now. we have to have border security and a wall is part of border security. you know, i hear so much about the wall is old fashioned. no, the wall is not old fashioned. the wall is 100% foolproof. you look at a wheel. well, i guess they would say a wheel is old fashioned, but it's been around for a long time. and technology, nobody knows more about technology than me, but technology are just the bells and whistles on the wall. if you don't have the wall, you're going to have people coming in. >> oh, so much for lindsey graham calling the wall a metaphor. president trump is now asking nancy pelosi to cut a deal. three weeks after proudly claiming he would take full responsibility for a government shutdown. meanwhile, we may soon see a presidential tweet about mitt romney after the incoming senator absolutely blasted the president while pledging to speak out against racist, sexist, dishonest and

destructive actions. welcome to washington, mitt romney, and welcome to morning joe. let's dig in on all of this. so the president hopes to hold a meeting at the white house on border security with both parties. we're in the middle of a partial government shutdown forced by donald trump to try and get $5 billion to build that wall on the mexican border that he promised during the campaign. it is a wall that most people don't want. the data proves that. but whatever comes from today's meeting, one thing is clear. trump is going to have to surrender both on ending the shutdown and building a wall. the last time trump met with the democratic leaders face-to-face, he proudly said he was going to own the shutdown. well, now he does by stubbornly sticking to a promise that only a quarter of americans support, trump has dug himself and his republican party into a very big

hole. just as democrats tomorrow, i believe, yep, tomorrow, they're taking control of the house. the reality is trump's my way or highway obsession with the wall has been, for months, nothing more than a fantasy. and a self-inflicted wound for himself and his party, the republican party. today, as john kelly's final day as white house chief of staff, and he's talking. he's told the los angeles times a lot of stuff including the other day he said that the idea of a concrete wall on the border had been rejected long ago by homeland security experts who work in the administration. so the advice to the president is it's not a good idea. from his own team. trump has absolutely no leverage, none, and many republicans are furious that he has left them in political peril for absolutely no good reason,

promising a wall that mexico would pay for might have helped trump get the nomination, but right now, it's the president, not democrats who are walled in, or boxed in, so to speak. so with us this morning, we have mike barnacle, professor and author of the book "democracy in black" eddie claude jr. and msnbc political contributor rick tyler, cofounder eo of axo jims vandehei and susan paige. great to have you all. here we go. president trump appearing to soften on his demand for a wall, holding his first meeting with congressional democrats saying he would, quote, take the mantle for a government shutdown. this was about three weeks ago we've been going through all of this. trump has invited the top eight

congressional leaders from both parties from the white house for a briefing on the border wall today, this afternoon. it will be the first significant conversation he has had with democrats since the partial shutdown can began 12 days ago. this hours after trump tweeted border security and the wall thing and shutdown is not where nancy pelosi wanted to start her tenure as speaker. let's make a deal? to which nancy pelosi replied, donald trump has given democrats a great opportunity to show how we will govern responsibly and quickly pass our plan to end the irresponsible trump shutdown. just the first sign of things to come in our new democratic majority committed to working for the people. and most of the people, rick tyler, don't want a wall. so how does trump get out of this box? and do republicans stay in the box with trump? >> well, trump will declare this

week that he asked the army corps of engineers to erect a forcefield. and the reason you'll know it's true is because he tweeted about it. that's about his only option. nancy pelosi will pass a continuing resolution to open the government. she's going to send that over to mitch mcconnell. it will be up to him whether he's going to present it to the senate for a vote or not. but the point is the democrats will be able to show that they are acting to reopen the government and that it is, in fact, republicans who are blocking them and keeping the government from reopening and, therefore, the republicans and donald trump will own this shutdown. i think this is going to go on. this will probably prove out to be the longest shutdown in american history, which is 21 days. we're more than halfway. i think we're halfway there now. and it's just an impasse. and lensy graham and the republicans are trying to give trump a way out by saying it's a metaphor. we're talking about border security here. but he keeps redoubling down on this idea of a concrete wall.

to put it into perspective, there is zero miles of wall. there's not one section of barrie barrier which is wall. there's roughly less than 800 miles of barrier. half of that is vehicle protection so the vehicles can't cross, but you can literally walk right across it. so there's less than 400 miles of actual pedestrian barriers and that is built in the easiest places. all those barriers cost $7.1 billion to make. so where is trump going to start to begin this $5 billion wall to cover the rest of the 1250 miles that have virtually no barrier whatsoever? so i point all this out to tell you it's just raw politics and it bears no resemblance to the reality of what's really happening here. >> don't politics usually have some give or take? jim vandehei, i know it's just tweets, but i am sensing, as

rick take ler answers rick tyler answers my question with a question, because there are no answers to trump's thinking, there is maybe a shift in dynamic between speaker pelosi and donald trump. you see trump in a different place. how does he save face? >> yeah. i think you're talking about him being backed into a corner. he really is. there is not an obvious solution. it comes down to whether or not nancy pelosi and to some extent chuck schumer want to squeeze him. if they say we're not going to give you any more money for the wall, there is no way to save face. you would basically saying there are protections for dreamers and a resolution on daca. if they could do that, that might be a way out, but it's not clear that democrats would go for it, particularly in this environment because they really do feel like they have their boot on trump's throat and why

let him out if you don't need to let him out. because what i think tweet is not reading correctly, he's assuming the democratic party of today is the same democratic party of '06 or '010. i think the feeling that they have to be strong by supporting a lot more border security, that that has waned and that the enthusiasm of the democratic party is for protecting immigrants. and i think that's a miscalculation that he made and he continues to make in those tweets. >> susan paige, continuing with the boot metaphor, maybe trying to think of a different one, but they do have it right now. they have him cornered. and the question is, why in the world would they give him an out, given the way this president has behaved personally, given the way this president has led, given the way this president has behaved on the international front? it seems like he is such a run

away with beer truck that there really isn't any relationship building leverage they would want to create out of letting up on him. >> and, of course, this is a different democratic party. this is the first day of president trump's next two years, which is an empowered democratic party with a position to have leverage they have not had previously in his presidency. and jim vandehei said it's not the same democratic party as 2006. it's not the same democratic party as 2018. this is a great particularly less willing to compromise, less trusting of trump. remember a year ago, they talked about a big deal on immigration that would include protection for the dreamers along with money for a wall. that is not a deal democrats would make today.

the relationship with the white house will be at issue. >> this is on a different level for democrats completely. for many, many months, they have been waiting for a voice with this president. they have been waiting to be able to hold him accountable on many levels. and now they have it. they don't want to squander it, but it is a different dynamic. and i'm not sure president trump completely understands that. as the president faces the prospect of abandoning large scale plans for a physical border wall to end the shutdown, aides and allies have tried to down play trump's signature campaign issue. they're trying. in his exit interview with the "l.a. times," chief of staff john kelly said, to be honest, it's not a wall. the president still says wall. oftentimes, frankly, he'll say barrier or fencing. now he's tending towards steel flats. but we left a solid concrete wall early in the administration. trump pushed back on that.

but others suggested the wall was merely symbolic. >> first of all, let's not all acquiesce to the ridiculous sound bite that this is about a wall. the president has been talking about border security all along. >> the wall has become a metaphor for border security. and what we're talking about is a physical barrier where it makes sense. >> the president has made it clear with his own words over and over time during his campaign, he wasn't talking about the idea of a wall, he was talking about an actual wall. >> i will build a great, great wall. >> it is a very serious wall. >> they say you don't really mean you're going to build a wall, do you? you're kidding, right? i built 930 story buildings. 92 stories, 98 stories. walls are so easy. >> building a wall, boy, is that easy. >> that will go up like magic.

it will go up like magic. >> when are the walls going to be made out of? >> hardened concrete. did you ever see precast plank for barkiparking garages? >> concrete plank, you have to be kidding. i can see it now, beautiful, precast plank. all beautiful. plank that's laid for, like, highways. it comes 30 feet long, 40 feet long, 50 feet long. 90 feet long. do you know how long 90 feet -- if you're 90 feet up, you want to come down very gently. it's so beautiful. i can see that precast plank. and you put that plank up and you dig your footings. good solid foundations. precast. sucked right into a foundation, beautiful. easy. precast plank. precast, boom, bing, done, keep going. and you put that plank up. there's no ladder goes over

that. nice and high, make the ceiling look like a little low ceiling. the taller it gets, the safer it gets. a real wall, not a toy wall. it's 10 feet fall and it's a fence. see the way they go over our fences. it's not a wall, it's a fence. people don't go over my wall. i want it to be so beautiful because maybe some day they're going to call it a trump wall. it's not a fence. it's a wall. >> i don't know how he gets around that. republicans are trying to help him around it business saying it's a metaphor and then he just walks it back and says, no, it's a wall. there's that and this. you know john kelly, you know mattis. these guys are leaving. and i guess my question is for you. what do you think your friends' responsibility is as they leave this white house to talk about what they've seen in there in very real terms with the democrats taking power, questions about the shutdown,

and how that is being held and other questions surrounding this president. >> well, i think general kelly has spoken to some extent with the "l.a. times." >> a little bit. >> general mattis has spoken out strongly in his resignation letter to the president. but i don't think they're going to be on sunday talk shows. neither man is like that. so i don't think you can look forward to that. i think what we can look forward to, though, mika, is despite all the wall talk this morning, all the inside baseball surrounding the wall, whether it's going to be constructed or not, there's something else going out there that americans can identify with more than just the wall. and it is this. the democrats, tomorrow, are going to pass a series of bills as jim vandehei and you pointed out earlier to fund the government and so set aside homeland security funding until february or so. they in essence are going to go to work. they're going to do their job. they are confronted with another party, the republican party, that can't do their job because

the leader, the president of the united states, won't do his job. so it comes down to a level of incompetentence on the republican side that i think a lot of americans are begin to go recognize. i don't know about you, eddie, but i mean, the frustration about people who see this mess in washington continuing on an hourly basis, it's pretty frustrated and it's going to have a huge impact on the presidential election and it begins now. >> absolutely. and it's not only confidence. we've been talking about the democratic party, nancy pelosi pursuing the speakership and the party pursuing its agenda. but there's kevin mccarthy. there's trump's base. we know trump has governed to the 39%, that 40%, those folks who will follow him no matter what he does. and those were the people clamoring for him to double down on the immigration policy, the folks clamoring for him to double down on the wall. he's not only caught by the democrats, he's caught business his base. because if he backs down on this

issue, conservative talk radio, fox news, all of these folks who have been pushing him will be up in arms if he backs away. >> you know, mika, one interesting aspect of the wall that we've been talking about, it's nearly three years to the day that we were all in iowa at java joes doing the show and then candidate donald trump was going to be on with us that morning and he was indeed on with us that morning. he arrived a little late. i was back in the kitchen where i prefer to hide out rather than being on the set. trump came in and he had had a rally the night before i think in ames iowa or one of the iowa towns. there was a very small crowd, according to the news reports. and i asked him in the kitchen, i said, i guess you had a pretty small crowd there. how did it go? he said it doesn't matter about the crowd. if the crowd is depressed, if there's no noise, if they're not wildly into it, all i have to do is mention the wall and they go crazy. and he's been doing it ever

since. >> well, it worked for the campaign or the nomination, really. but the question is how to get out of this box. this kind of paints the picture of how this president is kind of starting the new year up against nancy pelosi, up against democrats when it comes to the wall with a republican party that is increasingly frustrated that he keeps digging and desperately holding to this wall while we have a government shutdown. let me read the title of mitt romney's piece that he wrote. the president shapes the character of the nation. trump's character falls short. it's a big piece that he's written in "the washington post" and it is searing. if trump thought he had a challenge in john mccain, if trump thought he had a challenge in jeff flake, i have a feeling

mitt romney is going to bring in a whole new dose of reality for this president. mitt's run for president himself and he didn't win. you know what he decided to do? serve anyway. and i think trump is going to regret not talking him out of this. there was some possibility he could have done that. mitt romney is making it very clear he's going to be much more than a thorn in president trump's side. what's your gut on how that dynamic plays out? >> a couple of different things occurred to me after reading the piece last night, mika. one was that there was an immediate round of nitpicking on twitter about the piece, about romney's motives. what we can't sit here every day and bemoan the fact that the vast majority, almost all of the republican party and the senate and in the house refuse to speak out against this president's many transgressions and truth. >> that's right. >> and duplicity and things like that. we can't do that and nitpick

someone when they finally stand up and do speak out as mitt romney did. now, one of the things to understand about mitt romney is -- and i know, mika, you know this because you know his wife and you know him pretty well. this kind of a boy scout element to mitt romney and i've got to assume that he sat there and watched the president's behavior for these many, many months, he didn't want to inject himself between donald trump and the voters in utah. but now is his time. what he wrote in "the washington post," that's who mitt romney is. >> and i wonder if america needs a boy scott right now. i would say there's a hunger for someone with a moral compass, for someone who will say it in realtime. no one will take that away from mitt romney, not even republicans who are sitting

there holding the bag. it's not working for them any more. look where we are. so we're going to dig into that more. still ahead on "morning joe," we'll get the latest on the president's syria policy, why he's now pumping the breaks for his push for an immediate u.s. withdraw. plus, an update on senator elizabeth warren's budding white house campaign and what donald trump has to say about it. where the democratic contender is holding her first stop since launching an exploratory committee. but first, to bill karins for a check on the forecast. >> we're starting the same way we just ended 2018 with another big rain storm with a little bit of snow. we haven't seen many snowstorms this winter so far. january is typically the coldest, snowiest month of the year in many locations in our country. so right now, the rain is starting to fill in here in texas. it's raining in dallas. towards ft. worth, it's 32 degrees. could be freezing sleet and

rain, bridges and overpasses. the rain today will fill in. 10 million people under watches. this area of red in here is 3 inches of rain. a little bit of chance of 4 inches in central louisiana. could have hourly rainfall rates of 1 to 2 inches per hour. many of the rivers are in flood stage and we're adding this rain on top of it and that's why we're expecting problems in areas of the deep south. eventually this rain will spread tonight and tomorrow into the southeast. just what you wanted, more rain, right, after an extremely soggy 2018. west of ft. worth, ice possible up towards oklahoma city. holiday travel on the east coast, you'll be fine. rain in the southeast comes in tomorrow. new york city looks pretty dry. we may see a few snow showers as we go throughout the day tomorrow. but the next big rain for you looks to be saturday. you're watching "morning joe." we'll be right back. you're watching "morning joe." we'll be right back. i am a family man.

i am a techie dad. 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.

so as we mentioned before the break, former republican presidential nominee and incoming utah senator mitt romney is criticizing, to say the least, president trump in aua blistering new op-ed in "the washington post." his piece is entitled "the president shapes the public character of the nation. trump's character falls short." >> it was published last night two days before romney will be sworn into the senate. he writes in part this, it is well known that downtown dtd was not my choice for the republican nomination. after he became nominee, i hoped his campaign would refrain from resentment and name calling. with the nation so divided, resentful, product of character is indispensable. and it is in these products where the incumbent's shortfall

has been most glaring. i will the act in or out of my party. i will support policies that i believe are in the best interests of my country or my state. i will speak out against significant statements or actions that are divisive, racist, sexist, anti-immigrant, dishonest or destructive to democratic institutions. so a lot there. this piece is quite incredible. he hasn't even started his job, he hasn't even been sworn in as senator for the great state of utah. but rick tyler, i feel like this is jeff flake, ben sass, bosh corker, definitely a touch of mccain all wrapped up in one. this could be a very different dynamic. if this is what we're getting out of senator mitt romney right out of the box. >> if he follows through and comments on all the things that he said he would comment on, he's going to be a very busy

person in 2019. >> and vocal. >> i think it's welcome. i give him a lot of credit that he's not even sworn in yet. he's going be sworn in by the vice president, which will make an interesting swearing in after having published this op ed. but he's essentially laying down the gauntlet is he's not going to be quiet and i think that's a good thing. but my criticism of romney, if i'm going to have one is -- and this sounds very harsh. romney is a man of great character. conservative view about trade, he said he supported trump's approach to trade with china. i couldn't disagree more. 180 degrees, there was zero soybean imports to china in

october. >> republicans can see if this realtime reaction to, you know, horrific bullying, anti-immigrant statements, things that are destructive for our country, realtime reaction on the part of the republican, they can watch to see how it plays. and perhaps mitt romney will give republicans an opening to use their big boy voices and speak out when something is blatantly wrong, incorrect, cruel our just plain destrictive. >> mitt romney is almost in a unique position here because he's in a completely solid situation politically in his home state. utah is a republican state, but it is not particular a trump

state. he comes to this position as already having represented the republican party as its presidential nominee and as a former governor. so he is a senior figure in the gop already. so he has this ability to speak out for republicans who have pretty much lost their voices in the last year with the sad death of john mccain, with the departure of jeff flake, bosh corker leaving. it was hard to see where there was a senior republican in a position to stand up to the president. and i would just say one thing. if we enter a period of crisis over this next year after the report of special counsel robert mueller is released, mitt romney is the kind of republican that the nation and the party might want to see. and the fact that he is idealogically not at odds with trump on most big issues, that is part of his strength because it means he can talk about character and it's not as though a liberal democrat is attacking

the president with a lot of dinnerses with the president on policy. he could speak specifically about character and be credible on doing so. >> so jim vandehei, this brings us back to the meeting today between the president and republicans and democrats. these republicans who i think the only -- the nice way to put it is that they lost their voice in terms of what they stand for versus this president, you unless they agree that there should be a concrete wall. how do they square that with democrats taking control of the house? >> i think the way you pull it altogether, the reason that romney mattered was that first sentence in his column which was talking about how december things went south. what trump's problem is right now is a power problem. so him writing this column yovni don't find terribly surprising. he doesn't seem as powerful as

he did before. he controls the presidency, republicans control the senate and republicans control the court. that is called almost absolute power. the house has the least amount of power basically of all those institutions and somehow pelosi now seems as big or bigger than trump. and if republicans start to recalculate their view of trump because they feel like he's putting the party in this hole and putting them in a box, that he doesn't have the right people at the pentagon, doesn't have the right people running things in the white house and suddenly they're suffering because of his miscalculations, that's where the romney thing will start to hurt. other than romney, and he's not a senator yet, no one speaks out. no one really challenges trump. so until you start to see a number of people who haven't challenged him now publicly challenge him, it's not that huge of a story. so if people start to see the world as romney does, that's a problem. >> another area where the president seems to be giving ground is on syria, where he's slowing down the timeline for

withdrawaling american troops. joining us now from the white house, nbc news pentagon correspondent hans nichols. what more can you tell us on this? >> it now looks like the drawdown will be four months. you have israeli officials briefing their journalists back in israel saying the president after a call with netanyahu wants to slow the walk of this a little bit. most curious, yesterday down in brazil, mike pompeo was saying the u.s. troops are going to continue to work with israel and countering iran and syria. so on so many of these things we have a lot of different voices from the administration. we don't know where bolton is. we don't really know where the president is because he's been all over the place and crucially we don't know where patrick shanahan is. he is the must, as of yesterday, secretary of defense acting, but he's in charge over the pentagon. mika. >> so what happened after he made this dramatic announcement? do we have any reporting on the

reaction inside the administration, beyond mattis stepping down? >> we know the president was chafed by what the president sort of -- the interpretation of mattis' resignation letter was. he accelerated mattis' departure. and then we have lindsay i can't remember -- lindsey graham. lindsey graham comes out and says, actually, the president understands that fight against isis isn't entirely finished. finally, we have that trip by president trump to iraq. and it was at that point that he said, look, troops are going to stay in iraq so they can hit isis from iraq and he seems to be saying a little bit that they would have some sort of presence in the counterisis fight in syria, as well. what was interesting to me about the iraq trip is that's the first time that he said, okay, we haven't totally won the fight

in isis in syria which had been his line and justification for pulling troops out of syria. guys. >> nbc's hans nichols, thank you very much. coming up, democrats have plenty of big plans for their new majority in the house and, of course, the government has to be reopened first. we'll talk to congressman tim ryan about that just ahead on "morning joe." bout that just ah "morning joe." ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ cancer treatment centers of america. appointments available now.

just days after plans for a possible exploratory run, senator elizabeth warren will head to iowa. iowa holds the first of the national presidential nominating contest set for february 3rd, 2020. 65% of likely democratic caucus voters view warren favorably. 20% view her unfavorably and 16% are unsure. meanwhile, president trump weighed in on senator warren's potential 2020 run. >> well, i'm happy about it.

i think she'll be wonderful. i hope she gets maybe the nomination. that will be a wonderful thing for me. >> she says she's in the fight all the way, mr. president. do you really think she believes she can win? >> well, that i don't know. you'd have to ask her psychiatrist. >> the "new york times" reports that senator warren's early entry to the race suggests she wants to erase any uncertainty among supporters whom she kept waiting and ultimately disappointed by not running for president in 2016. the times writes that the race is currently defined by uncertainty over who is actually running and which democrat matches the moment. there are more than 30 contenders deciding on whether they will seek the nomination, including former vice president joe biden. as many as eight senators. and if beto o'rourke of texas runs, he will be attempt to go become the first ex congressman to lose a senate race and go on

to be elected president since abraham lincoln. o'rourke's social media account created buzz about his national ambitions over the holiday by posting videos in opposition to president trump's border wall and they did seem like campaign videos on many levels. but mike barnacle, elizabeth warren, does she match the moment? >> well, we're going to find out. she certainly has name recognition. that poll you read is 65% approve of her. she has a head start with the jump on an anonymous field with the exception of vice president biden and a few others. i'm going to sit back and see who is on the field before i decide who looks good and twwho doesn't. >> it seems to me that the internal divide within the democratic party will play itself out in 2020. >> what do you think the divide is?

>> i think the has to do with progressives who are trying to push the party more to the left and in some ways the hold over of the clintonites and the obama folk. will they continue to hold the reigns of the party? and i think oftentimes we want to read this in a narrow way. i think it has to do with the look of that freshman class of representatives coming to d.c. tomorrow who will be officially representatives. they are pushing the party to be more aggressive, to be more attuned to working people, to resist corporate money. and if you have democrats that look familiar, the democrats of 2008, the democrats of 2012, they look -- i don't think they're going excite them so there will be this interesting tension. >> let me talk about the positives, mike. and you tell me if you disagree. you know elizabeth warren quite

well, as do i. and i'm a huge supporter. here are the reasons why i think she's a huge positive. i think she's a political athlete. she's a great communicator. she takes chances. she emphasizes her own story. and how it matches the american story. her life's work has talked about how she's addressed some of the issues that have affected americans from bankruptcy to debt to being left out. she matches -- her story matches that story. her parents' story match that's story. what she studied when she went to harvard matches that story. she was obsessed with bankruptcy. she said -- i think it was for her thesis in bankruptcy court for months and watched the american people walking in and out of the door and they were just like her. they weren't someone else. and she has that story baked into her political rise. it's what she's all about. she, under president barack

obama created the consumer financial protection bureau. she created an entity that try toes address what is plaguing the american story right now. she was booted out by republicans. he didn't have the guts, i guess, to bring her on and have her lead it because the republicans didn't want her. so you know what she did? she ran for senate and she's back in washington making a difference again. i know there's a lot of reasons why she might be too far left or this or that. but i just wonder if her story and her sort of guts and determination do match the moment. >> well, i think her story and her record match part of the moment, mika. i don't think there's any doubt about that. i think the trick for elizabeth warren is going to be the trick for all of the democratic candidates who run for president in a democratic primary. it's the past versus the future. everybody who votes in a democratic primary knows who donald trump is. they know how they feel about him. so the trick for elizabeth warren and all of the other candidates to come is going to be to put the past in the past

and talk about the future, talk about your children's education, your family's health care, your pay raise that you really haven't gotten in the last 12 years, things like that. and the other aspect of it is going to be even more tricky and it's going to be this. elizabeth warren is very familiar with a lot of people because of her record, as you indicated. and she keeps saying she's going to fight like hell. she's going to fight for you, fight for this, fight for that. a large part of the electorate is tired of the fighting. she just want to come together. they want to calm things down and get the job done. so we'll see. jim vandehei, i don't know whether you agree with that or not, but what's your view? >> i think what eddie said earlier, i couldn't agree more with. both parties are sort of facing this. you don't really know what either party stands for right now. especially if you take trump out of the equation on the republican side. and for democrats that field is going to be more wide open than we've ever seen.

and i think the idea field is more wide open than we've ever seen. if you think about immigration, if you think about medicare for all, if you think about clamping down on the power of corporations, it's not clear to me yet exactly where the mainstream of the democratic party is. it seems like it, all the energy is with the far left, is with the progressive movement. but i don't think we know until there's a leader. and if biden doesn't get into the race, and there's probably a 50/50 chance he jumps in, there's nobody in this field that looks like they would be seen as a formidable front-runner for some time, particularly as we get to april and every constituency has their favorite inside the party. so i think it will be fascinating. i think it will be long and i think it will be telling in terms of what is the modern democratic party look like. >> and i still think, jim, we're in the midst of a change election. i still think the electorate wants to see something different, something about the future. but what's interesting about elizabeth warren, i'm interested

in the way in which she gets characterized, the political headline recently had her death tethered, tied to the way in which people talked about hillary clinton. we see in interesting sorts of ways the gendered nature of our politics and the way in some ways elizabeth warren is being boxed in by the very bad coverage of hillary clinton. i think she can break through that and i hope we can break through that. >> well, we will see. it's starting to get, i think, very interesting. still ahead, it sure seems like a pretty big question right now. why did the chief justice of the supreme court personally intervene in the mueller probe? we're going to dig in to john roberts highly unusual move, just ahead on "morning joe." nus, just ahead on "morning joe."

with my bladder leakage, the products i've tried just didn't fit right. they were too loose. it's getting in the way of our camping trips. but with a range of sizes, depend fit-flex is made for me. with a range of sizes for all body types, depend fit-flex underwear is guaranteed to be your best fit.

as we've been talking about this morning, democrats will take control of the house tomorrow and the first item on their agenda appears to be ending the government shutdown. nancy pelosi, the presumptive

house speaker and senate majority leader chuck schumer announced plans on monday to fund the government without giving any additional funds for president trump's border wall made of concrete. their plan is to pass two separate bills, one would reopen almost every federal agency through september 2019, the other would temporarily open the department of homeland security through february 8th, with its current level of funding, and no new money for a border wall. white house press secretary sarah huckabee sanders has responded saying, president trump made a serious, good-faith offer to democrats to open the government, addressed the crisis at our border and protect all americans. we have heard nothing back from the democrats who so far have refused to compromise. the pelosi plan is a non-starter. susan paige, thanks for being on today. before you go give us some final thoughts. i will just launch by saying, speaking of matching the moment,

i think speaker pelosi is right in the pocket as it comes to a woman who matches the moment on the political scene who can stand up to trump and put him in his place. >> and who has been in in job before. we are going to learn a lot today and tomorrow about nancy pelosi and her leadership of this new democratic majority. it's true there is a lot more pressure on the white house to get out of this shutdown but the president is right when he says that the shutdown is a hindrance for nancy pelosi when it comes to dealing with the other things on her agenda that she's eager to do. this is going to be interesting to see nancy pelosi, an extremely skilled politician and strategist and technician, deal with a very different president. >> and, jim vandehei, before you go, this meeting today at the white house, my gut is the president is not going to have live cameras there after all, after the little mess he made with the nancy and chuck and

vice president pence sitting mutely by making a fool of himself owning the shutdown where they sat there smiling going, my god, is he really that dot, dot, dolt. i will let you finish the sentence. do you think this meeting will be public before live cameras? >> i don't think the meeting will. i was just reading michael len's apple and he is reporting that trump wants the meeting to be in the situation room, wants to bring the democratic leaders in there basically as a power play to make this seem like this is fully about national security, obviously would also keep the cameras away from that. i don't know if that type of stage craft is enough to convince nancy pelosi and chuck schumer change their mind. they know they have that power. i go back to that meeting on camera, remember how trump kept trying to demand control of that conversation and kept talking over nancy pelosi. i think what she showed is she's been around for a long time and she understands the levers of power better than a lot of

people inside the white house and right now it's just on immigration, more worrisome, she knows how to run oversight, knows how to deal with subpoenas and knows how to run these big high profile investigations including impeachment if it comes her way. >> i think he looked at that meeting as sort of a live episode of the apprentice and the only thing is that he was the apprentice at that point with nancy pelosi. susan page and jim vand lie, thank you both. still ahead nancy pelosi wasn't his first choice for house speaker but we will get tim ryan's take on her plan to ee open the government. you're watching "morning joe." e open the government. you're watching "morning joe." free access to every platform. yeah, that too. i don't want any trade minimums. yeah, i totally agree, they don't have any of those. i want to know what i'm paying upfront. yes, absolutely. do you just say yes to everything? hm. well i say no to kale. mm. yeah, they say if you blanch it it's better, but that seems like a lot of work. no hidden fees. no platform fees.

no trade minimums. and yes, it's all at one low price. td ameritrade. ♪

welcome back to "morning joe." it is wednesday, january 2nd. happy new year as we look at washington. wow. it's going to be a big day in washington. still with us we have veteran columnist and msnbc contributor mike barnicle, professor at princeton university, columnist for "time magazine" and author of the book "democracy in black" eddie glaude, jr. republican communications strategist and msnbc political contributor rick tyler. and joining the conversation, chief white house correspondent for "the new york times," peter baker. good to have you all on board. i hope you had a good new year's weekend. mitt romney, we're going to start there this hour because, wow, he has put donald trump on notice.

it's a striking new "washington post" opinion piece written by mitt romney and romney says trump has fallen short of the character required in our presidents and he does not stop there. on the week he will be sworn into office, he's not even sworn in yet, as a new republican senator from utah romney writes i do not intend to comment on every tweet or fault, but i will speak out against significant statements or actions that are divisive, racist, sexist, anti-immigrant, dishonest or destructive to democratic institutions. romney has a long history with trump. he wooed him for his endorsement in the 2012 presidential race, then he became the nation's leading never trumper in 2016. after trump won, romney felt obligated to give the new president a chance for a fresh start. he even was open to serving as secretary of state in the new administration. but with his op-ed romney is

making it clear, as a republican senator he will be jeff flake, bob corker and john mccain all wrapped up in one, all frequent trump critics, on steroids. and after bob mueller, maybe trump's most significant adversary this year, let me read a little more of what mitt romney had to say in in piece. quote, the world is watching. america has long been looked to for leadership. our economic and military strength was part of that, of course, but our enduring commitment to principled conduct in foreign relations to the rights of all people to freedom and equal justice was even more esteemed. trump's words and actions have caused dismay around the world. in a 2016 pew research center poll 84% of people in germany, britain, france and canada and sweden believe the american president would do the right thing in world affairs.

one year later, that number had fallen to 16%, and that is what i've been looking at for a long time in terms of our place in the world and how important that place is and how trump has moved us out of that place. peter baker, this is so interesting because you've got flake and corker and they've been critics. they're stepping out, though, they're leaving. mitt romney hasn't even walked in the door. he hasn't even been sworn in and look at what he's saying. this is a whole new dynamic. how do you predict this plays out? >> you're right absolutely about that. it's interesting that he decided to lay down a marker in effect even before he takes office. a lot of people have been wondering whether or not he was going to step into those shoes of bob corker and jeff flake are leaving behind as they depart the senate. whether or not mitt romney would become the full flengd outspoken critic of president trump and whether he would do more to go

along to get along. he has laid out his standard in effect. he doesn't disagree with the president on a lot of policies, he agrees with the president on taxes, regulations, on taking a tough line with china, on trade, on a number of the things the president is trying to do. what he's saying is that the presidency goes beyond simple policies that they might agree on, that there was a larger obligation to be president and that he's going to call him on it. immediately, of course, it has raised the question of not only what is he going to do in the senate as a possible critic of the senate, but what is he going to do as 2020 approaches. is there a chance he may join that race on the republican side the way we see john kasich doing and the way people expect jeff flake to. >> he's going all in. he's not going to wait and hem and haw about the wall and try to translate for the wall. he's going to go all in, say what he thinks, say what he thinks when he's thinking it in realtime and step up to this president.

stand up to him when necessary. and if this creates a really big opening for him politically, kimberly atkins, i could see a primary challenge. i could see someone saying he's got to be stopped within the republican party before he ruins it. if he hasn't already. >> yes, i mean, there is definitely room there for a primary challenge. i expect that we will see a primary challenge for a sitting president, something when you think about it in the grand scheme of things is really unusual, but i think it's almost certain this time around and we will have to see what role mitt romney plays in that. in terms of the op-ed itself, color me a little bit skeptical. i covered mitt romney since he was in the state house in massachusetts and i'm old enough to remember when he was a pro choice republican who vowed to protect gay rights. mitt romney has developed a really strong ability to do what is politically advantageous to mitt romney at the time. we know once he won the

governorship and had presidential ambitions and an increasingly conservative republican party he quickly became pro life and he stood on the state house steps and dee cried the state's legalization of same-sex marriage. we've seen him speak out against president trump during the campaign just as strongly as he did in this op-ed only to turn around and meet with him at bedminster and come out and call donald trump the man who can lead america to a better future. i think we really need to wait to see what mitt romney actually does once he gets here. >> yeah. >> he left room in that op-ed to say, well, you know, i'm not going to comment on tweets, when there are things i agree with i probably won't say anything. it's a very strong pull on the part of republicans under mitch mcconnell to fall in line and we will see how often he does that versus how often he speaks out. >> i just think -- and i agree with you, i mean, there may be questions about sort of what his intentions are, but he could be a force to be reckoned with for donald trump. >> he could be. >> right within the party.

rick tyler, what is -- what is the opening -- maybe i'm wishful thinking from my side of the aisle, but is he creating an opening for republicans to have a voice and to say when something is wrong when it's clearly wrong? >> it certainly creates an opening and he is carving out a path, but, look, i have no doubt that if mitt romney had been the newly elected senator from arizona or from tennessee, there is no way that he would have written this op-ed. he is in a very unique position because he's from a very conservative state which is utah, however, utah is predominantly mormon and the people from utah do not like donald trump, he is not popular there. so mitt romney is in a very advantageous position politically. he's very popular in utah, it's a very conservative state, he is a republican, he can speak out. he has taken that opportunity, i'm glad for it, but i don't think mitt romney would speak out if he was from arizona.

>> maybe not, but, you know, he ran for senator in the state of utah, and you're right, he's controversial there, i was surprised when i visited there recently and it was like very, very different readout than i thought i would get because we're really, you know -- joe and i are big fans of mitt and ann and i feel like my instinct is and i don't agree with him politically on every level, but my instinct is he's committed to serving, no matter what. he ran for president, he lost. most people walk away and go, ouch, that hurt. he goes right back in. he's got a thick skin. >> i agree with you, mika. i've met mitt romney and i've spent a significant amount of time with him, actually, and, you know, when he walks in a room he has a great presence. he knows how to be presidential. he would act the part. >> yes. >> you can trust that he will do the right thing. he is an honest person. >> that's right. >> he has taken advantage politically, he's been a bit of a chameleon for conservatives,

we are a little bit i think skeptical of him. would he be a better president than donald trump? hands down. no question. >> right. >> so we will see how this develops. i think it's an interesting development and a welcome one. >> mike barnicle, you know him and i think what angle he's taking and i don't think he's sitting here planning on taking an angle, but this is just built in. baked into the cake with mitt romney. the angle he's going to be taking is principle. he's always going to be judging this president based on principle, based on moral compass, based on what's right. gosh, i really feel like that would be refreshing right now, wouldn't you? >> well, yeah, i mean, there's a lot that went into this op-ed that we won't don't know about because clearly a lot of it was personal. kimberly is absolute right in her description of mitt romney, he is and always has been, to be polite about it, idealogically malleable. that's why he's in politics. he is a politician, you know, he switches his positions on

certain issues in order to get elected. okay, everybody rides with that, but this thing is different. this op-ed is different. my own personal assessment, having not spoken to him about it obviously, is it comes down to a couple of things baked into the mix here. one is character. mitt romney has character. donald trump lacks character. that's a lot of what drove this piece i would assume. the other aspect, and it's underrated but i think it's there, donald trump went out of his way to humiliate mitt romney in his pursuit of being secretary of state. humiliated him publicly and repeatedly. no matter who you are, no matter how generous in nature you might have, no matter how openly kind and forgiving you might appear to be, as romney often does, you can't be publicly humiliated and forget about it. i don't think he forgot about it, he had. he. >> i think you're right.

>> not at all. >> i think you're right, mike. what's interesting to me about the op-ed is that it shows the blurry line between the critique of trump and his character and the critique of republican policies. so there is a sense in which the carnival barker can call out our moral outrage, we see him, we hear him, we see what he does, what he says, and we want to dismiss him and we want to separate that from the fact that he's appointing conservative judges, the fact that he passed the tax cut that disproportionately benefits the wealthy, the fact that healthcare -- healthcare, deregulation, all the things that mitt romney says he agrees with, but when you actually ask the question, well, do, mike, the american public agree with those policies? how might the american public agree with donald trump and the republican party's position on healthcare? so there is this blurry line between our rejection of trump and the rejection of the policies that trump is the carnival barker for.

i think romney's op-ed kind of makes that blurry line explicit to me. what do you think, kimberly? >> yeah, i mean, i think that is a tightrope that you see mitt romney trying to walk in realtime in this op-ed and really focusing on, well, i'm talking about character, i'm going to agree with him sometimes, but this is the presidency. the presidency is different and you need to have the moral underpinnings that a president should have that donald trump does not -- does not have that. but at the same time we will have to -- i think we just have to say we have to see. mitt romney will have a powerful position in the senate as somebody who holds a vote in a still narrow majority. they picked up a couple seats but that majority is still narrow. >> yes. >> he can use his voice and his vote to stand up to the president and that's where the proof will be. that's where the pudding is. >> yeah, just a time note on

something mike barnicle said struck me about the humiliation factor and how men handle that, and it is true, there is a different -- it's sort of like when men get -- i know this from studying the psychology of men and women in "know your value." when men get fired or humiliated they set out to get even and when women get fired or humiliated they think what did i do wrong? i think mitt romney is definitely very male on this front where he's thing, uh-huh, i'm coming back, but women are stepping up to get even, too. look at elizabeth warren's story. this should be interesting in the next two years to see how all of this plays out. president trump, by the way, is appearing to soften on his demand for a wall, holding his first meeting with congressional democrats, saying he would, quote, take the mantel for a government shutdown three weeks ago. remember that? that was kind of a very public embarrassment for him with nancy pelosi and chuck schumer and he was so proud to say he would

take credit for the shutdown because he would own it because he wants his wall. people aren't getting paid through the holidays, that's not something you want to own and politically the president did not understand the ramifications of that. but maybe today he does. trump has invited the top eight congressional leaders from both parties to the white house for a briefing on the border wall this afternoon. it will be the first significant conversation he has had with democrats since the partial shutdown began 12 days ago. this, hours after trump tweeted, quote, border security and the wall thing, thing in quotation marks, and shutdown is not where nancy pelosi wanted to start her tenure as speaker. let's make a deal? to which speaker designate pelosi replied donald trump has given democrats a great opportunity to show how we will govern responsibly and quickly pass our plan to end the

irresponsible trump shutdown. just the first sign of things to come in our new democratic majority committed to working for the people. so, peter baker, this is interesting, this dynamic, i believe, according to jim vandehei of axios is going to play out potentially if it all comes together in the situation room, so he's going to, what, look everyone up in there in private and beg, or how does he get out of this, because it feels like from looking at all the different details and all the different angles on this, i don't see how the president isn't completely boxed in right now. >> well, it is a difficult situation because, in fact, sarah huckabee sanders has now said that the pelosi plan is a nonstarter. so this idea of separating border security and department of homeland security funding from the rest of government that's shut down, you know, he's now officially at least taken off the table. that could change. one of the things we've seen is he's pretty malleable on negotiations as well. but he hasn't been the dealmaker he promised to be.

he came into office saying, i'm the ultimate dealmaker, i'm a businessman, i've been doing this my whole life and, in fact, there have been very few examples where he has sat down with anybody who was adversarial to him and come back with a compromise that both sides could leave with. and that's where we are at right now. what is that compromise? in any normal situation you might say split the differencer give half the money to this -- this is not where they are at. both sides believe -- at least the democrats do -- that they are politically advantageous position right now. president trump is pretty locked into this, he gave up his mar-a-lago vacation for this, he is a he not going to simply take nothing, that's where he is at at the moment any way. it's hard to see where they come out of this at this point. >> and, rick tyler, you know, there is some reporting or some sense that we have that republicans are really frustrated that they are in this position. they're trying to translate for the president and he keeps doubling down on his stupid wall that nobody wants.

what would be -- what would be the inspiration for democrats to give in in any way? what would make them not go in there and just say, no. sorry. huh-uh. not going to negotiate on this. we're not giving you anything you want, period, end of story, and then sit there, and let silence drip over the room. because here is the thing, and i warn democrats today before they go into this meeting and all their supporters, listen to me, this man can't be trusted, this man has proven over the course of years that he cannot be trusted, that his word cannot be trusted, that he will say within thing and walk out of the meeting and completely say something else and run over you. that's what he will do. so what do you do when you're going into negotiate with someone who has been proven internationally, repetitively to be completely untrustworthy? >> well, you can't. whatever the president says in

the situation room and comes out of the room will be different in three days from now. >> so -- >> the democrats have no reason to negotiate. i mean, their opening position is nancy pelosi says to the president, mr. president, your campaign promise was that you would build a wall and mexico was going to pay for it. mexico is not paying for the with a you will so you cannot fulfill that promise. two-thirds of the american people do not support the wall, although it enjoys large support among the republican party and his base, there is just nowhere to go. now we're down to from $25 billion at one point, chuck schumer offered $20 billion in exchange for daca, now we are down to $5 billion. the president made a deal and reneged on that deal and now the democrats are going to want to extract something new. they are in every position to get something more, not less than the $5.7 billion. theres no way the democrats can come out and accept the $5.7 billion and open government as usual. the democrats have to show that they got something more out of this meeting. nancy pelosi is going to control the agenda for the next two

years, not donald trump. >> peter baker -- >> mike? >> wall, no wall? deal, no deal? syria, in, out? north korea, quiet, noisy? who around president trump today, who do we have around president trump today capable of offering sane advice and counsel that would impact the president's decisions? >> that's a great question. his circle has shrunk obviously in recent weeks. we have a new acting chief of staff, the fact that he's acting means that he by definition doesn't have the job in a permanent way, therefore, doesn't have the same clout that a permanent chief of staff would have. a lot of other positions still remain unfilled. we are looking for -- he's going to be looking now for a new defense secretary with jim mattis out the door, he has to try to push attorney general through the new senate, to get that in there. there will be a lot of questions asked about that. and increasingly you see a president in the white house who

doesn't trust the people around him, who seems at war with the people around him at times, doesn't even want to hear their advice because he thinks that this he don't know what they're talking about. our reporting before the break show that he increasingly spends time over in the residence, he even has meetings over there, feels watched when he is at the oval office. he's spending even more time, if that's possible, watching television than he had before. so it's a situation where he's a man following his own advice and following the importunings of the people he sees on fox news in particular or some other venue that is convincing him that he needs to stand strong otherwise he will look week in the new era of divided government. >> so, kimberly atkins, you have a piece outlining the many challenges president trump will face in 2019, how high is bob mueller on that list? >> bob mueller is at the top of that list. i mean, we expect his investigation to wrap up this

year and that will be the single most defining moment of the trump presidency so far, depending what comes out of it. i mean, we have coming up the sentencing the michael flynn, someone who had made a deal to basically walk for his cooperation and a judge is now looking -- scans at that deal and telling him he very well may go to the prison. that's the president's former national security adviser. that's extraordinary. we still have yet to put together the final pieces when it comes to things like wikileaks and the potential involvement of the trump campaign, that is going to be huge. right behind that will be congressional democrats when they take control and the sloue of investigations that will launch into president trump and his campaign and businesses. this will be a year very much where the president will feel under siege. >> peter baker, we want to thank you very much for being on this morning. still ahead on "morning

joe," democrat tim ryan has had some real issues in the past with his own party's leadership. we're going to get his perspective now on where things stand as nancy pelosi is set to begin her new tenure as house speaker. you're watching "morning joe." we will be right back. watching" we will be right back.

i'm ken jacobus and 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. which i used to offer health insurance to my employees. what's in your wallet? hey, batter, batter, [ crowd cheers ] like everyone, i lead a busy life. but i know the importance of having time to do what you love. at comcast we know our customers' time is valuable.

that's why we have 2-hour appointment windows, including nights and weekends. so you can do more of what you love. my name is tito, and i'm a tech-house manager at comcast. we're working to make things simple, easy and awesome. welcome back to "morning joe." joining us now democratic congressman tim ryan of ohio. welcome back to the show, it's great to have you on. happy new year. >> thank you. happy new year. >> i want to start with the business of what's going on in washington. are we going -- are you guys going to reopen the government? and what's the democrats' best outcome in terms of trying to solve the shutdown crisis? >> well, i think we're offering a very reasonable proposal that the senate -- republican senate has already voted for. the opportunity here, i think, for democrats is really to look

responsible, to look like we want to open the government, we want to sit down and talk, we want to figure out how to make a deal with the president and i think he's going to be in a lot of trouble if he continues to look like he's the obstructionist, he is the one that can't be right hand with, he is the one that really doesn't want to make a deal. that's the opportunity here politically, but the problem is we've got to get the government up and running. >> and so with nancy pelosi at the helm, are those who were skeptical of nancy pelosi at one point or another, now united behind her, including you? >> yeah, absolutely. you know, i don't think anyone at any point questioned her ability to negotiate, for her to be in rooms like the one she's going to be in today, like the one she was in last week, and be as effective as anybody else in our caucus or in our party. i think that donald trump, i think, understands that now and we have all the confidence that she will advocate on our behalf

and get the best deal possible foreign the american people. >> congressman, tell me, if i'm wrong, when i'm sitting here thinking to myself, well, this is just going to be an extended version of groundhog day, that it's going to be a different side, you guys, the democrats, you are going to do your job, you are going to pass a budget tomorrow, you are going to pass a continuing resolution to fund the government through september and homeland security through february, but at the end of the day nothing will get done again, over and over and over. >> that's my fear, too. you know, we're dealing with someone who is dishonest, i think as mika articulated earlier, you can make a deal in a room with a handshake and by the time he's out of the room the deal is over, he's in front of the camera. let's just put this all in perspective, the main problem here is he's worried about the

investigation that's breathing down his neck right now, so his only goal is to appeal to ann coulter, laura ingraham and rush limbaugh. we saw the flip-flop a week or two ago when they didn't like the deal he was going to make and he changed immediately. he feels like he has to protect that base because he fears what's coming down the pike in the investigation. as long as that's the case you have the tail wagging the dog and we are going to get government from rush limbaugh's studio in south florida. >> representative ryan, this is eddie glaude from princeton university. i saw you impassioned speech on the floor of the house on december 21st when you said that the other side had amnesia. given who your partners are, what agenda should be the democratic party's agenda? what should you guys try to get done, given the scenario that mike just described, the situation, the environment you just described, what should you

do in this moment? what should the party be doing in this moment? >> i think we need to push a real robust economic agenda that will appeal to everybody in the country. i mean, you talk about infrastructure, we have people losing their pensions, we still have people who can't retire properly. the american people, most of them, are barely keeping their nose above water. so even if we can't pass things, eddie, i think we need to push an agenda that let's these working class people, as i've said a million times, white, black, brown, gay, straight, man, woman, working class people, work hard, play by the rules, that the democratic party is their party and that the trump party and the republican party aren't working for them. i don't know -- you know, i think we are going to be in the business of just trying to keep the government working, but if we can come to an agreement on infrastructure, a couple key things, let's try to do that, but again, we turn around and

the republicans say, well, we don't have any money. they just gave a $2.3 trillion tax cut that went primarily to the top one, two, three, four, five percent of people in the country. it's very difficult but the most important thing for us is to reconnect the working class people and let them know they need to be voting for and supporting democrats. >> rick tyler, i want to talk about the working class district who live in your district in northeast ohio. it seems to me those voters are very emblematic of voters that live in wisconsin, michigan, pennsylvania just to name a few random states. a lot of those voters -- they voted for trump and they are the reason trump is president today. what is your appeal to those voters? and you know them well because you live among them. to keep those voters away from donald trump and to support the democratic nominee whoever it may be? what is the message to them? >> well, the shine is off the apple with the president, i will say. we just had a factory that's closing down here, general motors auto factory.

the economic issue has got to be the issue. they don't want to hear him shut down the government over a border wall while they're barely being able to make ends meet. that's what they're seeing in this president. he is chaos and chaos is bad for the economy. wages are still -- they're going up, but they are not going up more than inflation is going up. so democrats got to say, look, all of these communities that have been disconnected from globalization, disconnected because of automation, the democrats are going to have a full throated agenda to replug these communities back into the global economy. there is growth, there is wealth being created, it's just only happening to a few percent in the country and the democratic party in wisconsin, in michigan, in ohio, we're going to help that happen. there are industries that are growing, not to get too much into the weeds, but wind and solar and additive manufacturing, these industries are growing by 30%, but yet

venture capital only goes -- 80% of it only goes to three states. there is the agenda to get that private capital back into these states so that we can have private sector jobs being created? look, the government has its responsibility, but as democrats we've also got to be for growth and business and new job creation and startups and entrepreneurship so that the construction trades can build buildings for these new factories and these new buildings that will house the work. you know, we've got to get that agenda moving, we've got to clean up communities, there's still so much blight. infrastructure is not what it should be. we have a big agenda that we can push and i think those working class people will move back into the democratic fold if that's the focus of our agenda. >> congressman, kimberly atkins has a question for you. kimberly? >> good morning, congressman. >> good morning. >> the issues that you're talking about, the economy and infrastructure, it seems that

the issues at the top of the democratic agenda as i am hearing it focuses on things like voting rights, focuses on gun control and climate change. i want to talk a little bit about the unity within your caucus, how confident are you that the issues you just addressed are going to take center stage as opposed to the other things that the more progressive members of your caucus are talking about? >> well, we can walk and chew gum at the same time. those are all really important issues. the immigration, the daca issue is important, making sure our schools are safe with regard to making sure that firearms only get into the hands of responsible gun owners. these are all things that we can do and i will support, i just think the main thrust every time people turn on the tv they need to also hear us talking about jobs and wages and pensions and growing the economy and communities like youngstown, ohio, or flint, michigan, or

gary, indiana. we can do both and we have to do both. that's the responsibility of a national political party. and i just think that those voters that we lost, you know, those voters vote on pocketbook issues and so we have to -- as vigorously and forcefully -- talk about those issues of wages and families not keeping up. because when they're sitting at the kitchen table, that's what they're thinking about. they're writing out the bills and they know the squeeze and they don't have a savings for retirement and they can't afford to send their kid to college. they've got to see us advocating for them, but we can walk and chew gum and we have responsibility to do both because they are all very important issues right now in the country. >> and, congressman, before you go, let's talk about the meeting that might happen today in the situation room with top republican leaders and top democratic leaders, including speaker pelosi who you challenged a few years ago. i know that -- i'm trying to think of what deal could they cut and whatever deal they cut

or whatever they come to, i would suggest that democrats insist he write it down right in front of them and hand it to them so they can hold up in his writing what he agreed to because he will walk out of there and walk all over them. we know this. we know this will happen. there's got to be some sort of proof if they've agreed upon something that they have that they can walk out the door with. i really honestly don't know any other way to be able to sort of know that what happened in there is going to be translated honestly to the outside world. what are your hopes as we look ahead to this meeting, especially as we're facing, what, day 13 of a shutdown? >> yeah, i hope we can get things moving, at least get the government back open. i like the deal we're offering, the senate has already agreed to it, and then maybe if we have until february 8th with regard to homeland security, maybe there's room for a bigger deal.

maybe the president is looking too narrowly at this issue. maybe there is a way to get daca involved, to get comprehensive immigration reform involved, get these people out of the shadows. we can do border security and be able to do immigration reform which we know all analysts say that gives us about 1% to 1.5% increase in the gdp. it's good for the economy. what we should abdicate for as democrats is how do we get these new immigrants in the union so they can help push wages up and be part of the economic justice issue, too. this can all tie together for everybody where we have border security but we also have immigration reform. i would encourage everybody let's look a little bigger and try to solve a few problems here while we're at it. >> can only hope. congressman tim ryan, thank you very much for being on this morning. >> thank you. coming up, the president has been silent so far on mitt romney but he wasted no time

lashing out at a four-star general who called him dishonest and immoral. we will talk about that next on "morning joe." lk about that nex "morning joe." in't easy.

12 hours? 20 dogs? where's your belly rubs? after a day of chasing dogs you shouldn't have to chase down payments. (vo) send invoices and accept payments to get paid twice as fast. (danny) it's time to get yours! (vo) quickbooks. backing you.

president trump took to

twitter on the first day of the new year to attack an american four-star general. on sunday retired general stanley mccrystal had this to say about the president's strategy towards syria and isis and overall his demeanor. >> if you pull american influence out, you're likely to have greater instability and of course it will be much more difficult for the united states to try to push events in any direction. there is a lot of intelligence that says there are actually more isis fighters around the world now than there were a couple years ago. >> if you were asked to join the trump administration what would you say? >> i'd say no. i think it's important for me to work for people who i think are basically honest, who tell the truth as best they know it. >> you think he is a liar? >> i don't think he tells the truth. >> is trump immoral in your view? >> i think he is. >> the commander in chief

responded by putting mccrystal's rank in quotes, adding that he, quote, got fired like a dog. last assignment a total bust. known for his big, dumb mouth and adding a partisan jab that the four-star general is still, quote, a hillary lover. retired four-star admiral william mccraven who led the mission to take down osama bin laden issued this statement to cnn. stan mccrystal is the finest officer i ever served with. he is a deep strategic thinker with unparalleled personal courage. his leadership of special operations forces in iraq and afghanistan unquestionably saved the lives of thousands of american and allied troops as well as countless civilians. no general i know has given more in the service of this country. mike barnicle, i mean, he was asked the questions but he did very clearly criticize the president, the president has a right to disagree, but of course

his disagreement comes in such a special -- especially trumpian way that has brought -- has coarse ended the level of our discussions over the past two years. >> mika, this is just another that you had ri disappointing example of the president's lack of character. here is just one significant difference between general -- between admiral mccraven and general mccrystal, stan mccrystal. both men have looked the enemy in the eye. the president of the united states had mike pompeo call general mattis in order to tell him he had to leave at the end of the week. the president of the united states has no eye contact with anyone that he wants to dismiss or fire. stan mccrystal and admiral mccraven, have, again, as i

said, looked the enemy in the eye. the maligning of stan mccrystal's character was particularly reprehensible because, again, as donald trump often does, it's a lie. his twitter feed encompassed a lie about stan mccrystal. stan mccrystal offered his resignation to president obama before president obama reluctantly fired him and then praised him, praised stan mccrystal on his way out the door. he did not speak ill of the president -- president obama or his administration. it was the people who were gathered off the record conversation, they thought it was off the record in paris, people who worked for stan mccrystal. i don't know what toll this takes on other members of the military, but it certainly is another revealing example of who donald trump really is. >> like we need more, but okay. up next, "politico" calls it a holiday mystery.

why did john roberts intervene in the mueller probe? we will talk to a former federal prosecutor who is picking apart a strange set of circumstances. that discussion is next on "morning joe." cumstances that discussion is next on "morning joe."

i don't keep track of regrets. and i don't add up the years. but what i do count on... is boost®. delicious boost® high protein nutritional drink now has 33% more protein, along with 26 essential vitamins and minerals. boost® high protein look for savings on boost® in your sunday's paper. seaonly abreva cany to help sget rid of it in...

...as little as 2 1/2 days when used at the first sign. abreva starts to work immediately to block the virus and protect healthy cells. abreva acts on it. so you can too.

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. my ultimatum is put up or shut up, bob. you know, what do you have? there are those of us who believe you don't have anything on collusion. by the way, if he did it's not a crime so what the heck are you doing. what do you have on collusion? >> exactly. >> if you don't have a darn thing on collusion the whole thing is a phoney. >> okay. just a reminder there of where rudy giuliani, the president's personal attorney, quotes, sees things as robert mueller continues to dig in. meanwhile, since august legal reporters have been following a mysterious grand jury subpoena case working through the d.c. courts with possible links to special counsel -- the special counsel investigation. then on the sunday before

christmas supreme court chief justice john roberts unexpectedly weighed in, creating even more questions, and what an op-ed in "politico" calls a politico calls a holiday mystery. for more we turn to the piece's author, former u.s. attorney in the southern district of new york and current president of mclardia associates. nelson, welcome to the show. what are the basics in case? just help us all understand what's going on here and if you can explain what did chief justice roberts decide to do? >> first of all, 31 years ago this winter, rudy giuliani swore me in as a southern district u.s. attorney. >> wow. >> and it's amazing to me to see the change that's come over him as he represents his latest client here. this grand jury -- grand jury cases are always somewhat mysterious because they're under seal. they're designed to protect the secrecy of the grand jury

process. they use, it's called in-ray grand jury subpoena. you don't know who the parties are. you don't even know who the lawyers are. in this case, politico learned by accident or by good reporting in october, that this particular case seemed to involve mueller's office because of something dwloefr heard in the clerk's office and all of the polices clicked together. it looks as though since january, there's been a furiously litigated subpoena matter with the special counsel's office looking for documents or testimony from an entity that has fought back with vigor. this case has been in the district court, it bounced to the court of appeals, it went back to the zikt court, up to the court of appeals, each state furiously litigated with additional motions and filings. at one point when they had their argument in december, the court clerk cleared the entire floor of the d.c. circuit court of

appeals so nobody could even learn the identity of the lawyers who were walking into the courtroom. >> that's amazing. what is it? any idea? any clue? any concept of what it might be? >> we now have a clue because the week before christmas the d.c. circuit court of appeals issued a short opinion, a three-page opinion, using code words. it said something called the corporation, which was owned by country a was the targets of a grand jury subpoena. it indicated that country a had sought both sovereign immunity on behalf of its corporation and had filed documents from its own regulator. in other words, an official of country a filed documents saying it's illegal for this entity to provide these documents to the prosecutor in this case. and my experience, it's highly unusual for an ordinary litigant

to get attention of foreign government officials to file documents in another country's jurisdiction, and yet that hand here. and then the great mystery, four judges in a row had ruled against the corporation and for mueller. the district court and then a unanimous panel of the d.c. circuit all agreed that there was no merit to the corporation's arguments and mueller should get the documents. and they ordered -- they held that the corporation should be in contempt. well, two days before christmas on a sunday, john roberts reached in and stopped the clock on this litigation. he stayed the contempt order and he gave the government a week to respond. what does this mean? we don't know exactly but we do know something about those papers, filed by corporations, owned by country a, caught the attention of the chief justice. and then he then asked for a

week for the government to respond, which they have now done and we're all watching the docket sheet to see what happens next. >> so nelson, let me ask you about the chief justice, pull that string a little. we had the supreme court go through a very public and nasty bout with the kavanaugh nomination. i mean the court got touched up a bit there publicly. and now you have the chief justice inserting himself in this case and it's not the first time that he's acted sort of out of the judicial norm over the past year. do you see him based upon your experience, you've been in washington a long time, senate judiciary and stuff like that, do you see the chief justice evolving into something, an additional role he has yet to take on? >> this is a really, really fascinating question and issue that you pose. my first job in washington was on the senate judiciary committee. i worked for joe biden. the first task i handled were stephen breyer's confirmation

hearings. so i watched the supreme court for a long time. roberts is a great strategist. i may disagree with him on judicial issues, but he's a great strategist and he's somebody who believes deeply in the integrity of the supreme court. believes in someone who wants to preserve the institutional strength and the authority of the court. and this leads him to side sometimes with the liberal block on important cases, as we saw for example in the obamacare case when it first came up several years ago, and as we saw just two weeks ago when he ruled with the liberals against trump on the asylum case. and then two days later he reaches in and he takes this case, one of thousands, and rules against mueller and for corporation a. >> wow. all right, this really is a mystery, and you're going to have to come back and help us solve it or watch it play out.

nelson cunningham, thank you very much for coming on the show this morning. >> pleasure, thank you. still ahead, it is day 12 of the government shutdown and congressional leaders are heading to the white house today. but with democrats taking control of the house tomorrow, who's going to budge first on the president's concrete border wall? you're watching "morning joe." we will be right back.

we have to have border

security and a wall is part of border security. i hear so much about the wall is old-fashioned. no, the wall is not old fashion. the wall is 100% foolproof. you look at a wheel, i guess they would say the wheel is old fashioned but it's been around for a long time. the wall is the only way to do it. technology, nobody knows more about technology than me but technology are just the bells and whistles on the wall. if you don't have the wall, you're going to have people coming in. >> oh, so much for lindsey graham calling the border wall a metaphor. president trump is now asking nancy pelosi to cut a deal. three weeks after proudly claiming he would take full responsibility for a government shutdown. meanwhile, we may soon see a presidential tweet about mitt romney, after the incoming senator absolutely blasted the president while pledging to speak out against racists, sexists, dishonest and destructive actions. welcome to washington, mitt

romney. and welcome to "morning joe." let's dig in on all of this. so the president hopes to hold a meeting today at the white house on border security with congressional leaders of both parties. we're in the middle of a partial government shutdown, forced by donald trump, to try to get $5 billion to build that wall on the mexican border that he promised during the campaign. now, let me get this straight, it is a wall that most people don't want, the data proves that. but whatever comes from today's meeting, one thing is clear, trump is going to have to surrender both on ending the shutdown and building a wall. the last time trump met with the democratic leaders face to face, he proudly said he was going to own the shutdown. now he does. by stubbornly sticking to a promise that only about a quarter of americans support. trump has dug himself and his republican party into a very big hole, just as democrats tomorrow, i believe -- yep,

tomorrow, they're taking control of the house. the reality is trump's my way or highway obsession with the wall has been for months nothing more than a fantasy and self-inflicted wound for himself, and also for his party, the republican party. today is john kelly's final day as white house chief of staff and he's talking. he's already told "the l.a. times" times a lot of stuff, including the other day he said that the idea of a concrete wall on the border had been rejected long ago by homeland security experts who work in the administration. so the advice to the president is it's not a good idea from his own team. trump has absolutely no leverage, none. and many republicans are furious that he has less than in political peril for absolutely no good reason. promising a wall that mexico

would pay for might have helped trump get the nomination, might have been that red meat. but right now it's the president, not democrats, who are walled in or boxed in so to speak. so with us this morning we have veteran columnist and msnbc contributor mike barnicle. professor at princeton university, columnist for "time" magazine and author of the book eddie vaughn jr. msnbc political contributor rick tyler. cofounder and ceo of axios, jim vand ahigh and washington bureau chief for "usa today," susan paige. great to have you all. happy new year. and here we go. president trump appearing to soften on his demand for a wall, holing his first meeting with congressional democrats saying he would, quote, take the mantel for a government shutdown. this was about three weeks ago we've been going through all of this. trump has interviewed the top eight congressional leaders from both parties to the white house for a briefing on the border

wall today, this afternoon. it will be the first significant conversation he's had with democrats since the partial shutdown began 12 days ago. this hours after trump tweeted, quote, border security and the wall thing. and that would be "thing" in quotation marks and shutdown is not where nancy pelosi wanted to start her tenure as speaker. let's make a deal? to wit speaker designate nancy pelosi replied, donald trump has given democrats a great opportunity to show how we will govern responsibly and quickly pass our plan to end the irresponsible trump shutdown. just the first sign of things to come in our new democratic majority committed to working for the people. and most of the people, rick tyler, don't want a wall. so how does trump get out of this box? and do republicans stay in the box with trump? >> well, trump will declare this week he asked the army corps of

engineer to erect a force field. the reason you will know it's true is because he tweeted about it. all kidding aside, that's about his only option. nancy pelosi will go to the house, she will pass a continuing resolution to open the government, she's going to send that over to mitch mcconnell. it will be up to him whether he will present it to the senate for a vote or not. but the point is that the democrats will be able to show that they are acting to reopen the government, and it is in fact republicans who are blocking them and keeping the government from reopening and, therefore, the republicans and donald trump will own the shutdown. i think this is going -- this will probably prove out to be the longest shutdown in american history, which is 21 days. we're halfway there now. and it's just an impasse, and lindsey graham and the republicans are trying to give trump a way out by saying it's a metaphor. we're talking about border security here. but he keeps redoubling down on this idea of a concrete wall. to put it in perspective, there is no wall on the southern border. there is zero miles of wall.

there's not one section of barrier which is wall. there's roughly about less than 800 miles of barrier. half of that is vehicle protection so that vehicles can't cross but you can jump, literally walk right across it. so there's less than 400 miles of actual pedestrian barriers and that is built in the easiest places. all of those variables cost $7.1 billion to make. so where is trump going to start to begin this $5 billion wall to cover the rest of the 1,250 miles that have virtually no barrier whatsoever? point all of this out, it's just raw politics and it bears no resemblance to reality of what's really happening here. >> don't politics usually have give or take? jim, i know it's just tweets but i'm sensing as rick tyler answers my question with a question, that there is -- because there are no answers to trump's thinking, but there is

maybe a shift in dynamic between speaker pelosi and donald trump. you really see trump in a different place. how does he save face? >> yeah, i think you're talking about him being backed into a corner, he really is. there's not an obvious solution. it really comes down to whether or not nancy pelosi and to some except chuck schumer want to squeeze him. if they want to hold out, they defined it as the trump shutdown. if they say we're not giving you any more money for the wall, there is no way to save face. you have lindsey graham who has a weird but mostly close relationship with trump saying there is a way out, you would basically trade more money for the wall and he's saying the $5 billion the president wants in exchange for additional protection for dreamers and resolution on dakkia. if they can do that, that might be a way out. but it's not clear that democrats would go for it, particularly in this environment because they really do feel like they have their boot on trump's throat. and why let him out if you don't

need to let him out? because what i think trump is not reading correctly, especially as you look at the tweets, he's assuming the democratic party today is the democratic party of '06 or 2010. i think the party's changed on immigration. i think the feeling they have to appear to be really strong by supporting a lot more border security, that has waned and the enthusiasm of the democratic party is for protecting immigrants. i think that's the miscalculation that he made and he continues to make in those tweets. >> susan paige, continuing with the boot metaphor, maybe trying to think of a different one, but they do have it right now. they've got him cornered. and the question is, why in the world would they give him an out, given the way this president has behaved personally? given the way this president has led. given the way this president has behaved on the international front. it seems like he's such a runaway beer truck that there really isn't any relationship

building and leverage they would want to create out of letting up on him. >> and, of course, this is a different democratic party. this is the first day of president trump's next two years, which is an empowered democratic party with position to have leverage they have not had previously in his presidency. and jim just said, it's not the same democratic parties since 2006. it's not the same democratic party as 2018. >> nope. >> this is a democratic caucus in the house particularly that is more aggressive, more assertive, less willing to compromise, less trusting of trump. the deal, remember a year ago they talked about a big deal on immigration that would include protection for the dreamers along with money for a wall. that is not a deal democrats would make today. it's to the a deal the democratic caucus would back up. and it's not a deal that nancy pelosi would cut in this first test case of what her relationship is going to be with this white house. >> totally. and also this is on a different

level for democrats completely because for many, many months they've been waiting for a voice with this president. they've been waiting to be able to hold him accountable on many levels, and now they have it. they don't want to squander it but it is a different dynamic. and i'm not sure president trump completely understands that. as the president faces the prospect of abandoning large-scale plans for a fill border wall to end the shutdown, aides and allies have tried to downplay trump's signature campaign issue. they're trying. in his exit interview with lt lt, he said it's not a wall. the president still says wall. oftentimes he will say barrier or fencing. now he's tended towards steel slats but we left a solid concrete wall early on in the administration. trump pushed back on that but others also suggested the wall was merely symbolic.

>> first of all, let's not all acquiesce to the ridiculous soundbite this is about a wall. they're trying to make wall a four-letter word when the president's been talking about border security all along. >> the wall has become a metaphor for border security. and what we're talking about is a physical barrier of where it makes sense. >> i'm going to try not to acquiesce to quick soundbites but the president has made it clear, with his own words over and over again during his campaign he wasn't talking about the idea of the wall, he was talking about an actual wall. >> i will build a great, great wall. it is a very serious wall. it's got to be a real wall, not a toy wall. it's 10-feet tall and it's a fence. see the way they go over our little fence. it's not a wall, it's a fence. people don't go over my wall. i want it to be beautiful because maybe some day they're going to call it athe trump wall. we're talking a serious wall,

not a fence, you misreported it. we're going to build a wall. >> i don't know how he gets around that but the republicans are trying to help him saying it's a metaphor and then he walks it back and says no, it's a wall. there's that and this. you know john kelly, you know mattis. these guys are leaving. and i guess my question is for you, what do you think your friend friends' responsibility is as they leave this white house to talk about what they have seen in very real terms, especially as this unfolds for democrats taking power, questions about the shutdown that's being held and also other questions surrounding this president? >> i think general kelly has already spoken to some extent with molly o'toole in "the l.a. times." general mattis spoke out strongly in his resignation letter. >> definitely.

>> but i don't think they will be on sunday talk shows. neither man is like that. >> still ahead this morning, most republicans only speak out against the president on their way out of office but mitt romney is criticizing the president right on his way in. we will read from his scathing new op-ed next. new op-ed next it nourishes and strengthens my joints for the long-term. osteo bi-flex; find our coupon in sunday's paper.

at booking.com, we can't guarantee you'll good at that water jet thingy... but we can guarantee the best price on this hotel. or any accommodation, from homes to yurts. booking.com booking.yeah

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. as we mentioned before the break, former republican presidential nominee and incoming utah senator mitt romney is criticizing, to say the least, president trump in a blistering new op-ed in "the washington post." his piece is entitled, the president shapes the public character of the nation, trump's character falls short. it was published last night, just two days before romney will be sworn in to the u.s. senate. he writes in part this -- it is well known that donald trump was not my choice for the republican presidential nomination. after he became the nominee, i hoped his campaign would refrain

from resentment and name calling. it did not. with the nation so divided, resentful and angry, presidential leadership and qualities of character is indispensable. and it is in this province where the incumbent's shortfall has been most glaring. i have allowed as i would with any president in or out of my part. i will support policies i believe are in the best interest of the country and my state and oppose those that are not. i do not intend to comment on every tweet or fault, but i will speak out against significant statements or actions that are divisive, racist, sexist, anti-immigrant, dishonest or destructive to democratic institutions. so a lot there. this piece is quite incredible. he hasn't even started his job. he hasn't even been sworn in as senator for the great state of utah, but rick tyler, i feel like this is jeff flake, ben sasse, bourque corker,

definitely a touch of mccain all wrapped up in one. this could be a very different dynamic if this is what we're getting out of senator mitt romney right out of the box. >> mitt, if he follows through on comments in all of the things he said he would comment on, he's going to be a very busy person in 2019. >> and vocal. >> i think it's welcomed, and i give him a lot of credit that he's not even sworn in yet. he will be sworn in by the vice president, which will make an interesting swearing in after having published this op-ed but he's essentially laying down the gauntlet he's not going to be quiet. and i think that's a good thing. my criticism of romney, if i have one, and this sounds very harsh but in a sense romney is trump's ideological twin. romney is a man of great character. there's no question about that. he certainly can speak about it but in terms of policy, he's been all over the map. and even in the column he

misstates the conservative view about trade. he said he supports trump's approach to trade with china. i couldn't disagree more. i think trump is 180 degrees out of phase. remember, there was zero, zero, soybean imports to china from the united states in november. compare that to 4.7 million metric tons in november 2017. so we've gone from that to zero because of trump's trade policies. >> right. so susan paige though, what i see -- and correct me if i'm wrong -- is republicans can watch and see if this realtime reaction to horrific bullying, anti-immigrant statements, things that are destructive to our country, realtime reactions on the part of the republicans, they can watch to see how it plays and perhaps mitt romney will give republicans an opening to use their big boy voices and

speak out when something is blatantly wrong, incorrect, cruel or just plain destructive. >> and mitt romney is almost in a unique position here because he's in a completely solid situation politically in his home state, utah, is a republican state but it is not particularly a trump state. he comes to this position as already having represented the republican party as its presidential nominee and as a former governor. so he is a senior figure in the gop already. so he has this ability to speak out to republicans who had pretty much lost their voices in the last year with the sad death of john mccain, with the departure of jeff flake. you know, bob corker leaving. it was hard to see where there was a senior republican in a position to stand up to the president. coming up on "morning joe," from elizabeth warren's exploratory committee to joe biden's reported campaign in waiting. we'll have the latest moves in the wide-open 2020 presidential

democratic party contest. "morning joe" is coming right back. " is coming right back

her plans to form an he

exploratory committee for a possible presidential run, senator elizabeth warren will head to iowa. the massachusetts senator will hold event as cross the state this weekend according to her facebook page. iowa holds the first in the national presidential nominating contest set for february 3, 2020. according to the latest polling in the state, 65% of likely democratic caucus goers view warren favorably. 20% viewer unfavorably. and 16% are unsure. meanwhile, president trump weighed in on senator warren's poem 2020 run. >> well, i'm happy about it. i think she will be wonderful. i hope she maybe gets the nomination. that will be a wonderful thing for me. >> she says she's in the fight all the way, mr. president. do you really think she believes she can win? >> that i don't know. you'd have to ask her psychiatrist. >> "the new york times" reports senator warren's early entry to

the race suggests she wants to erase any uncertainty amongst supporters, whom she kept waiting and ultimately disappointed by not running for president in 2016. "the times" writes the race is currently defined by uncertainty over who is actually running and which democrat matches the moment. there are more than 30 contenders deciding on whether they were seek the nomination, including former vice president joe biden and as many as eight senators, and if beta o'rourke of texas runs, he would be attempting to become the first ex-congressman to lose a senate race and go on to be elected president since abraham lincoln. o'rourke's social media account created buzz about his national bigss ov ambition over the holidays by posting videos against trump's border walls and they seemed like campaign videos on many levels. but mike barnicle, does she match the moment? >> we're going to find out.

she certainly has name recognition and that poll you just read, 65% of iowa caucus voters approve or like her, however it was phrased. so she's got a big head start out there, big jump on an anonymous field with the exception of vice president and a couple of others. eddie, i don't know about you but i'm going to sit back and watch and see the full team on the field before i figure out who looks good and who doesn't. >> the way you talk about baseball, i might follow your lead in this regard. it seems to me the internal divide in the democratic party will play itself out in 2020. >> what do you think the divide is? >> i think leftists trying to push the party more to the left and in some ways holdover clintonites and obama folks, will they continue to hold the reins of the party. observe times we want to read this in a narrow, ideological way. i think it has something to do with the look of that freshmen

class of representatives coming to d.c. tomorrow will be -- who will be officially representatives, they are pushing the party to be more aggressive, to be more attuned to working people, to resist corporate money, and if you have democrats that look familiar, the democrats of 2008, democrats of 2012, i don't think they're going to excite them. so there's going to be this interesting kind of tension. >> you know, let me talk about the positives, mike. she under president barack obama created the consumer financial protection bureau. she created an entity that tries to address what is plaguing the american story right now. and then she was booted out by republicans and he couldn't bring her on, he didn't have the guts, i guess, to by her on and have her lead it because the republicans didn't want her. so you know what she did? she ran for senate and she's back in washington making a difference again. i know there's a lot of reasons why she might be too far left or

this or that, but i just wonder if her story and her sort of guts and determination do match the moment. >> i think her story and her record match part of the moment, mika. i don't think there's any doubt about that. i think the trick for elizabeth warren is going to be the trick for all of the democratic candidates who run for president in a democratic primary, it's the past versus the future. everybody who votes in the democratic primary knows who donald trump is. they know how they feel about him. so the trick for elizabeth warren and all of the other candidates to come is going to be put the past in the past and taug about t talk about the future. up next, the latest reporting on the shutdown stalemate over the president's border wall. we will get walter isaacson's take from the stinging op-ed from mitt romney. (client's voice) remember that degree you got in taxation?

(danny) of course you don't because you didn't! your job isn't understanding tax code... it's understanding why that...

will get him a body like that... move! ...that. your job isn't doing hard work... here. ...it's making her do hard work... ...and getting paid for it. (vo) snap and sort your expenses to save over $4,600 at tax time. (danny) jody... ...it's time to get yours! (vo) quickbooks. backing you. howdoing great dad!r does this thing got? looking good babe! are you filming. at booking.com, we can't guarantee you'll be any good at that water jet thingy... but we can guarantee the best price on a hotel, like this one. or any home, boat, treehouse, yurt, whatever. get the best price on homes, hotels and so much more. booking.com, booking.yeah

so welcome back to "morning joe." joining us, editorial director from "the washington examiner," hugo vernon, mike barnicle and eddie are still with us as well. and walter, president trump true to form has responded on twitter to senator mitt romney's scathing op-ed we've been talking about. i want to get your take. the president tweeted a short time ago, here we go with mitt romney. but so fast! the question will be, is he a flake? i hope not. would much prefer mitt focus on border security and so many other things where he can be helpful. i won big, and he didn't. he should be happy for all republicans. be a team player and win! walter, we've seen criticism from the republican side, republican senators who are outgoing.

mitt romney is incoming and he hasn't even been sworn in. does this dynamic look different to you? and do you think he creates a space for voiceless, spineless republicans? >> absolutely. mitt romney is everything that donald trump isn't. he's deeply moral, a very kind person, somebody with a sense of civic duty and civility. they share some conservative thinking, but that's not the big divide in america. the big divide in america now in our politics is those who want to help unify us, those who believe that we're stronger working together as a country and will have a certain decency and kindness and empathy for other people. and then there are those, and you see it in donald trump's twitter feed, that express by resentment and really attacking and trying to belittle other people. so it's not just a question of policies, it's a question of

tone. as you said earlier in the show, we're going to see a divide in the democratic party too, and i think that divide of those who will be the unifiers versus those who are really going to become resistors or aggressors, that will be a difference in tone in the democratic party. >> hugo, i would love for you to chime in about how republicans who perhaps haven't used their voices in the past on the issues of civility and decency, maybe this is a new year, especially given the change in dynamic with democrats in power at least in congress. >> yeah, i actually disagree. i think that plenty of republicans, obviously a couple who left the senate, flake and corker, have been very critical of the president. i think what this op-ed by mitt romney does is pick up, to use his word, the mantel of the interer party opposition to president trump. it was obviously a very

carefully premeditated attack on the president. it set mitt romney up as a leader of the intra party opposition. it got the response from president trump would you expect. frankly, if you're attacked like that, the president hits back. not actually very hard it seems to me. so, yes, i think mitt romney will enter the senate and be one of the voices, the principal voices against president trump. is that a surprise? not in the least. >> and i just want to ask, who has been critical? you say a lot of republicans. i can name maybe on one hand. >> i said -- well, i mentioned jeff flake, i mentioned bob corker. the fact other people have not doesn't mean to say they're spineless, it means they don't necessarily agree. >> okay, sure. shannon petty piece, looking ahead to the meeting today in the situation room, which nbc

has confirmed that it will be held there, so he's not going to have the cameras out this time, how do the democrats manage a deal? how do democrats and republicans manage a deal and know the president will speak to that very deal that they cut, if they can cut one, after the meeting? >> right. do they have to get him to sign something in blood in order to know what he agrees to in the meeting is what he is going to stand by? that's their concern. that's what republicans and democrats voicing their concern is that vice president pence, nick mulvaney, jared kushner come to the hill and promise one thing and democrats talk amongst themselves about whether or not if they do that or if they compromise or make concessions there, the president is actually going to sign something or a democrat is going to end up making concessions, using some of their political capital, and have the president reject it anyway. because he's still tweeting about a concrete wall and $5 billion, even though other

people from the white house are talking about metal slats, in around the $2 billion range. it's interesting what democrats have done. they left the white house hanging over the past five days with really no contact. as of thursday night, the white house thought they were going to be having negotiations with the democrats. they thought the democrats were going to counter the proposal the vice president gave them. on thursday night the democrats said nope, we're all going to leave for the holiday. we will talk to you guys later, and left the white house hanging. that's a very trumpian negotiating tactic to just walk away from the table. >> let me go back to hugo on the point he ended on. the attention turned his attention from mitt romney to his border wall, and he has tweeted again moments ago, mexico is paying for the wall through the new usmca trade deal. much of the wall has been fully renovated or built. we've done a lot of work, $5.6 billion, that the house approved and is very little in comparison

to the benefits of national security. quick payback! so do republicans think we should like go for this concrete wall, this is what the people want? do they believe that? help me understand the ones that don't speak out. >> all right. look, i think as far as walls are concerned, we've got ourselves into this extraordinary, sort of semantic game. is a wall still a wall if it isn't concrete and it's steel? does it turn into a fence if you see through it? both sides are trying to win this at a political level. i think the important thing to know about the wall is it's become somewhat of equivalent of the george h.w. bush read my lips, no new taxes. it helped him win in '88 and assured he lost in '92. i'm going to build a wall, trump's phrase from the election, it helped him win. the danger for him is that -- if he betrays that promise, his base will desert him and he will lose in 2020. that's what the democrats want to make sure of, and that's why they're not willing to let him

have something which can possibly be called a wall. and it's why he has to have something where he can walk away saying, you see, i got the wall. >> yeah, but is he going to get a big concrete wall all paid for by mexico? what do republicans do if that doesn't happen? the republicans who don't say what's really going on. >> the paid for by mexico was kind of always an absurd thing. i don't know whether even his supporters who wanted the wall took that very seriously. i don't think they mind one way or another who pays for it. i think it possibly sounded good. what they want is the wall, and will republicans talk about what is actually built there or renovated, what the border security is? sure. and it will not be a wall from one coast to the other coast. it's going to be -- it's going to be partly fenced. it's going to be partly wall. it's going to be partly drones. it's going to be all of those things. and the battle will be over the

way it is described. >> yep, mike barnicle. >> walter isaacson, hugo just said we've gotten ourself into this back and forth about the wall. i would submit that he, donald trump, has gotten himself into this back and forth about the wall. but the extraneous elements of talking about the wall are in their own way maybe more damaging to the fabric of this country than the talk about who's going to pay for the wall. by that i mean, one of the more outrageous tweets that the president had over the past ten days was he literally blamed one political party, the democratic party, for the deaths of young children along the border. and this further pollutes an already sick element out there where people are tired of the talk, they're tired of the back and forth in washington. and i just wonder, you're down there in new orleans. where is the exhaustion factor do you think right now about

talk about the wall, the fact nothing gets done in washington? >> i think that's a perfect word for it, mike, an exhaustion factor. because we go into 2019 and even the last month roller coaster and certainly the last year roller coaster, people in louisiana, they are hurting a little bit with no soybean exports and down in trade, but in particular they just don't like this every morning getting up and saying oh, my god, what has hand now? so i think the american political system tends to fluctuate between periods of great activism and desires for great calm. i think we're seeing a desire to have everybody grow up a little bit and calm down. when you look at the issue of immigration and the wall, we know there's a pretty simple solution. george w. bush got close to it, whatever. you can come together and say, look, we need some more border

security. we need some relief for daca, undocumented children. they need to be able to say. we can get this together. but our country's government right now continues to polarize these things. >> you know, there's a sense in which this discussion around the wall has this nasty undertow, that it's really about trump exploiting fears. it's really about a deep sense of vulnerability. shannon, what is the motivation? what would be the incentive for democrats to actually negotiate with donald trump on this issue? because they understand what he's doing politically with the wall talk all together. what would be their motivation? >> if they start getting a lot of political blowback from the shutdown. that's thousahow these things ee side gets battered by their own base. at this point democrats don't seem to be going after democratic leader and trump ace base doesn't seem to be going after him. once government workers start missing their paychecks, that

can change. >> absolutely. shannon petty ps piece, thank you very much, hugo gourden, thank you, and walter isaacson, thank you as well. up next "american overdose," a new book, takes on the country's opioid epidemic. the stigma of addiction and what the government is doing about it. that important conversation next on "morning joe." alexander's mom calls him "the most perfect boy in the world". she's right. i love your confidence. when diagnosed with cancer, alexander went to st. jude children's research hospital. no family pays st. jude for anything... because all a family should worry about is helping their child live. now i'm perfectly cancer free. perfect proof... moms are always right. donate now at stjude.org or shop wherever you see the st. jude logo.

but allstate helps you. with drivewise. feedback that helps you drive safer. and that can lower your cost now that you know the truth... are you in good hands? there is a chance that's the last time. 300 miles per hour, that's where i feel normal. i might be crazy but i'm not stupid. having an annuity tells me retirement is protected. annuities can provide protected income for life. learn more at retireyourrisk.org

america. we are going to end it or we are going to at least make an extremely big dent in this terrible, terrible problem. in order to build on our progress, in just a few moments i will sign the single largest bill to combat drug crisis in the history of our country. >> that's president trump in october before signing a sweeping legislative packet aimed at curbing america's opioid addiction. almost one year after declaring the epidemic a public health emergency. we recently sat down with chris mcgreer. he is author of "the guardian"

and another book entitled "american overdose colon the opioid tragedy in three acts." here is that conversation. >> let's start with the scope of the problem, if we could. the cdc says since 1999, 353,000 people have died of opioid overdose, but obviously that has escalated over the past several years. >> that has definitely gotten higher. coroners weren't reporting drug overdoses on the death certificates. we've seen, particularly with away from the pills, the prescription pills, we've seen an escalation as well now in the past couple years, three, four years, of fentanyl deaths and heroin deaths. there's been a steady stream, consistent stream, right through this in recent years of prescription opioid deaths and now you have the heroin and the fentanyl piled on top of that. >> okay, so let's talk about how

we got here. you talk about big pharma and its role in overprescribing and making a ton of money off this stuff. >> yes, one of the things i do explore in the book is not only how this happened and the role of big pharma in marketing these drugs and pushing them as virtually safe, as non-addictive and more effective. both of those things have turned out not to be true. one of the surprising things to me -- in fact, this goes back to the 1990s. this epidemic has been allowed to run for 20 years before we're sitting here talking about it now. in the book i not only talk about how it happened or why it was allowed to happen. the failures of regulation, the failures of the institutions that are supposed to protect americans like the food and drug administration, why they didn't step up and curb this epidemic early on. because, in fact, 15 years ago there were plenty of people ringing the alarm bells. >> and chris, the name of the

book is "american overdose." it seems that this is a problem unique to this country in the way it's manifested itself. and how do you explain that? >> one of the reasons i wanted to write the book was because i was doing reporting for "the guardian" and two things slipped out at me. one of them was why it is the united states consumes 85% of the prescription opioids when it's only 5% of the population. another question was why has this gone on for 20 years? and i think there are a number of things, one of which is in the united states, medicine is really an industry. in other countries where you have a public health service, the priority is the patient. in this country, i think often it's about -- it's an industrialization of medicine and pushing the drugs and selling the drugs is an important part of it, but you have other parts of the industry, too, which is very convenient. the insurance industry, much cheaper to have people on

prescription pills once a month than, for instance, paying for physiotherapy to deal with pain. plus in this country, doctors will tell you over the past 20 to 30 years, a pill for every mentality. you go to the doctor, you get this pill, it solves your problem and you don't deal with the underlying problem that is causing the pain or whatever else. and so i think that those things contributed to the mass prescribing because people looked on these pills as an easy solution. >> so it's a story in part, chris, of greed, corruption, indifference, and it's a public policy issue as well. i'm thinking back in 1985, we saw drug-to-consumer marketing with regards to prescription drugs. and by 1997, there is just full-blown commercials. now you just see drugs pushed

and pushed. so what's the policy dimension to this story? we've got big pharma. what's government's role in this? >> the government's role should have been once the alarm bells were being rung to step in and regulate. there are a whole range of institutions in this country with names that suggest that they should be doing this. the national institute for drug abuse, samsa and the first two words of its name, the s-a is substance abuse. none of these institutions intervened. then there is the food and drug administration which could have limited the use of these drugs to simply people with severe pain. it permitted them to being prescribed for just about anybody. and the reason that happened is effectively they were co-opted by the industry. when early on you have this -- these warning bells being rung, the industry decided that this was the time to distract people

by talking about an epidemic of untreated pain, that 100 million americans are in pain, and people who become addicted on these pills, even through prescriptions, are drug abusers. so it blamed the victims for their addiction and then it said, people in pain must not be deprived of their drugs. and through that campaign, through its influence in congress because they spend billions lobbying congress, the drug industry, and through, to be honest, a very close working relationship particularly with the fda, the drug industry now provides the bulk of the fda's income, so increasingly the institutions look on the drug industry as clients rather than people to be regulated. all of these things pile up, and you end up with essentially the institutions buying in to the drug industry's framing of this as we need these pills to treat pain rather than worrying about

the epidemic. >> chris, sam stein is in washington with a question for you. >> chris, you mentioned in your research m ii nrk irkmingo coun. i think the pharma community had flooded the markets with i think 3 million opioids at one point. my question is why was mingo county so susceptible to this and why did they target a place like mingo county? when you make the case about flooding the public with as many opioids as possible, why was that centered on them? >> you had a lot of people who worked in stressful, very physically demanding jobs, and particularly miners, loggers. they were already using some sort of pain medication. historically they would have used moonshine, marijuana was

important for that reason, but they were using other kinds of medication, often lower level opioids, and the drug companies were looking at where these drugs were being sold and thought, that's where we're going to market first. so they went into these areas and pushed them where they knew that people were already using painkillers. and you can see the cdc does a map where they document the rise of opioid overdoses, and there is a little red dot in southern west virginia and then it spreads out over the years across eastern kentucky, southern ohio and then the dots appear all over the country. but that's the targeting of minors and people like that who use those painkillers already. >> you point to wellness in west virginia. in 2009 in a town of 3,000 people, wilson wellness made $2.6 million off these pills. >> and that was in cash. that was people lining up at 6:00 in the morning -- they're

only open until 10:00. $150 to go in and pick up a prescripti prescription, often not seeing a doctor. >> and in 2016, it was closed, doctors stripped of their licenses and put in jail. >> they were, some of them. one of them, katherine hoover, who was one of the biggest prescribers in the state, she fled to the bahamas where she remains. the others went to jail for relatively short periods of time. they were stripped of their medical licenses, but they're still out there. >> in many ways, this is the story of our time. thank you so much for taking so much time to research it in this incredible new book. it's called "american overdose: the opioid tragedy in three acts." chris, thank you so much. we appreciate it. chris jansing picks up the coverage right now. hello there. i'm chris jansing in for stephanie ruhle. this morning, shutdown day 12. president trump invites lawmakers from both parties to the white house today not for negotiations, but instead, a briefing on why the wall is

needed. the pressure is building to make a deal as federal workers are increasingly fed up. >> set your differences aside and pay us. figure out your policy. you're getting paid to figure out policy, i'm getting paid to do an air traffic controller. i'm doing my job, do yours. >> reflect and deflect. in an hour, u.s. bishops will gather for a spiritual retreat dedicated to the abuse crisis. but any hopes of calming the maelstrom have been dashed, but claiming that the leaders didn't discuss problematic proposals beforehand. ringing in the new year. the market set to open in 2019 as they ended in 2018 with volatile swings. investors fear this morning that the president's trade war with china is showing no signs of thawing. but we begin today with the very first face to face between president trump