friend and colleague -- yeah. >> now it is time for our dear friend and colleague, "andrea mitchell reports" who anchors "andrea mitchell reports." >> right now on "andrea mitchell reports," memo mayhem. president trump and the fbi at war over the threatened release of that secret memo. with the president's hand-picked fbi director issuing a grave warning. and republicans ignoring what the intelligence community calls a danger to national security. >> i will tell you, i have always believed in the public's right to know, and i stand by that principle, but we'll respect whatever decision the president makes concerning that memo. hope and change. a former spokesman for the president's legal team reportedly ready to tell all to the special counsel about a possible cover-up by the president's closest aide, hope hicks. >> at one point, she says well,

look, don't worry about those e-mails, those will never see the light of day. so he's going to go down and tell mueller look, i was concerned that that was a hint of obstruction. and team player. the president reportedly asked a deputy attorney general man in charge of the mueller probe, are you on my team? that makes him the latest to be asked to take a loyalty oath. good day. i'm andrea mitchell in washington, where the trump administration could release that explosive devin nunes memo at any time. despite warnings from both the fbi and other intelligence officials that it would severely damage national security. white house officials tell nbc news president trump has read the memo as delivered to the white house but democrats say the version sent to the white house was quote, materially changed after it was approved by the committee. approved despite their objections. a claim nunes' spokesman has denied. joining me with the very latest

developments, nbc white house correspondent kristen welker, nbc national security and justice reporter julia ainsley and "new york times" chief white house correspondent peter baker. what is the latest from the white house as to when this memo will be released and what redactions may or may not have been made? >> reporter: well, here's the latest that we know. as you just said, according to multiple white house officials, president trump has seen the memo. as for the timing, that seems to be up in the air a bit. overnight we were given indications that it could be released as early as today. now one senior administration official here cautions there's no guarantee that it's going to happen today. but taking a step back, by all indications, everything that the president has said publicly, he plans to essentially release this memo so what will that process look like? well, once there's a decision here at the white house, then the white house counsel would alert the appropriate committee, the house intelligence committee, and then it would be

through that committee that they would determine how the memo will ultimately be released. so the timing, still very much tbd. in terms of redactions, i have been told to expect some redactions, that that is a likely part of this process. we know the president has been consulting with his chief of staff, he's been consulting with his white house counsel. there is also a review by the national security team. so this is a process that has gone through a number of different stages and steps. again, though, at this hour, it's still not clear whether the memo will ultimately be released and what timing that will have. as you point out, the democrats are still trying to block its release. >> the democrats have, of course, not been successful in that at all. julia, if there are quote, redactions, will that get to the fundamental underlying criticism of the democrats and of, of course, chris wray at the fbi? that this is a real challenge to national security? >> exactly. i don't think it does. i was just speaking to fbi

officials this morning who say that the problem here is not removing information, it's the fact that nunes is not including enough information of what led to this fisa warrant. so they think that no matter how many redactions you put in, you cannot get to the fact that they are telling a false narrative that will hurt the fbi, and there's nothing they can do about it because in order to get more information, they would be breaking that same rule of giving out classified information. >> and let's go to the "new york times" because it's the "new york times" reporting that has driven a lot of this about hope hicks. peter baker, what do we know about hope hicks and whether or not there is a possible coverup, as has been alleged apparently by the spokesman for the legal team who resigned at the time? >> yeah. this is a very explosive idea, the idea that these e-mails would never see the light of day. now, i imagine you can interpret those words in different ways but the fact mark carallo who at

the time was working for president trump's legal team, interpreted

>> well, my colleague peter alexander just spoke with a number of white house officials who confirm that the white house has, in fact, agreed to some redactions in the fisa memo at the fbi's request but again, those officials stress that there has been no final decision here at the white house. of course, as we have been reporting on, president trump is in west virginia today. he's going to be addressing republicans there about the agenda and the path forward. but all of this, the fact that you have these developments now by the minute i think underscores the fact that we are in uncharted territory. that's something the white house and lawmakers on capitol hill acknowledge, and they are sort of feeling their way as they go here, as it relates to this highly controversial memo. >> julia, in talks with the fbi, fundamental to this, is how unusual it was that christopher wray signed off on he's a trump

hand-picked appointee to replace james comey, and he signed off on this extraordinary statement from the fbi yesterday, saying as expressed during our initial review, we have grave concerns about material omissions of fact that fundamentally impact the memo's accuracy, which is what you were just expressing. >> exactly. this is someone again who the president put there himself. he thought that this would be the answer to his problems by firing james comey. instead, he now has an fbi director who is saying that mr. president, you are about to make a fundamental mistake and add to that the fact that the president has already pressured mccabe, who just stepped aside, the deputy director, saying that he asked him who he voted for. there's just been a lot of pressure, when the president thinks he has someone there who is loyal, he tests that loyalty and pushes him to this point. >> let me just, peter baker, go through with you a compilation of all of the things that have happened from our team, from ken

dilanian and others about what is not normal about what's happening here. first of all, that the fbi and doj are publicly objecting to the release of a document the white house says is going to be released, the president said as he walked out of the state of the union, it's 100% going to be released before he had even read it. the fbi and doj are discussing pending criminal investigations with congress. that is not done. the fbi and doj gave the nunes committee sensitive investigative documents, not done. the agency that was the source of classified material was excluded from the process of whether it should be shared or declassified, that the house intelligence committee chairman refuses to share classified documents with senate intelligence committee chairman, who is a republican, that government officials are exposing secret materials thought to shed light on surveillance under fisa which is among the crown jewels of intelligence information. >> you are absolutely right. this is not usual. look, there are obviously fights all the time about what can and can't be released, whether to declassify this or that.

this is so out of the norm for that kind of a process, both because of the way it's been handled and because of, you know, obviously sensitive issue at hand which is involving the investigation into the president of the united states and the federal bureau of investigation. if you are in the white house, what they have to worry about right now is what will chris wray do. julia mentioned, this is a trump appointee, somebody they cannot portray as part of the deep state, somebody they cannot portray as part of the obama loe hold over legacy and what will he do if this memo is released without redactions and alterations he considers sufficient. would he actually step down or remain in that job? it's hard to imagine going through two fbi directors in less than 12 months. but that's the scenario the white house faces right now. it's a big-time revolt by the chief law enforcement agency of this country and something we haven't seen in washington in a long, long time. >> indeed, not in some 40 years.

the crisis is really escalating. thank you so much for teeing it up, peter, kristen and julia. president trump's political allies are not leaving it there. they are taking this fight about his fbi director, about that statement from the bureau, warning against the memo's release. >> if you want an example of the deep state, you apparently had the head of the fbi go to the white house with the deputy attorney general, make his case to the white house, they're his superiors in the executive branch, and get turned down. he then goes back and apparently puts out a release, in effect, it's an open rebellion. you have the director of the fbi putting out a release attacking the president for what the president apparently has decided to do because he didn't listen to the head of the fbi. this is a level of bureaucratic deep state resistance that should be educational for every american. >> joining me now is msnbc national security analyst frank

fiuglisi, chief operating officer for ets risk management. and jeffrey smith, former general counsel at the cia. frank, first to you, among your fbi former colleagues, what is the conversation about whether christopher wray has now set himself up, understanding he may face a critical decision of whether or not to resign in protest if this memo is released as is? >> there is tremendous uncertainty right now in the ranks at the bureau but there is also respect developing for christopher wray for doing the right thing. you hear that quote from newt gingrich that you just played. he should know better about national security and intelligence. it's not that the fbi is challenging their president. it's rather that the fbi is trying to explain that there are extremely sensitive sources and methods here. so the rank and file in the fbi

is wondering whether their human sources, their technical penetrations, are worth anything anymore if the white house can release and expose them simply for political reasons. that's the worry going on right now inside the hoover building on pennsylvania avenue. >> i wanted to share a tweet from john brennan, former cia director. i had as many fights with congressional dems over the years on national security matters but i never witnessed the type of reckless partisan behavior i am now seeing from nunes and house republicans. absence of moral and ethical leadership in the white house is fueling this government crisis. we know he's been a sharp critic, but jeffrey smith, you asked the top lawyer at cia and as a career intelligence official during those years, know very well that this is even bigger than the dispute over the torture report during the bush years, in my experience. >> very much so. this is a fundamental challenge to the manner in which we govern ourselves. it's that serious.

>> why is that? why do you say that? >> because many years ago in the '70s we set up a whole new structure to govern the law enforcement and intelligence agencies to correct the abuses of hoover, the cia and president nixon. that system has worked quite well but it's based on trust. trust that the executive branch can give its most important secrets to congress and to the fisa court and in return, the congress and the court will treat that information responsibly. when it's politicized, as has happened here, it poisons that whole system. it desecrates, frankly, this wonderful system that we have built and it destroys it brick by brick. it's very, very serious. >> when you talk about trust, you talk about trust that top intelligence officials would be willing to share these kinds of counter intelligence secrets with a committee, to then see it being distorted as you and others are alleging from what we

know of what's happening with devin nunes. >> it's not just the sharing of information, it's the whole concept of oversight by congress. it ought to be something of a partnership in which the executive branch says we are thinking about this and the congress says well, that's a good idea or a bad idea. it's not simply the act of sharing information. this memo no longer deserves to be called a memo. it's a press release. it demonstrates the lack of seriousness that mr. nunes had when he first identified an issue, namely, was the fisa court misled. but he has politicized that in a way that undermines, in my judgment, his credibility and puts the whole system at risk. >> and frank, you have dealt with the fisa judges. there's a judge in this, he's the invisible -- he or she is the invisible figure. not going to be happy either way that these secret deliberations are going to be exposed to the public. >> well, i'm glad you raised the

idea of the federal judge who signed off on this affidavit. if congressman nunes truly had it in his heart to correct the record, to get a remedy in place for whatever allegation he's going to launch against the fbi regarding this affidavit, he has a solution. he could go to the chief judge of the fisa court, he could say i believe you signed off on a flawed affidavit and here's why, and that can be fixed and remedied. he's choosing not to do that. he's choosing not to go to the fbi director, not to go to the inspector general of the department of justice. he's choosing to politicize this and go public as has just been said, in the form of a press release. that clearly gets to the heart of what his motivation is. it's political, it's undermining the special inquiry, it's aimed at rod rosenstein. that's where this is going. >> a u.s. official is telling us that the formal declassification process is under way with the director of national intelligence now having conducted an equities review to determine which agencies are implicated, mainly the fbi, of

course. the fbi is requesting redactions, redactions of course would not solve what the fbi and what democrats are complaining about, which is there is a false narrative being put forth. the narrative that somehow, that steele dossier was the root of the application, when in fact, this was an extension of a fisa warrant and it predated any steele dossier by well over a year. >> yes. my guess is that when the facts come out, this memo slash press release will be so thoroughly discredited that it won't stand at all, but what it will do is it will cast doubt on as i said earlier, the way we govern ourselves. these are some of the most secret and important activities the u.s. government conducts. they are designed to keep us safe and to protect the constitutional rights of american citizens, and when you play politics with that, you poison it. >> very briefly, the person in charge of all of this is paul ryan. >> yes. >> speaker of the house.

the speaker of the house and a select committee like intelligence, which is in most cases, it's worked in a bipartisan fashion and secret fashion as the ethics committees are supposed to. they are uniquely reporting to the speaker of the house on the house side. >> as you know, i went to west point. there's a line in the cadet prayer that was hammered into our head 50 some years ago. to choose the harder right rather than the easier wrong. i think that is a lesson that needs to be learned on capitol hill. >> always good to see you. thank you for your wisdom and your long experience in these matters. frank, as always, thank you. coming up, holding out hope. why robert mueller wants to hear about a conference call with the president and her white house communications director, hope hicks. stay with us. i wanted to know who i am and where i came from. i did my ancestrydna and i couldn't wait to get my pie chart.

the most shocking result was that i'm 26% native american. i had no idea. just to know this is what i'm made of, this is where my ancestors came from. and i absolutely want to know more about my native american heritage. it's opened up a whole new world for me. discover the story only your dna can tell. order your kit now at ancestrydna.com.

this beneful grain free is so healthy... oh! farm-raised chicken! that's good chicken! hm!? here come the accents. blueberries and pumpkin. wow. and spinach! that was my favorite bite so far. (avo) beneful grain free. out with the grain, in with the farm-raised chicken. healthful. flavorful. beneful. 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.

according to exclusive reporting in the "new york times" the former spokesman for president trump's personal legal team, who resigned in july, is ready to talk to special counsel robert mueller about a key conference call he was on with white house communications director hope hicks and the president. the "times" reporting that in that call, miss hicks said donald trump jr.'s potentially incriminating e-mails about being ready to receive dirt on

hillary clinton said in a quote, it will never get out. in a statement, miss hicks strongly denies that she said that. joining me now is the "new york times" washington investigations editor, part of the reporting team that broke that story. mark, bring us up to date. tell us what is important about this new report in the "new york times." >> well, what's important, we believe, is that you had a senior member of the president's legal team who has since left the team who is going or prepared to tell robert mueller, the special counsel, about this encounter, about this whole 48-hour period when the white house was putting together this statement about the trump tower meeting a year earlier. he is saying what he believes or he interpreted hope hicks' statement about a set of e-mails he believes were eventually going to come out. if we just back up for a second

and explain what was going on, the day before the conference call, the white house had scrambled to put together a statement in response to the "new york times" about this trump tower meeting that happened a year earlier. this was the meeting between donald trump jr. and russians, including a russian lawyer, where they had offered dirt about hillary clinton. the white house statement said something completely different. the meeting was about something completely different and what he was saying the next day was this is all going to eventually get out because e-mails exist saying what the meeting was about, and that's when he said that hope hicks had said that those e-mails will never come out. so it will be interesting to see what the aftermath of the testimony is and what robert mueller does with it. >> and of course, you have seen the denial from hicks' attorney that she never said anything about getting rid or destroying e-mails. you want to respond to that? >> right. and it's certainly not an implication that we made in our story that she said she was going to get rid of e-mails or destroy e-mails.

carallo's interpretation was one thing, but he recalls, as we quoted, she saying they would not come out. so perhaps they would just not ever see the light of day. that part will be a matter of interpretation, and as we said in the story, it would have been very difficult for her if she had wanted to, even, to quote get rid of the e-mails because the e-mails by that point had already been spread around to different legal offices, they were going to eventually be turned over to house committees that are investigating the russia episode. so this is going to be a matter that robert mueller will have to sort out. >> and we should point out that mark carallo had quite a long career in washington before all of this. he was brought in as the spokesman for the president's legal team. there was a shakeup in that team about to happen in any case because frankly, they had hired new york lawyers, friends and long-time lawyers for the president who had no experience in this field, and carallo resigned. the timing of his resignation

was shortly after this, correct? >> right. he resigned at the end of that month. so this was last july. so it would have been a couple weeks after this 48-hour period that we are focused on when the "times" first broke the story about donald trump jr.'s meeting. recall that a month or so ago, michael wolfe in "fire & fury" wrote about the resignation but gave no details. this puts a little more detail into what he believed at the time. >> as the "new york times" continues to break stories on this, along with "the washington post" and others and our team. it's really been an extraordinary, extraordinary year, let's put it that way, and certainly the last 24 hours. thank you. joining me now, democratic senator chris van hollen from capitol hill. senator, we are talking about the whole white house response to the memo, the president saying on the night of the state

of the union that it was 100% that it was going to come out. now we are told there is a redaction process in place at the office of the director of national intelligence, the fbi is warning, there is a sense we are reaching a potential crisis here if this memo as first drafted by the house republicans is released. >> well, that's right. we are at a very dangerous inflection point here, an incredible abuse of power already in what is such an obvious attempt to distract and derail the mueller investigation by creating these other red herrings that people scamper after. so i'm hoping that cooler heads will prevail but we all heard the president caught on tape the night of the state of the union address saying he's going to release it, and then saying oh, now i got to read it. so here we are, we need to keep our focus on getting to the truth, and we have to constantly ask ourselves the question, why

are they going to such lengths to try to undermine the mueller investigation if they are not afraid of what the mueller investigation will discover. >> at this stage, are you concerned that chris wray may be forced to resign in protest if this is released over his objections, or that rod rosenstein will end up taking the hit for this and be forced out by the white house? >> well, this does seem to be aimed at rod rosenstein, who has handled his responsibilities in a professional manner throughout this with respect to the mueller investigation. and of course, it's really unheard of to see this kind of real collusion between a white house and house republicans on the intelligence committee to try to undermine an fbi -- head of an fbi and number two in the justice department, who are both nominees of the trump administration. so you have got a white house at

war with its own justice department and its own fbi, all in an effort to try to cover for the president and distract from the mueller investigation. >> devin nunes, a central figure in this, was always viewed ever since he first went to the white house and came up with what proved to be untrue about quote, unmasking and alleged exposure by former obama officials, he's always been viewed as a minor player in that he was told to stay out of the russia probe, and then was having his staff work with the white house. but it's really the speaker of the house who people are raising questions about. you worked with paul ryan when you were working on the budget as a house member. can you explain what has happened to paul ryan, where he's giving devin nunes carte blanch with this and now we have

a nancy pelosi letter demanding that he take action? >> this is really a breach of the public trust by the speaker of the house. he has an obligation as the speaker of the entire house of representatives to protect the integrity of the house and to protect the integrity of the house intelligence committee, because you are going to see fbis going forward and justice departments going forward, they will refuse to share information with the house and senate intelligence committees for fear that it's going to be deliberately manipulated. i mean, this fbi statement that we have seen saying that there are material omissions of fact, meaning that this memo is designed to mislead, is obviously very troubling. so paul ryan has an obligation to protect the process and make sure that we're not undermining the ability of members of congress as the people's representatives to have access to important classified information for the country, and he's putting that all in

jeopardy, all as part of what is clearly a political campaign effort by republicans in the house in collusion with the trump white house. >> i want to ask you about mike pompeo, the cia director, meeting with three top russian spy agency leaders here in the u.s., one of whom had been sanctioned so therefore had to get -- someone had to permit him to come into the country. apparently mike pompeo sent out reassurance to the work force at cia that this was all in the interests of developing or improving the working relationship with the russian spy leaders but if you are going to meet with them, why not meet overseas in a third country? why bring them here to the u.s., to washington, and at the very moment when mike pompeo is also saying they are still aggressively trying to undermine our election process, which he said last week? >> look, this is all mind-boggling. he's bringing these russian spy leaders here to the united states when, as you said, it would be more appropriate to

meet overseas. of course, many months ago you saw the president of the united states bringing the russian foreign minister and the russian ambassador into the inner quarters of the white house at the same time he was talking about firing comey, and making it clear that he was wanting to fire comey as part of an effort to undo the russia investigation. and at the same time, you've got pompeo doing this when just days ago, he said that the russians were going to interfere again in our 2018 elections. that's what pompeo said just a few days ago. so really, what we need to do with respect to the russians is focus on protecting our democracy, which is why marco rubio and i, senator rubio and i, have actually introduced bipartisan legislation called the deter act, to set up clear advanced punishments and penalties for any country, but especially russia, if they interfere in the 2018 elections.

the way it would work very simply is that after the election, the director of national intelligence would certify to the congress whether there has been rush slsian interference or not and if there has been, very harsh automatic penalties would come in place so if you are vladimir putin weighing the costs and benefits of interfering again in a u.s. election, you have to know if you get caught this time, there will be very harsh economic penalties. your banking sector, your oil sector. that's what we should be focused on as a country, protecting our democracy, rather than these memos which are designed to mislead the public and distract from the mueller investigation. >> but how would you not be sure that the same result would take place, you guys passed a veto-proof, overwhelmingly passed legislation with sanctions that state and treasury had to act upon by this monday and they did not take steps they were supposed to take.

the state department saying it was only for deterrence, treasury putting out a list copped from "forbes" of alleged oligarchs to be sanctioned. both agencies way behind the curve, sending very soft signals to vladimir putin. >> well, they have. they have ignored what congress' clear intent was in that legislation, an intent on an overwhelming bipartisan vote. listen, the bill that marco rubio and i have drafted leaves no room for question of intent. the letter and statute is very clear. these are automatic sanctions that take place. there's no room for discretion on the part of the white house in terms of deciding whether to impose a sanction or not and that's the whole point of deterrence, knowing with 100% predictability that there will be very costly penalties if vladimir putin intervenes. that is the whole idea, it's an automatic trigger. >> thank you very much, senator van hollen. thanks for being with us.

>> thank you. coming up, more on the man behind the memo. new calls for house intelligence chair devin nunes to be replaced. hold together. a little to the left. 1, 2, 3, push! easy! easy! easy! (horn honking) alright! alright! we've all got places to go! we've all got places to go! washington crossing the delaware turnpike? surprising. what's not surprising? how much money sean saved by switching to geico. big man with a horn. fifteen minutes could save you fifteen percent or more.

at planters, we put fresh roawhich has its drawbacks.an, guys, know anything about this missing inventory? wasn't me! the cheeks don't lie, chet... irresistibly planters.

and welcome back. we are showing you the podium in white sulfur springs, west virginia, at the republican congressional retreat. the annual retreat, the president will be speaking there momentarily. we will of course bring that to you live. he will be introduced by paul ryan. while democratic leaders nancy pelosi and now chuck shuchumer demanding that paul ryan replace intelligence chair devin nunes, pelosi claiming he disgraced the chair and abused his position. she also wrote the imminent release of that nunes memo takes the gop's cover-up campaign to a new completely unacceptable extreme. joining me now, jim messina, former deputy white house chief of staff, michael steele, former spokesman for house speaker john boehner and yamiche alcindor. first to you, michael. the speaker of the house, who will be introducing the

president, is under real pressure now. the democrats have no leverage, they are just complaining about devin nunes, who is still the house intelligence chair. but have you ever seen anything like this, where a committee that has always been bipartisan is completely ripped apart in the fight over this memo? >> no. this is an extraordinary moment. i think that it's notable that not just mr. nunes but the speaker, the armed services chairman, are calling for the release of this document. i don't understand why it's not possible to share it with the senate. i don't know if that jeopardizes senator burr's bipartisan investigation with senator warner. i can't explain that. at the same time, it's very clear at this point that it's a matter of when, not if this document becomes public. >> the president clearly has signaled, as has john kelly and now the vice president, that they all want it to be released. jim, you had a deal with security, you had to have clearances to work in the white house at your level. have you ever seen a situation where the president's own fbi director, jim comey's replacement, chris wray, is arguing against it? top justice department officials

arguing against it. and they are being overridden. >> no, it's unprecedented. look, in every administration until this one, the fbi was above politics. had the fbi director walked into my office in the west wing of the white house and said you can't do this because of national security, there wouldn't be a discussion. there wouldn't be a debate. i would walk over to the garbage can and throw the memo in. that would be it. you know, this isn't a partisan issue. you have the senate intelligence chair saying why are you doing this. you have john thune, the senator from south dakota, one of the most conservative members, saying don't do this. you have donald trump's hand-picked fbi director saying don't do this. now the white house's response is well, we are going to make some redactions to the memo. that's not what the fbi said yesterday. the fbi said there are material omissions of fact that make this incorrect. you know, i can't understand how this is happening.

it is, as michael said, unprecedented and a serious moment in our country's constitutional history. >> yamiche, from someone who is covering the white house day to day, we all watching this and talking to our sources, have a feeling of a real crisis brewing here. >> most people are taking the lead from president trump. president trump is really eager to get the cloud of russia that's hanging over the white house away from him. if he thinks this memo, which all signals show he does, thinks this memo is going to help him somehow further this conspiracy theory that the agencies are against him and that he alone really understands what's going on and understands the calculated effort to delegitimize his presidency, then the memo will be released. the issue is not just that this is a partisan committee now. the issue is that the president himself is going against agencies. the president himself is saying i am not going to be on the side of the fbi and it's really notable that the president has

said i can do whatever i want with the justice department and the fbi because they are under me. that's pretty remarkable. we think about that every day but he's senessentially saying these people work for me and i can do away with them if i want to. >> literally, constitutionally as the chief executive, he's correct, but the norms have been that a president, especially one under investigation, in a criminal matter, would have a hands-off, a firewall between himself and justice. >> there are an awful lot of norms being shredded here. i would note if i were the president, if i were mr. nunes, i would be worried about what the fbi does in response. if this memo comes out, if they feel it lacks crucial context, that information will become public and i assume it will not be flattering for the president. >> what if there's a resignation of chris wray? can this president stand a principled resignation by his hand-picked fbi director who replaced james comey? >> i think it would be a very big blow to the administration if he were to leave. >> jim, when we talk about the

response, a lot of people have been surprised that republicans like paul ryan, who was critical at various points during the campaign, the "access hollywood" release and all the rest, have so bent over backwards for the president. are they so afraid of the midterms coming up? we have paul ryan's last public statement standing next to the president was about his ek kw exquisite leadership about the tax bill being passed. that seemed like a little more than pandering. >> yeah, little bit. this is the end of paul ryan's reputation of being a guy who calls it like he sees it and is above this stuff. i understand why they are doing it. they have decided, i think this is correct politically, they rise and fall with donald trump's approval ratings and in some of these districts, there will be a wave election if they can't get trump's numbers up to a normal place. so they are trying to do whatever they can to help him. but this is just, you know, unprecedented. you have paul ryan going along

with it. i would not be surprised if this is the last term paul ryan is as speaker of the house, even if they hold the house which i don't think they will. i think nancy pelosi will be the speaker in november. >> if nancy pelosi is the person the democrats choose. they may have a leadership change there as well, depending on what would lahappen. we are getting ahead of ourselves. michael steel, i wanted to talk about perhaps 34 incumbent republicans deciding not to seek re-election, including ten chairs, and they are not all term limited chairs. fr frelinghuysen from new jersey, it's a high tax state and the tax bill kills his state. >> no question we have a large number of retirements, most not in competitive districts but some are. it's going to be a tough year. at the same time we are going to start seeing more money in people's paychecks this month as a result of the tax bill. the democratic party under nancy

pelosi remains extremely unpopular, particularly in a lot of swing districts. we are stacking a lot of resources to be ready for that fight. i think everyone knows we have a big fight. everyone knows they face headwinds. they are getting ready to win that fight. >> kasie hunt joining us now. one of the most notable things that happened so far is mike pence taking on joe manchin, who is beloved down there, senior senator, former governor, he's managed to navigate his support as mitch mcconnell and paul ryan are coming in right now. but we can continue while they are there. we can wait for the president to be introduced. kasie, the fact that joe manchin was criticized so strongly by the vice president in his home state. >> reporter: i think that honestly, joe manchin seemed a little surprised by how aggressively the vice president went after him in this setting. clearly they have such a narrow majority in the senate that any one of these seats is very

important to them. but there had been a certain courting of joe manchin by the republican party at the start of the year. there was some conversations well, would he potentially make a leap, switch sides, would he potentially join donald trump's cabinet. obviously none of that happened. chuck schumer has done a lot of work to try and make sure that joe manchin stayed in the democratic fold, and manchin had been very much on the fence about running for re-election as a democrat, running for re-election at all. he frequently complains privately about washington and he's started now to say that in public. he said after pence's comments, this is part of why washington sucks, everyone is attacking each other and not actually focusing on trying to solve the problems for the country. i think like a lot of governors who come to the senate, manchin has been frustrated by the pace and the nature of the process. but the reality is, he's really the last democrat standing here in west virginia, and in many ways, is a very unique democrat as well.

as you pointed out, he has this very strong family i.d. in the state. he was a former governor. he's much beloved here and he has a down-home political style that he brings to the capitol as well. it's one that those of us who cover him every day encounter. i think i will throw it back to you. it looks like the president is onstage. >> as you talk about joe manchin, the man who is not there, obviously, at this republican gathering, but that was quite a shot the vice president took against him. the president is now taking the podium. let's listen. >> thank you, paul and mitch, for the introduction and for your tremendous leadership. you folks have done well. i just looked at some numbers. you have even done better than you thought, i think, based on what we just saw about ten minutes ago. i want to thank you to the governor of this incredible state, my very good friend, jim

justice, and his wonderful wife, kathy, who are with us, and jim is now a proud member of the republican party. he was a democrat. he switched over, right? you don't see that too often. maybe we will see it more and more. but thank you, jim. and the hotel is beautiful and everything's beautiful. we appreciate it. it's great to be among so many friends for the second time this week. tuesday was an incredible evening, as we were all inspired and i really mean that, we were inspired by america's heroes and uplifted by everyone who has sacrificed in the fight for freedom. they were and are incredible people that we saw that night, and tremendous courage and one of the people, i have to say, boy, you got a very big hand, steve, steve scalise. a great hand.

and we're all truly blessed to be americans. before going any further, i want to send our prayers to everyone affected by the train accident yesterday, especially to the family of the person who was so tragically killed. our thoughts are with the victims and their loved ones, and thank you. with us today onstage is our incredible leadership team and they really have, if you look, you just look at what's happened in the last short period of time. without them, i could have never won the presidency, i guess. i don't know. could i have won the presidency without them? huh? steve, yes, right? i don't know. but they have become very good friends and we're now in battle together and in friendship together. senate majority leader mitch mcconnell. thank you, mitch. great guy. that was a big win we had, mitch. senate majority whip john

cornyn. thank you, john. great job. house majority whip, steve scalise. again, steve, thank you. house majority leader kevin mccarthy. leader kevin mccarthy. kevin. chair john thune and house conference chair cathy mcmorris rogers. did they forget your name, john? i don't know. what's going on here? john cornyn, everybody knows. they didn't put his name up but that's okay. that's the first time that's ever happened. hey, john, that will never happen again. working together, we've accomplished extraordinary things for the american people over the last year. i really believe this is just the beginning. paul ryan called me the other day. i don't know if i'm supposed to say this, but i will say that he said to me, he has never, ever

seen the republican party so united, so much in like with each other, but literally the word united was the word he used. it's most united he's ever seen the party. and i see it too. i have so many friends in this group. and there is a great coming together. that i don't think either party has seen for many, many years so -- right? yes, that's good. i was hoping he wouldn't deny that, but -- he did, he called me. i thought it was very nice. thank you, paul, very much. every day, we're removing government burdens and empowering our citizens to follow their hearts and to live out their dreams. the priorities of republicans in congress are the priorities of the american people. we believe in strong families. and we believe in strong borders. we believe in the rule of law. and we support the men and women of law enforcement.

[ applause ] we believe every american has the right to grow up in a safe home and attend a good school and have access to a really great job. and we know that for americans, nothing, absolutely nothing, is out of reach. because we don't know the meaning of the word "quit." we don't quit. and the republican party certainly hasn't quit. because if we did, we wouldn't be here today. we'd be sitting home saying, boy, that was a tough year, instead of that was one of the greatest years in the history of politic, in the history of our country, what we've done what we've accomplished. i don't think it's been done. certainly not by much. we had a year that was almost, i would think, unlike any. it was a tremendous success. i give everybody in this room the credit. i give certainly these people behind me tremendous credit for what took place.

especially in that last month. that was a month of tremendous pressure. that was people that were able to act under pressure. my favorite type of person. they were able to act under tremendous pressure. so i just want to thank you all. because that's what it was all about. and, you know, it was interesting, while we had a great year, we weren't being given credit for it. regulations at a level that nobody's ever done. in one year, we knocked out more regulations than anybody. supreme court justice, judges all over. so many different records. so many successes. but when we got the great tax cut bill and we call it the tax cut and jobs bill, we got that -- it was like putting it all in a box and wrapping it with a beautiful ribbon. we started getting credit not only for that, but for all of the other things that we did during the year. it's amazing the way that happened. i was surprised actually. but we got a lot of credit from

a lot of people. and all of a sudden, they're saying, while he had a lot of accomplishment, and then they went on to do the thing. but the fact is -- you understand that. but we really did. we got a lot of credit. it all came together in that final month. and so i give everybody in this room really kudos. we're a nation of builders and dreamers and strivers and fighters. and together we're building a safe strong and very proud america. already since the election. we've created 2.4 million jobs. that's unthinkable. and that doesn't include all of the things that are happening. you're going to see numbers that get even better. the stock market has added more than $8 trillion in new wealth. unemployment claims at a 45-year low. which is something. after years of wage stagnation, we are finally seeing rising

wages. african-american and hispanic unemployment have both reached the lowest levels ever recorded. that's something very, very special. and when i made that statement the other night, there was zero movement from the democrats. they sat there, stone cold, no smile, no applause. you would have thought that on that one they would have sort of at least clapped a little bit. which tells you perhaps they'd rather see us not do well than see our country do great. and that's not good. that's not good. we have to change that. and as i said, we've eliminated more regulations in our first year than any administration has ever eliminated. and that means four years, eight years or in one instance 16 years. in one year, we've knocked out more regulations. it's an amazing thing.

i happen to think that that is every bit as important toward our success as the tax cuts. i have many business friends and many people in business that came to me and they say that including small businesses, they say the fact that they no longer have to go through years of turmoil in getting approved, in getting approvals, in getting rule changes, in getting all sorts of things, and getting old while they're waiting to get them. the fact that all of that is gone is probably as important or even more important to the massive tax cuts we've gotten people. so that's something. we've signed into law the biggest tax cuts and reforms in american history. and i have to say, included in there is the individual mandate. we repealed it. that's a big one. that's so big. by itself, that would be a big achievement. and we sort of take it as, well, that was included. and anwr, one of the great

potential fields anywhere in the world. and i never appreciated anwr so much. a friend of mine called up who's in that world and in that business, said, is it true that you're thinking about anwr? said yes, i think we're going to get it. he said, are you kidding? that's the biggest thing. by itself. since ronald reagan and every president has wanted to get anwr approved. and after that, i said, oh, make sure that's in the bill. it was amazing how that had an impact. that had a very big impact on me, paul. i didn't really care about it and then when i heard everybody wanted it, for 40 years, they've been trying to get it approved. it's great for the people of alaska. and senator sullivan, senator murkowski are here some place. where are they? but they're very happy campers. senator, thank you. where's don young? he's such a quiet guy. where is don?

don young. also. don, thank you. so no, we were always good together. we never had a problem with it. but you think about it, that by itself is a big bill. the individual mandate by itself is a big powerful bill. that was just added on to what we did with the massive tax cuts. i want to thank senator finance chairman and a very spectacular man, orrin hatch. where's orrin? orrin? orrin is -- i love listening to him speak. he said once i am the single greatest president in his lifetime. he's a young man, so it's not that much. and he actually once said i'm the greatest president in the history of our country. i said, does that include lincoln and washington? he said yes. i said, i love this guy. i love him. but he is. he's a special guy. and house ways and means chairman kevin brady for their incredible work.

kevin, where are you, kevin? what a job. i'd call kevin night after night. kevin what about this, what about that. you were always there. he was working. what do you average sleep for about four weeks? about -- maybe nothing. i think he had no average. but you did a great job. nobody knows it better than you, kevin. thank you. maybe we'll do a phase two. i don't know. we'll do a phase two. are you ready for that, kevin? huh? i think you're ready. we'll get them even lower. but we are proud of you. here in west virginia, as a result of our tax cuts, the typical family of four will save roughly $2,000 a year. to lower tax rates for hard-working americans, we nearly doubled the standard deduction for everyone. now the first $24,000 earned by a married couple is completely tax free. and when i came into this

beautiful building, just a little while ago, one of the people said, you know, i just got a check and i have $221 more than i had last year at this time in my envelope. we were waiting for february. and then we got hit with these corporations giving tremendous bonuses to everybody. that nancy pelosi called crumbs. that was a bad -- that could be, like, deplorable. does that make sense, deplorable and crumbs? those two words, they seem to have a resemblance. i hope it has the same meaning. but she called it crumbs. when people are getting $2,000 and $3,000 and $1,000. that's not crumbs. that's a lot of money. we also doubled the child tax credit. and that's so helpful to so many. we've gone from one of the highest business tax rates anywhere in the world to one of the most competitive, one of the lower ones. so that our great workers