the only real check and balance is a constitutional amendment to change the ruling, do you agree with that? >> i'm not going to comment on -- >> if we pass a statute tomorrow in congress saying that -- good day everyone. we're going to keep bringing you all the news throughout our program this hour. starting first with new reaction to the scathing anonymous column in the new york times. the column engulfing the trump white house. the paper's opinion page editor refusing to explain whether that means a cabinet secretary or deputy or one of thousands of aides in the white house. president trump described as a fury as volcanic.

first reacting by his aides alerted by peter alex andander. >> there's an anonymous op-ed that says i'm part of the administration. >> we have somebody in the failing new york times talking about he's part of the resistance. it's really a disgrace. i will say this, nobody has done what this administration has done in terms of getting things passed and getting things through. when you tell me about some anonymous source within the administration, probably who is failing and probably here for all the wrong reasons. >> today top cabinet officials denying they are the anonymous writer. vice president pence, director of national intelligence, dan

coates, jim mattis, omb director, treasury secretary steve mnuchin, ben carson. mike pom ppeo responding during visit to india today. sdp >> if that piece is true, if it's described as senior administration official, they should not have chosen to take a disgruntled, deceptive, bad actor's word for anything and put it in their newspaper. it's sad more than anything else that our nation comes to where, if it is what it's purported to be, it's sad that you have someone who would make that choice. >> he said it was not me.

joining me is kristen welker and kasie hunt. kristen, the last 24 hours extraordinary and the word volcanic says everything. >> reporter: it says everything. the fact that president trump erupted with volcanic anger according to multiple sources trying to determine who would have written this op-ed. the broader point is this is a president who doesn't know who he can trust. there's finger pointing within this administration. i spoke with a source with the thinking inside the white house overnight who said this. we're in this together and we're focused on the policy and the political travel that the president has. it's serious work that we're doing. a sense that they are closing ranks to some extent. again, trying to figure out who

this person is that would write this and it echoes something in bob woodward's book. there's top officials who, from their perspective, feel as though they need to protect the country from the president. you saw that in some of the excerpts from woodward's book fear in which rob porter, gary cohen would swipe papers from the president's desk to keep him from signing onto certain policies they deem dangerous. there's a broader concern this will undercut his ability to carry out his legislative agenda. this is a crisis within the administration and for the country and what does it mean for the midterms. that's the other real concern within republican circles. could this not make it even more difficult for republicans to hold onto the house. president trump will be on the campaign trail a little bit later on today when he heads to montana. >> to that very point, paul ryan

speaking out. one ocf the issues is what will be the impact on the republican leaders, who many people, including republicans, say have really been pretty much spineless against what the president has done or the dysfunction of this white house. the descriptions in the book. i want to ask you on the other side. >> a person who works in the administration serves at pleasure of the president. it's a person who obviously is living in dishonesty. it doesn't help the president. if you're not interested in helping the president, you shouldn't work for the president. >> that's a widely held view, correct? >> reporter: it is. the reality is even though this feels like an order of magnitude larger than many of the other crisis that we have asked the members of congress about as it

regards this volatile president, this is a big deal. the posture is basically the same, which is to say he elaborated later on in the press conference, he says this isn't my responsibility. my responsibility is to pass laws. my responsibility is to try and help the american people. he pointed to the tax cuts, to low unemployment et cetera. that's not playing well in many corners of his party and critics of the president. paul ryan is somebody who is leaving washington. you can sense that in his news conference as well. he had sort of a relaxed air about him. kind of smiling and joking about other questions. not this one in particular. he's not going to be here in a couple of months. i think that action says more than anything else while yes in

public, they say these defenses in private. the conversations that go on in these hallways among republicans sound a lot like the op-ed in the new york times. >> that's what senator corker said. we knew all of this. those who have been critical of the president within his own party are few in number but they are leaving. paul ryan has not bp theen that critical. i want to read a bit from this op-ed. one of the quotations from

this -- >> any time you can grab a speaker just try to trip someone up or chase them down. i was going to read one of the relevant quotes is the root of the problem is the president's amorality. anyone who works with him knows he's not works with discernible decisi principles that guide his decision making. at best he's invoked these ideals in scripted settings. at worst he's attacked them outright. pretty corrosive criticism. ruth marcus, you're the deputy editorial page writer at the washington post. i kn explain the firewall. the church state firewall that does exist between the news pages and edtorial pages. >> we talk about it in terms of separation of church and state.

i assume the new york times handles things the same way. op-o op-eds that come to up are handled separate from the news decision making. the decision about whether to accept an op-ed, whether to grant anonimity. we would probably let our colleagues know very close to the point that we had something newsworthy coming. they would see it when the public saw it. to agree to do something is a high bar. they say it's a senior official. i want to play a bit from the

blog of the editorial page editor explaining as best they would what this means. >> you describe the writer only as a senior administration official. can you help people understand a little bit more or even just a little bit what that phrase means. >> that's one of the questions i feel like i can't answer. i feel like we followed a definition that's used by our news room in the past. >> at this point, how many people at the times know who their writer is? >> i can't tell you. i'm not going to tell you an exact number. let me just say it's a very small number. >> now that the president is calling for times to disclose that, are there any circumstances that you can concede under which the times will share the identity of this person? >> i cannot.

>> not very much clarity, if at all from the new york times. understanding the need to preserve anonymity of the writer. the white house is not sitting still for this. we see sarah sanders tweeting out a phone number. tweeting out to call the new york times editorial page. they posted the wrong number. the president's immediate tweet treason in capital letters indicates the ferocity of his response even though it's the wrong definition of treason. >> reporter: it is. under a legal definition this wouldn't be characterized as treason according to pete williams. i think this is what you'll see from this president and some of his closest allies who were on the air waves overnight.

some saying this is an administrative coup. they are using the strongest terms possible to try to explain what's happening. they see this threat as one that's fundamental to the president's very power and his ability to govern this country. it's important to press that other allies of the president have said hold on, let's not go that far. let's not use that type of inflammatory language. clearly, the president has chosen to do so. we sdroents a briefing on the schedule. we're hoping we'll be able to shout questions to president trump. he was in the mood for talking yesterday. will he have more to say today? i think it's important to stress even though the president and sarah sanders are trying to call out this person, the times digging in. i think that's the strategy. the bear knuckle strategy we'll

see moving forward.rear knucklel see moving forward.ear knuckle we'll see moving forward.ar knul see moving forward.r knuckle st see moving forward. knuckle str see moving forward. knuckle str see moving forward. knuckle stre moving forward.a knuckle strate see moving forward.r knuckle st see moving forward.e knuckle st see moving forward. >> john brennan was on morning show and asked about this kind of criticism and how it reflects the dysfunction of national security. >> if you were briefing an american president on this american president, what would be the top line of your psychological profile? >> that as we anticipated, this individual is going to be facing increasing pressure from within and that the walls are collapsing around. his mercurial and reckless nature might lead him to do something rash. >> it's very clear to all of you that the president has really upset the national security team and the foreign policy team in a

lot of ways. not just the justice department and others but ruth marcus, we see he's praising kim jong-un at the same time the justice department is indicting north korea for its hacking attacks against sony and other global hacking attacks. the putin issue. we've seen a lot of this dysfunction. what does it say to you? >> the reaction to this op-ed is ill lou-- because it's so reenforces everything that we've already heard about this president from day one or day before one.everything that we'v heard about this president from day one or day before one. from the massive leaks inside the white house, from the earlier books, from the much more credible and trustworthy reporting from bob woodward and now this op-ed. they are not telling different

stories. they are telling the same story about an amoral, erratic president and the notion from inside the white house that they are all in this together, that's not the way this white house is behaving. they are behaving like people who are needing to look out for themselves. >> i wanted to pin one thing down. the rosen bebergs were not acc d ed of treason. you have to be going against a doll declared enemy of the united states.of treason. you have to be going against a declared enemy of the united states. >> i think when the president says treason, he's thinking of it as being against himself. he sees himself as the embodiment of the state and the count country. he is not. disloyalty, though he's not good at practicing loyalty, disloyalty is thing that sets him off. i understand in his own mind he sees this as treasonous. i see it as illustrative of the

chaos he's brought to the united states government. >> i know you'll be track all reaction coming up. thanks. coming up, fireworks. fireworks after sparring all night over the release of documents being held back by republicans. the senators are grilling brett kavanaugh. they're in a break right now. we'll have the latest. a break r. we'll have the latest. ronmentaly packaging for restaurants. and we've grown substantially. so i switched to the spark cash card from capital one. i earn unlimited 2% cash back on everything i buy. and last year, i earned $36,000 in cash back. that's right, $36,000. which i used to offer health insurance to my employees. my unlimited 2% cash back is more than just a perk, it's our healthcare. can i say it? what's in your wallet?

but one blows them all out of the water. hydro boost from neutrogena®. with hyaluronic acid to plump skin cells so it bounces back. neutrogena® so it bounces back. my gums are irritated. i don't have to worry about that, do i? actually, you do. harmful bacteria lurk just below the gum line. crest gum detoxify works below the gum line to neutralize harmful plaque bacteria and help reverse early gum damage. and, now there's new crest gum & enamel repair. it gives you clinically proven healthier gums and helps repair and strengthen weakened enamel. gum detoxify and gum & enamel repair, from crest. gums are good, so is my check-up! crest. healthy, beautiful smiles for life.

this is moving day with the best in-home wifi experience and millions of wifi hotspots to help you stay connected. and this is moving day with reliable service appointments in a two-hour window so you're up and running in no time. show me decorating shows. this is staying connected with xfinity to make moving... simple. easy. awesome. stay connected while you move with the best wifi experience and two-hour appointment windows. click, call or visit a store today.

supreme court nominee brett kavanaugh was back in the hot seat for a third straight day. this morning more fireworks over the trump white house blocking democrats from seeing many of cavanau kavanaugh's legal papers. overnight cory booker threatened to release a document. another threatened him with expulsion. >> i violate because i sincerely believe the public deserves to know this nominee's record. in this case his record on issues of race and the law. i could not understand and i violated this rule knowingly why these issues should be withheld from the public. i appreciate the comments of my colleagues.

this is about the closest i'll have in my i am a spartacus moment. >> any who shall disclose including the proceedings shall be liable if a senator to suffer expulsion from the body and if an officer or employee to dismissal from the service of the senate. >> by the rule and bring the charges. >> all of us are ready to face that rule on the bogus designation of committee confidential. >> joining me now nbc news justice correspondent pete williams and acting solicitor general. welcome both. neil and pete, this was pretty extraordinary because booker deliberately violated the confidentiality releasing the document that he says related to

the views of the nominee on racial issues, racial profiling, he claimed. in response attorney general from texas read the riot act to him and every other democrat on the committee said i'm with booker and if you're going to expel him, expel all of us. it was quite a moment and a lot of arguing. >> it's been hard to tell -- go ahead. >> pete go ahead and then neil. >> it's been hard to tell whether this a confirmation hearing for brett kavanaugh or about documents. the democrats are saying by hiding the documents the republican have made them more significant as they really are as fore bbidden grutfruit. it means the senators could see them but can't make them public.

it led to more questioning today. we know what was behind the questioning yesterday that seemedseem ed opaque. one of the e-mail s a 2003 e-mail in which brett tkavanaug is asked about talking points for a judge to be confirmed. he said i'm not sure if they are concerned since the court could overrule its precedent and three justices could do so. he said what i meant is i didn't think the talking points accurately reflected the view of all legal sko lcholarscholars. he gave a very narrow answer to the question. he cleared up something that seemed very mysterious last night when late many the evening tamala harris asked brett kavanaugh whether he had any mee meetings with the lawyers from

mark kazowitz was acting as the lawyer for the president. he said i can't answer that question. i don't know who all the lawyers are. today given another chance to answer the question, he said i don't recall any conferrinversc. i've given no previews, forecast, winks about my view or how i would rule about any questions from the mueller investigation. >> let's play that exchange you just referenced. it was close to 10:00 last night when she finally got her turn to ask questions. >> have you discussed mueller or his investigation with another anyone at the law firm founded by mark kasowitzi president trump personal lawyer. be sure about your answer, sir.

>> i'm not remembering but if you have something you want -- >> are you certain you've not had a conversation? yes or no. >> i need to know -- i'm not sure i know everyone who knows at the law firm. >> i don't think you need to. i think you need know who you talked to. >> i'm not remembering. i'm happy to be refreshed. >> i think you're thinking of someone and you don't want to tell us. >> there's a big insinuation there this pete just cleared or explained his explanation for today. the abortion issue also. for that document to be declared confidential the democrats could argue why would that document be declared confidential. there's nothing classified about it. it's controversial. it opens up a whole area of whether he did have questions

about whether roe is settled law back when he was a white house lawyer. this does get to the heart of the question as to whether this process is as transparent as it was when elena kagan was being confirmed. >> 100% i agree. i was her deputy during her hearings. all documents from her in the white house were produced. i do think this roe versus wade document is really significant because we already know this is the most consequenial supreme court nominee. when it came to things like roe, was it settled precedent, he gave that answer to susan kol li -- collins. remember roe is the one case the

supreme court in 1992 in a decision co-authored by justice kennedy for judge kavanaugh is trying to replace, the supreme court described it as something that can't be overruled. if judge kavanaugh believes this he believes this about any particular decision. it opens up yesterday every time he got a question about affirmative action, race, same-sex marriage, environmental regulations the answer was pres de -- precedent. this e-mail will feed the opposition to say you don't believe that much in precedent. you don't believe it for roe so what's to think you believe it for these other things. i think the democrats have a really good, almost smoking gun argument for why they should see the documents and why the american public should.

>> thank you so much. they're still in a break. we'll come back do you and them at the hearing as things develop. i want to bring you some more breaking news. this is from the first lady. she's just issued statement saying freedom of speech is an important pillar of our nation's founding principles and free press is important to our democracy. the press should be fair, unbiassed and responsible. unidentified sources have become the majority of the voices people hear about in today's news. people with no names writing our nation's history. words are important. accusations can lead to severe consequences. if a person is bold enough to accuse people of negative a actions, they have a responsibility to stand by their words and people have the right to defend themselves. the writer writes you're not protecting this country, you're sabotaging it with your cowardly actions. this coming from first lady

melania trump. stay with us. melania trump. stay with us right there. there you are, mom! that's you? that's you? that does kinda look like our family. what are you wearing? ancestry now has over 300,000 yearbooks from all across the country. start searching for your family, free, at ancestry.com. lojust use priceline.ls on travel? you can save up to 60% on hotels. that's like $120 a night back in your pocket. go to priceline to get deals you won't find anywhere else.

my mom washes the dishes... ...before she puts them in the dishwasher. so what does the dishwasher do? new cascade platinum does the work for you, prewashing and removing stuck-on foods, the first time. wow, that's clean! new cascade platinum. leave the structure, call 911, keep people away, and call pg&e right after so we can both respond out and keep the public safe.

pg&e wants you to plan ahead by mapping out escape routes and preparing a go kit, in case you need to get out quickly. for more information on how to be prepared and keep your family safe, visit pge.com/safety. welcome back. as we just heard, the first lady now speaking out defending her

husband and denouncing the new york times anonymous column. joining me is jill wine banks. nbc presidential historian. michael, i don't need to really ask you whether this is unprecedented because i'm enough of a student of history to know i've never heard of anything like this. the first lady speaking out. the president under fire. an anonymous senior official in the new york times. >> it gives you a sense of things coming apart. this is someone at the high level of the administration saying the president is amoral. that he is unstable. that a lot of people in high levels of the administeministra feel and felt this way. this is something we haven't seen before. i've used the words national emergency. if this is not a national emergency, i don't know what is. >> it comes on the heels of woodward book which ratified the

reporting of nbc and other organizations, a lot of other student p statements. the moron statement that had been reported by us as well. bob has a lot of color and context from his deep book writing. jill, pat nixon never spoke out defending her husband. we never saw lady bird johnson jumping out. for the first lady to be the first validator is different as well. >> for anybody to be the validator of the president is ridiculous. the facts are starting to come out. we need to pay attention for the claims of unfitness for office. in addition to the accusations that he's been charged in court as an unindicted co-conspirator of a crime.

we have criminal acts, amoral acts and probably immoral acts. the congress is doing nothing. we have a supreme court nominee who says that the only place that the president can be held accountable is in the congress through impeachment. we are in a very threat to democracy if that were to be true and we have a republican congress that has done nothing and will do nothing and has hidden documents and covered up as much as anybody else has. >> to both you have, the other aspect of this which is so intriguing which is the writer says there's been whispers among cabinet officials early on about the 25th amendment. first to you michael, what do they mean? >> take that as a sign of how serious they think the problem of donald trump is. instability, amorality, inability to function. it's not going to happen. the 25th amendment most likely. that would require either donald

trump to say you're right. i'm unstable. i resign. i'm levaving or two-thirds of congress -- >> and the vice president and the mar jjoritmajority. >> adding to this era of unreality, you have a president who conceivably could be in big legal trouble that could come up to the supreme court. he has encouraged a vacancy. we know he encouraged anthony kennedy to leave conceivably before he was planning to do and he chose brett kavanaugh has probably just about the most extreme position of anyone who might have had this job on presidential power. >> let me interrupt because dick durbin is speaking now about the op-ed. >> perhaps clarence thomas, it's

in the context of the president trump presidency in anticipation you may face issues involving this president which no other supreme court has been asked to face. that's why i want to address your view of the power of this president. the authority of this president. because it's a important contemporary question which has application for beyond his presidency. you've courted me several times, regarding the independent counsel statute. as our republican colleagues fonds of reminding us, judges are not legislate choroe chors.. to get to the heart of the matter, the reason why we continue to return to the morrison versus olson decision is because of its significance in light of the trump presidency.

the reason we're so interested in your view that case was wrongly decided has litted to to with the statute in question. it has everything to do with your views on the power of the executive and what that would mean for this president and future presidents if you joined the supreme court. justice scalia's sole dissent embraces the unitary executive theory which grants sweeping powers to the president of the united states. scalia said, we should say here that the president's constitutional assigned duties include complete control over i ve investigation and prosecution of violation and law and command of article 2 is clear and definite. the executive power must be vested many the president of the

united states. in this age of president trump, this expanse iive view of presidential power takes on added significance. earlier this year a bipartisan bill was reported to protect the independence of the special counsel bob mueller. several republican senator who is are here today cited scalia's dissent to an opposition protecting the special counsel with one saying, many of us think we're bound by scalia's's dissent. at the time i joked and said instead of dealing with starry we're dealing with scalia's. you will feel foubound if presit trump decides to fire bob mueller. you cited scalia's dissent

involving the financial protection bureau where you gutted that agency. in the 2011 sky case you dissented from a decision upholding the affordable care act. you said, under the constitution, the president may decline to enforce a statute that regulated private individuals when the president deems the statute unconstitutional. even if a court has held or would hold the statute constitutional. your words. of course, the unitary executive theory was the basis for president bush's december 30th, 2005 signing statement claiming the authority to override the mccain torture amendment. yesterday i asked you what comments you made on the signing statement. senator feinstein asked a similar question this morning. you said i can't real what i

said. i do recall there was a good deal of debate about the signing question. it's hard to imagine you can't remember that controversial issue. given our concerns about your views on executive power, it's important for you, at this moment, please, to clarify for us the power of the presidency in this age of donald trump. >> senator, thank you for your comments about my wife and daughters. my daughters will return this afternoon. i appreciate that. on morrison versus olson. that case did not involve the special counsel system. i had written repeatedly that the special counsel system, which we have now, and have had

historically is a distinct system pine e appointed by the y general. that dealt with the old independent counsel statute that expired in 1999. secondly, morrison justice scalia's dissent that does not affect humphrey executive. those independent agents continue to exist. on the special counsel side that's unaffected. you mentioned the cfpb case, my decision in that case would have allowed that agency to continue

operate and performing important functions for american consumers. the only correction would have been in the structure because it was a novel structure that was unlike every other independent agency that had been created previously. limits of it are uncertain. there's debates about what the women saw. those are not determined. i've made clear in my writings that a court order that requires a president to do something or prohibits a president from doing something under the constitution or laws of the united states is the final word in our system. our separation of powers system. that's cooper versus aaron.

that's an important principal. finally, i would say that the question of who controls the executive power within the executive branch, the vertical question. you have the president at the top. you have inspedependent agencie that exist with precedent is distinct from the question of the scope of the executive power. i've made clear in the context of national security, context of administrative law. my cases questioning unilateral re-writing of the law. in the criminal law where i've reversed convictions that i'm one not afraid through my record of 12 years, to invalidate executive power. >> you've referred to youngstown

case. in the context of war by a decision of a president that was unpopular and might have been popular and the decision of the supreme court that could have been up popular. what i'm trying to ask you, do you understand where we are as a nation now? when books are being written about how democracy dies, when fear of authoritarian rule and expansion of the executive branch are rampid. why we're asking you over and over again, give us some reassurance about your commitment to the democratic institutions of this country in face of a president who appears to cast them aside. whether it's voter suppression, role of the media. case after case we hear this president willing to walk away from the rule of law in this country.

that's the historic context this is in. not a particular case but a particular moment in history. >> senator, my 12 year record shows and my statements to the committee show and all my teachingteach ing articles show my commitment to the independence of the the judiciary as the crown jewel of our constitutional republic.com of the the judiciary as the crown jewel of our constitutional republic. my citing of justice kennedy for whom i worked. no one is bovr tabove the law i united states. coming from federalist 69. coming from right the structure of the constitution. we're all equal before the law. i've made clear my deep faith in the judiciary. the judiciary has been the final guarantor of the rule of law.

as i said this my opening, the supreme court is the last line of defense for separation of powers and rights and liberties guaranteed by the constitution laws of the united states. >> that's why the unitary theory of the executive is so worrisome. what you have said is what i want to hear from a very important branch of our government. what you have said in relation to morrison suggests the president has the last word. >> i've not said that, senator. i'll reiterate something i said a minute ago coming from cooper versus aaron. when a court order requires a president to do something or prohibit a president from doing something under the constitution or laws of the united states, under our constitutional system, that is the final word. >> let me ask you one last time, the question you knew i'd ask

about your testimony in 2006. i'm just struggling with the fact when i ask you about this issue of detention interrogat n interrogation -- >> as you can see the question dick durbin asking. the questions that dick durbin are asking this is a moment in history. you're the historian. this is not a case of a confirmation where how do you view this case versus that case. this is will you stand up to this realize, according to writers that the white house is in inner turmoil. >> every one is desperately asking the nominee, give us some comfort that if donald trump does wrong and it comes up to the supreme court that you're going to feel that the supreme

court could stop him if necessary. instead you just saw he gives back boilerplate. this is a nominee who has not given us any comfort he feels a president can be subpoenaed, investigated, indicted. maybe he can pardon himself in is a pivotal seat in history. the white house is trying to rush this nominee faster than i've seen bhap . what is going on here? >> your comments on the way this is evolving because it does seem from the revelation of some of his prior documents that were deemed confidential there could be quote, a smoking gun here that could persuade one or the other senators although numbers add up to confirmation. >> i think that transparency is important. there's no urgency to this appointment right this minute. the documents should be produced. i have a follow up question to

wa what we just heard from senator durbin and the answer that judge kavanaugh gave. he said if a court orders then that's a final order. the question to him from me is would you so order. if the u.s. v. nixon case has not been unanimous, than the president might not have turned over documents as ordered. and if judge kavanaugh wouldn't order it because his view of executive power is such that it isn't something he would order, then it wouldn't be a unanimous decision. it might not even be a 5-4 decision. and so we might end up having no order that would compel the government to produce documents or testimony or to allow any further investigation. and that is of deep concern for me given the history of not only the nixon administration, but what we are seeing now that's in plain sight before us in his

conduct and in all the reporting, bob woodward's book and the anonymous op-ed. although i wish that had not been anonymous, it is confirming that everything we've seen since the day of his inauguration. all of your reporting has shown that. >> jill winebanks, michael, thank you for your perspectives. joining me, republican ohio governor john kasich. joining us from new york where he is on official government business today. governor, thanks. i know you've been listening. we wanted to talk to you about what really seems to be a crisis moment. an historic moment with the president of the united states under siege, under criticism, internally and externally. republican leaders on the hill not taking stands and a supreme court confirmation at stake. an historic one. your views right now? >> well, listen, i haven't -- i've been busy. i haven't been following this -- the hearings. what i heard, the discussion,

between senator durbin and kavanaugh was high brow. it wasn't anybody shouting or any chaos that was in that room. it's going to be a matter of trying to figure out how people are going to at the end determine whether they can support cavanaugh or whether they can't. but what we have been seeing, even there, in particularly in the first day of the hearings, just a couple days after people reflected on the life of john mccain was just more chaos everywhere. i mean, we see the chaos in the white house. we see the chaos on capitol hill. andrea, what this allows me to say again to people is i wouldn't be so fixated. i know these are serious issues, but there's limited things that you can do outside of voting and, you know, protesting and whatever in terms of washington. what i think people need to focus on, because washington is not working. it hasn't been working for a

long time. is what can you do where you live to begin to heal the problems that exist in your neighborhood. you know, today in cincinnati, we had a terrible shooting. a lot of three lives. a loss of the shooter's life and other people hurt. we worry about violence in our communities. we worry about bullying. we worry about drug abuse. we worry about poverty. these are all issues that know no partisan label, andrea. these are issues that know no party bounds, no partisan bounds, where we can begin to pitch in and make a difference where we live. >> well, agreeing with your concept there in the spirit of john mccain, in the spirit of what you have said, what should people do? you've had this terrible shooting in cincinnati today. we don't see any sign that the administration, that the white house, that paul ryan, that mitch mcconnell, that leaders in

washington are responding. >> yes, well, what i respond -- >> what do you think we should do in the midterms? >> i don't wait for washington to solve these problems. i mean, one of the things i talked about today, the folks in cincinnati, in an interview, is the fact that it's really good. i didn't get this specific, but it's really good we expanded medicaid. so people who have trouble, meant a mental illness, we can have the resources to treat people. you are your brother's keeper. so what paul ryan or what, you know, dick durbin or anybody else does in washington, we can be very effective where we live. we can supply the resources. we can take care of one another. i don't like the fact that washington's broken. i was there when it did work. when we balanced budgets. when we worked across the aisle. to speak out against the division that i've seen in this country. i mean, i --

>> does this situation, the woodward book, the anonymous op-ed, whether it should have been written or not or blish pud or not, does this persuade you now you need to run and you need to primary this president -- >> that's a political question that can't be answered right now. but let me tell you what i am concerned about, andrea. i'm concerned about the division in our country. i see there have been three polls where the president has gotten less than 40% approval. doesn't make me happy. we see chaos in our, you know, between republicans and democrats, but then i look at the foreign policy landscape and i see us battling with turkey, battling with iran, battling with china, battling with our allies, battling with south korea. i mean, undo that trade deal. battling in some ways with japan. when you have all this conflict going on, it's very troubling to

me. and there isn't -- there's nothing wrong with -- there's everything right with the president being able to stand up but you can't just do all these things at the same time. this is the thing that concerns me a great deal and of course the divisions in our country. so we'll see what the future brings. i can tell you this, i will continue to do what i can do to make a difference to help my country. what road that takes, i don't know, but i'm not going to go away. >> well, we're very glad for that. good to talk to you. 's symptoms following you everywhere? it's time to take back control with stelara®. for adults with moderately to severely active crohn's disease, stelara® works differently. studies showed relief and remission with dosing every 8 weeks. woman: stelara® may lower the ability of your immune system to fight infections and may increase your risk of infections and cancer. some serious infections require hospitalization. before treatment, get tested for tuberculosis. before or during treatment, always tell your doctor if you think you have an infection

or have flu-like symptoms or sores, have had cancer, or develop any new skin growths, or if anyone in your house needs or recently had a vaccine. alert your doctor of new or worsening problems, including headaches, seizures, confusion and vision problems. these may be signs of a rare, potentially fatal brain condition. some serious allergic reactions can occur. do not take stelara® if you are allergic to any of its ingredients. man: are you fed up with crohn's symptoms following you? talk to your doctor today, and learn how janssen can help you explore cost support options. remission can start with stelara®.

you might or joints.hings. for your heart... but do you take something for your brain. with an ingredient originally discovered in jellyfish, prevagen has been shown in clinical trials to improve short-term memory. prevagen. healthier brain. better life.

and that does it for this addition of "andrea mitchell reports." craig melvin is in new york. congratulations on your new gig. you are the iron man of nbc and msnbc. >> thank you andrea mitchell. i really appreciate that. especially coming from you. andrea, thank you. thanks to you as well for joining us. craig melvin at msnbc headquarters in new york city. total meltdown. that's how the mood in the white house is being described following that explosive anonymous op-ed in "the new york times." the big questions now about why it was written and who's actually running our country. plus, senators spar. a revolt during brett kavanaugh's confirmation hearing forces the release of documents on roe v. wade and racial profiling. we're live as