show @velshiruhle. right now we hand you to our friend and colleague andrea mitchell for "andrea mitchell reports." >> and right now on "andrea mitchell reports," blaming the victim? president trump coming under fire for his response to the domestic violence accusations against a top aide, questioning the womens' claims in a tweet and in the oval office. >> it's very sad when we heard about it and certainly he's also very sad. now, he also, as you probably know, says he's innocent. i think you have to remember that. thin ice, the white house mounting a full-throated defense of chief of staff john kelly, but is his future still in question after a series of white house scandals? >> he has full confidence in his current chief of staff, general john kelly. >> does he still have confidence in general kelly? >> absolute confidence. >> i think it's much to do about nothing. and breaking the ice. after a deep freeze between the u.s. and north korea at the

olympics, is the trump administration now warming up to the idea of direct talks with the rogue regime? >> i know that people are watching for a wedge between south korea, republic of korea in other words, and the united states. there's no wedge there. >> it's really up to the north koreans to decide whether they're ready to engage with us in a sincere way, a meaningful way. and good day, everyone. i'm andrea mitchell in washington. the trump administration is circling the wagons as abuse allegations rock the white house in the midst of renewed chaos. the commander in chief making matters worse by defending the men accused of abuse and seeming to ignore the women who claim they were victimized. another major failure highlighted by former staff secretary rob porter's dismissal, the fact that dozens of white house aides are still

working without full fbi security clearance more than a year into this administration. joining me now, msnbc political analyst peter baker, chief white house correspondent for "the new york times," and nbc national correspondent peter alexander. >> the peters. >> the peters together. well, first of all to you, peter alexander. the president has been in an extensive photo opportunity right now, focusing on infrastructure, which is what they want to talk to. our colleague kristen welker is there. we'll hear from her as soon as she comes out. we don't believe he's taken questions. >> this news just happening. he was just posed two questions by our colleague kristen welker on security clearances. he ignored both of them after spending more than an hour going around the room focusing on infrastructure. the reason this matters, there's obviously the issue, as you'll talk about, about john kelly, his status questions, about his credibility and his leadership here. but remember, as a candidate, donald trump made the test of hillary clinton's competence

focused on her mishandling, as they described it, of classified information. the question for this administration, for this president right now is why were people, including rob porter, who did not have the clearances to be handling classified information, basically able to do that. rob porter, john kelly's right-hand man, as it were, as you see in these pictures, was beside the president all the time, often in the oval office, traveling with him. that was the fundamental basis of his job, passing along classified information and other documents to the president. so the question not just about rob porter, why he had such access, but why do so many others, including perhaps jared kushner. we know to be true that he only has interim security clearance at this time. why are there so many others there that do not have that clearance more than a year into this administration. >> and peter baker, in weekend interviews, top white house aides tries to change the focus to be, well, it's the fbi. they are backlogged. but the fact is that in every previous white house that i've ever covered, you have as much experience as i, it's the white

house counsel's job to coordinate the clearance and vetting with the fbi. the fbi provides the information, but they don't make recommendations. it's the white house counsel's job to do that. and don mcgahn clearly did not do that. >> that's exactly right. the fbi doesn't make those decisions. they simply provide the information. they do the investigating. it is true that these security clearance investigations can take a long time, can take months, but usually there's a priority set for people closest to the president, people like rob porter or jared kushner. those are people who see the president every day, who are key to his decision making, and therefore usually put at the top of the priority list. the fact this has gone on for so long is interesting, is telling. and it does tell you -- it does raise questions about don mcgahn. he was old as early as january 2017 that there was a potential issue here. the information came back to him several times during the last year. at no point, obviously, did this white house make a decision that this was important enough to

really question the status of rob porter being there in that job. >> and the other thing that you have been pointing out in your reporting today, peter, is the disagreements inside the white house over not only john kelly but over how the president responded. the president's response in the oval office, which did illicit this response, this rebuttal from the second woman married, the second ex-wife. she took offense at the fact that the president talked about mere allegations and falsely accused. she wrote in "time" magazine, the words mere allegation and falsely accused meant to imply that i am a liar, that colbie holderness was a liar. that the work rob was doing in the white house was a higher value than our mental, emotional, or physical well being. i do not condone their choice to

support him. >> pete baker, that really is a sharply defined schism. that affects in the political context reverberations that could impact the 2018 elections because we're talking about suburban white women voters being a key to the president's election as it was. >> well, he has repeatedly, of course, taken the side of men who are accused, including roy moore, the senate candidate in alabama, including bill o'rielly, including himself. he's been accused. the mess an yesterday from his top staffers, though, was such a sharp contrast. kellyanne conway said i have no reason to disbelieve these women. nick mulvaney, the budget director, said rob porter died and deserved to be pushed out. you saw a completely different

take on this. vice president pence himself saying, you know, domestic violence has no place in our society. so for whatever reason, the president is not on the same page as the staff and the people under him, who are trying to provide a different message out there. >> i think in the last 48 hours, in fact, what we saw, peter alexander, was a full-throated white house attempt to say john kelly is okay. let's show some of that from the weekend shows. >> do the president's accusers deserve due process? >> jgeorge, let me say somethin. those accusers have had their day on your network and elsewhere for a long time. they were trying that again late last year. >> and what they also were saying and what kellyanne conway was saying on a number of shows, on cnn as well, is that john kelly has the full support of the president. that said, on friday, friday night, saturday, we were hearing a lot about the president

calling friends, musing about replacing his chief of staff. they may have, for now, decided not to do that. but he is on somewhat shaky ground. >> no, i think he's definitely on somewhat shaky ground with questions about his leadership, his credibility. this is not the first episode. only a matter of days earlier, he used language a lot of people had issues with, describing some of those daca recipients or those who hadn't signed up in the past as being too lazy. what strikes me, though, is what i was seeing how friends of the president are trying to turn the page as best they can with a lot of folks who say they had private conversations with the president, telling me, well, the president, you know, he thinks that rob porter is sick, one individual said to me. he's been very upset with this. one of his deputy press individuals said the president's been very clear that all forms of abuse are deplorable and disgusting. he said he's made this point on multiple occasions.

i wrote the whouite house and said, give us those occasions. just the opposite is true where the president routinely sympathizes with the men in these equations but not with the victims in these equations. think about rob porter, roger ailes, roy moore. the only time where he was particularly kind to the victims was the case of bill clinton. >> and let me quickly also point out that in a very unusual statement to the embassy staff and officials in cairo last night, rex tillerson said that sexual harassment will not be tolerated at the state department, that everyone has mandatory sexual harassment prevention training by june 1st. the entire work force of the state department that has been rarely, if ever in this past year, called to action on any subject, and spoke about how important it is to prevent any sexual harassment in the state department. it really seemed as though it was an unusual statement, to say

the least, from the secretary of state on foreign soil. >> just the contrast in language between what you hear from folks like rex tillerson and what you hear from this president, where he's standing before everybody on friday and appeared to give what was in effect a public letter of recommendation to rob porter, making no reference to domestic abuse, domestic violence, or the women that accused rob porter of the the actions. >> peter alexander, peter baker, within a minute we're going to be hearing from the president. this started about an hour ago. he's meeting with the mayors and governors, talking about infrastructure, and it's basically a $1.5 trillion, ten-year program, 80% of which is to be funded by state and local governments, which is exactly the reverse of the normal federal to state and local mix. this is the long awaited infrastructure rollout. as we noted just now, kristen welker was in the room. he went around the room, went to the governors, went to the mayors, let everybody talk, but when kristen asked questions about the recent controversies,

he didn't answer. we're expecting that tape at any moment, peter. actually, within 15 seconds. i don't want to cut anybody off here. this is another case where they are hoping that they can emphasize infrastructure and of course the unveiling of the new budget proposals today rather than controversy. here's the president. >> thank you, everybody. sit. it's a great honor to have everybody with us, and we have some very exciting things to be talking about, things you've been waiting for, for a long time, for many, many years. now let's see how badly you want it. because if you want it badly, you're going to get it. if you don't want it, that's okay with me too. but we have to rebuild our infrastructure. you know, i said this morning as of a couple of months ago, we have spent $7 trillion in the middle east, $7 trillion. what a mistake. but it is what it is. this is what i took over.

we're trying to build roads and bridges and fix bridges that are falling down. and we have a hard time getting the money. it's crazy. but think of that. as of a couple months ago, $7 trillion in the middle east, and the middle east is far worse now than it was 17 years ago when they went in, not so intelligently, i have to say. i'm being nice. so it's a very sad thing. the budget was recently passed, and the reason it was passed is because of our military. our military was totally depleted, and we will have a military like we've never had before. we're going to have an incredible military, and to me that means a couple things. number one t means jobs. really number one it means safety and security. without the military, and we may have very strong views on spending, which i have, but without the military, it's possible there's no reason for us to be meeting.

maybe we wouldn't be here. so we're going to have the strongest military we've ever had by far. we're increasing arsenals of virtually every weapon. we're modernizing and creating brand new -- a brand new nuclear force, and frankly we have to do it because others are doing it. if they stop, we'll stop. but they're not stopping, so if they're not going to stop, we're going to be so far ahead of everybody else in nuclear like you've never seen before. i hope they stop. if they do, we'll stop in two minutes. and frankly, i'd like to get rid of a lot of them. if they want to do that, we'll go along with them. we won't lead the way, we'll go along with them. but we will have a nuclear force that will be absolutely modernized and brand new. hopefully we'll never have to use it. hopefully we can reduce it in the years ahead. and that depends really on what other people are going to be doing, but we'll always be number one in that category, certainly as long as i'm president.

we're going to be far, far in excess of anybody else. i'm honored to be here with the governors, with county executives, and mayors from around the country. secreta secretary chao, secretary zinke, secretary ross, administrator pruitt, thank you for joining us. i greatly appreciate it. we're here today to discuss the critical need to rebuild america's crumbling infrastructure. one understands, and the people in this room really understand better than most, probably hopefully better than anybody, that the problem the states have and local leaders have with funding the infrastructure is horrendous, and we will build, we will maintain, and the vast majority of americans want to see us take care of our infrastructure. trucking companies are complaining that they used to the take trucks from los angeles to new york, and there was no damage. now they bring from los angeles to new york and there's

tremendous damage to their trucks because our roads are in bad shape, and we're going to get the roads in great shape. very important. we're going to make our infrastructure modernized and we're really way behind schedule. we're way behind other countries. we always led the way for many, many years. then a number of decades ago, it slowed down. over the last eight years and 15 years, to be honest, it's come to a halt. this morning i submitted legislative principles to congress that will spur the biggest and boldest infrastructure investment in american history. the framework will generate an unprecedented $1.5 trillion to $1.7 trillion investment in american infrastructure. we're going to have a lot of public/private, that way it gets done on time, on budget. it will speed the permit approval process from ten years to two years and maybe even to one year. because when we give you, as

governors and mayors and people representing your great states, we give you money, and you can't get your approvals, i guess we're going to have to take that money back or you're not going to build. and some of you are sitting around the table that i know, some of the governors, you're going to get those permits. i have no doubt. others, i see a couple sitting around the table, i don't think they're going to get their permits so fast. but you're going to have to get it, otherwise you're not going to be able to build. we can't give you money and you're going to take 15 years to get a permit. in one state, it took 17 years for a basic roadway to get a permit. and the cost was many, many, many times what it was supposed to be. we can't have that. so we want you to get going, and you'll work on the permitting process. from a federal standpoint, environmentally and everything we have to do, i see scott is here, we're going to get your permits very quickly. it provides $50 billion for rural infrastructure, who have really been left out. the rural folks have been left out, including broadband internet access, which they don't have, and they want it.

the farmers want it. it will create thousands and thousands of jobs and increase training for our great american workers. and it returns power to the state and local governments who know best what their people need. washington will no longer be a roadblock to progress. washington will now be your partner. we'll be your partner. a lot of money, up to $1.7 trillion. that's bigger than people thought. we're going to have a lot of great people working. we're going to also have great companies investing and building, and they'll build for you because sometimes the states aren't able to do it like we can do it. or like other people can do it. or like i used to do it. when i did the wallman rink, it was seven years. they don't get it built. it would have been forever. i did it in a few months at a much smaller price. they had invested $12 million in building an ice skating rink in the middle of central park.

took -- somebody told me about this the other day, that they'd never forgotten it. it was a big deal at the time, remains a big deal. took many years, and they were unable to open it. i said, i'd like to be able to have my daughter ivanka, who's with us, i'd like to be able to have her go ice skating sometime before she doesn't want to ice skate. i got involved, and i did it in a few months, and we did it for a tiny fraction. tiny fraction of the cost. it's really no different with a roadway. no difficult wierent with a bri tunnel or any of the things we'll be fixing. the returns of money and investment to the states and local government will be incredible. and nobody knows better than you people where you want the money invested. that's the other thing. for the federal government to say, gee, this is what we want you to do in wisconsin, scott, you know exactly where you want to do it, and you've gonedone a

great job, by the way. you know exactly where that money is going. and how is your new company that's opening up there doing by the way? are they doing okay? that was a big one. foxconn, it's moving along. they make the apple iphone. i said for a long time, i said i want those companies to be making their product here. they went to wisconsin. scott did a fantastic job, a presentation. i actually saw a site that i loved. i said, that was an old auto site. i was with the head of foxconn. great man, actually, great businessman. incredible. i said, that's a great site for you. right in wisconsin. i hear that's where they're going. so you've done a fantastic job. but this is a common sense and bipartisan plan that every member of congress should support. i look forward to working with them, and we're going to get the american people roads that are fixed and bridges that are fixed. if for any reason they don't want to support it, that's going to be up to them. what was very important to me was the military. what was very important to me was the tax cuts.

and what was very important to me was regulation. this is of great importance, but it's not nearly in that category because the states will have to do it themselves if we don't do it. but i would like to help the states out. we're doing that with a very big investment. one of the other things so important to mention is that in the budget, we took care of the military like it's never been taken care of before. in fact, general mattis called me, he goes, wow, i can't believe i got everything we wanted. i said, that's right. but we want no excuses. we want you to buy twice what you thought for half the price. so maybe we're going to get involved a little bit in the buying. we want to get twice as many planes for half the price. and believe me, we can do a lot because the procurement process is very outdated, to put it nicely. but we're going to have something very special. one of the things that was very important to me with respect to the budget was daca. i did not want daca in the budget. i wanted daca separate so that

we could talk about it and make a deal. i hope to be able to make a deal. i hope the democrats are not going to use it just as a campaign. they've been talking about daca for many years, and they haven't produced. we started talking about daca, eni think we'll produce. if the democrats want to make a deal, it's really up to them. because we want really tremendous border security, but we have to have democrat support for daca. they are starting that process today. we didn't want to have it in the big budget because if we have it in the big budget, it's going to get mixed up with all of the other things. now we have our military taken care of. now we start very serious daca talks today. we are -- i can tell you, speaking for the republican party, we would love to do daca. we would love to get it done. we want border security. the other elements that you know about, chain migration you know about, the visa lottery you know about. but we think there's a good

chance of getting daca done if the democrats are serious and they actually want to do it. they didn't want tax cuts. we didn't get one vote for massive tax cuts that have turned out to be unbelievably popular. what came up, which was even a surprise to us, where the big companies stepped up and millions and millions of people have gotten tremendous bonuses. nobody knew that was going to happen. that was just the beginning point. so we didn't get one democrat vote. not one for the biggest -- and i think that's a big political problem for them, you know. if you want to know the truth. they are going around saying they made a mistake because the tax cuts have now -- you see what's going on. it's spurred the economy. unemployment is at virtually record lows. black unemployment is at the lowest level in history. hispanic unemployment is at the lowest level in recorded history, which is really something that's so great. and we are very, very -- it's amazing what's been going on with the economy. and i just want to end by saying it's an honor to have all of you

with us. we're going to have a few of you make statements, then we'll all stay around. if you want, we can leave the press or we can have the press leave immediately. i'll leave that up to scott walker because you're going to be the first speaker. so scott, do you want to say a few words? >> sure. and thank you very much, everybody. >> wrapping up his introduction to infrastructure week. again, an attempt to focus on infrastructure. he's talking about a $1.5 trillion, ten-year program sparked, he hopes, with $200 billion in federal spending. the bulk of it is based on state and local partnerships, and it remains to be seen how that is received by the state and local governments. j jim, this is a new infrastructure proposal, long awaited. it was certainly teed up in the state of the union as well and is why we have some audio

problems, i believe, with jim in san francisco. sitting next to me and watching all of this unroll is mark lotter, the former assistant and spokesperson for mike pence at the white house. so the positive side of this is that the president's finally unrolling the infrastructure plan. the negative side is, mark, to be perfectly blunt, this comes after days of controversy over rob porter, over a second, quote, resignation or firing from the white house, controversies over the lack of security clearances for rob porter, and the president fueling this issue by tweeting and commenting his support for the men rather than the women who claim that they were victims. >> i know this is something on the infrastructure side that the president's been talking about for a very long time. he's a builder by nature, so i know he's excited to get this project launched. prior to coming to washington, d.c., i spent a lot, most of my career, working for governors and mayors back in indiana.

i can tell you that there's not a mayor or a governor that doesn't have needs when it comes to their bridges, their roads, potholes, and many parts of the country as they're dealing with winter weather. so this will be welcome. it's always been a state and federal partnership and local level partnership with infrastructure dollars. i know that this is something they can work through. it helps create jobs, makes our communities better places to live. >> what about the backlog in security clearances? the fbi teed it up more than a year ago in january, told don mcgahn, the incoming general counsel, that there was a problem at least on rob porter. they knew that then. they knew it a year later. but yet, he had to be told by a woman on the white house staff, who had dated rob porter, that there was this problem with the ex-wives. and in fact, in past white houses, the lawyers, the president's lawyer, the general

counsel, tells the administration what to do about these clearances once they get the reports from the fbi, which does not give recommendations. doesn't don mcgahn have a bigger responsibility for these mess-ups? >> i think at some point -- and we're seeing this across all of industry. it's not just politics. as we're dealing with a number of these kinds of whether it be inappropriate activities or now the shocking abuse allegations, and we need to, as a society, look at how we view all of these things, whether we're in corporate world, whether we're in the public service areas. how do we respond to allegations, at what level does an allegation go beyond that? >> this is more than an allegation. the fbi had actual reports that were filed, police enforcement reports. there was a picture notably, which became very persuasive. this is what the vice president had to say to lester holt on the subject. >> i was appalled when i learned of the allegations against rob

porter. the time he resigned is when i first became aware of the allegations of domestic abuse. there's no tolerance in this white house, no place in america for domestic abuse. that being said, i think the white house has acknowledged that they could have handled it better. lester, when i return to washington, d.c., i'm going to look into the matter and i'll share my counsel with the president directly. >> your former boss got it right. zero tolerance. what's wrong with the white house and what's wrong with the differing explanations from the chief of staff john kelly? >> i think that's something they're going to have to take a look at, to look to see where did the process -- did the process break down. i think it's obviously pretty clear it did. what can be done so it does not happen again. but the one thing is that when the evidence came forward, they acted. now, could they have acted sooner, could they have handled it better? obviously you heard that from

the white house last week. you heard that from the vice president when he was overseas this past weekend. i think now is the time where the white house but all areas of industry, community, boardrooms, we look at where do these systems fail, where do we need to make sure that we are doing everything we can so whether it is an allegation of inappropriate activities in a workplace, whether it's domestic violence, that it can't be tolerated, that the voices are heard and that appropriate actions are taken. >> and briefly, about north korea, the vice president was criticized there for not standing when the joint delegation, the south and north korean athletes, walked in at the opening ceremonies. on the flight home, he told "the washington post" that president moon of south korea had told him at the skating rink that you've got to talk to the americans. the vice president indicated a willingness, depending on what happens if and whethn moon visi north korea and they have direct talks, a willingness to talk

without preconditions, without demanding denuclearization. it's the first time they've said that. >> i think the big message that came out of that is that you saw japan japan, south korea, the united states are in lock step. we are going to continue under this president to issue maximum pressure, whether it be diplomatically from a sanctions standpoint, and as the vice president indicated, more sanctions are on the way. this will not change that fact. the only way for north korea to lift the specter and the weight of u.s. and global sanctions is to take concrete steps about denuclearization. if they want to talk, we're not going to bribe them, as has been done in the past, where we offer them olive branches and concessions just to sit down at the table. the pressure will stay, and it will continue to mount. if they want to ease that, then they have to take concrete steps. but if you want to talk, we'll talk. >> that is a new everyone sigs -- emphasis as well. thank you very much, mark. meanwhile, now jim joins us, the former deputy chief of staff

during president obama's first term, campaign manager for his successful 2012 re-election campaign. jim, thanks for your patience with us while we get everything straightened out. let's talk about the chief of staff and the way they've handled the messaging with the president and john kelly at first coming fully to defend rob porter. now we're told that the president privately has been expressing misgivings about rob porter and what he allegedly did. but how do you square this circle, and can john kelly be an effective chief of staff? >> andrea, it's a complete mess that is pretty much unprecedented. if you look at the various statements out of the white house, they first came out and said, well, we didn't have the full report. as you and i know, because i helped run this process in the white house, the fbi calls the white house counsel's office the moment they hear anything that could endanger a security clearance. it does not take a year to complete security clearances on senior white house staff. these things are very, very

quick. so the real breakdown here is in both the white house chief of staff and the white house counsel. these two are supposed to be the people who run this process. for white house chief of staff who came in and said, look, i'm not going to try to manage the president, i'm going to manage the process. and this process couldn't have been more broken. it's not just in porter. we now know that there's a bunch of white house staff who have interim security clearances, and this is a serious potential threat to national security. the two positions that see every single piece of important classified documents are the white house counsel -- sorry, the white house staff secretary and the white house chief of staff. you know, in this case, the process completely broke down. i think it's a serious problem going forward. as to whether, you know, the white house chief of staff is going to stay, you have very conflicting messages. i know when i had to go out and say someone was not going to get

fired from the white house, pretty soon afterwards, they got fired from the white house. >> well, in fact, mark short, the legislative aide in the trump white house was on "meet the press" with chuck todd. chuck pressed him on whether or not the white house counsel should be responsible for setting up alarm bells if somebody close to the president does not have full clearance. >> is don mcgahn not informing the chief of staff, or is somebody not wanting to hear bad news? >> it's a fair question, chuck. i don't know, to be honest. i don't know who knew what, when at this point. >> let me pause you there. why? why come on here and not know? if we don't know the tick-tock, how can you defend any of it? >> general kelly learned the full information tuesday, and by wednesday, rob porter was out. >> should he have known earlier? >> i think the following the same process. the fbi does the investigation, and they come back. >> are they following the same

procedure other administrations have followed? >> absolutely not. every administration until this immediately was informed by the fbi. they couldn't get security clearances. and they got rid of those staff. andrea, here's the problem. let's be very honest. the white house counsel is a career party hack whose only experience was being the counsel to the federal elections commission. he'd never run a process like this. he never dealt with the fbi. he'd never done any of this stuff. so it's not surprising that he's not running a process that is serving the administration or the country very well. >> jim, thank you so very much. and meanwhile, top secret, more on this. jared kushner doesn't have full security clearance, but he does have information to the most sensitive intelligence, the president's daily brief more on that coming un. you're watching "andrea mitchell reports" on msnbc. i'm your phone, stuck down here between your seat and your console, playing a little hide-n-seek.

cold... warmer... warmer... ah boiling. jackpot. and if you've got cut-rate car insurance, you could be picking up these charges yourself. so get allstate, where agents help keep you protected from mayhem... ...like me. mayhem is everywhere. are you in good hands?

if you have moderate to severe plaque psoriasis, little things can be a big deal. that's why there's otezla. otezla is not an injection or a cream. it's a pill that treats psoriasis differently. with otezla, 75% clearer skin is achievable after just 4 months, ... with reduced redness, thickness, and scaliness of plaques. and the otezla prescribing information has no requirement for routine lab monitoring. don't use if you're allergic to otezla. otezla may cause severe diarrhea, nausea, or vomiting. tell your doctor if these occur. otezla is associated with an increased risk of depression. tell your doctor if you have a history

of depression or suicidal thoughts, or if these feelings develop. some people taking otezla reported weight loss. your doctor should monitor your weight and may stop treatment. other side effects include upper respiratory tract infection and headache. tell your doctor about all the medicines you take and if you're pregnant or planning to be. ♪ otezla. show more of you. and new revelations about the justice department shake-up. nbc news learning that friday's announcement that the third in command, associate attorney general rachel brand, decided to resign after only nine months on the job in part because of the ongoing russia investigation. joining me now, julia ainsley. >> so we've been speaking with people close to rachel brand. they say for months brand has been unhappy in this job for a

few reasons. one, she feels unsupported. a lot of these divisions she oversees remain vacant. the senate has no the confirmed leaders there. a big reason is she was worried that the president would fire rod rosenstein, the number two, which would have put her in charge of overseeing the mueller investigation. she's been a lifelong lawyer. she's worked under many administrations, but she doesn't want to be in that political spotlight. she never has been before. >> let me ask you about the failure to get clearance for jared kushner. there are others as well, but we know what the problem there is. >> well, there could be a number of things. it can be a long process. we know they have a backlog of 700,000 people that the fbi is trying to get through -- >> this is the person in charge of middle east peace. >> exactly. that's what it all comes down to. you can expedite for someone in jared kushner's position. people i've spoken to say it's a matter of more bodies investigating. what could be at play here? i think this is the question every journalist is asking today, whether or not he is in that position because the

president has overridden guidance from the fbi that have raised red flags about kushner. >> to be continued. julia, thank you so much. and up next, side show. the north korea olympic propaganda war complete with an army of cheerleaders. you're watching "andrea mitchell reports" on msnbc. dominika: they gave me a choice. dominika: die...or become a sparrow. (music) nathaniel: in moscow there's a program, nathaniel: they call them sparrows. trained to seduce and manipulate. nathaniel: that is what she is. she's out of your league. (music) you have a gift. (music) vanya: you see through people. take your life back. (music) i'll find a way. (music) vanya: you're always one step ahead. (music) dominika: you're right. (music) rated r.

your body was made for better things than rheumatiod arthritis. before you and your rheumatologist move to another treatment, ask if xeljanz xr is right for you. xeljanz xr is a once-daily pill for adults with moderate to severe ra for whom methotrexate did not work well.

it can reduce pain, swelling and further joint damage, even without methotrexate. xeljanz xr can lower your ability to fight infections, including tuberculosis. serious, sometimes fatal infections, lymphoma and other cancers have happened. don't start xeljanz xr if you have an infection. tears in the stomach or intestines, low blood cell counts and higher liver tests and cholesterol levels have happened. your doctor should perform blood tests before you start and while taking xeljanz xr, and monitor certain liver tests. tell your doctor if you were in a region where fungal infections are common and if you have had tb, hepatitis b or c, or are prone to infections. xeljanz xr can reduce the symptoms of ra, even without methotrexate. ask your rheumatologist about xeljanz xr.

vice president pence signaling that major shift in diplomacy after all of president trump's tough talk about north korea. now the administration says it is willing to sit down and talk with the kim regime. joining me now, rick stangle for undersecretary of state of public affairs. and ambassador wendy sherman, an nbc global affairs contributor, and someone who's gong to pyongyang with madeline albright to negotiate with the north koreans. rick, first to you. is it a good thing that mike pence is now talking after some said being too tough at the opening opening ceremonies, snubbing the joi joint korean delegation, by not standing and applauding, by saying on the trip home they would be willing to sit down without preconditions? >> i think it's an unadulterated good thing. the thing about diplomacy is you

have to be able to walk and chew gum at the same time. you can say in the same breath that kim jong-un is a brutal dictator but also say it's a good idea for north and south korea to start talking to each other. that's part of the policy that we've had for 40 years. >> and wendy, you've been to pyongyang. you've stared them in the face. we are not oblivious to all the human rights abuses. probably a good thing that fred warmbier went with the vice president to make that point because they were concerned about the public relations advantages that the north koreans were enjoying at these olympics. >> indeed. we all are worried about it. i agree with rick, you have to walk and chew gum and run and brush your hair at the same time. it's many things simultaneously. and i think, you know, it was good that fred warmbier went, but i think there should have been an opportunity where the vice president at least acknowledged the people of north korea. we want to be on their side. we think that the regime is tyrannical and oppressive, which

it is, but we want to be on the side of people as we try to move toward diplomacy. >> here's the vice president talking to lester in south korea about fred warmbieo, otto warmbier's father. >> when we heard north korea was going to be here, we felt compelled to show up here at the olympics. >> was it difficult to look and see the sister of kim jong-un waving and enjoying the moment? >> no, she's in the kim family. we have to put this in context in the spirit of the olympics. their athletes are not exchanging ideas with other athletes in the olympic village or really participating. so that's a political statement. this is not political for me. >> and plet let me switch to an part of the world where a crisis is erupting this weekend. israeli air strikes in syria against what they said were iranian and syrian bases in retaliation for an iranian drone

that entered israeli air space. in one of these missions, an af-af f-16 was lost, an israeli f-16. this is an escalating conflict. >> this is very much an escalating conflict. we saw in the "new york times" today a really tough story about what's happening in gaza and how it's falling into despair. they may decide that their best way out is to start a conflict with israel. so israel's security is very much on the line at the moment. but as we're all concerned about north korea, we also have to be concerned about an arab/persian war, which also might be on the horizon. >> in fact, rick, a lot of this is aimed at iran, at rallying the world against iran. rex tillerson is in the region right now. he's going to go to beirut, the first secretary of state to go to lebanon in four years, and part of that government, as you well know, includes hezbollah, which washington considers a terror organization but which is iranian sponsored and is part of

lebanon's government. >> yes, one of the areas that this administration and israel see eye to eye on is the threat of iran, which they think is the dominant threat in the region. but at the same time, this idea of a syrian civil war is a misnomer. there are many, many wars going on there. it's very complicated, as wendy said. one of the things that israel is doing is now maybe breaking the bonds that it was beginning to have with some of sunni countries where they have some natural alliances. but it's super, super complicated. and by the way, the u.s. is absent from this. there's a russian peace thiece s putting in there, and we're nowhere to be seen. >> he's also going to turkey. we do not have ambassadors in many of these countries. to be continued. wendy and rick, thank you, as always. and there was an historic unveiling at the smithsonian portrait gallery today. former president obama and former first lady michelle obama saw their official portraits unveiled. the former first couple chose african-american artists to paint their portraits.

that was a first for the white house. >> she and i, we started talking, and barack kind of faded into the woodwork. there was an instant connection, that kind of sister girl connection i have with this woman. that was true all the way through the process. >> she was describing first interviewing the artist, the woman who painted her in the oval office when they were still in the white house. president obama unveiled his portrait then and described trying to bargain with the artist in his case. >> i tried to negotiate less gray hair. and the artistic integrity would not allow him to do what i asked. i tried to negotiate smaller ears. struck out on that as well. maybe the one area where there were some concessions was, as i

said before, his art often takes ordinary people and elevates them, lifts them up. and puts them in these fairly elaborate settings. so his initial impulse maybe in the work was to also elevate me and put me in these settings with partridges and scepters and thrones and robes, mounting me on horses. and i had to explain that i've got enough political problems without you making me look like napoleon. we've got to bring it down just a touch. >> well, i think that they did very well, indeed. it was an emotional moment for

both artists. the first african-american artists to paint presidential first couple portraits, and this of course is black history month. coming up next, reality check. the presidentcheck. the president has a big blueprint for fixing the country's crumbling infrastructure. who is going to get stuck with the bill? we'll talk about that up next. thank you so much. thank you! so we're a go? yes! we got a yes! what does that mean for purchasing? purchase. let's do this. got it. book the flights! hai! si! si! ya! ya! ya! what does that mean for us? we can get stuff.

what's it mean for shipping? ship the goods. you're a go! you got the green light. that means go! oh, yeah. start saying yes to your company's best ideas. we're gonna hit our launch date! (scream) thank you! goodbye! we help all types of businesses with money, tools and know-how to get business done. american express open. to get business done. people are fighting type 2 diabetes... with fitness... food... and the pill that starts with f. farxiga, along with diet and exercise, helps lower blood sugar in adults with type 2 diabetes. lowering a1c by up to 1.2 points. do not take if allergic to farxiga. if you experience symptoms of a serious allergic reaction such as rash, swelling, difficulty breathing or swallowing, stop taking and seek medical help right away. do not take farxiga if you have severe kidney problems, are on dialysis, or have bladder cancer. tell your doctor right away if you have blood or red color in your urine or pain while you urinate. farxiga can cause serious side effects including dehydration, genital yeast infections in women and men, serious urinary tract infections,

low blood sugar, and kidney problems. stop taking farxiga and call your doctor right away if you have signs of ketoacidosis which is serious and may lead to death. ask your doctor about the pill that starts with f and visit farxiga.com for savings. if you can't afford your medication, astrazeneca may be able to help.

welcome back. president trump today unveil his

long-awaited plan to repair the nation's highways, bridges and railroads with a $1.5 trillion price tag over the next decade, 80% of which is to be picked up by state and local governments. so let he is get the inside scoop from jeremy peters and heidi prisbilla. you had the first details on this friday and, understandably it's seed money, but usually it's a different split between federal, state and local not 80/20 in this direction, local picking up the biggest part of the tab. >> it's changing that fundamental formula that a lot of the infrastructure experts say is necessary. for instance, the gateway tunnel project in new york or building high-speed rail in indianapolis. those types of things traditionally have a much bigger federal role. so really this comes down to money, andrea, at a basic level.

first of all, how do you get $200 billion to equal $1.5 trillion? a lot of skepticism on how states which are already cash strapped generate that kind of money and you get private companies to invest in the type of projects that aren't just for profit but also in our interest in terms of water safety, in terms of public safety. and then secondly where does the seed money even come from because in the president's own budget there's cuts to transportation programs and the highway trust fund. where does that seed money even come from in the budget? and we'll start to hear from states very shortly. i think both from republicans and democrats on how this is difficult to generate this kind of money and then in congress who will shepard this? those skeptical of the stimulus aren't going to have changed those opinions about federal spending on these types of programs. >> and this is another attempt by the president, this white house, to really shine a light

on something they want to talk about. again, jeremy peters, every time they try to do something like this it's been overwhelmed by negative stories. this time they want to talk about infrastructure but most of the media are talking about what happened with rob porter, whether or not john kelly will stay as chief of staff, and why there are so many people headlined who don't have full security clearances more than a year in. >> that's exactly right, all those things you ticked off are happening and let's not forget about the russia investigation and the kind of news on that within the coming days. then on the senate floor you have a debate over immigration that is really going to lay bear, andrea, the tensions and divisions in the republican party. this is going to be a really heavy news week and almost all of it will somehow be unflattering to this president. when you look at immigration, this is a real moment of truth for the president. he has on the one hand his right

flank which is bell owing, no, no, no, you cannot do anything that even has a whiff of amnesty attached to it but you have the impulses to get a deal done and he wants an achievement. he wants to solve the daca problem. he wants to give some type of clarity and resolution to these dreamers who are here in the united states. but how do you do that without having a civil war in the republican party? i think that storyline is going to consume us over the next couple of weeks. >> and, heidi, at the same time we've got a shake-up at the justice department. we reference it had earlier but this real concern that if rachel is gone and if rob rosenstein gets fired you're going to see this mueller investigation taken over by the solicitor general who is someone not only a trump appointee but was a scalia law clerk, who is a republican who

might be much more susceptible to some pressure from the white house. >> and the question is where is congress on all of this, andrea, because i take you back to the summer when the thought of anything, any kind of motion, whiff, in the direction of getting rid of mueller or putting in someone who might be able to put the stops on different lines of inquiry that he may be going into. that's what could happen here. it could be that whoever is put in there doesn't actually put a kibosh on the entire investigation but starts needling at it in different directions. the thought of that last summer was so unacceptable that members of congress were rushing to put out legislation to try and put a protective circle around mueller and you see the committees disintegrate into partisan squabbling particularly in the house but even in the senate no unity on legislation moving

forward to protect mueller. so if that does happen, i think there would be even more pressure on congress to stand up and take a stand. >> and, jeremy, briefly before we have to go on the chief of staff we know that the president was making calls, but fiercely contradicted by all of the white house officials who were on television yesterday. so have they decided that john kelly stays for now? >> i think his situation is no different than it was over the weekend. trump tends to let the situations fester for a while and long after it's become clear that whoever -- whatever person we're talking about in the white house who is under intense pressure, they will kind of linger for a few months and there will be a resolution to it at some point. i don't think anything is imminent, though. >> jeremy peters, heidi przybyla that does it for us on a busy monday. remember, follow us online on

facebook and twitter at mitchell reports. peter alexander is here. passing the baton to you. good afternoon to you. i'm peter alexander in this afternoon for craig melvin. the president's messaging problem. the white house distractions derailing president trump's economic message as questions continue to swirl around what chief of staff john kelly knew and when he knew it. is kelly on his way out? and how devastating would that be to the white house and its agenda? plus, russian roulette. nbc news exclusive reporting the number three official at the justice department stepped down for fear she might have to lead the russia investigation. what does it tell us about the future of the russia inquiry? also the future of the deputy ag, rod rosenstein. then presidential portraits. your first look at former president obama and his wife michelle's highly anticipated official portraits.