of hope and dignity where there are deprivation and exclusion. where there is hunger and unemployment. where there are migrants and refugees. migrants and refugees so often rejected by today's culture of waste. >> and a little later millions more hearing this. >> a lot of people are coming in because they want to take advantage of daca. and we're going to have to really see. we had a great chance. the democrats blew it. they send them in to the united states.

can't happen that way anymore. >> that was the president as he and the first lady walked into easter church services today. he had a tweet saying need wall. and this one concluding with no more daca deal. president spending the holiday at his club in palm beach. but according to "the washington post" the president's chief of staff and supposed moderating force in the west wing john kelly did not travel with him and senior adviser steven miller did. want to welcome in the panel. here in new york, business and politics reporter for "the wall street journal" shelby holiday. editor at large for reason magazine, matt welch. in d.c. writer for "the atlantic" molly and betsy woodruff. thank you for being with us on this easter sunday night. betsy, you and the news.

i think the president we're not clear what prompted the tweets this morning and might have been seeing something on fox fews about folks making way to the mexican border. he sends off the series of tweets and says no more daca deal f. you're a democrat or if you're a republican in washington, thinking there's a compromise to be worked on here, what's your reaction to this tonight? >> it's certainly a reaction of pessimism for democrats. the tweets and miller for years back to his time on capitol hill under then senator jeff sessions is one that people are coming to the united states because they

want to get daca, there's scant if any proof that daca was a driver of illegal immigration. however, that line is something that stephen miller and folks in his broader cohort have been pushing for years, that daca was the reason for all sorts of bad things that happened at the border, that have happened over the years since the policy was put in place. so, the president seems to be tweeting and talking in a way that suggests or indicates that stephen miller is ascend ant within his inner circle. >> it's interesting, too, shelby, because we've seen the president with this issue on dak a we've seen conflicting signals the laviolette several months. he was at the meeting talking about we're going to get this deal done. he said he seize this, sometimes he sees this as an issue of drying to do the right thing morally by these folks. >> right. >> now you get this, i think this does raise the question what betsy was saying there about stephen miller maybe having his ear on this. even if the president at least partly is inclined to get to a deal on this, can he ever actually sign off on it with stephen miller and with folks on the right who have that sort of view of this? >> right. well, that's a major question. the president has said that he wants a deal, now he's saying absolutely not. there are questions about how much he even understands daca at this point, as we heard him in

that sound bite say people are coming in to take advantage of daca. as my colleague at the "wall street journal" said you can't take advantage of daca if you're coming in now or in the future. it is unclear if the president really understands this policy and i also think it is worth noting there have been potential deals in the past that he has said no to because they didn't do enough for family migration, they didn't do enough for the diversity visa lottery program. so, people have sort of tried to meet him in the middle and it is unclear where he'd be willing to -- he hasn't put down any markers as to where he would be willing to accept a deal. it makes negotiating with the president like that really hard because nobody knows what he's willing to take. >> and so meanwhile the whole issue just kind of sits here. it's unresolved. the status of these kids and others potentially in limbo,

matt. it's going through the court system a little bit. some sense maybe something will happen politically, maybe not now based on this. is this going to sort of sit there? the administration also -- you have trump sending signals saying, hey, even if we don't get this changed we're not going to do anything. is this going to sit unresolved for the foreseeable future? >> until the courts resolve, yes. president trump keeps trying to pin it on democrats every single time. democrats didn't deal -- it's on them. there's a little bit of panic behind that. any time you poll this question to support daca or support the notion of kids who came here ill littlely should or should not be deported we're talking two-thirds to 80% of americans who say don't deport those kids. when we start seeing those kids get deported whether it's people who have signed up for daca program which is something like 800,000, or the much larger population i think it's more like 1.8 million of kids who are here illegally who are under 18, once we start seeing that footage of them getting deported, it's not democrats who are going to be blamed. i do not think.

it is going to be donald trump because he made the proactive decision to kick daca back to congress with the six-month deadline and that passed in march. it is going to be on him. we are seeing some panic in his voice as he does this. that said it's his decision. if he clearly thinks the politician on his base or some level are going to be good for huh him. within his base, this is the defining issue trump ran on in addition to everything else he said. at the same time all of this is playing after the trump administration has been accelerating plans for a wall, spanning the border with mexico, on friday officials announced they have funding to build or replace 100 miles of fencing. pentagon chief spokesperson confirming the president spoke with defense secretary jim mattis about the possibilities of using defense department funds for the wall. and during a speech in cleveland, the president seemed to compare the u.s./mexico border to another global hot spot. >> look at korea. we have a border at korea. we have a wall of soldiers. we don't get paid very much for this, do we? you look at that. nobody comes through. but our own border, we don't take care of it. think of it. we spend billions of dollars in other countries maintaining their borders and we can't maintain our borders in our own country. is there something a little bit wrong with that?

>> and julia, what's so interesting about that, we're playing that from the president in ohio, a rally he had a couple days ago, that is trump speaking to his base. that's trump like he was in all the republican primary rallies he was, general election rallies. that is him speaking to his base. the rhetoric there you're hearing on the border on mexico, on immigration, it's same rhetoric during the campaign. the difference is he's been president more than a year. >> right, this is the problem we've had since he became president, how to differentiate between the overt political messaging and the reality of what he wants to do policy wise.

so, is he really calling for a demilitarized zone with absolutely no movement back and forth at the u.s./mexico border? hard to say because on one hand it's just a political rally. he's talking to his base. he's also the commander in chief. i think a lot of this is unfortunately political messaging in the same way the citizenship question we're seeing now on the 2020 census. i think a lot of this is little lobs across the white house fence to the base. and i think, you know, the president knows the 2018 election is coming up and i think some kind of daca deal might not play well with that riled up base that's still really, really approves of him. >> let me talk about the politics of this, though, from a slightly different direction, too. matt just said, too, from trump's standpoint, this idea and republican standpoint, this idea you would then have -- if this expires, if there's been enforcement, if there is then deportations, from a public relations standpoint that could be terrible for trump, be terrible for the republicans. i am reminded a couple months ago when was tied in with government funding it was the democrats who ended up getting

nervous in that situation. they felt while there was broad public december think for the dreamers, it start today look like democrats were prioritizing the dreamers over government funding and democrats then backed down a little bit. i wonder, betsy, maybe i'll throw this to you. if this thing goes into limbo for the next few months where there's no deal on daca, trump's not moving toward a deal, but we're also not getting deportations. is there any political risk there for democrats just in terms of the more they talk about this at the expense of talking about jobs or, you know, social security, any of their traditional bread and butter issues, that that issue -- what are they prioritizing here comes into play? >> the priority question puts democrats between a rock and a hard place. the reality is that their base for the most part is very doggedly supportive of the daca program and, in fact, i remember in 2014 when i covered that midterm election season, one of the problems for democrats was that they hadn't been able to get comprehensive immigration reform passed. at that point the president hadn't taken all the steps he would end up taking to try to protect some undocumented

immigrants. and as a result, many hispanic voters just decided to stay home. and, in fact, there was at least one activist group that was encouraging its members not to vote for democrats because they thought democrats hadn't fought hard enough and, of course, the caving that we saw from chuck schumer when democrats tried to use a government shutdown legislation to save daca but then failed, that's something that frustrates their base at the same time for democrats to win over the votes in that blue wall, for them to win back the blue wall, pennsylvania, michigan, wisconsin, even -- look, minnesota is no longer on lock for democrats. they have to talk about some of the more traditionally blue collar issues that republicans talked about successfully in 2016. it's a really tough spot for them to be in and i imagine that congressman ellis on might have one or two thoughts about it. it's ape dicey situation for them. >> i'm going to ask him about that as soon as we get him out here. but, shelby, i am interested, how did sort of split the -- is there a way politically to split the difference? because as betsy is saying there in terms of the democratic base, in terms of, you know, latino voters, latino activists in

particular, this is the issue. >> right. >> right now, and on the other hand, you talk about some of those voters out there who traditionally voted democrat, flipped to trump, who maybe want to see a democrat get up there and say, take a harder line on the border. is there any way you can span that divide? >> it's hard when you have a president also who is changing his mind in, like i said, sort of making it impossible to negotiate. but i think one issue that the democrats really struggle with is they're not united. we saw -- i went back during what we call the chuck schumer debacle, some democrats were sort of floating the idea that it would be great to give the president his wall, take the daca deal, move on. and other democrats said absolutely not, no way. because there is a lack of unity, it's not just where they can find common ground. it's -- they're just on completely different ends of this issue and it's unclear if they can all -- they've done a really good job sticking together the past year. on this particular issue, this is not an instance where they

have stuff together and it's really hurt them. >> and the other sort of flare-up on this front politically this week, matt, was over this question of the census. the census is going to be taken in 2020. the trump administration is going to put back into the census the question about immigration status. folks in this country lawfully. there is a backlash from activists groups on the left, some on the right as well. this is one where i am very curious to see what the polling is on this because i can imagine there are objections, there are concerns that have been raised about is this going to intimidate folks into not answering the question, getting an inaccurate count, all sorts of implications for that. i can imagine that resonating with people. i can imagine people out there saying, shouldn't we know how many citizens are in this country? >> if you polled the question, should congress be reapportioned every ten years based on total population, including illegal immigrants, you get a whole lot of people saying no, and yet that is the constitution and legal fact in the united states. this is part of the reason why republicans have been asking and been agitating for this to happen for a long time. david vitter, former senator for louisiana, chris kobak, notorious secretary of state in

kansas who has been going after the illusion of illegal immigrant voter fraud for a long time, they have backed this a long time. the question being put on the census a long time particularly because they know, or they hope it would lead to a lower response rate among illegal immigrants. there by, making that redrawing exercise more favorable for states that don't have illegal immigrant populations because on some level it sort of feels wrong. we shouldn't do this. well, that's what we have been doing. redraw the maps based on total population regardless of voting rights. it's been that way for a long time. so, commerce secretary wilbur ross when he defended this thing, he had a very i think insincere claim that, well, we don't have good data to support that will say larger nonresponse rates. there's been six former directors of the census bureau who are ringing the alarm, bipartisan both parties appointed saying this is obviously going to affect response rates in a negative way. so, this is smash mouth politics

right now. republicans are trying to get a better outcome in 2020 based on this, knowing, i think, this is going to reduce, suppress or depress turnout among illegal immigrant residents. >> that is coming up in two years from now. we have a lot coming up on this show. just getting started. a chill at the outset of spring, the u.s. and russia take turns sending home each other's diplomats. later deputy majority whip, tom cole, one of the tonight republicans, we'll talk about new reports about the desire for fresh blood in the republican leadership. and as we go to break, very few white house staffers got the send off that hope hicks did this week. our producers tried to make it up to those who have come and gone without such fanfare. you're watching "kasie d.c." >> thank you to secretary shulkin. >> general h.r. mcmaster. >> i wish rex tillerson well. >> gary cohn, the president of goldman sachs. >> hope hicks. director comey. >> the greatest businessman in the world. carl icahn. >> general mike flynn.

sean spicer, he is a wonderful human being. i like mr. bannon. reince is really a star. secretary price. i'm really at a point where we're close to having the cabinet and other things that i want. you know what's awesome? gig-speed internet.

you know what's not awesome? when only certain people can get it. let's fix that. let's give this guy gig-

really? and these kids, and these guys, him, ah. oh hello. that lady, these houses! yes, yes and yes. and don't forget about them. uh huh, sure. still yes! xfinity delivers gig speed to more homes than anyone. now you can get it, too. welcome to the party. the russian diplomats kicked out of the u.s. arrived back in moscow this morning. this right here, video showing the first of the two planes carrying them and their families back home. this is all part of a diplomatic game of chicken between russia and the united states over the poisoning of an ex-russian spy on british soil. this week the trump administration decided to kick out 60 russian diplomats, also shuttering the country's seattle consulate. the u.s. joined the u.k., nato and 25 other countries that also expelled russian diplomats.

russia, meanwhile, now in the process of kicking out 150 western diplomats in response. nbc's savannah guthrie spoke with russia's ambassador to the united states who explained why russia took that action. >> if anybody slap your cheek, your face, what will be reaction from your side? you will think, not you will think, you will try to do and you will retaliate. it goes without saying. >> we reserve the right to respond. >> to respond to their response? >> correct. >> so, in other words, this is not over, this could -- it's not necessarily over? we could be -- we could see an escalation beyond this? >> i'm not going to predict anything that could happen, but we certainly have the ability to do so. >> all right. >> two members of the u.s. -- two members of the u.s.-led coalition -- boy, i screwed that up badly. let me start again. two members -- that is later in the show. we're going to talk about russia

first. that's my bad. i'm sorry about that. let me bring in julia who knows a thing or two about the situation in the united states and russia. julia, this week we heard all sorts of talk about this is a level of tension we hadn't seen since the cold war. you had the diplomats being kicked out here. you had russia responding. you had russia doing that missile test saying, hey, this is a missile -- the united states wouldn't even be able to handle. and then you have add we just showed in the clip right there at the end, the possibility that there could be further escalation. i think the question that comes out of that, what would further escalation look like? >> well, the thing is that vladimir putin likes to be unpredictable. he likes to outfox the west and have us responding to his unpredictability. what i worry about personally is that it's going to involve yet another foreign adventure in some way syria, the russian intervention in syria was a response to russia's isolation

after its invasion of ukraine and its illegal annexation of crimea. so, now russia is again very isolated, having brought itself in from the cold a little bit in syria, and the question is what is vladimir putin going to do now. in some ways he's kind of a wounded animal backed into a corner. there is not a lot of good options for him. there is not a lot of good options for the states either. people keep comparing it to the cold war, but it's very different from the cold war. in the cold war there were rules and protocols that both sides followed. there were kind of things that were off limits. here, the russians especially seem to be very, you know, gloves off, protocol thrown to the side. and we also have a very unpredictable man in the white house, where russia policy is kind of bifurcated. we have president trump saying things that are very favorable

of russia or kind of calling into question the american intelligence communities' assessment of russia and then the trump administration which, you know, is kicking out diplomats, which is being quite hawkish on russia. so, it's kind of hard to even gauge where the americans are coming at this from. the level of unpredictability on both sides is very troubling. >> i think that's the most fascinating aspect of all this. let me ask the panel about this. matt, i'll start with you. look, the charge against donald trump from the 2016 campaign through this day has been that he's soft on russia, he's soft on putin, that he has some sort of soft spot for putin. that's one thing. the other thing is you've got this trump administration right now kicking out dozens of russian diplomats. you have the trump administration sending these anti-tank missiles over to ukraine, taking steps that even the obama administration wouldn't do. you've got some actual aggressive steps being taken by the administration while the president continues to say things that are suspicions he and putin are a little too close. how is it possible to square those two things?

>> if you judge things, if you remove, lobotomize yourself, the kerfuffle, reactions compared to 2013 -- 2015 might be a better thing. i hesitate to be too sure when we have julia on this panel here. but you would say that the trump administration has been tougher than the obama administration kind of at large was towards russia. and i think we can get into our own heads a little bit too much about all of this. the most i think significant aspect of all of this is for the first time in a good while we have seen all of the nato countries, or most of the nato countries, acting in concert together. it's not even at the leadership of the united states at this point. it's more germany and united kingdom. acting in a way to say, hey, look, you poisoned people in the past and we didn't really do too much here. we're kind of irritated by you right now and we are going to act in a collective pretty strong significant way. i think that gets the phrase article 5 back up in people's spines in a way we haven't seen in a long time. ultimately, vladimir putin wants to believe or wants to be in the situation where it's, eh, maybe they don't want to defend the

baltics after all. what we see now is they're going to defend the baltics regardless of who is in the white house. >> julia, president trump, his relationship with nato, his public comments about nato, the trip he took to europe last year raised all sorts of questions about whether he had any use for nato. now you have a situation where nato is taking the lead a bit here, where the trump administration is taking these aggressive steps. the question -- one of the questions that kind of emerges to me is how much of this is president trump somehow being pushed into this by folks in his administration. are folks in his administration somehow doing this without him being fully aware? do we have a sense where this is coming from exactly? >> well, again, this is what's so troubling on the american side is that there's president trump and there's his administration. there's his administration saying when you're on the phone call with vladimir putin, do not congratulate him on his win in a rigged election. and what does president trump do? he congratulates vladimir putin on his win in the rigged

election. you have the trump administration saying, you know, say something about the poisoning. chastise him in this phone call about the -- for the poisoning. what does president trump do? he doesn't. so, there is on one hand this reality that things have gotten really, really bad for the u.s./russia relationship in a way they hadn't been under the obama administration, though they got pretty bad then, too. and you did have the obama administration marshaling the countries of europe to unite, even though some were dragged in kicking and screaming on the anti-russia sanctions for ukraine. you didn't have this kind of, you know, the right hand doesn't know what the left arm is doing. i think that's really scary. we don't know even where our executive branch stands on russia. >> how would you, michelle -- our policy towards russia in the trump era, how do you look at it? you can look at it through the prism of the 2016 election. you can look at it through the prism of sending the anti-tanks. >> i'll bring up the elephant in the room. there are questions about whether or not the president could be compromised or blackmailed by vladimir putin.

so, i think when you look at his actions, people still have that question in their minds. do they make sense of him congratulating him putin, for example, because putin may have something on him? i mean, that's unclear. we'll find out when mueller continues as he continues his investigation. but i think you do have to -- you can't just say the president is soft on russia, yet his administration is taking all of these steps. i mean, he is the head of the administration. he could stop some of these things from happening. i do think he's probably in a strange awkward place now because he is friendly personally with vladimir putin, yet seems to feel very threatened by some of the moves russia is making. and that comment by the diplomat was so shocking because they poisoned -- they tried to kill a russian man and his daughter and he's saying that they were slapped in the face first. and this is how russia acts. they go out, they're very provocative, they take some sort of wild action no one should ever tolerate, and what you saw with the nato expelling of diplomats is pretty typical. we still haven't seen that for the u.s. election. we saw some sanctions but we never saw this concerted huge forceful push back after russia meddled in our election.

unclear if we will ever see that. >> could i jump in here a little bit? >> yes, quickly. >> sorry. what i want to say from the russian perspective, i think the russians are trying to show once again as it has been trying to show for years, that the west is not in a position to punish russia, that this is in some way an internal thing, russia going after a former russian spy. russia is a peer to the united states and nato and you can't punish russia like a recalcitrant child. of course, russia, by doing these -- by having these provocative actions for which, you know, they're basically begging to be punished, they're really kind of calling the west's bluff all the time. and unfortunately because of the way the play is set up from the russian perspective, we often end up playing into putin's hands. >> okay. going to take a quick break

here. when we return, though, we're and unfortunately because of the way the play is set up from the russian perspective, we often end up playing into putin's hands. >> okay. going to take a quick break here. when we return, though, we're going to talk to congressman keith ellison, democrat of minnesota with early signs of what democrats hope will be a historic wave. can democrats take back the house? can they downplay the trump tax cut? you know, i used to be good at this.

then you turn 40 and everything goes. tell me about it. you know, it's made me think, i'm closer to my retirement days than i am my college days. hm. i'm thinking... will i have enough? should i change something? well, you're asking the right questions. i just want to know, am i gonna be okay? i know people who specialize in "am i going to be okay." i like that. you may need glasses though. yeah. schedule a complimentary goal planning session today with td ameritrade.

well, hillary clinton is not on the ballot this year, but republicans are still using her to try to fire up their conservative base. nbc's rebecca shabad cites so far at least three republican candidates or groups have released ads slamming clinton. some are using her controversial comments in recent weeks on trump voters in middle america with the hopes of tying clinton to democrats currently running for office. and joining me now is the deputy

chair of the democratic national committee, congressman keith ellison of minnesota. one of those democrats leading the charge, they're trying to take back the house this year. congressman, thanks for joining us. let's talk about that effort. democrats haven't been there in 18 years. the new report we have on nbcnews.com, they think hillary clinton is going to be a weapon for them because of those comments in part, at least, she made a few weeks ago about trump areas of the country being backward looking, sort of tale of two countries there. let me ask you, the road to a house majority, the road to a senate majority for that matter, goes through some places donald trump won and some some cases won them big. those comments from hillary clinton, are they going to hurt you at all? >> hey, look, we're going to be focusing on working class kitchen table issues. i was in trenton, michigan, yesterday and in detroit, too. people want to talk about pensions, wages. they want to know, if i can get a job, can i get one that's going to pay me a livable wage? right now they're fighting in michigan to get fair wages for servers and stuff like that. those are the issues. conor lamb ran and he talked

about unions, the right to organize, he talked about pensions. and he talked about workers. and that's what we're going to hit. man, more than talking bad about anybody, we're talking in favor of the american people. we're talking about -- to folks in missouri, michigan, all over the country, we're going to wisconsin. we're going all over. we are engaging people on these kind of things. >> i take the point -- >> keeping the main thing the main thing how people can make a living. >> sir, i take the point. but republicans are saying exactly what you're describing there, they're saying they think it's going to be undercut because they've got this very prominent democrat who the party nominated for president two years ago talking about those places you're talking about winning saying these are the backward looking areas of the country. is that going to hurt you? do you want her out there campaigning for democrats? >> you know, let me tell you, i don't think one comment one person makes is the issue. i think people want to know what are you doing for us. you know, when i was in detroit

and in trenton yesterday, people kept bringing up pensions. we've got a pension crisis going on in this country. and if somebody comes to them and says, hey, this one poll said this one thing this time. people are going to be like, whatever, man. i want to know what is the democrat party going to fight for me and my family as i look forward to retirement? the answer is emphatically absolutely yes. so, i just want to tell you, man, we're not just trying to win back the u.s. house and the u.s. senate. we are fighting up and down the ballot. we're trying to get state legislators in, municipal officials. i met a guy who is the president of the democratic municipal officials, councilmember scott vincent. we're talking to folks like him so we can win up and down the ballot. our vision is bigger than washington. we want the whole thing. >> what about, talking about those everyday folks out there you're trying to win over, the republican message, certainly from donald trump, is going to run on the tax cut. going to run on the republicans voting at the end of the last year, trump signing a tax cut. your criticism of it as democrats, the rich are getting way too much here. but the fact is working people did it, they did get something. let me ask you this. is the democrat krk message to those working folks that you can keep the tax cut that you got from donald trump, or is the message, repeal the tax cut? >> i think the message for the rich est folks who got the tax cut and the big companies needs to be repeal them. i have no idea why corporate tax rate needs to drop from 35% to

20, why we need to essentially cut the estate tax which only the richest people benefit from. folks know -- >> okay. what about the tax cut folks got this their paychecks? >> what they want to know is how are we going to live the american dream. how are we going to create a society where our kids can expect to do better than us. nothing about these tax cuts indicates that. in fact, the working folks quote tax cuts to the degree they exist at all, are temporary and the big company's tax cuts are permanent. so, we're going to be arguing about how we can do better, how you can move forward to a better life. that's what we're talking about. >> they are temporary, but they do go for a number of years here. is the message to those working folks -- not talking the 1%. the working folks, the folks who have it in their paycheck, for instance. is the message that if democrats get control of the house that, hey, we don't think it was enough. we think it was too small. but you can keep the tax cut you got, or is the message that tax cut is going away? >> look, the problematic tax cuts are the one that blow a massive hole in our budget next year. those are the problems. you know, the problem is not that working people get a few bucks here and there. they need a future, not some small money so that trump can get buckets of movie to the richest people in the country. people are smart. they know, they know they're being played. >> is there a commitment there the tax cuts for working class folks, for middle class folks

stay? is that what you're trying to say here? >> look, you know how the legislative process works. we're going, we're going to go back there and we're going to look at what kind of tax situation we're going to have, that it's fair to everybody. that's what we're going to do. but the bottom line is these taxes to the wealthiest and the big companies are not fair. they put a burden on state and local governments and put the burdens on shoulders of working people. it's not just the tax cuts. it's also the budget impact that tax cuts are going tomorrow. those things hurt working people and we're fighting for working folks. >> let me ask you about the news the president made today. we were talking about it earlier on the subject of daca and he put out a tweet, no daca deal. how do you regard that message? do you think that ends the matter in terms of him coming to a compromise with you guys? >> well, it doesn't end the matter. i can tell you that a whole lot of young people who may be fighting for immigration reform get buckets of movie to the richest people in the country.

people are smart. they know, they know they're being played. >> is there a commitment there the tax cuts for working class folks, for middle class folks stay? is that what you're trying to say here? >> look, you know how the legislative process works. we're going, we're going to go back there and we're going to look at what kind of tax situation we're going to have, that it's fair to everybody. that's what we're going to do. but the bottom line is these taxes to the wealthiest and the big companies are not fair. they put a burden on state and local governments and put the burdens on shoulders of working people. it's not just the tax cuts. it's also the budget impact that tax cuts are going tomorrow. those things hurt working people and we're fighting for working folks. >> let me ask you about the news the president made today. we were talking about it earlier on the subject of daca and he put out a tweet, no daca deal. how do you regard that message? do you think that ends the matter in terms of him coming to a compromise with you guys? >> well, it doesn't end the matter.

i can tell you that a whole lot of young people who may be fighting for immigration reform and people who are not immigrants, but who care about immigrants, we're not going to stop fighting for immigration justice no matter what trump has to say. let me tell you, personally, back when trump ended the daca program back in september, i knew he wasn't going to do anything about it. when he referred to the lot of the countries that people come from in such an ugly derisive way, he never had a plan to fix daca. he turned down guy partisan deals. did was always a game, never a trick. he wasn't arguing in good faith, we are and we're going to keep fighting for daca folks. >> i want to figure out how you're interpreting this. that seems to be in the era we're in, the trump era, how to interpret the presidential tweets, the statements, whether he was blowing off steam or venting or doing some momentary thing, or do you take that tweet to mean there's not -- he's not going to be willing to compromise with you no matter what?

>> you know what, we're never going to stop fighting for da a. and if trump has a change of heart that's fine. we're never going to stop fighting for immigration reform, justice for young people. whether trump sends out a tweet or not. so, my answer to your question is no matter what he does, we're fighting for immigration justice. we believe in liberty and justice for all, which includes the daca kids and all immigrants. we're not backing off that. he tweets all kind of crazy stuff all the time. it's hard to keep up with what he's trying to do at a given moment. but i never really believed the guy to tell you the truth but we're going to keep marching no matter what he does. if he won't deal with us we'll deal with him in november. >> all right. congressman keith ellison, democrat from minnesota. thanks for the time. >> you bet. >> when we come back, is scott pruitt the next to go from the trump administration?

there is zero chaos. we are running, this is a fine tuned machine. >> obviously there is going to be some level of turmoil.

>> i don't think there is chaos. >> the drama is there, but that is how the president makes decisions. >> if you want to see chaos come to my house with three preschoolers. this doesn't hold a candle to that. >> i like conflict. i like having two people with different points of view and i certainly have that and then i make a decision. >> the president told me he's perplexed by all these reports there is chaos at the white house. >> he told me that he thinks the white house is operating like a smooth machine, his words. >> well, the white house begins the week in search of a new communications director and with a nominee for the va to be the va secretary whose qualifications, not as a doctor, but a cabinet level secretary have come into question. and chris christie who if you remember this briefly headed the transition team once upon a team. he added another name to the list of who could be next. >> this was a brutally unprofessional transition. this was a transition that

didn't vet people for this type of judgment issues, which i think could have been seen very easily in a lot of these people and you cannot do this with, you know, rick dear born and steve bannon on the back of an envelope in 73 days. and the president has been ill served by this. and if mr. pruitt is going to go it's because he should have never been there in the first place. >> does he need to go? >> listen, i don't know how you survive this one. >> he's talking specifically will about scott pruitt, the epa administrator. the revelation there that he has a condo that -- he's living in a condo co-owned by the wife of a top energy lobbyist. that's what christie is saying there. betsy woodruff, the broader point chris christie is making obviously chris christie has an axe to grind because for 48 hours he was going to be the guy running the transition for the trump administration back in 2016. so, there's more than a little see i told you so there. what he's describing is not just chris christie who makes that point in washington. it's not just democrats, i mean folks across the party lines say that about the trump

administration, about things -- how things have been run there. i think the question is he's pointing back to the transition. has anything changed at all in terms of what he's describing in terms of how the white house now approaches openings and vacancies? >> taking a step back and sort of looking at this from 50,000 feet, the big change really has been general kelly becoming chief of staff. before he stepped in the white house was just a lot more messy, a lot leakier and racked with much more infighting than at least is visible right now. that's a low bar. that is not to suggest the white house is running like the well oiled machine chris ruddy would have us believe it is. kelly's assent has changed things. we can see that. that said, it doesn't mean everything is working perfectly. the washington post story that came out friday, i would suggest everyone read it. it is an excellent piece of reporting. it highlights the root cause of a lot of these problems which go to the effective staffers,

people who never show up on tv, who ant in cameras with the president, but low-level people, especially the offices involving personnel who seem to be making decisions based on family members, or decisions based on motives perhaps other than what's best for the country. post lays this out in great detail. it's complex. it doesn't serve well for perhaps these kinds of conversations, but the way that it elucidates all the challenges facing this white house is valuable. that is something i think an area where i think chris christie probably makes a valid point. firing everybody from transition and restarting in the middle really did set this white house up for chaos. >> it is so interesting to hear you talk about general kelly, the chief of staff that way. shelby, i think thoekz who are critical of the administration, whether it's democrats or republicans, you hear that name and you hear that observation a lot. that, hey, look, this thing could be a lot worse from their standpoint if you didn't have kelly there. >> uh-huh. >> raises the question, too,

with all of this turmoil, his status, his pace in the administration -- >> how long can he last? >> is he enjoying it, does he feel a sense of only allegation to stay on? does trump have patience with him? do we have a sense of that? >> there were some reports and rumors recently, i think within the last month, that he may be out the door. whether it's because he's measurable or the president's frustrated with him. and general kelly has been the subject himself of news, whether it was with rob porter or the wife of the fallen soldier over in africa. so, you know, he's taken some heat. but generally when you hear his name, as you said, it's sort of like the calm in the middle of this big storm. and people are reassured that he's in the middle and he's sort of the voice on the president's shoulder. unclear how long he'll stay, but i remember talking to leon panetta when general kelly went into the white house and panetta who was a chief of staff, give him six months. you can't judge a chief of staff you can't judge a chief of staff in six months after that you can tell if it's working and gelling. i don't think we can make a call

on whether or not this is a great chief of staff or terrible chief of staff but i think a lot of people around the president hope he'll be there a lot longer. >> it raises the question, too, if not general kelly, if he were to leave for some reason, beside general kelly, is there anyone else in the administration who the critics outside are looking for the calming stabilizing force, whatever you want to call him, that role that's been assigned to him in the court of public opinion, is there anyone else to do that? >> if they don't find that unicorn, i'm sure they'll find somebody else. there's always somebody else this administration manages to find somewhere in the corner of the universe who's willing to take on these jobs for the short time they're destined to have them. i think it's interesting the president approaches his presidency as if it were the most thrilling season of the apprentice. john bolton didn't qualify for secretary of state because of his disqualifying mustache because he didn't look the part. the new va secretary looks the part, he has a great chin and spoke well of the president. it seems every week somebody has to be voted out and if there's

calm the president can't sit still and run the country. >> they're never voted out to that i shall face. >> that's the other part of this. he does it in twitter, never in the board room with them 3 feet away. thank you for all of us. when we return, an inflection point for teachers all across the country. aveeno® positively radiant body lotion... with the moisture-rich power of soy. it transforms dull, dry skin to leave you glowing. positively radiant® body collection from aveeno®.

aveeno® positively radiant body lotion... it's time to get your glow on! with the moisture-rich power of soy. it transforms dull, dry skin to leave you glowing. positively radiant® body collection from aveeno®.

well, education is at a crisis point in states across the country. already this year we saw teachers in west virginia strike over their pay, and now others from coast to coast are following suit. in oklahoma teachers are planning on walk outs after budget crisis had them adopting four day school weeks and raised taxes where the average teacher would get a $6,000 a year pay raise. in arizona educate or thes demonstrated in phoenix demanding a 20% pay raise, threatening to strike if lawmakers don't respond. let's bring in maya rodriguez. this is part of a bigger story. oklahoma, kentucky, west virginia, arizona we are seeing this in a lot of different places here. what do you expect to happen this week in oklahoma? >> reporter: the teachers we talked to here are heart broken and disappointed it had to come to this. the walkout is scheduled for tomorrow. they say 30,000 people are expected to rally at the capital here in oklahoma city. these teachers say they are not doing this to abandon their students or to abandon their

schools. they say 30,000 people are expected to rally at the capital here in oklahoma city. these teachers say they are not doing this to abandon their students or to abandon their schools. they say they are doing it for the students because in addition to the pay raise, they want to see several hundred million dollars invested in the schools here. they're hoping the walk out will pressure them to the raise taxes in certain areas to accomplish that. they say they have broken desks, chairs, dealing with textbooks

that are 20, 30 years old. classes that have been cancelled, like foreign language and arts classes. and the four-day school week in some of the districts that dealt with the budget issues. what the teachers are hoping to do tomorrow is send a message to the lawmakers here by numbers and by showing up and saying we really need these changes and want to see it happen. right now they're saying the walk out could last indefinitely. >> thanks for that. don't go anywhere. we are just getting started.

but i'm not standing still... and with godaddy, i've made my ideas real. ♪ ♪

i made my own way, now it's time to make yours. ♪ ♪ everything is working, working, just like it should ♪

president trump takes aim at daca on easter sunday. he vented frustration, vowing no more daca deal and threatening to walk away from nafta. >> plus ousted va secretary david shulkin is denying white house claims that he resigned from his position. now there is reporting the terms of shulkin's departure could impact his replacement. >> and president trump's war on amazon escalates in a series of weekend tweets. he's accusing the company of a post office scam. ♪ ♪ >> good morning, everyone. it's monday april 2nd.