the meeting of the executive finance committee is now in session. and... adjourned. business loans for eligible card members up to fifty thousand dollars, decided in as little as 60 seconds. the powerful backing of american express. don't do business without it. hey, everybody, this is "up" and i'm david dugura. this morning, confusion over an agreement that would fundamentally change how migrants apply for asylum in the u.s. >> these people may have to stay here indefinitely, just within eyeshot of the u.s. border. plus, the russia connection. the chairman of the senate intelligence committee says get comfortable. the russia investigation is unlikely to end by 2019.

>> the show goes on! and congress searching for answers on saudi arabia. what democrat adam schiff plans to investigate when he takes over the house intelligence committee. >> saudi arabia, and i get along great with all of them. they buy apartments from me, they spend $40 million, $50 million. am i supposed to dislike them? i like them very much. it's sunday, november the 25th, at the end of a long thanksgiving weekend. >> thanksgiving car rides are great, because after fighting with your extended family tall day, it's nice to get back to fighting with your immediate family. >> so true. we begin with president trump's push to change u.s. asylum laws. this morning, some mixed signals from the u.s. and mexico on a reported deal that would require asylum seekers to remain in mexico while their applications are processed in the u.s. that was first reported on by "the washington post," but a spokesman for mexico's incoming government tells nbc news, talks of a deal were premature. that did not stop president trump from tweeting this on

saturday evening. quote, migrants at the southern border will not be allowed into the united states until their claims are individually approved in court. we only will allow those who come into our country legally. other than that, our very strong policy is catch and detain. no releasing into the u.s. the president continuing, all will stay in mexico if for any reason it becomes necessary, we will close our southern border. there is no way that the united states will, after decades of abuse, put up with this costly and dangerous situation anymore. with me this hour, julia ainsley, who covers national security and the justice department for nbc news. pete dominick, a comedian and the host of stand up on sirius xm insight, beth fouhy, lee gallagher, nelly mistal, editor at "above the law." let me star with you, if i could julia. the policy as it's being described is remain in mexico. what's your read of where things stand when it comes to this fundamental change to asylum policy? >> yeah, david win spent a lot

of yesterday afternoon speaking to u.s. officials, some of whom were involved in these negotiations. right now, it looks like it's just a difference of semantics. the u.s. said that they still needed to work out a lot of the operational and logistical details. they even wouldn't go so far as to say that these asylum seekers would definitely have to wait until a judge weighs in on their decision. it wasn't quite clear how far along in the adjudication process they would need to be before they entered mexico. and they said mexico wants a lot in return, that the u.s. hasn't promised them yet, at least not in explicit detail. mexico wants the u.s. to work on improving the economic factors and the violence in the central american countries that's driving this migration in the first place. that hasn't been agreed to yet. so i think that's what triggered that response from mexico later last night, where they started denying there was a deal in the first place. but the first reporting over this from "the washington post" actually cited mexican officials, not u.s. officials. it seems to be this ping-ponging back and forth with the president wanting to weigh in,

showing his strength to have the final word that, yes, this will happen. but in fact, i think this is still a few weeks out from us really knowing what concrete details we will see. but i think this is more explicit than ever that there are these ongoing conversations and some think that there is an agreement they will eventually get to this. >> we'll talk with the mexico city bureau chief for "the washington post" who broke that story and spoke to mexican officials in the next hour. i want to ask about the details such as we know of them at this point. the policy has a name, which is something to suggest that it's been talked about and hashed over by both sides here. what do we know of what might tapes if there is an agreement between the u.s. and mexico? >> it's this idea of remain in mexico. there's actually been a number of u.s. policies that have been trying to push things like this, like by closing down the ability to apply for asylum if you come between ports of entry. this would make asylum seekers, most of whom are coming from central america, honduras, el

salvador and guatemala wait in mexico. these aren't mexicans we're talking about, by and large. wait in mexico, in order to legally come into the united states and claim asylum. we've seen backups in the past, when the u.s. hasn't had enough resources to adjudicateclaims, officers down there so people could pass the first bar. now they want them to wait until there's more of an adjudication, which could, as hans nichols showed in his reporting yesterday, could keep them there indefinitely. it would grow to be the size of thousands of migrants, what would look like refugee camps just on the other side of the border. >> so my big question is, what does mexico get out of this? they become this sort of third state where tens, hundreds of thousands of individuals are going to be waiting. julia talking about the infrastructure that would be needed to house all of these men and women and children while this process takes place. why would they be doing this? we're talking about domestic policies here in the u.s., but there are domestic policies and change happening in mexico, as

well. as we look forward to new leadership there. >> mexico has a new president coming in, there are a lot of things that mexico wants from the u.s. they might be interested in making some kind of deal. the problem is that the u.s. needs to stop treating mexico as if it's there to do work that americans don't want to do. we have to remember that these people seeking asylum, they're asking for sanctuary. and what trump is basically -- you can imagine kind of going to a church and asking for sanctuary and trump saying, wait at the starbucks around the corner until we figure this out. it's a rolling humanitarian crisis, both in mexico and here. and instead of acting like these people are nobody's problem, which is what mexico wants to do and what america wants to do, we need to start acting like it's everybody's problem. >> while your metaphor is slightly flawed, because they're not waiting at the starbucks around the corner, that would be nice. they're waiting in some of the most dangerous areas of mexico and the president -- from time to time, acts like he cares about these people, of course, he dehumanizes them at every

single turn. and now they're stuck in a purgatory, a limbo, of sorts. it's important to remind people of what america has always stood for, welcoming refugees from other countries. he is closing the doors. and let's make sure we don't forget, they're supposed to be paying for this wall, which is going to be a conversation that, you know, i know we're not really talking about that specifical specifically. but when it comes to mexico, they are supposed to be paying for this wall. somehow that has left the conversation and it's important to keep bringing that up. >> i want to really quickly, this is a problem we have created ourselves. we had a process more this, right? we had an asylum process in this country where you would come to the country, you would apply for asylum, and while your case was beinged a ju ed adjudicated, yo assigned a case worker that was basically supposed to make sure that you sign up for your adjudication, sometimes it takes like a year later. that program had something like

a 93% success rate of people actually showing up to their asylum hearings. trump ended that program when he showed up for no reason. so this problem of this catch and release program, it wasn't catch and release. it was catch and adjudicate. trump changed it to catch and release, and now says catch and release is a whole huge problem. like, it's important for people to remember that there is a legal process here that was working that trump destroyed for no reason. >> well, there could be legal challenges here, but the other interesting thing about this is that the interesting president, lopez obrador, he won office on a -- he's a populist fixture. and he promised to help the poor and fight corruption and push back -- he's been very quiet la lately. he was critical during the campaign, but you have to wonder, how is he going to put all of these people -- they're not all mexicans, but this is going to be very dangerous. these are drug cartel-dominated border states. and it seems likes a disaster in the making. >> i want to ask you about the confusion. i brought that up at the top. is there confusion, if you have the president of the united

states going on twitter and saying the policy is in place already. yes, this is a bi-national thing, it's a bi-national issue, but it's another instance where the nuts and bolts haven't been figured out and the president is weighing in, making it seem like it's a done deal. >> right. and the president of the united states does have a lot of statutory authority to set immigration policy, there's no doubt about that. however, he can't just unilaterally do it, announce it on twitter and have that be done. that's why we've seen everything move through the courts, especially around immigration, so much with this president. because he simply does things that just come to him by impulse, which we know is typically how he behaves anyway, but that doesn't have the legal force that he needs to enact this policy. so this is going to be an ongoing legal fight. on the political side, we know that on thanksgiving morning, president trump tweeted that this group of people who are coming into this country are causing bedlam, injury, chaos, and death. >> the big four. >> yeah. >> so he's very much investing all of his political strength now in this border battle. in pushing back these folks

seeking asylum, building that wall, in which he may shut down the government to get that money. seeing the images of a fence across the border, which is not a wall. >> sending 5,000 troops on thanksgiving. >> and he also on thanksgiving said that he had already closed part of the border. and many of the reporters down there said, where? but there was no answer. so he's very much invested his political capital at this point in this fight, in this border fight. he is all in. >> yeah. elie, let me ask you about the potential legal challenges. some say it's too early to say what these challenges might be, but there probably would be some. how do you see that shaping up? >> right now trump is in violation of domestic law. we have an asylum law and trump's changing the asylum law to make people have to go through the ports of entry. that's a unilateral change of law without any understanding of how he has the power to do that. he's also in violation of international human rights law, because it's an international human rights standard that

people have the ability to come seek asylum. remember, these are not migrants. these are not migrant workers. these are refugees trying to escape torture, poverty, and death. and we have international human rights laws around that trump is completely violating. the challenges will come at trump not just because he's directly violating a domestic statute, he's also violating international standards and that's why i would imagine the challenges are going to come through him, not just through our own court system, but through international structures as well. >> julia ainsley, one last question to you. we have heard a lot about the furnish factors that cause people to leave these countries, to seek refugee in the united states, it's something the previous administration talked an awful lot about, going to guill a guatemala and other countries to stave off this problem here. i was struck reading "the washington post" piece saying, the medium and long-term solution is that people don't migrate. correct me if i'm wrong, but there's nothing in this policy that would keep that from happening. >> no, but it is clear that

that's what mexico wants. they want some kind of promise that this incoming administration would say, yes, we agreed to this, but it's in return for something else. they are probably new to working with the trump administration, they haven't come in yet, they could see it could be very definitely to bargain on some of those levels. but it wouldn't be the first time the trump administration toyed with this idea. i remember when john kelly came in as the new dhs secretary. he had been the head of the southern command. he knew the poverty and the violence in these countries, inside and out. but for some reason, that voice has been trumped, for lack of a better term, over and over again by the stephen miller voices who aren't paying attention to those push factors. . but it's something the new government in mexico is going to want to address before they move forward on this. >> julia, thank you so much, julia ainsley joining us from washington, d.c. this morning. standing by an old friend. president trump says he's supporting saudi arabia to help the u.s. economy. but the house of the u.s. intelligence committee wants to know how the relationship may also be helping president trump's bottom line.

jardiance asked: when it comes to managing your type 2 diabetes, what matters to you? step up to the stage here. feeling good about that? let's see- most of you say lower a1c. but only a few of you are thinking about your heart. fact is, even though it helps to manage a1c, type 2 diabetes still increases your risk of a fatal heart attack or stroke. jardiance is the only type 2 diabetes pill with a lifesaving cardiovascular benefit for adults who have type 2 diabetes and heart disease.

jardiance significantly reduces the risk of dying from a cardiovascular event... ...and lowers a1c, with diet and exercise. let's give it another try. jardiance can cause serious side effects including dehydration. this may cause you to feel dizzy, faint, or lightheaded, or weak upon standing. ketoacidosis is a serious side effect that may be fatal. symptoms include nausea, vomiting, stomach pain, tiredness, and trouble breathing. stop taking jardiance and call your doctor right away if you have symptoms of ketoacidosis or an allergic reaction. symptoms of an allergic reaction include rash, swelling, and difficulty breathing or swallowing. do not take jardiance if you are on dialysis or have severe kidney problems. other side effects are sudden kidney problems, genital yeast infections, increased bad cholesterol, and urinary tract infections, which may be serious. taking jardiance with a sulfonylurea or insulin may cause low blood sugar. tell your doctor about all the medicines you take and if you have any medical conditions. so-what do you think? well i'm definitely thinking differently than i was yesterday. ask your doctor about jardiance-

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

welcome back to "up." i'm david gura. president trump wants to give saudi arabia a pass on the murder of journalist jamal khashoggi. he's telling americans it is all about the money, as he ignores or rejects the cia's assessment of the crowned prince's culpability. >> they're paying us $400 billion plus to purchase and invest in our country. it means hundreds of thousands of jobs.

if you want to see oil prices go to $150 a barrel -- which, by the way, russia would love to see that. all you have to do is break up our relationship with saudi arabia. >> fact checking that would take too so long. congressman adam schiff doesn't think that passes the smell test and he's vowing to get to the boston of this when he takes over the house intelligence committee in january. chif explained his plans to a reporter for "the washington post." he wants to look at president trump's personal financial interests. >> i like the saudis. they're very nice. i make a lot of money with them. they buy all sorts of my stuff. all kinds of toys from trump. saudi arabia, and i get along great with all of them. they buy apartments from me, they spend $40 million, $50 million. am i supposed to dislike them? i like them very much? >> this is the question that greg sargent from "the washington post" has said, what did the intelligence community conclude and is trump deliberately downplaying it, which would constitute active participation in covering up the

truth on the crowned prince's behalf. adam schiff talks about a full debrief on what happened. if you could get that from the intelligence committee, he could take action. what could the intelligence committee do with adam schiff as chair? >> they could force in evidence into light which the cia has, which president trump is apparently rejecting or questioning. that is something within his jurisdiction to do. the only problem i had with that interview he did, and he certainly lays out a very good case for wanting to make this a priority when he comes in and takes over the intelligence committee in january. however, all of these investigations that democrats are hoping to enact against president trump really have to be done pretty strategically at this point. it's really important to remember that these democrats who came in to take the majority from republicans in the 2018 midterms were not running on investigations. they were running on health care, they were running on fixing health care, protecting pre-existing conditions. certainly, there's a lot of things stroeto investigate in t trump administration that were left aside by that republican-controlled house all the time and adam schiff has

plenty on his plate to do that. emotions around this are so raw. >> what stood out to me is the degree to which adam schiff wants to use this as a template to apply to other matters that we have questions about, like the deal with north carolikorea. to what extent did the president ignore advice he got there. to beth's point, being so much they could investigate. how much do you think this should be prized? how much do you think they'll be pricing th prizing this area of inquiry? >> there are two aspects there with saudi arabia. there are the president's potential personal business with saudi arabia and there's also the country's business with saudi arabia, which is one of the top buyers of military equipment. i don't know about the $400 billion figure. last year, it was -- the $110 billion deal signed in 2017 was also, many said, was exaggerated. $90 billion since the '50s. but the thing is, you can

criticize a country and do business with them at the same time. and that doesn't seem to be, you know, on his mind at all, which is why i think people are suspecting there's a personal tie. he did say, they bought a floor of trump world tower in 2001, i think. an entire floor. >> he's bragging. he's bragging about being corrupt. we're at the point where trump is running around the country bragging about how corrupt he is, right? oh, look how much they buy from me? because of that, they can totally kill journalists. i can get you a toe. you don't want to know, but -- that's what trump is going around saying. >> but then he turns around and says, i don't have any business with them, at all. >> and the fun thing about the schiff investigation is going to be, these are not going to be the crimes that bring trump down, that impeach him or whatever, because you need 67 votes in the senate and that's not going to happen. these are the crimes that we're going to prosecute trump for when he gets out of office and he's no longer in the power of the presidency, right? new york state just elected a new attorney general, latisha james, first black woman to hold that post. she's going to be here after

2020 and these kinds of deep corruption crimes are the kind of things that you can bring him up on, on new york state charges after he's no longer president. and so, i think that all of the saudi arabia stuff and it's -- i don't mean to like diminish it, by just "stuff," but all of the saudi arabia corruption and emoluments corruption that we are pretty sure is happening, i think all of that are the kinds of things that are going to be waiting for trump the minute he gets off of marine one and is no longer president. >> well, yeah, that remains to be seen. in the meantime, i think we do have to have these investigations. i think congress has to be able to try to legislate and conduct oversight at the same time. i mean, what are they going to get out of the house anyway, actually? they're just going to be posturing and saying, this is what we would like to pass, maybe we have the votes on it, it will die in the senate and of course the president is not going to sign it. but when it comes to saudi arabia, we have had a long, horrible, corrupt relationship with this country, democrats and republicans. this has always been about energy. if we shifted the renewable

energy years ago when everyone was on board, we would haven't nearly as much of a problem. that being said, this president -- remember when americans agreed on this phrase, conflict of interest. when we all would said, yeah, that's a conflict of interest and we're not comfortable with that. he obviously has conflicts of interest, but he likes bad people. he admires bad people. he doesn't mind when you kill a journalist, come on! he dpuoesn't care about that. he doesn't care about anything but trump. >> and he'll meet with the crowned prince in a few days when the g-20 takes place. >> i'm sure they'll have a laugh and a drink. and next, shutdown watch. we have been here over and over and over again.

you're in the business of helping people. we're in the business of helping you. business loans for eligible card members up to fifty thousand dollars, decided in as little as 60 seconds. the powerful backing of american express. don't do business without it. and i'm still going for my best even though i live with a higher risk of stroke due to afib not caused by a heart valve problem. so if there's a better treatment than warfarin, i'm up for that. eliquis. eliquis is proven to reduce stroke risk better than warfarin. plus has significantly less major bleeding than warfarin. eliquis is fda-approved and has both. so what's next? seeing these guys. don't stop taking eliquis unless your doctor tells you to, as stopping increases your risk of having a stroke. eliquis can cause serious and in rare cases fatal bleeding. don't take eliquis if you have an artificial heart valve or abnormal bleeding. while taking eliquis, you may bruise more easily and it may take longer than usual for any bleeding to stop.

seek immediate medical care for sudden signs of bleeding, like unusual bruising. eliquis may increase your bleeding risk if you take certain medicines. tell your doctor about all planned medical or dental procedures. eliquis, the number one cardiologist-prescribed blood thinner. ask your doctor if eliquis is what's next for you.

cardiologist-prescribed blood thinner. prestige creams not living up to the hype? olay regenerist shatters the competition. big hype? big price? big deal! olay regenerist hydrates skin better than creams costing over $100, $200, and even $400. for skin that looks younger than it should. fact check this ad in good housekeeping. olay regenerist. now try olay hydrating eye. hydrates better than the #1 prestige eye cream.

welcome back to "up." i'm david gura. president trump gave reporters a lot to write about after his offscrip thanksgiving phone call with members of the u.s. military. but this exchange with a reporter after that phone call barely registered. >> is there going to be a government shutdown over this wall in december? >> could happen, yeah, over

border security. the wall is just a part of border security, a very important part. probably the most important part, but could there be a shutdown? there certainly could. >> now, historically if a president signals his support for a shutdown, there is market reaction, washington squirms, and the media goes crazy. but this time, that did happen. it wasn't normal, so we decided to roll back the tape. >> when you look at the people coming in, this would be a very good time to do a shutdown. >> if it was up to me, i would shut down border over government security. >> if we don't get border security, i would have no problem doing a shutdown. if we don't change it, let's have a shutdown. we'll do a shutdown. and it's worth it for our country. >> well, there's bipartisan consensus government shutdowns are not a way to make america great, which is why the president's threats are largely empty. >> as a matter of national security, i have signed this soomnibus budget bill. there are a lot of thing i'm

unhappy about in this bill. i say to congress, li will neve sign another bill like this again. >> with just ten working days until a deal has to be reached, this potential partial government shutdown showdown is very different. lee, let me turn to you first. i mentioned the fact that we have seen market reaction in the pass. we're all seemingly becoming enneue inured to this. you talked to investors. . >> i think there's a lot of concern this may actually happen. and also, the markets are swooning for other reasons. that has investors much more alarmed than a possible partial government shutdown, which we've seen before and, you know, it would be bad, but we would get through it and there would be an end to it. the one thing is, at up wione p he did mention shutting the border entirely even to trade, which would impact $2.3 million that were made in mexico last year by u.s. carmakers, sold here, right in the wake of the

u.s./mexico/canada usmeca, as everyone's calling it. but that would be poorly timed. >> can you imagine the reaction if he even attempted to shut down the border? the corporate titans would be -- i mean, most importantly, david, his word doesn't matter. that's a great montage. the edit of him saying it. but markets don't react the way they normally would because they just plow right through it. his word doesn't matter. whether he says he's going to do something, there's so many empty words and there's money to be made. >> well, they are reacting to some things. they're reacting to tariffs, the possible impact on trade war. >> and policy. >> and has been made and other things. they're more worried about the tech companies right now, to your point. >> and the thing -- many of the times that trump has said or mused about a shutdown was when the -- before the midterms. and republicans were fully in control and we had leaders like kevin mccarthy who's really trump's sort of closest ally on

the hill, sort of hinting that, you know, we'll sort of keep this as a live option, if all else fails. that's just not the case anymore. the last thing that paul ryan and kevin mccarthy want walking out the door as leaders, having been completely pushed away by voters, is to say, well, we're going to shut down the government on our way out, where we're shutting off the lights. that just isn't going to happen. what we would know from trump, it's all about image and reputation. if they can give him a little bit of money toward the wall, he will claim victory -- >> the wall of mexico will pay for it? >> he will claim victory and that will avert this. >> which is why, and i don't want to sound like boramere looking at the rain -- >> i love your metaphors. >> -- it would be a give if donald trump wants to shut down the government over the wall that mexico was supposed to pay for. what better issue than the democrats could hope for than standing against his ridiculous, xenophobic, racist wall, while trump -- remember, shutdowns

look bad when it looks congress couldn't get his act together. this would be trump asking for pit because that means he wins the golf war. and democrats are fighting that to protect taupeness nesthe op society. >> when you listen to the chorus of the members of congress talking about this, i don't hear or detect a lot of enthusiasm for doing this. is that something that's different, as well? >> it's 100% poisonous for both parties, particularly the party in control. right now the party in control is and continues to be republicans until the first of january. if they look like they are dragging the country out into a government shutdown of any size on the way out the door, it will take what is left of their reputation and chop in half. they don't want that, they don't need it. i understand what you're saying, but if they can allocate a couple hundred more million towards border security, trump will say, i won the wall. what the heck? >> but they can't give him enough money to pay for this wall. saying mexicans are going to pay

for it and american taxpayers shouldn't pay for thing. it's not going to secure anybody. but the other thing is, if they shut down a government, the only good thing i would say about it is that americans learn what government does. we have so demonized and degraded government at every level, we have no idea what it's responsible for. we just want to complain about what doesn't work. when government shuts down, you realize what government actually does. >> but this is why democrats are always fighting an asymmetrical war with these shutdowns. republicans win when nothing works. the republican point is that government doesn't work, it's bad for you. so when they burn it all down, that kind of serves their purpose. democrats value what government provides. and the services that government can do. and so when the republicans are kind of like, holding the government hostage, democrats are -- democrats care about that. >> republicans go to national parks, too. you know democrats are, as you said, going to demagogue the heck out of this. republicans and conservatives and even trump voters would get pretty upset over a certain amount of time. >> there's no question that

dysfunction is the main thing that voters are concerned about, even with the incoming democratic control of congress, or the house, they are so tired of the sense that government does not work. and that is something both parties need to avoid, at all costs, except it's going to affect republicans more. >> but that's not changing, big picture, anytime soon. >> that's for sure. >> let me ask you this lastly, we talk about the degree to which markets care about this. what's that relationship like between the financial sector and washington, d.c. today? talk about the acela corridor and all of that. but do they pay attention to what's happening? what's your sense of what interest is like in what donald trump is doing or what he's talking about, versus how it was maybe a year or two years ago? >> they pay attention. but the things they care about, they care about the tariff policy, they care about trade. many ceos have spoken out about not being comfortable with where we're going with the trade war. they care about regulation and the administration has lessened a lot of regulation.

so a lot of business is quite happy about that. they care about infrastructure spending, which has not materialized at all. and they just care that, you know, markets and the economy are going to be, you know, smooth and, you know, up and to the right. and everything right now is hunky-dory. i mean, from -- relatively. except for the markets. but the funny thing about the markets is that the economy, as you know, unemployment is a 50-year low. all of the signs are still really healthy of the economy. and they care a lot about that. so, you know, it's complicated. >> all right. let's come back here in just is a second. lee gallagher, thank you very much. the rest of the panel will stick around. trouble in the ranks, a democratic majority needs a new house speaker. how nancy pelosi is working to squash dissent as she is under pressure to change the exposition of her leadership team. a wealth of perspective. ♪ a wealth of opportunities. that's the clarity you get from fidelity wealth management.

straightforward advice, tailored recommendations, tax-efficient investing strategies, and a dedicated advisor to help you grow and protect your wealth. fidelity wealth management. to help you grow and protect your wealth. the world famous marwen, mark's art installation. so that's the guy. right up there. some nazi thugs jumped him. it's a miracle he survived. [ screams ] i was a hell of a good artist. and now i can barely write my name.

so, i created a world where i can heal. at your service, mademoiselle. are all of the dolls people you know? yeah, everyone has a place here in marwen. ♪ i got dreams in my head ♪ and they won't go the only way you're gonna get better, is if you face those jerks who beat you up. it's important that you're there, to look your assailants straight in the eye. i'm not really sure how to do this. from the groundbreaking director of forrest gump... i got your back. bottoms up, girls. ♪ i got dreams in my head ♪ and they won't go ♪ spirits in my head ♪ and they won't go you gotta love the pain. pain is our rocket fuel. i have my art. and i have my friends. i have hope. and that's something they can't take away from me. hell, yeah. they seem to be the very foundation of your typical bank. capital one is anything but typical. that's why we designed capital one cafes. you can get savings and checking accounts with no fees or minimums.

and one of america's best savings rates. to top it off, you can open one from anywhere in 5 minutes. this isn't a typical bank. this is banking reimagined. what's in your wallet?

welcome back. i'm david gura. some members of her own caucus continue to call out house minority leader nancy pelosi and call for her to step aside. democratic members of the bipartisan problem solvers caucus are vowing to withhold their support for her unless she agrees to rule changes. we have seen since the midterms a politician adept at cajoling and changing minds. the opposition has become less vocal and she is closer to getting the votes she needs when democrats caucus behind closed doors on wednesday. jeff jarvis joins us now. let me start with you, jeff, if

i could. and have you just give us your perspective on the way this conversation has taken place, not since the midterms, because it started happening before the midterms. there was this clarion wondering about the future of nancy pel i pelosi? what's going to happen here? is she going to be able to take over the speaker's gala. your sense of how that's transpiring. >> can't we just all get along? can't we realize that we have a common enemy? this is war we're at now, us liberals. i'm liberal, i'll say it. >> put that on the banner, as well. >> that's fine. lower third, perfectly tattooed right here. so we've got a common enemy right now. we've got to keep that in mind. i understand political process pip understa, i understand trying to get things from her before she is installed, that's fine. but to act as if there's a war against her is dangerous. i admire alexandria ocasio-cortez to show the mat e maturity to be a bernieite on the left, but say, let's win.

>> so i'll hold this up here. great photo. look. the whole thing. but here's the line that stood out to me. the light motif of her three-decade ascent is a woman wresting power away from a male-dominated political machine until one day the machine discovered she was its master. >> so well put. >> let's talk a bit about that. she is a very powerful woman in washington, d.c. how much of the criticism of her do you think centers on the fact that she is that, somebody who over that very long career has done what she's done. >> well, in that interview that you referenced, she talks about coming in as a young house -- or as a new house member in the '80s and she was one of so few women even in the entire house, let alone in the leadership. so the fact that she askrescendo the place that she has is extraordinary given the odds against it. but she has mastered it. she's the best legislate ive

tactician that has come out of the house in 75 years. and the fact that she's a woman has created yet another reason for people to push back on her. and that's a major problem with the resistance that's going on right now to her among democrats in the house. it's mostly among men, almost entirely, and it is mostly among people to her right, which doesn't really make sense. if there was going to be a pushback against her that really is meaningful, number one, they would come up with an alternative candidate that people could support, and number two, it would come from where the energy of the party is right now, which is more on the left. >> that insinuates that men that are to the right of nancy pelosi don't understand what women have just accomplished, i think. and they don't, because her point, also, wasn't political about him having a better -- she having a better record than paul ryan. you could measure it. legislatively, she has the best record. soi so i wanted to add that. >> what is she good at. pelosi used the tools at her

disposal, committee assignments to establish a balance among her party's coalitions while also reminding everyone that her job was not simply to officiate. what makes her so good at that job? >>. >> the queen can compromise. and the thing that actual annoys her that makes people on the left annoyed with her is that she is willing to compromise. but people on the right, you can't -- you can't have republicans electing the next democratic speaker of the house, right? >> it just doesn't work that way? >> which is what they're trying to do. >> anancy pelosi has shown exactly how good she is at counting and compromise. she can count all the votes, she knows where everybody stands, she knows what they want, she knows what to give them, and she's willing to compromise. some of these proposals coming out of the five white men who really want her job, some of them are actually good proposals. and i'm sure that some of them, she will adopt. some of them are good proposals that will protect the democratic caucus -- will protect the democratic caucus and what happens to the republicans and

the tea party. these might be rules that she'll adopt. she will figure out what she means and she'll do it. and i think that's what -- that's what she's able -- that's what she's been doing for the past -- what we've really seen on display since the midterms. >> jeff, i want to ask you about how she's applied what she's done as speaker to this process, becoming speaker once again. there's been a lot of ink spilled about this fight, in the democratic party over who's going to be the house speaker. robert costa wrote a great piece for "the washington post" about the honey and vinegar approach she's been using. quote, she has personally courted disgruntled members in meeting and by phone while deploying her sprawling networks to bolster her bid among her ability to outmaneuver them." >> i have to go back to beth. i think that white men are a acting surprised that a woman can be smart, tough, political, and get things done. and she's been brilliant hat this. she may not be the most likable person in washington, but that's not a very high bar. it doesn't matter, she gets

things done. and what i really am looking forward to is her versus donald trump. >> part of it's she's not likable because she's a woman who gets things done. don't you think, jeff, this looks good, that part of why she isn't as effective is because she's not this media maverick. she's not so great in front of a camera and microphones, because her talent lies behind the scenes in actually getting things done. and people want some fire breather that's a leader that's going to get us all mad and divide us -- >> but that's not her job, right? her job -- i would love to hear beth's -- >> you first. >> her job is, you know, lbj and the people who did it behind the scenes. we do need a fiery leader. we do need somebody out front to march behind. but that's not her job. >> but can i make one more point, david? >> please. >> despite all the great things about nancy pelosi that we have all said here, there's no doubt that democrats have a problem with their leadership. >> and she's acknowledged that. we have a letter here, signed

nancy. >> young people want a place to go, they want to move into something. having a whole bunch of people who have been there forever, sitting there, refusing to let the energy of the party come up and join them is is a problem. and she has acknowledged that. but there kneads to needs to be tangible -- >> joe biden. >> no, but i'm talking about in the house. >> but the party as a whole. >> she needs to find out a way to evaluate some of these people. >> i want to use my host prerogative to ask you one more question about this problem solvers caucus. to what degree is that working? there were these aspirational statements about what they want to do. here it seems they're causing a big problem for the democratic party? >> everyone thinks the idea of a bipartisan caucus, let's hope that it works, right? the fact, though, that their statement came out and said they were troubled with pelosi's leadership and they didn't think it was going to be a bipartisan sense of government and that's

why they needed to put the brakes on is just kind of laughable on the face of it. there has been zero bipartisanship at all in the last two years, even though there are republican members of this problem solver's caucuses, they certainly didn't move the ball when it was republicans in charge. >> selective bipartisan. >> which is why you say everybody hopes it works. i don't hope it works. i'm sick of democrats constantly going, do you want to govern with us? no, they don't. we won the house. now i want it to look like it. >> it's war and we're winning. >> and pelosi's a wartime consiglie consigliere. >> among the democrats who have said they will stand by nancy pelosi, the house's youngest members, we mentioned her just a moment ago, alexandria okasia cort cortez, she is taking us behind the scenes on capitol hill and doing battle with fox news on twitter. that happening as fox news alum -- as one fox news alum's golden parachute causes more problems for the trump administration. that's up ahead. ♪

♪ ♪ the united states postal service makes more holiday deliveries to homes than anyone else in the country. ♪ with one notable exception. ♪

the biggest streaming collection of british telly ever. enjoy loved classics from the bbc & itv, and discover exclusive new shows fresh from the uk. and with a britbox annual gift subscription, a year of joy comes with two months free-it's the brits that keep on giving! this holiday, indulge in some great british telly. give the gift of britbox today, at britbox.com

after a scratch so small rocket you could fix it with a pen. how about using that pen to sign up for new insurance instead? for drivers with accident forgiveness, liberty mutual won't raise their rates because of their first accident. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ you're still here? we're voya! we stay with you to and through retirement. i get that voya is with me through retirement,

i'm just surprised it means in my kitchen. so, that means no breakfast? voya. helping you to and through retirement. i get rewardedd wherever i go. going out for a bite. rewarded. going new places. anytime. rewarded! learn more at the explorer card dot com. frm the net worng's former executive resigned. on friday his financial disclosure form was released showing he received $8.4 million in severance pay and he is is set to receive 7 million more in bonuses as fox news's parent company. meanwhile hope hicks is selt to

join as communications head and still the case sean hannity. >> by the way, all of the people in the back are fake news. i did an opening monologue today and i had no idea you were going to invite me up here. the one thing that has made and defined your presidency more than anything else, promises made, promises kept. >> jeff, let's start with bill. there is something about this. we were talking about conflict of interest. your reaction to what we learned in those disclosure forms this week. >> i go to his expertise.

it appears this is not illegal but he must recuse himself from anything involving fox like i don't know, the news and every press interview and everything else. he said he did not get an but it is apparently in this crazy time, legal. >> you have teed up wonderfully. >> yes. >> this is another norm that the trump administration is breaking and another normal fox news is breaking. it seems so confusing in the american context. we are used to having independent media. fox is doing a really good impression of state run media organization. this is what it looks like if you live in china or russia. >> it is like a version of el

presidente. >> it is like fox runs the white house. >> the issue we need to focus on like 2021 or 2025. at some point we need to have a commission or reckoning. it is all of these things we thought were laws were just norms. it is to get it into an actual law to prevent this from happening again. you can't stop fox now. you to start putting the laws in place to so you can stop the next fox. >> and outside of what is a norm for the white house, what is norm for a news organization? no news organization would normally get into bed with the white house the way this one has. fox has any abandonment. they are all in with this guy. he has been credibly accused of

aiding and abetting but both sides are sort of looking out the window in order to sort of further what works for them. >> the point i was going to point out -- >> go. do it. >> for 20 years he protected roger ails and bill o'reilly. he manipulated them, made them have to see therapists, insulted them. he is not a good person morally and he should not be working a major's office muchless the comes department in this white house. he shouldn't be having a job. this guy got a promotion to work in the white house after protecting ails and o'reilly. people should read into what he said and how he protected them. trump of course has protected these kinds of men. they have a home under trump. >> i have homework for you at

msnbc. we need a weekly segment. we watch fox news so you don't have to. >> not it. >> what's the brainwashing that's going on out there. we a have to have a corn servetive media outlet. i don't just mean the opinion of reporting. fox is the most trusted. there son-in-law one and pls a lot of liberal media. we need to invest in conservative media. >> you bring that up -- >> he was interviewed at a big conference here in flork. are you embarrassed and that is that nobody is doing what we are doing. last question to you about this revolving door here we have hope hicks. what does it say to you? >> trump bragged about it.

he said they are doing great. he put a for ale sign on that revolving door like he does to everyone. >> thanks to all of you for being here with us. up next robert mueller's list deeps getting longer. the latest that was in the special council's cross hairs.

welcome back . i want to tart this hour with something you may have heard before. in talks with robert mueller about a plea deal. first like wilbur in charlotte's web, this is who is cooperating with robert mueller or the southern district of new york. there is paul manafort. we are suppose today learn what they are able to offer robert mueller. moving along michael cohen and david pecker also has immunity and lastly, there is