come, you did -- that does give you an insight into a mindset that's going to be much more about the imperial presidency than checks and balances. >> we have to go. gentlemen, what a treat it's been to have you both on the broadcast. >> thank you, sir. >> that is our broadcast for wednesday night. thank you so very much for being here with us. good night from our nbc news election headquarters, the last night of it, in fact, here in new york. happy, happy, happy to have you with us. a lot going on, right? it's one of those times i feel very, very blessed to have this job. in march of this year, a guy who was going to run for senate in nevada announced that he was not going to run after all. he said, quite proudly, that the only reason he was backing out was because he had personally received a call from the president of the united states, and the president's team imploring him for the good of

the republican party to please not run for senate this year, as he was otherwise intending. the white house later confirmed that, in fact, the president had done that. the president called this guy in nevada, danny tarkanian, who has run for office a lot in nevada, he's lost every time. the president had called him and told him not to run for the senate this year, so as to clear the way for republican u.s. senator dean heller to run for re-elect in nevada, without the hassle of having a republican primary challenge. so, the president intervened to keep that primary challenger out, to clear the way for dean heller. so dean heller could be re-elected. trump-endorsed senator dean heller last night lost his re-election race. he lost his seat in the u.s. senate. he was beaten by a democrat named jacky rosen, who was a democratic member of congress who had to give up her seat to run against dean heller. that was a good bargain for her. she'll be coming back to washington as a u.s. senator

instead of as a member of congress. but because she had to leave her seat in congress in order to run for the senate, that left her congressional seat open. and this was where the trump genius came in. having advised danny tarkanian that he wasn't allowed to run in the senate primary against dean heller, so has to ensure that dean heller would hold onto his seat, ahem, trump then promoted the heck out of danny tarkanian to get a different gig, to be the republican nominee for that house seat, the one that was vacated by congresswoman jacky rosen. last night, that trump candidate, he lost that race, too. he lost that house seat to a democrat named susie lee. but the president believes he has real political genius when it comes to these things, and he is not shy about doing this sort of thing anywhere in the country. just a few weeks after that brilliant danny tarkanian

presidential intervention that cost the republicans both a seat in the united states senate and a seat in the united states house, the president waded into another race in south carolina, where he decided that in a congressional primary in south carolina, he would direct his followers to no longer support republican congressman mark sanford. the president decided that mark sanford was insufficiently pro-trump for a republican member of congress, so, before the polls closed in that congressional primary, where mark sanford was trying to hold onto his seat, the president just came into the deep end with this endorsement. "mark sanford has been very unhelpful to me in my campaign to maga. he is m.i.a. and nothing but trouble. i endorse katie arrington for congress in south carolina." katie arrington, on the strength of that high-impact endorsement from the president, beat mark sanford in that primary. the president has been gleefully

rubbing that in against mark sanford ever since, and pounding his chest about how he cost mark sanford his seat in congress. i am potus, hear me roar. last night was the general election in south carolina, just like it was everywhere. and last night, presidentially endorsed katie arrington lost that seat to a democrat named joe cunningham. did i mention that was south carolina? just won by a democrat. a few weeks after president trump applied his unparalleled presidential political genius to the katie arrington/mark sanford race, which cost the republicans a seat in the house, the president also confidently waded into the kansas governor's race. when republican voters in kansas were deciding this year who was going to be their candidate for governor, they had a choice between a sort of normal conservative republican or a much, much, much trumpier choice

named kris kobach. immensely controversial, very high profile, kansas secretary of state. sort of a special white house adviser on nonexistent voter fraud. in that kansas primary to decide who the republican party's candidate would be for governor in kansas, the president decided he would exert his political genius and weigh in. this was in august, he announced his full and total endorsement in that primary for kris kobach. kobach won that primary, presumably in part on the strength of the president's endorsement. kris kobach went onto the general election last night as the republican candidate for governor in kansas, and he is the republican candidate for governor who lost the kansas governorship to a democrat named laura kelly. and it wasn't even that close. and kris kobach's dead weight at the top of the ticket in kansas may have also been enough to cost kansas republican congressman kevin yoder his seat, as well.

kris kobach lost to a democrat, congressman kevin yoder lost his congressional seat to a democrat, as well. to a gay native american female mma fighter named sharice davids, who is a democrat. because the president's political genius knows no bounds. republican congressman dave brat of virginia, remember when he complained during the campaign about all the women getting up in his grill? how much he hated his female constituents pressuring him to hold a town hall? how much he hated all that? last night, dave brat got all the women out of his grill. that won't be a problem anymore. last night, dave brat lost his seat in congress to a democratic woman named abigail spanberger, who is a cia veteran. do you remember all the indivisible protests against the congressman in new jersey? last night, that seat also flipped to a democratic woman

veteran named mikie sherrill do you remember the individual protests against congressman darrell issa? last night, his seat went to a democrat named mike levin. republican congressman scott taylor in virginia, you might remember he got in serious trouble this year during the campaign when he and his office tried on a little scheme to fake petition signatures to get a fake third party candidate onto the ballot to hopefully divert votes from the democrat who was running against him. last night, congressman scott taylor in virginia lost his seat in congress when that democratic challenger, elaine luria, she beat him anyway. in minnesota, a republican congressman named jason lewis -- he's had the whole idea of minnesota nice, sort of straining at the seams a little bit. congressman jason lewis is the one who publicly campaigned at length and on tape that he's not allowed to call women sluts anymore.

last night, jason lewis lost his seat in congress to a woman, who actually seems very nice no matter what he might call her. her name is angie craig and she will soon be congresswoman angie craig, because she's ousted republican jason lewis from congress. in new york state, john faso ran ads against his opponent, who was a freaking lawyer and a rhodes scholar, trying to make his constituents believe he was some kind of crazy gang member who was only running for congress so he could, like, beat people up in the district or something. it was insane. it was very blatantly racist. john faso lost his seat in congress to that democratic candidate, antonio delgado. in michigan, mike bishop last night lost his seat to a democratic candidate named elissa slotkin, another cia veteran. do you remember that ad that highlighted the national security backgrounds of eight

first-time female democrat conditions running this year? elissa slotkin was in that ad. five of the eight women in that ad won their seats last night and ousted republican incumbents. in california, republican congressman steve knight just lost his seat to democrat katie hill. she will be staking steve knight's seat in the house. in illinois, republican congressman randy holtgren lost his seat to a nurse, lauren underwood. neither of them were on anybody's radar. lauren underwood came out of nowhere and won that seat through sheer hard work and raw talent. lauren underwood is going to be a national star, i'm telling you. she's actually going to be our guest a little later on in this hour. you're going to want to see that. last night, democrats flipped control of the colorado senate and the maine senate and the minnesota house and the new hampshire house and the new hampshire senate and the new york state senate. in nevada, democrats got everything, the governorship, they took away dean heller's

u.s. senate seat, they came within one vote of a democratic super majority in both houses of the democratic legislature. in wisconsin, u.s. senator tammy baldwin, who had once been the number one republican target for her senate seat this year, she not only won re-election over a trump-endorsed opponent, she crushed it. double digits. democrats won the attorney general's race in wisconsin, as well. democrats did lose u.s. senate seats in states where trump won in double digits, and the florida senate race looks like it's going to a resount. although we did learn that democrat jon tester looks to have held on to his seat. in georgia, the governor's race there will be an ongoing, all-out battle. where honestly we have now entered into the sort of civic nightmare scenario where it comes down to a fragile little thin margins of disparate absentee and provisional ballots from all over the state and

maybe a recount and all of it is going to be overseen by one of the two candidates, who is also in charge of doing all that counting. tonight, remarkably, republican secretary of state brian kemp tried to have his office, his secretary of state office, announce that he had won the election. but with no details to back it up. democratic candidate stacey abrams is not having it. chef has announced that her campaign has started an all-out ballot chasing program to make sure that kemp is not allowed to determine his own fate, and that every single vote is counted in a way that is fair and transparent and provable. that georgia governor's thing is going to be a big national deal for a long while yet. national eyes will be on that for good reason until that is settled. there are ongoing races that are as yet uncalled. it may be deep into this weekend before we know who won the arizona senate race, for example. there are absurdities in last night's results, like two republican members of congress

who have each been charged with multiple felonies, they're both literally on trial for multiple felony corruption counts. they both got re-elected. congressman chris collins in new york and congressman duncan hunter in california, they will soon presumably be able to simultaneously solicit new campaign contributions from their sucker constituents along with requests for addition aldo nations to go into the commissary accounts they'll have in prison. i mean, you can buy them phone cards or help them run for re-election, right? send them fritos. i mean -- are these guys going to still get to do constituent service hours like at visiting time? you have an issue, you need your congressman to help you with, you go down, you sit across the glass, you pick up the phone. can you still be on a committee if you're in prison? so, there were some absurdities. last night was a wild night. veteran texas republican

congressmen like pete sessions, 11-term pete sessions, and john culberson, they lost their seats to democrats in texas. a republican congressman from oklahoma city, a race that barely anybody had bothered to poll, he lost his seat to a democrat democratic woman named dkendra horn. the democrats broke supermajorities in the north carolina house and senate, and in the michigan senate and the pennsylvania senate. the number of states where democrats have complete control in state government went from eight before last night to 14 as of today. that means control of the governorship and both houses of the legislature. but the story of the night, and the determinative political change that we just went through last night as a country is what happened thanks to the democrats just romping in the house. nancy pelosi will be speaker of the house once again.

adam schiff will be the intelligence committee. elijah cummings will run house oversight. oversight, did somebody say? in 2006, when nancy pelosi became speaker the first time that was an election in which democrats felt their aessential dance was a few years overdue. think about the timing of the george w. bush presidency, the first midterm election in the george w. bush era, that was anything but a normal cycle, it was just after 9/11, the president had already started one war and was about to start a second, so, 2002 was one of those very, very rare midterm elections where the president's party didn't lose ground. it was just a singular, different thing. but by the next midterm election, 2006, democrats more than made up for it. they won cements by t seats by dozen. they won control of the congress and nancy pelosi became speaker.

but you know, right after that '06 midterm, when democrats picked up so many seats and did so well and took back control on capitol hill, right after that, the bush administration responded to that election result immediately. i don't know -- this has sort of been lost. i heard andrea mitchell mention this today, as soon as we got today's big news and i was like, oh, yeah, that's exactly right, that was this day, 12 years ago. the day after the 2006 midterms, you know, after we learned for the first time that nancy pelosi would be speaker of the house, democrats are taking control of congress, day after the midterms in '06, that's when president bush fired donald rumsfeld. you remember that? who was secretary of defense. i mean, that was seen, essentially, as a concession, an effort to stop the political bleeding. voters in that 2006 race voted for democrats up and down the ballot. voters in 2006 we clearly

furious about the course of the iraq war. donald rumsfeld was not only running that war, he was essentially its public defender in chief. and so, after that 2006 midterm, the bush white house responded to that scream from the voters by pushing rumsfeld out the very next day. well, now today, we've got something that's not exactly a parallel. i mean, today, it's 1 year 12 y later. voters last night screamed once more. democrats took control of congress once again. nancy pelosi will once again be ascending to the speakership. and now today, the day after the election, another cabinet official has been fired, immediately after the elections, right? but this is basically the opposite of what happened in 2006. this time with this firing, i mean, instead of making a concession as to what the voters clearly wanted, what the voters said they were concerned about when they went to the polls and voted against the president and the president's party, this time, the firing of a cabinet

official appears to have been done not out of an effort to try to answer the voters' concerns, this time, it quite clearly has been done out of fear. the president's fear. the president firing attorney general jeff sessions today appears to be a defensive move, to try to stop the special counsel's investigation before democrats actually get sworn in for the new congress, whereupon they would have power through their control on capitol hill to protect that investigation. so, i think the timing of this announcement today by the white house was designed, clearly, to step on the tail of the election results from last night, to replace that story with a new white house controversy. but there's no reason to see these two things as two different stories. there's no reason to splitscreen this. this is all one thing. democrats controlling congress means they can provide protection to the special counsel's office, to the fbi, to the career prosecutors and investigators who are pursuing this unprecedented investigation into the president and his

campaign, which has already resulted in over 100 felony charges and has created this odd spectacle where all these people of the president's campaign and his business are right now awaiting sentencing on federal felony charges. even as we headed into that first midterm election last night. i mean, under normal circumstances, the president firing an attorney general, the way you would know that was a normal firing, is because the attorney general would be fired, and that would almost automatically elevate the number two person at the justice department, the deputy attorney general, into the top job on an acting basis. remember sally yates from the whole mike flynn controversy during the transition and the first few days of the trump administration in the reason that sally yates was acting attorney general through that whole controversy is that she had been deputy attorney general under loretta lynch. when loretta lynch left her post, that elevated sally yates from deputy attorney general to

be acting attorney general. so, that's why she was acting attorney general when she had to do all that crazy stuff, once people who appeared to be agents of a foreign power started moving into the white house. all right, under normal circumstances, firing jeff sessions, for any reason at all, would elevate this man, deputy attorney general rod rosenstein, to become the acting head of the justice department, to become the acting attorney general. part of the reason you can be sure that something quite abnormal just happened here is that the president didn't just fire attorney general jeff sessions and have rod rosenstein step into the top job in an acting capacity, to fill the gig until somebody else could be nominated to take the job full time, instead, he fired the attorney general jeff sessions and instantly installed a new guy who has been described as trump's eyes and ears in the justice department for months now. he installed a new guy to become the acting attorney general, slotting him in above rod rosenstein.

and the new guy will take over instantly all of the work at the justice department, including taking control of the mueller investigation, taking control of the mueller investigation away from rod rosenstein. putting it instead in the hands of this trump loyalist. if the justice department's announcements are to be believed on their face, as of right now, rod rosenstein no longer oversees the robert mueller investigation. this guy, who trump just installed on his own say-so, right at the top, as the acting a.g., matt whitaker, robert mueller reports to him. which means robert mueller's budget is controlled by him, and whitaker has a say over anything mueller wants to do, including new indictments, new avenues of investigation, a report to anyone about his findings, any major step. it all has to go through matt whitaker now, who the president just installed on his own say-so, no warning, and he had

to leapfrog the order of succession at the justice department in order to do it. so, there are questions we need to answer about that, right? questions we need to answer about it, and there's one thing you need to know tonight about it. question number one, isn't there an ethics process at the justice department? that might prevent matt whitaker for taking over the mueller investigation, that might force him to recuse from overseeing the mueller investigation on the basis of his many public statements criticizing the mueller investigation and saying it should be shut down or curtailed? right, this is not something where we perceive matt whitaker as, you know, objective agnostic on the issue. before he got the job that he's had recently, he was basically a professional pundit whose whole job was talking smack about the mueller investigation and opining publicly on tv about ways that it could be shut down. once you've publicly opined on

something like that, you shouldn't be involved as a public official. isn't there an ethics department that is supposed to police that? that's question one. question two. if the answer to that is yes, if career ethics officials at the justice department have looked into this and made a determination as to whether or not matt whitaker should be recused from overseeing the mueller investigation, would we know about that? and if they told him he had to recuse and he couldn't oversee that investigation, would he have to follow their instructions? and number three. the special counsel's office itself is not commenting on this matter, as usual. but is there any other way that we can get visibility into whether or not this move by president trump today, to fire jeff sessions as attorney general, to instead leapfrog the line of succession at the justice department and install this loyalist who is a publicly declared opponent of the mueller

investigation, can we see, are we allowed to tell whether and when and how this is a live, active white house effort right this second to shut down mueller's investigation? now, i said those were questions we need answers to, i actually think we can get answers to all of those questions tonight and we're going to try to over the course of this hour. but i said there was one thing i think you should know that i want to tell you about this tonight, one thing i want to tell you is that there are groups all across the country who have been preparing for months now for the ineventabita day when president trump would take action to end the mueller investigation. today, those groups decided that this is it. this is the break glass in case of emergency moment for which they have been preparing and organizing for months. and so, they have said it's a go. tomorrow at 5:00 p.m. local time, all over the country,

there are already over 900 protests planned to #protectmueller. you have been reading for months about these organizing efforts about what people should do in case of emergency to save mueller's team, to save its work, to preserve this investigation. the groups who have been working on this decided today that what happened today with the firing of jeff sessions and the installation of this new guy to oversee the mueller investigation, the groups who have been working on this for months have decided that today is that emergency. so we expect protests all over the country, tomorrow, 5:00 p.m. local time. i just looked online before i got on the set, there are more than 900 of them planned already across the country. we're going to have some expert advice coming up in terms of answering those questions. we have congresswoman-elect lauren underwood later this hour. we have a lot to get to stay with us. (music throughout)

we really pride ourselvesglass, on making it easy to get your windshield fixed. with safelite, you can see exactly when we'll be there.

saving you time for what you love most. >> kids: whoa! >> kids vo: ♪ safelite repair, safelite replace ♪

in august 2017, so august last year, this was this op-ed about special counsel robert mueller. "mueller's investigation of trump is going too far. the president is absolutely correct. mueller has come up to a red line in the russia 2016 election meddling investigation, that he's dangerously close to crossing. if he were to continue to investigate the financial relationships without a broadened scope in his appointment, this would raise

serious concerns that the special counsel's investigation was, indeed, a mere witch hunt." same guy retweeted articles saying the president's lawyers should not cooperate with "mueller's lynch mob." when a bipartisan group of senators drafted bills to protect the special counsel's office from political interference from the white house, this same person argued that would be a mistake, and mueller was "already protected enough." that same person also went on tv repeatedly to suggest strategies that might undercut the special counsel or shut down the investigation all together. >> i can see a scenario where jeff sessions is replaced with a recess appointment, and that attorney general doesn't fire bob mueller, just reduces his budget so low that his investigation grinds to almost a halt. >> today, the person who wrote all those things and said all those things attacking the special counsel's office and

proposing ways to destroy their investigation or stop it in its tracks, today, that person got a new job. he will now be in charge of overseeing the robert mueller investigation. when the president fired attorney general jeff sessions, he did not allow sessions' deputy, rod rosenstein, to become the acting attorney general, which would be the normal course of events. he instead installed matt whitaker, who used to have a job as a full-time pundit, railing against the mueller investigation. he, as of today, has been put in charge of it. what happens now? joining us now is david loftman, he is the former chief of the justice department's counterintelligence and export control section, one of his roles was to oversee the russia investigation at the justice department before robert mueller was appointed. mr. loftman, it's an honor to have you with us tonight. thank you for making time. >> good to be with you tonight, rachel. >> am i right that it is not the normal course of events that somebody new would be installed in the acting attorney general's role rather than allowing the

deputy attorney general to step up into that higher position? >> i can't say it's never been done before, but it's unusual, especially with such an experienced deputy attorney general as rod rosenstein, ready to step up and assume that function until another a.g. can be nominated. >> obviously, mr. whitaker, as acting attorney general, i understand he can serve in that role for something like seven months, under statute, before he needs to be replaced. he can't stay in that job indefinitely. he could be there until this summer. as acting attorney general, he'll oversee everything at the justice department. the justice department making clear that includes the mueller investigation. there is this issue of whether or not he ought to be recused from that, though, based on his public statements, criticizing the investigation, talking about curtailing it and ways to shut it down. that's how it seems to me from a layman's perspective. how do you see that? >> well, look, he may not be under a legal obligation to recuse himself like attorney general sessions was because of attorney general sessions' involvement in the trump

campaign, but there is, at a minimum, to put it kindly, a go tessing appearance of a compliment by virtue of his many statements questioning the legitimacy or the scope of the special council's investigation. so, now the, you know, the fox has been put in charge of the chicken coop, and there's reason for great alarm about the future well being and latitude of the special counsel's investigation, about the ability of special counsel mueller and his team to complete all the necessary logical investigative steps and charging decisions of any that remain ahead. the writing of a report, the transmittal of a report to congress, that ordinarily would be carried out, if left to their discretion. >> when ethics officials at the justice department advise senior officials on whether or not they need to recuse from something, do we have any transparency in that process? are we the public ever allowed to know either -- can we ask for a statement about what kind of advice has been given?

and if that advice has been given to mr. whitaker in conjunction with this case, would he be obliged to follow that advice? >> well, there is an ethics apparatus at the department of justice, it's centered in the deputy attorney general's office, so, it's centered in rod rosenstein's office. one of rod's senior staff people is the senior ethics official for the department. i happen to know that individual. he's a fine lawyer, a fine person, a long-time career official. if asked to, i'm sure he would produce a fine legal analysis with a recommendation. but this is a more subjective kind of, you know it when you see it, it should be so obvious that someone with statements attributed to him that mr. whitaker has, should have nothing to do with oversight of the mueller investigation. and so, unless a kind of ethics insurrection arises within the department where he is pressed

on to recuse himself, it's improbable he's going to give any credence to recommendations that he recuse himself. and it's inconceivable that he would recuse himself, because the president installed him in this job to get rid of an attorney general who could -- who was recused. so it's just -- we are in this hall of mirrors here where we are now stuck with a perilous situation at the department, and we are going to have to rely on the moral courage and fortitude of people like rod rosenstein and other department officials to speak truth to power and to advise the incoming attorney general as forcefully as they can what steps they think he should take, that are in the best interests of the department of justice. >> david laufman, chief of the counterintelligence section at the justice department, which meant he had an oversight in the russian investigation before special counsel robert mueller was appointed. mr. laufman, i know speaking publicly on these matters is not your favorite thing in the world. thank you, sir. >> thank you, rachel.

>> this is a serious step by the president. i just want to underscore what mr. laufman said in terms of relying on people within the justice department, essentially to squawk, to allow it to be known what's going on there. if, in fact, we have a crisis of ethics in the justice department, and if, in fact, this move was done to obstruct justice, to shut down the investigation that is lawfully pursuing these matters. and that hasn't come to its conclusions. all right, we've got more to come tonight. we're going to be joined by a leading member of the senate judiciary committee, also congresswoman-elect lauren underwood. stay with us. over a hundred th, attractions, and experiences in destinations around the world! like new york! from bus tours, to breathtaking adventures, tripadvisor makes it easy to find and book amazing things to do. and you can cancel most bookings up to 24 hours in advance for a full refund. so you can make your next trip... monumental!

if your moderate to severeor crohn's symptoms are holding you back, and your current treatment hasn't worked well enough it may be time for a change. ask your doctor about entyvio®, the only biologic developed and approved just for uc and crohn's. entyvio® works at the site of inflammation in the gi tract, and is clinically proven to help many patients achieve both symptom relief and remission. infusion and serious allergic reactions can happen during or after treatment. entyvio® may increase risk of infection, which can be serious. pml, a rare, serious, potentially fatal brain infection caused by a virus may be possible.

tell your doctor if you have an infection experience frequent infections or have flu-like symptoms, or sores. liver problems can occur with entyvio®. if your uc or crohn's treatment isn't working for you, ask your gastroenterologist about entyvio®. entyvio®. relief and remission within reach. our mission is to provide complete, balanced nutrition... for strength and energy! whoo-hoo! great-tasting ensure. with nine grams of protein and twenty-six vitamins and minerals. ensure. now up to 30 grams of protein for strength and energy!

sfx: stair creak sfx: clink sfx: deep breath sfx: grunt sfx: tinny headphone music sfx: feet shuffling sfx: slice sfx: gasp sfx: inhale. exhale. sfx: lights scraping on roof sfx: metallic scrape sfx: grunt covered california. it's more than just health care. it's life care.

chris coons is the democratic senator on the senate judiciary committee. he is known for his bipartisan, good faith relationship with his colleagues. that made it that more striking to see the hot fire which he respondened when news broke today that the president fired attorney general jeff sessions and installed a white house loyalist named matt whitaker to take over the operations of the justice department and the mueller investigation, specifically. he responded online, quote, if there's any indication that the president has fired the attorney general and named mr. whitaker as acting attorney general to influence or end special counsel robert mueller's investigation, that would make today's action an historic attack on the rule of law. quote, that is a red line, which president trump has been warned

not to cross by republicans and democrats alike. joining us now is senator chris coons from the great state of delaware, member of the senate judiciary committee. thank you for making time to join us tonight, injury. >> thank you, rachel. >> you called this action by the president today a red line if this appointment was made in order to influence or end the special counsel's investigation. can you tell me what you mean by that? >> that's right. if he forced out attorney general jeff sessions and replaced him not with rod rosenstein, the deputy attorney general, but instead with a loyalist, matthew whitaker, in order to have acting attorney general whitaker squeeze or end the investigation by robert mueller, that would be an obstruction of justice action. and there have been some strong words by senators, both republican and democrat, for months, cautioning president trump against interfering with the mueller investigation. many senators have said, if the

president is innocent, it's in his best interest to have this investigation go all the way to its conclusion. there were some more statements today, by senator-elect mitt romney, by senator lamar alexander, by senator susan collins, by many democrats, as well, saying the president should not interfere. but if, as your previous guest indicated, there's a decisive step taken to curtail the scope and the reach, the funding or the support of the mueller investigation, that would be a decisive moment and we would need to match these words with action. i'm calling on the senate to take up and vote on and pass the bipartisan bill that i introduced last year, with three other senators. it's already passed the senate judiciary committee by a strong bipartisan vote of 14-7. it's ready for action on the floor. and this strikes me as the sort of moment that should precipitate bipartisan action in the senate. >> the kind of worry that you're describing there, that action

should be taken to stop the mueller investigation, how would you know if that had happened? i mean, one of the things that has become a hallmark of this investigation is that the special counsel's office is incredibly tight-lipped. we know them by their public actions and not by their words. if there was action taken, even today already within the justice department, to kybosh some element of the investigation, or to divert it or slow something down, how would we know? >> that's part of my concern here, rachel, is that we don't have any direct way to know that. we'd only find out about it if there were people directly connected with the mueller probe who allowed that to be shared. and as you mentioned, they've been extraordinarily tight-lipped and have controlled information from getting outside that probe. robert mueller is a decorated combat veteran, he's a life-long republican, he's a by the book federal law enforcement leader. he's run a very tight ship and he hasn't had leaks, unlike virtually every previous

independent investigation like this. so, we might not know, and we might not be able to act in time, to defend that investigation. i'll just remind you, the only reason we're having this conversation is because president trump fired fbi director jim comey, and then went on television and said he did so in order to stop the russia probe. that's what led to the appointment of a special counsel. it was broadly supported in a bipartisan way last year. this is likely going to be the kind of moment when we have to put up or shut up, and it's going to call for actions by senators of both parties. >> if mr. whitaker has been told or is soon advised by ethics lawyers at the justice department that he cannot ethically oversee this investigation, his public statements criticizing the investigation and, in fact, declare his bias in a way that he can't ethically oversee it, if he defies that advice, or if we come to learn that he received that advice and ignored it, does the judiciary committee or any other element of the u.s.

government have any way to correct that? >> not that i'm aware of. i mean, we could certainly call acting attorney general whitaker in front of the judiciary committee, i think he should appear in front of us to answer questions about his intentions with regard to the mueller probe and other issues. we have an oversight responsibility where there's a new acting attorney general. i think it would be completely appropriate for chairman grassley to invite him to come over and answer some of these questions. but in the minority, democrats on the committee can't compel him to come and testify. we can simply raise the issue, press the issue. one of my concerns here is that as we move into the next congress, our margin in the senate may get worse. we've lost probably two seats, maybe three in the senate in terms of the democrat/republican balance. that may affect our ability to bring together a bipartisan group that will compel action even further. >> senator chris coons of delaware, a member of the senate judiciary committee. sir, thank you.

i know it's a very busy time. thanks for being with us tonight. >> thank you, rachel. as i mentioned, tomorrow, a lot of groups across the country who have been preparing for this moment are calling for protests across the country. more than 900 are planned, they're for 5:00 local time thursday, tomorrow afternoon. it remains to be seen how many people will turn out for those. the question is whether or not this was the break glass moment, groups who have been organizing for this say that it is and it will be interesting to see how many people turn out tomorrow to try to protect the mueller investigation. all right. we'll be right back. today, 97% of employers agree

that skills like teamwork, attention to detail, and customer service are critical to business success. the kind of skills, that work for you.

lauren underwood grew up in naperville, illinois. when she was 8 years old, she was diagnosed with a chronic heart condition. that's what made her want to become a nurse, watching her own caregivers back when she was a little kid. lauren became a nurse, she took her nursing, experience to the obama administration, where she worked at the health and human services department helping to implement the affordable care act. back home in illinois, lauren underwood's congressman, republican randy holtgren, voted to appeal the affordable care act, and that's when things started to change in lauren underwood's life. >> good northemorning, everyone. >> hi. >> this is lauren underwood. >> i want to remind you to vote. i'm lauren underwood. i'm licensed as a nurse. i spent my career to help expand health care coverage. the 2016 election happened, i was faced with this america on

tv that didn't look anything like what i knew. in a district that's never elected a woman, seeing a young woman of color is certainly a lot for some people. know one invited us to this table. >> i'm so proud of you. >> no one. and i think that's always what makes it so powerful. >> after the 2016 presidential election, with her hometown congressman voting to get rid of the affordable care act, lauren underwood decided she would run for congress. 32 years old, never run for anything. she's from the 14th district in illinois, which is a solid red part of the state. a trump district. 86% of that district is white. voters there have never sent a person of color to congress. they have never sent a woman, either. by all accounts, she was a pipe dream to fill that seat held by the republican who had voted to take away her health care. until she wasn't, last night, lauren underwood won. she turfed out a four-time republican congressman, 20 years

her senior in a race everybody told her she would lose. today, "the chicago sun-times" put her photo on the front page, right next to this headline. "house flippers." she's not a dolphin. she's a congresswoman-elect. joining us now is lauren underwood. congratulations, ms. underwood. thank you for being with us. >> thank you, rachel. i'm so honored to be on. >> one of the reasons i wanted to talk to you tonight is because i learned today after you won that you beat six men in the primary to get this spot on the ballot? >> i did. and in that primary election, we had a field of seven, i got 57% of the vote in that primary, which is pretty unprecedented and went on to win the general election last night against congressman holtgren. >> what is the secret to your success? winning that primary, unseating a four-term incumbent. to what do you attribute this? >> well, when we launched this

campaign, we had a goal of being everywhere in our district all the time. this is a seat that was formerly held by the u.s. speaker of the house, dennis hastert, and a democrat succeeded him, but it had been a long time since there was real grass roots democratic involvement, training and an opportunity for a candidate to be able to travel to the rural and suburb ban parts of the community and really build and mobilize a campaign that could be successful. and so, we said that we were going to go to even the most rural parts of the district, maybe that hadn't been touched by a democrat in ten years, we had farmers tell us that no democrat had knocked on their door in that time frame. and we showed up and showed up and showed up in those living rooms, in those fields, and in those cul-de-sacs to engage our neighbors. >> you were 30 years old when you decided to run for this seat. you are 32 now. going to be one of the youngest people elected to congress. and as an african-american

woman, as a woman of color, running in this district, i mean, that itself was such -- it has to have been such a steep climb, i mean, i mentioned in the introduction, 86% white resident. you are a young woman, an african-american woman. i want to know whether or not that was daunting for you. whether that was a factor in terms of your confidence and in your game plan. >> well, this is my community. it's my home. my family moved to naperville when i was 3 years old. so, this is a community that taught me to be a black woman in the world. and so i certainly never -- it never crossed my mind that i was somehow not a good fit or unqualified to seek this seat and run for this position. and so, i stepped forward. and with the help of so many women in our district, we were able to do what many folks had never imagined would be possible. and i'm really proud that our election day was 50 years and one day after shirley chris

chisholm became the first black woman to serve in the united states congress. >> what are your priorities for when you get there? do you have a dream in terms of committees, legislation to work on? obviously, you are getting there as part of a new democratic majority. there's no democratic majority in the senate to work as a partner, but there will be democratic control of those committees and you're coming in as a bit of a star. >> oh, thank you. well, i am really focused on health care. it has emerged as the number one issue in the election across my community because premium prices are high, prescription dug prices are high, and so many families across northern illinois are feeling squeezed. as a nurse, i know how important it is to protect pre-existing conditions. i also have a pre-existing condition myself and so this health care agenda, lowering prices, making sure that we can expand coverage and include real mental health care reforms are the things i want to immediately begin tackling. >> illinois congresswoman-elect lauren underwood. such a pleasure to have you

here. it was a joy to follow your campaign from across the country. and please stay in touch. >> thank you, rachel. >> all right, thanks. we'll be right back. stay with us. . -fridge, weather. -clear skies and 75. -trash can, turn on the tv. -my pleasure. -ice dispenser, find me a dog sitter. -okay. -and make ice. -pizza delivered. -what's happened to my son? -i think that's just what people are like now. i mean, with progressive, you can quote your insurance on just about any device. even on social media. he'll be fine. -[ laughs ] -will he? -i don't know.

-will he? if your moderate to severeor crohn's symptoms are holding you back, and your current treatment hasn't worked well enough it may be time for a change. ask your doctor about entyvio®, the only biologic developed and approved just for uc and crohn's.

entyvio® works at the site of inflammation in the gi tract, and is clinically proven to help many patients achieve both symptom relief and remission. infusion and serious allergic reactions can happen during or after treatment. entyvio® may increase risk of infection, which can be serious. pml, a rare, serious, potentially fatal brain infection caused by a virus may be possible. tell your doctor if you have an infection experience frequent infections or have flu-like symptoms, or sores. liver problems can occur with entyvio®. if your uc or crohn's treatment isn't working for you, ask your gastroenterologist about entyvio®. entyvio®. relief and remission within reach.

one more piece of breaking election news tonight. what appears poised to be another republican to democratic flip in the house. and this is a weird one. just check this out. just in the last hour, the new mexico secretary of state adjusted the vote count in a race we had previously thought was decided. this is the second district in new mexico, a seat that was left open when steve pearce left it to run for governor of new mexico last night, he lost. the reason i say this is a weird one is because last night, the

republican in this race, yvette herrell, she was the projected winner. she declared victory around 10:30 p.m. we should have known