he's not going to really do anything. that mean, what i understand, his lawyers told him he doesn't really have any legal recourse against michael wolff and that's why he's frustrated. >> we'll pull the "brady bunch" music, next time you see steve schmidt. thank you to you all. that does it for our hour. i'm nicolle wallace. "mtp daily" starts right now. hi, chuck. >> hi, nicolle. well, he does it again. doesn't he? >> every day. >> that's what he does. 's change the rundown. all right. if it's wednesday -- did the president just flip on cooperating with the special counsel? tonight, president trump throws cold water on an interview with bob mueller. >> when they have no collusion and nobody's found any collusion at any level, it seems unlikely that you'd even have an interview. >> but can the president legally avoid speaking to the special counsel? plus steve bannon, showing how

perilous it is for republicans to challenge president trump. and then there were 31. another prominent house republican decides not to run for re-election. one more sign that a big blue wave may be building. this is "mtp daily," and it starts right now. good evening. i'm chuck todd here in boynton beach, florida. about a stone's throw from mar-a-lago if you're wondering, on the map. welcome to another day of the russia investigation. the president has gone from 100% speaking with robert mueller to this afternoon, seems unlikely. the president asked about reports that his lawyers are in talks with mueller's team about an interview, or perhaps ways to avoid one. >> are you open to meeting with him? would you be willing to meet

with him without condition or would you demand that a strict set of parameters be placed around any encounter between you and the special counsel? >> again, john, there has been no collusion between the trump campaign and russians, or trump and russians. no collusion. >> i've been in office now for 11 months. for 11 months they've had this phony cloud over this administration, over our government. it's a democrat hoax that was brought up as an excuse for losing an election. >> so we'll see what happens. >> again, would you be open -- >> we'll see what happens. certainly i'll see what happens, but when they have no collusion and nobody's found any collusion at any level, it seems unlikely that you'd even have an interview. >> all right. so what is that supposed to mean? you might have guessed from that answer or non-answer, the president put up a bit of a smoke screen which he kept igniting. >> when you talk about interviews, hillary clinton had an interview where she wasn't

sworn in. she wasn't given the oath. they didn't take notes. they didn't record. and it was done on the fourth of july weekend. there is collusion, but it's really with the democrats and the russians, far more than it is with the republicans and the russians. so the witch-hunt continues. >> folks, the president throughout many questionable claims than just those first two clips. first off, the ish a you whether or not there was russia ka collusion is still a very open question. don't forget, don junior meeting with them alone merricks that an open question. two of the advisers plet guid g about lying. two indicted. and his son met with russians. one of his own campaign advisers knowledge of russian dirt apparently triggered the fbi to open an investigation in the first place. to call it a democratic hoax is obviously quite the stretch. claims about the fbi's interview

with hillary clinton, whether or not she was under oath doesn't mean anything. why? it's already illegal to lie to the fbi. number one. the fbi doesn't record any of its interviews, longstanding policy and absolutely did take notes as many members of congress are aware of. all of the smoke screens aside, the president's apparent unwillingness, put it as apparent, to commit to an interview in stark contrast what he told reporters last summer, along special counsel comey was asked to give president trump his loyalty. >> give your version of -- >> 100%. i hardly know the man. i'm hardly going to say i want you to pledge allegiance. who would do that? who would ask a man to pledge allegiance under oath? think of it. i hardly know the man. it doesn't make sense. no, i didn't say that, and i didn't say the other.

>> if robert mueller wanted to speak with you. >> i would be glad to tell him exactly what i just told you. >> all right. he did conflate some things in trumpspeak a little bit. you heard that. 100%. this may be irrelevant. if mueller subpoenas him there isn't much he can do short of pleading the fifth. nbc news was told tonight a potential interview is still under discussion. guess what? he could get subpoenaed to do so. unpack this a little bit. joining me, senior fellow with the brookings institute and chief of law affairs and also now an nbc and msnbc news legal analyst. welcome to the show, sir. >> thank you. >> let's start with -- >> good to be here. >> -- what the president said. he said it's unlikely. he doesn't need to. can you imagine a scenario where the special prosecutor given everything he's looking into in particular, i'll pull out one event. the donald trump jr. meeting and initial response written on air

force one to the "new york times" about said meeting, just that alone. is there any way that robert mueller would not want to talk to the president? >> it's inconceivable that mueller would close this investigation without talking to the president for at least three reasons. one is, if you're going to pursue criminal charges in the most extreme case, of course, it would be totally irresponsible to do that without hearing the president's side of the story. if you're planning not to pursue criminal charges, similarly, making sure that the president's account is, in fact, consistent with what you think you know from other sources is pivotal to doing that responsively, and moreover if you're contemplating charges against other people who might call the president as a defense witness, you need to know what he would say. so there's no -- i think there's no scenario in which the --

these matters would get closed out without some interrogatory mechanism with the president. at the end of the day, as you pointed out, mule hare the ability to ican compel the court for a subpoena and for that reason there will be a negotiation and a lot of postures. end of the day, as bill clinton did with ken starr, i think it's very hard to see how the president does not submit to an interview in some form. >> all right. let's take this for what i believe it is, too, which is a very trumpian move. which is, he likes to negotiate. take an extreme position publicly, because he's clearly, his lawyers are in the middle of this negotiation with mueller. what's realistic? what's the minimum that you think the president might be able to get mueller to commit

to? you know, no recording of it? maybe written -- what do you think -- if you were the president's lawyer, what would you be trying to convince mueller to do under this scenario? because my guess is, the president's lawyers are worried about a perjury trap. >> yeah. i think that's probably right, and perceptive of you. this is a client who has a penchant for saying whatever comes to his head. he's not especially bound by things like the truth, and this is a very dangerous moment for him, therefore, as his lawyer. right? so, look, ideally, you want to keep it out of the grand jury, and as an interview. you want it, ideally, to be not under oath, although i think most of these investigations have been done as fbi investigations, which are not sworn. >> right. >> and i think if you're his lawyers, you're probably

dreaming about doing it as a set of written questions which some of the news stories have floated, but i can't imagine the situation in which mueller or his people would accede to that. >> so quickly, realistically, you expect an interview similar to what they did, what starr did with bill clinton? >> well, so, starr's interview with clinton was actually a grand jury testimony that was done by videoconference from the white house. the accomodation that starr made to clinton was that his lawyers were present. i think this is likely to be an interview. i suspect it will be conducted not by the agents but by some prosecutors, and i -- i suspect trump -- it will be done on trump's turf, and it will be done with counsel present. but, you know, that's just a guess. i don't actually think trump has that much negotiating room here.

>> well, that's probably the most important point there and we don't know when mueller wants this. we could be months away from when he wants this. not days or weeks away. ow newest contributor here ones in and msnbc news, welcome aboard and thanks for being on tonight. >> good to be here. thanks. and tonight's panel, be patient with me guys. political analyst michael steele. triple e steele we call him here and pbs news hour white house correspondent nishelle, and howard, start with you. what do you make of what the president did today? pure posturing or something else? >> no. i think you're right, chuck. i think it's negotiating. i think he's backing away from the inconvenience of having

said, sure, i'll be glad to cooperate, because now it's getting more real. nabs reported on the negotiations. they're ongoing. i agree with you, could stilling weeks or months away, but i think donald trump is beginning the process of setting up the negotiations for the terms for the inevitable time when he has to testify or give his testimony to the investigators. it's a nightmare for any attorney, for a defense attorney, for, for his team of attorneys. you let donald trump loose, under oath, in front of a bunch of prosecutors, it could be very scary. >> it seems like -- talk about the timing a little bit. i don't think it's clear mueller's even done with donald trump jr. yet, in various aspects, let alone other aspects of are this investigation. seems we're longer away -- a longer way away from this than maybe the president's team wishes? >> yeah. and it's been out there that the president's lawyers have been

telling him that this investigation, mueller's investigation would be over by the end of last year and we're into 2018 and it's not true. it's an investigation that is sprawling and talking about people with complicated financial backings, financial backgrounds. so he's going to wade through all of that. i agree. i think he's probably still dealing with between donald trump jr. and jared kushner and all the other people in his o orbit and paul manafort, and the president is starting to negotiate, you're right, what have i gotten myself into? seize heing michael flynn and paul manafort, and is a little scared of what's next for him. >> michael steele, i was not surprised today, but still think it was a missed opportunity by the president, when he immediately jumps into everything about this is a hoax. this is an excuse for the democrats for losing.

by the way, there was a report today about how the u.s. election system, we basically, are not prepared for the current attacks that are likely coming from the russians today. he doesn't ever mention that threat. everybody else does. does that not make him look guilty? >> well, not guilty, at least clueless. i think that the lack of sincerity on this subject of voter integrity with respect to what russians -- we know what the russians did in 2016. we're going into what will be a pivotal election this fall, you know, chuck, where there are going to be a lot of questions raised about ballot security. you're already beginning to see that. the supreme courts are starting to throw out the -- lines have been drawn by various state legislators. it will be a tumultuous cycle and the president has to give clarity whether or not he really thinks voter integrity, voter

ballot box integrity is something important to him, and that he's prepared to push back against the russians based on the known activity, let alone what we don't know of them doing. >> i noticed today that the president this morning, you can always tell when russia is just under his skin. and -- i'm guessing it's the release of the transcript of the simpson testimony, using gps, and spent at least hours this morning then attacked dianne feinstein all after what he arguably had was one of his better days yesterday, if you don't want to pay attention to the details? >> well, nobody can step on his own lines better than the president of the united states. and i think, yes. i think dianne feinstein's release of that transport

bothered hbother bother -- transcript bothered him. mounting republicans and democrats in congress, the michael flynn book, questions about his stability and genius and so forth. they're all under his skin and all come back to his explanation for why he's so on the defensive, and in his own mind it's because of these unfair attacks on the, his legitimacy, because of the russia story. so he goes back and back and back and back to it, because of the way his mind works, and that's not going to change. i should also mention on the investigative details, paul manafort, for example, has not talked substantively to prosecutors. really. he's fighting the jurisdiction of the prosecutors at this point. i can't imagine bob mueller's team wanting to talk to the president until they've figured out what paul manafort really knows and what he's willing to say, and there's several other people in that category. so this whole sort of tortured

process for the president mentally, as he deals with it minute by minute, is going to continue and we're going to see it day after day after day. it's going to erupt like a, like some kind of obsession he can't get rid of. >> you may wonder why i am suddenly showing up on your screen. katy tur. we're having an audio issue with chuck's mike. we'll try to fix that. meantime, michael,i stay with u. and what lessons are republicans learning from bannon's banishment?

managing blood sugar is a series of smart choices. and when you replace one meal... ...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. but prevagen helps your brain with an ingredient originally discovered... in jellyfish. in clinical trials, prevagen has been shown to improve short-term memory. prevagen. the name to remember.

see? we're testing all our backup systems. it's all working. anyway, welcome back. congressman darrell issa says he's out, for now. joining the already crowded pack of republicans that appear to be sprinting to exits ahead of the 2018 midterms. issa is now the fourth republican to announce

retirement since last week. he's the second in california behind ed royce, who said he wouldn't seek re-election earlier this week. so far 19 house republicans are retiring outright before the midterms. 12 more house republicans are leaving to run for higher office. governor or senator. making a total of 31 republican house seats being vacated so far. by the way, the month isn't over. there are now of those 31, 8 of those house republican retirements are from hillary clinton either carried in 2016 or narrowly lost including martha mcsally, expected to announce a senator bid later this week. those seats represent one-third of the 24 seats the democrats need to win back the house in november. why do we care about the numbers so much? we haven't seen this many open seats for the majority party since 1994 when president clinton faced his first mid-terms. that cycle, 28 democrats decided to leave the house. we know what happened there. republicans gained a whopping 54 seats that year and control of

the house. at that time, the first time in nearly two generations. we'll be right back. hello mom. amanda's mom's appointment 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.

welcome back. so -- is the bannon banishment a cautionary tale for republicans overall? that is -- if you break with the president, he can break you. does that put some republicans in tight races this year in a tricky spot? joined by cory gardner of colorado, chairman of the senate gubernatorial committee meaning it is his job to get republicans elected this year. i'm guessing you want re-elections as well. a lot to talk about. daca, and this. start with daca. start about daca with you first. there were some hill meetings. yesterday's meeting had a lot of rhetoric but it wasn't clear what direction things were

going. is there direction today after the house and senate meeting? >> absolutely there is. i think yesterday's meeting was actually very constructive. it was constructive in that we now have parameters of negotiations or discussions, the four things laid out by president trump. these are not easy things. i don't want to gloss over how difficult they will be to find a bipartisan agreement on, but important to hear from the president, to is a support for at solution, support for what it would look like, four parameters laid out and also i think did a little expediting the conversations we're having. i think this is a good path forward to a solution that both republicans and democrats can agree to. something the president can sign and i believe will, benefit the american people and in an immigration conversation bipartisan, address what's to do with these kids brought here through no fault of their own and security. >> are you comfortable with this being connected to the january 19th budget vote or not? >> i'm comfortable moving

forward any way we can. i'd vote for an agreement if all the principles were met that we need. connected to the january 19th agreement, that's fine. i'd like to see it done sooner than latteer. bottom line, getting a bill to the house and senate. that's a solution we have to have. >> i want to ask you about what you look for in a candidate. i'm going to single out the state of ohio right now. there's a lot of published reports that indicate you among others in the senate republican caucus would like to get the hillbilly author vance to run. another candidate in the race that is already attacking j.d. vance noting he didn't vote for president trump. i'm curious. is that a -- do you -- are you comfortable recruiting senate candidates who publicly did not support donald trump for president? >> look, i think the last thing that the people of ohio want, the people of any state want for

that matter, to see that washington, d.c. has decided they've picked the candidate for that state. i think that's not an interest to the voters of ohio. not in the interest of any voter across the country. i think republican candidates ought to represent is ideas on growing the economy what we can do to limit the role and scope of government in people's lives. how we can put a positive message and optimistic vision in front of the american people is what anybody is looking for in a candidate. so we're, there's going to be a lot of candidates in the ohio senate primary. candidates and are candidates in races across the country, whether indiana, west virginia in primaries. but i don't think anybody in west virginia, indiana or ohio is going to say, i need to check with the senatorial committee to decide who i'll vote for. >> no. i understand that. but do you think trump support is a, a fair litmus test for candidates in the republican primary? >> any topic is going to be a fair attack or a fair positive/negative in a race.

and candidates will use that, for or against each other in primaries and who knows what president trump would decide to do with that? so that's why you have campaigns. that's why you run campaigns and why you hope good candidates can get through end of the day with that positive message and a great mission for this country. >> all right. i think you're trying to avoid saying it specifically. let me ask this. if you have a choice of a candidate that did not support tnt, fits the state, could win, versus a candidate who did support donald trump but doesn't fit the state as well, what's your preference? >> i want to win races. president trump wants to win races. bottom line, that's not my call for ohio, indiana, west virginia or any of the other states that have primaries. the president wants to win races. i want to win races but those states will make that decision. it's not my decision to make. >> all right. i know you will not say who the nrsc supports in a primary, joe arpaio, the nominee for arizona

senate, does he fall into the roy moore category for you? somebody you just not only can't support and don't want to see the party support and the committee wouldn't support him? >> look, i think there's going to be, again, a number of candidates in the arizona race. it's too early to speculate who will win or not. maybe too early to speculate who all will be in the race. i think that is a conversation that's much further down the road. it's difficult to compare what happened in alabama to any other state. >> so you're not ready to make a judgment on joe arpaio as a candidate, if he's the nominee? you're not ready to judge whether he's somebody the republican party will get behind? >> is he going to be the nominee? i can't tell that, you can't tell. only the people of arizona can tell that. that's why we have campaigns and primaries and races. that's not my choice. not my decision to make on the senatorial committee what the people of arizona are going to decide. >> go to something a little more local. i know you had -- were scheduled to have a meeting i believe with the attorney general about the

decision on marijuana. >> right. >> you would like him to rethink that decision. how did that meeting go, what can you report about it? >> the meeting went as i expected it. he's going to hold to his position. i'll hold to mine. my position, i believe prior to his confirmation he made a commitment we wouldn't see the kind of significant shift in policy that we are now seeing. the administration pursue. i actually think it's not necessarily the administration but the attorney general i actually believe has a difference of opinion on this than the white house right now and i'd like to see that worked out and see this done in a way that protects states' rights. federalist approach. i didn't support legalization in colorado but it's necessary to protect that state's decision. colorado had a vote today, it would probably pass with a higher margin now than years' past. it's states' rights, a federalist approach to the government and hope we can find a solution. >> my guess, the attorney general repeated you he doesn't make law. that's your job.

let me ask you this. how -- isn't there -- isn't there a way you could codify the protections that the obama justice department put in there? >> there is. certainly, chuck, something we continue to look at. i gathered about a dozen of my colleagues in the senate in my office yesterday. we had a sdfrdiscussion how to forward. approach through the appropriations process, whether it's looking at long-term negotiation, adopt that federalist state-by-state approach is something to consider. frankly, this decision by the attorney general spurred that conversation and raised it to a level that simply it hasn't been in the past. >> all right. put your campaign hat back on again. and your senator hat. the senate foreign relations committee, democratic side, put out this report that's concerning. about potential russian interference in the midterms. it's still happening, still going on. meanwhile, the president keeps referring to everything about what the russians did as a hoax. are 2018 campaigns safe from

russian interference? can you say that now? >> we will do everything defending and protecting the integrity of our elections from people inside the country who would wish to stop somebody from voting whether it's russia, iran. something we've seen from russia, and no dispute on the hill this occurred. it's something we have to make sure we help the states with and help them prepare, do everything to uphold the integrity of what happens in 2018, november. so i know today was also reported that the department of homeland security is expediting assistance to states to help prepare for the elections. this investigation needs to be wrapped up, the great work can get out to the states. what's happened, what needs to be done and make sure we never have this cloud over an election ever again. >> what's your -- when you say you want it wrapped up quickly.

what's your desks of quifinitio quickly? >> whether it's the secretary of state or voting division, that they have the chance and opportunity to get that done is probably not september/october but as soon as possible. >> fair enough. cory gardner, republican from colorado. thanks for your time. still ahead, more on the russia investigations plural. are these investigations going south on us? i'll talk to congressman adam schiff. remember our special night?

abdominal pa... ...and diarrhea. but it's my anniversary. aw. sorry. we've got other plans. your recurring, unpredictable abdominal pain and diarrhea... ...may be irritable bowel syndrome with diarrhea, or ibs-d. you've tried over-the-counter treatments and lifestyle changes, but ibs-d can be really frustrating. talk to your doctor about viberzi,... ...a different way to treat ibs-d. viberzi is a prescription medication you take every day

that helps proactively manage... ...both abdominal pain and diarrhea at the same time. so you stay ahead of your symptoms. viberzi can cause new or worsening abdominal pain. do not take viberzi if you have no gallbladder, have pancreas or severe liver problems, problems with alcohol abuse, long-lasting or severe constipation, or a bowel or gallbladder blockage. pancreatitis may occur and can lead to hospitalization and death. if you are taking viberzi,... ...you should not take medicines that cause constipation. the most common side effects of viberzi... ...include constipation, nausea, and abdominal pain. stay ahead of ibs-d with viberzi.

coming up -- that new warning i just told you about. well, we'll have more on what the democrats are concerned about with russian tactices in 2018. you always pay

your insurance on time. tap one little bumper, and up go your rates. what good is having insurance if you get punished for using it? news flash: nobody's perfect. for drivers with accident forgiveness, liberty mutual won't raise your rates

due to your first accident. switch and you could save $782 on home and auto insurance. call for a free quote today. liberty stands with you™ liberty mutual insurance. welcome back. was "said earlier, president trump says it seems unlikely he'll meet with special counsel robert mueller. good luck for any congressional committees that want to meet with the president. he's not the only one investigating interference in the russia investigation. the top democrat release add report saying the united states lacks "a coherent dpree hencomp report for combating this in the future. defending against future

attempts." seems something basically both parties could agree on. pretty simple? right? in our toxic environment, written without republican consent. used to be a disease that only impacted the house investigations and now the senate investigations as well. joining me, a ranking member of the house intelligence committee democrat congressman adam schiff. talk about an alarming report. you've been looking at this as long as anybody. what's the first two or three things in a congressional bill that would be unveiled, say, soon, that you would like to see done to prepare us against election interference in 2018? >> well, i think actually the first and most important thing that we ought to be doing isn't going to be contained in a bill. that is, we need to forge a

national consensus, any interference again, we will reject it, no matter when side it helps or hurts. the biggest impediment to that is the fact our president won't acknowledge it happened calling it a witch-hunt and fake so it's very hard to get to that consensus. the reason it's a democrat report only is not unlike the situation in the white house where it's reported if, you bring up russia to the president, he uses it as an attack of are him holding office and wouldn't surprise me if the republicans on the senate felt the president would read that as a hostile act. that leaves us very unprepared. i would say developing that national consensus, hardening our election's infrastructure, making sure that we have our intelligence indices protecting

against russian intervention are among the top three steps we can take. >> the house intelligence committee early on, used sometimes as a punching bag by the snay senate saying they're not getting along, partisan. and now it's found its way into the senate. obviously, you're in a dispute. are you dealing with congressman conaway or congressman nunes? >> my interactions are with mr. conaway and we have a good, working relationship and it has been in many respects a model of bipartisanship but the ultimate decisions are made by chairman nunes. for that reason, subpoenas that should go out aren't and those not necessary carrying us in a completely different direction are going out. end of the day, the leadership of the committee in the

investigation is in mr. nunes' hands. the problem from the very beginning, you know, chuck, with that midnight run to the white house from our chairman, canvassing where he got that information poisoned our committee thereafter, giving me no sense of enjoyment to see the senate run into the same problem. if one party views this responsibility as circling the wagons around the white house and protecting at white house at all costs it's very lard to do a bipartisan investigation. >> let me ask you this. at this point, we have a special counsel. at the end of the day, obviously, you guys have a fact-finding mission. you're a separate branch of government. i'm not disputing that, but because there's a special counsel basically looking at everything you want to look at, how damaging is it, really, to the investigation? since mule hare all the powers and the ability to get all of these witnesses that you would like to have? >> it's a really important

question. and i think that the key is this -- mueller's responsibility is actually quite narrow. it's his job to figure out what laws have been violated. who should be prosecuted. it it doesn't lead to indictment he's unlikely to be able to tell the country what happened. let's say the evidence he believes reaches a preponderance or convincing, nothing beyond a reason about doubt. if he doesn't seek indictment, we might not know about this conversation, this conversation, this meeting, this act of collusion or conspiracy, and it falls on the congress to give a full recitation of the facts to the american people. this is what happened. this is what we know in the issue of a collusion, in the issue of potential obstruction and make that report to the american people. that is not bob mueller's job and he may well be prohibited from speaking outside of an indictment. >> all right. let me ask you about your meeting today with the fbi

director, crihristopher wray, deputy attorney general rod rosenstein. i assume it has to do with -- with your investigation, with who, who will -- what files they may send over. what folks may come over. did you have that meeting alone with those two, or were either congressman conaway or nunes with you? >> chuck, this is an example, a question a lot longer than the answer. i really can't comment on that. the only thing i want to say -- generally on the issue, of the majority's attack on the fbi and the department of justice, this is, i think a profound distraction from what russia did from the issues that we're charged with investigating. it's quite by design and i think it is frankly very much in combination with the referral of christopher steele in a criminal investigation, and will do potentially long-term damage to these institutions. >> can you simply say if after

your meeting was done you came to a, came to some sort of agreement? >> you know, i really don't want to comment, but, except for talking about the more general issue, chuck. >> fair enough. well, that's why i saved you for last. i had a feeling that might be your answer, congressman schiff. ranking member on the house intel committee. thanks for coming on sharing your views. appreciate it. when we come back, is president trump making a joke, or, is the joke on him?st wanteu something i've been wor... ♪ james r. and associates. anna speaking... ♪ james r. and associates. anna. ♪ [phone ringing] baker architects. this is anna baker. this is what our version of financial planning looks like. tomorrow is important, but you're ready to bet on yourself today. spend your life living. find an advisor at northwesternmutual.com.

ii need my blood osugar to stay iin control.. i need to cut my a1c. weekends are my time. i need an insulin that fits my schedule. ♪ tresiba® ready ♪ (announcer) tresiba® is used to control high blood sugar in adults with diabetes. don't use tresiba® to treat diabetic ketoacidosis, during episodes of low blood sugar, or if you are allergic to any of its ingredients. don't share needles or insulin pens. don't reuse needles. the most common side effect is low blood sugar, which may cause dizziness, sweating, confusion, and headache. check your blood sugar. low blood sugar can be serious and may be life-threatening. injection site reactions may occur. tell your prescriber about all medicines you take and all your medical conditions. taking tzds with insulins like tresiba® may cause serious side effects like heart failure. your insulin dose shouldn't be changed without asking your prescriber. get medical help right away if you have trouble breathing, fast heartbeat, extreme drowsiness, swelling of your face, tongue, or throat, dizziness, or confusion. ask your health care provider if you're tresiba® ready. covered by most insurance and medicare plans. ♪ tresiba® ready ♪

welcome back. tonight i'm obsessed with something president trump said today unironically. >> our current libel laws are a sham. and a disgrace, and do not represent american values or american fairness. so we're going to take a strong look at that. we want fairness. can't say things that are false. knowingly false. and -- be able to smile as money pours into your bank account. we're going to take a very, very strong look at that, and i think what the american people want to see is fairness. >> really? you can't say things that are knowingly false and watch money pour into your bank account. this from a president who brags about his truthful hyperbole a

president whose lies determined by the "new york times" are chronicled since the inauguration. and a president whose false and misleading statements determined by the "washington post" hit an astonishing 2,000 yesterday. this from a president who also could use a lesson from first amendment lawyer floyd abrams who points out again that there is no federal libel law. every state has its own. so good luck changing 50 of those laws plus the district of columbia. impossible to know if the president was being ironic or making a joke that he was reading a statement. certainly looked like a joke. if you get those libel laws changed and you get sued for knowingly false statements while money pours into your -- well, you get where i'm going here. we'll be right back. connected to each person in your family tree. i learned that my ten times great grandmother is george washington's aunt.

within a few days i went from knowing almost nothing to holy crow, i'm related to george washington. this is my cousin george. discover your story. start searching for free now at ancestry.com

time for "the lid." panel is back.

michael, yamiche, leonard. i promise i will finish this segment, so help me god. anyway, darrell issa made it 31 today. >> yeah. >> second in as many days out of the state of california. that is now more open seats for a majority party than we've seen since 1994. we know what happened there when 28 democrats saw the writing on the wall and took off. is this the sign that the wave has already built? >> i'm afraid to say yeah, it is. you don't give up your chairmanship. you don't leave the majority if you don't sense or have polling that shows you in your district and elsewhere around the country that things will not be good for the republicans. i hate saying that as the guy who helped build the, i like to call at this time house of steele, but it has clearly got some rust on it. so the fact of the matter is,

there is some real problems here. and the democrats at this point can just wait. we'll give the majority by attrition at this point. it is not just that you're going to go out and compete. republicans are leaving their seats behind. >> yamich, january is not over. we can see another half dozen that either do full retirement or an up or out. >> when i heard about darrell issa, the thing struck me, he was a very outspoken republican. he was out there talking about the republican agenda with someone who was very force envelop his defense of the party. when you see someone like that, jeff flake, bob cork he, people who are very vocal saying, okay, i don't want to talk about this anymore. i don't want to defend this party. that's a real bad sign for republicans and i think democrats have been saying it. while they said they would have all these different messages, at the end of the day, donald trump

and the michael wolff book is what a lot of people are talking about, whether or not the president is stable and whether or not people want a cloak this president and democrats are getting ready to ride a very, very big wave. >> howard, i want to do the math here just in california. the democrats need 24 to take the house. they have 31 open seats. but the state of california is a unique opportunity. even though democrats have a major advantage, they're still another five, six, maybe seven seats they can get out of that seat alone. because of the weird primary system, there might not be a republican campaign for senate or governor. because they may be two democrats facing off. this could be a disaster for kevin mccarthy and his delegation out there. >> i wrote about ed royce the other day. he's the other guy who this week has announced his retirement from the california delegation. some of these americans are term

limited if their chairmanships, meaning they have to get out of the chairmanship. it is no fun to go back to the anonymity of the house. but it is a. bigger thing going on. i've been around a long time. i came into the movie a long time ago. the democrats took huge numbers against ronald reagan in 1982. they of course took huge numbers against bill clinton in 1994. the other direction. and the same thing happened to barack obama in 2010. this feels very much like that and i think yamiche has the right point that people seem to be looking for a check on donald trump. a stronger check on donald trump than the republican there's provide. because they're falling in line. to the extent they remain, they're falling in line. that's what the people are looking for and you're right about california. >> michael steele, were you surprise that had corey gardner

hesitated? he would not definitively say. if write democrats thinking of registering hispanic voters, i would be concerned. >> i remember a few races in 2010, i didn't want to talk about. you try to figure out a way to get around the edges of that. that's what he tried to do. he is right though. he has to wait and see how the primary plays out. he won't be the only player, if you will, in that primary race. and i think that's one of the things gives corey the advantage to sit back and wait and see what comes out on the other end. ask him that question after the primary and then see how the answer goes. >> i want to bring up a point burp to hit on. he really made an effort over the last two cycles to try to fit his district. orange county is.

it isn't the orange county from ronald reagan's party in california. darrell issa made every move you can think of to stay relevant in his district. it is as if he said, it's too hard. >> that's what you see going. on darrell issa, i've interviewed him. he was very vocal. he wanted to talk to the press. to be out there in the news being seen as a player in washington. he made a name for himself. this idea that he was someone who you could go to and point to in the national media and say here he is talking about it. you see someone like him saying, i'm done with this. i won't be able to with stab the heat and he senses with he might lose and that would be too embarrassing, so he stepped down, or he won't run,

essentially. >> thank you very much but don't be surprised if darrell issa is on a ballot in 2018th if he finds a friendlier district. all right. we'll be back in a moment with something you definitely missed. liberty mutual stood with me when i was too busy with the kids to get a repair estimate. liberty did what? yeah, with liberty mutual all i needed to do to get an estimate was snap a photo of the damage and voila! voila! i wish my insurance company had that... wait! hold it... hold it boys... there's supposed to be three of you... where's your brother? where's your brother? hey, where's charlie?

charlie?! you can leave worry behind when liberty stands with you. liberty stands with you™ liberty mutual insurance. alright, i brought in high protein to help get us moving. ...and help you feel more strength and energy in just two weeks! i'll take that. -yeeeeeah! ensure high protein. with 16 grams of protein and 4 grams of sugar. ensure. always be you. you can do it. we can do this. at fidelity, our online planning tools

are clear and straightforward so you can plan for retirement while saving for the things you want to do today. -whoo!

you know what's not awesome? gig-speed internet. when only certain people can get it. let's fix that. let's give this guy gig- really? and these kids, and these guys, him, ah. oh hello. that lady, these houses! yes, yes and yes. and don't forget about them. uh huh, sure. still yes! xfinity delivers gig speed to more homes than anyone. now you can get it, too. welcome to the party. in case you missed it, sometimes things happen while we're in a commercial break so this is one you just missed. there was a little bipartisanship at the white house. moments ago president trump

signed into law a bill to help with the opioid problem. it is not every day you get louie gomezer and sherrod brown to agree on something. so for that, i don't think it is a sign of something negative. we don't want to say it is a sign of the apocalypse. maybe it is a sign of good things to come. we'll be back tomorrow. good evening, ari. >> good evening. we begin with breaking news on the russia probe developing now. president trump has just come out and denied collusion with russia claiming incorrectly that his view has been determined by everyone. >> there has been no collusion between the trump campaign and russians, or trump and russians. no collusion. when i watch you interviewing all the people leaving their committees, the democrats ar