that's it for this hour. "deadline white house" with nicolle wallace starts right now. >> hi, everyone. it's 4:00 in new york. donald trump has finished his homework, and he did it all by himself. the president announcing today that he has completed his written responses to robert mueller and that he did it without assistance. >> my lawyers don't write answers. i write answers. i was asked a series of

questions. i've answered them very easily. very easily. i'm sure they're tricked up because, you know, they like to catch people. gee, was the weather sunny or rainy? he said it may have been a good day. it was rainy, therefore, he told a lie. he perjured himself. so you always have to be careful when you answer questions with people that probably have bad intentions, but, no, it's -- the questions were very routinely answered by me. by me. >> and you submitted the answers? >> i haven't submitted them. i just finished them. >> but if they were easy, and if they're done, why hasn't he turned them turnover special counsel robert mueller yet? the president's lawyer rudy giuliani offers this clue in an interview with "the washington post" saying about the questions, there are some that create more issues for us legally than others. and adding some were unnecessary. some were possible traps. and we might consider some irrelevant. now we don't know what questions the president and his lawyers

chose to answer, but news accounts suggest the president answered some questions about russia related items and likely nothing related to the obstruction of justice inquiry. we do know from "new york times" reporting earlier in the year that some of the questions robert mueller wants to ask the president involved his interactions with former aides who now work for robert mueller as cooperating witnesses. for example, from a list of questions reported by the times and shared with the president's lawyer, mueller wants to ask the president what did you know about phone calls that mr. flynn made with russian ambassador sergey kislyak in 2016? and this one seemingly about whether trump was aware of his lawyer john dowd's efforts to dangle pardons in front of flynn after he was charged. after the resignations, what efforts were made to reach out to mr. flynn about seeking immunity? the challenge for donald trump, should he be tempted to lie, as his lawyers seem to worry he will about his knowledge of flynn's calls with the russian

ambassador or of his lawyer john dowd's conversations about a pardon. he wants to ask, what knowledge did you have of any outreach by your campaign, including by paul manafort, to russia about potential assistance to the campaign? now manafort is also a cooperating witness in the mueller probe as is his deputy, rick gates. and this one about an interaction with his former fixer and lawyer michael cohen. from mueller's list of questions, what do you know about a ukrainian peace proposal provided to mr. cohen in 2017? you guessed it. once again, special counsel mueller is asking donald trump to detail an interaction with another cooperating witness. now there's an easy way out of this conundrum for mr. trump. tell the truth. but the man who has wailed no collusion for months can't even tell the truth about being clearly agitated. >> i'm not agitated. it's a hoax.

the whole thing is a hoax. there was no collusion. >> here to help us with the day's developments, from "the washington post," phil rucker. matt miller, former chief spokesman for the justice department is back. joyce vance is a former u.s. attorney and john heilemann, co-host and executive producer of showtime's "the circus." he's here. all of them msnbc analysts and contributors. phil rucker, let me start with you. that appearance before the press pool today was stunning. and for everyone who thinks that donald trump shows his hand every single time, he certainly did so once again today. >> yeah, that's right, nicolle. first of all, he said he's not agitated but he wrote in all caps on twitter yesterday about the russia probe. and in sort of an outburst on twitter. so that's clearly a sign of agitation. we know from reporting that he has been spending all week with his lawyers preparing those answers. i thought it was interesting at

the press conference or the press availability earlier today, he said three separate times, i wrote my own answers, my lawyers did not write them. i don't need lawyers to write my answers. but we know that's just not true. the lawyers have been helping him draft those answers. they're being very careful so that he does not somehow perjure himself in the answers or create other legal questions or problems for himself. and it's one of the reasons why they've not submitted those answers back to the special counsel yet because they're still under review and still putting them together. >> joyce vance, you think the president may have created additional legal exposure for himself just in that pool spray we played at the top of the show. explain. >> one of the reasons that you submit written answers to questions instead of showing up in person to talk to bob mueller is to create a little bit of distance between yourself and the answers. so that if one of your answers turns out to be contradictory with evidence that mueller has managed to compile, you can say, well, that was the lawyers' doing.

it's not what i said. trump has adopted these answers and said they're his own. if mueller can show that they're deceitful in any way, then the president may have new additional trouble to deal with. >> matt miller, speak to this idea that robert mueller has a complete picture of all these airnt actions we first learned he wanted to ask the president about when "the new york times" reported on that list of 49 questions that they were sharing with the president's lawyers. we understand the president's lawyers took down the questions and went back to the president. we assume that some version of those were among the questions they sought to answer this week with the president. talk about the exposure that the president has, not just on the substance of the responses, but the peril in offering answers to questions about interactions with a group of individuals who are now cooperating witnesses for mr. mueller. >> it's a very good point, nicole. it's beyond just a list you mentioned. people who have plead guilty. his campaign manager, deputy campaign manager, former

national counsel. it's all the people who have been in to the grand jury to testify. >> let me put those up. let me put those up for our viewers. a list of the known mueller witnesses. >> in addition to those, the people who some of your -- whom you're putting on the screen now who worked in the white house. the chief of staff reince priebus, don mcgahn. so when the president answers these questions, he's answering them against a deep factual back drop that mueller and his prosecutors have already put together. in many cases, they already know the answers to the questions they're asking. and you've seen and heard other witnesses describe this exact situation where they've gone and sat across from his prosecutors and they'll answer a question and then the follow-up will -- they'll -- mueller's team will supply a document. supply a piece of information that, well, when you were in this meeting on x date, isn't it true you said this? they'll find out mueller already knew the answer to the question he just asked. i assume that's very much the case with the questions they've

asked the president. and that's why you see them answering them in writing. they can just avoid answering some of them rather than put the president in the room where he'd almost certainly commit false statements. >> also the body of the president's statements. we know that the president's own comments about he's tweeted about jeff sessions. jeff sessions should stop this rigged witch hunt. his treatment of sessions is under scrutiny. he's tweeted about mike flynn. i had to fire general flynn because he lied to the vice president. and obstruction of justice is just a trumpian approach to defending himself. what do you make of the state of the standoff, if you will, between the president and his questions and the mueller probe. >> well, i have been struck over time listening to our friend mike schmidt from "the new york times" talk about the fact these questions have been known. they've not changed for many months and this negotiation has dragged on for so long that the

hold-up here is clearly, it's not like the goal posts are moving. there are, obviously, mueller's accumulating new facts all the time. the basic things he's interested in have been the things he's been interested in for a very long time. and it suggests if the president, to your point earlier. he has an easy way out, which is tell the truth. it's true that's the easy way out if all you're trying to do is avoid perjury. he's clearly not trying to avoid perjury. if the facts are incriminating, he has no easy way out. he can either lie and risk perjury charges or tell the truth and incriminate himself if the facts are incriminating. part of the reason why this negotiation has taken so long has been there's been a lot of political gamesmanship involved here and the president wanted to drag it out past the midterms to see what position. would republicans keep control of the house or senate? and just apart from everything else, asserting dominance is the one place he has the upper hand on mueller is over the timing of this. the method of this, the scope of this. he has some leverage, right?

and the president wants to push back. in every other way, mueller has him over a barrel for the reasons you said. he had all these cooperating witnesses. the reason this is all taken so long and the president behaves the way he does is because he's caught in that bind. the facts are likely incriminating. he faces a choice of either copping to bad facts or lying and, therefore, putting himself -- making himself vulnerable to other kinds of charges. >> i spoke to a source close to the investigation who said the president is irate by the process. there's something offensive to the president about having to answer these sorts of questions. your paper reported last week that the very selection of matt whitaker to be the acting attorney general had its roots in the president wanting someone there who was anti-subpoena. who if mueller came to the justice department leadership and said i've tried everything. i gave his lawyer the suez 11 months ago. i met with him. i've done everything a

reasonable investigator would do. i need the subpoena. what the president did in matt whitaker was, and this is your paper's reporting, two people close to whitaker said he does not plan to take himself off the russia case. he's also deeply skeptical of any effort to force the preside president's subpoena. by putting whitaker there it's my understanding he's not taken the reins of the mueller probe as of yet. the subpoena is off the table. does the white house have that comfort and that confidence? >> i don't think they have the confidence it's completely off the table but they definitely have more confidence than they did a couple of weeks ago. and they feel like in whitaker they have something of a safety blanket or a way to control the process more and to make president trump feel like he's in more control of what's going on. they know the investigation is going to keep going. there's no plan as far as i know for whitaker to stop the investigation. and if it comes to an issue of a subpoena, it's not entirely

clear that whitaker would oppose that, despite, you know, the past statements he's made and despite what we've been reporting. simply because he'd be making that decision in a different context at the acting attorney general with much more visibility and to the mueller operation and so could potentially arrive at a different decision. but whitaker being in that job is certainly giving the president and the people around him a lot more confidence about where this investigation is headed. >> joyce and matt, i want both of you on this. this is just a theory from my imagination. this seems to be the fundamental test for matt whitaker. i don't know anything him but he was a u.s. attorney from iowa. if he wants a nurt public life, a future in any sort of republican circle. if robert mueller comes to the justice department and seeks a subpoena for the president after giving him the test 11 months ago, offering to accept written answers, if robert mueller asks for a subpoena, do you think it's 100% certain that matt

whitaker won't approve it? >> i don't think it is 100% certain. you're absolutely right. whitaker has to consider his age and the future of his career and whether he, for all time, wants to be tied to trump as the attorney general who failed to uphold the rule of law. you know, chuck rosenberg likes to talk about the gravitational force that pulls on people once they're inside of the justice department. and it's a strong force. there's a history of institutional practice. of recusals in cases where you have a conflict of interest. we saw that play out with jeff sessions. i think it's entirely likely that matt whitaker who was a u.s. attorney and served in the bush administration was actually carried over and served for several months as an obama u.s. attorney. he is steeped in the traditions of doj. he'll find it increasingly difficult to violate the guidance from ethics officials. he may well recuse because what's the worst that can

happen? trump can fire him. and that may be much better ultimately than tarnishing his career for all time and his future. >> matt miller, you've also got, and it's hard to explain this outside of the wonky, you know, right wing and who really cares anyway, but inside the right wing legal circles, there's a hot war going on. prominent legal conservatives like george conway, kellyanne conway's husband, really banging the drum about donald trump's assault on the rule of law. years-long war with his own justice department. letting devin nunes run roughshod over the president's own appointees at the fbi. i think the test for matt whitaker, and it's not just a test as acting ag, as to whether he has any career in public life after this stint is whether or not if asked to approve a subpoena he does so. >> yeah, i think that's right. and, look, you just heard the optimistic view from joyce. i hope that's right. let me give you the pessimistic view. that's more the side i land on. matt whitaker is in this job for

one reason only. that's to prevent this investigation from getting too close to donald trump. i don't think that means he'll reach in and fire bob mueller or dismiss indictments. on the close calls and subpoenaing a president can be a close call, he's going to side with the president. that's why he's there and what the president expects and maybe he'll do the right thing. but i don't have any confidence in that. and i'll say, i don't think it's a coincidence the president stalled on answering these questions for 11 months. he dragged the process out and now finally, the week after he puts someone in place whose only real known qualification for the job say publicly stated hostility toward the investigation, who it's been reported is skeptical of an investigation. i think what that means, on many questions where he has the most legal jeopardy and can't do what john heilemann said, answer the question, he'll decline to answer those knowing or expecting and hoping that the leverage that mueller has has probably been lifted. >> i will offer both joyce and

matt a chance to call me and tell me if i'm wrong about the thing i'm about to say. i believe it is the case. this is not a matter of whether matt whitaker wants to have a career in public life or a future in the republican party or anything else. he wants to stay out of jail. and the reality is that, we've all been schooled on what obstruction of justice is about. the reality is if whit skaker i faced with a subpoena, if he acts to protect donald trump, he becomes part of the obstruction of justice story. and the statutes have, i believe this is what i'll ask my lawyer friends, have a five-year statute of limitations which means if donald trump loses in 2020, a democratic attorney general under a democratic president could walk in and indict matt whitaker if he

obstructs justice. forget about all the other considerations. the things that makes me recuse or do the right thing, if nothing else is a fear of the possibility that if i do the wrong thing i could be charged with obstruction of justice and end up in jail. >> phil rucker and joyce vance, thank you. after the break, has kellyanne conway's husband george conway become the loudest never trump republican in the recommend or just the most surprising one? also, a big defeat for the president where it hurts him the most with cnn reporter jim acosta and in court. also the clap back heard around the world. my favorite political comeback of the year. all those stories are next.

rebekkah: opioids has taken everything and everyone i've ever loved away from me. everything. i blew my ankle out and i got prescribed pain pills by my doctor. if making my detox public is gonna help somebody i'm all for it. i just wish i would've had a warning.

tremfya® is for adults with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. with tremfya®, you can get clearer. and stay clearer. in fact, most patients who saw 90% clearer skin at 28 weeks stayed clearer through 48 weeks. tremfya® works better than humira® at providing clearer skin, and more patients were symptom free with tremfya®. tremfya® may lower your ability to fight infections and may increase your risk of infections. before treatment, your doctor should check you for infections and tuberculosis. tell your doctor if you have an infection or have symptoms such as: fever, sweats, chills, muscle aches or cough. before starting tremfya® tell your doctor if you plan to or have recently received a vaccine. ask your doctor about tremfya®. tremfya®. because you deserve to stay clearer. janssen wants to help you explore cost support options.

i am a techie dad.n. i believe the best technology should feel effortless. like magic. at comcast, it's my job to develop, apps and tools that simplify your experience. my name is mike, i'm in product development at comcast. we're working to make things simple, easy and awesome.

conservative lawyer george conway has not been shy about disagree with the president even though his wife kellyanne conway spends her days defending donald trump as one of the most senior advisers and one of the only people from the campaign other than the president's children to still be working in the white house. george conway himself had a brush with working in this administration. yahoo! news reports a star litigator for a new york law firm conway in the early days of trump's president was offered a top job at the justice department as chief of the civil division. a post that would have put nim charge of defending the administration in lawsuits throughout the country. but he pulled out of the running and explained why on yahoo! news' skullduggery podcast. >> man, i'm thinking, i'm watching this thing, and you know, it's like the administration is like a

[ bleep ] show in a dumpster fire. and i'm like, i don't want to do that. i don't know. and then it's like, then you got the comey firing. and then you've got him going on tv saying, i had russia on my mind. and it's like, oh, no. and then it's like, then, you know, i'm driving home one day from new york and it's like, robert mueller appointed special counsel. and i realized this guy is going to be at war with the justice department. and i'm going to go on the hill and, you know, and do this and i'm the husband of the counselor of the president and got him elected basically. and he's going to be a -- and if i get this door prize, i'm going to be in the middle of a department he's at war with. like, why would anybody want to do this? >> joining us at the table, karine jean-pierre, michelle goldberg, for "the new york times," the rev al sharpton, host of "politics nation,"

heilemann and matt miller are still with us. you were giggling. here's the thing -- >> very good question. why would anybody want to do this? he's very wise. >> the significance of this, and it's worth stating, this is an uncomfortable -- anybody that's worked in politics and has a family member or spouse that disagrees with the person they work for, it's auk ward. i worked for george bush. plenty of people in my family weren't fans. george conway is giving voice to a critique that's existed for two, going on three years now about donald trump. and he -- it's just stunning that he's so bothered that he's using his voice to make this argument. >> and he is whispering as he's talking, right? >> like the tapes are rolling. >> he's taking us through his thought process during that time. look, george conway is as conservative as they come. the two of us wouldn't even agree that today is friday. i mean, that's how far we are apart from each other. but he's 100% right. you know, he's not wrong.

and it is bizarre that the reason we're talking about it is because he is the husband to the counselor to the president. so i, you know, kudos to him for bringing voice to this. for using his platform to do this. i would not want to be at the dinner table in their house. >> i would. >> maybe a fly on the wall. >> here's the other reason that, to me, it matters is a political story. these are not small things. this was, i mean, what he just ticked through was the firing of comey with russia on his mind. to a lawyer that sounds like obstruction of justice. the appointment of mueller which to prosecutors they describe him, one former u.s. attorney described him as a prosecutorial assassin. these are people that get brought in when the potential crimes are dire. >> and you see now that the white house is scrambling to bring in new people, new lawyers in because they are about to be flooded with subpoenas. and who would possibly want to

go into this, you know, sort of -- i don't know if snake pit is the right word. >> it's a good word. titanic? >> snake pin assumes a level of competence, like a bumbling snake pit if that was a thing. but who wants to go into this disaster and try to fend off the best lawyers in the world who are both working on -- working for the justice -- working for robert mueller and also who are going to be scrambling to get on to all of these congressional committees. >> it's a good point, rev. >> when you look at conway, you look at who i believe is a true conservative. and who is embarrassed by what is happened to what he's believed in all of his life. and i think when you look at the fact that he's married to kellyanne, who he kind of jokingly whispers into the podcast, who had a lot to do with getting him elected. it shows the conflict in the right wing on the republican party. those that will go along with

trump and those that are saying, wait a minute. i stand for something and this guy is making mockery of everything i believed in. i think you see in the conway marriage where the whole house of the right wing is in conflict. >> it's such a good point. and to explain to our friends on the left how painful this divide. it's the annihilation of the republican party because if it stands for trump, it never stood for anything. so two years in he can't sort of keep that in anymore. it's coming out. it feels spontaneous. doesn't feel calculated. i wonder if you're skeptical. >> it's interesting in this sense. like you, having -- well, i have -- every administration i've covered except the obama administration had a major independent counsel or special prosecutor who investigated them. it wasn't like you were always able to find lawyers. that was a great job. going to defend bill clinton against ken starr, he had a line of great democratic lawyers who wanted to be in that fight. just as scooter libby had a line of great republican lawyers who

wanted to defend him. normally what you see, this is a high-profile case. you believe in the person, the member of your party so you want to be in that fight. and the fact there's a lot of subpoenas coming in doesn't scare you away. what's interesting about this, george conway and now this group of lawyers that he's summoned together earlier this week, there's especially in the legal community, it's true a lot of republican politicos have thrown aside their principles and have just become trumpists. but there is, in the world of both legal theory, legal scholars and also in the high end of white shoe lawyering in washington, d.c., the lawyers on the republican side who normally would love this kind of case are like, no, no, no because -- not just because they think trump may have done something wrong but they know he'll be at war with the justice department, the fbi and they're institutionalists. they don't want to be on the side of a president who is going to fight by attacking those institutions. >> left me bring matt milner. there is a thing about the way

men and women who have worked in the justice department talk about -- they refer to it as the department and talk about it with love. and it's just a thing. i've known enough people who served the department to have heard it, and there is a -- and maybe it's different from the war with the intelligence community because they're morpublic facing jobs. the president is more aware of them. attacks them more frequently. there's some reporting he's not that interested in foreign policy but the justice department they're investigating him is in his mind, in his sights every day. >> yeah, it's true. there is a culture at the justice department of independence that really gets kind of -- i think they put it in the water in the fountains because it gets built into everyone that works there. even for a short period of time, everyone at that department knows that the worst thing you can do is to bow to political will either from the president or anyone else who is trying to influence the administration of justice. and so i do think you see people that go into this department, you know, from the conservative side. and there have been a lot of respectable lawyers. conservative lawyers. members of the conservative bar

who have joined this justice department who find themselves struggling how to do their jobs at the same time the president has put enormous pressure on the department. and it's always trying to push them to do the right thing. rod rosenstein who is most in the middle of that. all the time getting pressed to do things and sometimes bending and getting into the present things he shouldn't absolutely give. one of the questions we face, it was a hard enough place to work with pressure from the white house. what happens now that congress has flipped and there are -- i should say the house has flipped and the justice department is going to be the subject of deep, intense investigations from the house. are there a lot of respectable lawyers who say, you know, it just isn't worth it to work here anymore. i'm getting attacked from the president, from the left, often for legitimate reasons, sometimes illegitimate ones. it's time for me to leave. what happens if trump can back fill it with complete and utter cronies. >> the very cynical part of me wonders if kellyanne conway and her husband are just hedging

their bets as a power couple because everybody who goes in, works in this administration, comes out disgraced and comes out, you know, with their reputation in tatters and their future prospects pretty bleak. one way to have your cake and eat it, too, to have one foot in the administration but also one foot among the never trump republicans is to kind of do this sort of, oh, well, we were really working against him the whole time when its goes down in flames. >> let me -- it's interesting because he doesn't just question the president's sort of treatment of the justice department. he questions his very stability. let's listen. >> do you think president trump is fully stable? >> no comment on that. >> really? well, i mean certainly your tweets would certainly suggest you have some questions about the stability of this president. and the truthfulness of this president.

by the way -- >> yes, sir. >> yes, sir. the question is stability. question is truthfulness. that sort of makes if that's the case, makes it pretty cynical. >> it does. george conway is a very smart man. he knew exactly what he was doing when doing this podcast. he knew we were going to talk about it and have discussions about it. i was talking about the timeline. he talks about james comey how it all first started. that's one book end. i was thinking about the next book end. look what happened last week, the day after election. donald trump fires jeff sessions and put in -- puts in matt whitaker. i can't imagine for someone like george conway, the way that -- how he sees the department of justice and he was going to potentially work for the department of justice, that he's thinking about it. how that must sit with him. >> this is a hard thing to sort of talk about publicly, but there is -- it's not an ego but there's a pecking order at the justice department. i'm guessing a lot of people of the caliber of rod rosenstein and others, there may be a

little bit of a fence having to work with someone who is clearly sort of a political patron of donald trump. >> yeah, you can say that. look, this has been going on really since that story broke of, i think about a month, six weeks ago about rod rosenstein offering to wear a wire, either in jest or not in jest. on that same day, the -- matt whitaker had a conversation with the president's chief of staff about replacing rod rosenstein as the acting deputy attorney general. of course, he got a better job than that at the end. that from what i'm told provoked extreme controversy inside the department. people see him not just as a hack but disloyal to other people in the department and i suspect the knives are out for him not just from the career people but among political appointees as well. >> matt miller, thank you. after the break, hitting trump where it hurts in a battle with cnn in court. smile dad.

i take medication for high blood pressure and cholesterol. but they might not be enough to protect my heart. adding bayer aspirin can further reduce the risk of another heart attack. because my second chance matters. be sure to talk to your doctor before you begin an aspirin regimen.

as far as political and legal dramas go, this one is almost shakespearean. today cnn, backed by a coalition of media companies, including fox news, defeated the white house in court. that was thanks to a ruling from a federal judge, wait for it, appointed by donald trump. the administration was ordered to immediately return jim acosta of cnn's press pass after they revoked it last week without due process. that was following a contentious press conference. the white house tried to spin the decision by moving the goal post. this is sarah huckabee sanders. today the court made clear that there is no absolute first amendment right to access the white house. in response to the court, we will temporarily reinstate the reporter's hard pass. we will also develop -- further develop rules and processes to ensure fair and orderly process conferences in the future. there must be decorum at the white house. decorum at the white house. really? >> because if you were looking for one word to describe the

trump white house, decorum would be it. >> let's show you. >> on the other hand you had some that decided to -- let's stay away -- mike kaufman. too bad, mike. mia love gave me no love. and she lost. too bad. >> are you worried -- >> that's enough. that's enough. that's enough. >> i was going to ask -- you are a rude, terrible person. >> in jim's defense i've traveled with him. he's -- >> i'm not a fan of yours either. when you report fake news like cnn does. you are the enemy of the people. >> you call yourself a nationalist. some see that as emboldening white nationalists -- >> that's such a racist question. >> did someone say something about decorum? >> who is going to define decorum, him? >> well, they are. that was -- sarah huckabee sanders is. >> donald trump knows anything about decorum. and those in his administration that would work for someone like that is -- on his face, absurd.

but that's also why, as we were talking in the last segment about why people don't want to be his lawyer because he wants to be his lawyer. you can't control him. he's his pr spokesperson, he's his lawyer. his fund-raiser, he's everything. and that is why anyone that has any kind of real skills and self-pride doesn't want to work for him. he's not going to let you work. it's just that simple. he didn't have -- kellyanne was not out there, nor was the spokeswoman out there doing this to reporters. he was. so when we talk about setting decorum, he's the one that broke decorum and did it himself. that was not a press secretary taking the mike from acosta. he commanded it to be done. >> and of all the things that people that love trump can say about him, not one of them can say he has decorum. >> right. none of them. if anything, they like that, right? this is his whole thing.

he discredits the messenger so that his small group of people don't believe the message. this is his thing and he'll destroy, he will break norms. he'll destroy democratic institutions to do it. and it's very selfish. it's all about him and what he wants. >> the one thing that's frightening is this isn't a total victory for the first amendment. this was decided on fifth amendment first round grounds. there wasn't a process in place to take away jim acosta's pass. now they'll put a process in place and it will be really important to see whether that process is allowed to stand, right? if they are allowed to define the rules for how reporters address them. that's actually pretty dangerous. >> very. >> i worked in a white house, in the press shop. there were people that were -- the majority of people in the press room, the coverage was incredibly negative. i never participated in a conversation or was asked to examine the removal of anyone from the white house press office. >> look, there had been -- we've

had various fakers, hoaxters who have gotten in -- >> because they're not actual journalists. >> there are obviously things that could happen in the white house press office where we'd all agree that a reporter was behaving badly enough they should have their hard pass taken away. they could commit an act of violence. we can imagine things that a reporter could do that would merit them taking away their hard pass. obviously, asking a question in a way that annoys the president is clearly not one of them. and i agree with michelle the question is going to be how broad are these guidelines that they establish the process. and then what's the opportunity to challenge it? i presume if they define it too broadly or define it in a way and then try to apply it in a way that seems out of bounds, they'll just be back in court again. it's obviously something to keep an eye on. >> what did we think was going to happen? you listen to the way the president talks about the press. this is the obvious next step to

start stripping access to the white house. >> when you talk about rules and regulations, what do you mean? >> decorum. you can't take three questions and four questions and just stand up and not sit down. you have to practice decorum. you were there. you understood and you understand. we want total freedom of the press. it's very important to me. it's more important to me than anybody would believe. but you have to act with respect. you are in the white house. >> and decorum. i like the way he says it like he's learned a new word. someone taught him a new word. >> doesn't know the definition of the word. >> decorum. >> the definition of the word because right away, he comes with three or four questions at a time. yamiche asked him one question about nationalism. white nationalism. so this whole thing with the -- >> i think what he meant was deference. >> don't ask me anything that i don't want raised. that's what he meant. decorum to him is you defer to me and do not act like a

journalist and ask any question that is uncomfortable. >> this is where this story is more than ironic that a trump appointed judge ruled for cnn and against him. this is where the story feels deadly serious. that is what an autocrat relies upon to destroy -- >> exactly right. >> that what you just described. that's what putin requires of the press. so to me, this becomes sort of a, a friday story about a trump appointed judge ruling for cnn who trump hates more than life. it's a tool and a pathway toward aughtocracy. >> and that is autocracy. what he's really saying, you're in the white house. you're in my house. and in my house, you act like i want you to act. he doesn't see this as the people's house. you're in my house. i'm king. you bow or you don't have proper decorum. you're out of here. get him out of here. take the mike. and i think that is dangerous for all of us on whatever side of the political aisle we may relate to. >> and it is clear, the insidious irony of it is that

donald trump got elected by being the anti-decorum candidate. we're making jokes about this. his point was i'm not politically correct so i'm going to talk about grabbing women by the whatsies and talk about megyn kelly bleeding from whatever. that's going to make people love me because i'm anti-decorum and that makes me strong. then when it's to his interest, you all need to practice decorum. >> i still bet he doesn't know what the word means. the political comeback of the day.

i'm ken jacobus, i'm the owner of good start packaging. we distribute environmentally-friendly 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? nothing's more important than a good bedside manner. i don't know how to say this. it's okay, doc. give it to me straight. no, you don't understand, i don't know how to say this. i'm just a tv doctor. they also know you should get your annual check-up. it could save your life. schedule a check-up with your doctor, know your four health numbers, and start taking control of your health today.

cigna. together, all the way. i just got my ancestrydna results: 74% italian. and i found out that i'm from the big toe of that sexy italian boot! calabria. it even shows the migration path from south italia all the way to exotico new jersey! so this holiday season it's ancestrydna per tutti!

order your kit now at ancestry.com a reporter for the washington examiner tweeted this yesterday. and it wasn't the welcome to washington greeting newly elected congresswoman alexandria ocasio-cortez was expecting. it was a picture of her from behind and a caption that read, hill staffer sent me a pic of

ocasio-cortez they took just now. that jacket and coat don't look like a girl who struggles. to which she responded, quote, if i walked into congress wearing a sack, they would laugh and take a picture of my back side. if i walk in with my best sale rack clothes, they laugh and take a picture of my backside. dark hates light. that's why you tune it out. shine light and keep it pushing. a good metto for the record-breaking number of women that will walk the halls of congress next year. a good motto for every woman. and you don't have to be in public life. every woman has felt that double standard that what we wear gets a lot more attention than what any guy wears. >> right. there's something so crazy about this idea that she calls herself working class. and yet she has a coat. >> have you been to h&m? there's a fashion story, a sexism story and a stupidity story. >> and it's also true that having to manage your appearance and people's expectations of

your appearance is one of the taxes that falls on women who are in any sort of public role. then there's also this weird fixation that the right has on alexandria ocasio-cortez. there is something about her that they find, i think, profoundly threatening because she is such a charismatic kind of messenger for progressivism. and there is really no analogue on the right. who, charlie kirk? like -- >> why is she such a target? >> she's powerful. has a following. she's created this movement for herself. in her instagram, social media. she tweets something and it goes viral. like wildfire. you know, there was after president obama was elected in 2008, there was this idea we were post-racial america. and it was totally not true. it was completely opposite. and i think now we have elected over 100 amazing women, very diverse. there's a sense we may be in this post-sexist america.

sadly, i fear that is not true. it's just not true. this is what you'll start seeing especially now that you have so many diverse voices that's going to be going into the house. >> i want to ask you about the stupidity part of this story, no offense. but there is -- >> expert -- i have a ph.d. in my own stupidity. please go ahead. >> i saw this last night and a female political reporter tweeted it. there was something visceral about a woman seeing a male reporter from the right tweeting about her clothes and how much they cost. >> staffers are taking pictures of you like -- >> and sending them -- >> it's creepy. it's stalkerish. but let me ask you about whether the political press and the men in the political press specifically, are going to have to re-educate themselves about covering women without commenting on their clothes. without commenting on their looks or commenting on their connections with other women. i can almost see the traps that without even intending to, male reporters could fall into if

they cover a gaggle of newly elected congresswomen and want to say something about how they're huddled like girlfriends. that's a red line. who is warning them not to cross it? >> i don't know who is going to warn them. it's a question of education. we are in a new world in which the composition of congress will be much more diverse in a variety of ways. >> but the case that the whole body is now because of all happening on the democratic side, more diverse body both racial and in terms of gender, so, yeah, male reporters have a lot to learn. i do think that the challenge is something that's much more profound in a way that not saying stupid sexist stuff. obviously they shouldn't do that, but the challenge is you want to be able to talk about this phenomenon that it is -- how is the capitol hill going to change? are these women going to -- these newly elected women, will they act as a bloc?

what are the dynamics within them? what are the different stripes of feminism and there are a whole bunch of interesting things to talk about and not objectifacti objectifactionally. you will have to be smart, respectful and get some advice, if anyone, get advice from women on how to do it. >> also, you've got to look at the fact that there's not a monolith with women. you have a record number of women in congress, but let's not act like they were all cut out of the same cloth. you have some that disagree even in the democratic caucus and i think the height of sexism is act like they're a bloc. no, they're not. they're elected by different constituencies and may have different things to debate. >> two brilliant women and two very enlightened men. we'll sneak in a break and be right back. ere the similarity s.

if you're on park street in reno, nevada, the high winds of the washoe zephyr could damage your siding. and that's very different than living on park ave in sheboygan, wisconsin, where ice dams could cause water damage. but no matter what park you live on, one of 10,000 local allstate agents knows yours. now that you know the truth, are you in good hands? - [narrator] meet shark's newest robot vacuum. it powerfully cleans from floors to carpets, even pet hair, with ease, and now for cleaning surfaces above the floor, it comes with a built in shark handheld. one dock, two sharks. the shark ion robot cleaning system.

discover card. i justis this for real?match, yep. we match all the cash back new cardmembers earn at the end of their first year, automatically. whoo! i got my money! hard to contain yourself, isn't it? uh huh! let it go! whoo! get a dollar-for-dollar match at the end of your first year. only from discover. tremfya® is for adults with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. with tremfya®, you can get clearer. and stay clearer. in fact, most patients who saw 90% clearer skin at 28 weeks stayed clearer through 48 weeks. tremfya® works better than humira® at providing clearer skin, and more patients were symptom free with tremfya®. tremfya® may lower your ability to fight infections and may increase your risk of infections.

before treatment, your doctor should check you for infections and tuberculosis. tell your doctor if you have an infection or have symptoms such as: fever, sweats, chills, muscle aches or cough. before starting tremfya® tell your doctor if you plan to or have recently received a vaccine. ask your doctor about tremfya®. tremfya®. because you deserve to stay clearer. janssen wants to help you explore cost support options.

california, purpose of your trip tomorrow. >> just to see the firefighters. nobody's ever seen what's going on over there. i was watching the firemen the other day, and they were raking areas. they were raking areas wihere te fire was over there and raking little trees that are not tree, little bushes that you could see are totally dry, weeds and they're raking them. they're on fire. that should have been all raked out -- >> what about the argument -- >> you wouldn't have the fire -- >> what point argument it's climate change, it's drier, it's

hotter and that's contributing to it? >> maybe it contributes a little bit. the big problem we have is management. >> president trump in an interview airing on fox news this sunday appearing to once again blame management for the deadly wildfires burning in california repeating what was his initial reaction to this tragedy, one he first expressed in a tweet last weekend. the president will be traveling to the state tomorrow. the number of people killed now stands at 66. overnight the number of people unaccounted for skyrocketed to over 600. the largest of the fires which is still burning is now the deadliest wildfire in california's history. this drone footage captures the remains of paradise. one of the worst hit areas. just about all of the town was destroyed. an estimated 52,000 people have been displaced. my thoughts and prayers go out to my home state and the president once again tone deaf. >> yeah, you know, a lot of these fires are -- burned right up to the edges where the house

i grew up in the san fernando valley and i know tons of people either in a state of terror or have been driven out of their homes or been in mandatory evacuation areas, and i don't know right now that -- i say that i -- i try to say it in a not partisan way. i don't know many people who want president trump out there. >> the air is so horrific. to not have any compassion for the people suffering. >> you've got to watch him. he is the president. he's not talking about briefings he got. he says i saw on television people raking. i mean, this is the intelligence report the president of the united states has. you're watching television. >> the presidency is structured so that you never have to turn on a television. >> right. >> you have access to the very best -- the information that tv reporters chase all day comes from the government he runs. >> i mean, he shouldn't go out there. you know, particularly when he

hasn't visited any of the troops including the troops that he has sent to the border on this completely foolish pr stunt that now is ruining a lot of people's thanksgivings, he's both, you know, kind of not particularly wanted in california, but also he just poured salt on the wounds because he can't acknowledge this is a national tragedy. he can't acknowledge this as an unprecedented disaster. question only find ways to score like the pettiest of partisan points. >> and the departure from normal is striking too. if he saw something on television that seemed related to forest management, he could have picked up the phone and asked someone. >> he is the president. >> he is then giving chris wallace with all due respect -- >> it's infuriating. he lacks that gene, that empathy gene and really at the end of the day he proves how unfit he is for the most important office in the country, in the world.

>> look at chris wallace's face as he's going they're raking. chris wallace is going, what are you talking about? he has that look -- >> brings up climate change and he says, oh, that may have something to do with it but the real issue is the rake and the bush. i'd call it a tree but it's a bush -- i mean, are we serious here? and the whole pettiness of this man is don't bring me on anything. you got to always find somewhere to put the blame because he knows he should not be sitting in the oval office. >> there's such an uneven record for this president. he went to puerto rico and threw paper towels. he's been to some hurricanes and he's done a little better. who do you think will show up tomorrow? >> i think the one from puerto rico is going to show up. he told us. he should not go on the eve, hundreds of people are missing, 63 people passed away from this horrific -- a town is now gone, no, he's just unfit. he just needs to stay home and play golf. >> let that be the last word.

my thanks to my panel. that does it for our hour. i'm nicole waltz. . >> hello, nichole. >> it's getaway weekend for people above our pay grades. the president says he's finished his mueller take home quiz. good evening, i'm chuck todd in washington. welcome to "mtp daily." if there is one threat facing president trump for nearly a year and a half, it's the mueller investigation. and if there's been one contentious issue with that investigation, it's been whether the president will answer the special counsel's questions. so if you're the president and you have the chance to submit written answers you'd probably want to consult with your lawyers on every aner