ox® may spread hours to weeks after injection, causing serious symptoms. alert your doctor right away, as difficulty swallowing, speaking, breathing, eye problems, or muscle weakness can be signs of a life -threatening condition. side effects may include allergic reactions, neck and injection site pain, fatigue, and headache. don't take botox® if there's a skin infection. tell your doctor your medical history, muscle or nerve conditions, and medications, including botulinum toxins, as these may increase the risk of serious side effects. with the botox® savings program, most people with commercial insurance pay nothing out-of-pocket. talk to your doctor and visit botox®cmsavings.com to enroll. hello, everybody. i'm david gura at msnbc headquarters in new york. five days, that's how much time congress has left to avoid a government shutdown, but with the parties further apart after the president's incendiary remarks, is a deal possible? dr. king would not be

pleased with the state of affairs in america today. >> not holding back, civil rights leader and congressman john lewis on the eve of mlk day, fast-forward 50 years after dr. king's assassination. i'm going to ask the current pastor of his church the biggest challenge this country faces in the trump era. celebrity politicians, speculation surrounding oprah winfrey. will she follow in the footsteps of ronald reagan and donald trump? the discussion of the good, bad and ugly when public figures run for office. we start with a deal to protect d.r.e.a.m.ers, a deal the president says appears to be dead. the president tweeting this morning that democrats don't really want a deal on dak were. they just want to talk and take desperately needed money away from our military, his words, coming as congress scrambles to reach an agreement by this coming friday to avoid a government shutdown and getting democrats on board may hinge on a deal to protect the d.r.e.a.m.ers. geoff bennett is live in west palm beach, florida, where the president is spending the weekend. we heard from the home secretary

talking about protecting daca. what do we hear from her and what's the white house saying about a path forward? >> reporter: interestingly, david, after the president's tweets, he was contradicted by senate republicans, and as you say, by his own secretary of homeland security, kerstin neilsen, who says daca is not dead if democrats agree to close some of the loopholes in the policy. take a look. >> i do not believe daca is dead, but what i would say is from my perspective, of course, as the secretary of homeland security, it's not a daca deal. it's a security immigration deal. what my role is, is to ensure we don't end up here again. we must close these loop hopes to ensure that these temporary populations not only are not encouraged to take the dangerous journey to get here, but then when they get here, we're able to promptly remove them so we don't end up with a category of daca again. >> reporter: and of course, the other reason why daca isn't dead is because a federal judge, in effect, resurrected it, issuing a temporary injunction banning

the trump administration from ending the program. so, that then forced the administration to accept applications from eligible -- from daca-eligible immigrants. look, whatever congress comes up with, they have to do it by friday because democrats have tied this daca policy to the must-pass spending legislation to keep the government open and running, and the government runs out of money, david, on january 19th. >> jaffe, so much of this conversation changed last week on thursday after that meeting in the oval office. i know you've been looking into what exactly was said, what happened at that meeting, and you have new reporting on that. >> reporter: well, this morning, senators cotton and purdue who were in that oval office meeting, changed their story in effect. initially, they said they don't recall the president making derogatory comments about haiti and africa. this morning on the morning shows, they said the president didn't say it at all. and in a way, they're saying that their colleagues in the senate, to include dick durbin, and to a lesser degree, lindsey graham, fabricated the entire thing, at least misrepresented the president. now, after the president made

these comments, my colleague, hallie jackson and i reported that he was busy working the phones thursday night trying to gauge reaction among his friends and confidantes, not only about the comments, but how they resonated among his base of supporters. the implicit takeaway is that the president said what he was alleged to have said. otherwise, why call around trying to see how the fallout around it was? i can tell you, i called back our source, and that source stands by his account. >> geoff bennett in west palm beach, florida, traveling with the president this long weekend, thank you. three days after president trump may or may not have used a vulgar term to refer to haiti and other countries, the outrage has turned into a political fight between senators who attended the meeting. >> i have certainly not said what senator durbin said repeatedly. he has a history of this, so perhaps we shouldn't be surprised. >> senator tom cotton. dick durbin's spokesman responded, "credibility is something that's built by being

consistently honest over time. senator durbin has it. senator perdue," somebody else on the sunday show this morning, "does not. ask anyone who's dealt with both." robert darling is the president of liberty government affairs, julian epstein is also here. ellen, let me get your reaction to how this conversation has shifted. for a couple days after this, we were really soaking up what the president said in the oval office, trying to react to what it said about him and the office and where things stand. it's become a political thing now in light of what we just heard from senator cotton and david perdue as well. what are the ramifications of that, seeing this move on in the way that it has? >> everything becomes a political thing, especially when you're the president of the united states. and the president of the country that should be taking in immigrants, that has built its foundation on being a country of immigrants. this really matters. so i'm not surprised to kind of see it devolve this way, but i also think that focusing on language. i mean, first of all, if the

president said the "s-hole" remark, that's racist, and i don't think we should mince our words there in saying and calling that out and to what it is. but we should also just focus on the actions that this administration has action, the rhetoric that this president has used all along when it comes to immigrants, when it comes to people from mexico, when it comes to muslims and wanting to put a muslim ban into place. let's not forget last year he also wanted an english language requirement. i'm an immigrant who came to this country not speaking english. i was a child, you know? and so, if those requirements would have been in place, i would not have been able to be sitting right here with you in the studio right now. and so, you just have to realize that, of course, this is going to turn into this kind of political back-and-forth, but it doesn't really matter if the president said what he did or didn't, because we know what his stance is on immigration. it's been very clear all long. >> brian darling, i want to ask you about these two gentlemen in particular who were party to that meeting, again, talking about david perdue, the senator, and about tom cotton as well.

they issued very carefully crafted statements on the heels of that meeting, as we heard from others who were there with much more specificity. what do you make of the way they've approached this? why do you see here a majority of lawmakers quick to criticize what was said in the oval office and then standing on the outside? >> well, first of all, this was a private meeting, right? senators were sitting down trying to negotiate a deal to work out a deal on daca. and for dick durbin to walk out of that meeting and disclose what was said at that meeting, i think he clearly doesn't want a deal on daca. he does not want to see congress move forward on an appropriate deal, because basically, incentivizing name-calling and calling the president a racist, that's not going to help get a deal on this. i mean when you sit down at a negotiation, and he may have said it, he may not. i don't really care. i think it's more important the policies. and from the beginning, i never thought this daca deal would happen. i think democrats have an incentive not to get a deal. i think republicans have an incentive not to have a deal

that pleases their base, and i just don't see by this friday both sides working it out. and ultimately, we're going to really see if democrats are serious about it, because if they don't filibuster this continuing resolution that's coming up and shut down the government, then they're not serious. do they want to see this policy go away so they can campaign on it in the fall? >> i just want to push back on that little bit. you say you don't really care whether or not he said it. if in fact he said it, would you care that he used that term? >> not really. i mean, honestly, when you look at what rand paul said this morning, rand paul said that, you know, it would have been better to say that america wants to have more people from prosperous countries than countries that aren't economically doing all that well. and one thing that's missed in this is senator rand paul in 2015 went to haiti and he was operating, doing free operations on individuals who couldn't afford to get cataracts taken out of their eyes. and you know who donated to that non-profit adventure, was none other than donald j. trump. so, he did help people who were underprivileged in haiti in that instance. >> heard that from the senator

from kentucky this morning. julian epstein, weigh in on that. i saw your reaction similar to mine from that last response. >> yeah, whether he used the s-hole comment or not, i think this is kind of reinforced the idea that this is just a childlike, unmanageable figure in the white house, and it's fed into that narrative, which is i think very negative for the republicans heading into the midterms. i think secondly, there is a wing of the republican party that doesn't care if he uses comments that offend an entire continent and two countries, but there's a wing that does, and the wing that does i think is the more responsible wing of the republican party. it is just on so many levels, it is just so hurtful to this country to be insulting an entire continent that's so important to us in the fight against terrorism and on so many other levels. politically, this is i think very negative for the republican party because it's shifted more leverage to the democrats. the republicans need daca much more than the democrats do. a federal court has blocked trump's effort to repeal daca

effectively, administratively, and two-thirds of republicans support a permanent solution to daca. three-fourths of the american people support it. we're going into midterm elections right now, and the republicans are behind on a generic question of who they prefer in congress, the democrats or the republicans. and they're behind by about ten points. so, the idea that -- and all this is going to do is gin up the democratic base. so, data that this was not incredibly harmful to the united states, incredibly harmful again to the president in terms of reinforcing this notion that he's just kind of like this man child, this unmanageable man child inside the white house who just blurts out things from the top of his head, no matter how destructive that is, i think that's a foolish view from a republican. >> it is disingenuous to say that republicans haven't done anything. you used to work for the house judiciary committee. well, the chairman of the house

judiciary committee, bob goodlatte, has put out a daca bill, but democrats don't like it because it has things unrelated to daca, having to do with the wall, having to do with chain migration, having to do with the visa lottery. so, republicans have done something on it. it's just not what democrats want. >> well, i don't think -- i think that there could be a meeting of the minds. i think if you left it to goodlatte and the democrats on the hill, i think there could be a meeting of the minds where you would resolve the daca issue and you could do more things on border security. i think that's perfectly reasonable. >> on that note, let me bring you in here -- >> when you start the debate off where trump has had three different positions on whether daca's tied to other things or not, he's consistently changed his position, nobody knows what he wants, then he insults entire groups of people, that's the wrong place to start for a constructive dialogue. >> final word. i'm interested in the balance of power here in light of what we've seen, lawmakers coming to the president with a bipartisan deal, yet he's ejecting it. why isn't the legislature or congress able to yield more pressure on the president on

this? >> why aren't members of congress able to get anything passed and why is partisanship so high in this country? those are important questions, except when it comes to nsa surveillance, where we did see democrats and republicans come together. so, i think that actually highlights that when politicians want to, they can come up with a deal, and they really should do it on immigration because there's a new poll that just came out from cbs a couple hours ago, 70% of respondents said that they support and favor daca. and when it comes to what their priorities are, what they want congress to be spending money on, it's infrastructure, building roads and bridges, not walls. and so, those are things that politicians should pay attention to. >> brian, i want your opinion quickly. mitt romney weighing a run for senate in utah. should he do it? what's that say about the party at this point? >> more power to him. i wish somebody more conservative would run in utah for that seat. i love mike lee, i think he's a great senator, but more power to him. come to washington. he'll be a very important voice. it's going to be fascinating to have a presidential candidate,

actually two presidential candidates, nominees, sitting in the senate and the vice presidential candidate, paul ryan, being speaker of the house. maybe he won't be speaker of the house at that point, but i think one other point, on nsa spying. i mean, it's staggering to note that the republicans let democrats do something very harmful this past week, and that is, they came together and passed a bad bill, and it shows that the elites still rule in congress. >> thank you very much for joining me here in new york as well. still ahead, dr. king's legacy 50 years after losing the civil rights icon. a look at the issues still facing our country today. after the break, the man who preaches from the pulpit martin luther king jr. once stood in weighs in on the rhetoric from the white house. >> the giant of a man named king does not need a proclamation from donald trump. i would argue that a proclamation without an apology is hypocrisy. whooo! yeah! ♪

mmmmm. want some? it's good, it's refreshing. ♪ this is what our version of financial planning looks like. tomorrow is important, but she's only seven once. spend your life living. find an advisor at northwesternmutual.com. if yor crohn's symptoms are holding you back, and your current treatment hasn't worked well enough, it may be time for a change. ask your doctor about entyvio, the only biologic developed and approved just for uc and crohn's. entyvio works at the site of inflammation in the gi tract and is clinically proven to help many patients achieve both symptom relief and remission. infusion and serious allergic reactions can happen during or after treatment. entyvio may increase risk of infection, which can be serious. pml, a rare, serious, potentially fatal

brain infection caused by a virus may be possible. this condition has not been reported with entyvio. tell your doctor if you have an infection, experience frequent infections or have flu-like symptoms or sores. liver problems can occur with entyvio. if your uc or crohn's treatment isn't working for you, ask your gastroenterologist about entyvio. entyvio. relief and remission within reach.

i don't think there's any way that you can square what the president said with the words of martin luther king jr. and with what he said about dr. king. it's just impossible. there's not any way you can do that. it's unreal. it is unbelievable. it makes me sad. it makes me cry. >> tomorrow the country will recognize the birthday of civil rights icon martin luther king jr. his work to advance the rights for african-americans, particularly the right to vote, sits in stark contrast with racially charged comments the president made earlier this week. on the heels of our first black president from the last, we've seen a number of rollback of core issues on inclusiveness. senior pastor at ebenezer baptist church denounced the president's words from the same pulpit from which dr. king once stood and he joins me now. great to have you with us. you heard or read about the comments made in the oval office. you processed them and then you

made your way to the pulpit, and you talked a lot about africa. you said africa is the reason why america is already great. just walk us through how you process what the president said. >> well, it's good to be here with you, david. thank you. i stand in solidarity with my parishioner and my hero, john lewis, that 'tis just so unreal. the truth of the matter is people of color, african-americans are accustomed to negotiating, if you will, respectable racism, because after dr. king, it's difficult to use these kinds of racist words. they're not a part of polite society, until donald trump. and that's the tragedy we're living with in this moment. this man has really taken the discourse of our national conversation about who we are, what kind of nation we want to be, to a new low. and when we think we've reached a bottom, he goes to yet another low. and so, when i woke up on friday morning and thought about this volcanic eruption of hate speech

spewing from the oval office, and considering where i sit as pastor of ebenezer baptist church, i had to say something. >> the magma had been there for a long time. this was a volcanic eruption, but we've had some in the past. this had been percolating for many months. we've heard other statements from the president. how is this one different from you when you look at that continuum? what changed when you heard what happened on thursday? >> well, you're right, this is consistent with who donald trump is, which is why, you know, it defies fragulity to hear from our senator here in florida, mr. perdue, that this was not said. this is consistent. donald trump began his campaign by saying mexicans are murderers and rapists. he's called muslims, you know, terrorists. he's treated women like objects. he's called black athletes s.o.b.s, and then this awful comment about african nations, haitians have aids.

the only people he seems to think are very fine people are neo nazis and members of the ku klux klan. it's unpresidential. it's undignified, and it's beneath the dignity of his office. we can do much better than this. so, i had to say something. it's consistent with what he's been. and while we condemn the words, i don't want us to miss this moment. in a real sense, his words are consistent with this immigration debate as it has been framed by many on the right. he has just taken the dog whistle and turned it into a scream, but he really reveals the racial underpinnings of much of the debate about this issue. and so, as pastor of ebenezer baptist church, spiritual home of martin luther king jr., i say to politicians who will offer pius pronouncements about dr. king and what he represents this weekend, that you cannot celebrate the dream without

liberating the d.r.e.a.m.ers. we need to give these 800,000 d.r.e.a.m.ers who are in our churches and in our colleges and in our schools a dignified path to citizenship. this is where dr. king would be in this moment. he would say abolish mass incarceration and let's provide health care to all. i don't think the folks, you know, in some of these european countries are interested in coming to the united states. they have universal health care. and dr. king said that of all the injustices, inequality and health care is the most shocking and the most inhumane. and so, we've got to challenge this president, not just in words, but in terms of public policy. >> let me ask you lastly, i'm sure that you're troubled by the discourse and the policy, you must have parishioners who say the same thing to you as well, but what do you say to them who are having trouble finding their way through discourse to get to policy? it's hard to think of policy given what we're reading and what we're hearing. >> yeah, i think that's part of

the game. i do think that there's a level of distraction that goes on here. i don't want to give mr. trump too much credit. i think there's a sense in which this is who he is. and i'm really more focused on defending this nation that we love against trumpism. this country is better than this. we have to keep our eye on the ball. we have to focus on giving the d.r.e.a.m.ers a real chance. we've got to deal with this terrible tax reform bill in which, you know, many of our legislators gather and pick pocketed poor people in broad daylight. this is a massive transfer of wealth. not only is it immoral, it doesn't make any sense. it will not stimulate the economy. and we witnessed this this very week, even as walmart and sam's club enjoyed a huge tax cut, they laid off a whole lot of

people this week. and so, what i'm really concerned about is that in this moment, many of our churches, many of our communities of faith have aided and abetted this moral disaster. and i think when the history books are written, it will be a sad chapter in the history of the american church. if you know the jesus that i preach about on sunday morning, that jesus came preaching good news to the poor. and so, we can't be silent while people rob the poor and stigmatize the poor and malign the poor. african nations, many of them that are suffering, the haitian people who struggle in this moment, they're not just poor. somebody took their wealth, extracted their resources. this is the result of colonialism and slavery and neocolonialism, and our people need to be educated about this in this moment, and i think america at its best represents the hope of people across nationalities and across races. that's what dr. king would be calling us to do in this moment.

>> reverend, great to speak with you. thank you for the time. joining us from atlanta, georgia. still ahead, steve bannon back on capitol hill, this time to testify. will president prtrump's former right-hand man make trouble for the investigation? the latest after the break. your brain is an amazing thing. but as you get older, it naturally begins to change, causing a lack of sharpness, or even trouble with recall. thankfully, the breakthrough in prevagen helps your brain and actually improves memory. the secret is an ingredient originally discovered... in jellyfish. in clinical trials, prevagen has been shown to improve short-term memory. prevagen. the name to remember.

let's team up to get the lady of the house back on her feet. and help her feel more strength and energy in just two weeks yaaay! the complete balanced nutrition of (great tasting) ensure with 9 grams of protein and 26 vitamins and minerals. ensure. always be you. right back, ok? alriyou going to be alright? (vo) i was born during the winter of '77. my dad said i cried for 3 days straight. i first met james when he moved here in the 5th grade. we fell in love and got married right after college. and a few years later, started a family of our own. the boys grew up fast. 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. we know that when you're >> tspending time with thelass grandkids... ♪ music >> tech: ...every minute counts. and you don't have time for a cracked windshield. that's why at safelite, we'll show you exactly when we'll be there. with a replacement you can trust. all done sir. >> grandpa: looks great! >> tech: thanks for choosing safelite. >> grandpa: thank you! >> child: bye! >> tech: bye! saving you time... so you can keep saving the world. >> kids: ♪ safelite repair, safelite replace ♪

welcome back. i'm david gura. in the russia probe, former trump adviser steve bannon set to testify before the house intelligence committee on tuesday in closed session, and to prepare, he hired attorney william burke, who also represents former white house chief of staff reince priebus and current white house counsel don mcgahn. meanwhile, the president now saying that an interview with robert mueller seems unlikely, continuing to insist there was no collusion with russia. >> there has been no collusion. no collusion. bottom line, they all say there's no collusion and there was no collusion. there was absolutely no collusion. everybody knows it. it has been determined that there is no collusion. when they have no collusion and nobody's found any collusion at any level, it seems unlikely that you'd even have an interview. >> the president clear on that point. joining me, malcolm nance, u.s. intelligence veteran for over 30 years and terrorism analyst, and naveed jamal, an msnbc

contributor and double agent. malcolm, let me get your sense of what the house intelligence committee is likely to hear or whants to hear from this witness when he testifies on tuesday. >> well, that depends entirely on which side of the house is asking the questions. on the republican side, we've seen the house side is not as credible as the senate intelligence committee because they appear to be trying to provide cover for the president. you know, the chairman of the committee, devin nunes himself, said he recused himself from this committee but has been actively participating in trying to muddy the waters. the house democrats, on the other hand, they are really going to have the knives sharpened to try to create a circumstance where the information they get in their testimony can be used by the mueller investigation to see if anyone is carrying out perjury. >> let me get your sense of what's happened to

bipartisanship with these investigations. we saw dianne feinstein, ranking member of the senate judiciary committee this week releasing a transcript of glen simpson's testimony before that committee, before committee staffers. it seems like bipartisanship is a done deal there in that committee. it's not there anymore. same is true of the house intelligence committee, as we heard from malcolm nance. is your focus primarily on bob mueller's investigation, in light of all that? i suppose you have the senate intelligence investigation, which still seems solidly bipartisan. >> well, yeah, i think that's right. i think bipartisanship was never in the window to begin with. i think malcolm's absolutely right. look, my own personal experience, having been brought down to brief hpsci, was that the republicans boycotted me when i came down to speak to them. so i think that's absolutely right. look, bob mueller and the fbi, this is not the scooby gang. this is a serious investigation. there is no bipartisanship. and look, the thing that people should remember about bob mueller is that -- and when the fbi as a whole, rather -- is that when the investigation into russian involvement in the election starts here. bob mueller and his team are

going to look at everything, and what they find may be crimes that may, in fact, have nothing to do with the election. this, you know, could be tax evasion or money laundering. those are fair game. so if i'm donald trump, and i don't want to testify, i think it's a wise move, because look, the book is open. whatever that investigation yields is fair game to bring to court, and i think that the trump entourage is rightfully so worried. >> malcolm nance, nbc news reporting that in a matter of weeks we could see the president testifying before bob mueller, testifying giving an interview with bob mueller and his team. what's that likely to look like, do you think, as negotiations take place? do we have a clear sense of what bob mueller wants, and using history as a precedent here, when presidents have had to testify before, a sense of how this is likely to go down? >> well, of course, we don't really know what mueller wants, but based on, you know, the activities that he's had, the people that he's interviewed before, the indictments that he had, you know, if he's going to interview the president, that means he is clearly going after

the president personally for a case of obstruction of justice. i mean, otherwise, there would be no reason to interview him, the president or the vice president, but everybody below him, if it was some crime related to some other circumstance. but you have to recall, that little clip that you played at the beginning of this segment, when the president said no less than 10 or 15 times, no collusion, no collusion. the incident here, what the president is mistaking here is the word collusion. the president should be concerned, quite rightly so, about the word conspiracy. you know, mike flynn, when he was convicted of lying to the fbi, the president has a history here of mastikating and dancing around the truth, definitely. but his former campaign manager, that was the first charge against him, conspiracy against the united states. and if any of this, whether it's

the russia investigation, whether it's money laundering, whatever else, occurs, you know, occurred during the president's term here, you know, that is conspiracy that mueller is going to be looking for. >> malcolm nance, appreciate the team, naveed jamili, thank you as well. midterm madness. republican retirements mean a big push for democrats. we're going it break down the seats that could be at the center of a power struggle. that's a whole different ballgame. i was in shock. i am very proud of the development of drugs that can prevent the rejection and prevent the recurrence of the original disease. i never felt i was going to die. we know so much about transplantation. and we're living longer. you cannot help but be inspired by the opportunities that a transplant would offer. my donor's mom says "you were meant to carry his story". when you have something you love, ♪ you want to protect it. at legalzoom, our network of attorneys can help you every step of the way. with an estate plan including wills or a living trust

that grows along with you and your family. legalzoom. where life meets legal. i'm trying to manage my a1c, and then i learn type 2 diabetes puts me at greater risk for heart attack or stroke.

can one medicine help treat both blood sugar and cardiovascular risk? i asked my doctor. he told me about non-insulin victoza®. victoza® is not only proven to lower a1c and blood sugar, but for people with type 2 diabetes treating their cardiovascular disease, victoza® is also approved to lower the risk of major cv events such as heart attack, stroke, or death. and while not for weight loss, victoza® may help you lose some weight. (announcer) victoza® is not for people with type 1 diabetes or diabetic ketoacidosis. do not take victoza® if you have a personal or family history of medullary thyroid cancer, multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, or if you are allergic to victoza® or any of its ingredients. stop taking victoza® and get medical help right away if you get a lump or swelling in your neck or symptoms of a serious allergic reaction such as rash, swelling, difficulty breathing, or swallowing. serious side effects may happen, including pancreatitis. so stop taking victoza® and call your doctor right away if you have severe pain in your stomach area. tell your doctor your medical history. gallbladder problems have happened in some people.

tell your doctor right away if you get symptoms. taking victoza® with a sulfonylurea or insulin may cause low blood sugar. common side effects are nausea, diarrhea, vomiting, decreased appetite, indigestion, and constipation. side effects can lead to dehydration, which may cause kidney problems. change the course of your treatment. ask your doctor about victoza®. well, a string of republican lawmakers announcing plans to

retire has democrats champing at the bit about the prospects of regaining control of the house of representatives in this year's midterms. joining us with a district-by-district breakdown is msnbc national political correspondent steve kornacki. steve? >> all right, so, yeah, a lot of news this week about republicans retiring in congress, democrats getting excited. why do democrats get excited in general when they hear that? well, they suspect a wave election might be coming in 2018. if it is and you get rid of a popular republican incumbent and you replace it with a wide-open, open-seat race, that advantage could suddenly go to the democrats, more specifically, though, let's take a look at it this way. there are a couple of tiers of targets, seats that democrats are really looking at to try to win back the house this year. let's take them in three different groups here and start with this. what you have here, there's 23 districts that fit this criteria. these are districts where republicans currently represent them. these are republican seats, but each one of these districts you see here in the presidential election in 2016 it went for

hillary clinton. so, obviously, democrats think, look, these are districts we should be able to carry in a trump midterm. so, democrats, of course, need their magic number is 24, a net need 246 to win back the house. the news that got democrats excited was ed royce, republican from california, he's been in this district for a long time, popular with the locals. he says he's retiring. clinton won the district. popular republican retiring, open-seat race. if it becomes the wave year democrats hope it is, that becomes a very, very prime pickup opportunity. same story down here. darrell issa, republican incumbent, clinton district. he says this week he's retiring. these become two prime pickup opportunities for democrats. in arizona, a little different, martha mcsally, popular republican is running for the senate. might help republicans in the senate race in arizona, but that means her house seat in a clinton district, it's now open. it's now up for grabs. earlier this year you saw dave reichert there in washington, you saw ros-lehtinen in florida,

retiring in clinton districts. in total, five republicans in clinton districts say i'm not running in 2018, so that gets democrats excited. remember, 24 being their target. moving this one tier out, we showed you the districts that are clinton districts with republican representatives, how about republicans in districts that trump barely won over hillary clinton in 2016? that's what you're looking at here, republicans in trump districts, but they are barely trump districts. in a wave year, those could flip. already you've got two here, two republicans from this group saying they're retiring. so two open seats. again, those are prime pickup opportunities for democrats. go one more running out, you have single digits, within ten. and you have two republicans from this group who are not running in 2018. so you take those. the two we showed you before, the five earlier, and already you've got nine republicans who are not running for re-election in these sort of, this inner

wrung of districts here where democrats could have a chance in an open race. so again, they need 24. nine's not going to get them there, but nine could be a start. there's other targets here. but the big question that's raised by all of this is, if republicans start to sense a wave is coming, like democrats hope it is, will we see more? will we see more from these districts, these districts, from these districts? will more republicans say i don't like the atmosphere, i am not running? every one from these groups i just showed you who does that, that increases the democrats' chance of taking back the house. back to you, david. >> steve, thank you very much. steve kornacki, national political correspondent, appreciate it this afternoon. joining me, hedge fund manager tom steyer. announced recently he'll spend $30 million heading towards the midterms. a quote from the "washington post," what he'll be targeting. "24 republican-controlled congressional districts and a handful of swing seats currently held by democrats in ten states -- arizona, california, florida, iowa, michigan, nevada,

new hampshire, pennsylvania, virginia and wisconsin." tom, i haven't had to ask you if you're running for something. walk me through this. why did you decide to go about it this way? >> well, david, i said all year through 2017 that what i was trying to figure out is how i and my organization could make the biggest positive difference in moving the united states back to a just and prosperous path. and i don't think anyone believed me, but that's actually exactly what they and i were trying to figure out. and what i decided was, look, we can organize millennials. that's the thing that you're referring to, that $30 million is about organizing people under the age of 35, because it's the largest age cohort in the united states, and they turn out at a fraction of what other voters turn out, other citizens turn out. i thought that was the thing, because no one else really wants that task, that our organization could take it on. that's what we did, a lot of what we did in 2016. we're a grassroots organization. we believe the grassroots is

what counts. we want the broadest democracy, the biggest turnout, the biggest participation, because the answer to our problems as a country is more small-d democracy. >> tom, you made your money as an investor. i listen to you talk about the returns you hope to see here. how do you assess, if this is working in realtime, you've picked the races you're going to focus on, how do you know if it's money well spent? >> look, i think what we saw in the presidential race in 2016 and what we saw in every single race in 2017 is that polling doesn't really work anymore, that the pollsters are dead wrong. so when you ask are we going to -- how are we going to tell? we're going to be able to know what we're doing. we can control our organization, the training of volunteers, the number of conversations we can have between citizen and citizen on the issues, we can count how many people have promised us either that we register, they

promise us they're going to go to the polls. but ultimately, we aren't going to know how this turns out, honestly, david, until november 6th, 2018, when they count the votes and we understand what's happened. >> i want to get your sense, tom, of how you regard the brothers koch and what they've done here. they've created a playbook of their own. you look at their groups. they talk about grassroots efforts as well. they, like you, have a lot of money at their disposal. how similar is what they've done to what you're endeavoring to do here? >> well, i think they're completely different, david. i mean, first of all, i say 2018 is a fight for the soul of america. and if you wanted to see what i think we're fighting against, the koch brothers are a pretty good example. as far as i'm concerned, they're not transparent, they don't -- they've never been on your show. they'll never be on your show. they're secretive. they try and hide the fact. they act in the interest of themselves. and what we're trying to do is something completely different. we're trying to expand democracy in the united states, because we

believe that when the american people are engaged, they make good decisions. and our whole goal is to put power into the hands of the american people in a transparent way, to explain what we're doing, because we actually believe the broadest democracy is our savior. >> tom, before i let you go, i've got to ask you about another project of yours. you've been helping michael wolff with his book sales. he's debuting at number one in no small part because you bought a copy of this for every member of congress. why did you do that? >> david, i'm sure you know, we are running a campaign to let the people speak and insist on the impeachment of this president, the need to impeach campaign. and we've said since october 20, please sign our petition, because we believe he is dangerous and he is a threat to the health and safety of every american. so, when a book comes out like mr. wolff's book that details how he behaves and what kind of dysfunction and, you know,

really bad behavior we're seeing out of the white house, which by the way, we saw last week in which everyone's been discussing on your show, we think it's important that the people, the elected officials in congress, the 435 congresspeople and the 100 senators read that book and see what their responsibilities are, so we bought 535 books. i delivered five of them. a bunch of other volunteers delivered 531 of them, to say if you want to do your job, you should know this president is dangerous to the american people. read the book. >> tom, always great to speak with you. thank you very much. tom steyer joining me this afternoon. >> david, thank you for having me. still ahead, oprah for president. after a powerful speech, buzz about an oprah run in 2020. what the push and pushback says about the acceptance of celebrities in politics today. >> oprah, are you running? >> well, i am a celebrity, so i'm qualified. but i'm different from donald trump because i'm actually a

billionaire. so, who knows. i mean, there's only one job in the world more powerful than being president. >> oh, yeah, what's that? >> being oprah!

so, i want all the girls watching here, now, to know that a new day is on the horizon! and when that new day finally daw dawns, it will be because of a lot of magnificent women, many of whom are right here in this room tonight, and some pretty phenomenal men fighting hard to make sure that they become the leaders who take us to the time when nobody ever has to say me too again. >> after oprah's powerful speech at the golden globes, speculation erupted about whether she'd run for president, some saying she'd be the best chance for the democrats against donald trump. winfrey has not said what her plans are, but if she did decide to become a candidate, she would

join other celebrities like donald trump, ronald reagan and jesse ventura, of course, who have run for office. dan dedario, "the new york times" reporter who followed donald trump on the campaign trail and lisa quarrels. dana, let me get a sense what your anticipation was like going into the speech. when i watched the golden globes in the past, my focus has been on like the conversations on the table, the fact that there is champagne and the fact that people aren't paying attention to what's happening on the stage. what'd you take away from this? >> obviously, the golden globes were different this year because they were overlaid with the new time's up movement where hollywood stars almost 2-1 wore black to protest systemic harassment. so i was anticipating a moving and fiery speech from oprah winfrey. i wasn't anticipating anything political. and indeed, i didn't really think i got anything from it. it was only when i looked at twitter and saw people calling for her to run that i realized it was really hitting people hard in that kind of political area. >> what do you make of it?

she embraced that moment and all of the conversation surrounding what was happened in hollywood. >> daniel is correct. it wasn't a political speech. there was nothing that she said that was a very strong political stance that is, you know, seemed to indicate that she was running for president. i think we should step back a little bit. i mean, there's really no indication that oprah is seriously thinking about running for president. she's repeatedly said over the years that she's never going to run. and so, what was more interesting to me was the reaction, that oh, my god, this speech means that she's running for president or she's thinking about it, and the reaction was more interesting to me than what oprah said. and that to me is kind of like, why are we reacting, why is society as a whole reacting like that? and i wonder if that will be a lasting legacy of donald trump, this notion that when a celebrity goes out there and says something like this, this means the door's open for them to take on, become the most powerful person in the world. >> alicia, comment on that. we're looking at the parameters of this vacuum here if you

extend that little bit further. she stepped into something. there seemed to be a need or hunger to hear what he says. >> i respectfully disagree with both of you gentlemen. i've interviewed oprah many times where she's also told me she didn't plan on running. going into the red carpet, stedman said she might, if the people call for it. that speech was absolutely political historically. because within the black community, whether you want to be a political figure or not, if you're an entertainer, you supersede it and you usually are. "black culture and a new deal" is out which talks about joe lewis and how in the 1930s when he beat the german in boxing, he became a political figure. it touched on oprah's speech it touched on systemic rape and violence, it touched on racism, on unification, as a young person, her watching sidney poitier. these historical moments are also political. >> how did the tone change, to younger people who didn't see her talk show, are we seeing a different oprah in that context and just here in 2018? >> i think it's more revealing of who she is.

so, the beauty about oprah if she did run, we already know who she is. there's no -- we don't have to dissect it. we know that she is this person that cares about women's culture. we know she can hit on the rust belts. her show is in chicago. i think for the younger generation that's seen a lot of divisiveness in politics, as for the highest office in the world, the most powerful person in the world is divisive and they want to step away from it. they're saying wait a minute, you can exceed it, be this person that's unifying. it can be a beautiful thing. >> when you were covering the trump campaign, was there a moment which you saw americans willing to support or engage with a celebrity candidate? did something change during the course of that campaign or was he just appealing to something that was there before, do you think? >> i would say early on, right from the start. but the crowds were always huge for donald trump rallies. they would always line up, you know, hours, if not the night before. and that's not something you're seeing in marco rubio rallies, ted cruz rallies. people would show up to trump rallies dressed as him, you know. sometimes the children would be dressed like him. it was kind of like political

woodstock in some ways, and that's something that was unmatched by any other candidate in the field, whether hillary clinton, bernie sanders, rubio, cruz, huckabay, santorum, you name it. now, could oprah, you know, harness some of that? i suppose she could. i mean, most people didn't think donald trump could, and yet, here we are. the only thing is, what we don't know in bringing this back to oprah is that we don't know where she really stands on this, right? i mean, her daytime talk show was kind of apolitical until, you know, i think in the 2000s. but we don't know where she stands on things like medicare and you know, all sorts of policy issues. that's something that she'll have to engage with i think, if this is a serious thing going forward. i'm sorry. >> i didn't mean to cut you off. i say with oprah, we can trace the dollars. she's been very political in where her money goes. remember, she's the one in a primary race that endorsed obama who went against a woman and that could have alienated her base. >> but that was her first ever endorsement.

>> true, but it could have alienated it and it didn't. >> thank you very much for the time. we're going to be right back here on msnbc.

well, that's it for us. i'm david gura. the news continues right now with yasmin vossoughian. >> thank you, david. have a good rest of your day. by the way, for the record, i do not think oprah winfrey is going to run for president. i'm just throwing that out there. i'm yasmin vossoughian. false alarm and new questions raised about whether the u.s. is prepared for a nuclear attack following yesterday's frightening scare in hawaii.

keeping the dream alive. with five days to go, will congress be able to save daca and avoid a government shutdown? an offensive play. republicans spend their sunday on the defense trying to bail out the president following his derogatory comments about haitian and african immigrants. here we go, everybody. >> secretary, you were in that meeting in the oval office. did the president say that? >> i don't recall him saying that exact phrase. >> i'm telling you he did not use that word, george, and i'm telling you it's a gross misrepresentation. how many times do you want me to say that? >> i didn't hear that either. >> i was in a meeting directly afterwards where those who presented to the president our proposal spoke about the meeting, and they said those words were used before those words went public. >> it's unfair to sort of draw conclusions from a remark that i think wasn't constructive, is the least we can say, and i think it's unfair to sort of all of a sudden paint him, oh, well, he's a racist, when i know for a fact that he cares very deeply about the people in haiti. >> one of the things that we