and this desert doesn't give up its secrets easily. ♪ welcome to "kasie d.c." i'm kasie hunt. we're live every sunday from washington from 7:00 to 9:00 p.m. eastern. washington and the white house go nuts over an anonymous op-ed. we'll talk about whether the president's hunt is really all about the thrill of the chase. plus, disorder over the court. democrats grandstand. republicans play games over papers. is brett kavanaugh qualified or not? the third branch of the government politicized like rarely before. later, two presidents, two americas. we'll talk about how the return of president obama to the

political stage perfectly captures this moment in history. tonight, a piece of writing that is deeply consequential or completely irrelevant. either an act of bravery or cowardice. more than two dozen trump administration officials have disavowed the anonymous op-ed. it's possible we haven't seen sun sinchronity. nickly hailey took an extra step signing her name to a piece in "the washington post" headlined, when i challenge the president, i do it directly. and here's the vice president this morning. >> do you think you know who anonymous is? >> i don't. i don't know, but i do know they should resign and leave this administration. >> should all top officials take

a lie detector test, and would you agree to take one? >> i would agree to take it in a heartbeat, and would submit to any review of the administration. >> do you think that the administration should do that? >> look, that would be a decision for the president. >> that, of course, is on the record. in the aftermath of the piece, two senior administration officials reached out to axios to say on background that the author stole the words right out of their mouths. i find the reaction to the nyt op-ed fascinating that people seemed so shocked that there's a resistance from the inside. a lot of us were wishing we'd been the writer, i suspect. i hope trump knows, maybe he does, that there are dozens and dozens of us. and with that, i'd like to welcome in my panel. white house correspondent yamish. nbc news intelligence reporter ken dilanian, jo ling kent and stuart stevens. great to have all of you on board tonight. stewart, i want to start with

you because you and i spent a lot time of on the campaign plane covering the flap or two. there were a series of what we then thought were crises for the mitt romney campaign. mistakes perhaps made by the candidate. it seems we're living in a world where the magnitude of those mistakes seems minuscule compared to what we are dealing with every single day here. what is your view of whether or not this op-ed reflects what is going on inside your republican party? is this in your view the dominant conversation that everybody else except for this handful of loyalists are having? >> i think there's a constant conversation about the president and about his office and about the decisions and the tone and the way he's conducting the office.

it's often used, people say i don't like the tweets but it's really about something much bigger than that. the main thing about this is that it's just completely distracting from what government should be about. i mean, government should be about not just the next news cycle but planning for the future and trying to accomplish big things that individuals can't accomplish. we seem to be consumed with this stuff. my view of the person who wrote it, a lot of people have said they think it's cowardly. i don't think that. i think it's good to hear these voices. and others should come out. >> yamish, you spend all your time reporting on the white house. what is your latest view from the inside? how destabilizing is this, and how many people in your view disagree with this op-ed? >> i think the people who disagree are the president's most loyal people around him, which is really probably melania trump, some of his children and, really, maybe a couple people

from the campaign. but there are a lot of people as you know, republicans what they'll tell you off the record is an eye roll and a joke about this president. there are a lot of people, a lot of republicans just around d.c. that are very worried about this president. going into the white house, president trump is fuming about this. already obsessed about the russia investigation and robert mueller. now he has the idea that there are dozens of people working in his administration that he doesn't know that are not only -- that are writing op-eds in the paper that he loves to say is failing. >> he reads it very closely. >> that he reads very closely. and this idea that he's -- that there are people turning against him. add to that the fact his personal lawyer paul manafort, all these people have guilty verdicts hanging over their heads. this is a president that feels

increasingly isolated and angry about all this stuff. >> ken dilanian, let's talk about the national security implications. while, yes, we do talk about the potential damage to the -- or at least critics of the president talk about national security damage, there's a real question about the fact this was a duly elected president by the people and there are apparently people working to subvert his policies potentially inside the government. >> i think this was unhelpful from that point view of because it's going to make that effort less successful. he's now going to be more resistant to advice. more suspicious and for all his supporters who think there's a deep state trying to undermine him, this validates that point. i think it may backfire and it only really helps the writer if eventually he's outed and he's going to get a book deal and can say he was on the record saying he was part of the resistance.

i'm not sure this is a senior official. "the new york times" had to vet this person's background. if it was a household name, what kind of vetting? >> that household name test. >> jo ling kent. you've covered republican politics before. my bigger question is how the republican party ever recovers from this because this does seem to illuminate what is a very fundamental split inside the party. >> yeah. and there's a huge amount of interest. now this article is the most viewed on "the new york times" website for all of 2018 given everything that's gone on. it goes beyond just washington and the bubble and what so many people here care about and goes into probably these primary races that we're seeing play out and the upcoming midterm elections. what i find so interesting is in of the issues the individual who wrote this brought up were tax reform, deregulation and increasing the military size. so those are actually things very much in lockstep with the broader republican party. so now the question is, how much does something like this really affect the outcomes of november

and the midterms? >> to that point, stuart stevens, at what point, what joe just outlined, this person in this op-ed saying we did x, we did y, i was here for that. that's what republican members of congress say. tax reform, tax reform, judges, judges. in your view people that believe the president is damaging the country but are willing to stick around for these other things, are they selling their souls? >> this is sort of a plea bargain with history that the writer is putting out there. that he or she wants to be remembered for these good things that are done. look, i think this is one of these things that's a very individual decision. every person in the administration has to make. do you want to stick around and try to make things better which i admire both sides of this. or do you want to be out there speaking for what the party ought to be which is a different vision of the party. one that where character counts, personal responsibility. i think everybody has to make that choice and certainly the party and in the long term has to make that choice. >> so there are a lot of people thinking about this and they are looking to this broader republican party to try and explain this "new york times" piece. msnbc's chris hayes writes the op-ed is an attempt to take out

an insurance policy for the gop and conservatism if and when things get much worse. it's a very public hedge meant to preserve the reputation of the gop's entire political and governing class. and erick erickson writes this. trump supporters don't want to hear it but get together in any off the record meeting of conservatives who have gone to assist trump n what you're reading in "the new york times" and the bob woodward book comes pouring out. there is no deep state here. this is the white house staff and the trump white house approved staff of the various cabinet officials. if you want a salacious story with which to rile people up, let them know these are not obama holdovers and longtime left-leaning bureaucrats. this is the republican establishment that trump beat and then absorbed along with movement conservatives who decided they needed to try to salvage what they could and save

the country in the process. so, joe, this is exactly what we were talking about. >> yeah. but my question really is, how much is an op-ed really an insurance policy because no matter if you put your name on it or don't, really what counts to an american voter in new hampshire is what you actually do about it. and hearing from someone like senator ben sasse this morning on "meet the press" or anyone who is running for office right now, where are the actions? and that's really what the swing voter is going to care about in the end. >> ken dilanian, how does this play into what's going on with the russia investigation because i think if i am extrapolating on this question and i think that for republicans especially on the hill, it's always been, what is the red line with trump? have we found the red line? every time we think something is going to be the red line, there's an explanation for it. mueller may be the red line. do we think this is the kind of thing that could push the president to -- for the most part republicans have been convinced he's not going to take? >> by firing mueller or jeff sessions? >> it's possible if they get

close enough. they'll hear from a lot of republicans about their view of the russia investigation. they're skeptical there's going to be some smoking gun evidence of collusion that's going to be fatal to the trump presidency. >> it's going to be so muddy that we're not going to get a definitive outcome. >> increasingly, the sharks circling around trump make him paranoid and act in irrational ways. he's tweeting about the russia investigation almost every day. the last two presidents have had cataclysmic crisises on their watch. george w. bush, 9/11, barack obama, the financial collapse. we haven't had that yet with trump. what if that happens and we have an emotionally reckless president on our hands. >> then a bureaucracy that from what we can tell, we haven't talked explicitly about bob woodward's book but he says jim mattis' ignored an order. do they know who they think this person is, where -- what are their prime suspects? what do they do next? >> the fact you have two dozen or more people come out and say it wasn't me tells you that i don't know if they know who the person is but there are a lot of people lining up to say it definitely wasn't me and please clear me as soon as possible.

whether they start giving out lie detector tests, i have not confirmed they'd do that but you can imagine president trump on monday or even over the weekend is saying, we have to get to the bottom of this and they're trying to strategize how they'll do that. in terms of whether or not the cabinet members and all the people that -- i think bob woodward's credibility is kind of unmatched. if you're going to put up bob woodward's reporting versus donald trump saying that never happened, you'll choose bob woodward 99% of the time. even if the president can find this op-ed writer he has to deal with all the people around him. i don't think we'll see mass firing because the president, one of the biggest reasons jeff sessions still has a job is because a lot of people are telling this president you cannot keep doing this. it looks crazy. >> also that he couldn't necessarily get somebody confirmed. we should also remind our viewers that deep throat, the

main source for bob woodward in the watergate reporting, of course, repeatedly denied that he was deep throat. a lot more to come on "kasie dc." is one of the most powerful figures in media on his way out. new reporting on les moonves. plus, president obama gets some things off his chest on the campaign trail. but first, you might have noticed there was a little news this week in the capitol. as we go to break, a look back at the whiplash week that was in washington. and, yes, this really all happened this week. ♪ biden went to church along with bob casey. president trump is taking on attorney general jeff sessions. bob woodward's new book -- >> describes a nervous breakdown of the executive branch. >> senior aides resorting to hiding documents. >> mocking sessions' accent. trump added, i'm quoting the president, the guy is mentally bleep. >> michael capuana losing to ayana pressley.

>> first day of questioning for judge kavanaugh. >> the book means nothing. it's a work of fiction. total piece of fiction. >> some breaking news. in the times today taking the rare step of publishing an anonymous op-ed. >> i'm part of the resistance inside the trump administration. >> the president's move is volcanic. >> speculation about the identity of the anonymous senior staffer. >> top cabinet officials denying they're the anonymous writer. >> about 12 suspects. >> it could quite literally be anyone. >> final day of judge kavanaugh's confirmation. this is the launch of the democratic campaign. >> the president has taken the podium. >> he's calling on the department of justice to investigate who wrote it. >> papadopoulos was just sentenced to 14 days in jail. >> fridays, man. fridays. this week reminded us we live in a country of alternate realities. in one country the economy continues to do well with markets, job growth and wages all on the rise.

in another, a past president called for an awakening amid political darkness. using the word dark four times in his speech. 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. 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.

this week reminded us we live in a country of alternate realities. in one country the economy continues to do well with markets, job growth and wages all on the rise. in another, a past president called for an awakening amid political darkness. using the word dark four times in his speech. in one world, brett kavanaugh is a brilliant jurist ready to fill the shoes of anthony kennedy. in the other, accusations of a rushed confirmation to paper over his past and charges he may root out years of established legal precedent.

in one america there's a politically motivated dragnet meant to hamstring a duly elected president. in the other, an investigation that has already resulted in felony guilty pleas and prison time. this is the country we live in. tonight, perhaps for the first time in modern history, two men stand at the center of it in an historic collision. >> we've got the best employment numbers in our history. >> when you hear how great the economy is doing right now, let's just remember when this recovery started. >> so we've started the wall. we've spent now close to $3.2 billion. >> we can't just put walls up all around america. >> you know when abraham lincoln made the gettysburg address -- >> i don't mean to pretend i am channeling abraham lincoln now, but that's not what he had in mind, i think when he helped form the republican party. >> for many, president obama's words felt like a return to sanity. for others, it was a stark >> i don't mean to pretend i am channeling abraham lincoln now, but that's not what he had in mind, i think when he helped form the republican party.

>> for many, president obama's words felt like a return to sanity. for others, it was a stark reminder of why president trump won the election. meanwhile, much of the country is just sick of all of it. >> i conceive of myself as an independent conservative who caucuses with the republicans but, frankly, neither of these parties have a long-term vision for the future of the country. there's massive stuff happening in america, and thesis matters are really content to do 24-hour news cycles screaming at each other. >> why stay a republican, and when is the last time you thought about becoming an independent? >> i probably think about it every morning when i wake up, but i figure out, why am i flying away from nebraska to go to d.c. we are going to get real stuff done? i'm committed to the party of lincoln and reagan as long as there's a chance to reform it. >> stuart stevens, before i ask the rest of the panel about

president obama, i am just curious. you personally, have you thought about switching your party allegiance as you've watched all of this unfold? >> well, i'm glad you played the ben sasse clip because it gives me the convenient way to say i'll consider myself a ben sasse republican. >> convenient. >> i think that there really is a battle here for what you have to call the soul of the republican party. a lot of us were drawn to the republican party because it was an optimistic vision. character counts, personal responsibility. fiscal responsibility with the debt, strong on russia. and all of those have been turned on its head. i worked for president bush and it's not like we were perfect but in our best moments, i think we aspired to be better than we were. that idea of compassionate conservatism, flawed as it was. >> wasn't it rejected in 2016? why did republican voters reject all of that? is it because president trump pushed racial buttons? >> that's a very complicated torturous question. it's difficult to talk about race in this. i don't think --

>> is it, though? i think a lot of people would argue it's pretty straightforward. >> i think that you can't look at the 2016 election and come to any conclusion other than donald trump won and it was a fairly weak field. i think the danger in it is looking at it and drawing these conclusions that the party has to be a predominantly white party. that the party shouldn't reach out. that the party should write off california. just because you won an election, he got less percentage of the overall vote than mitt romney did. this is not a future party that, in a changing america, where you're not going to have the ability to win national elections just by getting more white voters. you have to have a different vision. that's just math. and you can get through one or two elections. but, really, i think there's a moral imperative that you have to represent more and there's a

political imperative that's looming out there. >> yamiche, weigh in on that. >> it's straightforward to talk about race in the 2016 election. there was a presidential candidate that called mexicans rapists and criminals and millions who said that's okay. white people essentially in a large mass looked at donald trump and said this is what we want. that's not to say, obviously, that all the people who voted for him are racist, but it's to say that race was a very central part of the reason why president obama, i think, was talked about the way he was and why president trump is now in office. that said, when you look at the two different americas, obama was saying, i'm done with vacation. i'm back on the trail. a lot of people were very happy to hear that. i heard from a lot of sources like finally obama is back from vacationing. what obama is talking about is also, he's saying to democrats, you need to come on and bring it on. step into the ring and bring somewhat of a fight. he's also saying for the people that sit at home, for all those people who are millions of people who don't vote or take part in the democratic

institutions, you need to not wait for a savior. he said that. do not wait for a savior and think things are going to get better. obama's message is more that people need to get more engaged. >> do you think there's any risk for him in activating the voters that voted for trump because they were so disdainful of him? >> in my mind, i don't think so mainly because president -- the republicans are really good at having villains. i remember i went to a rally for president trump. there was a woman there with a hillary clinton button. and i was like it's 2018. people are still incensed and motivated by the idea of hillary clinton. if you don't like obama and he's the reason you voted for trump, you're going to do that whether he's on the campaign trail or someone mentions his name in a speech. >> jo ling kent you were watching where obama took credit for the economy doing well. how much of that do you think is fair? who is right about it? you cover this every day. and at the end of the day, are voters going to be more willing

to give trump a pass because they're feeling better about themselves? >> what president obama said, is a fact. the huge recovery began under his watch. there were many moments you saw actual job creation supersede what we see right now under the trump white house. but the numbers continue to grow. wage growth was stagnant for a long time. labor force participation which is issues of people going out and seeking jobs and finding jobs. well, that was stagnant under obama as well. so if you look at the economy, though, it continues to be the number one issue most people are going to be voting around when it comes to the midterms. and if you want to look at issues in a way that matter to most regular americans, it definitely is how much money you can make. your prospect for prosperity in the future and what you can do to dig yourself out of whatever hole you're in or, perhaps, buy a house. that's where the fed comes in and jerome powell comes in. so it's this big, complicated picture that it seems like you can really tug at both ways.

but obama wasn't factually wrong. trump isn't wrong about the fact the economy is doing fine. >> you know what else happened. inequality in this country continued to increase. no bank ceo was held accountable for the financial crisis and the voters that elected trump in ohio, michigan and pennsylvania didn't feel their lives were improving. they didn't bargain for this craziness that they're getting with donald trump -- >> but they wanted somebody to try to shake it up. >> exactly. coming up -- president trump under oath? the president has reportedly agreed to provide written answers in a defamation lawsuit filed against him by a former apprentice contestant. we'll explain next on "kasie dc." cbs ceo chairman les moonves

cbs ceo chairman les moonves is stepping down today. the new yorker reported that six additional women have come forward accusing moonves of sexual harassment of assault. it ranges from forcing women to

perform oral sex on him to unwanted touching and kissing to physical intimidation and retaliation. moonves has denied these claims which span from the 1980s into the early 2000s. in a statement, moonves said the appalling accusations in this article are untrue. what is true is that i had consensual relations with three of the women some 25 years ago before i came to cbs. cbs' board of directors issued a statement saying it's committed to a thorough and independent investigation of the allegations and that investigation is actively under way. these new accounts come just weeks after fair row broke a story that detailed similar behave with other women. the new yorker says it corroborated those women's stories, but nbc news, we should note, has yet to independently verify them. joining me is nbc news senior media editor clear atkinson. it's good to see you.

thanks for being here. can you walk us through how this unfolded behind the scenes at cbs. it's been reported through the afternoon this was a possibility. it appears to have been accelerated. >> absolutely. ever since the story broke, we've been hearing from sources that leslie moonves was accelerating exit negotiations. i had heard from the very beginning from when ronan's story first broke a couple of weeks ago that he had actually initiated exit negotiations when the second story broke it became untenable for him to stay. and just moments ago we heard from cbs and the controlling shareholder national amusements that he is indeed stepping down. the c.o.o. of the company is taking over and perhaps most importantly the statement says that $20 million of the severance due to leslie moonves

is going to organizations that support me too. that's pretty significant. the controlling shareholder is the person running the controlling shareholder of cbs is a woman. they are adding six new directors to the board of cbs. and already three women there. they're adding three more. so that says how seriously the cbs directors have taken the situation. some have alleged they weren't taking the situation very seriously at all given that leslie moonves didn't step down. he wasn't suspended by the board in any way when those allegations first broke. >> hasn't that been the knock on cbs? ronan farrow reported in part that a lot of these women came forward because they read the first story and watched while nothing happened at cbs. and there was also some argument that this culture extends down beyond moonves to jeff fager,

the executive producer of "60 minutes" and others. >> i think folks were stunned the ceo did not step aside. in fact, he went on to do a very controversial call with analysts on wall street about how the company was going to grow. he was slated to speak at goldman sachs this week and talk about the future of cbs. folks are scratching their head, how can this be? he's been accused all of these terrible things by these women, some of them on record. and i think it really took a second batch of women to come forward and say what happened to them for any ramifications to happen. so we had times up make an initial statement. we had them saying we're watching things, folks. the second time around we had ultima violet and other women's groups saying this is just disgraceful and he's still the ceo of a major corporation. he's one of the highest paid executives in the country earning $69.9 million. how is it that he's still in the position? there's been a whole bunch of other folks accused of much less and had to walk the plank immediately. >> jo ling kent, not only are

the list of allegations on the record and on background pretty graphic and gross, quite frankly, but they also include allegations of retaliation and intimidation and women who have said after this happened and i rebuffed him, my career was ended. >> yeah, the reports from ronan farrow talk about how this is all about power. and if you take that power dynamic and you cross apply it over many years, regardless if something happened in the 1980s, '90s or right now, you can continue to see the impact that this person allegedly had. and looking at that nugget of information and all the stories that have been reported out, the real word that stands out to me tonight is inaction. and because of the inaction that happened, for so long, even just between the two farrow reports, you can see why cbs may have felt their hand was forced here even as these two separate law firms continue their independent investigations.

>> yamiche, you and i have covered this power dynamic. and i do think there had been a sense that perhaps there was something of a backlash against what happened to some of these people, perhaps that was part of what explained why less moonves was allowed to stay even after that first publication. this movement is still strong. >> this movement is still strong. while one person is talking about the idea that inaction is what comes to mind. what comes to mind is power in numbers. you look at the men that have had to go it's because women after women have stacked up to say he also did this to me and i, too, am part of this me too movement. if a woman feels violated by a man, you have done something egregious to a woman once and used your power even once to hurt a woman's career because she didn't want to sleep with you or go on a date with you, that should be enough. what we're learning through ronan farrow's reporting and cbs news, when you have an article maybe a couple women in it, that wasn't enough. now you have to have six women for cbs to say this is enough. i was thinking about al franken. a lot of back and forth about whether al franken should have resigned. i remember his female colleagues said we cannot take this anymore.

how many women is it going to take before al franken resigns and he ended up leaving. >> clair atkinson, i want to touch on the severance package for les moonves because it's an important part of this story. $20 million will go to me too. a lot of pressure to say no perhaps $100 million parachute for you. it seems they're trying to punt this out of the spotlight and perhaps give him a major severance package. >> the phrasing of the statement certainly suggests that while he might not be walking away with $100 million that there might be something after the investigations wrap up. i think it's really important that we keep in mind that the cbs directors are probably asking themselves, can we get sued if we give les moonves $100 million to leave with. that certainly is something they might be thinking and there's a precedent for this with michael ovitz when he left disney. the board was sued for bailing him out. $20 million will go to me too. a lot of pressure to say no perhaps $100 million parachute for you. it seems they're trying to punt this out of the spotlight and perhaps give him a major severance package. >> the phrasing of the statement certainly suggests that while he might not be walking away with $100 million that there might be something after the investigations wrap up.

i think it's really important that we keep in mind that the cbs directors are probably asking themselves, can we get sued if we give les moonves $100 million to leave with. that certainly is something they might be thinking and there's a precedent for this with michael ovitz when he left disney. the board was sued for bailing him out. >> thank you for your insight and analysis. much more "kasie dc" when we come back after this. welcome back to "kasie dc." president trump is facing legal

super emma just about sleeps in her cape. but when we realized she was battling sensitive skin. we switched to tide pods free & gentle. it's gentle on her skin and out cleans the other free and clear detergent. dermatologist recommended. it's got to be tide. and it's time to get outside. pack in even more adventure with audible. with the largest selection of audiobooks. audible lets you follow plot twists off the beaten track. or discover magic when you hit the open road. with the free audible app, your stories go wherever you do. and for just $14.95 a month you get a credit, good for any audiobook. if you don't like it exchange it any time. no questions asked.

you can also roll your credits to the next month if you don't use them. so take audible with you this summer... on the road... on the trail... or to the beach. start a 30-day trial and your first audiobook is free. cancel anytime, and your books are yours to keep forever. no matter where you go this summer make it better with audible. text summer17 to 500500 to start listening today.

welcome back to "kasie dc." president trump is facing legal issues on a number of fronts this week. "the washington post" citing a new court filing. reports the president will submit written answers under oath in a defamation case brought by summer zervos, a former contestant on "the apprentice." she accused trump of forceibly kissing and groping her. but this stems from the disparaging way trump denied her allegations in 2016. the president maintains the assault never happened. meanwhile, the 2016 hush money deal that his former personal lawyer michael cohen struck with stormy daniels will not be enforced. the president's legal team says he no longer believes the agreement is valid and that he'll also back off his threats to sue her for potentially violating it.

almost simultaneously, essential consultants set up by michael cohen has agreed to rescind daniels' nondisclosure agreement. it comes as stormy daniels herself is speaking out in a new interview on dutch television. >> is there something you know now which we will know soon that could bring down this presidency? >> i say that we have -- yes, there is stuff that i know and i would say it's a 50/50 shot at this point. which is pretty scary odds if you're the president. >> we should, of course, point out the president has denied ever having a sexual relationship with stormy daniels. ken dilanian, our resident -- i feel this segment should be ken dilanian explains it all because there's a lot here. what of these potential threats to the presidency is most important in your view? >> it's just a very dangerous thing in the background. he's got bigger problems.

a criminal investigation. he's the target of the mueller investigation in a sense. bill clinton was impeached because he lied in a civil deposition having to deal with sexual harassment. when donald trump has to give answers under oath. these are written answers so they'll be vetted by his lawyers. to the extent he's ever deposed in one of these cases, that would be perilous for him. >> can i ask you about the political of this and not to wear this topic thin, but, you know, the republican party at one point i seem to remember was the party of plurality, the family values party, the party that said bill clinton did not conduct itself well in the 1990s as regards women. now it seems that the voters at least don't really care because they knew a lot of this going in. is there anything here that you think will significantly impact how voters view this president around this issue? >> well, look. when it comes to donald trump, a lot of people are wrong in 2016 but i think few were as wrong as i was. i'm probably a bad expert on predicting how people are going to react to donald trump.

>> i tip my hat to you, stuart for being willing to acknowledge that. >> i was dead wrong. i didn't think he'd win the nomination or the general election. i think that these questions, even intering onatories are difficult for donald trump because unlike bill clinton, he didn't tweet and it's very typical of donald trump to contradict himself in tweets. we know the lester holt interview is out there. it's a fact. it hasn't been altered. it's out there and yet he's contradicting that. even if there's simple, bland questions, they will be under oath, and it will be the first time we have the president writing something under oath and the odds he might contradict himself in some form or another

seem to me to not be small. >> fair enough assessment. stuart stevens, ken dilanian, yamiche, thank you so much. appreciate your time. join the conversation with all of us here @kasiedc. a record-breaking 100 women may be elected to the house in hey allergy muddlers.

are you one sneeze away from being voted out of the carpool? try zyrtec®. it's starts working hard at hour one. and works twice as hard when you take it again the next day. stick with zyrtec® and muddle no more®.

we're back after this. welcome back. we are less than two months away from the mid-term elections. a new race by race analysis is revealing that a record breaking 100 women could be elected to house in 2018. among them is a republican running. and she joins me now live from miami. thank you so much for being here today. >> wonderful. wonderful to be here. >> i want to start by asking you, she was frankly concerned about the district perhaps

tilting away from the republican party. what makes you think that you can hold onto it, where she was perhaps concerned she wouldn't? >> well, because i am the -- you know miami and we have the background dog of downtown miami that belongs to district 27. we are the ultimate melting pot and i am a product of it. we are the george community and the african-american community and the anglo community and the i'm sure i have the qualifications and the knowledge to understand what my community wants. and i have the guidance and i have the blessing like you said of iana ross, that she did a wonderful job for 30 years, stellar legacy she's leaving behind. and i intend to be a seamless

transition between her office and mine. >> what is the republican party doing today that makes you want to be a part of the republican party as opposed to being a democrat? >> well, listen, hispanic americans, we share some of the core values that are enshrined in the republican party. and i'm sure that sometimes democrats don't understand that, but that is the truth. we are self-reliant people. we are god fearing, law-abiding. we don't like government or we want a small government. we're family oriented, and those are the values that are enshrined in the republican party. sometimes people do not

understand it, but that is why the south florida congressional delegation has been and will continue being republican. >> do you think this president embodies all of those values you just laid out? >> well, i think the president is a pretty unconventional guy and i'm sure you have been covering that for the last year and a half. so was i. i was a news reporter for 35 years in this town. >> yes, i do know. >> the president is transformational figure. but i always say to everybody that asks me that question we have to look at what he does for the country not so much what he says. >> so does it matter to you he calls mexicans rapists? >> i agree with you the words he has used are not very sensitive, but at the same time i want to remind you that some of the actions that the democratic party has had with my community for the last 30 years have been pretty offensive. in 2008 presidential obama said to a group of spanish journalists we were going to have a re-formation law in the first year, and if that would have been the case we would not being vs the mess and problem right now we're having with immigration. number two, in 1996 president clinton what he did, he signed immigration reform act, and you

know what that does, that gave the legal framework for any administration to separate kids. he did not secure communities. this is not a matter of democrats or republicans. when it comes to immigration everybody is at fault. >> if you were elected to congress, would you vote to build the president's border wall? >> i would definitely vote in order to secure the border because not even the undocumented -- >> but does that mean the wall the president wants? >> any type of towers or technology or any type of guards or border security that will secure the border. because we do not want el chapo or his friends smuggling drugs. listen, the undocumented people do not want to be undocumented. that's why we need to reform our immigration system. and we need to give visas to those that are coming to pick up jalpeno peppers in southern california. and they need to continue to work they are right now without a criminal record. >> before i let you go you are as you mentioned a former journalist. this president has spoken about the press in this country in ways that some people have called stalinist. he has said that we are the enemy of the people. do you think -- do you agree with that, first of all? and what would you say to the president about the press and whether or not they deserve to be defended? >> no, no, no, the press -- we have the best press in the

world. i was central bureau chief for uno vision. i was one of yours up until january this year. i believe what happens is that some journalists there are bad apples in this industry just like in any other. and some journalists and i'm sure you agree with this, just do not like the guy. they don't like him. and that's the problem. it is not important if we like the person or not. we need to continue doing our job being impartial, being unbiased because that we gain our credibility. and unfortunately sometimes that's not happening in main stream america. but the press we need always. >> i do appreciate that final this president has spoken about the press in this country in ways that some people have called stalinist. he has said that we are the enemy of the people. do you think -- do you agree with that, first of all? and what would you say to the president about the press and whether or not they deserve to be defended? >> no, no, no, the press -- we have the best press in the world. i was central bureau chief for uno vision. i was one of yours up until january this year. i believe what happens is that some journalists there are bad apples in this industry just like in any other.

and some journalists and i'm sure you agree with this, just do not like the guy. they don't like him. and that's the problem. it is not important if we like the person or not. we need to continue doing our job being impartial, being unbiased because that we gain our credibility. and unfortunately sometimes that's not happening in main stream america. but the press we need always. >> i do appreciate that final thought and very much agree. thank you very much for your time tonight. >> thank you. when we continue is ted cruz's seat really in danger?

♪ trying to flip the how is this fall, former president barack obama hits the campaign trail and makes the case against his successor, donald trump. plus, george papadopoulos speaks out after being sentenced to 14 days in jail and president trump continues to search for the anonymous writer of the "new york times" op ed. ♪ good morning, everyone.