reading the bible and waiting for dawn, while the whole wide world is fast asleep. welcome to "kasie d.c." i'm kasie hunt. we are live every sunday from washington from 7:00 to 9:00 p.m. eastern. tonight, national insecurity as war breaks out over security clearances. plus, breaking this evening, the white house doesn't actually know how much their own general counsel has been telling the mueller investigation. inside the scramble to find out. and later, federal official claims none of the migrant children handled by the u.s. government have been lost. joined by republican senator rob portman who dispels that remarkable claim. in a moment, we're going it

talk about new reporting there is a sense of uncertainty throughout the trump legal team over don mcgahn and what exactly he's been telling the special counsel. but we begin through the looking glass. >> why is everybody so obsessed with the president of the united states they can't even begin or finish a sentence without mentioning his name five times? it's kind of weird. >> that's an interesting question to answer. part of the issue is stories keep evolving, like when the president's son met with natalia veselnitskaya at trump tower. >> the trump tower meeting itself is at least evidence of you better investigate. >> it's not. >> how is it not? >> well, because the meeting was originally for the purpose of getting information about, about clinton. the meeting turned into a meeting -- >> which in itself was attempted collusion. the meeting was intended to get dirt on clinton from a kremlin lawyer. that was the intention of the meeting. you just said it.

>> that was the original intention of the meeting. it turned out to be a meeting of another subject and it was not pursued at all. >> and even the question of whether the president played a role in drafting a statement about that meeting has changed from no to yes. those specifics are damning enough. the overarching reality is this administration repeatedly insists you are entitled to your own facts. >> you're saying it's a falsehood and they're giving sean spicer our press secretary give alternative facts to that. >> i think it's very important to point out that in a situation like this, you have over time facts develop. >> fact counting is anything we've never had anybody with a level of audacity he has, not even close. we'll leave it there -- >> it's in the eye of the beholder. >> no, facts are not in the eye of the beholder. you're always welcome to argue the case. >> just remember what you're seeing is what you're reading is not what's happening. >> truth is truth. i don't mean do go like -- >> no, it isn't truth.

truth isn't truth. the president of the united states says i didn't -- >> truth isn't truth, mr. mayor, do you realize -- this is going to bad meme. >> don't do this to me. >> don't do truth isn't truth to me. >> joining me on set, chief correspondent for the washington post, dan balls. ken dilanian, former special assistant to the president and former press secretary for vice-president pence mike lauder. and white house reporter for the washington post sung min kim. thank you all for being here. i hardly know where to begin on this evening. but, dan balls, since you have spent many, many years, watched many presidents do this, have you ever seen before this kind of dissembling around what is true and what is not true in your time as a reporter covering washington? >> no, i don't think anybody has.

we've seen presidents who have dissembled occasionally. we've seen administrations that have lied. we know that that is sometimes part and parcel to the way they approach things, but we've never seen it on the scale and consistency of this white house and this administration. and i think what we saw with mayor giuliani today was just another example of that. >> i think we actually have, if i can ask my executive producer ben to play that clip of giuliani. >> truth isn't truth. >> one more time. >> truth isn't truth. >> yeah, just so we're clear, mark lauder, do you agree? >> what i think -- >> it's a yes or no question. >> what i think rudy giuliani is talking about is that sometimes we have a lot of facts that are brought together to create an incomplete and not accurate conclusion. we've seen this time and time again -- >> does this administration -- when you take an oath, you sit down in front of a jury or a judge or at a congressional committee. you say, i promise to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. is that a statement that can no

longer apply in government? if you listen to all these things many administration officials have said, it sure seems that way. >> i think what you're saying, though, is you can take the facts -- and facts are facts. but if you reach a wrong conclusion by stringing a bunch of them together, then that's still the wrong conclusion. in a way it's like a brown novel. we're picking a bunch of facts to create an entertaining and fictional conclusion. i think that's what rudy giuliani is getting at. >> i don't think the argument there was anyone was trying to say there was already a conclusion, but rather that there have been several very specific events that have facts associated with them, the administration has said one thing and another thing has turned out to be true. right? >> yes, there have been, there have been times when the information has changed and the story has changed. >> okay. so, i want to kind of dig into this a little bit further just because i think it's really important because this level of casualness with the truth has permeated all levels of our politics.

there is texas congressman blake farenthold who resigned after using government money to settle sexual harassment claims, in a deposition and documents obtained by the huffington post, he claimed, quote, the f-tards won. when the republican governor of texas asked farenthold to pay for the election to pay for his seat, he talked about deep state and being the victim of a political witch hunt. there is the case of melissa howard running for a state house seat in florida. reports said she did not actually have a college degree, more fake news. and posted to social media the truth shall set yourself free and distributed this photo of herself with a diploma. the university of ohio steps in and said, no, she doesn't have one, doesn't exist. days later, she withdrew from the race. sung min kim, you and i are on capitol hill most days talking to lawmakers, a wide variety of whom, you know, have

decent relationships with the truth. what's your sense of how much this erosion of what we can believe and what we can't is setting in? >> i think there is clearly -- has been a rising distrust in the media for awhile. let's be honest, the hasn't always had the highest approval ratings with the public. i think there is this rising skepticism from the public about what we are disseminating, what lawmakers are telling us, and a lot of that frankly has come from the president. this was something he did during the campaign, you know, using the media as his foil, calling us fake news. we saw in one of the clips earlier in a recent public event, you know, he sadie essentially don't believe all you hear. so i think lawmakers are seeing the president's tactics toward the media. several of them are adopting it as their own. >> ken dilanian, how much of

this has a real impact on kind of the -- how the mueller investigation is going to play out? i mean, it does seem as though what this administration is trying to do in muddying the waters about the mueller investigation is sinking in with the public. >> in school i had a philosophy the truth was -- there were the conservatives who hated that argument. now the conservatives have adopted it. there is no one truth. this is a pretty cynical game in my view that is all aimed at what you just described, which is discrediting the mueller investigation for the audience that matters, which is the republican base and the senators and house members who are elected by that base who are going to eventually decide potentially on an impeachment motion and more importantly, a conviction in the senate which requires two-thirds. >> kasie, can we go back to giuliani for just a minute? >> sure. >> when he was talking with chuck on the program this morning, he was i think trying to say that jim comey says the president told him to layoff

mike flynn and the investigation. and the president says, no, i never said that. so he's saying, well, there is no truth. but that means there are two sides to a story, but there is truth. one of those people is telling the truth and one of those people is not telling the truth. >> or maybe they're both lying and there is a third version, but there is something that actually happened. >> there is truth. when mayor giuliani does what he does today, it is as ken says, an effort to muddy everything, and to discredit, as opposed to what he did as a prosecutor, which was to get at the truth. >> and just as an aside, you know who does that and is masterful at it? the russian government and russian intelligence services. that is their whole game against the west. you can't believe what you see in the media. there's relativism. it's what aboutism, there's no truth. they do it all the time. now the right, the alt-right is

adopting that in our politics. >> mark lauder, one last word response or you prefer we move along? >> i think there is, there is some relative we have to take a look at. i think we all, we all hold a certain amount of blame in this. i'll go back in october of, of last year where -- and i'll pull it off here. the george papadopoulos plea agreement was significantly enormous. it was more problematic than the gates and manafort indictments. he had already given up four other people. those were all things that were being talked about for 24/7 on cable news after the fact of a plea deal. now we know this week it was all insignificant. so we've got to be careful when we get into areas of prognosticating what we think is going to happen and what things mean and we find out the facts later are wrong. >> is that true? >> i wouldn't say it's insignificant. i think he didn't cooperate. at the end of the day they couldn't trust what he said. at the end of the day we had his e-mail and phones. they know about his interaction with the russians and they know

who in the campaign he shared information who had hillary clinton's e-mails. >> that is an argument to wait for robert mueller and the team to gather the facts and present conclusions while the president's team is clearly trying to prejudice exactly what american voters feel about those conclusions before any of us have them. we should move on now. meanwhile, president trump and his legal team are firing back at "the new york times" after the paper reported white house counsel don mcgahn has been cooperating stenson. little with robert mueller's inquiry. the paper reports, president trump's lawyers do not know just how much the white house counsel, donald mcgahn, told the special counsel's investigators during months of interviews. mr. mcgahn's lawyer has offered only a limiting -- limited accounting of what mr. mcgahn told the investigators. according to two people close to the president. that has prompted concern among mr. trump's advisors that mr. mcgahn's statements could help serve as a key component for a damning report by the special counsel robert mueller. here's rudy giuliani again

on "meet the press" this morning. >> john dowd yesterday said, i'll use his words rather than mine, that mcgahn was a strong witness for the president. so i don't need to know much more about that. they don't have collusion or conspiracy as brennan pointed out. and -- >> how do you know that? you say this so definitively. how do you know they don't? >> i know they don't because, look, this whole mcgahn thing leaked from them. if they had, if they had some kind of evidence that there was collusion or there was obstruction, don't you think it would have been leaked? i mean, they leak everything else. >> ken dilanian, what in your view is the significance of what we now know about the mcgahn testimony? and while, yes, the white house had been arguing as recently as this morning that they were fine with it, there were still information down in that story -- the first story at the times, mcgahn thought he was potentially being set up.

>> that was a jaw-dropping story. if they were fine with it they didn't read the story carefully. it made clear don mcgahn sees himself as the white house counselor lawyer protecting office of the presidency and not donald trump. he thought he was trying to set him up. he made the decision to cooperate with robert mueller. went in there three times, 30 hours of interviews, and the white house does not know what he said. the story suggested that he talked about those episodes where trump was pressuring him to fire mueller and he was resisting because he knew it was improper. that could be damaging. he's the only witness that can give mueller this sort of intimate details of those exchanges. could be very important. >> dan balls, were you surprised by this, the john dean comparison in particular. you've seen this arc play out. that's a pretty striking historical comparison. >> it is. to have the white house counsel in a sense cooperating fully, even if blessed by the white house initially with the special prosecutor, and now to recognize as they seem to tonight or

earlier today that they didn't really know everything that he had to say. puts him in a very difficult position. i think it is a reminder the president's legal counsels throughout this, not the white house counsel, but his personal, have not served him well. almost from start to finish. and whether it was the original team or now mayor giuliani, things are said, things are done and they come back and they cause them problems at the end. so this, i think, this has to be very worrisome. we don't know whether he will turnout to have been a good witness for the president or whether he will have undermined the president. but if you are in the president's situation right now and you don't fully know what happened between those two, you've got a problem. >> has to be nail biting to say the least. all right. we have a lot more to come tonight. historian john meacham is going to stop by to offer his wit and wisdom. also going to be joined by congressman eric swalwell and congresswoman karen bass.

first, a segment we call ken dilanian explains it all. we'll talk about what's going to happen in paul manafort's trial. that's up next on "kasie d.c." this wi-fi is fast.

i know! i know! i know! i know! when did brian move back in? brian's back? he doesn't get my room.

he's only going to be here for like a week. like a month, tops. oh boy. wi-fi fast enough for the whole family is simple, easy, awesome. in many cultures, young men would stay with their families until their 40's. the president has said that he wants to revoke security clearances from some former national security officials who still hold them and who have made political remarks. is it dangerous to go down that road?

>> he's trolling people honestly. >> the banana republic comments some of your colleagues have made. >> so, ken dilanian, that was earlier this month when the president was simply talking about potentially doing this. he of course since has revoked john brennan's security clearance. and most republicans reacted with basically a collective shrug. there were a few that spoke out, corker, flake, susan collins. but otherwise there has been a lot of condemnation of brennan himself. people are clearly frustrated with what he's been saying and how this has been approached. but what is the next turn of this? if the president were to expand this to more people, for example, brennan told chuck todd he might sue. >> i'm not sure he has much of a case, but if, for example, they're considering revoking the clearance of bruce orr, a currently serving member of the justice department, that would essentially fire him because he might not be able to do a job without a clearance. that would be a huge deal. we need to separate some of brennan's extreme rhetoric which is drawing the ire of republicans with the whole principle of what donald trump has done here.

and there are a lot of republican cia officials or former officials who have come out this week and said this was outrageous. this is an attack on the first amendment and puts a chill on all the rest of us. you can't revoke somebody's security clearance for political reasons and that was what was done here. >> mark, do you think it is a defensible move? do you think the outcry on the republican side would be huge? >> i personally believe no one should have a clearance after your service, after a short time of transition, which is what the continuing clearance was, was meant to be for. i gave up my clearance the moment i left the white house and i was thankful not to have it any longer because i didn't want it. but, but so -- >> sleep a little easier. >> i just don't see, i just don't see there is a benefit to it. and what i do think is that maybe it's time that we have a system where it's more codified. maybe not necessarily a law, but a regulation where it says that you keep your clearance for a certain number of days after you transition out and if the agency in question still needs it, they

need to make a case to say, we would like to extend it further for these reasons. >> dan? >> i think there are all kinds of things that probably ought to be reviewed about security and classification. i mean, i think there's probably a lot of stuff that's classified that shouldn't be classified and the press ought to have access or the public ought to have access to it. if there are rules, which there are now, and if there are, you know, customs as to how people keep these, then that ought to stay in place until there is a review. but to -- but there are rules for revoking it, and revoking it for political reasons i don't believe is one of the rules. so i think that's where the president has veered off in a different direction. >> yeah. all right. meanwhile, the jury in the paul manafort trial is set to convene for a third day of deliberations in just over 12 hours. jurors spent the weekend back home. so far unable to reach a verdict in the first high-profile test of robert mueller's team of prosecutors. manafort could spend the rest of

his life in prison if convicted. he has pleaded not guilty to all 18 charges he faces. so, ken, we promised our viewers us were going to explain all of this to us. >> of course. >> so, the jury not yet reaching a verdict, spending this much time, some are viewing that as potentially good for the defense. >> yeah. and the questions they asked, including, can you redefine reasonable doubt? i've heard that question asked before. it's a common question. they also asked another technical question i won't be labor about ownership of bank accounts that seemed to adopt the defense theory of the case. it's strange. look, as a courtroom observer, this case has seemed overwhelming. the mountains of evidence, even if you leave aside rick gates, manafort's right hand man who is controversial and somewhat discredited, you have all this other evidence that manafort clearly evaded taxes and defrauded banks. but it's a dense, complicated set of charges. these cases, you know, there's no smoking gun, no tape of

manafort saying, aha, i'm going to keep this money away from the irs. >> i'm going to launder these dollars. >> exactly. and i sort of wonder whether this jury is not riven by the same divisions the rest of us in society are. this jury is not sequestered. they're wandering around the courtroom with reporters -- >> i was just going to ask you about that. how unusual is that? i thought juries, you were never supposed to talk to the jury. >> sequestering is rather rare, but it is unusual to have jurors roaming free. generally they're escorted by a bay lyft in their own elevator. they've taken an oath not to look at news coverage. every day the judge asks them if they've adhered to the oath. they say they have. i wonder if the assumption is consistent with human nature. they see the ten tv cameras outside the courthouse every day. >> part of me thinks life as a manafort juror is less stressful. thank you for your time. appreciate it. just ahead, congresswoman karen bass joins me on set as the midterm comes into focus, a

simple question. should candidates be talking about impeachment or not. back after this. we are continuing to watch

we are continuing to watch

how the politics of impeachment could impact the 2018 mid terms and of course the 2020 presidential election to come. more than a dozen republican politicians activists and consultants tell politico they are increasingly convinced democratic house victory in the midterms and subsequent impeachment push would actually help the president in 2020. quote, proponents of the go for broke scenario argue that trump's at his best when his back is against the wall and that a move to impeach would both rally the base and make the president sympathetic to moderate voters. of course it's not just republicans who think that's the case. democratic leader nancy pelosi has repeatedly warned her caucus about the dangers surrounding the impeach president threat. here she is back in april. >> i've said over and over again that i don't think that we should be talking about impeachment. i discourage any discussion of impeachment. on the political side i think it's a gift to the republicans to talk about impeachment. >> and here's former white house chief strategist steve bannon in

an exclusive interview with msnbc on friday. >> when they say they're not talking about impeachment it's because they looked at the cross tabs in the polling and they understand when we put impeachment on the ballot, that is a way to get all the deplorables out. even if the congressman in your district is a rhino you have to come out to support president trump. >> joining the conversation democratic congresswoman karen bass. thank you so much for coming on. i want to start with what we just talked through there. do you agree with nancy pelosi, this conversation sa round impeachment is something that should be put off, that should not be the center piece of the conversation for democrats? >> i don't think it should be the center piece. at the end of the day an individual running has to work their district. if that is an important issue in their district -- but i really think most voters want to hear about why should you elect democrats, why should you put democrats in charge. what are you going to do if you're in charge. i really think that's the more

important issue. >> where do you think the energy of the democratic party is right now? tom steyer has been running around the country doing impeachment related events and has drawn crowds, reportedly drawn crowds in places like tulsa, oklahoma where you wouldn't expect a crowd like that. do you think that's where the energy is and people should try to embrace that? >> i do think in some areas you find the energy there. and he's certainly finding it in areas you wouldn't expect. but what it really comes down to it, when you're actually talking one on one with voters, they want to hear about health care. they want to hear about jobs. they want to hear about how you are going to make their life better. yeah, impeachment, the investigation, trump, all of that is of interest. but when it really comes down to the conversations, they want know about themselves and their communities. >> i want to ask you about, again, nancy pelosi has come under fire from republicans. you know she has said, you know, they spend all kinds of money against her.

they demonize her. saying that aside, if in fact she were not to be because she couldn't or she decided to step aside, did not become the next democratic leader, would you ever consider running for that post? >> actually it's not something that i have thought about, but let me just tell you that i do think within the democratic caucus there is a lot of talent. there's a lot of talent. there's new folks coming in. there are people that have been there for a long time. there is this concept of a bridge. i think there's a lot of discussion going on in our caucus right now. >> do you think you could serve as a bridge like that potentially or not? >> well, it's not actually something i thought about. i did serve as speaker in california, but, you know, i'm looking to be helpful to the caucus and doing whatever i can to bring people together. you know, i serve in a role right now where i deal with the rules of the democratic caucus and i've tried to take on that position in a way that brings people together.

so my focus has not been on that. my very serious and honest focus has been on getting those seats and i live in los angeles where we have a lot of seats right around my area. >> right. what about jim clyburn? he is, of course, currently the number three in your caucus and he sort of floated the idea of potentially being that bridge that you mention. do you think that would represent generational change? >> i think mr. clyburn is one of the most revered and respected members in our caucus, and the concept of a generational change is something that people are absolutely considering. you know, when you are talking about a generational change, i think in some respects people are referring to age, but in some respects people are referring to people who have not been there for a long time. i believe what mr. clyburn is considering is the idea that he would serve for a short period of time as a bridge, and i do believe he's one of the most respected members in our house. >> at this point, what do you think is missing from the democratic message in the fall, that your leaders should be

talking about more? >> i actually think our message is pretty strong. again, we're running on what we would do when we would get back, and the number one thing is health care. you know, the republicans have been killing the affordable care act one step at a time, and we need to absolutely deal with prescription drug prices. we need to deal with preexisting conditions. the advertising so people know to sign up for the affordable care act. jobs, it's great that unemployment is down. however, you know in many places in the country people are working two and three jobs. people need to make more money. looking at those two things. number one and number two, the issues we should focus on. >> sometimes it's not how the campaign plays out. i have this ad and then we'll talk about it. >> they shutdown the government, resigned in shame, paid hush money and tried to end medicare and social security. here's what republicans might have to answer for next.

jim jordan. remind you of joe paterno? kevin mccarthy, paul ryan's protege with a lot of baggage. and steve scalise linked to kkk leader david duke. no wonder they aren't looking out for you. >> is that ad fair? >> well, i think there's a lot of facts in that ad, but it is a negative ad and i would certainly like to see us run on a more positive message. that might be an ad that's focused in a pretty heavy republican district where you're really trying to critique the republican leadership and say, where have they gotten us? not very far. as democrats we need to show we are for the people, for the average person, not just passing tax cuts for the wealthy which is what the republicans have done, taken away health care. they couldn't repeal it, but what they've been doing is murdering it, death by a thousand cuts, and we need to do what we can to repair the affordable care act and improve it.

>> all right. congresswoman bass, stay right there. we're going to keep you as part of our ongoing conversation. a rising star is facing backlash for her treatment of the press. "kasie d.c." is back after this.

alexandria ocasio-cortez. her stunning victory was another example of the remarkable wave of women making the push to bring their ideas to washington in 2018. this week ocasio-cortez has come under fire for excluding journalists. her decision to keep the press out of those town halls, quote, a nonstory. her campaign manager said her attempts was to try something unique with her constituents. but this experiment was likely a one-time deal and that future events will be open to the press. seung min kim, you have engaged with miss ocasio-cortez on twitter. this is how you point out how

town halls do not work, excluding members of the press. >> if she had this for immigrants in the community or domestic violence as she pointed out in her tweet to me, we would have found it very understanding. but the fact that everybody was welcome to this town hall except for press, that's just simply not how it works. the press is there to be a conduit for the people in her community who wouldn't be able to make it to the town hall to spread the message that she is trying to get out to provide information -- i would presume she would provide helpful contact information. the press is there to get that information out. so it's just a vital part of being there. i will point out it's good she's having a town hall. members of congress don't hold town halls any more. there are other private functions that are made private that we don't like that are private such as fund-raisers. that should be open, but at the

end of the day, if it's a public event, the press has to be there. >> right. because if you are a member of the press you are also a member of the public by definition. excluding anyone for being a reporter -- congressman, what's your advice to a newcomer like ocasio-cortez? she's had some miss steps whether it was questions about policy or reporters. >> when i was a newcomer, my advice is to seek mentors so they can show you the way. when i read about this -- i don't know her, i haven't met her yet. i thought she said it wasn't going to be open to the press and maybe she wasn't clear about that. but i think that a sitting member could have advised her about that. i certainly know that i had a couple of town halls -- and i do town halls all the time where i had to make them private because of the immigrant community being terrified about coming. and so we had to do it where it was quiet. and i thought maybe that might have been where she was coming from. but the chief advice to her, though, is there's a lot of members of congress who are always willing to embrace you

and to show you the way and to tell you what it's about and to avoid making those mistakes, reaching out to sitting members of congress. i hear she's beginning to do that. i just haven't had an opportunity to meet her yet. >> interesting, she did make that point about immigrants as to why she would have done this. but, dan balls, this sort of raises a broader question, too, in my mind about how people do have a chance to interact with their elected officials. fewer members seem to be doing town halls, more are doing teletown halls or events where people have less of a chance to get to see them in person, or there were questions about creating these so-called safe spaces. as the congresswoman pointed out, then there is the question of truth tied up in that as well and how do we even know where our elected leaders stand. how do you think we should view this incident? >> well, i mean, in its simple sense, a public meet sergio garcia a public meeting, which means it's open to everybody.

>> whoever wants to show up. >> as you say, members of the press are members of the public. when we were denied credentials along with a couple other news organizations by the trump campaign during 2016, we had reporters who went in as members of the public and were able to get into those meetings and cover them. so that's one thing. i think that for her, she's been overwhelmed in both good and bad ways by the attention that she's gotten. i mean, she became a phenomenon because of what she was able to do in that race, and a lot of people have just wanted to be around her. she draws huge crowds when she's gone out to campaign for other candidates. i think their press operation is totally overwhelmed by the number of requests they are getting and i think they are trying in one way or another to push that back. and as you said, she's made some mistakes on the trail with some factual issues. and for somebody who is brand-new to this as she is, that can be painful. and so you want to protect

yourself. i think your broader point is the one that's concerning, and that is i think across the board for a variety of reasons, public officials are less willing than they have been almost year by year. we've seen this, to engage with the public, to engage with the press in ways they once felt comfortable with. public officials are not as comfortable with those interactions as they once were and i think that does create a barrier and it creates a gap. and i think it's one reason why there is more cynicism about politics generally. >> yeah, and of course, more distrust generally speaking. dan balls, congresswoman karen bass, thank you for your perspective tonight. when we continue, president trump is in search of his wartime consigliary with no roy cohn to turn to. dr. kelli ward joins me from arizona live. up next. oh! oh! ♪ ozempic®! ♪ (vo) people with type 2 diabetes

are excited about the potential of once-weekly ozempic®. in a study with ozempic®, a majority of adults lowered their blood sugar and reached an a1c of less than seven and maintained it. oh! under seven? (vo) and you may lose weight. in the same one-year study, adults lost on average up to 12 pounds. oh! up to 12 pounds? (vo) a two-year study showed that ozempic® does not increase the risk of major cardiovascular events like heart attack, stroke, or death. oh! no increased risk? ♪ ozempic®! ♪ ozempic® should not be the first medicine for treating diabetes, or for people with type 1 diabetes or diabetic ketoacidosis. do not share needles or pens. don't reuse needles. do not take ozempic® if you have a personal or family history of medullary thyroid cancer, multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, or if you are allergic to ozempic®. stop taking ozempic® and get medical help right away if you get a lump or swelling in your neck, severe stomach pain, itching, rash, or trouble breathing. serious side effects may happen, including pancreatitis.

tell your doctor if you have diabetic retinopathy or vision changes. taking ozempic® with a sulfonylurea or insulin may increase the risk for low blood sugar. common side effects are nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, stomach pain, and constipation. some side effects can lead to dehydration, which may worsen kidney problems. i discovered the potential with ozempic®. ♪ oh! oh! oh! ozempic®! ♪ (vo) ask your healthcare provider if ozempic® is right for you.

president trump's name was not on the ballot, but he came out a winner during this tuesday's primary elections. in minnesota supporter jeff johnson won his primary over tim polenti who has criticized the president in the past. in kansas the president backed

kris kobach. he has yet to endorse a candidate in the arizona senate elections. all three are running towards trump's message ahead of the competitive primary next tuesday. one of those candidates, republican kelli ward, joins me now from phoenix, arizona. dr. ward, thanks for being on the show tonight. >> thanks, kasie, glad to be here. >> i want to start by asking, why hasn't president trump endorsed you? >> you know, i've heard through the grapevine and in the press that he likes everyone in the race. i've also heard maybe i'm his favorite. i like to hear that. i think he's ready to let the people of arizona decide. i've heard from people again and again and again that trump's base is kelli ward's base, my base. and that the people that support me want the president to support me and i would love to have his endorsement, but the most important endorsement right now and on august 28th is that of the voters of arizona.

and i think i've got that. >> do you think that you can win if the president doesn't put his finger on the scale in your favor? >> of course, i do, yes. because i'm traveling all over the state. i'm meeting with people, voters in every corner of our state and they really want something different. they don't want another senator cut from the same cloth as john mccain and jeff flake and martha mcsally is exactly that. she's supported by mitch mcconnell. she's supported by the never trump swamp. you know, you see cory gardener, senator gardener coming out and begging president trump to endorse martha because he knows they need that finger on the scale because the people of arizona want ward. >> mitch mcconnell and mitch mcc republicans in washington seem to be concerned that you couldn't win a general election. do you see any truth at all in that argument? >> i don't because there's not one shred of evidence that martha mcsally could win the general when i can't. this is our chance in arizona to actually have a true conservative in washington, d.c. in the united states senate from our state. it might be our last chance for

decades to come, maybe ever, to be able to get somebody that's cut from the same cloth as ronald reagan, as rand paul, as ted cruz, as mike lee. people are looking for people like that. i'm so honored to have the endorsement of my own congressman, congressman paul gosar who has been working with martha mcsally for two terms and he understands she is not the partner that he wants in the united states senate. so i'm forward to getting to washington and getting things done. not just for people in the republican party, but people who haven't chosen a party, people who are independent, and people who are democrats who are having to walk away because of the extremism within the democrat party. the socialistic tendencies, the love of open borders, the desire to have medicare for all, and, you know, prioritize ms-13, those things are driving people to us, and i look forward to serving them in washington. >> i would just push back and say i have not heard a democrat in your state argue for quote/unquote open borders. i understand that's how you're

characterizing it. i want to get back to, you mentioned paul gosar who you said is supporting you and it's been reported you're going on a statewide bus tour that will include congressman gosar as well as some other personalities, and mike cernovich who is known as somebody on the alt-right. do you support his views, generally speaking? >> i don't really know what mike cernovich's views are, and he's got an audience. we want to serve everyone. i want to serve republicans, independents, people who aren't political at all, and i want to serve those democrats who are rejecting the radical left. >> mike cernovich has been associated with the pizza gate conspiracy theory. do you believe what's been said about hillary clinton, and pizza, and all of this nonsense that has been on the internet? >> all i know about hillary clinton is that she would have been a terrible president. and i am so thankful every single day she isn't in the white house. i'm thankful that we have donald trump who's fighting for that america first agenda to secure the border, build a ball, take care of our veterans, muck our

military is strong, continue to grow the continue, and we've got to get fiscal conservatives in washington on the right and on the left. i'm the only fiscal conservative in this race, because i'm the only mom in the race. >> do you think the republican party should embrace the so-called alt-right? >> you know, i think that the republican party and the people of the united states should embrace making america great again. and the way we do that is -- >> you know, i think that the republican party and the people of the united states should embrace making america great again. and the way we do that is -- >> that's not what i asked. that's the president's campaign slogan. i'm asking about the alt-right. >> the alt-right, the alt-left, the radical left, the radical right.

>> i'm talking specifically about the alt-right. >> i'm not a part of the alt-right. i don't know what you're asking. >> you have an alt-right figure on the bus tour. >> i have someone you're calling the alt-right figure. please tell me what it is, and i'd be glad to answer your question. >> the alt-right has been generally described to encompass a variety of elements of people who -- it's an umbrella term that covers many of these various lines of thinking. i'm wondering if that represents your campaign. >> i think that that's a ridiculous statement. my campaign represents faith, family and freedom. >> so -- >> mike cernovich has an audience we want to reach, that includes republicans, conservatives, liberals, democrats, people of all ilks. if he's coming on the bus tour, i think that he'll have a voice and he'll have something that he wants to say. i know that my campaign is about faith, family and freedom. it's about smaller government, lower taxes, personal

responsibility, and following the constitution. i think that's why so many people, on the right and on the left, are flocking to this effort to get someone new in washington. i heard your segment before, you were talking about congresswomen and congress people kicking the press out of their events, both of women running against me have refused to have many town halls and have kicked the press out of their events. i want to open things up. i want transparency, and i want to bring back the representative republic that our founders envisioned. the only way to do that is by having a two-way communication between the people who are represented and the people who are doing the representing. so i can't wait to get to washington and get to work. >> all right, dr. kelli ward, thank you for coming on the show tonight. >> thanks, kasie. jon meacham joins us for the

♪ this morning, back and forth over the meaning of truth. president trump's lawyer, rudy guilliani, claims truth isn't truth while trying to explain why the president shouldn't sit down with robert mueller. plus, former cia director john brennan is considering legal action after the white house revoked his security clearance, this as trump is drafting documents to strip others of security clearances as well. new reporting that president trump's former fixer michael cohen is being investigated for bank fraud in excess of 20 million dollars. ♪