position, to be attorney general. so you add all of this up and it looks like from the outside that jeff sessions is on his way out. and yet what you had today was the president saying, he still has confidence in sessions, still stands with sessions. i think you've got an attorney general that's just figured out how to be a pretty good survivor in this administration, maybe even to the point of being untouchable. we saw the rollout, the leaks were reporting this week on investigations into the clinton foundation and into hillary clinton's e-mail server.

these are things that are going to make the president happy with his attorney general. and in addition to that, it's tough for him to get rid of sessions at this point. anybody at the justice department that the president fires or pushes out, there will be questions about whether or not that contributes to the sort of evidence or exhibits of a possible obstruction of justice case. >> jonathan, i want to come back to scott pruitt in a second. but first, let me ask you, what we heard from the president. he said everything he's done was a hundred percent proper. how does his alleged request to stop sessions recusing himself affect the potential obstruction of justice claims? >> that's something that robert mueller will be looking at. these are certainly pretty intense allegations that are coming from that "times" report. you have the white house lawyer telling the attorney general not to resign. you also had in that report, it seemed that the president had made up his mind about firing james comey much earlier than

previously anticipated. so when you have the president saying, oh, everything i did was a hundred percent proper, these are dismissals that he's been saying for a long time. he's consistently tried to play down these reports, but we still have this bubbling up, the leaking of new information. and each time we learn a little bit more new information that seems like it can fit within the scope of obstruction of justice. we do not know, certainly it's up to legal experts and special counsel to say whether that rises to a level of a charge. but we know now that that is something he is looking at, and that is something where there continues to be new evidence that will add scrutiny to this white house. >> melanie, does sessions' absence from camp david give more weight to rumors about sessions being on the out? >> it certainly raises eyebrows. but this question about whether sessions would say on has been

here since last year, and he managed to survive then. what's different about this week, as john pointed out, you have conservative members of the house freedom caucus calling on him to resign and this explosive nyt report. and a sessions aide was digging around to see whether there was dirt on comey that they could use to potentially fire him. that raises a huge red flag. was sessions directed to find some dirt or do other things that could be inappropriate? i think he was so clearly desperate to get in the president's good graces, it makes you wonder what else did he do. >> assuming he may be on the outs, if we go back to the reports about scott pruitt eyeing the attorney general's post if it becomes available, what's the likelihood of him getting that job? >> i think it's going to be very hard for scott pruitt to be confirmed as attorney general in the senate where there are just 51 republicans. i think that there will be some

opposition to him. if there's an open a.g. job, it will take a while for anybody to get into tit, i would imagine. until the president designed he would appoint somebody who is seen by both sides evof the ais as someone who would honestly oversee the department in a non-partisan and non-politicized way. pruitt is in his job at epa because of his partisan ship and his politization of science issues. so i find it difficult to think that he would just smooth -- have a smooth sail into that job. >> there's been a lost talk too this week about the issue of marijuana. jeff sessions announced this week that the justice department is going to end the obama-a policy that shielded legalized marijuana from federal intervention. right now it's legal to smoke it in 29 states and the district of

columbia. what type of pushback could they face? >> we're already seeing significant pushback. you have republican senators like from colorado, that they were told this specifically would not happen. you've seen bipartisan pushback, the attorney general saying she was significantly disappointed. and she had also asked attorney general sessions about this issue and he said this would not happen. but you also have the republican governor charlie baker say that the decision goes against the will of voters. these states did not unilaterally implement this. they often times came through referendums, where the voters, the people of the states decided that decriminalized or recreational marijuana was something they wanted. and so what you have now is the justice department overriding the will of those voters. so you're going to see significant amounts of pushback, and this could end up being a

2018 issue. you could see democrats come out and say, you all want this stuff to change, come out and vote for democrats in 2018, which could be a rallying cry for youth voters, for veterans, and other people who rely on both medicinal and recreational marijuana, have come to know those things. this is not something that is just a hypothetical. these are a reality in these 29 states in district of columbia. and the attorney general is now trying to take that away. >> melanie, we know that while he was campaigning, the president advocated for states to make the decision. he said he hasn't smoked, but it's gotta be a state decision. why the shift in policy now? >> you already heard some republicans like dana rohrabacher say, this isn't trump, this is sessions undermining trump. trump may have said one thing on the campaign trail, but now the attorney general is doing something else. so you already see some republicans trying to shift the blame away and onto jeff sessions, who has had a really bad week, between the nyt report and now this move with the marijuana. i would point out one more thing

about jeff sessions. it's interesting to watch how democrats are sort of coming to his defense is saying, even if we didn't vote for his confirmation, we're worried if he does step aside, who trump will put in his spot. will it be someone who will have more influence over the mueller probe, someone who will be more of a loyalist to trump? so it's been fascinating to watch. >> great perspective from some insightful reporters. thank you all, johnathan, astead, melanie. appreciate it. >> thank you. next up, president trump defends his mental health. how his response may have opened up a new round of discussions about the controversial issue. your blind spot... your loose satellite dish... the literal deer in the headlights. but it's a new year and i'm making a resolution. no more mayhem. this year i'm everything that helps keep you safe. like the fuzzy, yellow tennis ball dangling from a string. helping make sure you pull the car in far enough... but not too far. ♪

president trump is refuting speculation about his mental state brought up in michael wolff's new book "fire and fury." >> well, only because i went to the best colleges, or college. i went to a -- i had a situation where i was a very excellent student. came out, made billions and billions of dollars, became one of the top business people. went to television and for ten years was a tremendous success, as you probably have heard. ran for president one time and won. and then i hear this guy that does not know me, doesn't know

me at all, by the way, did not interview me -- said he interviewed me for three hours in the white house. it didn't exist. it's in his imagination. >> now in the book, wolff claims the president repeats himself many times in short periods of time and appears that the president also struggles with reading. let's bring in our panel, former national spokesman for ted cruz's presidential campaign, ron nearing, senior policy adviser to hillary clinton's presidential campaign and msnbc political contributor maya harris, and daily beast columnist and author. "the washington post" has said, the news media did indeed question reagan's mental health at times but such questions were at least somewhat validated by the 40th president's alzheimer's diagnosis. do you agree with "the post"

here? >> you know, i recall a lot more than simply what you just recounted, and that is that even before ronald reagan was elected president, there was this caricature that emerged in the media that the president was dumb, that ronald reagan was dumb and overlooked the fact that he had twice been elected governor of the state of california. had a very successful tenure as governor and the like. so when there are similar kinds of voices in the media that raise similar issues, certainly at least on the republican side, republicans are used to hearing those type of caricatures in the media and dismissing them. so until you have someone who is a member of the cabinet or a congressional leader actually raise such issues publicly, i don't think it has a lot of credibility. >> and the president is taking on this issue publicly still on twitter, in his news conference today, the president, is he ensuring this discussion about his mental state is going to continue? >> absolutely. we've seen it being reported and discussed all day, the same way when he came out and attacked

the book, the wolff book, we've seen the sales skyrocket and it's continued to be cover. so it's not really in his interest to continue this conversation. but he obviously can't help himself. i think, certainly i don't feel qualified to judge his mental health, but what i do think we can all talk about is his fitness. and what i found interesting, you know, stunning even, is not so much when reading the wolff book, the fact of this idea that he's not fit for the presidency, that he doesn't read, that he can't focus, that he's impatient. we know that, we've seen it reported, we've seen it on display. but it's that his closest advisers think that too. and according to this book and certainly bannon at least has not come out and refuted it, a hundred percent of the people who are around him think that he's incapable of functioning in his job. and yet they are staying silent. they're defending and enabling him. and i think that's to the

detriment of our democracy. it's dangerous when you look at, you know, for example, his behavior on twitter and taunting north korea. and it's damaging to our standing on the world stage, and potentially the world order. we already see reports that some of our closest allies are debating whether or not he is sane and have concerns about whether he can be trusted because of his instability and his unpredictablity. so it's not so easy to dismiss what is written in this book, but also what we have seen reported over many, many months, and certainly that some of us raised on the campaign trail before he was even elected president. >> jonathan, how do these questions about president trump's mental stability stack up to history? have there been other presidents face this level of scrutiny? >> not really on this. there was a novel about a president who was insane. but we're in really uncharted territory. it reminds me of when richard

nixon said "i am not a crook." we have donald trump saying "i am not insane." what he actually said, i am a very stable genius. i think that line is what will come out of this weekend. it's just extraordinary, when you have a president who is clearly suffering from what many psychiatrists have, from a distance, indicated is consistent with malignant narcissism. this is a disorder and it's clear that he has it. the question is, what are we going to do about it? what is our country going to do about it? and more specifically, what are republican leaders going to do about it? they're the enablers in this situation. it's not really about, you know, him having alzheimer's or something like that. we're a long way from understanding that. it's that he's clearly mentally unfit to be president of the united states.

he's been proving this since the day he took office. the burden is now on the republican leadership. so far, they are failing their character test. and they are choosing their party and their own narrow interests over the interests of the country. because they all know it privately. they all know he's unfit. and we'll see whether in 2018, more of them step forward to say so publicly. >> so, ron, i'm almost out of time. but let me ask you to look at from both sides. if you're advising president trump right now, how do you tell him to handle this, and if you're advising the republican leadership, how do you tell them to handle this? >> well, firstly, clear to this issue of the investigation as it relates to russia is on the minds of plenty of people in the white house. that has to be allowed to continue and to find -- if it can reach its own logical conclusion. as for the other issues, there are some things that you say about yourself, and other things that you demonstrate.

the most important and valuable thing that the president can do and the members of his team, get back to washington, d.c. and focus on the work of the american people and not feeding any of this, you know, gossip and sensationalism which leads to topics do the work to which e was elected and those around him were hired to do. ditto for the congressional leadership. we're going into a 2018 election year and need to put up more scores for the american people in terms of implementing positive things the american people expect republicans to act upon, and if we do that and not feed the beast in terms of gossip, i think a lot of these will take care of themselves. >> can i jump in and say something to ron here. he's summarized the denial the republicans are in. i could go down a list of responsible conservative republicans who are not just saying, nothing to see here.

keep moving! there is something to see. we have a malignant narcissist president of the united states causing great concern around the world. >> if i can respond. >> -- business as usual -- >> with all due respect, ron if i can respond. i was involved in a campaign in the primaries that ran against donald trump. i'm not sure we've seen anyone since he was elected president we did not see on full display before the election. an election took place. the american people elected donald trump. wasn't my first choice in the primary. we wan against him but that's a choice the american people made. what we have seen demonstrably different than we saw in the campaign and beforehand? >> obstruction of justice. >> i want to ask -- >> did democrats take this and run with it in to 2018? >> yes. the conversation we're having is exactly why we can't rely on republicans to save us from whatever it is that may be

unfolding in the next few years with donald trump. why we have to understand the high stakes of the 2018 election, because the only way we're going to have is a check on this presidency is if the democrats win control of the house or the senate. >> all right. thank you all. and we will be right back. rg the winter of '77. i first met james in 5th grade. we got married after college. and had twin boys. but then one night, a truck didn't stop. but thanks to our forester, neither did our story. and that's why we'll always drive a subaru. when heartburn hits... fight back fast with tums smoothies. it starts dissolving the instant it touches your tongue... and neutralizes stomach acid at the source. ♪ tum tum tum tum... smoothies... only from tums

tabletstrust #1 doctor recommended dulcolax. use dulcolax tablets for gentle dependable relief. suppositories for relief in minutes. and dulcoease for comfortable relief of hard stools. dulcolax. designed for dependable relief.

this year's midterm elections could be a game chinger, because a record number of women are eyeing a run for governor. the "washington post" reporting nearly 80 women areubernatorial.

one is this woman. the first openly gay latina sheriff is focusing on winning the texas governor's race. she joins me now. thank you for being here. >> thank you. >> since the election we've seen a ground swell of women mobilizing for change. #metoo movement, women speaking out against xsexual harassment n capitol hill. >> thank you for having me on the show. yes, i do believe that it's going to go into the midterm. i think that just your previous segment talked about the disruption and a lot of the distrust that is within our folks, and we honestly need to get back to common sense. i think a lot of the women are seeing that quite clearly and want to be a part of bringing it

back to common sense. >> now, you're running as a democrat for texas governor in a pretty red state. what's the ground game going forward here? >> you know, it may be a red state, but the truth is, texas is not a red state. it's a non-voting state. as you saw right after the election, there's a lot of people that were upset. i think a lot of that came about because they didn't vote. when they saw the results they were upset. i think it's the same thing in many of the states. including texas. we need to activate the folks that stay home during elections. during the midterms. we need to activate them. activate the minorities and all folks to come out and vote. i think that's going to make a lot of difference. the candidates that are coming up with common sense, that are coming up with the right solutions, well, they will also generate the interest and bring

out the votes. >> you make me think about what happened in alabama, though. can the latino community to do what the alabamians did to roy moore? >> we're looking at not just lati latinos, the african-americans and the -- anglo-s, goodness. a lot of anglo-s with common sense and what good government and government that runs. not a distrust and fear, but on things that actually find solutions to the real issues. so i think it's all about just getting the message out that we need to have a change for the good. we need to make a change that is the right thing for texas and that is to bring back decent government and find good answers to the good, the solutions that are -- pardon me. good solutions to the issues that are out there. >> just a few seconds left but i

want to read stats from an article in "newsweek." in all of u.s. history only 39 women ever served at governor. currently six female governors making up just 12% of the country's top leadership. what do these numbers say to you? >> they say to me that it's time for a change, and it's time to make the people aware what balance in legislation with men and women can bring about to their state. >> lupe valdez, appreciate your time this evening. thank you for your perspective, too. >> thank you. go to my website. lubeevaldez.com. >> got it. that wraps it up here on msnbc. stay tuned with us for updates and breaking news as it happens. "all in with chris hayes" is next. make it a great saturday, everybody.

tonight on "all in" -- >> senior advise errs family members every one questions his intelligence and fitness for office. >> "fire and fury" released. >> let me put a marker in the sand here. 100% of the people around him. >> the author of the book the president doesn't want you to read is speaking out for the first time. >> i will quote steve bannon. he's lost it. >> tonight -- the full interview with "fire and fury" author michael wolff. >> i work like every journalist works. so i have recording -- >> then my interview with the former trump adviser who called the president an idiot and a fool. >> trust me, i'm like a smart pers