difficult situation. and they said now they know what to do if the situation had happened in real life. lesson learned. we hope you and your kids walk away with valuable information too. that's all for this > tonight the eagles win the super bowl. people are eating laundry detergent. and omarosa is back on reality tv. what a time to be alive. this is "kasie d.c." ♪ ♪ p.m. eastern. tonight, a staff inflection point in the white house. palace intrigue comes roaring back as the man who was supposed to bring order to the west wing finds himself mired in scandal. plus breaking tonight, senator james langford set to

unveil a new framework to address border security and fix daca. and later, the president blocks house democrats' intelligence committee memo. congressman gerald madler on what's in it and if it will ever come out. plus dnc chief tom perez comes back to see if they can take back power in congress or if they'll watch the wave go by. we'll talk about whether the fiscal hawk is an endangered species in the age of trump. but first, monday begins the white house's second attempt at infrastructure week and the second time that no one cares. instead, everyone is focused on what will happen with two of the president's closest advisors. john kelly, venerated before he became chief of staff, is now said to have floated his resignation. hope hicks sometimes seen as another trump daughter is said to have irritated the president.

and now it is back to the old ways of the trump white house. leaks from top meetings and reports of jockeying for position as top officials fall from favor with the president. still, aides went on tv to say the president has confidence in both kelly and hicks. joining me tonight, white house bureau chief of the washington post and msnbc political analyst philip rucker. politics editor for the daily beast and msnbc contributor sam stein. white house correspondent for the pbs news hour and msnbc contributor, yamiche, and former house gop commit counsel sophia nelson. phil, you have been doing quite a bit of reporting on what is going on here with rob porter. what is true, and what is not? there seems to have been -- john kelly says that within 40 minutes of knowing about this he fired rob porter. he was gone. but there are a lot of staffers who say that's not the case. >> yeah, so, the chief of staff john kelly is really under fire right now. this is the 6th straight day that the white house has been dealing with this rob porter saga, the staff secretary who was forced out and kelly keeps changing his story. the version of events that he

has recounted to senior staffers inside the white house does not match up with the public record or with what white house officials were telling news organizations in real-time based on our reporting. kelly now says that he took immediate action to get rid of porter within 40 minutes of learning that those allegations of domestic violence were credible, but that doesn't match up with what we know to be true, which is that he stood by porter after the initial reports. and then the next day, even after a photograph came out showing porter's ex-wife with a black eye, kelly was encouraging porter to stay on at the white house and continue in his job. >> why then go and say to tell a different story? how did kelly expect that this wouldn't be, you know, that we wouldn't try to walk through all of this? >> i think kelly is trying to sure up his credibility inside the white house. a number of senior staffers that i've spoken to in the last few days say that they've lost confidence in kelly as sort of a truthful, credible leader of the

west wing. and so he's working not only publicly to try to clean up this story with all of us, but he has to deal with those 400-plus people that work in the white house under his leadership to try to convince them that he can be a truthful honest broker and a leader of that institution. >> sam stein, this has been a difficult period for john kelly, somebody who is incredibly respected by military colleagues and who, quite frankly, has taken a few political miss steps, more than a few really by now. >> yeah, this was -- i mean, it got overshadowed obviously by the rob porter news. earlier than that he said something so off key about daca recipients that a bunch of them were essentially too lazy, i think i can say this, get off their as and go and apply for daca protections, which was interpreted, i think sincerely so, as a racist comment. and he has made similar miss steps in the past. fight with a congresswoman -- sorry, with a war widow over whether or not she interpreted

president's comments correctly. so, there have been miss steps before, but this seems to be the closest to a fatal miss step that we've had yet and i think part of the reason is precisely because of what phil said. we saw the public record, right? there were statements put out under his name that were almost complementary of the type of person rob porter was, not just as a professional but as a person. even in real time as we saw the pictures. i also think for, to a large degree, what matters to the president is the perception that he sees on the news coverage. and there wasn't as critical a perception about kelly about the daca comments as this mishandling. i don't think trump stomachs those types of things. >> sam, you did some reporting. can you just walk through what the president has been saying in private about these accusers? >> sure. >> the ex-wives? >> we reported last week that -- and this was echoed by the president publicly, which is

that he was wondering if there were holes in the stories that these women were telling. sort of a skepticism that kind of bled into his remarks that he said publicly, which is maybe, you know, there wasn't something that was being revealed by the women who were -- who alleged they were abused emotionally and physically by rob porter. to be perfectly frank, this is not -- it's shocking that it's not all that shocking because trump has a history of essentially taking the side of the accused. it goes back to his time as a real estate mogul in the '80s where he stood by mike tyson during rape conviction. it certainly goes with what he tweeted, i believe it was this morning, who knows -- >> i'm going to stop you right there. we have that tweet which you have likely seen by now. the president wrote, quote, peoples lives are being shattered and destroyed by a mere allegation. he finished the tweet by posing the question, quote, is there no such thing any longer as due process?

mr. trump's advisors sought to defend that tweet on the sunday shows this morning. >> does the president believe that rob porter is falsely accused? >> the president believes as he said the other day, you have to consider all sides. he said this in the past about incidents that relate to him as well. at the same time, you have to look at the results. the result is that rob porter is no longer the staff secretary. >> does the president believe rob porter is still innocent? >> i think the president is shaped by a lot of false accusations against him in the past, chuck. in talking to the president, he's sad about what happened to rob and disturbed by it and he's very disappointed in it. i think he believes the resignation was appropriate. >> and just in tonight, axios reports that behind closed doors, the president has told multiple people that he believes the accusations about porter. a little bit different. and finds him, quote, sick. jonathan swan has four sources who say they have spoken directly with trump who say his comments about porter have been brutal.

and, yamiche, there is some discrepancy here about, you know, the president's past history, yes, sam's point is absolutely well taken. however, he also seems to say or has said in the past that men who are violent towards their wives will never change and they always will be, which makes this axios reporting interesting. >> it's interesting, but it's complex. but when i think about kellyanne going on tv saying this is all sides, it takes me back to charlottesville and the idea of both sides. this is an administration that is always trying to balance not -- not really seeming as though it's intro speculative while also trying to play this false equivalency on issues that really aren't. like racism, domestic violence. there is usually one side you can pick on those kind of issues. the other problem is this is a president who stands accused of multiple women of being sexually inappropriate. he has to be carefully as he wades into this me too environment. he can't say men against women

are terrible. people would say why are you in office. he's doing a fine dance. he's mad about the comments about him being brutal with porter because rob porter made his administration look bad and made him look back. i think that's the problem. i don't think it's so much that he's angry at the black eye as much as he's angry at john kelly, why didn't you get rid of this guy sooner? why did we fub up how we were going to talk about this guy? >> a couple thoughts. one, this is yet another example of this republican administration not being able to get out of its own way, right? you opened up with they have to talk about daca, they have to talk about the infrastructure. we're not going to talk about that now. we're going to talk about this. and everything that my colleagues have said i agree with. i used to count kellyanne among my closest friends. i was at her wedding. we're 12 days apart. we grew up together, south jersey. i could go on and on. not that i don't still love her as a friend. >> we've all worked for her in many years in different ways. >> it's hard to watch this evolution of this person that i

knew so well and this morning i, while i was heartened she said she has no reason not to believe the women and that she is appalled by this conduct, she still backed up the president's ridiculous position and not addressing what many people asked her, which is why has president he said anything about the victims. to me, to your point, i think he said privately i've seen reporting that he doesn't like this me too movement at all. and he wouldn't, right? >> i'm glad you bring that up because just out tonight we have this from jennifer willoughby, the ex-wife of rob porter. she writes on time.com, on friday a friend and i watched as the president of the united states sat in the oval office and praised the work of my ex-husband rob porter, and wished him future success. i can't say i was surprised. but when donald trump repeated twice that rob declared his innocence, i was floored. my friend turned to me and said, the president of the united

states just called you a liar. ultimately this is not a political issue. it is a societal issue and the tone has just been reset by the white house. if the most powerful people in the nation do not believe my story of abuse in the face of overwhelming evidence, then what hope do others have of being heard? >> that's where i was going with this. the president, once again, he's just getting it wrong. and it's sending a message to young men, to young women that this is just not something we take serious. i think general kelly needs to go. he's needed to go since he attacked fredrik rick a wilson and he called immigrants lazy and get off their as like you said. he's got problems. he's out of touch. this is the grumpy old white men's club if i can say that. it's just their last stand of how they're dealing with issues in america that they don't want to deal with. >> sometimes we do have to step back and say to yourself, are we actually sort of in a debate about whether it's okay to hit your wife. >> absolutely. >> i know we're not there, but -- >> but it's a conversation we never expected to be having. >> this is so black and white. we have a picture of a woman's

face battered by a man. and for this administration to be able to say publicly, the president to be able to say publicly, well, he's a good guy. it's just so unfathomable in a weird way. >> isn't that what makes you not a good guy? >> it makes you a bad human being. >> it also says if your husband punches you in the face you better have a photo. there are so many women that aren't going to have a photo and are going to need to be believed. this president is saying -- >> robert porter did not have a security clearance, full-time security clearance precisely because of these allegations. they knew this. we know that john kelly knew this. we know that don mcgahn, the white house counsel, knew this because they couldn't get this man full security. so, did they need the photo evidence to finally turn on the guy? >> is that the case? >> absolutely. the white house didn't believe this until that photo. and it wasn't just john kelly

defending rob porter. sarah huckabee sanders probably the most high profile woman in the white house, the press secretary issued a statement praising his character as well. >> wow. >> but the irony here is the person who handled this in that presidential leadership moment, the best is probably the vice-president who is half a world away in south korea. >> and says nothing about it. >> who knew nothing about it but when asked about the situation, he said there is zero tolerance in the white house or in this country for domestic violence and those are words we've never heard president trump say. >> very significant contrast. thank you for joining us tonight. really appreciate it. we have a packed show still to come. just ahead, republican senator james langford, he broke from other fiscal hawks in his party by actually voting against adding billions in spending. he joins us live. and 2020 vision, julian castro says he has every interest in are noting for president in 2020. "kasie d.c." back after this.

welcome back to "kasie d.c." tomorrow there is going to be a rare free for all on the senate floor as senators put out their immigration plans. a republican group is unveiling one plan tonight to address border security and ensure the future of so-called dreamers. joining me now to talk more about that is senator james langford, republican of oklahoma. senator, thanks very much for being here tonight. i appreciate it. >> you bet, glad to do it, kasie. >> you, sir, and other senators in the senate have pulled together a plan that you are releasing tonight you say hits on the four pillars that the white house has laid out. is this essentially the white house plan? and can you walk us through what you're proposing? >> yeah, the best we can determine this is trying to work with the white house to determine what is a white house compromise.

they listened to all voices the past many months. we're trying to form a compromise with them and pull from voices from everybody in the whole process. this outlines the four pillars the president has talked about. deals with border security, and it actually gives citizenship which some said president trump wouldn't agree to but he has been outspoken to say 1.8 million dreamers under this proposal would get citizenship in the process. it deals with some issues, though, that come up as well as. issues about diversity lottery, the policies we have to deal with. people don't understand there is a 20-year backlog for the family reunification process when 1.8 people are add that's going to make it a 25, 30 year backlog and continue to make this more difficult. we're trying to resolve multiple issues in once that all happen. >> one issue that has become a particular flash point is the issue of children who come here unaccompanied, unaccompanied minors.

and this bill would change the policy and give the department of homeland security more leeway to send unaccompanied children back to where they came from. is that a humane policy? >> so, actually what we're trying to deal with, kasie, there is one policy if they come from cuba. another policy if they come from honduras. another policy if they come from canada or mexico. we're trying to make one consistent immigration policy. we want due process in this and it's a misnomer to say it takes away due process. it absolutely does not. it provides a consistent due process and one of the issues we face is if they come from mexico, they have a due process that takes weeks and returned to their home country. honduras may be 2 1/2, 3 years for that. we need to find a way to be consistent. every single person gets due process. some are coming for asylum, asylum they should have in this. we want to make sure they are heard, get in front of a judge in a timely for matt and make decisions. >> it seems relatively clear

already, senator, this plan is likely to get 60 votes in the senate because democrats seem unlikely to support it. there have been conversations among your colleagues about a more limited proposal around this in the event that a broader bill can't pass. could you potentially support a more limited solution that addresses status for daca children as well as some border security, but doesn't enact these broader reforms? >> i could not actually because all of them actually are connected. as i mentioned before, when you add 1.8 million people in the process, this takes a 20-year backlog to probably a 30-year backlog and continues to accelerate an ongoing process. some of these issues have been around a long time and they've just not been partisan issues. they were in the 2013 bill. in 1995, congresswoman barbara jordan, democrat that was leading up a group looking at immigration in 1995, made these

same proposals on family reunification and skills-based. these are not new ideas. they're something that have been examined a very long time with a lot of hearings and we just think they absolutely go together. >> i notice, senator, that you are using the phrase family reunification. the white house has been using the phrase chain migration. do you think the white house should be talking about this the way you are? >> i think there's multiple ways to do tchlts again, chain migration of late has become a toxic word. it wasn't a toxic phrase in 2008 when the gang of 8 used the term chain migration. of late some say they don't like the term. the real issue is how do we handle family reunification and make sure this works not only for the american people but for the families as well. >> there are some conservatives who have labelled this path to citizenship that's in this bill for daca recipients and dreamers, even people who have not applied for that status, as amnesty. do you see this as amnesty? >> i don't see it as amnesty. it is an area the president has moved on significantly over the past year as well. the reason i'll say it'sness at this, these are individuals that came as minors. as often you hear the phrase, if someone has pulled over for speeding, the ticket goes to the driver not the 4-year-old sitting in the back seat.

this was the child that was in the back seat literally in the situation. they were brought in the country, they lived in the country, they pledge allegiance to the flag, they know english, they're educate ed in our schools. they have jobs, they're in the military or in our colleges now. these are folks that don't know any other country. the disadvantage they have, their parents grew up in another country. these individuals grew up in our country and they could be very productive parts of our society. i don't see any reason to hold that back from them. so this is something that has been an ongoing issue for the white house. they have been very clear they want to be able to move on this. >> senator, i want to switch gears just for a moment because you also a member of the senate intelligence committee and you have by all accounts been playing a key role in the report we know the committee is preparing on interference by the russians in the 2016 elections, in reparation for the midterm elections coming up. can you give us an update on the status of that report? and weigh in on the reports we have this week about voter rolls

actually being penetrated by the russians. >> yes, let me give you several things on this. one of the things i've been working in a bipartisan way to get an election security bill, there is absolutely no question the russian s were trying to interfere in our elections in 2016. they were in different states probing systems, they blocked in oklahoma the state i'm from, they probed it and weren't able to get in. other states they were able to get in. they weren't able to change votes, but look at voter rolls and voter systems. we should be aware of that. i have a bipartisan bill to work through how do we encourage dhs and mandate their cooperation with our states. states still run election. we have more interaction. in the meantime we just had a hearing last week with dhs where we drilled them what are they doing right now. and i can tell you they are very engaged on this. they are meeting with the states. they are getting information. they're getting background security clearances. they are aggressively going after the preparation to be able to protect our elections that are coming up in the next few months now. so that's important. on top of all that, we do have a larger report that we've got to get done from the senate

intelligence committee. it's been our focus from the beginning to be a bipartisan supported report we are now trying to put out individual republican or democrat reports. let's put it out together and say here are the facts that we've got. the best that we can put out in an unclassified method to let people see the whole of what has happened and what we think should happen in the days ahead to be able to protect our system. >> and that report is on track for the end of the month? >> i wish i could tell you it's for the end of the month. every time we start going through the editing process we find one more person we need to be able to visit with. this has happened several months. i thought we would have it in by the end of last year. there are additional people we need to connect with and interview. we're doing it as fast as we can and working as much as possible as we can across party lines. i think it is important not just for the president, but for the presidency that this is done right and i think it's also exceptionally important that people see nonpartisan as much as possible report coming out because this deals with elections that is already a partisan issue. quite frankly free and fair

elections should not be a partisan issue. >> finally, senator, i have to ask you before you go, you voted against this budget deal. do you think that the republican party still has room for fiscal conservatives? >> i think it does have room for fiscal conservatives. but we are waving a flag. we have got to deal with a rising budget. five years ago we said deficits are going down. in 2017 they are going to start aggressively ticking up because some of the spending was actually put out into the future where we are seeing that now and plus there's been disaster relieve obviously well over $100 billion this year, disaster relief for major hurricanes and fires and such which is needed, but we've also got to be able to deal with fiscal realities we have. this will be the hard part for us in the days ahead. spending more is not a problem in washington. spending less is the challenge. but for the future of the nation, we've got to be able to do it and do it well in a bipartisan way. >> senator james lank ford, thank you for your time tonight. really appreciate it. >> thank you. >> still to come. >> the person most responsible

for this spending bill is the speaker of the house. just a few years ago he was viewed as the fiscal -- the leader of fiscal responsibility in our party and now he presides over a bill that increases spending $300 billion, a trillion dollar deficit. when we were so poised to win this fight, of course he's got problems. >> the shutdown lasted just a few hours, but the long-term damage to both parties and their leaders could last much longer. we're back after this.

tonight the government is open, that is not news. but republicans made a bipartisan deal to dramatically expand spending. while they control both houses of congress and the white house. and democrats' leadership, well, that's a whole other story. let's start with the headline, too good to be true, mitch mcconnell and chuck schumer finding a day. it funds the military, undoing the sequestration, resolves children's health care for four more years, provides disaster relief to hard hit parts of the country, but it also adds billions in spending and raises the debt ceiling through 2019.

it was all going according to plan, but one man had other ideas. >> don't you remember when republicans held to high him enthat president obama was spending us into the gutter, spending us into oblivion, and now republicans are doing the same thing. how come you were against president obama's deficits and then how come you're for republican deficits? isn't that the very definition of intellectual dishonesty? when the democrats are in power, republicans appear to be the conservative party. but when republicans are in power, it seems there is no conservative party. >> i think it's an understatement to say his colleagues were upset with them for forcing them to vote at 2:00 in the morning. the massive tax cut will add $1.2 trillion to the debt. it is the same point they made when they were swept into power eight years ago in 2010. >> only in america are you ever given a second chance.

>> i have been chosen by the people of indiana to stop reckless spending. >> i think the american people grew frustrated with run away federal spending and a tone deaf washington, d.c., really under both political parties. >> we have a great opportunity here to demonstrate that we are responding to what the american people clearly would like for us to do. cut the spending, cut the debt. >> get spending and debt under control. >> they were screaming out loud, stop the spending. >> i heard families tell me as they sat across the kitchen table they were struggling to keep their budget together. they said, why don't you all do that, too? >> every single one of the people you just saw who are still in elected office voted for the bill to increase spending. by the way, we haven't gotten to the president's $1.5 trillion infrastructure plan yet. that comes out tomorrow. joining me now is politico magazine's tim alberta. tim, you have spent a lot of time with one mr. boehner, the

former speaker of the house of representatives who essentially cracked this deal on his way out the door and now republicans cut a deal to get rid of these spending caps. can you help us put this in perspective, how big of a shift is this for republicans? >> really important to contextual ize all of this. in the house when this budget bill passed, when the funding bill passed, you had 167 republicans voting for it, roughly three quarters of the conference. to think about specifically the 2010 class that you were referencing a minute ago, when these folks came in there were 87 fresh house republicans. many of them have left the congress. of those that remain more than 30 voted in favor of this budget bill. >> that's right here, this is what you tweeted, the list of the 2010 republicans? >> yes. thank you for the free promotion. many of these folks who voted for the bill were same folks who eight years ago were screaming from the high heavens about

reckless spending, fiscal irresponsibility and what made the 2010 wave feel so unique for those of us who covered t those of us who remembered it were these folks running for office were not distancing themselves from the democratic party. they were distancing themselves from george w. bush and the old republican party. that's what made 2010 feel like a watershed. they said if you give us a chance we will be a different kind of republican party, conservatives first, republicans second. they have now had an opportunity to show with a unified government whether they were willing to stay true to that and this bill more than anything else we've seen thus far demonstrates the sort of intellectual dishonesty rand paul was speaking about from the senate floor. >> sam, can i ask you about mitch mcconnell in particular? he is somebody who is extraordinarily politically astute typically. i remember standing, you know, at the senate news conferences asking him are you ever going to vote for or agree to anything that lifts these caps? and he would always say, under no circumstances will i ever do that. and then you saw him this week saying, oh, actually, this is a great deal. >> i mean, this was and tim can

correct me because he knows this stuff. this was a big talking point during the latter obama years they put these caps in place. it's trillions of dollars of spending that was going to be used over the course of a decade. that was a sure sign they were committed to deficit reduction, even under a democratic president. of course the skeptics said as soon as obama got out of office you're going to go back on your word and they have. what's crazy is it's all backward from a stimulus standpoint. you want the spending, at a time when the economy is not doing well. it can be stimulative when you have high unemployment. what we're getting is $1.5 trillion tax cuts, hundreds of billions in more spending at a time when we have full employment. if you ask any economist if this makes sense they would say no, it doesn't. >> i'm going to ask our producing team to put this poll that was on the screen back up because i want to underscore this point, too. this is part of what mcconnell is reflecting. what you're looking at is how many americans think that reducing our budget deficit

should be a top priority. and the trend line is going down and away from this. quite frankly, yamiche, this president is somebody who called himself the king of debt. i mean, it doesn't -- it seems as though this may be yet another example of, you know, a party that believes one thing, running into some trouble with the president that believes something else. >> yeah. the issue is that the president is the one that's going to be -- i think there was a lot of question whether or not president trump was going to be someone who was going to lead the republican party. we're far gone. he has taken over the party. he is obviously driving this. i remember stories we wrote at "the new york times" where we were saying donald trump is running to the left of hillary clinton in some ways. the idea he's going to ask for trillions of dollars in infrastructure, the idea that he wants to spend trillions of dollars on all these different

things explains to you why he's a different kind of republican. and the fact they also paid for this or they voted for this tax cut shows you that these republicans are really about what makes them look good. and the idea is i think that donald trump as long as he wants it, he might get it from this republican party. >> tim, how much of this do you think is about -- we have heard whisperings at least -- not even whisperings. we heard paul ryan say we have to tackle entitlements in order to do this and that is something i want to do. mcconnell said we're not going to do that this year. is that kind of what this is about? is it setting the stage, putting the pressure there to do something bigger >> in paul ryan's fantasy world. to yamiche's point, from 30,000

feet fiscal restraint, much less specifically rolling back entitlement programs. he was very specific on the campaign trail about not touching medicare, medicaid, social security. that would represent an enormous broken promise. the control act, and republicans especially during the early years of the obama administration made such a fuss out of making sure that they were trying to reduce federal spending and, in fact, part of boehner's legacy that is probably under appreciated, there were subsequent years, consecutive years where spending went down. i think now when you have a unified republican government for anybody on the hill like speaker ryan or leader mcconnell to say, well, look, guys, our hands are tied, we're working with a president who doesn't care about the debt, about the deficit, about entitlements, it's disingenuous. we heard about perks and how they were going to hold the democratic executive branch -- >> to rand paul's point. >> yes. there is an enormous disconnect between the receipts rick and the policy. >> quickly, last word. >> i think rand paul is dead on. the republicans are spending like a bunch of drunken sailors. as the republican on the panel i can tell you my conservative horns come out on this. we are spending ourselves into a problem for the next generation of americans. i don't know how we're going to get them out of this kind of debt. i don't know what's going to happen to social security and other programs if we don't begin to tighten our belt, just like we have to do in our homes. it's a problem. >> we should mention this to mitch mcconnell and speaker paul ryan who said on this deal.

sophia nelson, thank you so much. when we come back, we have former hud secretary julian castro joining me live. we're going do ask him if there are any direct flights from san antonio to new hampshire. as we talk about a 2020 democratic field that is starting to take shape. >> i want to ask you a question straight out. flat out, i want to you give me an honest answer. >> any chance you would be a candidate in 2020? >> i've gotten more than i can say grace over right now. and in terms of dealing with the russia investigation -- >> i'm not hearing no. >> that's a different tact than saying you want to run for the big job. >> so, is that a no, you're not running for president in 2020? >> i'm going to finish the year strong as governor. >> i'm going to put you down as a maybe, hard maybe. >> we have to finish the governorer ship strong. >> so you're telling me there's a chance. yeah!

welcome back to "kasie d.c." joining me now from san antonio, the former secretary of housing and urban development julian castro. he is heading to new hampshire this week. sir, i can't imagine how you might accidentally end up in new hampshire. how many months out from the 2020 primary are we? what are your future plans? >> i have no idea.

i'm not counting, kasie. >> i don't believe you. >> yeah, i'm looking forward to getting out to manchester on friday at the invitation of the new hampshire young democrats. as you know, i'm focused in 2018 on supporting young progressive democrats that are running across the country, and new hampshire young democrats have actually done a fantastic job of recruiting candidates and building a lot of enthusiasm out there. so, i'm looking forward to joining them on friday. >> so, mr. secretary, i covered both bernie sanders and hillary clinton in the 2016 election, and clearly hillary clinton won by a wide margin. but there was a distinct difference in how many people came out to see bernie sanders and the excitement level in the crowds. what do you think that bernie sanders did right that hillary clinton missed in 2016 that is

going to be applicable to 2020? >> i wouldn't say that hillary missed anything, but there's no question that there was a lot of enthusiasm among young people for senator sanders. to his credit, he did a fantastic job of resonating with young voters. some of that undoubtedly had to do with the substance of his message. he was talking about medicare for all, universal health care. >> do you support -- >> free college. i do. we should work for medicare for all. we should push as hard as we can for it. there's no reason that in this, the wealthiest nation on earth, that not every american has access to good health care. just today i read an article about an insurance director, former insurance director of aetna out in california that admitted under oath in a deposition that he wouldn't even look at patient records before making a decision as to whether to accept or deny coverage. >> sir -- >> so, i agree we should work toward that. >> hillary clinton argued against this on the campaign

trail because she essentially said bernie sanders had no plan to pay for medicare for all. who is right, is medicare for all a feasible policy? >> i think that we can work toward that. and, you know -- >> you're saying work toward it. >> democrats should work toward it. and at least work toward a public option because we need something that both lowers the costs of health care and also provides coverage to everybody. >> sam stein has a question for you. >> hi, mr. secretary. >> hey, sam. >> you've been refreshingly open you are considering a run, so thank you for your honesty. and i know we're not going to get much more out of you than that, but i'm curious, regardless of whether you decide to do it or not, do you think the party, the democrat party, that is, is well suited to have someone run in 2020 who can match donald trump's star power, or do you subscribe to the idea that presidential elections are reactive events, that there is a reason barack obama followed george w. bush, and a reason donald trump followed barack obama? >> i subscribe to your point that we have these swing back elections and not just the last couple of cycles. i think there was a ronald reagan because there was a jimmy

carter. there was a barack obama, in part, of course he was super talented and a great candidate, but it was a reaction to george bush. and unfortunately donald trump was a reaction to barack obama. i believe that the next democratic nominee and likely president in some ways, is going to be a positive reaction to what we've seen with president trump. but i'd separate that out from the other part of your point, which is that it's going to be some sort of celebrity or somebody that can match donald trump in terms of reality television tactics. i don't think that either in the united states or if you were to start to look at examples of aberrations like donald trump around the world, that you would find instances where you get two of those folks back to back. so, i don't think that that's going to happen. >> so, mark cuban should not

make his bid and oprah should think twice, is that what you're saying? >> no, on the contrary. you're going to have a lot of folks running. i expect you'll have between 12 and 15 people. everybody should run because we need robust choices. i'm just saying i think that in the end that the american people are going to turn to a new generation of leadership, and i don't think that it's going to be somebody that comes from reality tv. >> mr. secretary, to that point, do you think democrats might run into the same issue, though? before the 2016 primary republicans said, hey, we've got this great bench of candidates. look at all this great bench and they all got crushed by now president trump. >> i believe that democrats have been more thoughtful about their candidates.

i don't believe that we're going to make the same mistake. i also don't believe that a lot of the dynamics that existed in 2016 in the republican primary and what motivated a lot of that voting exists in the same way in the democratic party and among the base. so, it's going to be a fractured race, no doubt. you're going to have a lot of folks running, but i don't believe that we're going to see the same kind of thing that the republicans saw in 2016. in fact, if you, you know, think about some of the folks that may well run, it's a very talented group of people and these are not people that are unserious or just reactionary or calling people names or, you know, have -- they're not one-trick ponies and insulting people the way trump did in the 2016 primaries. >> julian castro, stay warm in p >> stay warm in new hampshire this week. >> i'll try. >> okay, thank you. still to come, we be will

find out there week if we're getting a romney reboot. we're going to look ahead to his announcement for the senate landscape next. after brushing, listerine® total care strengthens teeth, helps prevent cavities and restores tooth enamel. it's an easy way to give listerine® total care to the total family. listerine® total care. one bottle, six benefits. power to your mouth™.

i own my own company. i had some severe fatigue, some funny rashes. finally, listening to my wife, went to a doctor. and i became diagnosed with hodgkin's lymphoma... that diagnosis was tough. i had to put my trust in somebody. when i first met steve, we recommended chemotherapy,

and then we did high dose therapy and then autologous stem cell transplant. unfortunately, he went on to have progressive disease. i thought that he would be a good candidate for immune therapy. it's an intravenous medicine that can affect the patient's immune system and unleash it against the cancer. with chemotherapy, i felt rough, fatigue, nauseous. and with immune therapy we've had such a positive result. i'm back to working hard. i've honestly never felt this great. i believe the future of immunotherapy at ctca is very bright. the evolution of cancer care is here. learn more at cancercenter.com appointments available now.

the political world will reassemble around mitt romney this week. he is set to make an announcement about a potential run for senate in utah. politico of course had reported that president trump urged senator oren hatch to stick around and keep his seat. last week, hatch himself met with romney to convince him to run. i told him i would probably retire and i would like him to succeed me. you're veterans of air force one. it seems like the one thing that's driving this is for him to be an elder statesman, especially for those who have lost the voice of john mccain as he recovers. and it seems like in romney's view, that's a role he thinks he

the step into. >> i think once he gets here, he's going to already have a national platform, he'll be given special attention in the senate sort of the way john mccain is, who was a party nominee in the past. and i think he's going to look for ways to pass trump himself. i think he is going to find ways to work with trump and agree where trump when there's agreement. >> paul ryan has made noises about potentially leaving, doesn't seem to be particularly happy in washington, doesn't seem to be necessarily a place where people who come from the older school, the republican party want to be, sam. why would romney want to do this? >> i don't know. he's not young, that's the thing, he looks very young, but he's not young, he's in his 70s and this is going to certainly be the last part of his career.

in romney in this case is paul ryan is looking at being in the minority in 2018, and grappling with what reduced powers he will have at that juncture and that's a caucus that's not particularly easy to corral. mitt will go in and it seems likely he could have some influence in that sense. >> we have to leave it there, just ahead, dnc chairman tom perez joins us, and back to the drawing board, we're going to talk to one of the few members

president trump appears to defend two of his aides accused of domestic abuse. he was immediately called out with kellyanne conway right on cue rushing to the president's defense. then there's john kelly and his handling of the abuse scandals. many this in washington are wondering if he's on the way out. and the rebuttal to the nunes memo blocked, the president saying to try again. >> all of this over-shadowing two big items on the white house agenda today including the much anticipated infrastructure plan. ♪