it's what keeps me goin'. this is a gross representation. i'm saying this is a gross misrepresentation. it's a gross misrepresentation. >> people jumped a little bit to conclusion. >> i didn't hear that word either. >> you say it didn't happen? >> i didn't hear it. >> i don't recall hearing him saying that exact phrase. i don't recall that specific phrase. >> the president reacted with pretty tough language. >> the president will use strong language when it comes to this issue. >> it was hurtful, harmful, shouldn't be said.

let's move on. >> his comments re-ignited the debate whether the president is a racist. >> stunning remarks. >> is the president of the united states of america a racist? >> do you think president trump is a racist. >> people misinterpreted he's a racist. >> what he's showing us is he's a racist. >> no question what he said was racist. >> that's ridiculous. >> i think he makes racist comments. >> you don't help somebody with an alcohol problem by constantly calling him a drunk. >> i take a little bit of offense and suggestions that the president is racist. >> were the comments racist, do you think? >> um, well i think they were, yes. welcome back to kasie dc. president trump spoke to reporters last hour in wet palm beach, florida where he denied making those profane comments about immigration and he

answered that question for himself about whether or not he's a racist. >> did you see what other senators in the room said about the comments that were made. [ inaudible ] >> no i'm not a racist. >> he says i'm the least racist person you have ever interviewed. joining me now senior writer for politico and co-author of the politico playbook, jake sherman. former democratic congresswoman from maryland donna edwards. nbc news political editor and former chief of staff to the cia and department of defense, msnbc national security analyst jeremy bash. thank you all for being here. congresswoman the president says he's not a racist. go. >> i'm not a crook. i think if it walks like a duck, talks like a duck and it's a duck.

the president demonstrated not just with these comments but with a series of comments over a long period of time and behavior dating back long before he became president of the united states that he's a racist and i think the euphemisms is tiring. it's not necessary to use them any more. >> jake sherman i couldn't help notice kevin mccarthy standing next to him. i remember when paul ryan endorsed the president back during the campaign and the "new york daily news" used the same word for the president, we've been talking about here. what is the mood among republicans on capitol hill right now about this discussion? >> god this is a discussion they don't want to have, i would say. listen the president keeps bringing it up. the republicans tell me all the time they need to spend the next 12 months selling tax reform, hammering into the public conscious they lowered many people's tax rates.

we're looking at a political landscape where republicans can lose 40 or 50 seats. to have discussions about racism and immigration and anything besides what the president has done for the economy, i don't think republicans want to have period. >> you are paying close attention to the math and to jake's point about whether or not this is really where republicans want this conversation to be. and we're talking a little bit earlier how there's been some suggestion that the president initially when he made these comments thought he was making a play to that core base of supporters. he re-evaluated it since then and said i never said that. >> part of the issue for democrats is not just the math it's the fact that democrats have a big advantage when it comes to intensity. when you ask voters how involved are you in the mid-term election, how much attention are you paying to the mid-term elections and particularly dislike of the president. so the percentage who strongly

disapprove of the president right now is 48. percentage of republicans who strongly approve of the president is half that. that's the kind of motivation that brings voters out that keeps them motivated. every time the president is in a news cycle with an outrage obvious comment it keeps those people who are already paying attention to the mid-terms it keeps them engaged, keeps them wanting to pay attention, searching the ad to know where their polling places are. >> it's a really good point. this also of course putting republicans in difficult positions as we showed you. earlier today on "meet the press" with chuck todd senator rand paul of kentucky offered the following explanation for the president's comments. >> unfair to draw conclusions from a remark that wasn't constructive is the least we can say and unfair all of a sudden to paint him as a racist. the only thing i regret although some people in the media have gone completely bonkers, but what i regret i do want to see an immigration compromise and you can have an immigration

compromise if everybody out there is calling the president a racist. >> jeremy bash what do you make of the position this is putting republicans in. president wins fights he picks with the media. >> i don't agree with rand paul it's unconstructive to label the president's actions. if the president is acting in a way to affect his ability, then, yes, that's a problem. the problem is not his words. the problem is lack of actions. >> let's talk about -- where does the rubber meet the road on daca deal? this came out of a private meeting about trying to hammer this compromise. we've been going along with tuneding that both sides did actually want to reach a bipartisan deal. do you think that is the -- the

chances of that are out the window or is there still a way to get this done. >> we're now four days ahead of a government funding deadline when congress comes back on tuesday and they are nowhere. i think at some point in the very near future democrats are going to fine it not in their interest to cut a potentially controversial immigration deal with a guy who is talking behind the scene, the president is, about immigrants wane that a lot of them find detestable. i think that's a big dynamic. there's no question, though, the president is getting one thing wrong here. i think it is -- democrats want a daca deal. they are the most fired up about a daca deal. nancy pelosi and chuck schumer have been promising since september. so i think the president has his incentive structure a little bit off. >> do you think, congresswoman

the democrats have given up too much in this debate, even the contours of the bipartisan deal that included additional border security, changes to family migration. are democrats giving away too much as they try to get this deal or not? >> i don't think so. i think democrats had assumed republicans were negotiating in good faith and there was always

going to be a compromise on daca, but democrats are also serious about daca. you heard already some senate republicans and democrats and house democrats saying, you know what? no daca, no deal. so i think that they are -- since the president's comments they are actually digging deeper and make it much more complicated to get a deal. >> what's your sense of the political calculus here for democrats? i mean to a certain extent chuck schumer is in a difficult position. caught between -- first of all and we shouldn't minimize this. there are hundreds of thousands of kids that are really at the center are of all of this. but there's a lot of pressure on the left for democrats not to be seen at all with the president. whereas chuck schumer has a handful of moderate democrats he has to protect in 2018. >> one thing about this particular issue, the dreamers, it's an extremely sympathic position. extending these conditions for daca has remained popular throughout president obama's tenure and trump's tenure. 70% of americans want to see these protections extended. i think for people on both sides what is very tricky about this is exactly what you said. these are hundreds of thousands of people. they have compelling stories. as democrats continue to publicize those stories that takes front and center beyond any of the, you know, of the other parts of border security, et cetera. the human element of this is very compelling for democrats and is what they rely on. >> this week is going to be a

big one on capitol hill to say the least. on tuesday steve bannon the former white house chief strategist is scheduled to testify before the house intelligence committee. let's bring in democratic congressman from illinois. he sits on the intelligence committee and is planning to be there during bannon's testimony. congressman thank you very much for your time tonight. i would like to know first, what is your top question for steve bannon? how does he fit into your investigation? >> well, not confirming who is appearing before us but obviously mr. bannon is a great interest given his role during the campaign and administration. the main interest is something that the investigation hasn't touched on. money laundering. i thought it was just fascinating he pulled that out of the book that he said this investigation is going to end up being all about money laundering. i think he mentioned mr. kushner in there and deutsche bank. fascinating combination given that deutsche bank was fined $630 million for their involvement in a $10 billion russian money laundering scheme and, obviously, mr. manafort has already been indicted for money laundering.

so there's a lot to learn and i hope mr. bannon will share some of that with us beyond what we learned in the book. >> did that book, i mean one of the comments that, obviously, got under the president's skin it seems was talking about donald trump jr. talking about donald trump jr. and that meeting with russians at trump tower being treasonous and unpatriotic. would you say your interest in steve bannon based on that assessment is heightened maybe? >> i would like to know what he knows and if knows anything about what the president learned about that meeting before it happened or after it happened. i thought it was interesting he mentioned that it was zero -- i think he said something like zero chance that he didn't take

those people he met with right up to meet his father. i don't know if that's true. but i find it very hard to believe that at least the president's son didn't share that that meeting was going to take place, what the purpose of that meeting was, and what happened after the fact. very hard to imagine that given the significance of that meeting and what they were trying to accomplish, get dirt on hillary clinton, he didn't share that with his father. >> congressman, jeremy bash has a question for you. >> if steve bannon does appear before the committee and i under you're not confirming who will be before the committee but if you have an opportunity to question him will you ask him about what the president did in term of the decision to fire jim comey, the obstruction question that bob mueller is also investigating? >> given the role that mr. bannon played in the campaign and, again, in the administration, it's pretty easy to imagine that he had a ring side seat to what took place so that's just one of the many questions we would like to know. why did he fire mr. comey. what about general flynn? obvious question about general

flynn. we now know and he's pled guilty to lying about meeting with the russian ambassador about those sanctions president obama put on the russians for what they did during our election. so there's a multitude of questions, obviously, all of those are fair game. >> congressman jake sherman, from politico has a question. >> this investigation has dragged on many months. i wonder if you can give us an update on when you think it will wrap up and what's the mood between democrats and republicans on the panel. obviously, been contentious at points. can you give us an update on that. >> probably not going bowling any time soon. in fairness, mr. conway has tried to do the best he can despite the fact the white house and chairman of the committee has made it extremely difficult. i think we interviewed about half as many witnesses as the senate investigation. we obviously have a lot more

that we have to do. i challenge the word drag. i would like this to go a lot quicker but the fact is many of the subpoenas would have sent out, witnesses we would like to bring back. that's not happening. some witnesses like mr. kushner were rushed in when we didn't have all of their documentation. so if we move back to the beginning of this investigation -- if the president of the united states had said we're going to cooperate fully, he could have said what he said all along that this is a witch-hunt but we're going to cooperate fully, meaning his campaign officials and everybody who worked for him at the white house. this investigation would have gone a lot smoother and we would have been a lot farther along. then the president could know whether or not we found anything that hurts his administration. >> congressman mike quigley of illinois, thank you for your time tonight. i appreciate it. jeremy bash, i want to ask you about the mueller

investigation and the president's willingness it seems as though he changed gears on whether or not he's willing to talk to mueller. how do you think that plays out? is it possible that the president will be able to get out of doing an interview with him? can he just straight up refuse? >> he could try to refuse but ultimately mueller has the grand jury. if there's a subpoena from the grand jury for the president's testimony the president's lawyers could file a motion in federal district court to walsh that subpoena. that would be litigated up to the supreme court. i don't think ultimately the president of the united states could avoid answering questions but he may be able to delay it. >> certain lir interesting. up next my interview mark meadows of north carolina. his take on daca and the president's comments behind closed doors. and later democrats look to ride the wave of republican departures in congress. we'll map out the races in place. kasie dc will be back right after this.

welcome back to kasie dc. earlier this evening just a little bit before the president made those comments defending himself as not a racist i spoke to congressman mark meadows. he insisted he does not believe the president is a racist. first of all, i want to ask you about the president's reported comments, he referred to immigrants from african countries from haiti using an

expletive. what's your reaction? was that comment racist? >> we won't be debating what he said or didn't say in the oval office, we'll be talking about daca and how to fix that. so, i don't see the president as a racist at all. i've probably spent more time with him on one-on-one than most members and i can tell you he's never, never had a racist comment in private and so i have it on good authority that some of the contextual comments that have been put forth by senator durbin may be not what they are reported to be. >> with all due respect senator graham has confirmed he made these comments as well and again do you believe that these don't were racist? >> well, you know, whether we're debating whether a country, you

know, has certain type of plumbing or not or whether we're debating whether nancy pelosi's five guys comment is racist, i think you have to get to the bottom line. what americans want us to do is to deal with the problem that faces us, and really this is a problem that we've got to find a solution to. i don't know that dick durbin releasing this information was helpful in terms of that process. but i can tell you, the president is not racist. i've had a number of conversations with him. i have zero tolerance for that and as we -- we know on capitol hill this coming week is all going to be about funding and about daca and how we get some resolution on those two items and that's what the american people want us to address. >> is this language that you would use to describe these countries? >> you know, i use all kinds of different language. normally not as colorful.

i'm on the foreign affairs committee, kasie as you well know. i enjoy a great relationship with a number of ambassadors all over the country. overall what we'll see is that the united states is a good friend to developing countries as well as those allies abroad and at the end of the day you'll find us come together on that particular issue. >> do you agree with the substance of what the president said here that the united states should have fewer immigrants from countries in africa, from haiti, from el salvador than it should from countries like norway? >> i can tell you what the president has been very vocal. i actually have been dealing with him on immigration for several weeks, actually several months as we've done that and met with him in the oval office multiple times. one of the things that i find really interesting and it's an interesting dichotomy as we look at this particular issue, he's continued to come back to me and asked me to do two things.

try to find a bill that dick durbin would be happy with in the senate but the other thing that he's been consistent on is bringing in merit based immigration. when you look at merit based immigration, it doesn't have any particular threshold for a country here or there, it's all about making sure that we get the brightest and best coming here in addition to our normal refugee program that would reach out for humanitarian purposes. so he's been very consistent on the merit base side of things which would indicate that he's open to having immigrants come here from every where. but i will say that we've got to get a system that actually works, kasie. you know that for decades under republican and democrat administrations we failed to deal with this. i feel we're like at the threshold of finally being able to address it. if we can get a bipartisan agreement before the president

i'm sure he'll sign it. >> up mentioned this bipartisan agreement. the president tweeted earlier today daca is probably dead because democrats don't really want it they just want to talk and take desperately money needed away from our military. do you agree with the assessment that this daca deal is probably dead and, again, what role do you think the president's inflammatory comments play in how this debate will go forward? >> i mean whether a private conversation in the oval office ended up being on headlines really is probably came from dick durbin not from the president and so any fallout certainly would rest equally on dick durbin's shoulders if he's really trying to negotiate in good faith. let's look at history. you're a reporter, kasie and you know each and every day if you ask a democrat what they are saying, they just want to deal with the daca issue first and then deal with the rest of the immigration issues later. they have been consistent, almost --

>> sir they have said they will support border security. that has been something that many democrats voted for in the past. >> well, the definition of border security, their idea and really what most americans and what this president campaigned on is very different as you well know. i mean when we're looking at border security we're really not only looking at just a physical wall but we're looking at making sure that what we do is we can keep track of the people that come here. that we can have a legal immigration system that makes sure that those that really seek to do us harm do not come in. but beyond that, they have been very reluctant to do any of that. i think that's what the president is talking about. he's saying negotiate in good

faith. i'm willing to go all in and have gone all in, perhaps sometimes pushing a little bit further than what i'm comfortable doing to say let's get a fix and make sure that we deal with these individuals who have had deferred action but let's also deal with the underlining problems so we don't have to come back in a few years to deal with it again. >> the principles that were negotiated by that bipartisan group of six senators including lindsey graham and dick durbin presented at the white house is that framework something that you potentially could support or do you think supporting those principles would amount to the president breaking his promises on immigration? >> well, i wouldn't support it and it would be breaking the promises that the president made and if you really look at it, it's not a serious proposal, kasie. i mean, you know, let's look at this. when you say we got a bipartisan agreement and listen senator

lindsey graham is a dear friend of mine. i enjoy working with him on a number of issues. but when it comes to immigration this is all wrong. it's not making the case to move forward. bob goodlatte has a bill that's been introduced. if he start there and look at that particular bill and find where we can fine common ground with our democratic colleagues. >> congressman, before i let you go i want to ask you about the possibility of a government shutdown later on this week. you have been somebody who has been very critical and leading the charge on these government spending issues. we're looking at another resolution to keep the government open. are you at the point where you could support that as these negotiations continue onward or not? >> you know, we're going to be meeting, kasie, on tuesday night, not only as a conference but as a freedom caucus. i am concerned that we continue to kick the can down the road. >> congressman mark meadows i'll see you on capitol hill. thank you so much for coming in tonight. i appreciate it. >> great to be with you. when we continue, the retirement house. we'll talk about what big

changes in congress do and don't mean for the mid-terms. wish your skin could bounce back like it used to? neutrogena hydro boost water gel. with hyaluronic acid it plumps skin cells with intense hydration and locks it in. for supple, hydrated skin. hydro boost. from neutrogena

welcome back to kasie dc. president trump said back in june that he would be quote glad to speak with special counsel robert mueller. but this week he seemed a little more reluctant. >> we'll see what happens. i mean certainly i'll see what happens. but when they have no collusion and nobody has found any collusion at any level it seems unlikely that you would even have an interview. >> those comments came after the president attacked the top democrat on the senate judiciary committee. senator diane feinstein for releasing the transtestimony of testimony of clint simpson. she even got her own nickname sneaky diane. here's what james lankford told me how he views the significance

of that dossier. >> i think it's important to find out if it's factual. that's the issue from the very beginning. this dossier come up with these sordid details and wild accusations where everybody immediately asked where did this come from? for the longest no one knew. now we know the sources were russian in the clinton campaign and dnc paid for it so then it becomes a question of who knew who paid for it cane verify it. >> details are verifiable. does it matter. >> details are verifiable. it doesn't matter who paid for it. details not verifiable it certainly matters who paid for it. that's the challenge. if sources are russian sources we don't know who they are and

why they were getting the information and what they knew about the product then we don't know. the challenge that we have is that the russians historically for the last several decades have played both sides of the elections, have prepared themselves to attack whoever they want to on whatever side. >> do you think the president is blind to this? do you think the president needs to talk more about this? >> the president is two fold on this. that's my perception. he and i don't talk about these issues a lot. in the times i've been around him and heard him speak about it heard him say if the russians were involved we should confront. i didn't do anything. there was no collusion. if the russians were reaching in to do something that's one issue we need to address but we need to be clear i didn't do it. >> he's willing to believe vladimir putin. >> i think the president still feels that there are individuals saying woe never have been president except the russians. the president is constantly pushing back on that. there's no evidence the russians changed any votes and if the

russians were trying to reach and interfere there needs be consequences. i won the election fair and square. people to undercut his election. >> do you think that the president should sit down with robert mueller? >> that's a tough call. quite frankly it goes back to bill clinton's testimony, meeting with special counsel. again that was supposed to be closed, that leaked all out. that was on the other side from republicans. wrong thing to do at that time as well. >> leaks were the wrong thing. >> leaks transparent wrong thing, that's correct. i would say to the president and he's obviously got good counsel much better than i. if he can answer the questions in writing to make sure it's perfectly clear, no secret that the president is not always careful in how he says things and people come back and say i'm confused you said this. he comes back and said no this is what i meant the whole time. if he can make it very clear so there's no dispute about what he's trying to say. but i don't think he has anything to hide. he's been very clear on that. >> jeremy bash the senator says it's a tough call.

>> it's an easy call. the president if he has to tell his side of the story he should do so. tell the truth and to be done with it. >> what is your take about the steel dossier, if there are details in that dossier that's not true then it does matter very much who paid for it. when i talk to democrats it's almost the exclusion of all else. >> what they should talk about we know there were conversations between trump campaign officials and individuals working on behalf of the russian government. papadopoulos has pled guilty and we know there was the trump tower meeting. does it amount to full collusion -- and the president and his senior advisors wanted to reach out to russia quietly secretly during the transition and mike flynn lied about it.

the fact that the steel dossier has certain details that are correct, certain details that are not correct bears on the president's culpability. >> thank you so much. when we come back we're going to have carrie dan deal into the congressional races and 0-steve bannon's candidates are likely to fair.

the announcement from republican congressman darrell issa he'll not be seeking re-election means there are 30 house republicans either retiring or running for higher office. the announcement last week from issa's fellow california

republican ed royce he'll be retiring mean eight gop are kwaulg -- calling it quits. this is what you spend every day doing behind-the-scenes here. can you put this in a little bit of historical context. how does it help us understand whether or not there will be a democratic wave. >> we look at previous waves. there are 30 open republican seats right now. more than in 2010, more than in 2006, more than in 1994. already starting with playing field where republicans have to play defense. looking into these seats obviously not every one of these 30 is going to be competitive, although having an open seat is never something you want to have as an incumbent party when your president is in the white house. but of those 30, right, so five of them are in districts that hillary clinton won. 23 districts nationwide that are represented by a republican that hillary clinton won, five of those are now open because of these retirements. additional three were within eight points of hillary clinton winning.

so, obviously, you got just eight of those 30 already are beginning as places where democrats will have an advantage. then you look inside the demographics of these districts where there are open seats. two places that democrats are going to do better than republicans are districts that are more diverse than the national average and ones where the college educated is above the national average. 12 are diverse, 11 of them have a higher college educated. you're starting with a map with those seats that democrats feel are competitive. a lot of those places are expensive to advertise in. california is pricey. republicans will have outside money advantage but still for democrats great way to make republicans spend their money all over the country. >> donna edwards it seems if these districts are more diverse than usual then the debate between the president's approval rating and the things we've been talking about every day seems to

point to a wave. >> i think it does and i think one of the things that carey said earlier the intensity among democrats is really high. i think you look at a state like california it's fertile ground for democrats. you know, i think democrats feel really confident but it's early in the year. we couldn't predict this is where we would be right now in 2018 at this time in 2017. >> jake sherman you had a scoop in playbook about paul ryan's challenger. i do think it's interesting hat you reported about the speaker's democratic challenger. >> randy bryce raised $1.2 million. he's won and lost for office many times over the last couple of years in wisconsin. what people don't realize paul ryan has a competitive district in wisconsin.

he's just been a good fit for that district for a very long time and i believe still is a good fit for the district according to people on both sides of the aisle he doesn't have a real challenge. bryce is raising a lot of money because of the mood. a couple of data points. you see across the country republicans who have never had any problems politically in a lot of trouble. some one like john culberson is in trouble. i want to point out this immigration deal to bring it full circle. if you had an issue what would depress the base -- immigration depresses the republican voter base so you have both a national mood where republicans are in trouble, plus the base might not even say hey listen these people supported an immigration deal we don't lying. a lot of things in the stew that makes for what cary said right. things are shaping up to be historically bad for republicans. >> nancy pelosi and chuck schumer when asked them about this they seem more than happy to talk about this.

when we continue from rocking in the suburbs to rock the symphony orchestrate, ben folds join us on set to get millennials to care about classical music. back after this.

welcome back. our next guest has an impressive set of accolades. he's toured around the world. yes even opening for bernie sanders. now he's the first-ever artistic advisor for the national symphony orchestra here in d.c. he's a guest here on kasie dc. what brings you to d.c.. you are now working with the national symphony orchestra. why is that so important to you? >> i've been playing with the

orchestra, youth orchestras when i was a kid, 8 years old i was doing this. it means a lot to me to keep it alive. and maybe last 15 years been playing loads of orchestra shows and so the national symphony orchestra asked if i would be interested in putting together some series for them to try to take classical music and pop music and put them together in a new audience could hear classical music. >> right. so one of the things -- it's not this song you guys are performing now in the clip we're showing but when you came into the show that was "brave." i was having flashbacks i was at your concert friday night covering the hillary clinton campaign that was a song they used to play quite a bit. how do you think and you, i believe, performed or appeared at both political conventions. how do you view this intersection between politics and music. why did you decide to go to both conventions. >> i was going to bat for the national endowment of the arts.

there's a lot of support on both sides for that. i was interested in both perspectives and saying what i thought. something i cared about a lot. i found a lot of support on both sides that's why i was there. >> what do you think the role -- you supported bernie sanders in the primary and i think we actually have some pictures of you opening up for bernie sanders. you and i were at the same event on super tuesday. i turn out bernie sanders for quite some time. but, obviously, our political environment is very different than anybody expected going into election night. what do you think is the role of music and art in putting it in the context of your own political view?

to have a piano player, you know, player piano to multi track recording and we're just -- you know, everyone who has an idea has to -- has to get on with that. to me, highways the main change. i think talent remains. there's always amazing talent. there's always amazing music. but technology is what changes the most. the reason i'm interested if in keeping the symphony orchestra alive is because there's nothing really like it. it is a -- it's like the great artistic symbol of organization. it's people working together doing something that's greater than the individual. i feel like this we lose that, that's a symbol we can't afford to lose. so as the music has seen changes, i really want to keep the symphony orchestra in the middle of it. >> for what it's worth, i

completely agree with you. thank you for your time tonight. i really appreciate it. when we return, what to watch for in the week ahead.

okay, ready . we're back with more breaking news and, parents, if you're watching with children, you might want to mute for the next 35 seconds. >> quote, s-hole countries. >> s-hole countries. >> s-hole countries come -- >> s-holes. >> they would say sinkhole or whatever the word -- >> it's not sipg. >> blank-hole countries. >> blank countries. >> you know, caca holes. >> from ex blah had active countries -- >> all these people from bleep countries. >> bleep hole -- >> these are -- you go the point. you know what he says. >> oh, dear. before we go, we want to talk

about what you are watching in the week ahead. but first, i want to go to an unbelievable finish in tonight's vikings/saints game in minnesota. take a look. >> steps into it. pass is caught. sideline touchdown! unbelievable. vikings win it! >> that is a 61-yard completion from case keenum on the final play of the game giving the vikings a victory over the saints, truly amazing. they are going to go on to play any philadelphia eagles at home in philadelphia. if the viking are to win, they would play their first home super bowl in minnesota. now, what are you watching in the week ahead? >> government shutdown fight. the government runs out of monday on friday. congress will be in session for four days. they don't have a history of getting things done quickly and

effectively. >> i feel like people are still saying, oh, there's fought going the to be a shutdown. democrats don't want to shut down, the president doesn't want to shut down. but again, i feel like i'm going into this not quite having my head around how they solve it. >> they've done it once on their own. i don't know how they do it again and there is a lot of animus right now between the daca stuff and not getting a long-term deal. i think it will be a messy week. >>. >> we're going into a record number of republicans going into a midterm year. if you decide you want to throw in the towel, these are the couple weeks to do it. we might have more coming. >> i know we talked about historical indicators, but it does feel to me -- and jake, you're up on the hill every day, as well -- as though democrats are -- i don't know that they're

counting their ducks already, but i feel like every time you ask nancy pelosi or chuck schumer, they basically think the democrats are going to walk through this. >> the average, if the president's approval rating is under 50% over the last decades, the party in power has lost 40 seats. i think that's a baseline that democrats are eyeing. it's early, but the signs are edging that way. >> thanks, carrie. that does it for us. we will be back with you next week from 7:00 to 9:00 p.m. eastern live from washington. for now, good night and we leave you with this from "saturday night live." >> steve, do you think they'll ever let you back into politics? >> yes and on the cannon's terms, too, as a kingmaker. i convinced this country to elect donald. and i can do it again. already auditioning candidates. got some prospects. logan paul. party strelli, the subway game,

jared fogel. he's back, he's electable. it's time for america to slide down the bannonster. fallout after the president's alleged use of a word during immigration talks. plus, sheer panic in hawaii after a false missile alert, now there's an investigation open into what went wrong and try to keep from happening again. and after days of searching, officials in california now shift from from rescue to recovery following last wooeek' deadly mudslides. the death toll has reached 20 and at least four more people are still missing. good morning, everyone. it's monday, january the 15th.